Permanent Tanking Inequality? Aye, says Moorgard

[Elda]

<DIV>Moorgard's newest post (as of april 26) states that after combat changes are complete, there WILL be differences in tanking ability between the various fighter classes, unlike what was the company line pre-release. He states:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV><FONT color=#ff3300><STRONG></STRONG></FONT> <HR> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff3300><STRONG>Moorgard</STRONG></FONT> Wrote:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>...With fighters, damage potential is weighed against tanking ability. The latter is defined not just by avoidance or mitigation, but by the kind of buffs and abilities they get. Guardians and Paladins get the most defensive-oriented abilities, both for themselves and their groupmates. As a result, they will have the lowest damage output. At the other end of the scale are Bruisers and Monks, with Berserkers and Shadowknights in the middle....</DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>So now we have a tentative hierarchy of:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P>Guardian - Paladin - Berserker - Shadowknight - Bruiser - Monk</P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Ranked from lowest DPS and highest tanking ability to highest DPS and lowest tanking ability. Let me state that I'm not a tank, so my issue here isn't personal, it's based on principle.</P> <P>Why is the game designed so that some tanks simply tank better than others?</P> <P>Some tanks have more additional abilities than others. A monk can FD, do DPS, has some self heals and so on, while a guardian can pretty much just tank. Giving a Monk the same taking ability as the Guardian wouldn't be fair to the Guardian, as the Monk could then do all he could and so much more.</P> <P>But wait a second...if the Guardian had other skills, maybe the monk could be equal in tanking ability (though in a different way) and not make the Guardian useless! Alas, that won't happen because EQ2 is designed with what I consider to be a faulty system...one that claims balance but makes it impossible. I'm not saying that the game SHOULD be balanced....but if balance is the goal, the EQ2 system will not achieve it. Why?</P> <P>When classes are intended to be balanced at the archtype (meaning all fighters are supposed to be able to tank to the same ability), all classes within an archtype need to be equally able to fulfil that archtypes primary role.</P> <P>What does that mean? If a tanks role is to:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P>-Get/Maintain agro</P> <P>-Mitigate damage</P> <P>-Avoid damage</P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>....then all tanks need to have equal ability do the sum of those things. It's fine if one tank gets agro better but mitigates damage worse, and another maintains agro worse but avoids damage better. Those differences add to the flavor of the classes and will create variation in situations and groups, which is good.</P> <P>The problem is creted when you add additional ability to some classes such as "doing DPS" or "FD pulling" and not to others. When EQ2 created its archetypes, they added additional abilities to some of the classes within archtypes, but not to others.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P>Shadowknight: Tank, DPS, Group Utility EVAC, FD</P> <P>Paladin: Tank, Moderate Healing, Group Utility REZ</P> <P>Monk: Tank, DPS, FD, Self heals</P> <P>Bruiser: Tank, DPS, Self Heals, Fear</P> <P>Berserker: Tank, DPS</P> <P>Guardian: <STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000>TANK</FONT></STRONG></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>By making 5 out of 6 classes in the archtype have multiple roles, and one have only one role, they instantly and (possibly) permanatly shot their vision of balance in the foot. There's no way that the other tanks could be equal at tanking when they can do all of those other things but the poor Guardian can only do one thing.  With the tremendous number of potential secondary roles for a character to play in a group, the EQ2 team decided to go with NONE, for Guardian.</P> <P>Ok, enough of addressing the situation? How does EQ2 fix it?  (if balance is what they want) Simple, the vision of the guardian class needs to expand. Not shrink....but expand. The Guardian needs to find something else that they can do besides simply mitigate damage, avoid damage, and get/maintain agro.  Once he finds his other skillset, other tanks can begin to approximate him in tanking ability. </P> <P>Until that day, imbalance will always be found in EQ2.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

[MadMikey]

<P>Pretty much sums it up! - I think whole phrase of 'can tank equally aswell just in a different way' must be the worst PR statement for the game.  I believe what they meant to say was something to the effect of....</P> <P>'All Varying archetypes and subclasses will perform their respective roles differently'</P> <P>*looks at the note* yeah...thats much less misleading <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </P> <P>----pins it to the forum----</P>

[Eelyen]

<DIV>I can live with that!</DIV>

[Tanla]

<P>I thought Moorguard's deliniation of tanks was a good one. I prefer class variation in the game as opposed to more cookie cutter, less unique classes for the skae of the almighty balance.</P> <P>Especially in a game like this. If you play a bruiser and would prefer to tank like a guardian, then make a guardian. It doesn't seem like that big a deal.</P> <P>I play a Troubador as my main. Can't do damage like a Brigand or Assassin (play in the Freeport side) but do I care? No, if I wanted big hits I would have made an Assassin. If I wanted group utility + steady high damage over time I would have made a brigand. Well, I made a Bard, and to be honest I like playing him like a bard.</P> <P>I think the majority of EQ2 players prefer class differences and pick their class because they think it will be fun to play. In game, people seem to be pretty happy, class envy is largely a reflection of these boards.</P>

[Valta]

<P>double post through "not loged in" problem of this forum, once again ^^</P> <P>Message Edited by Valtaya on <SPAN class=date_text>04-27-2005</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>12:24 AM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Valtaya on <span class=date_text>04-27-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:24 AM</span>

[Valta]

<P>someone posted in one of the threads, there are only 3 core attributes in the game</P> <P>taking damage, doing damage, healing damage</P> <P>besides of that there is nothing more about the game. Thought it is very simplified, its correct, you dont need more then that. You ahve someone who holds the mob attention (tank), you need someone who is killing the mob (dps dealer) and you need someone who keeps the frist guy alive (healer).</P> <P>besides of that, all skills are just additions, nice to have, but not realy necessary and they should be treatened that way.</P> <P>Lets say you have 30 points and have to distribute them among the 3 core abilities.</P> <P>Fighters: 20 tanking 10 dps 0 healing<BR>Mages: 5 tanking 25 dps 0 healing<BR>Priest: 10 tanking 0 dps 20 heailng<BR>Scout: 15 tanking 15 dps 0 healing</P> <P>now you can go into detail (just fighter example)</P> <P>warrior: 20 tanking 10 dps 0 healing<BR>crusader: 20 tanking 7 dps 3 healing<BR>brawler: 20 tanking 9 dps 1 healing... I have never seen the bruiser type as damage dealers, but whatever... we could also go 18 tanking 11 dps 1 healing</P> <P>...</P> <P>guardian: 20 tanking 10 dps... ability to protect/guard others<BR>berserker: 18 tanking 12 dps ... ability to taunt better<BR><BR>paladin: 20 tanking 7 dps 3 healing ... ability to rezz others<BR>shadowknight: 20 tanking 7 dps 3 healing transfered to dps as magic damage ... ability to... no idea</P> <P>no idea about brawlers (I dont like them, they are unnecessary ^^)</P> <P>...</P> <P>whatever they go, the core for balance is at least one "steady" not changable figure/attribute and then you can balance the rest around it, as it is now, SOE changes any and every aspect of the game with any new patch.</P> <P>what you also need for tanking are 3 attributes, not just two. you need "armor factor", based on the armor and maybe agility vs the "to hit" chances of the attacker, it determines if you get hit or not. Once you got hit the other two get thrown in, mitigation (how much damage of the blow can you absorb) and can I try to still avoid it (parry?) (I cant explaint that any better sorry).</P> <P>and then we hae the problem mitigation > avoidance... when I have 1000 hp and there is a mob who hit for 2000 and I have a mitigation of 80% (20% avoidance) noone cares, in 10 blows I get hit like 8 times for 400 damage each... I get hit and I will be healed, I get hit and I will be healed... as avoidance tank (80% avoidance 20% mitigation), I will got hit only twice, but for 1600 damage each... heal? no, im dead. This have to be adressed, how? I would say the mobs will do lower damage but are faster at their swings. who knows.</P> <P> </P>

[Elda]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Tanlaus wrote:<BR> <P>I thought Moorguard's deliniation of tanks was a good one. I prefer class variation in the game as opposed to more cookie cutter, less unique classes for the skae of the almighty balance.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>In actuality, class balance does not have to equal more cookie cutter. just because a bard and an assassin add a similar amount to group DPS, they don't have to feel similar, nor do they have to be-cookie cutter. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>They can have totally different ways of doing damage: assassin through stealthed melee attacks, bard through songs/buffs. They can have totally unique sets of secondary skills which they bring to the group, stealth skills for assassin, travel/regen buffs for bard. Making them differ in the QUALITY of their primary role however (bringing DPS to the group) doesnt create variation, it creates imbalance.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There's no reason why you can't have 6 types of tanks who all tank differently-but-equally, and have unique sets of secondary skills, and make them all feel non-cookie cutter.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Once again, i'll say however that balance isn't absolutely better...but if that is the goal, it can be achieved by adding to some classes directions.</DIV>

[Elda]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Valtaya wrote:<BR> <P>someone posted in one of the threads, there are only 3 core attributes in the game</P> <P>taking damage, doing damage, healing damage</P> <P>besides of that there is nothing more about the game. Thought it is very simplified, its correct, you dont need more then that. You ahve someone who holds the mob attention (tank), you need someone who is killing the mob (dps dealer) and you need someone who keeps the frist guy alive (healer).</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P> </P> <P>I think that your way of looking at roles in the game is pretty accurate.....but missing two other attributes.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P>tanking(taking damage you call it)</P> <P>healing damage</P> <P>doing damage</P> <P>*helping others take more damage (buffs/debuffs)</P> <P>*helping others do more damage (buffs/debuffs)</P> <P> </P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I'm not saying that you "need" these roles, just that they are roles which characters can and do play, and are sought after for, especially in raid type groups.</P> <P>And mind you, each of those main roles is broken down into 3+ actual roles in game. For example:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P>tanking:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P>-getting/maintaining aggro</P> <P>-mitigating damage</P> <P>-avoiding damage</P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <P> </P> <P>Just because 6 characters have the same skill in 'tanking' doesn't mean they all have to have the same skill in maintaining agro, or mitigating. If one class was great at holding agro, but didnt mitigate as well, and another mitigated great but had a bit of trouble holding agro, it would make for diversity, and some interesting situations.</P> <P>When some people talk about not making the classes 'cookie-cutter' they really just mean, "let me pick a class thats best at something, I dont want another character to do X as well as I do".</P> <P>In a game with three main roles (tanking, healing, dps), you're gonna have alot of classes that aren't the best, unless you get real creative about how those roles can play out equally among 24 classes.</P><p>Message Edited by Eldarn on <span class=date_text>04-26-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:54 PM</span>

[Sunrayn]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eldarn wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Guardan: <STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000>TANK</FONT></STRONG></DIV> <P>By making 5 out of 6 classes in the archtype have multiple roles, and one have only one role, they instantly and (possibly) permanatly shot their vision of balance in the foot. There's no way that the other tanks could be equal at tanking when they can do all of those other things but the poor Guardian can only do one thing.  With the tremendous number of potential secondary roles for a character to play in a group, the EQ2 team decided to go with NONE, for Guardian.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Poor Guardian?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Thats what I signed up to be.  A tank.  Nothing more, nothing less.  I think most, if not all guards signed up for the same reason.  Its what I do.  Its all I want to do.</DIV>

[Elda]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sunrayn wrote:<BR><BR><BR> <DIV>Poor Guardian?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Thats what I signed up to be.  A tank.  Nothing more, nothing less.  I think most, if not all guards signed up for the same reason.  Its what I do.  Its all I want to do.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Sure, i understand that.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>My message is simply that if SoE wants balance in the game, they can't make (within the same archtype) some characters that only do one thing and some characters that do multiple things. I'm not saying that the game should be balanced. Just that if they want it balanced, that's what they'd have to change.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV>*edit: when i said "poor guardian" i was obviously kidding. Guardians are far from poor. They are the most popular class in the game, followed by the Templar, which is another good-at-one-thing-and-only-one-thing class. These two classes are the most sought after in game partially because they are the most focused at doing one thing, and doing it well, which creates the balance issues we're talking about here.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><p>Message Edited by Eldarn on <span class=date_text>04-26-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:37 PM</span>

[Kilo]

<div></div>Hence why I'm going to Guild Wars - SoE are lying scam artists <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Wasted all the time getting to 50 only to find out there's only 1 viable end game tank. I don't foresee NCSoft misleading customers for half a year like SoE has done on 3+ occasions. <div></div><p>Message Edited by Kilopy on <span class=date_text>04-26-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:57 PM</span>

[VettsVey]

<DIV> <P>So now we have a tentative hierarchy of:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P>Guardian - Paladin - Berserker - Shadowknight - Bruiser - Monk</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>ARGH!  I knew it!  Well kinda.   Though Monks are more defensive inclined than Bruisers.  Just need to turn those 2 around.  Thats why mass majority of Scout posts say Bruiser need more nerfing :smileysad:</P></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>

[Nerj]

Sorry, don't see the inequality here. Brawlers are giving up a little Defense for a little more offense. The rest of Moorgards comments that was left out stated that, all of the Tanks will be close in ability. Like a guardinadian with App 1 skills will be a worse Tank then a Monk with Adept 1 defense skills. Killing the MOB off a little faster also means less damage done to the MT.

[aeio]

I just wish they would once and for all tell us what their plans are for the archetype system.  It has been sliding all over the place since beta.  Scouts and Mages have really never had a defined archetype role, and as for the topic at hand, the archetype roles were supposed to be equal across the archetype.  So ALL tanks should be able to tank equally well.  That was the stated goal initially.  Not some tanks tank a little worse because they do more damage.  Everything to tanking was secondary and thus was balanced secondary. If they truely are going to create a tank hiearchy based on other attributes then I think it pretty clearly indicates a dismisal of the original archetype system.  You were supposed to be able to roll any fighter and be confident that you could be the man for your group.  The clases would be differentiated by other abiltiies outside of those that directly impacted your ability to sustain damage. <div></div>

[Dfoley3]

<DIV>I have serious issues with you guardians reading what you want to.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>"latter is defined not just by avoidance or mitigation, but by the kind of buffs and abilities they get.  Guardians and Paladins get the most defensive-oriented abilities, both for themselves and their groupmates"</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Yet magicly guardian only has one thing listed.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Its stated no where that guardians should evade and mitigate the best, in fact it blatently says the obvious, that its defined by more then just those 2 factors.  So why is it that its consistantly the only thing listed? </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Guardians should read</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Guard: +group defense buffs, + group parry buffs, 4-5 combat arts that taunt, tower shields (higher ac and shield factor, and yes same avoidance as kite, but still a 12% mitigation advantage over kite)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>To replace those extra 2 taunts guardians get that monks dont, monks get 2 rather high dmg attacks that both do about 400-500 dmg end game.  And effective those 2 attacks act as our taunt.  Guardians taunt with + hate, berserkers and monks with taunt and dps.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You want to whine that you dont do anything but tank? fine, but dont lie and only list half your utility...guardians have the potential to make other tanks tank just as well as they do. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Also....FD pulling? are you jokeing....do you even play the game?  FD pulling is next to useless when all you have to do is agro range pull and can avoide chain agro?  EQ2 pulling is borederline [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] with how dumbed down it is compared to eq1.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>FYI bruisers get self heals every 90 sec,....monks get a any target heal that we can use every 5 min.  Dont really matter , just an fyi.</DIV>

[Opa]

<BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eldarn wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P>When classes are intended to be balanced at the archtype (meaning all fighters are supposed to be able to tank to the same ability), all classes within an archtype need to be equally able to fulfil that archtypes primary role.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT color=#ffff00> No. This has been rehashed over and over. What was said before release was "All fighters can tank." What was not said, and was never said was "All fighters can tank EQUALLY."</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Quote me where a dev said that.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I play a bruiser. I knew when I chose to select brawler that I was choosing a more offensive tank. I got attacks instead of defense buffs. I wear leather armor, not ebon.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Arguing that there should be defensive equality and offensive inequality is laughable. Arguing that both defense and offense should be equal across the board for fighters is equally so.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>There is nothing wrong with defensive capacities being a little different for different classes. I mean, be serious, would it really be fair for me to have fear, ghetto mezz, great dps, feign death, self-healing, AND as many hitpoints as a guardian?</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>These threads are growing to new heights of absurdity. Difference is not imbalance. Be serious.</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P> </P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Blackdog183]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Opaki wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eldarn wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P>When classes are intended to be balanced at the archtype (meaning all fighters are supposed to be able to tank to the same ability), all classes within an archtype need to be equally able to fulfil that archtypes primary role.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>No. This has been rehashed over and over. What was said before release was "All fighters can tank." What was not said, and was never said was "All fighters can tank EQUALLY."</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Quote me where a dev said that.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I play a bruiser. I knew when I chose to select brawler that I was choosing a more offensive tank. I got attacks instead of defense buffs. I wear leather armor, not ebon.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Arguing that there should be defensive equality and offensive inequality is laughable. Arguing that both defense and offense should be equal across the board for fighters is equally so.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>There is nothing wrong with defensive capacities being a little different for different classes. I mean, be serious, would it really be fair for me to have fear, ghetto mezz, great dps, feign death, self-healing, AND as many hitpoints as a guardian?</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>These threads are growing to new heights of absurdity. <STRONG><EM><U>Difference is not imbalance. Be serious.</U></EM></STRONG></FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P> </P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Your 110% right, but when the difference is like it is now, it is an imbalance. <BR>

[aeio]

<span><blockquote><hr>Opaki wrote: <p><font color="#ffff00">No. This has been rehashed over and over. What was said before release was "All fighters can tank." What was not said, and was never said was "All fighters can tank EQUALLY."</font></p><hr></blockquote> As someone who followed the game for 18 plus months, very closely, before release, I can say the original announcement about archetypes said just that.  All fighters were said to be able to fill the role as tank equally well.  They may go about it differently, and have different secondary abilities, but there was not going to be a distinguishment in terms of who could tank better than anyone else. All tanks were said to be able to fill the role equal aplumb. </span><div></div>

[ugl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dfoley323 wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>To replace those extra 2 taunts guardians get that monks dont, monks get 2 rather high dmg attacks that both do about 400-500 dmg end game.  And effective those 2 attacks act as our taunt.  Guardians taunt with + hate, berserkers and monks with taunt and dps.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff33>Which would  not be balanced, as DPS will get you invited to groups and raids for offtank roles, extra  taunts will not.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff33>There is only a place for 1 tank in most groups.  Maybe 2 tanks in raids.  Extra tanks are a waste of limited  slots.   Tanks that can also DPS, can fill not only the one tank slot, but the  DPS slots as well. That is a huge advantage.   That is why the DPS of a fighter must be given great consideration when balancing.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff33></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff33>Offense is weighed against Defense.   The more offense the fighter has, the less Defense.   Anything else would be unbalanced.   Fighters dont get asked to group in a offtank role because they have a extra taunt.  They get asked to the offtank role mainly because of DPS or possibly a utility like evac.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff33></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff33>Looks like the class as a whole will be considered when balancing. (Which I cannot imagine why anyone would think otherwise)</FONT><FONT color=#ffff33>  While defense ability and DPS are the major factors, utilities like invis, mend, FD , Fear, Heals, safefall, horses, evac,  etc.  also most be in the equation when it comes to balance.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff33></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff33>Anything else would be unacceptable and unbalanced.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff33>If tank A and tank B both have the exact same defense.  Yet tank B has better DPS and some nice utilities to boot, which class would you play? (and everyone else for that matter?)</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff33></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff33>It has to be give and take in all roleplaying games where balance is concerned.   I am sorry for those that wanted to play in the "Tankmage archtype".   You just cannot have it all.   There must be tradeoffs when balancing classes.</FONT></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

[Jan It]

Leaving half of Moorgards post out, eh? It is clearly started that a good equipped monk will be tanking as good as a not so good equipped guardian. So the differences are really small and nothing to worry about for most of the game. For organized raids guardians will become main tanks nevertheless, but I´m fine with that. <div></div>

[Kaliper5]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Blackdog183 wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Opaki wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eldarn wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P>When classes are intended to be balanced at the archtype (meaning all fighters are supposed to be able to tank to the same ability), all classes within an archtype need to be equally able to fulfil that archtypes primary role.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>No. This has been rehashed over and over. What was said before release was "All fighters can tank." What was not said, and was never said was "All fighters can tank EQUALLY."</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Quote me where a dev said that.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I play a bruiser. I knew when I chose to select brawler that I was choosing a more offensive tank. I got attacks instead of defense buffs. I wear leather armor, not ebon.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Arguing that there should be defensive equality and offensive inequality is laughable. Arguing that both defense and offense should be equal across the board for fighters is equally so.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>There is nothing wrong with defensive capacities being a little different for different classes. I mean, be serious, would it really be fair for me to have fear, ghetto mezz, great dps, feign death, self-healing, AND as many hitpoints as a guardian?</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>These threads are growing to new heights of absurdity. <STRONG><EM><U>Difference is not imbalance. Be serious.</U></EM></STRONG></FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P> </P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Your 110% right, but when the difference is like it is now, it is an imbalance. <BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Where do you see imbalance? Guardians should be the best tanks, and they are. A tanks role is not just sit there and be a meat shield. They also need to hold agro of not just the one mob, but as many mobs as possible that are engaged. Guardians can do that the best. They also can pull from a great distance. Buffs are no big deal, it seems every class in the game gets at least 1 group buff, including assassins. Guardians also have the most HP of any class. So not only does their mitigation absorb dmg, but they can take alot more hits than any other class. </P> <P>Truthfully, unless you aren't playing a guardian, you really shouldn't be calling it unbalanced. Let the actual tanks worry about it. I play a Bruiser, and I know that I am not the best tank. If there is a Guardian or some other tank class, I will just do my dps and help out with crowd control when I can. However, even though we are not the best tanks, we sitll tank better than the other archtypes, and that's what matters.</P>

[Shakir10]

<P>I swear, No matter how many times Moorgard says these combat changes are not set in stone, and that they are still doing changes, AND that other aspects besides defense are also being working on, and that NONE of this is going live any times soon, .... THere is just no shortage of whiners and crybabies to be found. </P> <P>And as far as ballance, I believe Moorgard said it just fine when he said that the game will never seem ballanced to everyone. One persons idea of ballane is completely different from someone elses.</P> <P>Maybe you guys should actually test the changes being made on test server instead of crying a river and flooding the boords with why Sony is always wrong and your always right.</P>

[Tomanak]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dfoley323 wrote:<BR> <DIV>I have serious issues with you guardians reading what you want to.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>And I have serious Issues with people just not reading. If this is aimed at the OP he stated he is not even a tank class and ergo not a Guardian, so put your dislike of Guardians aside and lets try this again...</DIV>

[Elda]

<DIV> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dfoley323 wrote:<BR> <DIV>I have serious issues with you guardians reading what you want to.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffcc00>LOL. Read the post again. I'm not a Guardian.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>"latter is defined not just by avoidance or mitigation, but by the kind of buffs and abilities they get.  Guardians and Paladins get the most defensive-oriented abilities, both for themselves and their groupmates"</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Yet magicly guardian only has one thing listed.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Its stated no where that guardians should evade and mitigate the best, in fact it blatently says the obvious, that its defined by more then just those 2 factors.  So why is it that its consistantly the only thing listed? </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Guardians should read</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Guard: +group defense buffs, + group parry buffs, 4-5 combat arts that taunt, tower shields (higher ac and shield factor, and yes same avoidance as kite, but still a 12% mitigation advantage over kite)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffcc00>Everything you've listed as a Guardian ability is included in the word "TANK", in my opinion. All of those factors directly add to the guardians ability to 1) get/maintain agro, 2) mitigate damage, 3) avoid damage....which are the components that I believe to make up tanking....Voila! They all go in the word, "TANK".</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>To replace those extra 2 taunts guardians get that monks dont, monks get 2 rather high dmg attacks that both do about 400-500 dmg end game.  And effective those 2 attacks act as our taunt.  Guardians taunt with + hate, berserkers and monks with taunt and dps.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You want to whine that you dont do anything but tank? fine, but dont lie and only list half your utility...guardians have the potential to make other tanks tank just as well as they do. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffcc00>LOL. I love how guardians read the post and assume that I'm saying they shouldn't be able to be the best tank, and non-guardians read it and assume that i'm explaning why guardians should tank the best.  I'm not saying either, i'm just recognizing that there is an imbalance in tanking ability, and giving suggestions as to how it could be improved, if that's what SoE wants. Me, whining? You clearly need to re-read the post. I'm not only not whining, I'm not even taking a side.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Also....FD pulling? are you jokeing....do you even play the game?  FD pulling is next to useless when all you have to do is agro range pull and can avoide chain agro?  EQ2 pulling is borederline [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] with how dumbed down it is compared to eq1.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffcc00>Note that I did not attribute FD pulling to any class, because it's not in the game. It was simply listed an example ability which could be given to a class as a secondary ability....Thanks for flaming though. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>FYI bruisers get self heals every 90 sec,....monks get a any target heal that we can use every 5 min.  Dont really matter , just an fyi.</DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffcc00></FONT> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Bad day, anyone?<BR></DIV></DIV>

[Banditman]

<span><blockquote><hr>Dfoley323 wrote:<div>... tower shields (higher ac and shield factor, and yes same avoidance as kite, but still a 12% mitigation advantage over kite)</div><hr></blockquote> Wrong.  There is not shield in the game that I am aware of which adds anything to mitigation.  Equip one and see.  Shields add only to avoidance.</span><div></div>

[Elda]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> uglak wrote: <FONT color=#ffcc00>(edited for brevity)</FONT><BR><BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There is only a place for 1 tank in most groups.  Maybe 2 tanks in raids.  Extra tanks are a waste of limited  slots.   Tanks that can also DPS, can fill not only the one tank slot, but the  DPS slots as well. That is a huge advantage.   That is why the DPS of a fighter must be given great consideration when balancing.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Offense is weighed against Defense.   The more offense the fighter has, the less Defense.   Anything else would be unbalanced.   Fighters dont get asked to group in a offtank role because they have a extra taunt.  They get asked to the offtank role mainly because of DPS or<FONT color=#ff9900> </FONT><STRONG>possibly a utility like evac</STRONG>.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffcc00>No, offense does not have to be weighed solely against defense, because of the last statement you made. There are dozens of secondary roles which a hypothetical MMO character (or tank in this case) could play, and DPS is just one of them. There is no reason why a Melee class could not have crowd control abilities as a secondary ability, or powerful debuffing. Those skill sets could cause him to be as desirable, just as DPS could.</FONT> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Looks like the class as a whole will be considered when balancing. (Which I cannot imagine why anyone would think otherwise)  While defense ability and DPS are the major factors, utilities like invis, mend, FD , Fear, Heals, safefall, horses, evac,  etc.  also most be in the equation when it comes to balance.</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Anything else would be unacceptable and unbalanced.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffcc00>agreed, that's exactly how it should be.</FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>If tank A and tank B both have the exact same defense.  Yet tank B has better DPS and some nice utilities to boot, which class would you play? (and everyone else for that matter?)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffcc00>Class B, of course. The real question, and point of this thread, however, why doesnt class A have any other abilities <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></FONT></DIV> <DIV><BR> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

[Opa]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> aeiouy wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Opaki wrote:<BR><BR> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>No. This has been rehashed over and over. What was said before release was "All fighters can tank." What was not said, and was never said was "All fighters can tank EQUALLY."</FONT></P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>As someone who followed the game for 18 plus months, very closely, before release, I can say the original announcement about archetypes said just that.  All fighters were said to be able to fill the role as tank equally well.  They may go about it differently, and have different secondary abilities, but there was not going to be a distinguishment in terms of who could tank better than anyone else.<BR><BR>All tanks were said to be able to fill the role equal aplumb.<BR><BR><BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>I followed it before release too. I remember nothing of the sort. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>So, quote it. In short, prove it.</FONT></DIV>

[ugl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eldarn wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffffcc>No, offense does not have to be weighed solely against defense, because of the last statement you made. There are dozens of secondary roles which a hypothetical MMO character (or tank in this case) could play, and DPS is just one of them. There is no reason why a Melee class could not have crowd control abilities as a secondary ability, or powerful debuffing. Those skill sets could cause him to be as desirable, just as DPS could.</FONT> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff33>I think I can agree with that , in theory.   In fact, I think my other post says utility has to be factored.   But, tanking ability and DPS are the two BIG factors.  It would have to be some pretty HEAVY utilities to counterbalance superior DPS  of another fighter to gain a offtank role in groups. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff33></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff33>       </FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> </DIV>

[Dfoley3]

<DIV>1) my post wasnt aimed at the OP, just fact of the matter, that the number 1 people whining is guardians.  dont beleive me? go count the endless other threads on this same type of topic, and youll see 2 things, guardians whining they dont have anything, and 5/6 of the other tanks whining its not balanced.....tough call there, either 1 class is lieing or 5 are.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>2) I know you wont get invited to a group for off tank or extra taunts.  But the thing is, the imbalance is NOT in grouping, it is in raiding.  Grouping any tank can do equaly well.  At 48 i can tank 2 level 53++ mobs at one time in nek castle no problem at all with just one healer.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Raids are the imbalance, as youve stated theres room for 1, maybe 2 tanks per raid.   so i guess that means the other 5/6 of the fighters will go sit out.  Brawler dps is less then equaly equiped scouts and mages (exceptions being bards and enc).  And i really wish people would stop mentioning FD and invis....with the way the combat system now on LIVE servers, mobs chase for about 40 feet then go home.  FD (if it works) removes all buffs and makes u sit there.  Runing and breaking an encounter gives increased hp regen, and little to no threat.   As for invis....IT DOESNT WORK FROM 42+,  that means calling it a utility that other tanks dont have is pointless.  Its something no monk can even use at the 42+ game, cause the mobs it works on are grey, and the rest agro.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>3) in all honesty, guardians needed to be nerfed, buffing to invincabilty was rediculous...but the whole combat system also needs to be adjusted for other reasons....1 being to help increase scout dps, 2 to make it so avoidance tanks avoide more then mitigation tanks, 3 to untrivialize the end game.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What SHOULD be done is a serious revision of the lvl 50 raid content...Only one type of tank is needed and as quoted "raids need 1 maybe 2 tanks"  So basicly your encouraging an imballance.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Raid mobs should have unique abilities that make it so only certain tanks can tank them...face to face, a guardian should take the dmg the best...but they shouldnt be the only raid tank.  For example:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Raid mobs with high dmg gravity flux---optimal tank = brawler (safefall)</DIV> <DIV>Raid mobs imune to taunt--optimal tank = berk, monk, bruiser (dps to agro)</DIV> <DIV>Raid mobs that can only be taunted by Spells = optimal tank = crusaders (spell agro)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Every fighter has unique abilities that could make them optimal tanks in certain cituations.  And frankly only the "raid" situation is busted atm.   Its full of guardians who want to stay on top, tanking stuff without taking dmg.  Thus all mobs are atm HIGH dmg, and thats about the only thing any raid has. </DIV>

[Elda]

<FONT color=#ff3300></FONT><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P>Opaki wrote:<FONT color=#ffcc00> (edited for brevity)</FONT></P> <DIV>No. This has been rehashed over and over. What was said before release was "All fighters can tank." What was not said, and was never said was "All fighters can tank EQUALLY."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So, quote it. In short, prove it.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><STRONG><FONT color=#ff3300>Moorgard's</FONT> </STRONG>Quotes in Red.<BR></P> <DIV><FONT color=#ff3300><FONT color=#ffffff>Quote #1:</FONT></FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV><FONT color=#ff3300>Moorgard: "In our game, any member of an archetype can fulfill their main role in a group <STRONG>as well as any other."</STRONG></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#ff3300></FONT></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV>Quote #2:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=genmed><B><FONT size=2>WarNipple wrote:</FONT></B></SPAN>No one at lvl 100 is going to say, "to complete our group, we need a Scout". <----Because that could be anyone of 6 ACTUAL classes.</DIV><SPAN class=postbody> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV><BR><BR><FONT color=#ff3300 size=2>Moorgard: "In fact, it's our goal for people at *all* levels to say that very thing, because it would mean that the archetype system works and every class can <STRONG>perform its core role as well as any other</STRONG>."</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> <DIV>.....and before you say "look, he said a group, not a raid"....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3>Quote #3</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV><FONT size=2><SPAN class=postbody><FONT color=#ff3300> Moorgard: "<STRONG>All Fighters can do the job of tank equally well</STRONG>. Our entire system is designed around the idea that anyone from a given archetype can fill their main role <STRONG>as well as any other</STRONG>."</FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><FONT size=2><SPAN class=postbody></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2><SPAN class=postbody></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=postbody>I'm pretty sure that clears the confusion on the issue up. When someone says explicitly <FONT size=2>"<STRONG><FONT color=#ff3300>All Fighters can do the job of tank equally well" </FONT></STRONG></FONT>should be pretty clear. If you'd like to argue whether or not balance should exist, have at it. However, I do think it's pretty clear that it was stated that all fighters would be to able tank equally well.</SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=postbody></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=postbody></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=postbody>all quotes are from the moorgard index, just google it for a URL.</SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=postbody></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=postbody></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=postbody></SPAN></SPAN> </DIV>

[Elda]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> uglak wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eldarn wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffffcc>No, offense does not have to be weighed solely against defense, because of the last statement you made. There are dozens of secondary roles which a hypothetical MMO character (or tank in this case) could play, and DPS is just one of them. There is no reason why a Melee class could not have crowd control abilities as a secondary ability, or powerful debuffing. Those skill sets could cause him to be as desirable, just as DPS could.</FONT> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff33>I think I can agree with that , in theory.   In fact, I think my other post says utility has to be factored.   But, tanking ability and DPS are the two BIG factors.  It would have to be some pretty HEAVY utilities to counterbalance superior DPS  of another fighter to gain a offtank role in groups. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff33></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff33>       </FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I agree with you wholeheartedly.....which is another of the balance issues....its one thing for one fighter to do 65 DPS and another to do 50 DPS but have some nice enemy debuffs (or another secondary skill).....It's another thing when one fighther does 65 DPS and another does 120 DPS. The current state of monk/bruiser DPS is so high that they out-damage DPS classes. SoE's stated that this is not working as intended (i can find the quote if need be), and will be bringing it in line. </P> <P>Once the DPS differences are less significant, other secondary abilities will be more balanced against DPS.</P> <P>IMO, here are all the categories of abilities in EQ2. the ones in parenthesis are just examples of the category.</P> <P>-absorbing damage: self (mitigation/avoidance)<BR>-absorbing damage: other (intercept)<BR>-agro managment: self (FD, hate reducers)<BR>-agro managment: other (taunts, agro increasers)<BR>-crowd control: minor (stuns, fears, roots)<BR>-crowd control: major (mezzes)<BR>-ranged DPS<BR>-melee DPS<BR>-magic DPS<BR>-AoE ranged DPS<BR>-AoE melee DPS<BR>-AoE magic DPS<BR>-buffing offense (procs, hastes)<BR>-buffing defense (mitigation buffs, resists)<BR>-debuffing enemy offense (slows, str debuffs)<BR>-debuffing enemy defense (resist debuffs, Sta debuffs)<BR>-direct healing <BR>-reactive damage healing/mitigation spells (reactive heals, wards, regens)<BR>-indirect healing: (lifetaps, share health, AoE heal after mobs death)<BR>-travel utility (speed buffs, oddesy, stealth)<BR>-group utility (out of combat regen, tracking, trap disabling)<BR><BR><BR>any of these could be used to make secondary abilities....</P> <P>If SoE really wanted to get creative, they could give each tank a specific set of abilities which only worked when they WEREN'T tanking...nah...i don't want to get the dev's too confused  <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>Yes I know, someone is about to post <STRONG>"I play a tank, and all i want to do is tank, which is why i chose a (pure) tank".</STRONG> That's fine. They put the class in the game, you have a right to choose it! Remember, I'm not bashing Guardians or other pure classes. I'm just saying that if you put hybrid classes in a game with pure classes, in the endgame, the hybrids are going to usually be less sought-after, because they aren't as specialized...in short, the game will never be balanced.</P> <P>Is that good, or bad? I don't know. But it does appear to be true.</P> <P> </P> <P><BR> </P> <p>Message Edited by Eldarn on <span class=date_text>04-27-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:18 AM</span>

[jwdanie]

<DIV>I have said this so many times that I am tired of saying it...  Equally well does not imply exactly the same.  Just as in real life, someone who commits murder with a gun didn't do it any better than someone who commits murder with a knife, so too in the game one who tanks as a monk is no better/worse than one who tanks as a guardian.  The guardian sits there and takes a beating, that is how they tank.  The monk avoids damage and hits back, that is how it tanks.  Either type can tank effectively depending on which strategy would be more appropriate.  If you are going against a mob that will take a long long time to kill, take the guardian.  If you want to kill things quickly, take the monk.  I have never been on one of the level 50 raids, but I have fought several epic mobs at lower levels, never with a guardian to tank, and there has never been a problem at all.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I am pretty sure that the problem here is that most people reach level 50 and have nothing better to do but fight the same 54^^^ x4 epic mobs all day.  For a mob like that, one that hits hard and takes a long time to kill, a guardian is the best tank choice.  The problem, therefore, seems to be not that tanks are unbalanced but that the lack of encounter variety for level 50 raid groups has made the guardian more valuable to this small group of people than the other fighter archetypes.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>When everyone whines and cries "Nerf him!" or "She is better than me at doing x" and the game designers and developers spend their time trying to rewrite the entire combat system again, they are not spending time adding new content that just might solve the problem by offering more variety that would breed different viable strategies and change the grouping priorities.  If every fighter class is exactly the same, then the entire subclass system becomes pointless.  If they make monks tank like guardians they then become the uber-tank template, nobody will play a fighter other than a monk, and there is in essence only one fighter type worth playing and the entire subclass system again would become pointless.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As someone else said, if you don't like the way your character plays, make a new one.  If you enjoyed your character through levels 3-49 and find that at level 50 things aren't right please recognize that is not a problem with the character; rather the level 50 mechanics that are flawed.  You have to realize that if enough people complain that guardians tank better than everyone else, they are going to nerf guardians and not improve everyobody else.  This in turn leads to guardians complaining that they don't do as much damage as everyone else, so all other fighters get nerfed.  Fighters than complain, so every class gets nerfed as well, the mobs have to change, and suddenly the devs are trying to figure out a new combat system on the test server 6 months after the game launched with a very effective system.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>To sum up my point in one easy to quote while flaming it sentence: The classes are balanced, the variety of encounter types at high levels is not, and that is the true problem here.  Guardians tanking better than anyone else on raids is a symptom of the raids all being essentially the same and not the actual problem itself.</DIV>

[Exmortis_MT]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P>Opaki wrote:</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>No. This has been rehashed over and over. What was said before release was "All fighters can tank." What was not said, and was never said was "All fighters can tank EQUALLY."</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Quote me where a dev said that.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I play a bruiser. I knew when I chose to select brawler that I was choosing a more offensive tank. I got attacks instead of defense buffs. I wear leather armor, not ebon.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Arguing that there should be defensive equality and offensive inequality is laughable. Arguing that both defense and offense should be equal across the board for fighters is equally so.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>There is nothing wrong with defensive capacities being a little different for different classes. I mean, be serious, would it really be fair for me to have fear, ghetto mezz, great dps, feign death, self-healing, AND as many hitpoints as a guardian?</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>These threads are growing to new heights of absurdity. Difference is not imbalance. Be serious.</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Brilliant post.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Equality is all factors combiened to equal the same.  Guardians in my opinion are the best laid out class in the game, they are the near perfect for their role, take one hellouva beating and still stand there.   The rest of us melees need some work, not wholesale massive changes, but small tweaks.  our DPS is not on par in the game with tanking, it needs to be tweaked, again not by wide margins but by small adjustments.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Im holding my breath, Moorguard's post actually for the first time filled this SK with a sense that SOE has a place for me, and is trying to put me in it.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I will hold judgement until these new fixes are impelmented and I have a few weeks to play.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Elda]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> jwdaniels wrote: <FONT color=#ffcc00>(edited for brevity)<BR></FONT> <DIV>I have said this so many times that I am tired of saying it...  Equally well does not imply exactly the same....</DIV> <DIV>.....The guardian sits there and takes a beating, that is how they tank.  The monk avoids damage and hits back, that is how it tanks..... </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffcc00>I don't think one person here has suggested that tanks should tank in the same manner. And as for monk avoiding damage as it's tanking style, Guardians currently have <EM>higher</EM> avoidance than Monks.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffcc00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>....As someone else said, if you don't like the way your character plays, make a new one.  If you enjoyed your character through levels 3-49 and find that at level 50 things aren't right please recognize that is not a problem with the character; rather the level 50 mechanics that are flawed....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffcc00>Guardians on live have more Mitigation through gear, more HP and more Avoidance through self buffs than other tanks, through the entire game, not just at level 50. However at level 3-49, that might not matter as much, especially on non-raid mobs, because the mob DPS is lower, and the challenge is generally lower. Just because other tanks aren't "unplayable" doesn't mean they are balanced. I don't think other tanks are <EM>broken</EM>, just unbalanced. </FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>To sum up my point in one easy to quote while flaming it sentence: The classes are balanced, the variety of encounter types at high levels is not, and that is the true problem here.  Guardians tanking better than anyone else on raids is a symptom of the raids all being essentially the same and not the actual problem itself.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffcc00>Guardians have more HP per point of STA, they mitigate melee damage better than other tanks, mitigate spell damage as well as other tanks, the have higher avoidance levels through self buffs than other tanks, and have taunts which are generally regarded as better than other tanks....What sort of raid mobs would Guardians be less able to tank? Mobs which ignore mitigaiton? or those immune to taunt? Via the set of current game mechanics for tanking, Guardians are superior tanks on all forms of mobs.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffcc00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffcc00>I'm not saying that this imbalance is a bad or good thing, just that it's the current case, and not what was previously stated by SoE. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffcc00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffcc00>If you choose to reply, I would really like an answer to this question. "What would a raid mob have to be like so that another class would tank it better than a Guardian, given the current game mechanics? "</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <p>Message Edited by Eldarn on <span class=date_text>04-27-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:54 AM</span>

[ugl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eldarn wrote:<FONT color=#ffff33>     </FONT> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I agree with you wholeheartedly.....which is another of the balance issues....its one thing for one fighter to do 65 DPS and another to do 50 DPS but have some nice enemy debuffs (or another secondary skill).....It's another thing when one fighther does 65 DPS and another does 120 DPS. The current state of monk/bruiser DPS is so high that they out-damage DPS classes. SoE's stated that this is not working as intended (i can find the quote if need be), and will be bringing it in line. </DIV> <P>Once the DPS differences are less significant, other secondary abilities will be more balanced against DPS.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>While I still think we are in agreement, If the DPS of offensive tanks are nerfed so severley overall that they cannot compete with DPS classes for DPS slots, you may very well have alot of fighters with LFG on.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>In group settings, tanks get 1 slot.   Healers get 1 or 2, DPS get 3 or 4.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>In a raid, 2 tanks (lets even go 3), and as much healing and DPS as you can get in those other 22 slots.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>The fighter archtype is already one of the most pppular archtypes, and has been in most roleplaying games.  </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>If all fighters DPS is nerfed to be so far behind mages/scouts  that a fighter is no longer percieved as a DPS type class, there are going to be alot of fighters competing for those limited tank slots.   </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>I know right now that Sks, zerkers, monks and bruisers get invited to groups reguarely for off DPS alots as well as tank slots.  If that changes where theyre no longer welcome for thos DPS slots, well...</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>But, on the other hand, fighters having DPS similer to scouts/mages is why ya have alot of unhappy mage/scout threads on these boards....  They got fighters that CAN tank well, pouring out DPS on par or some claims say suprassing the scouts.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>I would not want Morguards job, that is for sure.   Definatley a delicate matter when it comes to class balance.  No matter which way you go, someone is not going to like it.  and could very well be justified with their reasons for not liking it.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33></FONT> </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33></FONT> </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>And yes, utilities can also get you groups.   Group invis, tracking, Evac, healing, crowd control, mana regen...</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33></FONT> </P> <P> </P></BLOCKQUOTE> <p>Message Edited by uglak on <span class=date_text>04-27-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:00 AM</span>

[Opa]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eldarn wrote: [abridged] <P><STRONG><FONT color=#ff3300>Moorgard's</FONT> </STRONG>Quotes in Red.<BR></P> <DIV><FONT color=#ff3300><FONT color=#ffffff>Quote #1:</FONT></FONT><FONT color=#ff3300>Moorgard: "In our game, any member of an archetype can fulfill their main role in a group <STRONG>as well as any other."</STRONG></FONT></DIV> <DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#ff3300></FONT></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV>Quote #2: <SPAN class=postbody><FONT color=#ff3300 size=2>Moorgard: "In fact, it's our goal for people at *all* levels to say that very thing, because it would mean that the archetype system works and every class can <STRONG>perform its core role as well as any other</STRONG>."</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> <DIV>.....and before you say "look, he said a group, not a raid"....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3>Quote #3:</FONT><FONT size=2><SPAN class=postbody><FONT color=#ff3300> Moorgard: "<STRONG>All Fighters can do the job of tank equally well</STRONG>. Our entire system is designed around the idea that anyone from a given archetype can fill their main role <STRONG>as well as any other</STRONG>."</FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV></SPAN><BR> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>First of all, thanks. It's very helpful when people cite their reasons for thinking or feeling a certain way. To a degree, I concede my earlier point about what the devs said on this issue. You have made that clear. My responses:</P> <P>A) As you noted, the first two are about being a group's tank. As a bruiser who tanked from 30-50, I can say that bruiser are at present more than able to tank for a group, just as well as a guardian. </P> <P>B) Groups are the main unit of division in this game, not raids.</P> <P>C) MG always likes to remind that his posts are true at the time of his saying it, so their applicability later is always suspect.</P> <P>D) According to the reasoning you're using, evoking these dev archetype comments, one could argue that the Mage archetype is supposed to play a DPS role. And yet, would it be "balanced" if chanters could nuke like a warlock, and mezz, and breeze? No. Classes can serve their archetype role equally effectively even if the way they do so varies.</P> <P>E) In the end, it comes down to something as simple as this. What do you want? Damage taken per second to be equal across the board? Mitigation/Avoidence being exactly the same? What counts for defensive equality in characters who have different defensive techniques? And suppose that wish was granted. All tanks have equal defense, then too, all tanks must have equal offense, right? And equal access to crush/slash/pierce weapons, right? What would this be like? We all have the same spell to do x damage, yet one person shield bashes, I do a kung fu kick, and someone else casts a spell? Classes mean nothing but animations? And this would be better?<BR></P>

[Blackdog183]

<FONT color=#cc0000></FONT><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Opaki wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eldarn wrote: [abridged] <P><STRONG><FONT color=#ff3300>Moorgard's</FONT> </STRONG>Quotes in Red.<BR></P> <DIV><FONT color=#ff3300><FONT color=#ffffff>Quote #1:</FONT></FONT><FONT color=#ff3300>Moorgard: "In our game, any member of an archetype can fulfill their main role in a group <STRONG>as well as any other."</STRONG></FONT></DIV> <DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#ff3300></FONT></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV>Quote #2: <SPAN class=postbody><FONT color=#ff3300 size=2>Moorgard: "In fact, it's our goal for people at *all* levels to say that very thing, because it would mean that the archetype system works and every class can <STRONG>perform its core role as well as any other</STRONG>."</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> <DIV>.....and before you say "look, he said a group, not a raid"....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3>Quote #3:</FONT><FONT size=2><SPAN class=postbody><FONT color=#ff3300> Moorgard: "<STRONG>All Fighters can do the job of tank equally well</STRONG>. Our entire system is designed around the idea that anyone from a given archetype can fill their main role <STRONG>as well as any other</STRONG>."</FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV></SPAN><BR> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>First of all, thanks. It's very helpful when people cite their reasons for thinking or feeling a certain way. To a degree, I concede my earlier point about what the devs said on this issue. You have made that clear. My responses:</P> <P>A) As you noted, the first two are about being a group's tank. As a bruiser who tanked from 30-50, I can say that bruiser are at present more than able to tank for a group, just as well as a guardian.</P> <P><FONT color=#cc0000>Problem there is, after you get to lvl 50, theres 2 things that happen, harvesting and raiding.  Thats when this imbalance starts to show its true form.</FONT></P> <P>B) Groups are the main unit of division in this game, not raids.</P> <P><FONT color=#cc0000>From level 1-49 yes, that is true.</FONT></P> <P>C) MG always likes to remind that his posts are true at the time of his saying it, so their applicability later is always suspect.</P> <P><FONT color=#cc0000>Can you quote somewhere that he has refuted(changed) those statements?  Didnt think so.</FONT></P> <P>D) According to the reasoning you're using, evoking these dev archetype comments, one could argue that the Mage archetype is supposed to play a DPS role. And yet, would it be "balanced" if chanters could nuke like a warlock, and mezz, and breeze? No. Classes can serve their archetype role equally effectively even if the way they do so varies.</P> <P>E) In the end, it comes down to something as simple as this. What do you want? Damage taken per second to be equal across the board? Mitigation/Avoidence being exactly the same? What counts for defensive equality in characters who have different defensive techniques? And suppose that wish was granted. All tanks have equal defense, then too, all tanks must have equal offense, right? And equal access to crush/slash/pierce weapons, right? What would this be like? We all have the same spell to do x damage, yet one person shield bashes, I do a kung fu kick, and someone else casts a spell? Classes mean nothing but animations? And this would be better?</P> <P><FONT color=#cc0000>Heres what I want, balance. Plain simple balance.  I want guardians to not be the absolute top choice in all cases over all classes.  I want guadians to be one of the tank classes, not the ONE tank class.  As it stands right now on live, they have the highest HPs, mit, best shields, best self buffing, and can achieve 100% avoidance, best taunts, best weapon selection.  HOW IS THIS BALANCED! Someone explain how the f*ck they think this is balanced.</FONT><BR></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

[Dragonreal]

One question I have is why exactly do guardians get the most hp? why can't monks have the most hp of a tank class and guardians the least like they do with the healers? Idk how much that would help, but I'd think it would do SOMETHING to make monks more viable as a tank.

[uzhiel feathered serpe]

The problem is that DEVS gave their word, on numerous times, that ALL tanks would tank the same, just differently.  This new system just dropped a bomb right in the laps of Eva tanks. <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>He was asked to quote devs, and he did...so now the Guards turn the arguement to the same old " im a guard, thats all i do, take my UBERNESS away, and then what am I"</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Its funny how when he quotes the devs, when Opaki asked him to quote them,  Opaki tries to interpret it and twist it so it supports the current system. I'm starting to get frustrated by Guards continually try to justify a broken system just so they can say they are the top tank.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Its broken, Mr Guards, and I dont think this arguement will be laid to rest anytime soon, because many tank types are upset with the system.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Uzhiel, lvl 50 Paladin, Eternal Chaos, Faydark.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by uzhiel feathered serpent on <span class=date_text>04-27-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:47 AM</span>

[Elda]

<DIV>uglak,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>that's the age old issue with the pure tank (like Guardian);  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Everyone wants one on their raid. But everyone wants <EM>ONE</EM> on their raid.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Balancing the number of tanks wanted on raids is very tricky....and as you say, reducing fighter DPS far below scout DPS will make the number of tanks wanted on raids even lower, unless other steps are taken to ensure that their secondary abilites are really that sought after.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Of course, the argument of "why be a scout when a fighter does 90% of your DPS and can also tank" comes to mind. This is partially due to the lack of real scout utility. If scouts had a fully functional and soughtafter utility skillset, having fighters approach them in DPS wouldn't be as confusing. Regardless, dev's truly seeking balance will have to find another method of making tanks useful when they aren't tanking besides just giving them DPS.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><EM>If </EM>balance, variety, and class inclusion are the goals of the dev team, each tank should have a secondary skillset that they can only use while they are NOT tanking a mob (or at least, it's much less effective while tanking). Something like this could help balance fighter class utility without imbalancing tanking directly. There's no reason a tank can't do minor crowd control, awesome debuffs, have a selection of travel spells, summon shards/corpses, cast haste buffs or have a great downtime reducing ability or so on.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>These abilities should be given to fighters with higher priority because unlike other classes, the role of Tanking really is best filled by one character at a time. You only want one tank, but the more healers, or dps, the better.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In games like this, people will choose to invite a class to a group based on as few as 1 or 2 great abilities. A fighter doesn't need to have a whole array of secondary abilities to become useful as a 2nd, 3rd, 4th or so on tank in the raid...all he needs is one ability that he can do better than anyone else....and preferably something that doesn't make him better at main tanking. That is the true nature of the secondary ability.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>However, as stated in my original post, it seems that the developers have "given up on balance", and opted to go the more traditional route of having some classes simply more specialized than others, and thus, destined to be more soughtafter in raid situations, leaving others to be less desirable. We shall see when the "combat revamp" is done.</DIV>

[Screamin' 1]

<span><blockquote><hr>Sunrayn wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Eldarn wrote: <div></div> <div> </div> <div>Guardan: <strong><font color="#ff0000">TANK</font></strong></div> <p>By making 5 out of 6 classes in the archtype have multiple roles, and one have only one role, they instantly and (possibly) permanatly shot their vision of balance in the foot. There's no way that the other tanks could be equal at tanking when they can do all of those other things but the poor Guardian can only do one thing.  With the tremendous number of potential secondary roles for a character to play in a group, the EQ2 team decided to go with NONE, for Guardian.</p> <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <div>Poor Guardian?</div> <div> </div> <div>Thats what I signed up to be.  A tank.  Nothing more, nothing less.  I think most, if not all guards signed up for the same reason.  Its what I do.  Its all I want to do.</div><hr></blockquote> Amen brother. </span><div></div>

[BigTea]

<P>First off, I'm a Guardian.</P> <P>Second, I'm not level 50 and I don't raid much.</P> <P>I want to tank.  I don't always want to main tank.  Sometimes it nice to let others work for it and let me just do DPS, pick up adds and guard group members.  From my experience, Guardians are a one trick pony.  I've heard where a Guardian is a good off tanker because he can lend his defense bonuses to a MT like a monk who has higher DPS.  I've not really experienced it, but with the caps, I don't think that would work well under the new system.</P> <P>I personally would love to see some depth given to the class.  I don't have an ego such that I must be MT all the time.  I prefer to switch it up and be more versitle.  But when I do MT, I want to do a good job.  Some might think I should have been another fighter subclass.  I disagree.  I picked Guardian because I prefered the style of combat.  I played the other subclasses before I settled on Guardian.  I liked the way the Guardian played, even with it's depth problems.</P> <P>I feel the argument that you only need ONE Guardian in the group is correct.... to a degree.  I feel the game was designed so effeciently you would need ONE of EVERY archetype in a group.  That means one tank regardless of what subclass it is.  You should need one healer in the group.  I shouldn't care if I have a Mystic, a Templar, or a Fury in the group as they can all fill the main role of healer.</P> <P>Does that mean each subclass has to be a cookie cutter of each other?  I don't think so.</P> <P>What does concern me are the differences between Paladin and Guardian right now.  It seems that the Paladin now has everything a Guardian has plus can heal.  I don't understand the shield issue at all.  A tower did have a whole 1% better chance of blocking than a kite, now it's the same?  Mitigation is the same?  I just don't get it.  Then today MG says Paladins will have a higher DPS than Guardians.</P> <P>I'm all for equality at the archetype level.  But I'm not seeing it.</P>

[Exmortis_MT]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> uzhiel feathered serpent wrote:<BR> The problem is that DEVS gave their word, on numerous times, that ALL tanks would tank the same, just differently.  This new system just dropped a bomb right in the laps of Eva tanks. <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>He was asked to quote devs, and he did...so now the Guards turn the arguement to the same old " im a guard, thats all i do, take my UBERNESS away, and then what am I"</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Its funny how when he quotes the devs, when Opaki asked him to quote them,  Opaki tries to interpret it and twist it so it supports the current system. I'm starting to get frustrated by Guards continually try to justify a broken system just so they can say they are the top tank.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Its broken, Mr Guards, and I dont think this arguement will be laid to rest anytime soon, because many tank types are upset with the system.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Uzhiel, lvl 50 Paladin, Eternal Chaos, Faydark.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <P>Message Edited by uzhiel feathered serpent on <SPAN class=date_text>04-27-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>11:47 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>heh thanks to posts like this we will soon see </P> <P>DEV "you  get what we give you... that is all"</P> <P>The revamp isnt even done, and people already hate it/dis it.  so why would this sway Devs?  you cant be pleased, you never will be pleased, but i bet your still here in a year.</P> <P> </P>

[Elda]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Opaki wrote: <FONT color=#ffcc00>(edited for brevity) Long post. sorry.</FONT>  <P>First of all, thanks. It's very helpful when people cite their reasons for thinking or feeling a certain way. To a degree, I concede my earlier point about what the devs said on this issue. You have made that clear. My responses:</P> <P><FONT color=#ffcc00>Actually, thank you, because its nice to be able to actually discuss something on this board where people can look at information and say "hey, ok i had not seen that before, ok lets take that info and keep going from there".</FONT> <FONT color=#ffcc00>It turns what is normally a flame-fest into an actual debate, and that's why were here, so thank you.</FONT></P> <P>A) As you noted, the first two are about being a group's tank. As a bruiser who tanked from 30-50, I can say that bruiser are at present more than able to tank for a group, just as well as a guardian.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffcc00>I agree that bruisers and monks are definitely "able" to tank. I'm not suggesting that they are broken, just that they do not have equal tanking ability based on game mechanics (HP, MIT, AVOID, taunts) to a Guardian. Can I keep a bruiser tank alive in most situaitons (i'm a defiler)? Yep. Is it easier to keep a Guardian alive? Most definitely, from my experience.</FONT></P> <P>B) Groups are the main unit of division in this game, not raids.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffcc00>The problem here is that it's not variable...it's not like you do some grouping one day, some raiding the next, then back to grouping. You're generally either in a grouping phase of the game (1-49) or a raiding phase (50). It's a whole different phase of the game as you know, based on your level.  Saying "well at least you could tank all the way to 50" to an endgame SK who is easily outshined in a tanking role by other classes isn't much condolence. </FONT></P> <P>C) MG always likes to remind that his posts are true at the time of his saying it, so their applicability later is always suspect.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffcc00>True, in fact that's the whole point of this thread. I'm saying that the devs have moved away from their previously stated attempts at balance within archtypes, specifically using Tanks as an example. </FONT></P> <P>D) According to the reasoning you're using, evoking these dev archetype comments, one could argue that the Mage archetype is supposed to play a DPS role. And yet, would it be "balanced" if chanters could nuke like a warlock, and mezz, and breeze? No. Classes can serve their archetype role equally effectively even if the way they do so varies.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffcc00>Well lets see...if chanters could DPS like a warlock, mezz and breeze would it be balanced? No. Why? Because a warlock can't do anything besides DPS, he has no secondary abilities. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffcc00>Mez and breeze and the like are the secondary abilities of the Chanter. Unfortunately, the Warlock happens not to have any of his own, like the Guardian. A balanced warlock might have a useful secondary ability such as awesome travel spells like ports, or maybe he the ability to read the resists of mobs.  If he did, no one would care so much about Chanters having decent DPS. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffcc00>The primary role of Mage is add DPS to a group. All mages should add similar amounts of DPS to a group. They shoud of course use different means, based on EQ2 Lore, Warlocks use DoT and some DD, Chanters should use Haste, proc buffs and some DD/DoT's. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffcc00>The point is that if you want to create balance, you don't balance the ability of a class to do his main job with his secondary abilities. Instead, within an archtype, you balance all classes primary abilities against each other, and then balance their secondary abilities against each other.</FONT></P> <P>E) In the end, it comes down to something as simple as this. What do you want? Damage taken per second to be equal across the board? Mitigation/Avoidence being exactly the same? What counts for defensive equality in characters who have different defensive techniques? And suppose that wish was granted. All tanks have equal defense, then too, all tanks must have equal offense, right? And equal access to crush/slash/pierce weapons, right? What would this be like? We all have the same spell to do x damage, yet one person shield bashes, I do a kung fu kick, and someone else casts a spell? Classes mean nothing but animations? And this would be better?</P> <P><FONT color=#ffcc00>There's no reason to take the balancing to this point, and no one is advocating it (at least not on this thread). If balance is the goal, you have to look at the classes primary role, and make sure that it can complete it as well as other classes in the archtype. DPS is not a tank's primary role. A tank's primary role is tanking, which mainly means in EQ2: </FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P><FONT color=#ffcc00>-getting/maintaining agro</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffcc00>-mitigating damage</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffcc00>-avoiding damage</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT color=#ffcc00>So you take those three main things, and those three things only, and balance them against eachother for the tank classes. I'm gonna go hypothetical here for an example: </FONT><FONT color=#ffcc00>(we are also assuming hypothetically the three tanking factors are of equal importance)</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffcc00></FONT> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P><FONT color=#ffcc00>SK: gets and holds agro well, mitigates damage moderately, avoids damage moderately</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffcc00>Guardian: gets and holds agro moderately, mitigates damage well, avoids damage moderately</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffcc00></FONT> </P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT color=#ffcc00>So here we have two classes that are going to play in totally different ways, yet will both be able to tank equally...they just all have their strengths and weaknesses. This guardian can stand up to a mob's beatingsvery well, and avoid them sometimes, however, he has more problems with taunting, and mobs will more frequently turn onto other party members. That's his weakness. The SK has plenty of hate generating abilities so he'll always be able to save a party member in need, however, he isn't that great at avoiding/mitigating damage, so sometimes he'll be overcome by mob DPS. That's his weakness.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffcc00>So, there will need to be in game situations where the guardian's mitigation wont be as valuable as the SK's taunting ability, and other situations where a SK's taunting ability doesnt match up to the guardians mitigation. Those two classes are actually MORE different than the current SK and Guardian's way of handling their main role, and they are more balanced. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffcc00>If I really wanted balance, the easiest way is to ensure there are many ways for a classes primary role to be filled. How about some tanks with higher spell resistance? </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffcc00>You continue on in your post about how balancing would requireequal DPS, equal access to different weapons, and so on...No, none of that would need to be done. There are many things you can alter to make secondary abilities equal besides just changing DPS.</FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P><FONT color=#ffcc00>Guardian: access to all weapon types, moderate DPS, increased downtime regen for party, powerful line of interrupt attacks that can only be used when off-tanking, charge line of skills: damage bonus to the first attack in an encounter for each party member.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffcc00>SK: only slashing weapons, Good DPS through lower level undead pet, vampiric power drain procs, variety of enemy resist debuffs.<BR></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><FONT color=#ffcc00></FONT></DIV> <P><FONT color=#ffcc00>You would then just balance those secondary abilities against eachother, and you'd be on the road to having balanced classes.  Note how the Guard has more secondary abilities than the SK, because the SK has higher DPS (through his pet). No need for same-ness, no need for "all spells to do the same damage, or one class to shield bash and the other kick for the same effect".</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffcc00>Balance in this case doesn't mean identical, it means able to fulfil their main role as well as others, and having a secondary role as valuable as others.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffcc00><BR> </FONT></P> <P></P> <HR> <P></P></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

[Opa]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> uzhiel feathered serpent wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Its funny how when he quotes the devs, when Opaki asked him to quote them,  Opaki tries to interpret it and twist it so it supports the current system. I'm starting to get frustrated by Guards continually try to justify a broken system just so they can say they are the top tank.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Edited by uzhiel feathered serpent on <SPAN class=date_text>04-27-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>11:47 AM</SPAN><BR></DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>A) I asked someone to quote the devs, someone did, and I thanked them and conceded my claim that the "equal" clause was never there. It was. Others were right, and I was wrong, on that point.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>B) I'm not a Guardian, I'm a Bruiser. Look me up. Opaki. Permafrost.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>C) I said I was a Brusier in my post. Clearly you didn't read it. Which really reveals why your reading of what I had to say left so much to be desired...because you didn't read it.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>D) I don't think the current system in wholly broken. I think it could use tweaking, like everyone does. But the accusation that I'm "twisting words" for my own selfish reasons, when in fact I would greatly benefit by the changes other people are suggesting and I am arguing against is absurd, unwarranted, and ignorant.</FONT></P> <P> </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>As for all the comments of merit on here, I can only say this: raid balance and group-role balance are different beasts, since no matter what, raids need only one tank. It's difficult to do one without the other. I'm a tank, and not a raid tank, and I still don't see anything wrong with that. But I respect the people who see things differently. Try to extend the same, Serpent, and other would be trolls.</FONT> <BR></P> <p>Message Edited by Opaki on <span class=date_text>04-27-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:30 PM</span>

[Nibbl]

<P> </P><p>Message Edited by Nibblar on <span class=date_text>08-10-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:49 AM</span>

[uzhiel feathered serpe]

<P>Please read my other posts Opaki. I've gone out of my way to stand up for eva tanks. You have your opinion and I have mine. Many tanks are upset with the current system..because its BROKEN...doesnt need tweaking, needs fixing.</P> <P>A guard can tank at 100% evasion, more hit points, more defensive buffs, more mitigation,  and MUCH better Aggro control (5 taunts). Thats in EVERY situation, not just in raids.</P> <P>And you dont see anything wrong wtih this? </P> <P>This just needs tweaking? </P> <P>Your posts lead me to believe that you enjoy the status quo, albeit a bit of "tweaking"....more power to you. Im glad you enjoy your toon. </P> <P>You did not even address the dev posts. Im not quite sure what exactly you mean...but its pretty plain to me.</P> <P>The quotes say it all, man. Its in black and white..or should we say red. The tank archetype was supposed to..and should be ACROSS the board in ALL instances.</P> <P>Where are grps vs raids even brought up in any of those quotes? NOWHERE...but you brought it up from somewhere, right?</P> <P>Where do DEVS say Guards were supposed to be the UBER raid tanks? Because I invite you to quote a DEV on that one.</P> <p>Message Edited by uzhiel feathered serpent on <span class=date_text>04-27-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:01 PM</span>

[Nibbl]

<P> </P><p>Message Edited by Nibblar on <span class=date_text>08-10-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:49 AM</span>

[Nibbl]

<P> </P><p>Message Edited by Nibblar on <span class=date_text>08-10-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:50 AM</span>

[Diapause]

<DIV>For the fighter community (I mean the lvl 50s) Can someone cite specific examples where epic raids were run with a non-Gaurdian Tank and the situation turned out bad?  Now this is extremely subjective since without a doubt there have been raids that have failed with a Gaurdain as the MT and the blame most likely was attributed to the difficulty of the mob or to another indiscriminate factor. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Has any hi level raid used a Monk, Bruiser, Paladin, ShadowKnight, or Beserker as a MT? Has the community been so in-grained that Gaurdians are the best tanks and the other archetypes not even given a chance to compete for the role?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Some examples would be good to hear.. None of this 'We had a brawler and we wiped cuz he sux0r!'.. I mean maybe an example of multiple events against the same raid mob with a guild that works regularly with each other and trying different Tanks to see what worked best.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Crap for all we know, all the complaints are for naught and no one has really invested the time necessary to engage hi-level mobs with the other archetypes due to the bais exhibited to Gaurdians from levels 20 to 49.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Diapause - Lvl47 Templar</DIV> <DIV>Unipause - Lvl21 Gaurdian</DIV> <DIV>Lavastorm</DIV>

[Nibbl]

<P> </P><p>Message Edited by Nibblar on <span class=date_text>08-10-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:41 AM</span>

[Nibbl]

<P> </P><p>Message Edited by Nibblar on <span class=date_text>08-10-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:41 AM</span>

[Ishnar]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eldarn wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>game. For example:</BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P>tanking:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P>-getting/maintaining aggro</P> <P>-mitigating damage</P> <P>-avoiding damage</P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Here's where the separation should be.  If Agro contral, mitigation, and avoidance all had equal value.</DIV> <DIV>Aggro control.  Best-  Knights,    Average -Warriors ,   Worst      brawlers</DIV> <DIV>mitigation         Best - Warriors,  Average -brawlers,     Worst      knights, </DIV> <DIV>avoidance        Best - brawlers,  Average - knights ,      Worst      warriors</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The above list attempts to make the following assumptions.  All 3 aspects, aggro, mitigation, and avoidance have equal value.  Every class should be best at one thing, average in another, and worst in another.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Warriors get best mitigation and brawlers get best avoidance, so knights get whats left, hate control.  Unfortunatly, I couldn't make brawlers worst mitigation and warriors worst avoidance and still leave another "worst" open for knights.  So Guardians get worst avoidance and brawlers get average mitigation.  Average pretty much fills itself out at this point.  Because knights do so poorly in the taking damage department they should do increased damage (sks) or increased heals( pallys) to make up for the difference.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Going off the same assumption above but go the other direction.  Make warriors average avoidance brawlers average aggro, and knights average mitigation.  So</DIV> <DIV> <DIV>Aggro control.  Best-  Knights,    Average -, brawlers,      Worst       warriors</DIV> <DIV>mitigation         Best - Warriors,  Average -  knights          Worst       brawlers</DIV> <DIV>avoidance        Best - brawlers,  Average -  Warriors ,      Worst      knights,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Both of these methods paint knights into a corner with little to speak of in the way of defense.   </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So the last method would be to weight each ability.  Common attitudes seem to prioritize them as such.</DIV> <DIV>Mitigation then avoidance, then aggro control.  So.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Aggro control.  Best-  Knights,    Average -brawlers     Worst      warriors</DIV> <DIV> <DIV>mitigation         Best - Warriors,  Average -knights        Worst      brawlers</DIV> <DIV>avoidance        Best - brawlers,  Average - knights ,      Worst      warriors</DIV> <DIV> </DIV></DIV> <DIV>Here guardians might seem to get the shaft until you consider the AC and HP are king philosophy.  If you accept this philosophy then the last breakdown is the most fair, if you dont then one of the other 2.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You cannot make any class "average" in all 3 without making one class best in 2 and another class worst in 2.   Which results in two classes getting shafted because one class is best in two! </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Ishnar</DIV></DIV></DIV> <P>Message Edited by Ishnar on <SPAN class=date_text>04-27-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>03:54 PM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Ishnar on <span class=date_text>04-27-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:04 PM</span>

[Nibbl]

<P> </P><p>Message Edited by Nibblar on <span class=date_text>08-10-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:47 AM</span>

[Nerj]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Opaki wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eldarn wrote: [abridged] <P><STRONG><FONT color=#ff3300>Moorgard's</FONT> </STRONG>Quotes in Red.<BR></P> <DIV><FONT color=#ff3300><FONT color=#ffffff>Quote #1:</FONT></FONT><FONT color=#ff3300>Moorgard: "In our game, any member of an archetype can fulfill their main role in a group <STRONG>as well as any other."</STRONG></FONT></DIV> <DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#ff3300></FONT></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV>Quote #2: <SPAN class=postbody><FONT color=#ff3300 size=2>Moorgard: "In fact, it's our goal for people at *all* levels to say that very thing, because it would mean that the archetype system works and every class can <STRONG>perform its core role as well as any other</STRONG>."</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> <DIV>.....and before you say "look, he said a group, not a raid"....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3>Quote #3:</FONT><FONT size=2><SPAN class=postbody><FONT color=#ff3300> Moorgard: "<STRONG>All Fighters can do the job of tank equally well</STRONG>. Our entire system is designed around the idea that anyone from a given archetype can fill their main role <STRONG>as well as any other</STRONG>."</FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV></SPAN><BR> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>First of all, thanks. It's very helpful when people cite their reasons for thinking or feeling a certain way. To a degree, I concede my earlier point about what the devs said on this issue. You have made that clear. My responses:</P> <P>D) According to the reasoning you're using, evoking these dev archetype comments, one could argue that the Mage archetype is supposed to play a DPS role. And yet, would it be "balanced" if chanters could nuke like a warlock, and mezz, and breeze? No. Classes can serve their archetype role equally effectively even if the way they do so varies.</P> <P><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Since someone else responded to the other parts. I guess ill cover this one.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>First, thanks to Eldarn, for finding those. I plan to use then in another post.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Second, YES!!!!! --  No the Nuke part, but yes to damage. Enchanters as a Mage class do expect to do damage similar to a Sorcerer. Only, not with nukes but with DOTs. You do know that classes other then Enchanters have CC abilities. Some even do Damage with their stuns, whereas Enchanters don't. So yes we do expect to have damage similar to that of a Sorcerer. At times better DPS if charm worked correctly.  </DIV>

[DUNN]

<P>Let me put it in a Sk prospective</P> <P>-No self heals</P> <P>-Wards are broken i get hit for more damage when i use them </P> <P>-Lifetaps are useless i canhealmyself for 300 every 30 sec but get hit for 1000 every second</P> <P>-FD is useless hasn't been used since lvl 24 when i got it </P> <P>-I only Out DPS Guardians most of the time</P> <P>-Base hp and power ??? no clue why this is here it should be seld buffed hp and power and i can buff power but not hp and not by that much.</P> <P>-No hp buff and we all get Mitigation and avoidance buffs  </P> <P>-Add power consuption per fight and i bet  SK are the only ones that use all their power to keep aggro </P> <P>Look i am a SK and curently i can do my job but as i said before everyone can do it better i mean everyone.</P>

[Margen]

<P>Nibbler wrote</P> <P>Evasion is getting nerfed, read test updates, no more buff stacking for uber mit and advoidance... Warriors have higher hp because they cant heal or lifetap... Taunts can be achieved through healing and DPS, so guardian has more pure taunts, but pally healing, <FONT color=#ff0066>sk lifetaps</FONT>, berserker/monk/bruiser dps also negate or make this equal..  Rangers arrow shots work better then my taunts for pulling mobs off healer, DPS seems to work well for taunts...  healing = very good taunt, ask a healer or necro when he heals his pet..</P> <P>__________________________________________</P> <P>Shadow Knight life taps in no way make up for lost mitigation, our Lifetaps blow.   They suck up power and don't cover a single bleeping hit.   So we have total embalance and thats what you want obviously.</P> <P>Blackoath 31st Troll Shadow Knight</P>

[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>

[Opa]

<span><blockquote><hr>Blackdog183 wrote:<blockquote><p>C) MG always likes to remind that his posts are true at the time of his saying it, so their applicability later is always suspect.</p> <p><font color="#cc0000">Can you quote somewhere that he has refuted(changed) those statements?  Didnt think so.</font></p></blockquote> <hr></blockquote> </span> <div>Moorgard wrote:</div> <p>Scout classes aren't being ignored. The fact that we haven't made a lot of specific changes to them yet, other than lots of bug fixes, does not mean we never intend to do anything about them. But we can't address every single class at the same time, so there has to be some that are looked at first and some that are examined later. Generally speaking, there were other classes more direly in need of attention than scouts have been, but scouts will have their time under the magnifying glass soon.</p> <p>Some people want to take my quotes and fashion them into absolutes, when in fact most of my statements are intentionally free of such pitfalls. It's not because I want to string players along or avoid issues, but because of the fact that this is a game that will change. If I were to say that ClassX will always do more damage than ClassY, then for the rest of time people would be clinging to that post as a legal binding contract. MMOs don't work that way. All I can tell you is what we intend for the near future, and everything--EVERYTHING--is subject to change.</p> <p>Scouts are in something of a unique position compared to other archetypes, as they are arguably the least linear of all of them. They do lots of damage, but DPS isn't all they do. They can tank a lot of encounters fairly well, but they aren't the best tanks. They have lots of very nice utility abilities, but utility alone doesn't define who you are. And this makes the archetype the trickiest to balance in a way that people won't complain about, because there are players who want different aspects of the class to be emphasized over other facets, and not everyone will agree on which is most important.</p> <p>Keep in mind that DPS doesn't exist in a vacuum. If a class has an ability that increases the DPS of others, that's a factor. If another class has the ability to reduce the DPS of the target, that's a factor in both group DPS and healing. It isn't your own DPS numbers alone that show your benefits in a group or solo situation.</p> <p>Think of what balance literally means: it's weighing various factors against each other. While there is some balance at the archetype level, it is refined further at each class and subclass. Sorcerers give up most of their defense for high offense, whereas enchanters are giving up defense for a combination of damage and crowd control. Bards don't have as much personal DPS as other scouts, but they have the greatest potential to increase the damage output of others. Every class should have some little nuances like this that differentiate them. The trouble is, even players of that class won't agree on what they want that uniqueness to be.</p> <p>Look at some of the posts in this thread. "Scouts SHOULD be this. Mages SHOULD be this." As much as you might have opinions on your class based on preferences from other games, we're the ones who define what each class is in our game. And I'm not going to give you absolute statements that paint myself or the team into a corner, because every player is going to weigh all the various nuances of their class differently. Just because you don't agree with the decisions we make about class abilities does not make them wrong, nor do the decisions we make invalidate your opinions.</p> <p>The whole notion of class balance is 90% emotion and 10% fact. That's just how it is, because it means something different to everyone. No MMO with a significant number of subscribers is ever going to achieve balance that makes everyone happy unless they make class distinctions absolutely meaningless in one way or another. We prefer not to go that route, which means there will forever be thread after thread on these boards complaining that ClassA is completely out of balance compared to ClassB.</p> <p> </p> <hr> <p> </p> <hr> <div> <font color="#ffff00">Read and learn. Don't answer your own questions, especially when you answer them wrong. And don't be a jerk, because it might just be the other person's one step ahead of you.</font></div> <div></div>

[Nibbl]

<P> </P><p>Message Edited by Nibblar on <span class=date_text>08-10-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:47 AM</span>

[Opa]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>uzhiel feathered serpent wrote: <p>Please read my other posts Opaki. I've gone out of my way to stand up for eva tanks. You have your opinion and I have mine. Many tanks are upset with the current system..because its BROKEN...doesnt need tweaking, needs fixing. </p></blockquote> <p><font color="#ffff00">I didn't speak ill of you. You somehow elected to accuse me of being some sort of self-serving fink and accused me of twisting words. I didn't say anything about your truthfulness or even, about you. I'm uninterested in the opinions of namecallers, and quite frankly, I don't care what your other posts say. If your ignorance in this post is any indication, I've learned all I need to about you.</font> </p> <blockquote> <p>A guard can tank at 100% evasion, more hit points, more defensive buffs, more mitigation,  and MUCH better Aggro control (5 taunts). Thats in EVERY situation, not just in raids. </p></blockquote> <p><font color="#ffff00">I've never seen a guardian with 100% evasion. And I bet you couldn't show me a screenshot of one. And evasion is something I think needs adjusting. Also, aggro control doesn't depend on the number of taunts, it depends on their effectiveness. </font></p> <p><font color="#ffff00">Did you just say guardians have 100% avoidence in every situation? What game are you playing? </font></p> <blockquote> <p>And you dont see anything wrong wtih this? </p></blockquote> <p><font color="#ffff00">I never said "the system is perfect," I said it isn't totally and completely broken. And I stand by that. </font> </p> <blockquote> <p>This just needs tweaking? </p></blockquote> <p><font color="#ffff00">Yes, that is what I said.</font> </p> <blockquote> <p>Your posts lead me to believe that you enjoy the status quo, albeit a bit of "tweaking"....more power to you. Im glad you enjoy your toon. </p></blockquote> <p><font color="#ffff00">Thanks. I'm sorry you don't. This civility makes me wonder why your earlier posts were so full of vitrol.</font> </p> <blockquote> <p>You did not even address the dev posts. Im not quite sure what exactly you mean...but its pretty plain to me. </p></blockquote> <p><font color="#ffff00">I didn't need to do a textual analysis of the dev post for you, did I? I conceded the point. Let me use a smaller word. I said the poster was right. What did you want me to address? If you need me to pick apart every word, I can. But usually you call people who disagree with you word-twisters.</font> </p> <blockquote> <p>The quotes say it all, man. Its in black and white..or should we say red. The tank archetype was supposed to..and should be ACROSS the board in ALL instances. </p></blockquote> <p><font color="#ffff00">No, that's not what it said. Does it need to be quoted again? Nowhere does it say anything about all instances. Keep trying.</font> </p> <blockquote> <p>Where are grps vs raids even brought up in any of those quotes? NOWHERE...but you brought it up from somewhere, right? <span></span></p> </blockquote> <p><font color="#ffff00">Um, let's begin the lesson shall we? </font></p> </span> <div><font color="#ff3300"><font color="#ffffff">Quote #1:</font></font></div> <blockquote dir="ltr"> <div><font color="#ff3300">Moorgard: "In our game, any member of an archetype can fulfill their main role <font color="#ccff00"><i><u><b>in a group </b></u></i></font><strong>as well as any other."</strong></font></div></blockquote> <span> <p><font color="#ffff00">There it is. Plain as day. In english. That is, in GROUP, not in RAIDS. You see that now? Or do I need to put it in yet another color? They're defining archetype role in that quote as within a group, not a raid. The person kind enough to quote that for me was sensitive to that. You, clearly, were not. </font> <span></span></p> </span><span> <blockquote> <p>Where do DEVS say Guards were supposed to be the UBER raid tanks? Because I invite you to quote a DEV on that one. </p></blockquote> <p><font color="#ffff00">I was never making an argument on the basis of what dev's said. I said that I'm a tank and not a raid tank, and that there's nothing wrong with that. And I still think it. </font></p> <blockquote><hr></blockquote> <font color="#6633ff">EDIT: Holler right back at you Nib.</font></span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Opaki on <span class=date_text>04-27-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:11 PM</span>

[Margen]

<DIV>I and no SK I know of uses Lifetaps for agro, it just isn't that effecitve on aggro gained versus power used, and Guardians are asking to be the one and only tank.   And they always use the <WHINE> "well I should be top tank due to I can't ward and I can't life tap".  So Guardians out taunt me and out mitigate me and my supposed equaling abilities don't match it, unless I burn all my power.  So what do I get for losing tanking ability, not much it seems ... and thats what the majority of the guardian community wants for all the rest of the TANKS that right TANKS.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[TopHatJon]

<DIV>Berzerker damage was nerfed a while back to balance damage and tanking ability in relation to other figthters....if that is no longer the goal, how about UNnerfing zerks. </DIV>

[DUNN]

<DIV> <P>Nibblar,</P> <P>Lets see how many  hp a warrior can buff himself before a fight.  Now compare that to the 600 hp during that same fight that a SK will heal himself for; assuming it lasts a minute.  Not considering Sk  get hit more often and for more damage using only self buffs than a Guardian will using his self buffs.  Also note that he will not be out of power at the end of the fight the SK  will. </P> <P>If I need to FD at lvl 50 during a fight rest assure I am a dead man nothing will stop that mob. </P> <P>I have never said give me this to make me better because that doesn't work.  All i did was give a SK prespective on what was listed . </P> <P> </P> <P>I don't think these changes will fix anhy of our problems since we realy didn't care about DPS.  Lifetaps , Taunts, and  Power consumption are our main problems and complaints.  Go look at our board.</P> <P>I will say it again we can do our job, just everyone else is better at it.</P></DIV><p>Message Edited by DUNN on <span class=date_text>04-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:27 AM</span>

[Ishnar]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Nibblar wrote:<BR><FONT size=2><FONT size=2> <P>Ishnar, </P> <P>Your post doesn’t address all the abilities and skills, only aggro, mitigation, and avoidance.</P> <P>These have to factor in as well. </P> <P>- Healing <BR>- Liftaps <BR>- FD <BR>- Wards<BR>- DPS<BR>- Miscellaneous Buffs (mit, def, offense, etc…)<BR>- Base HP and Power</P> <P>Cant just look at avoidance, mit, aggro without looking at the whole package. The extra abilities and skills are what really defines the subclass anyway. Adjustments for any imbalances should be made in the subclass unique abilities and skills IMHO.</P> <P></P></FONT></FONT><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I was just trying to cover the 3 basics of tanking.  All the other abilities do is modify them and therefore would be included in the package, when I say avoidance that would cover the appropriate buffs.  Healing and wards are just mitigation with a different name, dps isn't the tanks job but can be thought of as mitigation as the faster something dies the less damage you take, lifetaps is healing and therefore another form of damage mitigation, HP is more mitigation because the more HP you have mitigates the percentage of damage you take from each attack, FD = Aggro, etc., I wasn't ignoring these things, they are included.    </P> <P>There should be a platform or goal for each class.  If we were to chose one of those options I offered, then modify all spells and skills keeping in mind the reletive intended strengths of each class, the results would be far more balanced than trying to approproach every aspect separately then getting confused about where the classes should stand relative to each other.</P> <P>Plus, the other skills aren't what define the classes they just add flavor.  The role of the classes is still tanking ultimately breaks down to mitigation, avoidance, and aggro.  </P> <P>Ishnar</P><p>Message Edited by Ishnar on <span class=date_text>04-27-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:55 PM</span>

[Ishnar]

<DIV>Double post, bah.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Ishnar</DIV><p>Message Edited by Ishnar on <span class=date_text>04-27-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:50 PM</span>

[Margen]

<P>Ok lets approach the issue of lifetaps and ward in two ways, aggro then mitigation.   </P> <P>First on aggro yes wards and Lifetaps produce aggro, but in a say yellow multi-mob encounter, I have to taunt, spam buff, aoe, DD etc. and at the end I am likely at around 25 or 30pct power, while a guardian in same encounter maybe at 60-75pct power.  Plus if he does lose aggro he gets it back much faster then I do as a shadow Knight.</P> <DIV>On mitigation, lifetaps and wards do not in any way make up the difference in mitigation.  A ward will last 1 to 2 hits and a lifetap is laughable in what it does, maybe half a hit.  And both these abilites take a lot of power.  And even with my ubber lifetap/ward combination I still need more healing from my healer.   My RL brother is a inquistor in our guild and he has told me that it takes him more power to keep me standing then a equivilent guardian.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So in conclusion, when Shadow Knights tank we use more power the guardians, take more damage, and our healer has to use more power, plus we have more chance of losing aggro.  This is not abalanced situation in tanking by any form.  Yes SK dps is higher then Guardians, but we are forth in dps among tanks, plus people do not pick tanks for dps they pick scouts or mages.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Blackoath 31st Troll Shadow Knight</DIV>

[Blackdog183]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Opaki wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Blackdog183 wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P>C) MG always likes to remind that his posts are true at the time of his saying it, so their applicability later is always suspect.</P> <P><FONT color=#cc0000>Can you quote somewhere that he has refuted(changed) those statements?  Didnt think so.</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR></SPAN> <DIV>Moorgard wrote:<BR></DIV> <P>Scout classes aren't being ignored. The fact that we haven't made a lot of specific changes to them yet, other than lots of bug fixes, does not mean we never intend to do anything about them. But we can't address every single class at the same time, so there has to be some that are looked at first and some that are examined later. Generally speaking, there were other classes more direly in need of attention than scouts have been, but scouts will have their time under the magnifying glass soon.</P> <P>Some people want to take my quotes and fashion them into absolutes, when in fact most of my statements are intentionally free of such pitfalls. It's not because I want to string players along or avoid issues, but because of the fact that this is a game that will change. If I were to say that ClassX will always do more damage than ClassY, then for the rest of time people would be clinging to that post as a legal binding contract. MMOs don't work that way. All I can tell you is what we intend for the near future, and everything--EVERYTHING--is subject to change.</P> <P>Scouts are in something of a unique position compared to other archetypes, as they are arguably the least linear of all of them. They do lots of damage, but DPS isn't all they do. They can tank a lot of encounters fairly well, but they aren't the best tanks. They have lots of very nice utility abilities, but utility alone doesn't define who you are. And this makes the archetype the trickiest to balance in a way that people won't complain about, because there are players who want different aspects of the class to be emphasized over other facets, and not everyone will agree on which is most important.</P> <P>Keep in mind that DPS doesn't exist in a vacuum. If a class has an ability that increases the DPS of others, that's a factor. If another class has the ability to reduce the DPS of the target, that's a factor in both group DPS and healing. It isn't your own DPS numbers alone that show your benefits in a group or solo situation.</P> <P>Think of what balance literally means: it's weighing various factors against each other. While there is some balance at the archetype level, it is refined further at each class and subclass. Sorcerers give up most of their defense for high offense, whereas enchanters are giving up defense for a combination of damage and crowd control. Bards don't have as much personal DPS as other scouts, but they have the greatest potential to increase the damage output of others. Every class should have some little nuances like this that differentiate them. The trouble is, even players of that class won't agree on what they want that uniqueness to be.</P> <P>Look at some of the posts in this thread. "Scouts SHOULD be this. Mages SHOULD be this." As much as you might have opinions on your class based on preferences from other games, we're the ones who define what each class is in our game. And I'm not going to give you absolute statements that paint myself or the team into a corner, because every player is going to weigh all the various nuances of their class differently. Just because you don't agree with the decisions we make about class abilities does not make them wrong, nor do the decisions we make invalidate your opinions.</P> <P>The whole notion of class balance is 90% emotion and 10% fact. That's just how it is, because it means something different to everyone. No MMO with a significant number of subscribers is ever going to achieve balance that makes everyone happy unless they make class distinctions absolutely meaningless in one way or another. We prefer not to go that route, which means there will forever be thread after thread on these boards complaining that ClassA is completely out of balance compared to ClassB.</P> <P></P> <HR> <P></P> <HR> <DIV><BR><FONT color=#ffff00>Read and learn. Don't answer your own questions, especially when you answer them wrong. And don't be a jerk, because it might just be the other person's one step ahead of you.</FONT><BR></DIV><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Good Job taking what I said completly and using it completly out of context.  Next time your going to quote me, Kindly dont twist my words to suit your needs.</P> <P></P><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/view_profile?user.id=114666" target=_blank><SPAN>Blackdog183</SPAN></A><BR><SPAN>Hero<BR>Posts: 579<BR>Registered: 12-12-2004 </SPAN><BR><IMG height=8 alt="" src="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/i/p.gif" width=150 border=0><BR><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/view_profile?user.id=114666" target=_blank><IMG height=70 alt=Blackdog183 src="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/i/icons/EQ2/darkelf_fem.gif" width=70 border=0></A><BR> <P><SPAN>Reply <A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=testfeed&message.id=15616#M15616" target=_blank><FONT color=#c8c1b5>37</FONT></A> of 67 </SPAN><BR><IMG height=6 src="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/i/p.gif" width=1><BR><SPAN>Viewed 173 times<BR></SPAN><IMG alt="2 ratings - 3.0 average" src="http://eq2.i.lithium.com/i/skins/default/icon_rating_3.gif" border=0></P><IMG height=1 alt="" src="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/i/p.gif" width=1 border=0><BR> <FONT color=#cc0000></FONT><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Opaki wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eldarn wrote: [abridged] <P><U><STRONG><FONT color=#ff3300>Moorgard's</FONT> </STRONG>Quotes in Red.<BR></U></P> <DIV><U><FONT color=#ff3300><FONT color=#ffffff>Quote #1:</FONT></FONT><FONT color=#ff3300>Moorgard: "In our game, any member of an archetype can fulfill their main role in a group <STRONG>as well as any other."</STRONG></FONT></U></DIV> <DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#ff3300><U></U></FONT></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV><U>Quote #2: </U><SPAN class=postbody><FONT color=#ff3300 size=2><U>Moorgard: "In fact, it's our goal for people at *all* levels to say that very thing, because it would mean that the archetype system works and every class can <STRONG>perform its core role as well as any other</STRONG>."</U></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2><U></U></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2><U></U></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> <DIV><U>.....and before you say "look, he said a group, not a raid"....</U></DIV> <DIV><U></U> </DIV> <DIV><U></U> </DIV></DIV> <DIV><U><FONT size=3>Quote #3:</FONT><FONT size=2><SPAN class=postbody><FONT color=#ff3300> Moorgard: "<STRONG>All Fighters can do the job of tank equally well</STRONG>. Our entire system is designed around the idea that anyone from a given archetype can fill their main role <STRONG>as well as any other</STRONG>."</FONT></SPAN></FONT></U></DIV> <DIV></SPAN><BR> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>First of all, thanks. It's very helpful when people cite their reasons for thinking or feeling a certain way. To a degree, I concede my earlier point about what the devs said on this issue. You have made that clear. My responses:</P> <P>A) As you noted, the first two are about being a group's tank. As a bruiser who tanked from 30-50, I can say that bruiser are at present more than able to tank for a group, just as well as a guardian.</P> <P><FONT color=#cc0000>Problem there is, after you get to lvl 50, theres 2 things that happen, harvesting and raiding.  Thats when this imbalance starts to show its true form.</FONT></P> <P>B) Groups are the main unit of division in this game, not raids.</P> <P><FONT color=#cc0000>From level 1-49 yes, that is true.</FONT></P> <P>C) MG always likes to remind that his posts are true at the time of his saying it, so their applicability later is always suspect.</P> <P><FONT color=#cc0000>Can you quote somewhere that he has refuted(changed) those statements?  Didnt think so.</FONT></P> <P>D) According to the reasoning you're using, evoking these dev archetype comments, one could argue that the Mage archetype is supposed to play a DPS role. And yet, would it be "balanced" if chanters could nuke like a warlock, and mezz, and breeze? No. Classes can serve their archetype role equally effectively even if the way they do so varies.</P> <P>E) In the end, it comes down to something as simple as this. What do you want? Damage taken per second to be equal across the board? Mitigation/Avoidence being exactly the same? What counts for defensive equality in characters who have different defensive techniques? And suppose that wish was granted. All tanks have equal defense, then too, all tanks must have equal offense, right? And equal access to crush/slash/pierce weapons, right? What would this be like? We all have the same spell to do x damage, yet one person shield bashes, I do a kung fu kick, and someone else casts a spell? Classes mean nothing but animations? And this would be better?</P> <P><FONT color=#cc0000>Heres what I want, balance. Plain simple balance.  I want guardians to not be the absolute top choice in all cases over all classes.  I want guadians to be one of the tank classes, not the ONE tank class.  As it stands right now on live, they have the highest HPs, mit, best shields, best self buffing, and can achieve 100% avoidance, best taunts, best weapon selection.  HOW IS THIS BALANCED! Someone explain how the f*ck they think this is balanced.</FONT><BR></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Now when looked at in actual context, you will plainly see, I was referring to TANK BALANCE, not anything to do with scouts.  I no where at any point said anything about him refuting something to do with scouts.  I said show me somewhere that he took back/changes his statements about tanks.  For those of you that are context impared(Opaki for one) read the underlined area above and show where MG or anyone else at sony said that was changed from the time of the original statement(the underlines above).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Next time Opaki, be very careful about what you use from my posts, and to what context you use them.  Read and learn,  and next time do try to not be so whitty, especially on someting you KNOW im gonna call you on,</DIV>

[Trei]

<div></div>I noticed more than a few reminder posts about it in this thread, but still I see the majority here either just plain missed out or conveniently forgot about <b>this </b>portion of MG's new post <b>-</b> ["... <font color="#66ccff"> <font color="#ccffff" size="3"><font color="#66ccff">Keep in mind</font> these differences </font><font color="#ccffff" size="3">are not wide chasms</font><font size="3">. A Guardian who upgrades all his damage arts could probably outdamage a Bruiser that puts little effort into upgrading his abilities. </font><font size="3">Likewise, a Monk who pays attention to gear and arts can be a better pure tank than an unskilled Paladin. </font><font size="3">The onus for maximizing the potential of a given character is on the player, because that's the one element of class balance that we have absolutely no control over.</font></font> ..."]<font size="3"> </font> Nothing has changed for any of the subclasses as far as intentions and directions are concerned. <div></div><p>Message Edited by Trei49 on <span class=date_text>04-27-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:39 PM</span>

[Sebastien]

The OP presents a well-thought argument.  But we need to use a little common sense as well.  If a Bruiser did twice as much damage as a Guardian, AND tanked equally well, why would anybody ever play a Guardian.  Tradeoffs need to exist in any game to make it interesting. In terms of typical full-party situations, it is my opinion that the tanking ability of say, Guardian and Monk, were well balanced.  You can determine how much damage a tank will take, on average, using the formula (1 - Avoidance) x (1 - Mitigation).  Comparing this figure for Guardians and Monks on Test, the number was pretty close for both, but slightly favored the Guardian. The difference, though, is that Mitigation seems to scale better, as a means of defence, when fighting a particularly difficult opponent.  Therefore a tank like a Guardian can be said to be a "better" tank for an epic raid, for example.  Does that mean that, for instance, a Bruiser is pointless to have in a raid?  Absolutely not.. they have unique abilities that make them extremely desirable to have in the tanking bloc of a raid party. The one thing that I think needs attention, though, is the AOE taunting ability of the bruiser.  A bruiser really can't serve as main tank in a place like Runnyeye, because their only AOE taunt includes a fear proc. <div></div>

[GraymaneGravitic]

"<FONT color=#ff3300><FONT color=#ffffff>Quote #1:</FONT></FONT> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV><FONT color=#ff3300>Moorgard: "In our game, any member of an archetype can fulfill their main role <FONT color=#ccff00><I><U><B>in a group </B></U></I></FONT><STRONG>as well as any other."</STRONG></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>There it is. Plain as day. In english. That is, in GROUP, not in RAIDS. You see that now? Or do I need to put it in yet another color? They're defining archetype role in that quote as within a group, not a raid. The person kind enough to quote that for me was sensitive to that. You, clearly, were not. "</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </P> <P><FONT color=#3399ff>Soooo, it is apparently your contention that players participating in raids AREN'T performing their respective roles in groups? Are your raiders soloing? It's no wonder I am so ashamed and embarrassed to belong to such a village idiot species!</FONT></P> <P><BR></P></SPAN>

[Opa]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Blackdog183 wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Good Job taking what I said completly and using it completly out of context.  Next time your going to quote me, Kindly dont twist my words to suit your needs.</BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Now when looked at in actual context, you will plainly see, I was referring to TANK BALANCE, not anything to do with scouts.  I no where at any point said anything about him refuting something to do with scouts.  I said show me somewhere that he took back/changes his statements about tanks.  For those of you that are context impared(Opaki for one) read the underlined area above and show where MG or anyone else at sony said that was changed from the time of the original statement(the underlines above).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Next time Opaki, be very careful about what you use from my posts, and to what context you use them.  Read and learn,  and next time do try to not be so whitty, especially on someting you KNOW im gonna call you on,</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Alright, this is the last time I'm going to dignify your posts with a response. The fact that I didn't quote all 2 or 3 pages of your rambling post does not mean that I was disingenuous when I quoted you. It does not mean, even though I removed a certain point you made from other things you said, that I was somehow manipulating your meaning. Not all of us believe that correctness is a function of the length of our posts. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>When I tried to leave and entire quote in context, you missed the point I was making with it, and claimed it was non responsive, when it was not. So I'm gonna break this down real slow-like for you, and make sure you get it. And I'll do it without quoting 65 pages of irrelevant crap either.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>Moorgard: "In our game, any member of an archetype can fulfill their main role in a group <STRONG>as well as any other."</STRONG><BR></FONT></P> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000>Moorgard: "All I can tell you is what we intend for the near future, and everything--EVERYTHING--is subject to change."</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT> </DIV> <DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000><STRONG>Moorgard</STRONG> wrote: With fighters, damage potential is weighed against tanking ability. The latter is defined not just by avoidance or mitigation, but by the kind of buffs and abilities they get. Guardians and Paladins get the most defensive-oriented abilities, both for themselves and their groupmates. As a result, they will have the lowest damage output. At the other end of the scale are Bruisers and Monks, with Berserkers and Shadowknights in the middle....</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>Okay. You requested that I give you an example of where MG or any dev changed his position regarding statement one above, about tank balance. Please see statement three. This is the quote in which MG changed his position regarding tank balance, and the originating post of this thread. I would think you would have known that.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>He justified making such revisions to his position in statement two above, which you erringly read as only having to do with scouts. You'll note that I removed all the stuff about scouts from that quote so that you could see the part which I was drawing attention to. Leaving things in context confuses you as to relevance, clearly, so I'm trying to do some of the readership work for you by quoting the relevant portions ONLY. You would do well to learn that relevance matters.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>Now, finally, I'm not contextually impared. I read and understood exactly what you meant, and tried to save some space by not quoting your entire page of meandering prose. If you're under the impression that this was some sort of tactic on my part to twist your words, sorry, but you're wrong. I try to be fair to the people I disagree with, without calling them names. I also try to make relevant posts, and not quote pages of nonsense.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>Feel free to call me on anything you like, because, quite frankly, namecalling doesn't frighten me. Nor do you. And nor do your long, meandering posts.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>Finally, your posts would benefit greatly from some proofreading.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>I'm not going to bother responding to people to try to gun for me in these posts because I disagree with them. It's childish, pointless, and usually said individuals don't even realize when I'm rhetorically destroying them.  </FONT> </DIV></DIV>

[Opa]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> GraymaneGraviticus wrote:<BR>"<FONT color=#ff3300><FONT color=#ffffff>Quote #1:</FONT></FONT> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV><FONT color=#ff3300>Moorgard: "In our game, any member of an archetype can fulfill their main role <FONT color=#ccff00><I><U><B>in a group </B></U></I></FONT><STRONG>as well as any other."</STRONG></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>There it is. Plain as day. In english. That is, in GROUP, not in RAIDS. You see that now? Or do I need to put it in yet another color? They're defining archetype role in that quote as within a group, not a raid. The person kind enough to quote that for me was sensitive to that. You, clearly, were not. "</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </P> <P><FONT color=#3399ff>Soooo, it is apparently your contention that players participating in raids AREN'T performing their respective roles in groups? Are your raiders soloing? It's no wonder I am so ashamed and embarrassed to belong to such a village idiot species!</FONT></P> <P><BR></P></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>No, that was not my contention. My point was that there is only one tank in raids (maybe two, maybe three). Thus, additional tanks aren't tanking in raids. They are DPS'ing.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>Healers, scouts, and mages still serve pretty much the same function in both groups and raids.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>No, raiders aren't soloing.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>You don't make good arguments by assuming mine is weaker than it is.</FONT></DIV>

[deusdivini]

<P>What's funny is, I got so tired of being jerked around and lied to that I went back to FFXI where you're straight out told things the way they are: </P> <P>-Warriors and paladins are king tank, no way around it. Samurai can do the job, as long as they have a warrior subjob, likewise ninja can do in a bind when they blink tank... but they're no warrior or paladin.</P> <DIV>-You want XP? Group... period. This is why the community in FFXI is so tightly knit. If you want to get anywhere in this game you're going to group, and you're going to do it a lot. Sure you can duo, even trio and make out ok... but the group is where the fun and excietment is.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>A lot of people who play MMO's don't like this, but you know what? I love it... I find myself questioning why I ever left this game... and it would seem that a lot more people are rediscovering it as well. With massive desertion from both WoW and EQ2 there's been a huge influx of people. Guess people are just sick of being lied to by both Blizzard and SOE, I know I am. Until SOE shoots it to me straight I'll be in Vana'diel... </DIV>

[Sebastien]

Opaki, not to provoke you, but you are oversimplifying things. Just because a given fighter is not tanking the primary target doesn't mean they have nothing to do besides DPS.  That simply isn't true.  Several fighter classes have abilities that can augment the defensive capability of the main tank, for example.  Many of the raid encounters are also now being designed so there are lots of additional critters that pop out during the fight as well.  Sometimes the total DPS of the encounter is too much for any one tank on your roster to manage, and needs to be split according to your battle plan. These are just examples off the top of my head, but the idea that just because a fighter is not MTing the primary target that they are useless in a raid is false in my experience.  (BTW we have completed several raids and epic encounters in my guild and we do not have a guardian on our roster) <div></div>

[Opa]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sebastien wrote:<BR>Opaki, not to provoke you, but you are oversimplifying things.<BR><BR>Just because a given fighter is not tanking the primary target doesn't mean they have nothing to do besides DPS.  That simply isn't true.  Several fighter classes have abilities that can augment the defensive capability of the main tank, for example.  Many of the raid encounters are also now being designed so there are lots of additional critters that pop out during the fight as well.  Sometimes the total DPS of the encounter is too much for any one tank on your roster to manage, and needs to be split according to your battle plan.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Provoke me? Sheesh. Maybe I'm coming off a little harsh. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Indeed, you have not. And you're quite right. As a bruiser, I use Shrug Off to buff the MT's avoidence, and another buff which increases the DPS of my group when raiding.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I never meant to imply that on a raid, fighters other than the MT are useless or even "simply DPSing." I understand how you took what I said to mean that though.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>My point was, more directly, that when a fighter is not MTing a raid, they are not performing their archetype function, INSOFAR as that is understood to be tanking. I graciously accept Seb's revisions.</FONT> </P> <P><BR></P>

[Eadric]

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Opaki wrote:<SPAN> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I've never seen a guardian with 100% evasion. <STRONG><U>And I bet you couldn't show me a screenshot of one</U></STRONG>. And evasion is something I think needs adjusting. Also, aggro control doesn't depend on the number of taunts, it depends on their effectiveness.</FONT></SPAN></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Did a quick search and came up with:</P> <P><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=7&message.id=4827&query.id=0#M4827" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=7&message.id=4827&query.id=0#M4827</A></P> <P><IMG src="http://img41.exs.cx/img41/9500/guardian5nx.jpg"></P> <P>How much do I win?</P>

[GraymaneGravitic]

<P>"<FONT color=#ffff00>You don't make good arguments by assuming mine is weaker than it is."</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </P> <P><FONT color=#ff33cc>Actually, I wasn't endeavoring to make any argument at all. I was just poking fun at the twisted logic in your argument. I fiound it somewhat comical that you are attempting to split hairs over the distinction between grouping and raiding when raiding is done by groups.</FONT></P> <p>Message Edited by GraymaneGraviticus on <span class=date_text>04-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:12 AM</span>

[uzhiel feathered serpe]

<P>Our Guards can get 100% evasion all the time. As, for the "Official Game guide" hmn..guides are LISCENCED to outside companies. Now if this guide was made SPECIFICALLY by SoE then I might have to take some of my words back.</P> <P>I'm going by what the DEVS personally post on this board, not what some game guide which was printed way back when says.</P> <P>let me put it to you this way, Opaki, because you're a bruiser..</P> <P>A guard can get the SAME evasion or more than you, gets more hit points, more mitigation, more taunts/ aggro skills, tanks about 3 to 4 lvls above you..</P> <P>You DONT see anything wrong with this? How is this considered a small gap? There is nothing small about this.</P> <P>This is NOT balance...IM just as concerned for my Paladins...because they are putting us in DIRECT competition with guards in the heavy tank category..but we dont get the nice 3 extra lvls of tanking ability and the nice 2 extra taunts. We get a heal and a ward thats costs so much power they are practically useless in a raid, if a Paladin is using them to keep himself as the MT....</P> <P>But rhey sure as hell will lower our DPS to second lowest..so if our DPS is low and we STILL cant compete against Guards in RAIDS....</P> <P>[expletive ninja'd by Faarbot],  are Paladins supposed to be rezzers in a [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] raid? thats it? because our DPS is going bye bye.</P><p>Message Edited by uzhiel feathered serpent on <span class=date_text>04-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:25 AM</span>

[LFo]

<P>In response to the OP:</P> <P>It is exactly the kind of thing I have been thinking of. I play all tank classes except for paladin and monk. What I noticed in my guardian is that he has a hint of specialized utility that make *others* mitigate/avoid damage better, sometimes by soaking up part of the damage they take. This is a very useful ability but I don't think it has been fully realised in the class. A shame.</P> <P>I really hope that they don't abandon the tanking equality idea. It can be done. Just give all subclasses definitive secondary roles.</P>

[Opa]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eadric wrote: <P><IMG src="http://img41.exs.cx/img41/9500/guardian5nx.jpg"></P> <P>How much do I win?<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>A cookie, and the unending gratification of proving me wrong. Really, though, there's no way to get the cookie to you, so I'll probably just eat it myself.<BR>

[Opa]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> GraymaneGraviticus wrote: <P><FONT color=#ff33cc>Actually, I wasn't endeavoring to make any argument at all. I was just poking fun at the twisted logic in your argument. I fiound it somewhat comical that you are attempting to split hairs over the distinction between grouping and raiding when raiding is done by groups.</FONT></P> <P>Message Edited by GraymaneGraviticus on <SPAN class=date_text>04-28-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>10:12 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Well, in trying to poke fun you missed my real position. I'm quite aware raids are done by groups. The distinction I was making, again, is between miscellaneous tanks' roles in groups versus in raids.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You haven't explained how my logic was "twisted." And I'm not spliting hairs. As a tank, I know that I do very different things when I play in a group (where I'm generally tanking) and when I raid (when I'm not). The abilities I use, when I use them, what I'm paying attention to, all vary quite considerably.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I find your inability to grasp my point, even though it's now been repeated several times, pretty comical too. Also your lack of understanding of the term "twisted logic."</DIV>

[Opa]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> uzhiel feathered serpent wrote: <P>let me put it to you this way, Opaki, because you're a bruiser..</P> <P>A guard can get the SAME evasion or more than you, gets more hit points, more mitigation, more taunts/ aggro skills, tanks about 3 to 4 lvls above you..</P> <P>You DONT see anything wrong with this? How is this considered a small gap? There is nothing small about this.</P> <P>Message Edited by uzhiel feathered serpent on <SPAN class=date_text>04-28-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>10:25 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>No, I do think this is a problem. Once again, I never said the system is perfect. I believe mitigation tanks shouldn't have 50% avoidence base to my 76%.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I want avoidence tanks to be true avoidence tanks, and I want mitigation tanks to be pure mitigation tanks. As it stands now, both or sort of half breeds. "Plate tanks" are about 50/50. I'm about 75/40. I think it should be much more stark. Something like 90/10 and 10/90 (or however the numbers work out).</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>But, in short, my position is this: it's okay that we're not all raid tanks. I don't need to be a raid tank. And I think it's unfair to say that just because an SK or monk can't tank Darathar, that somehow the tank classes are unbalanced.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>So, long before all the crazy word games, rhetorical battles, accusations, rants and defensive manuevuers, that was what I was saying:</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Things aren't perfect. I'd love to see them changed in certain ways. And I don't think it's true that if I can't tank Darathar, I'm broken. I'm not some archconservative about the current system; I like lots of the ideas brought up here about spell resists, and about building raids so that different tanks have a different sort of situational superiority. I hope the devs are looking at them seriously.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>And for once, I'll close my post without egging someone on.</FONT><BR></P>

[Eadric]

<BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> Opaki wrote: <P>A cookie, and the unending gratification of proving me wrong. Really, though, there's no way to get the cookie to you, so I'll probably just eat it myself.<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Just as long as you have milk with it because I like milk with my cookies.</P> <P>It was done in good spirit, Opaki...you threw out the gauntlet and I just love a challenge.</P> <P>Thanks for the cookie and I hope it's an Oreo! :smileywink:</P>

[Nibbl]

<P> </P><p>Message Edited by Nibblar on <span class=date_text>08-10-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:46 AM</span>

[Nibbl]

<P> </P><p>Message Edited by Nibblar on <span class=date_text>08-10-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:46 AM</span>

[Eadric]

/shrug...that was only a month ago.

[Sebastien]

<span><blockquote><hr>Opaki wrote: <p><font color="#ffff00">No, I do think this is a problem. Once again, I never said the system is perfect. I believe mitigation tanks shouldn't have 50% avoidence base to my 76%.</font></p> <p><font color="#ffff00">I want avoidence tanks to be true avoidence tanks, and I want mitigation tanks to be pure mitigation tanks. As it stands now, both or sort of half breeds. "Plate tanks" are about 50/50. I'm about 75/40. I think it should be much more stark. Something like 90/10 and 10/90 (or however the numbers work out).</font></p> <p><font color="#ffff00">But, in short, my position is this: it's okay that we're not all raid tanks. I don't need to be a raid tank. And I think it's unfair to say that just because an SK or monk can't tank Darathar, that somehow the tank classes are unbalanced.</font></p><div></div><hr></blockquote> Opaki do you play on test btw? Anyway experiences with the current mechanics are largely moot because the combat mechanics are changing so much on Test.  The net result of all the changes is a game that feels pretty similar to the one you play now.  But the specific details of the mechanics are very very different. One thing that I suggest you keep in mind is that avoidance and mitigation are essentially the same thing.  Both allow you to ignore NPC DPS.  You can combine the two according the following: Damage taken = (1 - Avoidance) x (1 - Mitigation). To give you an idea of how monks and guardians were balanced in ver. 1.0 of the combat changes, I will plug in some actual numbers for you.  Both were from level 45 players. Monk Damage Taken = (1 - 51.5% avoidance) x (1 - 22.2% mitigation) = 38.5% Guardian Damage Taken = (1 - 37.3% avoidance) x (1 - 41.1% mitigation) = 36.9% In otherwords, on average, if both tanks are fighting an even-con NPC that does 100 DPS, the Monk will take 38.5 DPS, and the Guardian will take 36.9.  Since lower is better, the Guardian wins, but only by a small amount. These numbers are no longer relevant, though, because now we have ver 2.0 of the combat changes, and everything is different.  However I am just trying to point out to you that yes, all fighters must be half-breeds, as you say, because avoidance and mitigation are tied at the hip.  Another point to keep in mind is that avoidance generally scales different from mitigation.  For instance, if you have an avoidance rate of 50%, you are likely to dodge only 35-30% of the incoming blows from a mob that is 1 or 2 levels higher than you.  On the other hand, mitigation doesn't get cut down as quickly. Because avoidance scales more sharply than mitigation does, a fighter that favors mitigation will always have an advantage when fighting particularly strong opponents, especially those of a yellow or higher con.  This is the real reason why plate tanks are preferred as the MT in a raid. For the same reason, you cannot make a tank that is 10% avoidance / 90% mitigation.  For such a tank, all encounters would be trivial because mitigation scales so much more steadily than avoidance does.. meaning even against a red-con encounter, that tank would probably still absorb 70% of all incoming damage. But regardless.. ALL these things are in flux right now, and not really worth debating.  Base avoidance numbers were just changed again.. a typical player will have a base avoidance of around 26%, and can expect to get a few more % out of that from AGI.  Shields account for a VERY significant portion of any melee class' avoidance.. any heavy tank that does not use a shield under the new combat mechanics will be missing a very important aspect of their defense. Likewise, all armor now has associated bonuses and penalties to avoidance.  A base avoidance of 15-20% is typical of heavy-armor wearing players, whereas players wearing medium might be closer to 25%, and light armor wearers could get above 30%.  These numbers are before parry and shield block btw. The net result is that brawlers do indeed reign supreme for avoidance these days.. and Guardians who expect to get 100% avoidance out of the new combat mechanics will be in for a rude awakening; it's not going to happen.</span><div></div>

[Elda]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Opaki wrote: <FONT color=#ffcc00>(edited for brevity)</FONT><BR> <P>I never meant to imply that on a raid, fighters other than the MT are useless or even "simply DPSing." I understand how you took what I said to mean that though.</P> <P>My point was, more directly, that <STRONG>when a fighter is not MTing a raid, they are not performing their archetype function</STRONG>, INSOFAR as that is understood to be tanking. I graciously accept Seb's revisions. </P> <P><BR></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>This is such a great point, and gives tremendous insight into the lack of balance in recent MMORPGS.</P> <P>I must digress for a brief moment to explain a mechanism which highlights this particular problem. There are three varieties of tasks (in cognitive psychology). Conjunctive, Disjunctive, and Additive.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P><STRONG>Additive</STRONG> tasks are those in which each member does his job, and total outcome is dependant on every members performance, like a relay race, or the class average on a test. One especially bad members score can be made up by a good members score, and vice versa.</P> <P><STRONG>Conjunctive</STRONG> tasks are those where each member does his job, but total outcome is heavily dependant on the weakest members performance, like a musical concert. A good member cannot make up for the mistakes of a bad member; you'll hear his horrible playing and it will ruin the entire performace.</P> <P><STRONG>Disjunctive</STRONG> tasks are those where each member does his job, but  total outcome is heavily dependant on the strongest members performance, like a crowd of people all racing together to catch a runaway baby carriage. Even if there are 100 slow runners, one fast runner can catch the baby carriage and save the day...and become the hero.<BR></P> <P>Sorry for the psych lesson, but I swear I'm going somewhere here with this....</P> <P> </P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>In MMORPGs, especially those in the vein of EQ, there are six main roles a character can play. The issue that opaki just brought to light is obvious, but subtle at the same time. Each of these main roles in an MMORPG is a different type of task, and that has major effects on class balance.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P><STRONG>1) Healing:</STRONG> <FONT color=#ffcc00>Additive task</FONT>. The more healers the better. There are very few issues with healer spell stacking, so having a weaker healer working with a more powerful healer will still get the job done better than having just one healer alone.</P> <P><STRONG>2) DPS'ing:</STRONG> <FONT color=#ffcc00>Additive task</FONT>. The more DPS the better. There are some issues with DPS stacking within the same class, however, other than this, group DPS will still be improved by adding a second or third DPS to the group, even if they aren't as powerful as the first DPS.</P> <P><STRONG>3) Helping group members prevent damage</STRONG> (buffs/debuffs): <FONT color=#ffcc00>Additive Task</FONT>: Generally buffs/debuffs stack rather well across archtypes with some exceptions, but even in those exceptions, the stronger buff wins out...meaning the weaker buff doesnt hurt anyone.</P> <P><STRONG>4) Helping group members deal more damage</STRONG> (buffs/debuffs): <FONT color=#ffcc00>Additive Task</FONT>: same as above. There generally isn't a way for other group members to mess up your offensive procs, or debuffs.</P> <P><STRONG>5) Crowd Control:</STRONG> <FONT color=#ff3300>Conjunctive Task: </FONT>No matter how good your enchanter is, all you need is one knucklehead who refuses to /assist to wake up all those anrgy monsters. Having good crowd control is just as dependent on the weakest (in this case dumbest) members of your group as it is your chanter. Throwing more chanters at the problem won't stop that [Removed for Content] from waking up mobs.</P> <P><STRONG>6) Tanking:</STRONG> <FONT color=#ff3300>Disjunctive Task:</FONT> You can have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 tanks in a group, but only one of them at a time is generally tanking....only the "best" one. In fact, other tanks in the group really have nothing to contribute to the actual tanking, which we've defined as <U>Mitigating damage, Avoiding Damage and Maintaining Agro</U>. Even if they cast buffs on the Real Tank, they are simply performing role 3, helping group members prevent damage. Even if they DPS they are performing role 2 (DPS). I guess there really "can be only one".</P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P> </P> <P>All of this is basically confirming Opaki's point, and highlighting that <STRONG>tanking is the only major group role that can be filled by ONLY one character at a time</STRONG>. In my opinion this is a issue with tanking, and not just a issue with the tanks themselves, in part due to the simplistic nature of the aggro system and enemy behavior.</P> <P>Now, obviously, the EQ2 tanking system is going to stay pretty close to it's current state, and I'm certainly not suggesting that it do otherwise. I am just drawing attention to the reason why fighter balance is a more visible issue than priest balance, or scout balance.</P> <P>For example, I'm a defiler, my healing is rather gimpish compared to a Templar. But a group with a templar will still value my healing services, because adding my gimpish healing power will still increase their overall healing. Even though I don't heal quite as well as a templar, I do still get to heal when I am in a group with a Templar (which is good, b/c templars are the 2nd most popular class in the game). I can also perform my secondary role, debuffing enemies, while I perform lighter duty on my primary role (because there is another healer present).</P> <P>A Shadowknight(or pally or bruiser....) however, doesn't have this luxury. Even if their tanking skill is only slightly worse than a Guardians, a group who already has a Guardian will not want them for their tanking ability. They may want the SK for his DPS, or a bruiser for his MT buffs, but the group with a Guardian will not invite them to Tank, as that role is already taken. Thusly, the SK in a group with a Guardian, has no choice but to perform his secondary role, and ONLY his secondary role.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

[Ibis]

<span><blockquote><hr>DUNN wrote:<p>Let me put it in a Sk prospective</p> <p>-Wards are broken i get hit for more damage when i use them </p><div></div><hr></blockquote> I came in to speak on one issue.  This is not true.  I'm tired of hearing shamans and crusaders saying it. Its a lie based on bad or non-existant testing.  If there are a few wards that aren't behaving properly, they are the exception and not the rule.  I tank extensively in single groups and raids, receiving wards all the time (hell my shoulders PROC a ward) and I NEVER take maximum damage.  Damage is always properly mitigated.  So quit repeating this nonsense.</span><div></div>

[Elda]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Nibblar wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000> Information in Official Game Guide is provided by SOE, it explains THEIR (SOE) intent on how each class is implemented.  Its their game and they get to decide how things work.  People pick their classes based on how SOE built it.  If it doesnt match SOEs intent they will change it.  If you read the Offical Game Guide you will see the current classes follow SOEs intent, except the stuff that is currently broke.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000 size=3>Suggestion, read SOEs information prior to selecting your class... will prevent dissatisfaction later on.</FONT></P> <P> </P></BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Nibblar, can you post this information you keep referring to about SoE's intent on how each class is implemented? I'd like to see something which <STRONG>objectively</STRONG> described the tanking ability of each class, placing various tanks in a hierarchy.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[uzhiel feathered serpe]

<DIV>Nibblar....no, it has not been a while since mitigation is show that way..if you look at your stats it shows a percentage..if you look at another player it shows up as a number.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>BTW, it does NOT matter whether they are buffed or not..By that rationale, since a Guard can be buffed to 100% avoidance, a bruiser / monk should be able to be buffed to 100% mitigation, right?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by uzhiel feathered serpent on <span class=date_text>04-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:55 PM</span>

[djinnz]

<DIV>i dont care what disclaimers they post, the game is out its been out for months, we have invested time, made our choices as to class. fix the bugs and leave it the [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] alone. let us play the bloody game, stop nerfing us everytime we get the better of somthing. </DIV>

[Nibbl]

<P> </P><p>Message Edited by Nibblar on <span class=date_text>08-10-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:45 AM</span>

[Opa]

<span><blockquote><hr>Sebastien wrote:<span> Opaki do you play on test btw? </span><div></div><hr></blockquote>Negatory. I just somehow ended up in this thread, and kept betting people to prove things so much it was hard to make my escape. You're right about the mitigation numbers most likely. I don't know. I always stop short of doing the math.</span><div></div>

[Nibbl]

<P> </P><p>Message Edited by Nibblar on <span class=date_text>08-10-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:44 AM</span>

[Blackdog183]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ibishi wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> DUNN wrote:<BR> <P>Let me put it in a Sk prospective</P> <P>-Wards are broken i get hit for more damage when i use them </P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I came in to speak on one issue.  This is not true.  I'm tired of hearing shamans and crusaders saying it. Its a lie based on bad or non-existant testing.  If there are a few wards that aren't behaving properly, they are the exception and not the rule.  I tank extensively in single groups and raids, receiving wards all the time (hell my shoulders PROC a ward) and I NEVER take maximum damage.  Damage is always properly mitigated.  So quit repeating this nonsense.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Ibishi, You are lying, thru your [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]ing teeth you are lying, and I will show the proof shortly</P> <P>Level 45 SOLO mobs hit me for maximum of 250, my ward absorbes 496 points of damage.  It gets brought down in 1 HIT.</P> <P>So if it were mitigated it WOULD last more than ONE hit.   The fact here is, your speaking out your butt.  Youve done it a few times now, screenshots will be along once I have a chance to goto EF and make em up for you.</P> <P>They are unmitigated, any SK with half a clue knows it, and as a side note, YOU ARE NOT A SK, HOW THE HELL WOULD YOU KNOW!  Jesus, I wish you would just Shut the hell up and quit talking out ur hind end.</P> <P> </P> <P>Screen shots will be along shortly</P> <DIV>EDIT: removed the foul language(there be farrbots about)</DIV><p>Message Edited by Blackdog183 on <span class=date_text>04-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:04 PM</span>

[Blackdog183]

<DIV><A href="http://eq2players.station.sony.com/en/image_view.vm?imageId=331320#" target=_blank><IMG height=731 alt="" src="http://eq2images.station.sony.com/000/000/651/499.jpg" width=388 border=0></A>                   </DIV> <DIV>        <A href="http://eq2players.station.sony.com/en/image_view.vm?imageId=331322#" target=_blank><IMG height=733 alt="" src="http://eq2images.station.sony.com/000/000/651/503.jpg" width=383 border=0></A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I intentionally went against mobs lower con than me, so that I could allow them to hit me for an extended period to establish a baseline.</DIV> <DIV>As you can clearly see, the mob was hitting me for on average less than 100 damage, its highest was with a special at 226</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As you can also clearly see, the ward was hit much harder, because it DOES NOT MITIGATE THE DAMAGE.  I cannot speak to wether or not warden's have this same issue, but its a fact with SK's.</DIV>

[Ishnar]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Blackdog183 wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ibishi wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> DUNN wrote:<BR> <P>Let me put it in a Sk prospective</P> <P>-Wards are broken i get hit for more damage when i use them</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I came in to speak on one issue.  This is not true.  I'm tired of hearing shamans and crusaders saying it. Its a lie based on bad or non-existant testing.  If there are a few wards that aren't behaving properly, they are the exception and not the rule.  I tank extensively in single groups and raids, receiving wards all the time (hell my shoulders PROC a ward) and I NEVER take maximum damage.  Damage is always properly mitigated.  So quit repeating this nonsense.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Ibishi, You are lying, thru your [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]ing teeth you are lying, and I will show the proof shortly</P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Screenshots noted but your not reading what Ibishi said.  Ibishi was replying to Dunn who said that he gets hit for MORE with wards than without.  Which is completely false, wards do mitigate damage but the the damage mitigated my the ward is not mitigated.  Meaning that if ward damage were mitigated then more damage would get through and using a ward would be a mistake.</P> <P>Perhaps there is a scaling problem at higher levels where the wards are not making a large enough difference.  But they trivialize green group mobs and green group named mobs at my level.  But Wards definitly DO NOT increase the damage taken.   The damage mitigated is not mitigated is all.   Normal combat damage is mitigated so the ward damage SHOULD always be higher than normal damage taken.</P> <P>But if a ward is only lasting one or two hits the ward is broken and needs fixing.</P> <P>Ishnar</P> <P><BR> </P> <p>Message Edited by Ishnar on <span class=date_text>04-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:26 PM</span>

[Ishbu]

<P>I dont see the problem here.  </P> <P>Everyone knew coming in that monks and bruisers would be doing some decent dps, they couldnt honestly expect to tank just as well as a guardian too.  Its not like monks and bruisers dont tank well anyways.  Often times my guild uses a bruiser or a monk to off tank, and if things get hairy the brawler type will step in and regen control of mob we are fighting.  </P>

[Blackdog183]

<P>I think this person may have made a common misperception that he was taking more damage when he wasnt, it happens alot.</P> <P>Wards do not mitiage damage in any way shape or form.  They <STRONG><EM><U>prevent </U></EM></STRONG>damage, hence them being a damage shield.  This is way a player would see</P> <P> </P> <P>Mob X hits you for 100 damage(using simpe number)</P> <P>Mob x hits you for 100 damage</P> <P>(cast ward)</P> <P>Your ward absorbes 400 points of damage</P> <P>Mob x hits you for 100 points on damage</P> <P>Player sees, OMG! I just got hit for 400 points of damage when I used my ward.  Common mistake.</P> <P>Ibishi was basically claiming that all SK's(and it would appear wardens) are lying...when infact he/she obviosuly has no clue what the hell theyre talking about.  </P> <DIV>Ibishi made the following statement "I'm tired of hearing shamans and crusaders saying it. Its a lie based on bad or non-existant testing"</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You know what Ibishi, Im tired of little dip[expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]s without a clue calling people liers, especially when its something that HAS been tested, many times over.  Once again, keep your head outta the sand woulda.  Stop speaking on topics to which you dont have a friggen clue about.</DIV>

[Ibis]

<div></div><div></div>I didnt say a thing about wardens. I will continue to refute that wards are in any way broken.  I wasnt very clear in my statement, I know that wards themselves do not mitigate damage.  I know exactly what I'm talking about - the damage received upon termination of a ward is properly mitigated.  Saying anything other than this is a lie or a falsity.  I refuse to distinguish semantics due to the absolute hostility and stupidity for which this statement is repeated as a point of "imbalance" regarding the crusader and shaman classes. This is another attempt by blackdog to take my words out of their intended context to suit her needs and further the idea that SKs are the victims of the fighter archetype. <div></div><p>Message Edited by Ibishi on <span class=date_text>04-29-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:17 AM</span>

[Chanliang]

<span><blockquote><hr><font color="#ff0000">Moorgard: "All I can tell you is what we intend for the near future, and everything--EVERYTHING--is subject to change."</font><hr></blockquote> Well that is best line that MG has ever wrote <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> but back to topic it's about time that they announce how SOE views tanking and subclasses roles and difference. Current situation is like that actually more or less but finally we can get rid of this this "I think it should go like this..." thinking. Tanking concept can be understanded in many ways and in EQ2 it contains elements dps/defences/buffs.  Well it was kinda expected outcome if you do loads of damage you'll have to have lower defences. What comes to ward issues they are totally broken in my books. Yes they prevent some damage and of course keep tank alive longer but if you have heals they're way better of keeping target alive past levels 30+  but current implementation sucks big time. </span><div></div>

[Trei]

<div></div>For what its worth, I don't think there is any simple way to make wards adopt the exact same AC as the target it is casted on. The best that could be done, imo, would be to give a fixed AC type rating per spell level. ie:  ward I : light AC ward II : medium AC ward III : heavy AC  etc.. with higher tiers for each spell level increasing the max damage absorbable. OR the other way round where spell level determines max damage absorbable, and spell tier determining AC factor. app: light adp: medium mas: heavy Thoughts? <div></div><p>Message Edited by Trei49 on <span class=date_text>04-29-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:02 AM</span>

[Blackdog183]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ibishi wrote:<BR> I didnt say a thing about wardens.<BR><BR>I will continue to refute that wards are in any way broken.  I wasnt very clear in my statement, I know that wards themselves do not mitigate damage.  I know exactly what I'm talking about - the damage received upon termination of a ward is properly mitigated.  Saying anything other than this is a lie or a falsity.  I refuse to distinguish semantics due to the absolute hostility and stupidity for which this statement is repeated as a point of "imbalance" regarding the crusader and shaman classes.<BR><BR>This is another attempt by blackdog to take my words out of their intended context to suit her needs and further the idea that SKs are the victims of the fighter archetype.<BR> <P>Message Edited by Ibishi on <SPAN class=date_text>04-29-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>03:17 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Ibishi, do you even remember saying this:</P> <P>"I came in to speak on one issue.  This is not true. <STRONG><EM><U> I'm tired of hearing shamans and crusaders saying it. Its a lie based on bad or non-existant testing</U></EM></STRONG>.  If there are a few wards that aren't behaving properly, they are the exception and not the rule.  I tank extensively in single groups and raids, receiving wards all the time (hell my shoulders PROC a ward) and I NEVER take maximum damage.  Damage is always properly mitigated.  So quit repeating this nonsense."<BR></P> <DIV>By the way, no I did not take your words out of context, I took them in exactly the context you used them, you called Crusaders and shamans liers based on non-existant testing.  I later proved you dead wrong with screenies.  Now I will however concede one point, AFTER the ward if done, your damage returns to normal mitigated damage, I dont think anyone(I know I didnt) said it doesent.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Basically what this was is apples and oranged, Crusaders and Shamans themselves are a little annoyed about the weakness of wards in the endgame, because the damage DEALT TO THE SHIELD ITSELF is not mitigated, this making the shields very weak, and for a SK, very expensive in the power department.  You were saying that after the shield terminated, normal mitigation rules are followed, which they are.  I wont argue that point with you, because your right, after the shield is gone, you mitigate damage correctly.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <P>EDIT: <P>" I refuse to distinguish semantics due to the absolute hostility and stupidity for which this statement is repeated as a point of "imbalance" regarding the crusader and shaman classes." <P>You know what Ibishi, Im tired of little dip[expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]s without a clue calling people liers, especially when its something that HAS been tested, many times over.  Once again, keep your head outta the sand woulda.  Stop speaking on topics to which you dont have a friggen clue about.  The reason you get this hostility is because you tend to speak on topics to which you have no friggen clue.  The poster of that comment was seeing exactly what I described in my post above, a common mistake.  You were all too happy to jump in his [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot], and try to prove him wrong, when infact you too were talking about 2 tottaly different things.    When speaking on tank balance, there is a serious issue of concern here, especially when I see guardians running around saying "SK's have wards and lifetaps"  Honest to god, those lifetaps and wards just plain suck.  No ifs ands or buts about it, they suck.  Im currently working on some numbers to show you exactly how underpowered they are, but it will be a little while(as I need to make shure Im right before I post them, I know what a concept) <P> <P> </P> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P> <P>Message Edited by Blackdog183 on <SPAN class=date_text>04-29-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>07:16 AM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Blackdog183 on <span class=date_text>04-29-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:07 AM</span>

[VizP]

<div></div>Quote: 'BTW warden is a subclass of shaman, so yes you were infact talking about wardens too' --- Are you sure? You'll find this is the priest composition: Cleric: Templar,  Inquisitor Druid: Warden <==, Fury Shaman: Mystic, Defiler You did not know which classes make up shamans? Sorry its just that I have a defiler in my 30s and I am wondering how people can discuss ward issues to such depths without even knowing which classes actually deal primarily with them. <div></div><p>Message Edited by VizP on <span class=date_text>04-29-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:28 AM</span>

[uzhiel feathered serpe]

<P>when the dust clears, blackdog is right about wards.</P> <P>I'm a Paladin. Telling Crusaders to use wards and heals as aggro tools and that they somehow balance us against guards is ignorant, bordering on stupid.</P> <P>Using a ward costs almost 200 power, and they dont create NEARLY as much hate as the 3 to 4 taunts that Guards can use for that much power.</P> <P>Asfor the mitigation..a ward works for a character as if that character was baseline.  It wards 400 damage because thats how much damage a person takes without taking into account armor, resists, lvl, etc...</P> <P>at least thats how it seems to work, IMO.</P>

[Dracoviol]

<div></div><div></div>The argument also neglects the fact that guardians also have slows.  While the power of their slows are not game breaking either are pally heals and wards.  And please say oh they arent that helpfull neither are crusader heals and wards. <div></div><p> <span class="time_text"></span></p><p>Message Edited by Dracoviolet on <span class=date_text>04-29-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:06 AM</span>

[Blackdog183]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> VizP wrote:<BR> Quote: 'BTW warden is a subclass of shaman, so yes you were infact talking about wardens too'<BR><BR>---<BR><BR>Are you sure? You'll find this is the priest composition:<BR><BR>Cleric: Templar,  Inquisitor<BR>Druid: Warden <==, Fury<BR>Shaman: Mystic, Defiler<BR><BR>You did not know which classes make up shamans? Sorry its just that I have a defiler in my 30s and I am wondering how people can discuss ward issues to such depths without even knowing which classes actually deal primarily with them.<BR> <P>Message Edited by VizP on <SPAN class=date_text>04-29-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>07:28 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Ack I stand corrected, please change all my "warden" above to "shaman" lol

[Blackdog183]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dracoviolet wrote:<BR> The argument also neglects the fact that guardians also have slows.  While the power of their slows are not game breaking either are pally heals and wards.  And please say oh they arent that helpfull neither are crusader heals and wards.<BR> <P><BR><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN></P> <P>Message Edited by Dracoviolet on <SPAN class=date_text>04-29-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>09:06 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Are they useful/power efficient enough for you to bother using?  My SK heals and wards are hardly ever used(ward used to assist in aggro generation, thats it) because they simply cost WAY more than they are worth.  Also are these attack speed slows, or movement speed slows.

[uzhiel feathered serpe]

<P>it seems to be that the Guardians whole arguement that tanks are balanced is Crusaders heals and wards.</P> <P>Give me a break, because we can talk about:</P> <OL> <LI> <DIV align=left>Deafen : Taunt + Attack speed debuff + Power damage</DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV align=left>Anchor : Attack speed + movement debuff</DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV align=left>Desperate Rush: Attack speed buff while draining power</DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV align=left>Return to Battle : HP + <FONT color=#ff0000>defense buff</FONT>, grants STR buff when ends</DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV align=left>Iron Conviction : STA buff </DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV align=left>Fortified Stance : Reduced Offense for <FONT color=#ff0000>Increased Defence</FONT> and Crushing resists</DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV align=left>Commanding Presence : Group AC + HP + STA buff <BR></DIV></LI></OL> <P align=left>Not to mention, Hold the Line..the freebie AE hate proc. Also, Guards can use ANY weapon and get Tower shields.</P> <P align=left>Now, do you wish to compare Crusader Utility to Guardian Utility? You mean my heals and wards magically balance me against Guards? because I can compare lvl 40 to 50 skills and see which ones are more useful..</P> <OL> <LI> <DIV align=left>Display of Devotion: Single Target Ward (150+mana cost) (wards for 500 to 600) really useful for those spells Raid mobs love to use, right?</DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV align=left>Devout Sacrament: Big heal with a medium recast timer (only usable to heal the crusader, Recast: 300s)</DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV align=left>Condemnation: An attack that does slashing+crushing debuff and also heals a small amount of HP ( debuffs slashing and crushing for 80 apiece, worthless) (heal for 30 or so)</DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV align=left>Benediction: Reduce Slashing+Crushing skills for Defense and Divine Resist (does not gain hate, regardless of description)</DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV align=left>Prayer of Conviction: Group WIS+Power buff (13 wisdom(?) and 120 power gain)</DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV align=left>Pious Aid: Standard heal with short recast (130+ mana cost)</DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV align=left>Crusade: Single Target STR+STA+WIS buff. (costs 1 concentration slot per cast) can only be used to buff the Crusader and 1 other char, if the crusader uses a stance.)</DIV></LI> <LI> <DIV align=left>Elixir of Resuscitation: Combat rez.<BR></DIV></LI></OL> <P align=left>So..which one has more utility? In a raid or an Xp grp they are about even or the Guard has more. Look at the Guard grp buffs and Paladin grp buffs.</P> <P align=left>Also, we get ONE def upgrade and 3 taunts..past lvl 40. Guardians can use FIVE taunts and get 2 def buffs, which is HUGE considering it lets them tank like a lvl 54 guard or 57 guard.</P> <P align=left>Notice the STA and hit points buffs that guards get...now you see why we get heals..they OFFSET each other. Now, SoE is putting us in direct competition with Guards in the HEAVY tank category, and when Crusaders are asking for some help, Guards come in screaming that if we get upgraded, that guards will be made useless. </P> <P align=left>Give me a break. How many times do i ward myself and use heals before I'm OOP? Because those extra def buffs make</P> <P align=left>Lets see..dirges get the same combat rez and they are ALOT more utility that Paladins..so these goes that theory. DPS? just throw in a warlock or a wizard..using DPS as an excuse for Palys? umm..</P> <P align=left>We are not asking for Guards to get nerfed. We are asking for us to get some upgrades if we are to truly compete, but guards keep posting excuses as to why we shouldnt. Why? because then Guards will just be one of the tanks, instead of The Tank?</P> <P align=left>blah blah blah about I picked my guard to tank and thats why I picked him. Guess what? Most of us picked tanks for the same reason.</P> <P> </P><p>Message Edited by uzhiel feathered serpent on <span class=date_text>04-29-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:53 AM</span>

[DUNN]

Well if i am wrong about the Wards so be it i will accept it, but right now  wards out not effective to use. If i were you I would stop trying to pick a fight with the Sk wrong class to try to justify your current in game status with.  Can we tank?  Yes and again i will say it again. We can do the job but everyone else does it better.

[Ibis]

<div></div>yes you did take my words out of context.  I was responding exclusively to dunn's comment that using wards creates more damage.  you didnt even bother refuting your fellow crusader, not minding that he was perpetuating a lie about your class's abilities to further the argument that you're somehow unbalanced.  I, on the other hand, step down on any guardian who underplays or overplays our abilties every single time I spot it.  I'm not here to win you over, you're stupid.  I know the devs know how the game works and if I'm going to have a discussion in view of them, I'm not going to lie about how my abilities work.  You're not going to get anyone's respect by lying or allowing lies to continue on part of your class.  Dunn may not know that he is being untruthful, and that would mean hes ignorant and is simply speaking falsely without malice.  You on the other hand apparently did know he was being untruthful and chose not to respond.  That is the kind of behavior that gains my disrespect.  I didn't scream at Dunn.  I very concisely, and severely, stated that ONE thing that he said in his whole statement was untrue.  I had no strong issue with his other points.  It was indeed untrue, I was correct.  And it does need to stop being said.  So your issue with me here is personal and not professional.  Get over it. I have not once lied about my class or yours and you have yet to actually display a lie I have said.  Your willingness to disregard the context of my statements doesn't get you anywhere outside the crusader archetype.  And you're continually dismissive of your class's ability, even asking Moorgard for some weak /reclass command.  If you don't love and enjoy the basic idea of your class you need to reroll, not beg to be made the best tank or even an equal one. You also underplay your offensive ability.  Using a very similar weapon, with similar stats and buffs, an SK in my guild has done 240+ dps compared to my ability to barely touch 200.  He has a few more powerful upgrades to his damage abilities than I do, and I have put more effort into my tanking abilities than he has.  justly we both excel in each field due to the effort we've put into those fields.  That is a larger gap than the gap between guardian and shadowknight tanking.  He does 6/5 my DPS or like 120%.  I do not tank at quite 120% of his ability.  Why?  b/c his DPS is more effectively manipulated by his own abilities, my tanking is more effectively manipulated by priests.  the difference in our tanking if we were to assume the same position within the MT group would be much less than 20%, yet in the same position in a DPS group the gap is indeed 20% and usually a bit wider.  Shadowknights don't sacrifice very much defense to gain quite a bit of offense.  I'm not even saying they should.  defense doesn't stack as well as offense and gains to it should be smaller than gains to offense.  The system isn't perfect and is under revision, but the tradeoffs are in the favor of shadowknights right now, not guardians.  Guardians do ONE thing well and as I've said, not that much better.  Shadowknights have always made sacrifices to defense to receive offensive benefits, you likely even knew this coming in.  The sacrifices are not large, but you're not happy that you have to make any at all.  You can't be everything, thats not how interdependency works. SKs are tanks, SKs are good tanks, and SKs can tank every x4 epic in existance.  Guardians do it a little better.  Guardians have less DPS in every single circumstance than an SK.  What is your problem with the system?  You were never supposed to be equal, but the difference in tanking is very very small.  As I pointed out before, you don't even know how to have your avoidance reach 100% vs L50.  Any fighter can get that number under the right circumstances.  You clearly have a good deal more to learn about how the game works if you can't achieve that rather easy goal.  Having a guardian tank and a crusader aid-tank is optimal, but not required.  That fulfills the mission statement of the fighter archetype.  My class, nor yours, is required.  We both make substantial contributions to the raid. <div></div>

[Blackdog183]

<P>Ibishi do you remember my little post at the top of this page, go read it again, you may have missed it, once youve done that a few times, read it again just to be shure.</P> <P>I did acknowledge Dunns mistake, as quite clearly shown above, as well as in screenshots, its a common mistake made by many(hell I made that mistake at one time)</P> <P>As an additional note, IF I wanted to be a DPS class I [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] shure would not have went with a SK, I would have been a warlock.  Thats the entire basis for your argument is that SK's do a little more damage.  Woopy [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]ing do, 40 dps is insignifigant when compared to what we sacrifice to get that.  Also note, that is very limited, YES a shadowknight CAN get that high, but he is going to burn all of his power doing so.</P> <P>Ibishi, there is one thing you said that particulary stood out:</P> <P>"Guardians do ONE thing well and as I've said, not that much better"  This is NOT TRUE.</P> <P>Guardians do  everything better than every other tank class, with exeption to DPS</P> <P>Taunts are better</P> <P>Power use is better</P> <P>Better MIT</P> <P>Better avoidance</P> <P>better by stat bonuses</P> <P>best weapon selection in the game</P> <P>etc etc etc</P> <P>theres one(JUST ONE) thing a shadowknight, or any other tank class can do a little(40 dps is a little) better, and that is toss some damage at the mob.</P> <P>You also said that the difference in tanking is very small, that too is a lie.  The differnce is 3 FRIGGEN LEVELS.  Thats not small, or insignifigant, thats a whole helluva lot of difference.</P> <P> </P>

[Ibis]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>uzhiel feathered serpent wrote:<div></div> <p>it seems to be that the Guardians whole arguement that tanks are balanced is Crusaders heals and wards.</p> <p>Give me a break, because we can talk about:</p> <ol> <li> <div align="left">Deafen : Taunt + Attack speed debuff + Power damage</div></li> <li> <div align="left">Anchor : Attack speed + movement debuff</div></li> <li> <div align="left">Desperate Rush: Attack speed buff while draining power</div></li> <li> <div align="left">Return to Battle : HP + <font color="#ff0000">defense buff</font>, grants STR buff when ends</div></li> <li> <div align="left">Iron Conviction : STA buff </div></li> <li> <div align="left">Fortified Stance : Reduced Offense for <font color="#ff0000">Increased Defence</font> and Crushing resists</div></li> <li> <div align="left">Commanding Presence : Group AC + HP + STA buff </div></li></ol><font color="#ffff00">the increased defense on stance doesnt stack will call of protection so you can hush up about that.  call of protection btw is the big one you didnt list.  iron conviction loses its gain with good equipment due to softcap.  commanding presence is a short buff.  anchor is used only to offtank, you fail to describe the downsides (plural) to that ability and I'll let you go find it and post it yourself.  I'm not doing your homework for you.  explain to me whats wrong with deafen? </font> <p align="left">Not to mention, Hold the Line..the freebie AE hate proc. Also, Guards can use ANY weapon and get Tower shields. </p> <p align="left"><font color="#ffff00">the only weapon restriction you have is piercing.  I didnt make this choice, I don't support this choice.  This is not a weapon to be used against guardians.  Discuss it with the developers.  If I understood the reasoning behind it I might defend it or define it.  It does not hinder you much beyond the stats you'd receive from bows as 1) there are very few 1 handed piercers 2) 2handed ones are also rare and suck 3) you cant dual wield, where most of them are.  the stats you'd get from bows are a drop in the bucket compared to what you get while MTing a raid mob.  But I'd just as soon let you all wear bows so you can shutup about it.</font> </p> <p align="left">Now, do you wish to compare Crusader Utility to Guardian Utility? You mean my heals and wards magically balance me against Guards? because I can compare lvl 40 to 50 skills and see which ones are more useful..</p> <ol> <li> <div align="left">Display of Devotion: Single Target Ward (150+mana cost) (wards for 500 to 600) really useful for those spells Raid mobs love to use, right?</div></li> <li> <div align="left">Devout Sacrament: Big heal with a medium recast timer (only usable to heal the crusader, Recast: 300s)</div></li> <li> <div align="left">Condemnation: An attack that does slashing+crushing debuff and also heals a small amount of HP ( debuffs slashing and crushing for 80 apiece, worthless) (heal for 30 or so)</div></li> <li> <div align="left">Benediction: Reduce Slashing+Crushing skills for Defense and Divine Resist (does not gain hate, regardless of description)</div></li> <li> <div align="left">Prayer of Conviction: Group WIS+Power buff (13 wisdom(?) and 120 power gain)</div></li> <li> <div align="left">Pious Aid: Standard heal with short recast (130+ mana cost)</div></li> <li> <div align="left">Crusade: Single Target STR+STA+WIS buff. (costs 1 concentration slot per cast) can only be used to buff the Crusader and 1 other char, if the crusader uses a stance.)</div></li> <li> <div align="left">Elixir of Resuscitation: Combat rez.</div></li></ol><font color="#ffff00">I wish I had combat rez.  outline that one in red if you're going to poke at guardians with red highlights.  so you get a stamina buff too? awww and I was hoping there was some super guardian imbalance.  how much STR, STA, and WIS does it give? those 3 stats I put to good use when tanking.  I wish I had more than a stamina buff.  if a raid mob can do 10k with an atk, you ward for 500. you reduced the mob's maximum hit to 9.5k and then the rest of the damage goes into the proper mitigation.  thats 5% right?  so doesnt aht make a 500 point ward worth 5% mitigation against a mob that hits for 10k?  and unless its a sorcerer NPC it won't be hitting that hard.  I don't see why crusaders are complaining about the ability to grant 5%+ mitigation over and over for a duration, against any damage type.  as I'll say below, perhaps cost to effect is out of line, but this will likely be addressed in healer balance and the spell system overhaul as I'm hoping so will some of my useless and broken abilities (even 40-50 ones) will be.</font> <p align="left">So..which one has more utility? In a raid or an Xp grp they are about even or the Guard has more. Look at the Guard grp buffs and Paladin grp buffs.</p> <p align="left">Also, we get ONE def upgrade and 3 taunts..past lvl 40. Guardians can use FIVE taunts and get 2 def buffs, which is HUGE considering it lets them tank like a lvl 54 guard or 57 guard. </p> <p align="left"><font color="#ffff00">as I've said before I can self buff to tank up to level 56 effectiveness and can get up to 60+ from buffs given to me by other classes.  its an enjoyable amount of avoidance, and its justly being nerfed.  I appreciate and am glad for the nerf.  encounters are not fun with this level of avoidance. </font></p> <p align="left"><font color="#ffff00">we get 3 taunts past 40 too. taunting assault, deafen, and protect.  we cant use protect on epic mobs. we have to use a level 23 group taunt on epics in place of it since its broken.  in addition to that we can use 3-4 other taunts  that we begin getting at level 11 or so - the taunting blow line of attacks - and hold the line.  not sure where you got the number 5.  I also use shield bash though it has no threat component, the alledged stun seems to annoy mobs slightly.  I've said before that the taunting blow line should share a timer.  I believe its incorrect that we can use each one independently even though its clearly a coherent spell line. </font></p> <p align="left">Notice the STA and hit points buffs that guards get...now you see why we get heals..they OFFSET each other. Now, SoE is putting us in direct competition with Guards in the HEAVY tank category, and when Crusaders are asking for some help, Guards come in screaming that if we get upgraded, that guards will be made useless. </p> <p align="left"><font color="#ffff00">yes, you will.  the greatest upgrades to tanking are not cast by guardians, but by priests.  you do not need substantial upgrades to avoidance or mitigation. you dont even need small ones. we wear the same equipment except for shields, and I use a kite shield personally. my greatest tanking advantage is being nerfed on test as we speak.  guardians are capable of exploiting the system and thats being removed.  shadowknights, if not paladins, can also reach excessive amounts of defense skill.  you do not need to be raised to the point where guardians tank right now at the same time that guardians are being brought down to tank at more realistic levels.  I remind you, once more, guardians are exploiting the system and it is being changed.  And also, guardians have been very open about the ability to buff defense to high amounts for a long time, so this isnt the fault of guardians trying to keep a dire secret to maintain tanking superiority.  all the +def buffs we use are group buffs, in the group with a guardian you can receive their benefits.</font> </p> <p align="left">Give me a break. How many times do i ward myself and use heals before I'm OOP? Because those extra def buffs make</p> <p align="left"><span><font color="#ffff00">cost to effect ratio is a concern.  no one has disagreed with crusaders that the cost of your heals and wards may be out of line.  we're not aware of the mana:ward and mana:heal ratio of your abilities versus priests.  perhaps thats a discussion you should have with them to be able to present a defined imbalance to us and the developers.  we can't comment on a lack of information and since you're the one who wants it changed, the effort is upon you to get the point across.  being vague doesn't serve that purpose. </font></span></p> <p align="left"><font color="#ffff00">for the record I can easily go OOP as well, but rarely while using what I consider my core and most important abilities for aggro and mitigation.</font> <span></span></p> <p align="left">Lets see..dirges get the same combat rez and they are ALOT more utility that Paladins..so these goes that theory. DPS? just throw in a warlock or a wizard..using DPS as an excuse for Palys? umm..</p> <p align="left">We are not asking for Guards to get nerfed. We are asking for us to get some upgrades if we are to truly compete, but guards keep posting excuses as to why we shouldnt. Why? because then Guards will just be one of the tanks, instead of The Tank? </p> <p align="left">blah blah blah about I picked my guard to tank and thats why I picked him. Guess what? Most of us picked tanks for the same reason.</p> <p>Message Edited by uzhiel feathered serpent on <span class="date_text">04-29-2005</span> <span class="time_text">09:53 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote></span><div></div>

[Ibis]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Blackdog183 wrote:<p>Ibishi do you remember my little post at the top of this page, go read it again, you may have missed it, once youve done that a few times, read it again just to be shure.</p> <p>I did acknowledge Dunns mistake, as quite clearly shown above, as well as in screenshots, its a common mistake made by many(hell I made that mistake at one time)</p> <p>As an additional note, IF I wanted to be a DPS class I [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] shure would not have went with a SK, I would have been a warlock.  Thats the entire basis for your argument is that SK's do a little more damage.  Woopy [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]ing do, 40 dps is insignifigant when compared to what we sacrifice to get that.  Also note, that is very limited, YES a shadowknight CAN get that high, but he is going to burn all of his power doing so. </p> <p><font color="#ffff00">and to get anywhere close to 200 I'm sitting at OOM, wearing gebs, pumping manastone, and praying to god that my self haste doesnt expire for lack of mana to maintain the cost.  I didnt say he wouldnt go OOM, but by pointing that out you insinuate that I wouldn't be.  Why would I give you such a bad comparison?  Of course he was throwing mana at the mob. so was I. thats why I offered it as an example, b/c it was a very fair comparison.  grow up.</font> </p> <p>Ibishi, there is one thing you said that particulary stood out:</p> <p>"Guardians do ONE thing well and as I've said, not that much better"  This is NOT TRUE.</p> <p>Guardians do  everything better than every other tank class, with exeption to DPS </p> <p><font color="#ffff00">we dont avoid better than brawlers.  its just that their avoidance capability doesnt make up for their poor mitigation.  that and explotive defense buffs are what brought on the combat change that has you so [Removed for Content].  so dont ignore what brawlers can do, they're at the core of this change, not crusaders.</font> </p> <p>Taunts are better </p> <p><font color="#ffff00">numbers please.</font> </p> <p>Power use is better </p> <p><font color="#ffff00">numbers please.  I've never refuted the truthfulness of this statement, but have continually asked for it to be backed up.</font> </p> <p>Better MIT </p> <p><font color="#ffff00">from what? the tiny buffs we have?  again, priests overshadow those. as do fabled pieces of platemail.  we do mitigate better. thats our largest advantage in the archetype. and on the other side of the spectrum brawlers avoid better.  now the thing is we don't mitigate anywhere near as much as they avoid.  and you mitigate within 1-3% of us on every encounter.</font> </p> <p>Better avoidance </p> <p><font color="#ffff00">from exploits pending to be fixed and tower shields. for that matter an SK in my guild can get within 4 defense skill of me self buffed as I can self buffed. apparently you can exploit the system to a great amount.  you can hit 100% avoidance without a guardian in the group.</font> </p> <p>better by stat bonuses </p> <p><font color="#ffff00">bull[expletive ninja'd by Faarbot], bring me proof.  I've asked for it before.</font> </p> <p>best weapon selection in the game </p> <p><font color="#ffff00">you found that out at like level 9 or earlier. dont [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] at me at level 50 and 6 months later.  you chose to swim upriver on an issue they refuse to budge on.</font> </p> <p>etc etc etc </p> <p><font color="#ffff00">no, there is no etc. etc. thats about all there is and they're bald statements at that. they have been for weeks.  if you want to attack guardian abilities in comparison to your own, you compare them and show us the comparisons.  You've been wrong on so many guardian issues my faith in your knowledge has withered badly.</font> </p> <p>theres one(JUST ONE) thing a shadowknight, or any other tank class can do a little(40 dps is a little) better, and that is toss some damage at the mob. </p> <p><font color="#ffff00">20% better DPS than me in a similar scenario.  in the exact same group as I use when tanking optimally, he will be much closer than 20% to my tanking.  in-fact, he will be 1-3% different or less, b/c his buffs contribute to my mitigation, whereas my buffs don't contribute very much to his.</font> </p> <p>You also said that the difference in tanking is very small, that too is a lie.  The differnce is 3 FRIGGEN LEVELS.  Thats not small, or insignifigant, thats a whole helluva lot of difference. </p> <p><font color="#ffff00">3 levels what?  compared to what?  say again?  as I've said before this post and within this post, an SK in my guild can get within 4 points of defense skill to me without outside help.  and if we're saying total buffage I can exceed 10 levels of extra defense skill. what is this number 3 about?  and no its not a helluva difference. epic mobs counteract avoidance and mitigation to great extent.  I'd be suprised if I was mitigating even at 3/4 of what my persona said, when a raid mob hits me - further removing my small mitigation advantage from buffs.</font> </p> <div></div><hr></blockquote></span><div></div>

[Nibbl]

<DIV><FONT size=2> <P>When are wards factored, before or after all the mitigation is applied? Based on Blackdogs screen shot it appears the ward is applied before armor mitigation is taken into account. Wonder if that is the problem or not? My assumption is it should be applied after. Example using a 500 point ward, 300 point hit, armor mitigates 200, ward absorbs 100, 400 point still on ward. Anyone?</P></FONT></DIV>

[Blackdog183]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ibishi wrote:<BR> <SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Blackdog183 wrote:<BR> <P>Ibishi do you remember my little post at the top of this page, go read it again, you may have missed it, once youve done that a few times, read it again just to be shure.</P> <P>I did acknowledge Dunns mistake, as quite clearly shown above, as well as in screenshots, its a common mistake made by many(hell I made that mistake at one time)</P> <P>As an additional note, IF I wanted to be a DPS class I [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] shure would not have went with a SK, I would have been a warlock.  Thats the entire basis for your argument is that SK's do a little more damage.  Woopy [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]ing do, 40 dps is insignifigant when compared to what we sacrifice to get that.  Also note, that is very limited, YES a shadowknight CAN get that high, but he is going to burn all of his power doing so.<BR></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>and to get anywhere close to 200 I'm sitting at OOM, wearing gebs, pumping manastone, and praying to god that my self haste doesnt expire for lack of mana to maintain the cost.  I didnt say he wouldnt go OOM, but by pointing that out you insinuate that I wouldn't be.  Why would I give you such a bad comparison?  Of course he was throwing mana at the mob. so was I. thats why I offered it as an example, b/c it was a very fair comparison.  grow up.</FONT><BR></P> <P>Ibishi, there is one thing you said that particulary stood out:</P> <P>"Guardians do ONE thing well and as I've said, not that much better"  This is NOT TRUE.</P> <P>Guardians do  everything better than every other tank class, with exeption to DPS<BR></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>we dont avoid better than brawlers.  its just that their avoidance capability doesnt make up for their poor mitigation.  that and explotive defense buffs are what brought on the combat change that has you so [Removed for Content].  so dont ignore what brawlers can do, they're at the core of this change, not crusaders.</FONT><BR></P> <P>Taunts are better<BR></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>numbers please.</FONT><BR></P> <P>Power use is better<BR></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>numbers please.  I've never refuted the truthfulness of this statement, but have continually asked for it to be backed up.</FONT><BR></P> <P>Better MIT<BR></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>from what? the tiny buffs we have?  again, priests overshadow those. as do fabled pieces of platemail.  we do mitigate better. thats our largest advantage in the archetype. and on the other side of the spectrum brawlers avoid better.  now the thing is we don't mitigate anywhere near as much as they avoid.  and you mitigate within 1-3% of us on every encounter.</FONT><BR></P> <P>Better avoidance<BR></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>from exploits pending to be fixed and tower shields. for that matter an SK in my guild can get within 4 defense skill of me self buffed as I can self buffed. apparently you can exploit the system to a great amount.  you can hit 100% avoidance without a guardian in the group.</FONT><BR></P> <P>better by stat bonuses<BR></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>bull[expletive ninja'd by Faarbot], bring me proof.  I've asked for it before.</FONT><BR></P> <P>best weapon selection in the game<BR></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>you found that out at like level 9 or earlier. dont [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] at me at level 50 and 6 months later.  you chose to swim upriver on an issue they refuse to budge on.</FONT><BR></P> <P>etc etc etc<BR></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>no, there is no etc. etc. thats about all there is and they're bald statements at that. they have been for weeks.  if you want to attack guardian abilities in comparison to your own, you compare them and show us the comparisons.  You've been wrong on so many guardian issues my faith in your knowledge has withered badly.</FONT><BR></P> <P>theres one(JUST ONE) thing a shadowknight, or any other tank class can do a little(40 dps is a little) better, and that is toss some damage at the mob.<BR></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>20% better DPS than me in a similar scenario.  in the exact same group as I use when tanking optimally, he will be much closer than 20% to my tanking.  in-fact, he will be 1-3% different or less, b/c his buffs contribute to my mitigation, whereas my buffs don't contribute very much to his.</FONT><BR></P> <P>You also said that the difference in tanking is very small, that too is a lie.  The differnce is 3 FRIGGEN LEVELS.  Thats not small, or insignifigant, thats a whole helluva lot of difference.<BR></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>3 levels what?  compared to what?  say again?  as I've said before this post and within this post, an SK in my guild can get within 4 points of defense skill to me without outside help.  and if we're saying total buffage I can exceed 10 levels of extra defense skill. what is this number 3 about?  and no its not a helluva difference. epic mobs counteract avoidance and mitigation to great extent.  I'd be suprised if I was mitigating even at 3/4 of what my persona said, when a raid mob hits me - further removing my small mitigation advantage from buffs.</FONT><BR></P> <P> </P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I was in the middle of doing the write up on all this when I came across a very nice post in the SK forums while doing some research, so here it is Ibishi, this should pretty much answer any and all questions/doubts you have.</P> <P><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=9&message.id=9746" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=9&message.id=9746</A></P>

[Anlari]

<DIV>Lovely, another post on the same topic of "I want to be a guardian with different animations."</DIV> <DIV>I play both a berserker and a bruiser and I happen to like them both and don't wish for them to have to give up their abilities or DPS to tank like a guardian.  I have no desire to raid, and the core of the game should not be based on something so miniscule as raiding.  The one trick ponies will always be better in raids then those who can do a lot.  Choose what you want and pick the class that does it already.</DIV>

[Ishnar]

<P>I will say this Ibishi, However Black might state his point, your not getting the great downfall of wards.</P> <P>They cast a ton of mana for 3 tics, 12 seconds.  Makes me feel like I'm playing a bard again trying to stack but wait, each cast costs over 15% of my power, at least bard songs were free.  If I do nothing but cast ward, no taunts, no damage, nothing but wards, then I run out of power in 7 tics, or just under a minute and a half.  Casting taunts on top of wards means the fight better end real quick.</P> <P>So yes, for that 1 minute, because I will be doing more than just wards, I can hold my own or even excell a little over a warrior.  But then we run out of power and then we so completely suck that even black's worst rant doesn't do our suckieness justice.</P> <P>I don't want to be a guardian with different animations.  I want wards to either last longer or cost A LOT less mana.  Because, I should be able to tank medium or long encounters too. </P> <P>Ishnar</P> <p>Message Edited by Ishnar on <span class=date_text>05-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:41 AM</span>

[Anlari]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ishnar wrote:<BR> <P>I will say this Ibishi, However Black might state his point, your not getting the great downfall of wards.</P> <P>They cast a ton of mana for 3 tics, 12 seconds.  Makes me feel like I'm playing a bard again trying to stack but wait, each cast costs over 15% of my power, at least bard songs were free.  If I do nothing but cast ward, no taunts, no damage, nothing but wards, then I run out of power in 7 tics, or just under a minute and a half.  Casting taunts on top of wards means the fight better end real quick.</P> <P>So yes, for that 1 minute, because I will be doing more than just wards, I can hold my own or even excell a little over a warrior.  But then we run out of power and then we so completely suck that even black's worst rant doesn't do our suckieness justice.</P> <P>I don't want to be a guardian with different animations.  I want wards to either last longer or cost A LOT less mana.  Because, I should be able to tank medium or long encounters too. </P> <P>Ishnar</P> <P>Message Edited by Ishnar on <SPAN class=date_text>05-01-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>02:41 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I'll agree to that point.  The wards and lifetaps should be a little bit more meaningful.  Right now all the drains and such are basicly worthless.  If the lifetaps worked more like they did in old EQ, then an SK would be right where they need to be.

[Styk]

As a Berserker i love my DPS capability but we do have some defense problems vs Guardians that SoE should fix Mainly The fact that our Stance buff doesnt stack with our 3 min Defense skill buff ( oh they are 2 different spell lines might i add )  so Berserkers are only able to buff themselves 2 lvls of defense. Currently we are on the low end of self defense buffs since our Unflinching Will ( stance buff Tier 5 gives + 10 to defense/561 Mental Mitigation and adept 1 for a lvl 50 ) and Controlled Rage ( Tier 5, 3 min defense which gives + 12 defense/slows attack speed of caster by 20%  ) buff doesnt stack atm since Controlled Rage over rights Stance for that 3 min . Fix that and Berserkers will be dead on defensewise vs every other plate tank.... Oh and Wards for Crusaders and Lifetaps for SK's REALLY NEED TO BE LOOKED AT Power vs Usage wise since they BOTH need to be enhanced to were they are actually a viable spell line to use... <div></div>

[Damonious Ba]

<blockquote><hr>Styker wrote:As a Berserker i love my DPS capability but we do have some defense problems vs Guardians that SoE should fix Mainly The fact that our Stance buff doesnt stack with our 3 min Defense skill buff ( oh they are 2 different spell lines might i add ) <div></div><hr></blockquote>Same for guards,our stance doesnt stack with our defense line group buffs .. so actually we would have even more than 2 lvl defense than we already have <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />i actually just hope that SoE finds a solution that works just the way moorgard explained like it should be <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Iren]

<P>double post'd</P> <P>Message Edited by Irenik on <SPAN class=date_text>05-03-2005</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>04:14 PM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Irenik on <span class=date_text>05-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:14 PM</span>

[Iren]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P>Damonious Bane wrote:</P> <P><BR>i actually just hope that SoE finds a solution that works just the way moorgard explained like it should be <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR></P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I'm sure you are, as a Guardian...  Will be nice for you, being the only end-game tank.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As a Zerker am I suppossed to look forward to 50 now?  Yay for being left out of raids since the only tanks worth bringing are Guardians.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>MG says equipment will make the difference?  How exactly am I suppossed to get better equipment than Guardians when only their class gets access to raid drops?  Hrmm, which should we take as our tank...  The guy with the pristine ebon van or the guy with the suit of fabled raid gear that has a proc on every piece...  Tough call there.:smileymad:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'm sure we'll tank just as well as a Guardian - Against worthless freakin' yard trash.  I'm so glad that I get to spend my end-game watching from the sidelines and farming yard trash.  This is so much bull****.</DIV>

[Margen]

<P>One thing also to think about, if the Guardians get the substantial difference in end game tanking they demand, and the rest of the tank classes become their towel boys (not the word I wanted to use but knew censor wouldn't allow word I wanted to use).  Then we also have to think about what will happen when they add levels and new content, then the difference will keep growing and the other tank classes will be left farther and farther behind.  </P> <P>We saw this in EQlive for those of you that played it, in the end game Pallys and Shadow Knights where being left out of raids AND it was bleeding into the group side too.  When Gates of Discord came out Knights where getting [Removed for Content] in group encounters.  I don't want to see "the one tank to rule them all" concept again.  </P> <P>Why is the concept of equal but different so offensive to the Guardian class I don't know ....  my guess is that most of the Guardians that post here where former warriors from EQlive and they want dominace again, even if it sidelines the other 5 tanking classes.</P> <P>V/R</P> <P>Blackoath 31st Troll Shadow Knight</P>

[Anlari]

I still don't see the problem with the zerker.  I don't feel like the towelboys to the guardians.  I do more damage and tank just fine.  One doesn't have to be the best to do the job.  I hope zerkers never tank like guardians, if I had wanted that, I'd have played a guardian and not a zerker.

[WolfSha]

<P>Margen, there are a lot fo theads like this, and i've posted on some of the others, but i'll sumarise here...  </P> <P>I play a zerker because i don't want to be a guardian, if you do then maybe you should roll one, if you sig is correct and you're lvl 31 then you could get a guard up to that lvl very quickly - a few weeks if you put your back into it...  i have a 9-6 job monday to friday job and i got to lvl 30 in 3 and a half weeks with my zerker, but anyway, that's not the point...</P> <P> </P> <P>This isn't specifcally aimed at you, but everyone that thinks all fighters should be equal in defence....</P> <P>Look at it this way:</P> <P>Guardians give up DSP and heals/lifetaps etc to be the best at defence.</P> <P>If you want equal defence you're gonna have to give up them too or it's unbalanced - you can't tank as good as a guard <EM>and</EM> have dps & lifetaps (yes i know lifetaps are rubbish and need fixing right now)</P> <P>Now if they do that- ie make all fighters equal defence (and low dmg) you will never get into a raid at all as every raid will only want one or two fighters as any more than two (extra one for a backup tank maybe) will be a waste of space.</P> <P>If they don't do that and just up all fighters defence to match a guardians then you still won't be MT because if there's a guardian there he can only MT as where you can DPS too, so it's not fair on the guardian to give the only job he can do to someone else that has a secondary job and make him redundant in the raid as where you're not redundant if you're not MT.</P> <P>Either way, your never gonna tank that many raids as a shadow night.  It's not to say you can't, you can, perfectly well, you're just not the best at it <EM>and you can do something else usefull appart from MT</EM>.  If you want to tank more raids as a shadow knight then just organise your own raid and don't invite any guards! :smileywink:</P> <P>But seriously, if you want to tank raids then quit trying to <STRONG>break the system so you never get to anyway</STRONG> and just roll up a guardian so you do.</P> <P>Think about the implecations of what would happen before you say all fighters should be equal at defence!!</P> <P> </P> <P>btw, last raid i did i tanked as there were no guards there, but i'd have happily given that over to a guardian if one had turned up - i enjoy the odd chance to sit back and just dsp as i've never been in a group where i wasn't MT.</P> <P>Raid tanking is dull anyway - auto attack, taunt, buff, taunt, buff... boring...  group tanking is much more fun cause you can let rip with lots of attacks and if you run out of power you haven't got 10 mins of the fight left to go, wonding how you're gonna keep agro with auto attack!! :smileyvery-happy:</P><p>Message Edited by WolfShark on <span class=date_text>05-04-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:13 AM</span>

[Evilshade]

Been Missing ya in the guild Eldarn wish ya come back online

[Ibis]

<div></div>if your guild doesnt give you equipment then your guild sucks, not the system.  find people who agree with your style of play. thats the point of guilds.  not to get uber [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot].  my line of thought is mostly in line with FoH which does heavily support guardians.  My equipment is worth 10x my buffs at least.  any variations between plate tanks diminishes slowly as they all gear up. SOE cannot address the issue of your guild being unfair to crusaders without adding class armor, which I am in disagreement with, and I used to play a paladin.  the cons outweigh the pros on class armor in my opinion, from either side of the crusader / warrior argument. you CHOSE your class coming up.  there were obvious differences in the class quests as well as in the names of the classes themselves.  this is a TON more friendly than EQ1 and the tanks are WAY closer together as well.  I chose guardian b/c I wanted to be able to tank anything and everything.  Paladins are the closest to my capability but everyone else is [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] close too.  On the other side of the argument, every fighter does far far more DPS than I tank in comparison.  If thats not what you want from your class you can change your class.  I would love if every epic encounter in the game required the efforts of multiple fighers from various classes and sub-classes to diminish, spread out, and re-direct incoming damage of many types to the best use of the raid.  I think the worst design of any epic encounter is the existence of a Main Tank.  I didn't choose guardian b/c I wanted to be the Main Tank.  I chose it b/c I wanted to be the Best Tank. Unfortunately due to SOE's combat design there can be only ONE tank, and that is the problem.  The Long-term solution isnt to fight over what scraps are tossed at us at meal time, but to demand more scraps exist per meal.  This can only be solved from the design end of both spells and encounters.  Whether warrior, crusader, or brawler is best for one fight doesnt solve the problem, it just changes it, so [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]ing grow up.  [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]ing at guardians and claiming that we all want to be the only tank and make you our [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]es is bull[expletive ninja'd by Faarbot], stupid, immature, ignorant, etc.  We aren't, never have been, and never will be the problem.  And yes there will always be a superior tank for every encounter, most of the time it will be guardians, and thats good design. As a paladin in EQ1 I had to accept far less tanking capability and I was always sub-par to warriors in DPS, at every level of the game.  Thats radically different now and you [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]ing [Removed for Content] still [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot].  Don't think I don't understand though.  In EQ1 I could cure, heal, rez, stun, root, buff, etc. and do it pretty [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] well.  I stacked on raids in the healing department though never in tanking.  Now you can stack in both but to a pretty small amount.  Fights aren't dynamic and there aren't the abilities to respond to dynamic fights either.  Combat should shift and all fighters should get short duration powerful abilities to diminish the effects of sudden shifts in an encounter.  This is where stacking and singular importance can come into play and mobs just arent that advanced yet. If you want to pick a fight with some random guardian you go for it, but don't be a stupid prickabout it.  Guardians aren't the problem. <div></div><p>Message Edited by Ibishi on <span class=date_text>05-04-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:22 AM</span>

[Shennr]

That is right, Guardians are not the problem. They are pretty much balanced as a fighter archtype. However, the issue is now to balance out the other fighter archtypes like wards, lifetaps, and heals. Let's make them more mana effecient or last a lot longer, that would be the first step to fixing a number of problems.

[GraymaneGravitic]

<P>"Sure, if that were the case I would agree, but all the tank classes can tank for a group, they just aren't all the prefered tank for raids and there should never be a reason for ever tank to tank every situation equaly well."</P> <P> </P> <P>Exactly which situations do guardians fail to tank as well as the other subclasses? If all the other fighter subclasses are supposed to just suck-it-up and ACCEPT the fact that they will never be as good at raid tanking as guardians, then which situations require the reverse? The problem is that there are currently NO situations where the other subclasses tank better than the guardian. THAT IS THE INHERENT DISPARITY THAT SEEMS TO BE ESCAPING THE GRASP OF SO MANY ON THESE BOARDS.</P> <P>If the game provided sufficient variety of encounter types where an avoidance/dps  tank or a balanced/healing tank would be a better choice than a guardian then there wouldn't be any beef in the first place (except those that would still whine over guardians being the best for the "best" encounters...ie...raids).</P>

[WolfSha]

<DIV><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> GraymaneGraviticus wrote:<BR> <P>"Sure, if that were the case I would agree, but all the tank classes can tank for a group, they just aren't all the prefered tank for raids and there should never be a reason for ever tank to tank every situation equaly well."</P> <P> </P> <P>Exactly which situations do guardians fail to tank as well as the other subclasses? If all the other fighter subclasses are supposed to just suck-it-up and ACCEPT the fact that they will never be as good at raid tanking as guardians, then which situations require the reverse? The problem is that there are currently NO situations where the other subclasses tank better than the guardian. THAT IS THE INHERENT DISPARITY THAT SEEMS TO BE ESCAPING THE GRASP OF SO MANY ON THESE BOARDS.</P> <P>If the game provided sufficient variety of encounter types where an avoidance/dps  tank or a balanced/healing tank would be a better choice than a guardian then there wouldn't be any beef in the first place (except those that would still whine over guardians being the best for the "best" encounters...ie...raids).</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Omg... guardian is not the best tank in any group under 5 in my honest option.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There just isn't enough dmg output from 3 or 4 people to loose all the dps from the tank slot and not enough dmg coming in to justify the extra defense.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If you have 2 duos: A guard & a templar and a monk & a templar and got them to kill 100 even con ^^ mobs the monk's duo would be done in half time, even with slightly longer time for healer to regen power in between each fight.  Therefor the monk is the better tank in that situation.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And that applies up to about the 4 or 5 person group mark when they start to even out.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Why do people think being "a good tank" is about your ability to not get hurt alone? That's only half the story! <STRONG>It's everything you bring to the group.</STRONG></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <DIV>The guard is a "perfect tank", but than means havnig the "perfect group" to go with him - guard + 1 healer + 1 scout + 3 wizards probably.</DIV></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <DIV>In game it just don't work out that way and DPS is often more useful than having slightly better defence.  Unless the tank goes down or you're waiting for a full power regen from your healer after each fight then the extra defense is wasted and the DPS is always useful...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV></DIV> <DIV>Saying a guardian is a better tank in a small group than a monk simply because he has better defensive abilities is like saying a ferrari is faster than a family car in a 30mph zone...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>A guards abilities are <EM>wasted</EM> in a small group, making them the worst tank in that situation.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>At lvl 50 it's all messed up because no-one has anything to do but raid and with 23 other people (minus a few healers) doing DPS you could afford for the tank to have dual weild 2 sheilds if you wanted to so guardians are king...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG>The point is that this is temporary</STRONG> - when the lvl cap moved to 100 and there's lots of new group content everyone can play in normal groups again and guards advantage will evaporate....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And when you hit 100, start a new char, don't moan that the subclasses don't balance well on the the tiny 0.1% of content that's left to play with.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The idea of balancing the whole game based on a minority of players who have run out of content and are finding their subclass to be unbalanced on the few mobs they have left to fight is frankly unfair on the other 99% of players still trying to enjoy the other 99% of the games content.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by WolfShark on <span class=date_text>05-04-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:22 AM</span>

[GraymaneGravitic]

<P>"At lvl 50 it's all messed up because no-one has anything to do but raid and with 23 other people (minus a few healers) doing DPS you could afford for the tank to have dual weild 2 sheilds if you wanted to so guardians are king..."</P> <P> </P> <P>And shouldn't this be telling you something about how fubared raid encounters are to begin with? The very idea that one LONE tank can hold the aggro so 23 others can apply dps(or healing) is a very big part of what is wrong to begin with. If raid mobs were a lot tougher for one tank to hold the aggro and it took 4-6 tanks serving as MAIN TANKS together to hold the aggro there wouldn't have been a problem to begin with. It's raids only needing one person to protect 23 others that is incredibly idiotic. Each and every last squishie should need a tank for protection, not one tank protecting 23 squishies!</P>

[WolfSha]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> GraymaneGraviticus wrote:<BR> <P>"At lvl 50 it's all messed up because no-one has anything to do but raid and with 23 other people (minus a few healers) doing DPS you could afford for the tank to have dual weild 2 sheilds if you wanted to so guardians are king..."</P> <P> </P> <P>And shouldn't this be telling you something about how fubared raid encounters are to begin with? The very idea that one LONE tank can hold the aggro so 23 others can apply dps(or healing) is a very big part of what is wrong to begin with. If raid mobs were a lot tougher for one tank to hold the aggro and it took 4-6 tanks serving as MAIN TANKS together to hold the aggro there wouldn't have been a problem to begin with. It's raids only needing one person to protect 23 others that is incredibly idiotic. Each and every last squishie should need a tank for protection, not one tank protecting 23 squishies!</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Oh yeah, i couldn't agree with you more, it's a content problem.  The guard doesn't have to be king of tanking, but they should be king of defence.   I'm not saying all fighters shouldn't be able to tank raids as well, of course they should, i'm just arguing agaist the "give me all the defence of a guard, but leave me my dps" or "just make me into a guard with a fluff horse" approach that a lot of people seem to be taking without thinking about what is actually wrong.</P> <P>I'd LOVE to see the content changed to give other tanks a fair go (i'm not a guard remember!)... and there are lots of ways to do it.  </P> <P>As you said above, you could have raids that need lots of tanks.</P> <P>Or make the mob immune to taunts so that the DPS tanks can hold agro but a guard can't. Make mobs that knock you high in the air so only tanks with safe fall (ie brawlers) can safely tank them.</P> <P>There are loads of ways sony could address this and i hope they try many different ones in the lvl 100 raids that there wil no doubt be a lot of.</P> <P>I'd be very happy with equality in tanking through different content, not by making all fighters basically the same...</P> <P>Only thing is we'll need to find a secodary role for the guardians so they're not useless when not tanking.  Your suggestion of needing lots of tanks covers that quite nicely tho! :smileyhappy:</P> <P>Perhaps a raid that has 3 bosses to fight at once, one normal, one imune to tauts and one the knocks the tank up in the air meaning that every type of tank has a place and you need 3 tanks for the raid.</P> <DIV>As you said, there are far too many tanks to have one MT for 23 other players.  It leads to everyone that isn't MT moaning.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If content could be designed so that you needed a warrior, and a crusader and a brusier in every raid i think people would be a lot happier!! </DIV> <DIV><STRONG>SOE, you listening??? </STRONG>no.. though not...<STRONG> </STRONG>:smileytongue:</DIV> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P><p>Message Edited by WolfShark on <span class=date_text>05-04-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:12 AM</span>

[Eelyen]

<P>The one thing I keep noticing is people trying to quote the original statement by saying "all fighters tank equally"</P> <P>That is not the actual statement...it's actually "...all fighters tank equally in most situations..." </P> <P>Plus lets add on the EULA statement that you agree to every time you start the game "Gameplay may change"</P>

[GraymaneGravitic]

Great response Wolf!

[WolfSha]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> GraymaneGraviticus wrote:<BR>Great response Wolf! <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Hehe, thanks, and thanks for saying so -  looks like you and me are probably on the same wave length on this one - I've had very long arguments on this subject on other threads where i just couldn't get people to come back with anything other than "no, all fighters should tank the same mobs equally and then it's balanced, the content is fine, just make all fighters the same" (!!) :smileysad: </P> <P>I'm not some nut trying to keep/make the game unbalanced, just asking for it to stay intertesting and varied.  Balance and equality yes, but not at the expense of the uniqueness of the subclasses! </P> <P>There is always more than one solution and if soe listen to us at all then it's our job to come up with ideas to help us all get what we all want in a way that makes the game more fun and interesting to play, not just moan for blandness! </P> <P>A pleasure to talk to you Graymane! :smileyhappy:</P>

[Margen]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> WolfShark wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> GraymaneGraviticus wrote:<BR>Great response Wolf! <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Hehe, thanks, and thanks for saying so -  looks like you and me are probably on the same wave length on this one - I've had very long arguments on this subject on other threads where i just couldn't get people to come back with anything other than "no, all fighters should tank the same mobs equally and then it's balanced, the content is fine, just make all fighters the same" (!!) :smileysad: </P> <P>I'm not some nut trying to keep/make the game unbalanced, just asking for it to stay intertesting and varied.  Balance and equality yes, but not at the expense of the uniqueness of the subclasses! </P> <P>There is always more than one solution and if soe listen to us at all then it's our job to come up with ideas to help us all get what we all want in a way that makes the game more fun and interesting to play, not just moan for blandness! </P> <P>A pleasure to talk to you Graymane! :smileyhappy:</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Wolfshark</P> <P>I think you might of misunderstood me, I don't want to have the mitigation of guardians, I just want my skill set to offset their advantage in mitigation ... plus aggro generation seems to be a problem too least for us Shadow Knights with our power problems.  </P> <P>As for being only 31, yes not at end game yet, only play once or twice during the week then on weekend due to work and RL issues.  But I was raiding in EQlive and my pally was seriously underpowered IMHO, don't want to see that develope for my Shadow Knight.  While I am not high end raiding at this time, even at mid level there is problems with balance issue IMO, course playing a Shadow Knight could color my vision.  As for playing a Guardian ... won't happen.  I never like playing the favorite class of the month <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> ... but I don't want to be at such a disadvantage that I get hosed either LOL</P> <P>Also your idea for requiring more then one tank on raids is excellent.  If there was clear and definined roles for each of the 3 subclasses sets it would solve alot of the problems I see right now.  As it is now if their is more people on then is needed in the raid the extra tanks will be the first to be dropped, specially if rumor is correct and the DPS tanks will be taking a hit so there is more difference between fighters and rogues.</P> <P>Again nice idea on the multiple tank issue.</P> <P>V/R</P> <P>Blackoath 31st Troll Shadow Knight</P>

[Narfism]

<P>People tend to think that mitigation/avoidance should be the only way to determine how someone should tank.  Many people seem to think that because they want to tank as well means that they want the same skill sets.  This couldn't be further from the truth.  What I want, as a paladin is, through my wards, heals and slightly higher dps, to tank the same as everyone other tank (lets say guardians since they seem to be getting the brunt of the attack).  </P> <P>Do I want their mitigation?  No, with all my skills that would be unbalanced.  What I want is for my current defense + wards + heals = guardian mitigation skills.  True, this may translate to more work for me in the end (having to continuously click the spells needed vs just loading up a couple buffs at the beginning of the fight and then just taunting during the fight) but in the end I want to be just as effective (i.e. healers be able to expend the same amount of mana healing me).  Now in order to offset the secondary roles that I may fill while guardians tank, guardians should be able to have a secondary role to fill while a paladin tanks.  This is the biggest flaw in the tanking design as it stands right now (well other than that whole only 1 tank and 23 others doing dmg/healing).  </P> <P>Maybe the whole only 1 tank problem could be fixed through the guardian protection line (absorbing hits for others).  The only problem with this would be that there would have to be an advantage to having this secondary ability (i.e. guardian takes 15% of damage after mitigation and other tank takes 80%, therefore 5% is still being lost in the mix thus relieving some of the damage).  This would be just one of the possible roles that a warrior could fill.</P> <P> </P> <P>Some guardians may be opposed to gaining secondary roles, stating that they created their class to be the best tank for any job.  But to those that have open minds to new possibilities to ease the pain of the non-guardian community, I ask that you try to come up with ideas of your own.  Possibly through buffs that you already have and just extending upon them.  Only through working together and avoiding greed can we come up with a solution that makes everyone happy.</P> <P> </P> <P>Lotharin Dashaus</P> <P>48 Paladin</P> <P>Najena</P>

[WolfSha]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Margen wrote:<BR> <P><BR>Wolfshark</P> <P>I think you might of misunderstood me, I don't want to have the mitigation of guardians, I just want my skill set to offset their advantage in mitigation ... plus aggro generation seems to be a problem too least for us Shadow Knights with our power problems.  </P> <P>As for being only 31, yes not at end game yet, only play once or twice during the week then on weekend due to work and RL issues.  But I was raiding in EQlive and my pally was seriously underpowered IMHO, don't want to see that develope for my Shadow Knight.  While I am not high end raiding at this time, even at mid level there is problems with balance issue IMO, course playing a Shadow Knight could color my vision.  As for playing a Guardian ... won't happen.  I never like playing the favorite class of the month <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> ... but I don't want to be at such a disadvantage that I get hosed either LOL</P> <P>Also your idea for requiring more then one tank on raids is excellent.  If there was clear and definined roles for each of the 3 subclasses sets it would solve alot of the problems I see right now.  As it is now if their is more people on then is needed in the raid the extra tanks will be the first to be dropped, specially if rumor is correct and the DPS tanks will be taking a hit so there is more difference between fighters and rogues.</P> <P>Again nice idea on the multiple tank issue.</P> <P>V/R</P> <P>Blackoath 31st Troll Shadow Knight</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Cool, i'll agree with everything in that post, i obviously did misunderstand you to start with, my appologies for that. I guess i've just been arguing with to many people who actually ARE asking to be the same as a guard recently and took you for one of them! :smileytongue:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The fact that you're <EM>not</EM> at end game means i respect your optinion on game balance much more actually!!!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If you think that there's a big difference right now for you at lvl 31 on group content and your having trouble tanking group content (or not as good at it as you should be) then something really does need to be done!  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>My main beef is with trying to rebalance the mechanics of the whole game rather than fix the lvl 50 raid content when guards don't have a second roll yet and can't do anything <EM>but</EM> MT at the moment in raids - you can't balance tanks for MT on raids when all other tanks have a second roll on raids except guards...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As far as i understand it, and please, correct me if i'm wrong - i've never played a SK (although i was thinking of making one for my next char), a lot of the problems for SK's are due to how much your life taps currently suck....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If they 'tapped' twice as much HP for half the power (or whatever adjustment is appropriate)  then i think it would close up a lof of the gap as you'd be making back more of the HP your loosing due to the defencive gap...?  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Something unique like your lifetap ability would almost be hard to overplay, buy from what i've heard, they're not that great...</DIV> <P>Message Edited by WolfShark on <SPAN class=date_text>05-05-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>01:22 AM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by WolfShark on <span class=date_text>05-05-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:05 AM</span>

[WolfSha]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Narfism wrote:<BR> <P>Some guardians may be opposed to gaining secondary roles, stating that they created their class to be the best tank for any job.  But to those that have open minds to new possibilities to ease the pain of the non-guardian community, I ask that you try to come up with ideas of your own.  Possibly through buffs that you already have and just extending upon them.  Only through working together and avoiding greed can we come up with a solution that makes everyone happy.</P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Sorry guys, don't want to start dominating the tread, i'll shut up a bit, but had to answer this...</P> <P>a) yes completely agree with all of your post</P> <P>b) i saw something the other day that really made me laugh and i 5 stared it for orginality, so i thought i'd post it here..</P> <P>We were talking about a second roll for guards if they do close up the defensive gap between the tanks and boli came up with this brilliant (wacky) idea:</P> <P><STRONG>boli wrote:</STRONG></P> <P> Now Guardians get ranged slot<BR>- They have those large tower shields... sometimes used by ranged infantry to plant in the ground and hide behind.<BR>- 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<BR>- 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><BR><BR><BR>Guardian's secondary role could be mobile light artiliery<BR></B><B><BR></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.<BR><BR>In combat you would cast "set up weapon" and the guardian sets up his weapon 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.<BR>---</P> <P>I love this idea if nothing else because it's crazy and it's fun and interesting!</P> <P>I think it would be better modified so that the effects of this seige weapon where huge aeo debuffs, stuns, knockdowns etc with a bit of dmg, rather than just single big hits, but it's still a very good step towards finding a fun 2nd roll for guards so they don't just make puppy eyes until they get to MT in every situation! :smileyvery-happy:<BR></P> <P>I'd love to see some catapults or trebuchets in eq2!! :smileytongue:</P>

[Blackdog183]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> WolfShark wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Margen wrote:<BR> <P><BR>Wolfshark</P> <P>I think you might of misunderstood me, I don't want to have the mitigation of guardians, I just want my skill set to offset their advantage in mitigation ... plus aggro generation seems to be a problem too least for us Shadow Knights with our power problems.  </P> <P>As for being only 31, yes not at end game yet, only play once or twice during the week then on weekend due to work and RL issues.  But I was raiding in EQlive and my pally was seriously underpowered IMHO, don't want to see that develope for my Shadow Knight.  While I am not high end raiding at this time, even at mid level there is problems with balance issue IMO, course playing a Shadow Knight could color my vision.  As for playing a Guardian ... won't happen.  I never like playing the favorite class of the month <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> ... but I don't want to be at such a disadvantage that I get hosed either LOL</P> <P>Also your idea for requiring more then one tank on raids is excellent.  If there was clear and definined roles for each of the 3 subclasses sets it would solve alot of the problems I see right now.  As it is now if their is more people on then is needed in the raid the extra tanks will be the first to be dropped, specially if rumor is correct and the DPS tanks will be taking a hit so there is more difference between fighters and rogues.</P> <P>Again nice idea on the multiple tank issue.</P> <P>V/R</P> <P>Blackoath 31st Troll Shadow Knight</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Cool, i'll agree with everything in that post, i obviously did misunderstand you to start with, my appologies for that. I guess i've just been arguing with to many people who actually ARE asking to be the same as a guard recently and took you for one of them! :smileytongue:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The fact that you're <EM>not</EM> at end game means i respect your optinion on game balance much more actually!!!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If you think that there's a big difference right now for you at lvl 31 on group content and your having trouble tanking group content (or not as good at it as you should be) then something really does need to be done!  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>My main beef is with trying to rebalance the mechanics of the whole game rather than fix the lvl 50 raid content when guards don't have a second roll yet and can't do anything <EM>but</EM> MT at the moment in raids - you can't balance tanks for MT on raids when all other tanks have a second roll on raids except guards...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As far as i understand it, and please, correct me if i'm wrong - i've never played a SK (although i was thinking of making one for my next char), a lot of the problems for SK's are due to how much your life taps currently suck....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If they 'tapped' twice as much HP for half the power (or whatever adjustment is appropriate)  then i think it would close up a lof of the gap as you'd be making back more of the HP your loosing due to the defencive gap...?  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Something unique like your lifetap ability would almost be hard to overplay, buy from what i've heard, they're not that great...</DIV> <P>Message Edited by WolfShark on <SPAN class=date_text>05-05-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>01:22 AM</SPAN></P> <P>Message Edited by WolfShark on <SPAN class=date_text>05-05-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>02:05 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>This is coming from a Shadowknight, and endgame one.  I have been arguing with the devs since beta about SK issues.</P> <P>Lifetaps- Need a complete revamp.  As it stands, they suck, horribly.  Even quadrupaling ttheir heal portion would barely begin to touch em.</P> <P>Wards- VERY power hungry, especially for the peanut amount they actually do.  Most SK's use em for aggro, thats it.  My adep 1 endgame ward blocks about 500 damage(unmitigated) for over 125 power cost.</P> <P>Taunts- For *some* reason, no one really knows why, but its been proven, SK taunts just dont work right.  They never seen to work as good as they *should* be working, at again  a tremendous power cost.</P> <P>Power Cost-  Heres the biggie, SK's can and will burn an entire power just trying to aggro.  That means no lifetaps.  I do it all the time.  This is the serious issue, as once we run out of power, we cant really do jack.  No more taunts, lifetaps, wards, buffs, etc.</P> <P>Harm Touch- This is supposed to be one of our class defining skills, that really doesent scale up very well, and is resisted way too much to justify a 1/2 hour timer.</P> <P>Graven embrace- Is a joke, rarely works, when it does work, the person is forced to standing 15 sec later.  Most of us use this as a *fun* spell.</P> <P>These are just a couple of issues with SK.  I did try to leave out the laundry list of spells that are just plain broke(like calculated evasion).  </P> <P>Message Edited by Blackdog183 on <SPAN class=date_text>05-05-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>03:46 AM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Blackdog183 on <span class=date_text>05-05-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:12 AM</span>

[WolfSha]

<P>So you wouldn't recomend me rollup up a SK as my next char then blackdog? :smileysad:</P> <P>That's a shame - i really wanted to play one too... </P> <P>You'd think they would get every spell/skill for every class working properly before they try to rebalance wouldn't you.. doesn't make a lot of sense.</P> <P>My zerker burns power mega fast too - i can run out in about a minute if i go ape, but by that time whatever i'm fighting is both pretty close to dead and rivited to me so hard it would take a full raid of wizards to pull agro away from me...  (group content i mean, not raids... obviously when MT in raids i try to just keep ahead on agro, not mash every button as fast as i can, so i don't run out of power and get stuck with auto attack only for 10 mins!)</P> <P>SK's <EM>should </EM>have no trouble keeping agro - You'd have thought a life tap would cause <EM>massive</EM> agro - they're heals and dmg at the same time after all! If they don't then someone at soe needs a kick in the butt!! :smileymad:</P> <P>I'm gonna make a SK anyway cause i really want one... i'll just hope that soe gets round to the fixing they obviously need before i get to 30 (first 29 lvls are dull anyway imo).... </P> <P>I just hope that soe puts in some thought and effort and fixes them by making life taps great and content varied etc, not by making fighters all the same - i already have a fighter and a scout so i guess i'd just delete the SK and make a priest or something if it happened that way :smileysad:</P> <P>The current chages in test to make kite and tower sheild block the same is a good example of what i'm taking about... why take the brain dead approach of making them the same when you could make SK/pally lifetap/heals more potent to cover the difference instead?  If it turns out that that's still not balanced because lifetap costs power and shield don't then give the mobs more attacks that you can't block so in some cases lifetap/heal is better than any shield... at least then there's some flavor...</P> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P><p>Message Edited by WolfShark on <span class=date_text>05-05-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:43 AM</span>

[GraymaneGravitic]

<P>"<STRONG>Guardian's secondary role could be mobile light artiliery<BR><BR></STRONG>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.<BR><BR>In combat you would cast "set up weapon" and the guardian sets up his weapon 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."</P> <P> </P> <P>Whooaaa......deja vu for a former DAOC paladin who absolutely loved the siege weaponry in that game. Initially the siege weaponry in DAOC was very heavy. It came in unassembled pieces that were too heavy for any but a fully buffed fighter class to carry and often had to be carried into battle by multiple people. Later, in order to make siege equipment more accessible and useable, they gave crafters an ability to create "diminutive siege apparatus". This was lighter weight and could be carried by almost anyone. As paladins were one of the few non-ranged classes in that game, carrying a dimi-ballista around in your backpocket was an absolute must. Operating siege weaponry gave fighter classes something to do in castle sieges which were dominated by mages and archers. Giving the "heavy" tank of this game a secondary role of operating siege artillery is an absolutely wonderful idea!</P>

[WolfSha]

<P>hehe, yeah, i agree, it's brilliant, that's why i copied it over here...</P> <P>As it stands i would never roll up a guardian as it's too much like my zerker, but without the fun of loans of aeos, burning HP to proc and generally being the crazy guy the mobs run away scared from :smileytongue:</P> <P>But if guardians could be given something that cool and unique then</P> <P>a) i'll make one! and</P> <P>b) it would then be fair to up the defensive/raid thanking abilities of all the firghters to keep everyone happy! (and i'd stop posting saying "booo to taking the guards only job away")</P> <P>It wouldn't even have to be <EM>that</EM> effective for me to want to play a guard if that came in! Hell i'd make a guard just for the entertainment factor of getting to a raid say saying "just keep him busy for 2 mins while i set up my catapult" :smileyvery-happy:</P> <P><STRONG><SPAN class=time_text>/edit:</SPAN> </STRONG> <P><SPAN class=time_text>Just had a though as to how this could be expanded to make this REALLY good...  </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN class=time_text>A guard could be the only subclass able to set one up and fire it, but if other fighters (and only fighters) could help load it to increase its rate of fire (1 loader = 2x fire, 2 loaders = 3x fire rate etc), then you could have lots of fighters in a raid with no arguments about MTing as they'd have a really useful extra job of loading the seige weapon that no other class can do so there would be good reason to take multiple fighters!! </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN class=time_text>(lets face it half the problem here is that with the current content, any fighter who isn't MT would be better replaced by a wizard in a raid most of the time and there are more fighters than there are MT openings).</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN class=time_text>Good extra thought number 2:  I read a thread recently saying that currently carpenters don't have much to make apart from chairs and boxes as where woodworkers make sheilds and bows and idols and it's a little unbalanced on the usefulness of the 2 professions....  </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN class=time_text>Let these things be player made by carpenters to give them something cool to make that people actually use in combat!!</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by WolfShark on <span class=date_text>05-05-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:59 AM</span>

[Rahmn]

Why do different fighter class tank better or worse than another?   It's called variety... why would you have multiple versions of the figther if they all we the same... it would be really asinine.

[Narfism]

Once again, get it through your skull, we don't want the same mitigation.  We want to achieve the same effectiveness of guardians through our spells.  Most people, as far as I gather, would be up for giving guardians a secondary role.  This is why above I asked people to come up with ideas to fix the annoyances of the lack of a secondary role.  Hopefully there is a solution that we can all be happy with (well except for those few that are never happy with any ideas proposed :smileyvery-happy:

[Margen]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Rahmn wrote:<BR>Why do different fighter class tank better or worse than another?   It's called variety... why would you have multiple versions of the figther if they all we the same... it would be really asinine. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Variaty is being equally efficant in doing the same job but differently with different but valuable secondary roles.  Inbalance is having a single class out of six being the first choice always when in a raid you only need one or two of that main class and in a group only one.  Always for varaity, but think inbalance sucks.</P> <P>Blackoath 31 Troll Shadow Knight</P> <p>Message Edited by Margen on <span class=date_text>05-06-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:05 PM</span>

[Ibis]

variety is also what we have now.  and [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] dude, he spelled it correctly in your quote and you...what? refused to do the same?  guardians are so far from imbalanced.  But as a 31 shadowknight you know everything don't you?  No, instead you listen to the complete idiots who are 50 and whining on the forums (the people enjoying themselves don't visit often) that they can't tank.  Then some of them even say they don't want to tank or indeed have tanked every epic mob so far.  Its a crazy world of bull[expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] among the crusaders right now.  the only thing anyone aside from a crusader has agreed with a crusader on is cost:effect ratio on tanking oriented skills such as wards.  your mitigation and avoidance are so [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] close to ours there is no need to bring it up.  My gear is worth 10x my flavor spells. Though I suppose I should [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] because a great 31 shadowknight has a problem tanking group con mobs.  Are you really having a problem with that?  Even brawlers, the tanks who take the most damage overall, don't have many issues there.  Sounds to me like you either suck or are completely ignorant.  Tell me what you're really crying about and show me your experience.  If you quote or mimic one of the laughable exaggerating crusaders back in the crusader forums anymore you're not worth the time. <div></div>

[cocoa_boy]

<DIV>I Main Assist with the best of them in group situations. I don't mind that my role will change after the class revamp. All that I request is that the class I have chosen to play have a definitive roll in group and raid encounters.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Thank You,</DIV>

[Shennr]

You must remember that just because people dont complain about their class doesn't mean that there isn't something wrong with it. People learn to deal with what they have rather then to just complain, others are different and try to solve. So saying that some crusaders out there are doing just fine may mean that they can put up with what they have and learn to live with it. Oh, and if most of you tanks would actually explore every part of the game then you would probably know that you have not tanked every epic x4 encounter the game has to offer atm. Oh well, I'll leave you guys to the guessing.

[Kimkim Team`Zeb]

<P>Picked an SK to be a MA not a MT .. MA is more fun anyway .. MT just gets beat by one big mob i get a whole slew of mobs on me.  Think the game is fine as is.</P> <P> </P>

[Roukl]

<P>Creating as many classes and races as possible, and diversifying the combinations to everyones approval im sure is not easy. The everyone wants the "books" to balance on top again not easy.</P> <P>I like the idea of the points someone showed earlier where basically you technically (tho you dont see it) spend points on abilities tanking, damage , healing. Personally I believe that is what sony did , assigned points per class to different abilies. Where it goes wrong is when we equip armor and mitigation and avoidance come in to play.</P> <P>After talking with a few people of different classes, as things stand right now, certain combinations of equipment have surprising results. For example the decrease of the avoidance skill for wearing heavy armor with the effect of increasing mitigation turns out not to be such a great idea. A naked bezerker soloing mob (a) compared to the same bezerker clad in heavy armor actually ended each fight consistantly with 30 % more health. This is a problem.</P> <P>It also explains why assasins can seemingly tank better than guardians in some situations because the avoidance "skill" outways the mitigation one. Are we to see a trend of guardians clad in lighter armors ? Maybe...</P> <P>The point is each thing we equip excentuates the class imbalances. I really dont think the basic class structue is far off its the bolt ons that need some tweeking. </P> <P>I'd also like to see a far more noticeable differents between race / class combo's</P> <P>Ogre clerics for instance should have some substantial extra dmg output to make up for the lack of casting power. Higher avoidance on woodelf guardians due to lower strength etc. i am sure its there but really isnt all that apparnt as things stand.</P> <P> </P> <P>Just my 2cp</P> <P>Valk</P> <P>Co Leader of Deception</P> <P>Befallen.</P>

[Margen]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ibishi wrote:<BR>variety is also what we have now.  and [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] dude, he spelled it correctly in your quote and you...what? refused to do the same?  guardians are so far from imbalanced.  But as a 31 shadowknight you know everything don't you?  No, instead you listen to the complete idiots who are 50 and whining on the forums (the people enjoying themselves don't visit often) that they can't tank.  Then some of them even say they don't want to tank or indeed have tanked every epic mob so far.  Its a crazy world of bull[expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] among the crusaders right now.  the only thing anyone aside from a crusader has agreed with a crusader on is cost:effect ratio on tanking oriented skills such as wards.  your mitigation and avoidance are so [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] close to ours there is no need to bring it up.  My gear is worth 10x my flavor spells.<BR><BR>Though I suppose I should [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] because a great 31 shadowknight has a problem tanking group con mobs.  Are you really having a problem with that?  Even brawlers, the tanks who take the most damage overall, don't have many issues there.  Sounds to me like you either suck or are completely ignorant.  Tell me what you're really crying about and show me your experience.  If you quote or mimic one of the laughable exaggerating crusaders back in the crusader forums anymore you're not worth the time.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>So Since I am 31 (32 now btw) my opinons don't count ... nice attitude, specially considering half you silly post was censored.  Lets face the fact silly child, You don't want variaty, you don't want balance you want dominace.   </P> <P>So little boy, lets see Guardians loss aggro abiltiies or some other factor for their better mitigation, time you paid a price.  No that wouldn't be fair because some Guardians actually do care about balance.  Just not little children like you.   Maybe you should try a difficult class, might learn something.</P> <P>And for your information, most people I group with think I am a fairly good player.  But hey, you are a garbage source anyway.  Why don't you go in the corner and cry now little boy.  Sheesh, what a loser.</P> <P>Blackoath 32nd Troll Shadow Knight</P> <P> </P>

[Ibis]

<div></div>1) we dont have much better mitigation 2) we did lose aggro abilities [Removed for Content] (paid) 3) we have the worst DPS in the archetype by a much larger margin than our mitigation over any other fighter, and always have (paid) 4) yea because the SKs I know who can and do solo tier 5 raid mobs for metal chests are so much more difficult. No, you don't know what you're talking about.  Accept that fact.  If I was a crusader I'd say the same thing to you.  The esteemed members of your class and sub-class refuse to police their own, and for that you do erode the respect of them through your posts. <div></div>

[Braw]

<DIV>Fighters getin nerfed to uselessness woohoo!</DIV>

[JNewby]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eldarn wrote:<BR> <FONT color=#ff3300></FONT><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P>Opaki wrote:<FONT color=#ffcc00> (edited for brevity)</FONT></P> <DIV>No. This has been rehashed over and over. What was said before release was "All fighters can tank." What was not said, and was never said was "All fighters can tank EQUALLY."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So, quote it. In short, prove it.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><STRONG><FONT color=#ff3300>Moorgard's</FONT> </STRONG>Quotes in Red.<BR></P> <DIV><FONT color=#ff3300><FONT color=#ffffff>Quote #1:</FONT></FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV><FONT color=#ff3300>Moorgard: "In our game, any member of an archetype can fulfill their main role in a group <STRONG>as well as any other."</STRONG></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#ff3300></FONT></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV>Quote #2:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=genmed><B><FONT size=2>WarNipple wrote:</FONT></B></SPAN>No one at lvl 100 is going to say, "to complete our group, we need a Scout". <----Because that could be anyone of 6 ACTUAL classes.</DIV><SPAN class=postbody> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV><BR><BR><FONT color=#ff3300 size=2>Moorgard: "In fact, it's our goal for people at *all* levels to say that very thing, because it would mean that the archetype system works and every class can <STRONG>perform its core role as well as any other</STRONG>."</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> <DIV>.....and before you say "look, he said a group, not a raid"....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3>Quote #3</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV><FONT size=2><SPAN class=postbody><FONT color=#ff3300> Moorgard: "<STRONG>All Fighters can do the job of tank equally well</STRONG>. Our entire system is designed around the idea that anyone from a given archetype can fill their main role <STRONG>as well as any other</STRONG>."</FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><FONT size=2><SPAN class=postbody></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2><SPAN class=postbody></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=postbody>I'm pretty sure that clears the confusion on the issue up. When someone says explicitly <FONT size=2>"<STRONG><FONT color=#ff3300>All Fighters can do the job of tank equally well" </FONT></STRONG></FONT>should be pretty clear. If you'd like to argue whether or not balance should exist, have at it. However, I do think it's pretty clear that it was stated that all fighters would be to able tank equally well.</SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=postbody></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=postbody></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=postbody>all quotes are from the moorgard index, just google it for a URL.</SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=postbody></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=postbody></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=postbody></SPAN></SPAN> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>That is not logical IF all fighters tanked the same then all dmg output should be the same.... ie you zerks doing 380 dps monks doinf 250 dps would all be doing 100 dps like us guardians... oh and I guess then it would not matter what fighter you took since they would all be the same... use a little logic please b4 you make these types of posts... if you want to tank as well fine... but dont expect the same dmg output that you get now...</P> <P> </P>

[JNewby]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Blackdog183 wrote:<BR> <FONT color=#cc0000></FONT><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P> <FONT color=#cc0000>Heres what I want, balance. Plain simple balance.  I want guardians to not be the absolute top choice in all cases over all classes.  I want guadians to be one of the tank classes, not the ONE tank class.  As it stands right now on live, they have the highest HPs, mit, best shields, best self buffing, and can achieve 100% avoidance, best taunts, best weapon selection.  HOW IS THIS BALANCED! Someone explain how the f*ck they think this is balanced.</FONT><BR></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Ok I will state it one more time... bruisers and monks and pallies and sks are used in end game raiding because of their utility and their high end dps... I have a level 50 dirge that raids all the time and we have a pally that does about 180 dps constantly a zekr who does about 400 dps constantly and a bruiser who does about 280 dps constantly and a guard who tanks and lives and does about 60 dps constantly... so how would it be balanced if you could do 300+ dps and still tank as well as a figther that does 60 dps???? answer: you would do 60 dps and tank just as well... there now its balanced have fun... or just quit [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]ing<BR>

[JNewby]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dragonrealms wrote:<BR>One question I have is why exactly do guardians get the most hp? why can't monks have the most hp of a tank class and guardians the least like they do with the healers? Idk how much that would help, but I'd think it would do SOMETHING to make monks more viable as a tank. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I ask the same thing why cant dires do the most dmg? why cant dirges be the best tanks? why cant dirges heal the best I mean comeon it would make me uber right?? that would be SOMETHING to make dirges a more viable tank/dps/healer I mean come on</P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

[JNewby]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> TopHatJones wrote:<BR> <DIV>Berzerker damage was nerfed a while back to balance damage and tanking ability in relation to other figthters....if that is no longer the goal, how about UNnerfing zerks. </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>your joking right?</P> <P>they need about a 50% reduction in dps if not more seeing as they can do about 400 dps end game I dont think they have been hurt by any nerf</P>

[Dragonreal]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> JNewby wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dragonrealms wrote:<BR>One question I have is why exactly do guardians get the most hp? why can't monks have the most hp of a tank class and guardians the least like they do with the healers? Idk how much that would help, but I'd think it would do SOMETHING to make monks more viable as a tank. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I ask the same thing why cant dires do the most dmg? why cant dirges be the best tanks? why cant dirges heal the best I mean comeon it would make me uber right?? that would be SOMETHING to make dirges a more viable tank/dps/healer I mean come on</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Heh ask a simple question and get sarcasm... nice. The answer to your questions is because you can't have it all; the game is riddled with trade-offs and from what I saw in this thread, guardians seem to have it all aside from dps while all the other tanks give up everything for dps while the upcoming combat changes are supposedly nerfing fighter dmg... doesn't seem fair to me. A monk having more hp than a guard I doubt would make the monk uber, but it'd alleviate some of the imbalance imo. </P> <P>And just so you can't throw the "You're only trying to make your class better by nerfing guards" line at me:</P> <P>48 warden here and don't even have a tank alt that could possibly gain from any changes that might be made.</P>

[JNewby]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dragonrealms wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> JNewby wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dragonrealms wrote:<BR>One question I have is why exactly do guardians get the most hp? why can't monks have the most hp of a tank class and guardians the least like they do with the healers? Idk how much that would help, but I'd think it would do SOMETHING to make monks more viable as a tank. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I ask the same thing why cant dires do the most dmg? why cant dirges be the best tanks? why cant dirges heal the best I mean comeon it would make me uber right?? that would be SOMETHING to make dirges a more viable tank/dps/healer I mean come on</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Heh ask a simple question and get sarcasm... nice. The answer to your questions is because you can't have it all; the game is riddled with trade-offs and from what I saw in this thread, guardians seem to have it all aside from dps while all the other tanks give up everything for dps while the upcoming combat changes are supposedly nerfing fighter dmg... doesn't seem fair to me. A monk having more hp than a guard I doubt would make the monk uber, but it'd alleviate some of the imbalance imo. </P> <P>And just so you can't throw the "You're only trying to make your class better by nerfing guards" line at me:</P> <P>48 warden here and don't even have a tank alt that could possibly gain from any changes that might be made.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>All I am trying to say is every class has a roll... omnk and such are tank/dps they do alot of dps and tank well.. if they were made to take jsut as well as aguard then guards would be pretty useless wouldnt they? they do no dmg and all they can do is tank... monks can certainly tank better then guardains can dmg so I dont think they are hurting to much...</P> <P>I would throw no liine at you such as that.. just eveery class has to have a use if guards were not the best tanks they owuld have no purpose.. cause they cannot do anything else</P>

[Narfism]

<P>Is it me or do most people that don't want tanking equality seem to think that equality is just through mitigation.  This just isn't the case (or shouldn't be the case).  Tanking ability shouldn't be measured by just avoidance and mitigation.  Tanking ability should be a combination of those 2 skills + all casted skills associated with the tanking class.  Note that this is just my idea of what I would like things to be like, but I ask that everyone keeps an open mind.</P> <P>As an example, in raids, guardian mitigation/avoidance/skills should have the same effectiveness as paladin mitigation/avoidance/skills.  This does not mean be the same skills, but through wards/heals/mitigation/avoidance paladins should have the same effectiveness as a guadian using mitigation/avoidance/defensive buffs.  Now keep in mind, this only works if one of two things happen:</P> <P>1.  It takes a combined effort for all tanks to keep aggro off of their respective groups (I.E. 1 damaging body part per tank [group x 4 mob should have 4 things attacking that aren't linked so ae taunts don't work, but they all come like a normal group of mobs or the total damage on 1 tank be so massive that there is no way to keep a single tank up]).  Maybe having one tank being responsible for melee damage, 2 for casting damage and another to keep aggro from the backstabbers.</P> <P>2.  Each tanking class has a significant duty on said raid (i.e. secondary role that is required for the success of a raid).</P> <P>While I would enjoy the first idea immensly, more practical would be the second.  So what we need to do is find a secondary role for those that don't have one.  Guardians could be more effective blocking damage for a crusader that is tanking a nuking class raid mob.  This is assuming that they making paladins responsible for one half of resists and sks responsible for the other half.  This would be their nitch.  If the guardian wishes to tank they may but the dps would be higher as they would not mitigate the casting damage as well.  This is just one of my ideas for the concept of situational superiority.  Through a combined effort would be the best situation for a tanking scheme in a particular raid.  </P> <P>Same can go for guardians tanking melee heavy mobs and having another tank class (lets say crusaders, as I forget who has better mitigation transferring buffs) buff them with mitigation buffs.  I also like the idea for avoidance tanks to be supplemented by another classes parry skill transfer buffs.  Make the mobs swing fast and moderately but give many status effects.</P> <P>In game currently, we see a horrid design of 1 tank and 23 others doing their thing.  Now while other tanks can fulfill secondary roles, they are no real substitute for the actual classes they are taking up a slot for.  By creating situational superiority, all classes can have their day without gimpifying the raid force by doing it.  This would also create a need for every class in a raid instead of 3 guardians, 3 templars, the rest warlocks, wizards and illusionists.</P> <P> </P> <P>Mind this is just a rough idea of what I would like to see but at least I am giving options as opposed to some people that just bicker about who should be doing what.  Instead of fighting each other, we need to sit down and figure out a way that we can all have our day.  Being fighters, we all like being in the spotlight every once in a while.</P> <P> </P> <P>Lotharin Dashaus</P> <P> </P>

[Dragonreal]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> JNewby wrote:<BR><BR> <P>I would throw no liine at you such as that.. just eveery class has to have a use if guards were not the best tanks they owuld have no purpose.. cause they cannot do anything else</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Glad to hear you wouldn't heh but I had to put the disclaimer in there just in case since I'm too lazy to go make a signature ;P</DIV>

[Jojo-the-Yumcov]

<P> </P> <P>   don't worry.under the new system all the classes are going to suck alot worse.as for the guardian/paladins being the best tanks it depends on gear,what the encounter is,and your raid plan.right now i'd say they are pretty [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] close.single mobs it's probally better for the guardian to tank since paladins will actually HAVE to heal in raids(yes,lot of butt saving duties now.so that makes paladins even sexxier than before).as for multi-mobs you are really not going to want the extra adds on the MT so you will need/want *spite/back up* tanks. plus most encounters are going to be a hell of alot tougher.specially if the mobs are levels above you (even with racial bonus defence traits x 2).</P> <DIV>before you complain about these changes i will say one thing.whineings what got you into this mess and it sure as hell isn't getting ya out of it.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> signed by,a A-hole for a paladin on test.</DIV>

[WolfSha]

<P><SPAN>Omg.. this thread is starting to be a bit of a dead horse now, but ok... I’ll try once more… <STRONG>This is a long post, but if you read it you will understand why we can't ever really have balance.</STRONG> <SPAN> </SPAN>lets try to look at what "being able to tank equally well" is supposed to mean and try to understand something…</SPAN></P> <P><STRONG><SPAN>It is impossible for all fighters to tank the same mobs equally well without being identical, if you can't see that you're not engaging your brain! Filling <I>your role as a tank</I> includes your dps most of the time…</SPAN></STRONG><SPAN></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Les look at an example to help understand why…</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Lets compare guards and monks.... I’m not bashing monks, but it’s a good example as they’re very different.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>So.. lets make a guard and a monk and try to balance them.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN></SPAN> </P> <P><SPAN>IF a monk had 80% avoild, 20% mit and a guard had 20% avoid and 80% mit then most people would agree that’s balanced:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>If both get 100 hits for 100 dmg then</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Monk avoid 80, left with 20 hits… mitigate 20% = takes 1600 dmg</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Guard avoid 20, left with 80 hits.. mitigate 80% = takes 1600 dmg</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Yay balance... that’s was easy, SoE must be stupid! Lets send them off to fight!!</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN></SPAN> </P> <P><SPAN>Ooh, they’re soloing today… they’re each gonna take on an even con solo mob…</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN></SPAN> </P> <P><SPAN>But now something strange has happened - the fact the monk has twice the dps of the guard means that the monk has only actually had 50 hits against him as the fight was over faster… hmm.. that’s not balanced…. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN> </SPAN><SPAN>Monk was attacked 50 times, avoided 40, left with 10 hits… mitigate 20% = takes 800 dmg</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Guard was attacked 100 times, avoid 20, left with 80 hits.. mitigate 80% = takes 1600 dmg</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN></SPAN> </P> <P><SPAN>[expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]… we forgot the dps…DOH!  oh well, lets make it so that the guard avoids 60% instead!</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Monk attacked 50 times, avoided 40, left with 10 hits… mitigate 20% = takes 800 dmg</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Guard attacked 100 times, avoid 60, left with 40 hits.. mitigate 80% = takes 800 dmg</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Yay balance... that’s was easy, SoE must be stupid!</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN></SPAN> </P> <P><SPAN>Ooh, what are they doing today? They’re grouped with a templar, a ranger and a wizard…</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Now the tanks dps only makes up about 20% of the groups dps so the difference between the number of attacks made against the guard or the monk isn’t very big because of the monks double dmg, only makes for about a about 10% quicker fight…. Suddenly our guard is a lot tougher than our monk because we balanced for solo… DOH!</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>For groups we need to change it so the guard has about 10% more defences than our monk as he’s only getting hit on 10% more now, not 100% more..</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>If we look at raids then there’s effectively no difference at all in usefulness between monk and guard dps because there are 23 other people doing that job and the difference between a monk as MT and a guard as MT might mean about a 1% shorter fight…</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>So to balance our monk and guard for a raid we need to go back to out 80/20, 20/80 model we started with… but we already know that doesn’t work solo or grouped…</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>So you can’t balance fighters with difference dps… ok then, easily solved… we give all tanks the same dps… boring, but the people want balance… Yay balance... that’s was easy, SoE must be stupid!</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN></SPAN> </P> <P><SPAN>Now our guard and monk (back at 80/20 and 20/80 due to same dps now) are now perfectly balanced for solo and group play and raids! We’re geniuses!!! </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Oh look! Today they’re each MTing on a raid... good job we balanced them!<SPAN>  </SPAN></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Both have 4000 health. The raid mob is hitting for about 3k dmg a time.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>The guard basically gets hit every time, but mitigates that down to 600dmg which the healers can cope with.... he's doing well...</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>The monk never really gets hit, but sooner or later, he lucks out and get hit twice close together for 2400 dmg each time and he’s be dead.  OH.....</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Bum… this still isn’t balanced… </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Suddenly it seems that it is not possible to balance difference tanks for all encounters without having identical DPS, Mitigation and Avoidance.<SPAN>  </SPAN>If you do that then might was well delete all the subclasses and just have 1 misc fighter class… how exciting!</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>People are just going to have to accept situational tanking.<SPAN>  </SPAN>Guardians will always be the best at tanking raids simply because their low dps makes then completely gimped solo or in a small group without a lot of defence and in raid defence is all you care about for your MT is defence.<SPAN>   </SPAN><SPAN> </SPAN>In a small group a monk will always be more use than a guard because getting to the end of the fight faster means everyone has used less power = less down time = more xp.<SPAN>  </SPAN>If guards are a little too tough right now (which they probably are) then they need scaling back, but you’ll never archive balance.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Unless the content changes dramatically (and there are lots of good ideas on how on about page 3 of this thread before it got too long) then we’re not going to get balanced raids for fighters.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>The best SoE can do is balance the fighters for 99% of the games content (<B>IE GROUP PLAY</B>) and say “sorry, raids are not balanced for MT role, other fighters will have to put up with dps rolls if there’s a guard there” because we can’t fix it without breaking the rest of the game.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Sorry if my tone sounds a bit patronising, but this thread is now 7 pages long, and people aren’t realising there will always be <B><I>inequalities</I></B> unless the subclasses are identical, and I don’t think any of us really want that!</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>So the answer is simple – if tanking raids is what you want to do, make a guard, don’t make another sub-class and scream for an impossible request of balancing all fighters for all mobs. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>If you can prove my maths wrong then post and tell me so, if not then surely this thread is dead now? Please?</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#000000></FONT></SPAN> </P> <p>Message Edited by WolfShark on <span class=date_text>05-11-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:54 AM</span>

[Dragonreal]

<P>Now you have to account for all the people who won't let monks tank even in normal xp groups, and all the monks who think they CAN'T tank because of that >.> Every group I've had with a monk in it (barring the ones I made myself), there were 2 tanks in group, the monk and a plate tank; even in the ones I made myself where I had a monk friend tanking, the rest of the ppl in the group always wanted me to pick up a plate tank once one of the dps dropped out.</P> <P> </P>

[WolfSha]

<P>Lol, yeah, but that's not a "fix the game SoE" issue, that's a bang people heads togther issue! :smileyvery-happy:</P> <P>If i was grouped with a monk and we were even levels i wouldn't care who tanked. If he was one lvl higher than me i'd want him to tank.  If he was 3 lvl's higher i'd bloody insist that he tanked!!  I've met a lot of people who think monks can't tank... i don't know where it comes from... probably the lvl 50 monks who want to be raid MT filling the forums with "waaah, we can't tank" :smileywink:</P> <P>Seriously tho, i realy don't know where people get there ideas! In a group of 4 (or even maybe 6 depending on group make up) I'd rather have a monk thank than a guard to be honest.  Yes you might be able to take a orange mob with a guardian, but if you can kill 2 yellow mobs in the same time with a monk tanking then that's more xp, and more use in my book!</P>

[Dragonreal]

The most messed up part about the whole thing is I'm the hlr of the group and I'm saying "he tanks fine, I have no issues, we don't need a plate tank and we don't need another hlr" and they still insist on one or even both of those being added to the group -_-;

[otlg]

<DIV>Ok folks, I've watched this debate.. and then I watched somemore, and folks seem to be missing what balance could mean in this situation.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The statement has been made 'all fighters will tank equally well'.  Ok, first up; define the term 'tank' (I think this is where the problem comes from).  I'm going to define 'tank' for everyone, since noone else has bothered to explicitly do so. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I shall define the term 'to tank' to mean:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>To bear the brunt of damage dealt by a mob, while the mob is alive.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I will further define the shortened 'tank' or 'tanking' to basically mean the same thing.  Ok, now that we have a definition we can have a debate.  A lot of people seem to forget the 'while the mob is alive' part of the definiton, which is why I posted it.  Now an example of how 2 different types of characters can 'tank equally well':</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><EM>Warning this is an overly simplified example</EM></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV><EM>(for the sake of this example, just assume there is 1 number that is a total damage modifier, which I shall call avoidmit, if it's 50% you take 50% of the damage thrown your way).</EM></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM> </DIV> <DIV><EM>Also let's break damange dealt down to 1 number, again for simplicity, to Total Damage Dealt Per Second or TDDPS for short.</EM></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV>Character A: </DIV> <DIV>Total HP:  1,000</DIV> <DIV>Avoidmit:   50</DIV> <DIV>TDDPS:    200</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Character B:</DIV> <DIV>Total HP:  1,000</DIV> <DIV>Avoidmit:  75</DIV> <DIV>TDDPS:    100</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Target Mob:</DIV> <DIV>Total HP:  1,000</DIV> <DIV>Avoidmit:   0 (to keep it VERY SIMPLE)</DIV> <DIV>TDDPS:    250</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Let's assume for this demo that all other things are equal between the two encounters, and that the damage dealt by the tanks isn't totally insignficant to the total damage output of the group (if it was, in this example, you would STILL have equally good tanks).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Ok.. so these two tanks engage..</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It would take Tank A 5 seconds to defeat the mob, during which time they would take... 625 pts of damage.</DIV> <DIV>It would take Tank B 10 seconds to defeat the mob, during which time they would take... 625 pts of damage.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There... TOTALLY different stats, *exact same* tanking equality.</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Now... I know there are literally THOUSANDS of other things to throw in here, like agro management, etc.  And different groups can end up with different results.  Either way, each of these two different characters end up the same (as long as the variations are applied evenly).  Balancing the basic aspects of the tank group is *easy*.  It is harder to balance agro management and so-forth in such a way that keeps things unique, but that to, can also be done (i.e. the 100 TDDPS tank should have better taunts to prevent agro loss from their lower damage dealt).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Just some food for thought...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Osiri (Oggok & Test)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Tanlaus wrote:<BR> <P>I thought Moorguard's deliniation of tanks was a good one. I prefer class variation in the game as opposed to more cookie cutter, less unique classes for the skae of the almighty balance.</P> <P>Especially in a game like this. If you play a bruiser and would prefer to tank like a guardian, then make a guardian. It doesn't seem like that big a deal.</P> <P>I play a Troubador as my main. Can't do damage like a Brigand or Assassin (play in the Freeport side) but do I care? No, if I wanted big hits I would have made an Assassin. If I wanted group utility + steady high damage over time I would have made a brigand. Well, I made a Bard, and to be honest I like playing him like a bard.</P> <P>I think the majority of EQ2 players prefer class differences and pick their class because they think it will be fun to play. In game, people seem to be pretty happy, class envy is largely a reflection of these boards.<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>The problem lies in the fact that there isn't enough roles in this game to allow for that much diversity.<BR>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sunrayn wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eldarn wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Guardan: <STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000>TANK</FONT></STRONG></DIV> <P>By making 5 out of 6 classes in the archtype have multiple roles, and one have only one role, they instantly and (possibly) permanatly shot their vision of balance in the foot. There's no way that the other tanks could be equal at tanking when they can do all of those other things but the poor Guardian can only do one thing.  With the tremendous number of potential secondary roles for a character to play in a group, the EQ2 team decided to go with NONE, for Guardian.<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Poor Guardian?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Thats what I signed up to be.  A tank.  Nothing more, nothing less.  I think most, if not all guards signed up for the same reason.  Its what I do.  Its all I want to do. <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>Unfortunatley for you, lots of other fighters did too, who didn't choose guardians.  What makes you more worthy than them, just because of your class choice?<BR>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P>uglak wrote:</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>Which would  not be balanced, as DPS will get you invited to groups and raids for offtank roles, extra  taunts will not.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>There is only a place for 1 tank in most groups.  Maybe 2 tanks in raids.  Extra tanks are a waste of limited  slots.   Tanks that can also DPS, can fill not only the one tank slot, but the  DPS slots as well. That is a huge advantage.   That is why the DPS of a fighter must be given great consideration when balancing.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>Offense is weighed against Defense.   The more offense the fighter has, the less Defense.   Anything else would be unbalanced.   Fighters dont get asked to group in a offtank role because they have a extra taunt.  They get asked to the offtank role mainly because of DPS or possibly a utility like evac.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>Looks like the class as a whole will be considered when balancing. (Which I cannot imagine why anyone would think otherwise)</FONT><FONT color=#ffff33>  While defense ability and DPS are the major factors, utilities like invis, mend, FD , Fear, Heals, safefall, horses, evac,  etc.  also most be in the equation when it comes to balance.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>Anything else would be unacceptable and unbalanced.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>If tank A and tank B both have the exact same defense.  Yet tank B has better DPS and some nice utilities to boot, which class would you play? (and everyone else for that matter?)</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>It has to be give and take in all roleplaying games where balance is concerned.   I am sorry for those that wanted to play in the "Tankmage archtype".   You just cannot have it all.   There must be tradeoffs when balancing classes.</FONT></P> <HR> <BR>Spoken just like someone who doesn't want to compete for tank spots in the end game <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

[jfo]

<DIV>we had a monk tank the hand of caldera. it was neat. as a healer it was a serious, mana-draining workout, but still one of the neater things i've seen.</DIV>

[Shennr]

I agree with Gage on this. If you want to be a bruiser or monk and tank then you should be able to. All fighters can tank but as a healer I can see many differences between them all but I still beleive that they all should be able to tank a mob if they were put into that position.

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> JNewby wrote: <P>Ok I will state it one more time... bruisers and monks and pallies and sks are used in end game raiding because of their utility and their high end dps... I have a level 50 dirge that raids all the time and we have a pally that does about 180 dps constantly a zekr who does about 400 dps constantly and a bruiser who does about 280 dps constantly and a guard who tanks and lives and does about 60 dps constantly... so how would it be balanced if you could do 300+ dps and still tank as well as a figther that does 60 dps???? answer: you would do 60 dps and tank just as well... there now its balanced have fun... or just quit [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]ing<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Why is it that you talk about DPS in a discussion about tanking ability?<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Besides, lets look at it truly open minded and from both sides:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Just as you can say "A monk can't do 250dps and a guardian 60, while tanking equally well, that isn't balanced!"</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You can say "A monk and a guardian both do around 100ish dps and tank pretty decently in comparison to each other, although certain scenarios favor one over the other."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Of course when you bring up giving guardians more damage, more utility; they balk.  They don't want it.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>OF COURSE NOT!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Why would they want to be put in a position that allows them to compete with other fighters, when as of now, they don't have to.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I wouldn't want to compete either, would you?</DIV><p>Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on <span class=date_text>05-11-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:23 PM</span>

[Ibis]

huh?  I want more DPS.  [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot], I want death touch dude.  whats the weather like on your planet? <div></div>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ibishi wrote:<BR>huh?  I want more DPS.  [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot], I want death touch dude.  whats the weather like on your planet?<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Overcast.</P> <P>But although you are correct in that I shouldn't generalize, in the other numerous discussions I've been in regarding this topic, the majority of guardians have in fact said they do not want more utility or increased DPS, they just want to tank.</P> <P>Which is what I based my comment on.</P> <P>The majority will never be everyone, of course.<BR></P>

[WolfSha]

<P>I say fair enough; if they just want to tank then let them... are you willing to give up your dps to tank like them?  Personally I'm not.  I wouldn't want to be a guard and so i didn't make one.  </P> <P>If we keep insisting we all be allowed to tank like guards, SoE have 3 choices</P> <P>1) Ignore us</P> <P>2) Up guard dps/util and our tanking ability to match them</P> <P>3) Nerf our dsp into the ground to match the gaurds and up our tanking ability to match them</P> <P>Now if they choose #1, a thread like this will appear every few weeks until they do something</P> <P>If they choose #2, the scouts (who already want tank dsp nerf) will be out for blood as you'll have guardians wanding around with 10x the tanking ability and 3/4 the damage of a scout</P> <P>So they only really have #3 left and i REALLY don't wanna loose my dps and be one of the many LFG fighters when it comes to raids as we're useless if not MTing...</P>

[Ancientwalk]

<div></div>WoW has it simple, even though people wont admit it. Warriors tank (soak damage and aggro, even if they resort to using 2 skills only), mages and hunters do damage (rogues too, but too much of a hassle to heal), priests heal, everyone else is utlity or because of crappy class design/broken skills everyone else is useless. EQII has it tough. 2 tanks that have plate and defensive or restoration based skillsets. 2 tanks that have plate and offensive based skillsets. 2 tanks that have light armor, 1 has offensive and 1 has defensive based skillsets.  These tanks base their defense off avoidance. How do you logically balance this for raid, solo and group content while still keeping the mentality that all can tank as well as each other overall?  It's much much much harder than it seems.  You must balance damage (not necessarily dps), aggo getting ability and damage absorb/avoidance. SoE would have 6 tanks to balance with each other and the game, where WoW has 1 perhaps 2 if you want the paladin to tank (which is not really the case). I give SoE credit for even attempting it.  It boggles the mind to balance this system. <div></div><p>Message Edited by Ancientwalker on <span class=date_text>05-12-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:21 AM</span>

[WolfSha]

<P>I give them credit for trying, but it can't really be done the way they've tried to do it- look at my post on the last page with the maths in... it's simply not possible to balance the different styles across all content as they don't scale up and down together...  </P> <P>Unfortunately their content doesn't match what their trying to do with the classes - they've only done half the job and now we're in this situation.</P> <P>All soe can do is balance it for group content which makes up the majority of play time and leave it at that, or make some major changes to content.  </P> <P>Quick example - if a raid mob was to be changed to hit10 times as fast for 1/10th the dmg then avoidance tanking and mitigation tanking would balance much better, but the situation we have now were raid mob can few-shot-kill a monk when he's not having a lucky day vs a plate tank always taking dmg at a predicatable stable rate it just doesn't work, and you could never balance aviodance vs mitigation properly with that kind of content.</P>

[Jangosh]

Wolfshark, I think you have a great point there...SOE should increase the frequency of attacks and lower the per hit damage to help the percentages work better in each fight.  The law of averages will help balance things if they simply up the count.  Any basic probability knowledge on their team and they would know this.  Even just doubling the rate of attacks and cutting damage in half would drastically improve the balance in mitigation vs. avoidance per fight.

[Anlari]

<P>Well Gage, when I made my bruiser, I knew I would not tank epic mobs with the same efficiency as a Guardian, afterall, tanking is their one trick they do and they should do it better then anyone.  I, for one, have no desire to be a guardian with different graphics and ability names.  I like my extra DPS, I like how I tank right now, I don't want to be a Guardian.</P> <P>I seriously don't understand the desire to be a guardian with different graphics and animations.  Come on, you knew, whether you admitt it or not, that a monk would never tank as well as a guardian in all situations.  If you didn't, then you were seriously trying hard to not notice the huge advantages you had over them while you were reachign the end game.  You carried advantages they didn't have, and now in the end game, they have the advantage in tanking raid mobs.  Good for them, let them have it.  They worked hard to get there and didn't get the extra DPS, wind walk, DPS, or anything else even remotly interesting.  If you have such guardian envy, then play one for christ's sake and stop trying to turn all tanks into them.</P>

[Aandien]

<P>If they want to balance tanking.....</P> <P>lower mobs (primarly raid content, but to some degree regular stuff) spike damage ability.</P> <P>This way every raid mob can be tanked by classes other than guardians more readily.</P> <P>Now, give each set of fighters unique skills, and at the same time, give each raid encounter a unique set of abilities.</P> <P>Make these abilities instant kill anyone that is tanking that doesn't counter with the new appropriate skill.  Make the new skills buffs that last for a small period of time or whatever, and give some sort of warning a short period of time before the mob uses his death-touch skill.  If the mob uses the skill and the tank doesn't have the counter buff up, he dies.  If he has it up, then he just achieved some heroic event and kept himself alive.  You could even make new heroic opportunities that provide these counters to get everyone involved in the MT group.  You could also make certain mob abilities defendable by multiple tanks...for example: for vox you could give her an ability where she periodically tries to eat the tank.  A bruiser could have a counter where he jumps out of the way at the last second avoiding the attack.  A guardian could have an ability where he blocks the attack with his tower shield.  If neither of those skills are active at the time of the attack....well, those poor tanks are now dead and in her stomach.</P> <P>Now, everyone can tank, but if your not the right tank for the right encounter (or if your not paying attention to what the mob is doing), you get insta-killed by his ability <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>You still don't necessarily *need* the right tank there to kill raid mob X .. as you can always rez back your tank every time he gets whacked.  But it will certaintly make the fights easier if you have the right tank.  Plus, every tank can now feel useful at raids.</P> <P>Message Edited by AncientElster on <SPAN class=date_text>05-12-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>07:27 AM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by AncientElster on <span class=date_text>05-12-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:27 AM</span>

[WolfSha]

<P>Your right, we need something like this... </P> <P>But this thread is getting too long now and going in clircles... we more or less said this on page 6... </P> <P>We agreed that raids should need multiple tanks and <EM>need</EM> different tanks at different times..  </P> <P>Your's is slightly different - we didn't have "counters" for special abilities by page 6, we were looking at things like some raid mobs ignoring taunts, so only high dps tanks could keep agro etc... I must say i think you idea is actually better though, so good post :smileyhappy:</P> <P>But all other tanks have something to do when not MTing... guards don't so we still need a second roll for guards... I posted a suggestion orginally made on another thread by boli, for guards having  a mini-seige weapon towards the bottom of page 6 of this thread which people seemed to like.. check if out if you've only read the last page or two of this obscenely long thread... :smileytongue:</P>

[Ancientwalk]

sorry for not reading all the posts.  But I agree with ya Wolfshark, except I dont think anything twitch based will work, which was just suggested.  There are many MTs that dont have a computer capable of rapidly changing targets in a raid or not having sufficient lag to twitch against an encounter. Not sure what you guys suggested, I'll read it sometime, I swear! But, no twitch based stuff. <div></div>

[Wasuna]

<P>I see Gage made it here to this thread. If you have a FEW WEEKS to waste reading his hundreds of posts and have any kind of interest in seeing his opinions then just check out the Guardian forum.</P> <P>The bottom line is this:</P> <P>Guardians wear the Heaviest armor</P> <P>Guardians have a full line of DEFENSIVE buffs.</P> <P>Guards have pretty poor DPS compared to other classes unless we forsake our defensive equipment then we can do kind of ok DPS.</P> <P>Guardians can not heal, ward or anything else other than protect (which is done at a severe penalty) and group buffs which adds more defense to us personally than the whole group anyway.</P> <P>People like Gage can complain all they want but the Guardian class was MADE TO TANK. Now we have the classic SOE problem of telling people one thing and doing another. Gage wants what he wants independant of what Guardians want. I picked Guardian becasue I could care less about DPS and I didn't want ANY special abilities that did anything other than make me a better tank. If you wanted to tank then the Guardian was the clear choice. If you wanted to DPS and FD and get a baby heal then monk was the clear choice.</P> <P>SOE has two choices. Make all tanks what they said or change what they said to what they made tanks to be. Gage chooses to change all tanks so he can have his perfect world and I chooce to take what I saw Guardians to be based on research and planning knowing that SOE has a track record of not meeting what is said based on how these things end up being dynamic when the game goes live and you have 100,000's of testers.</P>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Anlarius wrote:<BR> <P>I seriously don't understand the desire to be a guardian with different graphics and animations.  Come on, you knew, whether you admitt it or not, that a monk would never tank as well as a guardian in all situations.  If you didn't, then you were seriously trying hard to not notice the huge advantages you had over them while you were reachign the end game.  You carried advantages they didn't have, and now in the end game, they have the advantage in tanking raid mobs.  Good for them, let them have it.  They worked hard to get there and didn't get the extra DPS, wind walk, DPS, or anything else even remotly interesting.  If you have such guardian envy, then play one for christ's sake and stop trying to turn all tanks into them.<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I actually didn't.  But I'm sure lots of people think I did, and I'm on some crusade to turn monks into a mini-guardian.</P> <P>That, however, isn't my intention.</P> <P>For me, the majority of my game time has been and will be the endgame.  So for you to tell me to enjoy my utility that was useful then (and pretty much fluff now) and stand around with the scouts doing damage and be happy: NO.</P> <P>That isn't why I picked a fighter class.</P> <P>I'm not the one who said this system would be balanced, I'm not the one who made promise after promise before release, and I'm not the one who has the task of making it work; that's SOE's job.</P> <P>I do however want it to work.</P> <P>Just tell me, honestly, how the non-raid game can be balanced with every fighter being able to tank (even most x2 and x3) with not one single cry of OMG GUARDIANS ARE USELESS (even with our "uber" dps and amazing heal/invis/fd) but when it comes around to real raid tanking (x4s) one mention of a monk being able to tank it (as intended) and its the death of all guardians?</P> <P>I for one believe that eventually they can balance it to make the fighters interchangeable in a way that all can be successful on all mobs, while being different.</P> <P>They just haven't done it yet.<BR></P>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Wasuna wrote:<BR> <P>I see Gage made it here to this thread. If you have a FEW WEEKS to waste reading his hundreds of posts and have any kind of interest in seeing his opinions then just check out the Guardian forum.</P> <P>The bottom line is this:</P> <P>Guardians wear the Heaviest armor</P> <P>Guardians have a full line of DEFENSIVE buffs.</P> <P>Guards have pretty poor DPS compared to other classes unless we forsake our defensive equipment then we can do kind of ok DPS.</P> <P>Guardians can not heal, ward or anything else other than protect (which is done at a severe penalty) and group buffs which adds more defense to us personally than the whole group anyway.</P> <P>People like Gage can complain all they want but the Guardian class was MADE TO TANK. Now we have the classic SOE problem of telling people one thing and doing another. Gage wants what he wants independant of what Guardians want. I picked Guardian becasue I could care less about DPS and I didn't want ANY special abilities that did anything other than make me a better tank. If you wanted to tank then the Guardian was the clear choice. If you wanted to DPS and FD and get a baby heal then monk was the clear choice.</P> <P>SOE has two choices. Make all tanks what they said or change what they said to what they made tanks to be. Gage chooses to change all tanks so he can have his perfect world and I chooce to take what I saw Guardians to be based on research and planning knowing that SOE has a track record of not meeting what is said based on how these things end up being dynamic when the game goes live and you have 100,000's of testers.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Thanks for all the kind comments sir, I know you love me.</P> <P>The question I have, which has been brought up and ignored, is why did SOE give every other tank a secondary role, but not the guardian class?</P> <P>Oversight?</P> <P>Seems like it.</P> <P>We'll see though.</P> <P>If all else fails and guardians/pallys are the best, I'll still play, I'll still post, and you'll still comment in adoration about my posts.  The only difference will be in that I'll be asking for a real need for offtanks and offtanking ability, instead of making me a scout with crap utility.</P> <P>Or just go full circle and make me a scout, I'd love to have evac, a real invis, higher dps and awesome buffs, if SOE can't do what they set out to do.<BR></P>

[CMF]

<DIV>Ok, so I didn't read all of it, started off got through part of page 2 and the last page.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But, instead of going back into what has already been said I would like to offer up my idea of how tanks should work. (maybe I should have started my own thread?? oh well)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Basicly, Armor tanks vs Agility tanks:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Armor Tanks</DIV> <DIV>For certain situations you would want an Armor tank who mitigates damage. Say MOBs who attack very fast over and over doing moderate damage. You can not dodge every single hit but you can make it easier to heal the armor tank by reducing the damage of each hit. Heal over times would work well for armor tanks.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Agility tanks</DIV> <DIV>For certain situations you would want an Agility tank, someone who dodges the damage. Say a MOB that attacks very slow but does huge damage each hit. An armor tank would basicly get hit almost every time, causing the healers to have to keep healing every time the spell pops. An agility tank would dodge most of the hits, but when they did get hit they get hit hard, needing single big heals.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Question is how do you stop agility from over powering the armor tanks. If the agility tank can dodge most hits whats to stop them from dodging most of the hits from the fast hitting MOB? Maybe add a limit to the successive ammounts of dodges one can do. There by having a MOB that hits a lot whittle away faster at a Agility tank because they can only dodge so much and end up getting more damage done to them than an armor tank who takes all the hits but they are reduced enough to not bother them.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Baisicly I want situational tactics, not blanket tactics. Sometimes you want a Guardian....sometimes you might want a Monk.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This could give more roles out there to fill durring raids.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Ok this is all in good for the two extrems of tanks, Gaurdians and Monks. What about those in the middle?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Yeah I was going to go read over this and try to forumlate more ideas or elaborate more but I'm lazy now and just going to post as is =p</DIV>

[Margen]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> CMF wrote:<BR> <DIV>Ok, so I didn't read all of it, started off got through part of page 2 and the last page.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But, instead of going back into what has already been said I would like to offer up my idea of how tanks should work. (maybe I should have started my own thread?? oh well)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Basicly, Armor tanks vs Agility tanks:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Armor Tanks</DIV> <DIV>For certain situations you would want an Armor tank who mitigates damage. Say MOBs who attack very fast over and over doing moderate damage. You can not dodge every single hit but you can make it easier to heal the armor tank by reducing the damage of each hit. Heal over times would work well for armor tanks.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Agility tanks</DIV> <DIV>For certain situations you would want an Agility tank, someone who dodges the damage. Say a MOB that attacks very slow but does huge damage each hit. An armor tank would basicly get hit almost every time, causing the healers to have to keep healing every time the spell pops. An agility tank would dodge most of the hits, but when they did get hit they get hit hard, needing single big heals.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Question is how do you stop agility from over powering the armor tanks. If the agility tank can dodge most hits whats to stop them from dodging most of the hits from the fast hitting MOB? Maybe add a limit to the successive ammounts of dodges one can do. There by having a MOB that hits a lot whittle away faster at a Agility tank because they can only dodge so much and end up getting more damage done to them than an armor tank who takes all the hits but they are reduced enough to not bother them.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Baisicly I want situational tactics, not blanket tactics. Sometimes you want a Guardian....sometimes you might want a Monk.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This could give more roles out there to fill durring raids.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Ok this is all in good for the two extrems of tanks, Gaurdians and Monks. What about those in the middle?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Yeah I was going to go read over this and try to forumlate more ideas or elaborate more but I'm lazy now and just going to post as is =p</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I agree you don't want blanket tactics, but please remember that you can't simply break it down between mitigation vs avoidance tanks.  There are 4 "mitigation" tanks, and usally you are only going to need one or at most two tanks in a raid, the rest is going to be filled with healing and dps.  And from the mid level raids I've done, the off tanking job usally isn't needed, usally its pull a single set of mobs to a safe postion and the mt maintains aggro and healers heal, and dps smackes it down, so if your not the mt, you are not doing alot except dpsing at lower rate.  </P> <P>So after the main tank is chosen usually the guild is going to want those vaulable postions filled with dps characters and even dps tanks will not do as much as the true dps classes (as it should be).  Plus from what I read on the new combat changes, tank dps may be taking a hit to increase the difference between them and rouges.</P> <P>So you have to either A: make encounters where you need mulitiple tanks B: give all tank classes the abiltiy to tank with equal efficancy but in different ways or C: give all 6 tanks secondary abilties that shine or D: make different encounters that are built for each of the six tank classes.  Or maybe do a combination of all 4.</P> <P>V/R</P> <P>Blackoath 33rd Troll Shadow Knight</P> <P>Message Edited by Margen on <SPAN class=date_text>05-12-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>05:46 PM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Margen on <span class=date_text>05-12-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:47 PM</span>

[Anlari]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Anlarius wrote:<BR> <P>I seriously don't understand the desire to be a guardian with different graphics and animations.  Come on, you knew, whether you admitt it or not, that a monk would never tank as well as a guardian in all situations.  If you didn't, then you were seriously trying hard to not notice the huge advantages you had over them while you were reachign the end game.  You carried advantages they didn't have, and now in the end game, they have the advantage in tanking raid mobs.  Good for them, let them have it.  They worked hard to get there and didn't get the extra DPS, wind walk, DPS, or anything else even remotly interesting.  If you have such guardian envy, then play one for christ's sake and stop trying to turn all tanks into them.<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I actually didn't.  But I'm sure lots of people think I did, and I'm on some crusade to turn monks into a mini-guardian.</P> <P>That, however, isn't my intention.</P> <P>For me, the majority of my game time has been and will be the endgame.  So for you to tell me to enjoy my utility that was useful then (and pretty much fluff now) and stand around with the scouts doing damage and be happy: NO.</P> <P>That isn't why I picked a fighter class.</P> <P>I'm not the one who said this system would be balanced, I'm not the one who made promise after promise before release, and I'm not the one who has the task of making it work; that's SOE's job.</P> <P>I do however want it to work.</P> <P>Just tell me, honestly, how the non-raid game can be balanced with every fighter being able to tank (even most x2 and x3) with not one single cry of OMG GUARDIANS ARE USELESS (even with our "uber" dps and amazing heal/invis/fd) but when it comes around to real raid tanking (x4s) one mention of a monk being able to tank it (as intended) and its the death of all guardians?</P> <P>I for one believe that eventually they can balance it to make the fighters interchangeable in a way that all can be successful on all mobs, while being different.</P> <P>They just haven't done it yet.<BR></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Anytime someone makes a character specificly for the end game, you should look at t5he one trick pony characters because they will always do their role better then anyone else.  Take Sorcerers for example, they deal damage.  they don't realy do much of anythign else.  Because they only deal damage, they deal more of it then anyone else in a shorter amount of time.  Guardians are much the same way.  They tank and tank best because they don't do much of anything else.  Trying to say monks should tanka s well as guardians in raids is like saying enchanters should be able to deal the same damage as sorcerers.  It just won't ever happen.  </P> <DIV>In my opinion, a game should never determine balance on the end game, afterall, it is the end.  The classes should be well balanced throughout the game, and for the most part, they are (I know a few exceptions).  Look at all the one trick pony classes, and they are the ones heavily desired in raids: Sorcerers, Templars, Guardians.  Now I think their opposites should be just as desired (Berserkers and Inquisitors), but for some reason aren't, but they should be the ones who do what they do best of all sicne they don't do anything else.  </DIV>

[Dart]

<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2><SPAN class=270210615-13052005></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2><SPAN class=270210615-13052005>Yo gage~</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2><SPAN class=270210615-13052005></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2><SPAN class=270210615-13052005>If SOE botches this patch as bad as I am expecting, then what you going to do when you see Guardians running around with VLA (taking advantage of the VLA Avoidance #'s) while at the same time being able to maintain a lead on Mitigation with Self buffs, possibly able to come near to reaching the cap?</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2><SPAN class=270210615-13052005></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=270210615-13052005><FONT face=Verdana>Speculation? Yes, Impossible? No, Does SOE get most of the redesigns/code changes right the first time? No. Will they eventually balance it? Yes.</FONT> </SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2><SPAN class=270210615-13052005></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2><SPAN class=270210615-13052005>5 Years in EQ1 (chanter/warrior) and EQ2 (Guardian/Wizard) since Early Beta, has taught me one thing. Set your expectations accordingly, and you wont feel burned.</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2><SPAN class=270210615-13052005></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2><SPAN class=270210615-13052005>Time and time again I see your post, describing what your vision of the 'monk' class should be. And uno what? each and every time in your posts, we could substitute the word monk and replace with guardian (minus any reference to DPS). This tells me one thing..... You rolled the wrong class. And now instead of taking accountability and dealing with it you whine to no end (evidence is in your post count on the um guardian forum).</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2><SPAN class=270210615-13052005></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2><SPAN class=270210615-13052005>Ok with all that said and such.... I do have to say IMHO the only way they can resolve this perceived superiority' is to address by adding content designed to be specifically by certain classes I.E; SK's get a bonus on nature beings (maybe special resists), Palys against undead, monks again pure melee mobs, Guardians against..... against whiney monks named gage? I don't know just food for thought.</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2><SPAN class=270210615-13052005></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2><SPAN class=270210615-13052005></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2><SPAN class=270210615-13052005>Its easy to point out a perceived problem, its not so easy to come up with solutions. All I hear from gage is Guards want to be king blah blah blah whine whine whine.... boohoo... Take some of that time and energy and come up with something of substance, Ideas, solutions? As it is now I just see you running around in defensive mode replying to posts by people calling you out for what you are, again IMHO.</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=270210615-13052005></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=270210615-13052005><FONT face=Verdana size=2>cackle 3800 plus posts by gage, I bet if I did a search on Quote "guardians are suck wah wah boohoo" I would find roughly 3800 posts DOH!</FONT></SPAN></DIV>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Darton wrote:<BR> <DIV><SPAN class=270210615-13052005><FONT face=Verdana size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=270210615-13052005><FONT face=Verdana size=2>cackle 3800 plus posts by gage, I bet if I did a search on Quote "guardians are suck wah wah boohoo" I would find roughly 3800 posts DOH!</FONT></SPAN><BR> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>Nah, not really.  The majority of my posts come from the monk forum, helping other monks.  I have better things to do with my time than post 3800 times about guardians.<BR>

[Dart]

Rofl right gage, keep telling your self that :p

[Gaige]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Darton wrote:<BR>Rofl right gage, keep telling your self that :p <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Bah, its true <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  I'd bet that probably 2/3rds of my posts are in the monk forum.<BR></DIV>

[Cuz]

<DIV>"Nah, not really.  The majority of my posts come from the monk forum, helping other monks.  I have better things to do with my time than post 3800 times about guardians."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Hooo boy that was good for a laugh. Gage, you complain to no end. No seriously, maybe at first you were helpful, not any more.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Monks are balanced, I know I play one and I have no complaints. Well except the obvious broken skills. It is true that I'm not at end game, maybe if I was I'd have enough free time to complain as much as you do.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><BR> </DIV>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Jenoy wrote:<BR> <DIV>Hooo boy that was good for a laugh. Gage, you complain to no end. No seriously, maybe at first you were helpful, not any more.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Monks are balanced, I know I play one and I have no complaints. Well except the obvious broken skills. It is true that I'm not at end game, maybe if I was I'd have enough free time to complain as much as you do. <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>Opinions vary.<BR> <p>Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on <span class=date_text>05-13-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:28 PM</span>

[Sunrayn]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sunrayn wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> <DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Poor Guardian?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Thats what I signed up to be.  A tank.  Nothing more, nothing less.  I think most, if not all guards signed up for the same reason.  Its what I do.  Its all I want to do. <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>Unfortunatley for you, lots of other fighters did too, who didn't choose guardians.  What makes you more worthy than them, just because of your class choice?<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Well Gage.  What I did was look at the class abilities first.  See, I figured that whatever ability I gained in an area would mean I would probably be giving up defense.  That is usually the way it works.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Eyes_of_Truth]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><p>Ok.... I have been reading though the multitudes of posts on this subject and I have come to this conclusion:It's not the players; it's the mobs and their lack of verity and balance.When a common fighter mob hits for spike damage, and keeps their high defense, this makes brawlers the least effect tank.This is NOT the brawlers design fault, but rather the fault of the mob's ability to deal and take high amounts of damage at same time.To balance this, the game needs a healthy mix of low but fast hitting fighter mobs, and scout mobs that deal HIGH amounts of damage in single attacks (spike damage) but have lower HP, and here's the important point, they are highly ACCURATE. These scout mobs are what the heavy plate tank with high mitigation would excel in tanking, because that 1000 quick strike might only do 400. Since these attacks would be very accurate they would almost always hit an avoidance tank for 700Now for the Avoidance tank, Fighter mobs that deal 200-400 damage attacks at a fast pace, and LESS accurately but bypass some mitigation, would make it better for a Brawler tank. Now the Plate tank would be getting hit for 120-240, but getting hit every opportunity, where the brawler would block say 3 hits out of the 5, and take only 400-800, where the plate would take say 600-1200Now where does this leave the crusaders? The Anti-cast tanks!They need to get increases resistance buffs or special self-wards that absorb allot of spell damage, so that they become spell damage mitigaters, or spell damage avoiders (spell avoidance aka RESIST completely)Now... they only problem now is that ^^ caster and scout mobs have HIGH hp and the caster mobs also have high melee (which I HATEEEEEE:smileymad: )SOE needs to balance these mobs to fit their role. A ^^ sorcerer mob needs to have HIGH nuking damage, which makes a Crusader a highly sought after class for them and they need to have less hp than a ^^ scout or ^^ fighter mobSo this would be the list according to which fighter most effectively tanks which type of mob:Warriors tanking high peak damage accurate scout mobs with less # of attacks and medium HPBrawler tanking lower damage less accurate fighter mobs with more # of attacks and highest HPCrusader tanking VERY high damage caster mobs with limited amount of spell attacks because they can run oop (then they need to have next to NO damage) and lowest HP but high magical resistsNow you might wonder how damage should be allotted? Warriors fighting scout mobs that have less hp wont need to deal as much damage as a brawler fighting a fighter mob with high hp. So warrior fighting their best target, a scout, would deal a little less damage than a brawler, because the brawler's best target has more hp to kill though, their foe they need slightly more offensive ability to kill them in about same time frame.Crusaders statistically need to the least amount of damage since they are fighting Mage mobs as their primary,  possibly by have their damage resisted more by a Mage mob (such as all crusader's CA being divine/disease/poison/heat/cold instead of slashing)</p> <p>Such as a 100 poison damage CA on a fighter mob might only deal 40 poison damage on a Mage mob with high resists to noxious damage. This means it would take them longer to kill the caster mobs, allowing the caster mobs to deal more damage and use their power, and yet the crusader would be able to withstand this high damage magical assault better than any of the other tanks, AND in turn the other tanks could deal more damage since casters mitigate no damage vs. physical CA !To take this concept further, when ever the Warrior is tanking his best target, a scout, the other two fighters should have a damage advantage over this type of opponent, like the Crusader's magical and Brawler's Crushing CA dealing better damage against scouts, when Brawler tanking fighters, let the crushing deal less damage but slashing and magical deal more, and vs. casters, let all physical CA deal more, but the Crusaders magical attacks deal less.THIS, my friends, is a way to make some the best TANK (defense) vs. a type of mob, and the ones that would not tank that mob well, get to deal more damage vs. said mob.Imo all tanks should get EXACT same agro management ability, just with added side Debuff/buff attacked to said taunt</p> <p>Berserker's taunt increasing group's attack speed and damage for short timeGuardians reducing mobs dps and attack for said amount of timePaladin's taunt healing group for small amountShadownight’s dealing damage to mob's groupMonk's taunt increasing groups stats for short timeBrawler’s lowering opponent’s stats for short time.</p><p>See, this adds flavor but doesnt make a unbalance in aggro management one way or another, and as you might notice some are offensive and other defensive, making the sub-class more of a personal preferance, flavor that keeps the game interesting.</p><p>Please feel free to change or reproduce any of my idea, storm rolling in RL so must come to an end, I also have the same idealism about mage/scout/and priest balancing in regards that they should be = but performed differently against different mobs, some more effect than others depending on the target.</p><p>Toddles, peace out everyone (also have another idea about allowing fighters to team up their defense, like a more advanced form of what they can now, for fighting tougher raid opponents, to where a group of say 4 fighters is dispersing the damage amongst themselves rather than all on one, say 10000 damage hit divided amongst 4 fighter should be 2500 a piece, then apply each tanks defense, ill follow up on this later)<!-- [endif] --></p><div></div><p>Message Edited by Eyes_of_Truth on <span class=date_text>05-13-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:13 PM</span>

[froglockpalad]

<P>I do agree with you in one regard mobs need verity like some get more damage from slashing but very little from crushing etc mob verity would make wizzy enchanters even summmoners more useful and it would realy make things more interesting but of course make there restances relavent to the mob.</P> <P> also i'd like for there to be no such thing as immune just make it so its makes the damage so low it doesn't help much well maybe except the magical weapons thing other then that i rather not have immunes but its realy not that big a deal.</P>

[Diern]

<FONT size=3> <BR></FONT> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sunrayn wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eldarn wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Guardan: <STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000>TANK</FONT></STRONG></DIV> <P>By making 5 out of 6 classes in the archtype have multiple roles, and one have only one role, they instantly and (possibly) permanatly shot their vision of balance in the foot. There's no way that the other tanks could be equal at tanking when they can do all of those other things but the poor Guardian can only do one thing.  With the tremendous number of potential secondary roles for a character to play in a group, the EQ2 team decided to go with NONE, for Guardian.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Poor Guardian?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Thats what I signed up to be.  A tank.  Nothing more, nothing less.  I think most, if not all guards signed up for the same reason.  Its what I do.  Its all I want to do.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Funny, thats exactly what I signed up too do as well. Yet I chose a shadowknight, cause I like the flavour more and was told ALL tanks would do the job equally well! This isnt the case now and will possibly be worse once the combat changes go live.</P> <P>How is this fair? If you want a DPS class you choose a real one. If you want a tank you choose the best one for the job, and their are no shortage of guardians around. Where does that leave the rest of us which are both substandard in DPS as well as tanking ability?</P> <P>You guessed it LFG.<BR></P>

[Salastine]

<DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV>Eldarn wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Guardan: <STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000>TANK</FONT></STRONG></DIV> <P>By making 5 out of 6 classes in the archtype have multiple roles, and one have only one role, they instantly and (possibly) permanatly shot their vision of balance in the foot. There's no way that the other tanks could be equal at tanking when they can do all of those other things but the poor Guardian can only do one thing.  With the tremendous number of potential secondary roles for a character to play in a group, the EQ2 team decided to go with NONE, for Guardian.</P> <P></P> <HR> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There is one line of spells that ALL fighter classes get that i have never, ever, never even once since release, seen used.  Intervene.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>When i first looked at the spell listing and general description of the intervene line of spells, it quickly became apparent that the Guardian class had a more vast array of "intervene", or other "protect your groupmates" type spells than any other fighter class.  This, IMO, is the extra utility the Guardian (what does Guardian mean, anyway... protect those around you?) subclass had as its highlight attribute.  The ability to protect allies in MORE ways than simply holding agro and taking the direct hits.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The intervene line of spells, IMO, are complete trash in their current form and rarely, if ever, useful.  If this line of abilities was made significantly more powerful and useful, specificly for the Guardian class, it should be enough to fill out their class for more than just <FONT color=#ff0000>TANK</FONT>ing, and make room for more actual direct-hit balancing between the fighter subclasses. </DIV>

[Ashlian]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Anlarius wrote:<BR> <P>Well Gage, when I made my bruiser, I knew I would not tank epic mobs with the same efficiency as a Guardian, afterall, tanking is their one trick they do and they should do it better then anyone.  I, for one, have no desire to be a guardian with different graphics and ability names.  I like my extra DPS, I like how I tank right now, I don't want to be a Guardian.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>What they said when many of us made our characters and what they say now are two different things. I came to EQ2 in large percentage because they said that "all healers can heal" and "all fighters can tank." Well, now they say "all healers can heal in these situations" and "all fighters can tank in these situations" but in other situtations you're sol. This is true for every class branch. EQ1 had must haves and have nots in classes. My druid could heal about as well in groups with vastly superior gear and 80 aa's as my cleric could heal several levels lower and with no aa's and some pretty crappy gear. I made my druid the third week the game was out, and I stuck by her, poor little half elf with 87 starting wis that she was, because I liked playing her. But I hated how my cleric could log on and get 10 unsolicited tells for groups while my druid could be lfg for hours and get none. EQ2 made the promise that all would be equally desirable, if for different reasons. </P> <P>Of course, this is tough to implement. I tend to agree that for fighters, the key is making the mobs work a little differently. But I don't want them to abandon working on this issue, the promise is one of the reasons I'm here. It was that promise I went by when I made my fury the first night the game was out, it's that promise that Gage Mikel went by, and if they changed the description to better fit current reality later, so that you were well aware you'd suck as a raid tank, I am still going to hold them to the original promise or keep looking. </P> <P>Ashlian Liadan, 37 Fury, 32 Tailor of Mistmoore</P>

[Grimme]

<P>Most of the problem is player perception.</P> <P>There are more guardians because it is easier to believe the tank in full plate tanks better. There are more templars because their healing is direct and obvious. But a monk with a mystic is a great combo.</P> <P>Yes, the tactics used with a guardian / templar combo are simpler. It doesn't mean the monk / mystic can't be just as successful. Their advantages are just not as obvious. Their tactics are neither as obvious, nor as common to see in the field (because there are more guardians and templars).</P> <P>As for raids, there are threads in this forum which state either brawler based class is a fine tank for raids when used correctly, from guilds that use them as their primary raiding tank. </P> <P>To the people who are saying  monks cannot be raid tanks I will ask: have you tried it? If so, since others have succeeded with it, did you try it until you failed, or until you succeeded?</P>

[Ashlian]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> GrimmeHF wrote:<BR> <P>Most of the problem is player perception.</P> <P>There are more guardians because it is easier to believe the tank in full plate tanks better. There are more templars because their healing is direct and obvious. But a monk with a mystic is a great combo.</P> <P>Yes, the tactics used with a guardian / templar combo are simpler. It doesn't mean the monk / mystic can't be just as successful. Their advantages are just not as obvious. Their tactics are neither as obvious, nor as common to see in the field (because there are more guardians and templars).</P> <P>As for raids, there are threads in this forum which state either brawler based class is a fine tank for raids when used correctly, from guilds that use them as their primary raiding tank.</P> <P>To the people who are saying  monks cannot be raid tanks I will ask: have you tried it? If so, since others have succeeded with it, did you try it until you failed, or until you succeeded?</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Tactics WILL make a difference. In EQ One, I specialized in putting together oddball groups with my druid that people would look at and say, you did that with WHAT? And I certainly can't comment in depth on raid tanks. But it seems to me that a monk and a mystic have to be significantly better equipped in both abilities/spells and gear to achieve the same tank/healer level as a guardian/templar combo with less stellar gear and abilities/spells. Just because my druid could heal Bastion of Thunder up to the mini bosses with a crap load of AA's, pretty nice gear, and stacked mana regen buffs from herself, a chanter, and a bard, doesn't mean she was a great healer. I used my druid effectively, but my lower level cleric with exactly enough AA's for run speed 3 could outheal my druid with decidedly poorer armor and nothing but her self buffs.</P> <P>Class balance was not created to work in One as it was intended in Two, so I don't see as much of a disparity, but for a game specifically designed (at least originally) with a separate but equal philosophy of classes, EQ2 misses the mark. I don't agree with your thesis that it should be significantly easier or simpler to play one class over another. It should require as much effort in different areas for the guardian as for the monk. If one class is doing the equivalent of bouncing a ball, another class of the same archetype should not have to bounce on TOP of the ball, with a hula hoop going, juggling knives and flaming torches. For me it would be a better analogy for you to say that you can do with a mystic, a bard, and a wizzy what it takes a templar and guardian to do in other situations. That's where the challenge should be to me, not in direct comparisons between one class of healer or tank when they're similarly equipped, but in going beyond the normal role of the class in atypical situations. I don't want someone to say my templar is a good healer just because she's a templar. I want them to say, she's a good healer, period.</P> <P>Ashlian Liadan, 37 Fury, 32 Tailor of Mistmoore</P>

[FamilyManFir]

<blockquote><hr>GrimmeHF wrote:<P>As for raids, there are threads in this forum which state either brawler based class is a fine tank for raids when used correctly, from guilds that use them as their primary raiding tank. </P> <P>To the people who are saying monks cannot be raid tanks I will ask: have you tried it? If so, since others have succeeded with it, did you try it until you failed, or until you succeeded?</P><hr></blockquote>GrimmeHF, could you please point me to those threads? I'm serious. I browse these forums regularly (when I should be working <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />) and I haven't seen them.I've seen a few posts from Jezekiell (who plays a Bruiser) where he boasts (quite properly) about tanking raid mobs. However, what mobs he tanked were, as I understand it, the lower-end raid mobs, and I don't believe that he's gone on to tank any higher-end raids. Indeed, I think Jez himself has been rather critical of the Bruiser class, for all that he enjoys playing it.The upcoming Big Combat Revision may change things, but for now, as I understand it, Monks and Bruisers just <i>can't</i> tank most raids due to the fact that when they get hit they get one- or two-shot killed. A raid can't buff a Monk or Bruiser sufficiently to change that and no number of healers can keep up with it.

[Salastine]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ashlian wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>If one class is doing the equivalent of bouncing a ball, another class of the same archetype should not have to bounce on TOP of the ball, with a hula hoop going, juggling knives and flaming torches. </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Ashlian Liadan, 37 Fury, 32 Tailor of Mistmoore</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>ROFL!!! That is the best analogy i have read in this entire 9-page thread thus far.  It hits the issue right between the eyes, because it's SO true.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Yes, player skill should count, and count for a LOT.  Yes, certain classes within an archtype SHOULD have advantages over others, but the advanatages should be SPREAD OUT over various scenerios.  To tell someone who has been level 50 for months, that 80%+ of their endgame content will be raid content, but a Guardian will be the clear-cut specialized class for ALL of that content (given similar player skill), is a serious design flaw.  One of 2 things need to happen here... one is to prevent mitigation tanks from having the same avoidance as avoidance tanks (defense cap, anyone?), and make the hitpoint difference less.  The other is to design encounter content to tailor more towards inherent advantages of different tanks...  i.e. encounters where the brawler is the clear choice, others where crusaders are, and others where fighters are.  In the end, the most skilled player will likly still be able to overcome the differences for those encounters not tailored to them, but at least it wouldn't be as 1-dimensional as it is now.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Diern]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> GrimmeHF wrote:<BR> <P>Most of the problem is player perception.</P> <P>There are more guardians because it is easier to believe the tank in full plate tanks better. There are more templars because their healing is direct and obvious. But a monk with a mystic is a great combo.</P> <P>Yes, the tactics used with a guardian / templar combo are simpler. It doesn't mean the monk / mystic can't be just as successful. Their advantages are just not as obvious. Their tactics are neither as obvious, nor as common to see in the field (because there are more guardians and templars).</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Yes this is true, and player perception is a huge issue, that will possibly never be resolved. The main problem is the power gamer desire to have the best class for the job at all times. That is never going away.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I dont see any adequate resolution to this whole imbalance issue, they have just painted themselves into a corner all over again just like EQ1.</DIV>

[Texasguy24]

<P>Hehe, oh look... another Sony can't balance thread. Hmm.. wonder how this one will turn out =P</P> <P>Fill in the circle next to your response</P> <P>O. I am angry and I am officially threatening to leave, but never will</P> <P>O. There are always nay sayers in every game, and I like making generic worthless posts</P> <P>O. I cancelled my account, because of this. I am tired of waiting for a mythical patch</P> <P>O. I play X priviledged class, you guys need to stop complaining</P> <P>O. I play a totally unrelated class, you guys need to stop whining</P> <P>O. I play any other class besides X priviledged class, and this needs to be fixed</P> <P>O. I'm hungry, I think I want a burrito and a slushie</P> <P>=D</P>

[WolfSha]

<P>You forgot two:</P> <P> </P> <P>O. My class has lots of great abilities that makes my class much more fun to play than class X for 99.9 of game content, but now i've completed that and there's only 0.1% left to do, i've realised that class X has something i want more than all the skills i've been loving until this point because they don't help now.   My requirements have changed, please now change my class into a class X as i didn't think further than lvl 20 when i rolled my char.</P> <P>O. DOH!  I could have made a lvl 50 class X of my own by now if i'd played a new character rather than spending all day moaning that my class can't do class X's speciality role as well as class X can.</P> <P> </P> <P>Please pass me a burrito please! Yum yum  :smileytongue:</P><p>Message Edited by WolfShark on <span class=date_text>06-07-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:08 AM</span>

[Kaknya]

     o.   I'm so fat from eating baubleshire cheesecake and drinking halasian porter that i cant fit in to my armor anymore.. I'm being            hit left and right and getting killed all the time, mitigation is screwed up, fix it.. <div></div>

[Ashlian]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Texasguy24 wrote:<BR> <P>Hehe, oh look... another Sony can't balance thread. Hmm.. wonder how this one will turn out =P</P> <P>Fill in the circle next to your response</P> <P>O. I am angry and I am officially threatening to leave, but never will</P> <P>O. There are always nay sayers in every game, and I like making generic worthless posts</P> <P>O. I cancelled my account, because of this. I am tired of waiting for a mythical patch</P> <P>O. I play X priviledged class, you guys need to stop complaining</P> <P>O. I play a totally unrelated class, you guys need to stop whining</P> <P>O. I play any other class besides X priviledged class, and this needs to be fixed</P> <P>O. I'm hungry, I think I want a burrito and a slushie</P> <P>=D<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>If you wish to reduce everything to the generic trivialities above (not that the above choices aren't stereotypical of many complaints), then I don't know why you bother to read the thread. While I might not agree with the posts of people who think there is no class balance issue, if they're well thought out and uninsulting, well, let's agree to disagree, I still consider it valuable to hear their viewpoint.</P> <P>I would like to point out that just because there are aspects of EQ2 that I enjoy, this does not make it the best game ever in the history of online gaming with assured title to that in the future. I don't post saying EQ2 sux0rs, I am getting WoW (or biding my time until Vanguard, or D&D Online, let alone "untitled game mentioned briefly at E3 by game developer X"). What I say is, there was no other game besides EQ One that I liked enough to fork over money for every month during the five years I played One, though I looked at DaOC, AO, SWG, AC and  Horizons (happy is the sister whose brother has to try every online game for at least the trial month). Now I play EQ2 because there is, currently, nothing that I wish to play more.</P> <P>This has nothing to do with customer loyalty to SOE, which I actually had quite a bit of for several years. It is a reasoned choice based on having no alternatives at the moment and not hating EQ2. I don't hate EQ2.....but neither do I love it. What many of us say is that it could be a great game, good enough to make us loyal. Right now, it's not.</P> <P>Class balance issues are one thing they made many, many claims about prior to release, since they knew most of us had played EQ One or EQOA. What they promised hasn't materialized. Nothing is perfect, and I'm not going to claim it's false advertising, but I really didn't get what I paid for. At this point, it's not the only game in town, with many more in the pipeline, and SOE should take the posts here as a sign that empty promises aren't enough to keep subscribers given the competition they face today. It's not an idle threat, I'm not leaving immediately. They have me where they want me....but they can't count on that continuing. I post because I DO like EQ2, and I'd like it to be even better. And there's no reason it can't be.</P> <P>Ashlian Liadan, 37 Fury, 32 Tailor of Mistmoore</P>

[WolfSha]

<P>I'm sorry for joining in on making fun a bit, but fighter class balancing is a bit of a dead horse.  This tread has had some great ideas on how it could be acheived, etc etc, but it's going round in circles now. people don't read the thread, they read the last two posts and reply.  There's not much anyone can add to this except tick a box.</P> <P> </P> <P>Back on page 7 i set out a simple mathematical proof as to why the sub-classes can't be blaced on the same content, and we've had lots of ideas for new content.. but since then it's gone back full circle to "no fair".</P> <P> </P> <P>I have to agree with texas that basically there's not a lot more to say except tick a box and join a club for your position on the issue...</P> <p>Message Edited by WolfShark on <span class=date_text>06-07-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:56 PM</span>

[FamilyManFir]

Okay, WolfShark, let me throw an idea at you to change your math, or at least work with it.At level 40 Monks get a CA, Stone Stance. This CA roots and stuns the Monk (maybe stifles, too) while adding a large buff to the Monk's Mitigation. I did a search for the exact description but couldn't find one.Change this CA so that it definitely roots, stuns, and stifles, i.e. the Monk can do <i>nothing</i>. The casting time should be 1 second or less (instant would be my recommendation) and the duration should be 20 or 30 seconds (if it isn't already), recast time should probably, at a guess, be around 40 or 50 seconds so that you can't chain it but you can re-use it quickly if needed. However, while this buff was up, the Monk would be <i>invulnerable</i>, period. They would take no damage whatsoever. Or, since devs generally hate absolutes, the Monk's Mitigation and Resists would get ridiculous boosts such that they would take very little damage even from mobs 6 levels higher than themselves or more (that way there's room for improvement from Adept and Master spell upgrades).I'm not sure if this would be overpowering when soloing or not. A Monk could, in theory, use it to solo high-level mobs by casting it as often as they can right after pulling the mob (thus allowing the mob to use up its power uselessly against the Stance) but it would mean a very slow kill as the Monk couldn't do any damage while the Stance was active.When grouping this would be something to use tactically, when things get hairy for the Monk. It would be dangerous to use too often simply because while the Stance was up the Monk wouldn't be generating hate. A healer or nuker could pull ahead of the Monk in the aggro list ... and there would be nothing the Monk could do about it until the Stance went down.When raiding this skill would be essential. Any time a raid mob hit the Monk for over half his Health the Monk would fire off this CA so that the healers could take care of it. Again, this could get hairy if the Monk had to do it too often, because he has to keep working to maintain his position on the hate list, but that's part of the challenge of being a Monk, right? <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Feel free to shoot this down, it's just an idea that's been banging around my head for a bit.

[Ashlian]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> FamilyManFirst wrote:<BR><BR>At level 40 Monks get a CA, Stone Stance. This CA roots and stuns the Monk (maybe stifles, too) while adding a large buff to the Monk's Mitigation. I did a search for the exact description but couldn't find one.<BR><BR>Change this CA so that it definitely roots, stuns, and stifles, i.e. the Monk can do <I>nothing</I>. The casting time should be 1 second or less (instant would be my recommendation) and the duration should be 20 or 30 seconds (if it isn't already), recast time should probably, at a guess, be around 40 or 50 seconds so that you can't chain it but you can re-use it quickly if needed. However, while this buff was up, the Monk would be <I>invulnerable</I>, period. They would take no damage whatsoever. Or, since devs generally hate absolutes, the Monk's Mitigation and Resists would get ridiculous boosts such that they would take very little damage even from mobs 6 levels higher than themselves or more (that way there's room for improvement from Adept and Master spell upgrades).<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Essentially, that's what the Stone Stance ability did in One. It had a long enough reuse timer that you were not going to see it used more than once per fight, unless the fight was very, very long. They threw timers on abilities and AA's in One in order to prevent the kind of abuse that you mention. Bards also got an invulnerability AA, except it was like cleric Divine Aura....they could not be healed, could not have spells cast on them at all...it could be very nice as a bard or cleric if there was the chance for someone to pull aggro off you while you stood there, but you could die in half a second once it was up if the mob was still feeling love for you. Still, I think they have a lot of experience implementing this kind of thing and no reason they couldn't come up with some more ideas in 2.</P> <P>Ashlian Liadan, 37 Fury, 32 Tailor of Mistmoore<BR></P>

[WolfSha]

<DIV><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> FamilyManFirst wrote:<BR>Okay, WolfShark, let me throw an idea at you to change your math, or at least work with it.<BR><BR>At level 40 Monks get a CA, Stone Stance. This CA roots and stuns the Monk (maybe stifles, too) while adding a large buff to the Monk's Mitigation. I did a search for the exact description but couldn't find one.<BR><BR>Change this CA so that it definitely roots, stuns, and stifles, i.e. the Monk can do <I>nothing</I>. The casting time should be 1 second or less (instant would be my recommendation) and the duration should be 20 or 30 seconds (if it isn't already), recast time should probably, at a guess, be around 40 or 50 seconds so that you can't chain it but you can re-use it quickly if needed. However, while this buff was up, the Monk would be <I>invulnerable</I>, period. They would take no damage whatsoever. Or, since devs generally hate absolutes, the Monk's Mitigation and Resists would get ridiculous boosts such that they would take very little damage even from mobs 6 levels higher than themselves or more (that way there's room for improvement from Adept and Master spell upgrades).<BR><BR>I'm not sure if this would be overpowering when soloing or not. A Monk could, in theory, use it to solo high-level mobs by casting it as often as they can right after pulling the mob (thus allowing the mob to use up its power uselessly against the Stance) but it would mean a very slow kill as the Monk couldn't do any damage while the Stance was active.<BR><BR>When grouping this would be something to use tactically, when things get hairy for the Monk. It would be dangerous to use too often simply because while the Stance was up the Monk wouldn't be generating hate. A healer or nuker could pull ahead of the Monk in the aggro list ... and there would be nothing the Monk could do about it until the Stance went down.<BR><BR>When raiding this skill would be essential. Any time a raid mob hit the Monk for over half his Health the Monk would fire off this CA so that the healers could take care of it. Again, this could get hairy if the Monk had to do it too often, because he has to keep working to maintain his position on the hate list, but that's part of the challenge of being a Monk, right? <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR><BR>Feel free to shoot this down, it's just an idea that's been banging around my head for a bit.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><BR>I'm not gonna shoot anything down, it's a good idea.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>All i was trying to prove was that you can't have balance with different dps etc.  If this skill cuts a monks dps and ups his defences then great, no probs with balace... </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The only thing i'd say is that it gives monks a flexability that a guard does't have.  You could give gaurds the opposite skill - lower defences and up offence, but then we get back to the situation of all fighters being too similar. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Personally i'd prefer content changes to the raid mobs to make fighters balances while remaining very different, but it's still a good idea though and i'd rather see this than nothing.  To be honest i think we're gonna have to wait to see how these new combat changes work out once SoE has finished all their tweaking etc.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Moski]

<P> </P> <P>We Bruisers have such a Skill called Heavy Scarring.</P> <P> </P> <P>This Skill increases our MItigation agains Slashing adn Piercing and to a lower amount Crushing, too.</P> <P>The Skill roots ans Stifles the Brusier so we cant use Skills while using this Skill.</P> <P>The Skill in general is great, but if you look at the Duration and Recast Timer it is quite useless tanking a Raid encounter.</P> <P>Usuall a Epic Encounter lasts 5 to 10 Minutes so the Main Tank hast to tank the Mob for 5 to 10 minutes.</P> <P>The Duration of the Tanking Skill is    --- 36 Seconds ---    the recast timer is 5 Minutes.</P> <P>It is possible for us Bruisers to tank the lower lvl Epic Encounter (for example Zalak or Dryek) but is is much more work for us and for the healers.</P> <P>It is nearly impossible (well i havent tried it yet, but with my experience tanking the lower epics i wont try it in near future) for us to tank the difficult epic encounters.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

[FamilyManFir]

<blockquote><hr>Moskito wrote: <P> </P> <P>We Bruisers have such a Skill called Heavy Scarring.</P> <P> </P> <P>This Skill increases our MItigation agains Slashing adn Piercing and to a lower amount Crushing, too.</P> <P>The Skill roots ans Stifles the Brusier so we cant use Skills while using this Skill.</P> <P>The Skill in general is great, but if you look at the Duration and Recast Timer it is quite useless tanking a Raid encounter.</P> <P>Usuall a Epic Encounter lasts 5 to 10 Minutes so the Main Tank hast to tank the Mob for 5 to 10 minutes.</P> <P>The Duration of the Tanking Skill is --- 36 Seconds --- the recast timer is 5 Minutes.</P> <P>It is possible for us Bruisers to tank the lower lvl Epic Encounter (for example Zalak or Dryek) but is is much more work for us and for the healers.</P> <P>It is nearly impossible (well i havent tried it yet, but with my experience tanking the lower epics i wont try it in near future) for us to tank the difficult epic encounters.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P><hr></blockquote>Yeah, I'm not surprised that Bruisers have a similar skill. Monks and Bruisers parallel each other a lot, although there are differences in places.The problem I see with Heavy Scarring and Stone Stance is twofold: 1) the reuse timer prevents it from being very useful in raids, and 2) it does nothing to ease magic damage. Perhaps the latter is unnecessary as I've heard of raid-ers acquiring gear for the express purpose of maximizing the Resists they need, but that reuse timer has got to come down. The simple fact that you can't do anything, including build hate, with it up is counter-incentive enough to keep it from being abused save perhaps for soloing.Devs have already stated that spells and CAs are designed to be able to have different effects depending on whether you're PvE or PvP. I'm beginning to wonder if they shouldn't have built it so that spells and CAs could have different effects depending on whether you're soloing, grouping, or raiding. Heck, they wouldn't even have to have different effects, just different degrees of effects, i.e. set Stone Stance to have a reuse timer of 5 minutes while soloing, 2 minutes while grouping and 1 minute while raiding.Ah, well, keep thinking, guys. Maybe we'll come up with a brilliant idea, the devs will see it, implement it, and we'll find the Nirvana of MMORPGs! <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Dorma]

<BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ashlian wrote: <P>What they said when many of us made our characters and what they say now are two different things. <FONT color=#ff0000>I came to EQ2 in large percentage because they said that "all healers can heal" and "all fighters can tank."</FONT> Well, now they say "all healers can heal in these situations" and "all fighters can tank in these situations" but in other situtations you're sol. This is true for every class branch.  EQ2 made the promise that all would be equally desirable, if for different reasons. </P> <P> But I don't want them to abandon working on this issue, the promise is one of the reasons I'm here. It was that promise I went by when I made my fury the first night the game was out, it's that promise that Gage Mikel went by, and if they changed the description to better fit current reality later, so that you were well aware you'd suck as a raid tank, I am still going to hold them to the original promise or keep looking. </P> <P>Ashlian Liadan, 37 Fury, 32 Tailor of Mistmoore</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR> </P> <P>I made a paladin to tank, not battle rezz,  LOL .  I knew i wasn't going to do it the same as a guard,  but i thought i was going to be an equal.  As far as utility,  guards get far more weapon choices ,  ranged items,  dual weild,  bonus health(well,  as far as i can tell they get more health) which IMHO is their utility.  What do i know though,  he he.  I don't care if they add utility to guards tho,  i just want to see all tank classes tank equally ,  that was why i bought EQ 2 .</P></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Drozan71]

<P>I had a few ideas shoot them down as you please.</P> <P> </P> <P>Why not make raid mobs have encounter wide AE spells that hit everyone in the raid force that is in the zone?  Have this(these) special AE cancel any Def/Parry?Agi etc buffs so that no matter what classes you bring everyone is some what equal as you cant do a ridiculous  (sp?) amount of buff stacking or stuff like that.</P> <P> </P> <P>Ok, I know this sounds crazy but I think it would be alot closer to the tanking equality folks are looking for.  It may make some classes think they are useless (Bards feeling that since their buffs arent needed they shouldnt attend) but I think ALL classes have more then 1 or 2 tricks they can bring to any raid if they were just to open their mind and be a lil creative in how they play their class.</P> <P> </P> <P>I play a Guardian not cause they are the best tank, I play one cause that is what I really enjoy in these type of games.  I have a 28 Zerk that is a great class and I enjoy playing but I prefer the Guard.  I also have a low lvl shammy that is fun to play but I prefer the Guard.  I think if SoE twinked the content instead of doin a full revamp of the combat sttructure it would solve the small percent of tanking inequality there is easier and more efficiently then screwing everything else up in the process.  Making mobs debuff said items (Def,Parry etc) would bring everyone to roguhly the same playing field and allow everyone to fill in when needed.</P> <P> </P> <P>I think fixing the buff stacking so players cannot become godlike is another very important issue that has to be addressed in order to make things work correctly.  Sometimes I think SoE needs a Human Nature person in their ranks in order to understand how players think and realize Human Nature will drive ALL of us to do things the best we can many times differently then they intend to acheive a goal by almost any means necessary.</P> <P> </P> <P>Late for work I will try and think of more good things to post when I get home.</P> <P> </P> <P>Drozan 47 Dwarven Guardian Butcherblock</P>

[Eyes_of_Truth]

<DIV> <P><FONT size=3>Here is a raid fight i have designed for a 2 group raid- it involves alot more than this but this is just the fighting, which requires palyers to adapt to situations, but most importantly shows the different tanks needed (for best effect atleast) at diferent times in fight!</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=3></FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=3>6 elemental minibosses (each requiring a different tactic, usualy somehting envolving the enviornment in the area) then confront the Prismatic Elemental of Discord that will be very challengign encounter that will change as the fight progresses.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=3>Boss will start by using Scout-;like skills, having no regard for it's defense, but rather focusing it's attacks to be deadly acc urate and highly damageing in one burst(Warrior tanks are msot effective here). </FONT></P> <P><FONT size=3>At 75% it will switch to caster mode, realizing that it's physical damage isnt quite as effect, and start raining down heaving single nukes stuns and AOE rains of hell the works, and this is where a Crusader will shine as the Magical Damage Tank.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=3>At 50% it will become weary, going slightly more defesnive and beging to become like a priest and begin to heal it'self, durring this crucial mid point, it will fly up in the air and begin healing it'self, and smiting from above( it is invulnerable while flying) someone in raid has to clime a wall murial to get to the second balcony where a magical cannon (or stationary cross bow...still deciding which is cooler!) but on the murial are tiny double down spiders that will try to knock the slimer down, the ranged attackers in the raid must dispatch the spiders as the climer cant attack (one hit will knock spiders off wall, aka instant killingthem) Once the weapon is fired at mob, it will drop back 10% hp and become targetable again. If mob is not droped to 25% in 1 min, it will fly again and must be shot down again (cross bow wont drop it below the 25% marker) Allow scouts to clime faster than any other player or make the weapon scout useable only as to give them an important role in the fight!</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=3>Finally at 25% it will become desprit and raged, it will focus primarily on defense now as it is near death! But it will go into raging combat attacks that hit the tank 10 times, each hit 20% stronger than last! But these raged attacks will be inaccurate, and if one misses, then the followthoughs also miss , and this is how the brawler gets the advantage of the mob. Calmness vs Rage, there is no contest! It will perform personal body AOE attacks, so the fragil scout classes might want to back up and focus on ranged attacks. </FONT></P></DIV><p>Message Edited by Eyes_of_Truth on <span class=date_text>06-16-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:13 PM</span>

[Eyes_of_Truth]

<DIV> <P><FONT size=3>Double post bah</FONT></P></DIV><p>Message Edited by Eyes_of_Truth on <span class=date_text>06-16-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:13 PM</span>

[Moski]

<P> </P> <P>sounds really fun <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P> </P>

[Poochymama]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> WolfShark wrote:<BR> <P><SPAN>Omg.. this thread is starting to be a bit of a dead horse now, but ok... I’ll try once more… <STRONG>This is a long post, but if you read it you will understand why we can't ever really have balance.</STRONG> <SPAN> </SPAN>lets try to look at what "being able to tank equally well" is supposed to mean and try to understand something…</SPAN></P> <P><STRONG><SPAN>It is impossible for all fighters to tank the same mobs equally well without being identical, if you can't see that you're not engaging your brain! Filling <I>your role as a tank</I> includes your dps most of the time…</SPAN></STRONG><SPAN></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Les look at an example to help understand why…</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Lets compare guards and monks.... I’m not bashing monks, but it’s a good example as they’re very different.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>So.. lets make a guard and a monk and try to balance them.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN></SPAN> </P> <P><SPAN>IF a monk had 80% avoild, 20% mit and a guard had 20% avoid and 80% mit then most people would agree that’s balanced:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>If both get 100 hits for 100 dmg then</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Monk avoid 80, left with 20 hits… mitigate 20% = takes 1600 dmg</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Guard avoid 20, left with 80 hits.. mitigate 80% = takes 1600 dmg</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Yay balance... that’s was easy, SoE must be stupid! Lets send them off to fight!!</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN></SPAN> </P> <P><SPAN>Ooh, they’re soloing today… they’re each gonna take on an even con solo mob…</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN></SPAN> </P> <P><SPAN>But now something strange has happened - the fact the monk has twice the dps of the guard means that the monk has only actually had 50 hits against him as the fight was over faster… hmm.. that’s not balanced…. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN> </SPAN><SPAN>Monk was attacked 50 times, avoided 40, left with 10 hits… mitigate 20% = takes 800 dmg</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Guard was attacked 100 times, avoid 20, left with 80 hits.. mitigate 80% = takes 1600 dmg</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN></SPAN> </P> <P><SPAN>[expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]… we forgot the dps…DOH!  oh well, lets make it so that the guard avoids 60% instead!</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Monk attacked 50 times, avoided 40, left with 10 hits… mitigate 20% = takes 800 dmg</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Guard attacked 100 times, avoid 60, left with 40 hits.. mitigate 80% = takes 800 dmg</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Yay balance... that’s was easy, SoE must be stupid!</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN></SPAN> </P> <P><SPAN>Ooh, what are they doing today? They’re grouped with a templar, a ranger and a wizard…</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Now the tanks dps only makes up about 20% of the groups dps so the difference between the number of attacks made against the guard or the monk isn’t very big because of the monks double dmg, only makes for about a about 10% quicker fight…. Suddenly our guard is a lot tougher than our monk because we balanced for solo… DOH!</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>For groups we need to change it so the guard has about 10% more defences than our monk as he’s only getting hit on 10% more now, not 100% more..</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>If we look at raids then there’s effectively no difference at all in usefulness between monk and guard dps because there are 23 other people doing that job and the difference between a monk as MT and a guard as MT might mean about a 1% shorter fight…</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>So to balance our monk and guard for a raid we need to go back to out 80/20, 20/80 model we started with… but we already know that doesn’t work solo or grouped…</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>So you can’t balance fighters with difference dps… ok then, easily solved… we give all tanks the same dps… boring, but the people want balance… Yay balance... that’s was easy, SoE must be stupid!</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN></SPAN> </P> <P><SPAN>Now our guard and monk (back at 80/20 and 20/80 due to same dps now) are now perfectly balanced for solo and group play and raids! We’re geniuses!!! </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Oh look! Today they’re each MTing on a raid... good job we balanced them!<SPAN>  </SPAN></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Both have 4000 health. The raid mob is hitting for about 3k dmg a time.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>The guard basically gets hit every time, but mitigates that down to 600dmg which the healers can cope with.... he's doing well...</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>The monk never really gets hit, but sooner or later, he lucks out and get hit twice close together for 2400 dmg each time and he’s be dead.  OH.....</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Bum… this still isn’t balanced… </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Suddenly it seems that it is not possible to balance difference tanks for all encounters without having identical DPS, Mitigation and Avoidance.<SPAN>  </SPAN>If you do that then might was well delete all the subclasses and just have 1 misc fighter class… how exciting!</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>People are just going to have to accept situational tanking.<SPAN>  </SPAN>Guardians will always be the best at tanking raids simply because their low dps makes then completely gimped solo or in a small group without a lot of defence and in raid defence is all you care about for your MT is defence.<SPAN>   </SPAN><SPAN> </SPAN>In a small group a monk will always be more use than a guard because getting to the end of the fight faster means everyone has used less power = less down time = more xp.<SPAN>  </SPAN>If guards are a little too tough right now (which they probably are) then they need scaling back, but you’ll never archive balance.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Unless the content changes dramatically (and there are lots of good ideas on how on about page 3 of this thread before it got too long) then we’re not going to get balanced raids for fighters.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>The best SoE can do is balance the fighters for 99% of the games content (<B>IE GROUP PLAY</B>) and say “sorry, raids are not balanced for MT role, other fighters will have to put up with dps rolls if there’s a guard there” because we can’t fix it without breaking the rest of the game.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Sorry if my tone sounds a bit patronising, but this thread is now 7 pages long, and people aren’t realising there will always be <B><I>inequalities</I></B> unless the subclasses are identical, and I don’t think any of us really want that!</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>So the answer is simple – if tanking raids is what you want to do, make a guard, don’t make another sub-class and scream for an impossible request of balancing all fighters for all mobs. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>If you can prove my maths wrong then post and tell me so, if not then surely this thread is dead now? Please?</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#000000></FONT></SPAN> </P> <P>Message Edited by WolfShark on <SPAN class=date_text>05-11-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>01:54 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>You are absolutely right. This is what i have though all along but didnt know how to say it. I think your right that Monk's and Guards should overall take the same dmg but not the same dmg. Heres how i think fighters should be balanced. All Tanks equally and they should be weighed with dps/utility not tanking/dps. It should be this way for all archtypes i.e. Priest all heal the same but differ in utility/dps. There could always be one exeption like Monks and Bruisers were they dont quite tank as good as the plate tanks but do more dps. Thatway they take half the hits cause they kill it twice as fast. And for grouping they add enough buffs to a group compared to the other tanks that they they still kill the mob twice as fast so they take the same dmg. LOUD NOISES!!!<BR></DIV>

[Lord Venothar]

I personally am really looking forward to the changes. Especially being a SK, any change is a good thing. But I really like the idea of heavy diversity. The initial idea of cookie cutter tanks with every cookie having different kinds of sprinkles didn't really apeal to me. Honestly we already know who the best tanks are, this patch will just come right out and say it....so at least we won't expect to tank as well as a guardian. I'll take a little extra damage over defense any day, heck it helps hold aggro better anyway.

[Eyes_of_Truth]

<P>/cry why doesnt anyone read my post lol.... i have your "Kookie Kutter" solution allready solved for raid fights.... diversify mobs and have stages in fights where one tank will tank superior to the other 2 classes. Let me sum it up in  a small paraphrase:</P> <P><STRONG>Warrior</STRONG> > Crusader/Brawler when mob is a "accurate" and highly spike damage <STRONG>Scout</STRONG> mode</P> <P><STRONG>Crusader</STRONG>>Warrior/Brawler when mob is a very heavy spike damage <STRONG>Mage</STRONG> mode(granted they add a self magic ward for them, giving them the edge as there ward could take off 1/2 the spells damage or something simular)</P> <P><STRONG>Brawler</STRONG>>Warrior/crusader When mobs are in their defensive <STRONG>Fighter</STRONG> mode (mobs attacks are nolonger single hit kills like when in Scout mode, but rather flurried combos that disregard mitigation, and increase in damage the longer the string goes till miss or blocked/avoided)</P> <P>An example of the above would be like this:</P> <P>Scout mode mob deals 2000 damage in one hit and has second best defense. if a warrior has 75% mitigation, he would take 500 damage. if a Crusader took the hit with about 50% mitigation he would take 1000 damage, and if a brawler only mitigated 25% 1500 damage. This would not be dodgeable, so monk would always take the 1500 and be least effective while warrior would always take the low 500</P> <P>Mage mode mob deals 2500 damage in one hit and has lowest defense. If a Crusader (using proposed ward) would resist75% of the blow (im stupid gota use a calculater one sec..) 625 damage, and the brawler would, though self buffs possibly, resist roughly 50% of the blow, 1250, and a warrior with least magical protection might resist 25%, taking 1875 damage. thats a differance of Crusader taking noly 635 while a warrior would take 1875.</P> <P>Fighter mode mob  has an attack that negates mitigation and deals 150 at first and increases damage by 50% with each hit and will go on for 5 hits if not avoided, it is unaccurate. if a brawler only avoids the 3rd hit he only takes 712 (the 4th nd 5th hits are least accurate and will never hit brawler, possible for monk to dodge frst one) a warrior would auto avoid the 5th hit, so he would take 1218, and the crusader would take full damage of 2000</P> <P>To sum it up, durring a fight u would need three tanks to be at best effecancy in a tough raid fight. </P>

[Margen]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eyes_of_Truth wrote:<BR> <P>/cry why doesnt anyone read my post lol.... i have your "Kookie Kutter" solution allready solved for raid fights.... diversify mobs and have stages in fights where one tank will tank superior to the other 2 classes. Let me sum it up in  a small paraphrase:</P> <P><STRONG>Warrior</STRONG> > Crusader/Brawler when mob is a "accurate" and highly spike damage <STRONG>Scout</STRONG> mode</P> <P><STRONG>Crusader</STRONG>>Warrior/Brawler when mob is a very heavy spike damage <STRONG>Mage</STRONG> mode(granted they add a self magic ward for them, giving them the edge as there ward could take off 1/2 the spells damage or something simular)</P> <P><STRONG>Brawler</STRONG>>Warrior/crusader When mobs are in their defensive <STRONG>Fighter</STRONG> mode (mobs attacks are nolonger single hit kills like when in Scout mode, but rather flurried combos that disregard mitigation, and increase in damage the longer the string goes till miss or blocked/avoided)</P> <P>An example of the above would be like this:</P> <P>Scout mode mob deals 2000 damage in one hit and has second best defense. if a warrior has 75% mitigation, he would take 500 damage. if a Crusader took the hit with about 50% mitigation he would take 1000 damage, and if a brawler only mitigated 25% 1500 damage. This would not be dodgeable, so monk would always take the 1500 and be least effective while warrior would always take the low 500</P> <P>Mage mode mob deals 2500 damage in one hit and has lowest defense. If a Crusader (using proposed ward) would resist75% of the blow (im stupid gota use a calculater one sec..) 625 damage, and the brawler would, though self buffs possibly, resist roughly 50% of the blow, 1250, and a warrior with least magical protection might resist 25%, taking 1875 damage. thats a differance of Crusader taking noly 635 while a warrior would take 1875.</P> <P>Fighter mode mob  has an attack that negates mitigation and deals 150 at first and increases damage by 50% with each hit and will go on for 5 hits if not avoided, it is unaccurate. if a brawler only avoids the 3rd hit he only takes 712 (the 4th nd 5th hits are least accurate and will never hit brawler, possible for monk to dodge frst one) a warrior would auto avoid the 5th hit, so he would take 1218, and the crusader would take full damage of 2000</P> <P>To sum it up, durring a fight u would need three tanks to be at best effecancy in a tough raid fight. </P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I actually like that idea, as an add I would like to see mobs come in mulitple waves (maybe with different types of attacks in each wave).  This would increase the need for fighter based PC's in raids versus the current MT/possibly ST mode needed now.</P> <P>V/R</P> <P>Blackoath</P>

[Eyes_of_Truth]

<DIV>ooooooo i like this wave idea... would increae the need for multiple tanks and enchanter's mezz in a  raid... mkae sure each wave is in a seprit group than the raid mob so the main tank doesnt just use an aoe taunt and hold the waves while tanking the raid mob too! that way other fighters get a job also</DIV>

[sammythebull]

I only read thru the first few posts in this thread so forgive me if what i'm saying has been said (or said 20 times for all I know).Guardians have a 2nd skill besides tanking, the shielding allies from attack line. Problem is that it doesn't work. It doesn't mitigate any damage at all, it's useless right now. If we put it on someone and take a few unmitigated attack, we don't last any longer than the mage we're supposed to be protecting.

[FamilyManFir]

<blockquote><hr>sammythebull wrote:I only read thru the first few posts in this thread so forgive me if what i'm saying has been said (or said 20 times for all I know).Guardians have a 2nd skill besides tanking, the shielding allies from attack line. Problem is that it doesn't work. It doesn't mitigate any damage at all, it's useless right now. If we put it on someone and take a few unmitigated attack, we don't last any longer than the mage we're supposed to be protecting.<hr></blockquote>According to reports this was discussed briefly at FanFaire. The developers stated that this is intentional, the idea being that this is a "clutch skill" which should have downsides. Of course, many posters have pointed out that if a party member gets aggro the proper thing for a Guardian to do is <b>taunt</b>, not "protect." Nevertheless, I wouldn't expect the devs to change this skill any time soon.