Tower vs. Kite

[Mordicus]

19 % for Kite and 20 % for Tower , warriors dont get heals, this difference should be significantly greater, as a Zerker ill use the SBS Kite version insted of a Cedar Tower, cuz it deals a stun and has better stats, than just dealing dmg. I would be happy with 25% for Towers and 20% for Kites, 19/20 is too close and makes most towers pointless.

[Chukkl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> uccellin19 wrote:<BR>19 % for Kite and 20 % for Tower , warriors dont get heals, this difference should be significantly greater, as a Zerker ill use the SBS Kite version insted of a Cedar Tower, cuz it deals a stun and has better stats, than just dealing dmg. I would be happy with 25% for Towers and 20% for Kites, 19/20 is too close and makes most towers pointless.<BR><BR><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Yep, I'll be banking my tower shield in favor of my SBS Kite as soon as this hits the live servers.

[Sebastien]

Please remember that these are base values, they are not the values that you will get from specific items. For example, on Test right now my shield block rate is up to 3.1%, but a few levels back it was only 2.5%  Yet a buckler is listed at 3%.  How do you explain the variation?  Simple.. level of item, rarity of item, as well as your own level, will all modify that base value into something different. So even though the base values for the two shields only differ by 1%, that diffierence could be multiplied several times over, if you are talking about high level, rare items, for example.  What would be helpful is to have a warrior from test post a real comparison of a same tier / same rarity Kite and Tower shield in the mid 30's.  You might see more of a difference that way. Also.. under the new rules, everyone's avoidance numbers are generally quite a bit lower.  I suspect you will see more tanks choosing to use shields in the near future, and also 1% additional avoidance means a little more under the rules now being tested. <div></div>

[Baelzharon]

<span><blockquote><hr>uccellin19 wrote:19 % for Kite and 20 % for Tower , warriors dont get heals, this difference should be significantly greater, as a Zerker ill use the SBS Kite version insted of a Cedar Tower, cuz it deals a stun and has better stats, than just dealing dmg. I would be happy with 25% for Towers and 20% for Kites, 19/20 is too close and makes most towers pointless. <hr></blockquote>Hey thats fine, toss me Duel Wield and Great Spear and you can have my lame wards, and piddly life taps any day. Something to think about, Kite Shields will have lesser Shield Factors then Tower shields. So even though the Base rate is 20/19 tower shields will potentially be better since they'll have higher shield factors overall. </span><div></div>

[bigmak20]

Something 2 to 4 times larger is atleast twice the shield; period.  If a comparable level Kite has 19%; the Tower should have 38% because its atleast 2 times larger.  Nerf that down from 38 so the non tower wielding classes don't have a cow; but 19 and 20?  Good grief.  <b>Rarity of item, etc, has nothing to do with the BASE stat we're upset about.</b> The shield bearer is going to take more hits because SOE thinks massively strong tanks turn into immobile lumps with zero strength when they don their kryptonite laced heavy armor -- at-least let the shield do it's job.

[Sebastien]

Well, actually, rarity and level of the item DO have A LOT to do with its stats, whether you would like them to or not. <div></div>

[GraymaneGravitic]

<P>"Something 2 to 4 times larger is atleast twice the shield; period."</P> <P> </P> <P>Unadulterated BULL*$%#&!!</P> <P>The larger, heavier tower shield is unweildy and difficult to move into blocking position.....you basically just hide behind it. Towers are great for row after row of line after line of infantry where they basically form a wall to hide behind. </P> <P>The smaller, lighter kite shield is more maneuverable and can more easily be moved into a blocking position in a "mobile" fight.</P> <P>For majority of the combat in EQ2, the kite and smaller shield should actually be MORE effective than a tower!</P> <P> </P>

[MiscreantPy]

<DIV>Kite sheilds in theory are lighter and easier to knock aside than tower sheilds. Twice the sheild twice the armor. Maybe kite users should get a bit of an avoidance buff.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And the best tower sheilds on my server were like 800ac+ with 20% haste. Are there kite sheilds that compare?</DIV>

[bigmak20]

<div></div>Sebastien; of-course the rarity and level matter to the stats.  To repeat -- <b>BASE stat</b>.  once again; it's the 19 vs 20 BASE stat that doesn't make sense.  Sure you can find whatever shield with great stats -- it's the BASE stat that doesn't make sense (do I have to say it again?) As for manuverability; please.  Who cares if it's manuverable when it's big enough to hide behind (said tongue-in-cheek; it's manuverable because my toon has insane STR stat)  In addition; a lite shield doesn't absorb as much force as a heavy one (basic physics). <p>Message Edited by bigmak2010 on <span class=date_text>04-19-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:19 PM</span>

[AsheM]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> GraymaneGraviticus wrote:<BR> <P>"Something 2 to 4 times larger is atleast twice the shield; period."</P> <P> </P> <P>Unadulterated BULL*$%#&!!</P> <P>The larger, heavier tower shield is unweildy and difficult to move into blocking position.....you basically just hide behind it. Towers are great for row after row of line after line of infantry where they basically form a wall to hide behind.</P> <P>The smaller, lighter kite shield is more maneuverable and can more easily be moved into a blocking position in a "mobile" fight.</P> <P>For majority of the combat in EQ2, the kite and smaller shield should actually be MORE effective than a tower!<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>LOL, I want this guy is on.  A tower shield is more difficult to move into blocking position?  Hello the thing is a barn door.  You don't have to move it at all.  It is blocking you period.  Sounds like someone with shield envy.  It is ridiculous that there is a 1% difference from kite to tower.  5% sounds more appropriate.<BR></P>

[Dracoviol]

<DIV>You guys say you talk about balance when you want that block % to be farther apart, but in reality thats the furthest thing from your minds.  You want class superiority.  While its nice for mechanics in a game to follow some realistic paths it doesnt require a stupid devotion.  Last time I checked crusaders were tanks too and gimping our base ability to tank is unrealistic and selfish.  In the current combat system there isnt much of a differance between the shields either, but I doubt you even looked at that.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What balances out the plate tanks is not our basic mitigation and avoidance numbers its our skills.  They also are what makes the classes differant.  me getting within 1% of a guardian in base avoidance doesnt change the fact he has slows/stifles/power drains to lower dmg he recieves nor the buffs he has for ac/crushing dmg and def skill buffs.  Further more it makes it difficult to balance the tank classes when they are miles apart in mitigation/avoidance as evidenced by a revamped(and not yet complete) combat system.  If you want the class you play to determine why your chosen for groups go ahead and complain.  I rather it be the skill of the player myself.</DIV>

[Grozmok]

You folks also forget that Sony said (yeah, yeah, I know, can't trust sony and all that stuff) that all tanks would tank equal. Here.. you can have my 50 pt heal that take 100 power and 30 second recast, and I'll take your tower shield and your bow. <div></div>

[Valta]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> AsheMan wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> GraymaneGraviticus wrote:<BR> <P>"Something 2 to 4 times larger is atleast twice the shield; period."</P> <P> </P> <P>Unadulterated BULL*$%#&!!</P> <P>The larger, heavier tower shield is unweildy and difficult to move into blocking position.....you basically just hide behind it. Towers are great for row after row of line after line of infantry where they basically form a wall to hide behind.</P> <P>The smaller, lighter kite shield is more maneuverable and can more easily be moved into a blocking position in a "mobile" fight.</P> <P>For majority of the combat in EQ2, the kite and smaller shield should actually be MORE effective than a tower!<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>LOL, I want this guy is on.  A tower shield is more difficult to move into blocking position?  Hello the thing is a barn door.  You don't have to move it at all.  It is blocking you period.  Sounds like someone with shield envy.  It is ridiculous that there is a 1% difference from kite to tower.  5% sounds more appropriate.<BR></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Ever used a real tower shield AsheMan? <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Basicaly you are right, it IS a barn door and you only have to hide behind it, but then, just try to imagine how you would like to swing your "insert one handed weapon here". A true tower shield is large and heavy your movement is hindered quite a lot. You cant swing your weapon "upfront", it just do not work. You can either fight to the side you are wielidng your weapon, or you have to put the tower shield aside and then fight upfront, however you are without shield protection. Either you can defend yourself or you can fight. </P> <P>A kite shield is smaler and much ligter, your mobility is not hindered, you can put the shield aside quite fast and start an attack combo, then use the shield for defense again.</P> <P>With a tower shield you cant dodge, you cant parry. All you can do is only to block. With a kite shield you can dodge, parry and block. If you are all speaking about "reality" (a tower shield is larger -> more protection) SOE would have to reconsider the whole thing.</P> <P>Ever watched a dark age infantery fight? It goes sword on shield, shield on shield, sword on sword, shield on sword etc pp and that very fast, imagine the fight with a tower shield... you could only duck behind your tower and take a beating.</P> <P>Btw due to the situation described in the first paragraph, the infantery were only using one handed spears and lightweigt pikes, actualy long weapons that  can just thrust to the front.</P> <P>Basicaly said, both shields provide the same protection but in different ways.</P> <P>One last thing: what do you have in mind when you think about tower shields and kite shields? A true tower shield is realy large, but the best protection it provides is vs arrow fire. Do you think the typical "roman legionnaire" shield is a true tower shield? Nope. It just have the shape of one, but the sitze is those of a regular kite shield. This small little jokes SOE calls "kite shield" were only used by knights as decorative crest shields, nothing for battle.</P> <P> </P>

[Valta]

<P>bäh double post</P><p>Message Edited by Valtaya on <span class=date_text>04-20-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:01 AM</span>

[Braell]

<DIV> <P><FONT size=3>I have done a lot of thinking on the subject, to much to write in one post - but i am a little bored of the "warriors dont get heals" arguments, Something is missing and i am not even sure 19% kite shields beging to fill the gap, But to be honest i can find to many for and against arguments on shields and it's not like it is my decision, all i know is something is lacking.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=3></FONT> </P> <P><U><STRONG><FONT size=3>The Balance:</FONT></STRONG></U></P> <P>All of EQ2's balance relys on the balance of Fighter/Mage/Scout/Priest - all of the Archtypes following those have to fit into those. Now the new changes on paper look like they are going to cause a lot of work, But the logical choice to me would of been to sort out buff stacking.. which is still a lot of work, but it's fixing what is wrong.. where as these changes to me seem like bypassing the issue, burying it in the sand, a bit like cutting off your own leg so you dont have to worry about odd sized shoes.</P> <P> </P> <P><STRONG><FONT size=3><U>Shield for Warriors & Crusaders:</U></FONT></STRONG> <FONT size=2><EM>(Based on EQ2 data, not romans, not weight or size of shield or mentality of historical references to archetype names)</EM></FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2>To let people know where i am comeing from - i have a Shadowknight, Beserker and now Bruiser for my tanking classes, and i enjoy playing them all. I kept my Shadowknight and Beserker within the same level - I parsed for both of them, with equal range's of gear, swapping out weapons and armour, testing different methods and combinations of spells and combat arts hopeing i could understand how they sit in the scales of balance, this is part of why i think things are the way they are in EQ2:</FONT></P> <DIV>Early on the spells/combat arts and skills warriors and crusaders recieve start setting you into the role picked out for them by the designers - Take a look at the stance spells and some other early CA/Spells that become part of the template that is built upon.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <OL> <LI>Soldiers stance adds parry - Knights stance adds block - Brawlers stance adds Deflection. Surely this suggest's that the designers are leading you down those path's, other spells continue this line of thinking.</LI> <LI>Shield combat arts : Combat arts that require a shield equiped to be activated, For a warrior this just is an extra attack, for a knight it is an extra attack + taunt, warriors also get an attack + taunt CA called Taunting blow, knights do not get this - Knights get a 2-h only attack, warriors do not get that, but they do get the shield only attack. That is where the balance lies, Both Warrior and Crusader being able to fill the same function in different ways.</LI> <LI>Stand Firm, Staggering Stance etc - Each of the fighters get one that you can cast on another in the group, the Crusader has another one, this is to build apon their role as secondary tank, augumenting the first tank, they also get another buff which uses concentration and then you have the Offering line of spells which buffs another at a cost to yourself, a total of three extra augmentation spells on top of the basic one.</LI></OL> <P><STRONG>Which is why I <EM>think</EM> these updates are the wrong way to go about things</STRONG> - if we are moveing away from the rock paper scissors that is parry, block and deflect - what happens to the rest of our spells that were designed to function within those rules? sure they will be equal in regards to that none of them are able to raise those mods, but no one haveing them doesnt mean it is equal, if a warrior could raise parry by 100 and a knight raise block by 30 - setting both to zero would not constitute equal, one would of lost more than the other, except we are talking about whole lines of spells and combat arts, I only hope ca's like "weapon shield" find a new function and do not end up a blank button that sits at the back of the book of knowledge for six months, and this is only looking at one small part of the changes...</P> <P>Getting back to my point on shields - the Crusaders have more focus on shields than the Warriors, useing them for attacking and building agro where as the Warriors used the shield in a more basic function, The Warriors how-ever have access the full armour and weapons range, but it doesnt mean they use it in the same way as others do, despite that crusaders have access to a lower quality shield compared to Warriors, But it does fit nicely into the Warriors are the best tank catagory.</P> <P>And as for the <U><STRONG>Warriors do not get heals argument</STRONG> </U>- IF you took away the healing of crusaders, what would fill those blank spell/combat art slots? you cant just take it away without replacing the slot with something useable. <EM><FONT size=2>(Actually you could argue that instead of Wards, Warriors get Rallying Cry)</FONT></EM> Since the balance includes how many spells/combat arts we all get, but here is an example for you anyway:</P> <P>When my beserker got to the same lv as my Shadowknight <EM><FONT size=2>(late 20's)</FONT></EM> they both had very close gear, my Shadowknight had a nicer helm and one better item of jewlery, and my Shadowknight had mostly Adept I spells/combat arts vs the Apprentice I for my beserker... my beserker developed faster and i didnt get the money or time to aquire better drops for him until quite late, but parsing wise he never needed it, with just (apprentice I) combat arts he could outdamage my Shadowkight by a significant amount, and a good <EM><FONT size=2>(rough guess say 30%)</FONT></EM> of the time reach twice the DPS of my Shadowknight in fights, with the added bonus of finishing fights with more power because his combat arts were more efficent, Being able to tank better due to +def buffs/traits and agro simply wasnt a problem due to lower cost combat arts allowing you to hit the enemy more times and simply just being able to rely on agro from those, agro from damage and even agro from buffs <EM><FONT size=2>(more buffs avail)</FONT></EM> and hold the line is nice to but really only needed in extreem circumstances.</P> <P>     When i did get my Beserker upgrades, to Adept I and Apprentise IV the damage gap became wider, God forbid i have two Beserker buffs on for a whole fight - Even the damage the training skill Strongbear <FONT size=2><EM>(think it's strongbear, i want to call it strongbow but that's a drink...)</EM> </FONT>is just very high compared to anything my Shadowknight had, which leads to the point that healing "was not" needed, as dead creatures cannot hit back <FONT size=2><EM>(undead excluded).</EM> </FONT></P> <P>But what happens if you cant kill the enemy faster? say a group mob where your damage means very little on the outcome - Warriors have <EM><FONT size=2>(hopefully still will have soon)</FONT></EM> Abilities, skills, combat arts and equipment choices to allow them to take less damage than the equivelant Crusader, And that is the balance at work - as you see Wards Heals and Lifetaps take a LOT of power and useing them when power is precious is only a unfavourable scenario vs when power is no worry which still leads to the Warrior comeing out on top defensivly and offensivly.</P> <P> </P> <P><STRONG><FONT size=3><U>Crusader & lack of weapon choice:</U></FONT></STRONG></P> <P>When it starts to make sence to me that Guardian/Beserker get to use a bigger shield than Paladin/Shadowknight i suddenly come accross the line of thinking that drift's into the area of weapon selection... why does the Paladin and Shadowknight get such a pitifull choice on weapons? This puts more emphasis on a shield to them because they have less to pick from, how many two handed weapons can you carry with you before you start to want something different to fight with? two, three - four maybe? So shouldnt something fill this gap that is a chasm in equipment choice? perhaps a bigger shield... Perhaps a focus on two handed weapons? perhaps being the best at two handed weapons or the best and one handed weapons... or even just an even selection on weapons, or perhaps even dual wield. (and why i do not want Paladins or Shadowknights to have Dual wield... something i am  used to from EQ1, statistically there is no reason why they should not have it, there is a huge huge gap and something <STRONG>DOES</STRONG> need to fill it.)</P> <P> </P> <P><STRONG><U><FONT size=3>Conclusion:</FONT></U></STRONG></P> <P>Doesnt take mystic meg to figure out these changes are going to be tested, changed, tested, changed, tested, changed more times somone shouted "ranger down".......ever</P> <P> </P> <P>Braellar - Firiona Vie & Antonia Bayle</P></DIV>

[Blackdog183]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> uccellin19 wrote:<BR>19 % for Kite and 20 % for Tower , warriors dont get heals, this difference should be significantly greater, as a Zerker ill use the SBS Kite version insted of a Cedar Tower, cuz it deals a stun and has better stats, than just dealing dmg. I would be happy with 25% for Towers and 20% for Kites, 19/20 is too close and makes most towers pointless.<BR><BR><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Guess what, SK's dont get heals either, we get sadly pathetic lifetaps and wards with long recast timers and huge power costs.  If I chain cast all of my lifetaps and an HO starter, I get back maybe 1/10th of my life.  Not to mention in that time the mob has hit me for twice the amount of the lifetaps combined.  I would gladly let you have that 5% if I get to use a *$%#&! ranged item, can hold aggro while barely expending power, and get to duel wield.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The whole argument about you dont get heals is a sad and pathetic, it really is.</DIV>

[Boli32]

Very concise arguement there Braellar and your first post as well. and it did jog my memory on one aspect of a Crusader that is fundamental to how the class works. Point for point Crusaders are not very efficient. In every aspects damage / hate / warding / heals Crusaders are appauling inefficient in their use of power. Excluding abilities that activily drain a power pool a Crusader will use more power than the other two archytypes in any given fight. <font color="#ffff00"> </font> <blockquote><font color="#ffff00"><font color="#ffffff">Also:</font> One last thing: what do you have in mind when you think about tower shields and kite shields? A true tower shield is realy large, but the best protection it provides is vs arrow fire. Do you think the typical "roman legionnaire" shield is a true tower shield? Nope. It just have the shape of one, but the sitze is those of a regular kite shield. This small little jokes SOE calls "kite shield" were only used by knights as decorative crest shields, nothing for battle. </font></blockquote> Kite Shields were used historically in battle they are mounted shields and often featured a grove (or pair of grooves - for left handers) into which a lance could be braced for a charge. (take a second look at the shape) Knight's on the whole fought on horseback but would if the occasion called for it fight on foot with their horse sheilds. i.e. if they had been knocked down or their horse lamed. The actual sizes of which are accurate (at least on the human model) as they were never designed to protect the whole of the body. Only the most elaborate or shields made specially to display a coat of arms (crests) survive to this day as wood deteriates. <blockquote><i>Hold your arm up as if holding a shield - since you would be on horseback raise it up a few inch.  - A kite shield would be slighly wider than the length of your forearm (no need to go any wider.. it'll just add weight and encumburance) extend upwards to your eye level (no use going any higher... can't see then), and taper to a point that ends at your waist as not to impeed your mounts movement. - That;'s the size of a Kite shield. </i></blockquote> And quick info: The ideal choice for an infantry man on his own would actualy be a round shield as it offered the best protection / mobility combination - but it was however impractical for use on horseback which led to the development of first the oval shield and then the kite shield. The tower shield was never used in combat if the individual fought alone - it was only used in closely packed infantry groups. and the buckler... the buckler is an oversided single arm bracer that gave an archer somethign to block with - but did not hinder him in using his weapon.<div></div>

[Sebastien]

<span><blockquote><hr>bigmak2010 wrote:<div></div>Sebastien; of-course the rarity and level matter to the stats.  To repeat -- <b>BASE stat</b>.  once again; it's the 19 vs 20 BASE stat that doesn't make sense.  Sure you can find whatever shield with great stats -- it's the BASE stat that doesn't make sense (do I have to say it again?) <hr></blockquote> The base value is multiplied by other factors, so the 1% difference in base becomes a *bigger* difference in practice. Before parry and shield block, the typical heavy armor tank has an avoidance of 5% with the Test Server mechanics.  Boosting AGI by the 100's can give you as little as 1% additional avoidance.  So, yes, a 1% difference, multiplied by other factors, is a substantial difference. Of course, taking numbers out of context, not playing on Test, and all that good stuff.. I can understand how you would be confused. </span><div></div>

[bigmak20]

Crusader class: instead of campaigning to get Tower Shields roughly equivalent to Kite perhaps you should campaign to get your skills FIXED?  The long recast timers don't make sense; power cost for heals too high; etc. Balance tanking by fixing the skills you have that should work better then they apparently do.  The Guardian class gave up traits you have to get the traits Guardians have -- one of those Guardian traits being the ability to carry that tower shield and get impressive defensive stats. Fix the crusaders/palladins/sk's please!  Don't nerf something that works -- with a caveat that no class should be able to stack buffs into the untouchable range. Taking this ridulous approach "my class doesn't tank as good as it shoulld -- let's negate another classes class traits"...  ? I'm going to start a thread on class balance; I'm gettting confused (Sebastien will he glad to hear that!  I sense another one star).  <span>:smileyvery-happy:</span>

[Dracoviol]

your very mistaken, this aint a campaign to get kite shields and tower shields changed its about keeping them as they currently are on test.  Maybe you should gain some reading skill before you post next time.  I will be nice and wont even address the other part of your post. <div></div>

[Blackdog183]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> bigmak2010 wrote:<BR>Crusader class: instead of campaigning to get Tower Shields roughly equivalent to Kite perhaps you should campaign to get your skills FIXED?  The long recast timers don't make sense; power cost for heals too high; etc. <BR><BR>Balance tanking by fixing the skills you have that should work better then they apparently do.  The Guardian class gave up traits you have to get the traits Guardians have -- one of those Guardian traits being the ability to carry that tower shield and get impressive defensive stats.<BR><BR>Fix the crusaders/palladins/sk's please!  Don't nerf something that works -- with a caveat that no class should be able to stack buffs into the untouchable range.<BR><BR>Taking this ridulous approach "my class doesn't tank as good as it shoulld -- let's negate another classes class traits"...  ?<BR><BR>I'm going to start a thread on class balance; I'm gettting confused (Sebastien will he glad to hear that!  I sense another one star).  <SPAN>:smileyvery-happy:</SPAN><BR><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>First off, we have, for months and months we have been bugging the devs left right and center to get class fixes and balance.  We have told them that our power costs are way to high, our taunts blow, and our lifetaps and wards just plain suck.  It took them 2 months to fix the timer of graven embrace for cristsakes.  It took them a month to fix our essense spells that they rendered completly useless.  Im not one to ever call for nerfs to another class, I have ever have, not once.  I am one that thinks their should be balance, which their currently isnt.  I would much rather have the devs fix all the broke sh*t with my class, but their A. to lazy or B. to *$%#&! stubborn.

[Boli32]

I'm with Blackdog on this one... althoguh I feel kind of slimy saying it <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />... Shadow knights really need to get their skills fiixed for while Crusader Power Inefficienty is just an aspect of the Paladin class - the Shadowknights are... well broken. Oh... one thing I did learn from a SK I talked to once - a SK damage dealing spells / abilities use less power for similar/greater damage. we compared our stats and a SK was more efficient at dealing damage, in comparaion of course a SK heals were pathetic (both our wards were next to useless in absorbing damage and used in only a taunting aspect). I dont think SK are asking for a liftap that EQUALS a paldins heal (afterall it deals damage as well as heal) they just want a competative art. <div></div>

[Kilo]

<div></div><div></div>Don't agree at all that SKs are broken, and I've been playing one since November 15th, when I dinged 20. I can tank and hold agro fine, I don't see my power going down badly, unless I try to be a DPS tank(which, if you're tanking a mob, you shouldn't be), I can tank level 50+ ^^^ fine, but I actually hate tanking and probably wouldn't of chosen the SK class if I knew it was considered a tanking class before hand. You guys keep saying SKs are broken, and while I do think there are some skills that need work, EVERY class has skills that need work, it doesn't mean that every class in the game is broken.  Having lifetaps != Paladin heals is a balance issue certainly, but not a class breaking issue. Since SoE decided to restrict Crusaders so badly on shield/weapon choices, it's good that they only have a 1% difference, if there was a 5% difference in blocking ability, it would be hard to justify to every class other than warriors. <div></div><p> <span class="time_text"></span></p><p>Message Edited by Kilopy on <span class=date_text>04-20-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:20 PM</span>

[Ibis]

<div></div>THE REASON THAT CRUSADERS DO NOT GET BOWS, RAPIERS, DAGGERS, SPEARS, ETC. is b/c they all do.....*drumroll*....PIERCING DAMAGE, and SOE says Crusaders don't pierce. Mages don't get slashing, priests dont get slashing (save druids who get sword) or piercing (save shamans who get spear), Scouts don't get crushing (save for throwing hammers and blunt arrows). As far as tower vs. kite.  1% is about the same as it is right now on live.  cedar tower is 16.8 cedar kite is like 16.1.  as the numbers go up the % difference is basically going to stay the same but they're both getting an improvement. I concur with Kilopy in general in his last post.  If you think Warriors have no problems themselves you need to take the time to go learn.  We're all really just getting minor tweaks while they figure out the big changes, then we'll get more real work done for us. Crusaders are completely inarguably the best aid-tank class in the archetype.  That is more than they got in EQ1 and its a very important role.  Crusaders can also MT many targets just fine, as can brawlers.  Guardians can tank...everything, and get very poor aid-tank utility. <div></div><p>Message Edited by Ibishi on <span class=date_text>04-21-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:35 AM</span>

[Grond]

<P>Please sir, may I have Mitigation Buffs and 40 % Battle Res?</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>Grondax Ix'Thania of the Shard</P> <P>Officer of Genesis on Highkeep</P> <P>Level 50 Guardian / Level 50 Woodworker</P>

[Blackdog183]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Grondax wrote:<BR> <P>Please sir, may I have Mitigation Buffs and 40 % Battle Res?</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>Grondax Ix'Thania of the Shard</P> <P>Officer of Genesis on Highkeep</P> <P>Level 50 Guardian / Level 50 Woodworker</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Shure If i can have a ranged slot item, duel wield, good taunts, reasonable power costs etc....btw you already have miti buffs.</P> <P>Here while your at it, take the stupid lifetaps and wards, they are about worthless anyway, and I will take you by point bonuses to miti and avoidance over what we get.</P> <P>Did you know that you acutally get more miti and avoidance per point for str/sta/agi than crusaders?  Yes you do, and guess what, at lvl 50 another 400 ac adds up to about 1k less damage per fight.  I know my Lifetaps and wards [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] shure dont make up for that.</P>

[Boli32]

<blockquote><font color="#ffff00">I know my Lifetaps and wards [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] shure dont make up for that.</font> </blockquote> <font color="#ffffff"> When you can cast them that is... *shakes fist at interrupts* </font> <div></div>

[Damonious Ba]

combat changes, part 2:tower shield block = kite shield blockdevs gone nuts .. sighturning this around a bit this means:a door = a tabletcant seem to find this sounds logical.

[Lord of the Arct]

<DIV>Devs stop that! It's enough that everyone now can wear Vanguard, now stop that Tower = Kite crap!</DIV>

[illum.]

You can claim a lot of stuff in the name of balance but no way in hell is a tower shield the same as a kite shield, sorry. No way. It's as simple as that. Wake up.... <div></div>

[Valta]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> illum.se wrote:<BR>You can claim a lot of stuff in the name of balance but no way in hell is a tower shield the same as a kite shield, sorry.<BR>No way. It's as simple as that. Wake up....<BR><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>go on a middle age melee show and ask them if you can use a tower and a kite shield and you will notice THEY ARE THE SAME. the "big barn door" does NOT provide any more protection in melee combat then a kite shield, more then that, it cuts your attack skills by about 80%. The only additional protection a tower shield gives you over a kite is vs projectiles (especialy named: arrows - no tower shield is strong enough to hold a bolt). From own expeerience I would say, your defense with a kite shield is much higher then tower.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>and now please stop [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]ing about reality. a) its very realistic as it stands now b) if you want it realistic, they would have to fix even more things and I bet noone would be fine with that.</DIV>

[Ramsy02]

<span><blockquote><hr>Ibishi wrote:<div></div>THE REASON THAT CRUSADERS DO NOT GET BOWS, RAPIERS, DAGGERS, SPEARS, ETC. is b/c they all do.....*drumroll*....PIERCING DAMAGE, and SOE says Crusaders don't pierce. Mages don't get slashing, priests dont get slashing (save druids who get sword) or piercing (save shamans who get spear), Scouts don't get crushing (save for throwing hammers and blunt arrows). As far as tower vs. kite.  1% is about the same as it is right now on live.  cedar tower is 16.8 cedar kite is like 16.1.  as the numbers go up the % difference is basically going to stay the same but they're both getting an improvement. I concur with Kilopy in general in his last post.  If you think Warriors have no problems themselves you need to take the time to go learn.  We're all really just getting minor tweaks while they figure out the big changes, then we'll get more real work done for us. Crusaders are completely inarguably the best aid-tank class in the archetype.  That is more than they got in EQ1 and its a very important role.  Crusaders can also MT many targets just fine, as can brawlers.  Guardians can tank...everything, and get very poor aid-tank utility. <div></div><p>Message Edited by Ibishi on <span class="date_text">04-21-2005</span> <span class="time_text">01:35 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Crusaders have never been able to use Piercing weapons , even as far back as D&D if i remember correctly . Guardians are the only PURE tank class in Everquest2. Paladin=Warrior/priest, SK=Warrior/neromancer?, Beserker= Warrior/scout(scout for their dps abilities) Guardian=Warrior so for the arguement of all tank classes should be equal in tanking abilities is just stupid. I don't think guardians should be way above , just have a better edge in battle cause we are only all defensive class in the game. making kite/tower shields the same effectiveness will make it so guardians dont have a edge now .</span><div></div>

[prisoner]

<P>I normally try to keep my posts professional and in a decent manner,  but I gotta say that this is the biggest bunch of crap argument that guardians have ever come up with.  God forbid someone be able to tank as well as you (as advertised).  I have no experience with monks or bruisers,  but I hope that their deflection % comes close as well,  and if not,  it should.  Tell me,  why do you care (the guardian) how well another tank does its job?  Cause you really shouldn't.  It shouldn't affect you one bit.  You will still be chosen a good majority of the time for a group/raid anyway and yet you are whining that tower shields and kite shields have the same block %.  Pardon me while I laugh.</P> <P>Ok I'm back.</P> <P>Its been discussed over and over,  the balance is already in your favor thus far.  Crusaders come close,  but we are still behind.  Sad but true.  I'll gladly give you my ward that blocks most of 1 hit from a solo mob for your bow.  Enjoy the massive power drain.  Lord knows I do.  </P> <P>Of all the dumb things to complain about... ugh I need a stiff drink.</P> <P>17</P>

[uzhiel feathered serpe]

<P>Its all about balance. U notice the only people who say tanks are balanced are Guardians, when there are 6 other tank types. No, they are not balanced. At no time did it state that Guardians were supposed to be the UBER tank. Nowhere.  Now that alot of us are in in 50's its plain to see that either guardians have to be adjusted down, or the other tanks have to adjusted up. </P> <P>I am in favor of adjusting other tanks to be on par with guardians. Its not about making cookie cutter tanks. Its about having 6 interchangeable tanks in ALL aspects.  If the differences are so great now that Guardians tank 90% of raid encounters what happens in 10 lvls? or 20 lvls? </P> <P>Unless the devs start adjusting things now, the differences will just keep growing. Stop trying to justify why Guards should be at the top. </P> <P>The fact of the matter is that there will be an adjustment. What type is yet to be determined, but Im betting on the +defs buffs that let Guards tank 3 lvls above other tanks, no matter how well buffed the other tank is. </P> <P>Also, how much utility are my heals and wards when I'm tanking? Heals and wards cost so much power that I can be at half power in a blink. Maybe if they made them less power intensive they would be good for something.</P> <P>Also, the highest kite shield goes up to 820..i know..I have it. The highest tower shield ive seen goes to +890, so there is still a difference.  </P> <P>On another note, Guardians keep telling me they have no utility. Last time i checked Guardians can DRAIN power. What is more important in a raid, draining power or my 550 power intensive heals? specially when there are full healer types. </P> <P>Guardinas also have alot more hate generators than we do...can we say hold the line? or taunting blow? on top of your taunts already? and these dont costs anywhere NEAR as much mana as Crusaders aggro generators.</P> <P>Uzhiel, lvl 50 Paladin, Eternal Chaos, Faydark</P> <p>Message Edited by uzhiel feathered serpent on <span class=date_text>04-24-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:31 AM</span>

[Ramsy02]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>uzhiel feathered serpent wrote:<div></div> <p>Its all about balance. U notice the only people who say tanks are balanced are Guardians, when there are 6 other tank types. No, they are not balanced. At no time did it state that Guardians were supposed to be the UBER tank. Nowhere.  Now that alot of us are in in 50's its plain to see that either guardians have to be adjusted down, or the other tanks have to adjusted up.<font color="#ff0000"> </font></p> <p><font color="#ff0000">I agree Its about balance. Only reason we say its balanced now is, only edge we got on other tank classes is, we can take alittle big more dmg cause of higher hps and the 0.5% a tower shield increases avoidance. </font></p> <p><font color="#ff0000"> What ways do  guardians have to be adjusted down? i havnt seen a valid point on that yet. If you say adjust so everyone tanks the same . sure go ahead but now they have to increase DPS  of guardians so we will be wanted at all in groups.  If they dont make us have more dps then they should just merge guardians with beserkers and delete the guardian class cause there will be no point at all to have them. </font></p> <p><font color="#ff0000">WE only have defensive abilities compared to what pally/sk/zerker's have. so it would make sense for us to have alittle edge when it comes to tanking. Only role a guardian has is tank. Guardians have no different roles to be played in a group, other tank classes do. </font> <font color="#ff0000"> </font></p> <p>I am in favor of adjusting other tanks to be on par with guardians. Its not about making cookie cutter tanks. Its about having 6 interchangeable tanks in ALL aspects.  If the differences are so great now that Guardians tank 90% of raid encounters what happens in 10 lvls? or 20 lvls? </p> <p> </p> <p>Unless the devs start adjusting things now, the differences will just keep growing. Stop trying to justify why Guards should be at the top. </p> <p><font color="#ff0000">If they make it so all tank classes are equal defensively, guardians will be at the bottom. yes they need to adjust so all tanks are the same. but, if this means putting guardians at the bottom to make paladins happy... i guess that does make sense since theres 20x more paladins than anyother class and it will make there customer base more happy</font> </p> <p>The fact of the matter is that there will be an adjustment. What type is yet to be determined, but Im betting on the +defs buffs that let Guards tank 3 lvls above other tanks, no matter how well buffed the other tank is. <font color="#ff0000">Im sorry but i dont understand what you mean by this. If your saying a level 45 guardian can tank better than you if your level 48 , you got problems then. this game is based on Levels. Levels mean everything. I've been in  groups with my healer thats level 30 and i havnt seen a noticeable difference in tanking between tanks</font> </p> <p>Also, how much utility are my heals and wards when I'm tanking? Heals and wards cost so much power that I can be at half power in a blink. Maybe if they made them less power intensive they would be good for something. </p> <p><font color="#ff0000">This is coming from a level 50 paladin? Heals=argo=save cleric in some situations. Really all the healing does is make you able to solo any mob non caster 4-5 levels below you with ease including named. which guiardians have trouble with some. give you 1 example. Terkus the Raidleader Level 35^^. when  i was 37 i soloed him  cause i can use the HO trigger for a 31pt heal every 10 secs.. Now you can not do that for heals. I could hardly solo him when i was 40! I die 3 out of 5 attempts. Thats the difference of heals </font> </p> <p>Also, the highest kite shield goes up to 820..i know..I have it. The highest tower shield ive seen goes to +890, so there is still a difference. <font color="#ff0000"> </font> </p> <p>On another note, Guardians keep telling me they have no utility. Last time i checked Guardians can DRAIN power. What is more important in a raid, draining power or my 550 power intensive heals? specially when there are full healer types. </p> <p><font color="#ff0000">What a power drain of 25 or so per tick for 12seconds?  doesnt do much good at higher levels when mobs regenerate faster than it takes away.</font> </p> <p>Guardinas also have alot more hate generators than we do...can we say hold the line? or taunting blow? on top of your taunts already? and these dont costs anywhere NEAR as much mana as Crusaders aggro generators. </p> <p><font color="#ff0000">At my level(41) i have 1 aoe taunt , 1 single mob taunt, and 1 melee that adds hate. also all have  that Recue that never works. But we seriously lack dps . DPS is a huge factor when trying to keep hate up</font> </p> <p>Uzhiel, lvl 50 Paladin, Eternal Chaos, Faydark</p> <div></div><p>Message Edited by uzhiel feathered serpent on <span class="date_text">04-24-2005</span> <span class="time_text">03:31 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Your missing what i was saying. No way do I, as a guardian, want to beable to take the best out of all the other tanks.  What i am saying is , If this furture update continues how it is, What will guardians beable to contribue to a group/raid? Who would want a guardian over a pally/sk/monk/bruiser/Pally . They all tank the same but HAVE TONS MORE crap to contribue to a group than a guardian. Lets see. DPS, Heals, rez spell that can be handy if cleric goes down , pally can rez cleric with 50% power and health. That in itself is pretty valueable or if cleric is getting crushed and pally cant get argo back he can throw in LoH or heals.  Guardian has to say. ooh sorry my dps is too low and taunts suck , will rez with a feather after i run this argo off . or beserkers have massive DPS so if a group has a tank they can be easily added to a group and improve DPS huge and also group now has backup tank if main goes down. Not sure about SK but i know in EQ1 they had really good taunting abilities and decent DPS. in groups monks/bruisers are really good. they tank just fine(the ones ive grouped with) and have pretty good dps abilities.not that good in raids cause when they get hit, they basically get hit with max hps from attacks so can be tricky keeping them alive. This arguement about " hey ill gladly give up my heals/wards for a bow is stupid because guardians can say, I'd rather give up the bow and beable to rez and heal myself and group members. Paladins <font color="#ff0000">NEVER HAVE BEEN ABLE TO Dual wield</font> in any<font color="#ff0000"> realistic RPG</font> game. This goes back to <font color="#ff0000">D&D</font> . And if my memory serves me right, they <font color="#ff0000">never been able to use daggers and spears either</font>. so its just not a SoE thing. I will be fine with all tank classes tanking the same on mobs but either DPS needs to be dropped to the same as guardian or guardians DPS needs to go up paladin rezes need to go away.Then we will all be equal. </span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Ramsy02 on <span class=date_text>04-24-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:57 AM</span>

[Damonious Ba]

anyone wants to open a thread "SKs and Palas that truely would have wanted to become guardians"

[Anariale]

The fundamental point everyone is missing is that the Shield Factor of Tower Shields is still higher than Kite Shields.  Thus, even if the base block rate is the same between the two, Tower Shields will still be better.  The differences in the classes are on the order of ~1%, not much. Actually, right now, the Block Rate % = Shield Factor / Level.  Im not sure where the base rate cues in. Furthermore, <b>every</b> tank is supposed to be able to handle the job as main tank, not just guardians.  Im sorry, this isnt EQ1. W <div></div>

[Ramsy02]

<span><blockquote><hr>Anariale wrote:The fundamental point everyone is missing is that the Shield Factor of Tower Shields is still higher than Kite Shields.  Thus, even if the base block rate is the same between the two, Tower Shields will still be better.  The differences in the classes are on the order of ~1%, not much. Actually, right now, the Block Rate % = Shield Factor / Level.  Im not sure where the base rate cues in. Furthermore, <b>every</b> tank is supposed to be able to handle the job as main tank, not just guardians.  Im sorry, this isnt EQ1. <font color="#ff0000">/agree </font> W <div></div><hr></blockquote>Thats my point really when you think about it. but since guardians was designed at launch to be better defensively and are currently trying to change it so they all do, a DPS increase or something needs to happen with guardians or they will be no point to them </span><div></div>

[Blackdog183]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ramsy02 wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Anariale wrote:<BR>The fundamental point everyone is missing is that the Shield Factor of Tower Shields is still higher than Kite Shields.  Thus, even if the base block rate is the same between the two, Tower Shields will still be better.  The differences in the classes are on the order of ~1%, not much.<BR><BR>Actually, right now, the Block Rate % = Shield Factor / Level.  Im not sure where the base rate cues in.<BR><BR>Furthermore, <B>every</B> tank is supposed to be able to handle the job as main tank, not just guardians.  Im sorry, this isnt EQ1. <BR><FONT color=#ff0000>/agree<BR></FONT>W<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Thats my point really when you think about it. but since guardians was designed at launch to be better defensively and are currently trying to change it so they all do, a DPS increase or something needs to happen with guardians or they will be no point to them<BR><BR><BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I dont think I have seen anyone say that you dont deserve one, that would be a part of ensuring there is balance.  I do however see a whole bunch of guardians having a fit that the other tank classes are(finnaly) getting some attention.  That strongly suggests a "king of the hill" syndrome.  If all tanks are balanced, that means yes guardians may be on the sidelines some, hey welcome to the club.  I would like to see guardians get some sort of advanced protection ability, make them a "guardian" capable of protecting other classes via buffs etc, while still maintaining their core ability to tank.  At the end of the argument, no one can say that not all tanks should be able to tank....thats all that the other classes want.  </P> <P>Instead of the guadians in here that are whining and complaining because much needed changes are coming around that *may* put your slot as the [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]ing raid king in jeapordy, why dont you start making some reasonable requests that would keep you still viable in groups that you arent the MT, since that seems to be your chief complaint.</P> <P> </P>

[Ibis]

blackdog, shove it.  you're the one with the inferiority complex.  guardians have issues too and you have no problems tanking anything in this game. ANYTHING.  you can tank darathar just fine.  it sucks your GUILD won't let you. but thats due to the PEOPLE you're with.  it has nothing to do with the capability of the crusader class or its sub-classes. <div></div>

[Ibis]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Anariale wrote:The fundamental point everyone is missing is that the Shield Factor of Tower Shields is still higher than Kite Shields.  Thus, even if the base block rate is the same between the two, Tower Shields will still be better.  The differences in the classes are on the order of ~1%, not much. Actually, right now, the Block Rate % = Shield Factor / Level.  Im not sure where the base rate cues in. Furthermore, <b>every</b> tank is supposed to be able to handle the job as main tank, not just guardians.  Im sorry, this isnt EQ1. W <hr></blockquote> uh, BS?  shield factor and block rate are the same thing, as you said, contradicting your own stement that they are different.  If the block rate is equivalent, so is the shield factor.  why cant people get this? they've said this before.  shield factor is how the shield scales upward, the block rate is the representation of the shield factor vs. a even con mob of, I guess, heroic difficulty.  its easier to say that the base chance to avoid is 20% than to say tier 4 towers are now 900, tier 5 towers are now 1600, etc.  now the base chance to avoid for all kites and towers is 20% against an even con mob, and will rise based on the quality of the shield.  which means they scaled the shield factor up on them all.  block rate is the sum of an equation factoring in the shield rate, it isn't a simple number thrown into the system. those who perpetuate and agree with your statement, in that the shield factor and block rate are somehow not correspondent and that towers will still be superior, only show their lack of knowledge on the subject....such as those concurring with your post, and should henceforth [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]. there IS a hitch.  you see, they MIGHT scale differently upward.  but that hasn't been stated.  as far as we know both the base chance and scalability is the same.  again I am angered at the lack of proper information being given.  [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] "being tested".  gallenite was all flowers and love when he explained downtiering and we get jack [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] when this is also a massive change to the game. </span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Ibishi on <span class=date_text>04-24-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:34 PM</span>

[Anariale]

Ibishi... Seriously bro, calm down, take a step back. The bottom line is that Kite Shields will have a lower Shield Factor than Tower Shields.  Thus, they will not block as well as Tower Shields. End of story Now, if you think the increased aggro generation, better defensive buffs, Tower Shield, larger weapon selection and items available in the ranged slots for stats are not as good as a Ward (thats minimal effectiveness for a Plate wearer) and a Heal... reroll.  Thats how classes are different, but can handle the same role. No, Guardians were NOT designed to be the "best" tank in the game.  Sony specifically designed AGAINST that concept.  Each fighter class was designed to handle themselves as a tank in different means.  Thats exactly what was done here.  One is not supposed to be necessarily better than others.  Rather, the classes are designed to be different, but with equivalent effectiveness. Again, this is not EQ1.   If you think Guardians are supposed to be the give all, end all of tanks... youre wrong.  There isnt much else to say there. W <div></div>

[Blackdog183]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ibishi wrote:<BR>blackdog, shove it.  you're the one with the inferiority complex.  guardians have issues too and you have no problems tanking anything in this game. ANYTHING.  you can tank darathar just fine.  it sucks your GUILD won't let you. but thats due to the PEOPLE you're with.  it has nothing to do with the capability of the crusader class or its sub-classes.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>First off, you shouldnt be telling anyone to shove anything anywhere.  Second, inferiority, thats a pretty bold statement.  I have asked for balance, plain and simple, and while the devs arent doing it in the manner that I would prefer, I will take what I can get for now.  You dont need to get yourself confused about my guild or the people in it.  FYI we dont have a guardian MT, we have a SK do it.  Just because youve got your head so far in the sand you cant understand simple logic isnt my fault.</P> <P>The tanks should have balance, now if that means bringing us up, and giving you increased DPS and some more offtanking skills, then that would present a reasonable balance.  The fact is, most of you guardians are scared to death that your "uber tank" position wont be as prestigious as you feel it is.  You cant refute it in anyway, so dont bother.  All the comments I have seen thus far from people whining about this change pretty much prove my point.  </P> <P>lvl 50 Guardian_013456 says "OMG you mean I wont be the uber l33t tank I think i am!  OMG to the forums everyone, time to whine!"</P>

[prisoner]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ibishi wrote:<BR> <SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Anariale wrote:<BR>The fundamental point everyone is missing is that the Shield Factor of Tower Shields is still higher than Kite Shields.  Thus, even if the base block rate is the same between the two, Tower Shields will still be better.  The differences in the classes are on the order of ~1%, not much.<BR><BR>Actually, right now, the Block Rate % = Shield Factor / Level.  Im not sure where the base rate cues in.<BR><BR>Furthermore, <B>every</B> tank is supposed to be able to handle the job as main tank, not just guardians.  Im sorry, this isnt EQ1. <BR><BR>W<BR><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>uh, BS?  shield factor and block rate are the same thing, as you said, contradicting your own stement that they are different.  If the block rate is equivalent, so is the shield factor.  why cant people get this? they've said this before.  shield factor is how the shield scales upward, the block rate is the representation of the shield factor vs. a even con mob of, I guess, heroic difficulty.  its easier to say that the base chance to avoid is 20% than to say tier 4 towers are now 900, tier 5 towers are now 1600, etc.  now the base chance to avoid for all kites and towers is 20% against an even con mob, and will rise based on the quality of the shield.  which means they scaled the shield factor up on them all.  block rate is the sum of an equation factoring in the shield rate, it isn't a simple number thrown into the system.<BR><BR>those who perpetuate and agree with your statement, in that the shield factor and block rate are somehow not correspondent and that towers will still be superior, only show their lack of knowledge on the subject....such as those concurring with your post, and should henceforth [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot].<BR><BR>there IS a hitch.  you see, they MIGHT scale differently upward.  but that hasn't been stated.  as far as we know both the base chance and scalability is the same.  again I am angered at the lack of proper information being given.  [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] "being tested".  gallenite was all flowers and love when he explained downtiering and we get jack [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] when this is also a massive change to the game.<BR></SPAN> <P>Message Edited by Ibishi on <SPAN class=date_text>04-24-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>07:34 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>The "shield factor" isn't the same.  It used to be "AC."  While a kite and a tower may now have the same block %,  the mitigation added from a tower will still be higher from that of a kite.  </P> <P>TowerA - Shield factor 500 - block 20% , KiteA - Shield factor 400 - block 20%.  You'll still have a higher mitigation number.</P> <P>Shields bring 2 things to the table.  A block % and a mitigation bonus.  Besides,  the block % is part of avoidance while the shield factor of a shield goes towards mitigation.  Make sense ? </P> <P>17<BR></P>

[Ramsy02]

<span><blockquote><hr>prisoner17 wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Ibishi wrote: <div></div><span> <blockquote> <hr> Anariale wrote:The fundamental point everyone is missing is that the Shield Factor of Tower Shields is still higher than Kite Shields.  Thus, even if the base block rate is the same between the two, Tower Shields will still be better.  The differences in the classes are on the order of ~1%, not much.Actually, right now, the Block Rate % = Shield Factor / Level.  Im not sure where the base rate cues in.Furthermore, <b>every</b> tank is supposed to be able to handle the job as main tank, not just guardians.  Im sorry, this isnt EQ1. W <hr> </blockquote>uh, BS?  shield factor and block rate are the same thing, as you said, contradicting your own stement that they are different.  If the block rate is equivalent, so is the shield factor.  why cant people get this? they've said this before.  shield factor is how the shield scales upward, the block rate is the representation of the shield factor vs. a even con mob of, I guess, heroic difficulty.  its easier to say that the base chance to avoid is 20% than to say tier 4 towers are now 900, tier 5 towers are now 1600, etc.  now the base chance to avoid for all kites and towers is 20% against an even con mob, and will rise based on the quality of the shield.  which means they scaled the shield factor up on them all.  block rate is the sum of an equation factoring in the shield rate, it isn't a simple number thrown into the system.those who perpetuate and agree with your statement, in that the shield factor and block rate are somehow not correspondent and that towers will still be superior, only show their lack of knowledge on the subject....such as those concurring with your post, and should henceforth [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot].there IS a hitch.  you see, they MIGHT scale differently upward.  but that hasn't been stated.  as far as we know both the base chance and scalability is the same.  again I am angered at the lack of proper information being given.  [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] "being tested".  gallenite was all flowers and love when he explained downtiering and we get jack [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] when this is also a massive change to the game.</span> <div></div> <p>Message Edited by Ibishi on <span class="date_text">04-24-2005</span> <span class="time_text">07:34 PM</span> </p><hr> </blockquote> <p>The "shield factor" isn't the same.  It used to be "AC."  While a kite and a tower may now have the same block %,  the mitigation added from a tower will still be higher from that of a kite.  </p> <p>TowerA - Shield factor 500 - block 20% , KiteA - Shield factor 400 - block 20%.  You'll still have a higher mitigation number.</p> <p>Shields bring 2 things to the table.  A block % and a mitigation bonus.  Besides,  the block % is part of avoidance while the shield factor of a shield goes towards mitigation.  Make sense ? </p> <p>17</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>Hrm the only thing that a shield does when i equip it is increase the avoidance nothing  added to the mitigation. you need to start making sense</span><div></div>

[prisoner]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ramsy02 wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> prisoner17 wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ibishi wrote:<BR> <SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Anariale wrote:<BR>The fundamental point everyone is missing is that the Shield Factor of Tower Shields is still higher than Kite Shields.  Thus, even if the base block rate is the same between the two, Tower Shields will still be better.  The differences in the classes are on the order of ~1%, not much.<BR><BR>Actually, right now, the Block Rate % = Shield Factor / Level.  Im not sure where the base rate cues in.<BR><BR>Furthermore, <B>every</B> tank is supposed to be able to handle the job as main tank, not just guardians.  Im sorry, this isnt EQ1. <BR><BR>W<BR><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>uh, BS?  shield factor and block rate are the same thing, as you said, contradicting your own stement that they are different.  If the block rate is equivalent, so is the shield factor.  why cant people get this? they've said this before.  shield factor is how the shield scales upward, the block rate is the representation of the shield factor vs. a even con mob of, I guess, heroic difficulty.  its easier to say that the base chance to avoid is 20% than to say tier 4 towers are now 900, tier 5 towers are now 1600, etc.  now the base chance to avoid for all kites and towers is 20% against an even con mob, and will rise based on the quality of the shield.  which means they scaled the shield factor up on them all.  block rate is the sum of an equation factoring in the shield rate, it isn't a simple number thrown into the system.<BR><BR>those who perpetuate and agree with your statement, in that the shield factor and block rate are somehow not correspondent and that towers will still be superior, only show their lack of knowledge on the subject....such as those concurring with your post, and should henceforth [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot].<BR><BR>there IS a hitch.  you see, they MIGHT scale differently upward.  but that hasn't been stated.  as far as we know both the base chance and scalability is the same.  again I am angered at the lack of proper information being given.  [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] "being tested".  gallenite was all flowers and love when he explained downtiering and we get jack [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] when this is also a massive change to the game.<BR></SPAN> <P>Message Edited by Ibishi on <SPAN class=date_text>04-24-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>07:34 PM</SPAN><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>The "shield factor" isn't the same.  It used to be "AC."  While a kite and a tower may now have the same block %,  the mitigation added from a tower will still be higher from that of a kite.  </P> <P>TowerA - Shield factor 500 - block 20% , KiteA - Shield factor 400 - block 20%.  You'll still have a higher mitigation number.</P> <P>Shields bring 2 things to the table.  A block % and a mitigation bonus.  Besides,  the block % is part of avoidance while the shield factor of a shield goes towards mitigation.  Make sense ? </P> <P>17<BR></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Hrm the only thing that a shield does when i equip it is increase the avoidance nothing  added to the mitigation. you need to start making sense<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Last time I checked it affected both.  I'll try it again next time I log in.  </P> <P>17</P>

[Axhine]

And now Tower shields are = to Kite shields, this is lame why not make chian = to vanguard then?

[Damonious Ba]

<blockquote><hr>Anariale wrote:Ibishi... Seriously bro, calm down, take a step back. The bottom line is that Kite Shields will have a lower Shield Factor than Tower Shields. Thus, they will not block as well as Tower Shields. End of story Now, if you think the increased aggro generation, better defensive buffs, Tower Shield, larger weapon selection and items available in the ranged slots for stats are not as good as a Ward (thats minimal effectiveness for a Plate wearer) and a Heal... reroll. Thats how classes are different, but can handle the same role. No, Guardians were NOT designed to be the "best" tank in the game. Sony specifically designed AGAINST that concept. Each fighter class was designed to handle themselves as a tank in different means. Thats exactly what was done here. One is not supposed to be necessarily better than others. Rather, the classes are designed to be different, but with equivalent effectiveness. Again, this is not EQ1. If you think Guardians are supposed to be the give all, end all of tanks... youre wrong. There isnt much else to say there. W <div></div><hr></blockquote>alright ... all should be different, but still equal ... guardian = more defense, nearly 0 offense => that makes him the tank for bigger raids, mostly because of his buffs though, so basically any tank class can tank a raid easily with a guardian in his groupbersi = less defense, more offnse/dpspala = less defense, heals/wardsk = less defense, debuffs, dpsif you want to have all tanks be the best tank, just remove bersi pala and sks out of the game. because a tank = most defense class wearing plate armor. (fullstop)going for groups, monks make the best tank anyway bc of dps and high avoidance.anyway, this topic is about shields... and everybody is talking lots of [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]. shields dont provide mitigation yet on live servers, so its all about block rate and block rate = shieldfactor / lvl. so if blockrate tower = blockrate kite, then shieldfactor doesnt matter or is equal. and this actually compares a door to a tablet.

[Nibbl]

<P> </P><p>Message Edited by Nibblar on <span class=date_text>04-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:15 PM</span>

[Nibbl]

<P> </P><p>Message Edited by Nibblar on <span class=date_text>04-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:13 PM</span>

[uzhiel feathered serpe]

<P>Im curious as to where you got your information that there are only 2 pure tanks? What exactly makes a Berserker a pure tank? or a guardian? Did u figure that out now? or did you know that when you created your toon?</P> <P>The devs have acknowledged that +def buffs give an unfair advantage...and since Guards are the only tanks that have an advantage in +def buffs....you draw your own conclusions.</P> <P>I dont care if I get no piercing damage. Ive learned to live with it, same for DW.  These abilities dont have anything to do with "pure" tanking. Bruisers can DW and use piercing. Does that make them "pure" as well?</P> <P>We all know that tanking is getting an adjustement. Dont be surprised when guards get "fixed". If there are imbalances now, they need to be fixed now.</P> <P>I dont care if you guys get a hit points boost..or a mitigation boost. Thats your thing. I even go so far as to say you guys should get bit more utility or an increase in DPS. I agree that my heals mean I should have less hit points....but the def buffs need to be ACROSS the board.</P> <P>Tanking doesnt mean taking less damage. By that rationale templars and inquisitors can out tank us, since they can just keep healing themselves. Tanking means being able to kill the MOB you are fighting. </P> <P>Whether defensively or offensively. </P> <P>A bruiser, using offense, should take a mob down just as quickly as a Guard. . But this DOES not happen. The bruiser or monk dies alot faster.</P> <P>A Crusader, using their "hybrid"( I hate that word) abilities, should take a mob down just as quick as a guard...but again, not happening. We are taking more damage...the comparison is a lvl 50 mob. I tank it at lvl 54, Guards tank it at lvl 57.</P> <P>Common, does that not sound crazy? </P> <P>So you get the SAME evasion, more hit points, more mitigation, and more + def buffs than evasion tanks....and you call that balanced? why? because you guys are "pure" tanks and therefore somehow deserve this? Where has SoE came out and said such a thing.</P> <P>Thats just ridiculous to say tanking is balanced as is. </P> <P>I'm not advocation nerfs at all. I'm saying ALL tanks need to be brought up to the same lvl as guards when tanking. If you have more DPS then that mob should DIE alot quicker and the tank should take just as much damage as the Guard who has less DPS, but more hit points and mitigation. </P> <P>This is the test. Fight Darathar for 1 hour, with an evasion tank or Guard. When the dust clears who is left standing..because if a Guard is a defensive tank and a Bruiser is an offensive tank then they should take darathar down right? just in different way, correct?</P> <P>Im curious too. Stick me tanking Darathar, so then I can use those fabulous heals and wards that make me so UBER, right? until Darathar nukes me for 3000k. My ward absorved 500 and my heals 570. Great, i say..but wait..i just blew 300 mana on it..by the 7 AE, im OOP...oh oh...</P> <P>Uzhiel, lvl 50 Paladin, Eternal Chaos, Faydark.</P> <P>Who lives? </P><p>Message Edited by uzhiel feathered serpent on <span class=date_text>04-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:51 AM</span>

[Damonious Ba]

.)guardian matter:besides of our defense buffs, there is nothing special to the guardian, we have a low dps when onehanded, dont have that dmging abilities, but we have 3 single target taunts and 2 ae taunts. if you take away defense buffs, we got our taunts, but why should we tank ? the guardian was meant to be the most defensive tank with nearly no offensive abilities at all. so i definately dont want offensive abilities, i chose a guardian because of that.tanking =! killing, tanking is holding agro and getting beat up by a mob or an encounter -- so while a guardian might be able to solo higher stuff because of his defense, it takes him by far longer making it inefficient. thats why a guardian is not the main choice for a single group tank.they dont need to nerf defense, theyd just need to alter it so that i would provide 50% avoidance, 50% mitigation and it would be fine. give us mitigation isntead of avoidance and we might not be able to solo those blue cons ++ mobs, but we'd still be the defensive tank like its meant.talking from my experience with the other tank classes and from the talks i had with friends who play them, i can say that they all got their Pros and Cons, they all got their strengths and weaknesses already, and itd be total crap if you made all tanks the same, then youd only need 1 tank class.and this whole matter goes as far as the discussion about kite and tower shields, bc yet only guardians and zerkers are able to use them, so SoE didnt want to give them to SKs and Palas, so tower shields are meant to be better / different than kite shields, if tower shields would be less defensive, why should a guardian use them ? so the main question is what is the sense of tower shields and why cant SoE figure it out and give it its stats.

[Eadric]

<P>I'm a warlock (50th), but I recall during beta that SOE said many, many times that there are no hybrids and that EQ2 was based upon archetypes. I specifically remember them stating that there would be situations where each of the fighter sub-classes would be the best <U>tank</U> for the job. The fact that guardians are the go-to guy all of the time is indicative of a problem in their design.</P> <P>I'm not saying that guardians (or berserkers) will not or do not need attention in other areas (i.e. DPS, utility), but all of the fighters are justified to want equal facetime in tanking raids.</P>

[Nibbl]

<P>Not sure what an SK or Pally is then if its not a hybrid...  They do pretty much the same thing as EQ I, part fighter with a little cleric/necro...  Seems the same... Guess SOE can call it whatever they want <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  Apple is and Apple to me...</P> <P> </P>

[Eadric]

I guess it comes down to role. They each have one part to play and that part is fighter.

[uzhiel feathered serpe]

<DIV> <P>"This is the test. Fight Darathar for 1 hour, with an evasion tank, then a Guard. When the dust clears who is left standing..because if a Guard is a defensive tank and a Bruiser is an offensive tank then they should take darathar down right? just in different way, correct?</P> <P>Im curious too. Stick me tanking Darathar, so then I can use those fabulous heals and wards that make me so UBER, right? until Darathar nukes me for 3000k. My ward absorved 500 and my heals 570. Great, i say..but wait..i just blew 300 mana on it..by the 7 AE, im OOP...oh oh..."</P> <P>No one mentioned the test. Wheres the flavor in this? I invite any high lvl guild to try this....im interested in the outcome. This is very tasty. I can smell the flavor from here. :smileyindifferent:</P> <P>So this is what guards mean when they say flavor...interesting.</P> <P>From what I can tell, only the  status quo gives the tanking classes flavor. ANY change, no matter what, will unflavor the concoction? </P> <P>I dont think so. I'll stick to my opinion about balancing ALL tanks to tank equally, whether offensive or defensive.</P></DIV><p>Message Edited by uzhiel feathered serpent on <span class=date_text>04-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:13 PM</span>

[Damonious Ba]

<blockquote><hr>Eadric wrote:<P>I'm a warlock (50th), but I recall during beta that SOE said many, many times that there are no hybrids and that EQ2 was based upon archetypes. I specifically remember them stating that there would be situations where each of the fighter sub-classes would be the best <U>tank</U> for the job. The fact that guardians are the go-to guy all of the time is indicative of a problem in their design.</P> <P>I'm not saying that guardians (or berserkers) will not or do not need attention in other areas (i.e. DPS, utility), but all of the fighters are justified to want equal facetime in tanking raids.</P> <hr></blockquote>it currently is like that:for the difficulty on the mobs you are going to engage you would rather pick monk/bruiser, bersi, pala or sk as a tank rather than a no-dps-guardian.if every tank class should be able to tank i.e. darathar the same good, youd only need 1 class, bc then you wouldnt need any differences, bc dps doesnt matter as a MT on a raid.

[uzhiel feathered serpe]

<P>No man, you wouldnt have just one class. You would have one tank.......and the choice to pick from 6 types, instead of one. It seems to me that guards are just afraid to be one of the tanks, instead of the ONE tank. :smileyindifferent:</P> <P>You wont become obsolete. You will still have more AC, hit points, and mitigation that other tanks. What you wont have is the +def buffs that other tanks dont have and a decrease in the avoidance that you shouldnt have. Because if you guys are so defensive and have more mitigation that the rest of use, then you should also have less avoidance than us. </P> <P>Seems only right?</P>

[Nibbl]

<P> </P><p>Message Edited by Nibblar on <span class=date_text>04-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:10 PM</span>

[Ibis]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Anariale wrote:Ibishi... Seriously bro, calm down, take a step back. The bottom line is that Kite Shields will have a lower Shield Factor than Tower Shields.  Thus, they will not block as well as Tower Shields. End of story Now, if you think the increased aggro generation, better defensive buffs, Tower Shield, larger weapon selection and items available in the ranged slots for stats are not as good as a Ward (thats minimal effectiveness for a Plate wearer) and a Heal... reroll.  Thats how classes are different, but can handle the same role. No, Guardians were NOT designed to be the "best" tank in the game.  Sony specifically designed AGAINST that concept.  Each fighter class was designed to handle themselves as a tank in different means.  Thats exactly what was done here.  One is not supposed to be necessarily better than others.  Rather, the classes are designed to be different, but with equivalent effectiveness. Again, this is not EQ1.   If you think Guardians are supposed to be the give all, end all of tanks... youre wrong.  There isnt much else to say there. W <div></div><hr></blockquote> wards are far more useful to both plate tanks and leather tanks than reactives are to leather tanks compared to plate.  the absolute load that shamans spew about wards is untrue.  damage received at the end of a ward is indeed mitigated properly.  you don't believe me? I BET you haven't tested it.  I have tanked epic to epic to epic mob with shoulders that have a reactive 50pt ward, and there is no way in HELL thats true.  I would be absolutely SLAUGHTERED if the effect ever came up b/c the mob would immediately do max damage - 50 on me.  that has never been the case.  shamans are [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]ed for credibility right now and so are the crusaders rallying behind their so-called proof. guardians do not have an excess of aggro generation by comparison to crusaders. go and actually get some numbers and tell me you're extremely or even somewhat inferior.  we do have good defensive buffs, but they would assist a crusader in the group as much as the guardian in the group as much as the druid in the group b/c they are group buffs.  crusaders have superior aid-tank skills.  so its not that I'm superior to you in mitigation, its that I cannot provide the same assistance to your mitigation as you can to mine, that I do not also receive as product of my buffs.  The reason for this is that our primary aid-tank skill is intervention based and broken (last I checked, which was a while back).  They create extra damage and don't (or didn't) activate reactive heals or wards present upon the guardian sentrying the MT. I never said guardians are meant to be the end all, I said your statement about block rate and shield factor was incorrect.  WHERE IN HELL DID I SAY THAT?  You're [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]ing your own credibilty here.  You're showing your inferiority issues by accusing me of saying you should be inferior.  You're in a fetal position before I even show up. block rate is the sum of the shield factor versus the power of the mob you're fighting.  if block rate is equivalent then so is shield factor.  they only specified base though, so there may be hope in that towers scale better in shield factor such as plate scales upward more than chain, but its likely that the increase from weak to strong chain and weak to strong plate is the exact same % as will be weak and strong shields.  Therefore if the base is equivalent and the scale is equivalent, then they are merely a fashion choice. the reason they didnt say shield factor, was b/c that number varies dependong on the tier of the shield.  an oak shield will be inferior in shield factor to a cedar shield, but their effect against the mobs of the appropriate level, will be equivalent - 20% base.  So you either have them stating that 1-9 levels kites will have a 120 base, 250 for 10-19, 500 for 20-29, etc. or you have them stating that the base chance to block will be 20% (handcrafted probably) throughout the game. I didn't say this was EQ1.  I played a paladin in EQ1 and trust me I don't want either crusader class shafted in EQ2, but you're not being shafted that much more than I am at the moment.  I've got my own issues that need fixing and the crusaders, SKs especially, are parading around claiming I am a god incarnate and that my issues are non-existant.  Your issues are not that severe.  Brawlers are the ones with raid tanking issues, not crusaders.  Oh, and I actually do visit test to look around.  Do you?</span><div></div>

[Damonious Ba]

<blockquote><hr>uzhiel feathered serpent wrote: <P>No man, you wouldnt have just one class. You would have one tank.......and the choice to pick from 6 types, instead of one. It seems to me that guards are just afraid to be one of the tanks, instead of the ONE tank. </P><hr></blockquote>well if you have 6 types that tank the same good you only need 1 class, this sounds like you wanted to play a guardian nevertheless <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />and what im trying to say is that our defense buffs are just in line, defense itself is a bit overpowered and needs a tweak. but i actually cant see the point why kite shields need to be equal to tower shields just because guardians got their defense buffs.

[prisoner]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ibishi wrote:<BR> <SPAN><BR>wards are far more useful to both plate tanks and leather tanks than reactives are to leather tanks compared to plate.  the absolute load that shamans spew about wards is untrue.  damage received at the end of a ward is indeed mitigated properly.  you don't believe me? I BET you haven't tested it.  I have tanked epic to epic to epic mob with shoulders that have a reactive 50pt ward, and there is no way in HELL thats true.  I would be absolutely SLAUGHTERED if the effect ever came up b/c the mob would immediately do max damage - 50 on me.  that has never been the case.  shamans are [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]ed for credibility right now and so are the crusaders rallying behind their so-called proof.<BR></SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>The rest of your post is true enough,  but I thought I'd chime in here.  Shaman wards are better,  but we are talking about tanks,  and specifically crusaders and their wards.  Our wards are NOT useful after lvl 30,  at least as far as blocking damage.  They are good for other things such as aggro and an emergency of course,  but don't come assuming that they are the ultimate ability that you seem to believe they are,  cause really wards start to suck at the mid game.  They aren't power efficient,  and they work for 1 hit a majority of the time.  Its easier to just take the 1 hit of mitigated damage and use a few combat arts rather than waste the 100+ power it takes to cast a ward.  If I was more skillful with screenshots and how to post them,  I'd be happy to show you our wards getting one-shotted by solo mobs ALL the time.  Useful in theory,  but in fact they just dont scale up enough and using them in an argument that crusaders are somehow "better" doesn't hold any ground.  I'm not talking about anyone in particular,  but that seems to be the trend of the argument.  </P> <P>Everything else in your post I can agree with.  Shaman wards,  I can't comment on.  Crusader wards,  not what you think they are.  </P> <P>17</P>

[Anariale]

<div></div>I find it comical that you attempt to bring Mystics into the conversation when we are talking about Crusaders. It was a direct comparison of Guardian and Paladin abilities.  Nothing more, nothing less. Seriously bro, calm down.  No need to get your panties in a twist. Edit: With your shield argument... are you really this dense?  Are you going to start complaining that Leather is too good because lvl 50 leather is better than lvl 10 plate?  Come on now.  Take an equivalent Kite shield and an equivalent Tower shield and the Tower Shield will have higher SF and thus will block more.  IIRC, the PI Cedar Tower is 840 SF and the Kite is in the high 700's. W <div></div><p>Message Edited by Anariale on <span class=date_text>04-26-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:36 AM</span>

[Eadric]

<DIV>Anariale, just a tip: telling somebody to calm down and then calling them dense in the same post is inimical to your cause.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Sorry, it had to be said. :smileywink:</DIV>

[WolfSha]

<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#ffcc00></FONT></STRONG> <HR> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#ffcc00>*** Combat Testing ***</FONT></STRONG></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Note: The changes below represent a revision to the combat changes currently on Test server. <STRONG>These will *not* be moving to the live servers with the next update.</STRONG> Please continue to see these as part of a work in progress.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>- Fighting blue con and lower encounters should feel more like combat on the live servers.<BR>- Fighting yellow and higher cons should be as challenging or a bit more so than with the first version of combat changes.<BR>- Armor quality (Handcrafted, Fabled, Legendary, etc.) is more meaningful than it was before.<BR>- The Parry skill can once again be buffed.<BR>- Buff caps now scale more appropriately as the character increases in level.<BR>- Agility buffs now have a more meaningful effect.<BR>- Strength buffs now have a more significant impact on damage output.<BR><STRONG>- Kite shields now block with the same effectiveness as tower shields.</STRONG><BR></DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <P>Bum... and i bought a pristine imbued cedar tower after i got the SBS on live yesterday.... that was 60g well wasted :smileysad:</P>

[uzhiel feathered serpe]

<DIV>Wolf, why was it wasted?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You still have a kick [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] tower shield with more AC than a kite shield. Even if it blocks the same, yours still has more AC.</DIV> <DIV>Dont look it from thats perspective, man. Look at it as a great investment that will help you tank better.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Your shield is still better than your old one. :smileyhappy:</DIV>

[Ibis]

<div></div>anariale, extract head from [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot].  this entire thread is about the change coming from test and peoples opinions of that.  not whats currently on live anyway, from test for you all.  SBS is 1440, kite shield of the king is 1600, cedar tower is 1400.  I'm sure cedar kite is also 1400 but I havent taken a look.  I already posted that the SBS was going to kill cedar tower and kite market in another post.  If the change goes live without surrounding changes such as the spell system, I'll be using my SBS full-time and finally junking my cedar.  but they said these combat changes will not go live until some others do, perhaps better spells.  So I'm gonna hold onto it until its actually patched. so no, my current tower will not block better. SBS will.  I already use SBS because the blocking difference is miniscule and the stats are superior. yep, I'm imitating crusaders when I supposedly get a superior shield choice, and I tank epics with it.  wuwuwu.  I'm happy about the change b/c it just makes my current shield choice top of the stack.  We'll see though, if they modify spells to make towers somehow still the warrior preference. <div></div><p>Message Edited by Ibishi on <span class=date_text>04-26-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:55 PM</span>

[Blackdog183]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ibishi wrote:<BR> anariale, extract head from [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot].  this entire thread is about the change coming from test and peoples opinions of that.  not whats currently on live<BR><BR>anyway, from test for you all.  SBS is 1440, kite shield of the king is 1600, cedar tower is 1400.  I'm sure cedar kite is also 1400 but I havent taken a look.  I already posted that the SBS was going to kill cedar tower and kite market in another post.  If the change goes live without surrounding changes such as the spell system, I'll be using my SBS full-time and finally junking my cedar.  but they said these combat changes will not go live until some others do, perhaps better spells.  So I'm gonna hold onto it until its actually patched.<BR><BR>so no, my current tower will not block better. SBS will.  I already use SBS because the blocking difference is miniscule and the stats are superior. yep, I'm imitating crusaders when I supposedly get a superior shield choice, and I tank epics with it.  wuwuwu.  I'm happy about the change b/c it just makes my current shield choice top of the stack.  We'll see though, if they modify spells to make towers somehow still the warrior preference.<BR> <P>Message Edited by Ibishi on <SPAN class=date_text>04-26-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>04:55 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>So wait, you mean that a hertiage quest shield that is major pain in the [Removed for Content] to get is slightly better than a not-so rare tower shield, ,, THE HORROR!

[Damonious Ba]

im just wondering what fabled tower shields will be like then

[Ibis]

<div></div>lol you pick the stupidest things to fight about dog.  I guess anything I say you need to go and find a problem with now hmmm?  I previously stated that the SBS was obviously receiving superior stats due to the comparitive rarity level of the shield.  But its not a "hard" quest.  DFC is [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] but the quest is easy so no, I don't think it deserves the amount (40 more factor + uber stats) of preference it gets.  and the big problem isnt that SBS is good, its that the endgame market for cedar towers and kites will die.  I'm sending my love out to woodworkers and hoping that their products are still relevant.  I'm overjoyed my current shield of choice is going to be the best legendary shield, but I don't think my advancement should come at the price of woodworker's market share.  Having equal shield factor and superior stats would be enough to make me use the SBS and wouldn't hurt the artisan market as much. <div></div>

[Margen]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ramsy02 wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ibishi wrote:<BR> THE REASON THAT CRUSADERS DO NOT GET BOWS, RAPIERS, DAGGERS, SPEARS, ETC. is b/c they all do.....*drumroll*....PIERCING DAMAGE, and SOE says Crusaders don't pierce.<BR><BR>Mages don't get slashing, priests dont get slashing (save druids who get sword) or piercing (save shamans who get spear), Scouts don't get crushing (save for throwing hammers and blunt arrows).<BR><BR>As far as tower vs. kite.  1% is about the same as it is right now on live.  cedar tower is 16.8 cedar kite is like 16.1.  as the numbers go up the % difference is basically going to stay the same but they're both getting an improvement.<BR><BR>I concur with Kilopy in general in his last post.  If you think Warriors have no problems themselves you need to take the time to go learn.  We're all really just getting minor tweaks while they figure out the big changes, then we'll get more real work done for us.<BR><BR>Crusaders are completely inarguably the best aid-tank class in the archetype.  That is more than they got in EQ1 and its a very important role.  Crusaders can also MT many targets just fine, as can brawlers.  Guardians can tank...everything, and get very poor aid-tank utility.<BR> <P>Message Edited by Ibishi on <SPAN class=date_text>04-21-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>01:35 AM</SPAN><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Crusaders have never been able to use Piercing weapons , even as far back as D&D if i remember correctly . <BR><BR>Guardians are the only PURE tank class in Everquest2. Paladin=Warrior/priest, SK=Warrior/neromancer?, Beserker= Warrior/scout(scout for their dps abilities) Guardian=Warrior<BR><BR>so for the arguement of all tank classes should be equal in tanking abilities is just stupid. I don't think guardians should be way above , just have a better edge in battle cause we are only all defensive class in the game.<BR><BR>making kite/tower shields the same effectiveness will make it so guardians dont have a edge now .<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>WRONG, my paladin in D&D used a lance (piercing for you uneducated).  Of course you want Guaridians to be the "best" so you get the raid positions, so Guardians are the 2nd best at taunting and 1st in mitigation.  My Shadow Knight gets ..... drum roll ... a life tap that I can use every 30secs that covers half a hit.   No "one tank to rule them all" we did that in eq1 at end game and it sucked.</P> <P> </P>

[illum.]

<span><blockquote><hr>Blackdog183 wrote: So wait, you mean that a hertiage quest shield that is major pain in the [Removed for Content] to get is slightly better than a not-so rare tower shield, ,, THE HORROR! <div></div><hr></blockquote>You're amusing. Most people with high uptimes I know complete all the heritagequests because they are so easy. I'll do the training is a shield quest over harvesting for high end rares ANY day. Let's face it though, crusaders want to be the spoilt class. Free horse, heals, the holy leadership concept and a box of cookies from mom to bring on your lunchbreak as she kisses you goodbye. I play guardian because I'm dirty and efficient. Crusaders can walk around in their shiny white nightblood stuff any day. Me on the other hand, I want bloodstained, dented smelly [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] that does the job right when called for. I laugh every time I see posts about how crusaders want to be able to tank as if they cannot presently. There are TWO options: 1 All tanks are the same. In that case replace all classes with a "fighter", kthankz. 2 All tanks are not the same. In that case, some will be better and others will be worse at some things. SOE is to blaim for having armour mean so little compared to defence and for fooling kids that you can tank something with leather and fistwraps equally well as with platemail and claymores. This is fantasy but come on =) As a guard I should get hit every time for little damage instead of now, rarely for high damage. The system needs an upgrade to BRING IN what is announced when you read the manual since presently, what matters most is defence and armour is all the same give or take a couple of %. Also, back to the point of the OP, once again, a tower shield is not a kite shield. A spoon is not a fork and an apple is not an orange, thanks <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </span><div></div>

[IvIoritu]

<P>this could be the most silly thread ive ever read.</P> <P> </P> <P>from personal exp i would say SK's tank just as well as guardians.  yes guards have more def buffs but can they debuff a mobs melee skills like a SK?  not sure the exact number for guardians but i know i can creat a 19 point difference in my defence vs a mobs melee skills.  if guards can buff thier defence by much more than 19 then yeah maybe that should be looked at but im pretty sure that they can't.</P> <P> </P> <P>My personal opinion on the whole shield thing is that either they should have the same effectiveness like they are implementing OR towers should be a more defensive but effect the guardians offence.</P> <P>Oh yeah and let me use a [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]ing bow plz thx</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>Mord</P>