All Encompassing Brawler Changes! (Previously only AA Changes)

[PaganSaint]

<b>"Strength 3 - Relentless Punches: Renamed to Eye of the Tiger: No longer requires unarmed. Increases all combat art damage by 0.75% per rank."</b> This right here is a very poor way to tweak, enhance, fix or whatever you want to call it Brawler DPS in relation to other fighters even considering the changes made to their AAs. How about changing the .75% increase to combat art damage, which fully maxed out is 6% which will add a grand total of ~45 dps, yes forty-five damage per second, no typo, to a DPS of 1500. If the developers truly want to re-establish brawlers as DPS tanks they will consider and test changing this ill concieved and further class breaking change. My suggestion is 3% double attack per rank. This will greatly enhance the class and will provide a choice to brawlers who with these changes, as they are, stay wisdom, stamina, intelligence KoS achievement spec'd. A max double attack before gear and buffs of 24% and a max double attack of full gear and buffs of 65% with illusionist, top end contested equipment and maxed bard stamina line double attack buffs. This will off set the very limited utility brought by brawlers by making them a less DPS but more utility choice to other classes. Welcome to brawlers being included to top end raiding and DPS tanking and off tanking.

[Cusashorn]

<cite>PaganSaint wrote:</cite><blockquote> If the developers truly want to re-establish brawlers as DPS tanks they will consider and test changing this ill concieved and further class breaking change. </blockquote> In agreement with this line, they need to tweak the agility line further so Agility 4 gives about three times more defense as it does now.

[Gasheron]

And maybe they can either increase the mit bonus of Str 4, or change it back to innate riposte, which I'd much prefer since brawlers are supposed to "dodge and counterattack."

[PaganSaint]

<cite>Cusashorn wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>PaganSaint wrote:</cite><blockquote> If the developers truly want to re-establish brawlers as DPS tanks they will consider and test changing this ill concieved and further class breaking change. </blockquote> In agreement with this line, they need to tweak the agility line further so Agility 4 gives about three times more defense as it does now.</blockquote> Defense skill buffs aren't the problem, I'd <i>much </i>prefer to have more parry from the Intelligence line AA. And like Gasheron said, make the Strength 4 AA give a straight chance to riposte or a straight chance to block maybe, 2% a point?

[PaganSaint]

Also in the Bruiser specific AAs they may want to consider changing Retribution of Stone to on successful Deflection and drop the proc chance to 15% Ripostes hardly ever happen unless fighting mobs that the stone skin trigger wouldn't matter against.

[selch]

<p>Brawler's only saving method: Make eagle shriek active below 85% health and may be we can be close of zerker tanking and tanking dps.</p>

[Timaarit]

Well, the sad truth is that no amount of avoidance will make brawlers even close to tanking any raids if there is a warrior. The reason is simple, even if the brawler is capped on avoidance and the mob is fully debuffed, a single joke from the RNG will kill the brawler in a second by getting a few autoattack hits in with a high damage CA. Something you will only survive with 60%+ mitigation. So IMO it is not defence we need. Even fixing the RNG would give better results. As it is, avoidance tanking is totally broken in the game and personally I dont think they have any intention on fixing it. Effectively this means that my monk is no more tank class than a rogue is. However if I tank with my monk and there is a rogue in group who really knows what he is doing, I cant keep aggro off from him even with hate transfers and deaggros while being on offensive. And being on offensive means that the rogue will be taking far less damage anyway. So what we need for tanking is far more aggro generation to be used with our defensive stance and more mitigation also, something we will not get. But then as I dont consider myself as a tank anymore, I'd just say much more DPS to our offensive stance. Even doubling our DPS would result in equivalent DPS with rogues exept that we dont have debuffs. This would also make more monks seek those deaggro lines. Currently they have to be aprilfools joke since I have yet to be on a situation where I would have needed any kind of deaggros with my puny dps.

[Nerill]

<cite>PaganSaint wrote:</cite><blockquote><b>"Strength 3 - Relentless Punches: Renamed to Eye of the Tiger: No longer requires unarmed. Increases all combat art damage by 0.75% per rank."</b> This right here is a very poor way to tweak, enhance, fix or whatever you want to call it Brawler DPS in relation to other fighters even considering the changes made to their AAs. How about changing the .75% increase to combat art damage, which fully maxed out is 6% which will add a grand total of ~45 dps, yes forty-five damage per second, no typo, to a DPS of 1500. If the developers truly want to re-establish brawlers as DPS tanks they will consider and test changing this ill concieved and further class breaking change. My suggestion is 3% double attack per rank. </blockquote>I agree with the above.

[Themaginator]

i like most of the changes for the monk except for the Double attack change. I understand now that you don't need to be unarmed that they changed it. If the weapons were able to hit that much it'd be way over powered, but i believe they should have just made it so the double attack amount was just taken down by alot instead of changed to .75% to combat arts, when a huge chunk of brawler DPS is from auto attack in the first place.

[Zabjade]

To any other Tank class,  yeah it would be overpowered, to a brawler it would almost bring us even with a lowier geared tank damagewise.

[Zarafein]

<p>hm they missed the strength 2 change in the notes, no longer unarmed but no mitigation reduction :/</p>

[Foretold]

<cite>PaganSaint wrote:</cite><blockquote><b>"Strength 3 - Relentless Punches: Renamed to Eye of the Tiger: No longer requires unarmed. Increases all combat art damage by 0.75% per rank."</b> This right here is a very poor way to tweak, enhance, fix or whatever you want to call it Brawler DPS in relation to other fighters even considering the changes made to their AAs. How about changing the .75% increase to combat art damage, which fully maxed out is 6% which will add a grand total of ~45 dps, yes forty-five damage per second, no typo, to a DPS of 1500. If the developers truly want to re-establish brawlers as DPS tanks they will consider and test changing this ill concieved and further class breaking change. My suggestion is 3% double attack per rank. This will greatly enhance the class and will provide a choice to brawlers who with these changes, as they are, stay wisdom, stamina, intelligence KoS achievement spec'd. A max double attack before gear and buffs of 24% and a max double attack of full gear and buffs of 65% with illusionist, top end contested equipment and maxed bard stamina line double attack buffs. This will off set the very limited utility brought by brawlers by making them a less DPS but more utility choice to other classes. Welcome to brawlers being included to top end raiding and DPS tanking and off tanking. </blockquote><p>/agree</p><p>We need our double attack back.  Why take double attack away from brawlers??? </p>

[Schmalex23]

<cite>PaganSaint wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Cusashorn wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>PaganSaint wrote:</cite><blockquote> If the developers truly want to re-establish brawlers as DPS tanks they will consider and test changing this ill concieved and further class breaking change. </blockquote> In agreement with this line, they need to tweak the agility line further so Agility 4 gives about three times more defense as it does now.</blockquote> Defense skill buffs aren't the problem, I'd <i>much </i>prefer to have more parry from the Intelligence line AA. And like Gasheron said, make the Strength 4 AA give a straight chance to riposte or a straight chance to block maybe, 2% a point? </blockquote> You realise this would be almost the same as wearing a towershield while putting out th e DPS it takes a guard or zerker wearing a buckler  not to mention  your inate deflection skill.  Dont mention mitigat ion because we all know the curve is low, i run wi th less then 4300 self buffed and i tank avatars f ine.   Yes you guys need alot of love, but not getting a  tower shield via AA.

[Thoral]

Am I the only one who is upset that unarmed combat has become obsolete?  I picked the bruiser class because I wanted to beat people up with my bare hands.  With these changes, unarmed fighting becomes ineffective.  I REALLY hope they reconsider removing unarmed combat from the game.

[Cusashorn]

Skel@Butcherblock wrote: <blockquote><cite>PaganSaint wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Cusashorn wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>PaganSaint wrote:</cite><blockquote> If the developers truly want to re-establish brawlers as DPS tanks they will consider and test changing this ill concieved and further class breaking change. </blockquote> In agreement with this line, they need to tweak the agility line further so Agility 4 gives about three times more defense as it does now.</blockquote> Defense skill buffs aren't the problem, I'd <i>much </i>prefer to have more parry from the Intelligence line AA. And like Gasheron said, make the Strength 4 AA give a straight chance to riposte or a straight chance to block maybe, 2% a point? </blockquote> You realise this would be almost the same as wearing a towershield while putting out th e DPS it takes a guard or zerker wearing a buckler  not to mention  your inate deflection skill.  Dont mention mitigat ion because we all know the curve is low, i run wi th less then 4300 self buffed and i tank avatars f ine.   Yes you guys need alot of love, but not getting a  tower shield via AA. </blockquote>Well the way I see it is this: Either uberbuff us so that the developers know we're intentionally overpowered, or bring the other classes down to our level.

[Foretold]

<cite>Thoral wrote:</cite><blockquote>Am I the only one who is upset that unarmed combat has become obsolete?  I picked the bruiser class because I wanted to beat people up with my bare hands.  With these changes, unarmed fighting becomes ineffective.  I REALLY hope they reconsider removing unarmed combat from the game. </blockquote> Nope, youre not the only one.  I'm right there with ya...  and that would mean something if I were dev <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Cornbread Muffin]

<p>I'm not sure 24% is enough. At 1500 DPS (and not many brawlers do 1500 DPS) and 40% autoattack damage 24% double attack adds 144 DPS, or +9.6%. Maybe I'm just expecting too much out of the str line to put us where we should be compared to Zerkers/Guards when the changes should really be to more than just our str AA.</p><p>Schmalex23, if Warriors can have Brawler DPS (or higher in some cases) <b>and</b> Monk's Tsunami <b>and</b> superior tanking <b>and</b> wear a buckler while doing it then I don't see why it would be a problem for a brawler to have Warrior DPS <b>and</b> <i>weaker</i> tanking (we'll still have lower mit, worse special abilities, and lack of AE agro) <b>and</b> wear a tower shield while doing it.</p><p>If Warrior can spend AA points to match Brawler DPS and get their special abilities then a Brawler should be able to spend AA points to gain a Warrior's tanking and Warrior special abilities. I don't think either of those should be true, but if you are going to have one you ought to have the other.</p><p>edit: Also, I do not want Brawlers to be the unarmed combat class. It will always be a weak substitute to having weapons and I don't want to be burdened with that.</p>

[Schmalex23]

Yes warriors can spend AA to <span style="color: #990000">come close</span> to brawler DPS but we sacrafice avoidance for it.  If you guys could have an AA that gave you a almost towershield block rate, plus deflection, plus the DPS you already do, you would become raid MT's.  Plain and simple the way the game works now(from a MT view) is hp, avoidance, mit in that order.  You guys already have us beat on hp, this would easily put you over on avoidance(since block is uncontested) and your mit is relativly close to berserker/guard.  You expect all this from a hybrid class? Also i dont think you know how warrior AA's work.  No way a warrior can touch a brawler on DPS if they have the "tsunami" skill you mentioned.  We also dont have "brawler DPS".  Im one of the top parsing zerkers WW and i know several brawlers who can easily smash me with much lesser gear on my server alone.  Not to mention if we were talking about people like sardonis, i wouldnt stand a chance.  

[Cornbread Muffin]

<p>It would be terrible if a fighter that isn't a Warrior tanked a raid, wouldn't it. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> We still wouldn't tank raids as Brawlers have poor group agro control. Also, since when were we a hybrid class? What are we a hybrid of? I don't expect any of this, but it is plain to Warriors that Brawlers gaining all of their advantages is a bad thing so I don't see why it is not plain to Warriors that them gaining a Brawler's advantages is also a bad thing.</p>

[Tomanak]

Cornbread Muffin wrote: <blockquote><p>It would be terrible if a fighter that isn't a Warrior tanked a raid, wouldn't it. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> We still wouldn't tank raids as Brawlers have poor group agro control. Also, since when were we a hybrid class? What are we a hybrid of? I don't expect any of this, but it is plain to Warriors that Brawlers gaining all of their advantages is a bad thing so <b>I don't see why it is not plain to Warriors that them gaining a Brawler's advantages is also a bad thing</b>.</p></blockquote><p> because they are warriors and are too dumb to know any better <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>Bottom line, unless something radical is done to change the way avoidence works its broke. Who cares if you have to give up your avoidence for DPS when you still have 50%+ mitigation.</p><p> I love this comment :"you would become raid MT's"  OMG the world has come to an end..a brawler has the ability to MT a raid and there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth amongst the guards and zerkers..You note he doesnt say you would become the best raid tanks or even the prefered raid tanks, just that we would have the audacity to step into that spot <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>  No one in their right minds will ever want a brawler to MT a raid until the real possibility of back to back spikes = instadeath no longer exists and Im not holding my breath for that one. </p><p>My Bruiser isnt a real tank, hes a semi decent DPSer with some avoidence. What I find sad is that my Brigand can tank just as well AND has higher DPS. </p><p>I know, let Bruisers apply poison to their weapons and give us chain then maybe we could at least have the same advantages as the scouts. Or better yet, give my Brigand FD and I can just delete my Bruiser... <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

[Schmalex23]

Fighter tree is a breakdown of: Warrior  (base class) Cursader (hybrid of warrior and healer and mage) Brawler  (hybrid of warrior and scout) Also you really would be MT's for named atleast.  No EoF named have adds that the MT needs/should be tanking, so your point of AE agro is weak at best esp considering your single target agro would be greater then a warriors.  You also already do have an advantage over us, its called deflection, ask them to fix that instead of adding in more stuff for them to break.

[Schmalex23]

Sugota@Butcherblock wrote: <blockquote>Cornbread Muffin wrote: <blockquote><p>It would be terrible if a fighter that isn't a Warrior tanked a raid, wouldn't it. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> We still wouldn't tank raids as Brawlers have poor group agro control. Also, since when were we a hybrid class? What are we a hybrid of? I don't expect any of this, but it is plain to Warriors that Brawlers gaining all of their advantages is a bad thing so <b>I don't see why it is not plain to Warriors that them gaining a Brawler's advantages is also a bad thing</b>.</p></blockquote><p> because they are warriors and are too dumb to know any better <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>Bottom line, unless something radical is done to change the way avoidence works its broke. Who cares if you have to give up your avoidence for DPS when you still have 50%+ mitigation.</p><p> I love this comment :"you would become raid MT's"  OMG the world has come to an end..a brawler has the ability to MT a raid and there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth amongst the guards and zerkers..You note he doesnt say you would become the best raid tanks or even the prefered raid tanks, just that we would have the audacity to step into that spot <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>  No one in their right minds will ever want a brawler to MT a raid until the real possibility of back to back spikes = instadeath no longer exists and Im not holding my breath for that one. </p><p>My Bruiser isnt a real tank, hes a semi decent DPSer with some avoidence. What I find sad is that my Brigand can tank just as well AND has higher DPS. </p><p>I know, let Bruisers apply poison to their weapons and give us chain then maybe we could at least have the same advantages as the scouts <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p></blockquote>Way to be mature and result to calling a whole class of people dumb.  Also yes it would be a bad thing for roles to be suddenly switched.  Its like saying to healer, you rolled you class to be a healer, thats what the game is designed for, but now 2+ years later, we are changing it up and you are going to be DPS... sorry.  I also dont say "best" because thats all situational.  Berserkers arent the "best" in peoples eyes but they are still MT's... go figure.

[Cornbread Muffin]

Skel@Butcherblock wrote: <blockquote>Also you really would be MT's for named atleast.  No EoF named have adds that the MT needs/should be tanking, so your point of AE agro is weak at best esp considering your single target agro would be greater then a warriors.  You also already do have an advantage over us, its called deflection, ask them to fix that instead of adding in more stuff for them to break. </blockquote> I disagree that we are Tank/Scout Hybrids (if we are, then we're missing all sorts of DPS), but that is all opinion so there is no point in arguing it. Brawlers have been trying to get avoidance fixed for a very long time and have pretty much given up on that route.

[Harvash]

<p>As far as scout hybrids...pally's definitly heal in line with being heal based, SK's spell damage is also consistant. But I dont see any brawlers maintaing 2k+ parse zw without some heavy duty planning and group balance.  So what scout are we based on, because it surely isnt a Pred.  and lack of group buffs means Bard is out too.  Now, we do have 'some' debuffs and very little group buffs, so i guess that makes us rogues?</p><p>Back to reality.  The way i see it, and i have had my monk since 2005, Dev'ss need to decide if brawlers are DPS or Tanks - OR better yet, let the AA's deliver the direction here.  Sure, up the block % - but take from DPS.  Nerf your avoid, but give sizeable DPS bonuses.  I think they believe (as do most) that this is how its set up now. I disagree, as it stands now, the AA lines merely lead to more medocrity - more mixed blessings and no real direction.   Prime example would be a rogue in the STA line, you are definitly not going to realize your dps potential that way, but its YOUR choice, no one else's.  I would like to have the same choice for my Monk.</p><p> So, I not sure how fair it is to compare us to Warriors (Fighter Line) and cry foul when we do warrior things, HELLO we are in the Fighter Line right now.  Also, many of the issues surrounding brawlers have little to do with what the player wanted, and a LOT to do with what I truely believe is a lack of vision for the Brawler by the Dev's.  Not saying they arent paying attention, just that I think there is plenty to address the class and have a better idea of its purpose.</p>

[Nutari2176]

<p>I have to say I have a real problem with the total nerf to the double attack feature of Strength 3.  Lets be honest it may have been a bit much to give us fable like attacks for "free" if they look at it from that picture but I was giving up quite a bit to get it so I do not consider it free.  </p><p>I gave up 16 points to max it out so that just eliminated placement in other areas within the KoS tree, I gave up weapon damage, imbue procs and adornments all to get that ability.  Maybe drop it to 75% or something but to completely remove the double attack feature was a bit extreme.  This was a real blow to my brawlers dps as that was one of the features I really liked about him, the whole no weapon fighting was how I wanted to design him.</p><p>I am not sure what the developers were thinking when they said they would make the other lines more viable, but that does not usually mean lets make the other lines crap so they have nothing to chose from. People chose the lines they did to fit their personal playstyle and if some lines were rarely used maybe it was because the lines were useless for solo/group/raids not so much that the other ones were "overpowered". How about rethinking the weaker lines instead of just butchering the good lines? Looking over the patch notes I see a lot of really great ideas that are coming to fruition right up until i hit all the AA modifications that you guys are pushing on us.  We have seen some massive tweaking to the KoS lines already and honestly while some lines were weak or underused I liked them overall.  </p><p>If this is just your way of making us take the deaggro lines now since you nerfed all the aggro transfers across the board, remember you guys were the ones that told us that AA were never going to be required to make a class viable, but that they were going to be implemented to augment a class to a person's  preference.</p>

[PaganSaint]

Then your brawlers aren't very good. Its possible with good equipment and a player that can play the class. And thats with a group setup for general melee DPS, not built around the brawler. <b>How about we all get back on topic. Discuss the changes to the brawler AA's so we can hopefully get some feedback and change the way the current AA revamp affects brawlers.</b> <b>"</b>I'm not sure 24% is enough. At 1500 DPS (and not many brawlers do 1500 DPS) and 40% autoattack damage 24% double attack adds 144 DPS, or +9.6%. Maybe I'm just expecting too much out of the str line to put us where we should be compared to Zerkers/Guards when the changes should really be to more than just our str AA.<b>" </b>24% Double attack would be before any outside buffs. I already went through this in my opening post: <b>"</b>A max double attack before gear and buffs of 24% and a max double attack of full gear and buffs of 65% with illusionist, top end contested equipment and maxed bard stamina line double attack buffs.<b>" </b> That is 65% double attack with the best two hand weapon. 60% with any dual wields or any other two hand. Actually I've done tests and 20% double attack adds more DPS than the math would allow. Did the tests with my inquisitor and yaulp, using gear to gain the haste/dps loss when yaulp is off that yaulp gives and removing the items when I put yaulp up to maintain the DPS/Haste modifier level. Actual DPS difference was ~250, going from ~850 to ~1100 with the same CA/Spell timing/combination over 200 encounters, 100 each. Not the largest sample size, but sizable enough to get a feel for the effects.

[Foretold]

Skel@Butcherblock wrote: <blockquote>Yes warriors can spend AA to <span style="color: #990000">come close</span> to brawler DPS but we sacrafice avoidance for it.  If you guys could have an AA that gave you a almost towershield block rate, plus deflection, plus the DPS you already do, <b>you would become raid MT's.</b>   </blockquote><p>God forbid.  God forbid brawlers, a fighter class, should be TANKS!!</p><p>Warrior and SCOUT hybrid? Where are my poisons? My evac? My tracking?  My double up, assassinate, decapitate....</p><p>There is zero scout in a monk.  </p><p>Come to think of it, where is my mitigation, my double hit, my third and fourth taunt, my hate increasers...</p><p>Seems there's zero warrior in monk too /sigh</p><p>To get back on topic, the AAs suggested are mostly minor tweaks and certainly can be lived with except for the loss of the STR 3 double hit.  It would be nice to have the option of bare fists as a weapon for brawlers, as well.  Not make it a requirement for the STR line like it was... but still allow for that option... somehow.</p><p>I think if the double hit was brought back into STR 3, the new AAs would be a lot more fair, and go a long way toward helping the monk win back some of its vitality.</p>

[Couching]

Skel@Butcherblock wrote: <blockquote>Yes warriors can spend AA to <span style="color: #990000">come close</span> to brawler DPS but we sacrafice avoidance for it.  If you guys could have an AA that gave you a almost towershield block rate, plus deflection, plus the DPS you already do, you would become raid MT's.  Plain and simple the way the game works now(from a MT view) is hp, avoidance, mit in that order.  You guys already have us beat on hp, this would easily put you over on avoidance(since block is uncontested) and your mit is relativly close to berserker/guard.  You expect all this from a hybrid class? Also i dont think you know how warrior AA's work.  No way a warrior can touch a brawler on DPS if they have the "tsunami" skill you mentioned.  We also dont have "brawler DPS".  Im one of the top parsing zerkers WW and i know several brawlers who can easily smash me with much lesser gear on my server alone.  Not to mention if we were talking about people like sardonis, i wouldnt stand a chance.   </blockquote>This is so wrong. Damage specialized war or zerker can out damage specialized brawler <b>in raid with similar buff </b>definitely. If you can't, it's your skill problem. Why? First, you guys have 22% critical hit comparing to brawler 18%. Second, brimstone hammer+buckler line=87.2% double attack.  85.1*1.87 >>  2*63.  I didn't even count that guardian can get extra 10% double attack from EOF tree and zerker can get boost on aoe damage from EOF tree. Moreover, you guys have 24% frontal aoe from main hand comparing to our 8% 300-500 damage proc. Stop making story that brawler can out damage guardian or zerker in raid with similar buffs. It's nonsense. By the way, I will list what your excuses will be: First, we don't get all damage aa since we need to get aa for tanking. This is the most lame excuse we brawler can hear from you guys. Even damage specialized guardian or zerker can tank better than tank specialized brawler. Why? Because there is ZERO line in brawler tree to increase our tanking. What we can't stand is that you guys can both out tank and damage us. If you give up all your damage lines and focus on tanking, it's your choices. BUT as long as you pick up buckler line and 22% critical hit, you can out tank and damage brawler in raid easily. Second excuse, we hit so fast that's why we have less proc percentage. It was true but no longer after EOF since proc rate is normalized to 3 sec weapon delay. It shouldn't be the excuse to lower brawler aoe proc rate to other plate tank anymore. Third, we have high haste. This excuse is also lame in raid. It is too easy to get haste over 100 in raid and the diminishing return makes almost no difference between haste 100 and haste 150. It should be fixed. Now, SoE lower the double attack on buckler line from 76% to 60%. I won't say they did a good job since class balance shouldn't be made by nerf. They should boost brawler rather than nerf war tree. In fact, they did lower double attack on buckler line but they gave more to war tree. For example, giving war tree 40% frontal aoe comparing to brawler tree with only 16%  low damage proc is really stupid. Also, they give you guys better version of tsunami, it's really bull [I cannot control my vocabulary].

[Couching]

Skel@Butcherblock wrote: <blockquote>Sugota@Butcherblock wrote: <blockquote>Cornbread Muffin wrote: <blockquote><p>It would be terrible if a fighter that isn't a Warrior tanked a raid, wouldn't it. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> We still wouldn't tank raids as Brawlers have poor group agro control. Also, since when were we a hybrid class? What are we a hybrid of? I don't expect any of this, but it is plain to Warriors that Brawlers gaining all of their advantages is a bad thing so <b>I don't see why it is not plain to Warriors that them gaining a Brawler's advantages is also a bad thing</b>.</p></blockquote><p> because they are warriors and are too dumb to know any better <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>Bottom line, unless something radical is done to change the way avoidence works its broke. Who cares if you have to give up your avoidence for DPS when you still have 50%+ mitigation.</p><p> I love this comment :"you would become raid MT's"  OMG the world has come to an end..a brawler has the ability to MT a raid and there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth amongst the guards and zerkers..You note he doesnt say you would become the best raid tanks or even the prefered raid tanks, just that we would have the audacity to step into that spot <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>  No one in their right minds will ever want a brawler to MT a raid until the real possibility of back to back spikes = instadeath no longer exists and Im not holding my breath for that one. </p><p>My Bruiser isnt a real tank, hes a semi decent DPSer with some avoidence. What I find sad is that my Brigand can tank just as well AND has higher DPS. </p><p>I know, let Bruisers apply poison to their weapons and give us chain then maybe we could at least have the same advantages as the scouts <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p></blockquote>Way to be mature and result to calling a whole class of people dumb.  Also yes it would be a bad thing for roles to be suddenly switched.  Its like saying to healer, you rolled you class to be a healer, thats what the game is designed for, but now 2+ years later, we are changing it up and you are going to be DPS... sorry.  I also dont say "best" because thats all situational.  Berserkers arent the "best" in peoples eyes but they are still MT's... go figure. </blockquote>You made a solid point here that our role was switched. Since brawler are going to be dps in peoples eyes, we should be able to deal more damage than berserker since berserker is MT in peoples eyes. We should have 22% critical and you should have 18%. We should have 40% aoe and you should have 16% aoe. Reason? Simple, we are dpser and you are tank. Though, EQ2 designers totally screwed it. They gave you 22% critical and 40% aoe and gave us 18% critical and 16% aoe. No wonder less and less player playing EQ2, well done!

[Couching]

We have zero line for tanking until the latest change of brawler aa. However, all we get is 312 mitigation. The more important for a solid tank is aggro control and still, there is zero aa to help us in aggro control. The role for brawler in high end raids is off-tank and that's the only role. We need some tools. All plate tanks have passive taunt, 2 encounter taunts and different form of aoe rescue or heavy damage aoe CAs to hold mobs in raid. What brawler has? We have ZERO passive taunt , 1 encounter taunt, ZERO aoe rescue and laughable damage aoe CAs. Now, all plate tanks have 40% frontal aoe to help them to hold mobs better, brawler has only 16% aoe? Come on, it's not hard to learn entry level math. How could a brawler comparing other plate tank hold multiple mobs in raids? You are ruining this game. Your job should be balance this game and make it more popular. Moreover, remove the silly 6% CA. If you really think brawlers have enough dps so that you gave that junk aa to us. Remove that junk and give us a pure aoe taunt or a passive skill which shorten aoe taunt reuse time.

[Schmalex23]

<cite>Harvash wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>As far as scout hybrids...pally's definitly heal in line with being heal based, SK's spell damage is also consistant. But I dont see any brawlers maintaing 2k+ parse zw without some heavy duty planning and group balance.  So what scout are we based on, because it surely isnt a Pred.  and lack of group buffs means Bard is out too.  Now, we do have 'some' debuffs and very little group buffs, so i guess that makes us rogues?</p></blockquote>Last i checked, pallys are weaker version of healers that can tank, SK's are weaker versions of mages that can tank, and you guys are weaker versions of scouts that can tank.  Do you not see how this is a hybrid?  I mean for chist sakes brawlers even have a back stab.  The entire concept behind a hybrid is that you are a mix of something, not as strong as either you are a mix of. In your eyes should a pally heal as well as a templar?  Should an SK nuke as much as a warlock?  Should you do as much damage as an assasin?

[Zarvax]

<p>Alright... this reply is pretty much all to the Zerker who doesn't aggree with something...</p><p> First of all, to the HP > avoidance > mit challenge for tanks... maybe for MITIGATION tanks... but as it is, a fully EoF equipped brawler is way above the curve for all of our avoidance skills, except maybe parry (I personally have 450~ deflection, 420~ defense, and 400~ parry self buffed) yet our mit is around 2700-2900... in defensive stance.  This is due to the fact that there are no +mit bonuses on gear in EoF, as there were in KoS, but we are still forced to use the EoF gear due to the huge difference in HP... if my gear had about 100-200 more mit per piece, like plate, I wouldn't give a [I cannot control my vocabulary] about mit either, and I would focus on HP > avoidance > mit too... buuut.... being that my gear has a max of 320, on the BP, it is not Inately up above 4k like plate tanks.</p><p> Second, to your Hybrid arguement, maybe brawlers are Fighter/scouts... but if anyone is anything, Zerkers are definately guardian/swashbucklers sooo....</p><p>oh and also... Pallies, specced right, CAN heal as well as templars... or more correctly, shamans... as their ward is only a few 100 points less, their single heal is the same as the defiler small heal, arch heal (AA) is the same as the defiler large heal, and they can get 52% heal crits... </p><p>Third, if there are lesser geared brawlers on your server that outparse you, then you are not one of the top DPSing zerkers gamewide... plain and simple.</p>

[Shankonia]

Skel@Butcherblock wrote: <blockquote>Fighter tree is a breakdown of: Warrior  (base class) Cursader (hybrid of warrior and healer and mage) Brawler  (hybrid of warrior and scout) Also you really would be MT's for named atleast.  No EoF named have adds that the MT needs/should be tanking, so your point of AE agro is weak at best esp considering your single target agro would be greater then a warriors.  You also already do have an advantage over us, its called deflection, ask them to fix that instead of adding in more stuff for them to break. </blockquote><p> Our deflection is an advantage how exactly?  An advantage over using a sheild to hit the same levels of avoidance as us w/ double attack on a superior weapon and alot less mitigation, aggro control abilities, buffs and debuffs?  Open your eyes Skel.</p><p>We've been lobbying to have deflection/avoidance fixed since the beginning.  Every time they do, or come close, Warriors cry and whine, and BOOM.  We suck again.  </p><p>I want Warriors to tank circles around us.  I also want to DPS circles around Warriors.  Currently overall Warrior Tanking/DPS/Utility > Monk Tanking/DPS/Utility and balance is a joke.  </p>

[Schmalex23]

Couching@Crushbone wrote: <blockquote>We have zero line for tanking until the latest change of brawler aa. However, all we get is 312 mitigation. The more important for a solid tank is aggro control and still, there is zero aa to help us in aggro control. The role for brawler in high end raids is off-tank and that's the only role. We need some tools. All plate tanks have passive taunt, 2 encounter taunts and different form of aoe rescue or heavy damage aoe CAs to hold mobs in raid. What brawler has? We have ZERO passive taunt , 1 encounter taunt, ZERO aoe rescue and laughable damage aoe CAs. Now, all plate tanks have 40% frontal aoe to help them to hold mobs better, brawler has only 16% aoe? Come on, it's not hard to learn entry level math. How could a brawler comparing other plate tank hold multiple mobs in raids? You are ruining this game. Your job should be balance this game and make it more popular. Moreover, remove the silly 6% CA. If you really think brawlers have enough dps so that you gave that junk aa to us. Remove that junk and give us a pure aoe taunt or a passive skill which shorten aoe taunt reuse time. </blockquote> You do understand that our "40% frontal" is only on auto attack and only works for multi mob encounters right?  You guys have a constant proc no matter what you are  fighting.  Right now my auto attack accounts for about 50% of my total damage including 88% double attack and since i couldnt proc that off double attack we can basicly say that 25% of my damage i can proc that on SOME encounters.  Starting to not look so awesome? I also dont see where you are getting these taunt numbers from.  We (berserkers) have 1 straight single target taunt, one green taunt, and one blue taunt as well as a reactive... thats it.  Im also not sure [Removed for Content] you call rumble(or the monk equiv), seems like a passive taunt to me, unless you dont attack what you are fighting? I do however agree that the changes you guys got were junk, and double attack would be a decent solution...

[Schmalex23]

Hamoto@Antonia Bayle wrote: <blockquote><p>Third, if there are lesser geared brawlers on your server that outparse you, then you are not one of the top DPSing zerkers gamewide... plain and simple.</p></blockquote> How bout you ask sardonis what he parses then ask me psykil, or kobal what we parse.  Did you ever think that maybe you just dont have the right gear or maybe you dont know how to play your class?  Also i know what it is to play a <a href="http://eq2players.station.sony.com/characters/character_profile.vm?characterId=362760108" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">brawler</a>, so please stop pretending like you are the only one who knows about the class and its downsides.  Mit doesnt mean jack anymore, i tank in offensive droping my mit to what you guys say you have. Do you need a DPS boost?  yes, did i ever say you didnt, no.  I said that you dont need an AA that gives you a tower shield. <a href="http://eq2players.station.sony.com/characters/character_profile.vm?characterId=362760108" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"> </a>

[Shankonia]

Skel@Butcherblock wrote: <blockquote><p>Harvash wrote: </p><p>Last i checked, pallys are weaker version of healers that can tank, SK's are weaker versions of mages that can tank, and you guys are weaker versions of scouts that can tank.  Do you not see how this is a hybrid?  I mean for chist sakes brawlers even have a back stab.  The entire concept behind a hybrid is that you are a mix of something, not as strong as either you are a mix of. In your eyes should a pally heal as well as a templar?  Should an SK nuke as much as a warlock?  Should you do as much damage as an assasin? </p></blockquote><p>Monks don't have a backstab Skel.  You really have no idea what you're talking about when you say that you know what it is to play a brawler.</p><p>I agree that palies shouldn't heal as much as templar, SK's nuke as much as a Warlock, and that we should not do as much damage as an assassin.   That's not what we want though.  We want to out DPS Warriors every time.  You guys tank better, we'll dps better.  You can keep your superior buffs and debuffs as well.</p><p>Ham - good call that Zerkers are Guard/Swash.  You're kinda off though, they are more Guard/Swash/Dirge.  Don't forget that mit. debuff, haste and dps mod and strength they lend out. </p>

[Couching]

Skel@Butcherblock wrote: <blockquote>Couching@Crushbone wrote: <blockquote>We have zero line for tanking until the latest change of brawler aa. However, all we get is 312 mitigation. The more important for a solid tank is aggro control and still, there is zero aa to help us in aggro control. The role for brawler in high end raids is off-tank and that's the only role. We need some tools. All plate tanks have passive taunt, 2 encounter taunts and different form of aoe rescue or heavy damage aoe CAs to hold mobs in raid. What brawler has? We have ZERO passive taunt , 1 encounter taunt, ZERO aoe rescue and laughable damage aoe CAs. Now, all plate tanks have 40% frontal aoe to help them to hold mobs better, brawler has only 16% aoe? Come on, it's not hard to learn entry level math. How could a brawler comparing other plate tank hold multiple mobs in raids? You are ruining this game. Your job should be balance this game and make it more popular. Moreover, remove the silly 6% CA. If you really think brawlers have enough dps so that you gave that junk aa to us. Remove that junk and give us a pure aoe taunt or a passive skill which shorten aoe taunt reuse time. </blockquote> You do understand that our "40% frontal" is only on auto attack and only works for multi mob encounters right?  You guys have a constant proc no matter what you are  fighting.  Right now my auto attack accounts for about 50% of my total damage including 88% double attack and since i couldnt proc that off double attack we can basicly say that 25% of my damage i can proc that on SOME encounters.  Starting to not look so awesome? I also dont see where you are getting these taunt numbers from.  We (berserkers) have 1 straight single target taunt, one green taunt, and one blue taunt as well as a reactive... thats it.  Im also not sure [I cannot control my vocabulary] you call rumble(or the monk equiv), seems like a passive taunt to me, unless you dont attack what you are fighting? I do however agree that the changes you guys got were junk, and double attack would be a decent solution... </blockquote>Yes, I know that. The frontal aoe didn't work on single target. Though, in most raids, group encounters are by far more than single encounters. Besides, don't forget that your frontal aoe is scaled with your weapon and ours is fixed weak damage proc. Just let me ask you a simple question, if you think brawler aoe is better, let's switch. You can support us to ask designers make it happen. If not, just admit 40% frontal aoe is better. For the taunt, guardian has passive taunt as long as he gets hit. From your description, it looks like zerker has passive taunt but not two encounter taunts. I apologize for my  mistake. Though,  it didn't change that plate tanks have better aggro control. Moreover, plate tanks can increase hate from aa. Since the only role for brawler is off tank, we need tools to make it happen. With nerfs of mages and scouts deaggro buffs, brawler is really screwed.  

[Schmalex23]

dunno what this is then.... <img src="http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t2/alex_schmalex/punch.jpg" border="0"> Guess thats not a back stab and i guess a bruiser is not a brawler.

[Shankonia]

<p>Hey Skel - go re-read my post, I said "Monks."  Monks don't have a backstab.</p><p>Also realize that Hamoto, Myself and Couching are MONKS.  We're not Bruisers.  Sardonis - BRUISER!!!!</p><p>If you read the Bruiser forums, all the respectable Bruisers I know of and have known of for years, they say the BRUISER CLASS is fine where it is.  It's us - the MONKS, who have the issues.</p><p>Bruisers typically do 2000 dps on the high end, Monks 1500.</p><p>DON'T CONFUSE MONKS WITH BRUISERS.  WE ARE NOT THE SAME [Removed for Content] CLASS!!!!!</p>

[Schmalex23]

Im also not sure why you are attacking the warrior class.  Should you do more damage then us?  hell yes, that was never my point.  my point was that you shouldnt be able to out tank us.

[Schmalex23]

and i never said MONKS had one, i said brawlers, didnt specify which one.  Also kinda funny that your post is edited

[Zarvax]

<p>This is to the Devs</p><p>Give us back our Double attack... PLEASE... make it scale.... maybe something like this</p><p>Caster will double attack on 24% of  attacks  (3% per rank) Caster will double attack on 48% of attacks   (6% per rank) - If secondary slot is empty Caster will double attack on 24% of attacks   (3% per rank) - If primary slot is empty</p><p>This would allow use to get a 24% double attack with dual wield, or a 2her, 72% double attack with a 1her, or 96% double attack with no weapons... maybe the numbers could be tweaked abit, but this would make EVERYONE happy... </p><p>Also, you need to get rid of the proccing BS on the wisdom line, and make it a 40% AE auto attack like all the other melee classes...</p><p>And to fix our tanking (aggro holding ability) (this has been mentioned before on the monk forums) take away our on attack aggro proc, and give us a 100% on deflection aggro proc (being that deflection is about 40-50% of my avoids, it should be pretty equal to a warrior's 50% on hit aggro), this would go along with the avoidance tank situation, and allow us much better AoE aggro.</p><p>to end... this is a list of the classes that get the stuff we are asking for... yet... they would be... overpowered?.. for brawlers?</p><p>I would be fine with any one of the below, both would be preferable, don't even realy care about numbers as long as the double attack is above 20% and the AE auto attack is above 25% I would be happy </p><p>Warriors - 60% double attack, 40% AE auto attack Crusaders - 40% AE auto attack Predators - 28% AE auto attack Rogues - 68% double attack Swashbucklers - 55% AE auto attack Bards - 54% double attack Druids - 40% double attack Shamans - 35% double attack Enchanters - 40% double attack Clerics - 52% double attack Summoner Pet - 20% double attack</p>

[Shankonia]

Skel@Butcherblock wrote: <blockquote>Im also not sure why you are attacking the warrior class.  Should you do more damage then us?  hell yes, that was never my point.  my point was that you shouldnt be able to out tank us.</blockquote><p> Then we are in full agreement.</p><p>Never meant to attack Warriors either, and apologize if it came across that way. </p>

[Kaoru]

Skel@Butcherblock wrote: Last i checked, pallys are weaker version of healers that can tank, SK's are weaker versions of mages that can tank,<b> and you guys are weaker versions of scouts that can tank.</b>  Do you not see how this is a hybrid?  I mean for chist sakes brawlers even have a back stab.  The entire concept behind a hybrid is that you are a mix of something, not as strong as either you are a mix of. In your eyes should a pally heal as well as a templar?  Should an SK nuke as much as a warlock?  Should you do as much damage as an assasin? Here is the big problem. WE CAN NOT TANK. raid encounters that is. And if we are a weaker version of a scout then seriously whats the point. We have no good debuffs (-15.8 to defense is a joke), only 1 group buff and can not dps as well as a scout (hell they tank just as well as us), and no raid leader in their right mind is gonna say "Hey we need a tank for Mayong lets put the brawler in there and give the guard a rest." So why bother to even bring in the brawler when you have better tanks better debuffers and better damage classes available. Being a hybrid doesn't bother me at all, but the fact that we have all of the other classes weaknesses and none of their strengths depresses me to no end. And no I don't think I should do as much dps as an assasin, but I would like to at least be able to out dps the MT. Our dps blows Our tanking ability blows Our utility blows Our aa's are a joke We are only looking for a role to play, a niche to call our own. Kaoru Monk/Alchy/Transmuter/Sacrifice Blackburrow Sorry for the sloppy quote, was my first post <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Shankonia]

<p>So Brawlers are a Scout/Tank Hybrid then?  Ok, fine.</p><p>So how come we don't debuff jack?</p><p>How come Scouts do debuff, they have twice the DPS, are for the most part BETTER SOLOERS and....drumroll...they can tank Heroics just like we can.</p>

[Schmalex23]

your DPS was never my argument... i dont see why people are defending that, yes you need help there.  The reason i posted in the first place was saying that giving you an AA that equaled a tower shield wouldnt be inline.

[Gasheron]

Skel@Butcherblock wrote: <blockquote>Im also not sure why you are attacking the warrior class.  Should you do more damage then us?  hell yes, that was never my point.  my point was that you shouldnt be able to out tank us.</blockquote><p> I don't think that anyone here has the intent of attacking another class. As a fellow monk, however, the warrior classes ARE the perfect example to show what IS wrong with the brawler classes, especially the Monk. We shouldn't be able to outtank you, but currently, Monks can't outtank or outdps you, and your AA's are MUCH stronger than ours are. These changes to the AA's at best raise our dps by about 50, while giving you one of the Monk's most specialized abilities, Tsunami.</p><p>Also, the loss of doubleattack is just plain an insult. How logical is it that a class based on speed and swift attacks does not have the ability to double attack, when the healers classes can?</p><p>Also, in your earlier posts, you keep lumping bruisers and monks together when you make your claims, such as the backstab comment. Based on your comments, I'm guessing you'll say Monks also have drag? </p><p>I can agree that we are pretty much Fighter/Scouts... or at least that were are supposed to be. However, we currently don't exhibit many of the traits of either, as the scout side of us, namely the higher melee dps, doesn't exist. Scouts in general have a higher mit, higher base dps, and use avoidance for their defense. They also have utility, depending on which scout you look at. Compared to the other fighters, the only thing that matches is using avoidance for defense, which due to diminishing returns and +to hit bonuses on mobs, is essentially broken. It works to some degree, but is nowhere near effective for a tank in survivability as mitigation is.</p><p>Give us back our double attack, and change/up the mit bonus devs. PLEASE!</p>

[Schmalex23]

i lump bruisers and monks because this thread is about brawler AA, so any changes made to it would apply to both classes.  And yes it was someone intent to attack warriors, we were outright called dumb.  

[PaganSaint]

This is why these forum absolutely sucks for getting anything done. Half the people who post don't have a clue how things work, others have half a clue and then think that since they know a little they are right when they consistently post irrelevant, baised, and wrong information and cloud it with their inaccurate and incorrect math. Then there are those who know what goes on and get completely frustrated with the de-railing and idiocy that they snap and their arguments are lessened by that fact. <b>GET BACK ON TOPIC. </b>An AA that gives brawlers <i>yet another</i> uncontested avoidance would be over powered unless it was weak to a point of trivialization. When this game was made, <i>not all of the fighters were made to be raid MTs. </i>Sorry, but they weren't. As it is brawlers can come very close to the same mitigation levels as plate tanks <i>wearing two classes lower of armor</i>. That is broken, <i>leather</i> should <i>not</i> be able to take the same hit as <i>plate.</i> Brawler avoidance against epics is about right, a bit low due to the scaling of deflection against epics. But deflection has + skill modifiers while block is completely based upon your equipment. The either need to fix the scaling of deflection or they need to make it completely uncontested, not just partially, and take out <b><i>all</i></b> of the + deflection items in game, and add an adornment that increases deflection percent comparable to the block adornment. As far as DPS goes the most logical thing to do would be to give 3%, 4% at the most, double attack per point instead of the stupid and worthless .75% per point increase to combat art damage. <b>Or</b> Combine both to give a slight combat art increase and a fairly large boost to Auto Attack.

[Schmalex23]

<cite>PaganSaint wrote:</cite><blockquote>This is why these forum absolutely sucks for getting anything done. Half the people who post don't have a clue how things work, others have half a clue and then think that since they know a little they are right when they consistently post irrelevant, baised, and wrong information and cloud it with their inaccurate and incorrect math. Then there are those who know what goes on and get completely frustrated with the de-railing and idiocy that they snap and their arguments are lessened by that fact. <b>GET BACK ON TOPIC. </b>An AA that gives brawlers <i>yet another</i> uncontested avoidance would be over powered unless it was weak to a point of trivialization. When this game was made, <i>not all of the fighters were made to be raid MTs. </i>Sorry, but they weren't. As it is brawlers can come very close to the same mitigation levels as plate tanks <i>wearing two classes lower of armor</i>. That is broken, <i>leather</i> should <i>not</i> be able to take the same hit as <i>plate.</i> Brawler avoidance against epics is about right, a bit low due to the scaling of deflection against epics. But deflection has + skill modifiers while block is completely based upon your equipment. The either need to fix the scaling of deflection or they need to make it completely uncontested, not just partially, and take out <b><i>all</i></b> of the + deflection items in game, and add an adornment that increases deflection percent comparable to the block adornment. As far as DPS goes the most logical thing to do would be to give 3%, 4% at the most, double attack per point instead of the stupid and worthless .75% per point increase to combat art damage. <b>Or</b> Combine both to give a slight combat art increase and a fairly large boost to Auto Attack. </blockquote>QFE x2

[Couching]

<cite>PaganSaint wrote:</cite><blockquote>This is why these forum absolutely sucks for getting anything done. Half the people who post don't have a clue how things work, others have half a clue and then think that since they know a little they are right when they consistently post irrelevant, baised, and wrong information and cloud it with their inaccurate and incorrect math. Then there are those who know what goes on and get completely frustrated with the de-railing and idiocy that they snap and their arguments are lessened by that fact. <b>GET BACK ON TOPIC. </b>An AA that gives brawlers <i>yet another</i> uncontested avoidance would be over powered unless it was weak to a point of trivialization. When this game was made, <i>not all of the fighters were made to be raid MTs. </i>Sorry, but they weren't. As it is brawlers can come very close to the same mitigation levels as plate tanks <i>wearing two classes lower of armor</i>. That is broken, <i>leather</i> should <i>not</i> be able to take the same hit as <i>plate.</i> Brawler avoidance against epics is about right, a bit low due to the scaling of deflection against epics. But deflection has + skill modifiers while block is completely based upon your equipment. The either need to fix the scaling of deflection or they need to make it completely uncontested, not just partially, and take out <b><i>all</i></b> of the + deflection items in game, and add an adornment that increases deflection percent comparable to the block adornment. As far as DPS goes the most logical thing to do would be to give 3%, 4% at the most, double attack per point instead of the stupid and worthless .75% per point increase to combat art damage. <b>Or</b> Combine both to give a slight combat art increase and a fairly large boost to Auto Attack. </blockquote>No body is asking to out tank plate tank. You and Skel should calm down. The MT in raid is always guardian or zerker. That's why I said in my post, the role of brawler in raid is off tank and it's the only role. Though, what we can't stand is that zerker or other plate tank can out damage us in raids. That doesn't make any sense since we are worst tank comparing to plate tanks. However, with current design or new kos tree revamp, brawler tree is still screwed comparing to plate tanks. Care to answer me why we have less critical hit than war tree? Care to admit that your 40% frontal is superior than our 16% aoe? If not, you can support us to make a trade with war tree.  You guys can have this uber 16% aoe rather than 40% frontal aoe. All brawlers will trade it gladly. Not to say aggro control, brawler is totally screwed.

[selch]

<p>PaganSaint:</p><p>May I ask you one thing; you claim your guild always use Guardian or Berzerker MT, yet you claim avoidance of Brawler against epic is about right. Is it AoE avoidance you mention? Because with to-hit values added because of warriors having too much avoidance --not to make them godly unhittable, low damage takers--, all avoidance reduces to "nothing" , not slight reduce as you claim. </p><p>Still, there is a missing piece... "Curved" mitigation is not only factor on heroics+. There is a damage multiplier of mob before curve is calculated depending on raw mitigation. This is calculated right before mob attack, and never calculated again. This is done right after plate tanks started to wear nothing on them. Basically it is not just curve + damage multiplier hitting. So just don't assume while plate tank is 65%, leather is 55% too. Because damage is much more than this curve, almost as close to no-curve old system. </p><p>Deflection to be <i>completely</i> uncontested is something <i>barely</i> solves some problems at tanking, still does not make us <i>remotely</i> good/reliable as warriors on raids. Yet I don't care about raiding, I'm telling this with experiences from heroic named mobs are just small version of how avoidance reduces and + damage multiplier added. Yes, I always do tanking and no, my equipment is above legendary minimum. </p><p>I'm just hoping for an AA setup where all fighter classes can pick either maximum tanking equally or maximum dps equally. Not together, one or another. Forget tanking, I'll be happy to have dps as much as a zerker and screw raids, I'd be happy to equally tank high level heroic instances like a warrior could.  How many groups have you seen that asks for "any fighter" class to tank 70+ heroic instances?</p><p>Monk problems are not limited to these as well... So I think should stop dialogues with each other, rather dialogue with devs who knows vast  difference between bruiser and monks and monks state.</p><p>@Skel: Last time I checked this was a brawler topic. I don't think we need people who will comment as "competitior" mind who does not play a brawler class to comment. It will just be not valid. Want to discuss Warrior AA changes? Open your own topic.  </p>

[Schmalex23]

not sure how i am not calm, but ok.  Also please reread any of my posts and point out where i say you do not need a DPS boost... anywhere, yeah thought so.  Yes, i would trade our frontal for your proc, there is a reason none of the top warriors run agi line... because it sucks.  You want to be uber and do crazy damage on trash mobs be my guest.  Personally i would rather have increased damage for named, where it really matters.  Woohoo WW 1st trash clear in Tunarian Throne Room, UBER.

[PaganSaint]

Couching: No warrior uses the frontal cone AE auto attack damage. And no one will(shouldn't other than to test) when the changes occur. Why? Because  that is 40% chance to hit something that the tank should not be having to attack. An OT guardian might choose this line, maybe, for the 40% chance to hit and control AE aggro with reinforcement. Even then it is a poor allocation of AA's considering the even greater need to DPS spec with the decrease to double attack. Base line: Agility line sucks something awful for warriors, the changes made were made to make it more attractive. It did, slightly, untill you think about what you have to give up even with the nerf incoming. As for critical hit percentage differences it doesn't make that much of a difference in DPS between the warriors and brawlers. There are brawlers out there with the skill to parse well in very unstacked groups. This myth of being garbage at DPS is rather overplayed. Do brawlers need a DPS boost? Hell yes, the game has moved on from 1800-2k being high and DPS tanking quality. While Guards, SKs and Zerkers have gained to the same level as brawlers and in some rare and stacked group cases, surpassing them there should definitely be a difference in favor of brawlers. <b>How about we keep this thread on topic to the AA changes as much as possible?</b> selch: I didn't claim that brawler avoidance is about right, I said it needs to be tweaked up. The scaling against epics that deflection has, while still having a portion uncontested, is not where it should be. In my last post I described two different and, I believe fair, changes to fix the way deflection works in raid situations. As is deflection and brawler avoidance period, work very well in heroic content and should not be changed. And you are very wrong about deflection becoming completely uncontested changing the effectiveness of brawler tanking in raids. As the game is now, and none of the coming changes change this, Hitpoints are the top statistic for tanking, followed by uncontested avoidance, then base and parry avoidance, then mitigation. Its how the game works. As for heroic tanking brawlers are fine, almost every brawler will agree except to complain about AE aggro, and that can be worked around. <b>How about we keep this thread on topic to the AA changes as much as possible?</b> <b>This is the in-testing feedback forum. I started this thread to discuss and try to change for the better the AA revamp occuring in the next LU. I am going to ask politely that anything that doesn't directly play into the AA changes, or suggestion, alterations, increases and decreases to the changes either be removed or, preferably, not even mentioned. </b>

[selch]

<cite>PaganSaint wrote:</cite><blockquote>As for heroic tanking brawlers are fine, almost every brawler will agree except to complain about AE aggro, and that can be worked around. </blockquote><p>This is where you stuck at. We are fine on "heroic" tanking with our "fableds" on,  Remove them, put "heroic" equivalents. NOT. Even with fableds on, any group will still turn you off for a legendary equipped plate tank, that where it is not right. </p><p>As I said, AA changes are told what is to be told. STR line had to biggest problem for DPS, </p><p>I'd equally say Eagle Shriek should be at least "below 70%+ health" for tanking release  unless they do not do something about deflection to be uncontested. </p>

[Couching]

Skel@Butcherblock wrote: <blockquote>not sure how i am not calm, but ok.  Also please reread any of my posts and point out where i say you do not need a DPS boost... anywhere, yeah thought so.  Yes, i would trade our frontal for your proc, there is a reason none of the top warriors run agi line... because it sucks.  You want to be uber and do crazy damage on trash mobs be my guest.  Personally i would rather have increased damage for named, where it really matters.  Woohoo WW 1st trash clear in Tunarian Throne Room, UBER.</blockquote>Great, I hope we can see your post that war frontal aoe sucks, you want to get 16% weak damage proc in different threads. Moreover, there are adds while fighting named, it doesn't make any sense that frontal aoe is useless. Anyway, I am glad that you are going to trade it with brawler.

[PaganSaint]

Sorry I use the legendary and even treasured equipment from EoF as a baseline for tanking in heroic instances. Some of that gear is better than the KoS fabled for tanking and DPSing as a brawler and hell plate class even. Eagle Shriek below 65% Hitpoints? How about you consider what you say, what it entails, then come back to me. That ability has nothing to do with tanking. Other than a very miniscule boost to mitigation in any group where the brawler will be tanking. If they <i>were</i> to change Eagle Shriek I would suggest this: Taking away the mitigation numerical value, add a percentage of <i>all</i> incoming damage is reduced by 10%-15% and melee crit chance is increased by 50% when the Brawler drops below 50% hitpoints. This scales properly and actually provides a health range that could be considered acceptable in terms of balance.

[Kainsei]

Now that we're back on topic. Grimwell said that the AA changes would makes us happy. They do not. They asked for feedback. Pretty much everyone agrees that the double attack bonus should come back to the str line, instead of the useless 6% CAs increase. 20-30% double attack will be fine. I think the devs should think about it. I'm aware that a lot of classes got nerfed. But predators, sorcerers and summoners will still be top dps. Rogues will still be needed. Bards will be needed even more, they can spec to sta line for double attack bonus. Warriors will still e the best tanks. Crusaders are still better off tanks and better tanks than us. Even though Coercers hate buff got nerfed, enchanters are still in better shape than us. The healers are still needed. Brawlers ? Brawlers....cheerleaders ? harvesters ? soloers ?

[PaganSaint]

EDIT: NM Couching wants to continue to drag this thread into idiocy. I am removing my commentary that would allow him to further de-rail the thread. Couching please refrain from posting anymore here, you are completely unhelpful and are lacking the reasoning and grasp of what you are speaking of and are de-railing this thread.

[PaganSaint]

Lanari@Storms wrote: <blockquote>Now that we're back on topic. Grimwell said that the AA changes would makes us happy. They do not. They asked for feedback. Pretty much everyone agrees that the double attack bonus should come back to the str line, instead of the useless 6% CAs increase. 20-30% double attack will be fine. I think the devs should think about it. I'm aware that a lot of classes got nerfed. But predators, sorcerers and summoners will still be top dps. Rogues will still be needed. Bards will be needed even more, they can spec to sta line for double attack bonus. Warriors will still e the best tanks. Crusaders are still better off tanks and better tanks than us. Even though Coercers hate buff got nerfed, enchanters are still in better shape than us. The healers are still needed. Brawlers ? Brawlers....cheerleaders ? harvesters ? soloers ? </blockquote>I hope to bring their attention to the shifting of problems this change is creating rather than fixing of problems. And hopefully we can get the double attack change to Strength Three and see how it goes from there. The other changes to the Brawler tree are spot on though. Just the strength line needs looking at in my opinion. the increased proc chance and reduced timers across the board will help, but not nearly as much as fixing the strength line.

[Couching]

<cite>PaganSaint wrote:</cite><blockquote>Couching: No warrior uses the frontal cone AE auto attack damage. And no one will(shouldn't other than to test) when the changes occur. Why? Because  that is 40% chance to hit something that the tank should not be having to attack. An OT guardian might choose this line, maybe, for the 40% chance to hit and control AE aggro with reinforcement. Even then it is a poor allocation of AA's considering the even greater need to DPS spec with the decrease to double attack. Base line: Agility line sucks something awful for warriors, the changes made were made to make it more attractive. It did, slightly, untill you think about what you have to give up even with the nerf incoming. As for critical hit percentage differences it doesn't make that much of a difference in DPS between the warriors and brawlers. There are brawlers out there with the skill to parse well in very unstacked groups. This myth of being garbage at DPS is rather overplayed. Do brawlers need a DPS boost? Hell yes, the game has moved on from 1800-2k being high and DPS tanking quality. While Guards, SKs and Zerkers have gained to the same level as brawlers and in some rare and stacked group cases, surpassing them there should definitely be a difference in favor of brawlers. <b>How about we keep this thread on topic to the AA changes as much as possible?</b> selch: I didn't claim that brawler avoidance is about right, I said it needs to be tweaked up. The scaling against epics that deflection has, while still having a portion uncontested, is not where it should be. In my last post I described two different and, I believe fair, changes to fix the way deflection works in raid situations. As is deflection and brawler avoidance period, work very well in heroic content and should not be changed. And you are very wrong about deflection becoming completely uncontested changing the effectiveness of brawler tanking in raids. As the game is now, and none of the coming changes change this, Hitpoints are the top statistic for tanking, followed by uncontested avoidance, then base and parry avoidance, then mitigation. Its how the game works. As for heroic tanking brawlers are fine, almost every brawler will agree except to complain about AE aggro, and that can be worked around. <b>How about we keep this thread on topic to the AA changes as much as possible?</b> <b>This is the in-testing feedback forum. I started this thread to discuss and try to change for the better the AA revamp occuring in the next LU. I am going to ask politely that anything that doesn't directly play into the AA changes, or suggestion, alterations, increases and decreases to the changes either be removed or, preferably, not even mentioned. </b></blockquote>You are dodging my statement. You said war is not going to get it rather than telling me which one is better. Again, if you think it's not appealing enough, it's just because war tree is full of [Removed for Content] good skills. How about brawler tree? Full of [Removed for Content]. That's why even 16% aoe weak damage proc is appealing comparing to 6% CA increase. Besides, it's really nonsense to make a statement that "oh, we have higher critical hit but it's not much difference in dps". Err, come on, do you think your statement makes any sense? Back to the topic, Brawler needs aa for aggro control and dps.  Seriously, remove the  junk 6% CA increase aa and give us some hate boost skill or passive taunt skill if you think we have enough dps.

[Kaoru]

Str line rank 3 Bring back double attack, maybe even give us some group buff love Ie. 6% per rank and 3% double attack to group per rank, yea thats prolly a bit overpowered but its an idea. Str rank 5 Chi The 15 min recast would make no brawler want to take this even with the removed penalties. I would say reduce it down to 5 min to put it on par with the large hits of other classes, manaburn is 5 min and a lot more damage so this seems more reasonable. Hell I would seriously think about this line if this was 5 min otherwise its a waste. The crane twirl doesnt seem that bad unless the damage is reduced by a ton. It will prolly end up being around the same damage. Yea more would be nice for group aggro but hey you cant have it all. I personally would have liked the EOF aa's looked at a lot more esp the end lines. Make combination a automatic proc if you pull off the 3 ca's in the required time cause the current timer blows. take out all the silly deaggros unless you really just wanna give us a chain and call us a scout, give us another hate proc in its place. Some other EOF endline aa ideas that go along with monkness: Group or single target deaggro Better hate transfer (to the brawler)then the current TV aa something around 25% or so Single target non monk aoe immunity (not group too many have that already) Improve damage of Combination 400 per tick is lame at best dps/haste single target or group buff, kinda combining both brawler natural group buffs Enhanced proc chance group or single target I have seen groupwide tsunami mentioned before seems like a winner <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Group proc haste/dps chance ie. on melee attack x% chance to increase haste/dps for 15 sec A group avoidance buff The ability to take the stun effect of mountain stance, maybe make it a stun Epic stun of some sort Some sort of higher damage flurry of attacks Make focal serenity group wide Some kind of group resistence buff Yea some of these are silly or will never make it through but this is just brainstorming and therefore anything should be accepted since most could be watered down or adjusted some way. What I think the devs missed tho is that instead of seeing the str and agi lines are underused and tweaking them, they should have asked "Why is it that most monks take 448 str/sta/wis and no endline abilities. Kaoru Blackburrow

[Couching]

<cite>PaganSaint wrote:</cite><blockquote>EDIT: NM Couching wants to continue to drag this thread into idiocy. I am removing my commentary that would allow him to further de-rail the thread. Couching please refrain from posting anymore here, you are completely unhelpful and are lacking the reasoning and grasp of what you are speaking of and are de-railing this thread. </blockquote>Ya, you are not going to drag this thread to idiocy when you post that brawler can tank with treasure gears. /shrug. Stop making up story, ok? So we can focus on topic.

[PaganSaint]

As the top berserker world wide already said... He'd prefer the 16% chance for the AE proc. I'll stand by him and agree. It does when you don't equate DPS to equaling critical hit percentage. You know, take the other variables into the equation. Hate increase and/or an <i>additional </i>passive hate gain tool? Neither of these solve the problem being put forward and changed/shifted by the changes made to the Strength Line. Double attack would be easiest and safest fix to the strength line instead of the .75% per point increase to combat art damage. Now, adding a hate increase to the agility line as Agility Four with the re-use haste as Agility Three would make more sense to me.

[PaganSaint]

Couching@Crushbone wrote: <blockquote><cite>PaganSaint wrote:</cite><blockquote>EDIT: NM Couching wants to continue to drag this thread into idiocy. I am removing my commentary that would allow him to further de-rail the thread. Couching please refrain from posting anymore here, you are completely unhelpful and are lacking the reasoning and grasp of what you are speaking of and are de-railing this thread. </blockquote>Ya, you are not going to drag this thread to idiocy when you post that brawler can tank with treasure gears. /shrug. Stop making up story, ok? So we can focus on topic. </blockquote> You might want to learn to read, I said for heroic instances.

[Couching]

<cite>PaganSaint wrote:</cite><blockquote>As the top berserker world wide already said... He'd prefer the 16% chance for the AE proc. I'll stand by him and agree. It does when you don't equate DPS to equaling critical hit percentage. You know, take the other variables into the equation. Hate increase and/or an <i>additional </i>passive hate gain tool? Neither of these solve the problem being put forward and changed/shifted by the changes made to the Strength Line. Double attack would be easiest and safest fix to the strength line instead of the .75% per point increase to combat art damage. Now, adding a hate increase to the agility line as Agility Four with the re-use haste as Agility Three would make more sense to me. </blockquote>Ya, it would be great if he can post that 40% frontal aoe sucks and he wants to trade with brawler 16% aoe. Action speaks louder than words. Just make a thread and asking designer to change it! Oh, you can also make a petition that you want 16% weak damage proc rather than 40% frontal aoe from main hand. All brawlers will support you guys. Do it! Besides, what variable you can offer? Hun, haste? dps? How hard to get 100+ haste in raid nowadays. What's the difference between 100 haste and 150 haste? Moreover, it would be great if we can get double attack back since higher dps = higher aggro Of course i want double attack back. Though, if the reason that eq2 designer removed DA is we have enough dps, then give us hate increase or passive hate. Last, it's really silly. Are you a monk or bruiser? As I know, you are a guardian or zerker. Come on, how do you know what brawler really needs? Give me a break. Or you are worrying we are going to be an adequate off tank if we have better aggro control? PS: When I read that a treasure geared brawler is fine as tank in heroic instance, you are wasting our time to read your post.

[Couching]

<cite>PaganSaint wrote:</cite><blockquote>Couching@Crushbone wrote: <blockquote><cite>PaganSaint wrote:</cite><blockquote>EDIT: NM Couching wants to continue to drag this thread into idiocy. I am removing my commentary that would allow him to further de-rail the thread. Couching please refrain from posting anymore here, you are completely unhelpful and are lacking the reasoning and grasp of what you are speaking of and are de-railing this thread. </blockquote>Ya, you are not going to drag this thread to idiocy when you post that brawler can tank with treasure gears. /shrug. Stop making up story, ok? So we can focus on topic. </blockquote> You might want to learn to read, I said for heroic instances. </blockquote>You should stop making story rather than ask others to learn to read. A treasure geared brawler is not an adequate tank in heroic instances. Do you know what adequate means? /shrug

[PaganSaint]

Guardian and Bruiser. And skel has a Berserker and Monk. Have you covered from all angles. EDIT: And please continue to take everything out of context, I said legendary and treasured, which is more than adequate for a heroic instance if you do not suck and are not grouped with healers who suck. Please remove your posts from this thread. Your posts and posting methods are examples of why nothing that gets posted in these forums is heeded. This thread wasn't made for you to state and restate the same thing repeatedly. There was a thread in combat discussion that you did that more than enough. This thread was made to be constructive and has degenerated into something that is decidedly not.

[Couching]

<cite>PaganSaint wrote:</cite><blockquote>Guardian and Bruiser. And skel has a Berserker and Monk. Have you covered from all angles. Please remove your posts from this thread. Your posts and posting methods are examples of why nothing that gets posted in these forums is heeded. This thread wasn't made for you to state and restate the same thing repeatedly. There was a thread in combat discussion that you did that more than enough. This thread was made to be constructive and has degenerated into something that is decidedly not. </blockquote> So? which is your main? I know that a lot players in high end guild have brawler as alt. Why? It's simple since you can get brawler loots even there is only 1 or zero brawler in raid. Brawler is fun to play but we are screwed in raid. <b>EDIT: To make constructive suggestions, you need to stop making up story such as "Legendary"  and treasure geared brawler can tank fine in heroic instances, or 22% critical hit is almost no difference than 18% critical hit. </b> If you can't, your suggestion is biased. Don't try to fool everyone. It's not helping us. PS: I would love to see legendary and treasure geared brawler had done Sage room in MMC or done Nizara as MT. Oh ya, there are HARD heroic instancse so they should not be included. /shrug

[Zarvax]

<p><span style="font-size: x-small">Okay... so now that we've heard this from the side of... brawlers... zerkers... and guardians....</span></p><p><span style="font-size: xx-large">I WANNA HEAR FROM A DEV</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small">Thank You.</span></p>

[PaganSaint]

Jesus, couching please just stop posting. DPS does <b>not</b> equal Crit chance. If it did crusaders and clerics would be the only things you needed period. Legendary and Treasured equipment is perfectly fine for heroic instances. For any class, you do not need to be fully fabled, or even fully legendary to tank a heroic instance. EDIT: Have seen and healed a brawler that was tanking just fine with legendary armor and treasured/legendary jewelry just fine for every non epic in MMC. Haven't done nizara without a plate tank(he had maybe 4 fabled, rest legendary/treasured), but I've done that zone maybe six times.

[Couching]

<cite>PaganSaint wrote:</cite><blockquote>Jesus, please just stop posting. DPS does <b>not</b> equal Crit chance. If it did crusaders and clerics would be the only things you needed period. Legendary and Treasured equipment is perfectly fine for heroic instances. For any class, you do not need to be fully fabled, or even fully legendary to tank a heroic instance. </blockquote>Stop fooling people around. <b>I never say that dps equals to critical chance. "Critical hit is part of your dps. More critical hit = higher dps."</b> This is what I said, ok? Come on, make your own words and back to topic. Stop making new story, thank you. PS: A legendary and treasure geared monk has about 35% mitigation unbuffed. He will has around  45% mitigation in defensive stance with 7k-7.5k hp depends on how many healers in group. Can he be fine to tank Nizara or named in MMC? Or there are two top geared healers to heal me? Give me a break. I am really tired of your story.

[PaganSaint]

Stop being intentionally stupid and/or taking what I said out of context. I said, as have many others, that DPS difference between warriors with 22% crit chance and Brawlers with 18% is negligible. This is unacceptable because brawlers are supposed to be the DPS hybrid tanks while warriors are supposed to be the straight, non hybrid, tanks.

[Couching]

<cite>PaganSaint wrote:</cite><blockquote>Stop being intentionally stupid and/or taking what I said out of context. I said, as have many others, that DPS difference between warriors with 22% crit chance and Brawlers with 18% is negligible. This is unacceptable because brawlers are supposed to be the DPS hybrid tanks while warriors are supposed to be the straight, non hybrid, tanks. </blockquote>Ya, good, personal attack is coming. I am totally against your statement that <b>DPS difference between warriors with 22% crit chance and Brawlers with 18% is negligible. So people who have tried to gather critical chance geared are out of mind???</b> I am really tired of your biased points. Can you focus on your main, guardian, and give brawler community a break please? Thank you.

[Shankonia]

<p>You two need to chill out.  </p><p>--------------------------------------</p><p>Anyway, think about it.  We will be using two 1h weapons.  They will be using one 1h weapon.</p><p>Isn't that sort of like a double attack in itself?</p>

[PaganSaint]

couching, how is it different for any melee class? Both will be, if they are smart, trying to acquire more crit gear. Please leave the thread <b>I</b> started, with the same <b>poorly</b> made and concieved arguments you have been spouting for the past few months. You prove repeatedly that you have little to no grasp on the fundamentals people are discussing here and it is either making you angry so you ignore it, or you just don't care. Please remove your posts and go your way, you are completely unhelpful in every thread you post in, you were almost helpful once this entire thread, but then someone disagreed and who are back at being intentionall stupid.

[Schmalex23]

if i frapsed a video of my berserker tanking something totally naked (minus weapon and shield) in nizarra would that make you understand how worthless mit is?  If thats what it takes i will do it.  Would do it with my monk too but i dont feel like reactivating his account.

[Couching]

<cite>PaganSaint wrote:</cite><blockquote>couching, how is it different for any melee class? Both will be, if they are smart, trying to acquire more crit gear. Please leave the thread <b>I</b> started, with the same <b>poorly</b> made and concieved you have been spouting for the past few months. You prove repeatedly that you have little to no grasp on the fundamentals people are discussing here and it is either making you angry so you ignore it, or you just don't care. Please remove your posts and go your way, you are completely unhelpful in every thread you post in, you were almost helpful once this entire thread, but then someone disagreed and who are back at being intentionall stupid. </blockquote> PaganSaint, you didn't know how silly your statement is. It is really a lame statement that 4% critical chance difference is negligible in dps. You have already proved your ignorant and blindness in brawler forums. I can't find even one post which stood on your side of your posts in monk and bruiser forums. Moreover, your point even got against by world wide guardian that guardian did deal more damage than brawlers in guardian forum. Seriously, man, back to your main, Guardian. If this thread is not about brawler, I won't waste any sec on it. However, you have no right to ask me not to be against your biased posts of brawler. It's really silly, why can't you give brawler community a break? Why can't you focus on war kos tree revamp? Stop making stories, thank you!

[Couching]

Skel@Butcherblock wrote: <blockquote>if i frapsed a video of my berserker tanking something totally naked (minus weapon and shield) in nizarra would that make you understand how worthless mit is?  If thats what it takes i will do it.  Would do it with my monk too but i dont feel like reactivating his account.</blockquote>So with top-end geared healers? I have already stated in my last post, it means nothing. With top geared healer<b>s</b>, who can't tank as long as you didn't get one shotted? It's not the idea of "adequate", ok? Show me that your group is legendary and treasure geared. Again, it means nothing if you can tank naked just because you have top-geared healers with you. You should check what PaganSaint said, he said any class can pass heroic instance with legendary and treasure geared.

[PaganSaint]

I feel sorry for your guild couching, if its not one of those invite anyone who wanders by guilds that is. Maybe you should really consider how stupid you look telling the person who started a thread to enhance and boost brawlers and to boost the AA changes, before the go live no less, that he is biased against brawlers. I am not going to lie to make brawlers look worse to gain a bigger boost, but then again I play with, and try to imitate with my own, brawlers who know the game. Bruiser who quit a few months ago would put out numbers you said would come from a stacked group pre-EoF, without the EoF AAs, equipment and combat changes that brought a game wide boost to DPS. Maybe some people aren't telling stories as you seem to enjoy calling it, maybe you are crying for a major over haul and boost to a class that will make it so that any idiot can walk by and make it perform optimally. Brawlers take more work and practice to do very well with than most other classes. Will people understand this and dedicate the time, effort and resources to accomplishing this? Obviously not looking at the way some people, couching you included, think the classes play out. Maybe when you graduate from you pick up raid quality experiances you relate everywhere you will understand.

[PaganSaint]

Couching@Crushbone wrote: <blockquote>Skel@Butcherblock wrote: <blockquote>if i frapsed a video of my berserker tanking something totally naked (minus weapon and shield) in nizarra would that make you understand how worthless mit is?  If thats what it takes i will do it.  Would do it with my monk too but i dont feel like reactivating his account.</blockquote>So with top-end geared healers? I have already stated in my last post, it means nothing. With top geared healer<b>s</b>, who can't tank as long as you didn't get one shotted? It's not the idea of "adequate", ok? Show me that your group is legendary and treasure geared. Again, it means nothing if you can tank naked just because you have top-geared healers with you. You should check what PaganSaint said, he said any class can pass heroic instance with legendary and treasure geared. </blockquote> No gear isn't as well equipped as treasured gear wouldn't you think? Good job at missing the point. <b><i>Again. </i></b>Also its not about the gear a healer has its about the quality of their skills. To do a top end heroic instance  I would assume the healers are rolling with atleast adept 3 heals. Maybe you and yours don't, but thats on you.

[Couching]

<cite>PaganSaint wrote:</cite><blockquote>I feel sorry for your guild couching, if its not one of those invite anyone who wanders by guilds that is. Maybe you should really consider how stupid you look telling the person who started a thread to enhance and boost brawlers and to boost the AA changes, before the go live no less, that he is biased against brawlers. I am not going to lie to make brawlers look worse to gain a bigger boost, but then again I play with, and try to imitate with my own, brawlers who know the game. Bruiser who quit a few months ago would put out numbers you said would come from a stacked group pre-EoF, without the EoF AAs, equipment and combat changes that brought a game wide boost to DPS. Maybe some people aren't telling stories as you seem to enjoy calling it, maybe you are crying for a major over haul and boost to a class that will make it so that any idiot can walk by and make it perform optimally. Brawlers take more work and practice to do very well with than most other classes. Will people understand this and dedicate the time, effort and resources to accomplishing this? Obviously not looking at the way some people, couching you included, think the classes play out. Maybe when you graduate from you pick up raid quality experiances you relate everywhere you will understand. </blockquote>Dude, I feel pity on you. You have made personal attack on me. Now, you even attacked my guild. Sigh, grow up, ok? It's nonsense to attack someone who has different idea against you. It's really funny that your opinions posted on monk, bruiser and guardian forums were not identified by other monk, bruisers and guardians. Not only me, ok? Why can't you give us a break? Besides, there is already a thread of how to revamp kos tree by brawlers rather than you, a guardian. Stop making stories, ok?

[Schmalex23]

Ok how about this, I am totally naked (except weapon and shield) and my healers are totally naked, would that make it ok? I also just parsed the difference between 4% crit and it matches the math i did on it, its really nothing to write home about.   Seems to give me about 10DPS per crit %,  aka 40 DPS.  You can test it out too, just do a fair basline test with atleast 10+ mobs and then do the same test but with your 2 league quest items on that yield 2% crit each.  This of course would scale in raid situations because you are buffed and the mobs are debuffed, but my damage solo seems to be close to half what i do in a raid, so we could assume every 1% equals 20DPS.  This my vary for you (i would assume less because my weapon benefits more from crits then most of your weapons do, apart from VCC)

[PaganSaint]

Sorry, its already been stated that I play a bruiser also, and another person who plays a warrior and a brawler also has posted. I also play an Inquisitor, want to jump on me for that? I also raid with a fury, how about some prejudice against that? The attack on you stems for your strict adherence to wrong and dis-information. But then again you keep saying one little thing is wrong with this or that I say, but you cannot provide anything that proves why, along with the people who think the way you do. Why do you think this forum isn't taken seriously by anyone who knows the game? I started a thread here to try and garner more interest in changing the coming revamp to an actual upgrade from the Dev's. Thanks for the de-railment, your mission at killing any hope of having a dev respond or look at a thread is complete. EDIT: Oh look Skel provides a real example of difference, and look at that, it shows negligible DPS difference between 4% crit chance. The higher the percentage the smaller the DPS gain over someone with 4% less crit chance too by the way. Thats also simple math.

[Couching]

<cite>PaganSaint wrote:</cite><blockquote>Sorry, its already been stated that I play a bruiser also, and another person who plays a warrior and a brawler also has posted. I also play an Inquisitor, want to jump on me for that? I also raid with a fury, how about some prejudice against that? The attack on you stems for your strict adherence to wrong and dis-information. But then again you keep saying one little thing is wrong with this or that I say, but you cannot provide anything that proves why, along with the people who think the way you do. Why do you think this forum isn't taken seriously by anyone who knows the game? I started a thread here to try and garner more interest in changing the coming revamp to an actual upgrade from the Dev's. Thanks for the de-railment, your mission at killing any hope of having a dev respond or look at a thread is complete. EDIT: Oh look Skel provides a real example of difference, and look at that, it shows negligible DPS difference between 4% crit chance. The higher the percentage the smaller the DPS gain over someone with 4% less crit chance too by the way. Thats also simple math. </blockquote>PagaSaint, I did prove every bit of what I posted. Actually, it's you that didn't prove anything. I have <b>listed all maths and game mechanism</b> as prove. What did you do? All of your reply, <b>it's negligible, it's not important, it's not big deal,</b> blah blah blah. You really need to calm down and think several seconds. <b>Why can't you get identified in monk, bruiser and guardian forums. Stop pointing your fingers. </b> Also, it's great that Skel did a simple test. Since he didn't post his total dps in solo. I will just assume as 1k. It's nothing to sneeze for extra 40 dps since it's 4% of his total dps. If 4% is negligible, how many percentage is not negligible? You need to face that fact that 4% extra critical hit is not the only aa that is superior than brawler aa. They are stackable.

[PaganSaint]

And then I poked holes in the conclusions you made by asking about the variables you left out. And corrected the assumptions you made about a class, warrior, you obviously do no play, and just look at the AAs and assume. You have a very poor grasp, or portray a very poor grasp of game mechanics.

[PaganSaint]

I remember you not being able to mathematically prove what DPS was actually possible and seen by many other people, I believe your top end was 1600 DPS? While that was on the mid to low end <i>pre-EoF</i> for top end brawlers.

[Schmalex23]

actually thats pretty accurate, my solo DPS was just barley under 1k(990) with 24% crit and with 28% it was 1026.  Its added DPS, true... but i have never really seen someone go man, that guy did 990 DPS what a noob and the other guy did 1026 DPS he is uber pro.  TBH i would call both of those 1k if they asked me what my solo DPS was. Even taken to a higher scale if 2 rangers were on a raid and one parsed 3k and the other parsed 3120, i would call that a minimal differenc e between them.

[PaganSaint]

Shut it skel, I mean seriously what kind of noob are you with noob equipment to not break 1500 solo like some people claim berserkers can. How dare you contradict him.

[Couching]

Skel@Butcherblock wrote: <blockquote>actually thats pretty accurate, my solo DPS was just barley under 1k(990) with 24% crit and with 28% it was 1026.  Its added DPS, true... but i have never really seen someone go man, that guy did 990 DPS what a noob and the other guy did 1026 DPS he is uber pro.  TBH i would call both of those 1k if they asked me what my solo DPS was. Even taken to a higher scale if 2 rangers were on a raid and one parsed 3k and the other parsed 3120, i would call that a minimal differenc e between them. </blockquote>Don't forget that it's stackable. There is nothing wrong to get it as high as possible. Moreover, the original question of mine is that why war tree has 4% higher critical chance than brawler tree? Shouldn't it be reversed? I can't see why 40 dps in solo or 80 dps in raid is negligible for any player.

[Schmalex23]

yep, i sucks so bad...  Also on a side note if someone actually believes that a zerk can ZW 1500 solo you have got to be smoking something.  Mobs being debuffed easily increases DPS by ATLEAST 50%,(not to even mention buffs) so these people are claiming to parse 2300+ ZW.  Yeah right not even me, psykil, or kobal do that and we are the top geared zerkers.

[Schmalex23]

Couching@Crushbone wrote:<blockquote>Don't forget that it's stackable. There is nothing wrong to get it as high as possible. Moreover, the original question of mine is that why war tree has 4% higher critical chance than brawler tree? Shouldn't it be reversed? I can't see why 40 dps in solo or 80 dps in raid is negligible for any player. </blockquote>Well i would guess the reason we get a higher crit chance is simple lore.  We are the masters of all types of weapons.  Does it matter?  not really.  If you want a significant DPS increase ask for something like double attack instead of drawing attention to minor things.  Im also sure that you would get more positive feedback if you didnt constantly call for nerfs of other classes instead of just sugesting an increase to XX.  Infact 2 pages of this post could pretty much go out the window if you said, "i think our crit rate is low, it should be increased" instead of "swap warriors and brawlers crit rate they pwn me in the face ZOMG"

[PaganSaint]

Too bad its impossible to keep a thread on topic on these forums. Derailment of a thread that you supposedly support doesn't get the job done. Neither does attacking its originator, but that will just be ignored as a point.

[Couching]

Skel@Butcherblock wrote: <blockquote>Couching@Crushbone wrote:<blockquote>Don't forget that it's stackable. There is nothing wrong to get it as high as possible. Moreover, the original question of mine is that why war tree has 4% higher critical chance than brawler tree? Shouldn't it be reversed? I can't see why 40 dps in solo or 80 dps in raid is negligible for any player. </blockquote>Well i would guess the reason we get a higher crit chance is simple lore.  We are the masters of all types of weapons.  Does it matter?  not really.  If you want a significant DPS increase ask for something like double attack instead of drawing attention to minor things.  Im also sure that you would get more positive feedback if you didnt constantly call for nerfs of other classes instead of just sugesting an increase to XX.  Infact 2 pages of this post could pretty much go out the window if you said, "i think our crit rate is low, it should be increased" instead of "swap warriors and brawlers crit rate they pwn me in the face ZOMG" </blockquote>Dude, don't say something I didn't say, ok? When did I call a nerf for war tree? I was asking why brawler has less critical hit than war. I have posted that class balance shouldn't be made by nerf in different thread. No body is calling a nerf to war tree. <b>The only post I have mention to swap brawler tree with war tree is that you said we are going to be "dpser" in peoples eyes. I said "IF we are dpser, of course we should have 22% critical chance and 40% frontal aoe and you should have 18% critical hit and 16% aoe since you are tank and we are dpser." </b>However, the <b>role</b> and only role of brawler in high end raid is <b>off tank</b>. How hard to understand it? Again, no body is asking to out tank plate tank or out damage rogues. The problem of brawler is that we are out damage by plate tank and out tank by scout. That's why it has to be fixed.

[Schmalex23]

Couching@Crushbone wrote: <blockquote> <span style="color: #990000">We should have 22% critical and you should have 18%</span>.  SNIP </blockquote> Sounds like calling for a nerf to warriors to me, not sure what you call that

[Couching]

Skel@Butcherblock wrote: <blockquote>Couching@Crushbone wrote: <blockquote> <span style="color: #990000">We should have 22% critical and you should have 18%</span>.  SNIP </blockquote> Sounds like calling for a nerf to warriors to me, not sure what you call that</blockquote>Why don't you quote more? <blockquote>Way to be mature and result to calling a whole class of people dumb.  Also yes it would be a bad thing for roles to be suddenly switched.  Its like saying to healer, you rolled you class to be a healer, thats what the game is designed for, but now 2+ years later, we are changing it up and you are going to be DPS... sorry.  I also dont say "best" because thats all situational.  Berserkers arent the "best" in peoples eyes but they are still MT's... go figure. </blockquote>You made a solid point here that our role was switched. Since brawler are going to be dps in peoples eyes, we should be able to deal more damage than berserker since berserker is MT in peoples eyes. We should have 22% critical and you should have 18%. We should have 40% aoe and you should have 16% aoe. Reason? Simple, we are dpser and you are tank. Though, EQ2 designers totally screwed it. They gave you 22% critical and 40% aoe and gave us 18% critical and 16% aoe. No wonder less and less player playing EQ2, well done! ------------------------------------------------ <span style="color: #ff0000"> You made a <b>faulse assumption that we are dpser</b>. <b>That's why I said we should have</span> 22% critical and you should have 18%</b><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #ff0000"><b> under your assumption.</b> However, brawler is tank. It's plain and simple. If we want to be dsper, we will pick up a scout. So stop making up a story. You can try harder to find where I want to nerf war tree in this thread except what I answered to your false assumption.</span> </span>

[Schmalex23]

so, because you have the ability to tank, you should not DPS?  I also never said that you were DPS or off tanks.  I said it would be a bad idea to change a classes role 2+ years after its released.  You class role has always stayed the same, im sure you didnt make a brawler thinking you were going to be MT did you?

[Timaarit]

Skel@Butcherblock wrote: <blockquote>so, because you have the ability to tank, you should not DPS?  I also never said that you were DPS or off tanks.  I said it would be a bad idea to change a classes role 2+ years after its released.  You class role has always stayed the same, im sure you didnt make a brawler thinking you were going to be MT did you?</blockquote>Sigh, you are so totally missing the point. The Point is that a class that is better tank, should not be better DPS. Currently warriors are far superior tanks when compared to brawlers and will still do more DPS. To add to this imbalance, any people who are in group with either of these classes will be gaining more DPS from the buffs than the people in group with the brawler. It is not about what your strawman here presents.

[Zabjade]

<p>Yes we did, We where hoping that instead of standing there getting hit on our armor we were hoping to be able to out-dodge and weave the enemy while doing damage. And at first we where, now we can't.</p><p>Now repeat after me.</p><p>Monks are Tanks Too!</p><p>Monks are Tanks Too!</p>

[Couching]

Skel@Butcherblock wrote: <blockquote>so, because you have the ability to tank, you should not DPS?  I also never said that you were DPS or off tanks.  I said it would be a bad idea to change a classes role 2+ years after its released.  You class role has always stayed the same, im sure you didnt make a brawler thinking you were going to be MT did you?</blockquote>Of course not, that's why I said it clear that we didn't ask to out tank plate tank. How hard to understand it? Moreover, you can dps didn't mean you are dpser!  Which class can't deal damage in this game? You said that it's bad idea to change a class role after it released 2 years and we are going to be dps. Tell me what's our original role? Not tank? Were we dpser in the game launch? If not, clearly, you were implied we are going to be dpser. <b>See, you have made a false assumption. Let me tell you, brawler is not dpser, we are tank!</b> That's why brawler community is less care about how rogue tree is. It's not our business. <b> </b>

[Schmalex23]

<cite>Timaarit wrote:</cite><blockquote>Skel@Butcherblock wrote: <blockquote>so, because you have the ability to tank, you should not DPS?  I also never said that you were DPS or off tanks.  I said it would be a bad idea to change a classes role 2+ years after its released.  You class role has always stayed the same, im sure you didnt make a brawler thinking you were going to be MT did you?</blockquote>Sigh, you are so totally missing the point. The Point is that a class that is better tank, should not be better DPS. Currently warriors are far superior tanks when compared to brawlers and will still do more DPS. To add to this imbalance, any people who are in group with either of these classes will be gaining more DPS from the buffs than the people in group with the brawler. It is not about what your strawman here presents. </blockquote> No dood im not missing the point, i already said in like 90% of my posts on this thread, brawlers need a DSP increase.

[Schmalex23]

Skel@Butcherblock wrote: <blockquote>Way to be mature and result to calling a whole class of people dumb.  Also yes it would be a bad thing for roles to be suddenly switched.  <span style="color: #990000">Its like saying to healer</span>, you rolled you class to be a healer, thats what the game is designed for, but now 2+ years later, we are changing it up and you are going to be DPS... sorry.  I also dont say "best" because thats all situational.  Berserkers arent the "best" in peoples eyes but they are still MT's... go figure. </blockquote> QFE, healer.

[Schmalex23]

Also dont talk about a berserker posting on a brawler thread... incase you didnt see the link before this is mine <a href="http://eq2players.station.sony.com/characters/character_profile.vm?characterId=362760108" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://eq2players.station.sony.com/...terId=362760108</a> He was my main for a decent amount of time before i had to quit the game for RL.  When i came back to the game my guild needed a MT so i brought the berserker back.  I am well aware of the issues you have with the class, and even more so the issues of monks.

[PaganSaint]

So why change the one class more than has already been done instead of buffing the class that has fallen behind? There is no reason. Like the changes that were brought up and discussed intermittently through out this thread. But the derailment kind of distracts from that. So instead of increasing Brawlers through a change to something they are already changing its acceptable to further nerf warriors while providing a boost as the method of balancing of brawlers?

[Couching]

Skel@Butcherblock wrote: <blockquote>Skel@Butcherblock wrote: <blockquote>Way to be mature and result to calling a whole class of people dumb.  <span style="color: #ff0000">Also yes it would be a bad thing for roles to be suddenly switched.</span>  <span style="color: #990000">Its like saying to healer</span>, you rolled you class to be a healer, thats what the game is designed for, but now 2+ years later, we are changing it up and you are going to be DPS... sorry.  I also dont say "best" because thats all situational.  Berserkers arent the "best" in peoples eyes but they are still MT's... go figure. </blockquote> QFE, healer.</blockquote>Yes, you used a healer as example. Though, read again what you have posted in red. You agree to someone's post that it's would be a bad thing for roles to be suddenly switched in a thread of discussing brawler. Didn't you implied that the role of brawler is going to change or already changed? Fine, I will stop in what you have said. Though, you have to understand that most brawlers didn't call a nerf to war tree. We are asking a boost !

[Schmalex23]

Sugota@Butcherblock wrote: <blockquote><p> I love this comment :"you would become raid MT's" <span style="color: #990000"> OMG the world has come to an end..a brawler has the ability to MT</span> a raid and there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth amongst the guards and zerkers..You note he doesnt say you would become the best raid tanks or even the prefered raid tanks, just that we would have the audacity to step into that spot <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p></blockquote>This is what my post in response to role changes was, a brawler becoming an MT... not DPS.

[Zabjade]

<p><span style="color: #ffffff">No dood im not missing the point, i already said in like 90% of my posts on this thread, brawlers need a DSP increase.  </span></p><p><span style="color: #00cc00"><b>Very true, unfortunatly, we got a further DPS nerf.</b></span></p><p><span style="color: #00cc00">Our only DPS line required us to go without weapons <i>(and the stats they would bring, leather armor and <b>EVEN Gi's</b> seem more geared toward Wardens and have lousy resist and mit and almost no + Avoidance)</i>  so that we would dps. With the preposed LU#36 changed that skill does not become any weapon <i>(maybe with a modest decrease)</i> <b>but deleted all together!</b> Now we just get a micro+boost to our DA's <i><u>[Notes: that Coyote got our reaction to the update 180°  from reality]</u></i></span></p><p><span style="color: #00cc00"><b>Here is how a Monk should be in a raid</b>; Tank is handling the main target, while the Off-tank is keeping a linked target,  <b>POOF</b> adds are summoned, the Brawler peals off and aggros the adds; while we can't all take them out we can keep them busy with our dodging and weaving [Removed for Content] them off more and more.  When the Tank and Off-Tank become freed up or when one of the Enchanter classes can get off their Mezzes the Monk/Bruiser waits for them to begin to take the aggro<i>(or Mezzed)</i> and takes a dive to let the healers patch us up, then we pop back up and assist the main or off-tank again.</span></p><p><span style="color: #00cc00">We should be the crowd-control of the Tanks as well as DPS. Not to take anything away from the enchanter classes, we just keep them [Removed for Content] at us so they can mezz them without dying on a fail.</span></p><p><span style="color: #00cc00"><b>Reality</b>: If we can trick or cajole our way into a raid we end in the 4th group, usually with no healer to give us feathers, stuck with the off-robe-wearers using <b><u><i>wands</i></u></b> and thrown weapons <i>(and people wonder why I wen for the Mantis Master line)</i>, if we try to so much as off-tank or assist the main taink we are KoS'd  by the the first AoE we encounter <i>(and heaven forbid we accidently get aggro)</i> since it goes through our avoidance like it's not there <i>(And this effect DD damage as well)</i>, which in effect, it isn't.</span></p>

[PaganSaint]

Skel, give up. No matter what you post, what you show, what you quote him as saying he will twist it or take it out of context. Despite the fact you say that brawlers need a boost, despite the fact that you are arguing for the current planned changes to brawler AAs is not adequate to bring them inline with what they should be, DPS tanks, couching will say you are biased to a different class. He is a complete [Removed for Content] idiot. He de-rails and trivializes a thread that was getting a little bit of discussion going in an attempt to prove his twisted and misleading information as correct when in game play shows he is not. Just let it die. All hope of getting the strength line changed to a bit of double attack is dying with the way this thread has been twisted.

[Schmalex23]

I dont really think you can call your class bad based on a horrible raid setup.  I promise you if they did the same to a berserker, you would see the same results

[Schmalex23]

<cite>PaganSaint wrote:</cite><blockquote>Skel, give up. No matter what you post, what you show, what you quote him as saying he will twist it or take it out of context. Despite the fact you say that brawlers need a boost, despite the fact that you are arguing for the current planned changes to brawler AAs is not adequate to bring them inline with what they should be, DPS tanks, couching will say you are biased to a different class. He is a complete [I cannot control my vocabulary] idiot. He de-rails and trivializes a thread that was getting a little bit of discussion going in an attempt to prove his twisted and misleading information as correct when in game play shows he is not. Just let it die. All hope of getting the strength line changed to a bit of double attack is dying with the way this thread has been twisted. </blockquote> TBH this sounds like a good idea... im outie

[Timaarit]

Skel@Butcherblock wrote: <blockquote>I dont really think you can call your class bad based on a horrible raid setup.  I promise you if they did the same to a berserker, you would see the same results</blockquote>I have a zerker and a monk. Have been MT with the zerk and MA with both. Have been in the 4th group (with healer though) with both. My monk is fully fabled while the zerk is about 50%, I know the monk class much better. But. Only times I do less DPS with the zerk is when I am in the 4th group and the raid is chainpulling single targets. Which, as you know is pretty rare. Also the melee classes in the group I join will gain more DPS when I join with the zerker. As for off-tanking, the monk never pulls aggro while the zerk ends up off-tanking very often on groupmobs. Now the comparisons that have been made have been twisted to zerk vs. monk war for some reason while as far as I am making those, they are about the lack of thought given to class balance. When someone asks why zerks have 24% crit and monks 18%, it is not about 'NERF THE ZERK" but rather about '[Removed for Content] were they thinking???'. As far as I can see, the devs weren't. As for the new changes, they still aren't. Well, ok, they are thinking about one thing. And that is how to get the new expansion feel like an upgrade to people who are already capping haste, DPS, double attack, crit, hate transfer, debuff caps etc. There will be lots more nerfs incoming.

[Bladewind]

<p>I just wanted to post a few suggestions for discussion purposes here to get things back on track.  Hopefully something can be done about our AAs before they go live (especially the str line).</p><p>I tend to agree that the changes made to the str line conceptually are good, but they are very weak relative to the boosts that other fighters are receiving.  I really miss both double attack and riposte, though.  As agile quick-striking avoidance-based fighters, I think having AAs for both of those would be much more in line with the brawler vision than a blanket CA damage increase.  The weak 16% proc relative to 40% aoe auto attack for others is also discouraging.  I can understand that we should have lower proc rates since we can dw or use a 2 hander for tanking while others have to use a 1 hander and shield.  However, I feel like the damage increase we enjoy from this has been over-compensated for with the weak abilities given to us.  I'd propose something like this:</p><p>Str 3: one of the following: a)~100 mit per rank, bare minimum of 65 mit per rank.   The current value (I heard 40 mit per rank) is way too low to be worth the points spent as a lone mod.  b) base 10-15% double attack (does not increase) and the current 40 mit per rank</p><p>Str 4: one of the following: a)2-3% CA damage per rank (my least favorite), b)1.5% riposte per rank (I really miss riposte on this line), c)2-3% double attack per rank and 1% riposte per rank (this would make it comparable to what other classes receive while taking into account our ability to use it while dw/2-handing), or d) 4% double attack per rank</p><p>Suggestion b for str 3 and suggestion c for str 4 are by far my favorites since they mimic the pattern of what warriors and rogues receive.</p><p>Wis 3: Make it a true AE auto attack with 3% proc rate per rank.  This way, we can upgrade the damage it does by upgrading our weapons, just like all other tank classes.  If it has to remain a proc, up the damage by ~20% or the proc rate by ~1% per rank.</p>

[Raidi Sovin'faile]

<cite>Bladewind wrote:</cite><blockquote>Str 3: one of the following: a)~100 mit per rank, bare minimum of 65 mit per rank.   The current value (I heard 40 mit per rank) is way too low to be worth the points spent.  b) base 10-15% double attack (does not increase) and the current 40 mit per rank<p>Str 4: one of the following: a)2-3% CA damage per rank (my least favorite), b)1.5% riposte per rank (I really miss riposte on this line), c)2-3% double attack per rank and 1% riposte per rank (this would make it comparable to what other classes receive while taking into account our ability to use it while dw/2-handing), or d) 4% double attack per rank</p><p>Suggestion b for str 3 and suggestion c for str 4 are by far my favorites since ithey mimic the pattern of what warriors and rogues receive.</p><p>Wis 3: Make it a true AE auto attack with 3% proc rate per rank.  This way, we can upgrade the damage it does by upgrading our weapons, just like all other tank classes.  If it has to remain a proc, up the damage by ~20% or the proc rate by ~1% per rank.</p></blockquote> QFE This absolutely is the best compromise I've seen so far.. mixing the bonuses around like that. Since most defensive options are slapped into the 4th tier, maybe something like this: Str 3: Base 10% double attack, +3% per additional rank. (31% max) Str 4: +40 mitigation per rank, additional chance to riposte at 1% per rank. (360 mit and additional 8% riposte chance). Str 5: Chi reduced to 5 minute reuse. Reduce effectiveness if necessary, just make it so we can use it more often so it's more than just a "rescue alternative", in other words and ability that gets held until very special circumstances and thus used far more rarely then probably intended. And definately... an AE autoattack proc would be far better FOR BRAWLERS. We can give up a single target hit for more AE damage... it would shore up something we lack, which is what these AA's seem to be doing for everyone but Brawlers.

[Raidi Sovin'faile]

Actually.. 31% Double Attack would be perfect. Dual Wield weapons are 30% lower in DR compared to the onehander right? Let's do some math... Lets say we have One Hander with a DR of 86. Then two Dual Wield weapons with 60 DR (70% of the 86). Warrior AA gives 60% Double Attack, applied against the 86 DR, gives an effective DR of <b>137.6</b>. Brawler AA giving 31% Double Attack (on primary of course), applied against 60 DR, then adding the second weapon's 60 DR, gives a total effective DR of <b>138.6</b>. That becomes comparable Double Attack standards.. with point usage making the DPS option in favor of Brawlers (since they won't have to sacrifice to a buckler like Warrior). Then again, it's been established that Brawler tanking is inferior to Plate tanking, so maybe we need the headstart due to our handicap.

[Etchii]

<cite>Thoral wrote:</cite><blockquote>Am I the only one who is upset that unarmed combat has become obsolete?  I picked the bruiser class because I wanted to beat people up with my bare hands.  With these changes, unarmed fighting becomes ineffective.  I REALLY hope they reconsider removing unarmed combat from the game. </blockquote><p> SERIOUSLY! [Removed for Content]?</p><p> Are they going to put the un-armed proc bonus back into the stances?  Are they going to make fists dual Wield? </p><p> Lets just take away summoner pets and ranger bows while we're at it... </p><p>c'mon now!  [Removed for Content]!</p>

[Bladewind]

<p>Yes, If you want to preserve all tanking benefits in t4, that would be the way to go.  I really dislike the CA damage buff - the old abilities were more approriate, we just need their numbers adjusted to allow for weapons.  I would like some form of mit buff (and a stoneskin - i can dream) added to our kos line to really shake us out evenly with the platers.  Warriors and crusaders (i think) have tsunami-like abilities in their trees.  Crusaders have a stoneskin in their tree.  Warriors have a stonskin as a class ability.  I'd like to have a stoneskin in our AA tree someplace to even it out - maybe call it 'mantis shell' and make it the end-line sta ability.</p><p>As far as discussion about class purpose and hybrid vs dedictaed, brawlers have always been dedicated tanks, not scout hybrids.  The original tanking tree was/is:</p><p>warrior - mitigation tank - str as only power pool stat</p><p>crusader - mitigation tank/priest hybrid - str/wis mixed power pool stats (lately, sk's have been made mit tank/necro hybrids - str/int)</p><p>brawler - avoidance tank - str as only power pool stat</p><p>The primary role fo all three, even the hybrid, is to tank.  You can argue all you want about it, but there is a catalogue of developer posts spanning years since release specifying this as the intent.  Bruisers having one back attack (and monks having none) does not a scout hybrid make.  All original hybrids had mixed power pool stats.  Even after a second pass where many additional hybridish classes were given mixed power pool stats, brawlers still remained dedicated fighters (tanks) with str as their solo power pool stat.  </p><p>When AAs were introduced, all classes gained the ability to specialize in/enhance certain niches.  For dedicated tanks, this meant tanking or melee dps.  For crusaders, this meant tanking, melee or spell dps, or healing.  Brawlers have always been dedicated tanks.  Prior to AAs, we generally had the highest dps of all tank classes, and the lowest survivability in a raid tanking situation (though the disparity was much more narrow than it is today).  Even though we had somewhat lower survivability, we still had the ability to tank all raid mobs without much issue.  Since the introduction of AAs, this has blurred quite a bit with any well-played and properly specced fighter being able to pump out solid damage.  However, a tank-specced brawler now has disproportionately-low survivability vs the highest end raid mobs - this stinks.</p>

[Foretold]

Kaisoku@Mistmoore wrote: <blockquote><cite>Bladewind wrote:</cite><blockquote>Str 3: one of the following: a)~100 mit per rank, bare minimum of 65 mit per rank.   The current value (I heard 40 mit per rank) is way too low to be worth the points spent.  b) base 10-15% double attack (does not increase) and the current 40 mit per rank <p>Str 4: one of the following: a)2-3% CA damage per rank (my least favorite), b)1.5% riposte per rank (I really miss riposte on this line), c)2-3% double attack per rank and 1% riposte per rank (this would make it comparable to what other classes receive while taking into account our ability to use it while dw/2-handing), or d) 4% double attack per rank</p><p>Suggestion b for str 3 and suggestion c for str 4 are by far my favorites since ithey mimic the pattern of what warriors and rogues receive.</p><p>Wis 3: Make it a true AE auto attack with 3% proc rate per rank.  This way, we can upgrade the damage it does by upgrading our weapons, just like all other tank classes.  If it has to remain a proc, up the damage by ~20% or the proc rate by ~1% per rank.</p></blockquote> QFE This absolutely is the best compromise I've seen so far.. mixing the bonuses around like that. Since most defensive options are slapped into the 4th tier, maybe something like this: Str 3: Base 10% double attack, +3% per additional rank. (31% max) Str 4: +40 mitigation per rank, additional chance to riposte at 1% per rank. (360 mit and additional 8% riposte chance). Str 5: Chi reduced to 5 minute reuse. Reduce effectiveness if necessary, just make it so we can use it more often so it's more than just a "rescue alternative", in other words and ability that gets held until very special circumstances and thus used far more rarely then probably intended. And definately... an AE autoattack proc would be far better FOR BRAWLERS. We can give up a single target hit for more AE damage... it would shore up something we lack, which is what these AA's seem to be doing for everyone but Brawlers. </blockquote><p>These are both awesome suggestions..</p><p>and THANK YOU for getting this thread back on track.  I could care less about the monk vs berzerker BS... I just want to see the brawler class become viable.</p><p>Devs...?  For God's sake PLEASE...  say something...?  </p>

[Bladewind]

Kaisoku@Mistmoore wrote: <blockquote><cite>Bladewind wrote:</cite><blockquote>a rough draft</blockquote> QFE This absolutely is the best compromise I've seen so far.. mixing the bonuses around like that. Since most defensive options are slapped into the 4th tier, maybe something like this: Str 3: Base 10% double attack, +3% per additional rank. (31% max) Str 4: +40 mitigation per rank, additional chance to riposte at 1% per rank. (360 mit and additional 8% riposte chance). Str 5: Chi reduced to 5 minute reuse. Reduce effectiveness if necessary, just make it so we can use it more often so it's more than just a "rescue alternative", in other words and ability that gets held until very special circumstances and thus used far more rarely then probably intended. And definately... an AE autoattack proc would be far better FOR BRAWLERS. We can give up a single target hit for more AE damage... it would shore up something we lack, which is what these AA's seem to be doing for everyone but Brawlers. </blockquote>Now that I have absorded it, I think your specific proposal is spot-on.  I'd love to see a stoneskin as an end-line someplace in addition, but I could live without it if our str tree ended up looking like this.

[Junaru]

Kind of shows just how lacking the Devs are about Brawlers. We don't have an AA named Bamboo Twirl. You renamed it after beta. Brawler     * Starter - Favorable Wind: Affects all non-mount movement speed.       <span style="color: #cc0000">Does nothing. Not even worth wasting the time to change it. I'd rather you spend you time fixing real issues.</span>     * Strength 3 - Relentless Punches: Renamed to Eye of the Tiger: No longer requires unarmed. Increases all combat art damage by 0.75% per rank.       <span style="color: #cc0000">Ok so you give us a form of double attack but only while unarmed and now you completely take it away? Great. I would rather you made this 40% double attack and 20% DPS while using weapons and 96% and 20% if unarmed. You are taking away a bread & butter AA from Brawlers that don't have access to fabled weapons. Rogues get 44%(only losing 8%) and DW weapons and already out DPS us by a FAR margin.</span>       <span style="color: #cc0000">Also 6% increase in damage is not that much when you factor in misses and mitigation. I would much rather have some kind of double attack back.</span>     * Strength 4 - Claw Reversal: Renamed to Tiger Body: Increases physical mitigation instead of Riposte chance.      <span style="color: #cc0000"> Ok finally we get this back from KoS beta. Just make sure you give us the highest mitigation number of all the fighter since we need it more then other tanks. Rather then a flat number make is a percent of our current mitigation. This was a tank specced/geared Brawler would get the most from it as it should be.</span>     * Strength 5 - Chi: Improved casting speed bonus from 75 to 100%, Recovery speed bonus from 33.3% to 100%, Removed all penalties when Chi expires.       <span style="color: #cc0000">100% recovering and cast speed is not much. So now I can cast and recast is 2.5 second. If I was a Warlock with 7 second cast times maybe this would be worth it but only knocking 2.5s off each isn't that great. Also did you modify the recast time like Crane Flock? 15 mins is a long time to wait to reuse something. You manage to knocked the Guardian timer down from 15min to 3 why not this. If thats the case then this becomes useful but 15 minutes on fame isn't worth 24 points.</span>     * Agility 3 - Ambidexterity: Increased reuse speed bonus from 1 to 1.5% per rank.      <span style="color: #cc0000"> No basically I gain 3.6 seconds on each CA. This might make this skill useful but I doubt many will pick it over another. This should be 3.125% per giving me a grand total of 25%. Now 25% might make me look at this but 12% wont.</span>     * Agility 5 - Altruism: Improved reuse speed from 15 minutes to 5 minutes, increases hate positions towards entire encounter twice. Increased health of targeted ally by 10% instead of 5%.      <span style="color: #cc0000"> Good change. Nothing over powering but frees this ability to be used on some one other then one person. I can now drop it before a tactic and not have to wait forever to use it on the right person.</span>     * Stamina 5 - Mantis Leap: Removed power cost. It can also teleport to a target ally or object. Reuse speed increased from 60s to 45s.       <span style="color: #cc0000">Is this a joke? This is the best you could some up with? Do you really think 95 power and 15 seconds is that big of a deal? Out of all the AA abilities you could only think of changing something that no one complains about?</span>     * Wisdom 3 - Bamboo Twirl: Doubled proc rate to 2% per rank, but slightly reduced damage.       <span style="color: #cc0000">Whats this do for me? You raise the proc rate but lower my damage. Thats like taking a dollar and giving me 4 quarters.</span>     * Wisdom 5 - Crane Flock: Increased reuse speed from 5 minutes to 3 minutes.       <span style="color: #cc0000">Good move but I thing 2min or 2.5min would be a better time for this ability.</span> Monk     * Enhance: Dragonbreath: Fixed to improve reuse speed by 5 seconds per rank instead of 4.     * Enhance: Swooping Dragon: Fixed so that damage overtime component also increases in damage.      <span style="color: #cc0000"> I guess we can say thank you but why would needed to wait till you redid the AA's for you to fix something that has been broken since day one I don't know.</span> <b><span style="color: #0033ff">Now let me tell you what you missed.</span></b> 1) Pressure Point needs to be changed to debuff crushing, peircing and slashing since you are removing weapon restrictions. Leaving it as is, is basically the same as saying you need to use XXX weapon. If you leave it only crushing this is only good for 1/3 the Brawlers. I understand it was crushing only cause of Relentless Punches but you removed that now so there is no reason for it to be crushing only. 2) Eagle Shreik needs to have it's health value changed. 30% for a Brawler is certain death. Have it go off at 50% and lower the crit rate to 50% from 75%. 3) The Monk tree, it sucks.     Why would you give a tanking class the 3 abilities to lose aggro and only two ability to increase aggro all in the same line? Keep Mongoose Stance and X the rest for more damage increases or taunts.     Why is it SK and Monks are the only fighters with 3 end abilities?     Combination is worthless. Make it passive and make the damage 30% percent of the total damage done by the 3 abilities. This will let us do different combinations.     Master's Evation. Make it like Magi Shield for Sorcerers. Have it auto refresh and let us use our abilities.     Evade. I'm a tank why do I need this ability? Change it to be a AoE taunt. We don't have ANY out of encounter taunts but we need one.     Give us a forth ability to select from. Since you took our double attack away give us 20% double attack ability. Guardians have a 10% double attack in their tree surely Monks should have a higher percent since we are the DPS fighter. Now to the down and dirty part. In the end the only thing we get from this is mitigation and another option over the 4,4,8 STA, WIS, INT or 4,4,4,4,8 WIS, INT. The STR(3) will be more of less the same as WIS(3) or STA(3).  Let me say this nice and loud. THIS DOES NOT GIVE US ANY DPS BOOST AT ALL. My Crane twirl averages 4% zone wide. Given us 6% isn't anything worth writing home about. Not when you give Rogues 44% double attack and the ability to use any weapon combination. Ok now on to what other classes get compared to Monks. Warrior.     Agility 5 - Dragoon's Reflexes: Improved reuse speed from 10 minutes to 3 minutes, and also grants temporary non-direct area effect avoidance. Now come Warrior abilities is dropped from 15 minutes to 3 minutes yet the Monk only gets a 5 minutes to 3 minutes? Doesn't seem right to me. Also is Chi droped from 15 minutes to 3 like this ability?     Intelligence 5 - Relentless Assault: Increased reuse speed bonus to 12%.     Warriors get passive ability to lower reuse by 12% and recover timers by 30% by spending 2 points yet the Brawlers get only 12% and zero recovery and need to spend 8. We need to make a STAND right here and right now. I for one am sick of being SOE's red headed step child. If you are on test /petition the changes. If you are a forum [Removed for Content] like myself sent PMs (without breaking the rules. I'm not saying spam the devs) to the devs. We CAN NOT let these changes hit live server. They are unfair and do nothing for us. These aren't fixes, they are border line NERFS if you think about what other classes get.

[Harvash]

Skel@Butcherblock wrote: <blockquote><cite>Harvash wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>As far as scout hybrids...pally's definitly heal in line with being heal based, SK's spell damage is also consistant. But I dont see any brawlers maintaing 2k+ parse zw without some heavy duty planning and group balance.  So what scout are we based on, because it surely isnt a Pred.  and lack of group buffs means Bard is out too.  Now, we do have 'some' debuffs and very little group buffs, so i guess that makes us rogues?</p></blockquote>Last i checked, pallys are weaker version of healers that can tank, SK's are weaker versions of mages that can tank, and you guys are weaker versions of scouts that can tank.  Do you not see how this is a hybrid?  I mean for chist sakes brawlers even have a back stab.  The entire concept behind a hybrid is that you are a mix of something, not as strong as either you are a mix of. In your eyes should a pally heal as well as a templar?  Should an SK nuke as much as a warlock?  Should you do as much damage as an assasin? </blockquote><p>skell, I think PHH bonked you on the head once too many times.  I dunno about Brusiers, but if my Monk has  Backattack - someone PM me, cause it musta fallen off my hot bar.  We have one positional that I recall atm, our firebreath AoE, and believe me, this spell is picky as all get out but its a FRONTAL AE. </p><p>Second, there is NO scout in a brawler - zip, zero, nada - get it outta yer head, dont even compare them.  We have no long reset heavy hitter, no evac, brusier doesnt even get any form of stealth for crying out loud.  Thats kinda like telling a a pally he'ss like a healer, only you dont get a heal...come on buddy, dont go down this path - it leads no where.</p><p>Plain and simple, Avoid tank has yet to have a working system.  For those of us that are reasonably geared, its taken a ton of work (substantially more then yer average joe tank).  Mit system seems to be crap for both us and you guys tbh.  Our DPS is laughable if that is what we are INTENDED to be.  If we are looking for a class to languish in medocrity, jack of all trades master of none - then we have found it.  That said, its EXACTLY why I rolled my monk - and was fairly happy with my ability to fill different roles based on the needs of my group.  And to not group at all - which, when I am not raiding, tends to be happy button. </p>

[Tomanak]

Skel@Butcherblock wrote: <blockquote><b>Way to be mature and result to calling a whole class of people dumb</b>.  Also yes it would be a bad thing for roles to be suddenly switched.  Its like saying to healer, you rolled you class to be a healer, thats what the game is designed for, but now 2+ years later, we are changing it up and you are going to be DPS... sorry.  I also dont say "best" because thats all situational.  Berserkers arent the "best" in peoples eyes but they are still MT's... go figure. </blockquote><p> It was a joke man, lighten up..hence the <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>FWIW I have a Warrior (63 pre LU13 Guardian) so I would be including myself in that group. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>If it has been determined by the powers that be that Brawlers will always be mediocre tanks then they must have something to compensate for that. </p><p>As to Healers becoming DPS..thats what the battlecleric line is all about. My inquisitor does some killer DPS <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>It should be all about choice. You want to be pure DPS go these lines, if you want to be pure Tank go down another line. I agree that having ones role forcibly changed should never happen and again FWIW I personally have NO desire to be the raid MT..Im quite happy trying to plug away as DPS and let the Plate tanks continue to fulfill that role. </p><p>Noone of that was the point though. Taking away our DA and replacing it with a 6% CA boost does what other than making the strength line weaker? That is not a viable way of encouraging the usage of different lines. </p>

[Grimwell]

Right, so let's pause for a moment and consider the subject of this thread. It's about the Brawler AA Changes. As all of these changes (for every class) are in Test right now, the goal of the dev team is to see it in action on Test and to assess if they are doing what we intended, and also to see what you find that we may not have intended. Big game, push one lever and affect thousands of others... you know how that goes. So the best thing for everyone right now is not to get into a back and forth debate about what each class needs based on the other classes abilities, and instead to focus on what we have on Test, and giving your feedback based on your experience (if you have a character on Test) and the hard data that people can now share since they can tinker with it to their hearts content (free AA respec on test). A debate of "Berzerker!" vs "No! Brawler" or "Hybrid" vs "Tank!" vs "Ice Cream Man" isn't going to provide useful feedback. Fighting with each other rarely produces that. So, I'd ask that we all step back for a moment, and remember that this is *on Test* and your focused feedback is very useful, but your cross class name calling isn't. You'll see me spreading this same basic message all day in the threads, because there is no Dev Tracker. This change is on Test. We want your feedback! Bickering is not feedback! Note: I didn't promise that an AA rollback on Test, or a timeline for any changes based on what we are learning. I just requested that the discussion between everyone stay civil and on topic (if you want to focus attention on your class, that's not a topic of discussion in a thread about a different class). That way we can find your feeback in a reliable manner, and also so we don't all get distracted playing 'poke the bear' instead of looking at the ideas out there on Test right now.

[Foretold]

<p>Well thats it, I quit.</p><p>An admonishment, and no more.</p><p>We had some good ideas....  no one cares.</p><p>I cant even look at these boards any more.</p>

[Themaginator]

Oephelia@Najena wrote: <blockquote><p>Well thats it, I quit.</p><p>An admonishment, and no more.</p><p>We had some good ideas....  no one cares.</p><p>I cant even look at these boards any more.</p></blockquote> oh the inhumanity of it all!  Tis an injustice to man! What is this a fricken Elizabethan Tragedy? pffffffffffft <img src="/smilies/136dd33cba83140c7ce38db096d05aed.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Foretold]

Sashtan@Mistmoore wrote: <blockquote>Oephelia@Najena wrote: <blockquote><p>Well thats it, I quit.</p><p>An admonishment, and no more.</p><p>We had some good ideas....  no one cares.</p><p>I cant even look at these boards any more.</p></blockquote> oh the inhumanity of it all!  Tis an injustice to man! What is this a fricken Elizabethan Tragedy? pffffffffffft <img src="/smilies/136dd33cba83140c7ce38db096d05aed.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></blockquote><p>I'd tell you exactly where to put it, but apparantly monks only get more of the shaft when we respond to other classes that troll our boards...</p><p>So I'll just say, gee, have a nice day <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </p>

[Themaginator]

Oephelia@Najena wrote: <blockquote>Sashtan@Mistmoore wrote: <blockquote>Oephelia@Najena wrote: <blockquote><p>Well thats it, I quit.</p><p>An admonishment, and no more.</p><p>We had some good ideas....  no one cares.</p><p>I cant even look at these boards any more.</p></blockquote> oh the inhumanity of it all!  Tis an injustice to man! What is this a fricken Elizabethan Tragedy? pffffffffffft <img src="/smilies/136dd33cba83140c7ce38db096d05aed.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></blockquote><p>I'd tell you exactly where to put it, but apparantly monks only get more of the shaft when we respond to other classes that troll our boards...</p><p>So I'll just say, gee, have a nice day <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </p></blockquote>i play a monk and my RL friend has a 52 monk, this is relevant to my interests, i already put in my two cents bak earlier about what i think of tehse changes so im done here.

[Grimwell]

Hold up there folks. All I'm asking is for some give and take. Your feedback is being read and not ignored. That does not mean that we should be hot fixing the servers every time someone posts an idea that may very well be good. What was so disheartening about hearing that we are reading what everyone has to say and would just like less drama and fighting in the midst of it all? This is a big update with lots of changes, pushing it out early so there is feedback isn't a bad thing. It's an opportunity for a longer discussion on the topic.

[Etchii]

<p>Dear Devs,</p><p>My feedback is a question which I would like answered...</p><p>Regarding Brawlers:</p><p>What about unarmed combat?  Is it the intention of the development team to remove brawler unarmed combat as an effective means to fight?  </p><p>Is there a plan to give a bonus to unarmed combat to make up for the lack of +stats, +resists, procs, and a higher DR that weapons provide?</p><p>That is all.</p>

[Valarye]

<cite>Grimwell wrote:</cite><blockquote>Hold up there folks. All I'm asking is for some give and take. Your feedback is being read and not ignored. That does not mean that we should be hot fixing the servers every time someone posts an idea that may very well be good. What was so disheartening about hearing that we are reading what everyone has to say and would just like less drama and fighting in the midst of it all? This is a big update with lots of changes, pushing it out early so there is feedback isn't a bad thing. It's an opportunity for a longer discussion on the topic. </blockquote>I find that people always respond better when you first give 2 positives before the negative.  Even if the positives are just blowing smoke up our you know what's, it's still better than nothin'.  =)  I was actually enjoying the thread.

[Zabjade]

<p><span style="color: #00cc00"><i><b>Bahh!!! Took too long to post and my points got eclipsed.</b></i></span></p><p><span style="color: #00cc00"><b>Grimwell</b>, we are just worried as we never seen any resonse to our feedback, I believe moderators and admins can read edits, at leasty Stary-Eye'd Elf makes it seem that way, So you can see the bit about the toilet brush being the only developer comment in the forums in recent memory of the Monk Forum.</span></p><p><span style="color: #00cc00">I've taken a look in a couple of other Class forums it is mostly about tactics and which way to go on AA's. That is not what I see in the Monk threads (other then stickies) we see complaints about how we are left out of raiding, how we have problems taking hits (Named mobs tend to ignore avoidance altogether and since we can't really self buff out Mitigation without giving up something, and can't buff our resists at all...)</span></p>

[Couching]

<cite>Grimwell wrote:</cite><blockquote>Hold up there folks. All I'm asking is for some give and take. Your feedback is being read and not ignored. That does not mean that we should be hot fixing the servers every time someone posts an idea that may very well be good. What was so disheartening about hearing that we are reading what everyone has to say and would just like less drama and fighting in the midst of it all? This is a big update with lots of changes, pushing it out early so there is feedback isn't a bad thing. It's an opportunity for a longer discussion on the topic. </blockquote>I believe no body expects a hotfix right away. However, developers need to give a role for brawlers. Are we tank or dpser in raid? If we are tank, give us tools to be a tank in raid. If we are dpsers, give us tools to be dpser in raid. Currently, brawler is the most unwelcome tank no matter in group or in raid comparing to plate tank. It's not whining since there are countless reports in different threads and different forums. Even in game, you can see a lot "LF plate tank" all around in level channels. We need a clarification from developers that our role is tank or dpser in raid. Or developer is going to give brawler a new role in raid?

[PaganSaint]

Randomness and illogical choices made here about what to enforce and how boggles the mind. Anyways. No one is asking for a hotfix every time someone has some idea they would like to see implemented, what <i>would</i> be nice is for some sort of input/feedback/discussion on <i>these</i> forums about the changes between the players and developers/coders. First of all I'd like to re-cap the ideas that were presented through out the thread by everyone(credit included even!) <b>My</b> two real contributions: <ul><li>Strength Three: 3-4% Double Attack per point, with a base increase to all combat arts by 10% damage</li><li>Intelligence Four: 0.5%-0.75% Deflection per point that is <i>added</i> to the deflection value of the brawler</li></ul><b>selch</b> suggested: <ul><li>Eagle Shriek(Intelligence Five): change health percentage trigger from 35% to 50-65%</li></ul><b>couching </b>suggested: <ul><li>Strength Three: passive hate gain modifier such as the one in the warrior tree, or much larger percentage boost to the hate gain stances of each brawler class. IE: 5% per point boost to the taunt amount of Rumble or Dragon Stance</li></ul><b>Bladewind</b> suggested: <ul><li>Str3: Double attack, 3% per rank</li><li>Str4: +40 physical mitigation and 1% riposte per rank.</li><li>Str5: Chi with a shorter reuse timer - on the order of 5 mins</li><li>Sta5: "Mantis Shell" Stoneskin effect that works very similar to the crusader Divine Aura</li><li>Wis3: Either 3% multiattack per rank or 3% proc at original value per rank - I would prefer the aoe attack.</li></ul> Also discussed was an increase to the critical hit percentage amount per point that brawlers get from Intelligence Three. I for one do not believe that increase is needed if double attack is added to Strength Three, but others do, and in interest of fairness I include this. I believe the call was for Brawlers to have either the exact same crit percentage as warriors or only 1-2% lower with maxed out Intelligence Three.

[Shankonia]

<p>I think it's ridiculous that we cannot compare and contrast ourselves with other fighter classes.  Especially when these are the classes we have to compete with for raid spots in end game content.</p><p>To top it off, one of our own calls out another one of our own for derailing when all he was doing was comparing and contrasting different Fighter AA's, then defends a Warrior after we brawlers attempt to clarity the incorrect information in which he posted.  It's blasphemous is what it is.</p><p>Anyway, when my Monk is online, he is there to play end game content.  I'm currently in a guild who raids, and guess who I raid with?  My Dirge.  When we're successful, we roll w/ 4-5 Bards, 2 Zerkers, Guard, maybe a Pali, no Brawlers.  I've been raiding Labs and KoS FOREVER on my Monk, but those are the only raids I can get in.  Atm, there might be a handful of fabled KoS items I don't have on my Monk, and most of that handful I don't have because I transmuted to make space in the bags.  I'd like to progress, but....</p><p>The point is, we are stuck.  We have no place.  We don't really know our role, other classes especially don't know our role, yet everyone has a general and differentiating opinion as to what our role is and should be.  WHAT IS IT GRIM?!?!  END THESE ARGUEMENTS BY TELLING US!!!  I've worked my rump off to make my Monk the best that he can be, and in comparison to any other Monk, he's just as good if not better.  Despite this, I can't find an END GAME raiding guild who will take me.  Every one of them will gladly take my Dirge, but Monk - sorry. </p><p>"We don't need another OT because we use a Zerker, and he has more utility and DPS and is a better tank.  When he's not there we use a Pali."  I've been told this by a respectable guild leader who I have never grouped with.  He knows this to be fact.  I react opposingly because I know I am a good player, I show up, I do what I have to do and I know I will be a better asset to any guild than most.  Problem is, mechanically speaking, we are weaker across the board.  No ifs, ands or buts about it.  This why no raid guild wants a new Monk in their ranks.</p><p>The only way for us to overcome this obstacle is to shed light on what isn't fair - on what is holding us back.  That is why we have to bring up other classes and make comparisons.  That is why we have to let everyone know, the best way we can, that what may be considered a worthless and unused Warrior AA line by Joe Warrior, we see to be very valuable as we have nothing that compares in effectivness.  We have to point out our inferior tanking, dps and utility skills because the fact is, if and when we really do get a chance to prove ourselves, we lack the tools to effectively do it therefore we lose.  We compare ourselves here in this forum with emotionally charged posts because this time of combat changes is our lone opportunity to do so and hopefully make a difference.  </p><p>We must compare ourselves here, because in the game itself, when it comes down to who gets that last raid slot, the rest of the world is going to pass judgement and make those very same comparisons.  And when they do, all we want is a fighting chance.  165 days of playtime on my Monk - I really thought I was due for some love - not a hug and a pat on the back - some bonafide love.  At least I still can hold on to what little hope I have left as it's all still in test......  </p>

[Couching]

<cite>PaganSaint wrote:</cite><blockquote> <b>couching </b>suggested: <ul><li>Strength Four: passive hate gain modifier such as the one in the warrior tree, or much larger percentage boost to the hate gain stances of each brawler class. IE: 5% per point boost to the taunt amount of Rumble or Dragon Stance</li></ul> </blockquote>I believe my suggestion is strength three rather than strength four. The 6% CA increase is meaningless in everywhere. It would be best if we can get double attack. It helps our dps and better aggro control. If not, at least give us passive hate gain or shorten reuse time of our aoe taunt. EDIT: thank you for update

[PaganSaint]

oops, sorry, thought it was to Strength Four to keep the double attack change to Strength Three, I'll go back and change that. EDIT: Fixed.

[sinista]

<p>and thats exactly the point, lets just use common-sense and bring the facts as it is right now:</p><p>- brawlers role in raids  ---> what role? giving grp memebers haste/dps buff? I mean almost every other class can outdps a brawler right now, even a dps specd bard...</p><p>-brawlers role in xp groups ---> lets be honest, nobody would take the brawler if you have a choice to pick up another class, just because they contribute nothing.</p><p>-brawler in pvp groups  ---> same as in xp groups, theyre a good at peeling player of healers/mages for a short duration but thats it</p><p>- solo brawlers (pve and pvp) ---> ok this is where I say it depends on the player how well he can handle a monk/bruiser, the lack of burst dps you can compensate with strats and aa built.</p><p>what im trying to say is, either make them dps machines and leave the double attack on the str line or add more supporting stuff that actually makes him useful. now, and in the past months, it just gave the impression that you devs didnt knew where to go with brawlers and left em behind...</p>

[Junaru]

<cite>Grimwell wrote:</cite><blockquote>Right, so let's pause for a moment and consider the subject of this thread. It's about the Brawler AA Changes. As all of these changes (for every class) are in Test right now, the goal of the dev team is to see it in action on Test and to assess if they are doing what we intended, and also to see what you find that we may not have intended. Big game, push one lever and affect thousands of others... you know how that goes. So the best thing for everyone right now is not to get into a back and forth debate about what each class needs based on the other classes abilities, and instead to focus on what we have on Test, and giving your feedback based on your experience (if you have a character on Test) and the hard data that people can now share since they can tinker with it to their hearts content (free AA respec on test). A debate of "Berzerker!" vs "No! Brawler" or "Hybrid" vs "Tank!" vs "Ice Cream Man" isn't going to provide useful feedback. Fighting with each other rarely produces that. So, I'd ask that we all step back for a moment, and remember that this is *on Test* and your focused feedback is very useful, but your cross class name calling isn't. You'll see me spreading this same basic message all day in the threads, because there is no Dev Tracker. This change is on Test. We want your feedback! Bickering is not feedback! Note: I didn't promise that an AA rollback on Test, or a timeline for any changes based on what we are learning. I just requested that the discussion between everyone stay civil and on topic (if you want to focus attention on your class, that's not a topic of discussion in a thread about a different class). That way we can find your feeback in a reliable manner, and also so we don't all get distracted playing 'poke the bear' instead of looking at the ideas out there on Test right now. </blockquote>Well I can agree that debating over class vs class is not the way to go. But what you have to understand it a lot of us have spent hours on hours trying to come up with ideas to make a Brawler a viable class WITHOUT making us over powering and to do that we need to see what it is other classes bring to the game. I don't want to be a Rogue or a Warrior so from here on out my feedback/opinions will not include those classes. In fact the only classed I will include is the Bruiser and Monk. The problem here is Bruisers and Monks while are a common play completely different. When one thing helps one class it does nothing for another. Aka Ambidexterity. While 12% might be helpful to a Bruiser since they have long recast times for a Monk with 30 second cast times it's near useless. Now what happens is you get two classes in your face complaining. A few posts back I posted some suggestions and while we do include what other classes get I believe they are still in fact valid. If you have the time I believe you will agree that the changes I requested are not out of the realem for a Brawler or EQ2 and valid. I don't want the Monk class to become a God. It would only be a matter of time before we got nerfed down to nothing but I truly believe we need help in what our role is. Being the worst tank is bad enough but being out DPSed by the best tank is worst. Another good read on what is the problem and suggestions on how to fix would be this thread. <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=357718" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=357718</a>

[PaganSaint]

<cite>sinistarz wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>and thats exactly the point, lets just use common-sense and bring the facts as it is right now:</p><p>- brawlers role in raids  ---> what role? giving grp memebers haste/dps buff? I mean almost every other class can outdps a brawler right now, even a dps specd bard...</p><p><span style="color: #cc3300">Completely wrong, I haven't seen a bard putting out 1600-2100 dps depending on group, have you?</span> </p><p>-brawlers role in xp groups ---> lets be honest, nobody would take the brawler if you have a choice to pick up another class, just because they contribute nothing.</p><p><span style="color: #cc3300">That, in my opinion just comes down to who you group with or allow yourself to group with, personnally I don't group with people who take that attitude, they don't know the game well enough for me to have faith in them playing their class well enough for the group to succeed.</span> </p><p>-brawler in pvp groups  ---> same as in xp groups, theyre a good at peeling player of healers/mages for a short duration but thats it</p><p><span style="color: #cc3300">Or to tank.</span> </p><p>- solo brawlers (pve and pvp) ---> ok this is where I say it depends on the player how well he can handle a monk/bruiser, the lack of burst dps you can compensate with strats and aa built.</p><p><span style="color: #cc3300">Two of the better solo classes there is in the game.</span> </p><p>what im trying to say is, either make them dps machines and leave the double attack on the str line or add more supporting stuff that actually makes him useful. now, and in the past months, it just gave the impression that you devs didnt knew where to go with brawlers and left em behind...</p><p><span style="color: #cc3300">That last sentence was the only valid and logical point made.</span> </p></blockquote> I really don't understand why people like this post, its completely not helpful to the situation and completely off topic. <b> Please keep the posts to the AA changes or ideas for AA changes. --- </b>

[sinista]

<p>1600-2100 on a zonewide (kos raidzone) parse? sorry but this is not true ,)</p><p>and not every guild in eq2 does raid EH or MMIS for gear. so Im talking about the avarage geared out casual (brawler-bard) raid-/player.</p><p>as far as the groups are concerned, yeah that might be your opinion, but im talking about the pure facts...if its a pickup and you have the choice between [insert any other class] or a bruiser...</p><p>nope, in pvp a brawler can heal himself and ward for a short duration to give the tank or the healer some time if theres confusion during pvp or to help out with emergency taunts, then feign and keep assisting.</p><p>beside that, I really like the idea you listed on the page before, wish we could try those kind of stuff on the test before gu36 comes out too early with no changes made (again)</p>

[Harvash]

<p>Well, that certainly seems like a much more agreeable post. I hope it is well recieved by the devs...and you to grimmy.</p><p>Personally, my point from being a long time Monk is simply that I would like to have the choice as to how much of a dps or tank I want to be.  It is an interesting role that brawlers have from that standpoint.  I am not looking to replace the Guard or Assassin in your raid setup - I am asking for a reason to exist BESIDES them.  The simplest fix from where i see it (as a player) is to have the AA line conform to this - with the possibility of making one type of brawler more dps, and the other more tank. Yes, I am aware that this is mostly true of the basic class itself..but does not seem to be supported in the AA builds</p><p> Further, I can completely see the difficulty in striking a proper balance that would place us in a "must have" role - ack, grab the 8 brawlers, drop the rest of the raid!  I simply think that in doing so in such a way as recently, we have had the unintended effect of making us completely useless instead - or certainly less desirable than other specialized classes.</p><p>I have a number of specific areas i think need to be tweaked, but i think those may need to be addressed a little further down the line.  Surfice it to say that the basics of which are:  Decided DPS and Tanking Builds, frustrating aggro skills and lack of group utility that could win out over either one or both of the aforementioned issues.</p>

[PaganSaint]

sinistarz that is pre EoF parsing capability from a bruiser. Now it can be a few hundred more easily with a melee DPS stacked group. And I am completely behind the notion that there needs to be something more high profile and easier to accomplish that a brawler can do on raids that will get the attention of more people to have a brawler be more likely to be chosen than another plate tank after the two that is about mandatory for most raids.

[selch]

<p>You know what most of yours main problem? You are way too naive and way too soft. Yes, you, we, monks.. You always tell "We try to find solution without making us overpowered" , we are way too honest. Like we are at border of being overpowered at all. Would laugh with my bottom at that. But this does not work that way... Your first goal should be to be overpowered. Nerfs come either way. See examples of warriors. They never stopped themselves asking for more. They got their overpowering, and lived for ages without a significent nerf, but they did made their place. Heh, believe me, any slight improvement we get, some people will start their warcries (such as KoS beta AA's, such as EOF beta situation of us, both nerfed VERY LAST DAY due to cries of certain classes in beta boards). </p><p>At least try to live your limited EQ2 play time for enjoyment. Neither EQ2 nor you is here forever....  </p><p>Long story short: ASK BEST YOU CAN, DONT HOLD BACK, THEY WILL BALANCE IT, NO WORRIES!</p>

[Couching]

<cite>PaganSaint wrote:</cite><blockquote>sinistarz that is pre EoF parsing capability from a bruiser. Now it can be a few hundred more easily with a melee DPS stacked group. And I am completely behind the notion that there needs to be something more high profile and easier to accomplish that a brawler can do on raids that will get the attention of more people to have a brawler be more likely to be chosen than another plate tank after the two that is about mandatory for most raids. </blockquote>If monk is in a heavy melee buff stack group with top end weapons, yes, he can hit 1600+ zonewide as you posted. (though, don't think monk can hit 2000 + zonewide since monk has 100-200 dps less than bruiser) The problem is that most brawler will not be in melee stack buff group. Why? Because there are only 4 groups in raid. First is MT group with 2 healers, MT, dirge, swashy or assassin and coe. There is no reason to put a brawler in MT group. Second group is OT group. Two healers, 1 dirge, 1 assassin or swashy for hate transfer on OT and two off tank. If only 1 off tank is needed, put brig in this group. The off tank is always zerker or guardian. Third group is one healer (usually druid), 1 troub,  3 mages, 1 fighter or scout. Forth group is 1 healer (druid), 1 illusionist, 1 ranger, 1 fighter or scout and 2 mages. Basically brawler is always in third or forth group. For example,  I am in group 3 or 4 so that I got almost nothing from group buff. The haste from troub or even illusionist is almost negligible since I have 108% self haste already. If I am lucky, I would get agitate from fury. The IA is of course for ranger, not brawler. So basically 1600+ zonewide for me is dreaming since I am not in a melee buff stack group. The only chance for brawler in OT group is that brawler is OT in the raid. However, it's not going to happen in high end raid till brawlers get boost on aggro management. That's why I have posted that EQ2 Designers need to give a clarification of brawler ROLE in this game. Are we dpser or tank? Currently, we are not good enough to be a solid OT and we are by far less damge than rogue/ranger. There is no reason to let a brawler in OT group to get melee buffs. In this case, the dps gap between brawler and other fighter or dpser is even larger.

[PaganSaint]

Atleast in the near past we have been a very melee oriented raid force, three dirges and one troub with a max of six healers for almost everything except a couple of encounters where we use seven. Now we are more balanced between mage/melee's. And I can't really speak for a monk but I know I have seen parses of 1800-1900 almost 2k but not for ZWs. This is due to the poor way they benefit from haste and cast speed/reuse speed buffs from other raid memebers when in a melee stacked group. Edit: From the beginning of the game brawlers have been more DPS oriented than tank oriented, at the end game currently brawlers are not benefitting from the gear and buffs the say way as they had in previous teirs due to AA choices available and size of their buffs now(monks are point in case). Brawlers definitely have never really been intended as raid tanks, but definitely tanks for all the other content available(the majority of content in-game). At the moment they are lacking the DPS levels in comparison to other classes to justify including them in raids even from where they wer in KoS, while they have maintained little utility while other classes have gained in utility. The easiest fix to this would be a <i><b>real</b></i> increase to brawler DPS through some of things mentioned in this thread.

[Couching]

<cite>PaganSaint wrote:</cite><blockquote>Atleast in the near past we have been a very melee oriented raid force, three dirges and one troub with a max of six healers for almost everything except a couple of encounters where we use seven. Now we are more balanced between mage/melee's. And I can't really speak for a monk but I know I have seen parses of 1800-1900 almost 2k but not for ZWs. This is due to the poor way they benefit from haste and cast speed/reuse speed buffs from other raid memebers when in a melee stacked group. Edit: From the beginning of the game brawlers have been more DPS oriented than tank oriented, at the end game currently brawlers are not benefitting from the gear and buffs the say way as they had in previous teirs due to AA choices available and size of their buffs now(monks are point in case). Brawlers definitely have never really been intended as raid tanks, but definitely tanks for all the other content available(the majority of content in-game). At the moment they are lacking the DPS levels in comparison to other classes to justify including them in raids even from where they wer in KoS, while they have maintained little utility while other classes have gained in utility. The easiest fix to this would be a <i><b>real</b></i> increase to brawler DPS through some of things mentioned in this thread. </blockquote>You have pointed out a big problem that different guilds have different raid setup. If we can have two coe and 3 dirges, I bet i will get in melee buff stack group. However, we can't expect most guilds are melee oriented. I really hope developer can balance brawler with other classes based on<b> reality</b> rather than idea raid setup.

[PaganSaint]

Well you stick any fighter into a non melee group and they suffer badly except for maybe SKs and their spell casting. Thats not just brawlers. EDIT: A more ideal(well setup raid grouping) Melee DPS group would look something like this for most raids: Inquisitor Assassin/Brigand/Ranger/Swashy Brigand/Ranger/Swashy/Assassin Dirge Coercer Brawler DPS, procs, haste buffs for everyone. Now for an Ideal setup for my bruiser I'd want an illusionist, illusory arm and haste on me, a fury with agitate an assassin for apply poison(which in the above should be on you anyways) and a dirge. Here I come 2500+ DPS! For a monk the same thing but a coercer for larger DPS boost.

[PaganSaint]

I'd really like some sort of Dev feedback on all the changes we came up with on the previous page.

[Bladewind]

<p>We main tanked raids fine in t5 and t6 (fluctuations in performance with certain live updates, but things were largely peachy).  Back then, brawlers shook out around 75%+ avoid 50%+ mit and platers shook out around 75%+ mit 50%+ avoid.  While we still had to deal with spike damage, the overall numbers compared well and allowed for an interchangeability of tanks without much issue.  The official party line (ie, years of dev posts on the forums) has always been that all fghters are designed to be able to tank all content in the game.  There has never been a dev post stating that 'brawlers are inteded to be primarily dps' or 'brawlers are intended to tank for gorups, but to turn to mush vs raid mobs.'  This revisionist view that we are/were not intended to be dedicated tanks is both irritating and erroneous.  </p><p>Our raid tanking went into the toilet with the introduction of contested vs uncontested avoidance and the KoS AA lines (all went live with the release of KoS).  We've been rebalanced twice since then, but we still 'enjoy' a significant disadvantage in our uncontested avoidance - ironic as we are avoidance tanks.  This, coupled with our native mitigation deficiency, puts us at a severe disadvantage when we step in front of a raid mob.  I sincerely hope our uncontested avoidance will one day be made to be superior to that of a plate tank, so we can finally have some semblance of balance restored.  That's the only real issue I have with our core class mechanics.  Our base damage is fine, but our AA lines are very weak relative to what other fighters get.</p><p>What does this mean?  We can specialize just like anyone else, but we make weak specialists regardless of what path we choose due to our underpowered AA choices.  I was very excited about this revamp prior to seeing the actual numbers.  It appears, for whatever reason, that brawlers once again will have relatively weak AAs if nothing changes.  My comments about our AAs relative to those of others and suggestions to improve this are already in this thread a page or so back, so I won't bother reposting them again.</p><p>I, too, would love to get some dev feedback both about some of the suggestions in this thread and also about why the changes monks received were so weak relative to other fighter changes.</p>

[PaganSaint]

The mitigation deficiency is less than 5% absorbtion at the moment, which I think is broken. But that is a completely different post/thread/issue. I believe there should be atleast a 15% absorbtion difference between plate tanks and leather tanks. While there should be atleast a 3-5% uncontested avoidance difference in favor of brawlers and a 15-25% contested avoidance difference in favor of brawlers which already exists. My vote is to make deflection completely uncontested while removing the deflection skill from the game to reflect that deflection no longer scales. Add this to changing the + parry to +.5-.75% additional deflection per point spent in the intelligence tree and all tanking problems will be about solved for brawlers in my eyes.

[Couching]

<cite>PaganSaint wrote:</cite><blockquote>Well you stick any fighter into a non melee group and they suffer badly except for maybe SKs and their spell casting. Thats not just brawlers. EDIT: A more ideal(well setup raid grouping) Melee DPS group would look something like this for most raids: Inquisitor Assassin/Brigand/Ranger/Swashy Brigand/Ranger/Swashy/Assassin Dirge Coercer Brawler DPS, procs, haste buffs for everyone. Now for an Ideal setup for my bruiser I'd want an illusionist, illusory arm and haste on me, a fury with agitate an assassin for apply poison(which in the above should be on you anyways) and a dirge. Here I come 2500+ DPS! For a monk the same thing but a coercer for larger DPS boost. </blockquote>Any fighter is better than monk, even bruiser is better since only monk has 100%+ haste with self buff. With diminishing return, even 67 haste from illusionist is negligible but  it's a nice boost for other fighters. Besides, that melee buff stack group is wonderful. However, it's almost impossible in raid for any guild. Most guilds have only 1 or 2 dirge, they will put dirge in MT and OT for better use. Also coercer is better with MT so that MT can hold mobs better. Also, put inquisitor with OT is better. Last, this group has serious aggro control problem if MT group didn't have swashy/[I cannot control my vocabulary], dirge and coercer. Moreover, if bruiser can hit 2.5k, rogue/ranger will hit 3.5k. Though, those number are meaningless since this group setting is almost  impossible in raids.

[PaganSaint]

Actually most MT groups will use a hate transfer class over a coercer, especially if there is only one coercer in the raid due to there almost always being a group heal up and mem-wipe won't work if the coercer has a heal on him. As for most raid guilds not having the dirge, that can be replaced with either a zerker for berserk buff rather easily. And that group setup is <i>not</i> what a ranger is using to hit 3k+ ZWs parses. They will have an illusionist, a berserker, a dirge and either an inquisitor preferably or a templar(for blessing).

[Junaru]

Well I can say that I'm some what hopeful that the devs wont let these changes hit the live servers. This is the most response we have gotten in a long time and I feel that we are finally being heard. Page after page went un-responded to in the Brawler forums but at least here we are getting something. Grimwell I want to thank you for at least taking the time to acknowledge us. It's been a while since we felt that much.

[Timaarit]

<cite>Grimwell wrote:</cite><blockquote>Hold up there folks. All I'm asking is for some give and take. Your feedback is being read and <i><b>not ignored</b></i>.  </blockquote>Now <i>that</i> remains to be seen. No offence but the feedback on the monk forums really was totally ignored when these changes were made, why should we expect anything different in the future?

[Nerill]

<span style="font-size: medium">Why on Earth don't Brawler AA lines <u><b>focus</b></u> on <u>specific aspects</u> of the Brawler game ?!?!?!?!?!?!?</span> It is <b>VERY</b> simple ! <i>Please</i> ...... read: <span style="font-size: medium"><u>Str. Line</u> - A line focused on <b>DAMAGE</b> ( <i>Double Attack</i>, chances for crits, additional AA type attacks, etc.  ) <u>Agi. Line</u> - A line focused on <b>Tanking</b> ( Riposts, increased mitigation, + % to deflection, etc. ) <u>Sta. Line</u> - A line focused on <b>Agro control</b> ( increases in our taunts, an extra AA type taunt, increases in Dragon Stance or Mongoose Stance etc. ) <u>Wis. Line</u> - A line focused on <b>Buffs</b> ( removing negative aspects of stances, AA hitpoint buff, etc. ) <u>Int Line</u> - A line focused on <b>a little but of everything</b> ( you can toss in something from all the previous lines I posted with whatever you see fit at the end of the line )</span> Now, it would make it <b>very,</b> <b>very </b>easy for <i>any</i> Brawler to decide for <b>themselves</b> what type of role they wish to try and fill. <b>NO</b> Brawler could have their cake and eat it too. If you want to <b>TANK</b> then you take the appropriate AA lines. If you want to <b>DPS </b>then you take the appropriate AA lines. <b>Please Devs</b> ..... don't make this any more difficult that has already been done. This is the most logical way out of the mess that has become the Brawler class. Thank you. Banzai Dragonpawz 70 Monk Unrest

[PaganSaint]

<b><span style="font-size: large">OR </span></b><span style="font-size: large"><span style="font-size: x-small">They can just look at what has been posted here as player and community feedback and test those changes and implement something of the like. Not a complete and total reworking of the entire KoS AA tree from the ground up. </span></span>

[Themaginator]

<cite>PaganSaint wrote:</cite><blockquote><b><span style="font-size: large">OR </span></b><span style="font-size: large"><span style="font-size: x-small">They can just look at what has been posted here as player and community feedback and test those changes and implement something of the like. Not a complete and total reworking of the entire KoS AA tree from the ground up. </span></span></blockquote>yeah the forums are like 1% of the population so its not a large of a number of people

[PaganSaint]

I normally don't visit here, but figured to give this forum an effort considering how its the official ones, even though I know there is another forum I use that Dev's post and actually reply on. But the fact of the matter is a complete rework from the ground up, will not solve any problems, it will just create new ones and make people who use the current AAs as they are, very upset.

[Themaginator]

<cite>PaganSaint wrote:</cite><blockquote>I normally don't visit here, but figured to give this forum an effort considering how its the official ones, even though I know there is another forum I use that Dev's post and actually reply on. But the fact of the matter is a complete rework from the ground up, will not solve any problems, it will just create new ones and make people who use the current AAs as they are, very upset. </blockquote> just out of curiosity what is that forum? that one with the fire and the EQ2?

[Gungo]

<p>Man i love how bezerkers come in here saying how we should not tank. From the class that is not even suppose to be defensive in nature and who has the most overpowered fighter dps. Please keep your trap shut unless we start analyzing how badly you are overpowered. freaking paladins should be outtanking zerkers that was stated by 2 developers throughout eq2. But lets get into our problems low dps, low group viability, and low agro control, and touchy tanking. The AA's were a nerf plain and simple in most regards. here is what i would like to see. </p><p>while the combat art upgrade is fine it is way to short for its %. 12% would of been much more in line. We should also get a double atk AA somewhere for 20-25%. possibly remove the extra proc on sta step 3 and place melee and ranged double atk on sta step 3. Chi should become a group buff Altruism should be turned into a save+rescue w more hate postional increase and increase defensive capabilities. Either wards us for a large amount or another mini 10 sec tsunami. Wis line is the key though to our agro troubles the 16% aoe proc should of had a larger damage spread at least 500+. What was the point in nerfing the damage. Heck they increased the warrior line auto atk aoe atk. Finally we need int final ability to give us some form of save vs death. Buff that kicks in at 60% then drops when we hit 50%+ or die in which case we get a healed for 10%. auto reuse is like 3 min. Mantis leap- 10 secs of complete crits and 10 secs of aoe immunity (1min reuse) This way our single and aoe dps is adequete which in turns helps our agro (especially in aoe). But truly gives us a choice in lines and usefulness of multiple brawlers on raids.  Now how this alll should turn out.</p><p> <b>Str line-</b>The pure dps line w group buff ~ 600-850 crush atk w crushing debuff (1200+ debuff) 30 sec recast combat art 12% upgrade mitigation (600 mit) Chi- group atk super buff (5 min recast, 15 min is bull) <b>AGI line-</b>The protection/utility line 400-600 x2 atk + casting speed/recovery reduction 50% atk -45 sec reuse 12% spell reuse haste defense (~18) Altriusm- tank save vs death 10% + 3 hate postion and 2.5k hate and a 10 sec tsunami (a tank save and fail safe that gives us a chance to live through the switch). <b>Sta line-</b> the ranged line 1k ranged atk + ~175 sta debuff ranged atk -1 min reuse 12% ranged and melee double atk deflection (~18 ) mantis leap- ranged teleport w 10 secs of 100% crits + 10sec aoe immunity <b>wis line-</b> the aoe dps line 800+ dam aoe atk and 3 sec knockdown +stun atk (increase the damage)45sec reuse 16% aoe atk proc for 500-700 dam (increase damage) Hp buff 8% (increase to 1% per rank) crane flock- 100% double atk and 100% aoe auto atk up to 4 targets atk buff (15 secs duration) reuse 3 min <b>Int line-</b> a defensive innate saver 600-700 dam atk + eagle spin (increase damage) 30 sec reuse 18% melee crit parry (~18) 50%-0% HEALTH =50% crit and 1400 extra vs all mitigation w a save vs death for 10% health. 30 sec  duration/3 min reuse Now this gives brawler choices do i want to go 4/4/8 in 3 abilites to increase my dps alone or do i want to get max str AA to increase the group dps. Or agi as a raid save buff or sta for fast movement and aoe immunity or wis for huge aoe dps or int for an awesome defensive/offesnive buff w save vs death. Me I would go wis sta agi using those AA's for max perosnal dps and still i would not touch scouts with these AA's under the current AA rules.</p><p>Finally my last bigggest gripe......................If they go ahead with the current changes to wpns they need to buff the brawlers wpns to actually be desirable 9because we always knew they sucked, but we had no choice) becuase w 1 handers becoming dual wield i see at least ~4 other wpns i would choose before the stone of power or mayongs fist. Thus havign a ton of brawler only wpn loot rooting not because of guilds lacking brawlerrs but because the wpns specifically created for us suck more. Add add a larger dam 700-800 magic proc 1.8ppm (at 200int) to mayongs fist and increase its damage range. Then add 12% double atk to stone of power and also increase its damage range. Seriously one of the biggest issues with brawler wpns is the range of damage especially the max damage range is abysmal increase the ratio accordingly 200-500 on the stone of power w a 2.0delay .</p>

[Zabjade]

<p><span style="color: #00cc00">To be truthful all they had to do (To fix our AA's at least) leave as is except remove weapons restrictions (other then ranged) have some of the lines increase not only Avoidance but Mitigation, and resists. The taunts can be handles on the Sub-Class trees. </span></p><p><span style="color: #00cc00">That is however a conservative AA plan, Monks would still need a lot of help from Self Buffs and such but that would be handled by looking at our bas buffs.</span></p><p><span style="color: #00cc00">On a lighter note: I was thinking about how a flirty monk female character might have an interesting signature move(Combining two moves, one an AA)... sorry for the bad writing it would be better if I had a chapter or so to establish the characters <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> ...contemplating a fancomic...<b>Please note that this is fiction and no-where near a monk's ability to do damage.</b></span></p><p><i><span style="color: #00cc00">Klornie and Matto struggled with the bones holding them in place as the Necromancer Klorg prepared to make them into his undead minions. As Klorg neared the end of the pact with Innoruk for the power, Klornie grinned and vanished, shocking Matto into thinking that the Monk had abandoned him. </span></i></p><p><i><span style="color: #00cc00">Klorg however was in a panic, on of his victims had escaped, he looked around franticly, only to be shocked even more with her appearing less then an inch from his face! What she did next caused his spell to fumble entirely.</span></i></p><p><i><span style="color: #00cc00">Matto watched as as Klornie reappeared nearly on top of the Lich, but what she did next shocked him into a frenzy! She planted a passionate kiss right on the misbegotten Necromancer's mouth.</span></i></p><p><i><span style="color: #00cc00">Time seemed to freeze for both Matto and Klorg, then Klorg fell to his knees, then to one side, smoke billowing from his mouth, nose, and even his ears! Matto stood dumbfounded as the bones holding him shattered into dust.</span></i></p><p><i><span style="color: #00cc00">"Who-wha-how," Matto sputtered, his Berzerker frenzy forgotten.</span></i></p><p><i><span style="color: #00cc00">"Perhaps I should have had a mint after lunch" Klornie grinned at the flustered halfling with a mischivious wink, "I appear to have a bad case of dragonbreath."</span></i></p>

[Nerill]

<cite>PaganSaint wrote:</cite><blockquote><b><span style="font-size: large">OR </span></b><span style="font-size: large"><span style="font-size: x-small">They can just look at what has been posted here as player and community feedback and test those changes and implement something of the like. Not a complete and total reworking of the entire KoS AA tree from the ground up. </span></span></blockquote>Actually, yes, a complete and total reworking of the entire KoS AA tree from the ground up is what is needed ! The Brawlers classes need fixed. Either they completely examine <b>every</b> Combat Art we have and <i>adjust every one</i> as well as give us innate additions to avoidance, mitigation and any other stats that would help us to be viable tanks. Or ...... ... just rework the KoS AA tree. What do you think would be easier from a programming standpoint ? A simple retooling of the KoS AA tree could go a <b>very long</b> way to fixing these classes. It would allow us to choose lines that <b>completely</b> focus on tanking <b>or </b>DPS where we can actually build our Brawlers into good tanks or good DPS. <b>Not</b> top of the line tanks or top of the line DPS, but with the right build, we could at least have enough ability to tank and <i>hold agro</i> in raids <b>or</b> contribute a noticeable amount of DPS in raids. DPS in the 1500 - 2K range. That kind of DPS would still keep us well short of the <i>good</i> DPS classes but put us just above the scout classes who actually have great <i>utility </i>that they bring to the raid.

[Junaru]

Pagan just wondering. Do you have a Brawler? I know you have a Guardian but I've never seen you talk of having a Brawler. If you don't I'm wondering what your huge interest in the Brawlers is? You seem to bounce from one side of the fence to the other on what our needs are. First you were completely against any added DPS to the Brawlers saying we were fine and now you say we need DPS. I can see you are now fighting for changes but if you don't play a Brawler do you really think you should be telling other Brawlers what they need?

[PaganSaint]

<p>I have a bruiser, as I have said multiple times in this thread alone. </p><p>I am not jumping from one side of the fence to another, but as atleast one other person has mentioned I do not believe that the low end, or unskilled players using a brawler should be the basis of the balancing. The continual commentary about how brawler can't do, lets say 2k DPS, unless in a perfect group for them, grates my nerves as I see and have seen brawlers do that much with standard or near standard melee DPS groups. Not to mention the absolute false conception that brawlers cannot OT when they can, it just takes more effort to accomplish.</p><p>All classes should be balanced out from the top end potential of the class, not from the bottom up. </p><p>Some changes that have been made from the bottom up or seem to have been have been rather disasterous to the game or the way it is played. "Balancing" mitigation from the bottom up with the diminishing returns mitigation curve and how low the bar is set for the top of the bell if graphed for example.</p><p>I'll say i again to make it clear, all classes, brawlers included, should be balanced from the top down. This means we should take what the top players and character gearings of the class are capable of and bring that level of play higher, lower or equal to where it is when compared to other fighters of the same player ability and character gearing levels. </p><p>Then you balance the class down from there, it should scale on its own down due to character ability and equipment potential lowering the numbers achievable as the quality decreases.</p><p>The AA revamp of the warrior tree is a step in the right direction in my eyes, yes I said it even though I love my guardian, my first character. The potential gear and player skill combinations available to the top end warriors put them much higher ranked than they should have been considering how they rank in other game play aspects. (Incoming hate mail from warriors to me).</p><p>The AA revamp <b><i>could possibly</i></b> be a step in the right direction for brawlers if some of the non complete and total AA rework suggestions were taken under advisory by the Devs and tested and included in some forms. Included in this is my suggestion to look into the way deflection works, as I have been saying this whole thread almost, to make it atleast the equal of block with a mid quality tower shield against epics and high yellow/low orange con mobs.</p>

[Timaarit]

<cite>PaganSaint wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>I have a bruiser, as I have said multiple times in this thread alone. </p><p>I am not jumping from one side of the fence to another, but as atleast one other person has mentioned I do not believe that the low end, or unskilled players using a brawler should be the basis of the balancing. The continual commentary about how brawler can't do, lets say 2k DPS, unless in a perfect group for them, grates my nerves as I see and have seen brawlers do that much with standard or near standard melee DPS groups. Not to mention the absolute false conception that brawlers cannot OT when they can, it just takes more effort to accomplish.</p></blockquote>What can I say. I have never seen a brawler exceed 1,4k DPS zonewide unless that brawler has been in next to perfect group. But then I have mainly raided with a monk in raid with the occasional bruiser. However claiming that brawlers can do 2k DPS without the perfect group and providing absolutely no proof on that is in my opinion extremely stupid. Oh, btw, I have parsed 2,4k with my monk on a single fight. The fight was against a group of frogs in Courts, lasted 10 seconds, I managed to use both my AE's on that time and got 4 procs on crane flock. However the only person who parsed less on that fight was not the defiler in group but the dirge.

[PaganSaint]

<p>I can't provide proof of it other than telling that its possible. If you do not believe me there is nothing I can do except to point at everyone else who has seen those parses and those people in multiple guilds, and to be honest seeing your brawler only maxing at 1400 makes me want to ask if they even know what combat arts are and if they know they can use them more than once per fight.</p><p>EDIT: I've already posted one setup this thread that can accomplish 2k if well geared and with a player that knows how to time CAs and auto attacks. Then I followed it up with a perfect group that I'd be surprised if the brawler didn't break 2.4k with.</p><p>EDIT take two: How about you stick to the point and other than try to make your brawler feel better by calling people liars post something helpful to the thread, you know on topic. Like thoughts on suggestions of changes to the AAs and such.</p>

[Timaarit]

<cite>PaganSaint wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>I can't provide proof of it other than telling that its possible. </p> </blockquote>Shrug, then it never happened. Exept as I said, maybe on a single fight. I have seen one monk do 2,7k on a single fight in Freethinkers. His zonewide was still under 1,4k. He got it by pure luck and Craneflock. So no, it is not possible for a monk at least to get even 1,5k zonewide if the monk is not in a good group. Your claim of 2k is absurd unless you meant a single fight. And in that case it is just pointless. Or want to hear what our swashy can do on a single fight when he gets lucky? Going to tell you anyway, it is over 4k. Zerker? My zerk has already done the 4k mark.

[PaganSaint]

<p>Grats, have seen 7k parses on single fights before in FTH. Wooo, who cares?</p><p>If you don't believe me thats your choice, its possible and has been possible for awhile now. But I think I know where your problem lies.</p><p>Thing is there is a difference between what I call a standard melee group and what your brawler is in. Like the brawler getting buffs to allow him to do damage.</p><p>If you aren't going to put someone into a position to do damage then don't [I cannot control my vocabulary] about that class not performing. </p><p>Which is alot of what the whining and complaining about sub 1600 or even 1400 DPSing brawlers is coming from, they are relying upon self buffs and maybe a proc spell or solitary DPS increasing buff from their group.</p><p>Go back and read what I said, balancing and revamping of the classes should be done from the top down from the top end of player skill, character gearing and an average, non stacked towards one person, group selection.</p><p><b>How about you post something constructive and on topic about the coming changes?</b></p>

[Couching]

<cite>PaganSaint wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>I have a bruiser, as I have said multiple times in this thread alone. </p><p>I am not jumping from one side of the fence to another, but as atleast one other person has mentioned I do not believe that the low end, or unskilled players using a brawler should be the basis of the balancing. The continual commentary about how brawler can't do, lets say 2k DPS, unless in a perfect group for them, grates my nerves as I see and have seen brawlers do that much with standard or near standard melee DPS groups. Not to mention the absolute false conception that brawlers cannot OT when they can, it just takes more effort to accomplish.</p><p>All classes should be balanced out from the top end potential of the class, not from the bottom up. </p><p>Some changes that have been made from the bottom up or seem to have been have been rather disasterous to the game or the way it is played. "Balancing" mitigation from the bottom up with the diminishing returns mitigation curve and how low the bar is set for the top of the bell if graphed for example.</p><p>I'll say i again to make it clear, all classes, brawlers included, should be balanced from the top down. This means we should take what the top players and character gearings of the class are capable of and bring that level of play higher, lower or equal to where it is when compared to other fighters of the same player ability and character gearing levels. </p><p>Then you balance the class down from there, it should scale on its own down due to character ability and equipment potential lowering the numbers achievable as the quality decreases.</p><p>The AA revamp of the warrior tree is a step in the right direction in my eyes, yes I said it even though I love my guardian, my first character. The potential gear and player skill combinations available to the top end warriors put them much higher ranked than they should have been considering how they rank in other game play aspects. (Incoming hate mail from warriors to me).</p><p>The AA revamp <b><i>could possibly</i></b> be a step in the right direction for brawlers if some of the non complete and total AA rework suggestions were taken under advisory by the Devs and tested and included in some forms. Included in this is my suggestion to look into the way deflection works, as I have been saying this whole thread almost, to make it atleast the equal of block with a mid quality tower shield against epics and high yellow/low orange con mobs.</p></blockquote>First, you didn't identify what standard melee dps group is. You just post an ideal group set up as: Inquisitor Assassin/Brigand/Ranger/Swashy Brigand/Ranger/Swashy/Assassin Dirge Coercer Brawler And you think your bruiser can deal 2.4k ZONEWIDE dps. Frankly, I don't believe it. Why? Bcz it's impossible from game mechanism. Why? it's simple since both haste and dps have diminishing return. You get less benefit over 100. Moreover, <b>Monk average CA with all mastered is around 500 dps.</b> If you want to hit 2.4k, you need to deal 1.9k from auto-attack. Sorry man, it's impossible. Why is it out of game mechanism? It's simple math. To get average 1.9k dps from auto-attack. Let's assume you have best brawler weapon which is 2.5 delay. You can swing 108 hit with haste cap, 125%. <b>To get 1.9k dps, your average swing is 1056 with 100% hit ratio. Not a chance.</b> Moreover, your idea group setup won't make you hit haste cap. Be my calculation, for monk, you will get 110% and for bruiser is around 80% haste. The bruiser with 80% haste has 86 hits with 2 2.5 delay weapon per minute. In other word, even your bruiser has better CA than monk, let's say 800 dps. You need to deal 1.6k from auto-attack. <b>To get 1.6k dps, your average swing is 1116 with 100% hit ratio. It's also impossible.</b> <b>You might hit 2.5k in a single fight with luck so that you have big roll on critical hit, big damage shot, etc. But for zonewide, it means average since you can have big roll and you can have small roll as well. </b> Even in this ideal group, to get 2k Zone wide for monk is very very hard. You need to get average 1.5k dmg in every fight from auto-attack. To get. 1.5k dps, your average swing is 833 with 100% hit ratio. It's almost impossible since average hit ratio in EoF is around 70%-75% on lv 75 epicx4. <b>With 70% hit ratio, your average swing will be 1190. Is it possible? Nope.</b> The reason that rogue/ranger can deal 2k easily or even 3k+ for uber rogue/ranger is because their <b>average CA is around 1.5k</b> At least this parse is from average of our guild. Seriously, if any monk or bruiser wants to claim he did 2k zonewide parse, please show us evidence. For 2.4k? It's by far impossible. EDIT: Also, it's almost impossible for most guilds in raid to have 3 dirges and 2 coercers. Most experienced guild will put dirge in MT and OT group first since dirge can give MT and OT hate gain. A lot of guild also group coercer in MT group. It doesn't make sense to expect every guild to recruit 3 dirge and 2 coercers in raids. Even you have 3 dirges and 2 coercers, there are only 24 slots in raid. It means 3-4 classes will be sit out side, Come on, lets guess which class will sit out side raid? <img src="/smilies/0320a00cb4bb5629ab9fc2bc1fcc4e9e.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <b>Even any guild has idea melee dps group, they won't put brawler in that group. They will just recruit one more rogue/ranger since they will deal more damages. </b>This game is <b>winner takes all</b>. <b>EQ2 designers, please aware this POINT</b>. You can't let brawler be supbar to every class. Every class needs something unique.

[Shankonia]

<cite>Junaru wrote:</cite><blockquote>Pagan just wondering. Do you have a Brawler? I know you have a Guardian but I've never seen you talk of having a Brawler. If you don't I'm wondering what your huge interest in the Brawlers is? You seem to bounce from one side of the fence to the other on what our needs are. First you were completely against any added DPS to the Brawlers saying we were fine and now you say we need DPS. I can see you are now fighting for changes but if you don't play a Brawler do you really think you should be telling other Brawlers what they need? </blockquote><p> Oh my, sheds some light down on Pagan and now I finally get it.  Pagan is an undercover Warrior spy.</p><p>Pagan, go back to the warrior forums, thanks.  You have been feeding false info. on these boards long enough while accusing folks who are stating facts to be doing just the same.  Go away, stop posting, thank you.</p><p>Saw a 7k brawler parse in FTH did ya?  Was it a Monk or a Bruiser?  2k DPS zonewide?  Sure, for a Bruiser.  For a Monk?  Never gonna happen unless IN AN IDEAL GROUP or vs. all green encounters.  Anyone who says or thinks they know otherwise is a liar.    </p><p>STOP PUTTING MONKS AND BRUISERS TOGETHER IN GENERALIZED STATEMENTS.  WE ARE NOT THE SAME!!  </p>

[Timaarit]

<cite>PaganSaint wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Grats, have seen 7k parses on single fights before in FTH. Wooo, who cares?</p><p>If you don't believe me thats your choice, its possible and has been possible for awhile now. But I think I know where your problem lies.</p><p>Thing is there is a difference between what I call a standard melee group and what your brawler is in. Like the brawler getting buffs to allow him to do damage.</p><p>If you aren't going to put someone into a position to do damage then don't [I cannot control my vocabulary] about that class not performing. </p><p>Which is alot of what the whining and complaining about sub 1600 or even 1400 DPSing brawlers is coming from, they are relying upon self buffs and maybe a proc spell or solitary DPS increasing buff from their group.</p><p>Go back and read what I said, balancing and revamping of the classes should be done from the top down from the top end of player skill, character gearing and an average, non stacked towards one person, group selection.</p><p><b>How about you post something constructive and on topic about the coming changes?</b></p></blockquote>I have. But as for this, I dont believe a word you are saying. In fact, I dont even believe you have seen parse from a brawler in raid nor that you would have one that is at t7. But if I really have to rely on selfbuffs on raids with no brigand or swashy to debuff, my dps is around 1,1k in every single fight. With a swashy and brigand, it varies from 1,2k to 1,5k depending on how the debuffs flow. Zonewide will be around 1,3k. With proper buffers and debuffers, I can get my dps and haste mods to 150+ each and manage 1,4k to 1,7k DPS, again depending on CoB, debuffs and proc buffs. Zonewide will be around 1,5k. You clearly cannot say anything besides 'it can be done' while providing no proof of it. So I suggest you take your own advice about the constructive posting. The incoming changes are something that the devs gave no other thought than 'we need to nerf classes so that they feel they get improved with the next expansion and thus buy it'.

[Echgar]

While you are all welcome to discuss and debate the issues, please remember not to let your disagreements turn into personal attacks, insults, and similar. Also, keep in mind that you don't have to convince everyone.  Sometimes it is just better to make your point and move on.  There can very well be more than one "right" answer.

[sinista]

echgar dude, as you can see how vivid people are arguing in this thread there _must_ be _something_ wrong with the current and upcoming brawler changes =p

[Zabjade]

Yup, that is a fact, regardless of wether you play a Bruiser or a Monk, we seem to hit a glass ceiling when it comes to raid-slots.

[Nerill]

As a Monk, I don't need another player posting <i>false</i> information. My class is a mess. I need my class fixed and for those of us who <u>really know</u> what we are and are not capable of, it is counterproductive to have someone come in and make statements that simply are not true. Why is it that there is 1 person who claims that we can parse 2K+ zone wide and there are <b>numerous</b> others who know for a <b>fact</b> that this is not true ? As a matter of fact, the vast majority of us are asking for <b>fair </b>fixes. We are not asking to be over-buffed up. We just want our class <u>finally</u> balanced and to have a certain someone posting bogus information does not help our cause. Even Couching posted all the math needed to disprove this crazy claim about how great our DPS is. Certainly, it can't be hard for the Devs who know how these numbers work to see that what someone is claiming is not even possible. The Monk class is <b>absolutely desperate</b> to finally get the fixes needed for us to be viable tanks or viable DPS in raids. So please forgive us if we are over-passionate when we see someone posting <u>inaccurate</u> information that only hurts our cause.  <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Zarafein]

But the class wouldn't be fixed with aa change alone(so if there aas were as good as warriors for example), would it?

[Nerill]

Lhangion@Innovation wrote: <blockquote>But the class wouldn't be fixed with aa change alone(so if there aas were as good as warriors for example), would it?</blockquote>Actually, if the proposed AA changes that I made on this very page ( 4th post from the top ) were <i>implemented properly</i>, then yes, it could go a long way towards helping to balance this class. <u>High enough bonuses</u> in trees <b>designed specifically</b> for Tanking, DPSing, etc. could help a great deal. It would at least be a <b>HUGE</b> step in the right direction. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Bewts]

<p>Brawler</p><ul><li>Starter - Favorable Wind: Affects all non-mount movement speed. </li><li>Strength 3 - Relentless Punches: Renamed to Eye of the Tiger: No longer requires unarmed. Increases all combat art damage by 0.75% per rank. </li><li>Strength 4 - Claw Reversal: Renamed to Tiger Body: Increases physical mitigation instead of Riposte chance. </li><li>Strength 5 - Chi: Improved casting speed bonus from 75 to 100%, Recovery speed bonus from 33.3% to 100%, Removed all penalties when Chi expires. </li><li>Agility 3 - Ambidexterity: Increased reuse speed bonus from 1 to 1.5% per rank. </li><li>Agility 5 - Altruism: Improved reuse speed from 15 minutes to 5 minutes, increases hate positions towards entire encounter twice. Increased health of targeted ally by 10% instead of 5%. </li><li>Stamina 5 - Mantis Leap: Removed power cost. It can also teleport to a target ally or object. Reuse speed increased from 60s to 45s. </li><li>Wisdom 3 - Bamboo Twirl: Doubled proc rate to 2% per rank, but slightly reduced damage. </li><li>Wisdom 5 - Crane Flock: Increased reuse speed from 5 minutes to 3 minutes.</li></ul><p>That is the current setup on Test.</p><p>Here are my suggestions - and reasoning</p><p>Strength 3 - <span style="color: #00ff00">2.75% double attack per rank added to Calm Tranquility </span>(or the bruiser DPS equivalent) = 22% double attack for group.  This makes us a very viable choice for raid melee dps groups (which we need to be in to realize our potential DPS)</p><p>Strength 4 - <span style="color: #00ff00">Increase total mitigation by 3% per rank</span> which = 24% more mit.  This applies to your WORN mitigation IE chest legs helm slots.  A 306 BP with 24% more mit would then be a 379 mit piece.  Across the board, that gets us closer to wearing the equivalent of chain armor (Which I think is a fair trade off)</p><p>Strenth 5 - <span style="color: #00ff00">Shorten recast of Chi to 3 or 5</span> minutes along with current changes.  Other options if you want to keep the 15 minute recast is to make it targetable on a raid member or group member, or a group buff.  Again, this makes us more useful in a raid to enchance dps across the board for all group members or someone in specific</p><p>Agility 3 - <span style="color: #00ff00">Shortening our already fast recast timers for combat arts seems pointless</span>.  Especially when in the Monk specific tree you shorten the recast timers even further.  I understand the idea behind it, more combat arts = more dps - but that isn't the case dual weilding where you're adjusted delays are under 1 second (meaning unless your combat art is doing a significant amount of damage, you will lose overall dps - last I checked we had weaker hitting combat arts).  The only benefit to this would be shortening the recast timers on Tsunami, Outward Calm, Short term mitigation buffs.  All which are situational and moot in most raid settings (minus outward calm) in our current status as a non-tank. See below</p><p>Agility 4 - <span style="color: #00ff00">Insert Claw Reversal here, 2% per rank. </span> To make the Agility line a more viable 'tanking line' I would suggest dropping the +defense you get from this line (we can easily get high values of +defense).  Assuming we are an avoidance tank, this is where our uncontested avoidance should come from, if anywhere.  Combining Strength and Agility lines would make for an awesome setup for the MT minded Brawler.</p><p>Agility 5 - Although great to save the MT in critical Health situations, or save a lifeburner/manaburner - there needs to be more in this line to make this skill viable.  The above suggestions on Agility make this line stronger and a better choice.  I would honestly scrap Altruisim, and make this an extension of Tsunami, but one step further to be much like Stone Deaf:</p><p><span style="color: #00ff00">"Absorb the next form of damage if the last auto attack on you was successful - If: the next form of damage is less than 75% of your maximum health"  This buff will refresh 1 minute after it has been last triggered"</span></p><p>Stanima 3 - <span style="color: #00ff00">Increase damage done per proc by 100-200</span>.  This should help adjust for the loss of damage from the wisdom line (See below) for those of us not willing to proc hate AoE in raids.  You might consider putting in a DoT component instead of the extra damage.</p><p>Stanima 4 - <span style="color: #00ff00">Increase Parry by 1% per rank.</span>  Applies only to your base skill in parry.  Don't keep it a flat number so that it scales as you raise the caps of skills up later on.  At 8% and a base of 350 that gives you 28 (37<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> extra skill in parry, plus whatever else you can obtain from mods/buffs.  Just cap the maximum result you can get from going over the base to prevent gross manipulations of avoidance skills (if you haven't already which I thought was around 420 max)</p><p>Stanima 5 - <span style="color: #00ff00">Remove the single hit, allow 25 seconds of criticals.  </span><span style="color: #000000">This makes it a more viable choice if you are looking for a bit of burst DPS anywhere you'd play.</span></p><p>Wisdom 3 - <span style="color: #00ff00">Halve or cut in third the AoE damage, increase to 3% chance per rank, but add in hate to the difference in damage lost</span>.  This will not up our DPS by a lot, shoot it doesn't do much now - but for those who would offtank on raids, having a hate AoE proc would be highly beneficial.  Agility + Wisdom would be a very solid choice for an offtank.</p><p>Wisdom 4 - <span style="color: #00ff00">2% Health per rank - applied only to our base health</span>.  As most openly admit, our advoidance is not very solid, especially versus epics.  A monk walking around with 7000 health prebuff would gain 1100 health.  I think thats a pretty solid buff considering we don't get stanima or health buffs of our own and the other fighter ranks do.  Granted we have innately more health but it doesn't help much when we are 2 tiers below the plate wearers in mitigation (plate vs leather).</p><p>Wisdom 5 - Good change,<span style="color: #00ff00"> Extend duration by 10 more seconds </span> It will definitely help in the initial surge of dps/hate required to off tank multiple mobs from a raid encounter although even at 3 minutes, its a once time use in an encounter.  Also factor in the possibility that losing double attack entirely means that there should be some solid compinsation in at least one other line of possible DPS choices that includes double attacks.</p><p>Intelligence 3 - <span style="color: #00ff00">Increase to 3.5% per rank </span>(28%).  Our criticals should be on par with the majority of other fighters.  Our DPS is only better than that of a Guardian and maybe a Paladin?  (been a while since I've even seen a paladin TBO).</p><p>Intelligence 4 - <span style="color: #00ff00">Increase deflection by 1% per rank.</span>  Applies only to your base skill in deflection.  Don't keep it a flat number so that it scales as you raise the caps of skills up later on.  At 8% and a base of 350 that gives you 28 (37<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> extra skill in deflection, plus whatever else you can obtain from mods.  Just cap the maximum result you can get from going over the base to prevent gross manipulations of avoidance skills (if you haven't already which I thought was around 420 max). </p><p>Intelligence 5 - <span style="color: #00ff00">Change criticals on all scales to double attacks; 30% full benefits as it currently stands; 45% health, half the benefits; 60%, 1/4 the benefits</span>.  I think this would appease all parties involved, and double attacks would better adjust for spending all the points the intelligence line to get to the 5th tier (17 AA) Consider you have to be under 61% health to see any of the benefits to begin with and our criticals see a 1.3ish modifier at most compared to seeing multiple double attacks of 300 damage from an extra hit compared to 90 extra from a critical if your base hit was 300.</p><p>If you got this far, thanks.  Overall I think that the Brawler classes (both of us) should be able to cap 2 of the avoidance skills on our own, and be able to cap the third skill (ignoring Ripostes) through proper buffing.  As avoidance tanks, I think we deserve this.  Granted, it shouldn't be easy to reach the third cap - but it should be feasible for anyone who raids weekly to obtain the proper gear and then through buffing.  That explains the drastic change to the avoidance Tier 4 changes.</p><p>In regards to double attacking, I think again Brawlers should be king at that - personally I think we should be able to double attack from the lower levels (say 25% of the time).  With the right AA and buffs we should be able to accomplish it 100% of the time regardless of what weapon we use.  To reflect this, we should be restricted on what weapons allow us to reach 100% innately to do this:  Not batons, staves, or anything OTHER than fist skill weapons.  The damage type they do is irrelevant.  Brass Knuckles, Bare fists (DR on them should scale to meet the starter Fabled weapons of that tier), and the like should all be considered 100% double attack modified weapons.   Of course, to focus on not overpowering us, those weapons that give us 100% double attack should have lower DR's (NOTE: Stats other than DR should reflect those stats found within the tier) than batons, staves, maces, etc where we have to rely on buffs to bring us above 25% double attack we will obtain as we level (say 5% double attack per level tier to cap in T5?).</p><p>Some of these suggestions could be viewed as overpowering, but along with the bards - monks need some serious love from the development team - so if even some of these suggestions get through I will be happy for the improvement.</p><p>One last suggestion - if you want to increase the combat art damage of brawlers - increase it in their specific class trees and not broadly across the brawler tree as it is currently proposed.  It only increases the gap between bruiser and monk DPS from combat arts and I've already stated that for monks using combat arts hurt us when the damage done is less than the damage you'd see from your weapons in that attack round.</p><p>Regards from Afghanistan,</p><p>Sanctum, 70 Monk</p>

[Nerill]

Wow, Sanctum ! Thank you for taking what must have been a good deal of time to provide constructive feedback ! <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> /crosses fingers that the Devs read it

[Raidi Sovin'faile]

When people talk about "the right groups", all you are saying is that the Brawler can project the DPS of that group. It's not the Brawler bringing that DPS... pretty much any melee class (decent weapons, ability to dual wield or use a two hand weapon) will get that extra damage and parse high. Fact is, my solo Bruiser, using mix of fabled and legendary, will maybe pull down 800-1k zonewide dps on his own. That's with adornments for dps, although I am missing a few dps gear that could up that a little (maybe up to 1.1k or so). So what does it mean that I can get 2k dps when stuck in "the right group"? That the group is giving a melee person an extra 1k-1200 DPS in buffs and procs. That's it. Stick ANYONE in that same slot and they'll be doing 1k-1200 more DPS... hell, a Battle Cleric Inquisitor would get just as much from buffs like that. The problem as it stands, is that they did such a great job at shoring up weaknesses of other classes (warrior DPS bonuses from AA's made them go from DPS losers to great contenders), but when they come to Brawlers they are so gun-shy to give any kind of "weakness fixes" that they only give mediocre bonuses. To the point that our position of Highest Fighter DPS drops to the lower end. I'd really like to know why they are so scared of giving Brawlers bonuses to survival and ae aggro control, when they had no problem giving other tanks soloability (self healing, even if outside combat) and vast amounts of DPS.

[PaganSaint]

<p>To be one hundred percent honest, I think everything in Bewts suggestions for the AAs would work, and work rather well towards adding some utility, additional tanking ability and DPS to both brawler classes.</p><p>My only suggestion is maybe for the Agi3 ability change it to read something like the blademaster end line for predators, all skills with a recast timer longer than xxxx are reduced by 3% per point or something similar.</p><p><b>"Why is it that there is 1 person who claims that we can parse 2K+ zone wide and there are <b>numerous</b> others who know for a <b>fact</b> that this is not true ?"</b></p><p>I'm not the only one, I'm just the most outspoken about it here. Keeping with being bluntly honest, just like the majority of people playing paladins, there is a definite majority of the people playing brawlers that cannot play them effectively for raids.</p><p>I don't care if many of you people don't believe me, I'm not interested in making you believe anymore, I just do not want another ill concieved and poorly planned "balancing" done from the bottom up. It will not help the class, if anything it will result in another nerfing that will cripple both classes for the foreseable future due to wasting the effort if any changes are made to these proposed changes if all it does is turn around and make the top brawlers, which you people don't think exist, into monsters that will need to be reigned in.</p><p>I really do like the changes Bewts has come up with and hope atleast one dev will read them and pass them on for discussion and closed and, even more hopefully, open testing on the test servers. They are by far the best looking changes I had seen in any thread here.</p>

[Timaarit]

Ok, lets make a hypothesis that I really cant play my monk. At worst this means that when I am at the haste cap, I will kick in a CA just when my autoattack would hit. With 2,5s delay weapons, my true delay would be 1,11 seconds I believe. Now this would increase the delay up to 1,66 seconds (the CA has 0,5s use time) which would make me do 30% less autoattack dps (or 50% more if I didn't do that). Now when I have no help, I am doing 550 autoattack DPS, if I add 50% to this, it would take me to 1375 DPS when I have no help, not to the 2k you are claiming. So while you say you dont care whether people believe you or not, it is not good to make claims you really have no proof for. I believe that if you have seen a brawler do >2k zonewide, it has been in some t6 zone and the group has been next to perfect for the <i>bruiser</i>. As for my monk, if the not being able to play my monk was true, I would be able to get 1,8k zonewide on the perfect group in a t7 raidzone, again far from the number you are claiming. So I guess you are still wrong, it is not about not knowing how to play. It is about knowing the facts. Where are yours?

[Couching]

<cite>PaganSaint wrote:</cite><blockquote>I'm not the only one, I'm just the most outspoken about it here. Keeping with being bluntly honest, just like the majority of people playing paladins, <b>there is a definite majority of the people playing brawlers that cannot play them effectively for raids.</b></blockquote><b><span style="color: #3333ff"><span style="color: #cccc66">Kaisoku has already given the right answer</span>. <span style="color: #cc3399">It's not player skill, it's group buff to let you hit 2k. </span> <span style="color: #ff33cc">Haste and dps buff work on auto-attack only</span>. </span></b><b><span style="color: #3333ff"><span style="color: #cccc99">In other word, put any other fighter or scout in ideal dps buff group, he will get </span><span style="color: #cc0066">same</span><span style="color: #cccc99"> dps boost as w</span><span style="color: #cccc99">ell.</span></span></b> <b><span style="color: #3333ff"> <span style="color: #cccc66"> I have also mention that it's almost impossible to have 3 dirges 2 coercers in raid for most guilds. Don't forget the cold bloody truth, when you have 3 dirges and 2 coercers in raids, it means at least</span> <span style="color: #9933cc">3 classes have to sit outside raid</span>. ! <span style="color: #cc9966">Who is the best candidate to sit outside?</span> </span></b><img src="/smilies/0320a00cb4bb5629ab9fc2bc1fcc4e9e.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Again, it's nothing related to player skill. It's just because there are only 24 rooms for raid. If you want to have 3 dirges and 2 coercers, 3 classes have to sit outside raid. So 3 most worthless classes will sit outside. PS1: Average zone wide dps of bruiser CA is about 200 dps higher than monk. In other word, it's harder for monk to hit same dps as bruiser. Especially in KoS raid since most mobs will die within 30 sec. PS2: Most bruiser CA are twice damage and twice refresh time of Monk CA. In other word, bruiser will deal about twice damage of CA than monk if mobs get killed within 30 sec. If mobs get killed within 1 min-1min29sec, bruiser will deal 1.33 times damage of CA. PS3: sorry, I totally screwed up the color of my posts. <img src="/smilies/ed515dbff23a0ee3241dcc0a601c9ed6.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[PaganSaint]

<p>Yes it was a bruiser, yes it was a group built around melee DPS, yes it was a t7 zone, yes 1800 isnt over 2k, but a bruiser putting out 2k would be about the same skill, gear and group as a monk doing 1800 due to how a monk doesn't recieve the same DPS increases a bruiser will from the haste involved with CoB and Fanaticism.</p><p>I'm sorry that you can't perform or havent seen what I have seen. I believe you, you don't believe me, its not going to change the facts, and I really don't care for how you either can't get a melee group or can't time attacks and can't achieve the top DPS, I can't get my rotation/timing down on my swashy to be optimal either, chill out with the vitriolic and maybe we can get some things changed.</p><p>So please, either talk about something that will help or quote and comment on AA changes in this thread or with the current AA changes you have seen that you agree with, disagree with, or want clarified or even expand on. </p><p>But enough with the stupidity, we get the point, you haven't seen those numbers, I'll admit they aren't common or there wouldn't be a problem, but stop sweeping away useful posts with your stone stubborn insistence that someone is a liar because you haven't performed as well as others have even though you just posted a parse that is comparable due to the way buffs affect the classes to a 2k parse from a bruiser.</p><p>EDIT: Hopefully what couching said and his numbers will assuage timaarit enough that the thread can continue with AA discussion. </p><p>Also its usually just 1 coercer and he gets put in the melee DPS group because that group usually doesn't have a group reactive/ward/regen running at all times that would need to be canceled so mem-wipe will accomplish its job.</p><p>And why the heck did couching get so many colors in his last post? o.0</p>

[Zabjade]

<p><span style="color: #00cc00">Lets see right now I use the Mantis Master line and the Crane line, So far I see nothing to make me want to try the strength line Developers. The only thing good about following that line is gone, I didn't follow it before because it required me to give up much needed stats and <b>resists</b> for DPS.</span></p><p><span style="color: #00cc00">Also <b>Make</b> <b>Devastation Fist</b> do damage like the <b>Tier Five Solusk Ro Favor: Insineration</b>, 100% on say regular single targets, a <b><u>set amount</u></b> of damage for heroics and Epics (This might at least get us in the door on raids). Right now it is a gimped Harmtouch in  that can't be used on 3/4th's of Mobs. It has a long enough re-use timer that it is not overpowered. Devastation Punch came about when there where fewer ^ and ^^ outside of Deep Dungeons and ^^^ didn't exist.</span></p><p><span style="color: #00cc00">vvv=can't use too weak(Same message if you try it in a Duel)</span></p><p> <span style="color: #00cc00">vv, v, standard=use</span></p><p><span style="color: #00cc00">^, ^^, ^^^, Epic=Can' t use at all</span></p><p><span style="color: #00cc00">I'm not asking to one-shot a wandering Epic, just want to give him a bloody nose before I go down.</span></p>

[Timaarit]

Pagan, the first unuseful comment on this was your claim about brawler doing 2k zonewide. But I see now that it was not brawler but a bruiser and the 2k even became 1,8k. 1,8k on a bruiser I can believe, when I did 1,5k my group was not the optimal, 100 more dps for my monk would have been possible with better setup. The fact is that even 2000 zonewide is about 30% too little when compared to classes that have more buffs, dps and debuffs. 50% increase to monk DPS would still not make a monk as good member in a raid than what a rogue is. And yet the devs suggest that a 3% increse would make all the difference. I say no. They need to scrap the brawler STR3 line change and leave it at 96% double attack with DW. Another thing that they need to do is to remove the root and stun from monk mitigation buffs. Even the warrior GROUP mitigation buffs dont root anyone let alone stun. Now they could change the stun from the bigger buff to a root and/or stifle while allowing the monk to autoattack. But as such it is propably the crappiest skill after the t7 priest group cures.

[Zabjade]

<p><span style="color: #00cc00">I know I use the Root one when I'm in a tough situation like facing a green (Nearly grey) ^^^ non-named, I don't even bother keeping the stun line on any of my 5 hotbars. (I can never shake off the stun before the timer wears out and the first time I used it I took MORE damage rather then less)</span></p><p><span style="color: #00cc00">It's stuff like this that makes Brawlers in general and Monks in particular wonder if they <b><u>only</u></b> come up with Monk CA's at Kegers when they are in really evil moods.</span></p>

[PaganSaint]

<cite>Timaarit wrote:</cite><blockquote>The fact is that even 2000 zonewide is about 30% too little when compared to classes that have more buffs, dps and debuffs. 50% increase to monk DPS would still not make a monk as good member in a raid than what a rogue is. And yet the devs suggest that a 3% increse would make all the difference. I say no. They need to scrap the brawler STR3 line change and leave it at 96% double attack with DW. Another thing that they need to do is to remove the root and stun from monk mitigation buffs. Even the warrior GROUP mitigation buffs dont root anyone let alone stun. Now they could change the stun from the bigger buff to a root and/or stifle while allowing the monk to autoattack. But as such it is propably the crappiest skill after the t7 priest group cures. </blockquote><p>I'm in full agreement with you that the DPS is not where it should be, maybe not increasing it by 30% but 20% increase would be very much in line with what everyone pictures as appropriate for what we all expected from our "DPS Tanks."</p><p>96% Double attack with dual wield would propel brawlers to not only teir 1 DPS, but top of teir 1 DPS as soon as that change went live, especially with the coming changes to one hand and dual wield weapons. Well, unless they saved this change till after they made all of the changes to DW/1h and leave all of the brawler only, fist style DWs at the current damage rating or slightly lowered and then made the 96% double attack only in effect when dual wielding the fist weapons.</p><p>I would much rather get a 24-32% double attack chance with both dual wields and two hand weapons that I get to keep after these changes go live altogether than start at something ridiculously high now and watch the nerf bat fall and the nerf left in place after the changes to DW/1h take effect.</p><p>Your thoughts on changing the stun to a root/stifle on the short term mitigation buff sound great, that would do much for tanking ability and spike damage absorbtion that will allow brawlers to maintain a semblance of aggro.</p><p> EDIT: Last I heard bruisers are brawlers, and we are discussing overall brawler AA changes. And it never changed from 2k to 1.8k, read what I said again if you think I did change it. And don't go on about the disparity between the two brawler classes, other sub class of the same class have much larger disparities in DPS between the two.</p>

[Kota]

the changes are ridiculous.  monks are in a bad way.  it's also ridiculous that these plate tanks are trolling thru just to try to keep us down.  monks are part of the fighter tree and it was stated at launch that the fighter tree was the tank tree.  didn't say guardians and zerkers were tanks then the rest just do whatever.  we need a fix.  and why don't we have a hp buff ?

[MadLordOfMilk]

<cite>PaganSaint wrote:</cite><blockquote>*snip*<p>96% Double attack with dual wield would propel brawlers to not only teir 1 DPS, but top of teir 1 DPS as soon as that change went live, <b>especially with the coming changes to one hand and dual wield weapons</b>. Well, unless they saved this change till after they made all of the changes to DW/1h and leave all of the brawler only, fist style DWs at the current damage rating or slightly lowered and then made the 96% double attack only in effect when dual wielding the fist weapons.</p>*SNIP*</blockquote>Pardon my ignorance, but where does that change come in? Last I checked, the change to weapons makes very little difference DPS-wise.

[Timaarit]

PaganSaint wrote:<blockquote>I'm in full agreement with you that the DPS is not where it should be, maybe not increasing it by 30% but 20% increase would be very much in line with what everyone pictures as appropriate for what we all expected from our "DPS Tanks."<p>96% Double attack with dual wield would propel brawlers to not only teir 1 DPS, but top of teir 1 DPS as soon as that change went live, especially with the coming changes to one hand and dual wield weapons. Well, unless they saved this change till after they made all of the changes to DW/1h and leave all of the brawler only, fist style DWs at the current damage rating or slightly lowered and then made the 96% double attack only in effect when dual wielding the fist weapons.</p><p>I would much rather get a 24-32% double attack chance with both dual wields and two hand weapons that I get to keep after these changes go live altogether than start at something ridiculously high now and watch the nerf bat fall and the nerf left in place after the changes to DW/1h take effect.</p><p>Your thoughts on changing the stun to a root/stifle on the short term mitigation buff sound great, that would do much for tanking ability and spike damage absorbtion that will allow brawlers to maintain a semblance of aggro.</p><p> EDIT: Last I heard bruisers are brawlers, and we are discussing overall brawler AA changes. And it never changed from 2k to 1.8k, read what I said again if you think I did change it. And don't go on about the disparity between the two brawler classes, other sub class of the same class have much larger disparities in DPS between the two.</p></blockquote>96% DA would make monks do at best 2,4k zonewide (96% more autoattack DPS = almost 50% more DPW overall, 50% more to 1,6k = 2,4k). And that really is not top t1 DPS. So the objection seems to be more because of the image of a big chance instead of the real effect. But even if it was, that really wouldn't even be unbalancing since DPS is the only thing that monks are allowed to bring to a raid. Now granted, the real effect will be visible after we see how rogues fare. But by looking at the utility of the rogue classes and comparing it to brawlers, brawlers really should be out-DPSing them by quite a wide margin. But even your suggestion about 20 to 30% more DPS would effectively mean 40 to 60% double attack or equal increase in the damage of the CA's. 96% DA would in no means be unbalancing, in fact it would be the fix that has been needed for the brawlers almost since lu13.

[PaganSaint]

<p>LU 37 I believe are when the changes to one hand and dual wield weapons are going live, these changes in essence are going to make all one hands dual wieldable, with the offhand weapon recieving a moderate reduction in damage rating, and most dual wields will be converted to one hand damage rating quality.</p><p>In effect 96% double attack monk wielding say the Emerald Hammer(83-332dmg 4.9s delay) and a Knotty Pine Cudgel(102-306dmg 4.6s delay, debuffed to say 92-286dmg and up to a 4.9) will have two weapons at 2.4 delay(great for CA timing) that will be hitting for upwards of 1k-1.2k damage each, per attack, per double attack. Looking at approximately 2k DPS auto attack without including any procs off of auto attacks or other class abilities that add damage per attack. </p><p>Yes thats the the extreme end of weapons for that example, something more obtainable to the average player would be a Cudgel of Pain(29-164dmg 2.5s delay) and Battle Hammer of Might(28-158dmg 2.5s delay, debuffed down to say 15-146dmg 2.8s delay). That will be two weapons hitting every 1.1 and 1.3 seconds for anywhere from 450-700 damage per attack, per double attack. Around 1500-1600 DPS from just auto attack and no proc's or outside attack buffs.</p><p>I do not see something to that effect being un nerfed for long. Unless the 96% double attack was kept for the dual wield fist weapons only, no other dual wielded weapons and those weapons were not changed or had their damage ratings reduced by attack damage slightly to compensate for the massive double attack bonus.</p><p>If that was done I'd see no other alterations needing to be made to the current AA revamp concerning DPS for brawlers, tanking is a different story.</p><p>EDIT: The above numbers are not including any critical hit percentage, look for an approximate raise of 20% to all of those DPS numbers for average auto attack only DPS increase with current critical hit percentages. </p><p>EDIT 2: I know people are lazy and won't equate 20% to a significant raise so i'll do it for them: Emerald Hammer and Knotty Pine: ~2.4k Auto Attack DPS ||| Cudgel of Pain and Battle Hammer of Might: ~1.8k Auto Attack DPS.</p><p>Thats at only 20% melee crit, not the 30% +/- 1-3% a brawler will roll with on a raid with a bard.</p>

[Timaarit]

<cite>PaganSaint wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>LU 37 I believe are when the changes to one hand and dual wield weapons are going live, these changes in essence are going to make all one hands dual wieldable, with the offhand weapon recieving a moderate reduction in damage rating, and most dual wields will be converted to one hand damage rating quality.</p><p>In effect 96% double attack monk wielding say the Emerald Hammer(83-332dmg 4.9s delay) and a Knotty Pine Cudgel(102-306dmg 4.6s delay, debuffed to say 92-286dmg and up to a 4.9) will have two weapons at 2.4 delay(great for CA timing) that will be hitting for upwards of 1k-1.2k damage each, per attack, per double attack. Looking at approximately 2k DPS auto attack without including any procs off of auto attacks or other class abilities that add damage per attack. </p></blockquote>Well no, lets clarify one thing about LU37. Yes, you will be able to use two one-handers if you can dualwield. But the delay of the off-hand weapon will be doubled. Now I know that is not on test currently. But the wording of the change is that they will increase the delay of off-hand to compensate the increased damage from being able to use two 1H weapons. In effect this means doubling the delay of off-hand. Currently there is about 1/3 increase in the delay which means overall increase of 33% to autoattack DPS. But I dont think that is intentional since that would mean total death of 2-handers. Now if the change in test is real, then about 60% double attack would do the same as 96% DA with current system and yes, I would be satisfied with that. But if they do what I think they will and double the delay on the off-hand weapon, then 60% DA wont be enough. I also believe that the devs are totally ignoring the brawler classes and thus will provide absolutely no fix. The first set of changes was a clear indication of this.

[PaganSaint]

<p>From what I have seen the actual increase to delay on weapons has been almost random. A few I have seen have been increased by several tenths of a second(longer delay weapons usually) and others have been as much as doubled as you said.</p><p>Even then that is going to be around 1600-1800 dps Auto Attack for my extreme high end weapons above and 1000-1200 dps Auto Attack for the more average weapons I listed. Pre proc's and group buffs.</p><p>I am much more in favor of maintaining a high double attack rate, 70-80% self buffed, with the current versions of the fist weapons available. I like the style, look and over all feel of the fist weapons and it would be great to be getting the buff brawlers need from that choice of weaponry. But as it is, and if the double attack doesn't make a differentation between dual wield types I am definitely going for the Knotty Pine and Emerald Hammer or Knotty and a faster offhand if they actually make it a 30-50% increase in delay as they should in interest of balance.</p><p>What I'd like to see is something along the lines of this now that you have me thinking along these lines:</p><p><b>Strength Three</b>: 25% Base bonus to double attack, additional 5% per point of double attack when using dual wield fist weaponry.</p><p><b>Strength Four: </b>1.5% Per point chance to Riposte Incoming Melee Attacks.</p><p><b>Agility Three: </b>5% per point increase in Combat Art damage on Combat arts that have a 30 second or shorter Recast.</p><p><b>Agility Four:</b> 1.25% per point chance to Deflect Incoming Melee Attacks</p><p>Swap the bonuses from Wisdom Four and Stamina Four, it makes more sense to me alteast that +% Health Point boost comes from Stamina line.</p><p><b>Intelligence Three</b>: 3% per point chance that Melee Damage will be a Critical Hit</p><p><b>Intelligence Four</b>: 10% per point increase to Riposte Damage<b>. -OR</b>- 3% of the buffed parry per point increase to parry.  </p>

[Bewts]

<p>In all honesty,</p><p>If you are going to change how the combat system works in regards to weapons:</p><p><span style="font-size: large">WAIT TO CHANGE AA'S UNTIL THE COMBAT SYSTEM IS CHANGED</span></p><p>I can't emphasize this enough.  If the entire system of combat damage changes, especially in regards to weapons, please please please wait to address any AA skill issues until after LU37.  You can properly adjust AA's to put classes where they should be in regards to soloability/tankability/dps when the fallout occurs.  Doing the AA's now, then changing weapons around would just lead to inevitable nerfs and complaints from everyone if the weapon changes go in AFTER you just addressed AA issues in the current setup.</p><p>Please, heed my request - doing AA first then weapons seems Donkey Backwards to me.</p><p>Regards from Afghanistan,</p><p>Sanctum, 70 Monk</p>

[Couching]

Monk dps is surprising low even comparing to bruiser not to say other classes. <b>We have weak and fast CAs is one of the problems since you can't auto-attack while casting CA. </b> <b>Another problem is that we have incredible high self haste. </b>It's major design flaw that devs gave us high self haste to balance dps of each class in solo. In solo, a high end zerker dps is around 1k, high end busier without avatar weapon is also 1k. Me too, full masters with best non-avatar weapon is also 1k. See, it looks like dps of each class in solo is balanced. BUT it's not anymore in raid since the haste cap is only 125% in raid with diminishing return. To solve this problem, I suggest that devs change everburning  line from self haste to double attack. I have 90% haste without everburning blaze. If I have everburning blaze, I will hit 106% in raid. It's crazy since I can hit almost 110% after I get haste belt from avatar. It causes serious problem to monk dps in raid since<b> haste buff from group is totally negligible for monk but boost other melee significantly! It causes unbalance in raid.</b> If devs replace everburning line to self double attack, it will be more balance for monk in raid. For example, if devs can change <b>master 1 of everburning blaze to 20% double attack</b>, monk will do similar dps in solo but get more benefits from group buff in raid.

[PantherXX]

<p>I just wanted to chime in here.  I have often disagreed with Pagan, but he is not BSing when he says a brawler can do 2k zonewide.  I have seen a <i>bruiser</i> do it in FTH (if you threw out a couple of stupid wipes on the second to last named), with individual fights pushing 3k.  However, there are a couple of keys to that DPS:</p><ol><li>It was a bruiser.  I doubt a monk could do it.  Bruisers are far better at short duration burst damage.</li><li>It was a perfect group for a bruiser.  I don't think you could have made it any better.  Keep in mind the bruisers can benefit from both haste and DPS buffs, making them much more "buffable.</li><li>This was with the Freethinkers vampire gear.  That always add a nice little DPS boost.</li></ol><p>All brawlers are hurting on raids, although monks are a little farther behind for reasons that have already been rehashed in this thread.  These AA changes do nothing to fix that.  The loss of DA is a joke, and the only helpful change is reduced recast on Crane Flock.  I still feel like they are just trying to faze us out.  I also fear that when SOE looks at all the data they collect, they compare warrior and brawler DPS numbers and say "Hey, brawlers out-DPS warriors by a long shot in raids.  This is totally balanced!"  But what they fail to realize is that the warriors are always tanking and the brawlers are always in a DPS role.  Just a hunch, but I wonder if that explains some of the resistance to fixing us.</p>

[PantherXX]

Couching@Crushbone wrote: <blockquote> If devs replace everburning line to self double attack, it will be more balance for monk in raid. For example, if devs can change <b>master 1 of everburning blaze to 20% double attack</b>, monk will do similar dps in solo but get more benefits from group buff in raid. </blockquote> Sorry for the double post, but I love this idea.  Virtually no change for solo (in fact, it would lower DPS since you can't proc on DA) and moderate effect for non-stacked group play.  However, for a stacked raid group with haste and DPS buffs, this would be a welcome improvement.

[Raidi Sovin'faile]

Monks do, in fact, have too much self haste. I recall us bruisers being a little miffed that monks had a better health drain buff than us, and in it's place we only had a large damage backstab CA... but honestly, with stacking mind, it's probably worked in our favor. I really think there needs to be a full Fighter buff revamp, because there's quite a few issues with having multiple fighters in a raid right now. Even high DPS fighters aren't the best person to fill a slot, they just aren't as bad as putting a brawler in there that does less. However, for a competing spot in a raid, the Fighter shouldn't be doing DPS of equivalent levels as the scouts. They need to bring some kind of utility along with lower DPS in order to warrant a spot without overshadowing the DPS classes. One thing I never understood is why Hate Transfers aren't the dominion of Tanks. The game is built around 1 person taking the hits.. maybe 2 at most. So when you have a total of 6 classes that can take hits, you NEED something other than just "taking hits" (which only 2 at most need to do) or "Damage", which is the dominion of 12 other classes. We only really have 4 utility/buffing classes outside of the priests: bards and enchanters. Sure other classes bring a little of something, but purely focused utility is those 4 classes forte. Why not expand that to 10 classes by giving Fighters the secondary role of some major utility buffs. Then we can stop worrying about doing enough DPS to be in the raid, and figure out the worth of utility buffs and where to place people. Consider Tanks are all about aggro control, I'm baffled as to why Fighters aren't the primary classes that can: 1. Hate Transfer - All fighter offtank buffs should have the ability to funnel their hate to another Tank. This would drastically improve a Fighters options in a raid, and give EVERYONE more options for raid building. I honestly can't see a problem to this other than the assassin or swash whining that they can't be in a MT group instead of the DPS buffed group. <img src="/smilies/97ada74b88049a6d50a6ed40898a03d7.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> 2. Snap Aggro Forcing - With EoF came "force monster to target fighter" abilities. Some or all fighters should be getting some kind of ability like this. To reinforce raid utility, it could be cast onto a fighter, but not yourself, and whatever that fighter is targetting will automatically be forced to target him. Like an indirect rescue. Give it a longish recast so one person can't spam it continuously.. maybe even give it a 20-30s immunity to changes, but with a 1-2 minute recast, making multiple fighters in the raid useful for forcing aggro control. Different flavors of this could be passing along a hate position increase for the targetted tank... or a flat threat bonus.. or even a debuff onto the mob affected, etc. If you really want to enforce a certain set of classes as offtanks (like brawlers, since they aren't MT material atm), then here's where you can make some classes have really nice bonus effects compared to the raid MT ones. 3. Group buffs - Make them something small, but noticeable. Group gets a proc that debuffs X, where they could be mitigation, magic resists, attack speed, etc. Giving the whole group this bonus means it'll go off more often, and it's just one more "group bonus" that makes having a Fighter on the raid useful. Lastly, a change to Fighter Offense and Defense skills that make it so the +/- skill is seperate from the stances would do wonders for holding aggro. Sometimes it's more important that you land attacks because you don't have a class that buffs melee. Or sometimes the mobs are higher level and you really need your Aggression skill maxed. But these times can be independant of your Defensive and Offensive stance modes... against a 75 Epicx4, you NEED your Defensive stance mitigation and avoidance bonuses. However, you land hits like crap and start losing aggro potential. The stances need to be about increasing and reducing cast times, recast times, amounts of damage, etc... but NOT about the ability to land hits. This is because the ability to land hits ALREADY is magnified by the Epic level of the mob, whereas a reduction in CA damage or cast times is a flat across the board effect. So change all stances to have +CA/Spell damage, or procs for damage or effects, or whatnot... and all Defensive stances an opposite, reduction in those same things. Then give another set of toggle abilities that increase either combat skills, or aggression (and focus/ordination/ministration, etc, for crusaders). You could even tie these new skill based abilities in with the group buffs.. fixing two problems with one set of buffs. With these kinds of changes, there'd be more reason to bringing a Fighter to a raid other than MT or "some DPS". The problem of ~500 DPS differences between fighters will become a smaller issue once each fighter brings their own unique flavour of utility. Sure you might still want to focus on fixing some balancing issues, but the glaring problems of people being tossed to the sidelines will drastically be reduced with a major utility overhaul like this.

[Zabjade]

<p><span style="color: #00cc00">Looks like they are thowing us a Bone! <b>Not the upgrade we are hoping</b> for but <b>at least the Nerfbat has been turned from us</b> <i>(For now)</i> , although I wonder if we still have to be barefisted to use them?</span></p><p><b>Brawler</b> </p><ul><li>Stamina 5 - Mantis Leap: Removed power cost. It can also teleport to a target ally or enemy. Reuse speed increased from 60s to 45s. </li><li>Restored original Brawler Strength 2, 3, and 4 achievements to how they are on live.</li></ul>

[Zarafein]

<p>since they are restored how they are on live and it was always mentioned when the requirement was removed.. i guess yes.</p>

[selch]

<p>There was not any need for 4th line to change... </p><p>I'd expect % mit of overall mitigation on 4th line and ofcourse "unarmed requirement" is back too...</p><p>So STR is worthless with good weapons as it is before.</p>

[Navino]

How the hell is that good enough to be called an update? They've changed an AA line, and because it's not good, it's back to as it was. Right, well, the STR line is completely STUPID unless you have no weapons. (Level 10 - 50, this line is awesome) From level 50 - 70, there are decent weapons made available, and decent group buffs. The line becomes obsolete, and it's useless from then on. I thought this was meant to be an update or upgrade, all you've done is attempt to nerf us and then undone the nerf. Ffs, we don't need a nerf, we need a dps boost. =/ I've been completely and utter 'effed' off over the past few days, because i've realised what a load of bollocks my class is. I have MINIMAL raid utility, and i'm not wanted in the raid. Why have me tank when there's a guardian / berserker there? Why have me dps when there's scouts? Why bloody have a bruiser or brawler? EVERY brawler out there is shouting 'HELLO, WE NEED HELP, WE SUCK' - Yet we get a reduced timer charge on a line noone really uses, and you expect that to be a decent enough update? Pay attention to suggestions, they're what we think would be fair, and would help us. We're not crying wolf or whatever, we need a serious reconsidering, because tbh, if things don't shape up, I can't see myself in high end T7 / T8 raiding in the months to come. I'll be pushed out, and my job will be done by an alt character for certain encounters, and replaced thereon by a scout. Give us group buffs, I have 3 blooming concentration slots not used, 2 most definitely. Give me a STR / AGI buff for the group, give me a buff that stoneskins my group, give me a buff that increases double-attack of the group, Change the str line to increase double attack per rank of caster and group per rank, for a new spell you'll implement. (Mentioned group buff for double atk, increase via AA) You can say, yeah, we've tested them via a Dev. How about, you let people from Live tell you about these changes and you pay attention to them. The people who're actually sat out 90% of EoF raids because they're obsolete? The people who're fed up of being outparsed by illusionists and berserkers. =/ I've ranted plenty enough about how rubbish my class is, and I want a god [I cannot control my vocabulary] revamp of the class. Make us parse 2k+, give us more raid utility or remove us from the god [I cannot control my vocabulary] game, we're pointless. Eugh. <b>I've thought of more stuff.</b> Well, you won't give us more dps or anything because we're a hybrid and we already rock at Soloing? - Okay, 1) Brawlers can only solo well when they have decent equipment, mostly fabled. 2) That fabled equipment can only be achieved if a guild accept you, and with the current brawler class, who would? 3) Who the hell would want to solo all through 7, soon to be 8, tiers of this game? Are you serious? Why are we so 'Solo capable', when you developers have included raid zones and group instances? More group utility, more raid utility needed. 4) You claim we're over-solo capable, but I can name you plenty of classes who're more Solo-capable, and OWN me in raid and solo, and it just makes me think, why the hell aren't these classes nerfed to buggery, to make us more equal, or boost us to be equal to them? I 'button mash', to achieve dps in a raid, right? I have to spam everything I have to reach where I can on the parse, given an 'okay' setup. Why should I have to go FULL OUT to achieve dps that a scout could do whilst slacking? As suggested just now in the Crushbone.Allmonks WW channel (Says monks but it's WW brawlers) - How about a group of brawlers from raiding guilds (Top end) are sat down with a couple of developers and allow us to give you our two cents? If it be meeting up on Live and chatting it out, I don't care, but I want my input to be heard. My. Class. Sucks. Can <b>someone</b> give me a PM, email me or something, and let me give you some decent input? (Dev ?) I feel as if my ranting does nothing, and noone pays attention to it, when all of this is going through the mind of the raiding brawler. I may edit this some more when I feel I've come up with more Brawler-sucks stuff.

[Foretold]

<p>Hmmmmm....</p><p>Well I'd have to say that I AM glad the nerf bat swung away from our STR line.  At least we aren't being gimped even more...</p><p>But I would have liked to have seen some of the changes we suggested in place of the old method.</p><p>No nerf = good, no fix = bad... so I guess I just feel.... meh.</p><p>I'll keep with the lines I'm already running on my brawlers.  And pray for a real fix someday.  Like soon... ?</p>

[PaganSaint]

Well I am glad that they realised that their proposed changes to the strength line abilities sucked. I'm rather aggravated that they did nothing to solve anything that they could have for Brawler DPS by just reverting to the old AA abilities. It is complete and utter idiocy that instead of taking player feedback they just go back to the old AAs that were proven inadequate. It is like the player base and the way the game actually works means nothing to the people implementing and deciding on the changes.

[Navino]

<cite>PaganSaint wrote:</cite><blockquote>Well I am glad that they realised that their proposed changes to the strength line abilities sucked. I'm rather aggravated that they did nothing to solve anything that they could have for Brawler DPS by just reverting to the old AA abilities. It is complete and utter idiocy that instead of taking player feedback they just go back to the old AAs that were proven inadequate. It is like the player base and the way the game actually works means nothing to the people implementing and deciding on the changes. </blockquote>Hence why I wouldn't mind a 1 on 1 with a Developer so they could hear my story, my opinion, which i'm sure is an exact copy of every other brawler out there. That we need more dps and raid utility, to make us a more desired class. We're not as good as they make us out to be, and people who say we're the 'perfect soloers' are the ones who get us 'effed' over every time.

[Junaru]

<cite>Navino wrote:</cite><blockquote>As suggested just now in the Crushbone.Allmonks WW channel (Says monks but it's WW brawlers) - How about a group of brawlers from raiding guilds (Top end) are sat down with a couple of developers and allow us to give you our two cents? If it be meeting up on Live and chatting it out, I don't care, but I want my input to be heard. My. Class. Sucks. </blockquote> Why would you take just 1% of the complete demographic? What can a Top Raid Guild Monk tell you about raiding low level zones? You realize some guilds (mine included) have 2 grouped labs? Does that give us the right to speak for the Monks who are having issues just killing the named in labs with a full raid force? Sorry but if you want to know what Brawlers need (All brawlers not just the EoF fabled ones) you need to get a wide selection of Brawlers not just the elite ones. As for the new changes on test to the STR line. I'm hopeful that this is a revert because of our out cries and that they are now looking into what we really need. Only time will tell. I believe we having given them enough ideas. They just need to listen/read them.

[Navino]

<cite>Junaru wrote:</cite><blockquote> Why would you take just 1% of the complete demographic? What can a Top Raid Guild Monk tell you about raiding low level zones? You realize some guilds (mine included) have 2 grouped labs? Does that give us the right to speak for the Monks who are having issues just killing the named in labs with a full raid force? Sorry but if you want to know what Brawlers need (All brawlers not just the EoF fabled ones) you need to get a wide selection of Brawlers not just the elite ones. As for the new changes on test to the STR line. I'm hopeful that this is a revert because of our out cries and that they are now looking into what we really need. Only time will tell. I believe we having given them enough ideas. They just need to listen/read them. </blockquote>Tbh, what an EOF fabled brawler can tell a Dev, is beneficial to both the EOF fabled brawler and that of which does 'Low level zones'.  An upgrade to an EOF fabled brawler is an update to someone who's not as well geared, as well. The "Elite" brawlers need a boost, so therefore, the boost to us would be beneficial to you too. You have to understand that a fabled brawler <b>is</b> going to be better than one that isn't, and will probably have more of a decent input than a non-fabled, as they have seen the game from a wide variety of angles. From grouping, to soloing, to raiding, we've most likely been there, to the top-end stuff that really requires your concentration, and when you really need to know your class. And tbh, a 'Top Raid Guild Monk' can tell you alot about raiding low level zones. They were once there, hence the progression to where they are now. Im not doubting the fact that yeah, they should question more than one brawler, or not just the 'elite' brawler, a wide amount of opinions would be better than the opinion of one person, that's obvious. Im just blabbing on now, but I feel what a fabled brawler could tell a dev, would benefit the brawler class as a whole, and not just the 'fabled' brawler side of the class.

[MadLordOfMilk]

<cite>Junaru wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Navino wrote:</cite><blockquote>As suggested just now in the Crushbone.Allmonks WW channel (Says monks but it's WW brawlers) - How about a group of brawlers from raiding guilds (Top end) are sat down with a couple of developers and allow us to give you our two cents? If it be meeting up on Live and chatting it out, I don't care, but I want my input to be heard. My. Class. Sucks. </blockquote> Why would you take just 1% of the complete demographic? What can a Top Raid Guild Monk tell you about raiding low level zones? You realize some guilds (mine included) have 2 grouped labs? <b>Does that give us the right to speak for the Monks who are having issues just killing the named in labs with a full raid force?</b> Sorry but if you want to know what Brawlers need (All brawlers not just the EoF fabled ones) you need to get a wide selection of Brawlers not just the elite ones. As for the new changes on test to the STR line. I'm hopeful that this is a revert because of our out cries and that they are now looking into what we really need. Only time will tell. I believe we having given them enough ideas. They just need to listen/read them. </blockquote>The issue is with raids overall... if the people who know what's missing at the top end were to provide input, the upgrades would effect both top end and bottom end monks/bruisers. Just because your guild is further along in raid progression doesn't mean much in terms of "my class is botched". Whether you can two-group labs or you can't even kill a trash mob in labs, you're stuck with the same problems.

[PaganSaint]

Its not just 1% of the demographic, its the top end of the demographic who have spent the time, effort and have seen the classes evolve and know what they are lacking and how they lost it. Balancing the class from the top down will avoid the catastrophe of having the developers "balance" the classes from the bottom up with no idea of how that effects the top end, you can either get no change at all, a horrible outcome, or you can get something that is so over powered that the nerf bat will be incoming swiftly, yet another horrible outcome. And to be honest, in solo and heroic play, where self buffs from class and gear are most important, Brawlers are about balanced but for top end content and raiding they are lacking, an outcome of bottom up balancing. Only when you take the abilities and buffs to their full potentials can you see how these buffs and abilities need to be changed and revamped.

[Bewts]

<p>Some of the more outspoken brawlers who have posted on this thread have agreed with some of the examples I provided of valid and positive changes for our classes.  I do not consider myself an elite brawler by any means (look up Sanctum on Everfrost).  I do however think that there are beneficial inputs from many people from all tiers of experience.  Granted you may find more serious people about the class in the top tiers of guilds, but across the board there is input to be made.  A roundtable with a handful of selected brawlers from across servers and guilds would portray a valid assessment of what brawlers think is wrong with the class, what is needed and maybe even get some answers to the age old questions brawlers have asked about - Is it intended for a brawler to MT end game content in raids?  What is the intended role of a brawler in raids, groups and solo?  Are we considered overpowered because of our current utility (FD being an example)?  Personally, I if it isn't too much to ask - a simple questionaire(I think I spelled that wrong) sent via PM to many of the handles who posted on this thread would be appreciated.  Make the questions very specific and go off the answers you get.  At least you would get some input from a wide variety of players from all tiers and expeience levels.</p><p>I do think that the outcry of brawlers with the proposed changes has definitely caught someone's attention as they reversed the proposed changes on test already.  I do think that it wasn't a few squeeky wheels making the noise - and there are more than a few people consistently sharing input.</p><p>I do question how double attack will function now that they reversed their proposal.  We still won't be able to double attack with any weapons compared to every other class that can.  It will be interesting to see just how much double attack the development team thinks we need when they eventually give us double attack with weapons.</p>

[Kainsei]

<cite>Zabjade wrote:</cite><blockquote><p><b>Brawler</b> </p><ul><li>Stamina 5 - Mantis Leap: Removed power cost. It can also teleport to a target ally or enemy. Reuse speed increased from 60s to 45s. </li><li>Restored original Brawler Strength 2, 3, and 4 achievements to how they are on live.</li></ul></blockquote>It's not really what we expected but at least, somone listened to our complaints :/ .

[Masterofthisgame]

Iam happy to see they restore strengh 3 to its original way.( Keeps the unhand combat for brawlers usefull) Still would like to see an improvement in the strength line.Considering the effects of weapons procs and adornments on weapons, you will only see a handfull of brawlers going this line.( even though chi is better now, chi should have a lower recast to make it more usefull) I would really like to see the whole strenght aa line dedicated to unhand combat.An increase in dps overall in the str tree that would give equavalent dps to fable adornned weapons. I know some of you out there would say this would never happen because getting  too close to fable weapons in dps will take away from its usefullness. But still the lost of stats from 2 dual weild weapons and procs will still leave only a few brawlers going str aa path.( possible loss of total of 200 stats 200 hp 200 power, avoidance,procs that trigger more often due to lower delay dual weild weapons.) Str aa path is old school brawlers that prefer no weapons in combat.The price to pay for going this path is great.

[Zabjade]

<p><span style="color: #00cc00">Yeah on Test I may have to make Zethra my Neriakian Iksar Bruiser go that Strength line for now she is starting the first quest of the Betrayal to Qeynos and since she is my only character there she has no support for better gear. </span></p><p><span style="color: #00cc00">I do plan to keep up on this thread but we should also post non AA ideas on the Brawler fix thread to avoid derailment charges <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></span></p><p><span style="color: #00cc00">Monks <b>STILL</b> need a GREAT deal of help, when a ^^^ green yard trash mob that is 10 levels below you can kick you to the Mender <i>(death not nekid)</i>  2 times you know something is wrong. </span></p><p><span style="color: #00cc00">Yeah I tried to start Swords of Destiny Chapter 2 on my Befallen Monk no one I sent tells to on my friends list was free to group they were all raiding or going in other instance dungeons. some never even heard of the Sword of Destiny and one said that she never did quest as a rule! <i>(Still shocked at that one</i> o.O <i>)</i></span></p>

[Shankonia]

<cite>Masterofthisgame wrote:</cite><blockquote>Iam happy to see they restore strengh 3 to its original way.( Keeps the unhand combat for brawlers usefull) Still would like to see an improvement in the strength line.Considering the effects of weapons procs and adornments on weapons, you will only see a handfull of brawlers going this line.( even though chi is better now, chi should have a lower recast to make it more usefull) I would really like to see the whole strenght aa line dedicated to unhand combat.An increase in dps overall in the str tree that would give equavalent dps to fable adornned weapons. I know some of you out there would say this would never happen because getting  too close to fable weapons in dps will take away from its usefullness. But still the lost of stats from 2 dual weild weapons and procs will still leave only a few brawlers going str aa path.( possible loss of total of 200 stats 200 hp 200 power, avoidance,procs that trigger more often due to lower delay dual weild weapons.) Str aa path is old school brawlers that prefer no weapons in combat.The price to pay for going this path is great. </blockquote><p> I don't really think barefisted combat is the answer.  We'd been pleading our case for changes for quite some time now - way before that test update that took them away..</p><p>I think the issue most had was that our double attack itself was in fact removed.</p><p>I've seen alot of very well though out alternate solutions posted in this thread, and I can only hope the devs 'reset' the test AA in order to start again from a clean slate and will now take these quality alternatives into consideration.   </p>

[Xenobe]

I am honestly baffled that supposed "old school" brawlers are praising the current str line and like the unarmed aspect. I played a monk since beta of eq1 there is nothing old school about not using weapons. It is an extremely limited and counterproductive aa line. Here we have the chance to give some direction and definition to the brawler tree in the way of dps or tanking and people want to keep us crippled. The only viable thing about the str line is using it for leveling up . After that it is worthless. You can buy halls of seeing weapons for next to nothing now and do more dps. If you want to not use weapons for the lore aspect then no one is making you. But to dedicate an entire line to unarmed combat when we are in dire need of some sort of boost is ludicrous. I am glad they removed the initial change to the str line because it was absolutely no more viable. Warriors get multi target auto attack and double attack. Crusaders get multi target auto attack. We get an aoe proc.. when we have no reactive hate and one ae taunt and long re-cast aes. SWEEEEEET. I consider myself fortunate to be a skilled enough player to warrant a raid spot on Dissolution's small roster. Because it is surely not because of what my class brings. Many top end guilds roll without brawlers and I can't say I blame them. There is pretty much nothing another class can't do better. So the point of this is to discuss brawler AA changes. Well the first str line changes were bogus and obviously reverted. I would imagine we are never going to replace warriors and main tanks and I am fine with that. In eq1 our role was dps and pulling. Since very little is required in the way of pulling in eq2 that leaves dps. I don't expect to be out parsing wizards and assassins but given our minor utility I don't think it is unreasonable to do roguish dps. Double attack or multi target auto attack. A useful grp buff. Some kind of utility. I don't know Sony's intended role of the brawler class if there even is one so I can't say what to give us specifically. I am tired of seeing the same complaints in the brawler channels day in and day out. More and more quitting or re-rolling. Since eq1 the monk has been a unique and charismatic class but the lack of usefulness in raids is getting old. Please take this opportunity to give us some desirability in raiding. Whether in the form of dps/tanking/utility, the direction is in your hands but to leave us as the last kid picked for dodge ball is getting old. Xenobe - Bruiser of Dissolution

[Cirth_Beer]

I share Xenobe though, and i'm quite disapointed with the recent changes ...

[Timaarit]

Well, at least now we have our double attack. Now they just need to do as they promised and remove the weapon restriction.

[Couching]

It's really crazy that devs restored what str line 2 3 4 were. Str line is great for people who play brawler as their alt since they can save money on it. However, it's really unfair for players who play brawler as their main. Why is there one line totally suck for raiding brawlers? Moreover, no more mitigation boost from aa, not to say double attack or aggro control enhancement. <b>It's very clear that the role of brawler in SoE is ALT. Yes, brawler didn't deserve a room in raid, sit out and play another class if you want to raid.</b> People who have posted a lot in this thread just look like idiots. Nice slap on our faces, way to go SoE!

[Etchii]

<p>Just because some people might be hard-core number crunching, min maxing, i need the best fabled weapons OMGZZZZZZZ look at my parse... doesn't mean all of us brawlers are.</p><p> Bare fisted is great role play, great fun, and it is unique.  </p><p> Don't destroy it. </p>

[Geothe]

The should just adjust the way the double attack works in the Str line. Something like: If barefist, double attack at the current rate. If weapon equiped, double attack at like 5% per point, or something like that. Then it would be a viable choice for both a leveling up brawler and a high end brawler.

[Etchii]

<cite>Timaarit wrote:</cite><blockquote>Well, at least now we have our double attack. Now they just need to do as they promised and remove the weapon restriction. </blockquote><p> This AA ability was meant to bring bare fisted in line with using weapons in terms of dps.  If they remove the restriction and leave bare-fisted as is, it will defeat the purpose.  Why use bare fisted when I can use a 2 handed staff now with a 98% double attack chance???  More importantly, when the mobs are designed around people using 2 handed staffs, dual wield batons, etc... with a 98% double attack, how is it I am supposed to survive using a no stat one hand terrible DR weapon (aka..bare fist)?</p><p> I think the best solution is to increase bare-fisted base stats to be in line with weapon using brawlers, we have two fists...there is no reason it should be one handed.  In my mind, equippable weapons should have a slightly lower (1 point or two) DR than bare fists to compensate for the added effects,stats, & resists the weapons provide.</p><p>Maybe bring back the bare-fisted proc bonus in the stances..?</p>

[selch]

<p>You are missing the point, changes were made AA lines to be in-line with popularity, not weapon types to be in-line with popularity. Bare fisted is not a weapon, nor something to take account on. Let me hit you with a knuckler or bare fist which would hurt more.</p><p>BARE FISTS ARE NOT A WEAPON! CAPISH? </p><p>And monks / bruisers are not "unarmed fighters"</p>

[Timaarit]

<cite>Etchii wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Timaarit wrote:</cite><blockquote>Well, at least now we have our double attack. Now they just need to do as they promised and remove the weapon restriction. </blockquote><p> This AA ability was meant to bring bare fisted in line with using weapons in terms of dps.  If they remove the restriction and leave bare-fisted as is, it will defeat the purpose.  Why use bare fisted when I can use a 2 handed staff now with a 98% double attack chance???  More importantly, when the mobs are designed around people using 2 handed staffs, dual wield batons, etc... with a 98% double attack, how is it I am supposed to survive using a no stat one hand terrible DR weapon (aka..bare fist)?</p><p> I think the best solution is to increase bare-fisted base stats to be in line with weapon using brawlers, we have two fists...there is no reason it should be one handed.  In my mind, equippable weapons should have a slightly lower (1 point or two) DR than bare fists to compensate for the added effects,stats, & resists the weapons provide.</p><p>Maybe bring back the bare-fisted proc bonus in the stances..?</p></blockquote>Well, they can then increase the bonuses from the rest of the str line for fighting bare fist. But the fact is that brawler classes need at least 50% double attack even while using weapons. 96% would be a true fix that together with rogue nerf would make brawlers much more viable class on raiding that we have been so far. But even that would not put a brawler in front of 2nd brigand or swashy in terms of desirability because of brawlers lack of both buffs and debuffs. But at least then brawlers would not be outright kicked out when some better dps is available. The question now is that do the devs really care or will they continue on not giving a [Removed for Content].

[mr23sgte]

<p>Does this all go to LIVe tomorrow? Doesn't look like Brawlers got much love - </p><p>I was hoping to keep the mit increase AA and have it bumped up a little maybe a % of your current mit /rank. </p><p>I personally have never even used the strength line, but I guess it must be nice??????? with all the complaints. I was gonna try it out if the weapon restictions were removed. Chi seems pointless since I'm already near or past the haste/dps caps when raiding  - am I missing something on that ability?</p><p> The only thing that will have changed for me is:</p><p>1) crane flock is faster recast.</p><p>2) crane twirl will proc more for less dmg.  (hoping this helps group aggro)</p><p>I do less dps than our MT guard, have hardly no utility, two mediocre debuffs and not tank as well as any other tank class.</p><p>What would make me happy personally?</p><p>1) Increase our uncontested avoid against epics only or increase our Brawler specific gears mit, give us a Mit AA.</p><p>2) Up our aggro control for group mobs. </p><p>3) A slight increase in CA or Auto attack dmg, but not much!  </p><p>4)Make our Str/Wis buff group</p>

[Shankonia]

<cite>selch wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>You are missing the point, changes were made AA lines to be in-line with popularity, not weapon types to be in-line with popularity. Bare fisted is not a weapon, nor something to take account on. Let me hit you with a knuckler or bare fist which would hurt more.</p><p>BARE FISTS ARE NOT A WEAPON! CAPISH? </p><p>And monks / bruisers are not "unarmed fighters"</p></blockquote><p> I agree Selch.  I mean, if you are going to fight someone/thing to the death, and weapons are available to use, what're you going to bring?  A big old beat down stick or your fists?   Give me the stick please so I can ride my horse home alive thank you.</p><p>And Lore?  Blah.  I will always use weapons on my Monk, because that's how he rolls.  That's his style, his way, and his means.  I prefer a bo staff in which we have unique graphics for - or the Knuncuckas that havn't come out yet.</p><p>Besides, barefisted fighting is poor marketing as in turn it leaves much less to be desired.  Fabeled equivalent weapons 'free of charge' (no repairs, no looting involved) is a bad, bad idea.    </p>

[Kaoru]

<cite>Masterofthisgame wrote:</cite><blockquote>Iam happy to see they restore strengh 3 to its original way.( Keeps the unhand combat for brawlers usefull) Still would like to see an improvement in the strength line.Considering the effects of weapons procs and adornments on weapons, you will only see a handfull of brawlers going this line.( even though chi is better now, chi should have a lower recast to make it more usefull) I would really like to see the whole strenght aa line dedicated to unhand combat.An increase in dps overall in the str tree that would give equavalent dps to fable adornned weapons. I know some of you out there would say this would never happen because getting  too close to fable weapons in dps will take away from its usefullness. But still the lost of stats from 2 dual weild weapons and procs will still leave only a few brawlers going str aa path.( possible loss of total of 200 stats 200 hp 200 power, avoidance,procs that trigger more often due to lower delay dual weild weapons.) Str aa path is old school brawlers that prefer no weapons in combat.The price to pay for going this path is great. </blockquote> At level 70 and in any kind of raid or even group situation and with the whole diminishing returns cap, the loss of these stats would be minimal and closer to really only like 50 of a few stats and maybe still the 200health and power. All of which would be made up with buffs and you would hardly miss a step. And as far as the role playing individual is concerned, that is  most likely such a small percentage of actual players i doubt it would warrant its own aa line. The best thing to do is have the str line scale to players with OR without weapons thus helping out the lower level brawlers who are really the only ones who make real use of this line. With a 15 min reuse timer on chi no one in their right mind would take it even with no penalties. Most other classes large hits, manaburn etc. are on far lower times (around 5 min), it would only make sense to lower chi to 5 min as well and it would at least make it somewhat attractive. If it goes live like this I don't think anyone will be switching from the 448 sta/wis/int or the also popular 4488 wis 44882 int. If the intent was to make other less popular lines a more viable choice then the devs have failed miserably. SOE had a chance to help out our gimped class, one can only hope that they changed it back so they can have a starting point to make more changes. There are a lot of great suggestions in this thread It would be sad to see them just flat out ignored. Yay for getting rid of the str line changes Boo for not actually fixing it Kaoru Monk Blackburrow

[Shankonia]

Hereo@Unrest wrote: <blockquote><p>Does this all go to LIVe tomorrow? Doesn't look like Brawlers got much love - </p><p>I was hoping to keep the mit increase AA and have it bumped up a little maybe a % of your current mit /rank. </p><p>I personally have never even used the strength line, but I guess it must be nice??????? with all the complaints. I was gonna try it out if the weapon restictions were removed. Chi seems pointless since I'm already near or past the haste/dps caps when raiding  - am I missing something on that ability?</p><p> The only thing that will have changed for me is:</p><p>1) crane flock is faster recast.</p><p>2) crane twirl will proc more for less dmg. </p><p>I still will be asked to sit on raids....do less dps than our Guard and not tank as well as any other tank class.</p></blockquote><p>Does it go live tommorrow?  Man, hope not.</p><p>What I think is funny is the fact that they examined and changed the AA's to enhance the ones that were currently under utilized and weak in comparison to the others.</p><p>All we currently get atm is an enhancement to one of the AA lines that most everyone already uses - Wisdom.  I imagine quite a few people will be hopping on over to the Widsom line now...seems sort of counter productive and contradictive to me.  </p>

[Foretold]

<p>The pros and cons of barefisted fighting are not the issue here with the STR line.</p><p>The issue was that the initial proposed changes to the AA made things worse than they were before.  We've rallied and rallied to have that change fixed, with some great suggestions on fixes that would help the brawler class.</p><p>The dev's solution to what was a [Removed for Content] AA change? Change it back.</p><p>Not what we asked for.  Now we have no nerf, but we have no fix.  I personally was pretty sure they were just going to stick with the nerf.  So no nerf is good news.  But not good enough.</p><p>We werent specifically asking to have barefisted fighting returned to monks.  Now, personally, I think  barefisted fighting is a LEGITMATE option for those who like to play that way, and should be supported.  But the whole STR line made useless to those who do not wish to play that way??  I didn't like the idea from the start, still don't like it.  But the AA change propsed to FIX it was a joke, and needed to go.</p><p>We are still looking for a FIX to the brawler class, and still trying to push the great ideas our community has suggested.  We should be joining together to put our efforts into this end, instead of going back-and-forth on the merits of barefisted fighting.</p>

[Shankonia]

<p>Double post, sorry.  See below.</p>

[Shankonia]

<cite>Eowyna1979 wrote:</cite><blockquote> There are a lot of great suggestions in this thread It would be sad to see them just flat out ignored. Yay for getting rid of the str line changes Boo for not actually fixing it Kaoru Monk Blackburrow </blockquote><p> SOE reminds me of that raid leader who is hell bent on killing (x) mob his way and doing everything he can to circumvent that viable strat you presented after having already killed the mob 20 times.  A close minded RL can destroy a guild just like a close minded Dev can destroy a class.</p><p>SOE Dev:  "Let's see, they want double attack...hmmm...I know!  Let's enhance their CA's and lower the recast timers!"  (the one thing in the monk forum we never came up with).</p><p>I really hope i'm wrong and pride does not stand in the way of us being made viable....just hope they don't turn the str line into a healing line....</p>

[Kainsei]

Someone already said it but, why don't they make the str line like bard sta line ?? See : <p>Bard </p><ul><li>Stamina 4 - Fortissimo: Grants your group melee and ranged doubleattack at 1% per rank, and 2% per rank for allies that have a shield equipped.</li></ul> We could have something like this : Brawler <ul><li>Strength 3 : Increase melee doubleattack by 4% per rank, and 12% per rank if primary and secondary slots are empty.</li></ul>

[Bladewind]

Lanari@Storms wrote: <blockquote>Someone already said it but, why don't they make the str line like bard sta line ?? See : <p>Bard </p><ul><li>Stamina 4 - Fortissimo: Grants your group melee and ranged doubleattack at 1% per rank, and 2% per rank for allies that have a shield equipped.</li></ul> We could have something like this : Brawler <ul><li>Strength 3 : Increase melee doubleattack by 4% per rank, and 12% per rank if primary and secondary slots are empty.</li></ul> </blockquote><p>Precisely, if they want to keep the bare-handed aspect in the str line, the skills should have a partial benefit for everyone, then an adiditional bonus if the player is barehanded.  As has been said a zillion times already, tying all benefits int he line to being barehanded makes the line obsolete at higher levels due to high quality looted weapons being able to easily outdamage it along with giving their stat benefits.  Taking a page from Lanari's book, I would suggest:</p><ul><li>Strength 3: Increase melee doubleattack by 4% per rank, and 12% per rank if primary and secondary slots are empty.</li><li>Strength 4: 1% Riposte per rank, 1.5% per rank if primary and secondary slots are empty.</li><li>Strength 5: Chi has no negative chi component and is on a 5-ish minute recast.  No weapon restrictions.</li></ul><p>This allows for anyone to get benefits from the line, making it desirable to more than just people who want to level cheaply without buying weapons. </p>

[GinFan]

<p>I dislike the bare fists in general.  It's no more class defining than fist weapons.  I think they should make bare fists suck and remove it's relationship to any aa tree.  If you like barefists, fine, no arguements here, just an opinion.</p><p> That said dev's please read this post again.  There are some good ideas here betwixt all the bickering.</p>

[tt66]

<cite>PaganSaint wrote:</cite><blockquote>It is complete and utter idiocy that instead of taking player feedback they just go back to the old AAs that were proven inadequate. It is like the player base and the way the game actually works means nothing to the people implementing and deciding on the changes. </blockquote> Well perhaps if the first half of this thread hadn't devolved into a pointless slap-fight, the devs might have taken the "player base" a bit more seriously.

[Junaru]

Lanari@Storms wrote: <blockquote>Someone already said it but, why don't they make the str line like bard sta line ?? See : <p>Bard </p><ul><li>Stamina 4 - Fortissimo: Grants your group melee and ranged doubleattack at 1% per rank, and 2% per rank for allies that have a shield equipped.</li></ul> We could have something like this : Brawler <ul><li>Strength 3 : Increase melee doubleattack by 4% per rank, and 12% per rank if primary and secondary slots are empty.</li></ul> </blockquote>I must be invisible or something but didn't I say that back on page 8. <img src="/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <cite>Junaru wrote:</cite><blockquote>    * Strength 3 - Relentless Punches: Renamed to Eye of the Tiger: No longer requires unarmed. Increases all combat art damage by 0.75% per rank.       <span style="color: #cc0000">Ok so you give us a form of double attack but only while unarmed and now you completely take it away? Great. I would rather you made this 40% double attack and 20% DPS while using weapons and 96% and 20% if unarmed. You are taking away a bread & butter AA from Brawlers that don't have access to fabled weapons. Rogues get 44%(only losing 8%) and DW weapons and already out DPS us by a FAR margin.</span> </blockquote>

[Foretold]

<cite>Bladewind wrote:</cite><blockquote>Lanari@Storms wrote: <blockquote>  *Snip for space*</blockquote><p>Precisely, if they want to keep the bare-handed aspect in the str line, the skills should have a partial benefit for everyone, then an adiditional bonus if the player is barehanded.  As has been said a zillion times already, tying all benefits int he line to being barehanded makes the line obsolete at higher levels due to high quality looted weapons being able to easily outdamage it along with giving their stat benefits.  Taking a page from Lanari's book, I would suggest:</p><ul><li>Strength 3: Increase melee doubleattack by 4% per rank, and 12% per rank if primary and secondary slots are empty.</li><li>Strength 4: 1% Riposte per rank, 1.5% per rank if primary and secondary slots are empty.</li><li>Strength 5: Chi has no negative chi component and is on a 5-ish minute recast.  No weapon restrictions.</li></ul><p>This allows for anyone to get benefits from the line, making it desirable to more than just people who want to level cheaply without buying weapons. </p></blockquote>I love this idea.  Ima bump it all day <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[PantherXX]

<cite>Etchii wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Timaarit wrote:</cite><blockquote>Well, at least now we have our double attack. Now they just need to do as they promised and remove the weapon restriction. </blockquote><p> This AA ability was meant to bring bare fisted in line with using weapons in terms of dps.  If they remove the restriction and leave bare-fisted as is, it will defeat the purpose.  Why use bare fisted when I can use a 2 handed staff now with a 98% double attack chance???  More importantly, when the mobs are designed around people using 2 handed staffs, dual wield batons, etc... with a 98% double attack, how is it I am supposed to survive using a no stat one hand terrible DR weapon (aka..bare fist)?</p><p> I think the best solution is to increase bare-fisted base stats to be in line with weapon using brawlers, we have two fists...there is no reason it should be one handed.  In my mind, equippable weapons should have a slightly lower (1 point or two) DR than bare fists to compensate for the added effects,stats, & resists the weapons provide.</p><p>Maybe bring back the bare-fisted proc bonus in the stances..?</p></blockquote><p>Fighting bare fisted cannot be made equivalent to wielding a weapon.  It is a problem that RPGs have always faced with bare fisted fighters and presents a class balance problem.  Why should brawlers not need to find good weapons in order to maximize their DPS?  I guarantee that everyone and their brother would complain that "brawlers get free weapons ... that's not fair."  And frankly, they would be right.  The STR line was a nice line for leveling and a nod towards flavor of the class.  A number of other classes had similar lines ... think Battle Cleric or the chanter melee line.  If everyone is left with one of these quirky, flavor lines, I am fine if the STR line stays that way too.  The problem comes when we start to fall behind other classes in our AA choices, and I think that is happening now.</p><p>I think we are sorely in need of some for of DA and/or a more effective AOE damage.  I am not certain whether the guardian AOE autoattack can also proc, but multi-target autoattack that could proc Storm Advance on multiple targets would go a long way towards helping our agro issues and improve our group dps.</p><p>Alternatively, I have always thought it would be cool if we had a separate haste cap ... maybe 150-175% "real" haste.  Monks, from a lore point of view, should be the kings of speed/haste.  More haste would up our DPS and let us proc more ... giving us something different than everyone else.  Similar things could be done with the bruiser and the DPS cap. </p>

[Raidi Sovin'faile]

While Monks are definitely Haste vs Bruiser's DPS... Bruisers only get 1 single buff for DPS that buffs the group. And it's a big fat 25 points. Thats why Bruisers are fine with stacking, because ANY buffs they get from anywhere will give a lot to them. The 25 DPS mod they get is minimal, so even getting 100 DPS won't even bring us close to the cap. If we got +DPS on our offensive attack, and had our health drain buff changed to a +DPS mod instead of a +mitigation mod.. then I'd agree, we'd be a flipside of the monk class. As it stands... Monks are hurting in the raid scene because they don't benefit from the buffs others can give. In the post I made in the Combat Forums regarding fixing tanks in general, I purposely point out that Monks should have something other than haste modifiers for some buffs so that they can benefit from stacking mods better elsewhere. <hr /> With regards to unarmed combat, I'm agreement with most folks here... it's just not supposed to be a primary combat method. They are coming out with Epic weapons. You will be able to solo and heroic group the Legendary version of the Epic weapon. That simply cannot fit with the current Strength line and unarmed combat concept. I'm okay with having higher double attack if unarmed, procs if unarmed, etc... I'd just like to have the line take into account the soon to be coming Epic weapons and let us use weapons with that line, even if it's at a reduced value. Otherwise we'll be the only classes that have AA's that won't fit with their Epic weapons (which is EXACTLY what this fix was supposed to be about). For those that are crying about fighting without weapons... just slap on some handwraps. Handwraps are basically openhand combat, but count as weapons in and can be imbued, etc. It's a shame there aren't as many higher end ones... but there's a few. Get two Closing Time for the Legendary folks, and I'm pretty sure there's two Fabled "glowy runed hands" ones, one of which is the claymore reward.

[Junaru]

Kaisoku@Mistmoore wrote: <blockquote>While Monks are definitely Haste vs Bruiser's DPS... Bruisers only get 1 single buff for DPS that buffs the group. And it's a big fat 25 points. Thats why Bruisers are fine with stacking, because ANY buffs they get from anywhere will give a lot to them. The 25 DPS mod they get is minimal, so even getting 100 DPS won't even bring us close to the cap. If we got +DPS on our offensive attack, and had our health drain buff changed to a +DPS mod instead of a +mitigation mod.. then I'd agree, we'd be a flipside of the monk class. As it stands... Monks are hurting in the raid scene because they don't benefit from the buffs others can give. In the post I made in the Combat Forums regarding fixing tanks in general, I purposely point out that Monks should have something other than haste modifiers for some buffs so that they can benefit from stacking mods better elsewhere. <hr /> With regards to unarmed combat, I'm agreement with most folks here... it's just not supposed to be a primary combat method. They are coming out with Epic weapons. You will be able to solo and heroic group the Legendary version of the Epic weapon. That simply cannot fit with the current Strength line and unarmed combat concept. I'm okay with having higher double attack if unarmed, procs if unarmed, etc... I'd just like to have the line take into account the soon to be coming Epic weapons and let us use weapons with that line, even if it's at a reduced value. Otherwise we'll be the only classes that have AA's that won't fit with their Epic weapons (which is EXACTLY what this fix was supposed to be about). For those that are crying about fighting without weapons... just slap on some handwraps. Handwraps are basically openhand combat, but count as weapons in and can be imbued, etc. It's a shame there aren't as many higher end ones... but there's a few. Get two Closing Time for the Legendary folks, and I'm pretty sure there's two Fabled "glowy runed hands" ones, one of which is the claymore reward. </blockquote>What if you epic weapon can be used in your hand slot also? See I don't think getting rid of unarmed combat completely is a solution. Not when you can just put duel stats on an AA (SOE has shown this can be done) for both types. I played a Bard in EQ1 so I don't know but didn't EQ1 Monk epic have the ability to use as a weapon or glove?

[Kainsei]

<cite>Junaru wrote:</cite><blockquote>Lanari@Storms wrote: <blockquote>Someone already said it but, why don't they make the str line like bard sta line ?? See : <p>Bard </p><ul><li>Stamina 4 - Fortissimo: Grants your group melee and ranged doubleattack at 1% per rank, and 2% per rank for allies that have a shield equipped.</li></ul> We could have something like this : Brawler <ul><li>Strength 3 : Increase melee doubleattack by 4% per rank, and 12% per rank if primary and secondary slots are empty.</li></ul> </blockquote>I must be invisible or something but didn't I say that back on page 8. <img src="/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <cite>Junaru wrote:</cite><blockquote>    * Strength 3 - Relentless Punches: Renamed to Eye of the Tiger: No longer requires unarmed. Increases all combat art damage by 0.75% per rank.       <span style="color: #cc0000">Ok so you give us a form of double attack but only while unarmed and now you completely take it away? Great. I would rather you made this 40% double attack and 20% DPS while using weapons and 96% and 20% if unarmed. You are taking away a bread & butter AA from Brawlers that don't have access to fabled weapons. Rogues get 44%(only losing 8%) and DW weapons and already out DPS us by a FAR margin.</span> </blockquote> </blockquote>Yeah sorry about that Junaru <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> .

[Cornbread Muffin]

There is no reason why people can't have the unarmed flavor and share mechanics with the rest of the game. As was mentioned above, have fistwraps be the unarmed combat option. Make the model just add little particle effects or be cloth wraps (with little glass shards in them <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />). Make the brawler epic weapons break down into fist wraps and a 2H staff or something and have a little better itemization for fist wrap weaoins. Make all such weapons use some variation of the existing fist icon to complete the look. Of course, if putting some cloth on your hands as a "weapon" isn't unarmed enough for you then I don't know what to tell you.

[Raidi Sovin'faile]

<cite>Junaru wrote:</cite><blockquote>What if you epic weapon can be used in your hand slot also? See I don't think getting rid of unarmed combat completely is a solution. Not when you can just put duel stats on an AA (SOE has shown this can be done) for both types. I played a Bard in EQ1 so I don't know but didn't EQ1 Monk epic have the ability to use as a weapon or glove? </blockquote> Yes, in EQ1 the Monk Epic was a glove that changed your unarmed attack into an incredibly hard hitting and more importantly FAST weapon. The gloves gave massive stats too, so it kinda made up for no weapon stats. There are multiple issues with this though. 1. There's no current mechanic in the game for changing unarmed damage when wearing equipment. This would require more than just making a simple weapon with wicked stats... it would involved recoding parts of the game. 2. Handwraps are already in the game (they weren't in eq1 at the time). They are already considered weapons that need to be equipped in your weapon slots, and DON'T currently count for the unarmed double attack bonus... for this very reason. 3. The Strength Line is balanced around the fact that the unarmed is weaker... that's why buffing it up to near twice the hits is fine. Make unarmed buffed like a weapon, and suddenly it's overpowered at 96% double attack. And if not, then it's underpowered for anyone that DIDN'T pick the Strength line... so we fall into the same problem where people are FORCED to pick a certain line. 4. There is going to be an Epic for each individual class. So while Monks might get an thematically appropriate unique handwrap weapon... what do Bruisers get? So what happens if Bruisers get a big [Removed for Content] twohanded club and suddenly Strength Spec'd Bruisers get the shaft? Or will Brawlers be the only class that doesn't get a unique weapon between the two of them.... sure they can have different stats, but when both are basically invisible "unarmed is changed" its basically like giving them the same weapon. Nah... I really don't see this working well. Unarmed will always be a good alternative to weapons for when you can't get your hands on them. But they won't be able to replace weapons completely without making things silly.

[Raidi Sovin'faile]

Just a thought... They could revamp unarmed combat to be like having two weapons normally. Then change all handwraps and knuckles to have no Damage Rating, and instead just give stats and +crushing damage per swing of that hand. This way unarmed damage could be like having a storebought dual wield weapon in each hand, and crafting or finding handwraps or knuckle weapons would increase the damage dealt to "effectively" increase the DR of unarmed. Then you don't need to worry about "is it unarmed or with weapons" and just give a flat double attack bonus. Also, it solves the issue about unarmed flavor lacking the stats and adornment possibilities of weapons. We could have TRUE openhand combat flavor without screwing up the game mechanics. I mean... DR is simply more damage over the same amount of time, so giving wraps and knuckles 100% chance of extra damage is the same thing as giving it a higher DR... it's just that the speed will stay the same (no biggie really.. and it makes sense, why wrapping your hands in leather made them swing twice as fast and with both hands doesn't make a whole lot of sense). Edit Heck... you could have it even add a range if you wanted it more like weapons instead of a flat bonus. Or handwraps could give a range while knuckles gave a flat bonus, giving each type a different flavour. I really, actually find this concept very appealing... and would prefer it over either option right now (no unarmed or unarmed with 96% double attack). Devs! Get on this! Make unarmed into two storebought weapons in quality and change all handwraps and knuckles into +damage for unarmed!

[Navino]

Kaisoku@Mistmoore wrote: <blockquote> Devs! Get on this! Make unarmed into two storebought weapons in quality and change all handwraps and knuckles into +damage for unarmed! </blockquote>Tbh, that's ridiculous. I mean, nice idea? But this GU is basically about changing Duel Wields to One handed, and changing AA lines. That idea is basically a complete combat revamp for a Brawler. It means changing hundreds of weapons for Brawlers, which is not really ideal for this update, and wouldn't really increase our dps / raid utility as what we really want from this.

[Lai]

JUST LOSE THE ENTIRE UNARMED B.S. ALL-TOGETHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Junaru]

<cite>Laita wrote:</cite><blockquote>JUST LOSE THE ENTIRE UNARMED B.S. ALL-TOGETHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</blockquote>Yeah and while you are at it lose 2 hand weapons also. And make all weapons crushing damage and look the same also. <img src="/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> /Sarcasm off While I use weapons and don't plan to go unarmed I do at least care about others. Whats the harm in making an AA duel usage?

[Supp]

<cite>Eowyna1979 wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote>At level 70 and in any kind of raid or even group situation and with the whole diminishing returns cap, the loss of these stats would be minimal and closer to really only like 50 of a few stats and maybe still the 200health and power. All of which would be made up with buffs and you would hardly miss a step. And as far as the role playing individual is concerned, that is  most likely such a small percentage of actual players i doubt it would warrant its own aa line. The best thing to do is have the str line scale to players with OR without weapons thus helping out the lower level brawlers who are really the only ones who make real use of this line. With a 15 min reuse timer on chi no one in their right mind would take it even with no penalties. Most other classes large hits, manaburn etc. are on far lower times (around 5 min), it would only make sense to lower chi to 5 min as well and it would at least make it somewhat attractive. If it goes live like this I don't think anyone will be switching from the 448 sta/wis/int or the also popular 4488 wis 44882 int. If the intent was to make other less popular lines a more viable choice then the devs have failed miserably. SOE had a chance to help out our gimped class, one can only hope that they changed it back so they can have a starting point to make more changes. There are a lot of great suggestions in this thread It would be sad to see them just flat out ignored. Yay for getting rid of the str line changes Boo for not actually fixing it Kaoru Monk Blackburrow</blockquote></blockquote><p>I must agree Eowyna. I just posted a similar response to this in the bruiser forums. I was floored with how awesome the barehanded line was before I got my fabled weapons. Once I got them, they nullified the need for the barehanded weapon (equivalent to a pair of 57DR weapons I believe), and I was very happy to finally get some stats from those slots. So that translates into a bad line for fabled brawlers, which is a shame cause I'd love to have the extra 20 DPS. It's also worth noting that monks can selfbuff their haste to 120ish, and therefore have a LOT more use for the double attack than a bruiser. In reality, I would say that a nonraid levelling monk is the only appropriate situational use for the STR line as it exists now.</p><p>I dont agree that barehanded fighting RP class defines the brawler. Many believe it's a single staff, or dual staffs, or cesti's, or the calamity graphic (forgot that name). Many believe monks in particular should be able to use Katanas. I was a fan of dual flails myself (but there arent many of those in the game /cry). So I really dont like seeing the RP factor tossed into these arguments. It's too grey an area of agreement, or lack thereof. </p><p>I wont sit here and say that raiding is the end-all be-all of brawlerdom, but raiding is a serious concern that merits consideration, and brawlers have been shunned from raiding for as long as I can remember. Only in a few cases do you need them, and you can frequently count on brawler alts being parked outside just for such occasions. I was looking forward to the 5.75% CA dmg increase and the 345 additional mit, not to mention the DEF booster associated with the STR line (and an extra 16 STR to boot). I am sad to see it go back to the way it was. And as Aowyna said, you'd have to be a crackjob just to go down that line for a 15 minute recast super clicky. </p>

[Shankalot]

<p>if you actually read the test notes or more importantly play there the dw-one hand conversion is for gu 37 not the one coming up and atm it is broken and needs to be worked on wich is why such an early test phase so they can get it right.</p><p>atm its drastically increasing delay on everything, both weaps and range, wich isnt right. supposedly its supposed to change the delay on the offhand only so its being tested and fixed atm</p>

[Xenobe]

<cite>Supple wrote:</cite><blockquote> I was looking forward to the 5.75% CA dmg increase and the 345 additional mit, not to mention the DEF booster associated with the STR line (and an extra 16 STR to boot). I am sad to see it go back to the way it was. And as Aowyna said, you'd have to be a crackjob just to go down that line for a 15 minute recast super clicky. </blockquote>I don't think you understand how terrible the original change was if you were looking forward to it. 6% increase to CA's especially monk ones is a joke. That would equate to MAYBE 50 dps. The majority of our dps comes from auto attack. The 320 mit boost was also a joke. I could use dragonscale belt and fitzpitzle's earcog and save 8 aa with minimal stat loss. Also to clear this up since I have seen countless people get it wrong here. The Chi ability is not truly a 15 minute recast because using it you gain 33% reuse so it reduces it to 12.5 minutes. Not saying that it is viable just clarifying. I really hope they reverted the changes to what they were originally in attempts to start over. If not it is a real slap in the face. Crusaders and warriors can already tank better than us and get even more aggro/dps/survivability upgrades. The goal of these changes were to make unused aa lines more viable. Well obviously they changed the str line so considered it to need a boost. So to keep it as is would be stupid since it already received much needed attention. I personally don't feel that AA should cater to lore but if enough people feel strongly about the unarmed aspect then incorporate unarmed and armed in the same tree. Such as the previous examples of 4% for armed the current 12% for unarmed. At least that way it will keep the current users happy and give the raiders another viable option. Or possibly 5% aoe auto attack per rank to help alleviate our problems with ae aggro. 100 mit per rank would give us 800 which would not be over powered and would give us some plate tank survivability. I think the reuse ability on Chi should be increase to 50%. That would inherently lower the recast of it and give it more usefulness. Xenobe - Bruiser of Dissolution

[Etchii]

<p>How is bare fisted unfair to those who choose to seek out a weapon...???  Bare fisted brawlers give up +stats, + resists, adornments, and proc damage.  They also give up AA points to CHOOSE that style of play, in additon we are restricted to crushing damage as well.</p><p> Yes we gain weapons that scale to level and don't require repairs, however we loose all of the above mentioned.   That is the trade off, and that is the price i'm willing to pay to play MY character the way I want to.  It was why i made char back in 2005, based off of my impressions from my time with everquest 1 watching bare fisted monks kick some [Removed for Content].</p><p> I absolutely hate fighting batons and duel wield, is that enough for me to call for their removal from the game? No it is not...Why is it then enough for some to call for the removal of bare fisted?</p>