Tower Shield Tanking [Archive] - EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

Aull

08-13-2008, 01:21 AM

I use the stamina line and have for quite some time now. Holding aggro is still somewhat a pain, but I know with a tower shield my zerker is really gonna have trouble. It wasn't as large of a problem in kos/eof expansions, but since the release of rok the scouts that I know have seen huge increases to their dps with all the wonderful equipment available. Since zerkers lack any aa's to increase or benefit exsisting taunts and not really having any snap aggro tools (minus rescue) as a class this will continue to be a problem.Hopefully by the next expansion zerkers will have abilities/aa's available if not both that will help level the playing field when it comes to aggro retention and regaining. The way I see it the greatest tanks are the ones that actually survive, hold aggro, and if aggro is lost can regain it with abilities given them. While zerkers do nice dps for a fighter class it just isn't enough to hold aggro off of huge spike damage that the brigands, rangers, and spell casters can do. I think that if taunts could do a critical taunt similar to critical damage then that would help some, but again aggro will be lost at times and that is where a zerker needs that snap aggro ability.Anyways I just do not see how any zerker can honestly hold aggro with a tower shield without huge hate transfers from supporting classes. I know that there are some zerkers that are not stamina specked that do this, but for me I really cannot.

evilgamer

08-13-2008, 11:45 AM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>I use the stamina line and have for quite some time now. Holding aggro is still somewhat a pain, but I know with a tower shield my zerker is really gonna have trouble. It wasn't as large of a problem in kos/eof expansions, but since the release of rok the scouts that I know have seen huge increases to their dps with all the wonderful equipment available. Since zerkers lack any aa's to increase or benefit exsisting taunts and not really having any snap aggro tools (minus rescue) as a class this will continue to be a problem.Hopefully by the next expansion zerkers will have abilities/aa's available if not both that will help level the playing field when it comes to aggro retention and regaining. The way I see it the greatest tanks are the ones that actually survive, hold aggro, and if aggro is lost can regain it with abilities given them. While zerkers do nice dps for a fighter class it just isn't enough to hold aggro off of huge spike damage that the brigands, rangers, and spell casters can do. I think that if taunts could do a critical taunt similar to critical damage then that would help some, but again aggro will be lost at times and that is where a zerker needs that snap aggro ability.Anyways I just do not see how any zerker can honestly hold aggro with a tower shield without huge hate transfers from supporting classes. I know that there are some zerkers that are not stamina specked that do this, but for me I really cannot.</blockquote>Aull since you have a bruiser and a zerker both 70 plus could you please compare and contrast the two classes on a few things ?AggroSurviablitySoloabliityItemization/gearDpsUtility/buffs

Aull

08-13-2008, 02:17 PM

I will do my best and if I miss anything I hope my fellow zerkers can clear up any confusion I may be doing. I will start with aggro. Aggro for my zerker is very basic with the same basic taunts that all fighter classes get. Other than rescue my zerker has no snap aggro abilities. If my zerker is allowed to actually have about 5-8 seconds before the dps lays on heavily he can hold aggro most of the time as long as the fight is under 20-30 seconds. If dps goes for the kill without allowing me to generate any hate then I have a super hard time regaining the aggro and most of the time I can't. Bad problem with zerker aggro is the fact that what abilities currently given to berserkers just are not producing enough hate when in use and they have no aa's to enhance these abilities. The only instance that I can think of my zerker having decent aggro generation is when the class defining ae's are available for use in/on encounter fighting.Aggro control is the number one reason I stopped playing my berserker almost a full year ago. I feel he has the dps he needs, and survivability but no aggro control is what made me bench him until here recently.Aggro for my bruiser is decent and much better than my zerker. The bruiser usually doesn't have any problems single target wise and occasionally will loose aggro but only momentarily since he can get up on the hate list fast. Bruisers aa tree allows for enhancement of the basic taunts, rescue, contol hate, getting drag (nice quick but short 4 sec snap aggro), and divide and conquer is a nice ability but gets resisted most of the time and cannot be used while on the move. My bruiser is a good tank for instances and when I am not tanking I enjoy offtanking since I can grab the add(s) very quick.Only area that my bruiser suffers is the ae aggro retention, but he doesn't do that bad there either.I will try and begin another post on surviablity soon.Thanks

Aull

08-13-2008, 02:46 PM

I would like to say that I see survivability as being able to take as many hits as possible before the healing is neccessary. I could be wrong in seeing it that way but until I am convienced otherwise that is how I will judge it. Survivability on my bruiser is totally dependant on what lvl mob I am facing. My gear on my bruiser is mostly lvl 72 master crafted with about three legendary items. If the mobs are below my lvl then my bruiser survivability is very good, however if the mob is two levels or more higher then it gets rough. If mob is epic it is down right dangerous. The spike damage is usually to dramatic for my bruiser to have any so called survivability. I know that if my gear of course was fabled this would help immensely.As for my zerker I have just started playing him again recently and he is currently lvl 79. Most of his gear is fabled armor from eof raids that he attained about this time last year. My zerker does have a couple of legendary pieces from ROK that I have just recently replaced. His survivability is good all the way around and definately better at surviving fights where mobs that are two or better lvls higher than his current lvl. As of now my zerker is the back up tank on our instance runs and once I actually get him to 80 and start tanking chardok and places similar I will have a better answer, but I can say that he is easier to keep up on hard fights. I will try and keep you posted on that.

evilgamer

08-13-2008, 03:13 PM

So bascially the bruiser has better single target aggro, the zerker struggles a bit.The zerker has better aoe aggro, the bruiser struggles a bit here.The bruisers survivablity drops off against even con or greater mobs. And dramatically drops off against epic mobs. (undoubtedly due to the way uncontested avoidence works)The zerker has good surviablity period.What about dps?

Aull

08-13-2008, 04:02 PM

In my experience I have never been able to get both my bruiser and a zerker to have the "all things being equal" scenario in a group setting. I can say that my bruiser on most single targets with no haste or dps mods will do more damage in 30 seconds than my zerker can simply because my zerker combat arts are not as hard hitting as my bruisers. Also my zerker relies more on auto attack to do damage which doesn't have the "burst" or "spike" damage that a bruiser can produce with combat arts. This isn't including my bruiser using knockout either which you know does great damage for 20 seconds.However if there are three or more mobs and the zerker's open wounds or destruction is active it is shear chaos what they can do in the aoe department. Not to mention zerkers offensive stance will proc or potentially hit mobs that are already hitting the zerker.On long fights if my bruiser isn't buffed and a zerker isn't buffed then the zerker will win by a small margin because a zerker will have the several chances to proc a berserk state which will give both a 29 or higher points to haste and dps mods for 10 seconds. Again the problem for me is that I have never got my bruiser and zerker in the same melee buff group to be accurate to say.It would take someone who has acutally been in this scenario to give an answer better than what I can provide. I do think that in all reality since a bruiser is last of the fighters in tanking survivability and utility that bruisers should be the strongest dps of the fighters. That is just my opinion.Thanks

evilgamer

08-13-2008, 04:29 PM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>In my experience I have never been able to get both my bruiser and a zerker to have the "all things being equal" scenario in a group setting. I can say that my bruiser on most single targets with no haste or dps mods will do more damage in 30 seconds than my zerker can simply because my zerker combat arts are not as hard hitting as my bruisers. Also my zerker relies more on auto attack to do damage which doesn't have the "burst" or "spike" damage that a bruiser can produce with combat arts. This isn't including my bruiser using knockout either which you know does great damage for 20 seconds.However if there are three or more mobs and the zerker's open wounds or destruction is active it is shear chaos what they can do in the aoe department. Not to mention zerkers offensive stance will proc or potentially hit mobs that are already hitting the zerker.On long fights if my bruiser isn't buffed and a zerker isn't buffed then the zerker will win by a small margin because a zerker will have the several chances to proc a berserk state which will give both a 29 or higher points to haste and dps mods for 10 seconds. Again the problem for me is that I have never got my bruiser and zerker in the same melee buff group to be accurate to say.It would take someone who has acutally been in this scenario to give an answer better than what I can provide. I do think that in all reality since a bruiser is last of the fighters in tanking survivability and utility that bruisers should be the strongest dps of the fighters. That is just my opinion.Thanks</blockquote>So bascially, against single targets, the bruiser has better burst damage on short 30 sec ish fights, but the zerker has better sustained damageOn AOE its no comparison the zerker owns the bruiser.Yeah I agree, the bruiser class is really hurting at the moment, especially on raids. As you pointed out our surviablity tanking on raids is horrible, and our dps is not very good on those long epic fights, after that intial burst it really drops off. Not to mention dev fist is pretty much nerfed against epic mobs. Its hilarious I can hit heroic mobs for 60k with dev fist, and hit epic mobs with it for 5k, lol and I am stifled for 10 secs. I generally dont even bother with dev fist on raids, unless I can time it just right before the mob dies.

Aull

08-13-2008, 04:44 PM

I feel that I am carrying this thread off topic if I continue discussing a bruiser/berserker comparison. I would like to mention that Lyger and Karsgaar could answer these questions better than I.

evilgamer

08-13-2008, 05:01 PM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>I feel that I am carrying this thread off topic if I continue discussing a bruiser/berserker comparison. I would like to mention that Lyger and Karsgaar could answer these questions better than I.</blockquote>Why? Lyger hasnt played a bruiser & zerker to 75 plus like you have.Your perspective is unique because you have actually leveled both classes to almost max level. So you speak from experiance, not speculation. I have no idea who karsgaar is.Btw I am done with the comparison too.You answered all my questions reguarding the surviablity, dps, and aggro of the two classes.

LygerT

08-14-2008, 05:46 PM

i won't feed your fire, SKs need more attention than bruisers do. i honestly don't know what they could do to balance brawlers anyways, sad part is you read and knew the issues and could easily play a different class but you picked one of the least desirable raid classes with the highest soloability and only to start a war from within aiming your focus on raid tanking....i only know of 2 brawlers who are upset by not being fully accepted in raiding, except one doesn't want to be a viable main tank, he just wants to raid but our roster is filled already.

evilgamer

08-14-2008, 06:40 PM

<cite>Lyger@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>i won't feed your fire, SKs need more attention than bruisers do.I wont argue with that, but I wasnt aware that I even was, lol. How did Sk's get dragged into this? i honestly don't know what they could do to balance brawlers anyways,Well getting rid of contested avoidence would be a good start imo. sad part is you read and knew the issues and could easily play a different class but you picked one of the least desirable raid classes with the highest soloability and only to start a war from within aiming your focus on raid tanking....Knew the issue? Not really, as you have pointed out several times I am pretty new to this game. The only reason I rolled a bruiser is because1) I enjoy tanking2) I was duoing with a friend, we played a SK/Shaman combo in EQ 1 and wanted to sorta recreate that duo in EQ 2. Sk's in eq2 are nothing like SK's in EQ1 were. I rolled a SK intitally, got him like level 10 and was not that impressed. I rolled a bruiser and never looked back. I knew bruisers were not the "pure tanks" and it didnt bother me because I wrongly assumed that raiding in EQ 2 was similar to raiding in EQ 1. Wrong. My SK in EQ 1 wasnt a pure tank either for the most part, but knights in general were very useful to raids. They could dps well, had a few good buffs, and a ton of EQ 1 raids REQUIRED alot of offtanking. I figured the bruiser would be the same, it wasnt until I got my bruiser to his 50's that I learned that eq 2 raiding is vastly different and that class balance is pretty [Removed for Content] for the most part. I protested this on the forum, but was shouted down by many telling me I didnt know what I was talking about, blah blah, bruisers are in raids etc etc. So I decided to find out myself and leveled to 80 and discovered that everything I said at 50 was for the most part true and most of those who flamed me were just bunch of lying trolls who jealously protect their classes current advantages for fear of losing a raid spot. God forbid a raid not need 8 bards/chanters /shiver. I have never once said that brawlers should tank better then plate tanks all other things being equal because we get a good bit of utiltiy and *some* dps over you. All I have ever said in reguards to brawler raid tanking that its complete garbage that the rules that govern 95% of the games content (solo and heroic) just suddently get thrown out the window on epic content for no reason I can see as being valid. Even if avoidence was no longer contested against epic mobs, plate tanks would still be better choice for tanking on raids. But it woudl be nice for brawlers to be able to fulfill their intended roles (tank) on raids when no other plate tanks are available. My guild raided PR realm the other week and we only had 1 plate tank on, and our offtank was another bruiser. Now she did good job, as we had pretty good dps and she has VP gear, but if I had been forced to OT, I dont think I would have done so hot due to contested avoidence and the lower mit on my legendary gear, however I have been on PR raids where plate tanks with gear worse then or similar to mine did perform that OT role just fine. VP gear should not be required tank a T1 raid zone lol. I just think contested avoidence is garbage and totally unfair to brawlers who primary function is this game is avoidence tanking. Why is avoidence only contested, but mitigation isnt? Its totall unfair imo.i only know of 2 brawlers who are upset by not being fully accepted in raiding, except one doesn't want to be a viable main tank, he just wants to raid but our roster is filled already. Its not my problem that alot of brawlers can not seem to figure that we are a primarily a tank class. I would have thought the taunt button on the hot bar at level 1 would have been a clue, but I guess its not so obvious for some people. And just because a you know a alot of brawlers who dont care about raiding (half of whom are proably just alts) doesnt mean that we should not have a defined raid role. SOE has obviously thought we are class that should be included in raids as they have given us a raid buff, to bad it was great intentions and poor execution.You seem to be under some impression that brawlers are the gods of soloing, I can assure you that we are not. Go to KC sometimes and see who is soloing named and who is not. I only know of 1 brawler solos named there and he has his myth and raid gear. The average instance brawler is not soloing KC named like the average instance root and nuke class is.Not to mention chanters solo extremely well in T8, and generally occupy 4 raid slots and I dont see anyone complaing about that one.The only advantage brawlers have solo over the other fighters it faster kills and fewer deaths, every class can solo to 80, some will do it a bit faster, a guildie in my old guild level his templar from 1-80 in a month lol. Templars are by far the biggest pains in the rear to solo.</blockquote>

JerronBlacksilver

08-14-2008, 07:23 PM

I just can't resist...We all know that a Brawler's purpose in life is not tanking, or DPSing...it's Shiny Hunting!

evilgamer

08-14-2008, 08:07 PM

<cite>Zebedee@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>I just can't resist...We all know that a Brawler's purpose in life is not tanking, or DPSing...it's Shiny Hunting!</blockquote>Lol, so true, they need to introduce a title "Hunter of shiny's" lol.Btw one other point I would like to add, is that brawlers rely heavily on stuns/knockdowns to tank, none of which work on epics.Another reason that even if contested avoidence was gotten rid of, plate tanks would still be the preferred raid tank.

LygerT

08-14-2008, 08:50 PM

but you started this tirade when your bruiser was a mere level 40, which can be done in less than a week even by a casual player. i'm not impressed with berserkers either, but i had alot more than a weeks worth of time invested before i noticed the issues.

Khrunk

08-15-2008, 10:15 PM

<cite>evilgamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>I just think contested avoidence is garbage and totally unfair to brawlers who primary function is this game is avoidence tanking. Why is avoidence only contested, but mitigation isnt? Its totall unfair imo.</blockquote>i know you are a hardcore raider and all but you do realize how untrue this statement is.

LygerT

08-16-2008, 02:26 PM

omg... mitigation isn't uncontested? oh the lies!just stop listening to him, he doesn't know what he's talking about but he keeps going like the energizer rabbit.

evilgamer

08-16-2008, 09:00 PM

<cite>Khrunk@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>evilgamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>I just think contested avoidence is garbage and totally unfair to brawlers who primary function is this game is avoidence tanking. Why is avoidence only contested, but mitigation isnt? Its totall unfair imo.</blockquote>i know you are a hardcore raider and all but you do realize how untrue this statement is.</blockquote>Really?Then show me the slightest amount of evidence that says mit is contested.I have yet to see a single piece of gear or buff that says wearer/caster will mitigate x% of incoming blow.Its just +mit or + slash,pierce,crush

evilgamer

08-16-2008, 09:02 PM

<cite>Lyger@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>omg... mitigation isn't uncontested? oh the lies!just stop listening to him, he doesn't know what he's talking about but he keeps going like the energizer rabbit. </blockquote>Same as the previous poster, show me the slightest bit of evidence that mitiagations is contested.BTW if you knew what you were doing you would have quit casting your avoid buff when tanking when I kept putting mine or another fighter kept putting theirs on you.

evilgamer

08-16-2008, 09:04 PM

<cite>Lyger@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>i'm not impressed with berserkers either, but i had alot more than a weeks worth of time invested before i noticed the issues. </blockquote>What can I say? Maybee the bruiser issues are greater or I am more perceptive then you are lol.

LygerT

08-17-2008, 05:53 AM

<cite>evilgamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Lyger@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>omg... mitigation isn't uncontested? oh the lies!just stop listening to him, he doesn't know what he's talking about but he keeps going like the energizer rabbit. </blockquote>Same as the previous poster, show me the slightest bit of evidence that mitiagations is contested.BTW if you knew what you were doing you would have quit casting your avoid buff when tanking when I kept putting mine or another fighter kept putting theirs on you.</blockquote>1) i'm an offtank, i rarely have other fighters put avoidance buffs on me, if they do they should be macroing it, so i know it's there. i don't actively search through the 40 or so odd buffs i have when i'm tanking, because only 20 show anyways i have no clue what half the buffs being put on me even are so i assume nothing. no i do not put my avoidance buff on the main tank always, because most of the time i run in offensive on trash, with a whopping 40% avoidance and if i do we can only run 1 check, if we run our seperately then we have 2 checks we can put on the scouts who generally yank aggro the most to help them survive(while still boosting our own defenses somewhat). 2) contested mitigation isn't easy to test but there is ways, like swapping out pieces with similar mitigation levels. dig up a piece or 2 of level 68-70 legendary and swap them out with your level 78 legendary and the tool tip over your mitigation level will tell you exactly how much contested mitigation a piece has.fabled>legendary>mastercrafted level 80>78, as i said in previous posts about resists the same basic concept works exactly the same for mitigation and diminishing returns, which is why even the best plate armor in RoK means very little because it absorbs so little damage because avoidance is exactly what this expansion is all about. the higher level a mob iss, the less damage your armor's mitigation absorbs. in fact, pretty much everything about this game revolves around that basic concept with very few things that bypass these laws such as uncontested block/parry and focus damage. i'm trying not to be a jerk but we really don't need these arguments in our forum.

victer

08-18-2008, 12:10 PM

<cite>evilgamer wrote:</cite><blockquote>Well getting rid of contested avoidence would be a good start imo. <cite></cite></blockquote>surely you mean uncontested avoidance right? I'd love for them to take contested avoidance out...I'd love to go try to tank Nagafin

victer

08-18-2008, 12:29 PM

<cite>evilgamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Khrunk@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>evilgamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>I just think contested avoidence is garbage and totally unfair to brawlers who primary function is this game is avoidence tanking. Why is avoidence only contested, but mitigation isnt? Its totall unfair imo.</blockquote>i know you are a hardcore raider and all but you do realize how untrue this statement is.</blockquote>Really?Then show me the slightest amount of evidence that says mit is contested.I have yet to see a single piece of gear or buff that says wearer/caster will mitigate x% of incoming blow.Its just +mit or + slash,pierce,crush</blockquote>you seem confused ill try and make it a bit easier for you to understandContested avoidance/mitigation means that your level is checked against the mobs level before the action gets calculated. The mitigation numbers on your armor and the protection numbers on your shield is checked against your charachters level. You will notice that if you use a 300mit helmet that is level 80 and then switch to a lvl 70 helmet with 300mit... your mit% will go up when you put the higher lvl gear on. Same goes for shields... your block% will go up on the higher peice of gear. Pieces of gear that give +crush/slash/perice mitigation are calculated as a bonus to your current level. In other words if you had a lvl 1 item that had +100 mitigation to slash/crush/peirce, it would be calculated as if you added another 100 @ lvl 80. All mitigation in this game is contested.Uncontested avoidance (which you only get from Block and parry/riposte% adorns/items *NOT +parry*) means that it doesnt matter what level the gear is or what level the mob is. You will always have a % chance to do the action. If you had some funky item at lvl 1 that gave you 50% block and then tried to pull an Avatar chances are you will block a few of the hits befor he one shots you.So in responce to your idea of taking out contested avoidance (which btw im guessing you got the idea from the brawler boards but im pretty sure they are asking to take out UNcontested avoidance) is very flawed. If they change all avoidance from contested to uncontested then that makes its easier for brawlers to tank but also make plate tanks ungodly. That means at level 80 ill be able to go over to lvl 100 Nagafin and tank him with 75% chance to not get hit. If they do what the brawlers i think are asking for with removing uncontested avoid and makeing it contested then that means that they will have to scale back all of the orange lvl 86+ Raid bosses to compensate. Because when you fight a mob like Byzola who is lvl 88 the only thing at that point that is really helping you is uncontested avoid.Hope that helps

evilgamer

08-18-2008, 03:14 PM

<cite>victer wrote:</cite><blockquote>you seem confused ill try and make it a bit easier for you to understand Contested avoidance/mitigation means that your level is checked against the mobs level before the action gets calculated. The mitigation numbers on your armor and the protection numbers on your shield is checked against your charachters level. You will notice that if you use a 300mit helmet that is level 80 and then switch to a lvl 70 helmet with 300mit... your mit% will go up when you put the higher lvl gear on. Same goes for shields... your block% will go up on the higher peice of gear. Pieces of gear that give +crush/slash/perice mitigation are calculated as a bonus to your current level. In other words if you had a lvl 1 item that had +100 mitigation to slash/crush/peirce, it would be calculated as if you added another 100 @ lvl 80. All mitigation in this game is contested. This is incorrect. All avoidence / and mitigation is affected by mobs level. What makes avoidence contested vs uncontested it wether or not it is affected by special accuracy modifiers that certain mobs get (named heroic and all epic) that ignore all but uncontested avoidenceUncontested avoidance (which you only get from Block and parry/riposte% adorns/items *NOT +parry*) means that it doesnt matter what level the gear is or what level the mob is. You will always have a % chance to do the action. If you had some funky item at lvl 1 that gave you 50% block and then tried to pull an Avatar chances are you will block a few of the hits befor he one shots you.So in responce to your idea of taking out contested avoidance (which btw im guessing you got the idea from the brawler boards but im pretty sure they are asking to take out UNcontested avoidance) is very flawed. If they change all avoidance from contested to uncontested then that makes its easier for brawlers to tank but also make plate tanks ungodly. That means at level 80 ill be able to go over to lvl 100 Nagafin and tank him with 75% chance to not get hit. If they do what the brawlers i think are asking for with removing uncontested avoid and makeing it contested then that means that they will have to scale back all of the orange lvl 86+ Raid bosses to compensate. Because when you fight a mob like Byzola who is lvl 88 the only thing at that point that is really helping you is uncontested avoid.Actually this is incorrect.From the monk forum:Something that will affect your gameplay at higher levels is the notion of 'contested' vs. 'uncontested' avoidance. Contested avoidance is affected by both the mob's level and also by any additional hidden accuracy bonus that harder mobs receive (heroic named mobs and all types of epic mobs can have hidden accuracy bonuses that severely reduce your contested avoidance). Uncontested avoidance is only affected by the relative level difference between you and your opponent - hidden accuracy modifiers are ignored. Naturally, this makes uncontested avoidance superior to contested.The difference between uncontested vs contested isnt your level vs mobs level. That affects all avoidence period. That level 1 with the "will block 50%" will not block as single blow on a pull vs a level 85 avatar, no matter what.The difference is that certain mobs (all epic, and heroic named) have hidden accuracy modifiers that severly reduce your contested avoidence.This matters becaue all of shield block is uncontested which basically gives plate tanks more avoidence then the so called "avoidence tanks" have on raids. As mobs tagged epic bascially ignore all but uncontested avoidence.What most brawlers want is to get rid of this disadvantage by making all avoidence uncontested. Meaning that avoidence is only affected by your level vs mobs level, the way mitgation is, not by special accuracy modifiers. Hope that helps</blockquote>

victer

08-18-2008, 03:27 PM

im trying to find it but does anyone have that link to the dude that got 2 blocks in at lvl 10 against an avatar in t7?all mitigation (resists or crush/slash/peirce) is contested i dont see how you keep saying its uncontested.You may have a point about this hidden heroic/epic modifier (which has only been talked about recently since brawlers are trying to come up with ways why they need improvments) but that still doesnt change the fact that uncontested avoidance is uncontested against the mobs level. I've heard of this "hidden" mechanic recently but i have not seen any solid evidance that it actaully exsists so for now im not considering it to be true. Are you telling me if i went down the agi line in warrior tree and got the 100% parry for 10secs and used it... that there is actaully chances of not parrying? I doubt that. If im wrong then please proove it.If it WAS contested against mobs level you would very likely hardly ever see any tank avoid any hit from Byzola being that he is lvl 88 AND epic.And changeing all avoidance to uncontested will make plate tanks even more of a better tank then brawlers. And then we are back at square one with you guys complaining that you cant tank as well

victer

08-18-2008, 03:43 PM

The words uncontested and contested have been used for multiple expantions now. And frankly have been used way too much and used out of context.Im trying to figure out how you think that uncontested means that it is compared (or contested) against mobs level.Uncontested means its not checked. Contested means it is checked. And its all relative to your level compared to the mobs. I dont know how much more simplified i can make it. And if I am completely wrong (which is totally possible) and Uncontested avoid is actaully contested against mobs level someone please confirm it with some sort of proof. Hmm... you really got me thinking now and when i get home im gonna try and make a toon in neriak and see if i can get him to block a few times in SOH.

evilgamer

08-18-2008, 05:05 PM

found this on monk forumWhat you said of mitigation is adjustable rather than contestable.Mitigation gets worse against epic mobs but it works on every hit. So it is uncontested.For avoidance, no matter you are fighting epic or solo mob, there is a roll check either hit or miss.So it is contested. That's why people said mitigation and hp are not contested because it is always there.

LygerT

08-18-2008, 05:13 PM

grats on finding an idiot poster who found a new way of describing contested avoidance/mitwhere on any forum have you heard anyone use the term "adjustable mitigation"?

victer

08-18-2008, 05:31 PM

ok did the testing i said i was going to do and its just confirming everything i said.I couldnt zone into SOH with a lvl 1 cause its 75 required for the zone.So what i did was pulled one of the lvl 85 epicx2 gaurds in neriakhere is the stats of the char i made (notice lvl 1 with starting shield has 70% block)<img src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc255/victer_p/vicproof.jpg" alt="" border="0" />and now the results of the pull. WOOT my lvl 1 blocked 3 times before he pwned me with 60k dmg<img src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc255/victer_p/vicproof2.jpg" alt="" border="0" />You sir need to go check your facts and re-read my initial post. Brawlers are trying thier butts off to come up with reasons they need help. Enough said.

evilgamer

08-18-2008, 05:39 PM

I think the issue is that you guys get more uncontested avoidence with your sheilds then so call "avoidence" tanks do.So let me get this straight, all avoidence & mit is checked vs the mobs level, the greater the difference, the less effective both mitigation and your chance to avoid.With the exception of uncontested avoidence, which has a % to block/parry/dodge/riposte/deflect no matter what levels are, as was has been demonstrated by your level 1 making 3 blocks vs a 85 x 2

victer

08-18-2008, 05:46 PM

<cite>evilgamer wrote:</cite><blockquote>edit</blockquote>hopefully the initial post said"Sorry guys i didnt realize how clueless i was"

evilgamer

08-18-2008, 05:53 PM

<cite>victer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>evilgamer wrote:</cite><blockquote>edit</blockquote>hopefully the initial post said"Sorry guys i didnt realize how clueless i was"</blockquote>Nice of you to troll, but even you had to go test stuff because you really didnt know either.I have read so many conflicting things about this, its really hard to make sense of any of it.Apparantly sheild block is uncontested though and mobs level is irrelevant when dealing with with uncontested avoidence. That much you just confirmed.

victer

08-18-2008, 05:54 PM

<cite>victer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><cite></cite>you seem confused ill try and make it a bit easier for you to understandContested avoidance/mitigation means that your level is checked against the mobs level before the action gets calculated. The mitigation numbers on your armor and the protection numbers on your shield is checked against your charachters level. You will notice that if you use a 300mit helmet that is level 80 and then switch to a lvl 70 helmet with 300mit... your mit% will go up when you put the higher lvl gear on. Same goes for shields... your block% will go up on the higher peice of gear. Pieces of gear that give +crush/slash/perice mitigation are calculated as a bonus to your current level. In other words if you had a lvl 1 item that had +100 mitigation to slash/crush/peirce, it would be calculated as if you added another 100 @ lvl 80. All mitigation in this game is contested.Uncontested avoidance (which you only get from Block and parry/riposte% adorns/items *NOT +parry*) means that it doesnt matter what level the gear is or what level the mob is. You will always have a % chance to do the action. If you had some funky item at lvl 1 that gave you 50% block and then tried to pull an Avatar chances are you will block a few of the hits befor he one shots you.So in responce to your idea of taking out contested avoidance (which btw im guessing you got the idea from the brawler boards but im pretty sure they are asking to take out UNcontested avoidance) is very flawed. If they change all avoidance from contested to uncontested then that makes its easier for brawlers to tank but also make plate tanks ungodly. That means at level 80 ill be able to go over to lvl 100 Nagafin and tank him with 75% chance to not get hit. If they do what the brawlers i think are asking for with removing uncontested avoid and makeing it contested then that means that they will have to scale back all of the orange lvl 86+ Raid bosses to compensate. Because when you fight a mob like Byzola who is lvl 88 the only thing at that point that is really helping you is uncontested avoid.Hope that helps</blockquote>QFEread it... understand it..... live by it

evilgamer

08-18-2008, 06:02 PM

<cite>victer wrote:</cite><blockquote>QFEread it... understand it..... live by it</blockquote>Yeah, remove uncontested avoidence lol.

victer

08-18-2008, 06:05 PM

<cite>evilgamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>victer wrote:</cite><blockquote>QFEread it... understand it..... live by it</blockquote>Yeah, remove uncontested avoidence lol.</blockquote>sweet and then they have to revamp the whole entire raid scean.thats gonna happen.......<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" />How about you ask devs for MORE uncontested avoid to make up the block we get from shields. Rather then screw the whole raid scean over. But then again if you DO get more tanking uncontested avoidance can we have your DPS so that we are even?

evilgamer

08-18-2008, 06:12 PM

<cite>victer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>evilgamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>victer wrote:</cite><blockquote>QFEread it... understand it..... live by it</blockquote>Yeah, remove uncontested avoidence lol.</blockquote>sweet and then they have to revamp the whole entire raid scean.thats gonna happen.......<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" />How about you ask devs for MORE uncontested avoid to make up the block we get from shields. Rather then screw the whole raid scean over.</blockquote>Our uncontested is tied to our stance.<a rel="nofollow" href="http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/Stance:_Bodyguard" target="_blank">http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/Stance:_Bodyguard</a>Even if our fabled M1 stance = the uncontested of a fabled M1 tower sheild, which it doesnt even come close to doing.We would still be at a disadvantage becuase we would be forced to tank in our defensive stance, where as you can go offensive and still retain your uncontested.Why bother with all that balancing when you could just make avoidence work exactly like mit and be done with it.

victer

08-18-2008, 06:22 PM

<cite>evilgamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>Our uncontested is tied to our stance.<a rel="nofollow" href="http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/Stance:_Bodyguard" target="_blank">http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/Stance:_Bodyguard</a>Even if our fabled M1 stance = the uncontested of a fabled M1 tower sheild, which it doesnt even come close to doing.We would still be at a disadvantage becuase we would be forced to tank in our defensive stance, where as you can go offensive and still retain your uncontested.Why bother with all that balancing when you could just make avoidence work exactly like mit and be done with it.</blockquote>There are no tanks tanking any high lvl 86+ raid targets in O stance. Believe it.They would HAVE TO start working on balancing issues because NO TANK will be able to tank very high lvl mobs without uncontested avoid. Get that through your skull.I've tried to help you understand and you just dont get it. Uncontested avoidance is staying. Ask them to give you more. And while your at it have them make us DPS more to compensate for brawlers being able to tank like us and parse 2k more.I'm done. I've explained how avoidance and mitigation works. Take what ive told you and try to work with the devs to find a reasonable solution to your tanking problem. But remember to keep it fair.Last responce from me on this issue.

evilgamer

08-18-2008, 06:33 PM

<cite>victer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>evilgamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>Our uncontested is tied to our stance. <a rel="nofollow" href="http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/Stance:_Bodyguard" target="_blank">http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/Stance:_Bodyguard</a>Even if our fabled M1 stance = the uncontested of a fabled M1 tower sheild, which it doesnt even come close to doing.We would still be at a disadvantage becuase we would be forced to tank in our defensive stance, where as you can go offensive and still retain your uncontested.Why bother with all that balancing when you could just make avoidence work exactly like mit and be done with it.</blockquote>There are no tanks tanking any high lvl 86+ raid targets in O stance. Believe it.But this applies to even heroic content. if I am tanking high con instances I have to use defensive stance as my uncontested goes to zero without it. A plate tank can slap on a nice sheild, go offensive and still do well.They would HAVE TO start working on balancing issues because NO TANK will be able to tank very high lvl mobs without uncontested avoid. Get that through your skull.If it balances tanking, so be it.I've tried to help you understand and you just dont get it. Uncontested avoidance is staying. Ask them to give you more. And while your at it have them make us DPS more to compensate for brawlers being able to tank like us and parse 2k more.Please, go look at the parse threads on EQ 2 flames of brawlers and zerkers, zerkers do about 500 less dps then brawlers at the end game. Which is fine with me, because we do get some nice things you dont, a heal and FD.I'm done. I've explained how avoidance and mitigation works. Take what ive told you and try to work with the devs to find a reasonable solution to your tanking problem. But remember to keep it fair.Last responce from me on this issue. Getting rid of uncontested would be fair, you would still be the superior tanks, as most raid warriors I know ar pushing 70% avoidence and almost the same amout of mit when buffed.I dont know of any raid equiped brawler that can hit 60% mit.</blockquote>

evilgamer

08-18-2008, 06:35 PM

<cite>victer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>evilgamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>Our uncontested is tied to our stance. <a rel="nofollow" href="http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/Stance:_Bodyguard" target="_blank">http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/Stance:_Bodyguard</a>Even if our fabled M1 stance = the uncontested of a fabled M1 tower sheild, which it doesnt even come close to doing.We would still be at a disadvantage becuase we would be forced to tank in our defensive stance, where as you can go offensive and still retain your uncontested.Why bother with all that balancing when you could just make avoidence work exactly like mit and be done with it.</blockquote>There are no tanks tanking any high lvl 86+ raid targets in O stance. Believe it.They would HAVE TO start working on balancing issues because NO TANK will be able to tank very high lvl mobs without uncontested avoid. Get that through your skull.I've tried to help you understand and you just dont get it. Uncontested avoidance is staying. Ask them to give you more. And while your at it have them make us DPS more to compensate for brawlers being able to tank like us and parse 2k more.I'm done. I've explained how avoidance and mitigation works. Take what ive told you and try to work with the devs to find a reasonable solution to your tanking problem. But remember to keep it fair.Last responce from me on this issue. </blockquote>Btw I am glad I had this conversation, as now i know I can use my offensive stance alot more when tanking even con or lesser mobs. As uncontested avodence doesnt really matter all that much against them. It also explains why I can tank x 2's that con less them me pretty easily.

LygerT

08-19-2008, 02:40 AM

why is this argument in the zerker forums anyways? trolling? no, trolling would be coming here and trying to stir up some crap...

JerronBlacksilver

08-19-2008, 12:10 PM

<cite>Victer@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>There are no tanks tanking any high lvl 86+ raid targets in O stance. Believe it.</blockquote>This part is, in fact, not true, though as far as I can see most of what you said is accurate. Where's Karsgaar? He tanks 90% of VP in offensive stance. The mechanic of contested v. uncontested avoidence makes the difference in survivability far less than you would think. Zerkers in offensive stance don't lose any shield block or riposte or any other uncontested avoidance in offensive stance, but the difference in mob level plus any theoretical accuracy modifiers for epics makes your contested avoidance far less effective than it would be against white con mobs. But your ability to even hit a level 86 mob is hampered in defensive stance, hence, less DPS, crappy aggro control, rampaging mob, dead raid. And there's a comment relevant to berserkers <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" />

victer

08-19-2008, 01:00 PM

Slayer505

08-19-2008, 01:11 PM

<cite>Zebedee@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Victer@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>There are no tanks tanking any high lvl 86+ raid targets in O stance. Believe it.</blockquote>This part is, in fact, not true, though as far as I can see most of what you said is accurate. Where's Karsgaar? He tanks 90% of VP in offensive stance. The mechanic of contested v. uncontested avoidence makes the difference in survivability far less than you would think. Zerkers in offensive stance don't lose any shield block or riposte or any other uncontested avoidance in offensive stance, but the difference in mob level plus any theoretical accuracy modifiers for epics makes your contested avoidance far less effective than it would be against white con mobs. But your ability to even hit a level 86 mob is hampered in defensive stance, hence, less DPS, crappy aggro control, rampaging mob, dead raid. And there's a comment relevant to berserkers <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></blockquote>Yep, Zeb is right- probably because he's repeating something I told him (he's my RL brother and he has a level 80 Zerker also). The only time I go into defensive stance is when my health is spikey, I get a big damage spike and Adrenaline isn't up, or if the mob is stone-skinning or something and there's no DPS going on. The difference for me with full MT buffs between O-stance and D-stance is about....maybe 2-3% avoidance- CONTESTED avoidance- and about the same amount of mit. The reason is, that with full MT raid buffs and my temp buffs going, I'm so far into diminishing returns for contested avoidance and Mit, that the difference in stances is minimal. However, the difference in weapon skills when fighting lvl 86+ mobs is huge since my hit rate goes into the toilet and aggro starts bouncing around if I forget to go back into O-stance. Now, you WON'T catch me tanking VP with Harbinger of Malcontent instead of Virtue's Guard because the difference in uncontested block is pretty hefty. EDIT since you typed while I was responding: My guild doesn't do contested, but I do tank Druushk in O-stance- switching to D-stance if my health is unstable or I get a big spike like I said above. I make sure I'm in Defensive when the fear is going to hit and Sanctuary isn't up also. The rest of the time I'm in O-stance.

victer

08-19-2008, 01:28 PM

i havent had the chance to tank druusk yet but i can totally see myself doing the same thing with bounceing off and on with the stances.Actually i have yet to tank anything that i had to switch to d stance for longer then o stance. But i think we both agree that when it isnt going right if you stay in o stance for too long you are causeing your healers more greef then anything. D stance also raises mit even tho its not substantial it still helps. And if youve already generated enough agro in o stance your doing your healers a favor for switching to d stance for a while.

victer

08-19-2008, 01:37 PM

back on topic for tower shieldsI have yet to fight anything that needs me to switch to tower in this expantion. But im sure if i had to fight tangrin or maybe even byzola i probly would need to switch.As far as agro control yes it is alot tougher to hold agro in tower because your not parseing the same. However correct me if im wrong but if you gave me a super awsome MT hate grp i dont think it will be too hard to hold hate with a tower. Zerk/templer/defiler/dirge/coercer/swash and you should be able to hold everything if the swash puts out alot of hate and has his mythical. For the average zerker i wouldnt even worry about carrying a tower in your bags. But i wouldnt totally forget about tower shields. Try to make sure you get a good one. They change the mechanics of this game alot and towershield might be viable sometime in the future. As of right now? Keep your buckler on.

Slayer505

08-19-2008, 01:39 PM

<cite>Victer@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>i havent had the chance to tank druusk yet but i can totally see myself doing the same thing with bounceing off and on with the stances.Actually i have yet to tank anything that i had to switch to d stance for longer then o stance. But i think we both agree that when it isnt going right if you stay in o stance for too long you are causeing your healers more greef then anything. D stance also raises mit even tho its not substantial it still helps. And if youve already generated enough agro in o stance your doing your healers a favor for switching to d stance for a while.</blockquote>Yeah, the difference isn't huge, but if the fight is going badly you're just asking for trouble staying in O-stance since if you're about to die every little bit helps. I know on Druushk I can get away with D-stance longer then on most fights since we have a scout heavy raid force and they're mostly DPSing the adds or doing ranged attacks. If I stay in D-stance for too long though I'm in danger of one of the mages ripping and moving the mob so the whole raid has to adjust position so I still stay in O-stance for the majority of the fight.

victer

08-19-2008, 01:42 PM

<cite>Karsgaar@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Victer@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>i havent had the chance to tank druusk yet but i can totally see myself doing the same thing with bounceing off and on with the stances.Actually i have yet to tank anything that i had to switch to d stance for longer then o stance. But i think we both agree that when it isnt going right if you stay in o stance for too long you are causeing your healers more greef then anything. D stance also raises mit even tho its not substantial it still helps. And if youve already generated enough agro in o stance your doing your healers a favor for switching to d stance for a while.</blockquote>Yeah, the difference isn't huge, but if the fight is going badly you're just asking for trouble staying in O-stance since if you're about to die every little bit helps. I know on Druushk I can get away with D-stance longer then on most fights since we have a scout heavy raid force and they're mostly DPSing the adds or doing ranged attacks. If I stay in D-stance for too long though I'm in danger of one of the mages ripping and moving the mob so the whole raid has to adjust position so I still stay in O-stance for the majority of the fight.</blockquote>yep good to see that there are still intelligent zerkers left in the world!

evilgamer

08-19-2008, 02:07 PM

Um yeah, like I said, because sheild block uncontested and uncontested avoidence is completely overpowered in this game, you tank in your offensive stance almost all the time.Which is the reason you do more dps then brawlers, I have to use my defensive stance when I am tanking, even in heroic content, (unless it cons lower then me) or I get destroyed, my dps goes to crap when in defensive.So lets lay that myth of superior brawler dps to rest to, cause its only superior when we are not tanking.

08-19-2008, 03:13 PM

victer

08-19-2008, 03:31 PM

<cite>evilgamer wrote:</cite><blockquote>Um yeah, like I said, because sheild block uncontested and uncontested avoidence is completely overpowered in this game, you tank in your offensive stance almost all the time.Which is the reason you do more dps then brawlers, I have to use my defensive stance when I am tanking, even in heroic content, (unless it cons lower then me) or I get destroyed, my dps goes to crap when in defensive.So lets lay that myth of superior brawler dps to rest to, cause its only superior when we are not tanking.</blockquote>Warriors do more dammage tanking rather then not tanking.So this is how it is. While tanking warriors win. While not tanking brawlers win. Whats the problem?There are plenty of brawlers tanking certain raids... just because YOU cant doesnt mean that the class is screwed. We have a monk in our raid that can tank very very well and I bet he tanks better then some MT warriors out there. And in fact there are more brawlers able to tank raids then SK's can. And there is even brawlers that tank better then some warriors! It all comes down to the player and how he plays his class.Class wise the people that have the most hurt is SK's. What are you doing in this thread anyway? All youve been trying to do is say that brawlers (who were NEVER designed to be able to tank everything in the game) are on the low end of the stick of tanking but you are compareing them to the classes that were designed to be the end game tanks.You sir seem to want everything. If you want to tank all the time make a pure tank class. If you want to tank some of the time and dps the rest of the time keep how your going. But the notion that the whole mechanics of the game need to change just so that you feel more comfortable in your class is ridiculas. Do brawlers need love? Sure they do. But arguably so does everyone else other then gaurdians. Especially the SK's. But they are also not asking for game wide mechanic changes.

evilgamer

08-19-2008, 04:10 PM

<cite><a rel="nofollow" href="mailto:Victer@Oasis" target="_blank">Victer@Oasis</a> wrote:</cite><blockquote>Warriors do more dammage tanking rather then not tanking.Well I wouldnt say you do more damage tanking, but the drop off from when you are tanking form not tanking isnt that much.So this is how it is. While tanking warriors win. While not tanking brawlers win. Whats the problem?Because many of your ilk have somehow claimed that inferior brawler tanking is balanced because we do considerably more dps then you, which as you just admitted is only partially true and it was never considerably more.There are plenty of brawlers tanking certain raids... "Certain" being the key work herejust because YOU cant doesnt mean that the class is screwed. We have a monk in our raid that can tank very very well and I bet he tanks better then some MT warriors out there.Sure, how much uncontested does his VP gear give him? And in fact there are more brawlers able to tank raids then SK's can. Well that is laughable, because Sk with nice kite sheild will always have more uncontested and way better mit in addition to whatever marginal amout their lifetaps add to the survivablity compared to a brawler.And there is even brawlers that tank better then some warriors! It all comes down to the player and how he plays his class.But all other things being equal, the higher the mob cons, the far worse the brawler tanking will be compared to platesClass wise the people that have the most hurt is SK's. What are you doing in this thread anyway? All youve been trying to do is say that brawlers (who were NEVER designed to be able to tank everything in the game) are on the low end of the stick of tanking but you are compareing them to the classes that were designed to be the end game tanks.Yes Sk's are worse off mainly because their aggro is terrible and the do poor dps for supposed "dps tank" due to [Removed for Content] itemzation.And its not just "end game" tanking the brawler are hurting, as you pointed out, only mob level matters when dealing with contested vs uncontested. My tanking really does go to crap against anything yellow or higher even in heroic content, especially orange mobs, even with a tank spec and tank gear and defensive stance.Its not just end game raids, even in heroic content we have troubles against high yellow and orange mobs that you tank with relative ease, becuase you avoidence against those mobs is acutally higher then the so call "avoidence tanks" are due to the way uncontested works.BTW I would have never even lurked in this forum if alot of warrior invaded a thread I started gameplay and claimed that all was fine, blah, blah. I didnt come here to troll, just to gather information, because people always say one thing but do another.If you look at my intial questions in this thread I was getting input from a player who has plays both a 80 bruiser and a 80 zerker, and getting the comparisons. I saw his name on a thread, recognized it from the bruiser forum and figured I would ask a few questionI cant help if some you got all mad about it. You sir seem to want everything. If you want to tank all the time make a pure tank class. If you want to tank some of the time and dps the rest of the time keep how your going. But the notion that the whole mechanics of the game need to change just so that you feel more comfortable in your class is ridiculas Actually uncontested avoidence is not just screwing up tank balance it screwing up a whole lot more, spell resist rates, hit rates, etc due to the fact that developers must increasingly ramp up mobs levels to deal with the fact that plate tanks are hitting extremely high levels of uncontested avoidence.I am not aware of any other skill, besides avoidence that reach such signficantly high levels of uncontested .Imo, all uncontested skills need to be ditched and developers need to scale mobs accordingly, instead of this rediculous idea of overpowering certains skills (avoidence) and then ramping up the mobs level to make the content challenging, there by nerfing other skills (hit and resist rates) due to the mobs level and then going back to have to fix them later.Balance all the skills, get rid of uncontested anything and balance the content around that. They have done this before, notice no more deep orange mobs in lower seb and chardock either.. Do brawlers need love? Sure they do. But arguably so does everyone else other then gaurdians. Especially the SK's. But they are also not asking for game wide mechanic changes.</blockquote>

victer

08-19-2008, 04:45 PM

Dont tell me how i do my dammage ive been playing this game as this charachter for almost 5 years you have barley played a year.I told you that warriors do more dammage while tanking. Dont tell me you know otherwise because you dont.Brawlers do more DPS then warriors(even when we are tanking and doing the most possible). Dont tell me they dont cause they do.You dont even know what you want. Yesterday you wanted everyone to have uncontested avoid... now you want no one to have it.Brawlers were never meant to tank everything. Get over it! Play and learn to DPS higher then the warriors in your guild cause it looks like your not doing a very good job at it right now.I dont know why i keep replying to you. So Im just gonna stop. Go away and learn the game a bit more. I'm done with you.

Zhonata

08-19-2008, 04:57 PM

Theoritacally Warriors do more damage tanking vs not tanking. When we are not stunned, stifled, mezzed, charmed, Feared, reposited. It we can go a whole fight without that then yes we do more dmg tanking vs not. But Brawler are going upwards towards teir 1 dps, a good brawler is anyways. The only way a Zerker will ever touch that is in a multi-mob encounter and how many of those are there. Out Monk sits at 51% Mit and 81% avoidance in raid setup. On top of doing 5-7k dmg and having self heals/FD/and deaggro. You complain about Warrior try learning your own classes potential.

evilgamer

08-19-2008, 05:04 PM

<cite>Victer@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>Dont tell me how i do my dammage ive been playing this game as this charachter for almost 5 years you have barley played a year.I told you that warriors do more dammage while tanking. Dont tell me you know otherwise because you dontSo warriors do more dps while tanking then when not tanking, given everything else being equal, buff etc.The only way this would be possible is due to riposte. Otherwise please explain.Brawlers do more DPS then warriors(even when we are tanking and doing the most possible). Dont tell me they dont cause they do.I said they do, all the difference is not that large assuming the warrior specs right.You dont even know what you want. Yesterday you wanted everyone to have uncontested avoid... now you want no one to have it.I had received bad information from the monk boards, your information was much better and verfiable, I created a level 1 guardian ran him to neriak and attacked the guards just like you did. My conclusion after the level 1 in complete noob gear blocked 8 attacks on 5 different tries from a level 85 x2 before getting one shotted and then only getting one shotted without the shield on 5 other tries is that uncontested is totally overpowered and needs to be gotten rid of.Brawlers were never meant to tank everything.Say who? Get over it! Play and learn to DPS higher then the warriors in your guild cause it looks like your not doing a very good job at it right now.You dont know me or how i play my toon from zero. Last two raids I was in the top 5 on the parse and my GL was impressed with how well I dpsed consindering I have zero raid gear except 1 piece, which I got last week lol.I dont know why i keep replying to you. So Im just gonna stop. Go away and learn the game a bit more. I'm done with you.</blockquote>

evilgamer

08-19-2008, 05:11 PM

<cite>Zhon@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>Theoritacally Warriors do more damage tanking vs not tanking. When we are not stunned, stifled, mezzed, charmed, Feared, reposited. It we can go a whole fight without that then yes we do more dmg tanking vs not. But Brawler are going upwards towards teir 1 dps, a good brawler is anyways. The only way a Zerker will ever touch that is in a multi-mob encounter and how many of those are there. Out Monk sits at 51% Mit and 81% avoidance in raid setup. On top of doing 5-7k dmg and having self heals/FD/and deaggro. You complain about Warrior try learning your own classes potential.</blockquote>Well in a raid set up I am hitting 52% mit and 76% avoid with 1 piece of raid gear. That is not that impressive to be honest.Besides you against high con mobs your actual avoidence will be higher then his because your uncontested is much higher.As far as zerker parses.6.2K zonewide is pretty good considering the monk from the same guild only hits 7k.<a href="http://www.eq2flames.com/berserkers/20169-random-berserker-zonewides-6.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.eq2flames.com/berserkers...onewides-6.html</a>