Why is Situational Superiority Bad? What is Class Balance?

[bigmak20]

Picking out the  "Best Tank" debate and major proposed nerfs to Heavy Armor wearers; apply to all classes in one form or another. SOE said that all sub classes in a class hierarchy could perform their primary function equally well -- such as all fighters being able to tank.  OK; I buy that.  Sadly many have grabbed that bit of info and decided all sub classes should perform equally in all situations -- WRONG! A guardian is NOT the best tank.  A guardian IS the BEST TANK in SOME SITUATIONS.  A monk is BEST TANK in SOME SITUATIONS.  A crusader is BEST TANK in SOME SITUATIONS.  etc.  Why is that so bad?  Isn't that THE POINT?  Every class should have the joy of stepping to the plate and delivering the goods in the situation their class shines.  That's what makes the game fun.  Instead; we have SOE proposing and trying over the last months to [Removed for Content] all classes to do everything equally bad just to make other classes have equal capability in some situations.  It's wrong; and it should be stopped. Non-plate wearers are screaming they can't tank raid level mobs as well as a plate wearing guardian.  Hmm; OK; makes sense to me the class that is DEFINED BY sustainable damage taking and defense can do that (take sustained damage and defend; it is so very confusing to some).  When you need a tank to deal high damage quick; who ya gonna call?  A monk or berserker I hope; not a guardian.  It's the SITUATION.  Bottom Line == <u><b>Situational Superiority is GOOD and part of TACTICS and the fun of the game.</b></u>  Stop trying to prevent it under the weak minded "class balancing" effort.   But please fix the stuff that's broke so classes can perform appropriately in the situation they should shine.

[Nim]

Besides Guardians have to be the single msot boring class in the game.. There sole purpose is to stand there and take damage.. Unlike the more fun Bruisers/monks who can tank (if well equipped) but deal top damage. <div></div>

[jwdanie]

<DIV>I agree completely with this.  Monk/Bruiser should tank when you want to avoid getting hit, Guardian when you expect to get hit, Berserker when you need damage out of your tank, and Shadowknight/Paladin seem to be the most well rounded.  If every fighter class and subclass is going to be identical, why have classes and subclasses in the first place?  A similar arguement can be made regarding healers with preemtive vs. reactive healing, mages with direct damage vs crowd control vs pets, and scouts with ranged DPS vs positional DPS vs group DPS enhancement.  Each subclass does the same job, but not in the same way, and thus some should be better than others for specific situations.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>My main character is a brigand.  I have learned that there are certain mobs that I can solo if they are blue^^ and others that I should avoid if they are grey.  This is because my character is very good at some things and very bad at others.  This is balance.  Making every character exactly the same is also balance, but kinda boring really.  Just because you see someone doing something that your character can't, don't think "nerf them, they are better than me" think "what can I do that they cannot".</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That having been said, this thread doesn't belong on the testing forums at all...</DIV>

[bigmak20]

I decided to put this thread here due to the combat changes in test addressing this balancing issue.  I want the devs to start thinking in bigger picture terms then they appear to be thinking in the release that I'm reading about in test.

[Yama Seish]

I understand where the OP is coming from, and I agree with the main gist of the argument. That "situational superiority is good" can't be argued against. It makes a much more fun experience to diversify your combat tactics. So far so good. Now, the problem is the following: There is NO content in the game, nor CLASS interdependence, that makes this possible. Period. There are no mobs that an avoidance fighter can "tank" better than a guardian, raid or not, it does not matter. The only sweet spot for the brawlers is on green con ^^ mobs who can't really hit (guardians can pretty much achieve the same with their high defense buffs) Anything above green is always tanked better by a plate class, there's no contest. Should it be like this? No, certainly not What we need is diversity of mob types so that certain classes can do better against them, both group and raid. What we need is a more developed interdependence between classes, so that certain combos of classes work better than others (the famous templar/guardian combo, or the brawler/mystic combo, etc) Until this is achieved, guardians will always be preferred for tanking, especially in raid content, which is a huge portion of the end-game. The proposed "combat balancing" looks to me as another across-the-board leveling down everyone to the same basic mechanics, thereby reducing even more the differences between fighter archetypes... So I am not holding my breath there. Peace <div></div>

[Dfoley3]

<DIV>Agree 100% with the OP and post above me.  Situational superiority is fine.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>However, name one situation where under the current system a monk would be chosen over a guardian?   Guardians can solo blue ++ mobs, monks can solo green ++, guardians can tank orange ++ with one healer, monks need 2.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There is a complete lack of mob variation to support situational superiority.   However, with the changes to the combat system, a monk might tank better on fighter NPC because our agi vs their str will be closer, thus allowing us a greatly increased dodge ratio to heavy tanks, while heavy tanks will do better on scout mobs because scouts have much less str, thus allowing the htis to be mitigated more evenly by a heavy tank.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Sadly, until resists do anything, both heavy and light tanks are doomed on caster mobs.  Being mezed and having an encounter reset isnt fun (same with charmed) , having a npc nuke you for 3k dmg when you have 2k unbuffed resists and 3-4k in a group makes the + resists seemingly pointless.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Another thing, once you are level 50, there is only one situation, raiding.  You no longer gain exp, the items u need for upgrades come from raids.   So once you reach max level (and eventualy anyone who WANTS to will) you enter the be all end all situation where , atm, only one type of tank works.    Im a monk, and i dont want to mitigate like a plate tank, but i also dont like how currently they avoide like a light tank.  giving them 100% avoidance with raid buffs needs to be fixed, because the only other alternative would be to give light tanks 100% mitigation, and that ultimately would have the same game breaking effect.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[sostrows]

<P>Agree with OP.  Every subclass board is filled with "our (insert class) can't be (insert role here) compared to (insert other subclass here)" threads.</P> <P>I want subclass situational superiority otherwise why even have subclasses?</P> <P>Please don't "balance" subclasses to a nice white pasty uniform Grobb gruel!!  Let us keep our flavor.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

[GraymaneGravitic]

<P>"I want subclass situational superiority otherwise why even have subclasses?"</P> <P> </P> <P>Situational superiority is all fine and dandy IF........IF sufficient situations are presented to allow the diversity to be exploited. </P> <P>Currently, the only situation that seems to matter to the player base, raid mobs, is dominated by one subclass. THAT is what all the complaining is about!</P> <P>If SOE would provide sufficient oppurtunities for the other classes to utilize their situational superiority, and by sufficient I mean both in number AND desirability, then there wouldn't be anything for anyone to complain about.</P> <P>And btw, which situation is the so called "balanced" subclass superior in? This is an inherent problem of the "paladin" (hybrid fighter/magic user) faces in every mmorg.......jack of all trades and master of none.......being mediocre at everything means you stand out at nothing!</P> <P>"Non-plate wearers are screaming they can't tank raid level mobs as well as a plate wearing guardian.  Hmm; OK; makes sense to me the class that is DEFINED BY sustainable damage taking and defense can do that (take sustained damage and defend; it is so very confusing to some).  When you need a tank to deal high damage quick; who ya gonna call?  A monk or berserker I hope; not a guardian.  It's the SITUATION. "</P> <P>So which SITUATION do you call the paladin for? He is a plate wearer who can't tank the raid mobs as effectively as the preferred guardian and doesn't have sufficient dps to be prefered over the monk or berserker for that role!<BR></P> <p>Message Edited by GraymaneGraviticus on <span class=date_text>04-20-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:10 PM</span>

[Dfoley3]

<DIV>No offense but IF you are relying on a TANK to deal dmg, then your group needs to be redone.  If tanks are dealing dmg efficently it is my firm oppinion that there should be no difference between scout and fighter at all, i mean if i need dmg i should go to mage or scout, not a fighter, otherwise whats the point of making a difference between fighter and scout at all if half the fighters dps just as well as all of the scouts.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Your point is fine, but u cant base reason on fallicy.  In arch type sub classes should be situationaly useful, but not substituable by completly different arch types.   Mages arent asking for heals, and priests arent asking for taunts or melee dps.   Why should scouts and fighters have overlap in role.  Fighter should tank (situationaly) and scout should put on the hurt (situationaly).  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As a monk, i dont want to sustain dmg over long periods of time, i just want to dodge it.  Hopefuly, with the new combat system, a monk (high agi) will tank a fighter mob (high str) better because light armor will 1) inc avoidance, 2) have more agi, 3) increase our overaly agi vs mob str ratio (what will determine dmg)....thus making monks more situationaly effective against fighter mobs while heavy tanks would be better vs scout type mobs (mitigating those 10k back stabs that mobs can do from front side by 50% is far more effective then praying a monk dodges it)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[bigmak20]

The situation you want the tank to be a damage dealer with MoBs you are wading thru as quick as possible -- exp group for example -- where you're going thru MoBs quick and not that worried about tank taking long terms of damage.  I don't recall saying the tank would be THE damage dealer -- scout; mage; etc; is that role.  Yeah; I know; scouts are gimped.  Fix the scouts!  Don't [Removed for Content] tanks. Even in multi-mob epic situations (if I'm the healer) a damage dealing tank is great because I'm good at getting "Heal on Death" reactives on every mob member at the right time; so the tank is -always- getting a very big and cheap heal and if any one MoB takes a bunch of the tanks health it isn't a catastrophe. You're going into unknown terriortory?  That's the situation a palladin shines.  Will live thru and adequately tank just about anything.  Not necessarily the best at any one MoB but decent.  The palladin is the best all around solo'er for that reason IMO. Every tank has a situation they shine. One of the responses here may have hit the nail on the head -- there definitely needs to be content in the game to allow different skills that opportunity.  Would improve the gameplay considerably and force groups/raids to think in a more tactical sense.

[GraymaneGravitic]

<P>I agree completely bigmak.</P> <P>We want our classes to have differences.</P> <P>In order for our differences to make us preferred in different situations.......we simply need different situations.</P> <P>Right now, it appears the mob encounters are too generic to provide sufficient diversity of need in group composition.</P> <P>The paladin's ability to handle most any situation, making it the ideal solo class, is why I play a paladin.</P> <P> </P>

[FamilyManFir]

Bigmak2010, your idea of "situational superiority" is a nice one, however (according to Moorgard) it has nothing to do with the current combat changes on Test.According to Moorgard, the current combat changes are being done because of two problems:1) After LU#5 it became clear that Avoidance was King - nay, Emperor - of Defense. Mitigation was handy, but largely unnecessary; gaining a high Avoidance was key to being a successful tank for <i>all</i> Fighters.2) SOE found that, up and down the range of levels, content could be trivialized for any class with the right combination of Avoidance buffs.Thus, they've implemented the current set of changes with its mix of reduced defenses and buff caps (as well as reduced-power mobs, etc). The fact that these caps create a situation where the Avoidance of Brawlers will always be better than plate-tanks and the Mitigation of plate tanks will always be better than Brawlers is almost a side-effect, albeit completely in line with SOE's Vision(tm).

[Eelyen]

<P>Totally agree, if you look at the other archtypes.  The templar is the best healer, the assassin is the highest dps scout...the wizard/warlock is the best magical damage.</P> <P>Why is it so wrong for Guardians to have a small advantage in tanking?  Why do all the tank classes have to be exactly the same.</P>

[Drai]

<P>Correct me if I'm wrong, but the goal of this game was variety in a lot of new, innovative ways, right?</P> <P>Any species can become any class - good idea, and a highly entertaining one (group with a gnome tank, or a troll bard, and you'll understand immediately)<BR>Making every subclass do virtually the same job - LAME<BR><BR>I mostly play healer-types, and I have a horrid bias against clerics and their subs. No offense to you who like them, but I was downright INSULTED when my little druid running through the Commonlands was rejected when sending tells to groups that needed healers, because they wanted clerics since they were better. Druids had awful aggro problems (and still do, though not so much that I've seen), and shams were sort of ignored. I LOVE my shaman. The shapeshifting I'll have as a mystic will be a hoot, and wards with debuffs are my new best friends.<BR><BR>When they say 'balancing' the classes, they need to realize what NEEDS to be balanced. Here's my side of the healer balancing.<BR><BR>Aggro issues - all healers should draw the same amount of aggro, doing the same things. One regrowth spell from a druid should NOT pull a whole mob of orcs over to them.<BR>Actual healing - as far as general heals go, we should all be able to heal relatively the same amount.<BR><BR>Don't fix shaman wards- that's our preventative for damage and it's what makes a shaman a shaman. Druids are for healing over time as more damage is taken, along with some aggresive DOTs. Clerics are more for pure healing and buffing, thus would have slightly stronger general heals. We all have our good qualities, and having played every kind of healer class (not subclass.. yet), I can safely say that at least from levels 10-20, any healer is a good healer. It's a matter of knowing how to handle yourself out there! We're not tanks, and we're not nukers (as fun as the smite spell may be). We are healers first and foremost with our own ways of keeping the rest of the team alive. That's our job, and a lot of us can do it well.<BR><BR>SO STOP NERFING US! [/rant]</P>

[GraymaneGravitic]

<P>"Why is it so wrong for Guardians to have a small advantage in tanking?"</P> <P>If you truly need to ask that question, then providing you with the answer may well be a waste of time because you wouldn't be capable of grasping it!</P> <P>The reason it is so wrong for a Guardian to have a samll advantage in tanking is simply because they aren't the only form of tank in the game. Guardians having an advantage in tanking makes all other tanks basically useless. </P> <P>There is absolutely nothing wrong, and in fact there are many things desirable, about Guardians having a small advantage in ONE form of tanking, while the other tank classes each have their own small advantages in OTHER forms of tanking. The inherent problem lies in the the lack of need for definitively different FORMS of tanking. There aren't enough differing types of encounters where an avoidance tanks abilities are preferred over a Guardian's damage sustraining abilities. There aren't enough differing types of encounters where a Paladin's greater balance makes him a better choice as the tank than a Guardian's greater damage sustaining abilites. </P> <P>The way most encounters are sturctured, high mitigation of damage is all a group wants a tank for and the Guardian provides that commodity better than any other tank. Until SOE sees clear to restructure many encounters so groups will bothe need and desire main tanks with greater avoidance, or damage output or balance JUST AS OFTEN as they need and desire a main tank with high mitigation, the promise that all tanks would be able to tank equally well will not have been delivered upon!</P> <P>" Why do all the tank classes have to be exactly the same."</P> <P>They don't. They just have to have situatuions where their differences don't lead to them not being needed or desired!</P>

[Raman]

<P>I agree 100%.</P> <P>Instead of nerfing everyone into homogeneity, they should be creating more and varied content.  Start creating some different types of encounters where different play styles REALLY are required.  That's what you advertized in the beginning.  Please deliver.</P> <p>Message Edited by Ramanga on <span class=date_text>04-21-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:09 AM</span>

[Ma]

Having heard this argument about how unfair it is for Guardians to be better at tanking "raid" mobs at length (generally by people playing monks), a couple points. (1)  Even if Guardians are better at tanking a raid mob, so what?  ONE guardian  gets to tank the raid mob, and all other guardians are going to be in EXACTLY the same situation as the monks-- they are  left doing dps and nothing else.  This is laughable when it comes to Guardians, they can't do damage.   My best attack does about 400 damage, usable ONCE PER MINUTE.   (level 45 guardian here).  Even if a monk tanked a raid mob, all other monks get to stand there and do exactly what they were doing before-- doing damage.  (2)  Monks get invisibility, feign death, a heal (not amazing, but still nice to have) and do incredible damage.  They do more damage than many scout classes, and can match the dps of a Swashbuckler.  Is there to be no downside to this whatsoever?  I always assumed that monks sacrificed a small amount of tanking ability for massive damage.  Otherwise what's the disadvantage of playing a monk?   There aren't any!  Even if monks are not selected for being the raid tank, this hardly matters as their damage output is so great.  What's the point of playing a guardian at all, then?    I was thinking about the endgame when I selected Guardian, fully expected a long, painful grind up to 50 (nor have I been in a great hurry to get there, which is another mistake people seem to make.  The journey is 90% of the fun!) I hardly think that monks are "unplayable", considering the massive advantages they have over Guardians.  I truly don't think that people playing monks have any grasp of how pitiful a Guardian's damage output is... 

[WolfSha]

<P>I totally agree with the poster above has pointed out, there is justifcation for having 2 monks in a raid - their dps and ability to tank the adds better than a scout or wizard justified having more than one... what's the point in having 2 gardians other than to fill out the numbers. there is only one MT in a raid, there are lots of space dsp, especally dsp that can pull an add off a wizard and deal with it without the mt having to try to control agro on everything at once.</P> <P>And i'll add my 2 coppers worth...</P> <P>The classes should be different.  I'm not trying to pick on monks here, but i'll keep it as a useful example...</P> <P> </P> <P><STRONG>Being a good tank is NOT just your ability to suvive getting hit on, it's everything</STRONG> <STRONG>you add to a group.  If "tanking" was only about getting hit, all of the tank classes would have 30 different taunts, a auto attack button and an "afk for coffee while you kill it" button. </STRONG><STRONG>You're thinking about your roll in a very limited way. </STRONG></P> <P>You do a lot more dmg than a gardian, but if you expect to hold up as well to being hit on that makes you a better tank - ie unbalanced.</P> <P>If you're worse at that taking dmg but better at giving it out then <EM>unless</EM> you're grouped with 5 wizards and no healer then you still add a lot of value to the group in terms of dsp that a gardian can't bring to the battle so you are as <STRONG>just as much of a good and valuable tank</STRONG> to your group, and i'm saying this as a berserker who is guild MT, not a gardian jealously guarding (no pun intended) his position at the top of the tank tree...</P> <P>All this "balancing" (ie making this game into a boring 4 class game rather than an interesting 24 subclass game) seems to be mainly due to trying to balance subclasses for lvl 50 raids.</P> <P>I'm sorry, but that is not the main content of the game, not even reasonably large part of the content of the game... lvl 50 raids are there to give people something to do after they get to lvl 50 to stop them getting bored and quitting while soe work on the expansion pack so we can all get to lvl 100.</P> <P>They should not be the basis for rebalancing all the classes at all levels of the game as lvl 50 raid is very different from the rest of the game - people find they have to be the best at something to be useful, rather than being pretty good at 2 things which is better to a group where numbers are more limited!</P> <P>How many people were perfectly happy with their monks until they got to 50, and started raiding and found that everyone wanted a gardian to do MT?  I bet there's quite a few - why bother getting to 50 if you think your class sucks all the way?  When this expansion come out and we can all race to 100 everone is going to stop raiding to play the new content and you'll be balanced again because you'll be fighting main content battles, not one very small minority type of mob where you can't MT...</P> <P>There are many places where a guardian is a terrible tank...  I play a berserker because i knew most of my play time would be duo'd with my g/f's healer and while a guardian and a healer are probably unkillable for duo content, we'd be 100 years old before we got to lvl 40!!</P> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P><p>Message Edited by WolfShark on <span class=date_text>04-21-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:33 AM</span>

[Anlari]

<P>I agree with the majority of the posts here.  I want variety and subclasses to be better then others in certain situations.  I currently play a zerker and a bruiser.  I in no way, feel undercut by guardians and their ability to tank raid mobs.  So they get to be the tank in raids.  I tank in a ton of other situations where my dps is a bonus to a group wanting quick kills.  I may take a little more damage then a guardian, but I don't take so much more that it hinders my performance.  </P> <P>A zerker is a great tank in most every situation a guardian is.   Now my bruiser has some issues with tanking groups of mobs.  I don't get many group taunts, so holding agro is not an easy task in groups of mobs, but I can tank single mobs just fine.  As a matter of fact, I often tandum tank with another bruiser.  I tank till I'm low, then feign and let the other bruiser take the brunt, and I heal up with mend then he feigns and repeat.  Works just peachy.</P>

[GraymaneGravitic]

<P>"I totally agree with the poster above has pointed out, there is justifcation for having 2 monks in a raid - their dps and ability to tank the adds better than a scout or wizard justified having more than one... what's the point in having 2 gardians other than to fill out the numbers. there is only one MT in a raid, there are lots of space dsp, especally dsp that can pull an add off a wizard and deal with it without the mt having to try to control agro on everything at once."</P> <P> </P> <P>All well and good for monks.....but where does this leave paladins?</P>

[FamilyManFir]

<blockquote><hr>GraymaneGraviticus wrote:<P>The way most encounters are sturctured, high mitigation of damage is all a group wants a tank for and the Guardian provides that commodity better than any other tank. Until SOE sees clear to restructure many encounters so groups will bothe need and desire main tanks with greater avoidance, or damage output or balance JUST AS OFTEN as they need and desire a main tank with high mitigation, the promise that all tanks would be able to tank equally well will not have been delivered upon!</P><hr></blockquote>The great irony in your post, Graymane, is that up until now high mitigation of damage was <i>not</i> what Guardians were good at. Guardians were "the best tank" because they could buff their Avoidance to levels where the mobs couldn't hit them. Actually, any group could do this but Guardians were best at it. Guardians were often percieved as unbalanced (including by me, fwiw) because they were the best <i>Avoidance</i> tank!Personally I'd like Guardians to be the best Mitigation tank. I'd like to see the Mitigation cap raised a little higher for Guardians (maybe for Berserkers too, maybe not) than for any other Fighter sub-class. With things the way they are on Test (which will change, of course) that would make for an interesting dynamic: Brawlers, who are hit less <i>and stunned/stifled less</i> but who are subject to damage spikes, Warriors, whose damage is more steady but are hit more often <i>making them stunned and stifled more</i> (and poisoned more and attack-dot'd more, etc), or Crusaders who are somewhere in the middle.My biggest concern is that Avoidance will be nerfed so far down that Warriors and Crusaders will have big problems at 30+ where every other mob has a stun/stifle attack (or so I'm told). If they can take the damage but have too much trouble getting off their taunts, they're gonna be badly gimped. OTOH, maybe it's not that bad; we'll see.

[Demothis]

<DIV>I agree with the genral conepts presented here about situational tanking, and the lack of content for avoidence tanks in the game. There is also an aspect getting left out of the equasion here though. Doing somthing with the damage is only 1/2 of tanking, the othe 1/2 is agro holding ability and the guardian wins in that field hands down as well. Alot of agro genrating ability comes from group buffs, ask a bard  they will tell ya, and out of the tanks the guads get the most. Heck SKs and Pallies would be on par with the guards if they had group buffs other then the call to arms upgrades. If you compare the raw taunt abilities of each tank, they match out in their threat ranges, its the buffs and hold the line which really plays to the guard/zerkers favor in that reguard where crusaider buffs are all single target and brawlers are mostly damage output instead of buffs. This may mean that warriors would be better suited for groups w/o a crowd controler, crusaider for the ^^ mobs, and brawlers for avoidance. But the game just dosn't work out that way as it currently is either due to mechanics or lack of content.</DIV>

[Renrical]

Quite a while ago i was having a discussion with a guild leader, which had a level 47 sk, but was creating a guardian. I asked why, (didn't have a tank char then) assuming all tanks could tank somehow. He replied with a simple answer, Guild needs a _real_ tank for higher levels. Go figure <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <div></div>

[Blackdog183]

<P>Just 1 comment on this, directly to the OP.  First off your low level...26 according to your sig.  Most of the complaints that are coming around are from high level tanks, where your talking about 1-4k difference in HPS.  Not to mention that after 40, guardians truly become the primo tank, simply because their aggro holding is much better.  You talk about situational balance, okay.  Name me a couple of raid level encounters that a SK would be the preffered tank over a guardian, coming up shirt arent you.  Do the same for brawler class tanks.  You cant, why because there is no form of balance, situational or otherwise...</P> <P>You mentioned that Brawlers are high dps, that isnt their role, they have better damage than me for example, but they should still be able to tank equally well.</P> <P>Balance amongst tanks should be this.  All tanks are equal, they can tank the same mob, just as good as the other(in comparable gear), they just do it differntly.  That allows for people to have distinction.</P> <P>Im sorry, but please dont make comments on the end game, when you obviosuly arent there.</P>

[Elda]

<P>i think a major point being left out here is that there are many flavors that can be added to a class which would not unbalance it against other classes in the same archtype....these could easily create situational superiority, without making one class in each archtype the "generic healer" or the "generic tank". when you make 6 tank classes, and one is nothing but a 'generic tank', its going to seem like that 'generic tank' should tank better than the other 5 tanks, because they all have other abilities that he doesnt....basically, to create balance, you're going to have to give all of the classes in one archtype a secondary role.</P> <P>example...not particulary based on EQ2 but just a generic MMO template i just made up.</P> <P>tank classes: balanced at archtype level (like eq2 was supposed to be), meaning they should all be able to tank equally in general, but each will excel at a specific situation, and do less well in other specific situations.</P> <P> </P> <P><FONT size=2>Crusader: plate wearing warrior with minor heal spells and ability to silence a target who is attacking him, which equates to high tanking ability. Can use a variety of minor group defensive buffs, and also has Banish line of spells which causes his melee attacks to deal a selectable type of damage for a short period of time and have a chance of proccing a DD or DoT of that type.</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P><FONT size=2>tanking specialty: caster mobs, mobs with a weakness to a specific damage type</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2>secondary tank role: group buffs, DPS through banish line of spells</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2></FONT> </P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT size=2>Ravager: dual wielding chain wearing warrior with high innate physical resistance (ac bonus based on level), which equates to high tanking ability. Ignore Pain line of abilities causes some high damage physical attacks to do a reduced % of their max damage(and can be cast on other targets). he can greatly increase his own DPS through the use of frenzy type attacks, many of which require that he has below a certain level of HP to activate. Can cast a powerful haste on a single group member when not frenzied.</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P><FONT size=2>tanking specialty: melee mobs with high damage single shot attacks.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2>secondary tank role: powerful haste on the group DPSer, can use ignore pain on MT.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2></FONT> </P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT size=2>Gladewalker: chain wearing warrior with nature-based self-defense buffs (stoneskin line of spells). Cannot use bladed weapons, but has a variety of nature based utility and powerful DD spells which are useful in outdoor situations, but many cant be used indoors. Also has self only damage shields which greatly debuff the resistance type of the shield (eg: fireshield debuffs fire resist).</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P><FONT size=2>tanking specialty: outdoor mobs, mobs with high elemental resists.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2>secondary tank role: utility spells, DPS through DD spells.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2></FONT> </P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT size=2>Grimknight: plate wearing warrior with negative-energy powers to lifetap (or power drain, he can select which) with each successful attack, equates to high tanking ability.  Granted an undead form which makes him almost immune to mental spell effects and resistant to stun/stifle. has a variety of reverse-proc offense debuffs which have a very high proc rate, causing most enemies who attack him to be automatically debuffed. </FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P><FONT size=2>tanking specialty: mobs which use stuns/stifles/mezzes on the MT.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2>secondary tank role: drain enemy power through lifetap</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2></FONT> </P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT size=2>Gladiator: dual wielding chain wearing warrior with natural regeneration ability. gets a bonus to defense for each enemy currently targeting him. specializes in stuns/interrupts, the most powerful of which can only be used on an enemy who is currently attacking the gladiator.</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P><FONT size=2>tanking specialty: mobs with large numbers of adds, mobs who need to be stunned to avoid a special attack.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2>secondary tank role: DPS, stunning enemies.</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P> </P> <P>all of these classes could tank effectively, all in different ways, and each would excel at a different type of situation. None of them are the generic "pure tank", and none are automatically going to be the best small group tank, or soloer, or raid tank. A raid with many adds would probably want a gladiator as a tank because of his defense bonus for multiple mobs...a raid with a powerful caster mob would want a Crusader for his stifle and so on...</P> <P> </P> <P>my point, after this drawn out post, is that if you want to have situational superiority, it helps when you dont design the classes so that one of them has the market cornered based on its lack of other abilities. you don't make 5 hybrid tanks, and one generic tank, and then think they are all gonna do the same thing but in different ways. i think eq dropped the ball in that manner.</P> <P>...also, attempting to make mitigation tanks and avoidance tanks equal is possible....but um....really difficult. hard to balance two totally different values which are raised in two different ways and have each result in effective tanking....better to have just made monks in the scout tree...oh well...i guess thats why combat update on test server is taking so long.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

[Ma]

In reply to Blackdog, No one has said that SK's don't need to have their lifetaps strengthened somewhat.  But that's a separate issue.  My disagreement with you is the following quote: "...Name me a couple of <b><u>raid</u></b> level encounters that a SK would be the preferred [main] tank over the guardian.... Do the same for brawler class tanks..." In reply, I'm not sure that there are any where they would be the <u>preferred</u> main tank.  So what?  First, just because a guardian has an edge on raid mobs doesn't mean that the other tanks can't do it-- just that they aren't the first choice.   I would hardly say that this is "unbalancing", which is the entire point of the initial post.   You have picked out a single situation and ignoring the occasions (i.e. every other concievable event in the entire game where we're not looking for the main tank on the raid, or occasionally a group) when an SK or monk is superior.  You are ignoring the benefits that shadowknight has over a guardian (evac, for example), the easier movement you had for 49 levels (horse), etc.   Good heavens, SKs and paladins do double the damage of a guardian when they want to-- not as much as the monk, but still a great deal more.   Have you ever actually looked at the damage output of a guardian?  Shadowknights also seem to have more AE attacks... guardinas get one, and AE attacks are good for holding agro. Someone else asked "what then is the role of a paladin?"   Good heavens, are we going to have this discussion until hell freezes over, knocking off each class in turn as they become the "preferred" tank in the main tanking role for raids?   What's a paladin's role?  Paladins can heal and have fantastic buffs.  They also can do a moderate amount more damage than the guardian, and add more dps to the group.   I doubt that you'll ever see someone say, "Oh no, don't invite the paladin to the raid, he'll just take up space!"  And just like shadowknights, monks, and bruisers, a paladin is quite capable of being the main raid tank.   I've seen it.  More importantly, the grind up to 50 was far easier, because the paladin does considerably more damage than guardians, heal themselves between fights, and can run away on your horse.  Which is probably why people decide to play paladins in the first place.   Having enjoyed the ride to 50, the paladin cannot get to the destination and complain how unfair it is that his mansion has a mere six bedrooms and a pool, but it's unfair that the ratty hovel next door inherited a jacuzzi.   Trust me, if I had it to do over again, I would have played a bezerker or paladin and saved myself the grief.  

[WolfSha]

<P><SPAN>Blackdog, this post isn’t aimed just at you, or even just moks, it’s amied at everyone that says “my subclass sucks because another subclass is better at x y or z”</SPAN><SPAN></P> <P></P> <HR> <P></P></SPAN> <P><SPAN>Blackdog183 wrote:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>You mentioned that Brawlers are high dps, that isnt their role, they have better damage than me for example, but they should still be able to tank equally well.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Balance amongst tanks should be this.  All tanks are equal, they can tank the same mob, just as good as the other(in comparable gear), they just do it differntly.  That allows for people to have distinction.</SPAN></P> <DIV align=center><SPAN> <HR> </SPAN></DIV><SPAN> <DIV>(believe it or not) I sympathise with the position of monks right now... all there is to do at lvl 50 is fight raids, and monks aren't allowed to play tank on raids because there's always a guardian about, however, this situation is <STRONG>temporary</STRONG> there will be new content, hopefully all the way up to lvl 100 with the expansion pack.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Maybe it's not balaced for raids right now, but think about how much of the content raids make up before lvl 50 - not very much.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>When the expansion pack comes out you may find that raids make up as much a part of your every day play time after 50 as they did before 50.... ie very little...</DIV></SPAN> <P><SPAN>It's not great for you right now, but I'm sorry, you simply <EM><STRONG>cannot</STRONG> </EM>have what you're asking for!<SPAN>  </SPAN>What you're saying is that tanks should be a follows:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Guard = tank</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Berserker  = tank + dps</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>crusader = tank + a bit of dps + heal/lifetap</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>brawler = tank + lots of dps + feighn dealth, emergancy heals etc etc</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>That's hardly fair on guardians you are talking about making monks <SPAN><EM>better</EM></SPAN> than guardians - what group, raid or otherwise will ever want a guard when they can have a tank that tanks as good <SPAN>and</SPAN> does dps?</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>If you want a monk to be able to tank the same mobs as a guardian just as effectively and still be balanced so that a monk is not better than a guardian then a guardian is going to have to match a for monks dps, so, either:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>1) You have your dps nerfed into the ground to match a guard (do you want this?), or</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>2) Gards have their dps upped to match yours  (any scouts reading this thread find that idea particularly palatable?)</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>This perceived "bestness" of guardians is only in a raid situation where you only have one MT and lots of dsp.  In a group a guardian can be overkill on defence and not offer enough for offence in a lot of situations. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>My berserzer can't tank as well as a guardian in a raid, but he can tank just as well in a group because the dps he brings<SPAN> </SPAN>makes him very desireable (especally when fighing groups instead of ^^'s due to lots of aoes).  In a group of 4 or less he's a MUCH better tank than a guardian as there just aren't enough people to justify the loss of dps - it's bad news to have half the group doing almost no damage (remember we need a healer in there too) .   Therefor he <SPAN>CAN</SPAN> tank as well as a guardian, just not for raids.  </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>I normally play in a group of 4 - 1 fury, 1 ranger, 1 enchanter and me.  The enchanter balances the fact that i'm not quite as tough as a guard by mezing adds and i balance the fact that the enchanter doesn't do as much dsp as a wizard by kicking butt with the ranger.  Would they swap me for a guardian?  Hell no, they'd be there all day killing anything!<SPAN>  </SPAN></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>You've gotta remember that in the dps type classes, the dsp varies between sub-classes, just in the same way and the tanking ability varies between fighter classes to balance that.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>This actually happened to me once, no b-s: i was out fighting normal group content with a pickup group, not my regular bunch of friends and we came across a guardian of the same lvl as me lieing dead on the floor.<SPAN>  </SPAN>The bard in our group said “shall we invite him?”, and the healer said “what’s the point? we have a tank.”, and we left him there.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Now if that had been a monk, he’d have got an invite.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>As a monk you do nearly as much dmg as a scout, if not as much.  You tank well enough to be main tank for a group in almost any encounter.  The only thing you can't do is be MT in a raid because guardians are better at it, not because you couldn't pull it of. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>If you're not still happy with all of that going for you then it's because the only thing you are interested in is being MT in lvl 50 raid encounters and you chose the wrong subclass for that. Tough.  If you wanted to be top raid tank then you should have rolled up a guardian.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Moorguard made a mistake when he wrote that post where he said "<EM>it is sony's intention that all fighters can fulfil their roll as a tank"</EM>. </SPAN><SPAN> Not because that isn't true, but because everone jumped on that and read it as "<SPAN><EM>it is sony's intention that all fighters can fulfil their roll as a tank equeally well in all situations against all mobs</EM></SPAN>", and then went on to thinking that "<EM><SPAN>tanking</SPAN> means just getting hit, not the whole packacge each type of tank brings to the group".</EM>  He should have worded it more carefully.</SPAN></P> <DIV><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </DIV><p>Message Edited by WolfShark on <span class=date_text>04-22-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:54 AM</span>

[Dfoley3]

<DIV>Okay just chiming in again.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>While I agree that every tank is equaly useful for non raiding, and that most of the content in the game (95%) is ment for solo, group, and quest content, that 5% mark of ulessness among tanks is minimal.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In an exp group, my monk (47) can tank 2-3 white con ++ mobs at the same time.  I easily reach 60% mitigations and 90% avoidance in almost every exp group.  Its about the reverse for most plate tanks, (reaching 90% mit and 60-70% avoidance) so i have to agree 100% that as is, all tanks are equaly useful in 95% of situations.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>However, once your 50, there are no more "exp" groups.  Youll almost never group for the purpose of loot, as it is far more productive to raid.   Yes, in the future there will be expansions and tank balance will return for period of time equivlent to the amount of time it takes for the majority of the population to yet again reach the cap.  Then its back to only 1 tank, and 5 other useless ones.   </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You have to consider what % of daily active people are max level: on your server, on the most populated servers, or will be withing a month.   You come to a very scarey realization.  While only maybe 12% of each server is max level (ignoreing bots and alts cause they throw off ratios makeing it closer to 6-7%).  Thats 12% of how many thousands of people who dont group for exp? that dont dont farm group loot.   It is a serious issue that at 50 (or in the future at any other imposed level cap) that eventualy it will return yet again to a time period of 4-7 months inbetween expansions where only 1 tank is useful, and thats assuming each expansion raises the level cap.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I think honestly, tanks are fine as is for grouping, exping, questings.  But as caps are reached and there is only one thing for tanks to do, be a guardian or be a bench warmer, that there should at least be options at raids where different tanks might retain usefullness.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Mobs where they are immune to taunt and only dps can hold agro.  Monks, bruisers, and berserkers would be main tanks.  Or mobs with high amount of low dmg stuns would prefer light avoidance tanks.  As is there is only one type of high end raid mob,  high dmg hitters.  I dont want 100% of raids to be doable without a guardian, i just want maybe 15% where a prefered tank is something other then a guardian, so once ever other week, i do something at raids besides pretend like im a scout</DIV>

[GraymaneGravitic]

<P>"In reply, I'm not sure that there are any where they would be the <U>preferred</U> main tank.  So what?  First, just because a guardian has an edge on raid mobs doesn't mean that the other tanks can't do it-- just that they aren't the first choice.   I would hardly say that this is "unbalancing", which is the entire point of the initial post."</P> <P> </P> <P>You lost any chance of credibility with those inane statements!</P>

[bigmak20]

I guess I disagree Blackdog; not every class fighter should be able to tank the same MoB just as well.  Your case is one for there only being one class.  I think we all have arrived at a concensus that there should be content balance; and perhaps that should be the push not a push for everyone being the same.  My tank toon is 25; even lower (typed the from work didn't have access to double check) -- my Templar is lvl 39.  So no; I have no personal knowledge about raid level MoBs whatsoever.  I come up short on why you take offense at that; I've read a-lot and no-one is arguing that Raid Level MoBs don't favor damage mitigating tanks.   I take interest in this because the nerfs are impacting my lowly toons; whether they can raid now or not. There's been some clarification on the buff stacking and avoidance issue.  What makes sense to me is you take your toons avoidance (and/or mitigation) thru self buffing and character stats and armor stats; then cap the increase you are allowed to have thru buffing by others.  Would add more strategy and tactics.  You'd still have the class distinction's advantages and a caster couldn't get buffed to tank levels of mitigation or avoidance. There would still be class distinction and individuality if the buff stacking was capped NOT the stat caps.

[Ma]

Graymane, Replying "you lost any chance of credibility with those inane statements!" isn't much of a response.   If you feel that I am wrong, then lay out your position, point out the flaw in my reasoning, and lay out your own thesis.  Attacking the person who says something you disagree with is a common tactic in debates, but it doesn't really advance the discussion much.  You have no credibility! Yes I do! No you don't! Yes I do! etc.  isn't overly helpful.   The initial poster for this thread proposed that "just because all tanks are not equal in all situations does not make them unbalanced."  I agree with him and layed out my reasoning.  If you disagree, then lay out your own reasoning where he (and I) am mistaken.  You may be able to convince me, I'm hardly locked into my feelings on the subject and hopefully others on this board are not as well.  The poster before me made the very elegant point that what seems to be desired is: guardian = tank crusader = tank + dps and some healing brawler = tank + dps + healing + feign death + invisibiility... And that this makes guardians utterly worthless.  If guardians are not to have an advantage in tanking the raid mobs (their only redeeming quality) then by all means, increase guardian dps to that of the monk-- or better yet, drop the monks' dps down to that of the Guardian's.   Monks have NO IDEA just how pathetic guardian dps is-- nor do crusaders.   I hesitate to tank solo green mobs-- not because I can't win the fight, but because I don't want to spend ten minutes killing them... yup, it's that bad. I have no objection to boosting everyone else's defense to that of a guardian to satisfy everyone's complaint that it's not fair that guardians have an edge on being main tank in raids (and again, this doesn't mean that others can't do it) but let's go ahead and gut the damage output of all those classes while we're at it down to guardian levels... and since paladins can heal, and brawlers can invis and feign death, naturally we need to actually drop their damage output BELOW that of guardians to make it "fair".... is that what you really want?   In any event, only ONE guardian is going to be main tank on a raid-- every other guardian is pointless. .. unlike paladins, brawlers, etc.  who can do real damage.  If we boost monks to make them equal to guardians on raids as a main tank, then only ONE monk is going to be the main tank, and everyone else gets to sit around just like they are now.

[Blackdog183]

<P>Just because there seems to be some confusion, i am not a monk, im a shadowknight.</P> <P>As far as all the "guardians should be the MT for raids", i say horsesh*t.  Any class should be able to tank those mobs, they should just do it differntly.  As far as the dps complaints, Ive parsed level 50 guardians, and they do a sh*tload of damage when you look at what else they get.  Plain and simple, at level 50, all there is to do is harvest, and raid, nothing else.  When you can only take so many people on a raid, guess who gets left out, the other tanks, because IF a guardian is available, then they are tank, no matter what.  Usually if no guard is avail, they just dont raid....</P> <P>All of you that say not everyone should be able to tank equally well, you need to get your head out of the sand.  Most of you making these comments are guardians, and simply this is the way I see it.  Your on top of the heap right now, and will fabricate whatever bullsh*t reason you can to stay that way.  The fact of the matter is that guadians need to be balanced down, or other tank classes need to be balanced up.  Anyone who says anything else is flat out retarted.  I should NEVER hear this when I join a group: "well now we need tank"....when they have a shadowknight standing there.</P> <P> </P>

[Blackdog183]

<P>Oh yes, and to the Lifetap and heals comments, those shouldnt even be factored in.  Especially SK lifetaps, which are so [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]iung sad I dont bother to use them.</P> <P> </P> <DIV>Consume Vitae= heals casters for 74, inflicts 169-207 damage on target, 93 power cost</DIV> <DIV>Painbronger= Inflict 82-137 damage on target, heals caster for 35, 45 power cost</DIV> <DIV>Swarming spirits=Heals caster for 80, inflicts 138-231 damage to targets in AOE, power cost 76</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So for 214 power I can "lifetap" for a total of 189.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I have 1587 power, and 2994 unbuffed, thats 15% of my life at a cost of 7% of my total power bar...thats not very good.  Now I would much rather have good taunts, and high mit rather than those [Removed for Content] poor lifetaps.  So yes, I say there is an imbalance, a huge one.</DIV>

[Wus]

<P> I play both a guardian and a monk.</P> <P> If what is meant by "tanking" is taking damage, Guardians and Berserkers should be the best at it considering what those classes give up in utility.  Guardians even moreso.</P> <P> All other tanks get some things and give up some damage taking abilty. For 98 percent of all content the other tanks are usually preferred as they do more damage or have more utility. The statement that other tanks are passed over for raids because they are a certain class is not true in my experience. Monk, Bruiser, Berserker DPS is definately needed, SK's need some love to be sure, Paladins are a nice addition to almost any raid.</P> <P> Guardians class defining trait is the ability to take more abuse than anyone else, and they give up alot to get that. Folks want everyone to tank raid mobs the same and keep all their other abilities as well, that just doesn't make sense.</P> <P> My monk tanks fine, in 98 percent of situations and when i made him I knew that he wouldn't tank uber boss x as well as my guardian and I accept that. Should my monk tank as well in light armor as my guardian in heavy? I don't think so.</P> <P> One last comment about heavy armor, there seems to be a misconception that platemail was historically heavy and made one unable to move. Incorrect. Platemail was made to fit the wearer and was designed for movement while somewhat heavy, it's weight was spread around one's body. Could knights roll around in plate? yup. Could they run? yup. Platemail was well suited for combat, if you couldn't move in it you died.</P> <P> I guess no one will be happy until their class can heal, tank, feign, port, drain, have a pet, DPS, evac etc the same as everyone else. Cant wait until the dev's come out with the "one class" system that everyone seems to be looking for.</P>

[Blackdog183]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Wusah wrote:<BR> <P> I play both a guardian and a monk.</P> <P> If what is meant by "tanking" is taking damage, Guardians and Berserkers should be the best at it considering what those classes give up in utility.  Guardians even moreso.</P> <P> All other tanks get some things and give up some damage taking abilty. For 98 percent of all content the other tanks are usually preferred as they do more damage or have more utility. The statement that other tanks are passed over for raids because they are a certain class is not true in my experience. Monk, Bruiser, Berserker DPS is definately needed, SK's need some love to be sure, Paladins are a nice addition to almost any raid.</P> <P> <STRONG>Guardians class defining trait is the ability to take more abuse than anyone else, and they give up alot to get that. Folks want everyone to tank raid mobs the same and keep all their other abilities as well, that just doesn't make sense.</STRONG></P> <P> My monk tanks fine, in 98 percent of situations and when i made him I knew that he wouldn't tank uber boss x as well as my guardian and I accept that. Should my monk tank as well in light armor as my guardian in heavy? I don't think so.</P> <P> One last comment about heavy armor, there seems to be a misconception that platemail was historically heavy and made one unable to move. Incorrect. Platemail was made to fit the wearer and was designed for movement while somewhat heavy, it's weight was spread around one's body. Could knights roll around in plate? yup. Could they run? yup. Platemail was well suited for combat, if you couldn't move in it you died.</P> <P> I guess no one will be happy until their class can heal, tank, feign, port, drain, have a pet, DPS, evac etc the same as everyone else. Cant wait until the dev's come out with the "one class" system that everyone seems to be looking for.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Guardians dont give up all that much, they get awsome groupwide buffs, and there dps isnt all that far below that of my SK(within 50dps), so they have high mit, good buffs, awsome taunts, avoidance, and comparable dps.  SK's get craptastic lifetaps at huge power costs, a [Removed for Content] poor ward(471 points of unmitigated damage equats to less than 100 after mit) also for huge power cost, self only buffs, 1 craptastic group buff(insatiable hunger) that doesent work 95% of the time, and 1 buff for parry(which btw is getting nerfed).  Starting to see the problem yet?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Also I have seen a great many high level SK's flat out tell guardians that they can have the stupid lifetaps and wards if we can have dual wield, tower shields and their mit...havent seen any want to make that trade yet.</DIV> <P>Message Edited by Blackdog183 on <SPAN class=date_text>04-22-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>01:10 PM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Blackdog183 on <span class=date_text>04-22-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:10 PM</span>

[Wus]

If you read my post, I do believe it says SK's need some love, what I meant by that is some strengthening of their abilities. To bring them in line with Paladins.

[Dracoviol]

<P>I personally agree with blackdog to a certain degree, not fully however.  I do believe all tanks should be able to tank epic content just not equally well on all mobs.  More importantly I think tanking ability should vary just as dps does on epic mobs.  Currently depending the the mobs immunities and resistances certain dps classes are allready severely handicapped on varying mobs.  This is what I moorgard said we will all be able to tank just not equally well in all situations.  </P> <P>The idea that guardians would be useless if not in a mt role is both funny and absurd.  Guardians can do alot of good dps if they try.  Are they the best, no.  But on say the cursed in feerott I would rather have a guardian over any scout do to his ability to actually melee the mob effectively unlike the scout classes.  Why cant this be the same for MT's.  The only thing a guardian looses in this enviroment is being the best tank but he sure doesnt lose his viability nor usefullness on raids.  Also look at it from the other tanks perspective post dps fixes to fighters, they arent going to be needed for a dps basis even if they do more then a guardian.  What should they do reroll? Dps and utility while a ability of a tank is not his role nor should it ever be.  </P> <P>Tanking should not begin and end with any one class in the archtype it should be a shared roll to all the classes derived by it. Note also despite a lack in target specific buffs a guardian has for other tanks he has more group ac and def buffs then any other tank class.  This being the case it would not be so surprising with a cap that other tanks will require a guardian to hit certain aspects of the cap to tank just as effectively, however he would never exceed guardians in hps nor the ability to buff crushing dmg which is guardian specific.  But if he uses a guardians buffs he will still have the special buffs associated with his class or avoidance advantages(nice against stun) inherant to his class.  This would mean depending on how the taunt changes work out the tanks will be mostly balanced.  I personally call that a good thing not a destruction of the guardian class as so many think or sady some want.</P>

[Blackdog183]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Wusah wrote:<BR>If you read my post, I do believe it says SK's need some love, what I meant by that is some strengthening of their abilities. To bring them in line with Paladins. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Lifetaps need some love, post haste, as well as the broken skills, and huge power cost.  Palading need some love also, their ONLY saving grace is their heals(which really arent all that efficient either, but are a far cry better than the SK)

[Yama Seish]

Some situational-tacticts variety wouldn't hurt anyone. That much is clear. All this talk about guardian vs other classes may be steering the important issue somewhere else. If all classes can bring something good to a raid, even if there is a preferred choice for tank for that given raid, then the problem disappears. To hold to raid tanking as the only saving grace of the guardian is not the best option, imo. At the end, most guardians suffer if that is the case because only one or two would really be needed per raid. The point is to give those guardians abilities that are useful in raids besides being MT. Same goes for the other classes in the archetype. Ideally, they would be preferred over others against certain mobs for one or several of the following: debuffs, buffs, special abilities, dps and tanking. In my eyes, there is nothing wrong with fighter archetypes wanting raid-mob variety enough to make each type desirable as MT, so long as guardians are able to bring more to the table than mere tanking, and hence are needed for raids regardless of who acts as MT. <div></div>

[Wus]

<P> Agreed, Guardians are about guarding, if that means guarding another main tank to help with the encounter, that's great.</P> <P> I think the above poster is correct. Many guardians feel all they have to give to a group is the main tank role, ability to take less damage than others saving the healer mana i.e. mana efficiency. Buffs are for the most part weak. Damage is low. So what else is there? Would be great if guards could actually function like protectors of casters, tanks, making other tanks and soft targets better.</P> <P>  Just my 2c</P>

[WolfSha]

<P>Dfoley323, great post, some great orginal ideas, stuff there that i hadn't though of.. but more about that in a sec...</P> <P>Sorry if i blasted monks in my previous post, but i'm in pretty much the same boat (i may tank better than a monk, but that's not the issue - i don't tank as well as a guardian) and i still don't think that it's fair to re-balance tanks so everyone can tank like a guardian.  Guards do have some buffs, but on-one invites a guard for their buffs, you get a bard in for that.  A guards ONLY purpose is to get hit.  if they are not the best at that then they have no purpose.  this doesn't apply to any other fighters as all the other fighters have something else to offer (yes, SK's needs love, but that will happen i'm sure)...</P> <P>My big problem comes when the whole of the game machanics for every player at ever lvl are affected in an attempt to balance lvl 50 raids for fighters...</P> <P>Guess at the total amount of play time spent per day raiding on a server vs total number of hours played not raiding per server.</P> <P>I can't believe that raiding even makes 1% of total play time and you can't force 99% of players game to be balanced based on what 1% of players are experiencing (well actually, you can, but it's not really fair)</P> <P>What we need here is a way of balancing raids without affecting normal content.  As the Dfoley323 said above, what about raids that are immune to taunts? <STRONG>FANTASTIC</STRONG> idea! there is a small problem - wizards will end up tanking  :smileywink: - maybe it could be fixed so that fighter classes generated twice as much agro from dmg on those raids so that with a bit of effort a monk could keep agro, but a guardian would have no chance in hell...  Then make the mob attack twice a second for (relatively) low amounts of dmg - that should close up a guardians advantage from mitigation by allowing monks a much better average effect on their avoidance, rather than the "if 2 or 3 hits connect in a row and your dead" situation we have now which is why people are not so keen to have you tanking raids...  </P> <P>I've 5 stared your post Dfoley323,  it needs some work, but that's EXACTLY the kind of solution we need - less moaning and more ideas about ways to FAIRLY balance raids without affecting the balance of the entire game for everone below lvl 50.</P> <P>Lets face it, it is <STRONG>not</STRONG> fair on everyone below 50 (who incidently make up the very large proportion on the population of every serverin case we'd forgotten) to screw with stuff that works well to please the people who are kicking their heals on lvl 50 raids because they're run out of other content <EM>for now</EM>...</P> <DIV><STRONG>Please don't moan until fighers are all the same and it's all been dumbed down to hell... Lets all use our brains for something constructive and try to pull in the same direction and come up with some soltions that suit everyone <U>and by everone, i don't mean monks & guards, i mean lvl 50 players and all the players below 50 who don't understand why the game is being redesigned around them when nothing seems to be wrong at their level!!!</U></STRONG></DIV>

[WolfSha]

<P><SPAN class=time_text>Maybe after they've finished tinkering with the game machanics they'll look at this double post bug!!! :smileymad:</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by WolfShark on <span class=date_text>04-24-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:42 AM</span>

[Nerj]

<DIV>IMHO, I think that the DEVs are trying to develop The Class to meet the goal of ALL of the Classes perfoming their MAIN Functions equally well. So when they state that all FIGHTERS are Tanks they are correct. The differences in how that is done is determined at the Archtype levels. </DIV> <DIV>For example: </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Warriors - Are Heavy Armor Wearers, Meaning that they "Tank" by primarily by Damage Mitigation through their Armor and Shields, Due to the Heavy Weight they are not a finesse Fighter (Damage avoider),</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Brawlers - Are Light Armor Wearers, Meaning that they "Tank" by Primarily avoiding Damage, their Light Armor allows them to move more quickly, keeping the enemy focusing on the annoying PC in front of them. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Crusaders - Are Medium Armor Weared, meaning they "Tank" by some Mitigation and Some Avoidence. Not quite as fast as Brawlers they get hit more, but not as hard as Brawlers. However, their Medium Armor and Shields don't deflect as much damage either.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>With these basic, features -- ALL FIGHTERS can TANK. How they do it is different. Plus, they also need the skills to be able to do it correctly, even on Raids. A Warrior stands Toe to Toe with the Enemy. Sometimes, they get hit but NOT as hard as they would with light Armor. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If a Brawler and Crusader they and battle it out Toe to Toe, the same as a Warrior, they will just die fast. They need skills that allow them to avoid getting hit. If the DEVs see this as a problem then they need to have these skills tuned so that a when a brawler get hit, they role (Mitigate) with the hit. Where a crusader has "Divine Powers", that help mitigate some of the damage, they cannot avoid.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>These self skills should, in turn slow down the attack damage that can be done by a Fighter. If you are trying to avoid being hit, you cannot hit back In other words, there is a tradeoff of increased Defense for reduced Offense.This is balancing, since ALL Fighters will be able to Tank equally as well. In addition, those who do not tank will be able to deal more damage at the risk of getting more damage.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Anyway, I think that is what the DEVs are trying to achieve. With similar approaches to each class. Their is NO reason that any "Tank" could not be used in "Situation", if played correctly with the proper skillsets.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[illum.]

<div></div>Guardians have only one role. To get hit and say "That didn't hurt" even though it does.They should be best at it since they sacrifice all cool stuff that the other tanks get. I agree fully on OP. I play defence. That is what I do. I have only that role. <div></div><p>Message Edited by illum.se on <span class=date_text>04-23-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:43 PM</span>

[Boli32]

<div></div><blockquote><font color="#ffff00">Crusaders - Are Medium Armor Weared, meaning they "Tank" by some Mitigation and Some Avoidence. Not quite as fast as Brawlers they get hit more, but not as hard as Brawlers. However, their Medium Armor and Shields don't deflect as much damage either.</font> </blockquote> Except we get heavy and vanguard armour, and now our kite shields as as effective as tower shields (on the test server)... while this is what crusaders NEED to stay on top of the mobs (since avoidance would have been lowered b/c. we wear heavy amrour) warriors are no doubt annoyed more and more of their "unique abilities" are beig handed out to the rest of the classes. If I were the devs I would be seriously thinking about toning down a warriors avoidance buffs and change those buffs into one that allow a warrior to IGNORE damage(and its effects) e.g YOU get hit from a Gnoll's Wild swing but you shrug it off. Then warriors get their increased mitigation... brawlers get the fact they have had the avoidance on warriors cut right back down and crusader get the fact they end up exactly the same... balanced in the centre (with SK skills fixed perhaps <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />) <div></div><p>Message Edited by boli on <span class=date_text>04-24-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:33 PM</span>

[WolfSha]

<P></P> <HR> Nerjin wrote: <DIV>IMHO, I think that the DEVs are trying to develop The Class to meet the goal of ALL of the Classes perfoming their MAIN Functions equally well. So when they state that all FIGHTERS are Tanks they are correct. The differences in how that is done is determined at the Archtype levels.</DIV> <DIV>For example:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Warriors - Are Heavy Armor Wearers, Meaning that they "Tank" by primarily by Damage Mitigation through their Armor and Shields, Due to the Heavy Weight they are not a finesse Fighter (Damage avoider),</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Brawlers - Are Light Armor Wearers, Meaning that they "Tank" by Primarily avoiding Damage, their Light Armor allows them to move more quickly, keeping the enemy focusing on the annoying PC in front of them.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Crusaders - Are Medium Armor Weared, meaning they "Tank" by some Mitigation and Some Avoidence. Not quite as fast as Brawlers they get hit more, but not as hard as Brawlers. However, their Medium Armor and Shields don't deflect as much damage either.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>With these basic, features -- ALL FIGHTERS can TANK. How they do it is different. Plus, they also need the skills to be able to do it correctly, even on Raids. A Warrior stands Toe to Toe with the Enemy. Sometimes, they get hit but NOT as hard as they would with light Armor.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If a Brawler and Crusader they and battle it out Toe to Toe, the same as a Warrior, they will just die fast. They need skills that allow them to avoid getting hit. If the DEVs see this as a problem then they need to have these skills tuned so that a when a brawler get hit, they role (Mitigate) with the hit. Where a crusader has "Divine Powers", that help mitigate some of the damage, they cannot avoid.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>These self skills should, in turn slow down the attack damage that can be done by a Fighter. If you are trying to avoid being hit, you cannot hit back In other words, there is a tradeoff of increased Defense for reduced Offense.This is balancing, since ALL Fighters will be able to Tank equally as well. In addition, those who do not tank will be able to deal more damage at the risk of getting more damage.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Anyway, I think that is what the DEVs are trying to achieve. With similar approaches to each class. Their is NO reason that any "Tank" could not be used in "Situation", if played correctly with the proper skillsets.</DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So that is really want all monks want? To have dps lowered and defence raised so they are basically a guardian with a different animation set?  What a boring situation!  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If you wanted lower dps and higher mitigation why didn't you just make a guardian in the first place rather than make a monk and then ask that they be changed to be exactly the same as a guard?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Might as well scrap the subclass idea and just call us all "fighters" and be done with it.  If we take and deal damage all same the there's really no point having subclasses at all. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <DIV>Maybe sony should justs delete the other subclasses and only allow people to make guardians, then everyone will be equal at raid tanking any be happy....?</DIV></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>May as well give all wizards a pet and group mez, all scouts the bards group buffs while we're at it! It'll balance all the subclasses well but it'll be one hell of a boring game.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by WolfShark on <span class=date_text>04-24-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:35 AM</span>

[Blackdog183]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> WolfShark wrote:<BR> <P></P> <HR> Nerjin wrote: <DIV>IMHO, I think that the DEVs are trying to develop The Class to meet the goal of ALL of the Classes perfoming their MAIN Functions equally well. So when they state that all FIGHTERS are Tanks they are correct. The differences in how that is done is determined at the Archtype levels.</DIV> <DIV>For example:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Warriors - Are Heavy Armor Wearers, Meaning that they "Tank" by primarily by Damage Mitigation through their Armor and Shields, Due to the Heavy Weight they are not a finesse Fighter (Damage avoider),</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Brawlers - Are Light Armor Wearers, Meaning that they "Tank" by Primarily avoiding Damage, their Light Armor allows them to move more quickly, keeping the enemy focusing on the annoying PC in front of them.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Crusaders - Are Medium Armor Weared, meaning they "Tank" by some Mitigation and Some Avoidence. Not quite as fast as Brawlers they get hit more, but not as hard as Brawlers. However, their Medium Armor and Shields don't deflect as much damage either.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>With these basic, features -- ALL FIGHTERS can TANK. How they do it is different. Plus, they also need the skills to be able to do it correctly, even on Raids. A Warrior stands Toe to Toe with the Enemy. Sometimes, they get hit but NOT as hard as they would with light Armor.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If a Brawler and Crusader they and battle it out Toe to Toe, the same as a Warrior, they will just die fast. They need skills that allow them to avoid getting hit. If the DEVs see this as a problem then they need to have these skills tuned so that a when a brawler get hit, they role (Mitigate) with the hit. Where a crusader has "Divine Powers", that help mitigate some of the damage, they cannot avoid.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>These self skills should, in turn slow down the attack damage that can be done by a Fighter. If you are trying to avoid being hit, you cannot hit back In other words, there is a tradeoff of increased Defense for reduced Offense.This is balancing, since ALL Fighters will be able to Tank equally as well. In addition, those who do not tank will be able to deal more damage at the risk of getting more damage.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Anyway, I think that is what the DEVs are trying to achieve. With similar approaches to each class. Their is NO reason that any "Tank" could not be used in "Situation", if played correctly with the proper skillsets.</DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So that is really want all monks want? To have dps lowered and defence raised so they are basically a guardian with a different animation set?  What a boring situation!  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If you wanted lower dps and higher mitigation why didn't you just make a guardian in the first place rather than make a monk and then ask that they be changed to be exactly the same as a guard?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Might as well scrap the subclass idea and just call us all "fighters" and be done with it.  If we take and deal damage all same the there's really no point having subclasses at all. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <DIV>Maybe sony should justs delete the other subclasses and only allow people to make guardians, then everyone will be equal at raid tanking any be happy....?</DIV></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>May as well give all wizards a pet and group mez, all scouts the bards group buffs while we're at it! It'll balance all the subclasses well but it'll be one hell of a boring game.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <P>Message Edited by WolfShark on <SPAN class=date_text>04-24-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>07:35 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I spefically remember Moorgard making the following statement "All tanks will be able to tank equally well"  This 1 line statement means:</P> <P>1. All tanks will be able to tank...the same stuff.</P> <P>2. the tanks would be balanced(i know it seems hard for some of you to grasp) so that any tank class could be used to tank, and do it just as good as any other.</P> <P>Right now, that just isnt true, and like someone said in another thread, if its that way at 50, what happens in 10 or 20 levels, when the gap grows that much more?</P>

[Dfoley3]

<DIV>No, monks dont want lower atk and higher defense.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What we do want is to be avoidance tanks.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As is, guardians are kings of +defense skills, and if you take 4 seconds to read the description, it says "how well you AVOIDE taking a hit"  So why, i might ask, are monks (and bruisers) being outdone in AVOIDANCE skills by a tank wearing 400 lbs of metal?  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What i feel most monks want is to keep our dps, but to have the utility of tanking.  No we dont want mitigation, and frankly guardians dont even have mitigation as is, they have avoidance.  BOOST heavy tanks mitigation...alot, and give monks and bruisers avoidance.  Brawlers are fighters, and by definition all fighters are tanks.  Some do more dps then others but for a reason....Guardians get multiple taunts, for about 400-500 at level 50...Now brawlers dont get these 400-500 taunts, instead we get 400-500 dmg attacks.  which in essence works as our taunt.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now what many of you guardians conveniently leave out when you say that you have nothing other then tanking....is weapon choice, dual weild, a range slot, 4-5 taunts (brawlers have 2 and i beleive crusaders do too), tower shields (which have about 12% more ac then kite and a higher shield modifier).   I wanna know why guardians are getting so upset that soe is trying to keep true to their word and retain equal tanking among the tanks?   </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Personaly totaly changing the combat system is needed...to an extent.   </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Guardians dont need to be avoiding more then brawlers, sorry guys, you chose plate, you shouldnt be able to dodge as well.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Guardians have a range slot,  more weapon choises, and 4-5 taunts.  Making them the kings of agro.  As well as having the highest potential mitigation.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I dont want every raid to be doable WITHOUT a guardian, but frankly relying on the presence of ONE class alone for raids is [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot], and if you like that go play eq1, cause thats what you have....Clerics, Warriors, and rogues/wizzie.  thats all any raid needs there.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>On test atm... light armor is receiving a 13% reduction on most armors mitigation values, while , very light, medium, and heavy are getting about a 10% boost... So youll have your mitigation, and agi is regaining some of its effectiveness so brawlers will regain their avoidance.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>MY PERSONAL THOUGHTS</DIV> <DIV>Raids are seriously the only issue. Theres one type of mob and one tank....Mobs that hit really hard, and guardians.  Thats it.  There needs to be deversity in mob type... other then what element their AE is.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>How about mobs immune to taunt.  So only high dps tanks can hold agro.  </DIV> <DIV>Mobs that gravity flux so only tanks with safefall can tank without dieing.</DIV> <DIV>Mobs that stun a lot but dont hit very hard, making avoidance tanks preferable to dodge more stuns</DIV> <DIV>Mobs that silence casters periodicly, making paladins and sks with self heals preferable</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Nerj]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dfoley323 wrote:<BR> <DIV>No, monks dont want lower atk and higher defense.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What we do want is to be avoidance tanks.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As is, guardians are kings of +defense skills, and if you take 4 seconds to read the description, it says "how well you AVOIDE taking a hit"  So why, i might ask, are monks (and bruisers) being outdone in AVOIDANCE skills by a tank wearing 400 lbs of metal?  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>What I feel most monks want is to keep our dps, but to have the utility of tanking.</FONT>  No we dont want mitigation, and frankly guardians dont even have mitigation as is, they have avoidance.  BOOST heavy tanks mitigation...alot, and give monks and bruisers avoidance.  Brawlers are fighters, and by definition all fighters are tanks.  Some do more dps then others but for a reason....Guardians get multiple taunts, for about 400-500 at level 50...Now brawlers dont get these 400-500 taunts, instead we get 400-500 dmg attacks.  which in essence works as our taunt.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now what many of you guardians conveniently leave out when you say that you have nothing other then tanking....is weapon choice, dual weild, a range slot, 4-5 taunts (brawlers have 2 and i beleive crusaders do too), tower shields (which have about 12% more ac then kite and a higher shield modifier).   I wanna know why guardians are getting so upset that soe is trying to keep true to their word and retain equal tanking among the tanks?   </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Personaly totaly changing the combat system is needed...to an extent.   </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Guardians dont need to be avoiding more then brawlers, sorry guys, you chose plate, you shouldnt be able to dodge as well.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Guardians have a range slot,  more weapon choises, and 4-5 taunts.  Making them the kings of agro.  As well as having the highest potential mitigation.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I dont want every raid to be doable WITHOUT a guardian, but frankly relying on the presence of ONE class alone for raids is [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot], and if you like that go play eq1, cause thats what you have....Clerics, Warriors, and rogues/wizzie.  thats all any raid needs there.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>On test atm... light armor is receiving a 13% reduction on most armors mitigation values, while , very light, medium, and heavy are getting about a 10% boost... So youll have your mitigation, and agi is regaining some of its effectiveness so brawlers will regain their avoidance.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>MY PERSONAL THOUGHTS</DIV> <DIV>Raids are seriously the only issue. Theres one type of mob and one tank....Mobs that hit really hard, and guardians.  Thats it.  There needs to be deversity in mob type... other then what element their AE is.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>How about mobs immune to taunt.  So only high dps tanks can hold agro.  </DIV> <DIV>Mobs that gravity flux so only tanks with safefall can tank without dieing.</DIV> <DIV>Mobs that stun a lot but dont hit very hard, making avoidance tanks preferable to dodge more stuns</DIV> <DIV>Mobs that silence casters periodicly, making paladins and sks with self heals preferable</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>There in lies the problem with balance. What you are asking for as a MONK is the role of a Scout, which is some Tankability and DPS. First, fighters are NOT supposed to be higher in DPS then Mages and Scouts. Their defense skills are what keep them going while doing their lower levels of damage. Second, is that other Classes can wear the same type of armor. So if the Mitigation is put on the Armor, we have a whole new set of problems. In addition, DEVs are afraid that Brawlers will be the chosen Class of Fighter if they cannot be hit. The only way to handle it sensibly is to tie Damage Mitigation partially to Armor and the rest to a skillset. How this is BOOSTed, depends on the class. A brief avoidance buff for Brawlers, a Mitigation buff of Warriors, and a Divine Buff for Crusaders. This would allow non-Tanking classes to wear the same armor without encrouching on the Fighter's role of Tank.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Agreed that the Heavier the Armor, the less you avoid being hit but, the more protection you have. Likewise, a lightly armored TANK needs to concentrate on NOT getting hit and the times they do it is for light enough damage to generate and hold agro. It's understanable that most Fighters want to be able to do some major Damage, however it is NOT fair to those classes that chose to give up their defense for more offense.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[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>

[Nibbl]

<P> </P><p>Message Edited by Nibblar on <span class=date_text>04-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:12 PM</span>

[WolfSha]

hehe, thanks man! :smileyhappy:

[WolfSha]

<DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV>Blackdog wrote:</DIV> <DIV>I spefically remember Moorgard making the following statement "All tanks will be able to tank equally well"  This 1 line statement means: <P>1. All tanks will be able to tank...the same stuff.</P> <P>2. the tanks would be balanced(i know it seems hard for some of you to grasp) so that any tank class could be used to tank, and do it just as good as any other.</P> <P>Right now, that just isnt true, and like someone said in another thread, if its that way at 50, what happens in 10 or 20 levels, when the gap grows that much more?</P> <P></P> <HR> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Right then, in that case all tanks should be able to dps equaly well too and i call for brawler dps nerf as i can't out dmg a monk. :smileywink:</FONT></P> <P>Blackdog, you seem to have ignored all of my post, except for the one line that you feel you can poke a hole in. You seem to have missed my point entirely... let me try again....</P> <P>You may think you speciffcally remember what moorguard said, but you <STRONG>are wrong</STRONG>, you have misquoted moor slightly there.. he said "all tanks should "be able to fulfil their <STRONG>role as tanks</STRONG> equally well".  That is everything you can bring to a group, not just your ability to not get hurt.</P> <P>Dmg is our secondary function and guardians don't have any because they are all primary (tank).</P> <P>If monks are going to tank as well as a guard then why should they do more dmg? that's not a balanced subclass - if a monk can do everything a guard can <STRONG>and</STRONG> out dmg him 10 to 1 then that's not fair...</P> <P>It's not like any of us have any realy utility outside of tanking that really stands out - we can't evac, mez or group stealth ... pallys/sk's have a bit of healing/lifetap and that's about it... </P> <P>All we really have to differentiate us is staying alive vs killing + a few frills</P> <P>If you make suvivability all the same then you just have killing to differentiate the sub-classes so that makes brawlers simply better, followed by berserkers (ooh lucky me, still don't agree with you tho), then pally/sk, then guard.</P> <P>And I've never seen a guardian turn invisible or feigh death...</P> <P>The only situation where the staying alive vs killing balance falls down is raids when no-one cares how much dps the tank does because there are 23 other people there with him and this does make guards <EM>better</EM>.</P> <P>In every other situation other than raids tanks <STRONG>are</STRONG> balanced - <STRONG>they can tank equally well</STRONG>, either by living longer or making the mob die faster.  Which tank is <STRONG><EM>best </EM></STRONG>in a certain group is based <STRONG>on that group</STRONG>.  In a group lowish dps monk is the best tank, in a group of wizards guard is best tank.  There is no such thing as the "average" group, unless you always play with the same few people, in which case you should all try to play classes that match well.</P> <P>I made a zerker based on the people i play with the most as i believed a zeker to be the <STRONG>best</STRONG> <STRONG>tank </STRONG>for the 4 we normally play in. (made and lvl'd up zerker to replace my orginal main char, a scout, based on group requirements).  And i still stand by that.  A guardian would <STRONG>not</STRONG> be as good in my place in that group.</P> <P>So seeing as a raid is the only race there is any real un-balance, surely it's the raid content needs looking at, not the sub-class balance across the whole game?</P> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P></DIV><p>Message Edited by WolfShark on <span class=date_text>04-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:38 AM</span>

[WolfSha]

<p>Message Edited by WolfShark on <span class=date_text>04-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:47 AM</span>

[Nibbl]

<P> </P><p>Message Edited by Nibblar on <span class=date_text>04-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:12 PM</span>

[Anlari]

<P>It truely amazes me that people can turn "All classes will be able to perform their archtype role.", into "All classes can perform their archtype role just as well as every other subclass and in every situation."  </P> <P>As it stands now, every class can perform its archtype role.  Some people might wish they could perform it better, but they can all perform it.  Paladins and SK's can both tank.  Monks and Bruisers can both tank.  Noone promised they would be exactly the same or even near the same in all situations.  People are arguing on one situation only, raids, because that is what they want to do.  Every class has a "streamlined"  class that does nothing but their archtype role, and those will almost always be prefered in raids since they are very specialized.  They are also very limited outside of that situation and some of the most difficult classes to level up to the end game.  If you are someone who wants to be included in every raid, then play one of the classes you know is specialised in that and stop trying to bring the playing field down to four classes with nothing but cosmetic differences.</P> <P>There is no way a game should be balanced for the end game.  The game should be balanced for the game, you know, the majority of it.  Not the part where people sit around and kill the same mobs over and over again.  That was one of the huge things that did EQ1 in was balancing for the end game at the expense of the game itself and I truely hope they don't do that this time around.</P>

[uzhiel feathered serpe]

<P>Umm..if they were not designed to be equal, it was because SoE screwed it up.</P> <P>When are guardians going to wake up? If you have 6 tanks classes who say tanking is not balanced...and ONE tank class saying it is, who do you think is right? </P> <P>Unless Guardians, as a class, put up better proposals, its just a matter of time before your class gets an adustment. Not because of anything I say, but because SoE realizes there are imbalances, even between plate tanks.</P> <P>If the two crusaders classes are saying heals. life taps, wards, etc are not enough to compensate for those +def buffs you guys got, and Guards tell us that they are..umm..who do you think is right?</P> <P>Dont ask us, by the way, just ask the majority of healers.</P> <P>Im not saying we cant tank raid mobs. I'm saying we're tanking at a 3 lvl disadvantage, no matter how well we get buffed. This is just for PLATE tanks. Evasion tanks are even at a worse disadvantage. It needs to be fixed. All tanks were advertised to be equal and interchangeable. </P> <P>That was not my policy. That was SoE Policy. If they want to come out and say that Guardians were supposed to be the end-all tank, then please do so. </P> <P>IN the mean time, can u really blame other tanks for being upset? put yourself in their shoes...because no matter how gimped Guardians say they are and this and that, and the end of the day, they still tank 90% of raids and they still take alot less damage than other tanks.</P> <P>*This is mostly a crusader/ fighter post. I wont get into how much help is needed to bring Evasion tanks into the mix. They really got hit hard in the end game. If anything, they need more love than any other tank type.</P> <P>Uzhiel, lvl 50 Paladin, Eternal Chaos, Faydark</P> <p>Message Edited by uzhiel feathered serpent on <span class=date_text>04-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:34 AM</span>

[Boli32]

<div></div>The real crux of the problem is not that everyone should tank equally just that Guardians percieve that  if they don't MT they walk around with big puppy eye untill someone lets them MT. This is partly due to - "I'm a tank and therefore must tank all the time" mindset - Guardians arn't the only ones to sufffer from this... even monks (Gage) say this, the other end is that a Guardian's secondary role is... well less clear. <blockquote>- You can't say a Guaridan's secondary role is dps... after all that is what beserkers are. - Guardians have no heals so that's out of thw question - Guradians have no spells/nukes so nope - no insisibility - not much utility - ... - ... </blockquote> so we come down to only role that could be expanded. <b>Buffs </b> <blockquote>If all a guardian's buffs that allow him to tank so well passiveily could be cast on the MT... well that definaly opens up the possibility... now we are talking if a Guard can't MT he can buff the MT with his buffs. Somethign akin to what the Paladin does in conjuction with heals that set him up so well as an off-tank. Unfortunatly as great an idea as it sounds with the new buffs stacking rules that will just not hold water so we are back to the old question what ELSE can guardian's do? </blockquote> <u> </u><b>Ranged!</b> <blockquote>Now sift through what possible thinks a GUARDian could do... guard others... now I had played with the idea of so sort of guard dog for wizards but that would never work no guardian woudl play babysister .... unless he had something to do. - Now Guardians get ranged slot - They have those large tower shields... sometimes used by ranged infantry to plant in the ground and hide behind. - Rangers and Asssains are the bets at bow skills... they use flimsy short bows and long bows.... now isn't it strange how they don't use crossbows - Crossbows have never been one for skilled users (ignore William Tell - I'm talking about the fact anyone can FIRE a crossbow... it takes weeks of practice to learn how to get an arrow to fly towards the target and years to master. crossbows are point and fire.)<b> Guardian's secondary role could be mobile light artiliery </b><b> </b>Now consider the group... a guradian is walking at the back all his CONCENTRATION on the small ballista he is carrying... no fancy buffs... but a small siege weapon. In combat you would cast "set up weapon" and the guardian sets up his wepon and becomes immobile after a few seconds casting time but he can now fire his weapon The weapon would have a long reload time but when it fires it packs a BIG punch able to pin mobs to the ground or generally knock them flying. a guardian's overall dps would certinaly not match his brother berserker's hacking away at a frenzied speed but he gets slow POWERFUL attacks. </blockquote> After all every  tanking class has a secondary role be it  pure dps, heals, buffs, utility etc. etc, a guardian's problem is and has allways been his secondary role has allways been a bit too close to the role of tank - allowing guardians to be buffed in the tank role far too high... well when all the dust settles and each tank can tank equally well... why be a guardian. You just have to find them a new secondary role. <font color="#ffff99">I know my "mobile light artilery" sounds a little far fetched but I am just highlighting the problem. If you are going to have pure class balance each class has to have a defining secondary role that may not be the most efficient in game terms but deep down you knew that's why you choose the class in the first place.</font> For me it was to have the power of God in my sword weilding hands (to heal and blast away my enemies)  and I have allways believed that is what defined my class more than how many hits I could take in an average round of combat<div></div><p>Message Edited by boli on <span class=date_text>04-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:16 PM</span>

[Blackdog183]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Nibblar wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Blackdog183 wrote:<BR> <P>Oh yes, and to the Lifetap and heals comments, those shouldnt even be factored in.  Especially SK lifetaps, which are so [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]iung sad I dont bother to use them.</P> <P> </P> <DIV>Consume Vitae= heals casters for 74, inflicts 169-207 damage on target, 93 power cost</DIV> <DIV>Painbronger= Inflict 82-137 damage on target, heals caster for 35, 45 power cost</DIV> <DIV>Swarming spirits=Heals caster for 80, inflicts 138-231 damage to targets in AOE, power cost 76</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So for 214 power I can "lifetap" for a total of 189.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I have 1587 power, and 2994 unbuffed, thats 15% of my life at a cost of 7% of my total power bar...thats not very good.  Now I would much rather have good taunts, and high mit rather than those [Removed for Content] poor lifetaps.  So yes, I say there is an imbalance, a huge one.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>You choose the wrong subclass then, that is what an SK does... If you feel your lifetaps and aoe need to be better, agrue that point, dont say you want the mitigation and hp of a guardian yet retain all your SK abilities.  The subclasses are different for a reason and were not designed to be equal in mitigatin, avoidance, offense, skills, buffs, and magic.  If SOE raises the mitigation of pallys, SKs, monks, and bruisers to the same level as a gard, then the gards will want the ability to heal, lifetap, feign death, etc...  It will never end!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>No subclass can have it all...  Like most people have pointed out, the biggest difference makes up less then 5% of the game (I think its even lower then that).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <P>Message Edited by Nibblar on <SPAN class=date_text>04-25-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>06:18 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Your right they arent designed to have equal mitigation.  You also werent designed to have the highest avoidance(post buffing) which is why this nerf is coming down the tubes.  Have you bothered to look at the SK forums, or any of my past posts, Ive been fighting and arguing to get SK lifetaps and wards revamped since beta!  Have they dont it, nope.  What they have done to SK is break out GE timer for 4 months, broke 2 lines of spells(tainted essenses werent being created) and left them broke well over a month, just to name 2.  They havent adressed the huge power costs, the weak taunts etc etc etc.  So yes, I am many other HAVE TRIED to get our class problems looked at, to no avail...</P> <P>Apparantly this "change" is coming because they see the problem(probably because they are seeing 6 classes say your overpowered while you say ur not..hmmm), and are now taking some steps to fix it.  Are they the steps I would prefer, not at all.  I see alot of guardians getting all butt hurt like your getting nerfed, when you really not, simply other tank classes are getting booted up a little bit, and theres nothing wrong with that.</P> <P>Just go a take a look in the SK forums, theres a pretty well updated list of the problems with the SK class, and its not short by any means.  </P> <P>I have said it many many many many times now, YOU CAN HAVE THOSE STUPID F*CKING LIFETAPS!  If I can have duel wield, tower shields, a ranged item, decent taunts and power costs.  Would that be an acceptable trade to you?  Didnt think so.  Ive seen all you folks run around here and yell "they have lifetaps omg!" and never look at the data.  Ive seen many many SK's say they would gladly give em up for a few things you get...havent seen any guardian think it was a fair trade yet.  </P>

[WolfSha]

<P>brillian post boli.  I agree - i don't want to be like a guard either, i like my class the way it is.  I don't want to be a brick wall, i wanna be a crazy guy in plate using up HP to proc and have the enemy run away scared cause i'm clearly demented! :smileytongue:</P> <P>I have a purpose even if there's a guard in the group - i wanted to kick butt <EM>and</EM> tank and i do... mostly i'm main tank, sometimes i'm not.  I actually enjoy the change when i'm not, means i don't have to worry about agro and power conservation incase we get an add i need to taunt etc - i can just mash my combat buttons till my fingers hurt, if i get agro then i'll just laugh at the guardian and tone it down a bit till he getis it back! :smileyvery-happy:</P> <P>Love your idea for a guards second role!! it's kinda far our there... but yeah, why not, if a monk is gonna tank like a guard then guards will be redundant. completely. why have a guard when you can have a guard and a scout in 1...</P> <P>but the idea guards getting some kinda seige weapon to make then dps like a monk... i like it! :smileyhappy:</P> <P>Only one thing though...</P> <P>The scouts would go <STRONG>MAD</STRONG>! :smileyvery-happy:</P> <P>I have a scout and remember how much that agi cap hurt my tanking - i used to tank all the time and i made a berserker when i couldn't do it any more - now you're talking about all tanks having great tanking ability <STRONG>and</STRONG> good dmg... i think the scouts would scream the place down! (see blackdog - i realied i was in the wrong class when i found i wanted to do what mt char couldn't but other peoples could, so i made a new char!)</P> <P>Still love the idea though! 5 stars! :smileytongue:</P> <P>Maybe it could be modified so instead of dmg it debuffed, stunned, rooted, nicked down, i dunno, something that wouldn't have the scouts screaming blue murder!!!</P> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P><p>Message Edited by WolfShark on <span class=date_text>04-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:02 AM</span>

[jwdanie]

<P>Very simple fix for the entire situation:  Avoidance buffs no longer stack.</P> <P>Now guardians can't buff their avoidance so high, restoring the tanking balance to where it is supposed to be.  Also, now guardians can't become unhittable, restoring combat balance and eliminating the need for the entirely new combat system to be implemented.  If anyone has any ideas why that can't work, please let me know.</P> <P>Also, from what I can tell, and I have been playing the game since day 1 as have several of my friends, anyone that can't find a way to play their character effectively is just not going about things the same way.  I have a brigand in the low 30's that can solo great as long as I only attack single mobs.  Can I solo a ^^?  depends what it is, but yes.  I can solo all greens and most blues.  I know most people don't think that it is possible, but it can be done.  Just don't think that you are going to stand there and take a beating and win.  Someone on an earlier post complained about the efficiency of their lifetaps costing 15% of their power and restoring 7% of their health.  Let's not forget that you are also damaging the mob at the same time.  Personally, if I could spend 15% of my power to regain 7% of my health while damaging my opponent I don't think that anything could kill me. </P> <P>The tanks job is not necessarily to take damage, it is to prevent everyone else in the group from taking damage.  Some do this strictly by taking damage, some by not getting hit, some with a balance.  Tanks have some ability to damage the target which seems to vary inversely with their ability to soak damage.  This makes sense since those that can't take much damage need to end a fight more quickly before the opportunity to get damaged can occur.  Raid mobs hit very very very hard, thus the best way to tank them would be with someone who could soak up most of this damage, a guardian.  Therefore, yes, it makes sense that to tank a raid mob a guardian would be best.  These mobs have a high enough chance to hit that the ability of other tanks to avoid damage is overcome.</P> <P>Seems obvious to me that the problem with the system is that the class that was designed to soak damage has a way to avoid getting hit as well.  Therefore, as I said earlier, just diminish that ability with one simple action:  Multiple buffs to the same attribute no longer stack.  Only the highest buff should work.  It would still be advantageous to have everyone buff in case someone dies, but it would no longer be imperative to get "the right combination of buffs" to go off to battle.  This simple solution could also have fixed the agility issue, and will prevent issues with strength, stamina, intelligence, wisdom, etc. from popping up in the future.  One attribute/skill/ability buff per character, and only the highest one works.  This does not include enhancements from equipment, merely from buffs, because equipment is already limited by slotting.</P>

[WolfSha]

<HR> <P>uzhiel feathered serpent  wrote:</P> <P>When are guardians going to wake up? If you have 6 tanks classes who say tanking is not balanced...and ONE tank class saying it is, who do you think is right? </P> <P>Unless Guardians, as a class, put up better proposals, its just a matter of time before your class gets an adustment. Not because of anything I say, but because SoE realizes there are imbalances, even between plate tanks.</P> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <P>Excuse me? if you read the posts, you'd see there are a lot  of non guardians posting here supporting the guards and saying that guardians SHOULD be the toughest tank.</P> <P>I'm one - i player a berserker. I do MUCH more dmg than a guard.  I can't take as much and i shouldn't be able to!</P> <P>I have a job even if i'm not tanking - i can still kick some butt!  If a guard isn't tanking all he can do is scratch some butt!! :smileywink:</P> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P><p>Message Edited by WolfShark on <span class=date_text>04-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:13 AM</span>

[uzhiel feathered serpe]

<P>I read BOTH your posts, wolf...and im glad you like your class the way it is. Kudos to you. </P> <P>Unfortunately, theres more people who want more balance than less. Myself being one of them. Im quite content if crusaders were put in the middle, with mid avoidance and mid mitigation, and guards with high mitigation and low avoidance.</P> <P>But currently thats not the case. I wasnt the one who caused the Devs to look at it. They are doing it out of their own accord. In fact I started posting on this matter AFTER the devs decided to take a look at it. I happen to agree with them. I am just posting my feelings on this matter. I'll say it again. These are my personal views on the matter. They just happen to be a view that MANY tanks have...</P> <P>I have no intention of standing by and seeing Guards get nerfed. I'll stand up for them just as much as I'm standing up for Eva tanks and SK's. </P> <P>By the same token, I cant stand by while reading Guards tell other tanks that they should just live with it. That they are the top of the heap because SoE wanted it that way. If that were the case they SoE would not be looking at the combat changes. </P> <P>Uzhiel, lvl 50 Paladin, Eternal Chaos, Faydark.</P>

[Boli32]

<blockquote><font color="#ffff00">brillian post boli.  I agree - i don't want to be like a guard either, i like my class the way it is.  I don't want to be a brick wall, i wanna be a crazy guy in plate using up HP to proc and have the enemy run away scared cause i'm clearly demented! </font><font color="#ffff00"><img src="../../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif" border="0" height="16" width="16"></font><font color="#ffff00"> </font></blockquote> Yeah that was what I was trying to say - every tank has a secondary role they just love being except the guardian, and that role defines them - if everyone tanked equaly what would define a guardian. <blockquote> <p><font color="#ffff00">but the idea guards getting some kinda seige weapon to make then dps like a monk... i like it! </font><font color="#ffff00"><img src="../../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif" border="0" height="16" width="16"></font></p> <p><font color="#ffff00">Only one thing though...</font></p> <p><font color="#ffff00">The scouts would go </font><font color="#ffff00"><strong>MAD</strong></font><font color="#ffff00">! </font><font color="#ffff00"><img src="../../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif" border="0" height="16" width="16"></font> </p> </blockquote> <p>High power low rate of fire with a chance to knockback / root I don't think they will encroch on a scouts dps I can just see the group shouting at the guardian to "fire d*mn you!" and he syays back "I'm still reloading, give me chance  this take an age to wind! <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />. </p> <p>Instead of every 30 damage every second its 240 every 8 (and the image of a goblin flying back with a bolt stuck in its chest <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />) </p> <><> <p><font color="#ffff00"> </font></p> <blockquote><font color="#ffff00">Still love the idea though! 5 stars! </font><font color="#ffff00"><img src="../../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif" border="0" height="16" width="16"></font> </blockquote> <p>Ahhh you made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </p> <div></div>

[Dub]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> sostrows wrote:<BR> <P>Agree with OP.  Every subclass board is filled with "our (insert class) can't be (insert role here) compared to (insert other subclass here)" threads.</P> <P>I want subclass situational superiority otherwise why even have subclasses?</P> <P>Please don't "balance" subclasses to a nice white pasty uniform Grobb gruel!!  Let us keep our flavor.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Right on, this game is already too bland.  Play what you want to play. If some other class has something you want, maybe your playing to wrong class and should switch.</DIV>

[Nibbl]

<P> </P><p>Message Edited by Nibblar on <span class=date_text>04-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:18 PM</span>

[Nibbl]

<P> </P><p>Message Edited by Nibblar on <span class=date_text>04-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:17 PM</span>

[GraymaneGravitic]

"<FONT color=#ffffff><FONT size=2><FONT color=#66ff00>Mitigation Best to Worst (Self Buffed)</FONT><BR></FONT></FONT><FONT color=#ffffff size=2>1.<SPAN>  </SPAN>Guardian (high mit / moderate avoid / high hp / low off / good def buffs)  <FONT color=#ff9900>THEY ARE BEST AS A RESULT OF SELF BUFFS</FONT><BR></FONT><FONT color=#ffffff size=2>2. Berserker (high mit / moderate avoid / high hp / moderate off)<BR></FONT><FONT size=2><FONT color=#ffffff>3.<SPAN>  </SPAN>Paladin/SK (moderate to high mit / moderate avoid / moderate to high hp / healing / magic / moderate offense)<BR></FONT><FONT color=#ffffff>4.<SPAN>  </SPAN>Bruiser/Monk (low mit / high avoid / low to moderate hp/ heal / feign death / high offense)</FONT></FONT> <P><FONT color=#ffffff><FONT size=2><FONT color=#3300ff>Offense/DPS Best to Worst</FONT><BR></FONT></FONT><FONT color=#ffffff size=2>1.<SPAN>  </SPAN>Bruiser/Monk <BR></FONT><FONT color=#ffffff size=2>2.<SPAN>  </SPAN>Paladin/SK<BR></FONT><FONT size=2><FONT color=#ffffff>3.<SPAN>  </SPAN>Berserker<BR></FONT><FONT color=#ffffff>4.<SPAN>  </SPAN>Guardian (buffs reduce offense even further, very low dps)</FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff><FONT size=2><FONT color=#009900>Avoidance Best to Worst</FONT><BR></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2><FONT color=#ffffff>1.<SPAN>  </SPAN>Bruiser/Monk  (high avoid)<BR></FONT><FONT color=#ffffff>2.<SPAN>  </SPAN>Paladin/SK/Guardian/Berserker (mod to low avoid)</FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff><FONT size=2><FONT color=#ff0066>Taunting Best to Worst</FONT><BR></FONT></FONT><FONT color=#ffffff><FONT size=2>1. Guardian </FONT><SPAN><BR></SPAN></FONT><FONT color=#ffffff size=2>2.<SPAN>  </SPAN>Berserker<BR></FONT><FONT size=2><FONT color=#ffffff>3.<SPAN>  </SPAN>Paladin/SK<BR></FONT><FONT color=#ffffff>4.<SPAN>  </SPAN>Bruiser/Monk"</FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2></FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=2>Guardians are best in two out of four catagories........paladins/shadow knights are best in......drum roll please.........ZERO out of four catagories........................................ .................................................. .............................are we beginning to get a clue yet as to what is wromg?</FONT></P>

[Valta]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P>Nibblar wrote:</P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>Remember crusaders are not 100% tanks.... like 80/20 or 75/25... tank/cleric (Pally) and tank/necro (SK)... thats why you have less hp and mit... There are two pure mit tanks (Warriors) and two pure avoidance tanks (Brawlers)... </FONT></P> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000>I agree crusaders need help in the healing and lifetap department... but making them more like a guardian (taunts and mit buffs) is not the solution.</FONT></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>and thats the problem, this whole 80/20 concept is the most stupid thing in a RPG ever. As 20% cleric/necro you are a lvl 10 cleric/necro, at level 50 VERY useless. As 80% tank, you are a lvl 40 tank when it goes on 50+ raids, thus you are again very very useless. This system have not worked in EQ1 and it will not work in EQ2, I wish SOE and most of the players would notice that already.</P> <P>The best system in this way comes from D&D. Paladins are tankwise exactly the same as fighters, no differences in HP, DPS, AC, to hit and whatever. In the first rulebook the big difference came in form of "needed exp for level", while the fighter got his first lvl up with 2000 Exp, the Paladin needed 2500 and it raised, once your friends hit lvl 5, a paladin was still lvl 3... not realy that usefull... and what got the paladin in exchange? He had lay on hands from the very beginning and got ONE lvl 1 cleric spell at lvl 9... by the time your paladin hit 9, the thief in your party was already 13+.. and getting exp in D&D was never easy (please forget about PC games, they are no measure).</P> <P>With the new rulebook, the exp needed for level is the same for all classes, the difference comes from "skills". As far as I remember paladins get their first cleric spell at lvl 5 or 6 and have lay hands, but htey have much less skills then a fighter. A fighter gets like every level a new skill ability, the paladin every .... um 3 or 4 levels?</P> <P>But tank wise, they were both the same. THe paladin in D&D would never complant that a fighter would be chosen over him as main tank. neverever. And it works good this way. What could be done for EQ2? I dont know, how about enhancing the character specialization... guardians would get their specialization every 4 or 5 levels (im not sure how it works yet, all 8 or 10 levels?). Nothing uber, but still usefull, on separate timers so they can use them in addition to their current skills. I dont see a problem with this, we have a test server, it could be tested thoroughly before it goes live.</P> <P>As said, this whole 80/20 think did never work, do not work and will never work. SOE said all "fighters" can perform their role as tanks, yet they can not. WIth all this necro and cleric sides, this does not matter, we choosed a fighter to be a fighter (tank). To be a paladin/shadowknight is just a spezialization, not the definition of our role.<BR></P>

[uzhiel feathered serpe]

<P>Somehow we have flavor now? You mean having guards tank almost all raid encounters is flavor.</P> <P>Would be more flavorful to have an SK tank Vox? hmn....I think so. I think it would actually be alot better for the game to have 6 tank types be interchangeable.</P> <P>So now the argument changes to flavor. So if all tanks able to actually tank comparitively, then we lose flavor. Hmn...wouldnt be nicer if all tanks were equal in their own way? Since you are all so happy with your defensive tank tanking a mob, then you wont mind if an offensive tank takes a mob down, while still tanking with the same +def buffs right? so mitigation and more hit points also equals having more def buffs and same avoidance, right? </P> <P>Common guys, really think about what you are asking. Many of you dont even think that Guards need to be looked at. Thats somehow the world is right and all tanks are fine the way they are.</P> <P>They are not. </P> <P>So in effect, since a guard can take so much less damage than other tanks, then other tanks should be able to kill the mobs so fast that they take the same damage as guards. Why not? </P> <P>Because then people might choose other tanks..and that just MIGHT make Guards not the preferred tank. </P> <P>Uzhiel, lvl 50 Paladin, Eternal Chaos, Faydark.</P><p>Message Edited by uzhiel feathered serpent on <span class=date_text>04-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:54 PM</span>

[Dracoviol]

dont you know uzhiel we are supposed to have 600dps to make up for our tanking on epic mobs and it will be all balanced <span>:smileywink:</span> <div></div>

[Nibbl]

<P> </P><p>Message Edited by Nibblar on <span class=date_text>04-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:09 PM</span>

[Yama Seish]

<div></div>There are some very good ideas here that would encourage diversity of roles for the tank classes. There is also enough pointless bickering about guardians vs all other tanks in regards raiding. Everyone agrees that the fighter archetype as a whole can tank, for most of the game content. But raids are not the only reason for the complaints. There is a main problem that influences both raid and non-raid content. This is a class-structure/class-role problem. The differences in tanking every-day mobs are there, obvious to anyone who cares to look. Guardians are best at damage absorbption and at holding aggro. These are the defining characteristics of tanking, as the game stands now.  Naturally, guardians are *mostly* always preferred for the main tank role (mostly, because in some situations other fighters are more desirable, not generally) The rest of sub-classes in the tree posses other abilities to compensate for the degree in which they lack tanking prowess compared to that of the guardian. Problem: those differences do not make up adequately for the loss of tanking power. Root of the problem: tanking measured against the standard set by guardians. The root problem, that's what matters here. Now, it could be that this is the intention of the developers, and that's all there is to it. Fine. I would rather see it done differently. Why? Because I think it is better to diversify the range of play options and tactics available to us players as a whole. This shouldn't be surprising. More variety=more variables=more tactics=more engaging=more fun. If all we do is make rules so strict that they have no grey zones of application, we would get bored very fast. And what we want is to have a good time, no? To enjoy performing roles for which we are rewarded with success, right? The key is to make classes richer, varied, more rewarding, while allowing them to perform the core role of the class in a balanced fashion. How? By allowing tanking to be "balanced" (not equal, they are not synonimous) accross the sub-classes when measured against the combat content of the game. The solution is situational superiority: some mobs are better tanked by certain sub-classes and/or some player combos have an edge over others. But overall, both in raid and non-raid game, all tanks are balanced in so far as tanking is concerned: in so far as their main role in a group. Now, guardians would be right to point out "if we are all balanced in tanking, what about those roles that other tanks have and we do not?" Excellent, that is where improvements to the guardian would need to be made. The point is to allow guardians to have more group/solo abilities than pure "best" tanking. If all guardians get is that pinnacle role, but loose in all other possible roles, then, truly, it is a sad day for guardians. Only one of you would be *needed* per group, only a handful (if ever) would be *needed* per raid. Your play-tactics will become mind-wreckingly boring: taunt, auto-attack, keep mobs' butt facing group, taunt, buff, taunt, etc etc until that is all you are built to do, like a machine in an industrial processing belt. What they need (unless one subscribes to what was written above) is variety of roles, not just tanking, but a host of other things to make play-time socially engaging, interesting, fun and not repetitive. This should be accomplished through skill/stat buffs, special arts that add dps, crippling effects, specific group-member super-shielding, or whatever you can imagine. The idea is to make guardians functional in more than one role. And this would benefit the whole archetype, not just one over the rest. Frankly, I'd hate to be in the situation of guardians today. Yes, everyone else in the fighter archetype needs love, but I feel the most for guardians. If only, because being the best at something so important as tanking, but sucking in most other areas as a way to compensate, makes them, in my eyes, a loner class, a straight-jacket bound class, condemned to a mono-thematic style of play that only the vain glory of always being the MT for every raid and encounter could possibly make bearable, and only a little, at that. Solo play? hmmm takes ages to drop down a mob with such low dps: boring. Group role if not tanking? hmmm couple of buffs, crappy dps, maybe off-tank if things go bad... Doesn't sound very useful, hence, nor rewarding. I have very little idea of what the problems of the other classes are. Ok, so SKs need lifetaps revamped, probably other types of abilities adjusted and so forth. I wish they are fixed in that regard, because they will always be second rate in any situation otherwise. Same goes for pallys and berserkers. Palladins make great support heal and have some useful buffs. Berserkers aoes can be awesome to hold big groups aggro and with decent dps, but other than that, I feel they need also some more flavor. Once their abilities are fleshed-out, hopefully they will diversify their roles over that of being secondary and tertiary tanks, The opposite pole of guardians, as things stand, brawlers, also get shafted in some ways. They are the closest to the scouts and the furthest in tanking power. Monks/Bruisers are not asking to tank like guardians and to dps like scouts. That's nonsense. All they want is the same as every other tank: to have their *niche* of tanking secured while being desirable in some circumstances due to their unique abilities. Right now, they are the worst at tanking. Light armor, deflection is not like mitigation (it doesn't work all around the character, only in a frontal 120 degree arch), lowest hp of the tanks, crappy taunts and the fact that avoidance is not consistent like mitigation (it is probabilistic, could last 10 seconds without getting hit, and then drop in the next two because the mob gets a spike of good rolls. This happens all the time) make brawlers the least desirable tanks. What do they get in exchange? Good dps, that is pretty much it. No group will want them for feign death, no group will count mend as a *must-have* skill, no group will use them for their crap lvl 24 skill of invisibility nor for their fears. These things make solo-play a brawler more interesting, but they are hardly something to compare to what other classes get in the way of group buffs, armor/weapon choices, taunts, spells and heals. Those who point to invisibility/fears and feign death as huge bonuses to brawlers are way off the mark. Those abilities are nothing like they were in eqlive, for example. Point to be made, if all classes could tank in a balanced way across game content, and if all classes had more than pure tanking or pure dps as their fighter defining role, then everyone would be for the better. All this babbling about guardian vs everyone else is missing the point. The problem is that tanking should be "balanced" and all figher sub-classes made unique and rewarding by diversifying their skill/spell/art sets. Right now, this is not the case. Hence the problem, and the solution is found right in the assertion of the problem itself. Peace. <div></div><p>Message Edited by Yama Seishin on <span class=date_text>04-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:12 PM</span>

[uzhiel feathered serpe]

<DIV>That was a great post. Kudos and 5 stars to you, bceause I agree 100%. Im not out to nerf guards..and im not out to make equal tanks. I just want balanced tanks. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Your post is probably the best i've seen, so I wont post anymore. I'd love for this thread to go out on such a positive note. :smileyvery-happy:</DIV>

[Nibbl]

<BR><p>Message Edited by Nibblar on <span class=date_text>04-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:09 PM</span>

[Blackdog183]

Yama, you pretty much summed up how I feel as well, awsome post, 5 stars!

[Crynus]

<DIV>Just a random idea here for raid balance...</DIV> <DIV>Press P and take a look at your resists.  Notice how they are a form of mitigation too?  Now lets say, that we take these piddly poison and disease buffs that SKs (and pallys?) get, and make them huge, and i mean HUGE.  Now before you get outraged, think for a minute. would this really make any difference in gameplay?  If a knight was utterly immune to disease and poison.  Sure, warlock mobs would drop fast, but other than that?  Now, toss in a few raid targets that are warlocks on crack.  ungodly huge nukes.  Nukes so big no guardian could even dream of standing against them.  BUT! what about our resistant knights?  Right there, you have situational tanking for knights.  </DIV> <DIV>perhaps something else along these lines for monks?  Don't get too aggrivated, i'm just spitballing here.  But this would open a new avenue for RAID situations, where you could have other classes get a shot at tanking without bringing guardians down.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Discuss.</DIV>

[WolfSha]

<P>Great idea crynus - another way that content could be changed simply to balance tanks without standing on each others toes!</P> <P>Yama, that's a very good post, and i agree with you.</P> <P>I've not being arguing cause i wan't monks not to be able to tank, but becausei don't want guards to be useless.  Without a secondary role they're not just nerf'd if all the other tanks can tank the same mobs, they're completely redundant and i'd hate to see that.  What soe is doing right now sounds like exactly that though :smileysad:</P> <P>If guards could be given a good second role would be more than happy for all tanks to tank the same - hence i 5star'd boli's crazy seige weapon plan! :smileyhappy:</P> <P>Tanks need to be balanced in an interesting way - tanking different content better using their different abilities.</P> <P> </P> <P>Blackdog, either your bad at expessing your views or at reading posts.  I'm sorry if i've been arguing agaist you when we were on the same side all along, but what you've said really seems at odds with what yama has said and then you've gone and said you agree...?</P> <P><FONT color=#3300ff><FONT color=#3366ff>Blackdog:</FONT> </FONT><SPAN>Balance amongst tanks should be this:  All tanks are equal, they can tank the same mob, just as good as the other(in comparable gear), they just do it differntly.</SPAN></P> <P><FONT color=#ff99ff>Yama: </FONT> The key is to make classes richer, varied, more rewarding, while allowing them to perform the core role of the class in a balanced fashion. How? By allowing tanking to be "balanced" (not equal, they are not synonimous) accross the sub-classes when measured against the combat content of the game. The solution is situational superiority: some mobs are better tanked by certain sub-classes and/or some player combos have an edge over others. But overall, both in raid and non-raid game, all tanks are balanced in so far as tanking is concerned: in so far as their main role in a group.<BR></P> <P><FONT color=#3366ff>Blackdog: </FONT>Yama, you pretty much summed up how I feel as well, awsome post, 5 stars!</P> <P>EH?? how does that work? you're saying oppposite things aren't you?</P> <P>I REALLY wan't all tank to be balanced, but by content, not by being identical.  Every subclass should be the tank of choice in different situations.  The <STRONG>only </STRONG>thing i've been trying to get across in last few posts is that we can't do this until we find a second roll for guards or they'll be redundant when they're not being tank.</P><p>Message Edited by WolfShark on <span class=date_text>04-26-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:00 AM</span>

[Valta]

<P>Why do you want situational superiority? Why shold a SK be better at tanking Vox (example) as any other "fighter"? SOE said all fighters can perform their roles as tanks, but in other ways.</P> <P>lets say</P> <P>Warriors + crusader tank through mitigation</P> <P>brawler tank through avoidance... the first can take more hits, the other can avoid more hits, overall all 3 are the same at tanking.</P> <P>guardians get a tad more HP and some form of "protecting others", see daoc for some examples, like blocking for others, intervene, intercept. they will have moderate DPS.</P> <P>berserkers have regular HP but they do a bit more damage, some special taunts (over guardian) would be handy too</P> <P>paladins will have regular dps and tanking abilities, but less HP then normal (berserker, sk), to make up for that, they get some cleric abilities, like heals, maybe wards, buffs. remove all attack-spells, they are very "paladin unlike".</P> <P>shadowknights will have regular HP (like berserker) and regular DPS (like paladin and guardian), they will have an array of attack spells.</P> <P>as for brawlers I have no ideas... I have always marked them as an unnecessary class (in any game). What do we need them for when we have already everything? Actualy I would see the monk as a berserker in light armor and the bruiser as a guardian in light armor. NOthing more, nothing less.</P> <P> </P>

[TheMeatShie]

Guardians arent overpowered, the avoidance system on live is broke. The problem i see arising is that with the addition of a defense cap, you are gimping guardians more than any in this patch. Base mitigation is the same for all plate tanks... they wear the same armors... it is only when you add in sub class abilities (ie defense buffs, parry buffs) that you see a change in avoidance/mitigation.  Different subs of fighter get different benefits and different drawbacks.  Paladins get heals, shadowknights get lifetaps/wards([Removed for Content] yeah i know whole other conversation), berzerkers get pretty solid AE damage, Guardians get tower shields(berz's too for that matter) and +defense/parry buffs.  I would agree that in some situations (ie raids) the +defense is more envious that healing, or dps, but then again in many situations the shoe is on the other foot.  We are speaking about one in twenty-four people in <1% of the content in the game that those advantages really shine through, and up to date on live a good portion of the difference was because of the broken system.  Yes, broken system, buggy, whatever you wanna call it - the ability to deminish a challenging mobs dps to trivial amounts by reaching a certain point in defense. The problem i see with a cap on defense, is it is a patch fix for a damage formula problem.  It is addressing the ability to reach ridonkulous amount of avoidance by saying "no, you cant get that high" instead of changing the system to whre that loophole in the formula doesnt exist. Because seriously, you take away +defense/parry on guardians, you just created an even deeper rooted inbalance, because now every other plate tank ends up with abilities that they gained in exchange for that extra defense when they chose the path they chose,  while guardians get the same as defense as other plate tanks, but no other abilities. I think really the biggest mistake of this game in a balancing perspective was the idea that everyone should evolve from an archetype system.  This archetype system, although more ideal for starting players to latch on to, doesnt really exist in a game of this sort.  I belive a bad note that this brought is the lack of roles and specialties involved in such a system... why arent more uses of the utilities that we KNOW could be very beneficial made to the point that they can be beneficial.  Like FD for example, great idea, great in gameplay in eq1, created situational superiority - yet although its in eq2, they [Removed for Content] it to the point that it doesnt truly function.  Things like this, and these fears that if they actually create /gasp roles that different subs can fulfill they will unbalance the game, because the mighty archtype system wont be valid is IMO moving farther away from fun. <div></div>

[WolfSha]

<P></P> <HR> <P>Valtaya wrote:</P> <P>Why do you want situational superiority? Why shold a SK be better at tanking Vox (example) as any other "fighter"? SOE said all fighters can perform their roles as tanks, but in other ways.</P> <P>lets say</P> <P>Warriors + crusader tank through mitigation</P> <P>brawler tank through avoidance... the first can take more hits, the other can avoid more hits, overall all 3 are the same at tanking.</P> <P></P> <HR> <P>Because it doesn't work - that's what we're supposed to have now (although guards are ending up with both in raids)</P> <P>Grouped it's fine, but in a raid, 90% mit, 10% avoid = live, 90% avoid, 10% mit = dead because you can get one(or two)-shot killed, therefor a mit tank is <EM>prefered</EM> because the regular (lighter) dmg is easier to deal with for the healers, and doesn't rely on luck (or not having bad luck i should say), meaning that brawlers never get to tank a raid if there's a guard around and they don't like that..</P> <P>And rather than make raids hit more often for less dmg and make the current system work, soe are are trying a fresh new approach where mit is based on AGI and avoid is based on your armour... :smileysurprised:</P> <P>guess they're tried of tweaking it every patch and want to fix it once and for all... like that will ever happen! :smileyvery-happy:</P> <P> </P><p>Message Edited by WolfShark on <span class=date_text>04-26-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:04 AM</span>

[jwdanie]

<P>In response to an earlier post:</P> <P>Guardians are best in 2 categories, worst in 2 categories, same with monks.  Your paladin is middle of the road in every category making them very well-rounded.  Sounds to me like you just don't like your pally, so maybe you should try a different class.</P> <P>The entire reason that the devs are busy re-writing the game right now instead of adding new content is because of whiny people that cry nerf everytime their character doesn't do something as well as somebody else's does.  Your character is never going to be the best at everything otherwise there wouldn't be a point to playing any other class.</P>

[uzhiel feathered serpe]

<P>So you are saying its ok for Guards to have the highest mitigation, the most hit points, the most def buffs, and 100% avoidance buffed...</P> <P>and the other tanks are somehow whining because tanking is balanced....hmn, interesting.</P> <P>I guess crusader wards = mystic wards too...hmn...interesting.</P> <P>Guards keep stating that it's not fair for other classes to wear Vanguard armor because it is for Guards, because they are the "true" tank...but then your avoidance shoudnt be looked at, because you're only the best in 2 categories....</P> <P>So in effect your avoidance SHOULD be the lowest right? because you have the most mitigation.</P> <P>Am I wrong here? will someone point me in the right direction? </P> <P>I'm not trying to get you guys nerfed. I want us to get a little love. But it seems many Guards seem to think the status quo is just peachy. </P> <P>Its not, its going to get adjusted, so I invite Guardians to post ideas and suggestions to improve the tanking classes, instead of just continuing to post as to why Guards should be left alone at the top and how all tanking classes are balanced. </P> <P> </P> <P>Message Edited by uzhiel feathered serpent on <SPAN class=date_text>04-26-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>09:26 AM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by uzhiel feathered serpent on <span class=date_text>04-26-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:27 AM</span>

[Valta]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> WolfShark wrote:<BR> <P></P> <P>Because it doesn't work - that's what we're supposed to have now (although guards are ending up with both in raids)</P> <P>Grouped it's fine, but in a raid, 90% mit, 10% avoid = live, 90% avoid, 10% mit = dead because you can get one(or two)-shot killed, therefor a mit tank is <EM>prefered</EM> because the regular (lighter) dmg is easier to deal with for the healers, and doesn't rely on luck (or not having bad luck i should say), meaning that brawlers never get to tank a raid if there's a guard around and they don't like that..</P> <P>And rather than make raids hit more often for less dmg and make the current system work, soe are are trying a fresh new approach where mit is based on AGI and avoid is based on your armour... :smileysurprised:</P> <P>guess they're tried of tweaking it every patch and want to fix it once and for all... like that will ever happen! :smileyvery-happy:</P> <P> </P> <P>Message Edited by WolfShark on <SPAN class=date_text>04-26-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>06:04 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>you know the fault is in the system, too many numbers and especialy too high numbers. Hell, why do we need to have 5000 HP on lvl 50, why should be mobs there who hit for 10.000 damage? why is a lvl 1 weapon doing 1-4 damage while a lvl 50 weapon is 10-31? What do we say? A good copy is better then a bad "new invention" ? I gues its too late to change that, however, why keeps SOE thinking mobs with high hp and high damage output increases the challange? Hint hint hint dear devs: it does NOT. It just criples your own balance.</P> <P>Its an easy way out to increase the mobs might and sell it as challange, isnt it? <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR></P>

[Platinum]

Who is the best damage dealer currently in EQ2?  Anyone know? <div></div>

[Dart]

Wizars/warlocks?

[Platinum]

<span><blockquote><hr>Darton wrote:Wizars/warlocks? <div></div><hr></blockquote>So Wiz/War have best damage.  Which class has the best defense then? </span><div></div>

[Dart]

<SPAN class=580273520-26042005><FONT size=2>I would have to say guardians as that is their base design, a defensive tank. Maybe a warder, from the priest side? Enchanter from the caster line, and not sure from the scout line.</FONT></SPAN>

[Dart]

<DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> <DIV><SPAN class=679095318-26042005></SPAN><FONT face=Verdana><FONT size=2>Y<SPAN class=679095318-26042005>es lets have all tanks ... tank equally. And I want a 500 HP heal and wards. I want FD, I want invis, I want mend, I want safe fall, I want Lifetaps.. See a trend? </SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2><SPAN class=679095318-26042005></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2><SPAN class=679095318-26042005>IMHO the problem lies in the game design. They sold the guardian as a def tank, so you want to have all tanks tank equally...? <SPAN class=982015820-26042005>M</SPAN>aking all tanks <SPAN class=982015820-26042005>'</SPAN><SPAN class=982015820-26042005>tank </SPAN>equally<SPAN class=982015820-26042005>'</SPAN> in my opinion will only make things worse as the Guardian will still come out ahead with more hps/AC because they sacrificed casting spells, and all the other stuff that goes with the other tank classes.</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2><SPAN class=679095318-26042005></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2><SPAN class=679095318-26042005>What SOE needs to do is make Content match up to the different types of 'tank' classes accordingly, making the flavor of tank situational. Example SK's could be immune to some Undead boss effects, making them the 'preferred tank' for that encounter, this would create demand for all types of tanks in guilds, yet it wouldn't eliminate any one tank from tanking any one mob.. Its been posted by many other people here, and I think its the only solution to this dilemma. You can change <SPAN class=982015820-26042005>this</SPAN> for t<SPAN class=982015820-26042005>h</SPAN>at all day long (code wise)<SPAN class=982015820-26042005>,</SPAN> yet they will still drop the ball somewhere and have to fix the fix that fixed the fix... That's a Microsoft patch phrase /cackle. </SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2><SPAN class=679095318-26042005></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2><SPAN class=679095318-26042005>Look I understand peoples frustration, but you have to realize if they make all tanks 'tank' equally, then the guard has 0 purpose<SPAN class=982015820-26042005>, other than Higher HPs for tanking</SPAN>. We bring defensive buffs to the table, and a broken line of protection (which needs to be fixed). So now they cap Defense, and a paladin or sk or Monk can meet that cap, same as the guardian. If this <SPAN class=982015820-26042005>should </SPAN>happen<SPAN class=982015820-26042005>, then</SPAN> what does the guardian bring to the table<SPAN class=982015820-26042005>, besides more HP's</SPAN>?</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2><SPAN class=679095318-26042005></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2><SPAN class=679095318-26042005>So again IMHO I think they need to address the tank issue via content, as we all know all tank classes can tank group content 1-50 with 0 problem, most raid encounters can be tanked by all tanks, there is a small % of raid content we are talking about that some folks feel they cant tank as non guardians. The answer would be ADD content that is specifically designed to be tanked by the different flavors of the tanks that SOE sold us. Short of that they will still face this problem years down the road. Much like the spiders were in PoA in EQlive, the best tanks for those were SK's or palys because of the casting agro they could generate, where as a War relied on taunts alone. Making the hybrid tanks a better choice (at least in my guild we did) there were other encounters that we specifically designated as paly or SK tank only because of the factors that came into play for that encounter.</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2><SPAN class=679095318-26042005></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2><SPAN class=679095318-26042005>Second thing is to add utility other than <SPAN class=982015820-26042005>just </SPAN>Deff buffs or a broken line of intercept (One thing you have to realize about the protection line, it is rarely used, provides very little functionality atm in the game, mostly due to ineffectiveness). If people are doing their respective roles its not even needed, its the rare occasion that a nuker gets agro from over nuking, or the healer gets agro from healing. </SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2><SPAN class=679095318-26042005></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2><SPAN class=679095318-26042005>Cliff notes: </SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2><SPAN class=679095318-26042005></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2><SPAN class=679095318-26042005>Bring content that requires all types of tanks to 'tank' it.</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2><SPAN class=679095318-26042005></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=679095318-26042005><FONT face=Verdana><FONT size=2>Give guards a better utility line <SPAN class=982015820-26042005>so </SPAN>if SOE plans on <SPAN class=982015820-26042005>maling all tanks "tank equally' but to be honest if they vanilla everything down to the point of 4 main classes, this game will lose allot of appeal for me atleast.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV></DIV></DIV> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P><p>Message Edited by Darton on <span class=date_text>04-26-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:16 PM</span>

[MadMikey]

<P>If you remove the phrase 'tank equally' I am sure many people would be much happier at not having felt mislead in anyway......besides that tanks themselves have the skills to be situational.......</P> <P>IMHO the guardian is the all round TANK - - He has one task that I can see thus far (lvl 33 atm) and that is to sit his [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] down on the floor and taunt the behind off everything that walks passed. (the reason i feel the guardian is the all rounder because his role never changes, there isn't anything else he can really do from my experience.  He is the safest bet as no matter what happens he will always be there doing the same thing.</P> <P>ShadowKnights and Pally's are easily the most versatile - they can adapt to a situation very fast and easily switching from MT to assist.  They have good AOE's for grabbing adds without switching targets......aswell as a potentially life saving ward if needed.</P> <P>I cant really talk for monks/Bruisers but having SafeFall, self healing and FD has got to be useful and add a slight diversity to them? </P> <P>Maybe its just the statement of 'tank equally' and the feeling of people being misled that has caused problems?  -  </P> <P>Anyway feel better after adding my bit.</P>

[Platinum]

So if Wizards and lets say Warlocks do the most damage is that balanced? Can any Guardian solo a raid mob self buffed?  I'm not talking about a shark in the water, I'm talking about the Eye, CT Dragon, Vox? <div></div>

[Blackdog183]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> PlatinumX2 wrote:<BR>So if Wizards and lets say Warlocks do the most damage is that balanced?<BR><BR>Can any Guardian solo a raid mob self buffed?  I'm not talking about a shark in the water, I'm talking about the Eye, CT Dragon, Vox?<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Do you actually have proof of someone(SK, pally or otherwise) soloing the CT dragon, Vox or eye?  Or are you just talking out ur butt.  Tundra jack, ya maybe, and it would take close to 20 mins to an hour.  Unless you have proof(IE screenies, or a guildy that will come here and admit to one of those 3) then please dont inject stupidity of false claims.

[Platinum]

<span><blockquote><hr>Blackdog183 wrote: <blockquote> <hr> PlatinumX2 wrote:So if Wizards and lets say Warlocks do the most damage is that balanced?Can any Guardian solo a raid mob self buffed?  I'm not talking about a shark in the water, I'm talking about the Eye, CT Dragon, Vox? <div></div> <hr> </blockquote>Do you actually have proof of someone(SK, pally or otherwise) soloing the CT dragon, Vox or eye?  Or are you just talking out ur butt.  Tundra jack, ya maybe, and it would take close to 20 mins to an hour.  Unless you have proof(IE screenies, or a guildy that will come here and admit to one of those 3) then please dont inject stupidity of false claims. <div></div><hr></blockquote>Ok, let me try this again!  Can?  a? Guardian? solo X raid mobs self buffed?  It appears that is a yes or no?</span><div></div>

[Blackdog183]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> PlatinumX2 wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Blackdog183 wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> PlatinumX2 wrote:<BR>So if Wizards and lets say Warlocks do the most damage is that balanced?<BR><BR>Can any Guardian solo a raid mob self buffed?  I'm not talking about a shark in the water, I'm talking about the Eye, CT Dragon, Vox?<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Do you actually have proof of someone(SK, pally or otherwise) soloing the CT dragon, Vox or eye?  Or are you just talking out ur butt.  Tundra jack, ya maybe, and it would take close to 20 mins to an hour.  Unless you have proof(IE screenies, or a guildy that will come here and admit to one of those 3) then please dont inject stupidity of false claims. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Ok, let me try this again!  Can?  a? Guardian? solo X raid mobs self buffed?  It appears that is a yes or no?<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Yes, he can.  Ive admitted that before.  SK's and pallies, rangers, predators, some healer can also.  Guess you want them nerfed also.  Oh wait didnt you know, a ranger can drop a raid mob 3-5x as fast as any SK, at lower levels even.  Now you need to realize that the 20 mins to 2 hours spent killing said raid mob gets you about .5% xp(if your not already lvl 50), some extremly crap loot(as the ones that CAN actually be soloed drop absolute sh*t), and a tiny bit of status(which you could get more in the same amount of time on writs).  So while YES it can be done, on certain mobs, its really not worth the SK's waste of fu*king time.  I would much rather be chosen to go out and raid the 50+ group x4 mobs everyday, above any and all other tank classes(IE like guardians are, if they arent on, MOST guilds wont bother raiding).  So let me try this again, YES WE CAN SOLO THEM, but WHY THE FU*K WOULD WE WASTE THE TIME!

[Platinum]

Where does a Guardian have an advantage over any other class doing these mobs? <div></div>

[Nibbl]

<P> </P><p>Message Edited by Nibblar on <span class=date_text>08-10-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:48 AM</span>

[Nibbl]

<P> </P><p>Message Edited by Nibblar on <span class=date_text>08-10-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:03 AM</span>