When will all tanks be "equal" on high-level raid mobs? [Archive]

Lancealittle

02-25-2005, 12:24 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Platfinger wrote:<BR> <DIV>If you want to read more about the role of the "other" tank classes on raids, read this thread (from the SK forum):</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=9&message.id=6566" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=9&message.id=6566</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This pretty much sums it up for the paladin class as well. Also, nobody will have a monk or bruiser tanking a ^^^ on a high end raid. There is only ONE tank class at end-game right now. That was the way it worked in EQ-1, but not how it was supposed to work in EQ-2. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>People keep saying that the game is changing, etc. Well, guess what? The original fundamental design promised all along (the one where there are 4 archtypes, where each class in that archtype can fullfill the CORE archtype role equally well) apparently hasn't been implemented yet for the end game! Will it EVER be? I don't know - it's up to SOE if they want to ever finish the end-game class balancing. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <P>Message Edited by Platfinger on <SPAN class=date_text>02-24-2005</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>10:42 AM</SPAN><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>It was never promised that all fighter classes would be able to tank raid mobs equally. If you have a quote that shows I'm incorrect, please let me know.</P> <P>Here is a partial quote from Moorgard from beta (keep in mind that the developers have changed directions on many things since then).</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P><FONT color=#ff6633 size=2>At the same time, the fact that all subclasses have different ways of fulfilling their primary roles means there will be some circumstances where one subclass has an advantage. Rough edges like this are intended, as they add to diversity and can sometimes drive the passions of players. Without those differences, we might as well never go beyond the four adventure archetypes because subclasses would all be exactly the same. </FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I'm with you on wanting to see a role in raids for all the different tank types, but I don't think they can change the basics of the classes to make them all tank the same in every situation without removing the entire class system.</P> <P>I gave an example of how they could make a mob that would be better suited for a brawler, so the brains behind the encounter system could come up with better ideas than me, I'm sure.</P> <P>Maybe make some encounter mobs that have a hard time damaging light armor to help brawlers or get blinded by holy/unholy radiance to help crusaders. They could also have a scripted epic encounter where a Paladin or Shadowknight can have their gods avatar give them a divine uber shield that breaks at the end of the encounter.</P><BR>

sidgb

02-25-2005, 12:41 AM

<DIV>Reality is this.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Mob: X = damage</DIV> <DIV>Tank: HP+AC+mitigation = ability to survive</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Ability to survive must be greater then damage</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Tank with greatest ability to survive (not the tank with best DPS and not necessarily the one with best ability to aggro or heal themselves) will be selected to ensure success.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Anyone that does not understand this is not thinking.</DIV>

GraymaneGravitic

02-25-2005, 02:07 AM

<DIV>"I can't see the point in that, guardian are THE tank, the one supposed to take damage, they don't have paladins spells and berseker damage output, if they get same tanking possibility of guardians but u still got paladins chants heal and smite or higher damage of berseker, what will be the point of being a Guardian then? To be a nerfed berseker or a nerfed paladin?"</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You are missing the point completely. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The point is NOT to mak the non-guardian tanks take damage at the rate of the guardian thereby marginalizing the guardian.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The point IS that the other abilities the other tanks get to offset thier lesser damage absorbing abilities SHOULD be empowering them to be able to tank the same mobs as the guardain JUST as effectively as the guardian. That they curently cannot is a sign of a broken game design and a failure on the part of SOE to deliver on it's advertising.</DIV>

Aegori

02-25-2005, 02:07 AM

<DIV>I think it's time that tanks stop worrying about who's best and we worry about working together to accomplish the goals we have. Regardless of who tanks, lets look at the skills they offer that would benefit any tank and any good member of a raid should be using to make the tanking job successful (i'm speaking regardless of bugs and such that affect these abilities):</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Paladins - Grant of Armament, Aegis of Hope, your wards, your heals and LoH - aside from the obvious use of heals and wards, the first two skills will actively provide AC and prevent hits to the main tank.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>SKs - Infernal Pact (ward + lifetap buff), Evasive Maneuvers (shield the tank from damage), STR debuffs, etc.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Monks - Mend, Tranquil Blessing (reduce hate on a party member... say your nukers/healers), Martial Discipline, Sacrafice (both protect the tank from damage), plus some debuffs</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Bruisers - Overtaking Blows (shields tank), Eye Gouge (decrease target accuracy, thus making tanking easier), bunch of debuffs and offensive buffs</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Zerkers - Infuriation (shield party member), Havoc (increase group AC and STR), Offensive debuffs</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Guardians - Allay, Never Surrender, Sentinel (all 3 shield the target party member), numerous defensive group defensive buffs, target debuffs (slow/attack reducers)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Regardless of who tanks... combine all this together and THAT's a tank. You may think taking another tank along with you is worthless, but i promise having 2-3 extra tanks around that are of different classes can make a raid easier to tank solely based on these skills. This is not an individual game (especially when speaking about raid content) and the only way we can truly make it easier is if we stop bickering about who's best and start figuring out the best way to achieve our goals. I don't freekin care if guardians are the "best tanks". All i know is if there's one tanking for my raid, i'll be right behind him supporting him with my tank protection/debuff/whatever skills to help him succeed. Likewise, i'd expect him to do the same for me if it were the case that i'd tank. Raids are not a solo effort so we should stop speaking as if tanking a raid is meant to be a solo effort.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>-Aeg</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

sidgb

02-25-2005, 02:13 AM

<DIV>And they do in 99.9% of mob encounters.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>A game is not broken if 0.1% of mobs require a specific approach.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But it seems 0.1% of mobs is plenty enough to whine about.</DIV>

Platfing

02-25-2005, 02:37 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> sidgb wrote:<BR> <DIV>And they do in 99.9% of mob encounters.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>A game is not broken if 0.1% of mobs require a specific approach.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But it seems 0.1% of mobs is plenty enough to whine about.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <P>When you get to max level (50 currently), it will be 100% of the mobs you actually care enough about to log in and kill with your guild. The game has to be attuned to all levels, not just 1-49. </P>

Briszizi

02-25-2005, 02:39 AM

<DIV>I think what Plat is afraid of is what all us long time EQ1 players have seen. You dedicate yourself to a character (yes of your choice), but at the end of game or maybe mid way through for some others, your character is not wanted in a group and you are left out of the high end of game. This happened in EQ1 and that is why a lot of us chose to come here to EQ2. We were tired of having LFG on for hours and getting no response to be in group because the attitude of the other players were "your not good enough". </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This is the bottom line here, he/she is not whining about getting other characters nerfed. What I feel he/she is saying is that please do not make EQ2 become EQ1.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I know what he/she means I leveled my druid up to 67 and when EQ2 came out moved here because they promised no one class would be preferred over another. If anyone played EQ1 they should know what happened to the druid class amongst other classes. Eventually all solo content was nerfed or taken out of game and some of the classes were left hanging not able to do anything worth while which is frustrating. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Instead of us all being angry at each other why can't everyone just understand and make some constructive suggestions instead of flaming each other when someone has a concern.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Valhu

02-25-2005, 02:52 AM

<DIV>"Instead of us all being angry at each other why can't everyone just understand and make some constructive suggestions instead of flaming each other when someone has a concern."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Amen brother... I fear the trolls have deaf ears however.</DIV>

sidgb

02-25-2005, 02:59 AM

<DIV>I hear the whining just fine.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The game doesn't revolve around his class so it's broke. If a pally or SK were picked to tank over him he would be here complaining about that too.</DIV> <P>Message Edited by sidgb on <SPAN class=date_text>02-24-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>04:00 PM</SPAN></P> <P>Message Edited by sidgb on <SPAN class=date_text>02-24-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>04:02 PM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by sidgb on <span class=date_text>02-24-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:03 PM</span>

Axxon

02-25-2005, 07:54 AM

<DIV>SOE indicated that every tank class would be able to tank mobs equally well. They said tanks would have the same effectiveness, but would merely do the job with different skill sets. This is not the case and the tanks' abilities need to be balanced. </DIV>

Bezado

02-25-2005, 11:00 AM

<DIV> <DIV>If all this is true then why did the berserker class get so many combat spells to shield and protect others in a group if they can't tank that well? When I was playing I had got my berserker to lvl 26. I seen what a poor system will do to other classes. Berserkers cant tank that well and do average dmg but also they get alot of combat spells to shield and take damage dealt to other players, thats just wrong, I think the whole system is messed up for you people, good luck on geting anything fixed with SOE behind the doors. Also I like to point out that berserkers only armor they can wear is heavy plate. I thought if you wore Plate and it being heavy that was suppose to grant you great protection but if a lvl 26 guardian same armor as me can tank without dieing then what good is it only making a class that can't tank as well only able to wear heavy plate armor. Why not medium armor?</DIV> <DIV>Also why do berserkers pull agro so easily from guardians if berserkers where never meant to be the MT?</DIV></DIV><p>Message Edited by Bezado on <span class=date_text>02-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:44 AM</span>

Artorius_

02-25-2005, 02:43 PM

<DIV>From Faq ...</DIV> <DIV>" <P><B><FONT color=#ffff99 size=3>Won’t balancing become a real issue with that many classes?</FONT></B></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff size=3>Class balance is always a complicated issue, but the archetype system allows us to manage it much more effectively.<SPAN> </SPAN>Each class and subclass is balanced at the archetype level.<SPAN> </SPAN>Every archetype has a main role in a group situation, and each member of a given archetype will be able to fill that role equally well"</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=3></FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=3>Dont hining anybody and say nosenses, eq2 wasnt suppouse to be eq1 and balancing is at archetype main role.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=3></FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=3>ALL TANKS are suppouse to tanks equals well with their skills each, in different ways but EQUALS. If not happens this at whatever LVL, raid or WHATEVER, game need to be balanced (not classes nerfed).</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=3></FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=3>This previous statement aplys to rest of archetypes classes and roles.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=3></FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=3></FONT> </P></DIV>

Platfing

02-25-2005, 05:25 PM

<DIV>If you want to see SOE comments regarding class balancing before the comments were removed post-Beta from these boards, go to the website below (assuming the link isn't wiped by a mod)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><A href="http://www.eqii.com/mgi.php?t=10467" target=_blank>http://www.eqii.com/mgi.php?t=10467</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In case the link is wiped, here is a quote from Moorgard:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>--------------------------------</DIV> <DIV>Note that I was talking only about the *primary role* of the class. Each will have a variety and flavor all its own, which will help you decide which class and sub-class you will eventually want to play. <BR><BR><STRONG>The idea is this: you don't have to worry about picking a class you like only to discover 50 levels later that your choice makes you unwanted. If you're a fighter, you can tank for a group; if you're a priest, you can heal for a group; and so on. This is the beauty of an archetype system. </STRONG><BR><BR><STRONG>Class choice should make the game fun, not cut you off from participating. Our goal is inclusion and desirability, regardless of what path in the tree you might take. <BR></STRONG><BR>Will there be variety? Of course. Different abilities, spells, combat styles... the whole works. Some classes will be able to do some tasks better than others, but the *primary* purpose of the class will always be there.</DIV> <DIV>--------------------------------</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So unless the the primary role at max level (currently 50) for a tank has changed, I believe it's ummmm... tanking. Right?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Lony

02-25-2005, 07:03 PM

<DIV>I might be going off at a slight tangent here. But when ever I chose to group with a MT all I am interested is that he can " Agro Management".</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The main reason for this is I can then dot and nuke in the knowledge the tank is doing his job hold agro.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The second reason is that the healer can do his job without being attacked.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Lonynsgirl</DIV> <DIV>39 Wizard</DIV> <DIV>20 Sage</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Alis

02-25-2005, 07:09 PM

<DIV>The problem isnt so much non guardians cant tank raids just that given say a 2% advanatage on a tough encounter people will take those odds everytime. If non guardians couldnt tank them at all then thats maybe an issue for the developers.</DIV>

sidgb

02-25-2005, 07:28 PM

<DIV>Why do you guys keep trying to replace the word "group" with the word "raid" to say SoE lied. When obviously you seem to be able to tank a group fine. Sounds to me like you are now wanting something that was never promised and trying to pretend it was.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Everyone with any common sense knows raids generate entirely different dynamics requiring a care in detail and planning that have tougher demands.</DIV><p>Message Edited by sidgb on <span class=date_text>02-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:29 AM</span>

Dub

02-25-2005, 07:51 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Platfinger wrote:<BR> <DIV>According to the original plans for EQ-2, all tank classes are supposed to be able to tank the same things in different ways. This is not the case with high-level raid mobs. There is only one tank class that is chosen above all for this, and there is a reason for it (their class is better built specifically for it). </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I don't even have to say what the class is - everyone knows. I am not saying that this class should be nerfed, but I do think that other classes should be brought up to their level. The longer this inbalance exists, the more ingrained the stigma of the inbalance will become in player's minds, and it will be so hard to overcome (rangers from EQ-1?) when it's finally fixed later on. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>When exactly are things going to be balanced out as originally promised?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Fenra Fairheart (Butcherblock)</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Making the game where everyone does everything equal makes for a shallow boring game. If all tanks, tanked the same, did the same damage, and so on as all other tank classes, whats the point of having different classes? </DIV>

Troodon

02-25-2005, 09:13 PM

The problem seems to be the restricted number of classes with parts to play in raids. While some classes have a strong concept and good implementation, others have less clear defined roles e.g. the natural choice for a tank in a raid is pretty obvious: Guardian; but what does that leave the other members of the fighter class to do other than being lumped as an "off-tank" - that is someone to fill a slot if you cant find a more desirable class.Im just a low level Paladin, but I look to the future with apprehension, am I just going to be stuck on the reserve bench indefinitely? True Paladin's have an (shudder) off-tank role, when a Guardian casts his fluff spell Summon Squire (aka be generous and invite a gimpy Paladin along), Ill be there to polish his armor and dutifully clean up after his mount. :p Yet despite our apparent off-tank role, looking at posts from people discussing ideal raid set ups, I (and many players of other classes) just dont feature, so its not as if Im even a desirable squire, one worth giving a raid slot to. :pSo where can we go from here? The other Fighters could develop into more effective (sigh) off-tanks, however Id quite like to get the chance of playing the hero occasionally, thus perhaps whats needed isnt to make all Fighters into Guardians (the gods of melee mitigation and debateably rightfully so), but to develop the other fighters to be suited to tanking particular scenarios and off-tanking in the rest.e.g. for Crusaders given the already magical twist to their abilities would it too great a leap to have crusaders as the natural choice for anti magical raid mob tanking? I cant claim possession of this notion and someone else has much more eloquently mused on how we develop a defining role of our own:Najarati's "My Dream Adjustments to the Paladin Class" http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=10&message.id=6383<p>Message Edited by TroodonIE on <span class=date_text>02-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:14 PM</span>

Platfing

02-25-2005, 09:53 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> TroodonIE wrote:<BR>The problem seems to be the restricted number of classes with parts to play in raids. While some classes have a strong concept and good implementation, others have less clear defined roles e.g. the natural choice for a tank in a raid is pretty obvious: Guardian; but what does that leave the other members of the fighter class to do other than being lumped as an "off-tank" - that is someone to fill a slot if you cant find a more desirable class.<BR><BR>Im just a low level Paladin, but I look to the future with apprehension, am I just going to be stuck on the reserve bench indefinitely? True Paladin's have an (shudder) off-tank role, when a Guardian casts his fluff spell Summon Squire (aka be generous and invite a gimpy Paladin along), Ill be there to polish his armor and dutifully clean up after his mount. :p Yet despite our apparent off-tank role, looking at posts from people discussing ideal raid set ups, I (and many players of other classes) just dont feature, so its not as if Im even a desirable squire, one worth giving a raid slot to. :p<BR><BR>So where can we go from here? The other Fighters could develop into more effective (sigh) off-tanks, however Id quite like to get the chance of playing the hero occasionally, thus perhaps whats needed isnt to make all Fighters into Guardians (the gods of melee mitigation and debateably rightfully so), but to develop the other fighters to be suited to tanking particular scenarios and off-tanking in the rest.<BR><BR>e.g. for Crusaders given the already magical twist to their abilities would it too great a leap to have crusaders as the natural choice for anti magical raid mob tanking? I cant claim possession of this notion and someone else has much more eloquently mused on how we develop a defining role of our own:<BR><BR>Najarati's "My Dream Adjustments to the Paladin Class" <BR>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=10&message.id=6383 <P>Message Edited by TroodonIE on <SPAN class=date_text>02-25-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>04:14 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>You hit the nail on the head regarding what needs to change. Each tank class should be for a specific purpose (and not a [FAAR-NERFED!] squire escrot for guardians). To have one class that is best at the core ability of tanking - in all situations - is absurd.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

SunT

02-25-2005, 09:55 PM

<DIV>When I selected my Class I thought for a long time whether I wanted to be a group tank or a raid tank. I chose Pally because I felt a group tank would be a better fit for me even though I love to raid.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If you didn't figure out that Guards would be better raid tanks when you did class selection then you simply didn't read enough into the class abilities. Shame on you.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There is a Pally raid issue but it is not class selection.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Pally can do many great things for a main tank. Give armor, buffs, dodge, ward, heal etc. The problem is that they have to be in the group with the Main tank to grant these abilities. The Main tanks group will be filled with 3 priests, a scout and a mage for HO and max buffs. (this is an assumption as I have done little raiding in EQ2) So the Pally will have to be outside the group and can not offer his abilities to the raid.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Solution would be to allow the Pallies abilities to be cross group in raid format. Problem solved.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Also, don't understimate the DPS of a tank. It is much better than EQ1 in comparison with other classes. A Pally or a Zerk fill the DPS role just fine. The Best...no but good just the same.</DIV>

Troodon

02-25-2005, 10:24 PM

SunTsu wrote:"Solution would be to allow the Pallies abilities to be cross group in raid format. Problem solved."True that would offer a solution, not one I personally think is ideal, but it is a solution.But lets step back and consider all classes other than just focusing on Pallys/SKs and their problems.At the moment you have a situation where there is a defined set of subclasses that is optimal for raids. If you're not a member of that elite set, you're going to have a hard time finding a place on a raid. That is, once you've hit 50 you're cut out from the end game content beyond the generosity of other players/luck at finding a free slot on a raid.So why not take the concept I touted a little further: each class should have a particular strength/desirability in a given raid situation, outside that particular situation they're still useful to have around, but perhaps assume the dreaded "off-tank" role. Subclasses would offer a flavor to how the player actually goes about achieving that end. So for Lord Uberloot of Targ, whom tends to have such and such abilities and so and so followers, one set of classes is ideal; while for Magister Erk of Tikitiki another set of classes is optimal.Would that not be better than the current situation where there is just one set of desirable classes?<p>Message Edited by TroodonIE on <span class=date_text>02-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:26 PM</span><p>Message Edited by TroodonIE on <span class=date_text>02-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:27 PM</span>

SunT

02-26-2005, 12:19 AM

<DIV>I had another thought to add.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In EQ1 I had extensive raid experience. One thing I learned was that the raid was not about any one star or hero pulling us through. It was the team working as one, each using thier special abilities to progress thru the content. If any one slipped or fell short of thier best they could wipe the raid.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As stated in the last post, some content requires some classes to do more, and some renders them virtually useless. A good example is ToV vrs Emp of SSRA in EQ1. I played a Chanter and when we raided ToV I was reduced to a buff bot. There was nothing Mezable and nothing Charmable, at least not efficiently Charmable with all the AoE's. I was wanted for Crack and Haste, but not necessary. On the other hand, You cannot do the Emp of SSRA without at least Two Chanters. The adds must be mezzed constantly. So two different raids and two very different skill sets. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Tallon (or Vallon whichever is the Archer) was best tanked with a Pally. The Pally could draw the aggro from a distance and turn his AOE from the Healers. Another good example of different skill sets and where a different tank class was more effective.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I imagine EQ2 will have similar scenarios ahead.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The tanks are all different. I think this is a good thing. If they were not this would be a very boring game.</DIV>

Blackdog183

02-26-2005, 04:05 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> sidgb wrote:<BR> <DIV>I love it. People pick a Paladin or zerker at lower lvls because the tanking difference is insignifacant for exp groups and the DPS/special abilities makes it easier to solo. Once they have taken advantage of this for 50 lvls they cry that they cannot be main tank for raid encounters. A fact that any idiot knew would be the case sooner or later as the Guardian asset of damage absorption began to manifest itself.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You made your choice. Butch up Sally.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> Sorry had to chime in and note you highest char is lvl 25 ROFL, learn the game before you comment on the game

Styk

02-26-2005, 04:21 PM

Honestly give guardians the best tanking ability... but in exchange for all of there defense buffs ( i mean ALL of them doesnt matter if they are self or group buffs ) should take sometype of hit in there dps ability.... Let them be dmg soakers not damage dealers ( 40+ guards atm are )

Snikey

02-26-2005, 05:45 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Platfinger wrote:<BR> <DIV>According to the original plans for EQ-2, all tank classes are supposed to be able to tank the same things in different ways. This is not the case with high-level raid mobs. Message Edited by Platfinger on <SPAN class=date_text>02-25-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>07:31 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>So are you going to make guardians not suck at dps? Why not just make the game 4 classes and get it over with. Oooh and guess what. You can tank that raid mob as a monk or whatever.... just bring a crap load of healers. Just like when a guardian is in an exp group, you tend to pick up a lot of dps. Stratagy is different, if you dont want to learn how to effectively tank with your class, fine. Don't cry wolf.<BR>

Walli

02-26-2005, 08:18 PM

if they equal the tanking ability between the three main tanks, then there needs to be some respite for guardians, As paladins have spells that improve grouping and the zerk has considerably higher dps. Now let me ask you if they all could tank the same why would you ever pick a guardian again?I'm not saying nerf (or buff for that matter) a single class but really think about what you are asking before you go off on a whine.

evangrun

02-26-2005, 08:44 PM

<DIV>Lol, This is a joke, right? For months the forums have been filled with Palls and Zerkers trolling with: "hey Guardian, you suck. I can tank at least as good as you. heheh ". Now, when you reach lvl 50 with your Pally, after breezing through levels with the nice buffs and the cool healings (while Guardians get the zillionth variation on taunt that is pretty useless), you find out that the Guardian class actually has a use and that you have a small problem with damage migation.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You pick a class (well, at least I did) because it fits your gameplay and your char. So Pallies cant be the center of hit attention? You still have the buffs for the grp, the healing when the main healer runs out, and are invaluable for gprs. Same with Zerkers, monks, Mages, or anything else.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I think (IMHO) part of the gameplay grp system is more then finding 6-18 people going in for a hack and slash. It depends on getting a balanced grp for these high level raids, how hard that that may be. Thats why they called high lvl raids, its not a walk in Nek forrest.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Well, added my 2c. Fire away.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Perk</DIV>

Yadylia

02-27-2005, 06:11 AM

<DIV><FONT size=3>Quote Artorius: "ALL TANKS are suppouse to tanks equals well with their skills each, in different ways but EQUALS. If not happens this at whatever LVL, raid or WHATEVER, game need to be balanced (not classes nerfed)."</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3>Well guess what, a friend and his buddy compared their chars, same level same gear, and the guardian is way weaker then the paladin, the ward and heals make a big difference.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3>So all of you who are whining because guardians (and berserkers I guess) are better tanks then paladins, I don't know where you got your info. My opinion probably wont be popular but I think warriors should be the ultimate tank, while paladins/shadowknights should be main assists and should also be able to tank in usual groups of course.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3>Personally i have 2 tanks, a warrior and a crusader, and I probably wont continue playing my warrior until they fix it, she's not supposed to be weaker then my crusader, she's supposed to be good at taking hits its supposed to be her main and best ability, and right now the paladin is better at that, plus she has heals so really ...</FONT></DIV> <P>Message Edited by Yadylia on <SPAN class=date_text>02-26-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>05:12 PM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Yadylia on <span class=date_text>02-26-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:13 PM</span>

Anape

02-27-2005, 04:24 PM

hmmm.. actually all tanks are pretty equal at lvl50.I'm lvl50 guardian and MT of our guild, we're raiding lvl50+ raid mobs on daily basis and something like 30%-40%of our raid force are tanks and I'm ONLY lvl45+ guardian there. If I go down for some reason lvl50 SK takes care of tanking without any problems... This mumbling about "equal" tanks is just pure crap. If lvl50 tank has decent gear and knows how to play his/her class there wont be any problems. I suggest you should get lvl50 1st and try some raids before starting threads like this :p VilionXanadu-Runnyeyewww.xanadu-community.com

Nuvi

02-27-2005, 08:13 PM

<DIV>raiding isnt everything in the game,and you could say same thing about priest class tree aswell,would you want a non cleric to be main healer vs an epic mob when you can choose a cleric?</DIV> <DIV>SOE never said all tank classes can tank raid mobs equaly,and tbh if that was the case they could have just made 4 classes total and forget aobut the sub class trees,in normal group situations any tank will do (should at least) and if not im sure SOE will fix it eventualy,but why should a class like bruiser tank just as well as a guardian when the bruiser has higher DPS output?cant have the best of both worlds,and i play both a bruiser and a guardian,i just dont see my bruiser as the ultimate tank,and after going thro the manual a few times i dont think SOE looks at the brawler tree for example as raid tanks ither,wont comment on crusader tree since i dont have 1.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Elda

02-27-2005, 11:47 PM

<DIV>i dont have a guardian, pally, sk or any other tank class...i play one char, a lv 33 healer, and thats what i enjoy doing in battle....but looking at this discussion, i cant help but ask....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>what would be so horrible if all of the tank classes could be the best in a particular situation? </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>all the guardians seem to get mad when people ask this question....why? simply because you are the best right now and you don't want that challenged? theres never a situation when i feel that a non-guardian is easier to heal for than a guardian...and im a shaman, the class supposedly created to heal monks and bruisers.....nope, guardians work better with us too.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>what would be so wrong if:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>guardians excelled at tanking melee intensive mobs: high mitigation through armor and abilities.</DIV> <DIV>crusaders excelled at taking magic intensive mobs: abilities to stifle, stun and more spell resistances</DIV> <DIV>brawlers excelled at tanking scout type mobs: avoidance to dodge and counter those massive blows</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>and have raid mobs split pretty equally among those groups....what so wrong with that? i know im going to get one starred obviously....but please tell me why you like or dislike this idea.</DIV>

Elda

02-27-2005, 11:57 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Anapena wrote:<BR>hmmm.. actually all tanks are pretty equal at lvl50.<BR>I'm lvl50 guardian and MT of our guild, we're raiding lvl50+ raid mobs on daily basis and something like 30%-40%of our raid force are tanks and I'm ONLY lvl45+ guardian there. If I go down for some reason lvl50 SK takes care of tanking without any problems... This mumbling about "equal" tanks is just pure crap. If lvl50 tank has decent gear and knows how to play his/her class there wont be any problems. I suggest you should get lvl50 1st and try some raids before starting threads like this :p <BR><BR>Vilion<BR>Xanadu-Runnyeye<BR>www.xanadu-community.com<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <P>ok, maybe at lv 50 all tanks ARE equal...i cant argue as im not lv 50, and thanks for giving non guardians some light at the end of the tunnel.</P> <P>....but the whole game is not played AT level 50...there are those 50 levels to get through, and from where i stand as a lv 33 healer(shaman) all tanks are not equally able to tank for a group.</P>

Raea

02-28-2005, 02:06 AM

<DIV>Heh...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As it stands Guardians will always be the choice for high end raid mobs... Although I could see some room for monk based tanking if the encounter was setup correctly depending on the type of abilities the mob had... Never for crusader though, unless they are given special abilities that ar necessary to tank a specific type of mob.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>but simply put when you boil it down, Guardians will ALWAYS be the best tank. This has nothing to do with any imbalance in the way the 6 melee classes are designed, but in what happens when you get a large group of people together...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Lets break it down class by class...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Monks/Bruisers: Avoidance based tanking, combined with high DPS to kill a mob before it can kill you... Which results in spikes of damage done to your MTank. Only problem with this setup... you get a bad roll of the combat dice and don't evade, your MTank just took a dirt nap. in contrast, Guardians are designed to mitigate that bad roll of the dice through the use of superior AC/HP. So even if the guardian gets a bad roll, he has a chance to survive. Resulting in a raid sutuation? Guardian gets to tank the endboss, and mr monk buffs the guardian, and assists with DPS. It's not to say monks/bruisers can't tank a raid mob, but a raid would rather have the predictability of a guardian. not to mention, in a raid situation, your larger DPS edge isn't going to be the end all be all. if you tanked a raid mob for 40 minutes, you can probably tank it for another 40.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Paladin/SK: Your problem is simple, you use spells to compensate for your lower HP/AC. This results in a problem in raids because your spells are useless vs a boss mob who is beating you into the dirt for 8000 a hit. You have less HP, but can heal yourself via spells/wards/etc. Not that useful when a mob kills you before you have a chance to heal up the difference in HP's because you can't block as many hits because your using a kite shield instead of a tower. Or even if you manage to keep your wards and heals going, your only as effective as your power bar. Once a crusader is OOP there just a sub par guardian. So in order to ensure raid survivability, you choose the guardian who mitigates at 100% with or without power.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Bezerkers aren't that far behind guardians, however when faced ith the choice of one over the other, your gonna pick a guardian. Raids aren't about how fast you can kill a mob (currently as all raids tend to be like luclin fights), but in lasting over a long period of time. Guardian has more HP's and higher defense caps. Result? Guardian is your tank.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So the result is, your most vanilla tank will always be the best. And Guardians are the most vanilla of the bunch. Since they rely on their ability to outlast a mob to let the group take it down, this is only enhanced when you put them into a raid situation. This is only on the raid level though, as the differences of the three tank subclasses are no longer differences at all in your normal day to day xp groups.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>if you come from any high level EQ1 raid guild you have no escuse for not seeing this bright as daylight. Most HP + Most AC + Most Defense = MTank. And if you use "abilities" to augment your tanking abilities, your always going to be 2nd pick. As a raid wants their tank to be able to tank just as well OOP as with full power. Or if you depend on killing the mob faster to be a tank, your not going to be a MT, as raids are generally about endurance.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Blah blah blah... I'm getting off topic...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Summary for those who don't read long posts:</DIV> <DIV>Your most basic tank will always end up being your Maintank. Because he brings nothing special to the raid that other classes do better. And Guardians are your most basic tank. </DIV>

rioi

02-28-2005, 02:07 AM

Quit whining....There is no way they can make all tanks equal in a raid situation....!!What do you expect? A berserker with the same damage capabilties...haste...all that good stuff...PLUS the same ability to take damage as a guardian? If you made them equal, you would have the same class....EQ1 warriors.In case nobody has noticed, almost all classes are useful in a raid!Berserkers are execellent DPS, not to mention a big utility with haste and buffs in a raid situation. They last almost as long as guardians main tanking. They aren't terrible as you may think!Paladins, your kidding about them right? THey have a buff that can make people virtually generate NO aggro at all. Very useful on raidsShadow Knights, HAH! Opposite of paladins, they got a buff that can make people generate a lot of aggro....it helps the guardian SO MUCH!Raiding with a monk AND bruiser in the main tank group makes things SO much easier. They have a shield skill that can mitigate A LOT of damage from the main tank. This is a must have for very hard, high end raiding because it cuts down on the amount of power that healers must use.Thats just the fighters, now lets go to scoutsAssassin/Rangers are perfect for taking out adds during raid fights where the main mob summons adds during the fight (in many high end raids). Taking them out quickly is the goal, and assassins and rangers have high-dmg high-recast that does the trick for them fast. Their dps is great as wellSwashbuckler/Brigand are perfect for the main mob because their abilities refresh fast so they are able to deal medium damage techniques ALL the time limitlessly. Thus, over the course of the raid they can deal large amounts of damage.Dirge/Troubador are a must have for any raid because of their buffs!HEALERS!!!Warden's heals over time stack with templars reactives, which makes healing easier. Their buffs are very decent as well.Furys tho subpar to warden's healing, have excellent damage adders that wardens just don't have. Having 3 or 4 proc buffs on you lets you proc almost every other hit as a scout with 1.2 delay duel wield weapons. This is especially good against mobs that don't take much physical damage and magical damage is the only thing that really hurts them. It is also a swell damage adder.Templars have the best heals, hands down, plus the best HP/AC addersInquistors, though not as good at healing have power drainers and debuffs superior to templars. I suggest an Inquisitor on every raid.Mystic's avatar is perfect, and their wards are very useful, especially for elemental damage and preventing AoE damage. Their debuffs are decent as well.Defiler's debuffs are great, they need to fix their wards but after that they are very useful.And mages...Illusionist are a #1 priority for any raid. Their CC and breeze is invaluable as the mana regen from it keeps people up on power all the time. They can also drain power FAST from the main mob which prevents a LOT of damage.Coercers I don't know a lot about...but I think they would be almost the same effectiveness as illusionistsWizards......what can I say? after the patch their magical damage is wonderfulWarlocks I don't know a lot about, but I know their DoTs are very desirableConjurors believe it or not are actually very good contendors in raids. Their pet does a lot of things that you wouldn't normally think possible. Especially an adept 3 pet. Their mod sticks can get you out of some sticky situationsNecromancers are no diff then conjurors - very usefulJust because Guardians are the MT of the raiding world, doesn't mean all other fighters suck.We all have our strong points, its just discoverying where they are

ShadoZ

02-28-2005, 02:43 AM

<DIV> He said u can tank for a group not a epic mob some of you cannot read. I play a guardian and see other tanks bragging about what they can do dmg wise etc and to see this on the boards about guardians doing their class job the best sickens me if u wanted to be a main tank for epic mobs common sense would have made your class selection guardian. YOU have no case period so stop your whinning you sniviling little punk......</DIV>

Eelyen

02-28-2005, 07:25 PM

<DIV>This thread is making me sick. Seriously folks, your class can't do everything.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Guardians were designed as the highest defensive tanking class. Hence their name. They are supposed to be the best tanks in the game. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>SoE wanted to design the class system so other tank classes "COULD" tank stuff on a regular basis. To where you didn't require the best tank in all situations. And I'd say they have implemented this very well. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Guardians really have a very low amount of DPS compared to alot of other classes. The majority of our abilities are for increased defense, hp, migitation, and taunting. Thats our job. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I lead a high end guild in EQ1 and I can say that even with this prefab that "only warriors could tank" people were wrong. I had Paladin's tanking raid mobs as well. Why? Cause they could.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The system is not broken. The Guardian was designed to be "the best" but the other tanks were designed "to be able to tank effectively and not require a guardian in all situations".</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I specially picked a Guardian because I knew it would be the best tank class out of all of them. So quite your senseless whining. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And if your "pickup" raids aren't going well. Make a guild. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I would say it would be easy to put the Guardian on the main raid mob and have other tanks off tank the adds.</DIV>

Eelyen

02-28-2005, 07:27 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Platfinger wrote:<BR> <DIV>If you want to see SOE comments regarding class balancing before the comments were removed post-Beta from these boards, go to the website below (assuming the link isn't wiped by a mod)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><A href="http://www.eqii.com/mgi.php?t=10467" target=_blank>http://www.eqii.com/mgi.php?t=10467</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In case the link is wiped, here is a quote from Moorgard:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>--------------------------------</DIV> <DIV>Note that I was talking only about the *primary role* of the class. Each will have a variety and flavor all its own, which will help you decide which class and sub-class you will eventually want to play. <BR><BR><STRONG>The idea is this: you don't have to worry about picking a class you like only to discover 50 levels later that your choice makes you unwanted. If you're a fighter, you can tank for a group; if you're a priest, you can heal for a group; and so on. This is the beauty of an archetype system. </STRONG><BR><BR><STRONG>Class choice should make the game fun, not cut you off from participating. Our goal is inclusion and desirability, regardless of what path in the tree you might take. <BR></STRONG><BR>Will there be variety? Of course. Different abilities, spells, combat styles... the whole works. Some classes will be able to do some tasks better than others, but the *primary* purpose of the class will always be there.</DIV> <DIV>--------------------------------</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So unless the the primary role at max level (currently 50) for a tank has changed, I believe it's ummmm... tanking. Right?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> I don't see "Raid" mentioned anywhere in that statement. I do see Group. And that is working as intended.

Blindrage

02-28-2005, 09:04 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Valhuru wrote:<BR> <DIV>You people really have no sight for the future. Someone has a legitimate complaint and the common answer is "you chose it" or "quit whining" or "not everyhting is supposed tobe equal"....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Newsflash... raids are limited to 24 people, in an instanced zone with a lockout timer. If you do not understand upper class eliteism... you never played EQ1 to a high level.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You will see only guardians being invited to a high end raid..... when you raid is made up of mostly dps healers and support, it's not like you need more then 3-4 tanks...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What is an SK or a Pally going to bring to the table? How about you wander over to their boards and read about how the raid content is going... it isn't</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>No class should be excluded from high end content because their class is not viable. That's not fair, and it is nto what anyone paid for. If you say that they chose that, then I hope you never choose somethng you like based on the descriptions you were given, and have it fall flat on you. Have some empathy people for heavans sake.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000>It's not like they are saying they want to be uber</FONT>, they just want to be able to play they way they were told the could...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>*Cough*Bullsh-t*Cough*</P> <P>Give me all the benefits of the guardian, oh and while you're at it, let me keep my insane dps(berserker) and my healing spells(paladin) as for the shadowknights, well, I am sorry. You did get screwed.</P> <P> </P> <P>Guilt train has been de-railed.</P> <P>*edit* Oh, and who knows what will be in the future..in EQ1 noone saw a paladin main tanking SSRA mobs but they were better against undead..maybe something like this will come in the latter of EQ2. Different tanks needed for different zones/senarios.</P> <P>Blindrage<BR></P> <p>Message Edited by Blindrage on <span class=date_text>02-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:09 AM</span>

02-28-2005, 09:15 PM

<DIV>If there are going to be different TAnk classes, there have to be differences between those tanks!</DIV> <DIV>If you want more DPS as a tank.. you have to sacrifice something.</DIV> <DIV>If you want to Heal-your-Dam-self.. you have to sacrifice something.</DIV> <DIV>If you want other utilities.. you have to sacrifice something.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>For some of you that something will be high end Tanking ability. If this is not the case.. why wouldnt they just make one TAnk class.. and call that class TANK?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Think about it. Would anyone Choose Guardian if some other class could tank high-raid mobs just as good AND HEAL themselves AND have higher DPS than other tanks? The answer is no. Its all about deciding what you want to give up.. to gain your uniqueness. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Not to mention- Any Tanking Tank, is going to have less DPS than any ohter DPS class in the group. I wouldnt even consider a MT a DPSer. We run dmg parsers often. When i tank i am always lowest in DPS. Who can worry about DPS as a MT when you're trying to keep the aggro of 6 mobs from hitting your weak Wizzies, etc? Also, every other equally upgraded tank class out-damages a guardian solo or grouped. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <P>Message Edited by Ayun on <SPAN class=date_text>02-28-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>08:16 AM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Ayun on <span class=date_text>02-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:27 AM</span>

Troodon

02-28-2005, 09:54 PM

Blindrange wrote:"*Cough*Bullsh-t*Cough*Give me all the benefits of the guardian, oh and while you're at it, let me keep my insane dps(berserker) and my healing spells(paladin) as for the shadowknights, well, I am sorry. You did get screwed.Guilt train has been de-railed.*edit* Oh, and who knows what will be in the future..in EQ1 noone saw a paladin main tanking SSRA mobs but they were better against undead..maybe something like this will come in the latter of EQ2. Different tanks needed for different zones/senarios."I dont think Ive seen any posts by anyone saying "Waaawhaa! We demand the abilities of Guardians and to keep our own as well!". Its the point you mention in your edit that we're suggesting: that even if its in only a limited number of situations, it would be nice if there was a role for non Guardian Fighters on a raid, beyond pickup slots/filler that is, something that even occasionally made us desireable by the other raid members.

Eelyen

02-28-2005, 09:59 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> TroodonIE wrote:<BR>Blindrange wrote:<BR><BR>"<BR>*Cough*Bullsh-t*Cough*<BR><BR>Give me all the benefits of the guardian, oh and while you're at it, let me keep my insane dps(berserker) and my healing spells(paladin) as for the shadowknights, well, I am sorry. You did get screwed.<BR><BR>Guilt train has been de-railed.<BR><BR>*edit* Oh, and who knows what will be in the future..in EQ1 noone saw a paladin main tanking SSRA mobs but they were better against undead..maybe something like this will come in the latter of EQ2. Different tanks needed for different zones/senarios.<BR>"<BR><BR>I dont think Ive seen any posts by anyone saying "Waaawhaa! We demand the abilities of Guardians and to keep our own as well!". <BR><BR>Its the point you mention in your edit that we're suggesting: that even if its in only a limited number of situations, it would be nice if there was a role for non Guardian Fighters on a raid, beyond pickup slots/filler that is, something that even occasionally made us desireable by the other raid members.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Very few of you are. The rest are just whining cause they can't tank as good as Guardians at level 50. Boofrigginhoo to them.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>People should really think about what made them pick the class they choose to be. I picked Guardian because I wanted to be a Main Tank for my guild down the line. And I knew it would be the best class for the job. I bet that pretty much anyone who picked a pally, sk, or beserker didn't say, "I'm picking this class cause I'm gonna be the Main tank!"</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Anyone who did needs to have their head examined and grow up.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Eelyen on <span class=date_text>02-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:06 AM</span>

Eadric

02-28-2005, 11:15 PM

<DIV>For what it's worth, we raided a ^^^ this weekend and had a monk tank her. It was same Lamia in RV (I'm sorry, I don't recall her name). We had 10 people, most of them well under 40th. The monk was 45th or 46th at the time. He did very well on both holding aggro and not dying.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>All in all, it seemed it was rather easy considering the mob was red to the majority of the raid.</DIV>

Platfing

03-01-2005, 12:00 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eelyen wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> TroodonIE wrote:<BR>Blindrange wrote:<BR><BR>"<BR>*Cough*Bullsh-t*Cough*<BR><BR>Give me all the benefits of the guardian, oh and while you're at it, let me keep my insane dps(berserker) and my healing spells(paladin) as for the shadowknights, well, I am sorry. You did get screwed.<BR><BR>Guilt train has been de-railed.<BR><BR>*edit* Oh, and who knows what will be in the future..in EQ1 noone saw a paladin main tanking SSRA mobs but they were better against undead..maybe something like this will come in the latter of EQ2. Different tanks needed for different zones/senarios.<BR>"<BR><BR>I dont think Ive seen any posts by anyone saying "Waaawhaa! We demand the abilities of Guardians and to keep our own as well!". <BR><BR>Its the point you mention in your edit that we're suggesting: that even if its in only a limited number of situations, it would be nice if there was a role for non Guardian Fighters on a raid, beyond pickup slots/filler that is, something that even occasionally made us desireable by the other raid members.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Very few of you are. The rest are just whining cause they can't tank as good as Guardians at level 50. Boofrigginhoo to them.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>People should really think about what made them pick the class they choose to be. I picked Guardian because I wanted to be a Main Tank for my guild down the line. And I knew it would be the best class for the job. I bet that pretty much anyone who picked a pally, sk, or beserker didn't say, "I'm picking this class cause I'm gonna be the Main tank!"</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Anyone who did needs to have their head examined and grow up.</DIV> <P>Message Edited by Eelyen on <SPAN class=date_text>02-28-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>09:06 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Ok - I must need to have my head examined then. I started a paladin because I wanted him to be a main tank. I bought into the theme that Moorgard kept repeating early on prior to release - about a tank is a tank is a tank. Maybe I need to have my head examined for believing SOE, or maybe the balancing isn't quite finished yet. I'm pretty sure the latter is the case given what I witnessed in all my years in EQ1. </P> <P> </P>

Eelyen

03-01-2005, 12:04 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Platfinger wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>Ok - I must need to have my head examined then. I started a paladin because I wanted him to be a main tank. I bought into the theme that Moorgard kept repeating early on prior to release - about a tank is a tank is a tank. Maybe I need to have my head examined for believing SOE, or maybe the balancing isn't quite finished yet. I'm pretty sure the latter is the case given what I witnessed in all my years in EQ1. </BLOCKQUOTE> <P> </P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Well then I suggest you re-roll as a guardian. Guardians are the best tank because of all the defensive skills they get. And the fact that they get more hp per stamina then other tank classes. They don't have super duper aggro abilities, a berserker can blow wind on a mob and pull it off us. They don't have great group healing abilities. </P> <P>Their job is about absorbing damage. And while you probably couldn't see that at level 20. It's obvious at level 50.</P> <P>It's not out of balance. You can still tank in groups. I've never seen a solid quote yet in this thread saying that all tanks are going to be equal in all situations. </P> <P>Just accept it that, tanking is what a guardian was designed to do better then others. There is no magic behind their ability to tank better. It's just their skill set that allows them. So if you want to tank better, reroll as a guardian. And stop crying about lacking the level of defensive skills guardians have.</P> <P>And what I witness in eq1 was far different then you apparently. Cause I have seen a shaman tank Fennin Ro. I've had paladin's tanking Cazic Thule and Innoruuk in PoTime. Hell I saw a SK tank Vallon Zek and Tallon Zek in PoTime. Heck they changed GoD so hybrids could tank as well and that worked out fine with the right gear.</P> <P>I don't see an issue right now. Just because you got picked last for the team you are whinning to mommy it feels like to me. I have no doubts that other tanks can actually tank raid level mobs with the right setup. But there is just no way for the "other" tank classes to all of a sudden have the defensive skills of Guardians without making guardians a worthless class cause they have "nothing" else.</P> <P>Period. <BR></P> <p>Message Edited by Eelyen on <span class=date_text>02-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:08 AM</span>

Troodon

03-01-2005, 01:49 AM

Eelyen wrote:"I don't see an issue right now. Just because you got picked last for the team you are whinning to mommy it feels like to me. I have no doubts that other tanks can actually tank raid level mobs with the right setup. But there is just no way for the "other" tank classes to all of a sudden have the defensive skills of Guardians without making guardians a worthless class cause they have "nothing" else."Again, why would anyone want to make all the Fighers guardian clones? Where would be the fun in that?I reitterate my earlier suggestion: develop the other Fighter classes so that they can have a role in specific types of raids, subclasses a flavour as to how they actually go about it, as Eldarn put it:"guardians [sic Warriors] excelled at tanking melee intensive mobs: high mitigation through armor and abilities.crusaders excelled at taking magic intensive mobs: abilities to stifle, stun and more spell resistancesbrawlers excelled at tanking scout type mobs: avoidance to dodge and counter those massive blows"The problem with the currently implimented? archetypes are equal arugment has been summed up neatly by Raeani's post, for instance the flaw in Pallys/SKs and contrasting them to Guardians:"Paladin/SK: Your problem is simple, you use spells to compensate for your lower HP/AC. This results in a problem in raids because your spells are useless vs a boss mob who is beating you into the dirt for 8000 a hit. You have less HP, but can heal yourself via spells/wards/etc. Not that useful when a mob kills you before you have a chance to heal up the difference in HP's because you can't block as many hits because your using a kite shield instead of a tower. Or even if you manage to keep your wards and heals going, your only as effective as your power bar. Once a crusader is OOP there just a sub par guardian. So in order to ensure raid survivability, you choose the guardian who mitigates at 100% with or without power.So the result is, your most vanilla tank will always be the best. And Guardians are the most vanilla of the bunch. Since they rely on their ability to outlast a mob to let the group take it down, this is only enhanced when you put them into a raid situation. This is only on the raid level though, as the differences of the three tank subclasses are no longer differences at all in your normal day to day xp groups."So we're considering fairly fundemental retooling for the various (sub)classes to give them roles and clearly implimented abilities to match, but then Sony has already shown a willingness to make significant changes to the game.

03-01-2005, 02:01 AM

<DIV>Yes, those of you whining that your tank is not tanking as well as a Guardian do need your head examined... here's why. A guaridan is NOTHING but defence. A person chooses a Guardian mainly for MT purposes. Any Full-Time MT SHOULD ONLY CARE about DEFENSE. A guardian specializes in defense.. its as simple as that. It says so in the description. A guardian has great Defense Buffs.. and he should cause he has nothing else. So.. someone who wanted to tank as good as a person who specialized in Defense should have chosen whichever path led to the best Defense. Notice.. I didnt say jack about damage. I, and probably most other Guardians, Dont give a rats about how much dmg we do. If I did ZERO dmg, i wouldnt care as long as i could hold the line and keep up aggro. So the question is.. if you wanted to be the best Main Tank you could be for uber raids, why didnt you go full defense? For every trait etc that I choose, it's always DEFENSE related. Defense, Defense, Defense - That's what the best MT is, that is what the best MT will always be.. that's what the guardian is good at, NOTHING else. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Every other fighter class has better dmg, thats what you chose. You guys should also realize that having a Guardian in the group should probably make another tank more powerful too. Give it a shot. Have the Guardian keep up his buffs on the Pally. The Pally aggro's better than a Guardian probably with his self-wards and self-heals, and the Guardian buffs will help him tank even better. I usually MT with an awesome Pally in the group. A Pally makes any Tank an even better Tank, including himself. Who could whine about their Pally? I mean a tank that can heal self, ward self, wear heavy armor, and backup heal???.. come on. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Oh.. and your idea about having different tanks tank different mob types better is not so hot. Here's why. Because that would once again put all other tanks on the exact same ground as a Guardian when it comes to defense goes.... WITHOUT giving the gardian any perks in return. Lets say there are 3 mob types (Magical, Devine, Raw Physical)- On average, all tanks would be able to absorb the same amt of dmg from the different high level mob types if those 3 different mobs were in the world of Norrath at the same frequency. So basically, you'd [Removed for Content] the hell out of the guardian because he'd have no unique feature. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <P>Message Edited by Ayun on <SPAN class=date_text>02-28-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>01:21 PM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Ayun on <span class=date_text>02-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:26 PM</span>

Blindrage

03-01-2005, 04:50 AM

<DIV>This is cool, I don't even have to reply to the ignorant people who posted trying to flame me, someone already did! woot.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Very good points made that I missed btw.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>*Edit</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>"And what I witness in eq1 was far different then you apparently. Cause I have seen a shaman tank Fennin Ro. I've had paladin's tanking Cazic Thule and Innoruuk in PoTime. Hell I saw a SK tank Vallon Zek and Tallon Zek in PoTime. Heck they changed GoD so hybrids could tank as well and that worked out fine with the right gear."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I guess I quit too early, but hey, sh-t happens when you get items that give 500hp/mana then go back and fight content 15 lvls below you <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Blindrage</DIV><p>Message Edited by Blindrage on <span class=date_text>02-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:55 PM</span>

Artorius_

03-01-2005, 01:48 PM

<DIV>I see many guardians here whining about they are the latest tank, no and no sorry , this game are suppouse to be all tanks equals queality to tank whatever content, and if no is broken the archetype.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> The rest of fighter arent asking to have same mitigation or abilities as a guardian, but our skills must compensate the guardian ability of more mitigation to be able to tank as efective, dont want all tanks to be the same, each tank must use their habilities, but must be as effective as the other, and if no is broken the archetype method sorry.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And all who are talking about whining, you have whined a lot and now too, but Eq2 is not designed to be as EQ1 and guardian be tha latest ubertank, you want or no is designed to compensate them and all tanks have tank capabilities similar but each with their style. Dps classes equals.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If this happens nice, if no game is broken.</DIV>

Rock

03-01-2005, 02:24 PM

<DIV>This should be voted dumbest post of the day award. Your complaint is that every "Tank" class should have as many hp's, same defensive ability & same ac as a Guardian who's sole role is to hold aggro and absorb damage but keep all your "special" abilities? I dont think so. Every class [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]ing here has abilities which enhance their own or groups overall effectiveness. To also give you the same Guardian abilities would be kind of unfair dont you think? As a Fury i envy some things the Cleric classes get such as ability to wear heavy armor, more useful heals etc. but chose my Fury for specific reasons as i'm sure you did the same. I'll take some 1 stars here <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <P>"Ok - I must need to have my head examined then. I started a paladin because I wanted him to be a main tank. I bought into the theme that Moorgard kept repeating early on prior to release - about a tank is a tank is a tank. Maybe I need to have my head examined for believing SOE, or maybe the balancing isn't quite finished yet. I'm pretty sure the latter is the case given what I witnessed in all my years in EQ1. "</P> <P> </P> <P>What you need to explain is how you expect to be able to have all the abiltiies as a Guardian without losing your own. I think Moorgard was very specific about Tank classes being different as quoted by a previous poster. Theres no way a special ability can be given to make a class different without making it less in another area. </P></DIV><p>Message Edited by Rockem on <span class=date_text>03-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:31 AM</span>

Eelyen

03-01-2005, 03:31 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Blindrage wrote:<BR> <DIV>This is cool, I don't even have to reply to the ignorant people who posted trying to flame me, someone already did! woot.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Very good points made that I missed btw.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>*Edit</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>"And what I witness in eq1 was far different then you apparently. Cause I have seen a shaman tank Fennin Ro. I've had paladin's tanking Cazic Thule and Innoruuk in PoTime. Hell I saw a SK tank Vallon Zek and Tallon Zek in PoTime. Heck they changed GoD so hybrids could tank as well and that worked out fine with the right gear."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I guess I quit too early, but hey, sh-t happens when you get items that give 500hp/mana then go back and fight content 15 lvls below you <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Blindrage</DIV> <P>Message Edited by Blindrage on <SPAN class=date_text>02-28-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>03:55 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV> </DIV> <P>It was all before Omens of War...hence...the level it was designed at.</P> <P>Seriously, people who make idiotic assumptions annoy the hell out of me about as close as the idiots whinning in this thread. Just because whatever guild you might of been in was so pathetic it couldn't do jack, don't assume it of other people's examples. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>Provide some fact when you argue. Thanks.</P> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P> <P>Message Edited by Eelyen on <SPAN class=date_text>03-01-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>02:36 AM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Eelyen on <span class=date_text>03-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:40 AM</span>

Artorius_

03-01-2005, 04:13 PM

<DIV>mmm i suupouse dont put the correct word, i dont say the rest of tanks must have same defensive or skills than guardian, i say that rest of tanks with their habilities must be able to compensate guardian tanking habilitie, don mind via ward, heal, avoidance or whatever specific tanbk habilitie.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> But at the end all tanks must do the job equals, each one using their habilities (different for each)</DIV>

thorvang

03-01-2005, 04:19 PM

fighter != tanktank != mtmt != raid mtwhy are all fighter classes reduced to one point, raid tank capability?every mage class has different main tasks, scouts aren't all about dps, healers don't work all the same. so do fighters.some are good as main tank in raids, others good as off tank in raids. some are good dps and can also tank.stop whining! if you want to do insane damage, play a warlock, if you want to mezz effectively play an illu, if you want to buff your party like hell, play a bard, if you want to main tank venekor and vox, play a guardian.

Artorius_

03-01-2005, 04:35 PM

<DIV>Nobody is whining mate, SOE promised no difference or unbalacing should be in tanks classes ,because all was balanced at archetype class and all should fit at role of MT equals. I decided to do a paladin as main because was suppouse to be able to tank as effective as whatever tank.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> If they change this philosophy they should provide a mechanism to chage of class one time, i decide paladin not by horse (like a good part <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />), because thinking i would be able to do same job, but i liked more the style of paladin. If they change this statement id choose a guardian sure, like all suppouse.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If SOE statement says all tanks can fit their role equals...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Tank = MT</DIV> <DIV>Tank = Raid MT</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Tank is Tank, dont difference a raid Tank, or group Tank, Tank must be able to fit their role in all the planes, soe didnt difference situations when talked abour all archetypes could do the jobs equals fine.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Only whinning people are those trying to reverse situation and see diferents role of a tank, and a tank is a tank, not a raid tank, group tank oe whatever you want to invent.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Dr. D

03-01-2005, 04:41 PM

<DIV>It seems to me that the issue here should be focusing on raid encounter balancing rather than class or subclass balancing. As rightly pointed out you can't really have different classes unless, well..., they're different. But since you already have the idea of instancing a lot of raid content and balancing the encounters by limiting the numbers and even possibly the levels of those that participate, wouldn't it be possible to counter class-bias in raids by putting caps on the numbers of certain classes in some cases as well?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It could work like this: SOE looks at the logs for a given encounter and sees if there is some severe bias developing favoring inclusion of only a few select classes on that encounter (or they notice that what is supposed to be a tough encounter becomes too easy if you overload with particular classes). They then put a cap on the numbers of the offending classes that can participate in that raid subsequently (and come up with some story to explain why the gods won't let more than "x" guardians or "y" priests on this raid, etc), and watch for a while to see if it solves the problem for that encounter. </DIV>

thorvang

03-01-2005, 04:50 PM

problem: raid fights lasts extremely long. this makes mt's damage mitigation and hp the only factor that's important (+ taunts, but thats not the point here).crusaders make up their lack in mitigation and hp with healing capability and some additional damage.brawlers do the most dps of all fighters (or lets say: should do <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />) and have some healing skills and very nice buffs.due to imbalance guardians are doing more dps as they should do, that's not important right now.point is, crusaders and brawlers do have abilities that make up for the lack of mitigation and hp in short term fights.when it comes to long fights, this abilities are obsolete.and that's ok. guardians can tank and that's all they can do. no fluffy styles, heals, speed, whatever.would you play a guardian, if all tanks could tank equally? why not a monk with his cool fly-whee-kick styles. or a sk with a free horse, ranged lightning attacks plus le look cool?as soe said: archetypes make class choice simplier, cause you didn't have to choose just as you created your character. but you HAVE TO choose, which subclass you want to play. not instantly, but by reaching lvls 10 and 20.if it makes no difference what subclass you choose and all these names are just fluff, why even choose one? 4 archetypes should do it then

ugl

03-01-2005, 07:32 PM

<DIV>Ermm, since there is only 1 MT on a 24 man raid, by the logic shown in this thread, what are other guardians supposed to do?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I guess there is not much sense in having a 2nd guardian on a raid, is there? Or a 2nd tank period? Why invite that other guardian to the raid, when you could grab a more DPS inclined fighter like a monk/bruiser/berserker? </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Can SOE make it so that there is a raid for every guardian on the server?? Oh , that one guardian is main tank, and the rest just sit over there in the corner while the OTHER tanks do the DPS..</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I know what we can do, we can lower the bruisers and monks and berserker DPS and make them tank equally to a guardian in a raid situation. Then all of the tanks can not get invited to the raid (except the 1 tank chosen for MT position).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If you all ask for your DPS to be lowered so you can be = in tanking, your nuts, and will never get into a raid.... If your asking to be equal in tanking and keep your DPS, your nuts. (everyone would be playing your class) Raids can use lots of dps classes, but they only need one main tank. Most groups got 3 DPS spots, and 1 tank spot. And you all are asking to be able to NOT ONLY be able to fiill the 3 DPS spots and the tank spot, as you can right now, and then throw yer dps away so you can only fill the one tank spot?</DIV> <DIV> I guess your class having the ability to fill any of the 3 DPS spot, OR the 1 tank spot just isnt enough for you, is it? (This according to the logic shown in this thread)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>NEWSFLASH> all tanks CAN tank epic raid mobs. But since guards have a slight % more tanking ability then a zerker, then theyre probably going to pick the guardian, and let the zerker, who is a more flexable class, fulllfill a DPS roll, in which the raid could use about 15 of... </DIV><p>Message Edited by uglak on <span class=date_text>03-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:39 AM</span>

Davish_Darkwolf

03-01-2005, 07:53 PM

<DIV>Other Tank classes other than Guardians CAN tank in high level raids.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And if youre not the MT, do your job as off-tank. There can be only 1 MT anyway right?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Speaking as a Zerker, our buffs and DPS help a lot while off-tank and if need be i fit the role of MT perfectly.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What do you want anyway? The be able to heal, do more DPS, buff aggresively and now you want the defense of a Guardian?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Can't you see its impossible for SOE to give the same defense of a Guardian to Pallies / Zerkers / Sks? If they do that, NOONE would be playing a Guardian, cause Defense is where they shine at.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In a raid, the Higher Level Tank should be the MT. Other than that, if everyone is level 50, between G/P/Z/SK people tend to choose a Guardian.......... like i said "people tend" not "SOE tend" right? Why? Because people tend to choose the higher defense player aka Guardian, that doesnt mean others cant fill the role of MT also.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If a Guardian is MT, he has the best mitigation, if a Zerker is MT, he as slight less mitigation but handles more DPS to whole group (and mobs drop faster - not to mention having great hate generation), if Paladin is MT, he has slight less mitigation but compensates with heals, buffs and wards.... etc... etc...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So where is the confusion??? I've said it before and i will say it again, if you want every Tank to behave similar, might as well have just 1 Tank class (this is not WOW its EQ2)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Just enjoy your class, there can only be 1 MT and if youre not him, do your best to support your raid and be ready to step in if the MT cant stand the heat (cause your class can do a great job MT also).</DIV>

Blindrage

03-01-2005, 08:03 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eelyen wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Blindrage wrote:<BR> <DIV>This is cool, I don't even have to reply to the ignorant people who posted trying to flame me, someone already did! woot.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Very good points made that I missed btw.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>*Edit</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>"And what I witness in eq1 was far different then you apparently. Cause I have seen a shaman tank Fennin Ro. I've had paladin's tanking Cazic Thule and Innoruuk in PoTime. Hell I saw a SK tank Vallon Zek and Tallon Zek in PoTime. Heck they changed GoD so hybrids could tank as well and that worked out fine with the right gear."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I guess I quit too early, but hey, sh-t happens when you get items that give 500hp/mana then go back and fight content 15 lvls below you <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Blindrage</DIV> <P>Message Edited by Blindrage on <SPAN class=date_text>02-28-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>03:55 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV> </DIV> <P>It was all before Omens of War...hence...the level it was designed at.</P> <P>Seriously, people who make idiotic assumptions annoy the hell out of me about as close as the idiots whinning in this thread. Just because whatever guild you might of been in was so pathetic it couldn't do jack, don't assume it of other people's examples. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>Provide some fact when you argue. Thanks.</P> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P> <P>Message Edited by Eelyen on <SPAN class=date_text>03-01-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>02:36 AM</SPAN></P> <P>Message Edited by Eelyen on <SPAN class=date_text>03-01-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>02:40 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <P>Well I quit the second month of luclin. But forgive me for not knowing your l33tn355 in eq1, my bad.</P> <P> </P> <P>Blindrage</P>

Eelyen

03-01-2005, 09:07 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Blindrage wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eelyen wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Blindrage wrote:<BR> <DIV>This is cool, I don't even have to reply to the ignorant people who posted trying to flame me, someone already did! woot.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Very good points made that I missed btw.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>*Edit</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>"And what I witness in eq1 was far different then you apparently. Cause I have seen a shaman tank Fennin Ro. I've had paladin's tanking Cazic Thule and Innoruuk in PoTime. Hell I saw a SK tank Vallon Zek and Tallon Zek in PoTime. Heck they changed GoD so hybrids could tank as well and that worked out fine with the right gear."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I guess I quit too early, but hey, sh-t happens when you get items that give 500hp/mana then go back and fight content 15 lvls below you <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Blindrage</DIV> <P>Message Edited by Blindrage on <SPAN class=date_text>02-28-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>03:55 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV> </DIV> <P>It was all before Omens of War...hence...the level it was designed at.</P> <P>Seriously, people who make idiotic assumptions annoy the hell out of me about as close as the idiots whinning in this thread. Just because whatever guild you might of been in was so pathetic it couldn't do jack, don't assume it of other people's examples. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>Provide some fact when you argue. Thanks.</P> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P> <P>Message Edited by Eelyen on <SPAN class=date_text>03-01-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>02:36 AM</SPAN></P> <P>Message Edited by Eelyen on <SPAN class=date_text>03-01-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>02:40 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <P>Well I quit the second month of luclin. But forgive me for not knowing your l33tn355 in eq1, my bad.</P> <P> </P> <P>Blindrage</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>You can't seem to make a serious point. My point was addressing the fact that despite common beliefs in what other tank classes could and couldn't do. People pushed the limit and showed it was possible.</P> <P>Has nothing to do with being l33t.<BR></P> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by Eelyen on <span class=date_text>03-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:11 AM</span>

Eelyen

03-01-2005, 09:09 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Davish_Darkwolf wrote:<BR> <DIV>Other Tank classes other than Guardians CAN tank in high level raids.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And if youre not the MT, do your job as off-tank. There can be only 1 MT anyway right?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Speaking as a Zerker, our buffs and DPS help a lot while off-tank and if need be i fit the role of MT perfectly.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What do you want anyway? The be able to heal, do more DPS, buff aggresively and now you want the defense of a Guardian?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Can't you see its impossible for SOE to give the same defense of a Guardian to Pallies / Zerkers / Sks? If they do that, NOONE would be playing a Guardian, cause Defense is where they shine at.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In a raid, the Higher Level Tank should be the MT. Other than that, if everyone is level 50, between G/P/Z/SK people tend to choose a Guardian.......... like i said "people tend" not "SOE tend" right? Why? Because people tend to choose the higher defense player aka Guardian, that doesnt mean others cant fill the role of MT also.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If a Guardian is MT, he has the best mitigation, if a Zerker is MT, he as slight less mitigation but handles more DPS to whole group (and mobs drop faster - not to mention having great hate generation), if Paladin is MT, he has slight less mitigation but compensates with heals, buffs and wards.... etc... etc...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So where is the confusion??? I've said it before and i will say it again, if you want every Tank to behave similar, might as well have just 1 Tank class (this is not WOW its EQ2)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Just enjoy your class, there can only be 1 MT and if youre not him, do your best to support your raid and be ready to step in if the MT cant stand the heat (cause your class can do a great job MT also).</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Well stated.</FONT></DIV>

SavinDwa

03-01-2005, 09:35 PM

<DIV>I just don't see how this can be possible or even desirable. The best class when it comes to absorbing punishment is the Guardian, the offset is they have the worst offensive output of all the fighter classes. They are also the best and getting aggro. In many cases the best thing for a guardian to do is sit there and go into a shell and take punishment and leave it up to the rest of the team to kill the beastie.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If we look at the other figther classes I'm not sure this even makes sense. But lets say we need to allow the other fighter classes to also be able to take equal punishment. However, if we do that then the worst fighter by far is the guardian since it now has no advantages over the other fighter classes and deals much less damage. I guess we could up the other classes ability to take damage and also up the guardoians ability to do damage .. but then why bother having 6 different fighter classes in the first place.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You could make the same argument for almost all the classes. In a large raid situation hybrids might not be as effective as specialists [templars for instance]. But there is certainly a place for classes that can swap between offense and defense in a big raid [Fury for instance].</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Just for agruments sake, lest say you have a 24 player raiding group. How many guardians would you want in the group? Especially if you are fighting one main big boss mob? 1? 2 just to be safe and have a back up? You would want more than 2 since the 3rd reserve isn;t taking damage and you just selected one of the worst offensive classes in the game. In fact, if you are not expectinb to die, why have more than 1 guardian in the whole raid? How about having a paladin or berserker as the number two tank? </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If you have a guardian with the full attention of the mob, maybe you are better just having 4 warlocks and 1 templar in a group?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>One of the biggest advanatges of the guardian class [or any specialist] is its a little easier to organize the group since everyone knows their role. A perfect example is guardian, templar, warlock x 4. On the other hand that group doesn't have a lot of options either. Its simple ... keep the guardian alive until the warlocks dot the mob to death or expect to see a lot of deaths. Now lets say you have a group with a Mystic, Fury, Berserker, Ranger, Illusionist and Wizard. I suspect that group can be a lot more flexible in how it handles mobs, but it needs a lot more coordination as well. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>From my point of view when it comes to pure ability to take punishment I would expect the top classes to be as follows and in this order:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Guardian</DIV> <DIV>Paladin</DIV> <DIV>Shadowkignt</DIV> <DIV>Berserker</DIV> <DIV>Bruiser</DIV> <DIV>Monk</DIV> <DIV>Brigand</DIV> <DIV>Swashbuckler</DIV> <DIV>Ranger</DIV> <DIV>Assassin</DIV> <DIV>Dirge</DIV> <DIV>Troubador</DIV> <DIV>Templar</DIV> <DIV>Inquisitor</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Obviously some of them are really close in ability to take punishment. I would expect the compensation is a combination of offesnse and spells [heals, etc].</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So .. given this, I just don't see why anyone would expect another class to be as good at being the main tank as a guardian in a large group? If you want to be the main tank in a large group then pick a guardian.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

GraymaneGravitic

03-01-2005, 10:01 PM

<DIV>"As rightly pointed out you can't really have different classes unless, well..., they're different."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Why is this thread so full of posters who seem to lack an ability to grasp the simple concept that "different" SHOULDN'T mean "incapable of fullfilling the same role"?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That IS what SOE promised and that IS what people are legimitely complaining about.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>LISTEN UP YOU IDIOTS!!!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The other tanks are NOT asking for the same abilities as a Gueardian.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>They are demanding that SOE make good on the promise that their different abilities will NOT detract form their efficicacy in the same role!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>and people wonder why I am so ashamed and embarrassed to belong to such a village idiot species!!!</DIV><p>Message Edited by GraymaneGraviticus on <span class=date_text>03-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:02 AM</span>

Eelyen

03-01-2005, 10:11 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> GraymaneGraviticus wrote:<BR> <DIV>"As rightly pointed out you can't really have different classes unless, well..., they're different."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Why is this thread so full of posters who seem to lack an ability to grasp the simple concept that "different" SHOULDN'T mean "incapable of fullfilling the same role"?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That IS what SOE promised and that IS what people are legimitely complaining about.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>LISTEN UP YOU IDIOTS!!!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The other tanks are NOT asking for the same abilities as a Gueardian.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>They are demanding that SOE make good on the promise that their different abilities will NOT detract form their efficicacy in the same role!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>and people wonder why I am so ashamed and embarrassed to belong to such a village idiot species!!!</DIV> <P>Message Edited by GraymaneGraviticus on <SPAN class=date_text>03-01-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>09:02 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>You just pointed out the own flaw in your logic.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You say that people are not asking for the same abilities as a guardian. But those abilities are what make his migitation and defensive the MOST desirable to be the MT on Raids. People will ALWAYS pick that over anything else if it's available to ensure maximum success.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And I believe SoE has made good on the statement that all tanks can tank. In groups all the tank classes do fine. You can't expect every class to be equal in all corners of the game.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Eelyen on <span class=date_text>03-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:13 AM</span>

Roaan

03-01-2005, 10:20 PM

<DIV>While were at it, can u give us (Guardians) a horse, hmmm healing abilities, well through in a Ward too, harm touch would be nice too, will accept Lay Hands too, ooo dont forget the DPS while your in the code.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Come on guys be serious, if u dint choose guardian its because u knew that there less fun stuff in it, so PLEASE let the guardian have something interresting.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>/close thread</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

ghosthamm

03-01-2005, 10:24 PM

<DIV>nah dont close it</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>/bump</DIV>

WarklaW

03-01-2005, 10:39 PM

<DIV><STRONG>Class choice should make the game fun, not cut you off from participating. Our goal is inclusion and desirability, regardless of what path in the tree you might take. </STRONG><BR> <HR> </DIV> <P>I don't know about other fighter classes, but for Shadowknights, this simply is not the case. I didn't choose an SK because I thought it would kill in the end-game, I chose it because I thought it would be fun throughout the game. </P> <P>Well, when you're the least desired in a group, much less a raid, it's not fun. "<STRONG>Our goal is inclusion and desirability" - </STRONG>If this was a direct quote, then something is wrong.</P> <P>I expected I would make a good fighter because I would be augmented by my powers. HA! My powers couldn't be more watered down. (That's not a dare SOE).</P> <P>Please, don't missunderstand some of us here. I like Guardians the way they are. I also don't want to be more like a Guardian. That's their job. </P> <P>However, I DO want to be as desired in a group and a raid. For whatever reason. Not just MT. If you have both character types, you will notice a big difference in invites. This shouldn't be. Every class should have an advantage to all major aspects of the game. Groups is one. Raids is also one.</P> <P>This is my first online game. </P> <P>I didn't know I would have problems grouping because of my class choice. I had no idea there was class pejudice. If we are the worst tank class, then we need something to compensate for it, and don't BS me about how I have life taps, wards, and a pet. These are underpowered abilities that are not sought after by groups. So how are we desirable?</P> <P>SOE claims we would ALL be desired. We all know this is not true.</P>

Roaan

03-01-2005, 10:51 PM

<DIV>As a Guardian, i rarely get a group, since imo its completly useless to have 2 guardian in a group (waste of DPS) and if u r not the highest lvl, then a other fighter will want to MT. So the only way i got easily grouped is to create my own. Since i do, i pretty much always play grouped.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Someone as to take the lead, so many ppl stay there for hours LFG <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

N7649U

03-01-2005, 11:00 PM

WarKlaW,SK are not the worst tank class, infact out mitigation is fine, at nearly 40 I can tank and hold agro fine. In the late 20's like you are it is difficult, give it time man. The problem lines in our broken abilities, and player skill. As for the whole Guardian thing, Im glad that there is 1 Raid tank. But the rest of the tank classes do need some kind of abilities that they bring to the table during events. This does not involve nerfing Guardians. Even I knew from the description of classes that the Guardian would be MA/MT/Big Cheese of Raids. I think what needs to be done is allowing the other fighter classes to add to a raid through the use of abilities and not through the use of tanking, cause face it people the Guardians are right, that is their job on a raid.

SavinDwa

03-01-2005, 11:01 PM

<DIV>Warklaw,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I feel for you. I really do. You have hit the nail on the head. If you have not played this type of game before then you don't knwo the mind sets of those that have.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The honest truth of the matetr is that a huge number of players come from the EQ world. So they are bringing thier experiences with them. In EQ2 a group of 6 does not need a guardian, they also don't need a templar, what they need is balance. There is many ways to get that balance. The bad news is the simplest way is to pick classes that only have one function, then no one has to think. One thing I am sure of in EQ2 "a group of 6 players that know how to play the game will be better than the perfect group any day of the week".</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In a group of 6 above level 20 you are going to need one tank. That can be from any of the 6 tank classes. You are going to need a 1 healer equivalent [that could be a templar, or it could be a couple of shaman/druids types]... the rest of the group -- who cares. The most simple group would be Guardian, Templar, Warlock, Warlock, Warlock, Warlock [absord damage, fix damage, dot, dot,dot, dot damage]. Not a lot to think about.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But from a all around take on anything group the following might have more balance:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Paladin, Ranger, Shaman, Fury, Wizard, Illusionist</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Which group would be the better? here is my answer "The one that knows how to use its HOs correctly, that speaks to each other, that everyone knows they role, etc."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>HOs alone can make a huge difference. A Guardian that doesn't correctly do HOs is useless compared to a paladin that does.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>A ranger that pulls aggro all the time is a liability. A templar that forgets to heal as they get blast the mob happy is useless. An illusionist that knows their trade well can be the best asset to a group, as long as everyone else knows what they are doing. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I personally have got more experience and fun from group of players that I know well when all we had was a Predator [main tank]. a Shaman, A Druid and a Sorceror. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In sumamry, the biggest issue with the classes is not so much the balance but the knowledge of the payers about the capabilties of the classes. Its easy to pick a guardian and a templar. </DIV>

Screamin' 1

03-02-2005, 12:11 AM

<blockquote><hr>ghosthammer wrote:<DIV>excellent reply valhuru exactly the point trying to be brought to light.</DIV><hr></blockquote>Yes, a very well said response. Being critical of the game is what causes the devs to improve it.Telling us to just accept our choices after learning things we could not have possibly forseen is just plain harmful "advice".

Screamin' 1

03-02-2005, 12:31 AM

<blockquote><hr>Eelyen wrote:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Platfinger wrote:<BR><DIV>If you want to see SOE comments regarding class balancing before the comments were removed post-Beta from these boards, go to the website below (assuming the link isn't wiped by a mod)</DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV><A href="http://www.eqii.com/mgi.php?t=10467" target=_blank>http://www.eqii.com/mgi.php?t=10467</A></DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV>In case the link is wiped, here is a quote from Moorgard:</DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV>--------------------------------</DIV><DIV>Note that I was talking only about the *primary role* of the class. Each will have a variety and flavor all its own, which will help you decide which class and sub-class you will eventually want to play. <BR><BR><STRONG>The idea is this: you don't have to worry about picking a class you like only to discover 50 levels later that your choice makes you unwanted. If you're a fighter, you can tank for a group; if you're a priest, you can heal for a group; and so on. This is the beauty of an archetype system. </STRONG><BR><BR><STRONG>Class choice should make the game fun, not cut you off from participating. Our goal is inclusion and desirability, regardless of what path in the tree you might take. <BR></STRONG><BR>Will there be variety? Of course. Different abilities, spells, combat styles... the whole works. Some classes will be able to do some tasks better than others, but the *primary* purpose of the class will always be there.</DIV><DIV>--------------------------------</DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV>So unless the the primary role at max level (currently 50) for a tank has changed, I believe it's ummmm... tanking. Right?</DIV><DIV> </DIV><BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I don't see "Raid" mentioned anywhere in that statement. I do see Group. And that is working as intended.<hr></blockquote>It is quite clear to me that there is no intended differentiation between group and raid in SOE's comments above. The comment is a general one discussing the role of classes in the game. I think it is quite clear that in the above SOE comments, "group" means non-solo.

Eelyen

03-02-2005, 12:43 AM

<DIV>I still haven't seen a statement saying Raid. Nor have I seen anything it says saying "equal" tanking.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Let me reiterate though the one thing that stands out in that above statement to me.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG>If you're a fighter, you can tank for a group;</STRONG></DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So, from that official statement. I think it says, if you are a fighter, you can tank. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I still haven't seen any evidence disproving that fact. All I hear is that since Guardians are the best at it, people choose them to MT for raids. And a bunch of non-guardians are whining about it.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Here is the other statement.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG>Class choice should make the game fun, not cut you off from participating. </STRONG></DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV>Well, I believe I saw a post by someone else detailing what other classes can do. But it's also stated that non-guardians make great offtanks and have abilities that help augment the raid to be a better force. Just because they aren't "picked" to be the main tank, yall seem mad.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I miss anything?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And we'll finish up with this one.</DIV> <DIV><STRONG></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV>Will there be variety? Of course. Different abilities, spells, combat styles... the whole works. Some classes will be able to do some tasks better than others, but the *primary* purpose of the class will always be there.</DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Some classes will be able to do some tasks better then others.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Thats what they said. Guardians can tank better. Thats their role, what their focus is. And hence since they CAN tank better. They are picked for Main Tank on raids. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>People are spewing crap about this equal stuff. I have yet to see quotes and evidence that show SoE promising that all tank classes would tank equally. All tank class CAN TANK. Just Guardians are the best at it. So that is why they are made main tanks on raids the most. </DIV> <P>Message Edited by Eelyen on <SPAN class=date_text>03-01-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>11:45 AM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Eelyen on <span class=date_text>03-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:49 AM</span>

Platfing

03-02-2005, 01:14 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eelyen wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Platfinger wrote:<BR> <DIV>If you want to see SOE comments regarding class balancing before the comments were removed post-Beta from these boards, go to the website below (assuming the link isn't wiped by a mod)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><A href="http://www.eqii.com/mgi.php?t=10467" target=_blank>http://www.eqii.com/mgi.php?t=10467</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In case the link is wiped, here is a quote from Moorgard:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>--------------------------------</DIV> <DIV>Note that I was talking only about the *primary role* of the class. Each will have a variety and flavor all its own, which will help you decide which class and sub-class you will eventually want to play. <BR><BR><STRONG>The idea is this: you don't have to worry about picking a class you like only to discover 50 levels later that your choice makes you unwanted. If you're a fighter, you can tank for a group; if you're a priest, you can heal for a group; and so on. This is the beauty of an archetype system. </STRONG><BR><BR><STRONG>Class choice should make the game fun, not cut you off from participating. Our goal is inclusion and desirability, regardless of what path in the tree you might take. <BR></STRONG><BR>Will there be variety? Of course. Different abilities, spells, combat styles... the whole works. Some classes will be able to do some tasks better than others, but the *primary* purpose of the class will always be there.</DIV> <DIV>--------------------------------</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So unless the the primary role at max level (currently 50) for a tank has changed, I believe it's ummmm... tanking. Right?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> I don't see "Raid" mentioned anywhere in that statement. I do see Group. And that is working as intended.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>You can say his comments means group only, and excludes raids, but until I see a post from an SOE official (preferably Moorgard since he originally made those comments pre-release) I believe that it applies to all encounters. Just because it's not working that way now means one of two things. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Either:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>1. It's working as intended, and Guardians are designed to be the only real raid tank</DIV> <DIV>or</DIV> <DIV>2. The high-end game isn't fully balanced yet<BR><BR>Without more info direct from the source - take your pick. Given everything that I know about what the game designers wanted in EQ-2 though, then I'm inclined to believe #2 until convinced otherwise.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Platfinger on <span class=date_text>03-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:16 PM</span>

Eelyen

03-02-2005, 01:16 AM

<DIV>I would direct you to this post.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=testfeed&message.id=8037#M8037" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=testfeed&message.id=8037#M8037</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>that I made just above yours.</DIV>

Platfing

03-02-2005, 01:28 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eelyen wrote:<BR> <DIV>I would direct you to this post.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=testfeed&message.id=8037#M8037" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=testfeed&message.id=8037#M8037</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>that I made just above yours.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <P>I read that post, and there isn't much to say that hasn't already been said. Just go here</P> <P><A href="http://www.eqii.com/mgi.php?t=10467" target=_blank>http://www.eqii.com/mgi.php?t=10467</A></P> <P>And read some of Moorgard posts. Here is the one that seems quite fitting for this discussion:</P> <P><FONT color=#800080 size=4>An EQ2 warrior is not the same as a warrior in EQ. Different beasts, same name. (This illustrates how using classic roleplay titles in new games is both a blessing and a curse.) If you were talking about EQ and said that a monk or paladin shouldn't tank as well as a warrior because then there would be no reason for a warrior to exist, you'd be absolutely right. But that's not the case here. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#800080><FONT size=4>In our game, <U>any member of an archetype can fulfill their main role in a group as well as any other</U>. They use different styles and skills to accomplish their purpose, but the core ability will always be there. If you need a tank for your party, then any flavor will do, be it monk, paladin, guar-- </FONT><BR></FONT><A href="http://www.eqii.com/mgi.php?t=10467" target=_blank></A></P> <P>Now, you will probably take the same old tired argument that he meant group only instead of raid. If that's the case, please see my post before your last one. We can go back and forth about this all frickin week, but the fact is we need an official comment from SOE on this before it can be setteled without a doubt.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

Eelyen

03-02-2005, 02:18 AM

<DIV>Ok so how do you make other subclasses tank as good as a Guardian. You have to increase their migitation, hp, and give them defense increasing skills.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But then the guardian class is obsolete.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Hence forth, what do you expect them to do?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Plus, I have read through a ton of those posts in that thread. And pretty much every time he mentions tanks he says "Grouping"</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Btw here is one for ya.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <HR> What I mean is, even though you stop being called a fighter after level 3, you continue to gain abilities as a fighter. There is a list of arts and abilities that all fighters share all the way up to level 50 which are central to fulfilling the fighter's key role. Since the fighter is all about dealing physical damage as well as taking or redirecting it, all classes and sub-classes gain a common set of abilities that include such things as taunting and ways to redirect damage away from other party members. <BR> <HR> </DIV> <P>Message Edited by Eelyen on <SPAN class=date_text>03-01-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>01:18 PM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Eelyen on <span class=date_text>03-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:20 PM</span>

dparker7

03-02-2005, 02:21 AM

<DIV>Gotta say Platfinger, you seem to be using wishful thinking concerning the judgement of what group means.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The statement itself is fairly ambigious on its face. However, given Moorgard's knowledge of the game and his tendency to choose words carefully, it would seem group means the customary use of group in this game, i.e. 2-6 players. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The safest bet is to say that the post needs clarification.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It seems that people have ignored the idea that the dev teams want certain classes to be better than certain others in certain small areas. Considering this game is not supposed to be about super raids, raiding was seen as a small area. Additionally, its not that it's necessarily impossible to defeat a raid without a guardian, but a guardian will always be the preferred tank for raids as long as they have the greatest mitigation. Consider this, the first guild to finish the speak as a dragon quest regularly raided with 18-20 people for group x4 mobs. Now, if they had a SK MT, then maybe they need to bring a few more people. They wouldn't get an optimal group, but they could still defeat the encounter.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Eelyen

03-02-2005, 02:27 AM

<DIV>Some more advanced quotes.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <HR> Keep in mind how adventure archetypes work: you gain certain abilities at the archetype level that you never lose, but you gain specialized abilities at the class and subclass level that are unique to your choices. <BR> <HR> </DIV> <P> <HR> You gain many more individually defined abilities at class and even more specialized skills at sub-class, but you always keep expanding upon your basic archetypal abilities. That's what I mean when I say balance happens at the archetype level. The same principle applies to all other archetypes as well. <HR> </P> <P> <HR> Crusaders (paladins and shadow knights) receive spells at the class and subclass levels, but they continue to expand upon the arts they receive as fighters. Bards work the same way in the scout tree. <HR> </P> <P> <HR> </P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000 size=5><STRONG>At the same time, the fact that all subclasses have different ways of fulfilling their primary roles means there will be some circumstances where one subclass has an advantage. Rough edges like this are intended, as they add to diversity and can sometimes drive the passions of players. Without those differences, we might as well never go beyond the four adventure archetypes because subclasses would all be exactly the same. </STRONG></FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000 size=5></FONT> </P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000 size=5>So yeah, there will be threads about how his class is better than my class, and how her combat art is better than my combat art. That kind of debate is inescapable. Reading the EQ message boards for so long has prepared me for the inevitable.</FONT> <HR> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

Platfing

03-02-2005, 02:38 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> dparker713 wrote:<BR> <DIV>Gotta say Platfinger, you seem to be using wishful thinking concerning the judgement of what group means.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The statement itself is fairly ambigious on its face. However, given Moorgard's knowledge of the game and his tendency to choose words carefully, it would seem group means the customary use of group in this game, i.e. 2-6 players. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The safest bet is to say that the post needs clarification.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It seems that people have ignored the idea that the dev teams want certain classes to be better than certain others in certain small areas. Considering this game is not supposed to be about super raids, raiding was seen as a small area. Additionally, its not that it's necessarily impossible to defeat a raid without a guardian, but a guardian will always be the preferred tank for raids as long as they have the greatest mitigation. Consider this, the first guild to finish the speak as a dragon quest regularly raided with 18-20 people for group x4 mobs. Now, if they had a SK MT, then maybe they need to bring a few more people. They wouldn't get an optimal group, but they could still defeat the encounter.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>And your using wishful thinking that he DID NOT mean groups and raids interchangeably. See - it works both ways eh? There is so much broken in the high-end game - nobody can sit there with a straight face and tell me you think that every class within an archtype is equally balanced and working as intended? If you believe that, I have some swamp land in Florida to sell you. I haven't seen anybody from SOE stating that - have you? </P> <P>Eelyen - I don't see the word "raid" in that last quote anywhere - do you? You say specializing means raids, and I say it means something else (like fighting single mobs vs multiple mobs, etc, etc). Again, this is all interpretation from each side (mine and yours). We need an official response - but I doubt we will get one. </P> <P><BR> </P> <P>Message Edited by Platfinger on <SPAN class=date_text>03-01-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>01:39 PM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Platfinger on <span class=date_text>03-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:44 PM</span>

SavinDwa

03-02-2005, 03:23 AM

<DIV>Platfinger,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You said</DIV> <DIV>"<FONT color=#800080><FONT size=4>In our game, <U>any member of an archetype can fulfill their main role in a group as well as any other</U>. They use different styles and skills to accomplish their purpose, but the core ability will always be there. If you need a tank for your party, then any flavor will do, be it monk, paladin, guar-- "</FONT></FONT></DIV> <P><FONT color=#800080><FONT size=4></FONT></FONT> </P> <P><FONT color=#800080><FONT color=#ffffcc size=3>This just isn't true and never was true. I also doubt that many outside of the fighter class even think so</FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffcc size=3>Enchanter, Sorcerer and Summoner are all sub classes of Mage, yet they all fill very very different rolls in a group. The Enchanter has crowd control, the Sorcerer is the artillery and the Summoner has pets. The sub sub classes themself are very different. For instance a Wizard is about fast direct damage and a Warlock all about dots. Two very different forms of combat with very different effects on aggro.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#800080><FONT color=#ffffff>If we look at the priests, we again see the same pattern. The Druid, Cleric and Shaman have very very different roles. The cleric is the pure healer and has that primary role in a group along with Vitae and great nukes against undead. The Druid has mainly heal over time spells and depending on whether you go Fury or Warden can pick up some nice buffs [Warden] or great offense [fury]. The Shaman gets good wards and is one of the best melle classes of the priest type.</FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#800080><FONT color=#ffffff>In the Scout class you have predators, bards and rogues.... three very different classes indeed.. all with a role to play.</FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#800080><FONT color=#ffffff>So I find you statement hard to believe. In addition, I read the same stuff everyone else did. It pretty clearly stated that Brawlers try and avoid getting hit and grat offense. The Crusaders get self buffs and pretty good defensive armor as well as not bad offense. The Warrioir has the best ability to soak up punishment but does not ahve the offense of a Brawler. The sub classes further define the classes. No one ever said that a berserker was as good at getting aggro as a guardian or as good as taking punishment, but the berserker has better offense. The monks offense is very good, the best of the fighters, but it has the least ability to soak up punishment. The classes are as described. there is no doubt in a raid that it might make sense to have one guardian to sit at the front and get hit so the healers have a focal point. So what... </FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#800080><FONT color=#ffffff>If we use the same balance logic then since every group could really use a crowd control specialist we should give these powers to the other mage classes because its unfair that only the enchanter gets this ability.....</P> <DIV><BR></FONT></DIV></FONT><A href="http://www.eqii.com/mgi.php?t=10467" target=_blank></A>

pillb

03-02-2005, 03:52 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>GraymaneGraviticus wrote:<DIV>LISTEN UP YOU IDIOTS!!!</DIV><DIV>The other tanks are NOT asking for the same abilities as a Gueardian.</DIV><DIV>They are demanding that SOE make good on the promise that their different abilities will NOT detract form their efficicacy in the same role!</DIV><DIV>and people wonder why I am so ashamed and embarrassed to belong to such a village idiot species!!!</DIV><P></SPAN><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Did you read the class descriptions upon chosing your class? Because if you did you'd have read the guardian is about DEFENSE and DEFENSE not healing and not DPS. Its been said 100 times in this thread...Any tank CAN tank raid mobs but when it comes down to players they are chosing guardian on raids because they can tank a few percent better and they should as they are only a slab of meat. Re-think what you picked and why before blaming everyone else that your class doesnt have the best defense AND dps AND heals.<p>Message Edited by pillbub on <span class=date_text>03-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:58 PM</span>

Bootstwadd

03-02-2005, 05:00 AM

<DIV>Um...ok...Class balance among tanks?</DIV> <DIV>I've noticed a lot of input from Guardians...quite a bit from Berserkers...slightly less from Paladins...yet very few SK's...in fact, the SK is hardly mentioned at all. I realize every class has a "balance" issue they would like addressed, but do any of you realize (besides the SK's) that the SK is essentially brushed aside is almost every one of your comments regarding tanks? I saw 1 comment about SK's being screwed. So, having perused the SK board (since I am a lower level SK), I would like to point out the following:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Guardians mitigate damage better and have uber aggro. Berserkers dps better than anyone in this class. Paladins can heal (NEVER resisted).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Shadowknights? From what I understand our main damage spell caps out at just over 1k, CAN be resisted, and is on a 30 minute timer (THAT'S gonna be useful). I also recall seeing that Guardians are in fact out damaging SK's and Pally's...THAT doesn't seem right.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Someone mentioned SK wards and lifetaps. My current ward stops 250pts of damage (That's like one or two hits from a SINGLE white mob TOPS)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Lifetaps? A JOKE. They have a 5% chance to proc, and the life returned is something ridiculous like maybe 10% (in other words 1 / 10th of the damage we're dealing...which isn't much)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Oh, and by the way, last night I was soloing 2 green ^ mobs in Nek ...I ran out of power about halfway through the second mob...in other words our power consumption is RIDICULOUS. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I can only speak for myself, but I also wanted to speak up as an SK...cause I read the sub-class description and thought this class would be KICKASS...read it and tell me you don't think so too...Tell me you don't think they should be BIG life sucking, crazy evil sword weilding, nasty, creepy damage dealers. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Well, we're not...go ahead, read the SK board...see for yourself. Even the players who claim the SK class ISN'T broken claim it needs ALOT of attention...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Hey flame me all you like, one star me all you like...I'm just expressing my opinion, and maybe opening some eyes. Why not ask a higher level Shadowknight...good luck finding some...and there's a reason for THAT too.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Rock

03-02-2005, 06:32 AM

<DIV> <DIV>"Why is this thread so full of posters who seem to lack an ability to grasp the simple concept that "different" SHOULDN'T mean "incapable of fullfilling the same role"?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That IS what SOE promised and that IS what people are legimitely complaining about.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>LISTEN UP YOU IDIOTS!!!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The other tanks are NOT asking for the same abilities as a Gueardian.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>They are demanding that SOE make good on the promise that their different abilities will NOT detract form their efficicacy in the same role!"</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If you look in a mirror you will see the idiot.</DIV></DIV>

Gaige

03-02-2005, 08:21 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> sidgb wrote:<BR> <DIV>Why do you guys keep trying to replace the word "group" with the word "raid" to say SoE lied. When obviously you seem to be able to tank a group fine. Sounds to me like you are now wanting something that was never promised and trying to pretend it was.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Everyone with any common sense knows raids generate entirely different dynamics requiring a care in detail and planning that have tougher demands.</DIV> <P>Message Edited by sidgb on <SPAN class=date_text>02-25-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>08:29 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Fine. I'll give you that. For this:</P> <P>Currently all fighters can adequately tank most situations except really hard end game raids. This is guardian territory atm due to skillset and player perception.</P> <P>Given that Moorgard stated that all archtypes would be able to do the primary role in most situations, I propose this:</P> <P>Guardians can tank all the raid mobs through the various levels, and the rest of us can tank the non-raid stuff.</P> <P>That's fair.</P> <P>With the guardian class there is no <EM>most</EM>, they can tank anything.</P> <P>Why should the rest of us settle for <EM>most</EM>?</P> <P>We shouldn't? That's what I thought.<BR></P>

Gaige

03-02-2005, 08:27 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> ShadoZen wrote:<BR> <DIV> He said u can tank for a group not a epic mob some of you cannot read. I play a guardian and see other tanks bragging about what they can do dmg wise etc and to see this on the boards about guardians doing their class job the best sickens me<FONT color=#ffff00> if u wanted to be a main tank for epic mobs common sense would have made your class selection guardian.</FONT> YOU have no case period so stop your whinning you sniviling little punk......</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Oh thanks. I didn't see that in the manual. I was under the impression you picked the class you liked, since EQ2 supposedly made the primary roles the same.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now I realize that if I want to MT I HAVE to be a Guardian.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Thanks for pointing that out.</DIV>

Gaige

03-02-2005, 08:29 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eelyen wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Platfinger wrote:<BR> <DIV>If you want to see SOE comments regarding class balancing before the comments were removed post-Beta from these boards, go to the website below (assuming the link isn't wiped by a mod)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><A href="http://www.eqii.com/mgi.php?t=10467" target=_blank>http://www.eqii.com/mgi.php?t=10467</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In case the link is wiped, here is a quote from Moorgard:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>--------------------------------</DIV> <DIV>Note that I was talking only about the *primary role* of the class. Each will have a variety and flavor all its own, which will help you decide which class and sub-class you will eventually want to play. <BR><BR><STRONG>The idea is this: you don't have to worry about picking a class you like only to discover 50 levels later that your choice makes you unwanted. If you're a fighter, you can tank for a group; if you're a priest, you can heal for a group; and so on. This is the beauty of an archetype system. </STRONG><BR><BR><STRONG>Class choice should make the game fun, not cut you off from participating. Our goal is inclusion and desirability, regardless of what path in the tree you might take. <BR></STRONG><BR>Will there be variety? Of course. Different abilities, spells, combat styles... the whole works. Some classes will be able to do some tasks better than others, but the *primary* purpose of the class will always be there.</DIV> <DIV>--------------------------------</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So unless the the primary role at max level (currently 50) for a tank has changed, I believe it's ummmm... tanking. Right?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <FONT color=#ffff00>I don't see "Raid" mentioned anywhere in that statement. I do see Group. And that is working as intended.<BR></FONT> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>OOOOH!</P> <P>Now I understand. They balanced this game in two ways: normal grouping and raiding.</P> <P>Normal grouping = all classes can apply</P> <P>Raiding = The uber super classes only.</P> <P>Would you be singing the same tune if Guardians could tank everything <EM>except</EM> raids?<BR></P>

Gaige

03-02-2005, 08:32 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ayun wrote:<BR> <DIV>If there are going to be different TAnk classes, there have to be differences between those tanks!</DIV> <DIV>If you want more DPS as a tank.. you have to sacrifice something.</DIV> <DIV>If you want to Heal-your-Dam-self.. you have to sacrifice something.</DIV> <DIV>If you want other utilities.. you have to sacrifice something.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>For some of you that something will be high end Tanking ability. If this is not the case.. why wouldnt they just make one TAnk class.. and call that class TANK?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Think about it. Would anyone Choose Guardian if some other class could tank high-raid mobs just as good AND HEAL themselves AND have higher DPS than other tanks? <FONT color=#ffff00>The answer is no. Its all about deciding what you want to give up.. to gain your uniqueness. </FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Not to mention- Any Tanking Tank, is going to have less DPS than any ohter DPS class in the group. I wouldnt even consider a MT a DPSer. We run dmg parsers often. When i tank i am always lowest in DPS. Who can worry about DPS as a MT when you're trying to keep the aggro of 6 mobs from hitting your weak Wizzies, etc? Also, every other equally upgraded tank class out-damages a guardian solo or grouped. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Oh come on, quit being ridiculous.</P> <P>You presume to be so arrogant to say that Guardians are giving up...what exactly to be the best MT in all situations? Your class isn't sacrificing anything, because you can ALWAYS do your primary job.</P> <P>When will you elitest pigs realize that the other fighter classes are simply talking about being able to do their job. </P> <P>Guardian: Best tank in groups, best tank in raids.</P> <P>Other fighters: Can sufficiently tank in groups, but not as good as a guardian, can't tank raids.</P> <P>Oh please, you give up... nothing to be the best tank in the game.<BR></P>

Gaige

03-02-2005, 08:33 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eelyen wrote:<BR> <BR> <DIV>Very few of you are. The rest are just whining cause they can't tank as good as Guardians at level 50. Boofrigginhoo to them.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>People should really think about what made them pick the class they choose to be. I picked Guardian because I wanted to be a Main Tank for my guild down the line. And I knew it would be the best class for the job. I bet that pretty much anyone who picked a pally, sk, or beserker didn't say, "I'm picking this class cause I'm gonna be the Main tank!"</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Anyone who did needs to have their head examined and grow up.</DIV> <P>Message Edited by Eelyen on <SPAN class=date_text>02-28-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>09:06 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Yeah, those morons! I mean they actually listened to the makers of the game. What were they thinking!</P> <P><BR> </P>

Gaige

03-02-2005, 08:35 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eelyen wrote:<BR> <P> get more hp per stamina then other tank classes. They don't have super duper aggro abilities, a berserker can blow wind on a mob and pull it off us. They don't have great group healing abilities. </P> <P>Their job is about absorbing damage. And while you probably couldn't see that at level 20. It's obvious at level 50.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>It's not out of balance. You can still tank in groups. I've never seen a solid quote yet in this thread saying that all tanks are going to be equal in all situations. </FONT></P> <P>Just accept it that, tanking is what a guardian was designed to do better then others. There is no magic behind their ability to tank better. It's just their skill set that allows them. So if you want to tank better, reroll as a guardian. And stop crying about lacking the level of defensive skills guardians have.</P> <P>And what I witness in eq1 was far different then you apparently. Cause I have seen a shaman tank Fennin Ro. I've had paladin's tanking Cazic Thule and Innoruuk in PoTime. Hell I saw a SK tank Vallon Zek and Tallon Zek in PoTime. Heck they changed GoD so hybrids could tank as well and that worked out fine with the right gear.</P> <P>I don't see an issue right now. Just because you got picked last for the team you are whinning to mommy it feels like to me. I have no doubts that other tanks can actually tank raid level mobs with the right setup. But there is just no way for the "other" tank classes to all of a sudden have the defensive skills of Guardians without making guardians a worthless class cause they have "nothing" else.</P> <P>Period. <BR></P> <P>Message Edited by Eelyen on <SPAN class=date_text>02-28-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>11:08 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>GET SOMETHING THROUGH YOUR HEAD, [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot].</P> <P>All fighters EXCEPT GUARDIANS have to sacrifice TANKING ABILITY. GUARDIANS NEVER EVER SACRIFICE TANKING ABILITY FOR ANYTHING.</P> <P>Why is that ok? WHY DOES YOUR CLASS GET TO BE THE BEST TANK IN THE GAME.</P> <P><BR> </P>

Gaige

03-02-2005, 08:45 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eelyen wrote:<BR> <BR> <DIV>You just pointed out the own flaw in your logic.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You say that people are not asking for the same abilities as a guardian. But those abilities are what make his migitation and defensive the MOST desirable to be the MT on Raids. People will ALWAYS pick that over anything else if it's available to ensure maximum success.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>And I believe SoE has made good on the statement that all tanks can tank. In groups all the tank classes do fine. You can't expect every class to be equal in all corners of the game.</FONT></DIV> <P>Message Edited by Eelyen on <SPAN class=date_text>03-01-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>09:13 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Ok, let me put it to you in a way you MIGHT understand.</P> <P>Fighter = primary role = tank</P> <P>Name ONE occassion EVER where a guardian will be turned DOWN to be main tank.</P> <P>NEVER?</P> <P>Why? </P> <P>Because they are far and away the best.</P> <P>Other fighter classes may be "allowed" to MT for xp groups and friends, but when it comes down to it if a guardian is avaiable you take him. You take him in xp groups, you take him in raids, you take him for questing, hell you take him to find Easter Eggs.</P> <P>There is NEVER a situation where the guardian subclass can NOT fulfill the primary role. There is no MOST for the guardian class, its ALWAYS.</P> <P>The inverse is NOT true for the other fighter classes. 9 times out of 10 they will be shoehorned into a DPS roll.</P> <P>This, 100%, is NOT balance. Its not even close to balance. Sure we get utility and added damage but that ISN'T OUR ROLE. </P> <P>The fact that the other fighters have numerous ways in which to be pushed out of their primary role while the guardian class doesn't, proves things aren't balanced.</P> <P>"Able to fill the primary role in most situations" should apply to each and every fighter, not just non-guardians.</P> <P>Make some raids and encounters that guardians can't tank, so the other classes are preferred over them, and presto = fairness.<BR></P>

Gaige

03-02-2005, 08:48 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eelyen wrote:<BR> <DIV>People are spewing crap about this equal stuff. I have yet to see quotes and evidence that show SoE promising that all tank classes would tank equally. <FONT color=#ffff00>All tank class CAN TANK. Just Guardians are the best at it. </FONT>So that is why they are made main tanks on raids the most. <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Then make guardians the only tank class.</P> <P>Since the "utility" and "damage dealing" given to other "tank" classes can be given to any class, regardless of primary role.</P> <P>They should quit beating around the bush and just do it.</P> <P>If there is a "best" in a game like this there is no [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] reason to have a "second best".<BR></P>

pillb

03-02-2005, 09:06 AM

Gage-Mikel either make a guardian or quit crying about them. No one is saying Guardians HAVE to be the tank on RAIDS or EXP groups. There are many groups that specifically chose a pally or zerker over a guardian because of thier argo and healing ability.If you bothered reading their descriptions before you picked your Paladin (or whatever you picked) under guardian it clearly states the guardian speacializes in defense and gets no flash DPS or heals or utility. They are just a slab of meat with high defense therefore in a long raid fight they MIGHT get chosen over another class. Get over it.You cant have it all man. You want your high DPS plus you want your class to be the best tank? Well it ain't happening you should stop whining about it and go make a guardian.<p>Message Edited by pillbub on <span class=date_text>03-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:04 PM</span>

Gaige

03-02-2005, 10:22 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> pillbub wrote:<BR>You cant have it all man. You want your high DPS plus you want your class to be the best tank? Well it ain't happening you should stop whining about it and go make a guardian. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Learn. To. Read.</P> <P>Try starting with one of the many threads I posted stating that lowering our DPS for increased tanking ability is FINE with me.</P> <P>Here is my problem with the system:</P> <P>Guardians can tank every mob in the game, always.</P> <P>Every other fighter has a situation/encounter/raid where they can't tank.</P> <P>The guardian class never has to sacrifice tanking ability, so they are the ideal tank in <EM>all</EM> situations.</P> <P>That is broken.</P> <P>As for the "roll a guardian" comment. I DON'T WANT TO. I want to tank and I want to be a monk. Supposedly Moorgard said I could do that since "each subclass can fill the primary role, just with different style/flavor".</P> <P>Guess what I don't like the "style and flavor" of standing around in heavy armor with a big shield.</P> <P>My preference.</P> <P>I was led to believe that wouldn't remove me from my primary job.</P> <P>Before you say "you can tank groups" or "you have better DPS".</P> <P>This post is about tanking ability. NOT about the other stuff. In my opinion the other stuff is 100% absolutely surrenderable in order to get better tanking, because TANKING is our primary ability NOT INVIS, FD, DPS, FLOATING, FLYING, MAKING COTTON CANDY.</P> <P>If you have a class that has no weakness whenever it comes to a certain area, logic and statistics dictate that class becomes the "obvious" choice.</P> <P>By making guardians uber defensive with their "trade off" being non class defining skills they have shafted every other fighter into an OT/MA/DPS role because in order to be a good raid tank the guardian becomes the best tank in every other scenario by default.</P> <P>This isn't class balance. The "most" in the statement "all archtypes should be able to fill the primary role in most situations" should apply to all subclasses, not everybody except guardian.</P><p>Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on <span class=date_text>03-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:26 PM</span>

Eal

03-02-2005, 11:15 AM

<DIV>Can you read this? </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Ha-Ha</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Still not main tank.</DIV>

Eelyen

03-02-2005, 11:16 AM

<DIV>Well Gage I know how you got to Hero status now. By replying to every single thread in the post. Also the fact that you try insulting every poster in pretty much everyone of your replies proves your childish nature.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'm only going to make a minor effort to explain it too you, since it's honestly a waste of my time. Like all class balance threads. Nobody will EVER get their side across to someone else. I've made my points and you still want to tank as well as a guardian who's abilities were designed to "Guard" Meaning defend, etc. I actually group with berserkers on a daily basis and they tank in groups pretty much as well as I do. I might see their hp drop a little faster. But the fact of the matter is I count on them in my groups to be able to tank. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Tired of dealing with you [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]ing [Removed for Content].</DIV> <P>Message Edited by Eelyen on <SPAN class=date_text>03-01-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>10:23 PM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Eelyen on <span class=date_text>03-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:24 PM</span>

Eelyen

03-02-2005, 11:18 AM

<DIV>But i can play that game too.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <HR> <P>This post is about tanking ability. NOT about the other stuff. In my opinion the other stuff is 100% absolutely surrenderable in order to get better tanking, because TANKING is our primary ability NOT INVIS, FD, DPS, FLOATING, FLYING, MAKING COTTON CANDY.</P> <P> <HR> </P> <P>And tanking ability is what guardians do. </P> <P>What else do you expect a "guardian" to do?</P> <P>I mean seriously think about it for 5 seconds without thinking about just yourself.</P></DIV>

Eelyen

03-02-2005, 11:20 AM

<DIV> <HR> <P>This isn't class balance. The "most" in the statement "all archtypes should be able to fill the primary role in most situations" should apply to all subclasses, not everybody except guardian.</P> <P> <HR> <P></P> <P>You just proved my side of the subject. All the archtypes of fighters can fill the role as a tank in most situations. </P> <P>Would you believe that Grouping AND offtanking would qualify as MOST situations in this game. Would you possibly believe that Main Tanking for a high level raid mob actually ends up being a very SMALL percentage of the game?</P> <P>I guess you wouldn't, as you can't see outside the box.</P></DIV><p>Message Edited by Eelyen on <span class=date_text>03-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:25 PM</span>

Eelyen

03-02-2005, 11:21 AM

<DIV>I don't feel like creating 30 more posts in reply to you, like you did to me. I made my point already. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Grow up.</DIV>

Eelyen

03-02-2005, 11:28 AM

<DIV>And in the future, try to consolidate your replies into 1 [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]ing post like the rest of us.</DIV>

Gaige

03-02-2005, 11:58 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eelyen wrote:<BR> <DIV> <HR> <P>This isn't class balance. The "most" in the statement "all archtypes should be able to fill the primary role in most situations" should apply to all subclasses, not everybody except guardian.</P> <P> <HR> <P></P> <P>You just proved my side of the subject. All the archtypes of fighters can fill the role as a tank in most situations. </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Would you believe that Grouping AND offtanking would qualify as MOST situations in this game. Would you possibly believe that Main Tanking for a high level raid mob actually ends up being a very SMALL percentage of the game?</FONT></P> <P>I guess you wouldn't, as you can't see outside the box.</P></DIV> <P>Message Edited by Eelyen on <SPAN class=date_text>03-01-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>10:25 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Yes. But the difference is while guardians get to tank that "small percentage" of the game they get to tank the rest of it also.</P> <P>Oh, and I got to Hero status by registeration date on the forums, total posts, total messages read and total page views. It isn't based on just posts so people won't spam <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> I enjoyed your jab at my posting though, but the simple fact is I found quotes that I wanted to respond to directly and its a lot easier to just post in response to something I find quote worthy than to copy and paste 200x.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eelyen wrote:<BR> <DIV>But i can play that game too.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <HR> <P>This post is about tanking ability. NOT about the other stuff. In my opinion the other stuff is 100% absolutely surrenderable in order to get better tanking, because TANKING is our primary ability NOT INVIS, FD, DPS, FLOATING, FLYING, MAKING COTTON CANDY.</P> <P> <HR> <P></P> <P>And tanking ability is what <STRIKE>guardians</STRIKE><FONT color=#ffff00> fighters </FONT>do. </P> <P>What else do you expect a "guardian" to do?</P> <P>I mean seriously think about it for 5 seconds without thinking about just yourself.</P></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I'm not thinking about just myself. I'm thinking of all the other fighter subclasses besides Guardian. If you say monks = dps, pally = heal, etc etc but all guardians have is tanking ability that doesn't make sense. Tanking ability is archtype lvl, guardians should get something else to set them apart. I'm sorry that you can't stop thinking about yourself and being the best to see that.</P> <P>Tanking = archtype level, possible by all subclasses.</P> <P>The fact, as I stated, that guardians are the best at it overall leads to an unbalanced situation among the fighters. Trying to argue that their utility/damage makes up for the lack of tanking ability is flawed in my mind because it leads to a scenario where tanking is hardly an option for the non-guardian due to the fact that in every scenario a guardian is better. With this type of system that shouldn't be the case. It should be situational, and some situations should be harder/worse for the guardian subclass to tank. That would be balanced. As it is the system is far from balanced.<BR></P> <P> <HR> Eelyen wrote:<BR> <P></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>I don't feel like creating 30 more posts in reply to you, like you did to me. I made my point already. </FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000>Grow up.</FONT></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>That's ok; you've made more than enough to be a hypocrit <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>Nice assumption of my age/maturity level/intellect because I'm posting ideas that don't agree with yours. What a horrible way to try to win a discussion <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P><SPAN class=time_text> <HR> <P>Eelyen wrote:<BR> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>And in the future, try to consolidate your replies into 1 [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]ing post like the rest of us.</FONT><BR></DIV> <P> <HR> <P></P> <P>Okie dokie Mister Five Posts In A Row All Quoting Me. Well at least you have that hypocrisy thing down pat <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P></SPAN> <P><SPAN class=time_text>One other thing before I forget Mr. Eelyen. You have 17 total posts in this thread as of me making this post. This is my 10th post in this thread.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN class=time_text>You have 63 total posts, so your 17 posts in this thread are 26.9% of your total post count.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN class=time_text>I have 2028 total posts, so my 10 posts in this thread are .49% of my total post count.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN class=time_text>Funny how its spam when I do it (because they all showed up in a row) but not for you. What is that word I'm looking for...starts with an H.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN class=time_text>Just. Can't. Think. Of. It.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P><p>Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on <span class=date_text>03-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:16 PM</span>

pillb

03-02-2005, 01:04 PM

Gage if you dont get it by now man you will never get it. Keep on posting about how you want your monk to tank like a guardian in his light armor.BWAAHAHAAA Please dude, Keep posting.Classes are different....Your monk will never tank as good as a guardian because Classes are Different.Monk = good dps/utitilies , LIGHT ARMORGuardian = suck dps/no utilities , HEAVY ARMORPeople explain it and everyone gets it but you. So keep on posting Gage see how far it gets you.<p></span><p>Message Edited by pillbub on <span class=date_text>03-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:33 AM</span>

Gaige

03-02-2005, 01:32 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> pillbub wrote:<BR>Gage if you dont get it by now man you will never get it. Keep on posting about how you want your monk to tank like a guardian in his light armor.<BR><BR>BWAAHAHAAA Please dude, Keep posting.<BR><BR>Classes are different....<BR><BR>Your monk will never tank as good as a guardian because Classes are Different.<BR><BR>Monk = good dps/utitilies , LIGHT ARMOR<BR>Guardian = suck dps/no utilities , HEAVY ARMOR<BR><BR>People explain it and everyone gets it but you. So keep on posting Gage see how far it gets you.<BR><BR><BR> <P></SPAN> <P>Message Edited by pillbub on <SPAN class=date_text>03-02-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>12:26 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I'm reading the words just fine. I "get" what you guys are trying to imply. That doesn't change the fact the game isn't balanced.</P> <P>Lets say you design an archtype, and that archtype is for tanking. Then lets say you are going to make six classes out of that archtype with various abilities and things that set them apart.</P> <P>IF you balance by starting with one class and making it the absolute best tank designed around defensive skills and then promptly balance the other classes against it by removing defense and adding offense, or removing defense and adding healing, or removing defense and adding *insert skill* then you aren't really balancing anything; you are shifting the other classes away from the primary ability.</P> <P>What needs to be done for balance is to set a primary role desirability level, say tanking = 20. Then you balance the classes by the utility they offer, as in:</P> <P>Guardian:</P> <P>Tanking: 20</P> <P>DPS: 10</P> <P>Buffs: 20</P> <P>Taunts: 20</P> <P>Heals: 5</P> <P>Paladin:</P> <P>Tanking: 20</P> <P>DPS: 15</P> <P>Buffs: 15</P> <P>Taunts: 10</P> <P>Heals: 20</P> <P>Monk:</P> <P>Tanking: 20</P> <P>DPS: 20</P> <P>Buffs: 5</P> <P>Taunts: 5</P> <P>Heals 10</P> <P>(Note that is in no way reflective of a real system, just making a point).</P> <P>You can't balance classes against each other when one class is the median value for the primary ability of the class and the other classes are "balanced" against the median value by increased values in non primary functions.</P> <P>If you want to do that you make seperate classes.<BR></P>

pillb

03-02-2005, 01:35 PM

Then make a guardian.

pillb

03-02-2005, 01:41 PM

Make a guardian or live with your decision to pick DPS and so so tanking and a light armor class because the classes work just how they explained them at the games release.<p>Message Edited by pillbub on <span class=date_text>03-05-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:31 AM</span>

Gaige

03-02-2005, 02:12 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> pillbub wrote:<BR>Make a guardian or live with your decision to pick DPS and so so tanking and a light armor class because I doubt dev's will be nurfing guardians anytime soon when they said from the get-go before the game even launched how the guardian classes would be. <P>Message Edited by pillbub on <SPAN class=date_text>03-02-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>12:59 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I don't want to be a guardian.</P> <P>Moorgard said all fighters could be equally effective tanks in most situations.</P> <P>I didn't ask for guardians to be nErfed.</P> <P><BR> </P>

Eal

03-02-2005, 02:20 PM

<DIV>Just wondering if you can get to 3000 post on this thread alone. You're not fooling anyone. At least not me.</DIV>

Gaige

03-02-2005, 02:23 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ealix wrote:<BR> <DIV>Just wondering if you can get to 3000 post on this thread alone. You're not fooling anyone. At least not me.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>If people do one of two things:</P> <P>1) Direct a response toward me</P> <P>2) Brings up a point I feel I have a comment on</P> <P>then I'll probably respond.</P> <P>As for "fooling" people, I'm not trying to, so I would imagine I'm not.</P> <P>All of you implying that I'm posting for titles are just silly, because the next two are defender and guardian, respetively. I have enough posts/mssg views/page reads for both, I just have to wait for my time registered to catch up <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>I mainly post because I'm bored at work or when I'm grinding and alt-tabbed out, but thank you for taking such a personal interest in my post count.</P> <P><3<BR></P>

Eal

03-02-2005, 02:31 PM

<DIV>Nah, not really interested in you. Just looking at your logic. You made your point to the point of redundancy. What is left to be said, unless your motive is to have highest post count? It's all yours. This place is a forum of ideas and you have not produced anything new. I sit down and read all the posts here and the ones who talk about character balance, usually want the least balance of all.</DIV>

Artorius_

03-02-2005, 02:37 PM

<DIV>Theres a point that many dont know and are posting whining a lot without knowledge of nothing.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>By SOE statements and as they said all archetype must fit the primary roll equals, it means any fighter must be able fo tanking in whatever situation, nos separate or divide role into multiples, a TANK is a TANK is whaever situation, group, raid, solo, fishing...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Any fighter must be able to tank equals whatever mob, is a statement, if not happens then is broken the game is simple and archetype system is not well. The most of you only says make a guardian or we are the "ultimate tank" because we are made for it... WRONG , Guardians that think so and not see that all archetypes (SAID BY SOE) must fit the same roll equals, you only are reocognising something is wrong and if go on on this way youll dont need we cry for nerfing, youll gain it by your words.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I dont want nerf (you are asking for it alone), i want that if theres a problem wiith tanks and an abysmal difference, must be fixed. If Rest of fighter dont see it, bad thing, we all obtain nerfes without stop (like always with SOE), first will nerf Guardians to fix the problem, then pallies or monks will have advantage and will nerf it and so....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>PD: And i dont think all tanks must have same mitigation, skills, etc... each one must be able to do the work with their own habilities.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Artorius_ on <span class=date_text>03-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:43 AM</span>

Eal

03-02-2005, 02:45 PM

<DIV>Wasn't that point already made? So what are you bringing to this debate?</DIV>

Vurin

03-02-2005, 03:17 PM

I'm just curious... does nobody else use Monks/bruisers as one of the primary support classes for a tank?Fine gaurdians are ideal tanks. And fine monks might get one shot if they tried to MT some things ( never mind mobs nuking for 10k+ one shotting everybody), but on every raid I've ever been part of if there has been a Monk or Bruiser among the attendees then that person has been in the maintank group. Granted they aren't doing the actual tanking, but their avoidance/parry and/or AC buffs are a huge part of taking your average gaurdian and making him into the tanking monster you have issues with. Granted it is not maintanking, but you can only have one maintank anyway. Brawlers are however an intergral part of mitigating a large portion of the incoming damage, just as the gaurdian's 775 ac Bp and and 270 defense is.Also say you ( a monk) were a Maintank and part of the strategy was to have the gaurdian intervene you so he could mitgate that damage through his ac. Are you still maintanking with him intervening you? You still are deflecting/dodging the hits only its still the gaurdian tanking damage. Hell it even has the advantage that if the guaridan dies from poor healing the mob won't pong around since you always had aggro. I don't know if such a strategy actually works but I've seen it suggested a few times.Are you so sure you can't maintank? Or is it not worth hassale of having some other fighter buff you in a way that makes you a viable tank.I dunno much about SK/Pallies but as for Zerkers... from what I've seen them tank ( stuff like Gultch, Hand of Calderva in SE , Alangira in PF, Vaz Gok in Feerott) they do just as well as Gaurdians excepting of course for gear, and a slight increase in riptoses from haste ( most of which can be avoided depending on buffs used)... Also seen a Zerker clear out a group of 12 or so 1 and 2 up arrow mobs with their 1 hour skill... something no gaurdian can do.Anyway, Zerkers aside, Gage is it so bad being the support for your maintank? After all I find our maintank is far more likely to die to a burst of dmg when there's no Brusier/monk with him. Stuff like kra'thuk or the CommonLands epic instance where minions are plentiful become a lot less risky in the intial stages ( i.e. before all the minions are dead) with that support, and throught out the course of the fight prevent many thousands of damnage. If I'm not mistaken parsed raids have the monk parry buff account for 75% of the maintank's total blocks/parries<p>Message Edited by Vurin on <span class=date_text>03-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:23 AM</span>

Namil

03-02-2005, 05:44 PM

<DIV>I find it interesting that some people want every class / subclass to be exactly the same. Every caster should do the same damage, every rogue should do the same damage, every cleric should heal the same and every fighter should have the same hp, ac and mitigate/take damage the same.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If all you want are the base classes then go play some other game that is that lame and boring. All you are asking for is for every sub class to be the exact same. Then why have choices, why make a path to choose. The sub classes are not supposed to be the same, they are not supposed to be able to do all the same things. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It is people like you that ruin great games because you think you should be able to do whatever you want whenever you want. News flash, it doesnt work that way and if SOE makes it that way then I for one will be very dissapointed. Get off your high horse and stop trying to join that womens club because you think you should be allowed too!</DIV>

pillb

03-02-2005, 05:52 PM

<blockquote><hr>Namilla wrote:<DIV>I find it interesting that some people want every class / subclass to be exactly the same. Every caster should do the same damage, every rogue should do the same damage, every cleric should heal the same and every fighter should have the same hp, ac and mitigate/take damage the same.</DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV>If all you want are the base classes then go play some other game that is that lame and boring. All you are asking for is for every sub class to be the exact same. Then why have choices, why make a path to choose. The sub classes are not supposed to be the same, they are not supposed to be able to do all the same things. </DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV>It is people like you that ruin great games because you think you should be able to do whatever you want whenever you want. News flash, it doesnt work that way and if SOE makes it that way then I for one will be very dissapointed. Get off your high horse and stop trying to join that womens club because you think you should be allowed too!</DIV><hr></blockquote>/applaud I must

Eelyen

03-02-2005, 07:08 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eelyen wrote:<BR> <DIV> <HR> <P>This isn't class balance. The "most" in the statement "all archtypes should be able to fill the primary role in most situations" should apply to all subclasses, not everybody except guardian.</P> <P> <HR> <P></P> <P>You just proved my side of the subject. All the archtypes of fighters can fill the role as a tank in most situations. </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Would you believe that Grouping AND offtanking would qualify as MOST situations in this game. Would you possibly believe that Main Tanking for a high level raid mob actually ends up being a very SMALL percentage of the game?</FONT></P> <P>I guess you wouldn't, as you can't see outside the box.</P></DIV> <P>Message Edited by Eelyen on <SPAN class=date_text>03-01-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>10:25 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Yes. But the difference is while guardians get to tank that "small percentage" of the game they get to tank the rest of it also.</P> <P>Oh, and I got to Hero status by registeration date on the forums, total posts, total messages read and total page views. It isn't based on just posts so people won't spam <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> I enjoyed your jab at my posting though, but the simple fact is I found quotes that I wanted to respond to directly and its a lot easier to just post in response to something I find quote worthy than to copy and paste 200x.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eelyen wrote:<BR> <DIV>But i can play that game too.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <HR> <P>This post is about tanking ability. NOT about the other stuff. In my opinion the other stuff is 100% absolutely surrenderable in order to get better tanking, because TANKING is our primary ability NOT INVIS, FD, DPS, FLOATING, FLYING, MAKING COTTON CANDY.</P> <P> <HR> <P></P> <P>And tanking ability is what <STRIKE>guardians</STRIKE><FONT color=#ffff00> fighters </FONT>do. </P> <P>What else do you expect a "guardian" to do?</P> <P>I mean seriously think about it for 5 seconds without thinking about just yourself.</P></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I'm not thinking about just myself. I'm thinking of all the other fighter subclasses besides Guardian. If you say monks = dps, pally = heal, etc etc but all guardians have is tanking ability that doesn't make sense. Tanking ability is archtype lvl, guardians should get something else to set them apart. I'm sorry that you can't stop thinking about yourself and being the best to see that.</P> <P>Tanking = archtype level, possible by all subclasses.</P> <P>The fact, as I stated, that guardians are the best at it overall leads to an unbalanced situation among the fighters. Trying to argue that their utility/damage makes up for the lack of tanking ability is flawed in my mind because it leads to a scenario where tanking is hardly an option for the non-guardian due to the fact that in every scenario a guardian is better. With this type of system that shouldn't be the case. It should be situational, and some situations should be harder/worse for the guardian subclass to tank. That would be balanced. As it is the system is far from balanced.<BR></P> <P> <HR> Eelyen wrote:<BR> <P></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>I don't feel like creating 30 more posts in reply to you, like you did to me. I made my point already. </FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000>Grow up.</FONT></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>That's ok; you've made more than enough to be a hypocrit <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>Nice assumption of my age/maturity level/intellect because I'm posting ideas that don't agree with yours. What a horrible way to try to win a discussion <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P><SPAN class=time_text> <HR> <P>Eelyen wrote:<BR> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>And in the future, try to consolidate your replies into 1 [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]ing post like the rest of us.</FONT><BR></DIV> <P> <HR> <P></P> <P>Okie dokie Mister Five Posts In A Row All Quoting Me. Well at least you have that hypocrisy thing down pat <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P></SPAN> <P><SPAN class=time_text>One other thing before I forget Mr. Eelyen. You have 17 total posts in this thread as of me making this post. This is my 10th post in this thread.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN class=time_text>You have 63 total posts, so your 17 posts in this thread are 26.9% of your total post count.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN class=time_text>I have 2028 total posts, so my 10 posts in this thread are .49% of my total post count.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN class=time_text>Funny how its spam when I do it (because they all showed up in a row) but not for you. What is that word I'm looking for...starts with an H.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN class=time_text>Just. Can't. Think. Of. It.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P> <P>Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on <SPAN class=date_text>03-01-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>11:16 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <P>Well, my multiple posts were making fun of the annoyance factor have having to through 7 or8 posts of yours to see all your responses to me before I could start responding.</P> <P>All classes are built around an Archtype you are right, but when you pick a archtype of the base type you gain abilities in different areas. Then you go into the subclass which further defines that roll. Which further defining doesn't mean "taking" away defense and "adding" offense. I think it means your ability grows larger in certain areas and less in others. </P> <P>Guardians were designed as such that they got (from what I heard a while back but haven't investigated the exact number) 4 hp per sta and berserkers got 3hp per stamina. Guardians were also given skills that increase their defense, ac and parry skills. Along with the migitation of heavy armor and more hp. This just sort of lead them to be the main tanks by way of game mechanics. </P> <P>Monks and Bruisers were about avoidance and dealing heavy damage. So you got light armor, which gives you less ac and less migitation then a warrior archtype. But you were given avoidance. </P> <P>Now you have to sit down and think about the way mathematics work for a minute. Just basics, I'm not going to give you a calculus lesson or anything. How are they going to give you the same level of migitation as a warrior archtype or crusader type which all end up wearing heavy armor. They did increase the migitation of light armor to help out. And still I haven't heard complaints about group tanking. </P> <P>If they upped the avoidance of monks, etc. Then this would probably unbalance the system. Because you could completely avoid dmg. They can keep trying to adjust the % over and over again. But would there ever be a real point where "perfect" balance is achieved? You'd still be taking massive damage when you got hit, and if mobs are hitting for 8000. Well think of the result. Do you really think it's possible without completely overhauling the entire system to achieve "perfect" balance? And an overhaul might as well make only 1 fighter type, the tank. Cause obviously if we make all the classes exactly the same, whats the point? All of the priest types are different, they can all "heal" but not near the same level of each other. Mages are all differnet some do massive damage and some do little and mostly debuff or control. And their class idea was around damage as a mage right? or was it casting spells or just the fact that they all where very light armor? </P> <P>Even if they got all classes within 2% of each other. Don't you think that people would still choose the class that had that 2% advantage over others in most situations?</P> <P>I don't want to get into a arguement of "this class can do this but not this" etc. The point is if you look at the skill list of Guardians, their skills are designed around defense. Yea they get some offensive skills. I regularly group with a monk and a bruiser, although the bruiser is the lowest of the group unfortunately, hoping to get her up. But I'm shocked when I hear about some of the abilities of the berserker. I can't remember exactly but there is like a level 30 ability that is AE dmg. And it does like 200-300 dmg or something to all targets. My jaw dropped when I saw that. I'm a 31 Guardian and I can tell you my best one does maybe 60 dmg to all targets (yea I need to upgrade it, but that will probably make it do 70 dmg). </P> <P>I'm thinking about the overall mechanics, I can't see any easy solution to achieve "perfect" balance of tanking classes. How about they just take away the avoidance of monks and give them migitation. Maybe that would work for you. Course they could give them Guardian defensive skills. Then again, what ability should they give a guardian to make him unique? These are the questions to ask yourself and of others. Can you come up with a solution to the problem? </P> <P>You can't expect perfection. You are clinging to words said 2 years ago. The fact is, the fighter sub-classes ARE different from each other. Not quite as vastly as the other archtypes. But they are different. One class was bound to have an edge on tanking through game design. And yes, that is the Guardian.</P> <P>Just take yourself outside your class for a few minutes and examine the situation without emotional attachment to your character. </P> <P>Message Edited by Eelyen on <SPAN class=date_text>03-02-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>06:35 AM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Eelyen on <span class=date_text>03-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:04 AM</span>

Artorius_

03-02-2005, 07:48 PM

<DIV>"Namilla wrote:<BR> <DIV>I find it interesting that some people want every class / subclass to be exactly the same. Every caster should do the same damage, every rogue should do the same damage, every cleric should heal the same and every fighter should have the same hp, ac and mitigate/take damage the same.</DIV> <DIV>If all you want are the base classes then go play some other game that is that lame and boring. All you are asking for is for every sub class to be the exact same. Then why have choices, why make a path to choose. The sub classes are not supposed to be the same, they are not supposed to be able to do all the same things. </DIV> <DIV>It is people like you that ruin great games because you think you should be able to do whatever you want whenever you want. News flash, it doesnt work that way and if SOE makes it that way then I for one will be very dissapointed. Get off your high horse and stop trying to join that womens club because you think you should be allowed too!"</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Mate 2 things:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>First read better the thread, dont seems you have done.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Second the answer is yes all archetipes must fit their role equals (SOE SAID THIS STATEMENT NOT US), all tanks must be able to do same job, dps same, but NOT HAVING SAME mitigation, skills, etc... USING THEIR OWN. EXample: A monk must be able to Tank as eficiently as a Guardian but not having the same mitigation (They arent suppouse to), but their avoidance Tanking Style must be equivalent to the Mitigation Style of a Guardian and be as effective. Same for Knights with their OWN HABILITIES. Aply this to dps.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This answer too to previous post, dont know why you must to believe rest of tanks must be giben mitigation or whaterver Skill of a Guardian. NO there are several differents Tanks and each have their OWN habilities and tanking styles, but ALL must be able to tank the same lvl of content, all are Tanks.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The key is to have balanced the classes each one with their styles must be abel to fit their role (Tank, dps) and not have the "ultimate" Tank, dps or whatever , then is when no sense in have severals tanks or dps when 1 is the best of all.</DIV></DIV>

Eelyen

03-02-2005, 08:03 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Artorius_ wrote:<BR> <DIV>"Namilla wrote:<BR> <DIV>I find it interesting that some people want every class / subclass to be exactly the same. Every caster should do the same damage, every rogue should do the same damage, every cleric should heal the same and every fighter should have the same hp, ac and mitigate/take damage the same.</DIV> <DIV>If all you want are the base classes then go play some other game that is that lame and boring. All you are asking for is for every sub class to be the exact same. Then why have choices, why make a path to choose. The sub classes are not supposed to be the same, they are not supposed to be able to do all the same things. </DIV> <DIV>It is people like you that ruin great games because you think you should be able to do whatever you want whenever you want. News flash, it doesnt work that way and if SOE makes it that way then I for one will be very dissapointed. Get off your high horse and stop trying to join that womens club because you think you should be allowed too!"</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Mate 2 things:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>First read better the thread, dont seems you have done.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Second the answer is yes all archetipes must fit their role equals (SOE SAID THIS STATEMENT NOT US), all tanks must be able to do same job, dps same, but NOT HAVING SAME mitigation, skills, etc... USING THEIR OWN. EXample: A monk must be able to Tank as eficiently as a Guardian but not having the same mitigation (They arent suppouse to), but their avoidance Tanking Style must be equivalent to the Mitigation Style of a Guardian and be as effective. Same for Knights with their OWN HABILITIES. Aply this to dps.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This answer too to previous post, dont know why you must to believe rest of tanks must be giben mitigation or whaterver Skill of a Guardian. NO there are several differents Tanks and each have their OWN habilities and tanking styles, but ALL must be able to tank the same lvl of content, all are Tanks.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The key is to have balanced the classes each one with their styles must be abel to fit their role (Tank, dps) and not have the "ultimate" Tank, dps or whatever , then is when no sense in have severals tanks or dps when 1 is the best of all.</DIV></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>I covered the concept of increased avoidance too. Plus the concept of avoidance doesn't take with the crusader line, it's migitation. So they would have to give them guardian skills and guardian hp in order to make them "equal" then again. Uniqueness would be needed for the guardian. I covered this above.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Eelyen on <span class=date_text>03-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:05 AM</span>

Blindrage

03-02-2005, 08:13 PM

<DIV>I find it funny that this gage newb cannot get it through his thick head that all fighters can tank, people just choose guardian because they are a few % better at taking hits, but they lose in other areas. If you say to yourself I would give up some of that to get the extra tanking abilities of a guardian, then I suggest you do a few things:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>1. Log off</DIV> <DIV>2. Delete your character</DIV> <DIV>3. Create a Guardian</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I was a 26 guard on raid with 27 paladin...he tanked over me, i had 50less ac than he did and we did just fine. We had 2 templars, one 24 and one 25, one shaman lvl 28 and a fury lvl 22, plus a few random dps classes. I am sure I could of tanked it saving the clerics a little more power..but he did just fine. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>btw the mob was anguis in antonica 23^^^.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Artorius_

03-02-2005, 08:14 PM

<DIV>why must knights be given same mitigation as guardians and skills? they can conserve a bit less like now but compensate their habilities to suply this fault. As example (is only a example, can be better solutions): A paladin or SK can have more power pool and their lifetaps/heals/wards compensate the bit less mitigation to at end of combat guardians and knights have same power left more or less and tank posibilitie similar. Not necesary more power pool, habilities of knights can be compensate to be equiparable the tanking hability to a guardian (peharps this happens now duno).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Is an example only, but the idea is that all tank using their habilities can tank similar content, not is necesary to give skills of another, a knight have owns that sholud compensate the bit less mitigation/hps/ac to be as effective. I repit duno if this happens actually but should be, as monk whith their avoidance.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>For dps clases of healers should be same idea. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>To previous post: Mate think a bit before post and dont post nosenses pls, im a lvl 30 and saying duno exactly if happens this unbalance, but i feel that is oriented this problem to highs lvls. At low lvl can tank my templar too <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> withput many difference with the guardian. And repit to you we havent to do a guardian, SOE said from start any archetype should fit their role equals (tanks, dps, healers... ith their OWN STYLE)</DIV> <P>Message Edited by Artorius_ on <SPAN class=date_text>03-02-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>07:16 AM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Artorius_ on <span class=date_text>03-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:17 AM</span>

Eelyen

03-02-2005, 08:17 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Artorius_ wrote:<BR> <DIV>why must knights be given same mitigation as guardians and skills? they can conserve a bit less like now but compensate their habilities to suply this fault. As example (is only a example, can be better solutions): A paladin or SK can have more power pool and their lifetaps/heals/wards compensate the bit less mitigation to at end of combat guardians and knights have same power left more or less and tank posibilitie similar. Not necesary more power pool, habilities of knights can be compensate to be equiparable the tanking hability to a guardian (peharps this happens now duno).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Is an example only, but the idea is that all tank using their habilities can tank similar content, not is necesary to give skills of another, a knight have owns that sholud compensate the bit less mitigation/hps/ac to be as effective. I repit duno if this happens actually but should be, as monk whith their avoidance.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>For dps clases of healers should be same idea. </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Actually I believe the primary reason for choosing a guardian is for maximum migitation. So that the healers have enough power to keep the guardian up by using their spells as efficiently as possible. As the guardian is taking the "least" amount of damage over time via his/her migitation. This means it requires less healing overall, conserving power and extending the ability of hte raid to carry the fight longer if needed. Also this isn't relying on avoidance, which when it doesn't work the tank takes a major spike of damage, but doesn't with migitation. With migitation your damage intake on the take is much more controlled and "less" spikey. Which allows you to plan out your healing strategy better. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Thats why I keep harping on the subject of why you'd have to bring other classes up in guardian skills and migitation and hp if you want to match in tanking. But then it sort of blurs the whole idea of different classes. This is the point I'm trying to get across. Main tanking for a raid isn't just about being able to do it. It's about doing it for the efficiency of the entire raid. You have to consider what effect different tanking styles has on all the other classes in the raid. Not just an individuals personal desire to tank.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This is not to say that there aren't other ways to tank using other classes. This has just been the way it's worked in EQ1 for a long time. And alot of EQ2 players were EQ1 players. <STRONG>I agree not everyone.</STRONG> So the same sort of strategy is carred on here because the same kind of AI is here. Put mob on tank, keep tank alive, kill mob. Simple basic strat.</DIV> <P>Message Edited by Eelyen on <SPAN class=date_text>03-02-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>07:19 AM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Eelyen on <span class=date_text>03-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:27 AM</span>

Trei

03-02-2005, 08:28 PM

["... I covered the concept of increased avoidance too. Plus the concept of avoidance doesn't take with the crusader line, it's migitation. So they would have to give them guardian skills and guardian hp in order to make them "equal" then again. ..."]No, they don't have to.It should not be a direct 'physical' boost to base HP or AC etc or even equipment but instead, do it indirectly thru the spells the crusaders get. I do not see why the concept of avoidance cannot take with the crusader line.They are 'magical spellcaster tank' type of the three, and the concept of magic can be the most flexible to play with.Spells that deflect damage or even reflect it back at the enemy are easily justifiable even for the RP aspects of the game."..why not? its MAGIC!.." <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> The warriors tank using great mitigation.The brawlers tank using great avoidance. Let the spells of the crusaders make them better absorbers than brawlers (but not as well as warriors) and better evaders than warriors (but not as well as brawlers).

Eelyen

03-02-2005, 08:41 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Trei49 wrote:<BR>["... I covered the concept of increased avoidance too. Plus the concept of avoidance doesn't take with the crusader line, it's migitation. So they would have to give them guardian skills and guardian hp in order to make them "equal" then again. ..."]<BR><BR>No, they don't have to.<BR>It should not be a direct 'physical' boost to base HP or AC etc or even equipment but instead, do it indirectly thru the spells the crusaders get. <BR><BR>I do not see why the concept of avoidance cannot take with the crusader line.<BR>They are 'magical spellcaster tank' type of the three, and the concept of magic can be the most flexible to play with.<BR>Spells that deflect damage or even reflect it back at the enemy are easily justifiable even for the RP aspects of the game.<BR>"..why not? its MAGIC!.." <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <BR><BR>The warriors tank using great mitigation.<BR>The brawlers tank using great avoidance. <BR>Let the spells of the crusaders make them better absorbers than brawlers (but not as well as warriors) and better evaders than warriors (but not as well as brawlers).<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>This still breaks the concept of constant DPS on a tank. When you can have as much control as possible over how much damage is incoming. To where you have as close as you can come to an average amount of damage a mob does to the tank. You can control your healing better. This is why migitation still comes out on top. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Even if they gave crusaders great absorbtion. When those spells fall, their damage intake spikes. And if they go down, thats bad. They already have migitation levels to that of the guardian as they wear heavy armor. Just guardians have better defense increasing abilities and slightly higher hp. So the absorption would be limited if they did do it.</DIV>

Gaige

03-02-2005, 09:11 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Namilla wrote:<BR> <DIV>I find it interesting that some people want every class / subclass to be exactly the same. Every caster should do the same damage, every rogue should do the same damage, every cleric should heal the same and every fighter should have the same hp, ac and mitigate/take damage the same.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If all you want are the base classes then go play some other game that is that lame and boring. All you are asking for is for every sub class to be the exact same. Then why have choices, why make a path to choose. The sub classes are not supposed to be the same, they are not supposed to be able to do all the same things. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It is people like you that ruin great games because you think you should be able to do whatever you want whenever you want. News flash, it doesnt work that way and if SOE makes it that way then I for one will be very dissapointed.<FONT color=#ffff00> Get off your high horse and stop trying to join that womens club because you think you should be allowed too!</FONT></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Nice sexist remark <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>*sigh*</P> <P>Its been said so many times but it amazes me people do not understand.</P> <P>If you have six classes and one primary role and its balanced like this:</P> <P>best almost best good almost good ok decent</P> <P>Then the "best" class will <EM>always</EM> be preferred.</P> <P>This isn't balance, this is skewing the game toward one class.</P> <P>The way SoE talked about balancing the game meant there was no best, only best situations/groups/scenarios.</P> <P>That isn't true for one simple, glaring FACT: In any group/raid/encounter/instance in the game as of right NOW, a guardian can tank it better than any other fighter, period.</P> <P>That's broken.<BR></P>

Gaige

03-02-2005, 09:20 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eelyen wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Well, my multiple posts were making fun of the annoyance factor have having to through 7 or8 posts of yours to see all your responses to me before I could start responding.</BLOCKQUOTE> <P>All classes are built around an Archtype you are right, but when you pick a archtype of the base type you gain abilities in different areas. Then you go into the subclass which further defines that roll. <FONT color=#ffff00 size=5>Which further defining doesn't mean "taking" away defense and "adding" offense. </FONT> I think it means your ability grows larger in certain areas and less in others. </P> <P>Guardians were designed as such that they got (from what I heard a while back but haven't investigated the exact number) 4 hp per sta and berserkers got 3hp per stamina. <FONT color=#ffff00 size=5>Guardians were also given skills that increase their defense</FONT>, ac and parry skills. Along with the migitation of heavy armor and more hp. This just sort of lead them to be the main tanks by way of game mechanics. </P> <P>Monks and Bruisers were about avoidance and dealing heavy damage. So you got light armor, which gives you less ac and less migitation then a warrior archtype. But you were given avoidance. </P> <P>Now you have to sit down and think about the way mathematics work for a minute. Just basics, I'm not going to give you a calculus lesson or anything. How are they going to give you the same level of migitation as a warrior archtype or crusader type which all end up wearing heavy armor. They did increase the migitation of light armor to help out. And still I haven't heard complaints about group tanking. </P> <P>If they upped the avoidance of monks, etc. Then this would probably unbalance the system. Because you could completely avoid dmg. They can keep trying to adjust the % over and over again. But would there ever be a real point where "perfect" balance is achieved? You'd still be taking massive damage when you got hit, and if mobs are hitting for 8000. Well think of the result. Do you really think it's possible without completely overhauling the entire system to achieve "perfect" balance? And an overhaul might as well make only 1 fighter type, the tank. Cause obviously if we make all the classes exactly the same, whats the point? All of the priest types are different, they can all "heal" but not near the same level of each other. Mages are all differnet some do massive damage and some do little and mostly debuff or control. And their class idea was around damage as a mage right? or was it casting spells or just the fact that they all where very light armor? </P> <P>Even if they got all classes within 2% of each other. Don't you think that people would still choose the class that had that 2% advantage over others in most situations?</P> <P>I don't want to get into a arguement of "this class can do this but not this" etc. <FONT color=#ffff00 size=5> The point is if you look at the skill list of Guardians, their skills are designed around defense.</FONT> Yea they get some offensive skills. I regularly group with a monk and a bruiser, although the bruiser is the lowest of the group unfortunately, hoping to get her up. But I'm shocked when I hear about some of the abilities of the berserker. I can't remember exactly but there is like a level 30 ability that is AE dmg. And it does like 200-300 dmg or something to all targets. My jaw dropped when I saw that. I'm a 31 Guardian and I can tell you my best one does maybe 60 dmg to all targets (yea I need to upgrade it, but that will probably make it do 70 dmg). </P> <P>I'm thinking about the overall mechanics, I can't see any easy solution to achieve "perfect" balance of tanking classes. How about they just take away the avoidance of monks and give them migitation. Maybe that would work for you. <FONT color=#ffff00><FONT size=5>Course they could give them Guardian defensive skills.</FONT> </FONT> Then again, what ability should they give a guardian to make him unique? These are the questions to ask yourself and of others. Can you come up with a solution to the problem? </P> <P>You can't expect perfection. You are clinging to words said 2 years ago. The fact is, the fighter sub-classes ARE different from each other. Not quite as vastly as the other archtypes. But they are different. <FONT color=#ffff00 size=5>One class was bound to have an edge on tanking through game design. And yes, that is the Guardian.</FONT></P> <P>Just take yourself outside your class for a few minutes and examine the situation without emotional attachment to your character. </P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Notice anything similiar in the highlighted text?</P> <P>You said "further balance doesn't mean tanking away defense and adding offense". You then posted all the reasons (defense/defensive) that Guardians are "designed" to be the better tanks. You then sum up with how weak your guardians offense is compared to how good/hard one of the zerker AoE's hits. </P> <P>So you 100% contradicted your first statement. That's impressive.</P> <P>Here is the thing: You say "well if everyone can tank as well as a guardian, why have more than one tank class!" Hello? Are you there? The opposite of that is true. If no one can tank as well as a guardian, why have more than one tank class? There isn't a reason? Oh ok, just checking.</P> <P>The simple fact that every non-guardian has to explain to us other fighters (in the tank archtype) that we are balanced because of increased dps, increased utility, maintank buffs etc and so on PROVES that we aren't balanced as tanks.</P> <P>I love the "you are balanced for groups though omg!" So are you, in fact you are balanced for the MT role in every situation in the game. There is no most for guardians, congrats on that <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>The fact is you are NEVER going to convince me because its glaringly obvious the system is quite broken.</P> <P>I wouldn't say the system was broken if I was a guardian either. You'd have to be crazy. This game's trend is leading to EQ1, oh well; at least that game was a success.<BR></P>

Gaige

03-02-2005, 09:24 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eelyen wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Artorius_ wrote:<BR></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>Actually I believe the primary reason for choosing a guardian is for maximum migitation. </FONT> So that the healers have enough power to keep the guardian up by using their spells as efficiently as possible. <FONT color=#ffff00>As the guardian is taking the "least" amount of damage over time via his/her migitation.</FONT> This means it requires less healing overall, conserving power and extending the ability of hte raid to carry the fight longer if needed. Also this isn't relying on avoidance, which when it doesn't work the tank takes a major spike of damage, but doesn't with migitation. With migitation your damage intake on the take is much more controlled and "less" spikey. Which allows you to plan out your healing strategy better. </DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>They said hundreds of times this is EQ2 not EQ1; in fact so different its alike in name only!</P> <P>If the total damage taken over time is that much less for a guardian compared to other classes, then its broken also. While a brawler type tank should take harder hits (this is what wards are for, which in fact suck for mitigation tanks) they should evade more, equating to roughly the same damage taken over time.</FONT></P> <P>That is the design goal of the game.</P> <P></FONT>In other news:</P> <P>As for "going for highest post count" - doubtful, some guy in the non-gameplay forum has over 5,000. A lot of guys in there with over 3k.</P> <P>Newb Gage <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Ha Ha, I love you too <3<BR></P> <p>Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on <span class=date_text>03-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:27 AM</span>

Troodon

03-02-2005, 09:26 PM

Eelyen wrote:"This still breaks the concept of constant DPS on a tank. When you can have as much control as possible over how much damage is incoming. To where you have as close as you can come to an average amount of damage a mob does to the tank. You can control your healing better. This is why migitation still comes out on top. Even if they gave crusaders great absorbtion. When those spells fall, their damage intake spikes. And if they go down, thats bad. They already have migitation levels to that of the guardian as they wear heavy armor. Just guardians have better defense increasing abilities and slightly higher hp. So the absorption would be limited if they did do it."Perhaps its time to reexamine the mitigation concept then? Currently damage mitigation is all bundled together as a package and only one subclass excells. Assuming we go down this specialised tank route, why not untangle mitigation into different types?e.g.Fighters - Every member gets basic migitation Warriors - in addition get melee mitigation Brawler - in addition get dodging mitigation Crusaders - in addition get magical mitigationEDIT: bruiser > brawler<p>Message Edited by TroodonIE on <span class=date_text>03-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:34 PM</span>

Axhine

03-02-2005, 09:27 PM

<DIV>my 2 cents:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Classes are already to much a like already please let classes fit into the roll they choose if you want to tank pick something with heavy armor that is just IMO you should not beable to take the damage from a dragon as well with a monk wearing light armor vs a pally or guardian that has Vanguard on.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>People should choose the class they want to play and fit into that roll in the group. If they makes classes do the same thing = then what is the diffrence in each class I mean just make 4 classes warrior, priest, mage, and scout. Keep things fun make people pick the class they want to play and make them fit the roll I mean if you have 5 bucks you can't go get a lobster dinner you will end up at taco bell like the rest of us know your place and do your job.</DIV>

Namil

03-02-2005, 09:31 PM

<DIV>Warriors, Brawlers and Crusaders are not and should not be compared to eachother. But for some reason everyone thinks they should all "TANK" the same.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You can NOT compare a Monk or a Bruiser to a Palladin or a ShadowKnight. Their abilities and armor are completely different. Or any of the classes on the 2nd branch of the tree to the 3rd branch of the tree.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Guardians and Bezerkers are always and should always be the Main Tanks in a group. Bezerkers do more DPS but take more damage over time and Guardians take less damage over time but do less DPS. In a one on one fight I bet the outcome would be pretty even out of 100 battles perhaps even in the Bezerkers favor. As always less damage taken is going to be the number 1 characteristic of the MT of choice, why? it just makes sense!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I am not even going to start on Monks, Bruisers, Palladins and ShadowKnights. There avoidance, DPS, healing and life leaching abilities used correctly within a good group allow them to Tank. Just not for all situations!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This topic was started about <STRONG>Raid</STRONG> mobs, Well news flash raid mobs do not account for more then what 5% or less of the content is this game. For almost all other situations with a decent group and especially decent healers even a Wizard can tank. I have seen it. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As for the people that chose a Hybrid Class vs a Main Class you got what you chose. The ability to fight and heal but not to master both. The ability to do lots of damage/avoid damage but not master taking damage. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Wizards do more DPS, Illusionsist can crowd control, Summoners have pets combined with damage spells. Each has something to offer as do each of the 3rd branch of the classes available but they are not all intended to do the same job. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Gaige

03-02-2005, 09:33 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Axhine wrote:<BR> <DIV>my 2 cents:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Classes are already to much a like already please let classes fit into the roll they choose if you want to tank pick something with heavy armor that is just IMO you should not beable to take the damage from a dragon as well with a monk wearing light armor vs a pally or guardian that has Vanguard on.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>People should choose the class they want to play and fit into that roll in the group. </FONT> If they makes classes do the same thing = then what is the diffrence in each class I mean just make 4 classes warrior, priest, mage, and scout. Keep things fun make people pick the class they want to play and make them fit the roll I mean if you have 5 bucks you can't go get a lobster dinner you will end up at taco bell like the rest of us know your place and do your job.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I agree. Since all the documentation and dev notes throughout beta said "all fighters are tanks" I presumed that to be true.</P> <P>Its quite apparant it isn't.</P> <P>So what exactly is a monk's purpose in group? DPS? Oh, then I wonder why Moorgard said monks in this game are so different than EQ1 monks?</P> <P>IF everyone thinks like you then its simple: Make the guardian a "tank" class and move the rest of us to where we belong.</P> <P>Monk/Bruiser = dps = take away our tanking ability and make us damage God's.</P> <P>That's what you guys are saying.</P> <P>The point is you guys are saying by design monks are not only inferior tanks to guardians but also inferior damage to mages/scouts. The one thing we have going for us (well bruisers really, not monks) is a target buff that adds 1500ish AC to the guardian.</P> <P>Wooo.</P> <P>We could have that buff no matter what archtype we were in. In fact its insulting to have a MT buff as a supposed MT.</P> <P>If we are going to be shoehorned into a damage roll in the end game (where Gage currently resides) then quit [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] footing around and make us all out support. Screw the "highest damage of the fighter classes". I don't want to be a supbar tank and supbar dps.</P> <P>I hate how people always push hybrid classes into sucky classes because we don't excel at any one thing.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Namilla wrote:<BR> <DIV>Warriors, Brawlers and Crusaders are not and should not be compared to eachother. But for some reason everyone thinks they should all "TANK" the same. <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Thanks for the comment, are you a developer? Oh that's right you aren't, as that statement 100% goes against what the makers of this game have been saying for months.<BR><BR></P> <p>Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on <span class=date_text>03-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:35 AM</span>

Namil

03-02-2005, 09:34 PM

<DIV> <DIV>Axhine Wrote:</DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV>my 2 cents:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Classes are already to much a like already please let classes fit into the roll they choose if you want to tank pick something with heavy armor that is just IMO you should not beable to take the damage from a dragon as well with a monk wearing light armor vs a pally or guardian that has Vanguard on.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>People should choose the class they want to play and fit into that roll in the group. If they makes classes do the same thing = then what is the diffrence in each class I mean just make 4 classes warrior, priest, mage, and scout. Keep things fun make people pick the class they want to play and make them fit the roll I mean if you have 5 bucks you can't go get a lobster dinner you will end up at taco bell like the rest of us know your place and do your job.</DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV></DIV> <P> </P> <P>I have to agree with this 100%</P>

Gaige

03-02-2005, 09:36 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Namilla wrote:<BR> <DIV> <DIV>Axhine Wrote:</DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV>my 2 cents:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Classes are already to much a like already please let classes fit into the roll they choose if you want to tank pick something with heavy armor that is just IMO you should not beable to take the damage from a dragon as well with a monk wearing light armor vs a pally or guardian that has Vanguard on.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>People should choose the class they want to play and fit into that roll in the group. </FONT> If they makes classes do the same thing = then what is the diffrence in each class I mean just make 4 classes warrior, priest, mage, and scout. Keep things fun make people pick the class they want to play and make them fit the roll I mean if you have 5 bucks you can't go get a lobster dinner you will end up at taco bell like the rest of us know your place and do your job.</DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV></DIV> <P> </P> <P>I have to agree with this 100%</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Ok, so if you want to be able to MT in every instance in the game you HAVE to be a guardian.</P> <P>So there really is no choice, its already made for you.</P> <P>I see.<BR></P>

sidgb

03-02-2005, 09:50 PM

<DIV>No Gage thats not what he said,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But, if you want to be maintank on raids (0.01% of total EQII encounters) where the raid leader is taking a max/min to insure raid success and not waste the time of 24 people he probably thinks his best choice would be a guardian.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Then again if you led the raid yourself you could be the main tank now couldn't you.</DIV>

Gaige

03-02-2005, 09:58 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> sidgb wrote:<BR> <DIV>No Gage thats not what he said,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But, if you want to be maintank on raids (0.01% of total EQII encounters) where the raid leader is taking a max/min to insure raid success and not waste the time of 24 people he probably thinks his best choice would be a guardian.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>Then again if you led the raid yourself you could be the main tank now couldn't you.</FONT></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Yeah, but if I led the raid myself I could be MT with a warden if I felt like it and found 23 stupid people to follow me to death and destruction.</P> <P>No, but what he said isn't applicable, because there is no role for my class besides tank. /shrug.</P> <P>I'm more than aware that raids are .01% of encounters, but guardians can tank them and by default can tank every other encounter in the game. That isn't balanced, there is no most for them.</P> <P>Read the guardian forums, they brag about how 40+ no other tank is even remotely close to them and say things such as "let the little kiddies off tank" etc etc.</P> <P>They know they are the best and their ego is laughable at best.<BR></P>

Eelyen

03-02-2005, 10:19 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR><BR> <P>Notice anything similiar in the highlighted text?</P> <P>You said "further balance doesn't mean tanking away defense and adding offense". You then posted all the reasons (defense/defensive) that Guardians are "designed" to be the better tanks. You then sum up with how weak your guardians offense is compared to how good/hard one of the zerker AoE's hits. </P> <P>So you 100% contradicted your first statement. That's impressive.</P> <P>Here is the thing: You say "well if everyone can tank as well as a guardian, why have more than one tank class!" Hello? Are you there? The opposite of that is true. If no one can tank as well as a guardian, why have more than one tank class? There isn't a reason? Oh ok, just checking.</P> <P>The simple fact that every non-guardian has to explain to us other fighters (in the tank archtype) that we are balanced because of increased dps, increased utility, maintank buffs etc and so on PROVES that we aren't balanced as tanks.</P> <P>I love the "you are balanced for groups though omg!" So are you, in fact you are balanced for the MT role in every situation in the game. There is no most for guardians, congrats on that <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>The fact is you are NEVER going to convince me because its glaringly obvious the system is quite broken.</P> <P>I wouldn't say the system was broken if I was a guardian either. You'd have to be crazy. This game's trend is leading to EQ1, oh well; at least that game was a success.<BR></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>You know, you are very demeaning in all of your posts. Yet even with a non-attacking post.</P> <P>And I didn't have 100% contradiction of my statement by comparing the offense. What I did show was that the Berserker offensive abilities increased much greater then a guardians. But a guardians defensive skills have been increased more so then the other classes and their offensive skills just didn't grow as much. Guardians didn't lose any offense. And Monks didn't "lose" any migitation from the fighter class. They just didn't continue to gain as much as they went up in levels due to their armor.</P> <P>But I went through to both the Paladin and Monk forums and found a couple interesting posts.</P> <P><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=10&message.id=6186" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=10&message.id=6186</A></P> <P>and </P> <P><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=6&message.id=9714" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=6&message.id=9714</A><BR></P> <P>Seems to me that both classes have excellent abilities.</P> <P>I did pick a guardian because I knew it was going to be the heaviest tank by game mechanics. Not by something that was said 2 years ago. </P> <P>I don't intend to ever convince you, nobody will ever be able to convince anyone else in passion heated arguements such as class balancing. But continually attacking an individual only serves to fuel the fire. People's ego doesn't need to rear it's ugly head in every post you make. Although, I admit I'm not totally free of that either. But hey, thats why I said every post <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>The fact of the matter is, I played a wizard though in EQ1. And I almost played one in this one. And I'd probably still debate the overall game mechanics with you on why the Guardian is essential going to remain being the best overall tank for raids. But you can sit here and quote the equal stuff all day and night. But since you aren't adding anything actually useful to the conversation. <P> <HR> </P> <P></P> <P>They said hundreds of times this is EQ2 not EQ1; in fact so different its alike in name only!</P> <P>If the total damage taken over time is that much less for a guardian compared to other classes, then its broken also. While a brawler type tank should take harder hits (this is what wards are for, which in fact suck for mitigation tanks) they should evade more, equating to roughly the same damage taken over time.</FONT></P> <P>That is the design goal of the game.</P> <P></FONT>In other news:</P> <P>As for "going for highest post count" - doubtful, some guy in the non-gameplay forum has over 5,000. A lot of guys in there with over 3k.</P> <P>Newb Gage <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Ha Ha, I love you too <3<BR> <HR> <P></P> <P>Doesn't matter, just like any game. The same basic mechanics of fighting are still there. So EQ1 is still a valid example. Hell I could probably use WoW if I had played the game enough to cite examples if need be. Probably even DAOC or any other MMORPG.</P> <P>It wasn't about total damage over time, it's about less spikes of damage. Lets just say for example that a mob is swinging at you with hits that go from 4000-8000. Just for arguements sake. If you avoid 4 of them great, you have avoided a ton of damage. Then you get nailed for 2 for almost max damage. This is called a spike in damage. The spike is so high that healers may not be able to keep you up from just the extent of the damage. Combined with an AE effect or other mobs beating you as well.</P> <P>So hence why migitation comes in. Migitation may mean the tank is taking more hits but that damage is migitated down to where the spikes of damage don't really happen. Or atleast when they do they aren't as extreme.</P> <P>The concept is still very much the same in this game as it was in EQ1. </P> <P>Message Edited by Eelyen on <SPAN class=date_text>03-02-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>09:25 AM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Eelyen on <span class=date_text>03-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:30 AM</span>

Platfing

03-02-2005, 10:24 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Namilla wrote:<BR> <DIV> <DIV>Axhine Wrote:</DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV>my 2 cents:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Classes are already to much a like already please let classes fit into the roll they choose if you want to tank pick something with heavy armor that is just IMO you should not beable to take the damage from a dragon as well with a monk wearing light armor vs a pally or guardian that has Vanguard on.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>People should choose the class they want to play and fit into that roll in the group. </FONT> If they makes classes do the same thing = then what is the diffrence in each class I mean just make 4 classes warrior, priest, mage, and scout. Keep things fun make people pick the class they want to play and make them fit the roll I mean if you have 5 bucks you can't go get a lobster dinner you will end up at taco bell like the rest of us know your place and do your job.</DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV></DIV> <P> </P> <P>I have to agree with this 100%</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Ok, so if you want to be able to MT in every instance in the game you HAVE to be a guardian.</P> <P>So there really is no choice, its already made for you.</P> <P>I see.<BR></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>People were creating non-guardian tank classes without full knowledge early in the game. It doesn't matter who's fault that was (the person's or SOEs), but the fact is it happened. It happened partly because full knowledge was not available, and it happened in many cases because SOE decided to change the class considerably (AGI nerf). </P> <P>Now that people have more knowledge, it's obvious what choice the majority will make when creating a new tank. What's going to come of this is there will eventually be many more times the number of guardians when compared to other tank classes. The flood is coming. This obviously isn't good for Guards, or any tank class for that matter. </P> <P>It will be interesting to see how far SOE will allow the number of Guardians to rise before balancing things out, one way or another, so people will play the "other tanks" again. Personally, I'm sticking with my PAL because I believe that things will eventually be brought back into balance (in both grouping and raiding). People say - well everything is fine for groups, and only a small percentage do raids now. Eventually, the majority will be closing in on level 50, and raiding is a large part of what you do at max level. People will be screaming for change at that point. </P> <P>Like I said in my OP, I don't want to see Guards nerfed, but I would like to see other tanks brought up to their level so they can compete equally for MT in raids. This doesn't necessarily mean giving them more defense as some have suggested. If you believe that max defense is the only thing that could be used to define a good tank, you are living in <U><STRONG><EM>old</EM></STRONG></U> EQ-1 world and have limited imagination. I quit EQ-1 before PoP, but it's my understanding that they made Paladins more useful on some raid mobs and warriors more useful on others. I'm really surprised that something like that hasn't been introduced in EQ-2 yet. </P>

Eelyen

03-02-2005, 10:33 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P> <HR> </P> <P>Platfinger wrote:</P> <P>People were creating non-guardian tank classes without full knowledge early in the game. It doesn't matter who's fault that was (the person's or SOEs), but the fact is it happened. It happened partly because full knowledge was not available, and it happened in many cases because SOE decided to change the class considerably (AGI nerf). </P> <P>Now that people have more knowledge, it's obvious what choice the majority will make when creating a new tank. What's going to come of this is there will eventually be many more times the number of guardians when compared to other tank classes. The flood is coming. This obviously isn't good for Guards, or any tank class for that matter. </P> <P>It will be interesting to see how far SOE will allow the number of Guardians to rise before balancing things out, one way or another, so people will play the "other tanks" again. Personally, I'm sticking with my PAL because I believe that things will eventually be brought back into balance (in both grouping and raiding). People say - well everything is fine for groups, and only a small percentage do raids now. Eventually, the majority will be closing in on level 50, and raiding is a large part of what you do at max level. People will be screaming for change at that point. </P> <P>Like I said in my OP, I don't want to see Guards nerfed, but I would like to see other tanks brought up to their level so they can compete equally for MT in raids. This doesn't necessarily mean giving them more defense as some have suggested. If you believe that max defense is the only thing that could be used to define a good tank, you are living in <U><STRONG><EM>old</EM></STRONG></U> EQ-1 world and have limited imagination. I quit EQ-1 before PoP, but it's my understanding that they made Paladins more useful on some raid mobs and warriors more useful on others. I'm really surprised that something like that hasn't been introduced in EQ-2 yet. </P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>This is somewhat true. In PoP there were a couple mobs in PoTime that had a Fear effect. Warriors only had a AA that allowed a chance for fear to break early. But Pallies and SK's had an ability to be completely immune to fear. So some guilds would use Pally's or sk's to tank these two individual mobs instead of warriors. But other guilds just used warriors and had little issue. Benefit of warrior was defensive greatly migitated the damage on them, hybrids didn't have that. But atleast they wouldn't run away <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>But in the scheme of things that was 2 fights out of 10+ encounters.<BR></P>

Gaige

03-02-2005, 10:33 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eelyen wrote: <P><FONT color=#ffff00>You know, you are very demeaning in all of your posts. Yet even with a non-attacking post.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>And I didn't have 100% contradiction of my statement by comparing the offense. What I did show was that the Berserker offensive abilities increased much greater then a guardians. But a guardians defensive skills have been increased more so then the other classes and their offensive skills just didn't grow as much. Guardians didn't lose any offense. And Monks didn't "lose" any migitation from the fighter class. They just didn't continue to gain as much as they went up in levels due to their armor.</FONT></P> <P>But I went through to both the Paladin and Monk forums and found a couple interesting posts.</P> <P><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=10&message.id=6186" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=10&message.id=6186</A></P> <P>and </P> <P><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=6&message.id=9714" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=6&message.id=9714</A><BR></P> <P>Seems to me that both classes have excellent abilities.</P> <P>I did pick a guardian because I knew it was going to be the heaviest tank by game mechanics. Not by something that was said 2 years ago. </P> <P>I don't intend to ever convince you, nobody will ever be able to convince anyone else in passion heated arguements such as class balancing. <FONT color=#ffff00>But continually attacking an individual only serves to fuel the fire. People's ego doesn't need to rear it's ugly head in every post you make. Although, I admit I'm not totally free of that either. But hey, thats why I said every post <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></FONT></P> <P>The fact of the matter is, I played a wizard though in EQ1. And I almost played one in this one. <FONT color=#ffff00> And I'd probably still debate the overall game mechanics with you on why the Guardian is essential going to remain being the best overall tank for raids.</FONT> But you can sit here and quote the equal stuff all day and night. But since you aren't adding anything actually useful to the conversation. I'll refrain from replying to you again until you give me some solid discussion.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>First off, I do sincerely apologize if my personality and passion come across as demeaning, it isn't the intention. Honestly.</P> <P>Well its really the same isn't it? If we all start off with hardly any and then one class gains all defense while the others gain subtle defense and mostly offense/utility; how is that different from starting with uber defense and taking it away? Same end result.</P> <P>Yes, it is hard to post about something you are as passionate about as your main toon and how you envisioned him while being 100% level headed. I do try to do so though.</P> <P>You know, I have no problem with guardians being the best raid tank if that is what has to be done to make a fun balanced game. But every class should have to give and take. I'm just wondering what guardians are giving to be the best tanks? You can say offense, but that doesn't detract from their primary role. You can say utility/buffs/heals but again, that doesn't detract from their primary role.</P> <P>My main concern is that guardians never have to sacrifice what people see as their class defining ability (defense/tanking) while all the other fighters do have to directly sacrifice their primary class ability to be balanced.</P> <P>Its confusing to me.</P>

Eelyen

03-02-2005, 10:36 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Axhine wrote:<BR> <DIV>my 2 cents:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Classes are already to much a like already please let classes fit into the roll they choose if you want to tank pick something with heavy armor that is just IMO you should not beable to take the damage from a dragon as well with a monk wearing light armor vs a pally or guardian that has Vanguard on.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>People should choose the class they want to play and fit into that roll in the group. </FONT> If they makes classes do the same thing = then what is the diffrence in each class I mean just make 4 classes warrior, priest, mage, and scout. Keep things fun make people pick the class they want to play and make them fit the roll I mean if you have 5 bucks you can't go get a lobster dinner you will end up at taco bell like the rest of us know your place and do your job.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I agree. Since all the documentation and dev notes throughout beta said "all fighters are tanks" I presumed that to be true.</P> <P>Its quite apparant it isn't.</P> <P>So what exactly is a monk's purpose in group? DPS? Oh, then I wonder why Moorgard said monks in this game are so different than EQ1 monks?</P> <P>IF everyone thinks like you then its simple: Make the guardian a "tank" class and move the rest of us to where we belong.</P> <P>Monk/Bruiser = dps = take away our tanking ability and make us damage God's.</P> <P>That's what you guys are saying.</P> <P>The point is you guys are saying by design monks are not only inferior tanks to guardians but also inferior damage to mages/scouts. The one thing we have going for us (well bruisers really, not monks) is a target buff that adds 1500ish AC to the guardian.</P> <P>Wooo.</P> <P>We could have that buff no matter what archtype we were in. In fact its insulting to have a MT buff as a supposed MT.</P> <P>If we are going to be shoehorned into a damage roll in the end game (where Gage currently resides) then quit [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] footing around and make us all out support. Screw the "highest damage of the fighter classes". I don't want to be a supbar tank and supbar dps.</P> <P>I hate how people always push hybrid classes into sucky classes because we don't excel at any one thing.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Namilla wrote:<BR> <DIV>Warriors, Brawlers and Crusaders are not and should not be compared to eachother. But for some reason everyone thinks they should all "TANK" the same. <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Thanks for the comment, are you a developer? Oh that's right you aren't, as that statement 100% goes against what the makers of this game have been saying for months.<BR><BR></P> <P>Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on <SPAN class=date_text>03-02-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>08:35 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <P>All fighters are tanks. Just some are somewhat better then others. Which was also stated. Which I quoted earlier in the thread.</P>

Gaige

03-02-2005, 10:37 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P> <HR> </P> <P>Eelyen wrote:</P> <P>This is somewhat true. In PoP there were a couple mobs in PoTime that had a Fear effect. Warriors only had a AA that allowed a chance for fear to break early. But Pallies and SK's had an ability to be completely immune to fear. So some guilds would use Pally's or sk's to tank these two individual mobs instead of warriors. <FONT color=#ffff00>But other guilds just used warriors and had little issue.</FONT> Benefit of warrior was defensive greatly migitated the damage on them, hybrids didn't have that. But atleast they wouldn't run away <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>But in the scheme of things that was 2 fights out of 10+ encounters.</FONT><BR></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Does that seem fair/balanced to you? Granted we are talking about a different game but its pretty much the same here, if not worse.</P> <P>As you stated there were two instances where Pally/SKs were wanted to tank in EQ1, but even in those scenarios the warrior was capable. In the other 8 the warrior was the obvious and only choice.</P> <P>I just don't see how people think that can be not only intended, but a good thing.</P> <P>Currently we are experiencing pretty much the same thing here. Even against raids where other tanks could be effective, a guardian would be better anyway, not counting the scenarios where the other fighters just plain can't do it.<BR></P>

Gaige

03-02-2005, 10:40 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eelyen wrote:<BR><BR> <P>All fighters are tanks. <FONT color=#ffff00>Just some are somewhat better then others. </FONT> Which was also stated. Which I quoted earlier in the thread. <HR> </P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Well that is sort of true.</P> <P>Guardians are the best though, and there isn't a situation where a different fighter subclass is better than them.</P> <P>See, that would be a simple way to balance the fighter classes.</P> <P>Instead of making the guardian class the preferred tank choice in every situation, introduce some mobs/encounters that would actually be better/easier to accomplish without a guardian tanking. </P> <P>Then your statement would be totally true.<BR></P>

Eelyen

03-02-2005, 10:44 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eelyen wrote: <P><FONT color=#ffff00>You know, you are very demeaning in all of your posts. Yet even with a non-attacking post.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>And I didn't have 100% contradiction of my statement by comparing the offense. What I did show was that the Berserker offensive abilities increased much greater then a guardians. But a guardians defensive skills have been increased more so then the other classes and their offensive skills just didn't grow as much. Guardians didn't lose any offense. And Monks didn't "lose" any migitation from the fighter class. They just didn't continue to gain as much as they went up in levels due to their armor.</FONT></P> <P>But I went through to both the Paladin and Monk forums and found a couple interesting posts.</P> <P><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=10&message.id=6186" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=10&message.id=6186</A></P> <P>and </P> <P><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=6&message.id=9714" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=6&message.id=9714</A><BR></P> <P>Seems to me that both classes have excellent abilities.</P> <P>I did pick a guardian because I knew it was going to be the heaviest tank by game mechanics. Not by something that was said 2 years ago. </P> <P>I don't intend to ever convince you, nobody will ever be able to convince anyone else in passion heated arguements such as class balancing. <FONT color=#ffff00>But continually attacking an individual only serves to fuel the fire. People's ego doesn't need to rear it's ugly head in every post you make. Although, I admit I'm not totally free of that either. But hey, thats why I said every post <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></FONT></P> <P>The fact of the matter is, I played a wizard though in EQ1. And I almost played one in this one. <FONT color=#ffff00> And I'd probably still debate the overall game mechanics with you on why the Guardian is essential going to remain being the best overall tank for raids.</FONT> But you can sit here and quote the equal stuff all day and night. But since you aren't adding anything actually useful to the conversation. I'll refrain from replying to you again until you give me some solid discussion.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>First off, I do sincerely apologize if my personality and passion come across as demeaning, it isn't the intention. Honestly.</P> <P>Well its really the same isn't it? If we all start off with hardly any and then one class gains all defense while the others gain subtle defense and mostly offense/utility; how is that different from starting with uber defense and taking it away? Same end result.</P> <P>Yes, it is hard to post about something you are as passionate about as your main toon and how you envisioned him while being 100% level headed. I do try to do so though.</P> <P>You know, I have no problem with guardians being the best raid tank if that is what has to be done to make a fun balanced game. But every class should have to give and take. I'm just wondering what guardians are giving to be the best tanks? You can say offense, but that doesn't detract from their primary role. You can say utility/buffs/heals but again, that doesn't detract from their primary role.</P> <P>My main concern is that guardians never have to sacrifice what people see as their class defining ability (defense/tanking) while all the other fighters do have to directly sacrifice their primary class ability to be balanced.</P> <P>Its confusing to me.</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <P>I can see where you are coming from. But I personally love diversity in the classes. I don't want to be the same as Class A, B, and C. As I think most everyone wants something special about their class. In EQ1 I played a wizard as I said, I loved doing the DPS. I decided I wanted to be a MT in this one, I enjoy the 3 ends of the triangle. Which in EQ was Wizard (pure dps), cleric (pure healing), and warrior (pure tank). Which with 6 different fighter types, how do you make them different?</P> <P>Yea, I picked guardian cause I wanted to be able to tank in pretty much every concievable situation. I enjoy the rush of staying active and having to use every one of my abilities to get my job done. </P> <P>I don't think Monks or Paladins sacrificed their *primary* role for the abilities they got. Your posts made me go through a couple class boards looking for threads on this issue. And with the links I posted were some that I found. And from what I've seen in grouping. All the fighter classes can tank pretty much. I don't see them as having sacrificed their primary role. And I know this isn't going to convince you. But I just see it as a Guardian is a class that focuses totally on defense and only mainly improving that primary role. And through normal game mechanics that migitation and high defense of guardians. It just gives the concept to people they are best on raids. They may not even be the best on some raids. It's just a standard notion. AC means jack really, I can't tell the different anymore after the change.</P> <P>I personally just don't see a very easy solution for what you are asking. Alot of game developers want something to go someway, but it doesn't always turn out that way. </P>

Eelyen

03-02-2005, 10:49 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV> <P>Well that is sort of true.</P> <P>Guardians are the best though, and there isn't a situation where a different fighter subclass is better than them.</P> <P>See, that would be a simple way to balance the fighter classes.</P> <P>Instead of making the guardian class the preferred tank choice in every situation, introduce some mobs/encounters that would actually be better/easier to accomplish without a guardian tanking.</P> <P>Then your statement would be totally true.<BR></P> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I'm not against encounters that go outside the normal idea of put mob on tank, kill mob. I'd love to experience different encounters that pushed outside that normal bound. But those will be very few and far between. It's very hard to script events that break the normal mechanics of the game. Unless they go into the code and allow for functions that do "If (AggroList[1].class = Guardian)" which means if npc attacking guardian. And then had it fire off some weird things. That might be the only way. But it really doesn't solve the problem you are presenting.</P> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Again the reason I say I picked a guardian is because I wanted to be a MT on raids down the road. And I didn't want any other abilities except ones that enhanced that ability to tank.</DIV> <P>Message Edited by Eelyen on <SPAN class=date_text>03-02-2005</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>10:03 AM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Eelyen on <span class=date_text>03-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:03 AM</span>

EvilIguana9

03-02-2005, 11:03 PM

Lets use arbitrary numbers to quantify ability and look at the problem theoretically.Lets say guardians tank at 100 and do dps at 50Lets say Paladins tank and 80 and do dps at 70. Lets say Mages tank at 50 and do dps at 100You will choose the guardian to tank and the mage to do dps. You'll only choose the paladin if you can't find somone else. Why? Well the biggest thing to remember is that while a single person's dps make up maybe 1/6th of the total group dps, a single person's ability to tank makes up 100% of that group's ability to absorb damage. If this is a raid target then it is even more skewed to 1/24th vs 1/1. As long as the tank can hold aggro well their dps is unimportant. That's why tanks use shields in large groups, because any increase in tanking results in greatewr efficiency in the healer's healing. Note that these numbers are just an example to illustrate a point and I will NOT vouch for their relative accuracy. One way to do balancing is to make subsequent increases in one area scale to be proportionally lower as the total increases. So lets say the tradeoff for tanking vs DPS is 1 to 1 before 75, but then from 75 to 90 you only get 1 increase for every 2 decreases of the other skill. Now theoretically, the non guardians' special abilities are supposed to make up for their deficiency in straight up tanking. I am not an expert. I am not experienced enough to know whether they do. I can make some judgements based on my own experiences so far.Lets look at paladin wards for example: they are not very useful. They ward for less than our heals heal for, and they don't take mitigation into account. This is true for all wards (feel sorry for shamen ><), and it means for heavier hits they may actually INCREASE the amount of damage you take. What about heals? Great for soloing, useful for groups with 1 healer or when the healer dies. Useful eh? Does this make up for them being easily interuptble? Does it matter that the heals are far less efficient than a cleric's? Lots of questions, lots of differing answers from different people.

Eelyen

03-02-2005, 11:09 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> EvilIguana966 wrote:<BR>Lets use arbitrary numbers to quantify ability and look at the problem theoretically.<BR><BR>Lets say guardians tank at 100 and do dps at 50<BR><BR>Lets say Paladins tank and 80 and do dps at 70. <BR><BR>Lets say Mages tank at 50 and do dps at 100<BR><BR>You will choose the guardian to tank and the mage to do dps. You'll only choose the paladin if you can't find somone else. Why? Well the biggest thing to remember is that while a single person's dps make up maybe 1/6th of the total group dps, a single person's ability to tank makes up 100% of that group's ability to absorb damage. If this is a raid target then it is even more skewed to 1/24th vs 1/1. As long as the tank can hold aggro well their dps is unimportant. That's why tanks use shields in large groups, because any increase in tanking results in greatewr efficiency in the healer's healing. <BR><BR>Note that these numbers are just an example to illustrate a point and I will NOT vouch for their relative accuracy. One way to do balancing is to make subsequent increases in one area scale to be proportionally lower as the total increases. So lets say the tradeoff for tanking vs DPS is 1 to 1 before 75, but then from 75 to 90 you only get 1 increase for every 2 decreases of the other skill. <BR><BR>Now theoretically, the non guardians' special abilities are supposed to make up for their deficiency in straight up tanking. I am not an expert. I am not experienced enough to know whether they do. I can make some judgements based on my own experiences so far.<BR><BR>Lets look at paladin wards for example: they are not very useful. They ward for less than our heals heal for, and they don't take mitigation into account. This is true for all wards (feel sorry for shamen >&lt<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />, and it means for heavier hits they may actually INCREASE the amount of damage you take. What about heals? Great for soloing, useful for groups with 1 healer or when the healer dies. Useful eh? Does this make up for them being easily interuptble? Does it matter that the heals are far less efficient than a cleric's? <BR><BR>Lots of questions, lots of differing answers from different people.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <P>Actually I would choose to have the Paladin in my group so they could either A) Augment my AC and STR (just as an example), B) Offtank extra mobs or mobs that attack the cleric. C) Their healing augments the groups. </P> <P>Etc. Thats if I was leading the group (which I sorta usually do). </P> <P>Or that fact that in a group a Paladin can tank as well as a Guardian from what I've read. Or extremely close to it. Plus if the Paladin is 1 level higher, you are better off with the paladin then guardian. The paladin could also provide the group more functionality then a guardian in alot of situations where "just the best migitation/dmg sponge" wasn't needed. Which is alot of the time in group encounters. not all the time I admit. But there are tons of times.</P> <P>But lets say that Both theMonk and Paladin could tank exactly the same as the Guardian. Or atleast over the course of 2 minutes of taking damage, they come out to about the same. But the Paladin and Monk have other things can provide towards the group. What would the guardian offer that would make them viable over the others at that point? </P> <P>Guardians just don't have a secondary role. Whether this was intentional or an accident by design on SoE's part, I can't tell ya. But thats how it is.</P> <P>Message Edited by Eelyen on <SPAN class=date_text>03-02-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>10:09 AM</SPAN></P> <P>Message Edited by Eelyen on <SPAN class=date_text>03-02-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>10:10 AM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Eelyen on <span class=date_text>03-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:07 AM</span>

Troodon

03-02-2005, 11:19 PM

Eelyen wrote:"But lets say that Both theMonk and Paladin could tank exactly the same as the Guardian. Or atleast over the course of 2 minutes of taking damage, they come out to about the same. But the Paladin and Monk have other things can provide towards the group. What would the guardian offer that would make them viable over the others at that point?"Hence my continued bleating about the idea to specialise each of the Fighter classes e.g.:Perhaps its time to reexamine the mitigation concept then? Currently damage mitigation is all bundled together as a package and only one subclass excells. Assuming we go down this specialised tank route, why not untangle mitigation into different types?e.g.Fighters - Every member gets basic migitationWarriors - in addition get melee mitigationBrawler - in addition get dodging mitigationCrusaders - in addition get magical mitigation

Eelyen

03-02-2005, 11:23 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> TroodonIE wrote:<BR>Eelyen wrote:<BR>"But lets say that Both theMonk and Paladin could tank exactly the same as the Guardian. Or atleast over the course of 2 minutes of taking damage, they come out to about the same. But the Paladin and Monk have other things can provide towards the group. What would the guardian offer that would make them viable over the others at that point?"<BR><BR><BR>Hence my continued bleating about the idea to specialise each of the Fighter classes e.g.:<BR><BR>Perhaps its time to reexamine the mitigation concept then? Currently damage mitigation is all bundled together as a package and only one subclass excells. Assuming we go down this specialised tank route, why not untangle mitigation into different types?<BR><BR>e.g.<BR><BR>Fighters - Every member gets basic migitation<BR>Warriors - in addition get melee mitigation<BR>Brawler - in addition get dodging mitigation<BR>Crusaders - in addition get magical mitigation<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <P>Well Brawlers already have dodging mitigation. It's avoidance <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> atleast thats what I figure "dodging" mitigation means <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>And the magical mitigation, good thought in theory. But in practice of the game there aren't alot of a ways to make a mob purely uber magical damage to where it would make magical mitigation highly desired. Least from the way things currently are I'm guessing. Unless it was just a mob with insanely high damage spells with insanely low cast times and refresh times and has insanely high power. Or they'd run out and be a waste of a fight unless they had high melee. Which would sort of drive you nuts figuring out how to tank it <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P>

Namil

03-02-2005, 11:57 PM

<DIV>Lets say they do make all the classes the same as far as damage mitigation. Would you all then be happy if they reduced your secondary skills to half or less to make up for the damage mitigation to be the same. Less DPS, Less Healing, Less Avoidance?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I highly doubt the ones that think the Guardian is unbalanced with their one and only job would be set at ease with the above scenario. You picked a class that has dual roles where as the Guardian has one and only one role. Do you expect an Enchanter to do the same DPS as a Wizard? No? Then why in hell would you expect a Monk to be able to take the same damage as a Guardian?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It seems to me all the people that picked a Hybrid Class should have really thought about what they wanted to do. Hybrid Classes are not supposed to be as good as Single Role Classes. Period! A Tank/Mage combo is never as good as a Mage or a Tank alone they are not supposed to be. But yet this is what you want, you want a Tank/Healer that can do both as well as either a Tank or a Healer. Sorry but if they make every class the same like giving an Enchanter the same DPS as a Wiz that would just be wrong!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Why is it that every time one class can do something well that another class cant people start crying, every warrior class CAN tank it is just that Guardians are better at absorbing the damage. Other warrior classes do more DPS some can last longer by their healing abilities. </DIV>

Platfing

03-03-2005, 12:03 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> <P>Guardians just don't have a secondary role. Whether htis was intential or an accident by design on SoE's part, I can't tell ya. But thats how it is.</P> <P> <HR> </P> <P>That's a good point - gotta give you that one. I understand where you are coming from. </P> <P>HOWEVER,</P> <P>I still don't think being forced into a support role (aka play squire escort for Guardian) is what most non-guardian tanks signed up for though. If I wanted to do that, I would have made a support-specific class. In all honesty, during character creation I saw all those extra buffs, heals, wards, etc. as minor fluff stuff when it comes down to getting in a group or raiding at the high-end of the game. Sure, the buffs can help the MT, but there are buffs from other classes that are either just as good or almost as good. The wards and heals are useless on raids when compared to what other classes can give. They are great for soloing, and provide a little more utility, but they won't normally get you in a group or selected in a slot on a raid over a guardian. A tank has to be able to keep agro and stay alive - that's it. These fluff spells are one step above the "glowy hand level 20 spell thing" when it comes to fullfilling the core ability of the archtype.</P> <P> </P> <P>Here are some things to consider...</P> <P>1. YOU HAVE TO BE IN THE GROUP WITH THE MT IN ORDER TO CAST THE BUFFS ON THEM (are you listening SOE?!? I doubt it, but worth a try), which isn't likely given that other support classes are usually better suited to filling those slots on a raid. Even in a regular XP group, most guardians would rather have a buff/healer/extra damage instead of another tank (I think it's an ego thing or something there too). This is the main fault of any argument that supports using the other tank classes to support the MT with buffs. </P> <P>2. Ok, we can off-tank adds - sure, fine, that's not so bad. It also isn't always necessary. Mez works too. </P> <P>3. We can do some extra damage, yet not all tank classes excel at this (a PAL or SK in a pure damage output role? come on!).</P> <P> </P> <P>So, here is a person at level 50. They are in the fighter archtype, but are not a Guardian. The question they ask is - "What am I?" . </P></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eelyen

03-03-2005, 12:11 AM

<DIV>I do have to agree they need to alter the buff system to allow for cross group buffing, at the very least while in raids.</DIV>

Platfing

03-03-2005, 12:28 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eelyen wrote:<BR> <DIV>I do have to agree they need to alter the buff system to allow for cross group buffing, at the very least while in raids.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>I doubt SOE will change it. The main reason is that they don't want to go back to the old massive amount of clerics chain healing the MT (that existed in EQ-1). In their eyes, that strategy indicated a broken game. Now, the only possibility is if they separated buffs from heals somehow, and only allowed buffs to go cross-group. I don't think they will do that though.<BR> <DIV></FONT></DIV>

Eelyen

03-03-2005, 12:33 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Platfinger wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eelyen wrote:<BR> <DIV>I do have to agree they need to alter the buff system to allow for cross group buffing, at the very least while in raids.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>I doubt SOE will change it. The main reason is that they don't want to go back to the old massive amount of clerics chain healing the MT (that existed in EQ-1). In their eyes, that strategy indicated a broken game. Now, the only possibility is if they separated buffs from heals somehow, and only allowed buffs to go cross-group. I don't think they will do that though.<BR> <DIV></FONT></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>I honestly think that pretty much anything should be cross groupable while raiding. I mean the encounters are designed for a raid of 24 people. Not 4 independant groups. So in a raid, you should be able to use everyone's skills to the fullest to benefit the raid in whatever way the raid see's fit.</DIV>

Lancealittle

03-03-2005, 12:36 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eelyen wrote:<BR><BR> <P>All fighters are tanks. <FONT color=#ffff00>Just some are somewhat better then others. </FONT> Which was also stated. Which I quoted earlier in the thread. <HR> <P></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Well that is sort of true.</P> <P>Guardians are the best though, and there isn't a situation where a different fighter subclass is better than them.</P> <P>See, that would be a simple way to balance the fighter classes.</P> <P>Instead of making the guardian class the preferred tank choice in every situation, introduce some mobs/encounters that would actually be better/easier to accomplish without a guardian tanking. </P> <P>Then your statement would be totally true.<BR></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Is the guardian the best choice in every situation where you would want a tank? </P> <P>I don't see that as true. </FONT></P> <P>What if you are solo? Is a guardian better than all the others?</FONT></P> <P>Would a shaman looking for a duo group want a guardian over a brawler or berzerker?</FONT></P> <P>What if your group already has a guardian, or the paladin you have is doing just fine with tanking?</FONT></P> <P>Maybe you mean in the high-level raids that the OP is talking about. This also means you are talking about being the 'main tank' for high level encounters. Is the guardian the 'only' choice for main tank or the 'best' choice for main tank? </FONT></P> <P>After you have one guardian for your raid and want more tanks to survive the aoe do you take all guardians for the other tank slots or would you prefer no more guardian than the main tank?</FONT><BR></P>

Gaige

03-03-2005, 12:48 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eelyen wrote:<BR> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I can see where you are coming from. </FONT> But I personally love diversity in the classes. I don't want to be the same as Class A, B, and C. As I think most everyone wants something special about their class. In EQ1 I played a wizard as I said, I loved doing the DPS. I decided I wanted to be a MT in this one, I enjoy the 3 ends of the triangle. Which in EQ was Wizard (pure dps), cleric (pure healing), and warrior (pure tank). Which with 6 different fighter types, how do you make them different?</P> <P>Yea, I picked guardian cause I wanted to be able to tank in pretty much every concievable situation. I enjoy the rush of staying active and having to use every one of my abilities to get my job done. </P> <P>I don't think Monks or Paladins sacrificed their *primary* role for the abilities they got. Your posts made me go through a couple class boards looking for threads on this issue. And with the links I posted were some that I found. And from what I've seen in grouping. All the fighter classes can tank pretty much. I don't see them as having sacrificed their primary role. And I know this isn't going to convince you. But I just see it as a Guardian is a class that focuses totally on defense and only mainly improving that primary role. And through normal game mechanics that migitation and high defense of guardians. It just gives the concept to people they are best on raids. They may not even be the best on some raids. It's just a standard notion. AC means jack really, I can't tell the different anymore after the change.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I personally just don't see a very easy solution for what you are asking. Alot of game developers want something to go someway, but it doesn't always turn out that way. </FONT></P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Thank you, and I know. It doesn't mean I want it any less though.<BR>

Lancealittle

03-03-2005, 12:55 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Platfinger wrote: <P>It will be interesting to see how far SOE will allow the number of Guardians to rise before balancing things out, one way or another, so people will play the "other tanks" again. Personally, I'm sticking with my PAL because I believe that things will eventually be brought back into balance (in both grouping and raiding). People say - well everything is fine for groups, and only a small percentage do raids now. Eventually, the majority will be closing in on level 50, and raiding is a large part of what you do at max level. People will be screaming for change at that point. <BR> <HR> </P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I'm glad you're sticking with your class. I also hope they make high end encounters where you would be the best choice for main tank. </P> <P>I do have to disagree however on the concept that everyone will get to max level and then do nothing but raiding. Don't confuse your play style with that of the average player. This game rewards all kinds of play styles, so people who don't want to raid may never do it. Some may never get to 50 and many who do get there will just work on another character. </P> <P>I also have the feeling that many of the people who get to 50 and want to raid will try help the raid in the best way they can. I can tell you do that already, but would like to have what you consider to be the 'main' tank role. You don't want to be right guard, you want to be the center. The thing is, without the right guard the quarterback will get sacked every time no mater how good the center is.</P> <P>What I'd like to see is ways that different tanks could work together to make the raid tanking work better. Would a monk be a better main tank if a guardian is sheild blocking for him? Could a paladin keep agro off the cleric if the main tank gets feared? You probably have more ideas than I do since you're in the level 50 raids and I'm not.</P> <P>A raid is a group effort, so you would do better for your class and your fellow players if you ask for ways you can help the raid. That may not be just by replacing the main tank yourself.</P> <P><BR> </P>

Gaige

03-03-2005, 12:58 AM

<FONT color=#ffff00></FONT><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P> <HR> <P></P> <P>Lancealittle wrote:</P> <P>Is the guardian the best choice in every situation where you would want a tank? <FONT color=#ffff00>Yes.</FONT></P> <P>I don't see that as true. <FONT color=#ffff00></FONT><FONT color=#ffff00>Well, it is.</FONT></FONT></P> <P>What if you are solo? Is a guardian better than all the others? <FONT color=#ffff00>Solo balance is different and shouldn't be lumped together. I would assume their massive defensive would offset a their less dps while soloing, although it may take longer to kill mobs.</FONT></FONT></P> <P>Would a shaman looking for a duo group want a guardian over a brawler or berzerker? <FONT color=#ffff00>Actively seek a guardian? Perhaps not. But would the monk be better than a guardian? Nah. I've read plenty of posts where healers say all the fighters tank the same in xp situations. In fact by grinding my toon to 50 I know this is true, as I MT'd with my monk the entire time. Considering that shaman are designed to heal evasion tanks but yet guardians can duo/group with them well, only further proves to illustrate my point that a guardian is the best tank no matter the situation.</FONT></FONT></P> <P>What if your group already has a guardian, or the paladin you have is doing just fine with tanking?<FONT color=#ffff00> Well if they already have a guardian I would assume they would look for dps/healing and not necessarily an offtank, unless it was a raid situation. My understanding from some high end raiding guilds is that a bruiser is the offtank of choice, due to the "shrug off" buff.</FONT></FONT></P> <P>Maybe you mean in the high-level raids that the OP is talking about. This also means you are talking about being the 'main tank' for high level encounters. Is the guardian the 'only' choice for main tank or the 'best' choice for main tank? <FONT color=#ffff00>I'm pretty sure that as of right now they are the only choice for a successful raid MT. Although the other fighters may have some varying degrees of success, it is nowhere near as a "given" as it is with a guardian MT.</FONT></FONT></P> <P>After you have one guardian for your raid and want more tanks to survive the aoe do you take all guardians for the other tank slots or would you prefer no more guardian than the main tank? <FONT color=#ffff00>It depends on your viewpoint. The pro guardians as best tank crowd lead you to believe that despite game mechanics that in the end AC/Defense/HP is all that matters, and the guardian class is tops in those three categories.</FONT></FONT><BR></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Oh. Here is another thing I've been thinking about. <P>Lets say that true balance is unacheivable or maybe even unwanted by the majority. <P>Lets say that no matter what there will be a "best" subclass for each primary role. <P>Then I propose that they seperate the "best" tank and the "best" healer. <P>Right now the best tank is the mitigation using guardian and the best healer is the reactive using healer. These two compliment each other well, and only help to widen the gap between the subclasses. <P>Why not have the best healer be of another variety, therefore not taking away from the guardians tanking, but helping to even the footing between the classes. <P>Imagine if shaman or druids were the "best" healers, what a leg up that'd give the other tank classes; while the "best" tanks would have a good healer designed to compliment them well, just not the best. <P>/shrug <P>I honestly doubt it will ever change, as I do not believe a game can be coded with balance. It can be coded for 4 or 5 classes who are the best and then other classes who are adequate but different. <P>The fact that the promises of this game and the actual gameplay are so vastly different, coupled with the game headed toward being an EQ1 clone only further helps to prove this point.</P> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P><p>Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on <span class=date_text>03-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:05 PM</span>

Eelyen

03-03-2005, 01:10 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR> <FONT color=#ffff00></FONT><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P> <HR> <P></P> <P>Lancealittle wrote:</P> <P>Is the guardian the best choice in every situation where you would want a tank? <FONT color=#ffff00>Yes.</FONT></P> <P>I don't see that as true. <FONT color=#ffff00></FONT><FONT color=#ffff00>Well, it is. </FONT><FONT color=#ff0000>Not exactly, close, but not exaclty.</FONT></FONT></P> <P>What if you are solo? Is a guardian better than all the others? <FONT color=#ffff00>Solo balance is different and shouldn't be lumped together. I would assume their massive defensive would offset a their less dps while soloing, although it may take longer to kill mobs. </FONT><FONT color=#ff0000>Solo balance does include "equal" tanking if you think about it. You should see me try to fight a group of green conning healer/nukers. They beat the crap out of me. Although gray ones are easy.</FONT></FONT></P> <P>Would a shaman looking for a duo group want a guardian over a brawler or berzerker? <FONT color=#ffff00>Actively seek a guardian? Perhaps not. But would the monk be better than a guardian? Nah. I've read plenty of posts where healers say all the fighters tank the same in xp situations. In fact by grinding my toon to 50 I know this is true, as I MT'd with my monk the entire time. Considering that shaman are designed to heal evasion tanks but yet guardians can duo/group with them well, only further proves to illustrate my point that a guardian is the best tank no matter the situation. </FONT><FONT color=#ff0000>Well you stated in this response that you tank just fine in groups. So honestly that would mean the best choice for a shaman to duo with a higher dps tank then a guardian. If other tanks tank just as well, then killing the mob faster would not only save the shaman mana, it would increase your xp for the same time invested. </FONT></FONT></P> <P>What if your group already has a guardian, or the paladin you have is doing just fine with tanking?<FONT color=#ffff00> Well if they already have a guardian I would assume they would look for dps/healing and not necessarily an offtank, unless it was a raid situation. My understanding from some high end raiding guilds is that a bruiser is the offtank of choice, due to the "shrug off" buff. </FONT><FONT color=#ff0000>I honestly don't have access to a coercer/illusionist, so I always have other tanks in my group. So they are good to have. Least on test with a limited population. But even when I was on live, making a group wasn't cake. It's not like you have unlimited access to any class you want all the time. </FONT></FONT></P> <P>Maybe you mean in the high-level raids that the OP is talking about. This also means you are talking about being the 'main tank' for high level encounters. Is the guardian the 'only' choice for main tank or the 'best' choice for main tank? <FONT color=#ffff00>I'm pretty sure that as of right now they are the only choice for a successful raid MT. Although the other fighters may have some varying degrees of success, it is nowhere near as a "given" as it is with a guardian MT.</FONT><FONT color=#ff0000> </FONT><FONT color=#ff0000>Well, honestly if other classes can tank well in groups. I would assume it would be possible for them to tank raids. But you are right, due to game mechanics of mitigation, the guardian would be the best choice for most, if not all, raid encounters. </FONT></FONT></P> <P>After you have one guardian for your raid and want more tanks to survive the aoe do you take all guardians for the other tank slots or would you prefer no more guardian than the main tank? <FONT color=#ffff00>It depends on your viewpoint. The pro guardians as best tank crowd lead you to believe that despite game mechanics that in the end AC/Defense/HP is all that matters, and the guardian class is tops in those three categories. </FONT><FONT color=#ff0000>Considering Raid size, having 1 or 2 so you have a backup is good. But I'd say that you would benefit having other tank classes at the raid to take use of their abilities. But SoE needs to implement cross group skill usage in raids to allow people to raid with 24 people, not 4 independant groups.</FONT><BR> <HR> </P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on <SPAN class=date_text>03-02-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>12:00 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>My text is in <FONT color=#ff0000>red</FONT></DIV>

Gaige

03-03-2005, 01:13 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eelyen wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>Good counter points once again Eelyen. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Here is a post from another thread about this subject written by my monk friend Gangster. Gangster is lvl 50 and in a very active guild who raids a lot, and he also played EQ1.</P> <P>I think his words speak greatly on what we are talking about.</P> <HR> <P> GangsterFist wrote:<BR><FONT color=#ffff00>As of now, monks are not equal tanks to guardians. I know this b/c I tanked vaz the other night in feerott (level 51 or 52 ^^^ x4 mob). I was really excitied I was gonna be the first monk game wide to tank and take down a raid mob, especially an x4 one. So, we used our standard tactics and had 3 full groups. For a while I was doing fine, tanking him no problem and the zerk was off tanking the adds. We had an enchanter who was also doing CC on the adds as well. So the adds die, and <FONT color=#ff0000>we start getting him down maybe to 95% health and then I just get spanked. Completely wasted, and owned. I had 6 healers healing me too across groups and I had wards and regens. Plus I have items that reverse proc and proc heals. All my stats were 350+ (well str, sta, agi, was). I used a 2h blunt weapon to reduce ripostes too. </FONT><FONT color=#66ff00>Our guardian was not online so we wiped with me tanking.</FONT> <FONT size=5>Tried again with a zerker, and she owned him. Hardly ever got hit and never went below half health with reactives, wards, and regens working. </FONT></FONT><BR><BR>Here is the deal. I played EQ 2 since beta. I played EQ 1 and played both a troll warrior and a human monk. Both of my eq 1 toons were level 55+ (55 troll war 60 monk). I quit shortly after SOV came out. In the begining monks were awesome tanks. Warriors cried, and monks got nerfed to a utility/dps role. Which was actually an accident. Feign death was NEVER intended to split mobs. Monks pretty much fell into that role as an answer to the complaints of warriors. However, this is totally moot b/c this is a different game than EQ 1 and they no longer have individual roles of classes, they have the archetype system.<BR><BR><FONT color=#ffff00>Now, here in lies the problem with monks wanting to be main tanks. Almost anyone who automatically wanted to be the best main tank and did not care about class chose a guardian. Which is fine and makes sense b/c of the skill sets and defensive bonuses they get. However, in retrospect everyone who wanted to be a main tank and like the idea of playing a martial artist went off the assumption that all tanks will tank equally but different. So, all these monks that are now reaching higher levels are finding this to be false, and feel lied to by SOE. You have to realize that not everyone cared about being the absolute best, some of us wanted our own flavor of main tank. There are suppose to be some things that off set the differences. Monks avoid most damage and do more dps to make the mob die faster which offsets the guardians superior mitigation and higher hit points. So, yeah there will be some differences in the sub class, but I digress, SOE has stated that all fighters will be able to fufill the role equally. This is currently not true. Reguardless of what any of you think, that is what SOE has been stating all along. I never wanted to be better than a guardian, I just want to be equal.<BR></FONT><BR>The only real solution I can see is content. Make some raid content that is designed for monks to tank, or make raid content that is designed for a pally to tank or whatever. However, that right there goes against the archetype system.<BR></P> <HR> <P>That is what I want, maybe I'm just not conveying my thoughts as clear as Gangster is.<BR></P>

Eelyen

03-03-2005, 01:21 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR><BR> <P>Here is a post from another thread about this subject written by my monk friend Gangster. Gangster is lvl 50 and in a very active guild who raids a lot, and he also played EQ1.</P> <P>I think his words speak greatly on what we are talking about.</P> <P> <HR> <P></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>That was good read and I can understand where you are coming from. And this goes back to my point about the flaw in Avoidance type tanking.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P> <HR> <P></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>So the adds die, and </FONT><FONT color=#ff0000>we start getting him down maybe to 95% health and then I just get spanked. Completely wasted, and owned. I had 6 healers healing me too across groups and I had wards and regens. Plus I have items that reverse proc and proc heals. All my stats were 350+ (well str, sta, agi, was). I used a 2h blunt weapon to reduce ripostes too. </FONT></P> <P> <HR> <P></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>The flaw in the system with avoidance tanking is that when you do get hit, the damage spikes so [Removed for Content] high that it's hard to keep up. Least, thats what I gathered from the way this was expressed. It's a fundamental flaw. But then giving monks the type of migitation that heavy plate wears have would just sort of through off the whole uniqueness between classes.</P> <P>It's the flaw of trying to make 6 different Tanking classes and stating they would be exactly the same in tanking ability because of some Archtype system.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <p>Message Edited by Eelyen on <span class=date_text>03-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:22 PM</span>

Lancealittle

03-03-2005, 01:27 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote: <BR> <P>Oh. Here is another thing I've been thinking about. <P>Lets say that true balance is unacheivable or maybe even unwanted by the majority. <P>Lets say that no matter what there will be a "best" subclass for each primary role. <P>Then I propose that they seperate the "best" tank and the "best" healer. <P>Right now the best tank is the mitigation using guardian and the best healer is the reactive using healer. These two compliment each other well, and only help to widen the gap between the subclasses. <P>Why not have the best healer be of another variety, therefore not taking away from the guardians tanking, but helping to even the footing between the classes. <P>Imagine if shaman or druids were the "best" healers, what a leg up that'd give the other tank classes; while the "best" tanks would have a good healer designed to compliment them well, just not the best. <P>/shrug <P>I honestly doubt it will ever change, as I do not believe a game can be coded with balance. It can be coded for 4 or 5 classes who are the best and then other classes who are adequate but different. <P>The fact that the promises of this game and the actual gameplay are so vastly different, coupled with the game headed toward being an EQ1 clone only further helps to prove this point.</P> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P> <P>Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on <SPAN class=date_text>03-02-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>12:05 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>One thing to note here is that the different healing types compliment each other. If you have three healers you would want a shaman/druid/cleric rather than three cleric classes.</P> <P>I'd like to see tanks compliment each other too. Make it the best practice to have a warrior/crusader/brawler rather than just a guardian.</P> <P>People need to realize is that when it comes to raid encounters we all become a smaller part of the encounter. Should an illusionist complain that they don't do as much damage as a wizard on the epic encounter, or should a warden complain that the templar is considered the 'main healer'? I don't think so, but you know people will complain about these things and more.</P>

Melamp

03-03-2005, 01:34 AM

just reading the last couple post I'd thought I'd give my two cents...take it for what it's worth.I'm a 50 shaman that has raided all the ^4's In xp grps Most tanks do great...can hardly tell a difference...I've XPed with monks/sk/pal/guard/zerks.As long as their agro is good they all tank very well.the problem is raiding...monks get a fair amount of hp and advoidance is a bit more noticable than other classes...yet on these raids...as a healer I wouldn't want any class but a gaurdian MTing...and for off tanking...gaurdian or zerker.This is in no way a put down to any other tanking class... The mob mentioned in the Ferrot is a nice fight..but it's more of a positioning fight of priest...so they don't all get KBed and then stuned and the MT dies beacause all healers or OOR, we have done a couple strats one of them being with Crusaders..both worked out well, but it wasn't the crusader tanking, we used his skills other ways.In the instanced zones..Ant if I remember correctly even those adds hit like a train. and even with advoidance the only ones that can take a couple blows are guardians/zerkers.I truly hope they make crusaders/monks tank as well as guardians...and zerkers..but I doubt it will come in a straight form as straight up, face to face tanking, as your DPS (monk) or healing (pal) would be offsetting, if you tank the same as someone that was design to do high tank/medium dpsjust a couple insights from a raiding priest, no put downs intended

Vurin

03-03-2005, 02:07 AM

BTW being in ganstafist's guild ( Gangsta Fist being the monk quoted about 4 posts up). I'd like to point out he died cause he sucks at aggro and positioning and got knocked out of buff range by Vaz Gok's knockback. He didn't die cause the healers were unable to keep him up... He might have died form that later since he was taking a lot of damage, but its my opinion that his death was entirely his fault due to player error, and not class inability.

Eal

03-03-2005, 03:05 AM

<DIV><EM>BTW being in ganstafist's guild ( Gangsta Fist being the monk quoted about 4 posts up). I'd like to point out he died cause he sucks at aggro and positioning and got knocked out of buff range by Vaz Gok's knockback. He didn't die cause the healers were unable to keep him up... He might have died form that later since he was taking a lot of damage, but its my opinion that his death was entirely his fault due to player error, and not class inability. </EM></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM> </DIV> <DIV><EM></EM> </DIV> <DIV> Lol, as a guardian who has tank high end raid mobs, I see these posts for what they are. It's great that you posted but we already knew this to be the case. Tanking is probably the hardest function in the game, with one small screw up and the whole raid fails. I just wanted to see how long they would rant. It's like a child complaining to his dad that his bicycle is broke because the training wheels fell off.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> I have no doubt in my mind that many Guardians have failed because of mistakes they have made but since there is no other class to blame, we just brushed ourselves off and tried again. If there had been posts from level 1 - 49 complaining about a monks tanking ability, I might have said .....hmm we may have something here. Trust us Guardians who have some experience, its a frustrating experience when the whole raid looks at you or your inability to tank. It took us 4 nights in a row to beat the raid mob in the Feerot instance zone....Overlord or Overfiend Eye guy. We never gave up though.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Narfism

03-03-2005, 04:47 AM

<DIV>Perhaps abilities of the other classes need to be adjusted in order for them to be up to tanking-par in raid situations. I.E. paladin wards up to 20 hits for 25-(number of hits left)% of damage. (first hit for 5%, second hit for 6%...25th hit for 25%) These runes/wards would scale to the event and as such be useful in all situations. Don't know if it would be a good idea or not but might want to make it self-cast only.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Just an idea. Its gotta start somewhere.</DIV>

Trei

03-03-2005, 02:40 PM

Well here's an idea:Introduce critical damage for all non-solo mobs, rare for normal heroic ones but much more frequent for raid level.What it could be is for mobs to either have - a chance for any attack to crit and bypass physical armor/AC of target.or- a special attack given to all raid mobs that bypass physical armor/AC of target.Voila, suddenly avoidance gets to be more appealing to some.As for the crusader types, what can be done is to improve their defensive spells so that while in normal circumstances they can't get as good mitigation as warriors, these same spells do what normal physical armor cannot: mitigate critical damage.Anyways, just some rough ideas to play around with.<p>Message Edited by Trei49 on <span class=date_text>03-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:04 AM</span>

KUPOPO

03-03-2005, 03:07 PM

<DIV> <DIV>In my experience, four of the six tank types are in fact equally good for maintanking in a group. Guardians, Berserkers Paladins and Shadowknights are all perfectly competent. It's the Monks and Bruisers that get killed. The reason as has been said before, is that Monks and Bruisers don't have the stability that the heavy-armor classes have. They avoid attacks but one streak of bad luck(just two consecutive hits in some cases) will drop them dead. Even though they might take the same average damage in a minute long period, this variability is what ruins them. For a mitigation tank to die, the incoming damage has to consistently beat the incoming heals, but for an avoidance tank to die, incoming damage just has to spike a bit. Brawlers need some love, something to make them more stable. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Here's my idea: Death Immunity. "What the heck?" You say? Too uber! What I am thinking would not be too uber. Picture this. A passive buff the brawler can cast on himself, which allows him to keep fighting with negative hitpoints, for up to 10 seconds or so. Instead of dropping dead and watching the group get wiped, he'd scream for heals and have a chance to recover. This way, the condition for the tanking brawler to die would be incoming damage consistently beating the heals, just like it is for the mitigation tanks. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This sort of change would alter the way healers interact with brawlers. Big singletarget heals would become the ideal thing for them - you wouldn't have to worry about casting them late! This would be appropriate since brawlers take big single-hit damage, after all.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Raid situations would likely still go to the guardian though, because raid mobs pretty much always hit. The brawler would have a chance though, and would surely be useful as an offtank who can always buy 10 seconds with deathimmunity. I'm not sure it's possible to perfectly balance raid situations for all the tank classes, nor am I sure that it should be perfectly symmetrical. But balancing single-group tanking performance is possible, with ideas like this.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What do you think?</DIV></DIV><p>Message Edited by KUPOPO on <span class=date_text>03-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:08 AM</span>

Eal

03-03-2005, 03:10 PM

<DIV><EM>Trei49</EM></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM> </DIV> <DIV><EM>Well here's an idea:<BR><BR>Introduce critical damage for all non-solo mobs, rare for normal heroic ones but much more frequent for raid level.<BR>What it could be is either <BR>- a chance for any attack to crit and bypass physical armor/AC of target.<BR>or<BR>- a special attack given to all raid mobs that bypass physical armor/AC of target.<BR><BR>Voila, suddenly avoidance gets to be more appealing to some.<BR><BR>As for the crusader types, what can be done is to improve their defensive spells so that while in normal circumstances they can't get as good mitigation as warriors, these same spells do what normal physical armor cannot: mitigate critical damage.<BR></EM><BR>For one thing, Avoidance is unpredictable. If you were to get hit consecutivlely, healers would not be able to heal you fast enough. The probablility of getting hit consecutively increases with more mobs. Also, Avoidance does nothing for mitigation only AC does. If the raid mob was allowed to avoid AC the probability of the tank dying would be a lot higher. Not to mention spells such as area effect, harm touch which are affected by resistance.</DIV>

Trei

03-03-2005, 05:17 PM

["... Also, Avoidance does nothing for mitigation only AC does. If the raid mob was allowed to avoid AC the probability of the tank dying would be a lot higher. ..."]Yes and that was precisely the point of that idea.The idea is to create scenarios and reasons where another tank subclass might be prefered over a Guardian, in this case a Monk maybe. So guardians retain their best mitigation of normal damage but gets an achilles heel in criticals.Brawlers might get occasional spikes of unpredictable damage but they have a much higher chance to avoid criticals, plus the fact that even if they do get hit by a critical, it wouldn't be much higher than taking normal damage since they don't wear much in the first place. Crusaders would end up in the middle ground getting decent mitigation from normal attacks and at least some for crits... something like that.

03-03-2005, 05:29 PM

<DIV><FONT size=5>This thread has turned into Gage's little Crusade. Dang man, do you have about 50% of the posts here? You must be a strong believer that being the loudest always wins the argument.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=5>You can't consolidate your posts?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=5>Why would you post about 10 replys in a row?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff3300 size=6>Do you always need big colorful letters to get your point across?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffffff size=5>Do you think that making this a 10 page thread will make them nerf guardians faster for you?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=5>Nice -Hero- Post status.. [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=5></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=5></FONT> </DIV>

Eal

03-03-2005, 05:40 PM

<DIV>["... Also, Avoidance does nothing for mitigation only AC does. If the raid mob was allowed to avoid AC the probability of the tank dying would be a lot higher. ..."]<BR></DIV> <DIV>I was talking about the monk who would be the tank in this scenerio.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> I am talking with experience when I say this in relation to raids. Deaths to tanks are caused by spikes in damage where the healers can not keep upwith the Mobs damage output. They are random in nature where the mob will max damage output consecutively. I have been in raids where we had beaten all the adds and had the Mob down to less than 10%. The Mob gets lucky and the tank dies.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> Unless the mob was doing critical hits frequently, the issue would still be how well does he mitigate damage. When forming a raid you will always want to go with the safer choice. Since Mobs do melee every turn, mitigation of this damage would be more reliable.</DIV>

Killebr

03-03-2005, 05:45 PM

<DIV>I know this is a game and that this is 2005, but how can you justify any reality in complete class balance? I'm floored by this. If you want to be the person who tanks the epic mobs of the game, then play a Guardian! Obviously the devs are going to make the class that is givin abilities strictly to enhance their character as a tank, they are not going to give knights the same bonus. Why would a guard exist if a pally/sk could tank nearly or as well but could also heal/nuke etc. And, if you want to do the most damage, play a wizard. If you want to be invisible and sneaky, play a scout. If you want to protect the party, play a priest. There are different class choices so that players can choose which play style they like best. Otherwise, there would just be scout, mage, priest, and tank. Tanks would tank, mages nuke, scouts do their thing, and priests heal. Has anyone read a fantsay novel? Watched Lord of the Rings or any fantasy type movie? There is no class balance in these, why should there be perfect 'fairness' when you are the hero, not a Hollywood actor? </DIV> <DIV>What people are looking for here is quite literally communism. Think about it. For example, parallel EQ2 classes to careers. In the US, there are some careers that pay a lot of money, some that dont. Some people go to college and make very little money, some dont go to college and make a lot. What would you think if there was a group of people on the news saying that were protesting in front of a family owned resturaunt because that family didnt go to college but were living better than these 30 year old graduates. Or someone complaining because they work in the field they prefer but make less money than their friend who works in a different field and they also liked thier job, but they made 20% more money. Is it fair? Well, technically, no. Should it be different? Of course not, Karl. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now, some people are goin to flame me with "But this is a game!" I say to you, this is a ROLE-PLAYING game. It is supposed to reflect a certain degree of realism, even if it's realism based on a fantastic world. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'm really not saying that there shouldnt be more class balance. Just less complaining. Feel free to give constructive criticism but come on now. And to those who say "I'm paying for this game every month, I should get what I was promised." How often do you play? Some play 10 hours a month, some play 10 hours a day. I challenge you to find anything else in the world that costs 15 dollars a month for this kind of entertainment. And you cant seriously think that 1 of 300,000 people that all pay 15 dollars a month should get more say than another. You cannot go into your gym and say that since you pay your membership every month that you should have a say in what they do and flame them day and night for not building you a olympic size swimming pool, then when they finally give in, complain that they had to open 2 hours later in the morning to work on it. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Again, I am in no way saying that people should not give feedback. We are asked to give feedback. Quit complaining just to hear your own post.</DIV>

Namil

03-03-2005, 05:45 PM

<DIV>Warriors have 1 role, why cant they be the best at it? Brawlers and Crusaders can fill dual roles. DPS, Tank, Healer Why the hell do you now feel you have to take on Raid mobs as well as the Guardians now too!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I have posted it before and I will say it again. You chose a <STRONG>Hybrid</STRONG> Warrior class. Good at 2 seperate types of functions but master of neither. And SOE never stated that all warrior classes are equal, They stated that all warrior classes can tank just as well in <STRONG>MOST</STRONG> situations. The .001% of raid content is not most!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If SOE intended for every fighter class to be the same then they should just say so, but if they start to make every fighter class that way then why bother choosing anything. Just leave the game with 3 classes and give them all the same skills or choice of skills every level. Why bother having a class better at DPS, or crowd control, or healing. Just make them all the same remove individuality from the game all together so the "It is not fair he got cake and I didnt" little whiners will be happy. Cause everyone knows that making every class the exact same is what we all want! <--- Sarcasm for those that are Sarcasm impaired!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Namil

03-03-2005, 05:49 PM

<DIV> <DIV>Killebrew Wrote:</DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV>I know this is a game and that this is 2005, but how can you justify any reality in complete class balance? I'm floored by this. If you want to be the person who tanks the epic mobs of the game, then play a Guardian! Obviously the devs are going to make the class that is givin abilities strictly to enhance their character as a tank, they are not going to give knights the same bonus. Why would a guard exist if a pally/sk could tank nearly or as well but could also heal/nuke etc. And, if you want to do the most damage, play a wizard. If you want to be invisible and sneaky, play a scout. If you want to protect the party, play a priest. There are different class choices so that players can choose which play style they like best. Otherwise, there would just be scout, mage, priest, and tank. Tanks would tank, mages nuke, scouts do their thing, and priests heal. Has anyone read a fantsay novel? Watched Lord of the Rings or any fantasy type movie? There is no class balance in these, why should there be perfect 'fairness' when you are the hero, not a Hollywood actor? </DIV> <DIV>What people are looking for here is quite literally communism. Think about it. For example, parallel EQ2 classes to careers. In the US, there are some careers that pay a lot of money, some that dont. Some people go to college and make very little money, some dont go to college and make a lot. What would you think if there was a group of people on the news saying that were protesting in front of a family owned resturaunt because that family didnt go to college but were living better than these 30 year old graduates. Or someone complaining because they work in the field they prefer but make less money than their friend who works in a different field and they also liked thier job, but they made 20% more money. Is it fair? Well, technically, no. Should it be different? Of course not, Karl. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now, some people are goin to flame me with "But this is a game!" I say to you, this is a ROLE-PLAYING game. It is supposed to reflect a certain degree of realism, even if it's realism based on a fantastic world. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'm really not saying that there shouldnt be more class balance. Just less complaining. Feel free to give constructive criticism but come on now. And to those who say "I'm paying for this game every month, I should get what I was promised." How often do you play? Some play 10 hours a month, some play 10 hours a day. I challenge you to find anything else in the world that costs 15 dollars a month for this kind of entertainment. And you cant seriously think that 1 of 300,000 people that all pay 15 dollars a month should get more say than another. You cannot go into your gym and say that since you pay your membership every month that you should have a say in what they do and flame them day and night for not building you a olympic size swimming pool, then when they finally give in, complain that they had to open 2 hours later in the morning to work on it. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Again, I am in no way saying that people should not give feedback. We are asked to give feedback. Quit complaining just to hear your own post.</DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>OMG Can I have you children? I agree 100% percent! You rock 5stars. </DIV></DIV>

Allowin

03-03-2005, 06:04 PM

<DIV>SO... the whole point of this is you want a 50 pala, 50 sk, 50 guardian, 50 templar, 50 zerk to all be able to tank the same mobs?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>you want a "tank" ,as you call it, to be all the same? what basis are you considering what is a "tank" and what is not a "tank"? if you read you EQ2 manual, you will see that it stats clearly, that a guardian "IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE ONLY CLASS TO WEAR VANGUARD ARMOR" nowhere it says that any other class should be able to. but they allowed any heavy armor wearing class to don the same armor as a guardian. so should all plate classes be considered a tank? and if so, why would anybody in their right mind want to be a guardian?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>so (according to you) if a 50 guardian and a 50 templar are both wearing the exact same armor and all jewelry items, weapons ect, that they should be able to tank a ^^^ raid mob the same?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>get real!!!!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>i have played the ohh soo noobed guardian class for 40 lvls. and have got so sick and tired of not being able to do anything but be a punching bag for a group. as a guardian, you have little to no dps, you have no high melee attacks, no magic attacks at all. you never get self wards or heals. compared to a sk or pala or zerk, you have nothing. you get very little attack/skills that can be applied to solo combat. your mainly stuck standing outside a instance zone waiting for a group of 5 that needs a punching bag. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>at lvl 40, my high melee attack is 250ish (adept l) and i only connect on any of my attacks 50-60% of the time. sk, pala and zerks are doing 3X 4X the damage as me. a pala can heal and ward theirselves, a sk has lifetap, wards ect. and what does a guardian have???</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>a stupid lvl 20 spell that makes my hand glow?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>SOE in their infinite wisdom gives the guardian class 183648923 spells that can only be applied to groups. we have 15 spells that allow us to take damage for a group member, 15 spells that allow us to absorb damage a group member would otherwise take. 15 spells that allow us to become imobilized and not be able to attack in trade off for 150 or 200 AC, all the while these other "tank" classes you are talking about are gaining new melee attacks, buffs, wards and self heals.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>but you want them to be able to absorb and mitigate damage just as good as a guardian? you want them to be able to "tank" any mobs as good as a guardian?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>who in their right mind would want to play a guardian?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>typical case of having your cake and eating it too.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>i didnt roll a templar (heavy armor, so by your standards a "tank") so i can be the MT in a raid mob.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>i did it cause i wanted a healer.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Eal

03-03-2005, 06:11 PM

<DIV>You didn't bother reading any of the other 183 posts did you, Allowin? Your point is still valid, even though its been mentioned about 100 times.</DIV>

Artorius_

03-03-2005, 08:38 PM

<DIV>To the last posters....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Have you read the thread????</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Do you know this game is EQ2????</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>First This is not EQ1, THERE ARENT HYBRID CLASS, we are all different classes, here a paladin or sk dont have herence from a pure warr and cleric or necro as EQ1, each one have their own habilities ando dont seems simila to a guardian or a cleric or a necro. Monks arent hybrids either are a class too and pure like the rest with their habilities and skills.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This game was designed to all archetypes do their jobs (dps,heal,tank) with their own habilities and ALL TANKS must be able to do it.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If wants a uber tank or unique MT as many says, go then to Eq1 mates, in eq2 must`nt happens this. There arent hybrids class at all. Each class is a pure class. remember all are fighters (in eq1 wasn't in this way) and SOR designed all to TANK with equals opportunities, this dont mean all must have same skills, habilities a unique class, all must be as effective as another with their own habilities. Why take a Guardian, pally.sk or monk? To play the style that likes more to each ONE, but without advantages or the ultimate TANK.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And for the humorist that put an example of cleric tank because had plate .... you are good or dumb? cleric is priest archetype class , not a TANK ARCHEYPE CLASS.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Put nosenses or what you want, and game was designed to be in this form, all archetypes fit their role equals well. With this kind of thread all have a preaty amount of nerfes , ALL whitout exception. Who'll be the first???? Yeah those that claim their are the only tank to big mobs!!! <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You same mates but i'd change my mind or go back to EQ1, that we aren't in that game i remember to some of you, i see don't know yet.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>PD: Fix the classes if necesary , dont gain nerfes, the most of this thread are claiming for it.</DIV>

Namil

03-03-2005, 08:48 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Artorius_ wrote:<BR> <DIV>To the last posters....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Have you read the thread????</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Do you know this game is EQ2????</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>First This is not EQ1, THERE ARENT HYBRID CLASS, we are all different classes, here a paladin or sk dont have herence from a pure warr and cleric or necro as EQ1, each one have their own habilities ando dont seems simila to a guardian or a cleric or a necro. Monks arent hybrids either are a class too and pure like the rest with their habilities and skills.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This game was designed to all archetypes do their jobs (dps,heal,tank) with their own habilities and ALL TANKS must be able to do it.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If wants a uber tank or unique MT as many says, go then to Eq1 mates, in eq2 must`nt happens this. There arent hybrids class at all. Each class is a pure class. remember all are fighters (in eq1 wasn't in this way) and SOR designed all to TANK with equals opportunities, this dont mean all must have same skills, habilities a unique class, all must be as effective as another with their own habilities. Why take a Guardian, pally.sk or monk? To play the style that likes more to each ONE, but without advantages or the ultimate TANK.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And for the humorist that put an example of cleric tank because had plate .... you are good or dumb? cleric is priest archetype class , not a TANK ARCHEYPE CLASS.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Put nosenses or what you want, and game was designed to be in this form, all archetypes fit their role equals well. With this kind of thread all have a preaty amount of nerfes , ALL whitout exception. Who'll be the first???? Yeah those that claim their are the only tank to big mobs!!! <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You same mates but i'd change my mind or go back to EQ1, that we aren't in that game i remember to some of you, i see don't know yet.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>PD: Fix the classes if necesary , dont gain nerfes, the most of this thread are claiming for it.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>You have no fact to backup what you are saying, there are no statements that Crusaders and Brawlers are in fact not a Hybrid class when they in fact use similar abilities as 2 seperate classes. Sounds like the definition of a hybrid class to me. All fighters are not created equal period. Someone has to be the best at something. All the people whining just want their cake and eat it too and basically remove the only thing a Guardian is good at.<BR>

Ender

03-03-2005, 08:56 PM

I'd have to say about 90% of the people here have no idea what they're talking about. All the fighters here can tank pretty [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] well . . . I've played with every tank class out there. As for tanking raid mobs, Vox for example, guardians are NOT the only choice since most other fighters can fill the main tank role just as well. Let Sony worry about "class balance" and the rest of you go back to playing your game.

sidgb

03-03-2005, 09:01 PM

<DIV>Anyone who says there are no hybrids in EQ2 is arguing symantics.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If anything, every class is a hybrid now.</DIV>

Trei

03-03-2005, 09:12 PM

["... but you want them to be able to absorb and mitigate damage just as good as a guardian? you want them to be able to "tank" any mobs as good as a guardian? ..."]To be able to absorb and mitigate just as good as guardian? No what they want is to be able to handle the role of raid MT just as effectively using their OWN specialisations and subclass abilities.I don't think that is too unreasonable.How would you feel if another 0.01% of high end content... maybe some special epic quests or something... suddenly make brawlers and/or crusaders a whole lot more appealing than guardians for MT choice, and results in groups skipping guardians over?

sidgb

03-03-2005, 09:20 PM

<DIV>As a healer I prefer other tanks over guardians 99.9% of the rest of the time. So whats your point?</DIV>

Melamp

03-03-2005, 09:22 PM

<blockquote><hr>sidgb wrote:<DIV>As a healer I prefer other tanks over guardians 99.9% of the rest of the time. So whats your point?</DIV><hr></blockquote>Cataclysm - 23 Templar - 29 Jewelerat lvl 23 a guardian's mitigation isn't great. there end lies the problem. at lvl 50 and 9000ac...the gaurdian tanks better

Ender

03-03-2005, 09:26 PM

Melampus, most of the people who post here have not played the end game yet. They have absolutely NO idea what they're talking about.

sidgb

03-03-2005, 09:27 PM

<DIV>If a problem is guradians being more desirable for 0.01% of encounters at lvl 50.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I would think the BIGGER problem whoud be about the guardian being less desirable for 99.99% of the remaining encounters.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But we don't hear guardians complaining, now do we?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>EnderMX, I don't need to be on the high end to realize the arguement is petty.</DIV> <P>Message Edited by sidgb on <SPAN class=date_text>03-03-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>10:28 AM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by sidgb on <span class=date_text>03-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:29 AM</span>

Namil

03-03-2005, 09:38 PM

<DIV>Going to say this and say this until someone understands...err type I guess lol</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Comparing all Tier 3 fighter classes is like comparing all Tier 3 Caster, Healer or Rogue classes. They are just not meant to fill the same roles. You dont expect a Wizard to do crowd control or an Enchanter to do max DPS.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So why the hell do you expect a Monk or a Pally do be able to take the same punishment as a Guardian????? Because you think SOE said you could? Sorry but they didnt, and until a DEV or some other Official posts here and specifically states all Base Fighter Classes should do the same job no matter what, always. Stop using it as an excuse. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Please do not take this as, I dont think there are some balance issues because there are! I just do not beleive all tier 3 figher classes were meant to be MT all the time. </DIV>

Eelyen

03-03-2005, 09:42 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> sidgb wrote:<BR> <DIV>If a problem is guradians being more desirable for 0.01% of encounters at lvl 50.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I would think the BIGGER problem whoud be about the guardian being less desirable for 99.99% of the remaining encounters.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But we don't hear guardians complaining, now do we?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>EnderMX, I don't need to be on the high end to realize the arguement is petty.</DIV> <P>Message Edited by sidgb on <SPAN class=date_text>03-03-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>10:28 AM</SPAN></P> <P>Message Edited by sidgb on <SPAN class=date_text>03-03-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>10:29 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <P>I can pretty much agree here. I honestly don't see any real complaints on balance issues coming from Guardians. There are some bugs in abilities that need fixing but they are getting fixed slowly. Guardians aren't out there saying that other tanks can tank just as well in groups, why can't guardians have more dps to match. </P> <P>Guardians seem pretty satisfied with their class design. I know I am. If I can hold aggro and take damage, then I'm satisfied. Hell I even make fun of my DPS. I was duo'ing Bloodskull Valley the other night with a templar to help him finish his quest. We were making fun of how long it was taking us to clear it and how l33t our dps was compared to a hamster.</P><p>Message Edited by Eelyen on <span class=date_text>03-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:44 AM</span>

Gaige

03-03-2005, 10:11 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ayun wrote:<BR>Adoring Adoration for Gage!<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Thanks for noticing and taking the time to comment about it.</P> <P>Hero is only 350 posts, so although I didn't get it in this thread, I tried <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>I'm sorry if you think this is my crusade, I was pretty sure I made the point that I'm a monk.</P> <P>Have a good day sir, I sent you an autographed picture via pm <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Namilla wrote:<BR> <DIV>I have posted it before and I will say it again. You chose a <STRONG>Hybrid</STRONG> Warrior class. Good at 2 seperate types of functions but master of neither. And SOE never stated that all warrior classes are equal<FONT color=#ffff00>, They stated that all warrior classes can tank just as well in <STRONG>MOST</STRONG> situations. The .001% of raid content is not most!</FONT></DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Yup I know, but I'm curious why do guardians get to tank the best in "all" situations? Shouldn't it be most for all classes, or are guardians exempt to balancing?<BR></P> <p>Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on <span class=date_text>03-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:14 AM</span>

Eelyen

03-03-2005, 10:24 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ayun wrote:<BR>Adoring Adoration for Gage!<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Thanks for noticing and taking the time to comment about it.</P> <P>Hero is only 350 posts, so although I didn't get it in this thread, I tried <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>I'm sorry if you think this is my crusade, I was pretty sure I made the point that I'm a monk.</P> <P>Have a good day sir, I sent you an autographed picture via pm <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Namilla wrote:<BR> <DIV>I have posted it before and I will say it again. You chose a <STRONG>Hybrid</STRONG> Warrior class. Good at 2 seperate types of functions but master of neither. And SOE never stated that all warrior classes are equal<FONT color=#ffff00>, They stated that all warrior classes can tank just as well in <STRONG>MOST</STRONG> situations. The .001% of raid content is not most!</FONT></DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Yup I know, but I'm curious why do guardians get to tank the best in "all" situations? Shouldn't it be most for all classes, or are guardians exempt to balancing?<BR></P> <P>Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on <SPAN class=date_text>03-03-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>09:14 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>I believe that Guardians aren't the best in all situations. Infact I know they aren't. But I believe that maybe it's just the percieved notion by most that Guardians are the tanks. Not everyone followed the threads 2 years ago that said all fighters would be equal in tanking or whatever. I think it's just a percieved notion that people will look for a "Tank" class sounding name. </FONT></DIV> <DIV></FONT></DIV> <DIV>People just percieve the "guardian" is the tank. Pally and SK's too of course. Course being a guardian and having a templar to group with on a daily basis. I really don't have a problem one way or the other when it comes to getting groups. And honestly I wouldn't mind a group occasionally where I didn't have to tank for the entire grind. Hell last night was the first time I didn't have to pull Cause we had a monk join us who was pulling and I would just taunt off him. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But ya know what happened most of the time when we got an add? Yep the Monk or Berserker would jump off the mob and start tanking the add. Unless I snagged it first with a well timed taunt. <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> You could almost say that having multiple tanks in a group destroys the concept of having a coercer or illusionist. Maybe they should complain about this.</FONT></DIV><p>Message Edited by Eelyen on <span class=date_text>03-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:26 PM</span>

Ender

03-03-2005, 10:26 PM

Sidgb, I'm sure you know all about the game at level 25. LOL.

Eelyen

03-03-2005, 10:27 PM

<DIV>Snipe. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>this thread owns. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Edit: Sorry couldn't help it. We've gone around and around over the same thing again and again in this thread. We're not making much progress.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Eelyen on <span class=date_text>03-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:27 PM</span>

Gaige

03-03-2005, 10:27 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eelyen wrote:<BR> <BR> <DIV>I believe that Guardians aren't the best in all situations. Infact I know they aren't. <FONT color=#ffff00> But I believe that maybe it's just the percieved notion by most that Guardians are the tanks. Not everyone followed the threads 2 years ago that said all fighters would be equal in tanking or whatever. I think it's just a percieved notion that people will look for a "Tank" class sounding name. </FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV></FONT></DIV> <DIV>People just percieve the "guardian" is the tank. Pally and SK's too of course. Course being a guardian and having a templar to group with on a daily basis. I really don't have a problem one way or the other when it comes to getting groups. And honestly I wouldn't mind a group occasionally where I didn't have to tank for the entire grind. <FONT color=#ffff00> Hell last night was the first time I didn't have to pull Cause we had a monk join us who was pulling and I would just taunt off him. </FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But ya know what happened most of the time when we got an add? Yep the Monk or Berserker would jump off the mob and start tanking the add. Unless I snagged it first with a well timed taunt. <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> You could almost say that having multiple tanks in a group destroys the concept of having a coercer or illusionist. Maybe they should complain about this.<BR></DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Good point <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>Yeah I love pulling when I'm not tanking, at least it gives me something to do <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR></P>

Artorius_

03-03-2005, 10:39 PM

<DIV>Where are you reading the most situations or tanks must tanks depends of...?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>From Classes System</DIV> <DIV>"</DIV> <P><B><FONT color=#ffff99 size=3>Won’t balancing become a real issue with that many classes?</FONT></B></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff size=3>Class balance is always a complicated issue, but the archetype system allows us to manage it much more effectively.<SPAN> </SPAN>Each class and subclass is balanced at the archetype level.<SPAN> </SPAN>Every archetype has a main role in a group situation, and each member of a given archetype will be able to fill that role equally well.<SPAN> </SPAN>If you're a fighter, you can tank for a group; if you're a priest, you can heal for a group; and so on. This is the beauty of an archetype system. </FONT></P> <DIV>FAQ:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>"</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Where says Guardians must Tank better depend of situation or in raids?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>"Each class and subclass is balanced at the archetype level.<SPAN> </SPAN>Every archetype has a main role in a group situation, and each member of a given archetype will be able to fill that role EQUALLY well"</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And for raids? They havent said nothing about Guardians must be the tanks for. a Raid are several GROUPS. EVERY TANK must tank EQUALLY well in all situations not in somes as many argues.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And now go on puting as you want, i only put what SOE said from the begining. If there is a situation in wich this dont happens then archetypes class is broken and must be fixed and hope not nerfed but you knows... this is SOE.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And now go on saying they didnt say nothing about equality and so...</DIV>

sidgb

03-03-2005, 10:59 PM

<DIV>Nope EnderMX,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I don't pretend to know everything about the game. But I can recognize petty with the best of them.</DIV>

Aliaswa

03-04-2005, 01:11 AM

<FONT color=#ff3300 size=5>Moorgard said all fighters could be equally effective tanks in most situations.</Font>What part do you guys not get?The fighter Class (WHICH INCLUDES ALL FIGHTERS) ARE SUPPOST TO BE A TANK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! but their all suppost to do it differently. (WHICH I MEAN EQUALLY BUT USING DIFFERENT TACTICS)Heres an EXAMPLE for you:Guardians do it with Heavy ArmorMonks "are" suppost to do it with light armor and dodging!<FONT color=#ff3300 size=3>(notice the "ARE SUPPOST TO" meaning they can't currently)</FONT> remember to be equal with guardian.Thats fine that we can't tank as well as a guardian "BUT" then why would SOE say one thing and do another?If they didn't want other fighters to be tanks then they should of not stated in the manual and Moorgard should retract his statement.Should of made ZERKS/PALYS/MONKS a different class system then.The Guardian NERF is coming mark my words then I'm going to laugh!(why cause you guys don't read on how EQ2 is suppost to work THIS ISN'T EQ1)I'm not going to reroll a toon I picked monk because cause want to be a Monk and were suppost to be equal to other fighers in tanking <FONT color=#ff3300 size=3>(theres that "suppost to" again)<p>Message Edited by Aliaswave on <span class=date_text>03-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:18 PM</span>

sidgb

03-04-2005, 01:21 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Aliaswave wrote:<BR><FONT color=#ff3300 size=5>Moorgard said all fighters could be equally effective tanks in most situations.</FONT><BR><BR><FONT color=#ff3300 size=3> <P> <HR> </P></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>This is true now. The qualifiers of "could" and "most" exclude the posibility of "all". Which is how it is today.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Seems to me that only Guardians had the ability of reading comprehension.</DIV></FONT>

Namil

03-04-2005, 01:22 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Aliaswave wrote:<BR><FONT color=#ff3300 size=5>Moorgard said all fighters could be equally effective tanks in most situations.</FONT><BR><BR>What part do you guys not get?<BR>The fighter Class (WHICH INCLUDES ALL FIGHTERS) ARE SUPPOST TO BE A TANK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <BR>but their all suppost to do it differently. (WHICH I MEAN EQUALLY BUT USING DIFFERENT TACTICS)<BR><BR>Heres an EXAMPLE for you:<BR><BR>Guardians do it with Heavy Armor<BR>Monks "are" suppost to do it with light armor and dodging!<FONT color=#ff3300 size=3>(notice the "ARE SUPPOST TO" meaning they can't currently)</FONT> remember to be equal with guardian.<BR><BR>Thats fine that we can't tank as well as a guardian "BUT" then why would SOE say one thing and do another?<BR><BR>If they didn't want other fighters to be tanks then they should of not stated in the manual and Moorgard should retract his statement.<BR><BR>Should of made ZERKS/PALYS/MONKS a different class system then.<BR><BR>The Guardian NERF is coming mark my words then I'm going to laugh!(why cause you guys don't read on how EQ2 is suppost to work THIS ISN'T EQ1)<BR><BR>I'm not going to reroll a toon I picked monk because cause want to be a Monk and were suppost to be equal to other fighers <FONT color=#ff3300 size=3>(theres that "suppost to" again) <P>Message Edited by Aliaswave on <SPAN class=date_text>03-03-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>12:16 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <P></FONT>As in the top of your post "...in most situations"! Sorry to disagree here but all the base fighter classes can tank in <STRONG>most</STRONG> situations. As a few people have stated in this thread and a couple others. They have seen these other classes tank just fine.</P> <P>As for you people that keep stating this is EQ2 not EQ1 - Your right!, but you have nothing that supports your cookie cutter view of what the fighter classes should or should not be able to do. Until Moorgard or a Dev officially states what you are saying this argument will last forever. </P>

Lancealittle

03-04-2005, 01:23 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Aliaswave wrote:<BR><BR><BR>The Guardian NERF is coming mark my words then I'm going to laugh!(why cause you guys don't read on how EQ2 is suppost to work THIS ISN'T EQ1)<BR><FONT color=#ff3300 size=3> <P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT> <DIV>Please hold your breath till that happens. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You're looking at this from a very narrow view right now. Don't think that your viewpoint is 'obvious' to anyone else. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You can keep praying for a guardian nerf, or you can play the game and enjoy your class. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Grass is greener...and all that junk.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Narfism

03-04-2005, 01:27 AM

<DIV>I am starting to think that people are reading the message the way that they want to. Some read it one way, while others read it another way. What we need is a dev to come on the boards and close this discussion by saying one of 2 things.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As far as tanking is concerned in any situation, </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>a) guards = zerks = pallies = sks = monks = bruisers (if this is the case then I am assuming that they should be equally qualified for the job using their own abilities. Yes you can have equality through different abilities)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>OR</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>b) a > b > c > d > e > f (fill in letters for appropriate classes) in certain instances (and list what those instances are)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It is as simple as that. Not only would that stop the bickering (cause no one would have a leg to stand on) but it would also allow us to see what exactly is the plan they have for balance in EQ2.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Narfism on <span class=date_text>03-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:29 PM</span>

sidgb

03-04-2005, 01:32 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Narfism wrote:<BR> <DIV>I am starting to think that people are reading the message the way that they want to. Some read it one way, while others read it another way. What we need is a dev to come on the boards and close this discussion by saying one of 2 things.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As far as tanking is concerned in any situation, </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>a) guards = zerks = pallies = sks = monks = bruisers (if this is the case then I am assuming that they should be equally qualified for the job using their own abilities. Yes you can have equality through different abilities)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>OR</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>b) a > b > c > d > e > f (fill in letters for appropriate classes) in certain instances (and list what those instances are)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It is as simple as that. Not only would that stop the bickering (cause no one would have a leg to stand on) but it would also allow us to see what exactly is the plan they have for balance in EQ2.</DIV> <P>Message Edited by Narfism on <SPAN class=date_text>03-03-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>12:29 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Anyone that bothered to think about it for 10 seconds knows it was intended to be (b).<BR> <DIV> </DIV></FONT>

Namil

03-04-2005, 01:32 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Narfism wrote:<BR> <DIV>I am starting to think that people are reading the message the way that they want to. Some read it one way, while others read it another way. What we need is a dev to come on the boards and close this discussion by saying one of 2 things.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As far as tanking is concerned in any situation, </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>a) guards = zerks = pallies = sks = monks = bruisers (if this is the case then I am assuming that they should be equally qualified for the job using their own abilities. Yes you can have equality through different abilities)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>OR</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>b) a > b > c > d > e > f (fill in letters for appropriate classes) in certain instances (and list what those instances are)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It is as simple as that. Not only would that stop the bickering (cause no one would have a leg to stand on) but it would also allow us to see what exactly is the plan they have for balance in EQ2.</DIV> <P>Message Edited by Narfism on <SPAN class=date_text>03-03-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>12:29 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I have to agree, One way or another only a DEV or another official will be able to settle this. </P> <P><BR> </P>

Aliaswa

03-04-2005, 01:37 AM

<blockquote><hr>Lancealittle wrote:<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Aliaswave wrote:The Guardian NERF is coming mark my words then I'm going to laugh!(why cause you guys don't read on how EQ2 is suppost to work THIS ISN'T EQ1)<FONT color=#ff3300 size=3><P> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT><DIV>Please hold your breath till that happens. </DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV>You're looking at this from a very narrow view right now. Don't think that your viewpoint is 'obvious' to anyone else. </DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV>You can keep praying for a guardian nerf, or you can play the game and enjoy your class. </DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV>Grass is greener...and all that junk.</DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV> </DIV><hr></blockquote>Thats the problem not one guardian is "seeing" that they are the "god of all tanks" right now and its not suppost to be that way.of course it isn't obvious to you why because your a guardian and you pick and choose what you want to read. <font color=#fff000 size=4>The fact is the fighters are not equal in tanking!</font><p>Message Edited by Aliaswave on <span class=date_text>03-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:37 PM</span>

Eelyen

03-04-2005, 01:37 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Namilla wrote:<BR><BR> <P>I have to agree, One way or another only a DEV or another official will be able to settle this. <HR> <P></P></BLOCKQUOTE>Problem is, no matter which way a dev answers it. The conversation will still continue, in that I have no doubts.<p>Message Edited by Eelyen on <span class=date_text>03-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:37 PM</span>

Narfism

03-04-2005, 01:42 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> sidgb wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Narfism wrote:<BR> <DIV>I am starting to think that people are reading the message the way that they want to. Some read it one way, while others read it another way. What we need is a dev to come on the boards and close this discussion by saying one of 2 things.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As far as tanking is concerned in any situation, </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>a) guards = zerks = pallies = sks = monks = bruisers (if this is the case then I am assuming that they should be equally qualified for the job using their own abilities. Yes you can have equality through different abilities)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>OR</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>b) a > b > c > d > e > f (fill in letters for appropriate classes) in certain instances (and list what those instances are)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It is as simple as that. Not only would that stop the bickering (cause no one would have a leg to stand on) but it would also allow us to see what exactly is the plan they have for balance in EQ2.</DIV> <P>Message Edited by Narfism on <SPAN class=date_text>03-03-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>12:29 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Anyone that bothered to think about it for 10 seconds knows it was intended to be (b).<BR> <DIV> </DIV></FONT><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>No where in there does it blatently say guardians are supposed to be the ultimate tank. In fact, the very words that they chose to be careful of are the words that are being debated as we speak. And lets say that they do list option b as the answer (and actually tell us what areas that is true), then they need to give the other fighters equally important roles to tanking so that they don't get left out of raids.<BR>

Eelyen

03-04-2005, 01:43 AM

<FONT color=#ff6600></FONT><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Aliaswave wrote:<BR><FONT color=#ff3300 size=5>Moorgard said all fighters could be equally effective tanks in most situations.</FONT><BR><BR>What part do you guys not get?<BR>The fighter Class (WHICH INCLUDES ALL FIGHTERS) ARE SUPPOST TO BE A TANK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <BR>but their all suppost to do it differently. (WHICH I MEAN EQUALLY BUT USING DIFFERENT TACTICS)<BR><BR>Heres an EXAMPLE for you:<BR><BR>Guardians do it with Heavy Armor<BR>Monks "are" suppost to do it with light armor and dodging!<FONT color=#ff3300 size=3>(notice the "ARE SUPPOST TO" meaning they can't currently)</FONT> remember to be equal with guardian.<BR><BR>Thats fine that we can't tank as well as a guardian "BUT" then why would SOE say one thing and do another?<BR><BR>If they didn't want other fighters to be tanks then they should of not stated in the manual and Moorgard should retract his statement.<BR><BR>Should of made ZERKS/PALYS/MONKS a different class system then.<BR><BR>The Guardian NERF is coming mark my words then I'm going to laugh!(why cause you guys don't read on how EQ2 is suppost to work THIS ISN'T EQ1)<BR><BR>I'm not going to reroll a toon I picked monk because cause want to be a Monk and were suppost to be equal to other fighers in tanking <FONT color=#ff3300 size=3>(theres that "suppost to" again) <P>Message Edited by Aliaswave on <SPAN class=date_text>03-03-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>12:18 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT color=#ff9900>The very first part of your message states, "most situations."</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ff9900>Another point I'd like to add is that Raid content is supposed to be extremely challenging. And no doubt that as the game progresses over the years, it will only get more and more challenging from increased levels etc. And frankly there is usually only a couple main ways that teh encounters will get more challenging.</FONT></P> <P>1. More Mobs.</P> <P>2. Harder Hitting Bosses</P> <P>3. Harder Hitting Spell Effects</P> <P><FONT color=#ff9900>With that in mind, basically it calls for mitigation tanking. It's the only reliable way. All Fighters can tank in MOST situations. Just like they stated. They can even tank some raid situations if not all. But the Guardian has no secondary role. It was designed, from the layout of it's skills, to be a pure tank. </FONT></P> <P><BR></P> </FONT>

Aliaswa

03-04-2005, 01:44 AM

<blockquote><hr>Narfism wrote:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE><HR>sidgb wrote:<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Narfism wrote:<BR><DIV>I am starting to think that people are reading the message the way that they want to. Some read it one way, while others read it another way. What we need is a dev to come on the boards and close this discussion by saying one of 2 things.</DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV>As far as tanking is concerned in any situation, </DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV>a) guards = zerks = pallies = sks = monks = bruisers (if this is the case then I am assuming that they should be equally qualified for the job using their own abilities. Yes you can have equality through different abilities)</DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV>OR</DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV>b) a > b > c > d > e > f (fill in letters for appropriate classes) in certain instances (and list what those instances are)</DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV>It is as simple as that. Not only would that stop the bickering (cause no one would have a leg to stand on) but it would also allow us to see what exactly is the plan they have for balance in EQ2.</DIV><P>Message Edited by Narfism on <SPAN class=date_text>03-03-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>12:29 PM</SPAN><BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Anyone that bothered to think about it for 10 seconds knows it was intended to be (b).<BR><DIV> </DIV></FONT><BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No where in there does it blatently say guardians are supposed to be the ultimate tank. In fact, the very words that they chose to be careful of are the words that are being debated as we speak. And lets say that they do list option b as the answer (and actually tell us what areas that is true), then they need to give the other fighters equally important roles to tanking so that they don't get left out of raids.<BR><hr></blockquote>AMEN!

sidgb

03-04-2005, 01:45 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Aliaswave wrote:<BR><BR>Thats the problem not one guardian is "seeing" that they are the "god of all tanks" right now and its not suppost to be that way.<BR> <P> <HR> </P></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, we fully recognize we are the "god of all tanks" and selected guardian because we knew guardians would be the "god of all tanks" because our skill set was all about being the "god of all tanks" and we sacrificed knowingly in other areas (DPS, special abilities etc.) for this choice.<BR>

Narfism

03-04-2005, 01:46 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eelyen wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Namilla wrote:<BR><BR> <P>I have to agree, One way or another only a DEV or another official will be able to settle this. <HR> <P></P></BLOCKQUOTE>Problem is, no matter which way a dev answers it. The conversation will still continue, in that I have no doubts. <P>Message Edited by Eelyen on <SPAN class=date_text>03-03-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>03:37 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> Sure, people will complain, but at least the game will be given a direction that all classes in the fighter archetype can see. Then then topic changes from does SOE intend for fighters to be equal in tanking ability to (depending on which way they go) a) how do you make the fighters more equal to each other without sacrificing originality OR b) how do you compensate for those that lose their main role to another (better suited class) so that they have an equally important job in a group.

Aliaswa

03-04-2005, 01:50 AM

<FONT color=#ff9900>With that in mind, basically it calls for mitigation tanking. It's the only reliable way. All Fighters can tank in MOST situations. Just like they stated. They can even tank some raid situations if not all. But the Guardian has no secondary role. It was designed, from the layout of it's skills, to be a pure tank. </FONT>Ok were does it says that all other tanks are secondary and of course by your words you saying exactly what I'm talking about you think guardians are the uber tank.(i'm sayings tanks so i don't exclude other fighters)I swear a DEV better come out at say it because your full of [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] other wise ALL TANKS ARE SUPPOST TO BE TANKS! not one over all!!

Eelyen

03-04-2005, 01:58 AM

Eelyen

03-04-2005, 02:01 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Narfism wrote:<BR><BR><BR> Sure, people will complain, but at least the game will be given a direction that all classes in the fighter archetype can see. Then then topic changes from does SOE intend for fighters to be equal in tanking ability to (depending on which way they go) a) how do you make the fighters more equal to each other without sacrificing originality OR b) how do you compensate for those that lose their main role to another (better suited class) so that they have an equally important job in a group.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>I don't think it would change other classes primary role as a tank either way. All classes can TANK. Just because one has added abilities to be able to take large punishment better. Doesn't make other tanks any less useful. Hell I group with 3 other tanks on a daily basis, non-guardians.<BR>

Mad_Hatt0r

03-04-2005, 02:02 AM

<DIV>every tank should "tank" as in the fact of the way they take damage</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>gaurdians=heavy armor just stands there and take it</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>zerks= a little of both but gets [Removed for Content] off if you hit him enough</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>monks= flat out dodging</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>now, each of these toons are defined in skills which in turn make up thier class.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>monks do fast attacks, zerks get rage abilities, pallys get some healing and buffs, AND GUARDIANS GET TAUNTS</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>let me explain.. as gaurdians they do not gaurd just on damage intake they do.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>they do their job by keeping agro off the rest of the group not by taking damage. granted every tank class can do this but guardians are suppost to be the best at it..you know. am I making any since?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>---pardon my spelling and grammor---</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Mad_Hatt0r

03-04-2005, 02:02 AM

<DIV>delete , double post</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by Mad_Hatt0r on <span class=date_text>03-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:02 PM</span>

Narfism

03-04-2005, 02:05 AM

<DIV>This is where most people differ in opinions. Most people like the idea of having one role. Others believe that all classes should have at least two roles in case there is another class that has conflicts with primary roles. If you want to have one role, then those that you have conflicts with should have an equally important role to fulfill if that spot is taken. At the moment that isn't true by many people's standards. This is why other fighters want equal chance to tank a mob through THEIR OWN skills.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>For those that feel this way, they think that paladins should tank equally using runes and heals. SKs should tank equally through lifetaps and hate generation. Zerkers should tank equally well by limiting the amount of time they are being beat on (aka dps, the faster the mob dies the less damage they can do :smileytongue: )</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>We will see how it goes. Hopefully we can get an actual answer from a dev.</DIV>

Lancealittle

03-04-2005, 02:12 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Aliaswave wrote:<BR><FONT color=#ff9900>With that in mind, basically it calls for mitigation tanking. It's the only reliable way. All Fighters can tank in MOST situations. Just like they stated. They can even tank some raid situations if not all. But the Guardian has no secondary role. It was designed, from the layout of it's skills, to be a pure tank. </FONT><BR><BR>Ok were does it says that all other tanks are secondary and of course by your words you saying exactly what I'm talking about you think guardians are the uber tank.(i'm sayings tanks so i don't exclude other fighters)<BR><BR>I swear a DEV better come out at say it because your full of [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] other wise ALL TANKS ARE SUPPOST TO BE TANKS! not one over all!!<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>And all priests heal, and all mages do damage and crowd control, and who knows what all scouts do.</P> <P>Do all priests heal the same in every situation? Do all mages do the same amount of damage? Do all scouts do whatever they are supposed to be doing equally? No, no, and no.</P> <P>For any class to do the exact same as another class they need to have all the same skills. At one point everyone complained that there was not enough diverisity, now everyone claims there is too much. </P> <P>Another big misconception here is that 'only' a guardian can main tank in a raid. The <EM>one</EM> example of a monk that could not main tank ended up being a case where he got out of buff and heal range halfway into the fight. The same example had a berzerker (not a guardian) filling the main tank role and doing just fine. I've had the same main tank in every multi group raid I've been on (only 5 times so far) and he's a shadowknight. </P> <P>If they removed guardian as a class would there never be another successful raid?</P> <P>I think we've lost the point of this thread someplace. I know few of us read every post, but the same arguments are being repeated over and over by both sides. </P> <P>Would it be nice to have some raid content where the guardian is not the best choice? Sure it would. It may already be in the game, but the people doing high level raids won't change strategies unless they see 5 other posts saying fighter X is the best class when fighting monster Y if you use strategy Z.</P> <P>Another important thing to realize is that the people in level 50 raids do not represent the player base that will be level 50 in a year or even a few months. Most of the level 50s now are min/maxing trailblazers that think a game starts at the max level.<BR></P>

Eelyen

03-04-2005, 02:16 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Mad_Hatt0r wrote:<BR> <DIV>every tank should "tank" as in the fact of the way they take damage</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>gaurdians=heavy armor just stands there and take it</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>zerks= a little of both but gets [Removed for Content] off if you hit him enough</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>monks= flat out dodging</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>now, each of these toons are defined in skills which in turn make up thier class.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>monks do fast attacks, zerks get rage abilities, pallys get some healing and buffs, AND GUARDIANS GET TAUNTS</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>let me explain.. as gaurdians they do not gaurd just on damage intake they do.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>they do their job by keeping agro off the rest of the group not by taking damage. granted every tank class can do this but guardians are suppost to be the best at it..you know. am I making any since?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>---pardon my spelling and grammor---</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000>Just to prove this point wrong. I picked 1 class at random and counted up how many abilities they had that said "increase hate" or threat. </FONT></STRONG></DIV> <DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV>1. Bruiser - ~12 Taunts</DIV> <DIV>2. Guradian - ~14 Taunts</DIV> <DIV>3. Berserker - ~10 Taunts</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I used the ~ as I may have missed one while looking through them all.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And I don't feel like going through all the classes cause, I don't see a point. 2 Taunts more then a bruiser. yea. we really are a taunting secondary role.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Edit: Added Berserker</DIV><p>Message Edited by Eelyen on <span class=date_text>03-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:20 PM</span>

03-04-2005, 02:20 AM

<DIV>I'm sorry but anyone who chose a non-defensive tank class and wanted the best damage mitigation in the hardest situations is just flat out r3tarded.</DIV> <DIV>Yes.. i'm talking to all you tanks who wanted to outdamage jsut about every other class WHILE being highest damage absorber in the game too. </DIV> <DIV>M0rons <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Keep quoting moorguard about stuff he said years ago, the fact is he said that things will change, they have the right to change things, and they will change things at their leisure. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It's so great to see all these wannabe-uber-punks come out of the woodwork after SOE took away all thier godlike fighter dmg to pick on the one group of people who chose their class to help the group, and not themselves. Ya, at level 20 I had the choice of going Berzerker.. everyone said you'd outdamage all other classes and still have most of the dmg mitigation of the Guardian- but i chose Guardian for just that tiny bit more mitigation. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now, after the Godlike fighter dmg has been nerfed all the bitter punks need to beg for their Guardian brothers to be nerfed. Excellent. What a way to be. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Gaige

03-04-2005, 02:23 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> sidgb wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Aliaswave wrote:<BR><FONT color=#ff3300 size=5>Moorgard said all fighters could be equally effective tanks in most situations.</FONT><BR><BR><FONT color=#ff3300 size=3> <P> <HR> <P></P></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>This is true now. <FONT color=#ffff00>The qualifiers of "could" and "most" exclude the posibility of "all". </FONT>Which is how it is today.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Seems to me that only Guardians had the ability of reading comprehension.</DIV></FONT><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Then why are guardians just as effective, if not moreso, in every situation than any of the other fighter classes? Are they exempt to his statement?<BR>

Mad_Hatt0r

03-04-2005, 02:27 AM

<DIV>lol ...um you dont understand, gaurdian's taunts are suppost to be the most effective..</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>next time think. why would someone need alot of something to be good at it?</DIV><p>Message Edited by Mad_Hatt0r on <span class=date_text>03-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:28 PM</span>

Gaige

03-04-2005, 02:28 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Mad_Hatt0r wrote:<BR> <DIV>lol ...um you dont understand, gaurdian's taunts are suppost to be the most effective..</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Then he lied, and guardians were designed as the best tank, period. They never suffer a disadvantage to any other tank class in regards to tanking.<BR>

Eelyen

03-04-2005, 02:29 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Mad_Hatt0r wrote:<BR> <DIV>lol ...um you dont understand, gaurdian's taunts are suppost to be the most effective..</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Supposed to and Are are completely different things.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Plus the fact that Guardians don't have the DPS of the other fighters they need stronger taunts to keep up with the hate level.</DIV>

Eelyen

03-04-2005, 02:31 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> sidgb wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Aliaswave wrote:<BR><FONT color=#ff3300 size=5>Moorgard said <FONT color=#ffff00>all fighters could be <FONT size=6>equally</FONT> effective tanks in <FONT size=6>most</FONT> </FONT>situations.</FONT><BR><BR><FONT color=#ff3300 size=3> <P> <HR> <P></P></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>This is true now. <FONT color=#ffff00>The qualifiers of "could" and "most" exclude the posibility of "all". </FONT>Which is how it is today.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Seems to me that only Guardians had the ability of reading comprehension.</DIV></FONT><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Then why are guardians just as effective, if not moreso, in every situation than any of the other fighter classes? Are they exempt to his statement?<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>He said they could tank "equally" in "most". </P> <P>Which does not necessarily mean that one wouldn't tank better in whats not included in most. Just food for thought.<BR></P> <p>Message Edited by Eelyen on <span class=date_text>03-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:31 PM</span>

sidgb

03-04-2005, 02:31 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR><BR>Then why are guardians just as effective, if not moreso, in every situation than any of the other fighter classes? Are they exempt to his statement?<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>They are not, our DPS sucks and we dont have the cool special abilities. Oops, nevermind, you don't consider that as relevant.</DIV><p>Message Edited by sidgb on <span class=date_text>03-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:31 PM</span>

Gaige

03-04-2005, 02:32 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> sidgb wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR><BR>Then why are guardians just as effective, if not moreso, in every situation than any of the other fighter classes? Are they exempt to his statement?<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>They are not, our DPS sucks and we dont have to cool special abilities. Oops, nevermind, you don't consider that as relevant.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>They aren't when we are talking about effectiveness when tanking, and advantages of one subclass in tanking over another.</P> <P>When you are talking about tanking effectiveness you have to just consider tanking.</P> <P>Why is it so hard to understand?</P> <P>If class A = best tank and class b = not as good but can fly, how does that effect their effectiveness when tanking?<BR></P>

Eelyen

03-04-2005, 02:44 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR><BR> <P>They aren't when we are talking about effectiveness when tanking, and advantages of one subclass in tanking over another.</P> <P>When you are talking about tanking effectiveness you have to just consider tanking.</P> <P>Why is it so hard to understand?</P> <P>If class A = best tank and class b = not as good but can fly, how does that effect their effectiveness when tanking?<BR></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Because you have to consider the whole picture of each class. As I've pointed out before, Guardians don't have a secondary role. Whether by design or accident. Or you could say their secondary role is tanking along with that primary role.<BR>

sidgb

03-04-2005, 02:46 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR><BR> <P>They aren't when we are talking about effectiveness when tanking, and advantages of one subclass in tanking over another.</P> <P>When you are talking about tanking effectiveness you have to just consider tanking.</P> <P>Why is it so hard to understand?</P> <P>If class A = best tank and class b = not as good but can fly, how does that effect their effectiveness when tanking?<BR></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>And that is why we will never agree, class balance is based on the entire scope of class abilities not a subset as I am sure the Dev's see it as well.<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Trying to balance a subset of monk abilities against the entire scope of Guardian abilities is an inherently flawed approach to class balance which results in true imbalance.</DIV>

Gaige

03-04-2005, 02:47 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eelyen wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR><BR> <P>They aren't when we are talking about effectiveness when tanking, and advantages of one subclass in tanking over another.</P> <P>When you are talking about tanking effectiveness you have to just consider tanking.</P> <P>Why is it so hard to understand?</P> <P>If class A = best tank and class b = not as good but can fly, how does that effect their effectiveness when tanking?<BR></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Because you have to consider the whole picture of each class. As I've pointed out before, Guardians don't have a secondary role. Whether by design or accident. Or you could say their secondary role is tanking along with that primary role.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>You can say the same thing for monks, since there are about 20 other classes who can DPS and two entire archtypes that have DPS as their primary role.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So guardians aren't as good as the fighters/scouts/mages at DPS, but better than priests.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Monks are better than priests and guardians, but even/close to other fighters, and behind mages/scouts in DPS.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Heh.</DIV>

Gaige

03-04-2005, 02:50 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P> <HR> <P></P> <P>sidgb wrote:</P> <P>And that is why we will never agree, class balance is based on the entire scope of class abilities not a subset as I am sure the Dev's see it as well.</P> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>Trying to balance a subset of monk abilities against the entire scope of Guardian abilities is an inherently flawed </FONT>approach to class balance which results in true imbalance.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>For once we agree. By giving the guardian class abilites that all relately tie into tanking/defense instead of giving them a mixture they made it impossible to balance the fighter archtype.</P> <P>Its funny that you have to specify "subset of monk abilities" to "entire scope of guardian abilities" don't you think?</P> <P>While the rest of us have increased DPS and utility spells to "balance" our subpar tanking the guardian benefits from an entire 1 to 50 combat art cycle of nothing but enhancements to their tanking ability.</P> <P>Which is a smack in the face of the archtype system, and defaults them to the best. No other class can even come close to having an advantage because of how the guardian class was built. More defense, more taunts, more HP, blah blah blah.</P> <P>You are right, its inherently flawed.</P> <P>What they should've done is made the guardian class like every other fighter, with useable offense and defense, so that balance would be possible to achieve.<BR></P> <p>Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on <span class=date_text>03-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:51 PM</span>

03-04-2005, 02:51 AM

<DIV>Gage is just the type of guy who needs to have the last word, no matter how m0ronic it is. I'm sorry but his style of posting really irritates me, and i'm sure that shows.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Gage.. you got 2120 posts.. maybe give it a rest and let someone else argue your point a while, if there is anyone else. Because as is, you dont got much but repetition, a post for every one elses post on this thread, and a lack of being able to see the fact that making all tanks perfectly equal in defense is a SERIOUS guardian nerf, becuase the Guardian has no other role but defense. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I could be nice to you to try to convince you to shut up.. you do catch more bees with honey, but you also catch more flies with shyte.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

sidgb

03-04-2005, 02:51 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR><BR> <DIV>You can say the same thing for monks, since there are about 20 other classes who can DPS and two entire archtypes that have DPS as their primary role.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So guardians aren't as good as the fighters/scouts/mages at DPS, but better than priests.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Monks are better than priests and guardians, but even/close to other fighters, and behind mages/scouts in DPS.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Heh.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>First sign you are loosing the arguement is changing the subject, first it was all about fighters, now you want balance with other class types? Make up your mind dude, I am talking about fighter balance. Are you?<BR>

Gaige

03-04-2005, 02:54 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ayun wrote:<BR> <DIV><FONT color=#ffcc00>Gage is just the type of guy who needs to have the last word</FONT>, no matter how m0ronic it is. I'm sorry but his style of posting really irritates me, and i'm sure that shows.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Gage.. you got 2120 posts.. maybe give it a rest and let someone else argue your point a while, if there is anyone else. <FONT color=#ffff00>Because as is, you dont got much but repetition, a post for every one elses post on this thread, and a lack of being able to see the fact that making all tanks perfectly equal in defense is a SERIOUS guardian nerf, becuase the Guardian has no other role but defense. </FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I could be nice to you to try to convince you to shut up.. you do catch more bees with honey, but you also catch more flies with shyte.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Maybe. By the way your term "moronic" is opinion. In my opinion your post is spam because it contributes nothing but to attack my post count. The majority of my 2100+ posts have been on topic and constructive, can you say the same?</P> <P>Besides, why does everyone care about my post count? Its just a number? Are you guys envious you can't post at work like me?</P> <P>If making the tanks equal is a guardian nerf, then the system is broken. Thanks for backing me up <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>I don't need you to be nice to me, I have self confidence <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR></P>

Gaige

03-04-2005, 02:55 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> sidgb wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR><BR> <DIV>You can say the same thing for monks, since there are about 20 other classes who can DPS and two entire archtypes that have DPS as their primary role.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So guardians aren't as good as the fighters/scouts/mages at DPS, but better than priests.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Monks are better than priests and guardians, but even/close to other fighters, and behind mages/scouts in DPS.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Heh.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>First sign you are loosing the arguement is changing the subject, first it was all about fighters, now you want balance with other class types? Make up your mind dude, I am talking about fighter balance. Are you?<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Yes.</P> <P>You guys are the ones bringing up DPS as our "balancing" factor. I'm the one trying to talk about tanking. Tanking = fighter only. DPS = every class.</P> <P>You guys are the ones changing this into an arguement about other class types by saying our DPS balances our archtype role.</P> <P>Don't blame stuff on me man, you did it.<BR></P>

sidgb

03-04-2005, 03:01 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR><BR> <P>Yes.</P> <P>You guys are the ones bringing up DPS as our "balancing" factor. I'm the one trying to talk about tanking. Tanking = fighter only. DPS = every class.</P> <P>You guys are the ones changing this into an arguement about other class types by saying our DPS balances our archtype role.</P> <P>Don't blame stuff on me man, you did it.<BR></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>I never changed anything, it's always been about total skill set. Any other approach is unbalanced by it's nature.<BR>

Aliaswa

03-04-2005, 03:13 AM

Why can't you people stick to the topic at hand instead of attacking other people like Gage he is has the right to post his opinions just as you do.Anyway to try an help get the topic back on track WE (as in everyone that is not a guardian) were talking strickly tanking.as stated by Moorgard all fighters could be equally effective tanks in most situations.Thats fine that you can stand there and take damage but other fights should be able to tank the same but with different methods like dodging or maybe even blocking. Which would equal just standing there.Example group of LVL 26monk LVL26 Zerk and lvl22 wizard .I'm LVL26 monk I can't tank Cent Huntress ^^ which are green to me but a zerk that is LVL26 can how is that even fair?<p>Message Edited by Aliaswave on <span class=date_text>03-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:18 PM</span>

Melamp

03-04-2005, 04:13 AM

IMO coming from a high end player.I think SOE made a mistake by wanting archtypes to be the same and your class to be a flavor.This is just stupid. This is why you get about 15 spells then every thing else is just and upgrade to them on the same timers.EQ1 was much better.I would rather have 200 spells in my spell book and go and mem different ones when needed..I doubt any sham kept shrink memmed...I doubt mages kept that lil pouch of goodies/arrows/bandages memmed...nor always have call of hero..These were great spells...but these special things would make ppl mad that the same archtype had better spells in the flavor classes.So we are all generic...I might have well called my character EQUATE...works as good as the others..just cheaperI saw a post a page or so back that said..SOE Said that fighter should all tank as well in grps the same as all priest should heal the same in grps.OK...thats fine.I can heal my grp no problem.On a raid...I can't heal the raid wards are so broke on raids it's not even funny but I don't think of my self as ineffective or uselessMonks can tank in xp grps easily..and have great dps..they get a decent amount of HP too.But why get mad at a guardian..his dps isn't close to your...he can't FD with a rez stone and save an entire raid from having to wait till the next day to retry an encounter.Guardians have the most HP because they don't dodge...what you forget when fighting is that you don't dodge a spell..so why not let the person tank that has more HP so that when a mob cast and they get hit they have more HP left over?if you have 6000hp and you're getting stomped it's alot harder to keep you alive than a guardian with 8000 hp that's getting stomped.

Eal

03-04-2005, 04:52 AM

<DIV><EM>Why can't you people stick to the topic at hand instead of attacking other people like Gage he is has the right to post his opinions just as you do.<BR><BR>Anyway to try an help get the topic back on track WE (as in everyone that is not a guardian) were talking strickly tanking.<BR><BR>as stated by Moorgard all fighters could be equally effective tanks in most situations.Thats fine that you can stand there and take damage but other fights should be able to tank the same but with different methods like dodging or maybe even blocking. Which would equal just standing there</EM></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM> </DIV> <DIV><EM> </EM></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><EM> </EM>We argue with him because he doesn't have a valid point. He wants Monks to Tank equally as well as a Guardian. This would mean that Guardians role of a defensive tank would be compromised or Monks would get their defensive abilities increased to match that of a Guardian.</DIV>

KUPOPO

03-04-2005, 04:59 AM

<DIV> <DIV> <DIV> <DIV> <DIV> <DIV>This thread contains a disturbing number of flame posts. Guys if you want to say something, say something constructive; I've heard "guardians were meant to be better tanks, get used to it" and "the system isn't unbalanced! Berzerkers SK's and Paladins can tank perfectly well!"(conspicuously ignoring monks/bruisers) far too many times. You guys are in denial. There really is a problem with mitigation tanks vs. avoidance tanks. Avoidance tanks really can't fill the role effectively, from gnolls in blackburrow all the way up to tundra terrors in the high 40's, they suck. Seriously, they do. In a good hour of tanking in an exp group, I expect a tanking brawler to die at least once. Unless there are two or more healers keeping him alive.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I take it that everyone acknowledges this fact, now let me explain why it is a bad thing. Archetype balance as described by the devs from the very beginning, is meant to allow anyone in any archetype to be suitable for putting together a valid group. If you have a random assortment of people, getting one each of a fighter, healer mage and scout should make a 'balanced' group that is strong enough to beat any normal group encounter of equal level with confidence. The idea is to create an environment where just about any random assortment of people can form up and go out hunting and have fun, if all the archetypes are present. This environment does not exist in this game. Other archetypes have imbalances, but it's still true that any healer can heal well enough(given a good tank), any scout or mage can contribute good DPS or support powers(it seems to me that scouts and mages have the same archetype role heh). </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But not any tank is viable, specifically the avoidance tanks are not. The reason is that they are too vulnerable to random death - avoidance might result in them taking similar average damage over a long period of time as a mitigation tank,, but because the single hit damage when they do get thwacked is so high, they can randomly drop dead if two or three consecutive shots land. The devs made a system that only accounts for this average damage, but not for the variability. But the criterion for a tank to be effective is not just to be able to hold aggro and average less damage taken per second than the healer can heal. The criterion for success is to hold aggro and not die, which means not to take too much damage before they can get healed. And brawlers are bad at the not dying part.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There is a mathematical reason behind this that I can very simply illustrate. Suppose that two kinds of tanks, the mitigation tank and the avoidance tank, both have 1200 hitpoints and equal defensive ability - meaning that they take equal average damage. They are being attacked once per second, and the shots land one out of ten times on the avoider, but they land one out of two times on the mitigator. When they land on the avoider, they do 1000 damage but when they land on the mitigator they do 200. They are getting healed by small rapid heals or maybe a heal over time, for 100 hp per second. </DIV> <DIV>Now when you look at this you might think that they're both fine, after all each tank takes an average of 100 damage per second and gets healed for 100 damage per second, so it should be stable, right? Well that's wrong. What is the probability that a series of consecutive attacks will kill the tank? </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>For the avoidance tank, the probability is about 1 in 100. The likelihood that one shot will land for 1000 damage is one in ten, so the odds of two consecutive shots landing are one in ten times one in ten, or one in 100. Since the healing rate is equal to the average damage, 100 hp per second, these two consecutive shots will kill the avoidance tank. You might say that 1 in 100 is pretty unlikely, but consider that this is the chance PER TWO SECONDS that the tank will die. So you would expect this tank to have an event like this happen once every 200 seconds or so, meaning his life expectancy is a bit over 3 minutes.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now consider the mitigation tank. How many consecutive hits would it take to kill him? Well assuming he has a streak of bad luck, his hp would go down by 100 per second - 200 dps minus 100 heal per second. So it would take 12 consecutive hits to drop him. What are the odds of that happening? You might say that they would be the same, since the odds of the tank getting hit are so much higher right? Wrong. The odds of the mitigation tank getting hit 12 times in a row are 1/2 times 1/2 times ... multiplied out twelve times. If you do that calculation, the odds you get are about one in four thousand. So this mitigation tank will have a life expectency of 4000 seconds, or a bit over an hour. That's twenty times better than the avoidance tank, even though they take the same damage on average. It gets worse the more hitpoints you're talking about, and avoidance tanks usually have less hp than mitigation tanks on top of that...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The problem basically amounts to the fact that 2^10 is much bigger than 10^2, really just high-school level math. But the devs didn't think it through carefully enough, and thought that having high avoidance would be as good as mitigation. The only fix for this, short of making every tank a mitigation tank, or giving brawlers an obscene amount of hp, is to change the conditions under which an avoidance tank will die. If you let them keep taking hits and go into negative hp for ten seconds, the odds would even out (though not completely). I mentioned this idea earlier but nobody seemed to notice. I'd really like it if other people would start posting reasoned arguments and constructive ideas, too. You don't help anyone by remaining in denial.</DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>