One small change that could change pvp upside down. [Archive]

ZhouYu

03-14-2007, 08:13 PM

I made a thread yesterday regarding the tanks and their mig in the game. I also hear a lot of peopel talking about how most classes are useless in pvp and no one really plays them. The DEVs are well aware of that, but I do not think they are taking the right steps to solve this problem. For example one of their solutions was to nerf dispatch, well nerfing dispatch didn't do much, now insted of dyingto a rigand in 3 seconds, you die 5 seconds. All the classes that people complain about not having a roll in pvp (aka dirge, troub, coecer ect..) have very strong aspect to them, however what those classes have to offer are null in pvp. Why ? because this game lacks one of the most basics of ancient warfare. Vanguard ...yes this game misses a frontline pvp class. Think about an army with no shieldmen in the front line providing a line for their archers, that army would be crumbled by enemy light cavalry and special forces, because before their archers can fire a shot they will be dead. Think of the vanguard as tank classes, archers as mages and light cavalry as scouts. If developers decide to increase the mig of tanks by 30-40% and increase spell resist (while reducing spell resist from non-fighter gear) and give everytank class one extra area taunt this is what will happen : If the tank hasa extra aoe taunt, and more mig, this means he can handle more damage and actually "tank" enemy players. If a tank can hold pvp aggro better, and take less damage the healers can be safe and a healer could actually keep tank alive from concerted attacsk from 3 scouts at the same time. If the tank can take damage and healers can stay safe and heal more effectively, fights will last longer and scouts will not be able to kill their target so quick (note by scouts i dont include bards) If fights last longer, power pool will become a major aspect of pvp fights, if power becomes an important aspect, suddenly classes like coercers find a better place in pvp groups. When scouts aren't able to kill their target quickly ....they will require the extra dps/haste buffs and procs that bard classes offer ..wow sudddenly bards will have a solid roll in a pvp group. Now if the buffs start to make an impact on pvp, the debuff classes such as defiler and mystics will fidn their place in a pvp group and do more than just wards. Such a small change ...that is only increasing the mig of tanks could bring all the classes back to action. Right now EQ2's pvp is like an ancient army with no shieldmen in its vanguard. doesn't matter how much damage and how many men the archers and crossbowmen can kil land do ...before they are able to fire off anything the enemy light cavalry would kill them all.....if the the shieldmen are placed in the army's vanguard , suddenly the special forces and the light cavalry have to think twice before charging in and would have to plan their dps (gasp !! scouts actually have o think when to spam their keys) please feel free to add your own comments here.

Spider

03-14-2007, 08:26 PM

not sure how it would work out in practive but its definatly an interesting in theory

Kasai

03-15-2007, 01:15 AM

This would make tanks wayyyy too powerful in 1v1s and pvp in general. having 40% more mit would screw it up.

Mildavyn

03-15-2007, 01:24 AM

IFL2P.Upgrade your gear, upgrade your spells/CAs and get a group. Tanks are NOT solo PvP classes (although they CAN do quite well solo) Tanks are already almost impossible for me to kill, because of the Auditor of Silence proccing 9800 mental resists, they DO NOT NEED TO BE ANY TOUGHER. As soon as i see that earring proc i know I've lost, there is abolutely NOTHING i can do at that point, none of my spells land, my CAs do bugger all damage and in short i just get owned.As for your comment about tanks not doing near the same damage as scouts, all i can say is your tanks suck. I've seen tanks parsing in the low 1000's, and heard reports of pallys/SKs doing mid-high 1000s. Tanks can do damage.Just to reitterate: IFL2P

ZhouYu

03-15-2007, 01:29 AM

<cite>Mildavyn wrote:</cite><blockquote>IFL2P.Upgrade your gear, upgrade your spells/CAs and get a group. Tanks are NOT solo PvP classes (although they CAN do quite well solo) Tanks are already almost impossible for me to kill, because of the Auditor of Silence proccing 9800 mental resists, they DO NOT NEED TO BE ANY TOUGHER. As soon as i see that earring proc i know I've lost, there is abolutely NOTHING i can do at that point, none of my spells land, my CAs do bugger all damage and in short i just get owned.As for your comment about tanks not doing near the same damage as scouts, all i can say is your tanks suck. I've seen tanks parsing in the low 1000's, and heard reports of pallys/SKs doing mid-high 1000s. Tanks can do damage.Just to reitterate: IFL2P</blockquote>did you read me saying a tank should be able to solo everyclass ? FYI I have full relic, all master 1s (yes every single spell with exception of pox sword) all eof jewl. some of the best fable raid weapons and I'm Vox's only Master SK.now to the point i'm making is, are you seriously trying to argue that a plate tank class should have half the dps of a scout (if not more) but their mig be the same and their avoidance less ? seriously ...you tyring to push that arguement ? does it even make slightest sense ?

Mildavyn

03-15-2007, 01:39 AM

<cite>ZhouYu wrote:</cite><blockquote>did you read me saying a tank should be able to solo everyclass ? FYI I have full relic, all master 1s (yes every single spell with exception of pox sword) all eof jewl. some of the best fable raid weapons and I'm Vox's only Master SK.now to the point i'm making is, are you seriously trying to argue that a plate tank class should have half the dps of a scout (if not more) but their mig be the same and their avoidance less ? seriously ...you tyring to push that arguement ? does it even make slightest sense ? </blockquote> A Shadowknight is complaining about low DPS? Excuse me while i laugh in your face. I play a scout class and I am quite frequently out-DPSed by SKs.Now that aside, as far as tanking goes, shadowknights are great group PvE tanks, they can tank raid content... however for PvP they dont hold agro quite as well as any other plate tank. Let me just say again, your role in PvP is NOT to cause massive damage, your role is to get hit. Your single-target taunt pulses taunts, so really you're getting several taunts out of the same skill. Your shield bash FORCES the target to stay on you for 3 seconds, and your AE taunt FORCES the entire group to target you for 3 seconds. Now perhaps (and i would argue for this) you should get a % chance to proc a taunt when you get hit (You've got a reactive taunt for PvE, why not PvP?). Hell, zerkers/gaurds get one, and a pally can pretty much lock-down agro for 15 seconds easily... after that they're in the same boat as you are.Also, get the AAs that turn all your spells into lifetaps.... i fought a SK a couple times and he finished with 100% health every fight. those lifetaps are nasty. Use your blessing shield thing too.But aside from that, you get one of the largest nukes in the game, and you're complaining about low DPS? You can heal yourself, you can taunt... what more do you want?

ZhouYu

03-15-2007, 01:54 AM

<cite>Mildavyn wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>ZhouYu wrote:</cite><blockquote>did you read me saying a tank should be able to solo everyclass ? FYI I have full relic, all master 1s (yes every single spell with exception of pox sword) all eof jewl. some of the best fable raid weapons and I'm Vox's only Master SK.now to the point i'm making is, are you seriously trying to argue that a plate tank class should have half the dps of a scout (if not more) but their mig be the same and their avoidance less ? seriously ...you tyring to push that arguement ? does it even make slightest sense ? </blockquote> A Shadowknight is complaining about low DPS? Excuse me while i laugh in your face. I play a scout class and I am quite frequently out-DPSed by SKs.Now that aside, as far as tanking goes, shadowknights are great group PvE tanks, they can tank raid content... however for PvP they dont hold agro quite as well as any other plate tank. Let me just say again, your role in PvP is NOT to cause massive damage, your role is to get hit. Your single-target taunt pulses taunts, so really you're getting several taunts out of the same skill. Your shield bash FORCES the target to stay on you for 3 seconds, and your AE taunt FORCES the entire group to target you for 3 seconds. Now perhaps (and i would argue for this) you should get a % chance to proc a taunt when you get hit (You've got a reactive taunt for PvE, why not PvP?). Hell, zerkers/gaurds get one, and a pally can pretty much lock-down agro for 15 seconds easily... after that they're in the same boat as you are.Also, get the AAs that turn all your spells into lifetaps.... i fought a SK a couple times and he finished with 100% health every fight. those lifetaps are nasty. Use your blessing shield thing too.But aside from that, you get one of the largest nukes in the game, and you're complaining about low DPS? You can heal yourself, you can taunt... what more do you want?</blockquote>People seriously need to read a thread completely before they reply ..you notice i excluded bard classes when I said "scouts" ? go re read my OP. I even stated that bard classes are under powered and their role in pvp should be enchanced. As a SK I have to cast ....takes me a long time to cast a spell that is going to do 700-1k damage ...(thats only one of them therest do below 600) hal the times (sometimesm ore) i get resisted, resist comes so easily that everyone;s disease resists is at 58%+ however I'm not complaining about my dps, I'm not suppose to be aclasswho can dish out damage (yes sk candish out some damage ..but any player with semi decent gear atlvl 70 willresists oer half of your stuff and you usually die before ucan more than couple foyour spells) My problem is ...whya scout (and READbyscout i mean brigand, assasin, rangers, swashbucklers) have same mig as me, more avoidance and 2-3x the dps ? do you seriously see balance here ? doesn't it make sense for tanksto have MORE mig than other classes ? Is thsi somehting so strange to you ?

CresentBlade

03-15-2007, 05:35 AM

<cite>Kasai wrote:</cite><blockquote>This would make tanks wayyyy too powerful in 1v1s and pvp in general. having 40% more mit would screw it up.</blockquote>Why not let tanks be powerful for a little? Scouts have been since release, Druids are powerful now and increasing in power and Cloth casters were powerful for about a week till nerfed again. So I say hell give tanks at least one week of being able to kick the holy hell out of all the other classes<img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Beagest

03-15-2007, 06:02 AM

Some nice ideas that are worth thinking about here <img src="/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> I like the idea of grp fights lasting longer then 10 seconds <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Darlion

03-15-2007, 07:27 AM

You know the worst thing? Scouts can also get comparable or higher HP than tanks. I know that two brigands in my guild have Hp between 500-1000 points higher than mine, not to mention mitigation within 5% of mine and avoidance that is about 5%+ mine.And they do 5x more damage than I do. Yes, I should get a group, but I should also get armor. A tank should have higher avoidance, and higher mitigation in ALL aspects than other classes. They are the class you want to get hit, not because if they get hit it doesn't interupt their damage because they have none, but because they take the least damage. Right now, unless you're a guardian with tower of stone/guardian's sphere then you are likely no better at soaking damage than a scout (Zerker are pretty good at it too, but not significantly better than a scout could be).Anyone who disagrees with this has no idea what it is like to play a tank. There is a difference between being able to hold agro and soak damage, and several people don't seem to know the difference. Do you know I've seen wizards who can pull 50% mitigation self buffed (their int went way down but still)? Why is a class who is 3 armor classes higher only pulling 10-17% higher mitigation?

Oneira

03-15-2007, 07:51 AM

<cite>Darlion wrote:</cite><blockquote>You know the worst thing? Scouts can also get comparable or higher HP than tanks. I know that two brigands in my guild have Hp between 500-1000 points higher than mine, not to mention mitigation within 5% of mine and avoidance that is about 5%+ mine.And they do 5x more damage than I do. Yes, I should get a group, but I should also get armor. A tank should have higher avoidance, and higher mitigation in ALL aspects than other classes. They are the class you want to get hit, not because if they get hit it doesn't interupt their damage because they have none, but because they take the least damage. Right now, unless you're a guardian with tower of stone/guardian's sphere then you are likely no better at soaking damage than a scout (Zerker are pretty good at it too, but not significantly better than a scout could be).Anyone who disagrees with this has no idea what it is like to play a tank. There is a difference between being able to hold agro and soak damage, and several people don't seem to know the difference. Do you know I've seen wizards who can pull 50% mitigation self buffed (their int went way down but still)? Why is a class who is 3 armor classes higher only pulling 10-17% higher mitigation?</blockquote>I can confirm that as well. A brigand 5 levels above my 63 guardian said to me, do you know I have more health than you do? Shocked, I looked and sure enough, he had 1000 more health than me, with him having slightly but not significantly better gear. The diminishing returns on mit has screwed plate tanks royally. Chain wearing classes in t7 can get mit numbers that rival mine. It's just a joke to see how fast a 70 ranger or swashbuckler can take me down. I'm so happy that I as a guardian can last, say 5-10 seconds longer than other classes before I die. Exceptional balance there SOE.

Kurindor_Mythecnea

03-15-2007, 08:23 AM

Lol. Calling off on the point that SKs can't complain about comparative DPS (especially in the case of their general fortitude as a tank), is pretty much absurdly illogical. Despite it being one of the largest DD maneuvers, proportionally, it pales in comparison to many, many other assets held by others. If we had it transformed into more strengthy, reusable form of DPS without proportioning it to other classes' relative abilities, its power would be purely, outlandishly comical. For one, such staggered inclusions into "DPS" (Harm Touch, Decapitate) become much less than that, as they are often obscured and transfixed by other utilizations that detract from a skill set that is anything but pragmatic. It isn't DPS when it's actually "DPFM". To list that off as anything correlatable to an SK's footing is, again, preposterous to the framework of logic in such a sense (as it is so frequently pocketed for certain occasions under the inclusions of the user's realm of precaution; such a phenomenon limits its actual usability within the battlefield when those aiming to pop it off are simply squirming for a chance at defense against the "one class to rule them all" or some silly hit of rank fame). I, however, am not saying our DPS is poor or that it is only considered formidable with the application of this move, but just that it is an irrelevant citing when speaking of SK DPS and how it ought be altered. IRRESPECTIVE of that simple facet is the inconspicuous observability of the disparity involved in how the gap between DPS realized in aspects of PvP has no disparity that it ought have when placed upon the background of collated defensive capacity between the core offensive Scouts and the general tank base. What this mentation goes to dabble in is how, despite some tanks having a fathomable reach in their DPS, within the bounds of PvP, certain utilities of the competition downplay their function drastically. When you have none of these super-tools that stifle, stun, and interrupt your opposition (let alone the disgusting degree to which Spell combat -- the central focus for fantasy -- can be nullified by so many so easily) for such a vast majority of the battle, how is it presented as equitable to have no compensation? Emplacement as a vessel of longevity would secure that current imbalance and, so neededly, extend the duration of typical engagements from half-minute head banging to something truly more resemblant of the struggle that combat would likely be in a setting of medieval fantasy. I can only look upon this with the retrospection that such apparency wouldn't have come before me until having reached T7, where there is no involvement of motivation for character advancement beyond it merely being the last stretch of game beckoning completion and fulfillment -- and with that, I do give my praises to ZhouYu for an idea with such potential and practical sense.

Darlion

03-15-2007, 08:45 AM

<cite>Oneira wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darlion wrote:</cite><blockquote>You know the worst thing? Scouts can also get comparable or higher HP than tanks. I know that two brigands in my guild have Hp between 500-1000 points higher than mine, not to mention mitigation within 5% of mine and avoidance that is about 5%+ mine.And they do 5x more damage than I do. Yes, I should get a group, but I should also get armor. A tank should have higher avoidance, and higher mitigation in ALL aspects than other classes. They are the class you want to get hit, not because if they get hit it doesn't interupt their damage because they have none, but because they take the least damage. Right now, unless you're a guardian with tower of stone/guardian's sphere then you are likely no better at soaking damage than a scout (Zerker are pretty good at it too, but not significantly better than a scout could be).Anyone who disagrees with this has no idea what it is like to play a tank. There is a difference between being able to hold agro and soak damage, and several people don't seem to know the difference. Do you know I've seen wizards who can pull 50% mitigation self buffed (their int went way down but still)? Why is a class who is 3 armor classes higher only pulling 10-17% higher mitigation?</blockquote>I can confirm that as well. A brigand 5 levels above my 63 guardian said to me, do you know I have more health than you do? Shocked, I looked and sure enough, he had 1000 more health than me, with him having slightly but not significantly better gear. The diminishing returns on mit has screwed plate tanks royally. Chain wearing classes in t7 can get mit numbers that rival mine. It's just a joke to see how fast a 70 ranger or swashbuckler can take me down. I'm so happy that I as a guardian can last, say 5-10 seconds longer than other classes before I die. Exceptional balance there SOE. </blockquote> I wasn't talking about one 5 levels higher than me as well, I was talking even level. Rogues can self buff to more then 9k HP with the right AA line, have more or at least comparable mitigation and more avoidance avoidance, with little drop in dps.

Wytie

03-15-2007, 11:26 AM

Really we all know what the problem is when SOE designed this game they had set roles set for PVE, they had no idea or even cared how that might effect PVP.So now the PK Devs are left to pick up the peices, no one will ever be truly happy cause they will always loose battles that they thought they shouldnt have.we are all given choices as to what class to choose, no this games isnt balenced but is life balenced no, some folk are dealt a better hand the day they are born but are gona cry nerf that kid cause his perents have more money that yours or nerf that kid cause they're better in sports than you? No you are gona do the best you can do and learn to use what you have to the best of your skill.So what a general Swash or Brig wipes your ars in 5 sec, would you feel alot worse if a guard, wiped you in 10 sec heck yea you would. If your a swash or brig and you have a high title it really doesnt mean nothing... Nothing at all because all that person did was play the best odds, but if you see a clothy or a bard with a high title then they went against the odds and beat them. So it means more to them and everyone else, and it should.So the nest question is... Why do you play? Do you play for titles? if so then play a rouge/pred so you can walk you way to fame but if play to have fun and play a class you enjoy then pick what you like and learn to do the best of what oyur given even if that means change down the line...The best thing is learn from your deaths, if you cant handle that, then follow the ole saying "if you cant beat them, join em"

Bozidar

03-15-2007, 11:51 AM

Z is widely regarded on Vox as a joke (and i'm not talking about his skills), second only to Kalgore (here i'm talking ALSO about skills), but i have to say I agree with him here.His numbers are off a bit, i think, but he's right.A Rogue is a mix between a tank and a scout. It turns out in pvp to be one of the most powerful classes, but it's supposed to be a MIX. You get AA lines to help you be more tank-like, and have some arts that improve your tankiness. The only scout that does, btw. But you shouldn't be as GOOD as a tank is. Yes, in pve, or pvp, you should have the best mitigation of all scouts, but you shouldn't have the same mitigation as a tank. You shouldn't have the same health as a tank. (i'm speaking of comperably geared toons, not one who's uber and one in hand crafted).Right now, if that's the situation in T7 where Rogues have that, then nerf the [Removed for Content] outta it or buff all tanks.personally, i've haven't gotten to T7 yet, but pre T7 i don't see a lot of tanks soloing very successfully except SKs who HT greens for fame and then hide. I don't know what the effect on rogues would be to nerf their AAs, or what the effect on tanks would be to buff their mitigation (or remove the soft cap).But it seems wrong that a scout can tank as well as an actual tank. T7 has all kinds of problems that other tiers don't, though. Folks should remember that when suggesting fixes to devs.

Khrunk

03-15-2007, 12:36 PM

Paikis@Venekor wrote: <blockquote>IFL2P.Upgrade your gear, upgrade your spells/CAs and get a group. Tanks are NOT solo PvP classes (although they CAN do quite well solo) Tanks are already almost impossible for me to kill, because of the Auditor of Silence proccing 9800 mental resists, they DO NOT NEED TO BE ANY TOUGHER. As soon as i see that earring proc i know I've lost, there is abolutely NOTHING i can do at that point, none of my spells land, my CAs do bugger all damage and in short i just get owned.As for your comment about tanks not doing near the same damage as scouts, all i can say is your tanks suck. I've seen tanks parsing in the low 1000's, and heard reports of pallys/SKs doing mid-high 1000s. Tanks can do damage.Just to reitterate: IFL2P</blockquote>telling people ifl2p is a childs way out of a discussion. the auditor of silence is stupidly overpowered anyway no question about. and tanks parsing in the low 1000's um where they taunting the other group at all? yes mitigation is broken scouts getting 51%-55% mit and 57%+ avoidance self buffed is broken when plate wearers are lucky to get over 60% mit and 55% avoidance self buffed. 5% difference between chain and plate is stupidy ridiculous. why not just make clothies have 45% mit and 60% avoidance i mean fair is fair right. ohh and if your tank is doing as much damage as your scout you really need to fire your scout because he is SLEEPING!!

The_Real_Ohno

03-15-2007, 12:51 PM

Just a question... lets say a scout is in full fabled PvP armor and so is the Plate Tank in full fabled pvp armor. Scouts is like 324-342 mit per piece and Plate would be 500+ mit per piece. Times that by 7 for a full suit, the Plate Tank would have more Mit then the Scout. The only Plate Tanks that have less Mit then me with almost full fabled PvP armor are the ones that are in MC gear or a Mix of Legendary/MC stuff. Even Relic Gear, Scouts is like 300ish mit per piece and Plate tanks are 450+ish. U guys should really state gear when u are comparing Scouts mit vs Plates mit, cause what it seems like is your comparing fabled scouts to MC tanks, which of course the scout will have better stats.

Wytie

03-15-2007, 12:57 PM

<cite>The_Real_Ohnoes wrote:</cite><blockquote>Just a question... lets say a scout is in full fabled PvP armor and so is the Plate Tank in full fabled pvp armor. Scouts is like 324-342 mit per piece and Plate would be 500+ mit per piece. Times that by 7 for a full suit, the Plate Tank would have more Mit then the Scout. The only Plate Tanks that have less Mit then me with almost full fabled PvP armor are the ones that are in MC gear or a Mix of Legendary/MC stuff. Even Relic Gear, Scouts is like 300ish mit per piece and Plate tanks are 450+ish. U guys should really state gear when u are comparing Scouts mit vs Plates mit, cause what it seems like is your comparing fabled scouts to MC tanks, which of course the scout will have better stats.</blockquote>but even a handcrafted tank should still have more mit than a fully fabled scout. It just makes since low end plat should still take more of a beating than high end chain........ EVER

Khrunk

03-15-2007, 12:58 PM

<cite>The_Real_Ohnoes wrote:</cite><blockquote>Just a question... lets say a scout is in full fabled PvP armor and so is the Plate Tank in full fabled pvp armor. Scouts is like 324-342 mit per piece and Plate would be 500+ mit per piece. Times that by 7 for a full suit, the Plate Tank would have more Mit then the Scout. The only Plate Tanks that have less Mit then me with almost full fabled PvP armor are the ones that are in MC gear or a Mix of Legendary/MC stuff. Even Relic Gear, Scouts is like 300ish mit per piece and Plate tanks are 450+ish. U guys should really state gear when u are comparing Scouts mit vs Plates mit, cause what it seems like is your comparing fabled scouts to MC tanks, which of course the scout will have better stats.</blockquote>it really dont matter how much mit is on a item because with diminishing curves the higher you go the less the mit does for you. it would have to be a significant amount of mit on a piece of gear to make a difference once you get around the 60% mit range. and mc tanks would never get to 60% self buffed mit, unless they used their 30-second mit buffs.

The_Real_Ohno

03-15-2007, 01:02 PM

<cite>Wytie wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>The_Real_Ohnoes wrote:</cite><blockquote>Just a question... lets say a scout is in full fabled PvP armor and so is the Plate Tank in full fabled pvp armor. Scouts is like 324-342 mit per piece and Plate would be 500+ mit per piece. Times that by 7 for a full suit, the Plate Tank would have more Mit then the Scout. The only Plate Tanks that have less Mit then me with almost full fabled PvP armor are the ones that are in MC gear or a Mix of Legendary/MC stuff. Even Relic Gear, Scouts is like 300ish mit per piece and Plate tanks are 450+ish. U guys should really state gear when u are comparing Scouts mit vs Plates mit, cause what it seems like is your comparing fabled scouts to MC tanks, which of course the scout will have better stats.</blockquote>but even a handcrafted tank should still have more mit than a fully fabled scout. It just makes since low end plat should still take more of a beating than high end chain........ EVER </blockquote>MC gear is junk, and for a tank in pvp battles... Pre-LU24 Ill agree with u, but MC now is totally junk. Theres no way anyone should be comparing MC with PvP Fabled or any Fabled from that matter.

The_Real_Ohno

03-15-2007, 01:04 PM

PeaSy1

03-15-2007, 01:19 PM

My swashbuckler is aa specced in the sta line and i am asked to tank the chember of immorality over our was 38 zerker and im a 37. The bad thing is that i dont have to taunt eith since i also out dmg parse the rest of the group so noone pulls it off me either.

Khrunk

03-15-2007, 01:23 PM

yeah thats where the hp and mit buffs come in at. i sit at 9k self buffed on hp i can take a beating. but if you have a brig sit at 9k self buffed they will be able to take [Removed for Content] near the same beating, but will produce a hell of alot more damage, than i ever would.

Bozidar

03-15-2007, 01:32 PM

Dudos@Vox wrote: <blockquote>My swashbuckler is aa specced in the sta line and i am asked to tank the chember of immorality over our was 38 zerker and im a 37. The bad thing is that i dont have to taunt eith since i also out dmg parse the rest of the group so noone pulls it off me either.</blockquote> Please.. i'm a noob at this discussion having not made it to T7 yet, but seriously.My DRUID can tank the Chamber of Immortality, and keeps aggro because of heals, too. It's nothing special and really has no bearing on a T7 mitigation comparison between rogues and tanks.To the folks above:If a tank is under geared compared to a rogue, then tough crap. If he's done the work to get the great gear, he deserves to be as good as you.If you're talking about comparing a rogue in equal level/qualigy gear to a tank ... then tank's mit should kick his [Removed for Content].Question on the diminishing returns.. why is it just plate?If i'm a plate wearer, then at 60% mitigation i start to get diminishing returns.. Why doesn't a chain wearer start to get diminishing returns at 50%? or 40%?

ZhouYu

03-15-2007, 01:34 PM

PLEASE NOTE HERE, THIS IS ABOUT PVP AND THE ROLE OF TANKS IN PVP. PLEASE LEAVE PVE AND RAID DISCUSSIONS OUT OF THIS. TANKS ARE FINE IN RAIDS BECAUSE OF TAUNTS, BUT TAUNTS DON'T DO MUCH IN PVP AND BECAUSE OF THEIR LOW MIG COMPARED TO SCOUTS, AND LOW PVP DPS ADDED WITH THE DIMISHING CURVE THEY ARE LOSING THEIR PLACE IN PVP. THINK ABOUT THIS YOURSELF, WHICH CLASS WOULD YOU CHOOSE BETWEEN THESE 2 OPTIONS : CLASS A : 55% MIG, 60% AVOIDANCE. DPS X5 (SCOUT)CLASS B : 55% MIG, 45% AVOIDANCE, DPS X1 (TANK)THE CHOICE IS CLEAR, WHICH EXPLAISN WHY EVERYONE AND THEIR DOG ON A PVP SERVER IS A SCOUT. (BY SCOUTS I DON'T MEAN TO INCLUDE BARDS)

Radigazt

03-15-2007, 01:48 PM

I disagree. It's not the Tanks that are broken, it's the Scouts. There is no way a huge dps class like a Rogue or Predator should be able to get massive mitigation and avoidance. THAT'S the problem in PvP. The Devs should tweak the diminishing returns system to cap Scout mitigation at 30% and avoidance at 40%. Then they should get rid of the AA's,and Racial traits, etc. that give a % of hit points. Those things are causing problems balancing stuff. Then the poor Bards should receive some dps buffing. If you're going to let a Swashy or Brig become a tank in terms of mitigation, avoidance and hit points ... then you need to nerf his dps, and I don't think that would be as popular as preventing them from becoming tanks in the first place.

Khrunk

03-15-2007, 01:54 PM

<cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote>Dudos@Vox wrote: <blockquote>My swashbuckler is aa specced in the sta line and i am asked to tank the chember of immorality over our was 38 zerker and im a 37. The bad thing is that i dont have to taunt eith since i also out dmg parse the rest of the group so noone pulls it off me either.</blockquote> Please.. i'm a noob at this discussion having not made it to T7 yet, but seriously.My DRUID can tank the Chamber of Immortality, and keeps aggro because of heals, too. It's nothing special and really has no bearing on a T7 mitigation comparison between rogues and tanks.To the folks above:If a tank is under geared compared to a rogue, then tough crap. If he's done the work to get the great gear, he deserves to be as good as you.If you're talking about comparing a rogue in equal level/qualigy gear to a tank ... then tank's mit should kick his [I cannot control my vocabulary].Question on the diminishing returns.. why is it just plate?If i'm a plate wearer, then at 60% mitigation i start to get diminishing returns.. Why doesn't a chain wearer start to get diminishing returns at 50%? or 40%?</blockquote>diminishing returns on mit start at 4k mit which is rougly 54% as shown here <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=81673" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...?topic_id=81673</a>. you can get to 60% as a plate wearer but is not easly done. the difference between 5k mit and 4k mit is 6% or so. which is where the 60% number is thrown up. when this curve was implemtend pvp was never considered it was done for pve only. that is the problem

Dimgl

03-15-2007, 02:00 PM

I agree that the diminishing returns curves really throw off the balance of tanks in PVP. In a group of Berserker, Paladin, Templar, Swashbuckler, Troubadour, and Warden, the lowest mit % was 55%, and it was the Troubadour. The Warden had 58%, the Berserker had 59%, Paladin 58%, and the Templar had 61% with the Swashy at 59%. (This thanks to the Paladin buff that buffs non-fighters.) Not only can rogues approach tank mitigation, but Wardens can as well with their self-mit buffs and high end leather. In the end, there was absolutely no mit advantage on the two PLATE fighters. The winner in toughness was the plate HEALER, who was receiving the group Paladin buff. Avoidance wise: Berserker (me, who is built for avoidance, exactly because mit is [Removed for Content] now) 60% Paladin (built for DPS/healing, uses tower, O stance) 35% Warden: 33% Swashbuckler (O stance): 42% (I think) Templar: 12% Troubadour: Somewhere mid-30s. So in the end, the Paladin at 58% mit and 35% avoid was equal to a Warden who had 58% and 33% avoid. There's a reason why Druids are so popular, they are the toughest healer in a group since they get real avoidance and the mit curve doesn't bite them as hard, not to mention their significantly faster-casting heals and non-penalized group heals make them the highest HPS PVP healers. Cast almost twice as fast and heal 4-6 times as much with your group heals? Yeah, that's balance. It should be obvious that the toughness of tanks is severely out of line with the toughness of other classes in PVP when as far "down" as leather can approach tank-performance in groups. That being said about mit, we do not need additional taunts. That would completely ruin the ability to self-determine or strategize in a PVP fight, as most tanks already have a single taunt, a group taunt, a reactive or proactive taunt (taunt when you hit enemy for brawlers, or taunt when you get hit for Zerk/Guard/SK) and on top of that most fighters have a specialty taunt as well (Guardian AOE damage+threat, Berserker Insolent Gibe, Paladin Amends and Sigil of Heroism.) Maybe you're just unfortunate that you chose SK, which doesn't have as many taunt options as other tanks, but I can guarantee you that adding another blue taunt would overpower some of the other existing tanks. Berserker especially. The best fix(es) they could make to tanks for PVP would be: - Give a minor global reduction to all damage a tank suffers in PVP based on the type of fighter they are. Brawlers being the least, then probably warriors and crusaders. - Reduce taunt resist rates in PVP. We don't need more taunts, we just need them to be reliable. - Add some snares to the non-SK fighters. - 1 ranged CA for Warriors. Why are they the -only- class in the game that has no ranged attack ability? Every other fighter has access to one, every scout does, every mage/priest does.

Kaleyen

03-15-2007, 02:05 PM

To help with some numbers on the Pally side since he was in O stance...in D stance with the freakin awesome PVP shield I'm at 57% mit and 46% avoidance (with the Paladin tanking line). If the devs don't see something wrong with those mitigation numbers they need a wake up call. We wear plate for a reason, having leather wearers/chain and even some clothies start to reach our mitigation percentage is just a slap to our face.

Wytie

03-15-2007, 02:34 PM

Liluk@Venekor wrote: <blockquote>To help with some numbers on the Pally side since he was in O stance...in D stance with the freakin awesome PVP shield I'm at 57% mit and 46% avoidance (with the Paladin tanking line). If the devs don't see something wrong with those mitigation numbers they need a wake up call. We wear plate for a reason, having leather wearers/chain and even some clothies start to reach our mitigation percentage is just a slap to our face. </blockquote>A F'ing mend........ Like all others have stated Tanking PVE isnt the problem it in pvp where the benifits of being a tank isnt so great honestly you need 2 tanks in pvp to keeps the targets swapn or the dps will wipe him out so quick.In pvp you damage should be modified of of what type of class you hit THEN mit should take into effect example if you do 1k damage to a clothy nothing should change or maybe a 5% reduction.But if you hit leather damage should be reduced 10% before mit goes into account, if you hit chain then damage should be reduced by 15% then mit take into account and last but not least if you hit plate it should be reduced by 25% THEN mit should go into effect.This could be across the board, and only would count for physical damage and could still lever everything else in place.This allows tank to still get a benift from using plate but at the same time not allow a scout or healer to absorbe just as much physical damage, I think this should only effect physical damage and nothing else. Its similar to the avoidence check given based on what type of armor your class should use.my2cent

Bozidar

03-15-2007, 02:51 PM

<cite>ZhouYu wrote:</cite><blockquote> (BY SCOUTS I DON'T MEAN TO INCLUDE BARDS) </blockquote> You should replace the word scout with Rogue. Bards AND Predators aren't what you're talking about here. Assassins and Rangers don't get the kind of mitigation that a Swashy/Brig does, and Swashy/Brig == Rogue.

Kaleyen

03-15-2007, 02:55 PM

Predators and Bards may not get as much mitigation as Rogues but it's still rather a high mitigation percentage.

Bozidar

03-15-2007, 02:59 PM

Liluk@Venekor wrote: <blockquote>Predators and Bards may not get as much mitigation as Rogues but it's still rather a high mitigation percentage. </blockquote> The AA for a Rogue is made to make them more tank-like. Not so for other scouts.The HP difference and Mitigation difference between a Rogue and other scouts can be quite a gap even when evenly geared.

Kyralis

03-15-2007, 05:14 PM

Khrunk@Venekor wrote: <blockquote>it really dont matter how much mit is on a item because with diminishing curves the higher you go the less the mit does for you. it would have to be a significant amount of mit on a piece of gear to make a difference once you get around the 60% mit range. and mc tanks would never get to 60% self buffed mit, unless they used their 30-second mit buffs. </blockquote>Just quoting this because everyone's saying the same thing. This is provably not correct. *PROVABLY* not correct. Mitigation continues to provide the same benefit regardless of current amount- the percentage appears to be non-linear but the effect on survivability is, in fact, non-linear. Get the stupid diminishing returns BS out of your heads. There was an enormous thread about mitigation returns back in december, i think, in the combat forum- do a search, I don't feel like re-explaining it all.

Kaleyen

03-15-2007, 05:22 PM

Unfortunately, that post was made on the old forums and thus is nonexistent anymore <img src="/smilies/136dd33cba83140c7ce38db096d05aed.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Norrsken

03-15-2007, 07:03 PM

<cite>Kyralis wrote:</cite><blockquote>Khrunk@Venekor wrote: <blockquote>it really dont matter how much mit is on a item because with diminishing curves the higher you go the less the mit does for you. it would have to be a significant amount of mit on a piece of gear to make a difference once you get around the 60% mit range. and mc tanks would never get to 60% self buffed mit, unless they used their 30-second mit buffs. </blockquote>Just quoting this because everyone's saying the same thing. This is provably not correct. *PROVABLY* not correct. Mitigation continues to provide the same benefit regardless of current amount- the percentage appears to be non-linear but the effect on survivability is, in fact, non-linear. Get the stupid diminishing returns BS out of your heads. There was an enormous thread about mitigation returns back in december, i think, in the combat forum- do a search, I don't feel like re-explaining it all.</blockquote>I think you wanted to say that the effect on survivability is in fact linear. Before it was more exponential. The better mit you got, the faster it got better. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Firam

03-16-2007, 02:36 AM

Khrunk@Venekor wrote: <blockquote><cite>The_Real_Ohnoes wrote:</cite><blockquote>Just a question... lets say a scout is in full fabled PvP armor and so is the Plate Tank in full fabled pvp armor. Scouts is like 324-342 mit per piece and Plate would be 500+ mit per piece. Times that by 7 for a full suit, the Plate Tank would have more Mit then the Scout. The only Plate Tanks that have less Mit then me with almost full fabled PvP armor are the ones that are in MC gear or a Mix of Legendary/MC stuff. Even Relic Gear, Scouts is like 300ish mit per piece and Plate tanks are 450+ish. U guys should really state gear when u are comparing Scouts mit vs Plates mit, cause what it seems like is your comparing fabled scouts to MC tanks, which of course the scout will have better stats.</blockquote>it really dont matter how much mit is on a item because with diminishing curves the higher you go the less the mit does for you. it would have to be a significant amount of mit on a piece of gear to make a difference once you get around the 60% mit range. and mc tanks would never get to 60% self buffed mit, unless they used their 30-second mit buffs. </blockquote> Incorrect. This is a logical fallacy. The changes commonly referred to now as "diminishing returns" were a correction to the previous system, where your actual damage taken would decrease faster than it should have. The curve is now linear. Think of it as 100-X, instead of X. You will now take exactly as much less damage per point of mitigation. The last 1000 helps just as much as the first 1000. There was an excellent post about this in the old forums, I don't know if anyone still has the data analysis or graphs saved though. To put it another way: When you're looking at your avoidance or mitigation numbers, think of the reality of the situation as 100% (i.e. "I'm getting hit every time/taking full damage every hit") minus X, where X is your stat. 70% avoidance on a brawler means they "only get hit 30% of the time". The 30% is the important number as far as damage taken, not the 70%... they are mathematically linked, but for some reason most people don't think that way. If you add another 5% avoidance to that brawler, it doesn't seem like a huge amount... going from 70 to 75 seems minor if you look at it that way... but you're going from 30% hit rate to 25% hit rate. That's a large difference, over 15% less damage taken over time. Mitigation works the same way, obviously. This is why you see such a huge difference in ability to soak damage when you have a new guild member who's going from MC/legendary up into high end fabled gear. You may have started off with 35% avoid and 50% miti (theoretically), which means you would "take" only 32% ((100-avoidance)/mitigation) of the intended damage of the mob, but as you increase those numbers by 10-20% the equation yields nice returns. Parse the incoming damage on a fabled tank one night when single grouping a hard zone (yellow con ^^^). Then run through it again with the exact same group, except make the tank wear mastercrafted. Parse it again. Run through it again with the tank in treasured. Parse it again. With a little math the numbers will make sense.

Khrunk

03-16-2007, 12:48 PM

Example: Mitigation and Longevity To illustrate how diminishing returns help solve the problem of linear progression for mitigations, take a look at the benefits of two level 70 characters that increase their mitigation by the same amount in the old system: Player A increases their mitigation from 2000 to 2600. A change of +600, or +8.5% mitigation Player B increases their mitigation from 5000 to 5600. A change of +600, or +8.5% mitigation Even though it looks like Player A and B received the same amount of benefit, Player B gained more than 3 times as much effective benefit with that same amount. How is that possible? The change of mitigation Player A experienced granted them 13.6% more length of time to live, which we will refer to as Longevity. The change of mitigation Player B experienced granted them 42.9% additional longevity than they previously had. This is because Longevity is determined by the equation: [ 1 / ( 100 - Mitigation% ) ] What results is that players that are very well equipped grow exponentially stronger than those that are not as well equipped. This causes these very well-equipped players to solo heroics with relative ease, and raid encounters must be designed to deal incredible amounts of damage that often one-shot kill other players in an area effect that do not have a minimum amount of mitigation for that encounter, especially mage classes. Cloth-wearers obviously won't be tanking, but we don't want them to get crushed if they take a single hit. Using a diminishing returns curve for mitigation balances it in such a way that players that are further away from the cap receive more benefit per point of mitigation than does a player that is near the cap. Another way of looking at this from the perspective of a level 70 player after these changes: A player below 4000 in a mitigation type will experience more benefit than they did before, and a player above 4000 in a resist type will experience smaller gains in their damage reduction than before. 4000 is the level 70 break-even point where the old linear line and the new diminishing returns curve meet that returns the same benefit before and after the changes. <ul> <li>Player A increases their mitigation from 1000 to 1600. A change of +600, or +9.75% mitigation </li><li>Player B increases their mitigation from 2000 to 2600. A change of +600, or +6% mitigation </li><li>Player C increases their mitigation from 5000 to 5600. A change of +600, or +2.15% mitigation</li></ul> <ul> <li>Player A = 15.4% increase in changed longevity (this benefits mages a lot more than before) </li><li>Player B = 9.6% increase in changed longevity </li><li>Player C = 6% increase in changed longevity</li></ul> Generally speaking, 40% of the new cap is roughly the break even point on most of these graphs for all of the new diminishing returns graphs for resists, stats, and skills. Finally... We hope that this background is useful, both for communicating our thoughts on the huge subject that is "Combat in EverQuest II," and also useful a tool by which you can gauge the changes and continue to provide feedback on what it is that's coming to the Test Server, in Beta, and beyond. As always, we look forward to your feedback and assistance and thank you for playing EverQuest II. - The EverQuest II Development Team according to what im reading from what the devs wrote is that the higher you go on the mit chart the less mit does for you. also your gains for longevity decreases the higher in mit you go. they modified the damage that pve encounters did and never modified the pvp encounters for these changes. so in turn basically pvp encounters are using the old mit standards and not the new mit standards.

Neville1355

03-16-2007, 01:16 PM

I am a worthless class in pvp and I fully endorse this post.Sony, take notes...please!

Kurindor_Mythecnea

03-16-2007, 01:22 PM

Aww don't say that...you're like everyone's little cheerleader! Okay...well..maaaaaybe...a bit more than that -- maybe.

Wytie

03-16-2007, 01:22 PM

<cite>Neville1355 wrote:</cite><blockquote>I am a worthless class in pvp and I fully endorse this post.Sony, take notes...please!</blockquote> not true at all, combine you with a SK and a zerker and you got friends for life IMOWhat you ment to say is worthless in solo pvp well yea but your not the only one eh

Kaleyen

03-16-2007, 01:50 PM

Dirges in PVP are badass...just not solo.

Kurindor_Mythecnea

03-16-2007, 02:58 PM

Aye, quite sensical to assume she meant such.

Wytie

03-16-2007, 03:49 PM

Liluk@Venekor wrote: <blockquote>Dirges in PVP are badass...just not solo. </blockquote> Not only are Dirges badarss, but they have the best revive in the game, I have a good friend who is a Dirge same level as me, its my fav 2 man pvp group out there, i would rather have a dirge as my right hand man over any Healer in pvp any day of the week. Trac helps too <img src="/smilies/97ada74b88049a6d50a6ed40898a03d7.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Xantinya

03-16-2007, 03:52 PM

I have a tank on a pvp server and have the exact same problem, I die within 5 secs to a swash, and I don't see how this is normal nor balanced, I barely have time to cast a few spells or use a few skills and I'm dead (and p.s. I have pretty good resists to all and especially poison/disease and a good gear also). As a tank it should take me a bit longer to die at least, this makes me feel like I'm wearing clothes. I remember a while ago there was a big revamp and you (SOE) wanted bruisers/monks (and maybe brigands/swashbucklers also, but I'm not 100% sure) to be able to tank more, well they have more HPs and they can tank better then they used to, but they still have a lot more dps then us, and some of us tanks (me at least) are beginning to wonder what did you give us to compensate? We picked a tank class because we like tanking, and we should be able to take a lot more hits then a dps class, but the difference is not that noticeable, not to mention even with all my taunts masters I still can't take aggro from them (well I can but it takes a while), they end up tanking for the most part, so what's the deal here? If I compare HPs, both with similar (i.e. mastercrafted, adorned, etc) gear, they have slightly less HPS but not much at all (granted HPs are not all, our mit should be a lot better then a scout - mit/avoidance), I have seen a bruiser kill a heroic mob same level as him and barely get hurt while and his gear is not better then mine and I can't even dream of doing that. So briefly they have almost as many hps as tanks, and their mit (avoidance in their case) is almost as good, but also can do a lot more damage then a tank, something isnt right here.Note that I am not asking for a nerf, nothing is more upsetting, but I am asking that you give us tanks something to chew on, give us better mit, better resists, and a lot more HPs. In eq1 with my tank I felt like a tank, I felt useful, in eq2 I am wondering how useful my class is considering what I just said about brigs/swash/bruisers/monks.

ZhouYu

03-16-2007, 04:01 PM

<cite>Xantinya wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have a tank on a pvp server and have the exact same problem, I die within 5 secs to a swash, and I don't see how this is normal nor balanced, I barely have time to cast a few spells or use a few skills and I'm dead (and p.s. I have pretty good resists to all and especially poison/disease and a good gear also). As a tank it should take me a bit longer to die at least, this makes me feel like I'm wearing clothes. I remember a while ago there was a big revamp and you (SOE) wanted bruisers/monks (and maybe brigands/swashbucklers also, but I'm not 100% sure) to be able to tank more, well they have more HPs and they can tank better then they used to, but they still have a lot more dps then us, and some of us tanks (me at least) are beginning to wonder what did you give us to compensate? We picked a tank class because we like tanking, and we should be able to take a lot more hits then a dps class, but the difference is not that noticeable, not to mention even with all my taunts masters I still can't take aggro from them (well I can but it takes a while), they end up tanking for the most part, so what's the deal here? If I compare HPs, both with similar (i.e. mastercrafted, adorned, etc) gear, they have slightly less HPS but not much at all (granted HPs are not all, our mit should be a lot better then a scout - mit/avoidance), I have seen a bruiser kill a heroic mob same level as him and barely get hurt while and his gear is not better then mine and I can't even dream of doing that. So briefly they have almost as many hps as tanks, and their mit (avoidance in their case) is almost as good, but also can do a lot more damage then a tank, something isnt right here.Note that I am not asking for a nerf, nothing is more upsetting, but I am asking that you give us tanks something to chew on, give us better mit, better resists, and a lot more HPs. In eq1 with my tank I felt like a tank, I felt useful, in eq2 I am wondering how useful my class is considering what I just said about brigs/swash/bruisers/monks.</blockquote>Very well said, my post wasn't meanto to be a nerf call on all dps classes. However fights lasting 5-10seconds is dumb and its not because of the big hits like ice nova or PT (that DEVs wanted to nerf) its because of the fast hitting constent dps that np class in the game can withstand. If they increase the hp,rresist and mig of tanks by a good amount fights will last a lot longer, and fights lasting a lot longer will suddenly to wonders in pvp (liek i mentioned in my op). Also no this change would not make tanks overpowred, it will just make it so hat a rouge cant beat a tank in 5 seconds and end pvp fights so quick. Because once the tank is down ..the mages and healers are dead. Currently only way to counter a rouge is another rouge. The more scouts a group has theb etter chances they have to win. I just wish we could some official word from the DEVs about thsi thread.

Titan-X

03-16-2007, 05:45 PM

Titan-X

03-16-2007, 05:47 PM

"I just wish we could some official word from the DEVs about thsi thread." I wouldn't hold your breath <img src="/smilies/136dd33cba83140c7ce38db096d05aed.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Wytie

03-16-2007, 05:55 PM

Sharpteath@Kithicor wrote: <blockquote>"I just wish we could some official word from the DEVs about thsi thread." I wouldn't hold your breath <img src="/smilies/136dd33cba83140c7ce38db096d05aed.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></blockquote> I would <img src="/smilies/499fd50bc713bfcdf2ab5a23c00c2d62.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Im sure if the Dev's are aware of an issue and feel that it needs to be addressed.... It will.... If they dont then this thread like many others will fade away. But as you know if it brought up enough example ( Evac ) it will get fixed maybe not tom, but some day.........

artophwar

03-19-2007, 11:04 AM

<cite>Xantinya wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have a tank on a pvp server and have the exact same problem, I die within 5 secs to a swash, and I don't see how this is normal nor balanced, I barely have time to cast a few spells or use a few skills and I'm dead (and p.s. I have pretty good resists to all and especially poison/disease and a good gear also). As a tank it should take me a bit longer to die at least, this makes me feel like I'm wearing clothes. I remember a while ago there was a big revamp and you (SOE) wanted bruisers/monks (and maybe brigands/swashbucklers also, but I'm not 100% sure) to be able to tank more, well they have more HPs and they can tank better then they used to, but they still have a lot more dps then us, and some of us tanks (me at least) are beginning to wonder what did you give us to compensate? We picked a tank class because we like tanking, and we should be able to take a lot more hits then a dps class, but the difference is not that noticeable, not to mention even with all my taunts masters I still can't take aggro from them (well I can but it takes a while), they end up tanking for the most part, so what's the deal here? If I compare HPs, both with similar (i.e. mastercrafted, adorned, etc) gear, they have slightly less HPS but not much at all (granted HPs are not all, our mit should be a lot better then a scout - mit/avoidance), I have seen a bruiser kill a heroic mob same level as him and barely get hurt while and his gear is not better then mine and I can't even dream of doing that. So briefly they have almost as many hps as tanks, and their mit (avoidance in their case) is almost as good, but also can do a lot more damage then a tank, something isnt right here.Note that I am not asking for a nerf, nothing is more upsetting, but I am asking that you give us tanks something to chew on, give us better mit, better resists, and a lot more HPs. In eq1 with my tank I felt like a tank, I felt useful, in eq2 I am wondering how useful my class is considering what I just said about brigs/swash/bruisers/monks.</blockquote>Are you seriously kidding me? Do you not realize that brawlers are tanks and are designed to hold single target agro? That is why we get high dps/avoidence and the drawback is less mitigation than a warden. I have seen guardians/pallies/BESERKERS/sk's that do as much dps as me when they are speced for it. There is no monk in the game that can go defensive spec and even come close to being able to tank like plate wearers. I'm actually getting pretty fed up with guardians crying about this aspect when they don't even know what they are talking about. If you have ever seen a monk be the MT in a PvP group then you have seen a group that has no tank. We only have one group taunt that holds agro for 3secs. Funny thing is after that 3sec is up we can't get agro back for another 17secs. So in an entire PvP fight we may hold group agro for about 9secs per 1min. I know we have a taunt proc that holds agro and a single target taunt, but the reality of PvP is that you cant change targets to hold single target agro when a pally or guard has you locked down for the entire fight. Every class has its drawbacks and just because you cant take 50% more damage than a leather tank or a chain wearer doesn't mean your class is gimped. It means you need to l2p and understand what your roll is during pvp. You are there to hold agro and that is it. Let the healers worry about keeping you alive, and let the dps classes do their jobs. The worst thing to come across in a pvp group is a well played guardian.

munos

03-19-2007, 12:51 PM

<cite>Darlion wrote:</cite><blockquote>You know the worst thing? Scouts can also get comparable or higher HP than tanks. I know that two brigands in my guild have Hp between 500-1000 points higher than mine, not to mention mitigation within 5% of mine and avoidance that is about 5%+ mine.And they do 5x more damage than I do. Yes, I should get a group, but I should also get armor. A tank should have higher avoidance, and higher mitigation in ALL aspects than other classes. They are the class you want to get hit, not because if they get hit it doesn't interupt their damage because they have none, but because they take the least damage. Right now, unless you're a guardian with tower of stone/guardian's sphere then you are likely no better at soaking damage than a scout (Zerker are pretty good at it too, but not significantly better than a scout could be).Anyone who disagrees with this has no idea what it is like to play a tank. There is a difference between being able to hold agro and soak damage, and several people don't seem to know the difference. Do you know I've seen wizards who can pull 50% mitigation self buffed (their int went way down but still)? Why is a class who is 3 armor classes higher only pulling 10-17% higher mitigation?</blockquote>Know what sad is that most cloth caster have more hps than me.

Titan-X

03-19-2007, 03:06 PM

<cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote>Z is widely regarded on Vox as a joke (and i'm not talking about his skills), second only to Kalgore (here i'm talking ALSO about skills), but i have to say I agree with him here.His numbers are off a bit, i think, but he's right.A Rogue is a mix between a tank and a scout. It turns out in pvp to be one of the most powerful classes, but it's supposed to be a MIX. You get AA lines to help you be more tank-like, and have some arts that improve your tankiness. The only scout that does, btw. But you shouldn't be as GOOD as a tank is. Yes, in pve, or pvp, you should have the best mitigation of all scouts, but you shouldn't have the same mitigation as a tank. You shouldn't have the same health as a tank. (i'm speaking of comperably geared toons, not one who's uber and one in hand crafted).Right now, if that's the situation in T7 where Rogues have that, then nerf the [I cannot control my vocabulary] outta it or buff all tanks.personally, i've haven't gotten to T7 yet, but pre T7 i don't see a lot of tanks soloing very successfully except SKs who HT greens for fame and then hide. I don't know what the effect on rogues would be to nerf their AAs, or what the effect on tanks would be to buff their mitigation (or remove the soft cap).But it seems wrong that a scout can tank as well as an actual tank. T7 has all kinds of problems that other tiers don't, though. Folks should remember that when suggesting fixes to devs.</blockquote>First off, yes scouts (brigand/swashy) can get their ac and hps up pretty high. This is a correct statement. Does this make them a tank? Keep in mind that both the classes I just mentioned from day one, has a taunt (two if count ruse and its replacements). Does this make them a tank, I will ask you again? If you have ever played a true tank class we all know right away no, they don't have the "keep agro ability" and compare a raid rogue to a raid tank and you will see a number of other differences. Keep in mind also that some high level raid content requires that you have a scout tank it (I wont name the encounter, but if you raid you know what mob and which zone I am talking about). Also how you spec your class is one of the key elements of how much hps or ac you have in either case (tank/scout). What people forget is that in pvp stats are of different importance and "most of the time" people get carried away with doing more damage faster IE: dps spec'd fury, zerker, SK, ect... You will sacrifice you stats as a tank greatly in most cases by going down these alternate aa lines or gear options. I think there is more to this equation then the narrow bit of information that is being stated here...Food for thought.

Bozidar

03-19-2007, 03:13 PM

Sharpteath@Kithicor wrote: <blockquote>First off, yes scouts (brigand/swashy) can get their ac and hps up pretty high. This is a correct statement. Does this make them a tank? Keep in mind that both the classes I just mentioned from day one, has a taunt (two if count ruse and its replacements). Does this make them a tank, I will ask you again? If you have ever played a true tank class we all know right away no, they don't have the "keep agro ability" and compare a raid rogue to a raid tank and you will see a number of other differences. Keep in mind also that some high level raid content requires that you have a scout tank it (I wont name the encounter, but if you raid you know what mob and which zone I am talking about). Also how you spec your class is one of the key elements of how much hps or ac you have in either case (tank/scout). What people forget is that in pvp stats are of different importance and "most of the time" people get carried away with doing more damage faster IE: dps spec'd fury, zerker, SK, ect... You will sacrifice you stats as a tank greatly in most cases by going down these alternate aa lines or gear options. I think there is more to this equation then the narrow bit of information that is being stated here...Food for thought. </blockquote> No one's talking about a brig doing raid tanking. This is a PvP disucssion in the PvP boards. The bottom line is that a Rogue (brig/swash) can hit 5 times harder than most tanks, and 10 times harder than others, and in Tier 7 their mitigation and health can be equal or near equal.Like it or not, that sucks for tanks in pvp. Raid PvE isn't the discussion here..

Khrunk

03-19-2007, 04:21 PM

<cite>artophwar wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Xantinya wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have a tank on a pvp server and have the exact same problem, I die within 5 secs to a swash, and I don't see how this is normal nor balanced, I barely have time to cast a few spells or use a few skills and I'm dead (and p.s. I have pretty good resists to all and especially poison/disease and a good gear also). As a tank it should take me a bit longer to die at least, this makes me feel like I'm wearing clothes. I remember a while ago there was a big revamp and you (SOE) wanted bruisers/monks (and maybe brigands/swashbucklers also, but I'm not 100% sure) to be able to tank more, well they have more HPs and they can tank better then they used to, but they still have a lot more dps then us, and some of us tanks (me at least) are beginning to wonder what did you give us to compensate? We picked a tank class because we like tanking, and we should be able to take a lot more hits then a dps class, but the difference is not that noticeable, not to mention even with all my taunts masters I still can't take aggro from them (well I can but it takes a while), they end up tanking for the most part, so what's the deal here? If I compare HPs, both with similar (i.e. mastercrafted, adorned, etc) gear, they have slightly less HPS but not much at all (granted HPs are not all, our mit should be a lot better then a scout - mit/avoidance), I have seen a bruiser kill a heroic mob same level as him and barely get hurt while and his gear is not better then mine and I can't even dream of doing that. So briefly they have almost as many hps as tanks, and their mit (avoidance in their case) is almost as good, but also can do a lot more damage then a tank, something isnt right here.Note that I am not asking for a nerf, nothing is more upsetting, but I am asking that you give us tanks something to chew on, give us better mit, better resists, and a lot more HPs. In eq1 with my tank I felt like a tank, I felt useful, in eq2 I am wondering how useful my class is considering what I just said about brigs/swash/bruisers/monks.</blockquote>Are you seriously kidding me? Do you not realize that brawlers are tanks and are designed to hold single target agro? That is why we get high dps/avoidence and the drawback is less mitigation than a warden. I have seen guardians/pallies/BESERKERS/sk's that do as much dps as me when they are speced for it. There is no monk in the game that can go defensive spec and even come close to being able to tank like plate wearers. I'm actually getting pretty fed up with guardians crying about this aspect when they don't even know what they are talking about. If you have ever seen a monk be the MT in a PvP group then you have seen a group that has no tank. We only have one group taunt that holds agro for 3secs. Funny thing is after that 3sec is up we can't get agro back for another 17secs. So in an entire PvP fight we may hold group agro for about 9secs per 1min. I know we have a taunt proc that holds agro and a single target taunt, but the reality of PvP is that you cant change targets to hold single target agro when a pally or guard has you locked down for the entire fight. Every class has its drawbacks and just because you cant take 50% more damage than a leather tank or a chain wearer doesn't mean your class is gimped. It means you need to l2p and understand what your roll is during pvp. You are there to hold agro and that is it. Let the healers worry about keeping you alive, and let the dps classes do their jobs. The worst thing to come across in a pvp group is a well played guardian. </blockquote>actually some of guards do know what we are talking about. but since you arent one i will clue you in. a long time ago in a far off past a change came about to mitigation. it was once know as diminishing returns it gave great mitigation to all the clothies, leather wearers, and chain weares, but for the plate tanks it gave a loss of mitigation. The mobs where all changed due to this fact so they would hit a bit less, however pvp encounters damage stayed the same. Causing plate tanks to be at a disadvantage to all the other classes that got a boost. its funny you mention that someone l2p since you suck as a monk cause you cant hold aggro. heres a thought taunt more often. and if that guard is locking you down due to taunt quit hitting the sob. the more you hit the guard the more you get locked. or a clue make a macro /target_previous, or something close to that. so before you tell others to l2p like a simple minded child you might want to consider you own advice. also the role of a tank is to tank, hence the word tank. meaning to take lots of damage. and no the worst thing to come across in pvp group is a well played swashy cause he just owned your healers and casters, and can take hits just as good as your tank.

Kaleyen

03-19-2007, 04:37 PM

A key point that several posters are missing is that we are talking about PVP, not PVE content. With the revamp that EoF brought it made the survivability of cloth/chain/leather wearers increase, while making the survivability of plate wearers decrease. Now this wouldn't be an issue if the DPS of such classes were to decrease with the survivability, however this wasn't the case.

Khrunk

03-19-2007, 04:38 PM

Liluk@Venekor wrote: <blockquote>A key point that several posters are missing is that we are talking about PVP, not PVE content. With the revamp that EoF brought it made the survivability of cloth/chain/leather wearers increase, while making the survivability of plate wearers decrease. Now this wouldn't be an issue if the DPS of such classes were to decrease with the survivability, however this wasn't the case. </blockquote> QFE

Grimfort

03-20-2007, 07:00 AM

I run a 69SK semi-fabled (Im getting there!) and I have this exact issue with being taken down by a scout class in 5 seconds. It does make you wonder why the hell your gear isn't doing its job. I can't say which spells are being used to take me down that fast, but I know some have some kind of stun or the like to keep me from doing anything in reply. If they have spells like this, they should be able to use them over the course of a battle (say 30 secs) to keep me from hurting them back, but 5 seconds and Im floored is just nuts. In a 1vs1 like this, neither of us are using our classes to their design. Im not tanking, and the attacker isnt using dodge and stuns and speed of movements to take me down. Its just stab 50% gone, run round the back stab stab dead. Theres another 0.5% debt to go with the other -5%. It doesnt seem like the type of armour you are wearing comes into the calculation just the final mit of the character. I remember in D+D when you get a +bonus while wearing plate, where as you didnt on cloth, and you also had a -bonus vs a caster who can cook you in your suit for example.

Titan-X

03-20-2007, 11:10 AM

<cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote>Sharpteath@Kithicor wrote: <blockquote>First off, yes scouts (brigand/swashy) can get their ac and hps up pretty high. This is a correct statement. Does this make them a tank? Keep in mind that both the classes I just mentioned from day one, has a taunt (two if count ruse and its replacements). Does this make them a tank, I will ask you again? If you have ever played a true tank class we all know right away no, they don't have the "keep agro ability" and compare a raid rogue to a raid tank and you will see a number of other differences. Keep in mind also that some high level raid content requires that you have a scout tank it (I wont name the encounter, but if you raid you know what mob and which zone I am talking about). Also how you spec your class is one of the key elements of how much hps or ac you have in either case (tank/scout). What people forget is that in pvp stats are of different importance and "most of the time" people get carried away with doing more damage faster IE: dps spec'd fury, zerker, SK, ect... You will sacrifice you stats as a tank greatly in most cases by going down these alternate aa lines or gear options. I think there is more to this equation then the narrow bit of information that is being stated here...Food for thought. </blockquote> No one's talking about a brig doing raid tanking. This is a PvP disucssion in the PvP boards. The bottom line is that a Rogue (brig/swash) can hit 5 times harder than most tanks, and 10 times harder than others, and in Tier 7 their mitigation and health can be equal or near equal.Like it or not, that sucks for tanks in pvp. Raid PvE isn't the discussion here.. </blockquote>You're right this is a PvP discussion, and if your half as good as talking as playing you would be doing raid content in PvP to gear yourself out. The topic was a comparison, and fact is that I have seen zerkers do as much or more dps then the same tier brigand. The results is still the same, gear your tank, use the right aa's and you can do as much or as little damage as you want. I have both a brigand and a zerker on Vox currently and yes, at low levels my zerker was a pain to play never the less PvP. I own at higher levels, but it took me respecting a few times to find the sweet spot. Tanking in PvP isn't about solo ability and as soon as you wrap your brain around that you will go a lot farther. Tanks by nature are not designed for high output damage. They are designed to be grouped with other classes that compliment there ability to keep agro of a NPC or PC. Fact..This is why they get multiple taunts and most of their abilities and CA's are designed for them to "Tank" a mob. You are comparing apples to oranges and as soon as you realize what tanks are for you will stop crying because they server there purpose perfectly.

Bozidar

03-20-2007, 11:22 AM

<blockquote>You're right this is a PvP discussion, and if your half as good as talking as playing you would be doing raid content in PvP to gear yourself out. The topic was a comparison, and fact is that I have seen zerkers do as much or more dps then the same tier brigand. The results is still the same, gear your tank, use the right aa's and you can do as much or as little damage as you want. I have both a brigand and a zerker on Vox currently and yes, at low levels my zerker was a pain to play never the less PvP. I own at higher levels, but it took me respecting a few times to find the sweet spot. Tanking in PvP isn't about solo ability and as soon as you wrap your brain around that you will go a lot farther. Tanks by nature are not designed for high output damage. They are designed to be grouped with other classes that compliment there ability to keep agro of a NPC or PC. Fact..This is why they get multiple taunts and most of their abilities and CA's are designed for them to "Tank" a mob. You are comparing apples to oranges and as soon as you realize what tanks are for you will stop crying because they server there purpose perfectly. </blockquote> Whoooops! there it goes! The point slipped right past you again!And no zerker spec'd correctly is going to do as much damage as a rogue spec'd correctly. In any tier.No one is saying that Brigands can go out and tank pvp.. we're saying they have the mitigation and health of a tank, and the damage of a dps class. They're survivablity is that of a tank, but their dps isn't in proportion to a tanks.English, mutha___ker... do you speak it?I KNOW what a tank is for both in pve, and pvp, i honestly don't need an ounce of advice on the subject. But, again, <a href="http://www.rif.org/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">that's NOT the subject at hand.. </a>Your taunts don't do a whole lot of good for you to keep your friends protected when you're alone, and that swashy's pushing your [Removed for Content] in..

artophwar

03-20-2007, 11:43 AM

I'm hungry I wonder if I can have my cake and eat it too.Tanks crying about needing more mitigation more avoidance and higher dps makes me cry at night.

Titan-X

03-20-2007, 11:51 AM

<cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote>You're right this is a PvP discussion, and if your half as good as talking as playing you would be doing raid content in PvP to gear yourself out. The topic was a comparison, and fact is that I have seen zerkers do as much or more dps then the same tier brigand. The results is still the same, gear your tank, use the right aa's and you can do as much or as little damage as you want. I have both a brigand and a zerker on Vox currently and yes, at low levels my zerker was a pain to play never the less PvP. I own at higher levels, but it took me respecting a few times to find the sweet spot. Tanking in PvP isn't about solo ability and as soon as you wrap your brain around that you will go a lot farther. Tanks by nature are not designed for high output damage. They are designed to be grouped with other classes that compliment there ability to keep agro of a NPC or PC. Fact..This is why they get multiple taunts and most of their abilities and CA's are designed for them to "Tank" a mob. You are comparing apples to oranges and as soon as you realize what tanks are for you will stop crying because they server there purpose perfectly. </blockquote> Whoooops! there it goes! The point slipped right past you again!And no zerker spec'd correctly is going to do as much damage as a rogue spec'd correctly. In any tier.No one is saying that Brigands can go out and tank pvp.. we're saying they have the mitigation and health of a tank, and the damage of a dps class. They're survivablity is that of a tank, but their dps isn't in proportion to a tanks.English, mutha___ker... do you speak it?I KNOW what a tank is for both in pve, and pvp, i honestly don't need an ounce of advice on the subject. But, again, <a href="http://www.rif.org/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">that's NOT the subject at hand.. </a>Your taunts don't do a whole lot of good for you to keep your friends protected when you're alone, and that swashy's pushing your [I cannot control my vocabulary] in.. </blockquote>Apparently you don't speak the engrish, because that is the point.The topic was tanks vs. scouts dps/health/ac. You are not suppose to have the dps of a scout. I have never seen a 16k(hps) brigand at level 70 but I sure as h*ll have seen a 16k(hps) guardian. I have seen zerkers kill scouts, healers and casters in couple specials and a couple CA's and if you read some of the boards, there are more then one zerker out there that knows how to play his class well enough he kills and doesn't hang out to try and solo a group. AC is relative, and is determined by gear, adornments, and buffs. Having a brigand, I know that my ac isn't spectacular when in am in my offensive stance. Neither is my AC spectacular on my tank(s) when I am in my offensive stance. You want to break it all down, anything before 70 doesn't mean sh*t and if you rolled a tank you knew what you where getting into when you created the toon..If you are solo'n with your lowbie zerker your right you gonna die. Level up and b*tch less. You class inst meant to solo, so just reserve yourself to the fact your gonna die unless you learn to group more often. As for the issue of having the same or higher AC, your not going do be doing much damage (you said it yourself) so unless your going after casters in [I cannot control my vocabulary] gear it doesn't matter what someone's AC is. All it does is give them a chance to absorb a portion of your attack. By your own statements your attack sucks. So..learn to play nublett.. and when you level up your zerker and you do 2500+ dps what will you cry about then?

Khrunk

03-20-2007, 12:49 PM

<cite>artophwar wrote:</cite><blockquote>I'm hungry I wonder if I can have my cake and eat it too.Tanks crying about needing more mitigation more avoidance and higher dps makes me cry at night.</blockquote>Since you dont understand what this issue is about it might be best to just leave the discussion, you are just trolling and really need to do something else with your time. No one asked for higher dps or more avoidance. So please read what this is about before making assumptions.

Titan-X

03-20-2007, 01:03 PM

Khrunk@Venekor wrote: <blockquote><cite>artophwar wrote:</cite><blockquote>I'm hungry I wonder if I can have my cake and eat it too.Tanks crying about needing more mitigation more avoidance and higher dps makes me cry at night.</blockquote>Since you dont understand what this issue is about it might be best to just leave the discussion, you are just trolling and really need to do something else with your time. No one asked for higher dps or more avoidance. So please read what this is about before making assumptions. </blockquote>In his defense the original post was about increasing mitigation and increasing spell resists of tanks and giving them another PvP viable taunt.. This thread has mutated into a discussion about scouts vs. tank hp/ac/dps../shrug

Bozidar

03-20-2007, 01:29 PM

Sharpteath@Kithicor wrote: <blockquote>Apparently you don't speak the engrish, because that is the point.The topic was tanks vs. scouts dps/health/ac. You are not suppose to have the dps of a scout. I have never seen a 16k(hps) brigand at level 70 but I sure as h*ll have seen a 16k(hps) guardian. I have seen zerkers kill scouts, healers and casters in couple specials and a couple CA's and if you read some of the boards, there are more then one zerker out there that knows how to play his class well enough he kills and doesn't hang out to try and solo a group. AC is relative, and is determined by gear, adornments, and buffs. Having a brigand, I know that my ac isn't spectacular when in am in my offensive stance. Neither is my AC spectacular on my tank(s) when I am in my offensive stance. You want to break it all down, anything before 70 doesn't mean sh*t and if you rolled a tank you knew what you where getting into when you created the toon..If you are solo'n with your lowbie zerker your right you gonna die. Level up and b*tch less. You class inst meant to solo, so just reserve yourself to the fact your gonna die unless you learn to group more often. As for the issue of having the same or higher AC, your not going do be doing much damage (you said it yourself) so unless your going after casters in [I cannot control my vocabulary] gear it doesn't matter what someone's AC is. All it does is give them a chance to absorb a portion of your attack. By your own statements your attack sucks. So..learn to play nublett.. and when you level up your zerker and you do 2500+ dps what will you cry about then? </blockquote> LOL, You keep trying to make the issue about me. What a twit. It's not about me, or my toons.I'm done here, enjoy and good luck.

Titan-X

03-20-2007, 01:45 PM

<cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote>Sharpteath@Kithicor wrote: <blockquote>Apparently you don't speak the engrish, because that is the point.The topic was tanks vs. scouts dps/health/ac. You are not suppose to have the dps of a scout. I have never seen a 16k(hps) brigand at level 70 but I sure as h*ll have seen a 16k(hps) guardian. I have seen zerkers kill scouts, healers and casters in couple specials and a couple CA's and if you read some of the boards, there are more then one zerker out there that knows how to play his class well enough he kills and doesn't hang out to try and solo a group. AC is relative, and is determined by gear, adornments, and buffs. Having a brigand, I know that my ac isn't spectacular when in am in my offensive stance. Neither is my AC spectacular on my tank(s) when I am in my offensive stance. You want to break it all down, anything before 70 doesn't mean sh*t and if you rolled a tank you knew what you where getting into when you created the toon..If you are solo'n with your lowbie zerker your right you gonna die. Level up and b*tch less. You class inst meant to solo, so just reserve yourself to the fact your gonna die unless you learn to group more often. As for the issue of having the same or higher AC, your not going do be doing much damage (you said it yourself) so unless your going after casters in [I cannot control my vocabulary] gear it doesn't matter what someone's AC is. All it does is give them a chance to absorb a portion of your attack. By your own statements your attack sucks. So..learn to play nublett.. and when you level up your zerker and you do 2500+ dps what will you cry about then? </blockquote> LOL, You keep trying to make the issue about me. What a twit. It's not about me, or my toons.I'm done here, enjoy and good luck.</blockquote>All this talk about reading, guess you didn't read the original post? It was about tanks needing more mitigation and better resists. It also outlined there job as a grouping tank and that they should be made more effective at what they where designed to do.Since then this thread has become an avenue for crybaby tanks to run off about how unfair it is that swash/brig can have decent mitigation and hit points. I have directed specific to you because you go post to post trying to impose your moronic point of view on other people, while yourself never experience any semblance of endgame content or PvP... So in line with your "I said from the beginning this is a T7 issue" your inexistent T7 experience tells me only one thing..You BullSh*t opinion is doesn't mean Sh8t.BTW- Awesome job derailing the OP's topic.. 2/100 your experience in being a dumb'[Removed for Content] has just increased.

Bozidar

03-20-2007, 01:51 PM

Titan-X

03-20-2007, 01:59 PM

"I'm done here, enjoy and good luck".Don't tease.. The topic has been all over the place and the bottom line stays the same. Refer to previous posts. If you go back to the "Original Post" which was the most constructive by far, that what was commented on. The second post after much discussion of the first post (again the topic) he changed his stance on the subject. If you cannot recognize that fact then the conversation is pointless. My previous post address both, but as a matter of semantics, your quoting of a later post is irrelevant and by definition off topic.

Zagats

03-20-2007, 02:25 PM

I'm not even going to read any further than Wytie's post. Wytie gets it. This game was designed with PvE in mind, not PvP. The classes are set up for PvE. That's why you have just a few classes that are tier 1 in PvP instead of any class being able to take any other class.

Khrunk

03-20-2007, 03:00 PM

Dodad@Vox wrote: <blockquote>Khrunk@Venekor wrote: <blockquote><cite>artophwar wrote:</cite><blockquote>I'm hungry I wonder if I can have my cake and eat it too.Tanks crying about needing more mitigation more avoidance and higher dps makes me cry at night.</blockquote>Since you dont understand what this issue is about it might be best to just leave the discussion, you are just trolling and really need to do something else with your time. No one asked for higher dps or more avoidance. So please read what this is about before making assumptions. </blockquote>In his defense the original post was about increasing mitigation and increasing spell resists of tanks and giving them another PvP viable taunt.. This thread has mutated into a discussion about scouts vs. tank hp/ac/dps../shrug </blockquote> i can see why since the one thing that plate wearers had that being mitigation was nerfed with dimishing returns. since no testing was done on the still non-existant pvp test server the nerf to plate wearers was not known at the time. however after the fact, plate wearers have noticed that their survivability went down considerably while everyone else's went up. i think the reason people are mentioning scouts is because they have the ability due to diminshing returns to get considerably close to plate wearers mitigation and avoidance, while having nearly the same hp. thus making wearing plate not really all that much of an advantage. sure we can taunt but all the taunting in the world dont mean crap when youre dead. simply discussing this important change is needed since we are simply the test servers for pvp. coming on here and trolling when one does not know of the situation does not help this any at all, not saying you did. this is not about pve, nor should it be this about the pvp aspect of plate wearers.

Titan-X

03-20-2007, 03:17 PM

Khrunk@Venekor wrote: <blockquote>Dodad@Vox wrote: <blockquote>Khrunk@Venekor wrote: <blockquote><cite>artophwar wrote:</cite><blockquote>I'm hungry I wonder if I can have my cake and eat it too.Tanks crying about needing more mitigation more avoidance and higher dps makes me cry at night.</blockquote>Since you dont understand what this issue is about it might be best to just leave the discussion, you are just trolling and really need to do something else with your time. No one asked for higher dps or more avoidance. So please read what this is about before making assumptions. </blockquote>In his defense the original post was about increasing mitigation and increasing spell resists of tanks and giving them another PvP viable taunt.. This thread has mutated into a discussion about scouts vs. tank hp/ac/dps../shrug </blockquote> i can see why since the one thing that plate wearers had that being mitigation was nerfed with dimishing returns. since no testing was done on the still non-existant pvp test server the nerf to plate wearers was not known at the time. however after the fact, plate wearers have noticed that their survivability went down considerably while everyone else's went up. i think the reason people are mentioning scouts is because they have the ability due to diminshing returns to get considerably close to plate wearers mitigation and avoidance, while having nearly the same hp. thus making wearing plate not really all that much of an advantage. sure we can taunt but all the taunting in the world dont mean crap when youre dead. simply discussing this important change is needed since we are simply the test servers for pvp. coming on here and trolling when one does not know of the situation does not help this any at all, not saying you did. this is not about pve, nor should it be this about the pvp aspect of plate wearers.</blockquote>You make a great point, this is about tanks in general and to that end I can see what the concern is. I have a question though, if tanks where messed up so much then why the day of the changes did endgame content become doable for no name guilds even on PvP? Now we turn to PvP where a PC doesn't hit as hard as a NPC, where you actually have a greater chance of resisting, and lets apply that concept. Dunno.. I appreciate your comments let me know what you think..

Wytie

03-20-2007, 03:27 PM

Khrunk

03-20-2007, 04:10 PM

Titan-X

03-22-2007, 11:43 AM

Khrunk@Venekor wrote: <blockquote>Dodad@Vox wrote: <blockquote>Khrunk@Venekor wrote: <blockquote>Dodad@Vox wrote: <blockquote>Khrunk@Venekor wrote: <blockquote><cite>artophwar wrote:</cite><blockquote>I'm hungry I wonder if I can have my cake and eat it too.Tanks crying about needing more mitigation more avoidance and higher dps makes me cry at night.</blockquote>Since you dont understand what this issue is about it might be best to just leave the discussion, you are just trolling and really need to do something else with your time. No one asked for higher dps or more avoidance. So please read what this is about before making assumptions. </blockquote>In his defense the original post was about increasing mitigation and increasing spell resists of tanks and giving them another PvP viable taunt.. This thread has mutated into a discussion about scouts vs. tank hp/ac/dps../shrug </blockquote> i can see why since the one thing that plate wearers had that being mitigation was nerfed with dimishing returns. since no testing was done on the still non-existant pvp test server the nerf to plate wearers was not known at the time. however after the fact, plate wearers have noticed that their survivability went down considerably while everyone else's went up. i think the reason people are mentioning scouts is because they have the ability due to diminshing returns to get considerably close to plate wearers mitigation and avoidance, while having nearly the same hp. thus making wearing plate not really all that much of an advantage. sure we can taunt but all the taunting in the world dont mean crap when youre dead. simply discussing this important change is needed since we are simply the test servers for pvp. coming on here and trolling when one does not know of the situation does not help this any at all, not saying you did. this is not about pve, nor should it be this about the pvp aspect of plate wearers.</blockquote>You make a great point, this is about tanks in general and to that end I can see what the concern is. I have a question though, if tanks where messed up so much then why the day of the changes did endgame content become doable for no name guilds even on PvP? Now we turn to PvP where a PC doesn't hit as hard as a NPC, where you actually have a greater chance of resisting, and lets apply that concept. Dunno.. I appreciate your comments let me know what you think.. </blockquote>actually if you remember correctly tanks were getting one-shotted by trash in labs for 12k on hammerfist, one the day of the changes. i know cause i went into labs a few times after the changes and we could not get as far as we use to be able to due to the doomwright forgewrights one-shotting the mt. but after they modified mob damage, think it took 5 days or so, they made it a little easier to take on pve content. atleast from my view due to the fact of new focus on the whole degree of difficutly of zones. and your second question i dont have a greater chance of resisting combat arts, infact i dont think you can resist combat arts. only very rarely block or parry or ripstose combat arts. and they never modified pvp damage to take into account the diminishing returns did they. </blockquote>weird because mayong mistmoore was killed on more servers that day then ever before.../shrug

Xantinya

03-23-2007, 02:52 PM

Dodad@Vox wrote: <blockquote>Khrunk@Venekor wrote: <blockquote>Dodad@Vox wrote: <blockquote>Khrunk@Venekor wrote: <blockquote><cite>artophwar wrote:</cite><blockquote>I'm hungry I wonder if I can have my cake and eat it too.Tanks crying about needing more mitigation more avoidance and higher dps makes me cry at night.</blockquote>Since you dont understand what this issue is about it might be best to just leave the discussion, you are just trolling and really need to do something else with your time. No one asked for higher dps or more avoidance. So please read what this is about before making assumptions. </blockquote>In his defense the original post was about increasing mitigation and increasing spell resists of tanks and giving them another PvP viable taunt.. This thread has mutated into a discussion about scouts vs. tank hp/ac/dps../shrug </blockquote> i can see why since the one thing that plate wearers had that being mitigation was nerfed with dimishing returns. since no testing was done on the still non-existant pvp test server the nerf to plate wearers was not known at the time. however after the fact, plate wearers have noticed that their survivability went down considerably while everyone else's went up. i think the reason people are mentioning scouts is because they have the ability due to diminshing returns to get considerably close to plate wearers mitigation and avoidance, while having nearly the same hp. thus making wearing plate not really all that much of an advantage. sure we can taunt but all the taunting in the world dont mean crap when youre dead. simply discussing this important change is needed since we are simply the test servers for pvp. coming on here and trolling when one does not know of the situation does not help this any at all, not saying you did. this is not about pve, nor should it be this about the pvp aspect of plate wearers.</blockquote>You make a great point, this is about tanks in general and to that end I can see what the concern is. I have a question though, if tanks where messed up so much then why the day of the changes did endgame content become doable for no name guilds even on PvP? Now we turn to PvP where a PC doesn't hit as hard as a NPC, where you actually have a greater chance of resisting, and lets apply that concept. Dunno.. I appreciate your comments let me know what you think..</blockquote>Well if tanks weren't so messed up we wouldnt be having this discussion, plain and simple. A tank is supposed to be a tank and be able to take hits, and not just 2 or 3. The discussion was not about Labs or any raid zone (where btw anyone who will tank is buffed up to his ears and has tons of hps anyway), the discussion is about how quickly a tank can die from a scout (I am talking especially about swash/brig). I don't see why a tank should die within 5 secs from any class, we kill slow I understand that, but we should also die slow, as it is we die as fast as a cloth wearer, how is that normal and how can a tank feel like a tank when he/she dies so fast?Maybe its because I played EQ1 for years and there a tank is actually a tank, and monks and rogues/rangers AREN'T, they can't take hits near as well as a tank, why? because they arent supposed to be tanks, they are DPS. In eq2 then can take hits almost as well as a tank so the result is the tank dies since they can't kill near as fast as a scout, and whether or not you are a good player doesnt make any difference. (p.s. And to the one who says you shouldnt solo, yeah I don't solo usually but I am alone from time to time to harvest, but thats not the point anyway, and btw say that to all the scouts who solo on pvp servers right now because they do so well).And you can argue all you want but this is a fact, with similar gear, tanks and scouts have about the same amount of hps, and tanks should have a lot more HPs, this is why the tank is the one who gets the HPs buffs (mit,and others), because he/she's supposed to have more HPs and mit so they dont die so fast from a nuke or aoe. Same goes for resists, the tank is the one who's supposed to take the hits, while scouts and other classes are supposed to NOT get aggro, this is why they don't need as many HPS or resists, and in pvp, considering they can take hits almost as well, have about the same resists,but can deal a lot more damage, guess who dies within 5 seconds?And also, please make our taunts more effective, its ridiculous to not be able to get aggro back within a sec or 2, even with master taunts, I have to use rescue way too often.

Xova

03-23-2007, 06:02 PM

The original point that the OP was trying to make, both here and in the "diminishing returns" thread, was that the diminishing curve has had a detrimental effect on tank's mitigation to the point that a scout in chain has nearly as much mitigation and health points as a tank in plate, in addition to having more avoidance and DPS. What he is really suggesting is that the formula for the diminishing curve be re-examined to allow for tanks to have the proper mitigation and health points for their armor class in comparison to other armor classes.The suggestions in the first post are just that - suggestions. But the problem is how the diminishing curve on mitigation has had an adverse affect on tanks' survivability in PvP because of their health/mitigation in comparison to other classes. I don't think anyone can really logically aruge against that, though they are welcome to try. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

ZhouYu

04-19-2007, 10:33 PM

I'm brnging this discussion thread back to the top. This issue really needs to be acknowledged by the DEVs and looked into. Wish Tanks were able to take hits ...we sacrifice a lot of dps/crow control ect skills just because we are a tank ..and yet we can hardly even tank in pvp.

gfx

04-20-2007, 02:59 AM

<cite>ZhouYu wrote:</cite><blockquote>Such a small change ..</blockquote>you call that a small change ? no, the change would be very very stupid. Many twink tanks has around 60% mitigation. So they would actually end up with 90-100% mitigation ? come on... lol. An extra small AoE tank would be stupid. Guardians don't need it, but maybe other classes does.

gfx

04-20-2007, 02:59 AM

and troubadors solo very well in PvP.

holypaladin28

04-20-2007, 03:05 AM

umm yeah diminshing returns [Removed for Content] plate classes bad. i have all raid fabled/pvp gear adorned and all eof jewerly adorned.im sitting IN off stance at 55.4 percent mit. and 34 percent avoid. IN def stance 58 percent MIT abnd 43 percent avoid. rolling around in DEF stance is a joke seeing how the spell says increases effecitness by 15 percent and all i get is 3 percent increase. now inspecting a brig with fabled/pvp gear 52 percent mit and 40 percent avoid. looking at a fury in legendary/fabled gear 45 percent mit 33 percent avoid. i have @K more mit then the fury and i only get a 10 percent diffence

Oneira

04-20-2007, 04:07 AM

Kalgore@Vox wrote: <blockquote>umm yeah diminshing returns [I cannot control my vocabulary] plate classes bad. i have all raid fabled/pvp gear adorned and all eof jewerly adorned.im sitting IN off stance at 55.4 percent mit. and 34 percent avoid. IN def stance 58 percent MIT abnd 43 percent avoid. rolling around in DEF stance is a joke seeing how the spell says increases effecitness by 15 percent and all i get is 3 percent increase. now inspecting a brig with fabled/pvp gear 52 percent mit and 40 percent avoid. looking at a fury in legendary/fabled gear 45 percent mit 33 percent avoid. i have @K more mit then the fury and i only get a 10 percent diffence</blockquote> And as many other posters have pointed out, in addition to that brig or swash having almost as much mit and avoidance as I do as a guardian, they have more health as well if they have gone done the STA line, which many seem to have. It's incredible.

Denzei

04-20-2007, 05:54 AM

I've read the first and the last page of this thread as I cba to read the ones between but I can't get it.... why is ppl who ain't even playing tanks acting as if they know it all about tanks in pvp?Ok, maybe you've fought one or two, maybe even 100, but so what? If ya die, have ya thought of that you just ain't good enough with your class? (no flame, just a thought eh?).I mean ffs, it's quite annoying to have less hp than some scouts, less avoidance and just about 1000 more mit.

Chia_Pet

04-20-2007, 07:19 AM

all ya gotta do is look at the leaderboards to tell ya what classes are b0rked and which aint. people naturally gravitate to what works, and what works the best. if everything was on the even steven, thered be a good equal amount of all classes represented. not singles and some completely missing. k/d ratios wouldnt be so skewed when even comparing the generals or better to each other either. Tanks got it rough, especially the guards, we simply cant dish out enough damage to get through another clases armor and hps in comparison to them doing it to us. some exceptions are obviously there, some are specced for DPS, like zerkers and monks, etc. but plate tanks are meant to soak up damage. look folks, when a plate raid tank with 2 healers in his group can stand against a lvl 75 x4 and be kept alive, but SLAUGHTERED in 10 secs flat with the same single group in group vs group PvP, theres a problem. I cant protect my group when im dropped so fast... and theres just nothing i can do about it. I should be soaking up damage, a tower shield should be some freakin 15% block chance crap, a tower sheild historically could give full immunity to fronatl attacks from both melee weapons and ranged weapons. Why dont tanks have a shield wall abiltiy where they can defelct all attacks from a frontal position? why cant i hold up my freaking shield to the ranger on the cliff and survive all his arrow attacks? heck the Devs could make this PvP only ability. which btw isnt a bad idea anyway, why not PvP only abilities?

Ikuri

04-21-2007, 09:32 PM

amen to the poster above. I really wish when you put on plate armor, it really felt liek it was plate armor ..you know, like in every other game.

Xantinya

04-22-2007, 05:07 PM

<cite>Ikuri wrote:</cite><blockquote>amen to the poster above. I really wish when you put on plate armor, it really felt liek it was plate armor ..you know, like in every other game.</blockquote> AMEN

Xantinya

04-22-2007, 05:13 PM

<cite>Chia_Pet wrote:</cite><blockquote>look folks, when a plate raid tank with 2 healers in his group can stand against a lvl 75 x4 and be kept alive, but SLAUGHTERED in 10 secs flat with the same single group in group vs group PvP, theres a problem. I cant protect my group when im dropped so fast... and theres just nothing i can do about it. </blockquote> Exactly, obviously something is very wrong there.

Mildavyn

04-22-2007, 09:41 PM

Most of those raid mobs aren't putting out 6-8k DPS, and they're also usually debuffed alot (from 24 different people) Tanks are fine, you just need to get your healers to pre-heal. I've had several 6v6 fights that have lasted until the healers were OOP, so THOSE tanks weren't being burned down in 2 seconds flat. Obviously you're doing something wrong, or your healers suck.Is this going to be one of those whine threads where the archtype doing the complaining yells and screams and then calls everyone who has a different opinion a n00b? Because thats what the last page or so looks like to me.Tanks are fine, let the topic die already.

Xantinya

04-22-2007, 09:57 PM

Paikis@Venekor wrote: <blockquote>Most of those raid mobs aren't putting out 6-8k DPS, and they're also usually debuffed alot (from 24 different people) Tanks are fine, you just need to get your healers to pre-heal. I've had several 6v6 fights that have lasted until the healers were OOP, so THOSE tanks weren't being burned down in 2 seconds flat. Obviously you're doing something wrong, or your healers suck.Is this going to be one of those whine threads where the archtype doing the complaining yells and screams and then calls everyone who has a different opinion a n00b? Because thats what the last page or so looks like to me.Tanks are fine, let the topic die already.</blockquote>NO they are not fine on a pvp server, and no lets not drop the subject, something needs to be done about it. More Hps more mit to tanks. We kill slow we should die slow at least. And are you kidding about the 6-8k dps?? Even the best scout with the best poisons shouldnt be able to take a tank down in 10 secs, healers or not, scouts can cause a lot more damage then tanks in a very short period, result the tank dies since they have about the same amount of HPs and mit but can't cause near as much damage as a scout.

Dalema

04-22-2007, 10:15 PM

<cite>ZhouYu wrote:</cite><blockquote> I made a thread yesterday regarding the tanks and their mig in the game. I also hear a lot of peopel talking about how most classes are useless in pvp and no one really plays them. The DEVs are well aware of that, but I do not think they are taking the right steps to solve this problem. For example one of their solutions was to nerf dispatch, well nerfing dispatch didn't do much, now insted of dyingto a rigand in 3 seconds, you die 5 seconds. All the classes that people complain about not having a roll in pvp (aka dirge, troub, coecer ect..) have very strong aspect to them, however what those classes have to offer are null in </blockquote> Not sure who you play with, I know first hand that a coercer brings ALOT to a grp battle. Chanters in general can make a huge difference in grp fights. Dirges also are really usefull in grp pvp. I don't know to much about troubs so can't really defend them, but both dirge and coercer are awsome in grp pvp, may not be so hot solo for obvious reasons, and that doesn't mean you can't solo with them, just saying its not the easiest solo class, but both classes bring a lot to the table for group fighting and to dismiss them as nothing is being very niave.

Mildavyn

04-22-2007, 10:22 PM

Tanks cant do damage? Tell that to Enrage, or any of the other zerkers with a buckler. Tell that to the SKs with their 80%ish spell crits. Tell that to the Paladins with their AEs and smite evil. Tell that to the bruisers who can do scout-like DPS on single targets. Tanks can be set-up to do very nice damage, and yet you want MORE hitpoints and mitigation? You already have the best mitigation out of all the classes, you already have the best HP out of all the classes and in a group, you'll be getting all the defensive buffs to widen the gap even further.I have seen a berserker walk up to a full group and almost kill all of them within 2 seconds. I don't recall the skills used, but the damage was a hell of alot more than anything a scout can do. Besides, the entire point of the tank classes is to soak damage, not to cause it. You rolled a tank so you could kill things?

holypaladin28

04-23-2007, 03:37 AM

Paikis@Venekor wrote: <blockquote>Tanks cant do damage? Tell that to Enrage, or any of the other zerkers with a buckler. Tell that to the SKs with their 80%ish spell crits. Tell that to the Paladins with their AEs and smite evil. Tell that to the bruisers who can do scout-like DPS on single targets. Tanks can be set-up to do very nice damage, and yet you want MORE hitpoints and mitigation? You already have the best mitigation out of all the classes, you already have the best HP out of all the classes and in a group, you'll be getting all the defensive buffs to widen the gap even further.I have seen a berserker walk up to a full group and almost kill all of them within 2 seconds. I don't recall the skills used, but the damage was a hell of alot more than anything a scout can do. Besides, the entire point of the tank classes is to soak damage, not to cause it. You rolled a tank so you could kill things?</blockquote>are you smoking crack or od you just no inspect any players. i ama very well geared tank and i see brigs runnning around with 2 or 4 percent less mit and the same amount of health.i have seen those brigs tank nizara and unrest just as well as a tank. if you care to read the whole OP you would understand. yeah tanks have more MIT and more hp. but the differnce is so small agaisnt other classes that put out twice as much dps why not use them. there should be a big differnce between a plate mit and HP vs someoen in chain or leather. not a few points. as for a zerker taking out a whole group in 2 seconds grays dont count. i have taken out a 2x raid of lvl 16s before that doesnt mean anything.

Legiax

04-23-2007, 03:58 AM

WTB 40% more Mitigation plz.Give me this and track and i've beaten EQ2 <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

HighlandsDrift

04-23-2007, 10:57 AM

<cite>Gildorath wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kasai wrote:</cite><blockquote>This would make tanks wayyyy too powerful in 1v1s and pvp in general. having 40% more mit would screw it up.</blockquote>Why not let tanks be powerful for a little? Scouts have been since release, Druids are powerful now and increasing in power and Cloth casters were powerful for about a week till nerfed again. So I say hell give tanks at least one week of being able to kick the holy hell out of all the other classes<img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </blockquote> People seriously need to read a thread completely before they reply ..you notice i excluded bard classes when I said "scouts" ? go re read my OP. I even stated that bard classes are under powered and their role in pvp should be enchanced. As a SK I have to cast ....takes me a long time to cast a spell that is going to do 700-1k damage ...(thats only one of them therest do below 600) hal the times (sometimesm ore) i get resisted, resist comes so easily that everyone;s disease resists is at 58%+ however I'm not complaining about my dps, I'm not suppose to be aclasswho can dish out damage (yes sk candish out some damage ..but any player with semi decent gear atlvl 70 willresists oer half of your stuff and you usually die before ucan more than couple foyour spells) My problem is ...whya scout (and READbyscout i mean brigand, assasin, rangers, swashbucklers) have same mig as me, more avoidance and 2-3x the dps ? do you seriously see balance here ? doesn't it make sense for tanksto have MORE mig than other classes ? Is thsi somehting so strange to you ? people hate to read long drawn out post with little or no spacing.

LlewCadey

04-23-2007, 11:22 AM

sorry this whole idea is silly, tanks when played well are [Removed for Content] scary in pvp, i dont know who tanks for you or who you fight, but a good tank in a good group can already keep aggro, can resists the hell out of classes and has about 10-15% more mit than a solo tank. the idea you propose will just make it so tanks become the focus of pvp, if you dont have a tank your screwed, and battles will last till everyone runs out of power and then some because the tank is taking all the heat fine.

ZhouYu

04-23-2007, 03:29 PM

Kethaer@Venekor wrote: <blockquote>sorry this whole idea is silly, tanks when played well are [I cannot control my vocabulary] scary in pvp, i dont know who tanks for you or who you fight, but a good tank in a good group can already keep aggro, can resists the hell out of classes and has about 10-15% more mit than a solo tank. the idea you propose will just make it so tanks become the focus of pvp, if you dont have a tank your screwed, and battles will last till everyone runs out of power and then some because the tank is taking all the heat fine. </blockquote> 10-15% more mig and resist more ??? what game have yoy been playing ? Have you EVER played EQ2 pass T4 ? The WHOLE problem with this thread is the fact that tanks DONT have 10-15% mig, and more resists while we SHOULD. I'm not even going to re-post all the stats and mig/resist difference between dps classes and tanks. Go figure it out on your own and see how what you just said makes no sense at all.

LlewCadey

04-24-2007, 03:47 AM

with healer buffs you should gain mit HP and resists stop whining and play the game

Legiax

04-24-2007, 04:04 AM

At the same time everyone in the group gains the same bonuses..We need a mitigation increase, but not by 40%.I would say 5% to mitigation and resists tbh, that would do us fine.

LlewCadey

04-24-2007, 08:21 AM

Enrage@Venekor wrote: <blockquote>At the same time everyone in the group gains the same bonuses..We need a mitigation increase, but not by 40%.I would say 5% to mitigation and resists tbh, that would do us fine.</blockquote> get an inquisitor specced with buff AAs :p thing is tanks raid geared can self mit at 65%, group mit up to 75% (oh yeah god luck trying 99% of the time with resists) the next best mit i know one can get is a rogue STA specced, can pull 60-65% mit. Tanks get mit buffs already, and can take hits better than any class. By giving them higher passive resists and suchy would turn zerkers and SKs into solo Gods, and make Pallys unkillable. ATM the system works fine without added tweaks as a warlock, i wish my M1 spells wernt resisted so much, why not make them land more often? i get resisted about 40% of the time at M1 with 420+ disruption (level 85+ equivelant) thats way too high for the most part... see my point is people will always like thier own class to be tweaked so its better, but the truth remains things are balancing up well

holypaladin28

04-24-2007, 08:37 AM

Kethaer@Venekor wrote: <blockquote>Enrage@Venekor wrote: <blockquote>At the same time everyone in the group gains the same bonuses..We need a mitigation increase, but not by 40%.I would say 5% to mitigation and resists tbh, that would do us fine.</blockquote> get an inquisitor specced with buff AAs :p thing is tanks raid geared can self mit at 65%, group mit up to 75% (oh yeah god luck trying 99% of the time with resists) the next best mit i know one can get is a rogue STA specced, can pull 60-65% mit. Tanks get mit buffs already, and can take hits better than any class. By giving them higher passive resists and suchy would turn zerkers and SKs into solo Gods, and make Pallys unkillable. ATM the system works fine without added tweaks as a warlock, i wish my M1 spells wernt resisted so much, why not make them land more often? i get resisted about 40% of the time at M1 with 420+ disruption (level 85+ equivelant) thats way too high for the most part... see my point is people will always like thier own class to be tweaked so its better, but the truth remains things are balancing up well </blockquote>i am raid/pvp geared and good luck getting 65 percent mit solo ona pvp server. that would be around 6k to your mit.second the fixes you suggest make it so a tank has to have 2 differnt classes in his group just to get an extra 5 percent more then a chain wearer going sologo look at tank links on station players then look at brigs only a 6-8 percent differnce in mit

DankShasta

04-24-2007, 08:50 AM

<cite>Kurindor_Mythecnea wrote:</cite><blockquote>Lol. Calling off on the point that SKs can't complain about comparative DPS (especially in the case of their general fortitude as a tank), is pretty much absurdly illogical. Despite it being one of the largest DD maneuvers, proportionally, it pales in comparison to many, many other assets held by others. If we had it transformed into more strengthy, reusable form of DPS without proportioning it to other classes' relative abilities, its power would be purely, outlandishly comical. For one, such staggered inclusions into "DPS" (Harm Touch, Decapitate) become much less than that, as they are often obscured and transfixed by other utilizations that detract from a skill set that is anything but pragmatic. It isn't DPS when it's actually "DPFM". To list that off as anything correlatable to an SK's footing is, again, preposterous to the framework of logic in such a sense (as it is so frequently pocketed for certain occasions under the inclusions of the user's realm of precaution; such a phenomenon limits its actual usability within the battlefield when those aiming to pop it off are simply squirming for a chance at defense against the "one class to rule them all" or some silly hit of rank fame). I, however, am not saying our DPS is poor or that it is only considered formidable with the application of this move, but just that it is an irrelevant citing when speaking of SK DPS and how it ought be altered. IRRESPECTIVE of that simple facet is the inconspicuous observability of the disparity involved in how the gap between DPS realized in aspects of PvP has no disparity that it ought have when placed upon the background of collated defensive capacity between the core offensive Scouts and the general tank base. What this mentation goes to dabble in is how, despite some tanks having a fathomable reach in their DPS, within the bounds of PvP, certain utilities of the competition downplay their function drastically. When you have none of these super-tools that stifle, stun, and interrupt your opposition (let alone the disgusting degree to which Spell combat -- the central focus for fantasy -- can be nullified by so many so easily) for such a vast majority of the battle, how is it presented as equitable to have no compensation? Emplacement as a vessel of longevity would secure that current imbalance and, so neededly, extend the duration of typical engagements from half-minute head banging to something truly more resemblant of the struggle that combat would likely be in a setting of medieval fantasy. I can only look upon this with the retrospection that such apparency wouldn't have come before me until having reached T7, where there is no involvement of motivation for character advancement beyond it merely being the last stretch of game beckoning completion and fulfillment -- and with that, I do give my praises to ZhouYu for an idea with such potential and practical sense. </blockquote>What a bunch of gobblely goop!! Ummm? I don't know what you think a lvl 26 SK has to do with this argument?? There is almost ZERO connection between class balances in t3, and t5+Dankshasta/Technics

DankShasta

04-24-2007, 08:51 AM

nvm

Mildavyn

04-24-2007, 08:59 AM

<blockquote><cite>Kurindor_Mythecnea wrote:</cite><blockquote>Lol. Calling off on the point that SKs can't complain about comparative DPS (especially in the case of their general fortitude as a tank), is pretty much absurdly illogical. Despite it being one of the largest DD maneuvers, proportionally, it pales in comparison to many, many other assets held by others. If we had it transformed into more strengthy, reusable form of DPS without proportioning it to other classes' relative abilities, its power would be purely, outlandishly comical. For one, such staggered inclusions into "DPS" (Harm Touch, Decapitate) become much less than that, as they are often obscured and transfixed by other utilizations that detract from a skill set that is anything but pragmatic. It isn't DPS when it's actually "DPFM". To list that off as anything correlatable to an SK's footing is, again, preposterous to the framework of logic in such a sense (as it is so frequently pocketed for certain occasions under the inclusions of the user's realm of precaution; such a phenomenon limits its actual usability within the battlefield when those aiming to pop it off are simply squirming for a chance at defense against the "one class to rule them all" or some silly hit of rank fame). I, however, am not saying our DPS is poor or that it is only considered formidable with the application of this move, but just that it is an irrelevant citing when speaking of SK DPS and how it ought be altered. IRRESPECTIVE of that simple facet is the inconspicuous observability of the disparity involved in how the gap between DPS realized in aspects of PvP has no disparity that it ought have when placed upon the background of collated defensive capacity between the core offensive Scouts and the general tank base. What this mentation goes to dabble in is how, despite some tanks having a fathomable reach in their DPS, within the bounds of PvP, certain utilities of the competition downplay their function drastically. When you have none of these super-tools that stifle, stun, and interrupt your opposition (let alone the disgusting degree to which Spell combat -- the central focus for fantasy -- can be nullified by so many so easily) for such a vast majority of the battle, how is it presented as equitable to have no compensation? Emplacement as a vessel of longevity would secure that current imbalance and, so neededly, extend the duration of typical engagements from half-minute head banging to something truly more resemblant of the struggle that combat would likely be in a setting of medieval fantasy. I can only look upon this with the retrospection that such apparency wouldn't have come before me until having reached T7, where there is no involvement of motivation for character advancement beyond it merely being the last stretch of game beckoning completion and fulfillment -- and with that, I do give my praises to ZhouYu for an idea with such potential and practical sense.</blockquote></blockquote> I'm sorry but what the hell are you smoking? This is a game, and most gamers DON'T have an english major, nor do they want to spend their time trying to sort out the kind of garbage that you posted. Do you recall the old saying 'Keep It Simple Stupid'? Anyhow, back to the topic at hand... Lets just say for instance, that you tanks get your 5-10% mitigation increase. You now sit at 70% say. THEN you go and get yourself a group, the healer gives you MORE mitigation, and then more hit points. Do you see where I'm going with this? Everquest is balanced around GROUP PvP. As far as i can see, a well-played palte-tank in group PvP is about as good as it gets. They CAN and DO hold agro very well. They CAN and DO take hits very well.Quit complaining, tanks are fine. If anything, some DPS classes need their PvP damage reduced a bit. (please note: PvP damage only)

pharacyde

04-24-2007, 09:05 AM

Yes but your survivablity increases exponentialy for every % of mit you get passed 50% mit. Even if it's only 10% more mit for a tank compared to chain, it is still 10% on every hit. lets say you get hit for 500dmg every 1sec. - chain - 50% mit == 250dmg taken - plate - 60% mit == 200dmg taken you might only have 10% more mit, but you take 20% less dmg as a tank. - lets say your plate now has 70% mit == 150dmg taken compared from 60% mit to 70% mit you take 25% less dmg. For 10% more mit you get hit for 25% less. compared from 50% mit to 70% mit you take 40% less dmg. For 20% more mit you get hit for 40% less. Survivability = 1 / (dmg taken) = 1 / ( 1 - %mit) If you have 100% mit you will live forever. If you have 90% mit your survivability = 10 If you have 75% mit your survivability = 4 If you have 50% mit your survivability = 2 if you have 25% mit your survivability = 1.33... if you have 10% mit your survivability = 1.11... if you have 0% mit your survivability = 1 As you can see, your surviveability raises very slowly when you get to 50% mit. You only live twice as long with 50% mit then with someone with no mit. After that 50% cap it just goes exponentialy. That's why the devs make it so hard to get extra mit passed 50%, because it realy makes you a ton stronger any % mit extra you get. I hope it helps to understand that even if it looks like you only get very little extra mit with a plate tank, it actualy helps you to live much longer then a chain wearer.

Mildavyn

04-24-2007, 09:20 AM

I've pointed those facts/numbers out before in this thread. The tanks complaining dont want to hear facts, they dont want to see the numbers, they dont care about your opinion, unless its what they want to hear.This thread is going nowhere, please lock.

pharacyde

04-24-2007, 09:32 AM

Ah well, at least I tried <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

holypaladin28

04-24-2007, 10:13 AM

okay lets make this dumbertake that 55 percent mit and go in DEF stance the 15 percnet increses it 2 -3 percent because we are so foar over the 4k returnsfunny though i guess your inspect button is broken look at a well geared brig and a well geared tank 3-5 percent differnce. but the dps differnce is HUGE so a chain wearer can tank and dps at the same time thats the [Removed for Content] up part

Jim737

04-24-2007, 10:36 AM

Yea yea mitt w/e just for good sake dont make heat/cold ressist higher coz even now its [Removed for Content] hard for wiz to him any scout. Those [Removed for Content] ressists 5 spells in row yea I can understand fight mage vs mage but all know wizzys are lil out of solo pvp so dont make it impossible for them and lets keep a small hope for them. Thanks <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Erak

LlewCadey

04-24-2007, 12:00 PM

man a raid geared tank only pushing 65% mit self buffed?! lies! get adorns, mit increasing jewelry and such, hell my brig in noobie KOS relic is 60% mit, im sure a tank in KOS relic can push 65% + and in EOF gear+mit jewelry gets about 70%

holypaladin28

04-24-2007, 12:38 PM

im in full kos raid gear/pvp gear with three lus 67 mit adornments all eof or eof fabled raid jewerly. self buffed i stand at 61.9 percent. take a look at the other tanks on station players and look at there mit in mostly around55-58 percent with the def stamnce adding another 2-4 points percentage wise. diminshioin returns helped everyone but tankms it just screwed us poor tanks

Xova

04-24-2007, 05:33 PM

Kethaer@Venekor wrote: <blockquote>man a raid geared tank only pushing 65% mit self buffed?! lies! get adorns, mit increasing jewelry and such, hell my brig in noobie KOS relic is 60% mit, im sure a tank in KOS relic can push 65% + and in EOF gear+mit jewelry gets about 70% </blockquote> Ugh, as much as it completely galls me to do it, I have to back up what Kalgore is saying. Plate tank mitigation is horribly unbalanced in comparison to scouts in chain. You even noted yourself that your noobie brig is at 60% mitigation. Now compare that to someone like Kalgore or Luxun - both PvP/Relic/EoF Fabled geared tanks with Adornments, etc. and they are only 2-3% above you in terms of mitigation; that's wrong.That's the problem that needs to be addressed - how the diminishing returns system has had a detrimental effect on plate tank mitigation, especially when you compare it to a scout in chain.Maybe screenshots would help. Does anyone have a screenshot of a scout and a tank, both comparatively geared with similar jewelry, adornments, etc. that could be used to give folks a visual of what the problem is?Now if you'll excuse me I have to pray for absolution after agreeing with Kalgore. *shudders*

ZhouYu

04-24-2007, 05:52 PM

Playing the number games isn't going to help your arguement here. Bevause I coud play the same number game, than compare the dps/mig ratio of the tanks vs the scouts. first of all there is no such a hting as a 10% mig increase unless im in a x4 with raid buffs. Than the problem here is, why would you give the extra GROUP buff to tank so you can call it tank, while you could give that to a scout and call it a alpha class ? Is this so hard for oyu to understand ? Let me make it more simple : here is a tank sitting at 60% grouped with a fury in a typical pvp group. Lets mark his average dps at 800. Now take the scout mig sitting at 55% no mig buff from fury. DPS at 2100You see the problem ? As a pvp leader i would drop the tank add a rouge wit h taunt and evade, give him the mig buff of fury. Why ? Because why would I want to trade 5% in mig defence with difference of over 1500 dps ? Now you see ? Don;t come here and try play the number game, or say balance comes in grouping. It doesn't. Go look at EVER other mmo and you see WHY tanks have x2 the defence on their armor than the dps classes have. With the kind of dps rouges put out in this game, the difference should be at x2 mig to tanks compared to scouts. At the cost of reducing the scout's BOTH resists AND mig, while increasing the tank's defence overall.

holypaladin28

04-24-2007, 09:20 PM

<a href="http://img352.imageshack.us/my.php?image=eq2000018wu0.jpg" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><img src="http://img352.imageshack....pg" border="0"></a>ss of my stats in def now when i drop def stance i go from 4500 to 4000 percent change is 3 percent evene though spell says 15 percent in armorr efectiness. my resists are norammy better but i had ome some different stuf this morning the link to see my profile no eof fabled raid but some pvp eof to make up for it (even though the pvp fabled form eof only adds about 300-400 mit to the stuff i got which is about 2 percent http://eq2players.station.sony.com/characters/character_profile.vm?characterId=456903121

Mildavyn

04-25-2007, 05:58 AM

Your defensive buff doesnt claim to increase your total mitigation by 15% it says increases mitigation OF WORN ARMOR by 15%. Now im not 100% sure about Shadowknights, but i'm pretty sure that you get a bit of mitigation from your own buffs.Also, tanks have temp buffs which increase their mitigation. Cant recall the name (despoiling [ich kann mich gerade nicht beherrschen]?) but SKs can siphon mitigation from enemies. both zerkers and gaurdians get temporary mitigation buffs. hell gaurdians get STONESKIN. only scout who gets stoneskin is a dirge, and it procs 12% and there is no way a dirge will survive tanking an epic.There are so many tanking skills that tanks get that scouts dont, there is no way that a scout can get anywhere NEAR the tanking ability of a plate-tank. I've seen SKs that can spike up to 13k mitigation, dont try and tell me that a scout can do that.

holypaladin28

04-25-2007, 09:53 AM

thats right i can suck 300 mit form my target so add 1 percent if im lucky to my total. and this is more abou the pvp aspectand im not including temp buffs for one reason cause they are temp cause if you want to get techoncal about it i can buff the mit of the brig as well so there we go he can get even more mit

Senko

04-25-2007, 10:08 AM

Fact. My crappy darathar guard which isn't even kos fabled armor and miss several mitig boost items available for jewelry slots and such, already reaches 5360 permanent solo mitig in def stance, and goes over 7k solo mitig when stacking the 2 tempo boost buffs. Just that adorns and AA choices make a good diff already (260 from adorns and 314 from wis line). And guess it would prolly reach 6k perma mitig easy with having full fabled armor set and mitig boost jewelery like fitzpittle earcogg still missing. And prolly still more, maybe over 6k5 if this armor was compilation of best mitig armor pieces like ichor filled thorax, doomrage spaulders, plate legs from pumpkin, etc. Compared with a rogue in full pvp set + all mitig boosting jewelry available + mitig adorns + full sta AA line woudn't go far above 5k at all... And doesn't have any mitig tempo buff, no tower of stone, no stone sphere, no consistant defense / parry / div. avoidance perma and tempo buffs. And no tanking taunting and protective abilities like reinforcement, rescue, moderate, sustain, etc. ; so wouldn't be able to hold agro well enough in grp vs grp pvp. Prob is when not to pretend comparing tanks and rogues, with presenting things with a sk as only available tank to compare, since sk isn't the purest tanks of fighters, imo. If you choose to make a comparison of tanks and scouts with sk representing tanks category, then compare it to preda or bards :p

Norrsken

04-25-2007, 10:13 AM

Senko@Nagafen wrote: <blockquote>Fact. My crappy darathar guard which isn't even kos fabled armor and miss several mitig boost items available for jewelry slots and such, already reaches 5360 permanent solo mitig in def stance, and goes over 7k solo mitig when stacking the 2 tempo boost buffs. Just that adorns and AA choices make a good diff already (260 from adorns and 314 from wis line). And guess it would prolly reach 6k perma mitig easy with having full fabled armor set and mitig boost jewelery like fitzpittle earcogg still missing. And prolly still more, maybe over 6k5 if this armor was compilation of best mitig armor pieces like ichor filled thorax, doomrage spaulders, plate legs from pumpkin, etc. Compared with a rogue in full pvp set + all mitig boosting jewelry available + mitig adorns + full sta AA line woudn't go far above 5k at all... And doesn't have any mitig tempo buff, no tower of stone, no stone sphere, no consistant defense / parry / div. avoidance perma and tempo buffs. And no tanking taunting and protective abilities like reinforcement, rescue, moderate, sustain, etc. ; so wouldn't be able to hold agro well enough in grp vs grp pvp. Prob is when not to pretend comparing tanks and rogues, with presenting things with a sk as only available tank to compare, since sk isn't the purest tanks of fighters, imo. If you choose to make a comparison of tanks and scouts with sk representing tanks category, then compare it to preda or bards :p </blockquote>SKs are still plate tanks, and there are supposedly not supposed to be much difference. However, sks have other tricks up their sleeve for survivability that make them last longer than scouts anyway. There are more to being tanks than just cranking mit up high. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Senko

04-25-2007, 10:29 AM

Ulvhamne@Nagafen wrote: <blockquote>Senko@Nagafen wrote: <blockquote>Fact. My crappy darathar guard which isn't even kos fabled armor and miss several mitig boost items available for jewelry slots and such, already reaches 5360 permanent solo mitig in def stance, and goes over 7k solo mitig when stacking the 2 tempo boost buffs. Just that adorns and AA choices make a good diff already (260 from adorns and 314 from wis line). And guess it would prolly reach 6k perma mitig easy with having full fabled armor set and mitig boost jewelery like fitzpittle earcogg still missing. And prolly still more, maybe over 6k5 if this armor was compilation of best mitig armor pieces like ichor filled thorax, doomrage spaulders, plate legs from pumpkin, etc. Compared with a rogue in full pvp set + all mitig boosting jewelry available + mitig adorns + full sta AA line woudn't go far above 5k at all... And doesn't have any mitig tempo buff, no tower of stone, no stone sphere, no consistant defense / parry / div. avoidance perma and tempo buffs. And no tanking taunting and protective abilities like reinforcement, rescue, moderate, sustain, etc. ; so wouldn't be able to hold agro well enough in grp vs grp pvp. Prob is when not to pretend comparing tanks and rogues, with presenting things with a sk as only available tank to compare, since sk isn't the purest tanks of fighters, imo. If you choose to make a comparison of tanks and scouts with sk representing tanks category, then compare it to preda or bards :p </blockquote>SKs are still plate tanks, and there are supposedly not supposed to be much difference. However, sks have other tricks up their sleeve for survivability that make them last longer than scouts anyway. There are more to being tanks than just cranking mit up high. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </blockquote>Yes, exactly like you say, sk do have other tricks for survivability, plus taunting and grp protective abilities (since what's define tanks imo, is not only survivability related to perma mitig/avoid + tempo buffs and self wards/heals/etc., but also their agro management and grp protection abilities. Maybe diminishing returns on mitig % are not exactly properly adjusted for pvp yet, but there's no reasons for so huge platetanks boosting. Btw one thing platetanks (and particullary warriors since they don't have spell range abilities like crusaders do) really miss more in pvp compared with lots of other classes, is more crowdcontrol abilities imo. Having only 1 or 2 kb and some melee-range-only root procs is really few to keep them from runing away<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

holypaladin28

04-25-2007, 11:20 AM

you know you are right they dont have spell range attacks we only have 3-4 second cast times on alot of our spells and we cant be moving to cats them. .so yeah there are down falls to those ranged abiltys

holypaladin28

04-25-2007, 11:20 AM

holypaladin28

04-25-2007, 11:22 AM

Senko@Nagafen wrote: <blockquote>Fact. My crappy darathar guard which isn't even kos fabled armor and miss several mitig boost items available for jewelry slots and such, already reaches 5360 permanent solo mitig in def stance, and goes over 7k solo mitig when stacking the 2 tempo boost buffs. Just that adorns and AA choices make a good diff already (260 from adorns and 314 from wis line). And guess it would prolly reach 6k perma mitig easy with having full fabled armor set and mitig boost jewelery like fitzpittle earcogg still missing. And prolly still more, maybe over 6k5 if this armor was compilation of best mitig armor pieces like ichor filled thorax, doomrage spaulders, plate legs from pumpkin, etc. Compared with a rogue in full pvp set + all mitig boosting jewelry available + mitig adorns + full sta AA line woudn't go far above 5k at all... And doesn't have any mitig tempo buff, no tower of stone, no stone sphere, no consistant defense / parry / div. avoidance perma and tempo buffs. And no tanking taunting and protective abilities like reinforcement, rescue, moderate, sustain, etc. ; so wouldn't be able to hold agro well enough in grp vs grp pvp. Prob is when not to pretend comparing tanks and rogues, with presenting things with a sk as only available tank to compare, since sk isn't the purest tanks of fighters, imo. If you choose to make a comparison of tanks and scouts with sk representing tanks category, then compare it to preda or bards :p </blockquote>fact i want a luink to your station players players exchange cause i do noit believe that bs for one one sec. and not only that but its temp thats another fact you arent rolling around with that muc every time

Senko

04-25-2007, 11:33 AM

what you do not believe ? edit : btw PT cast instant, and spell ranged. not so easy for pallys maybe, agree.

Bozidar

04-25-2007, 11:38 AM

<cite>Xova wrote:</cite><blockquote>Now if you'll excuse me I have to pray for absolution after agreeing with Kalgore. *shudders*</blockquote> it's alright xova.. the gods still love you. You had to do what you had to do..<img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

ZhouYu

04-25-2007, 03:12 PM

Once again, everyone ignored the facts i posted and went on ranting on something. It seems you people just don't want to admit the truth. Here I will knock out anotherarguement of yours. You say SKs and tansk have other tricks up their sleeve to survive ? Seriously, don't scouts get life tap posions ? Don't they get additional debuff posion ? Don't they get extra dps boost buffs ? don't they get extra stun/throw back procs that arr all temp ? It doesn't matter what abilities the class has, we are looking at the base comparision without our special abilities. I could go on and whike about that engarde ot dispatch increases a scout's survivability and make them more valublke than ourabsorb extra 300mig attack. Survivablity doesn't always mean how long yoi stay alive til you die, it means how you can survive a fight. You can either stack up on defence and try to survive, or you can kill your enemy quickand try to survive. When scouts can rack up about same mig as a tanks, more avoidance, and dish out 2100 pvp dps .....they have taunt and evade why the hell would you as ap vp leader ever choose a tank over a sccout ? Any pvp leader would trade 3% extra mig with more avoidance and 1500+ more dps. It will inxrease the survivability of the group. simple fact a tank should have 15%+ more mig than a dps class. + more avoidance han a dps and more resists than a dps.