[Brainstorm] Class Balance Issues, and making all classes useful on raids [Archive]

Istaril

07-31-2007, 08:32 AM

A brainstorm on the problems caused by redundant classes, which starts on-topic about tank roles and roams its way onwards into radical game changes. It’s not one cohesive text – but for those of you with the patience for multi-paragraph posts – could result in some very interesting debate on the fundamentals of EQII and might even (god forbid!) arrive at some proposed solutions. As SOE begins to address some problems regarding tank desirability on raids, they open one hell of a can of worms. They can fix it sloppy – throw in some utility that makes us want a full complement of tanks – or they can fix it right – allowing tanks to do their job on raids without requiring 3 healers for every tank. How? The answer is already somewhat in the works – tanks need to be kings of aggro control. Each class has to watch their own resources (hp, power, aggro, damage), while some classes need to watch other people’s resources (healers = hp, mages = power) – so when combined with the new aggro changes coming in with GU37, it seems to me that tanks should be edging towards their eventual duty as aggro sinks and wells for a raid force. Amends, Sigil of Heroism, Drag, Rescue, Taunts, aggro siphons, target FD – as well as new tools (like target x second aggro position lock, or target de-aggro, tank to tank aggro buff) – paired alongside a greater dependence on aggro control from weakened aggro management tools for dps (And other) classes could result in tanks really having a place on raids. Exploit a mechanic that is already there – aggro – and make it matter and add a challenge and further depth to combat. Intrinsically tied to the issue of tank redundancy is the issue of redundancy on a grander scale; if we acknowledge that each class should be useful in it’s own way, and lacking one should be – if not crippling – at least severely detrimental to a raid (there’s no other way to ensure a class is desireable) – then we’re left with 24 raid slots and 24 classes, leaving very little room to “play around with”. In addition, current guilds with high bard/chanter amounts find themselves nearly forced to ditch players to accommodate previously useless 4th, 5th and 6th fighters. Sure – we can just plow onwards, let guild sort their own stories out – or we can move the raiding numbers to 30 or even 36 – an increase which just belittles the accomplishments of each individual further, forces guild to change even more than fixing tanks does – but works. But… if we limit the number of classes (merging fighters, brawlers, two of (druids, clerics, shamans), rogues, bards, sorcerors, enchanters) – we streamline the system, making progression, itemization, balance etc easier, allow for an AA dependent differentiation of playstyles between the classes. More importantly, we reduce the number of classes to 15(16) – leaving 9(<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> raid slots free for classes that are no longer essential, but desirable. And pvp servers are less crippled in a pve sense for their inability to have opposite-aligned classes. You actually *gain* flexibility. Instead of designing 1 templar set and one inq set – we can design 2 cleric sets of armour and let the cleric decide how he wants to gear up. Instead of forcing Templars into an MT role and INQ into a melee-dps/OT role, have the cleric choose based on the guild, the other (<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> variable classes in the raid, and so on. And you adhere to the fundamental principle of game design – K.I.S.S. (Keep it simple, stupid!) without keeping it stupidly simple. What’s not to like? Well… it’s another major change to the game – late in the game’s life. Those are generally not greeted well. People will feel that their unique sub-class isn’t unique anymore, that the class they wind up with isn’t the class they created… the list goes on. With a well-implemented AA tree, though, many old options can be preserved. If such a system coincided with the release of the increased level cap – people would be expecting changes/new spells/new AA trees anyway – much more ready to see their class change.

Deson

07-31-2007, 08:55 AM

The class merges would solve a lot of current issues...2 years ago. Unfortunately the current system works just well enough to ensure that no such change will either come or be well met.

Lariu

07-31-2007, 10:00 AM

There's definitely a lot wrong with the 'other' fighter classes right now. And the raidwide buffs aren't the answer. With what has been proposed, it's clear pretty much every serious guild out there will be drooling over the monk raidwide haste and spell haste buff, but pretty disinterested by the others.So poor ol' pally's and sk's find themselves on the fringes of usefulness again. Perhaps if their stances were more effective and parsing 2k+ was more regularly achievable in offensive stance, and maybe some innate stoneskin in defensive, then they'd suddenly have enough utility to be desirable - or at least more difficult to dismiss.So, imo both SK and pally need some haste and double attack and maybe some extra procs added to their offensive stances, but only when using 2h weapons. This means switching to defensive stance and 1h + shield would be difficult and slow - meaning the choice of being in offensive 'dps mode' is a sacrifice of their ability to intercept adds or recover if the tank dies.I'm not sure how this would effect the group/solo side of things - I'm a little bit ignorant on this subject because frankly I don't really care about. But it's clear the problem with sk and pally are in their raid-worthiness.

Norrsken

07-31-2007, 10:50 AM

<cite>Lariuss wrote:</cite><blockquote>There's definitely a lot wrong with the 'other' fighter classes right now. And the raidwide buffs aren't the answer. With what has been proposed, it's clear pretty much every serious guild out there will be drooling over the monk raidwide haste and spell haste buff, but pretty disinterested by the others.So poor ol' pally's and sk's find themselves on the fringes of usefulness again. Perhaps if their stances were more effective and parsing 2k+ was more regularly achievable in offensive stance, and maybe some innate stoneskin in defensive, then they'd suddenly have enough utility to be desirable - or at least more difficult to dismiss.So, imo both SK and pally need some haste and double attack and maybe some extra procs added to their offensive stances, but only when using 2h weapons. This means switching to defensive stance and 1h + shield would be difficult and slow - meaning the choice of being in offensive 'dps mode' is a sacrifice of their ability to intercept adds or recover if the tank dies.I'm not sure how this would effect the group/solo side of things - I'm a little bit ignorant on this subject because frankly I don't really care about. But it's clear the problem with sk and pally are in their raid-worthiness.</blockquote>What if sks got a "double up" proc chance for spells? <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Ever spell has a like 1% chance to hit twice? (Oich for a double crit on fusion tbh.) And pallies could get the same for heals. Should make things interresting and still stick with the class feel.

Istaril

07-31-2007, 10:58 AM

I think both those proposed solutions continue to miss the point ; fighters are a "tank" class (however that might be defined), and making them desirable by increasing their utility is a "patch" quick-fix, which will result in the classes being wanted on raids - but not for the right reasons. I mean, generally people play the class because they enjoy tanking. Sure - adding utility isn't a bad idea, but if the only reason I want a monk on my raid is for his raid-wide buff (grats buffbot), he's going to feel about as useful as he did before. Making fighters central to aggro control would be THE step in the right direction, throwing a few more tank-heavy encounters (a la princes!), and reducing the redundancy in tank roles (merging brawlers and fighters) would all help to make much more tank friendly environment.

Norrsken

07-31-2007, 11:16 AM

Kri

07-31-2007, 11:41 AM

<cite>Istaril wrote:</cite><blockquote>But… if we limit the number of classes (merging fighters, brawlers, two of (druids, clerics, shamans), rogues, bards, sorcerors, enchanters) – we streamline the system, making progression, itemization, balance etc easier, allow for an AA dependent differentiation of playstyles between the classes. More importantly, we reduce the number of classes to 15(16) – leaving 9(<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> raid slots free for classes that are no longer essential, but desirable. And pvp servers are less crippled in a pve sense for their inability to have opposite-aligned classes. </blockquote>Instead of calling out for a specific class, the RL would call out for a particular AA build. What would be the gain?Outside of raiding, each class has it's own flavor that can be modified/enhanced by AA. Reducing the number classes wouldn't add anything to the, let's face it, majority, who don't raid or only raid every now and then. The simplest solution (Keeping it REAL simple) would be for raiders to roll desirable classes instead of trying to cause major change the game for the rest of the community. If you are really dedicated and want to raid at any cost, 1-70 can be done in a few weeks tops.

colddog

07-31-2007, 12:00 PM

I think that instead of making every fighter class tank equally, they should differentiate the classes more. The original idea of having all the fighters tank with the same effectiveness, all the healers heal with the same effectiveness and all the mages damage with the same effectiveness was an awful idea. It inspired what I consider watered down versions of classes that tend to be bland and uninteresting.Make the classes different, not the same. Don't make them all tank the same. Give them utility or buffs to make them useful, but don't make them tank the same. If you do make them tank the same you will have to water down whatever it is that makes them unique (which has already happened). They are all wishy washy versions of the same class. Make them interesting.

Deson

07-31-2007, 12:00 PM

Shadowbreath@Splitpaw wrote: <blockquote><cite>Istaril wrote:</cite><blockquote>But… if we limit the number of classes (merging fighters, brawlers, two of (druids, clerics, shamans), rogues, bards, sorcerors, enchanters) – we streamline the system, making progression, itemization, balance etc easier, allow for an AA dependent differentiation of playstyles between the classes. More importantly, we reduce the number of classes to 15(16) – leaving 9(<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> raid slots free for classes that are no longer essential, but desirable. And pvp servers are less crippled in a pve sense for their inability to have opposite-aligned classes. </blockquote>Instead of calling out for a specific class, the RL would call out for a particular AA build. What would be the gain?Outside of raiding, each class has it's own flavor that can be modified/enhanced by AA. Reducing the number classes wouldn't add anything to the, let's face it, majority, who don't raid or only raid every now and then. The simplest solution (Keeping it REAL simple) would be for raiders to roll desirable classes instead of trying to cause major change the game for the rest of the community. If you are really dedicated and want to raid at any cost, 1-70 can be done in a few weeks tops.</blockquote>The thin spread of classes will get to us non-raiders soon.Our primary saviours are that groups don't usually min/max and that Heroic content has a lower play quality threshold, thus making just about anything work.However,you can only hairsplit so much and looking at EoF, they've tapped themselves pretty good already. While the complaint primarily is about raids, the lack of expandability affects everyone in the ways the OP laid out. Of course given the current system "works", your suggestion is the best- you want to raid with people who restrict class recruitment to the "useful?" roll what they need.

Norrsken

07-31-2007, 12:01 PM

<cite>colddog wrote:</cite><blockquote>I think that instead of making every fighter class tank equally, they should differentiate the classes more. The original idea of having all the fighters tank with the same effectiveness, all the healers heal with the same effectiveness and all the mages damage with the same effectiveness was an awful idea. It inspired what I consider watered down versions of classes that tend to be bland and uninteresting.Make the classes different, not the same. Don't make them all tank the same. Give them utility or buffs to make them useful, but don't make them tank the same. If you do make them tank the same you will have to water down whatever it is that makes them unique (which has already happened). They are all wishy washy versions of the same class. Make them interesting.</blockquote>they dont tank the same as it is. they have the same ability to hold aggro, more or less, but do it in very different ways.

colddog

07-31-2007, 12:16 PM

Ulvhamne@Nagafen wrote: <blockquote><cite>colddog wrote:</cite><blockquote>I think that instead of making every fighter class tank equally, they should differentiate the classes more. The original idea of having all the fighters tank with the same effectiveness, all the healers heal with the same effectiveness and all the mages damage with the same effectiveness was an awful idea. It inspired what I consider watered down versions of classes that tend to be bland and uninteresting.Make the classes different, not the same. Don't make them all tank the same. Give them utility or buffs to make them useful, but don't make them tank the same. If you do make them tank the same you will have to water down whatever it is that makes them unique (which has already happened). They are all wishy washy versions of the same class. Make them interesting.</blockquote>they dont tank the same as it is. they have the same ability to hold aggro, more or less, but do it in very different ways. </blockquote>And what I am trying to get at is that they should not all have the same ability to hold agro more or less. If they give them the same ability to hold agro, then how can they give another class mor utility options over another? It would be unfair (with their current model) to the rest of the fighter classes. I don't want all of them to have the same ability to hold agro.I'm just extremely unimpressed with the class system in this game. Everything else about it looks and feels great. The class system is way too generic. The only class that I felt unique in was the Coercer. It had a very unique way of getting things done.

simpwrx02

07-31-2007, 12:25 PM

As it sits there will almost never bee a need for all 6 tank types on a raid, plain and simple, if you need to have all 6 then you will need to double up on the healers to keep the tanks alive. There is no raid that can use 1 healer to keep a tank alive against an epic mob for the top end raids. So if there was a need for 6 tanks you would then need 8-12 healers to keep them alive, and then add in 4 bards for buffage and that leaves you with what 2-4 dps classes, even if you limit it to just 2 bards you are still missing the 4-6 dps classes as the extra healers are needed. Now you have a raid imbalance of to many healers and not enough dps, to fix that SoE would have to [Removed for Content] the mobs so that each tank only needs one healer, but guess what heppens then, now one tank with 2 healers can tank the mobs that 3 tanks were needed for before and brings us right back to were we are at right now.And tank buff bots is just crazy, however I would love to have a monk buff bot with the new changes as he will increase the effectiveness of all casters and healers, so throw out the pally as the 3rd tank and pick up a monk, cuz Pallys with thier +90 to raid heals is no where near as good as monks 15% to spell haste. That is more then most classes get on thier static spell haste using 16+ AAs to aquire, I know I have to spend 20 AAs on my wizard to get 14.4% spell haste and the abilities to get that are meh.Really the only thing that SoEs proposed raid wide buffs did was make monks a viable 3rd tank in a raid over a Pally. Warriors are still going to be the prime raid tanks

Istaril

08-02-2007, 05:46 AM

Deson wrote: <blockquote>Of course given the current system "works", your suggestion is the best- you want to raid with people who restrict class recruitment to the "useful?" roll what they need. </blockquote> An excellent line - and illustrates the problem much more concisely than I was able to. The only question is - is ignoring the unwanted classes in raids and rolling up wanted classes the lesser of two evils (the other being a major revamp, I think)? In the short term - probably. In the long term - I think that the discrepancy between the classes needed for raids and available at character select will be far more detrimental to the health of the game than any revamp of class functions.

Deson

08-02-2007, 07:14 AM

<cite>Istaril wrote:</cite><blockquote> Deson wrote: <blockquote>Of course given the current system "works", your suggestion is the best- you want to raid with people who restrict class recruitment to the "useful?" roll what they need. </blockquote> An excellent line - and illustrates the problem much more concisely than I was able to. The only question is - is ignoring the unwanted classes in raids and rolling up wanted classes the lesser of two evils (the other being a major revamp, I think)? In the short term - probably. In the long term - I think that the discrepancy between the classes needed for raids and available at character select will be far more detrimental to the health of the game than any revamp of class functions. </blockquote>I'm not concerned with raiding when I speak, just the game in general. In the short and long term,even if everything was perfectly "balanced", if you want to raid with the high-end, superefficient raiders, you're going to have to suck it up and meet their needs.These very same raiders have also proven that so-called useless raid classes can work, they just aren't near as efficient as some of their archetypal counterparts. You build a raid for your goals, theirs is hyper efficiency. There is nothing that makes every raid force do this and if you want to roll with a different setup that uses "useless" chars, there's nothing stopping you. The reason I posted at first though was stated in the first paragraph of my response- with 24 classes essentially covering(and overlapping) every practical aspect of gameplay, where do you go without impacting others? The post I replied to made comment about reducing classes not adding anything to the folks who don't raid and I disagreed with that assessment. As stated, it's going to hit us on the non-raiding level soon enough because you can only spread things so far. Best example of this to me ironically isn't fighters but rangers and bards.Rangers have 0 utility, where are they going to go except staying top DPS(at a price that is)? With a reduced class size they could actually have more options than just that but, since we currently have so many classes that have to be taken care of that do have utility, that's out of the question without risking one of those classes becoming useless. Bards would love to be desired for more than buffs but giving them more dps puts actual dps classes at risk. Why? Same reasons, things are spread too thin. A properly reduced class list would do wonders for every class that remains in all aspects of play but again, since the current system "works", nothing is going to change because too many people would despise it.

Supernova17

08-02-2007, 08:00 AM

<cite>simpwrx02 wrote:</cite><blockquote>so throw out the pally as the 3rd tank and pick up a monk, cuz Pallys with thier +90 to raid heals is no where near as good as monks 15% to spell haste. Really the only thing that SoEs proposed raid wide buffs did was make monks a viable 3rd tank in a raid over a Pally. Warriors are still going to be the prime raid tanks</blockquote>Sorry, I know you have no clue as to what a Paladin does and have probably had bad experiences with noobs playing the class, but there is no way in hell a Monk is a better off tank than a Paladin (all things being equal, an idiot is a worse off tank than a smart guy etc), they may come close on single mobs, but the Monk cannot touch the Paladin's AOE aggro, raw aggro abilities (Amends / Sigil) or self healing. Not to mention the Hero line Block and being able to wear plate armor (not only for permanently high mit, but for a wider variety in armor choices) make Paladin's sick. More flexibility, period. You don't "throw out" classes because of one simple buff, otherwise half the classes in the game could be thrown out depending on what you're trying to achieve. SOE cannot let this buff go raid wide in its current form, it is simply overpowering vs the content. Expect it to be nerfed if it does go live at all.

Istaril

08-02-2007, 08:04 AM

Well, Deson - the merges as I see them would; I. A great deal of subclass differentiation is extremely contrived [This would be solved] II. Less classes would increase flexibility of itemization (esp. subclass pieces) III. Consolidating classes could redistribute utility/abilities to make all classes useful [The Roles spread too thin over 24 classes argument] IV. By reducing the number of classes, the flexibility of raid composition increases [And, to a lesser but noticeable extent, group comp] V. By merging subclasses, you allow for better AA differentiation without creating considerable discrepancies between their ability to fulfill their primary function VI. By reducing the number of tank classes to 4, you greatly increase the odds of all 4 being accommodated on raids *and* having a role.

Deson

08-02-2007, 08:54 AM

<cite>Istaril wrote:</cite><blockquote>Well, Deson - the merges as I see them would; I. A great deal of subclass differentiation is extremely contrived [This would be solved] II. Less classes would increase flexibility of itemization (esp. subclass pieces) III. Consolidating classes could redistribute utility/abilities to make all classes useful [The Roles spread too thin over 24 classes argument] IV. By reducing the number of classes, the flexibility of raid composition increases [And, to a lesser but noticeable extent, group comp] V. By merging subclasses, you allow for better AA differentiation without creating considerable discrepancies between their ability to fulfill their primary function VI. By reducing the number of tank classes to 4, you greatly increase the odds of all 4 being accommodated on raids *and* having a role. </blockquote>I don't like the term merging anymore and only use it because it's easy; it implies simply dropping down to the 12 "classes" when really much more would be require. It really would be more of a redesign and distribution if it could ever be done. I really think people are working too hard on argument VI. Viability is one thing, having all classes represented is another. Forcing everyone to be represented introduces it's own troubles since it too requires contrived mechanics. Better to work from viability and let the best players hash it out. What classes are you looking at being left? I've got Warrior,SK, Pally, Monk;healers drop down to their "classes"; scouts drop to Rogue, Bard, Ranger; Mages drop to Sorc, Necro, Conj, Chanter.

Istaril

08-02-2007, 09:29 AM

Yup, that's pretty much the logical way of sorting them according to point 1 - the contrived differences between subclasses. I'm reassured that your list closely matches the one I had in my original post (Although I kept "Assassin" separate). It's pretty clear that the distinction between those sub-classes you and I both mentioned "merging" (and I use the term carefully, as you pointed out) is pretty arbitrary. However, it leaves them with the awkward situation of 3 healer classes, and 4 of each other archtype - something which could be seen as an opening for a new class in an expansion, or "that's fine, 3 healers will do", or even just the need to keep one set of healers split into two classes (although none of the three is a prime candidate for it).

Deson

08-02-2007, 10:07 AM

<cite>Istaril wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yup, that's pretty much the logical way of sorting them according to point 1 - the contrived differences between subclasses. I'm reassured that your list closely matches the one I had in my original post (Although I kept "Assassin" separate). It's pretty clear that the distinction between those sub-classes you and I both mentioned "merging" (and I use the term carefully, as you pointed out) is pretty arbitrary. However, it leaves them with the awkward situation of 3 healer classes, and 4 of each other archtype - something which could be seen as an opening for a new class in an expansion, or "that's fine, 3 healers will do", or even just the need to keep one set of healers split into two classes (although none of the three is a prime candidate for it). </blockquote>Or, we can just ignore numbers all together and go with a system that works. Numbers balancing is part of how we got into the current mess. To be fair, each of the 24 currently has it's own feel. They did a great job on that so I can't really say much on the arbitrariness post- EoF. it's not so much I dropped classes, it's I redistributed arts/skills in such a way to suit a particular feel close to what exists now.

simpwrx02

08-02-2007, 10:24 AM

<cite>Supernova17 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>simpwrx02 wrote:</cite><blockquote>so throw out the pally as the 3rd tank and pick up a monk, cuz Pallys with thier +90 to raid heals is no where near as good as monks 15% to spell haste. Really the only thing that SoEs proposed raid wide buffs did was make monks a viable 3rd tank in a raid over a Pally. Warriors are still going to be the prime raid tanks</blockquote>Sorry, I know you have no clue as to what a Paladin does and have probably had bad experiences with noobs playing the class, but there is no way in hell a Monk is a better off tank than a Paladin (all things being equal, an idiot is a worse off tank than a smart guy etc), they may come close on single mobs, but the Monk cannot touch the Paladin's AOE aggro, raw aggro abilities (Amends / Sigil) or self healing. Not to mention the Hero line Block and being able to wear plate armor (not only for permanently high mit, but for a wider variety in armor choices) make Paladin's sick. More flexibility, period. You don't "throw out" classes because of one simple buff, otherwise half the classes in the game could be thrown out depending on what you're trying to achieve. SOE cannot let this buff go raid wide in its current form, it is simply overpowering vs the content. Expect it to be nerfed if it does go live at all. </blockquote>I agree with you totally in the fact that a Pally is much better at AoE control that a monk will ever be, however I am talking about a 3rd tank for the raid not the off tank, so this 3rd tank will be there to pick up an add that may slip off of the OT. And that simple buff you speak about that monks get ( 15% spell haste) if raid wide will increase effeicency of the raid by a good amount all the healers can heal ~13% faster most of the casters can cast ~13 faster, even the bards would get a jump in thier dps.Actually I have played with very good pallys and the one was the OT in my last guild I was a pretty casual guild that took to raids the people that were logged in, but that is not the point I was making. Any top end guild which will be maxing out effectiveness and wants a third tank to pick up a mob that the OT didnt get woudl use a Monk over a Pally any day of the week with new raid wide buff monks get, the main tank /off tank are both going to be guard or zerker with normally guard as MT and zerker as OT.

metacell

08-02-2007, 11:53 AM

<cite>Istaril wrote:</cite><blockquote>I think both those proposed solutions continue to miss the point ; fighters are a "tank" class (however that might be defined), and making them desirable by increasing their utility is a "patch" quick-fix, which will result in the classes being wanted on raids - but not for the right reasons. I mean, generally people play the class because they enjoy tanking. Sure - adding utility isn't a bad idea, but if the only reason I want a monk on my raid is for his raid-wide buff (grats buffbot), he's going to feel about as useful as he did before. Making fighters central to aggro control would be THE step in the right direction, throwing a few more tank-heavy encounters (a la princes!), and reducing the redundancy in tank roles (merging brawlers and fighters) would all help to make much more tank friendly environment. </blockquote>I think there are two different issues here... <ol><li>The unclear roles of crusaders and brawlers, and their (perceived) inability to tank raids.</li><li>The lack of fighters for Heroic content. </li></ol>I think the second problem is the most serious one. A few fighters become raid tanks and get better and better equipment, the rest tire of never getting into any raids, and many of them quit or switch to a non-fighter alt. It's getting hard to find a tank for Heroic content, especially one well-equipped enough for high-end instances. You can hardly tank Unrest without gear obtained from raids. In the end, Heroic content may become unplayable for most people. And I think there are more people ( = paying customers to SoE) playing Heroic content than there are raiders. Giving fighters supportive rules, like the raid-wide buffs in GU37/38, does not solve issue 1. Crusaders and brawlers will still not be chosen as raid tanks. They will be used mostly as buff bots. It might, however, solve issue 2. By getting more fighters into raids, people won't tire of playing fighters, and there'll be enough well-equipped fighters to tank high-end Heroic content. In the long run, I would like to see issue 1 solved too, though. Playing a monk is fun, and it requires a different kind of skill than playing a guardian. You have to be more alert and switch targets as a monk. On the other hand, you ARE very quick and can take care of incoming adds faster than any guardian. By giving brawlers uncontested avoidance, raising their defensive skills caps, and boosting their hate proc (Dragon Stance), I think brawlers could be just as good raid tanks as warriors, without sacrificing their unique flair. There could even be raid mobs that different types of fighters were suited too. Switching from a warrior MT to a brawler MT or from a brawler to a crusader would make raids MORE fun for all players, besides making crusaders and brawlers feel useful. Perhaps it could work this way: Give brawlers uncontested avoidance (at least as much as plate tanks), and raise their defensive skill caps significantly. Epic mobs above the level cap would then ignore a large portion of the plate tank's avoidance, but not the brawler's, due to the brawler's defensive skills. Brawlers would tank those mobs in their own unique way, but it would still be possible for a well equipped plate tank to handle them, if no brawler was available.

Shackleton1

08-02-2007, 12:53 PM

So instead of needing to find space for a monk and a bruiser, you now need to find space for two brawlers? How is finding space for two brawlers easier than finding space for a monk and a bruiser?!There's no need to merge the sub-classes and I don't think it would really solve anything.---------Solving the tank problem is seems simple to me, at least in theoretical terms.Make the big bad raid mob hit the top 4-5 people on the agro list.Lo and behold, you need 6 tanks.Furthermore, if you slightly weight the damage toward the top of the agro and lessen it slightly as it goes down, the ideal raid setup becomes having one of each tank class. Why? Because the additional tanking power of a guardian is wasted if he's 4th on the agro list. At that point, as long as each of the tank sub-classes is offering something unique and valuable (such as the new raid wide buffs) it'll be best to have one of each.Oh, and you create all sorts of opportunities for new utility that would help control the order of the agro list (rather than just maintaining one person at the top of it).

ariel74

08-02-2007, 01:25 PM

The day my Warden gets "merged" with other Priest classes is the day I cancel my subscription. One of the great things about EQ2 is the number of classes. We need MORE variety between the classes, not less. People that are hardcore raiders are going to roll the specific class and spec that their guild needs, period, so I don't see what the issue is.

Squigglle

08-02-2007, 01:59 PM

<cite>Lariuss wrote:</cite><blockquote>There's definitely a lot wrong with the 'other' fighter classes right now. And the raidwide buffs aren't the answer. With what has been proposed, it's clear pretty much every serious guild out there will be drooling over the monk raidwide haste and spell haste buff, but pretty disinterested by the others.So poor ol' pally's and sk's find themselves on the fringes of usefulness again. Perhaps if their stances were more effective and parsing 2k+ was more regularly achievable in offensive stance, and maybe some innate stoneskin in defensive, then they'd suddenly have enough utility to be desirable - or at least more difficult to dismiss.So, imo both SK and pally need some haste and double attack and maybe some extra procs added to their offensive stances, but only when using 2h weapons. This means switching to defensive stance and 1h + shield would be difficult and slow - meaning the choice of being in offensive 'dps mode' is a sacrifice of their ability to intercept adds or recover if the tank dies.I'm not sure how this would effect the group/solo side of things - I'm a little bit ignorant on this subject because frankly I don't really care about. But it's clear the problem with sk and pally are in their raid-worthiness.</blockquote>well.. idk what they can really do to fix tanks, maybe give them a raid wide damage intercept? or the ability to stop enemy aoes? idk

simpwrx02

08-02-2007, 02:22 PM

<cite>Shackleton1 wrote:</cite><blockquote>So instead of needing to find space for a monk and a bruiser, you now need to find space for two brawlers? How is finding space for two brawlers easier than finding space for a monk and a bruiser?!There's no need to merge the sub-classes and I don't think it would really solve anything.---------Solving the tank problem is seems simple to me, at least in theoretical terms.Make the big bad raid mob hit the top 4-5 people on the agro list.Lo and behold, you need 6 tanks.Furthermore, if you slightly weight the damage toward the top of the agro and lessen it slightly as it goes down, the ideal raid setup becomes having one of each tank class. Why? Because the additional tanking power of a guardian is wasted if he's 4th on the agro list. At that point, as long as each of the tank sub-classes is offering something unique and valuable (such as the new raid wide buffs) it'll be best to have one of each.Oh, and you create all sorts of opportunities for new utility that would help control the order of the agro list (rather than just maintaining one person at the top of it).</blockquote>Then you just have scouts not use any deaggro abilities and they absorb the hits wearing chain with pretty high avoidance low and behold 6 tanks still are not needed when a few more brigs can do the exact same thing only with much more benefit to the raid in terms of dps and debuff capabilites. A lot of big bad raid mobs already hit more than just the main tank it is called an AoE. If your proposed hit the top 4-5 hits hard enough to require plate then you will need more than 6 healers and once again that will create a new raid inbalance, if it dosent hit that hard then like I posted above brigs can fill that spot and you just gimped the dps of every caster as they can not take the type of hits a tank can at all and there is no way to keep tanks that high on the hate list in a 24 class raid, also how would you deal with AoE fights and this top 5 on hate list get auto attack damage.

roces9

08-02-2007, 02:37 PM

I don't usually use the "QUIT WHINNING Q.Q XEMOX" arguement, but if you want to be in a Min/Max uber hardcore Contested Raid mob guild.... role the classes that they need. I'm in a casual 2x a week KoS raid guild and our SKs and Pallys offtank all the time. Not sure about brawlers but we bring them on raids often enough. But those that want to be in the best guilds have to role the classes that they want. See this is alot like the problems we have back on the Troubador Forums. We're a support class that is around to make other people better but since Troubs are scouts a lot of people think that they need to doo l33t damage. So when they get into a raid guild, all they do is whine how they cant get past 1kdps eventhough their buffs are adding around 3kdps to the group. What would I tell the person that wants to do awesome raid damage with their Troub? Go roll a DPS class. Same kind of thing here. If you're not happy with your role in your raid group, role the class that has that role. So my solution to this whole thing is, If you want to be in the top 1% of tanks (ie contested mob raid tanks) roll a Warrior and join an uber guild. If you want to be like the rest of us, roll whatever tank you enjoy playing the most and join a guild that will let you tank.

simpwrx02

08-02-2007, 03:39 PM

<cite>roces9 wrote:</cite><blockquote>I don't usually use the "QUIT WHINNING Q.Q XEMOX" arguement, but if you want to be in a Min/Max uber hardcore Contested Raid mob guild.... role the classes that they need. I'm in a casual 2x a week KoS raid guild and our SKs and Pallys offtank all the time. Not sure about brawlers but we bring them on raids often enough. But those that want to be in the best guilds have to role the classes that they want. See this is alot like the problems we have back on the Troubador Forums. We're a support class that is around to make other people better but since Troubs are scouts a lot of people think that they need to doo l33t damage. So when they get into a raid guild, all they do is whine how they cant get past 1kdps eventhough their buffs are adding around 3kdps to the group. What would I tell the person that wants to do awesome raid damage with their Troub? Go roll a DPS class. Same kind of thing here. If you're not happy with your role in your raid group, role the class that has that role. So my solution to this whole thing is, If you want to be in the top 1% of tanks (ie contested mob raid tanks) roll a Warrior and join an uber guild. If you want to be like the rest of us, roll whatever tank you enjoy playing the most and join a guild that will let you tank.</blockquote> QFE

Caethre

08-02-2007, 03:59 PM

<cite>roces9 wrote:</cite><blockquote>See this is alot like the problems we have back on the Troubador Forums. We're a support class that is around to make other people better but since Troubs are scouts a lot of people think that they need to doo l33t damage. So when they get into a raid guild, all they do is whine how they cant get past 1kdps eventhough their buffs are adding around 3kdps to the group. What would I tell the person that wants to do awesome raid damage with their Troub? Go roll a DPS class. Same kind of thing here. If you're not happy with your role in your raid group, role the class that has that role. So my solution to this whole thing is, If you want to be in the top 1% of tanks (ie contested mob raid tanks) roll a Warrior and join an uber guild. If you want to be like the rest of us, roll whatever tank you enjoy playing the most and join a guild that will let you tank.</blockquote>OOC.Absolutely!