guild break up due to raid composition

[Maris]

<p>My guild recently fell apart... that happens and there were several reasons for it, but a main point of the discussion was the type of class makeup needed for more "core" raiding.</p><p>Basically it was 2 tanks:  guardians preferred berserker paladin ok as second choice</p><p>4 bards, 3 enchanters</p><p>4 chain healers, 2 plate healers, </p><p>1 conjurer, 1 necromancer, 2-3 swashbuckler/brigands, </p><p>and 4-5 pure dps: wizards, assassins  and 1 ranger</p><p>If you were a monk, bruiser, warden, fury, shadowknight, paladin, berserker, warlock you basically should just reroll you don't really have a place in upper level eq2 raiding except in  very special circumstances where the encounter was designed to need a specific class.</p><p> So I was curious is this really what it takes to do anything past RoK teir 1 raiding?  </p><p>That's benching a third of the current classes in game for basically uselessness...</p>

[therodge]

yupp sucks doesent it

[Kendricke]

<p>I do hope you realize most top end guilds have many, if not most of the classes you claim don't have a place in high end raiding.  I'm not suggesting that some classes don't have issues regarding raid usefulness/desirability, but exaggerated arguments such as this (A) don't help the cause and (B) don't provide specific issues that developers can help with.  </p>

[YeldarbSpiritbla]

<p>If you guys were a raiding guild, no wonder you broke up. You have NO idea about raiding or class roles. Sorry, the thread is an epic fail.</p><p>No wardens? omg</p>

[Spyderbite]

Meh.. I was always under the impression that guilds were about friends and working together. Not about creating the "winning team" and disbanding if it ain't the right combo./shrugs

[Maris]

<p>hey it wasn't my opinion it was one side of the leadership opinions and yeah the other side of the argument was friends are more important it doesnt matter who you are.  Unfortuneatley a compromise couldn't not be reached. </p><p> I play a 80 monk and a 80 warden so I was on the losing side.</p><p>I don't know how to improve things I'm not that savvy,  but I would like to see a perfect raid makeup be one of every class lol.</p>

[Faheuc]

4 chain healers? We only use 2 shamans, and have both types of druids on raids...

[YeldarbSpiritbla]

<cite>Maris wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>hey it wasn't my opinion it was one side of the leadership opinions and yeah the other side of the argument was friends are more important it doesnt matter who you are.  Unfortuneatley a compromise couldn't not be reached. </p><p> I play a 80 monk and a 80 warden so I was on the losing side.</p><p>I don't know how to improve things I'm not that savvy,  but I would like to see a perfect raid makeup be one of every class lol.</p></blockquote>It's not your fault, find another guild. Warden and Monk alt are perfect for a raid guild. You don't always have to play the monk, but they are useful in a raid and warden is a no brainer.

[LygerT]

<p>i can't believe leather healers are out, that's just plain stupid and why a guardian offtank? stupid as well. no warlock? heh, they may not be wizards but on AE encounters they still generally spank me on aggro and dps. </p><p>almost better off disbanding or splitting away from a thickheaded raid leader like that IMO.</p>

[bryldan]

You do not need 3 enchanters for a guild that is overkill...You really do not need 4 bards either and surely not 4 chain healers lol

[zaltar]

Every class has something to offer , unfortunately because of unmerited bias many people don`t realize this thusrather than learning how to utilize everyone they take the easy path and leave many people out in the cold . The problem is not with the game its with people`s perspective of how it should be played .

[evilgamer]

<cite>zaltar wrote:</cite><blockquote>The problem is not with the game its with people`s perspective of how it should be played . </blockquote><p>While there is some truth to that, that is not an entirely accruate statement.</p><p>Take SK's for example.  </p><p>Their aggro is bacially last among plate tanks and so is their surviability, and their dps is just ahead of paladins but behind guardians (how can you say its not broken for an "offensive tank" like SK be behind dps from a "defensive tank" like guardian) and zerkers, but tank dps is pretty much insignificant on 24 person raid. </p><p>Now granted I would take a well played SK over a poorly played tank of another class.  But given equal player skill and gear. There is absolutely no reason to include a SK on a raid.</p><p>Also my main is a bruiser and their is very little reason to include a bruiser on a raid.  The 4 plate classes tank better, all of the dps classes out dps us, we dont have any desired raid buffs (like monks do) or debuffs and only situationally useful utiltiy with teh drag aa agility.  There is simply no reason to include a bruiser in a raid.</p>

[ke'la]

<p>I guess your "Raid Leader" has never played a melee class because any melee class can tell you that having a Druid in thier group will up thier DPS. Plus leather priests have buffs to defence and what not that chain and plate healers don't have. </p><p>Really like an above poster said right now the there are really only 2 maybe 3 sub-classes that don't provide some use to a raid. Bruiser and SK are two of them.</p><p> ::edit::If you really want a good laugh ask over at EQ2flames, where many of the hardest core raiders hang out... the ones with the World Wide Firsts, and ask them if that set-up is any good. I bet many will tell you that maybe back in T5(lvl50) raiding that would be an OK set-up but not now, and definatly not top tier.</p>

[Svann]

Is this a troll thread?  I am having a hard time imagining that any raid leader could be taking that position.

[ke'la]

<cite>Svann wrote:</cite><blockquote>Is this a troll thread?  I am having a hard time imagining that any raid leader could be taking that position.</blockquote><p>I know of alot of raid leaders that have an Ideal set up, and if you want in a raid you better be one of those classes. So that part of the story I totally beleive, as far as the class raid make up, well there are ingnorant people out there that really have no clue about class capabilities but think they know everything. Combine those to traits and you got what the OP has posted, so I don't find it that far fetched.</p><p>Also it's not like the OP named the guild, or the leader with this issue... I think really the OP wants to know if he or the leader was right as to optimal raid set-up.</p>

[liveja]

<cite>Svann wrote:</cite><blockquote>Is this a troll thread?  I am having a hard time imagining that any raid leader could be taking that position.</blockquote>Sadly, that was my first thought, too. It sounds like someone's worst theorycraft nightmare, especially with the total lack of real detail.

[Levatino]

What's even more sad is that I believe this NOT to be a troll thread. Cause yes there are guilds who minmax it this much. 4 bards? 3 enchanters? well that's 2 classes taking 7! spots.... Out of 24 available classes for 24 spots this also means 7! classes wouldn't get a spot in this guilds raidforce.. Talking unbalanced.. This is a clear example.Fun part is, no-one can blaim SOE for this cause ok they design mechanics but it's the players who use those mechanics and came to the conclusion tha tleaving out classes was the way to go.. Until this is changed SOE can change what they want but that doesn't mean the attitute of leaving classes out is changed..

[LygerT]

min max guilds always have a fury parsing 4-5k+ though.

[Pogopuschel]

<cite>Levatino wrote:</cite><blockquote>Cause yes there are guilds who minmax it this much. 4 bards? 3 enchanters? well that's 2 classes taking 7! spots.... Out of 24 available classes for 24 spots this also means 7! classes wouldn't get a spot in this guilds raidforce.. </blockquote><p>What?Enchanter = Illusionist or CoercerBard = Troubadour or Dirge</p><p>Sooo that's four classes.If you take any combination of seven out of these four, that means that three classes can't get a spot in the raid.</p>

[Levatino]

<cite>Uyaem@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Levatino wrote:</cite><blockquote>Cause yes there are guilds who minmax it this much. 4 bards? 3 enchanters? well that's 2 classes taking 7! spots.... Out of 24 available classes for 24 spots this also means 7! classes wouldn't get a spot in this guilds raidforce.. </blockquote><p>What?Enchanter = Illusionist or CoercerBard = Troubadour or Dirge</p><p>Sooo that's four classes.If you take any combination of seven out of these four, that means that three classes can't get a spot in the raid.</p></blockquote>you are right, my mistake. But this means still 3 classes not in raid it doesn't break down my point I try to make.also look at raid set up in first post if I count correctly 8 classes don't have a place in this set up.. And to add, it's not that SOE has something to do with these set ups, it's the players who decide this. That should change first.

[Miladi]

<cite>Levatino wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Uyaem@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Levatino wrote:</cite><blockquote>Cause yes there are guilds who minmax it this much. 4 bards? 3 enchanters? well that's 2 classes taking 7! spots.... Out of 24 available classes for 24 spots this also means 7! classes wouldn't get a spot in this guilds raidforce.. </blockquote><p>What?Enchanter = Illusionist or CoercerBard = Troubadour or Dirge</p><p>Sooo that's four classes.If you take any combination of seven out of these four, that means that three classes can't get a spot in the raid.</p></blockquote>you are right, my mistake. But this means still 3 classes not in raid it doesn't break down my point I try to make.also look at raid set up in first post if I count correctly 8 classes don't have a place in this set up.. And to add, it's not that SOE has something to do with these set ups, it's the players who decide this. That should change first.</blockquote><p>The main problem is 24 slots and 24 classes. I've never played a game with so many classes before, ever. Of course some classes will be left out of a raid with this many classes. For every group you'd need a healer of some type, the MT and OT groups might need a couple each, so every time you do this, you lose another not so great raiding class. That's if you're looking to maximize the groups damage output. </p><p>There's no cure that any class can get that's going to make more raid slots or less classes other than actually removing some classes or combining them. You just can't justify having so many class choices when you limit the raid slots to the same number of players. Sure some people will whine about thier class being eliminated or merged with another, but unless they do something like that, its not going to change how min/max raiders will keep some classes out.</p><p>Another thing to think about, on PVP servers you can't even get a big chunk of the classes into your raid due to the whole good/evil thing, so everyone goes to Haven. If there were good/evil equivalent classes then you wouldn't need 24 classes and you wouldn't have to stay in Haven just to get the required classes into your raid.</p><p>Eliminate/merge classes, make some end game raids need more than 24 people or everyone will just have to live with the situation.</p>

[firza]

<cite>Levatino wrote:</cite><blockquote>What's even more sad is that I believe this NOT to be a troll thread. Cause yes there are guilds who minmax it this much. 4 bards? 3 enchanters? well that's 2 classes taking 7! spots.... Out of 24 available classes for 24 spots this also means 7! classes wouldn't get a spot in this guilds raidforce.. Talking unbalanced.. This is a clear example.<span style="color: #cc3399;">nope, thats 4 classes taking up 7 spots <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></span></blockquote><p>Anyways, [Removed for Content] happens in life. Guilds break up about anything anytime. Now this reason, then that reason. Its part of online gaming life. You swallow once or twice, and look for a better environment for your needs.</p><p>My question is: Why is this worth posting about?</p>

[Pelda]

<p>We run 4 bards and 4 enchanters (3 illusionists, 1 coercer) in a perfect setup.  We also make room for all classes though with some type of rotation or whatever.  Of course some sit out more than others for raids but its not because of their class.   We never go without our shiny clicker errr monk or Warlock.  We also at times only have 1 shaman and always run with just 2 plate healers.  The other healers are all druids and it works out nicely.  We also have a Paladin in every raid.  The only thing we don't have is a zerker or SK but thats because we have no mains with those classes and aren't recruiting any.</p><p>If your raid leader isn't using these classes then it sounds more like an issue with the raid leader and not what those classes can do.  All those classes get used in our raids and we clear VP without a problem.  There is only 1 fight we ever stuck to a "perfect raid" and that was Nexona the first time we killed her.  Even then we used most of those classes you listed like the monk, paladin and druids.</p>

[Noaani]

<cite>Maris wrote:</cite> <blockquote>If you were a monk, bruiser, warden, fury, shadowknight, paladin, berserker, warlock you basically should just reroll you don't really have a place in upper level eq2 raiding except in  very special circumstances where the encounter was designed to need a specific class.</blockquote><p>NPU have all of these classes except for a monk, and they do fine.</p><p>I think a better statement would be if you have one of these classes in your raid and they suck, you are better off without them.</p>

[Sedenten]

<cite>Maris wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>If you were a <b>monk, bruiser, warden, fury, shadowknight, paladin, berserker, warlock</b> you basically should just reroll you don't really have a place in upper level eq2 raiding except in  very special circumstances where the encounter was designed to need a specific class.</p><p> So I was curious is this really what it takes to do anything past RoK teir 1 raiding?  </p><p>That's benching a third of the current classes in game for basically uselessness...</p></blockquote><p>I don't understand the bolded part.  I can understand not needing one of each brawler class, but having one is handy.  I am at a complete loss as to why you can't have one of each druid instead of 4 chain healers.  I can understand the knights and berserker, as well as warlock, however.  Honestly if I were making raids and could get a good knight, I would take one of them (paladin preferably, though).  While a warlock that knows their class can output substantial DPS, it's a common trend to take another DPS class over them.  I've noticed a few warlocks betray to wizard simply because of the edge on single targets that wizards have.  </p><p>So I agree with two of the classes that you say do not need--warlock and shadowknight.  Even then I would take a good player on either of those classes over an average player on any of the other classes.  That applies for any class, though--an exceptional player that puts their heart into their chosen class is going to make any class look great to a certain degree.</p><p>EDIT:  I just read Maris' reply, and at this point I can safely say that the guild failed due to poor leadership, if anything.  I probably would not have stayed in that guild as long as you did even if I did play one of the classes not in the list.</p>

[liveja]

<cite>Miladian wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><p>There's no cure that any class can get that's going to make more raid slots or less classes other than actually removing some classes or combining them.</p></blockquote><p>Or, SOE could consider, for the expansion, finding some way of increasing raid sizes. I'm not saying that would work, just that it's something to consider.</p>

[Killerbee3000]

<p>yes, minmaxing is the norm in raids, however, mot of the classes the op listed as useless do have a role in raids and most top end raiding guilds do have them, if you want to go by what classes they dont have, well, the list is reduced to no sk and one brawler only.</p><p>you could kill most mobs even with one of each class, however, it would massively reduce raid dps and make fights last much longer, so why bother? why expand fights in length? there really is no point, so minmaxing will always exist unless soe removes 23 of the 24 classes, which cant really be what you want.</p>

[Yimway]

FWIW, I ideally go with 4 bards and 3 enchanters, sometimes 4.  I understand the arguement for dropping druids for most fights and running more cleric/shaman classes.  The arguement comes down to those healers ability to affect procs, crits, and various types of spell haste cause them to have a bigger dps footprint than druids under many circumstances.But only a few guilds get the luxury of picking the perfect makeup for a given zone, and most of us have to figure out how to min/max what we have to work with.

[Giral]

<cite>Killerbee3000 wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>yes, minmaxing is the norm in raids, however, mot of the classes the op listed as useless do have a role in raids and most top end raiding guilds do have them, if you want to go by what classes they dont have, well, the list is reduced to no sk and one brawler only.</p><p>you could kill most mobs even with one of each class, however, it would massively reduce raid dps and make fights last much longer, so why bother? why expand fights in length? there really is no point, so minmaxing will always exist unless soe removes 23 of the 24 classes, which cant really be what you want.</p></blockquote><p>and the other way is to design the classes in a way that its most effective to have one of each in a raid and is harder/takes longer without them </p><p>Dps is King in eq2 , and that first and foremost is what needs to change, would i take a raid Named fight lasting 30 more seconds if the game was more balanced and non DPS classes had less dps ? in a heartbeat </p><p>Spread out the current debuffs to all the Tanks , if the Tanks had Most of the Debuffs and Debuffs were as important as DPS(and alot are in Raids)  , then you would need 6 tanks in a raid or the DPS wouldn't be putting up Huge numbers without them. </p><p>you could also Lower the Amount of HP's Mobs/Names need in raids to make up for the lower DPS so fights would take roughly the same time with less DPS </p><p>many ways they can change things in the game to give a reason to have 1 of each class in a raid.  but lol dont hold your breath : ) only 2 classes arent needed at all for raids and im sure SOE considers that pretty ok </p>

[liveja]

<cite>Giralus wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><p>then you would need 6 tanks in a raid</p></blockquote><p>Most of the raids I've been on were already running anywhere from 4-6 tanks in them. Your idea would, at most, add 2 more tank slots to those raid forces; in some cases, not even that.</p>

[Giral]

<cite>Flaye@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Giralus wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><p>then you would need 6 tanks in a raid</p></blockquote><p>Most of the raids I've been on were already running anywhere from 4-6 tanks in them. Your idea would, at most, add 2 more tank slots to those raid forces; in some cases, not even that.</p></blockquote><p>lol well 8 tanks then (since you said 4-6) is a large differance then the 2 tanks most guild try and run with (try meaning they only need 2 and in most encounters only 1, but being casual or not having access to those classes and runing with what you have don't change the fact that you dont need 4,5,6 ) </p><p>i understand that most encounters can be beat with an un-traditional set up. and im all for that type of gameplay, i was just throwing out one idea of a way to guarantee 1 of each tank class got a raid spot, and without them it would be Harder and DPS would suffer from it (altho i like making DPS suffer for some strange odd reason /MWhahahaha ) </p>

[Xanrn]

Merging classes doesn't fix a thing.You merge Dirges and Troubs then what? Raids take 4 bards instead of 2 Dirges and 2 Troubs.Merging classes solves nothing and creates an unholy storm that will slam back into SoE's faces.Taking out classes altogether, turns that storm into a 100 feet tall tornado of ignited napalm and it will reduce this game to a charred corpse, just like NGE did too Star Wars Online.2 Fixes come to mind.Balancing Classes, WITHOUT nerfing anyone. Nerfing never solved anything.Increasing raid size to x5/x6 or at the very least scalable instances, so if guilds have extra people they can bring them.

[Yimway]

The answer is a far, far more in debth character AA system that allows any class to spec to more specific roles.  A dps spec, a damage buffer spec, a debuffer spec, a healer support spec, etc.Removing classes isn't going to happen, ballance is impossible, you will always have some degree of min/max.Just allow people to spec themselves to be more useful than they currently are.  There is little need for more than 3 fighters on a raid, but if another fighter could bring a line of aa debuffs that weren't available without them (like it severely capped their survivability to use it) then they can add value.Imagine if your sk could spec to something that lowered resistability by 30% or maybe more...  but it cost him 3000 mit, 300str and 300 int to cast it.  It is in effect a raid wide 'harm touch'.  Get creative, and you can build similar specifications for other classes.  In the end, everyone is one mirror click away from providing support in a different role for a given night.

[Miladi]

<cite>Xanrn wrote:</cite><blockquote>Merging classes doesn't fix a thing.You merge Dirges and Troubs then what? Raids take 4 bards instead of 2 Dirges and 2 Troubs.</blockquote>So that means that 4 people get to go along rather than the raid leader picking whether he wants Dirges and/or Troubadours and how many of each class. This means that people don't have to choose one or the other class hoping to get included in end game raids.<blockquote>Merging classes solves nothing and creates an unholy storm that will slam back into SoE's faces.</blockquote>Merging classes would solve a LOT of issues regarding not being needed in a raid, thinking otherwise is burying your head in the sand and thinking it will all fix itself. The firestorm in SOE's face is one that they've needed for a long time, because its pointless having so many classes and so few raid slots, some classes won't be needed but will only be included as a bone tossed to them.<blockquote>Taking out classes altogether, turns that storm into a 100 feet tall tornado of ignited napalm and it will reduce this game to a charred corpse, just like NGE did too Star Wars Online.2 Fixes come to mind.Balancing Classes, WITHOUT nerfing anyone. Nerfing never solved anything.Increasing raid size to x5/x6 or at the very least scalable instances, so if guilds have extra people they can bring them.</blockquote>That was one of my points, either get rid of some classes or increase raid slots. Balance will never be acheived because its impossible, you can't have 24 identical classes or there'd be no point in having 24 classes in the first place. You can't have balance because some classes are DPS, some are buffers, some are nukers, some are meatshields, how do you balance that?BTW, what's wrong with taking out some classes? If there's redundancy in them, then merging them and changing the spell lineups to match what's been lost isn't that big of a deal. Sure some people will whine and cry that their special class got wiped, but if it's needed then it's needed.Do I think it will ever happen? No, because the game is too set in stone now to make such a radical change as getting rid of classes and redesigning the classes that are left. It would no longer be EQ2, it would be EQ3 with the game's world being still EQ2. This is just a hypothetical wish list that I will probably never see.

[Noaani]

<cite>Giralus wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Flaye@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Giralus wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><p>then you would need 6 tanks in a raid</p></blockquote><p>Most of the raids I've been on were already running anywhere from 4-6 tanks in them. Your idea would, at most, add 2 more tank slots to those raid forces; in some cases, not even that.</p></blockquote><p>lol well 8 tanks then (since you said 4-6) is a large differance then the 2 tanks most guild try and run with (try meaning they only need 2 and in most encounters only 1, but being casual or not having access to those classes and runing with what you have don't change the fact that you dont need 4,5,6 ) </p></blockquote><p>There have been encounters in the last 3 expansions that absolutly require one of each tank type in order to kill. This has forced guilds with small rosters to always have at least 3 tanks on hand, usually 4. In a guild with 26 - 28 people on the roster, this means those tanks will be taken to most raids they show up for, as there may well be no one else to fill that spot.</p><p>In absolute top guilds, the ones with the small rosters, 1 of each tank type is manditory, moreso than it is for any other archtype (guilds could clear SoH without a preditor, without a druid and without a summoner, but they need 1 of each type of tank).</p><p>Reguardless of what most encounters need in terms of fighters, guilds that want to kill everything every week need 3 fighters. Since these fighters need to be geared up, these guilds will be taking all three fighters to every raid.</p><p>In all honesty, the false restrictions already placed on fighter spots in raids have gone too far, if you can't find a spot on a raid whe there are encounters forcing an excess of tanks, don't blame game mechanics or development decisions.</p>

[liveja]

<cite>Giralus wrote:</cite><blockquote>the 2 tanks most guild try and run with</blockquote><p>Um ... I'm still wondering who these raid forces are that are only running with 2. Because, like I said, most of the raid forces I'm seeing have 4-6.</p><p>Especially, as Noaani said, if you're trying to raid SoH. Sure, you could get by with only 1 each Crusader, Brawler, & Warrior, but if you're trying to learn the zone, you likely will have difficulty with such a setup. Maybe later on, after you get uber, you can trim the numbers back, but I daresay "most" raid forces aren't there.</p><p>As I've said many, many times, I think there's waaaaaaay too much theorycraft going on in these arguments, & too little real detail.</p>

[bryldan]

<cite>Xanrn wrote:</cite><blockquote>Merging classes doesn't fix a thing.You merge Dirges and Troubs then what? Raids take 4 bards instead of 2 Dirges and 2 Troubs.Merging classes solves nothing and creates an unholy storm that will slam back into SoE's faces.Taking out classes altogether, turns that storm into a 100 feet tall tornado of ignited napalm and it will reduce this game to a charred corpse, just like NGE did too Star Wars Online.2 Fixes come to mind.Balancing Classes, WITHOUT nerfing anyone. Nerfing never solved anything.Increasing raid size to x5/x6 or at the very least scalable instances, so if guilds have extra people they can bring them.</blockquote>While some of the classes probably do not need to be merged like bards some honestly should like the fighter classes and wizzys/warlocks. The design of these classes make them limited and even if you bump up and make them as even as possible there will still be 1 or 2 clear favorites out of the 6 tanks meaning 4 gets left out to whine about like pretty much is the case now just to a lesser extent. For the case of wizzy and warlock I think its fairly obvious why I included these two classes. One class is all about single dmg and one is about multiple encounters. Clearly rok has been ALL about single encounters and very very few multiple encounters which has severly hurt warlocks. Why not just combine them and make them good against both instead of one or the other?      The big problem is that no matter what you do with the scale of how many classes and how many classes you need for a raid are the same some classes will ALWAYS get the short end of the stick unless they excell at there class otherwise forget it. No amount of balancing is going to fix that point of fact and even if they increase raid size guess who comes in?? The same class types that are already on the list ppl will just add more of the classes they have. We know they will of course want a bard and healer for that extra group or 2 of each if its two more groups. Then they will want dps to fill in those rolls which means  brigs/assassins/wizzys/swashys because it will make the raid go faster than if they got say a bruiser or any other class that is not dps.

[Jinsou]

<cite>Spyderbite@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote>Meh.. I was always under the impression that guilds were about friends and working together. Not about creating the "winning team" and disbanding if it ain't the right combo./shrugs</blockquote>I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter please.  I'm not in a guild yet, but when I do I hope it's a guild with a little sense of dignity and friendship and not some powergaming schmucks.

[bryldan]

<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Giralus wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Flaye@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Giralus wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><p>then you would need 6 tanks in a raid</p></blockquote><p>Most of the raids I've been on were already running anywhere from 4-6 tanks in them. Your idea would, at most, add 2 more tank slots to those raid forces; in some cases, not even that.</p></blockquote><p>lol well 8 tanks then (since you said 4-6) is a large differance then the 2 tanks most guild try and run with (try meaning they only need 2 and in most encounters only 1, but being casual or not having access to those classes and runing with what you have don't change the fact that you dont need 4,5,6 ) </p></blockquote><p>There have been encounters in the last 3 expansions that absolutly require one of each tank type in order to kill. This has forced guilds with small rosters to always have at least 3 tanks on hand, usually 4. In a guild with 26 - 28 people on the roster, this means those tanks will be taken to most raids they show up for, as there may well be no one else to fill that spot.</p><p>In absolute top guilds, the ones with the small rosters, 1 of each tank type is manditory, moreso than it is for any other archtype (guilds could clear SoH without a preditor, without a druid and without a summoner, but they need 1 of each type of tank).</p><p>Reguardless of what most encounters need in terms of fighters, guilds that want to kill everything every week need 3 fighters. Since these fighters need to be geared up, these guilds will be taking all three fighters to every raid.</p><p>In all honesty, the false restrictions already placed on fighter spots in raids have gone too far, if you can't find a spot on a raid whe there are encounters forcing an excess of tanks, don't blame game mechanics or development decisions.</p></blockquote>From what I have seen the top guilds do not run with that many tanks(guilds that have only like 25-30ppl in it) they usually have ALTS that they switch to to fill in the roll if they need them. A lot of high end guilds wants you to have at least one lvld alt just in case you need to make a switch around for a certain encounter like the sisters in SOH.

[Giral]

<cite>bryldan wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Giralus wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Flaye@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Giralus wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><p>then you would need 6 tanks in a raid</p></blockquote><p>Most of the raids I've been on were already running anywhere from 4-6 tanks in them. Your idea would, at most, add 2 more tank slots to those raid forces; in some cases, not even that.</p></blockquote><p>lol well 8 tanks then (since you said 4-6) is a large differance then the 2 tanks most guild try and run with (try meaning they only need 2 and in most encounters only 1, but being casual or not having access to those classes and runing with what you have don't change the fact that you dont need 4,5,6 ) </p></blockquote><p>There have been encounters in the last 3 expansions that absolutly require one of each tank type in order to kill. This has forced guilds with small rosters to always have at least 3 tanks on hand, usually 4. In a guild with 26 - 28 people on the roster, this means those tanks will be taken to most raids they show up for, as there may well be no one else to fill that spot.</p><p>In absolute top guilds, the ones with the small rosters, 1 of each tank type is manditory, moreso than it is for any other archtype (guilds could clear SoH without a preditor, without a druid and without a summoner, but they need 1 of each type of tank).</p><p>Reguardless of what most encounters need in terms of fighters, guilds that want to kill everything every week need 3 fighters. Since these fighters need to be geared up, these guilds will be taking all three fighters to every raid.</p><p>In all honesty, the false restrictions already placed on fighter spots in raids have gone too far, if you can't find a spot on a raid whe there are encounters forcing an excess of tanks, don't blame game mechanics or development decisions.</p></blockquote>From what I have seen the top guilds do not run with that many tanks(guilds that have only like 25-30ppl in it) they usually have ALTS that they switch to to fill in the roll if they need them. A lot of high end guilds wants you to have at least one lvld alt just in case you need to make a switch around for a certain encounter like the sisters in SOH.</blockquote><p>if you noted  i said "and runing with what you have don't change the fact that you dont need 4,5,6 tanks, i did leave the tiny room between requiring 2 tanks for some stuff and only 1 tank for alot of it, yeah the itsy bitsy teeny tiny miniscule occcasions you need a 3rd tank, in the post like in the game its enough to go un-noticed . so Forcing peole to Zone in a Tank for an encounter realy is entirely to much lol /sigh </p><p>yeah alot of people have alts , its easy to level(IMO) and yeah you can just switch in a crusader for 1 named</p><p>also a Tank sitting outside a raid zone isn't actualy raiding even if there getting dkp for it lol </p><p>gearing up Alt or 3rd tank = invite / zone in / grab the loot /zone out  </p><p>Now why dont we design the Next Expansion  where you dont need a Guardian for any of the raids , they would be the absolute worse class to have in any of the raid's, and having them there would actualy make the raid force weaker overall,and make everything harder ,  except for 1 Name in a couple of the zones , and lets see how that goes over : ) </p>

[Ares The Dark]

<p>Poster = Ruhl, 80 Guardian, Main TankPosition = Guild Leader of The Norrath Secret SocietyTime in Service = playing since launch</p><p>NSS is by no means the "best" raiding guild on our server. However, we are extremely organized, demand the best from our raiders, and are always looking for ways to improve our DPS. We are not the smartest when it comes to raiding, but we have a pretty firm grip on the issues required to be the best, we just lack the time. Our guild is composed of mostly older folks with 40hour a week jobs and family. We do our best to maximize our raid time, and work with our allocated raiding schedule.</p><p>With that said, I wish to offer some input on a few comments posted here. I hope it shares a little insight and encourages people to stop whining about their classes, perfect raid makeup, etc, etc. Everyone should worry more about being the best they can be at their classes, both game wise, and attitude wise.</p><p><span style="color: #993300;">If you were a monk, bruiser, warden, fury, Shadowknight, paladin, berserker, warlock you basically should just reroll you don't really have a place in upper level eq2 raiding except in very special circumstances where the encounter was designed to need a specific class.</span></p><p>This statement is just false, for several reasons. Each one of these classes can bring something to a raid that other classes cannot. Each of these classes would have a raid slot on our team, given their was a position open and the player was very good at their class. I am at work right now, and unable to access anything game related on the web, so I cannot link or lookup spell names.</p><p>1. Monk - FD comes to mind first. Our monk is really good at activating the named in PR and FDing. This gives the raid force time to get set up before the actually pull. Sure other classes could do, but we like our Monk. He is also our DKP officer, Tansmuter and does really well on the parse. I would not trade him for anything, except a monk who could parse higher... well maybe not. 2. Bruiser - Don't they have a raid wide buff that makes my taunts as a guardian proc more? Also brawlers are great to have around for mobs where they are required. The sister in SoH comes to mind. Crusader, Brawler, Warrior tanks FTW!3. Warden - HoT's are great for mage and scout groups. From what I understand the Druids have the best heals to replenish the most health for groups the fastest. Portals are great to have around as well. The faster the raid force can move around and mobilize, the faster the raid mobs die and the more loot.4. Fury - They have portals as well! Have one camped in Q harbor and Freeport to portal people to raids. Much faster than waiting for boats. Furies are also great for mage groups. We have one Fury who has been raiding with us for a year now. She is personally assigned to the Necro who Lifeburns. HoT's work best for this instead of wards or reactives.5. SK - our main OT is an SK. I have seen SK under the right group circumstances pull off some great DPS. Stick an SK in the mage group for Death March.6. Paladins - Although we do not have one in our guild now, I am not against having one at all. They have combat rez, great buffs, and can make great off tanks. Most pallies new to raiding argue with guardians about who the best Main Tank is for the raid... (save that argument for another day).7. Zerker - I really miss our Berserker. We had a great Zerker once, but he left the game. I watch him grow from being a person who complained about his class, to a tank capable of pulling off 4k+ parse on group encounters. Zerkers make great off tanks, they can cast Intercede on the Main Tank, put up some really nice parsers, and can tank any instance in EQ2 for guildmates when we are not raiding. Pull any encounter they has linked mobs and let the Guardian have fun trying to keep agro from them, it is almost impossible. The linked Vampires in FTH come to mind from back in the day.8. Warlock - although there are few linked encounters in ROK raids, a warlock is not completely useless. You just need to pull more. Hmm, chain pulling and multiple encounter pulling on SoH trash mobs comes to mind. Pull three encounters of single mobs > Rift > Pally tanks hate > reinforcement > agro back to MT. Wow, watch the DPS!</p><p><span style="color: #993300;">You do not need 3 enchanters for a guild that is overkill...You really do not need 4 bards either and surely not 4 chain healers lol</span></p><p>I would like to have 4 enchanters, one in every group. Not every encounter in ROK raiding needs or requires an enchanter in every group, but you can never go wrong with mana regen, IA, etc. Chain pulling mobs on SoH trash comes to mind. For us there is little down time between kills. We do not stop, just keep pulling because everyone has full mana. If you find that you need fewer enchanters for a particular raid, just ask one or two step aside. </p><p>You are right, you do not really need four bards, but it really does make it nice. It is ok to stack them, due to them have more buffs then concentration slots.  Have them spec down different AA lines. Bards are some of the most versatile and most underutilize classes in the game.</p><p>Chain healers.... Two is plenty. One Defiler, one Mystic. I agree with you there. </p><p><span style="color: #993300;">Now granted I would take a well played SK over a poorly played tank of another class.  But given equal player skill and gear. There is absolutely no reason to include a SK on a raid.</span></p><p>SK = OTYou are right, there is NO reason to have a SK in a raid, this holds true for a lot of classes. I have heard of a guild that raids ROK with no guardian. Imagine that! I enjoy having a SK in our raid force, and he does a fine job at playing OT. He has successfully tanked the main mobs on several occasions. The sisters in SoH need a Crusader from time to time, so our SK is ready to step up for the job.</p><p>Show me any SK that can parse well, not have an ego so big that he wants to be a MT (it is possible to be MT, just not practical), and I will show you a raid where you can be put to use.</p><p>I hope that this post helps you guys some and provides a little insight to those looking to raid. Play your class, play it well, and sooner our later there will be a time where you are NEEDED on a raid, regardless of class. It is up to you to find the right guild and fill the niche.</p><p>It takes 24 people in a raid working together, playing their toon to the best of their abilities, and loving what they do in order to beat raid mobs. Some classes bring more to raids than others, but in the end it comes down to teamwork and working together. The perfect raid make-up does not entitle anyone to a sure win in EQ2, however with teamwork even the most rag-tag, mixed up class, group of raiders can easily beat Epics.</p>

[Ravaan]

<p>the problem is that more than two tank plate tanks a monk in a raid is a waste. the tanks can't tank and they can't dps like a normal DPSer. perfect example of this was in fricken protectors realm yesterday. my guilds VP geared guardian came back from a break, to get him back in the swing of things they threw him in the melee dps group, </p><p>he could never outparse my swashbuckler alt which is in crap gear and im still learning. And when the MT went down to Imzok he tried to pick it up and died in about 2-4 seconds as he only had an inquisitor buffing him. </p><p>so if your tank you NEED a group tailored completely to you or you are worthless. as a dpser i need a dirge and I will do well on a parse. the tank needs 2 healers they have to be shaman and templar and probably a dirge.</p><p>things that need to be done are </p><p>1) make SOME priest buffs raid wide *fighter only* this way all 6 healers are needed and they can buff the fighters with at least basic buffs. </p><p>2) give fighters some use on raids if they are NOT tanking. make them masters of agro control. strip all detaunts, hate transfers and deagros and give them to tanks. Allow tanks a castable detaunt on other people.</p><p>3) give tanks a agro meter for all other people in group/raid that only tanks can see. make agro harder to control so that the tanks have to work together in order to sustain the mob. allow the tanks to use these hate xfers and deagros to keep the meters where they are supposed to be.</p><p>4) make intercede *painful* but not outright kill the [Removed for Content] intercedeing tank.</p><p>there then maybe tanks might actually make raids.</p>

[Oh]

<cite>Miladian wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote>Merging classes solves nothing and creates an unholy storm that will slam back into SoE's faces.</blockquote>Merging classes would solve a LOT of issues regarding not being needed in a raid, thinking otherwise is burying your head in the sand and thinking it will all fix itself. The firestorm in SOE's face is one that they've needed for a long time, because its pointless having so many classes and so few raid slots, some classes won't be needed but will only be included as a bone tossed to them.</blockquote>MY point of view is SOE's first and BIGGEST mistake they made when they made this game was there are 24 classes and there are 24 raid slots. WoW got around this problem by having fewer classes and 25 raid slots. Frankly IF SoE did what blizzard did inreguards to number of classes/raid slots would be alot less angst about "my class can't get a raid slot" types of issues. Heck it would even make it easier to balance the classes but ehh even that is not an easy thing to do.

[Miladi]

<cite>Ohiv wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Miladian wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote>Merging classes solves nothing and creates an unholy storm that will slam back into SoE's faces.</blockquote>Merging classes would solve a LOT of issues regarding not being needed in a raid, thinking otherwise is burying your head in the sand and thinking it will all fix itself. The firestorm in SOE's face is one that they've needed for a long time, because its pointless having so many classes and so few raid slots, some classes won't be needed but will only be included as a bone tossed to them.</blockquote>MY point of view is SOE's first and BIGGEST mistake they made when they made this game was there are 24 classes and there are 24 raid slots. WoW got around this problem by having fewer classes and 25 raid slots. Frankly IF SoE did what blizzard did inreguards to number of classes/raid slots would be alot less angst about "my class can't get a raid slot" types of issues. Heck it would even make it easier to balance the classes but ehh even that is not an easy thing to do.</blockquote>That was one of my points exactly. 24 classes and ONLY 24 raid slots makes it inevitable that some classes aren't going to be included in a raid just because of the lack of places to stick them. If they won't merge or eliminate some of the classes we have now; OR expand the number of slots in a raid, this is never going to get fixed.

[liveja]

<cite>Ohiv wrote:</cite><blockquote>WoW got around this problem by having fewer classes and 25 raid slots.</blockquote><p>The first raids in WoW were 40-player.</p>

[Oh]

<cite>Flaye@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Ohiv wrote:</cite><blockquote>WoW got around this problem by having fewer classes and 25 raid slots.</blockquote><p>The first raids in WoW were 40-player.</p></blockquote>And the first raids in Eq1 were 72man. Your point being what? WoW's changed their raid size to something more managable, EQ2 did the same thing. MY point was more that even thou the raid size got made smaller was that the amount of classes still remained small enough that things could be balanced out from the player side and not leaving a class out. Unlike with EQ2 we have the idiocy of having 24 raid slots and 24 classes. That is/was a train wreck from the start.

[Ama]

<cite>Maris wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>My guild recently fell apart... that happens and there were several reasons for it, but a main point of the discussion was the type of class makeup needed for more "core" raiding.</p><p>Basically it was 2 tanks:  guardians preferred berserker paladin ok as second choice</p><p>4 bards, 3 enchanters</p><p>4 chain healers, 2 plate healers, </p><p>1 conjurer, 1 necromancer, 2-3 swashbuckler/brigands, </p><p>and 4-5 pure dps: wizards, assassins  and 1 ranger</p><p>If you were a <b>monk, bruiser, warden, fury,</b> shadowknight, <b>paladin, berserker, warlock</b> you basically should just reroll you don't really have a place in upper level eq2 raiding except in  very special circumstances where the encounter was designed to need a specific class.</p><p> So I was curious is this really what it takes to do anything past RoK teir 1 raiding?  </p><p>That's benching a third of the current classes in game for basically uselessness...</p></blockquote><p>The classes in bold are absolutely completely wrong.  My main is a warden and i'm in a guild at the moment that has gotten passed the leviathan into VP.  Monks and Bruisers are a tough call, but they are still useful because of raid buffs and their specials.  A paladin is very useful and we have a Paladin in the guild as a MT/offtank at times.  We have a zerker who is 95% of the time the off tank for the raid.  </p><p>As for warlock.....I should introduce you to my friend who was in a guild on the server i'm on take down some of the avatars.  I believe he's also helped take down the tangrin, but i'm not sure about that. </p><p>The only class I will acknowledge as not getting raid treatment is the Shadowknight.  The reason being Paladin VS Shadowknight the paladin brings more to the table which sucks.  Paladin has rezzes, amends, holy ground, and group heals + major heal.  Shadowknights get Deathmarch, self ward and that's about it.  </p>

[Rijacki]

<cite>Ohiv wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Flaye@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Ohiv wrote:</cite><blockquote>WoW got around this problem by having fewer classes and 25 raid slots.</blockquote><p>The first raids in WoW were 40-player.</p></blockquote>And the first raids in Eq1 were 72man. Your point being what? WoW's changed their raid size to something more managable, EQ2 did the same thing. MY point was more that even thou the raid size got made smaller was that the amount of classes still remained small enough that things could be balanced out from the player side and not leaving a class out. Unlike with EQ2 we have the idiocy of having 24 raid slots and 24 classes. That is/was a train wreck from the start.</blockquote>In EQ1 (even pre-raid-UI), there were complaints a-plenty about thus and so class not being wanted for raids or being "benched".The number of slots on a raid and the number of classes available in the game are NOT the problem.  The problem isn't even the min/max'ers.  Raids, the number of slots per raid, the number of classes, the number of races, the racial abilities, etc.  All of those are EXCUSES and not reasons for thus and so or this and that.A guild broke up not because there are 24 raid slots.A guild broke up not because there are 24 classes.A guild broke up not because there are 24 raid slots -and- 24 classes.A guild broke up not because there are classes their raid leader deems undesirable for raiding. No matter how others see those classes.A guild broke up just because the raid leader decided he didn't want to continue with that guild for whatever reason.  He, or others, may have brought up raiding issues as the EXCUSE for breaking up the guild, but it wasn't the core reason.  The guild didn't have the glue to keep it together.It's a lot like a couple breaking up.  There's often a lot of things they can point to as excuses why they don't want to continue together, but those aren't really the core, the real reasons.  Pointing at excuses, though, is a lot easier because the real reasons are a lot more intangible.  Then again the reasons one guild (or one couple) stays together under the same circumstances another breaks apart are rather intangible, too.

[liveja]

<cite>Ohiv wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Flaye@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Ohiv wrote:</cite><blockquote>WoW got around this problem by having fewer classes and 25 raid slots.</blockquote><p>The first raids in WoW were 40-player.</p></blockquote>And the first raids in Eq1 were 72man. Your point being what?</blockquote><p>The point being that 25-man raids were not the original raid size in WoW. Only that, & nothing more.</p><p>I think Rijaki makes a very good point in her response, but I personally think that when you have a larger raid size maximum, you have less excuse for arguments that certain classes aren't needed. When you're trying to fill a 40-player raid, you're looking at warm bodies. While I agree with Rijaki that people use raid sizes & the number of character classes as excuses, I think there is at least some merit to larger raid forces.</p>

[Oh]

<cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite><blockquote>In EQ1 (even pre-raid-UI), there were complaints a-plenty about thus and so class not being wanted for raids or being "benched".The number of slots on a raid and the number of classes available in the game are NOT the problem.  The problem isn't even the min/max'ers.  Raids, the number of slots per raid, the number of classes, the number of races, the racial abilities, etc.  All of those are EXCUSES and not reasons for thus and so or this and that.A guild broke up not because there are 24 raid slots.A guild broke up not because there are 24 classes.A guild broke up not because there are 24 raid slots -and- 24 classes.A guild broke up not because there are classes their raid leader deems undesirable for raiding. No matter how others see those classes.A guild broke up just because the raid leader decided he didn't want to continue with that guild for whatever reason.  He, or others, may have brought up raiding issues as the EXCUSE for breaking up the guild, but it wasn't the core reason.  The guild didn't have the glue to keep it together.It's a lot like a couple breaking up.  There's often a lot of things they can point to as excuses why they don't want to continue together, but those aren't really the core, the real reasons.  Pointing at excuses, though, is a lot easier because the real reasons are a lot more intangible.  Then again the reasons one guild (or one couple) stays together under the same circumstances another breaks apart are rather intangible, too.</blockquote>We agree and disagree. We agree why this guild inpartiqular broke up and why some of them do break up. But my point that I am still standing on is the fact we have 24 class and 24 raid slots is one of the major problems of EQ2 raiding. A 24 class and 24 raid slot by it's very nature means someone will sit out. In WoW we didn't have that problem, in EQ1 the guilds I was in didn't have that problem. Yes there are raid leaders that don't view some classes as worth while that isn't the point I was making. You can disagree with me if you wish and I respect your position but I am not changing my point of view on it. It is a huge problem that raid size is 24 and there are 24 classes.

[Raster]

<cite>Maris wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>My guild recently fell apart... </p><p>If you were a monk, bruiser, warden, fury, shadowknight, paladin, berserker, warlock you basically should just reroll you don't really have a place in upper level eq2 raiding except in  very special circumstances where the encounter was designed to need a specific class.</p></blockquote><p>And I can understand why with comments like this.</p><p>Succesful raiding has alot to do with the players behind the classes.  Sounds like you want the "perfect" setup just to make it easier for average players to Raid.</p>

[Troubor]

<cite>Maris wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>My guild recently fell apart... that happens and there were several reasons for it, but a main point of the discussion was the type of class makeup needed for more "core" raiding.</p><p>Basically it was 2 tanks:  guardians preferred berserker paladin ok as second choice</p><p>4 bards, 3 enchanters</p><p>4 chain healers, 2 plate healers, </p><p>1 conjurer, 1 necromancer, 2-3 swashbuckler/brigands, </p><p>and 4-5 pure dps: wizards, assassins  and 1 ranger</p><p>If you were a monk, bruiser, warden, fury, shadowknight, paladin, berserker, warlock you basically should just reroll you don't really have a place in upper level eq2 raiding except in  very special circumstances where the encounter was designed to need a specific class.</p><p> So I was curious is this really what it takes to do anything past RoK teir 1 raiding?  </p><p>That's benching a third of the current classes in game for basically uselessness...</p></blockquote><p>Haven't read every thread, so my comments are only about the OP's post.</p><p>Well without getting into too many specifics, our guild (well, in my case people I raid with, I'm not in the guild but I am still their offtank) have at least one of every class you mention as not being needed except for "very special circumstances".  We're in Veeshan's Peak now.  Just left a couple hours ago from game a VP instance with the 1st and 2nd wing completly cleared, only have 3rd wing left to go.  Most of us have our mythicals.  We don't always have EVERY class on that list in our raid, but I'd say they each get their fair share, some in the raid more then others but do get their fair share.  Including myself, and I'm a paladin.</p><p>Hope that answers your question.</p>

[Thunderthyze]

<cite>Spyderbite@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote>Meh.. I was always under the impression that guilds were about friends and working together. Not about creating the "winning team" and disbanding if it ain't the right combo./shrugs</blockquote>Unfortunately once a guild has sensed a degree of success then they will demand more and more, ever more quickly. If you are a casual guild that starts to raid, beware. It is the one most likely reason for the guild eventually exploding. Casuals don't, by and large, understand that in order to effectively raid requires a degree of work and learning to achieve things. It's not just a question of turning up, swapping a few bits of resistance jewelery and off you go. A load of casual 80s pwning Deathtoll (a zone designed for characters 10 levels lower) can give a false sense of achievement that smacks them in the face when they start raiding T8. Confusion and frustration finally gives way to bitter recriminations and the "friends working together" can quickly degenerate into a guild of ingrates.

[Illine]

<cite>Maris wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>My guild recently fell apart... that happens and there were several reasons for it, but a main point of the discussion was the type of class makeup needed for more "core" raiding.</p><p>Basically it was 2 tanks:  guardians preferred berserker paladin ok as second choice</p><p>4 bards, 3 enchanters</p><p>4 chain healers, 2 plate healers, </p><p>1 conjurer, 1 necromancer, 2-3 swashbuckler/brigands, </p><p>and 4-5 pure dps: wizards, assassins  and 1 ranger</p><p>If you were a monk, bruiser, warden, fury, shadowknight, paladin, berserker, warlock you basically should just reroll you don't really have a place in upper level eq2 raiding except in  very special circumstances where the encounter was designed to need a specific class.</p><p> So I was curious is this really what it takes to do anything past RoK teir 1 raiding?  </p><p>That's benching a third of the current classes in game for basically uselessness...</p></blockquote><p>all of thoses classes are not useless. in our guild, we have all thoses classes, switching on raids, for a while we didn't have enough bard/chanty and we still cleaned up VP.</p><p>all you need are good players who play well their class. some hardcore guild want to min/max to have the best raid, others play for fun with friends, even if it's not the best set up you can do amazing things. maybe you will need a bit more time, but if you're good and motivated you'll do it.</p><p>But saying that your raid set up is the UBBER set up and only one viable is nonsense</p>

[Windowlicker]

I have to agree that the best change would likely be to make a few key spells/abilities raidwide to lessen the need for more then 2 of the same class.As it stands, it's a requirement to have power regen in pretty much every group.  There is no requirement however to place for example, a plate tank or cloth DPS caster in every group.This could be said for numerous other classes.Sure you *can* run a raid with 8 plate tanks, but you won't have nearly the luck others do.

[Eddes]

<cite>Spyderbite@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote>Meh.. I was always under the impression that guilds were about friends and working together. Not about creating the "winning team" and disbanding if it ain't the right combo./shrugs</blockquote>Spyderbite for President.  Thats the first intelligent thing that I've read all morning. /cheers!

[Thunderthyze]

<cite>Eddessa wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Spyderbite@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote>Meh.. I was always under the impression that guilds were about friends and working together. Not about creating the "winning team" and disbanding if it ain't the right combo./shrugs</blockquote>Spyderbite for President.  Thats the first intelligent thing that I've read all morning. /cheers!</blockquote>Totally agree. However, get enough "reasonable" people together and eventually the critical mass will cause them to begin to flap their dicks about.....however sensible they normally are.

[Kendricke]

<cite>Holymoly@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Eddessa wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Spyderbite@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote>Meh.. I was always under the impression that guilds were about friends and working together. Not about creating the "winning team" and disbanding if it ain't the right combo./shrugs</blockquote>Spyderbite for President.  Thats the first intelligent thing that I've read all morning. /cheers!</blockquote>Totally agree. However, get enough "reasonable" people together and eventually the critical mass will cause them to begin to flap their dicks about.....however sensible they normally are.</blockquote><p>90 members in my guild.  We've raided for three nights a week for the past two years.  Care to explain when I should start to enact zipper restrictions at guild events? </p><p>I'm quite clear on which classes I'm not interested in for our raid force.  Yet, for some crazy reason, my members continue to level up these classes on the side, and from time to time, we still bring in new members who belong to those classes I don't particularly want to see on our raids.  However, the big difference here is that I, as a guild leader, continue to set the expectations up front about what I do and do not desire in our raid force and the guild leader in this particular case...apparently did not.</p>

[Thunderthyze]

<cite>Kendricke wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Holymoly@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote>Totally agree. However, get enough "reasonable" people together and eventually the critical mass will cause them to begin to flap their dicks about.....however sensible they normally are.</blockquote><p>90 members in my guild.  We've raided for three nights a week for the past two years.  Care to explain when I should start to enact zipper restrictions at guild events? </p><p>I'm quite clear on which classes I'm not interested in for our raid force.  Yet, for some crazy reason, my members continue to level up these classes on the side, and from time to time, we still bring in new members who belong to those classes I don't particularly want to see on our raids.  However, the big difference here is that I, as a guild leader, continue to set the expectations up front about what I do and do not desire in our raid force and the guild leader in this particular case...apparently did not.</p></blockquote><p>Ah well......you're probably talking a benevolent dictatorship there Ken. They always work......right up to the point when you lose the will to live because of the ungrateful sods for whom you can never do enough <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></p><p>Btw....officially, critical mass becomes inevitable at around 120 active members.</p>

[Eddes]

<cite>Kendricke wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Holymoly@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Eddessa wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Spyderbite@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote>Meh.. I was always under the impression that guilds were about friends and working together. Not about creating the "winning team" and disbanding if it ain't the right combo./shrugs</blockquote>Spyderbite for President.  Thats the first intelligent thing that I've read all morning. /cheers!</blockquote>Totally agree. However, get enough "reasonable" people together and eventually the critical mass will cause them to begin to flap their dicks about.....however sensible they normally are.</blockquote><p>90 members in my guild.  We've raided for three nights a week for the past two years.  Care to explain when I should start to enact zipper restrictions at guild events? </p><p>I'm quite clear on which classes I'm not interested in for our raid force.  Yet, for some crazy reason, my members continue to level up these classes on the side, and from time to time, we still bring in new members who belong to those classes I don't particularly want to see on our raids.  However, the big difference here is that I, as a guild leader, continue to set the expectations up front about what I do and do not desire in our raid force and the guild leader in this particular case...apparently did not.</p></blockquote>Hm. Kind of stepped on our point there Ken <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Lol

[liveja]

<cite>Holymoly@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote>Casuals don't, by and large, understand that in order to effectively raid requires a degree of work and learning to achieve things.</blockquote><p>Even with the "by & large" qualification, I think this is an excessive over-generalization.</p><p>Of course, that may depend entirely on how you define "casual", but I can't help thinking everyone has his/her own definition, & thus so many definitions exist that all of them are effectively useless as definitions.</p><p>I'm also curious: where is it made "official" that "critical mass" happens when you hit 120 members?</p>

[Rijacki]

<cite>Kendricke wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Holymoly@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Eddessa wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Spyderbite@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote>Meh.. I was always under the impression that guilds were about friends and working together. Not about creating the "winning team" and disbanding if it ain't the right combo./shrugs</blockquote>Spyderbite for President.  Thats the first intelligent thing that I've read all morning. /cheers!</blockquote>Totally agree. However, get enough "reasonable" people together and eventually the critical mass will cause them to begin to flap their dicks about.....however sensible they normally are.</blockquote><p>90 members in my guild.  We've raided for three nights a week for the past two years.  Care to explain when I should start to enact zipper restrictions at guild events? </p><p>I'm quite clear on which classes I'm not interested in for our raid force.  Yet, for some crazy reason, my members continue to level up these classes on the side, and from time to time, we still bring in new members who belong to those classes I don't particularly want to see on our raids.  However, the big difference here is that I, as a guild leader, continue to set the expectations up front about what I do and do not desire in our raid force and the guild leader in this particular case...apparently did not.</p></blockquote>Not all characters are intended for raiding <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  I think some of us have made "non-raid" classes specifically because we don't want to raid with that character, not to force the raid to accept that character/class.Heck, the journey is heaps more fun than being always smushed against the wall at the end.  Besides, I -love- my raid character and I'm not sure I'd be allowed to not bring her to raids since she doesn't have a back up *laugh*. (the only other coercer in guild is 50s and the alt of one of the more active dirges...)(but I am happy happy GU45 kept coercer from most likely never getting on the short list of classes less than highly desired for raiding)

[Finora]

<cite>Spyderbite@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote>Meh.. I was always under the impression that guilds were about friends and working together. Not about creating the "winning team" and disbanding if it ain't the right combo./shrugs</blockquote><p>Heh yeah, if 'right raid make-up' were really THAT big of a thing then my guild would have been dead ages ago, and well we've been around about 8 years now, across various games.</p><p>I'm personally not big into raiding, I raid with my guild because I love them and I do enjoy keeling big bad arses every once in a while, but it's by no means my game LIFE to do raids.  And even to me looking at that raid set up I have to say wt... was the raid leader thinking? 4 chain healers? in the same raid? Do the raid leaders not understand about how heals stack (or not as the case may be).</p><p>In my limited experience a well played warlock does a HUGE amount of damage, more than 2 bards ...I can' t think of a reason to need more than 2 really, more than 2 of any particular flavor (druid/shaman/cleric) priest can be annoying to work, priests who aren't needed for healing (particularly melee priests and furies) can and SHOULD move to a dps role, berserkers and monks can do very well DPS wise in a raid situation. Different set ups are better for different raids. (of course my guild, being relatively small and not caring too much about being super uber just takes whomever we have available and see what we can do). We've not done anything past t1 in ROK, but really...that raid set up just sounds poorly thought out.</p>

[Thunderthyze]

<cite>Flaye@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>I'm also curious: where is it made "official" that "critical mass" happens when you hit 120 members?</p></blockquote><p>Just you wait and find out <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></p><p>Don't mind me.....I'm just bitter and twisted after it happened to my guild <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/136dd33cba83140c7ce38db096d05aed.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></p>

[liveja]

<cite>Holymoly@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Flaye@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>I'm also curious: where is it made "official" that "critical mass" happens when you hit 120 members?</p></blockquote><p>Just you wait and find out <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></p><p>Don't mind me.....I'm just bitter and twisted after it happened to my guild <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/136dd33cba83140c7ce38db096d05aed.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></p></blockquote><p>My guild, AFAIK, doesn't even have 10 people in it. I seriously doubt we'll ever see 120, so I guess we've nothing to worry about.</p><p>IMO, guild drama is the guild's issue to deal with, not at all SOE's.</p>

[Oh]

<cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite><blockquote>Not all characters are intended for raiding <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />" width="15" height="15" />  I think some of us have made "non-raid" classes specifically because we don't want to raid with that character, not to force the raid to accept that character/class.</blockquote>Actually you aren't the first one to hint at this. I completely disagree with this point of view. I think all characters should be capable of raiding if they so desire. NOW I agree not everyone wants to raid with every character they might have for the appropriate level, but that restriction should be player caused not game caused. The biggest ISSUE i see with the raids at the moment is a very basic mechanic. There are 24 classes there are 24 raid slots, SoE's biggest flop. Just by the very nature of raiding it won't be a one for one mapping so corispondly someone(s) will sit out. Depending how strict the guild is it can be specific classes to the only restction is basically getting enough warmbodies just to raid.

[liveja]

<cite>Ohiv wrote:</cite><blockquote>I think all characters should be capable of raiding if they so desire.</blockquote><p>They are, now. Whether a class is "capable of raiding" has never, not once, ever been the issue. The issue is that some players of some classes claim they bring nothing to a raid force & thus everyone leaves them out. In almost every case, I think the complaint is over the top.</p><p>I can somewhat agree with SKs & Bruisers, but I've seen raid forces with each class before, so it's not a matter of they're totally "useless" for raiding, either. Quite frankly, I don't think there's such a thing as a "useless" class, but there are far too many useless players.</p><p>I think that at the very most, some minor tweaks could be made for those two classes. All other classes are fine, & IMO, so is the 24-classes/24-raidslots "issue." I see nothing wrong with having multiple ways of accomplishing something, & in any event, 4 years later is entirely the wrong time to be complaining about too many classes.</p>

[Oh]

<cite>Flaye@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Ohiv wrote:</cite><blockquote>I think all characters should be capable of raiding if they so desire.</blockquote><p>They are, now. Whether a class is "capable of raiding" has never, not once, ever been the issue. The issue is that some players of some classes claim they bring nothing to a raid force & thus everyone leaves them out. In almost every case, I think the complaint is over the top.</p><p>I can somewhat agree with SKs & Bruisers, but I've seen raid forces with each class before, so it's not a matter of they're totally "useless" for raiding, either. Quite frankly, I don't think there's such a thing as a "useless" class, but there are far too many useless players.</p><p>I think that at the very most, some minor tweaks could be made for those two classes. All other classes are fine, & IMO, so is the 24-classes/24-raidslots "issue." I see nothing wrong with having multiple ways of accomplishing something, & in any event, 4 years later is entirely the wrong time to be complaining about too many classes.</p></blockquote>WE agree, it was a point that was stated that I disagreeded with. THe point that was stated was "Not all characters are intended for raiding".

[Noaani]

<cite>bryldan wrote:</cite><blockquote>From what I have seen the top guilds do not run with that many tanks(guilds that have only like 25-30ppl in it) they usually have ALTS that they switch to to fill in the roll if they need them. A lot of high end guilds wants you to have at least one lvld alt just in case you need to make a switch around for a certain encounter like the sisters in SOH.</blockquote><p>Confirmed, Ne Plus Ultra and Strike (arguable the three top guilds in this game) all have 5 fighters on their roster. These guilds do not have guilded alts, so the players in the guild are mains. it is not unusual for any of these guilds to raid with 3 or 4 fighters, even on encounters that do not specifically require them (I am "in a position" to know the basics of what these guilds do).</p><p>That is obviously not 1 of each fighter type, but they all have other non fighter classes that are not on their roster, as well as fighters (in fact, scouts are the only archtype that any of these guilds has every member of, and all three of them have all 6 scouts).</p><p>If you remove their support classes (bards and chanters) all three of these guilds have more tanks than either mages or scouts.</p><p>RoK raid content is the most forgiving on class selection this game has ever had, but it is absolutly brutal on individual player attention. If one player (any player) stops paying attention for even 5 seconds on some encounters, the raid wipes.</p><p>I would wager that the guild in the OP suffered from sub par players, not sub par class selection.</p><p>Class selection on raids, other than the tank groups (which hava had only minor changes since very early T5) is only about DPS. Since there are very few encounters in RoK have that a minimum amount of DPS needed, and they are all set very low, class selection outside of the tanking groups should be based in equal measures around whom is not absent minded and what classes can help groups.</p>

[liveja]

<cite>Ohiv wrote:</cite><blockquote>THe point that was stated was "Not all characters are intended for raiding".</blockquote><p>Yes, & my post was explaining why I believe that point is <b>false.</b></p>