Balanced Stance for Plate Tanks [Archive] - EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

g4nd4lf

01-09-2009, 09:52 AM

From my point of view the new system does not fit for all common tanking purposes, because the detaunt mechanics in offstance do not consider the following facts:1. Tanks will get in trouble when fighting grouped and offstanced. In the current state the only valid options for the new offstance are solo play or DDing in Raids. A second tank as a DD in a standard group doesn't make sense.2. OTs willl have a hard time getting aggro from the mobs when coming from offstance and MT is down.Mainly this results from the spell consolidation and the insane detaunt numbers which take out the flexibility from every fighter classes.One solution could be to leave the cosolidated buffs as they are and make them swapable with the new stances, so that you can choose to tank without any stance and the old buffs up. When switching to one of the new stances the buffs should be deactivated, similar to the switch between offstance and defstance.Another option could be to take out the de-aggro component from the offstance and provide this as a separate buff or AA-Special.Leave the decision to the fighters, please! Reducing the tank classes to simple tank or spank mechanics will destroy the fun for most of the more sophisticated players.greetzRoxxi

Junaru

01-09-2009, 10:53 AM

Oh God please tell me the OP isn't saying Brawlers have the upper hand cause of their third stance? If thats true I think I will like virtually kill myself.

Siatfallen

01-09-2009, 10:59 AM

<cite>Roxxi@Valor wrote:</cite><blockquote>From my point of view the new system does not fit for all common tanking purposes, because the detaunt mechanics in offstance do not consider the following facts:1. Tanks will get in trouble when fighting grouped and offstanced. In the current state the only valid options for the new offstance are solo play or DDing in Raids. A second tank as a DD in a standard group doesn't make sense.2. OTs willl have a hard time getting aggro from the mobs when coming from offstance and MT is down.Mainly this results from the spell consolidation and the insane detaunt numbers which take out the flexibility from every fighter classes.One solution could be to leave the cosolidated buffs as they are and make them swapable with the new stances, so that you can choose to tank without any stance and the old buffs up. When switching to one of the new stances the buffs should be deactivated, similar to the switch between offstance and defstance.Another option could be to take out the de-aggro component from the offstance and provide this as a separate buff or AA-Special.Leave the decision to the fighters, please! Reducing the tank classes to simple tank or spank mechanics will destroy the fun for most of the more sophisticated players.greetzRoxxi</blockquote>This isn't much of a problem. Here's why:Brawlers get balanced stance. As secondary tanks, we can sit reasonably high on the hate list and do ok-ish DPS all the same. When the tank drops, swap to defenive, cast rescue, commence tanking.Paladins get a taunt (as I understand; our guild hasn't had a paladin main since mid-RoK) that will pretty much instantly kick them to the top of the aggro list (it's, what, 24 positions worth of hategain, something like that?) at level 80. Swap to defensive, cast that, commence tanking.Zerkers and SKs are AoE tanks, meaning they're intended to hold aggro on large crowds. This makes their job different from the classic MT. They're DPS in encounters where their AoE-aggro-grabbing abilities are not needed, and they've no trouble filling that role.Guardians are in trouble - but the first guardian will probably be MTing anyway. If you have a second for a secondary tank, creative application of Sleight of Hand or the like combined with stance changes may be in order to get them up on the hate list when they need to be (but I'd use that for getting the dead MT back up instead honestly).So:Guardians will be MTing single targets in the first place.Zerkers and SKs will be MTing multi-mob encounters in the first place.Paladins, Monks and Bruisers will have the tools to be a second-string tank, or offtank a single target, as necessary.By this design philosophy, ye bread and butter raid will run with three fighters to cover the various needed roles - a step up from RoK using only two.If I were to attack anything in this setup thinking, it's the fact that there's one MT, two AoE tanks and 3 support tanks (for lack of a better term). Take away the paladin's taunt ability thingie, and give them the tools to tank on par with Guaridans instead. That was the stated intent anyway.But all in all, I guess they could be much worse off.The point of this ramble? I think the lack of a balanced stance for plate tanks is intended - and I don't think it should be changed. Get off the brawler turf tbh. ;p

Pins

01-09-2009, 10:59 AM

Shield + no Stance = Balanced Stance.

EvilAstroboy

01-09-2009, 11:15 AM

<cite>Spetz@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Betchemin wrote:</cite><blockquote>Plate tanks can use or not use shields. This gives more flexibilty that 3 stances (in effect it gives 4).</blockquote>QFT</blockquote>Pretty sure Knights Stance and pathetic 2 handers since EoF ruined any 'flexibility' that Crusaders once had. You know, those classes that cant dual wield.I think all the brawlers posting here realise the distinct advantage they have with the balanced stance with these new changes. Paladins have Holy Ground to jump back up quickly, but Zerks, SKs and Guards will take a while longer to jump back up the hate list.

Terron

01-09-2009, 12:34 PM

<cite>Seshat@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote>Plate tanks can use or not use shields. This gives more flexibilty that 3 stances (in effect it gives 4).</blockquote>Actually 6.<ul><li>Defensive with shield</li><li>Defensive without shield</li><li>No stance with shield</li><li>No stance without shield</li><li>Offensive with shield</li><li>Offensive without shield</li></ul>But the merging of buffs has weakened the no stance options, at least for guards.Comparing each for my guards before and after.Defensive with shieldThe maximum survivability option. Currently I normally use it most of the time solo and tanking. I could kill easy mobs faster without a shield but against tougher mobs I do better with one. After the change it looks like DPS will be massively reduced. It depends on exactly what the "melee damage multiplier" affects, but on the face on it looks like a 50% reduction on almost all damage. Since I do not have my mythical (just the fabled epic) and I prefer to use a tower shield my DPS is great to begin with. So that will hurt a lot and probably make defensive options unviable for soloing. Tanking will rely on taunts more which is probably good for the game.Defensive without shieldThe major loss of defensive makes this only useful for weaker mobs. Against such mobs the extra attack skill from the other stances is unimportant. Getting hit more allows Hold the line to proc more often so this is the maximum aggro option. It looks like this will remain the option to use against mobs that are no real threat to maximize aggro.No stance with shieldUseful when the increase the chance to hit is need whilst being ready to take over tanking. Very rarely used currently. It looks like it will be more useful in future - getting rid of the penalty to damage whilst allowing taunts to work normally. It looks like it will enable semi-decent DPS to be done whilst still being able to pick up adds and switch to tanking them quickly. Unfortunately the buff merging means that the STA and hold the line buffs will be completely lost in this mode. This made be the best soloing mode in future, with no DPS penalty and no increase to damage taken.No stance without shieldI can't think of any times I would use this currently. I can see myself using this in future when not the main tank with a macro to equip my shield and enter defensive stance ready to I can take over quickly if need be, do semi-decent DPS, and keep myself fairly high on the hate list.Offensive with shieldCurrently I might use this against a wizard type mob so that I could use ToS against his big nuke but do maximum damage otherwise, but I can only think of 1 such mob (in Maj'Dul for one of the Carpet quest series). Turning taunts into deaggros is just saying do not use this when tanking. I can think of any time when a guard would want to use a deaggro. The increased melee skills are only useful for orange/red mobs (since they are also boosted by a guards group buff) and the increase strength will gives little due to diminishing returns. The new proc will boost DPS by about 50 to 100 which will be nice, but when soloing I doubt it will compensate for the 5% extra damage taken. Only experience will tell.Offensive without shieldGood for killing weak solo mobs and when DPSing on a raid. Of course, if a guard is DPSing it would be a pretty casual raid, but I do run some like that (for quest updates and tier one mythical updates). The proc will make it a little better, but being better in unimportant situations isn't significant.OverviewAs a gaurd it is very likely that I will be using a balanced stance (no stance) a lot.I think the changes will be better for the game overall.Managing aggro will be a more active part of the game for more classes.Fighters will be more evenly balanced as tanks.However it is going to make a lot of players of guards very unhappy, as I wrote in the guardian forum last month:<cite>Terron@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>Guards made slightly better tanks than other fighters, but were significantly worse when not tanking. If they are to be only equal as tanks (which is an aim I agree with) then they need to be brought up in other areas. Some guards accepted poor soloing as the price of being the best raid MT. It won't seem fair if they lose the reward but still have to pay the price.All fighters need to have something to do in a raid other than tank, so that they can be brought along for other reasons that tanking. Prior to TOS my guild would take a monk for his raidwide buff. Now it seems the preference has moved to bruisers. When I started berserkers could get a place in a melee DPS group for the DPS buff they brought (which became less significant over time).As I see it rebalancing fighters needs 4 steps not 2.<ol><li>Balanced survivability as tanks (TOS made a big improvement in this).</li><li>Balanced affro handling (planned for January it seems).</li><li>Balanced non-tanking raid utility (a good reason to take one of each class as an option).</li><li>Balanced overall abilities.</li></ol></blockquote>

Junaru

01-09-2009, 12:41 PM

<cite>EvilAstroboy wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Spetz@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Betchemin wrote:</cite><blockquote>Plate tanks can use or not use shields. This gives more flexibilty that 3 stances (in effect it gives 4).</blockquote>QFT</blockquote>Pretty sure Knights Stance and pathetic 2 handers since EoF ruined any 'flexibility' that Crusaders once had. You know, those classes that cant dual wield.I think all the brawlers posting here realise the distinct advantage they have with the balanced stance with these new changes. Paladins have Holy Ground to jump back up quickly, but Zerks, SKs and Guards will take a while longer to jump back up the hate list.</blockquote>Are you kidding? TSO every tank has some AA ability to jump to the top of the hate list. TSO = Hate positions for fighters.And lets say for a second you are correct and Brawlers are posting here so we have an advantage. Do you really think a stance I haven't used in 5+ years is going to some how put Brawlers at the top of tanking? Get for real man. If it is an advantage it's one no one will every notice because we lacking every where else.If you plan to compair your class to another to get a buff do it to a class that isn't at the bottom of the list.

Aoste

01-09-2009, 01:08 PM

CarnageSorc

01-09-2009, 02:32 PM

I testet the changes on Test-Copy and dont see ANY Issue for Tanks to go in Def-Stance (if they wanne keep/get aggro).The main issue here is, that most players, especially fighters, dont get it, that they are no real dps-classes. If you are sad you cant dps AND tank anymore, go reroll...

BChizzle

01-09-2009, 03:07 PM

Brawler mid stance is way OP.

Ashdaren

01-09-2009, 03:24 PM

SK DEFENSIVE STANCE:-heal proc : too bad it is not a drain, with some damage so we could critic-parry: thanks finally <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> while i realize we get less than fighter/brawler thx-spell damage reduced && melee dps reduced : well at this point there is no use for this stance, unless we are MT in raid, which will never happen anywayMy choice for tanking : NO STANCEMy choice for pvp/dpsing in raid : OFFENSIVE STANCEI'm sorry but the drawback is too bad to go defensive.There is no need for such drawback, the defensive stance brings too much bad on the table to even be considered

Terron

01-10-2009, 07:30 AM

<cite>Keldorn@Valor wrote:</cite><blockquote>The main issue here is, that most players, especially fighters, dont get it, that they are no real dps-classes. If you are sad you cant dps AND tank anymore, go reroll...</blockquote>You must be in the wrong place as that wasn't even an issue here until you brought it up.The OP and most of the rest of the thread is about what fighters do when NOT tanking.

EvilAstroboy

01-10-2009, 12:23 PM

<cite>Junaru wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>EvilAstroboy wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Spetz@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Betchemin wrote:</cite><blockquote>Plate tanks can use or not use shields. This gives more flexibilty that 3 stances (in effect it gives 4).</blockquote>QFT</blockquote>Pretty sure Knights Stance and pathetic 2 handers since EoF ruined any 'flexibility' that Crusaders once had. You know, those classes that cant dual wield.I think all the brawlers posting here realise the distinct advantage they have with the balanced stance with these new changes. Paladins have Holy Ground to jump back up quickly, but Zerks, SKs and Guards will take a while longer to jump back up the hate list.</blockquote>Are you kidding? TSO every tank has some AA ability to jump to the top of the hate list. TSO = Hate positions for fighters.And lets say for a second you are correct and Brawlers are posting here so we have an advantage. Do you really think a stance I haven't used in 5+ years is going to some how put Brawlers at the top of tanking? Get for real man. If it is an advantage it's one no one will every notice because we lacking every where else.If you plan to compair your class to another to get a buff do it to a class that isn't at the bottom of the list.</blockquote>Every tank? Last time I checked no Shadowknight TSO AA give this miraculous ability. We get 3 hate positions on the generic fighter AA. Our grave sacrament will take a few seconds to get enough hate positions which might be too long. If we went into offensive stance, the sheer power of our detaunts would guarantee that we would be near the bottom of the hate list.Warriors got 'Cry of the Warrior' which snaps aggro. Brawlers have Peel and Divide and Conquer and new hate position AA. You havent used the stance in years because it didnt mean anything, now it does. Bravo on missing the point.I dont want to be top DPS while off tanking, but I do want a moderate output while still being ready to grab aggro if necessary. Neither stance allows this at the moment and its rather stupid that we lose all stat buffs and procs to do this. Brawlers have a perfect example of a intermediate stance, and I dont see why its an issue if the other tanks get one as well since its so bad apparently.

CarnageSorc

01-10-2009, 01:34 PM

<cite>Terron@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Keldorn@Valor wrote:</cite><blockquote>The main issue here is, that most players, especially fighters, dont get it, that they are no real dps-classes. If you are sad you cant dps AND tank anymore, go reroll...</blockquote>You must be in the wrong place as that wasn't even an issue here until you brought it up.The OP and most of the rest of the thread is about what fighters do when NOT tanking.</blockquote>The OP was referring to OT'in, and tbh, if you are in Offstance and your MT dies, you wont survive long if you get the mob. We are not playing any Racing Game here, were everyone has to go all out at all times. Or do your healers cast their death preventions on chain until nothing more is up? A capable OT knows, when he would get aggro, regardless of the setup, and can control it. If you get aggro to fast, and dont want it, go slow. But that would be an issue for the MT i guess, caus hes not capable of holding an aggro-buffed OT with 6-9k DPS (comparsion to live atm), right? <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />If you consider Tanking, go def, or stance-dance midfight. Fighters are forced into stances because SOE want it to be like that. EVEN a third stance for beeing "ready" to take on a mob thats gone loose, would be kinda useless, since the most of us would go def in that case. With the massive amounts of snap aggro, due to the TSO-Archievments, there is no issue at all, to get the mob if you want it.For crusaders i cant say much, but Warriors will rly have no issue, since the warrior can remove his defstance penalties. Maybe a third stance (without any Hatemods) or some kind of aa spec to remove some penalties from the def, would help.

Maroger

01-10-2009, 02:15 PM

I think we should have the option of using either our current buffs OR the new stances. I don't think we should lose out ability to use these buffs -- merging the buffs is a NERF for some players.Give us a choice BUFFS or NEW STANCES.

Irgun

01-10-2009, 02:38 PM

<cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote>Give us a choice BUFFS or NEW STANCES.</blockquote>That would be..............true greatness.

Maroger

01-10-2009, 05:25 PM

<cite>Irgin@Valor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote>Give us a choice BUFFS or NEW STANCES.</blockquote>That would be..............true greatness.</blockquote>I think stances are all part of the WOWification of games. In EQ1 you never had stances -- if you were a tank you generated aggro with your taunts etc. or if you did a lot of damage you got Aggro. But you had to learn to use your buffs, and spells and taunts. Here SOE wants to make it all pushbutton and force STANCES on players without giving them any option to use their buffs and have no stance.I think Stances in general have ruined the game and force unnecessary limitations on players. Pushing buffs into stances is the wrong way to go.Do what you want to stances -- but give players a choice between using their buffs or using a stance. Right not we get not choice and buffs are nerfed. This change SHOULD NOT GO LIVE.The only reason I can think for this change is TSO -- and it is being done to make raiders and large groups happy while hurting all the other players.Like I say give us a choice BUFFS and NO STANCE or STANCE and NO BUFFS.

UNTILitSLEEPS

01-11-2009, 01:50 PM

crusaders cant, anything but 1h + shield died with tso aasoverall its a [censored not to get banned] idea to try to make tanking in offstance impossible. why should i if i have the gear and a good enough healer(s) not be able to tank in offstance? increase the negative effects on the offstance as you did with defstance even give it some for of dehate but please dont try to make it impossible to tank in offstance.currently if you take to much damage you can always switch to defstance but with the new offstance it will be very hard/impossible to build up enough aggro in most situations.that whole thing is a step in a totally wrong direction. if i would not want to tank i would have rolled another class!

Lethe5683

01-11-2009, 03:50 PM

<cite>EvilAstroboy wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Junaru wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>EvilAstroboy wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Spetz@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Betchemin wrote:</cite><blockquote>Plate tanks can use or not use shields. This gives more flexibilty that 3 stances (in effect it gives 4).</blockquote>QFT</blockquote>Pretty sure Knights Stance and pathetic 2 handers since EoF ruined any 'flexibility' that Crusaders once had. You know, those classes that cant dual wield.I think all the brawlers posting here realise the distinct advantage they have with the balanced stance with these new changes. Paladins have Holy Ground to jump back up quickly, but Zerks, SKs and Guards will take a while longer to jump back up the hate list.</blockquote>Are you kidding? TSO every tank has some AA ability to jump to the top of the hate list. TSO = Hate positions for fighters.And lets say for a second you are correct and Brawlers are posting here so we have an advantage. Do you really think a stance I haven't used in 5+ years is going to some how put Brawlers at the top of tanking? Get for real man. If it is an advantage it's one no one will every notice because we lacking every where else.If you plan to compair your class to another to get a buff do it to a class that isn't at the bottom of the list.</blockquote>Every tank? Last time I checked no Shadowknight TSO AA give this miraculous ability. We get 3 hate positions on the generic fighter AA. Our grave sacrament will take a few seconds to get enough hate positions which might be too long. If we went into offensive stance, the sheer power of our detaunts would guarantee that we would be near the bottom of the hate list.Warriors got 'Cry of the Warrior' which snaps aggro. Brawlers have Peel and Divide and Conquer and new hate position AA. You havent used the stance in years because it didnt mean anything, now it does. Bravo on missing the point.I dont want to be top DPS while off tanking, but I do want a moderate output while still being ready to grab aggro if necessary. Neither stance allows this at the moment and its rather stupid that we lose all stat buffs and procs to do this. Brawlers have a perfect example of a intermediate stance, and I dont see why its an issue if the other tanks get one as well since its so bad apparently.</blockquote>OP SKs have no room to complain.

Maroger

01-11-2009, 04:09 PM

<cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>EvilAstroboy wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Junaru wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>EvilAstroboy wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Spetz@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Betchemin wrote:</cite><blockquote>Plate tanks can use or not use shields. This gives more flexibilty that 3 stances (in effect it gives 4).</blockquote>QFT</blockquote>Pretty sure Knights Stance and pathetic 2 handers since EoF ruined any 'flexibility' that Crusaders once had. You know, those classes that cant dual wield.I think all the brawlers posting here realise the distinct advantage they have with the balanced stance with these new changes. Paladins have Holy Ground to jump back up quickly, but Zerks, SKs and Guards will take a while longer to jump back up the hate list.</blockquote>Are you kidding? TSO every tank has some AA ability to jump to the top of the hate list. TSO = Hate positions for fighters.And lets say for a second you are correct and Brawlers are posting here so we have an advantage. Do you really think a stance I haven't used in 5+ years is going to some how put Brawlers at the top of tanking? Get for real man. If it is an advantage it's one no one will every notice because we lacking every where else.If you plan to compair your class to another to get a buff do it to a class that isn't at the bottom of the list.</blockquote>Every tank? Last time I checked no Shadowknight TSO AA give this miraculous ability. We get 3 hate positions on the generic fighter AA. Our grave sacrament will take a few seconds to get enough hate positions which might be too long. If we went into offensive stance, the sheer power of our detaunts would guarantee that we would be near the bottom of the hate list.Warriors got 'Cry of the Warrior' which snaps aggro. Brawlers have Peel and Divide and Conquer and new hate position AA. You havent used the stance in years because it didnt mean anything, now it does. Bravo on missing the point.I dont want to be top DPS while off tanking, but I do want a moderate output while still being ready to grab aggro if necessary. Neither stance allows this at the moment and its rather stupid that we lose all stat buffs and procs to do this. Brawlers have a perfect example of a intermediate stance, and I dont see why its an issue if the other tanks get one as well since its so bad apparently.</blockquote>OP SKs have no room to complain.</blockquote>What is your problem with SK's and what class do you play that you are so seething with jealousy and hate against SK's?

Lethe5683

01-11-2009, 04:13 PM

<cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>EvilAstroboy wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Junaru wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>EvilAstroboy wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Spetz@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Betchemin wrote:</cite><blockquote>Plate tanks can use or not use shields. This gives more flexibilty that 3 stances (in effect it gives 4).</blockquote>QFT</blockquote>Pretty sure Knights Stance and pathetic 2 handers since EoF ruined any 'flexibility' that Crusaders once had. You know, those classes that cant dual wield.I think all the brawlers posting here realise the distinct advantage they have with the balanced stance with these new changes. Paladins have Holy Ground to jump back up quickly, but Zerks, SKs and Guards will take a while longer to jump back up the hate list.</blockquote>Are you kidding? TSO every tank has some AA ability to jump to the top of the hate list. TSO = Hate positions for fighters.And lets say for a second you are correct and Brawlers are posting here so we have an advantage. Do you really think a stance I haven't used in 5+ years is going to some how put Brawlers at the top of tanking? Get for real man. If it is an advantage it's one no one will every notice because we lacking every where else.If you plan to compair your class to another to get a buff do it to a class that isn't at the bottom of the list.</blockquote>Every tank? Last time I checked no Shadowknight TSO AA give this miraculous ability. We get 3 hate positions on the generic fighter AA. Our grave sacrament will take a few seconds to get enough hate positions which might be too long. If we went into offensive stance, the sheer power of our detaunts would guarantee that we would be near the bottom of the hate list.Warriors got 'Cry of the Warrior' which snaps aggro. Brawlers have Peel and Divide and Conquer and new hate position AA. You havent used the stance in years because it didnt mean anything, now it does. Bravo on missing the point.I dont want to be top DPS while off tanking, but I do want a moderate output while still being ready to grab aggro if necessary. Neither stance allows this at the moment and its rather stupid that we lose all stat buffs and procs to do this. Brawlers have a perfect example of a intermediate stance, and I dont see why its an issue if the other tanks get one as well since its so bad apparently.</blockquote>OP SKs have no room to complain.</blockquote>What is your problem with SK's and what class do you play that you are so seething with jealousy and hate against SK's?</blockquote>SKs are way overpowered and it's rediculous that they are asking for better stances to do more DPS. Hopefully these new stance changes will limit their DPS to more reasonable numbers.

Maroger

01-11-2009, 05:08 PM

<cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>EvilAstroboy wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Junaru wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>EvilAstroboy wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Spetz@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Betchemin wrote:</cite><blockquote>Plate tanks can use or not use shields. This gives more flexibilty that 3 stances (in effect it gives 4).</blockquote>QFT</blockquote>Pretty sure Knights Stance and pathetic 2 handers since EoF ruined any 'flexibility' that Crusaders once had. You know, those classes that cant dual wield.I think all the brawlers posting here realise the distinct advantage they have with the balanced stance with these new changes. Paladins have Holy Ground to jump back up quickly, but Zerks, SKs and Guards will take a while longer to jump back up the hate list.</blockquote>Are you kidding? TSO every tank has some AA ability to jump to the top of the hate list. TSO = Hate positions for fighters.And lets say for a second you are correct and Brawlers are posting here so we have an advantage. Do you really think a stance I haven't used in 5+ years is going to some how put Brawlers at the top of tanking? Get for real man. If it is an advantage it's one no one will every notice because we lacking every where else.If you plan to compair your class to another to get a buff do it to a class that isn't at the bottom of the list.</blockquote>Every tank? Last time I checked no Shadowknight TSO AA give this miraculous ability. We get 3 hate positions on the generic fighter AA. Our grave sacrament will take a few seconds to get enough hate positions which might be too long. If we went into offensive stance, the sheer power of our detaunts would guarantee that we would be near the bottom of the hate list.Warriors got 'Cry of the Warrior' which snaps aggro. Brawlers have Peel and Divide and Conquer and new hate position AA. You havent used the stance in years because it didnt mean anything, now it does. Bravo on missing the point.I dont want to be top DPS while off tanking, but I do want a moderate output while still being ready to grab aggro if necessary. Neither stance allows this at the moment and its rather stupid that we lose all stat buffs and procs to do this. Brawlers have a perfect example of a intermediate stance, and I dont see why its an issue if the other tanks get one as well since its so bad apparently.</blockquote>OP SKs have no room to complain.</blockquote>What is your problem with SK's and what class do you play that you are so seething with jealousy and hate against SK's?</blockquote>SKs are way overpowered and it's rediculous that they are asking for better stances to do more DPS. Hopefully these new stance changes will limit their DPS to more reasonable numbers.</blockquote>Again what class do you play that you think SK's were overpowerd? I notice you refuse to answer that question - do I smell jealousy here? I think I do.

Terron

01-11-2009, 10:08 PM

<cite>Keldorn@Valor wrote:</cite><blockquote>For crusaders i cant say much, but Warriors will rly have no issue, since the warrior can remove his defstance penalties.</blockquote>We can remove the skill penalties. I doubt we will able able to remove the "-0.5 damage multiplier".

greenmantle

01-11-2009, 10:31 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Brawler mid stance is way OP.</blockquote><img src="/eq2/images/smilies/385970365b8ed7503b4294502a458efa.gif" border="0" /> thank you for the laugh hmm last time i think any one said brawlers needed a nerf was arround lu13, yup there so over powered i see all the time groups looking for leather tank in chat.

Lethe5683

01-13-2009, 07:27 PM

<cite>greenmantle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Brawler mid stance is way OP.</blockquote><img src="/eq2/images/smilies/385970365b8ed7503b4294502a458efa.gif" border="0" /> thank you for the laugh hmm last time i think any one said brawlers needed a nerf was arround lu13, yup there so over powered i see all the time groups looking for leather tank in chat.</blockquote>Yeah, not having to deal with anyone saying we are OP is pretty much our only advantage...

EvilAstroboy

01-14-2009, 08:04 PM

<cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>EvilAstroboy wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Junaru wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>EvilAstroboy wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Spetz@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Betchemin wrote:</cite><blockquote>Plate tanks can use or not use shields. This gives more flexibilty that 3 stances (in effect it gives 4).</blockquote>QFT</blockquote>Pretty sure Knights Stance and pathetic 2 handers since EoF ruined any 'flexibility' that Crusaders once had. You know, those classes that cant dual wield.I think all the brawlers posting here realise the distinct advantage they have with the balanced stance with these new changes. Paladins have Holy Ground to jump back up quickly, but Zerks, SKs and Guards will take a while longer to jump back up the hate list.</blockquote>Are you kidding? TSO every tank has some AA ability to jump to the top of the hate list. TSO = Hate positions for fighters.And lets say for a second you are correct and Brawlers are posting here so we have an advantage. Do you really think a stance I haven't used in 5+ years is going to some how put Brawlers at the top of tanking? Get for real man. If it is an advantage it's one no one will every notice because we lacking every where else.If you plan to compair your class to another to get a buff do it to a class that isn't at the bottom of the list.</blockquote>Every tank? Last time I checked no Shadowknight TSO AA give this miraculous ability. We get 3 hate positions on the generic fighter AA. Our grave sacrament will take a few seconds to get enough hate positions which might be too long. If we went into offensive stance, the sheer power of our detaunts would guarantee that we would be near the bottom of the hate list.Warriors got 'Cry of the Warrior' which snaps aggro. Brawlers have Peel and Divide and Conquer and new hate position AA. You havent used the stance in years because it didnt mean anything, now it does. Bravo on missing the point.I dont want to be top DPS while off tanking, but I do want a moderate output while still being ready to grab aggro if necessary. Neither stance allows this at the moment and its rather stupid that we lose all stat buffs and procs to do this. Brawlers have a perfect example of a intermediate stance, and I dont see why its an issue if the other tanks get one as well since its so bad apparently.</blockquote>OP SKs have no room to complain.</blockquote>What is your problem with SK's and what class do you play that you are so seething with jealousy and hate against SK's?</blockquote>SKs are way overpowered and it's rediculous that they are asking for better stances to do more DPS. Hopefully these new stance changes will limit their DPS to more reasonable numbers.</blockquote>Im asking for a stance with less DPS than offensive stance but without the hate boost or hate loss. Is that too hard for you to understand? Yes I can go stanceless but brawlers already have a good example of a mid stance.If not then they should give SKs an easy mode jump to top hate skill like every other tank (Cry of the Warrior, Holy Ground, Peel, Divide and Conquer) since our offensive stance detaunts are too powerful and will result in us being at the bottom of the hate list.

BChizzle

01-14-2009, 09:12 PM

<cite>greenmantle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Brawler mid stance is way OP.</blockquote><img src="/eq2/images/smilies/385970365b8ed7503b4294502a458efa.gif" border="0" /> thank you for the laugh hmm last time i think any one said brawlers needed a nerf was arround lu13, yup there so over powered i see all the time groups looking for leather tank in chat.</blockquote>Wrong, plenty people thought peel was OP too. It got nerfed like our mid stance will be nerfed.

DMIstar

01-15-2009, 01:14 AM

<cite>EvilAstroboy wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>EvilAstroboy wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Junaru wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>EvilAstroboy wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Spetz@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Betchemin wrote:</cite><blockquote>Plate tanks can use or not use shields. This gives more flexibilty that 3 stances (in effect it gives 4).</blockquote>QFT</blockquote>Pretty sure Knights Stance and pathetic 2 handers since EoF ruined any 'flexibility' that Crusaders once had. You know, those classes that cant dual wield.I think all the brawlers posting here realise the distinct advantage they have with the balanced stance with these new changes. Paladins have Holy Ground to jump back up quickly, but Zerks, SKs and Guards will take a while longer to jump back up the hate list.</blockquote>Are you kidding? TSO every tank has some AA ability to jump to the top of the hate list. TSO = Hate positions for fighters.And lets say for a second you are correct and Brawlers are posting here so we have an advantage. Do you really think a stance I haven't used in 5+ years is going to some how put Brawlers at the top of tanking? Get for real man. If it is an advantage it's one no one will every notice because we lacking every where else.If you plan to compair your class to another to get a buff do it to a class that isn't at the bottom of the list.</blockquote>Every tank? Last time I checked no Shadowknight TSO AA give this miraculous ability. We get 3 hate positions on the generic fighter AA. Our grave sacrament will take a few seconds to get enough hate positions which might be too long. If we went into offensive stance, the sheer power of our detaunts would guarantee that we would be near the bottom of the hate list.Warriors got 'Cry of the Warrior' which snaps aggro. Brawlers have Peel and Divide and Conquer and new hate position AA. You havent used the stance in years because it didnt mean anything, now it does. Bravo on missing the point.I dont want to be top DPS while off tanking, but I do want a moderate output while still being ready to grab aggro if necessary. Neither stance allows this at the moment and its rather stupid that we lose all stat buffs and procs to do this. Brawlers have a perfect example of a intermediate stance, and I dont see why its an issue if the other tanks get one as well since its so bad apparently.</blockquote>OP SKs have no room to complain.</blockquote>What is your problem with SK's and what class do you play that you are so seething with jealousy and hate against SK's?</blockquote>SKs are way overpowered and it's rediculous that they are asking for better stances to do more DPS. Hopefully these new stance changes will limit their DPS to more reasonable numbers.</blockquote>Im asking for a stance with less DPS than offensive stance but without the hate boost or hate loss. Is that too hard for you to understand? Yes I can go stanceless but brawlers already have a good example of a mid stance.If not then they should give SKs an easy mode jump to top hate skill like every other tank (Cry of the Warrior, Holy Ground, Peel, Divide and Conquer) since our offensive stance detaunts are too powerful and will result in us being at the bottom of the hate list.</blockquote>Look If they are a Mage, Scout, Brawler, and they are actually getting beat by SK's DPS.. they need to learn to play badly.. Its not thier Class.. Its them, and only them..

Junaru

01-15-2009, 12:25 PM

Wow I can't believe I FINALLY get to say this. If you want a middle stance roll a Brawler. You should have known your class didn't have one when you rolled it.Woot years of plate tanks telling me if I wanted to raid tank I should have rolled a Guardian finally pay off. Thanks for the line guys, it works well.

Bruener

01-15-2009, 01:30 PM

While I have not completely made up my mind about how well these stances will work I can see where a lot of the frustration comes from. Fighters are now having to make the choice of one stance or the other, even though you might have real good raid gear and have awesome healers, the fact that to even think about holding agro you cannot use offensive stance is very limiting. All of you saying well that is fine think about it like this. What if SOE changed it so that utility classes could only provide their utility buffs when in a certain stance, which severly hampered their DPS. Like, if a Coercer wanted to be able to run their dps buffs and tank buffs for others they would have to enter a certain stance which cut their DPS in half? Or if rogues wanted to be able to debuff mobs they had to remain in a certain stance that cut their DPS in half? Or if healers wanted to do healing at all needed to be in a stance that made it so they couldn't DPS, or vice versa if they wanted to add DPS they have to enter a stance that doesn't allow them to heal.This is what SOE is doing. They are making it so you cannot do both at the same time for fighters. You can be avatar geared with an avatar geared group and running a real easy instance and if you want to tank you will not be able to do it in offensive, the dehate and detaunts are way too great.With that in mind maybe fighter DPS should be increased significantly when in offensive. I mean they are not being able to do their job when in offensive so in a raid or in a group where they are not tanking it becomes another spot, a dps spot if you are not the MT for like 95% of content. Being classes that cannot do their primary role while in offensive than they should be able to out dps those that can do their primary roll while dps'ing.

Junaru

01-15-2009, 01:37 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>With that in mind maybe fighter DPS should be increased significantly when in offensive. I mean they are not being able to do their job when in offensive so in a raid or in a group where they are not tanking it becomes another spot, a dps spot if you are not the MT for like 95% of content. Being classes that cannot do their primary role while in offensive than they should be able to out dps those that can do their primary roll while dps'ing.</blockquote>The problem there is. If a fighter can tank in d-stance and dps in o-stance why play a DPS class?For the most part I am happy with the changes. Some things still need to be changed (Bralwer AoE autoattack needs to be 40% and the - c/s/p needs to be removed from ALL defencive stances)

Bruener

01-15-2009, 01:44 PM

<cite>Junaru wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>With that in mind maybe fighter DPS should be increased significantly when in offensive. I mean they are not being able to do their job when in offensive so in a raid or in a group where they are not tanking it becomes another spot, a dps spot if you are not the MT for like 95% of content. Being classes that cannot do their primary role while in offensive than they should be able to out dps those that can do their primary roll while dps'ing.</blockquote>The problem there is. If a fighter can tank in d-stance and dps in o-stance why play a DPS class?For the most part I am happy with the changes. Some things still need to be changed (Bralwer AoE autoattack needs to be 40% and the - c/s/p needs to be removed from ALL defencive stances)</blockquote>Well they would not reach the numbers of the pure DPS classes, but right now there are plenty of classes that can do both their primary roll and put up great numbers. Enchanters and rogues specifically. Why should these classes be able to DPS so well AND provide all their utility/raid DPS? Its the problem we already have with bringing more and more enchanters.

Junaru

01-15-2009, 01:46 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Junaru wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>With that in mind maybe fighter DPS should be increased significantly when in offensive. I mean they are not being able to do their job when in offensive so in a raid or in a group where they are not tanking it becomes another spot, a dps spot if you are not the MT for like 95% of content. Being classes that cannot do their primary role while in offensive than they should be able to out dps those that can do their primary roll while dps'ing.</blockquote>The problem there is. If a fighter can tank in d-stance and dps in o-stance why play a DPS class?For the most part I am happy with the changes. Some things still need to be changed (Bralwer AoE autoattack needs to be 40% and the - c/s/p needs to be removed from ALL defencive stances)</blockquote>Well they would not reach the numbers of the pure DPS classes, but right now there are plenty of classes that can do both their primary roll and put up great numbers. Enchanters and rogues specifically. Why should these classes be able to DPS so well AND provide all their utility/raid DPS? Its the problem we already have with bringing more and more enchanters.</blockquote>They shouldn't. But giving Fighters more DPS in o-stance isn't a fix. They need to take the classes that can and balance them against fighters.

Couching

01-15-2009, 01:57 PM

<cite>Istar@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>Look If they are a Mage, Scout, Brawler, and they are actually getting beat by SK's DPS.. they need to learn to play badly.. Its not thier Class.. Its them, and only them..</blockquote>The reason of why sk dps is overpowered is because they get unfair benefit form gear and group proc due to their high int/spell crit over melee fighters. For example, the effect on crimson helm of horror gives sk 1k+ zw dps boost but only 500 dps boost on melee fighters. Or the strike of ethernauts, it gives 200+ dps zw but it gives other fighter 100 dps zw.It's nothing related to player skills, it's related to our broken itemization: SK got too many spell crit chance from itemization.

Bruener

01-15-2009, 02:04 PM

That still doesn't solve the old issue of wanting more than 2-3 fighters in a raid most of the time. Fighters should not do T1 DPS in offensive, let me clear that up. However, fighters should do more DPS than the other non-pure DPS classes when they are in offensive. Maybe the answer is adjusting the other classes that are not pure DPS to bring them much more in-line...but SSSHHHHH that might sound like a nerf and good heavens would that start a bunch of crap throwing.

Sanizy

01-15-2009, 02:16 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>While I have not completely made up my mind about how well these stances will work I can see where a lot of the frustration comes from. Fighters are now having to make the choice of one stance or the other, even though you might have real good raid gear and have awesome healers, the fact that to even think about holding agro you cannot use offensive stance is very limiting. All of you saying well that is fine think about it like this. What if SOE changed it so that utility classes could only provide their utility buffs when in a certain stance, which severly hampered their DPS. Like, if a Coercer wanted to be able to run their dps buffs and tank buffs for others they would have to enter a certain stance which cut their DPS in half? Or if rogues wanted to be able to debuff mobs they had to remain in a certain stance that cut their DPS in half? Or if healers wanted to do healing at all needed to be in a stance that made it so they couldn't DPS, or vice versa if they wanted to add DPS they have to enter a stance that doesn't allow them to heal.This is what SOE is doing. They are making it so you cannot do both at the same time for fighters. You can be avatar geared with an avatar geared group and running a real easy instance and if you want to tank you will not be able to do it in offensive, the dehate and detaunts are way too great.With that in mind maybe fighter DPS should be increased significantly when in offensive. I mean they are not being able to do their job when in offensive so in a raid or in a group where they are not tanking it becomes another spot, a dps spot if you are not the MT for like 95% of content. Being classes that cannot do their primary role while in offensive than they should be able to out dps those that can do their primary roll while dps'ing.</blockquote>Check the new Defiler stances. The heal stance severly decreases dps and the dps stance severly decreases healing. But im happy because prior to these new AA's I didnt have a stance at all.

Bruener

01-15-2009, 02:43 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Istar@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>Look If they are a Mage, Scout, Brawler, and they are actually getting beat by SK's DPS.. they need to learn to play badly.. Its not thier Class.. Its them, and only them..</blockquote>The reason of why sk dps is overpowered is because they get unfair benefit form gear and group proc due to their high int/spell crit over melee fighters. For example, the effect on crimson helm of horror gives sk 1k+ zw dps boost but only 500 dps boost on melee fighters. Or the strike of ethernauts, it gives 200+ dps zw but it gives other fighter 100 dps zw.It's nothing related to player skills, it's related to our broken itemization: SK got too many spell crit chance from itemization.</blockquote>Wow, this is the first time I have heard this argument. Yes that int/spell crit does raise the damage of procs, however unlike the other classes Crusaders ahve to concentrate on a lot more stats. How easy is it for melee classes to cap +crit, +CA damage, +DA, +dps mod, and +haste? Because there are tons of fighter/melee items with that stuff on it, the groups for melees concentrate on it a lot more etc. etc.. Now throw in with Crusaders that they have to worry about that, also worry about +spell crit, +spell mod, + spell crit bonus, int and str, etc. Even though gear is finally throwing slightly more of a mixture of those stats it is still a lot harder for Crusaders to max their DPS potential because there are a lot more stats to worry about. Lets also not forget that most tank gear that is descent has 90% of the melee side for increasing dps. Now add in worrying about taunt crits and threat increasers. Do you think that SOE is going to throw that on the gear too, or is it going to be replacing DPS stats?Itemization designed better for Crusaders as an argument is a joke, because if that was true it would be just as easy as us to max all our dps stats and increasers while wearing tank gear as it is for warriors.

Couching

01-15-2009, 03:16 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Istar@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>Look If they are a Mage, Scout, Brawler, and they are actually getting beat by SK's DPS.. they need to learn to play badly.. Its not thier Class.. Its them, and only them..</blockquote>The reason of why sk dps is overpowered is because they get unfair benefit form gear and group proc due to their high int/spell crit over melee fighters. For example, the effect on crimson helm of horror gives sk 1k+ zw dps boost but only 500 dps boost on melee fighters. Or the strike of ethernauts, it gives 200+ dps zw but it gives other fighter 100 dps zw.It's nothing related to player skills, it's related to our broken itemization: SK got too many spell crit chance from itemization.</blockquote>Wow, this is the first time I have heard this argument. Yes that int/spell crit does raise the damage of procs, however unlike the other classes Crusaders ahve to concentrate on a lot more stats. How easy is it for melee classes to cap +crit, +CA damage, +DA, +dps mod, and +haste? Because there are tons of fighter/melee items with that stuff on it, the groups for melees concentrate on it a lot more etc. etc.. Now throw in with Crusaders that they have to worry about that, also worry about +spell crit, +spell mod, + spell crit bonus, int and str, etc. Even though gear is finally throwing slightly more of a mixture of those stats it is still a lot harder for Crusaders to max their DPS potential because there are a lot more stats to worry about. Lets also not forget that most tank gear that is descent has 90% of the melee side for increasing dps. Now add in worrying about taunt crits and threat increasers. Do you think that SOE is going to throw that on the gear too, or is it going to be replacing DPS stats?Itemization designed better for Crusaders as an argument is a joke, because if that was true it would be just as easy as us to max all our dps stats and increasers while wearing tank gear as it is for warriors.</blockquote>You can't didn't mean high end sk can't.

Aeralik

01-15-2009, 03:36 PM

In the classic mmo setting like eq2, there are essentially 3 core roles, tank, dps and healer. Some classes are grayer than others in this sense by providing good group buffs but that is for a different post. So when you look at the tanks and try to fit them into the eq2 roles we have that of dps or tanking which is how the stances have evolved. The stances make you choose between tanking or dpsing. A mid stance would largely do away with the changes we have made going forward. Again, the stances are about choice. If you want the dps then choose offensive. If are tanking or believe you will need to tank then run the defensive stance. If you are leading a group through an instance then defensive is probably your best bet. If you are clearing trash on a raid and not the main tank then offensive is probably your best bet. If you are offtanking a major raid mob then its probably better to be ready in defensive stance. You kind of have a dual role here doing dps where it helps most while also being ready to tank when it counts most. Fighters need to rethink things and realize that in a tanking situation if they do 1 dps and hold aggro and survive then they are fulfilling their role as the tank. I would like to remind everyone that your testing here is crucial. I still see most people just posting in regards to the notes. Thats fine but we do need people playing through this and giving some hard data as well. I remember the LU13 days when I was still a player. I overreacted to that much as any player would. Actually, playing through it though wasnt as bad as the notes made it out to be in many cases.

Eriol

01-15-2009, 04:07 PM

And what EXACTLY am I supposed to do while duoing with my fiance when she's playing her Mystic and I'm on my Paladin? Or any tank class really? If any and ALL offensive procs are on my offensive stance, she's almost certainly going to take agro since I will only have REVERSE taunts, and my DPS is in a "might outdmg her... maybe" state as a pally as it is. And going defensive... well watch it take a LOT longer to kill things, since I won't be hitting much (combat ability decreases in defensive) and priests aren't generally known for their DPS (exceptions happen, but you know what I mean).For groups/raids, you're exactly on, but for "weird groups" you've severely restricted options.

Junaru

01-15-2009, 04:11 PM

Pins

01-15-2009, 04:13 PM

Junaru

01-15-2009, 04:14 PM

<cite>Eriol wrote:</cite><blockquote>And what EXACTLY am I supposed to do while duoing with my fiance when she's playing her Mystic and I'm on my Paladin? Or any tank class really? If any and ALL offensive procs are on my offensive stance, she's almost certainly going to take agro since I will only have REVERSE taunts, and my DPS is in a "might outdmg her... maybe" state as a pally as it is. And going defensive... well watch it take a LOT longer to kill things, since I won't be hitting much (combat ability decreases in defensive) and priests aren't generally known for their DPS (exceptions happen, but you know what I mean).For groups/raids, you're exactly on, but for "weird groups" you've severely restricted options.</blockquote>It's been stated MANY time already. Go with NO STANCE. Sure you lose some buffs but you will have more DPS then defencive stance (even without the buffs) and more aggro control then offencive stance. Is it as nice as it is on LIVE right now? Nope but sometimes the game needs to change for the sake of balance.

lizard

01-15-2009, 04:21 PM

<cite>Aeralik wrote:</cite><blockquote>In the classic mmo setting like eq2, there are essentially 3 core roles, tank, dps and healer. Some classes are grayer than others in this sense by providing good group buffs but that is for a different post. So when you look at the tanks and try to fit them into the eq2 roles we have that of dps or tanking which is how the stances have evolved. The stances make you choose between tanking or dpsing. A mid stance would largely do away with the changes we have made going forward. Again, the stances are about choice. If you want the dps then choose offensive. If are tanking or believe you will need to tank then run the defensive stance. If you are leading a group through an instance then defensive is probably your best bet. If you are clearing trash on a raid and not the main tank then offensive is probably your best bet. If you are offtanking a major raid mob then its probably better to be ready in defensive stance. You kind of have a dual role here doing dps where it helps most while also being ready to tank when it counts most. Fighters need to rethink things and realize that in a tanking situation if they do 1 dps and hold aggro and survive then they are fulfilling their role as the tank. I would like to remind everyone that your testing here is crucial. I still see most people just posting in regards to the notes. Thats fine but we do need people playing through this and giving some hard data as well. I remember the LU13 days when I was still a player. I overreacted to that much as any player would. Actually, playing through it though wasnt as bad as the notes made it out to be in many cases.</blockquote>None of the following statements are meant as bashing. I offer them all in a constructive manner, and have taken pains to make sure that none of them are phrased in a way that targets an individual.First, adhering to 'classic' ways of doing things is a flawed approach to design. 'Because that's the way it's always been done' is not a good enough reason to keep doing things a certain way. Evolve or die applies to design philosophy as much as it does to biology. Evaluate any design choice on its own merits, not history.Second, incorporating buffs into stances rather than allowing individual players to pick and choose combinations is not an exercise in choice, at least not from the player's perspective. Quite the opposite. IDIC (Infinite Diversity, Infinite Combinations). Let the players choose their own stances and buffs separately, rather than shoehorning them into a narrow role.'Fighters need to rethink things...' Why? Why do the paying players who support this game need to rethink the way they've been playing for the past three or four years? Why is their playstyle suddenly not valid any longer? Perhaps it's just the way that statement is phrased, but that comes across as incredibly high-handed. As long as a given playstyle does not unfairly exploit game bugs, grief other players, or involve third-party software, it's not wrong. If any rethinking is needed, I submit that it's the philosophy that any single approach to gameplay is right, at the expense of others.Finally, I have tested this content, as both a healer and a fighter. I have submitted feedback, so have my friends. To date, either in notes or posts from red names, I have seen no indication that this feedback has been given any consideration. Based on past updates in which feedback has been given and ignored, skepticism of this statement is hard to avoid. It would help to have some feedback quoted and given an open response.

Geothe

01-15-2009, 04:25 PM

<cite>Eriol wrote:</cite><blockquote>And what EXACTLY am I supposed to do while duoing with my fiance when she's playing her Mystic and I'm on my Paladin? Or any tank class really? If any and ALL offensive procs are on my offensive stance, she's almost certainly going to take agro since I will only have REVERSE taunts, and my DPS is in a "might outdmg her... maybe" state as a pally as it is. And going defensive... well watch it take a LOT longer to kill things, since I won't be hitting much (combat ability decreases in defensive) and priests aren't generally known for their DPS (exceptions happen, but you know what I mean).For groups/raids, you're exactly on, but for "weird groups" you've severely restricted options.</blockquote>Pull in defensive stance.Toss in all of your taunts.Switch to Offensive stance.Kill mob (you'll hold agro fine if you dont use your taunts as deagros).Swapping stances takes no time at all. And with the buffs now tied into the stances, you only have to click one icon and you've completely swapped.

cr0wangel

01-15-2009, 04:28 PM

<cite>Pinski wrote:</cite><blockquote>If you are duoing, offensive stances means you won't hold aggro, while defensive stance means you won't do enough DPS.</blockquote>The de-taunts need to go. Except maybe for monk/bruiser who need them because some DPS with their bruisers in group and don't want the aggro. But plate tanks DON'T need de-taunts, that is just a stupid penalty.

cr0wangel

01-15-2009, 04:33 PM

<cite>Junaru wrote:</cite><blockquote>It's been stated MANY time already. Go with NO STANCE.</blockquote>The problem with going stanceless is with spell consolidation, you lose important buffs. Berserkers cannot go stanceless that will be just bad since one of our main buff (going berserk) is IN the stances.

Tandy

01-15-2009, 04:34 PM

<cite>cr0wangel wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Pinski wrote:</cite><blockquote>If you are duoing, offensive stances means you won't hold aggro, while defensive stance means you won't do enough DPS.</blockquote>The de-taunts need to go. Except maybe for monk/bruiser who need them because some DPS with their bruisers in group and don't want the aggro. But plate tanks DON'T need de-taunts, that is just a stupid penalty.</blockquote>If the de-taunts go, then you can tank in offensive stance...which is what this is supposed to prevent.They wont go anywhere I dont think.

cr0wangel

01-15-2009, 04:40 PM

<cite>Xaren@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>If the de-taunts go, then you can tank in offensive stance...which is what this is supposed to prevent.They wont go anywhere I dont think.</blockquote>Right now I can tank in Offensive, that is what actually most berserkers do. LU51 will change this, thus removing what I liked of the class, being a tank with a decent damage output and keeping aggro due to damage.

Tandy

01-15-2009, 04:47 PM

<cite>cr0wangel wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Xaren@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>If the de-taunts go, then you can tank in offensive stance...which is what this is supposed to prevent.They wont go anywhere I dont think.</blockquote>Right now I can tank in Offensive, that is what actually most berserkers do. LU51 will change this, thus removing what I liked of the class, being a tank with a decent damage output and keeping aggro due to damage.</blockquote>Well that kind of is the point of this update. Curbing tank DPS while tanking and all. Tanks werent really designed to hold aggro THRU thier DPS, but thru taunts and threat.Zerkers should still have decent DPS after this, but the days of offensive tanking with DPS rivaling that of DPS classes is gonna be dead and gone. If you want to have high DPS you will have to roll a DPS class.

Obadiah

01-15-2009, 05:00 PM

<cite>Junaru wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Eriol wrote:</cite><blockquote>And what EXACTLY am I supposed to do while duoing with my fiance when she's playing her Mystic and I'm on my Paladin? Or any tank class really? If any and ALL offensive procs are on my offensive stance, she's almost certainly going to take agro since I will only have REVERSE taunts, and my DPS is in a "might outdmg her... maybe" state as a pally as it is. And going defensive... well watch it take a LOT longer to kill things, since I won't be hitting much (combat ability decreases in defensive) and priests aren't generally known for their DPS (exceptions happen, but you know what I mean).For groups/raids, you're exactly on, but for "weird groups" you've severely restricted options.</blockquote>It's been stated MANY time already. Go with NO STANCE. Sure you lose some buffs but you will have more DPS then defencive stance (even without the buffs) and more aggro control then offencive stance. Is it as nice as it is on LIVE right now? Nope but sometimes the game needs to change for the sake of balance.</blockquote>Or go offensive stance and don't taunt. If the things you are duo-ing are that dangerous that it matters which one of you has aggro, shouldn't you be defensive anyway? Takes no time at all to turn the off-stance off so you can taunt if you need to.

Bruener

01-15-2009, 05:03 PM

<cite>Xaren@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>cr0wangel wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Xaren@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>If the de-taunts go, then you can tank in offensive stance...which is what this is supposed to prevent.They wont go anywhere I dont think.</blockquote>Right now I can tank in Offensive, that is what actually most berserkers do. LU51 will change this, thus removing what I liked of the class, being a tank with a decent damage output and keeping aggro due to damage.</blockquote>Well that kind of is the point of this update. Curbing tank DPS while tanking and all. Tanks werent really designed to hold aggro THRU thier DPS, but thru taunts and threat.Zerkers should still have decent DPS after this, but the days of offensive tanking with DPS rivaling that of DPS classes is gonna be dead and gone. If you want to have high DPS you will have to roll a DPS class.</blockquote>Oh you must mean like enchanter DPS, where they get to do their primary role at all times while still DPS'ing. Or maybe you mean rogue DPS where they are doing their primary role on raids while DPS'ing. Shall the list go on? Now fighters are being shelved into a stance, and unlike other classes there isn't the option of fulfilling the primary role we have while DPS'ing.All I can say is that hopefully the other classes that are performing outside of their primary role on raids by DPS'ing will also get the same type of treatment. But I doubt that will happen. I mean 4+ chanters and 4+ bards on a raid seem to be the accepted norm now....why in the world would we want more than 2 fighters on a raid for 95% of the content?

Matia

01-15-2009, 05:07 PM

<cite>Aeralik wrote:</cite><blockquote>In the classic mmo setting like eq2, there are essentially 3 core roles, tank, dps and healer. Some classes are grayer than others in this sense by providing good group buffs but that is for a different post. So when you look at the tanks and try to fit them into the eq2 roles we have that of dps or tanking which is how the stances have evolved. The stances make you choose between tanking or dpsing. A mid stance would largely do away with the changes we have made going forward.Again, the stances are about choice. If you want the dps then choose offensive. If are tanking or believe you will need to tank then run the defensive stance. If you are leading a group through an instance then defensive is probably your best bet. If you are clearing trash on a raid and not the main tank then offensive is probably your best bet. If you are offtanking a major raid mob then its probably better to be ready in defensive stance. You kind of have a dual role here doing dps where it helps most while also being ready to tank when it counts most. Fighters need to rethink things and realize that in a tanking situation if they do 1 dps and hold aggro and survive then they are fulfilling their role as the tank.I would like to remind everyone that your testing here is crucial. I still see most people just posting in regards to the notes. Thats fine but we do need people playing through this and giving some hard data as well. I remember the LU13 days when I was still a player. I overreacted to that much as any player would. Actually, playing through it though wasnt as bad as the notes made it out to be in many cases.</blockquote>I will respectfully disagree here. The implementation of these mechanics is not about choice. It is about forcing people to be shoehorned into very specific restrictive roles because someone doesn't want to be creative and allow more roles.Additionally, as others have stated, this narrow classification that you are all or nothing means that the times when someone isn't doing the activities you listed they are not suited for doing much of anything well.If a "tank" is doing 1 dps to hold the aggro, but the ones they are holding it from are also doing limited dps, then the mob is never going anywhere. (Yes, that's an extreme example, but you are the one that mentioned 1 dps <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> )As a note, testing is crucial, and nobody denies that. However, your last paragraph assumes that everyone who doesn't like it hasn't tried it, hasn't tested it, etc... or gives that impression. Liking something or not does not always utilize "hard data". Fun, satisfaction, and entertainment are not "hard data".And may I state respectfully that you also have not provided any "hard data" about how this is better, only a statement that it better fits some definition of roles that have been decided as the be-all end-all.

Geothe

01-15-2009, 05:12 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Oh you must mean like enchanter DPS, where they get to do their primary role at all times while still DPS'ing. Or maybe you mean rogue DPS where they are doing their primary role on raids while DPS'ing. Shall the list go on? Now fighters are being shelved into a stance, and unlike other classes there isn't the option of fulfilling the primary role we have while DPS'ing.</blockquote>Wow, what are you smoking?Chanters are mages. The role of mages is to DPS. Both by themselves and by enabling others to DPS more.Rogues are scouts. The role of scouts is to DPS. Both by themselves and by enablnig others to DPS more.The role of tanks is to keep the mobs hitting themselves, and not the people that are killing the mob. Sony is just correcting the way in which tanks keep the mobs targeted on themselves in defensive, while at the same time allowing other tanks in the group/raid to be not as much of a liability as well as DPS better by using an Offensive stance with deagros.

cr0wangel

01-15-2009, 05:14 PM

<cite>Xaren@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Well that kind of is the point of this update. Curbing tank DPS while tanking and all. Tanks werent really designed to hold aggro THRU thier DPS, but thru taunts and threat.</blockquote>That I didn't know. It was always told so far that tanks hold aggro with hate AND damage.If I resume this update, I will lose master and adept 3, I cannot tank in offense anymore cause I will de-aggro. Tanking in offense is the core of the berserker class. We are offensive tanks.

Geothe

01-15-2009, 05:20 PM

<cite>cr0wangel wrote:</cite><blockquote>. Tanking in offense is [was] the core of the berserker class. We are [were] offensive tanks.</blockquote>There. Fixed.Now you tank in defensive, using a mix of DPS and Taunts, Instead of just DPS. As it -should- be.And now, since you are actually tanking in Defensive stance, you wont drop like a mage getting hit either.

Obadiah

01-15-2009, 05:29 PM

Soefje

01-15-2009, 05:42 PM

If they were to remove the detaunt effects from Offensive stance, then the rest is balanced as far as I am concerned.I think being an OT is going to be tough. Offensive stance will cause a large number of fighters to be at or near the bottom of the hate list if using all of their abilities. I still have not seen the DPS effect if in Offensive Stance and not using any taunts or abilities that have de-taunts. I do know that for SK, the group taunt on live has a significant disease debuff that I use in almost every fight, even solo. This would become useless if I not tanking in a group.

Seomon

01-15-2009, 06:00 PM

My main issues with this update as far as the stances go is the taunting effects being turned into detaunts while in Offensive Stance. There has to be a better way to maintain tanking in defensive stance for groups and raids while not destroying the ability of duoing with a healer. I would suggest that instead of just reversing the taunts, the levels should just be extremely dropped, that way you can still put out the damage and keep agro off a healer, but in a group situation that would be something that wouldn't work.Another issue I have is with the Paladins heal and no passive hate gain. Is there a chance to put, say a taunt effect on the heals to make up for the lack of hate they gain? Or maybe something else that would generate hate in a passive way since we are the only tanks that do not have a passive hate gain (reactive taunt on d stance or a taunt that can be cast while stunned/stifled)?And Aeralik, the issue most people have is that you respond to posts asking stupid questions, instead of answering the feedback. And by answer, I mean actually answer feedback that people have left, instead of "hurrrrr will I get master 1 ect" questions that normal players can answer.

DMIstar

01-15-2009, 06:35 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Istar@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>Look If they are a Mage, Scout, Brawler, and they are actually getting beat by SK's DPS.. they need to learn to play badly.. Its not thier Class.. Its them, and only them..</blockquote>The reason of why sk dps is overpowered is because they get unfair benefit form gear and group proc due to their high int/spell crit over melee fighters.For example, the effect on crimson helm of horror gives sk 1k+ zw dps boost but only 500 dps boost on melee fighters. Or the strike of ethernauts, it gives 200+ dps zw but it gives other fighter 100 dps zw.It's nothing related to player skills, it's related to our broken itemization: SK got too many spell crit chance from itemization.</blockquote>Other melee fighters have (Melee Crit, DA, STR, DPS, Haste, CA, Melee AE) To up their DPS.. Sk's Have to find a balance on that AND (Spell Crit, INT, Spell Mod, Spell Base) Our power Pool is Split in half Between two Stats, Our tanking ((Requires)) even More stats ... ohh and did i fail to mention that RoK proved to have BS for equipment for SK's to actually use ?I do not see why procs is the reasoning for your Issues.. other fighters have direct Lines of gear to goto for gains Thier Class has everything they need. SK's Finally Get off the trash itemization list by new void set armor. The problem is with the player, not the class."Itemization designed better for Crusaders as an argument is a joke, because if that was true it would be just as easy as us to max all our dps stats and increasers while wearing tank gear as it is for warriors."You can't didn't mean high end sk can't.-----------------------------------------------------------------Ill Emphasize on this a bit more ... There is no combination of Raid Gear and AA's that is going to max you at 100% on (Melee Crit, DA, STR, DPS, Haste, CA, Melee AE)(Spell Crit, INT, Spell Mod, Spell Base) at the same time .. Its give or take ..

Couching

01-15-2009, 07:07 PM

<cite>Istar@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Istar@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>Look If they are a Mage, Scout, Brawler, and they are actually getting beat by SK's DPS.. they need to learn to play badly.. Its not thier Class.. Its them, and only them..</blockquote>The reason of why sk dps is overpowered is because they get unfair benefit form gear and group proc due to their high int/spell crit over melee fighters.For example, the effect on crimson helm of horror gives sk 1k+ zw dps boost but only 500 dps boost on melee fighters. Or the strike of ethernauts, it gives 200+ dps zw but it gives other fighter 100 dps zw.It's nothing related to player skills, it's related to our broken itemization: SK got too many spell crit chance from itemization.</blockquote>Other melee fighters have (Melee Crit, DA, STR, DPS, Haste, CA, Melee AE) To up their DPS.. Sk's Have to find a balance on that AND (Spell Crit, INT, Spell Mod, Spell Base) Our power Pool is Split in half Between two Stats, Our tanking ((Requires)) even More stats ... ohh and did i fail to mention that RoK proved to have BS for equipment for SK's to actually use ?I do not see why procs is the reasoning for your Issues.. other fighters have direct Lines of gear to goto for gains Thier Class has everything they need. SK's Finally Get off the trash itemization list by new void set armor. The problem is with the player, not the class."Itemization designed better for Crusaders as an argument is a joke, because if that was true it would be just as easy as us to max all our dps stats and increasers while wearing tank gear as it is for warriors."You can't didn't mean high end sk can't.-----------------------------------------------------------------Ill Emphasize on this a bit more ... There is no combination of Raid Gear and AA's that is going to max you at 100% on (Melee Crit, DA, STR, DPS, Haste, CA, Melee AE)(Spell Crit, INT, Spell Mod, Spell Base) at the same time .. Its give or take ..</blockquote>And you don't need to get everything to 100% to be overpowered comparing to melee classes, no matter scouts or fighters.Proc damage is a big part of total damage in TSO raid.By parsing, high end SK can get 90%+ spell crit in raid and 65%+ for melee crit. With gear and buff proc, you can get 3-4k dps zw just from proc, you better tell me it's not overpowered.You sound like SK isn't overpowered in tso. LOL

EvilAstroboy

01-15-2009, 08:12 PM

The fact that all these brawlers are getting so defensive and saying 'just go stanceless' and 'I never use mid stance' just goes to show that they are seeing the exact same thing that I am. If its such a terrible stance then Im sure you will have no issue with the plate tanks having it as well. If you do mind then its because you realise how powerful this stance is going to be with these changes.

Lethe5683

01-15-2009, 08:22 PM

<cite>Istar@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Istar@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>Look If they are a Mage, Scout, Brawler, and they are actually getting beat by SK's DPS.. they need to learn to play badly.. Its not thier Class.. Its them, and only them..</blockquote>The reason of why sk dps is overpowered is because they get unfair benefit form gear and group proc due to their high int/spell crit over melee fighters.For example, the effect on crimson helm of horror gives sk 1k+ zw dps boost but only 500 dps boost on melee fighters. Or the strike of ethernauts, it gives 200+ dps zw but it gives other fighter 100 dps zw.It's nothing related to player skills, it's related to our broken itemization: SK got too many spell crit chance from itemization.</blockquote>Other melee fighters have (Melee Crit, DA, STR, DPS, Haste, CA, Melee AE) To up their DPS.. Sk's Have to find a balance on that AND (Spell Crit, INT, Spell Mod, Spell Base) Our power Pool is Split in half Between two Stats, Our tanking ((Requires)) even More stats ... ohh and did i fail to mention that RoK proved to have BS for equipment for SK's to actually use ?I do not see why procs is the reasoning for your Issues.. other fighters have direct Lines of gear to goto for gains Thier Class has everything they need. SK's Finally Get off the trash itemization list by new void set armor. The problem is with the player, not the class."Itemization designed better for Crusaders as an argument is a joke, because if that was true it would be just as easy as us to max all our dps stats and increasers while wearing tank gear as it is for warriors."You can't didn't mean high end sk can't.-----------------------------------------------------------------Ill Emphasize on this a bit more ... There is no combination of Raid Gear and AA's that is going to max you at 100% on (Melee Crit, DA, STR, DPS, Haste, CA, Melee AE)(Spell Crit, INT, Spell Mod, Spell Base) at the same time .. Its give or take ..</blockquote>Having two power stats is NOT a detriment. You get far more power that way. Really I think that all classes should have two power stats, except maybe mages.

Elanjar

01-15-2009, 08:44 PM

<cite>Geothe wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>cr0wangel wrote:</cite><blockquote>. Tanking in offense is [was] the core of the berserker class. We are [were] offensive tanks.</blockquote>There. Fixed.Now you tank in defensive, using a mix of DPS and Taunts, Instead of just DPS. As it -should- be.And now, since you are actually tanking in Defensive stance, you wont drop like a mage getting hit either.</blockquote>I've never dropped like a clothy... Hell I've never even dropped like a "chainy". And I used to tank in offensive for many zones. Basically anything up through najena's hollow in difficulty i would use offensive. Anything higher than that I would switch to defensive.My issue is that I rolled a zerker to be an offensive tank. I knew I wouldnt have the guards defense, but I accepted that trade (and the fact that I have to earn many players respect as a good tank due to my class) so that I could do more damage. Zerks were always described as tanks that held agro through dps. Thats why until TSO we had no snaps and the majority of our proc's were damage and not threat.The devs are taking the reasons I chose my class away from me. And I have an issue with not having the choice to tank how I want. Dev's shouldnt force that upon me, my healers can complain and not heal my if i dont use defensive but the dev's should not tell me how I HAVE to play my class.PS - I've always used taunts...

DMIstar

01-15-2009, 09:10 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Istar@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Istar@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>Look If they are a Mage, Scout, Brawler, and they are actually getting beat by SK's DPS.. they need to learn to play badly.. Its not thier Class.. Its them, and only them..</blockquote>The reason of why sk dps is overpowered is because they get unfair benefit form gear and group proc due to their high int/spell crit over melee fighters.For example, the effect on crimson helm of horror gives sk 1k+ zw dps boost but only 500 dps boost on melee fighters. Or the strike of ethernauts, it gives 200+ dps zw but it gives other fighter 100 dps zw.It's nothing related to player skills, it's related to our broken itemization: SK got too many spell crit chance from itemization.</blockquote>Other melee fighters have (Melee Crit, DA, STR, DPS, Haste, CA, Melee AE) To up their DPS.. Sk's Have to find a balance on that AND (Spell Crit, INT, Spell Mod, Spell Base) Our power Pool is Split in half Between two Stats, Our tanking ((Requires)) even More stats ... ohh and did i fail to mention that RoK proved to have BS for equipment for SK's to actually use ?I do not see why procs is the reasoning for your Issues.. other fighters have direct Lines of gear to goto for gains Thier Class has everything they need. SK's Finally Get off the trash itemization list by new void set armor. The problem is with the player, not the class."Itemization designed better for Crusaders as an argument is a joke, because if that was true it would be just as easy as us to max all our dps stats and increasers while wearing tank gear as it is for warriors."You can't didn't mean high end sk can't.-----------------------------------------------------------------Ill Emphasize on this a bit more ... There is no combination of Raid Gear and AA's that is going to max you at 100% on (Melee Crit, DA, STR, DPS, Haste, CA, Melee AE)(Spell Crit, INT, Spell Mod, Spell Base) at the same time .. Its give or take ..</blockquote>And you don't need to get everything to 100% to be overpowered comparing to melee classes, no matter scouts or fighters.Proc damage is a big part of total damage in TSO raid.By parsing, high end SK can get 90%+ spell crit in raid and 65%+ for melee crit. With gear and buff proc, you can get 3-4k dps zw just from proc, you better tell me it's not overpowered.You sound like SK isn't overpowered in tso. LOL</blockquote>and you act like Melee is not gaining anything from haveing nearly 80-100% DA and nearly Maxed Crit .. You would of loved the post in Beta Forums about the clear advantages of Autoattack vs Spells and how that is possibly getting looked into down the road .The weapon gains are very overpowered at this point, SK's are gaining more by capitalizing on this then anything else. Its realy nothing on our spell end. Being maxed out in spell crit means nearly nothing.. Your high parseing SK's are going melee route .. Hence brawlers are already getting in abundance .. Again any brawler is going to totally beat out an sk on parse ..

DMIstar

01-15-2009, 09:15 PM

<cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Istar@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Istar@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>Look If they are a Mage, Scout, Brawler, and they are actually getting beat by SK's DPS.. they need to learn to play badly.. Its not thier Class.. Its them, and only them..</blockquote>The reason of why sk dps is overpowered is because they get unfair benefit form gear and group proc due to their high int/spell crit over melee fighters.For example, the effect on crimson helm of horror gives sk 1k+ zw dps boost but only 500 dps boost on melee fighters. Or the strike of ethernauts, it gives 200+ dps zw but it gives other fighter 100 dps zw.It's nothing related to player skills, it's related to our broken itemization: SK got too many spell crit chance from itemization.</blockquote>Other melee fighters have (Melee Crit, DA, STR, DPS, Haste, CA, Melee AE) To up their DPS.. Sk's Have to find a balance on that AND (Spell Crit, INT, Spell Mod, Spell Base) Our power Pool is Split in half Between two Stats, Our tanking ((Requires)) even More stats ... ohh and did i fail to mention that RoK proved to have BS for equipment for SK's to actually use ?I do not see why procs is the reasoning for your Issues.. other fighters have direct Lines of gear to goto for gains Thier Class has everything they need. SK's Finally Get off the trash itemization list by new void set armor. The problem is with the player, not the class."Itemization designed better for Crusaders as an argument is a joke, because if that was true it would be just as easy as us to max all our dps stats and increasers while wearing tank gear as it is for warriors."You can't didn't mean high end sk can't.-----------------------------------------------------------------Ill Emphasize on this a bit more ... There is no combination of Raid Gear and AA's that is going to max you at 100% on (Melee Crit, DA, STR, DPS, Haste, CA, Melee AE)(Spell Crit, INT, Spell Mod, Spell Base) at the same time .. Its give or take ..</blockquote>Having two power stats is NOT a detriment. You get far more power that way. Really I think that all classes should have two power stats, except maybe mages.</blockquote>Would be thrilled if the rest of the fighters had the Mana Cap that we do, when it was STR/WIS on the SK's pool it was a literal Joke on comparing us with other fighters on Power pool, more to the point they artificially Boosted us to fix it.As per the posts that did comparisons a gods age ago.. we did not get "Modifiers" and tweaks since that initial fix for the INT change. So if your pretending this a hidden mod in there to substantiate for haveing two stats. Your dead wrong. Am I saying we are broken with it ? No. But it is not a walk in the park like fighters have. This is being corrected though, which i have no complaints on see the ton of posts about it that was made and The changes in Veksar loot and Void shard armor as the response.

Lethe5683

01-15-2009, 09:18 PM

<cite>Istar@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Having two power stats is NOT a detriment. You get far more power that way. Really I think that all classes should have two power stats, except maybe mages.</blockquote>Would be thrilled if the rest of the fighters had the Mana Cap that we do, when it was STR/WIS on the SK's pool it was a literal Joke on comparing us with other fighters on Power pool, more to the point they artificially Boosted us to fix it.As per the posts that did comparisons a gods age ago.. we did not get "Modifiers" and tweaks since that initial fix for the INT change. So if your pretending this a hidden mod in there to substantiate for haveing two stats. Your dead wrong. Am I saying we are broken with it ? No. But it is not a walk in the park like fighters have. This is being corrected though, which i have no complaints on see the ton of posts about it that was made and The changes in Veksar loot and Void shard armor as the response.</blockquote>That's not true, hybrid classes get more power than their non-hybrid equivalents.

DMIstar

01-15-2009, 09:20 PM

<cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Istar@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Having two power stats is NOT a detriment. You get far more power that way. Really I think that all classes should have two power stats, except maybe mages.</blockquote>Would be thrilled if the rest of the fighters had the Mana Cap that we do, when it was STR/WIS on the SK's pool it was a literal Joke on comparing us with other fighters on Power pool, more to the point they artificially Boosted us to fix it.As per the posts that did comparisons a gods age ago.. we did not get "Modifiers" and tweaks since that initial fix for the INT change. So if your pretending this a hidden mod in there to substantiate for haveing two stats. Your dead wrong. Am I saying we are broken with it ? No. But it is not a walk in the park like fighters have. This is being corrected though, which i have no complaints on see the ton of posts about it that was made and The changes in Veksar loot and Void shard armor as the response.</blockquote>That's not true, hybrid classes get more power than their non-hybrid equivalents.</blockquote>I dont even need to post the actual gains for it has already been done. its not an unkown factor.

forge32

01-16-2009, 12:36 AM

<cite>EvilAstroboy wrote:</cite><blockquote>The fact that all these brawlers are getting so defensive and saying 'just go stanceless' and 'I never use mid stance' just goes to show that they are seeing the exact same thing that I am. If its such a terrible stance then Im sure you will have no issue with the plate tanks having it as well. If you do mind then its because you realise how powerful this stance is going to be with these changes.</blockquote>To be perfectly honest this is how i see things as well.For a long time now we have had brawlers (monks/bruisers) complaining they cant tank as well as the plate tanks ,they cant use the same gear ,they are not putting out 5 k higher dps then plate tanks.Wha wha wha.I myself dont like the idea of most of these stances but i have been testing it, and will wait till it goes live. i may give it 2 months of live play before tossing in the towel.However I am also at the point im really tired on non tank classes( i.e mage/scouts/healers) putting in there imput, and makeing matters worse.Trackanon shield for example is a great example. Argueing becuase an item allows a tank to hold agro come on.If this gu51 does not pan out right ,or compensate enough for the changes to make the game enjoyable. Then maybe just maybe all the plate tanks should veto ,and stop playing for couple of months. Leave this game to the brawlers ,and non tank classes who continue to interfear and make things completely difficult for tanks to hold agro off them to kill the encounters that has since eq2 started, fitted out all these people with there gear.Let them try it with out us see how far they get, and progress in the game with out us.Seriously aeralik i hope you thought long ,and hard on these changes because im willing to bet there are tons of the plate wareing tanks ready to if not veto these ideas just quit entirely, and with out us this game will surely fade away.

Wanda_Halfling

01-16-2009, 12:41 AM

Why do the devs keep saying "You all need to test" this crap, its your mess you figure it out, we shouldnt be telling you how your game works. If you dont know from first hand knowledge then you shouldnt be touching it.

Doggi

01-16-2009, 03:26 AM

Because that's what a TEST server is for. To test content and changes BEFORE they hit the live servers. Player feedback > Dev / QA Feedback, simply as it is. If nobody tells them "It's a mess, go fix" then they wouldn't know it's crap, like you say.

Junaru

01-16-2009, 02:52 PM

Elanjar

01-16-2009, 03:00 PM

<cite>Linuky@Valor wrote:</cite><blockquote>Because that's what a TEST server is for. To test content and changes BEFORE they hit the live servers. Player feedback > Dev / QA Feedback, simply as it is. If nobody tells them "It's a mess, go fix" then they wouldn't know it's crap, like you say.</blockquote>Its obvious they aren't going to change things much. They're just fixing bugs, not major problems with the whole change that players just dont like.

Junaru

01-16-2009, 03:10 PM

<cite>Elanjar@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Linuky@Valor wrote:</cite><blockquote>Because that's what a TEST server is for. To test content and changes BEFORE they hit the live servers. Player feedback > Dev / QA Feedback, simply as it is. If nobody tells them "It's a mess, go fix" then they wouldn't know it's crap, like you say.</blockquote>Its obvious they aren't going to change things much. They're just fixing bugs, not major problems with the whole change that players just dont like.</blockquote>The Devs have never made every change suggested. That doesn't mean nothing get changed.

therodge

01-16-2009, 04:50 PM

<cite>Wanda_Halfling wrote:</cite><blockquote>Why do the devs keep saying "You all need to test" this crap, its your mess you figure it out, we shouldnt be telling you how your game works. If you dont know from first hand knowledge then you shouldnt be touching it.</blockquote>hes telling you to go test it becuase he thinks everyone is over reacting and frankly they are i have tested it and honestly their are alot of ups and only 2 downs1. duos and trios will hurt2. tanks are a little more cookie cutteragro is easier and the only 2 reasons people are comeplaining (this is tank changes im talking about no)are1. they have been spoiled with unreasonably high dps which wasent theirprimary function ever, was never ment to be that way2. paladins are butt hurt over amends and given they now lack passive hate (paladins only)all other whines are either innacurate, ignorant rants or old problems resufficing because people are in a bad mood

Matia

01-16-2009, 06:23 PM

<cite>therodge wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Wanda_Halfling wrote:</cite><blockquote>Why do the devs keep saying "You all need to test" this crap, its your mess you figure it out, we shouldnt be telling you how your game works. If you dont know from first hand knowledge then you shouldnt be touching it.</blockquote>hes telling you to go test it becuase he thinks everyone is over reacting and frankly they are i have tested it and honestly their are alot of ups and only 2 downs1. duos and trios will hurt2. tanks are a little more cookie cutteragro is easier and the only 2 reasons people are comeplaining (this is tank changes im talking about no)are1. they have been spoiled with unreasonably high dps which wasent theirprimary function ever, was never ment to be that way2. paladins are butt hurt over amends and given they now lack passive hate (paladins only)all other whines are either innacurate, ignorant rants or old problems resufficing because people are in a bad mood</blockquote>That's painting things with a rather broad brush, and I would say just as inaccurate as you believe other's comments to be.That would be like someone who disagrees with it saying that "there are one or two nice things, but outside of those everyone else agreeing with the change is either a fanboi or someone with an axe to grind against tanks". Again, that may be accurate for some number of individuals, but not everyone.Just because someone holds a different opinion doesn't mean they are wrong, nor that they are ignorant/innacurate/don't know how to do things/etc.Of course.. it doesn't they aren't either, but that's another thing. <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Schmalex23

01-16-2009, 07:39 PM

Devs need to rethink things and realise that in a tanking situation if fighters do 1 DPS they will be incredibly boring to play and most of them will quit. Ofcourse the 1 damage is a hyperbole, but simply holding agro is not an entertaining job. The reason for this is that there leaves no room for improvement whatsoever. There is no difference between generating 8 million agro or +1 of the highest DPS. When you have no motivation to improve yourself then the game becomes pointless. Who wants to stay the same in a persistant and everchanging wolrd?!?<cite>Aeralik wrote:</cite><blockquote>Fighters need to rethink things and realize that in a tanking situation if they do 1 dps and hold aggro and survive then they are fulfilling their role as the tank.</blockquote>

Splor

01-16-2009, 10:35 PM

Going back to the original topic, this is my argument against it.All the tanks are getting molded into 1 Cookie. Classes defining abilities have been passsed out. Buffs that were class specific have been handed out, and now whats the difference? All of these buffs mind you were not only passes around, but AA versions, are even more powerful then the original version that used to be class defining.On all of the tank offensive stance something that was particular of BRUISERS ONLY is now spread out amoung all the tanks. Tsunami, something that was MONK ONLY is now given to bruisers and SK's. Close mind, another bruiser only ability was given to crusaders. The ability to consistently jump aggro positions, given to all the tank classes in various ways. raidwide buffs have had parts chopped off and placed in AA's and even bard abilities and such have been sucked into the fighter arsonal.Giving yet another ability to ALL the tank classes just furthers this problem. Why not give SK's reinforcements, monks adrenaline, and bruisers deathmarch? oh wait, because that removes the point of having different fighters? 6 fighters may be too many, but 1 fighter cookie is too boring, even for my tastes.Second, You can step out of stance, and still do just fine as a plate tank. You have plenty of mitigation, and your shield doesn't change in the least. Brawlers have terrible mitigation unless they are in stance(not counting Ostance), and though we get use of our contested deflection, its no where near effective as a shield without the uncontested portion fitting in. That is mostly talking about harder mobs, orange mobs, epics, etc. And no, I dont need to be reminded that omg, brawlers tank zones in offensive stance even. Yeah, i've done it. I think all tanks have done it. But against a rough mob it isn't an option and in that case 50/50 stance is, yeah you guessed it, skipped over. Do i use 50/50 stance, yes, yes i do. I use it when im soloing and when I'm tanking with an unknown(usually terrible group).

Elanjar

01-19-2009, 03:47 PM

LygerT

01-19-2009, 04:13 PM

<cite>Skel@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote>Devs need to rethink things and realise that in a tanking situation if fighters do 1 DPS they will be incredibly boring to play and most of them will quit. Ofcourse the 1 damage is a hyperbole, but simply holding agro is not an entertaining job. The reason for this is that there leaves no room for improvement whatsoever. There is no difference between generating 8 million agro or +1 of the highest DPS. When you have no motivation to improve yourself then the game becomes pointless. Who wants to stay the same in a persistant and everchanging wolrd?!?<cite>Aeralik wrote:</cite><blockquote>Fighters need to rethink things and realize that in a tanking situation if they do 1 dps and hold aggro and survive then they are fulfilling their role as the tank.</blockquote></blockquote>DPS being the term, i do think tanks should have more options to either deal damage or tank with taunts (which was never an option before) but the way it was where tanks were solely based on damage was a bit out of whack. of course people are worried that as a tank they will be doing less dps than some healers on trash which makes the game less fun but implying there is no room to grow isn't exactly accurate. i'm not fond of the further damage reduction in defensive as that seems to be the worry that we will be doing such low dps that tanking will not be fun(somewhat valid depending on your point of view).but tanks leading the parse in heroic zones while demolishing mobs, well, i don't think that was fun for the dps to see either or the healers who had no choice but let the tank decide whether they had time to dps or if they had to heal full time.i still do think a third stance is the answer even if the brawlers will complain about it.offtanks need to QQ, you can still dps in off stance and hit one(1) button to get the mob's attention(assuming it lands, which is another issue on another thread).with all the above you can also simply rotate tanks on off days, that way they won't get burnt out on not doing much DPS if nothing changes from how it currently is on test.for Aeralik, the complaints of tanks only doing 1 damage is valid. as a tank i wouldn't enjoy doing 1 DPS and mashing taunts. if i can do 3k defensively and still have room to play with my gear to pull out 4k while there is 6-8 people doing 10k i would be fine with that. doing 1 dps while the top DPSer is doing 18k and me having no option to do anything but spam taunts, well, the point of just making 1 tank class does come to mind as being true at that point. i as a zerk dealt with taking more damage to deal more damage, no tank wants to think their taunts and them living is the only contributor they give, just as why healers have DPS AAs or scouts have tanking AAs.

TheGeneral

01-20-2009, 10:48 AM

What about those of us who have different gear for different stances? I have about 5-6 pieces that I have macro'd into my stances to change when i swap. You cannot do that in combat as only weapons can be changed. Honestly, I appreciate what SoE is trying to do here, but its too late into the game to make a change this drastic. Think SWG.... I love this game and would hate to see it go the way that one did. I still smell the stink on that years later.

Vanderlay

01-20-2009, 12:14 PM

To the OP: There doesn't need to be a new stance added...period. They need to fix the fact that they are combining stances and buffs into one. Most tanks are going to be "cookie cutter" and only meatshields from now on. This is not my idea of having fun. As a paying player I chose a Berserker because I wanted to be able to pump out the damage at the expense of survivability. I am no longer going to be able to tank and hold aggro with these new changes in Offensive stance. Doing a significant amount of damage to the mob is why a fighter is tanking. To keep the mob occupied so that the nukers can sit back and do what they do....nuke the mob, without the mob spinning and killing them. I'm sorry but shouting degrading taunts at the mob like "Your mother wears combat boots, or she dropped you on your head as a kid" is just assinine IMHO in order to keep the mob occupied.I think I speak for a majority of tanks in this game to make the offensive stance not so de-aggronizing. It should be our choice to decide whether we want to do a high amount of dps and lose survivability over taking minimal damage and not doing damage. Why make taunts de-aggro the mob while in Offensive? "Your mama is so old....etc." doesn't make the mob aggro more, it makes him ignore you...doesn't make any sense to me...

Tandy

01-20-2009, 12:23 PM

<cite>Vanderlay wrote:</cite><blockquote>To the OP: There doesn't need to be a new stance added...period. They need to fix the fact that they are combining stances and buffs into one. Most tanks are going to be "cookie cutter" and only meatshields from now on. This is not my idea of having fun. As a paying player I chose a Berserker because I wanted to be able to pump out the damage at the expense of survivability. I am no longer going to be able to tank and hold aggro with these new changes in Offensive stance. Doing a significant amount of damage to the mob is why a fighter is tanking. To keep the mob occupied so that the nukers can sit back and do what they do....nuke the mob, without the mob spinning and killing them. I'm sorry but shouting degrading taunts at the mob like "Your mother wears combat boots, or she dropped you on your head as a kid" is just assinine IMHO in order to keep the mob occupied.I think I speak for a majority of tanks in this game to make the offensive stance not so de-aggronizing. It should be our choice to decide whether we want to do a high amount of dps and lose survivability over taking minimal damage and not doing damage. Why make taunts de-aggro the mob while in Offensive? "Your mama is so old....etc." doesn't make the mob aggro more, it makes him ignore you...doesn't make any sense to me...</blockquote>Well if you have to translate the mechanics into a real world scenario, (since that is what your doing with the tasteless "Yo Mama" jokes) tanking is more like this huge wall of armor standing in front of a monster, not letting it get around them...which some squishy casters throw fireballs from behind them and a rogue sneaks behind for a backstab. No where in there is the 'tank' doing the dmg....they are more of the roadblock something needs to get thru to get to the squishy people.People who only want to do high dps AND tank AND survive just want to have their cake and eat it AND have some else pay the bill. It really isnt fair to other classes, regardless if your a zerker or not.

Vanderlay

01-20-2009, 12:50 PM

<cite>Xaren@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vanderlay wrote:</cite><blockquote>To the OP: There doesn't need to be a new stance added...period. They need to fix the fact that they are combining stances and buffs into one. Most tanks are going to be "cookie cutter" and only meatshields from now on. This is not my idea of having fun. As a paying player I chose a Berserker because I wanted to be able to pump out the damage at the expense of survivability. I am no longer going to be able to tank and hold aggro with these new changes in Offensive stance. Doing a significant amount of damage to the mob is why a fighter is tanking. To keep the mob occupied so that the nukers can sit back and do what they do....nuke the mob, without the mob spinning and killing them. I'm sorry but shouting degrading taunts at the mob like "Your mother wears combat boots, or she dropped you on your head as a kid" is just assinine IMHO in order to keep the mob occupied.I think I speak for a majority of tanks in this game to make the offensive stance not so de-aggronizing. It should be our choice to decide whether we want to do a high amount of dps and lose survivability over taking minimal damage and not doing damage. Why make taunts de-aggro the mob while in Offensive? "Your mama is so old....etc." doesn't make the mob aggro more, it makes him ignore you...doesn't make any sense to me...</blockquote>Well if you have to translate the mechanics into a real world scenario, (since that is what your doing with the tasteless "Yo Mama" jokes) tanking is more like this huge wall of armor standing in front of a monster, not letting it get around them...which some squishy casters throw fireballs from behind them and a rogue sneaks behind for a backstab. No where in there is the 'tank' doing the dmg....they are more of the roadblock something needs to get thru to get to the squishy people.People who only want to do high dps AND tank AND survive just want to have their cake and eat it AND have some else pay the bill. It really isnt fair to other classes, regardless if your a zerker or not.</blockquote>I wasn't trying to translate them into real world mechanics, I was using the taunts as an example. I'm not stupid and realize that taunting the mob is creating hate. My point was that by taunting and taunting and taunting, you will see every tank whether it be a guard, a zerker, a pally, SK, monk or bruiser completely losing any uniqueness to their class. Part of being a zerker was doing high dps while maintaining aggro. Part of being a guard was doing a lower amount of dps while being able to take more damage and still hold aggro. My point is that now you will see every tanking class in defensive not doing as much damage (if they can hit the mob with the penalties to S/C/P). So what will be the difference between a zerker and a guard? An extra AoE attack or 2?They're changing not just a mechanic in the game now, but a method that has been constant since launch. After 4+ years of being on the market, why change the way tanking is done now? People are going to say that this is how it should have been from launch, and maybe they are right, but that shouldn't be at the players' expense now.And as far as being "unfair" to other classes, I don't think too many people had a problem with the tank doing a significant amount of damage if he could hold aggro, stay alive and kill the mob. So now you will see a zone wide parse from the tank at 1500 instead of 3-4K.

CrazyMoogle

01-20-2009, 01:08 PM

I like the spin where removing the tanks ability to use Offensive Stance is "giving them choice". LOLI look forward to see what "choices" are given to scouts, especially Assassins.I've tried to be polite about this change and give some reason, but the politican level spin is nauseating. This is not about giving choice. If it were truly about choice then Offensive would stay as it is and Defensive would be boosted to allow it to be usable in situations other than with an exactly perfectly formed group.This change is a nerf to Offensive when it should've been a boost to Defensive.

Oakum

01-20-2009, 03:08 PM

<cite>Lyger@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Skel@Butcherblock wrote:</cite> DPS being the term, i do think tanks should have more options to either deal damage or tank with taunts (which was never an option before) but the way it was where tanks were solely based on damage was a bit out of whack. of course people are worried that as a tank they will be doing less dps than some healers on trash which makes the game less fun but implying there is no room to grow isn't exactly accurate. i'm not fond of the further damage reduction in defensive as that seems to be the worry that we will be doing such low dps that tanking will not be fun(somewhat valid depending on your point of view).but tanks leading the parse in heroic zones while demolishing mobs, well, i don't think that was fun for the dps to see either or the healers who had no choice but let the tank decide whether they had time to dps or if they had to heal full time.</blockquote>As a druid, I have never found it fun when any plate tank can out dps me when I am not healing all the time and have time to dps on trash and put my offensive stance on. Druids traded heavier armor (and decent tank and group buffs, especially the warden for the group buff portion) for leather in exchange to be able to DPS if healing was not required. Like on trash mobs where the wards and reactives do almost all the healing. Now a brawler is completely understandable since they wear leather too.Its funny that the plate tanks (IMO) think someone can and should swing a sword continously during a fight wearing some very heavy metal armor and do more damage, longer then some one wearing much lighter more flexible leather armor who does not have to do any blocking or parrying.Of course its not fun to have cleric and shaman who can out dps druids too while wearing heavier armor AND giving much better goup/MT buffs while out dpsing wardens at least. That is off topic though, lol.

Thanon

01-20-2009, 03:23 PM

The only people throwing a hissy fit are the Parser Generation of players who are FREAKING over the fact they are no longer going to be DPS while tanking.I actually called my wife and read her the post where Artelik (sorry don't know spelling on his name) tells people "if you only do 1 DPS of damage but keep the mob on you and survive the fight...you did your job". It was THAT important to me.People think it wasn't like that at the launch of the game. It WAS. It used to be that tanks used a SHIELD and SOAKED HITPOINTS while doing little/no damage, with the exceptions of Beserkers/SKs.Paladins are not supposed to be a DPS tank. They are a healer tank. Always have been. Should be. They should not be parsing 10k+. They are there to tank effectively while healing and helping with utility.Guardians are plate tanks, defensive tanks who hide behind a shield and did DPS on par with a templar. Their job is to TAUNT AND HOLD AGGRO USING TAUNTS, not by doing 7-9k DPS while using dual-wield and in offensive stance. If you want to do 7k DPS and dual wield, fine, but you should NOT be able to hold aggro while doing so. You aren't a tank anymore...you are a berserker.Bersekers. I don't see how much has changed. You can still DPS tank just fine. But an assassin you aren't.SKs. Spell tanks. Not very beefy, but can tank in a pinch. Mostly they are there to cast spells and AOE the crap out of stuff. Nothing has changed. You can still cast your spells, and now your AoEs even have some built-in taunts as well as your normal stuff.It's good that DPS is going down. It'll help mages be on par with scouts. Assassins are going to have to learn how to curb their DPS rather than rely on dirge hate/transfer/amends. That means SOME players are going to have to stop mashing their buttons. I'm FULLY behind the changes. The game is on the right track to getting back to the way it was at launch, which was BALANCED.

Aeralik

01-20-2009, 04:13 PM

I still want this change to make the tanks choose which stance they are in given their current situation. A balanced stance essentially keeps things how they are now which would negate the idea behind a lot of the changes. Anyways, I am looking to make some minor changes to the offensive stance so that it is not quite as impacting on the smaller groups.

Matia

01-20-2009, 04:21 PM

Arno24

01-20-2009, 04:41 PM

More likely than not what you will just see with these changes is Raid Off Tanks/Small group tanks just not using any stance at all the majority of the time.

denmom

01-20-2009, 04:48 PM

Obadiah

01-20-2009, 04:48 PM

<cite>Onra@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote>More likely than not what you will just see with these changes is Raid Off Tanks/Small group tanks just not using any stance at all the majority of the time.</blockquote>I haven't looked at the non-warriors. Maybe for some that's the case, but as a Berserker I won't ever go stance-less.

Noxtherion

01-20-2009, 05:24 PM

<quote>SKs. Spell tanks. Not very beefy, but can tank in a pinch. Mostly they are there to cast spells and AOE the crap out of stuff. Nothing has changed. You can still cast your spells, and now your AoEs even have some built-in taunts as well as your normal stuff.</quote>That made me laugh. SK's are perfectly great at tanking. Yes a good gaurd will have a bit more HP and possibly higher avoidance. But hey, I can actually hold agro. On topic, as an SK I don't see any reason to use a balanced stance. I already tank in defensive because I like the avoidance boost and have had little issue holding agro in any reasonable group. Yes, this was mainly because I tend to be the highest dmg dealer in the group and I do think that that needed to be looked at. I like the idea that I will be able to switch to offensive stance to do more dmg and not pull agro when I am playing around with some friends or raiding and I am not tanking. As it stands right now If I am in a group/raid, I'm going to be tanking in most cases simply because I pull more agro. I enjoy tanking, but on raids where I am not MT I do not want to be pulling agro off the gaurd/pally that is supposed to be tanking. And having the guard moderate me, or the paladin cast his amends on me does not seem to be the best idea. That said having all my taunts turn into deagro's on test seems a bit extreme. I played around with it a bit solo on test and ACT was showing -11000 hate on a single target while offensive. Which means I really don't have to worry about pulling agro since defensive I was sitting at about 70000 hate. Thats all well and good if I'm playing around with friends, but if I am raiding it means that I have zero chance of pulling agro in a snap, might be an aa issue with me since I don't put aa's into rescue, but I don't see any way that I am going to be able to jump up enough on the hate list to grab agro if the MT dies. Maybe have offensive switch taunts to deagro's but they are only 1/3 the str of the actual taunts or something. That way I still don't have to hold back much if at all, but I will be able to grab agro back again if needed by burning rescue/Death Touch/ etc.So basicly I am saying that I don't like the idea of a balanced stance for plate tanks. That I overall think the changes are good, but that the penalty on offensive could possibly be a bit much currently.

Thanon

01-20-2009, 05:50 PM

<cite>Noxtherion wrote:</cite><blockquote>SKs. Spell tanks. Not very beefy, but can tank in a pinch. Mostly they are there to cast spells and AOE the crap out of stuff. Nothing has changed. You can still cast your spells, and now your AoEs even have some built-in taunts as well as your normal stuff.That made me laugh. SK's are perfectly great at tanking. Yes a good gaurd will have a bit more HP and possibly higher avoidance. But hey, I can actually hold agro. </blockquote>I never said they weren't great at tanking. But the difference is that they are a spell tank, a tank-in-a-pinch class, not a MT class. And the only reason SKs have been so godly at holding aggro recently is because of their insanely high DPS. And because currently DPS = hate, you have most guardians beat, by a long shot.I have an SK as well as a guardian. Granted, my guardian is my main, but the main difference (at present) is such that yes...SKs can tank...heroic content. But they are not fit for raid duty other than as an OT because they lack the defensive abilities of a guardian. And that's fair. What you (the SK) lack in defensive ability you make up for in DPS that I (the guardian) will never be able to match.A good guardian has significantly more HP and significantly more avoidance and significantly more mitigation than the SK with comparable gear. It's the way the class differences work. And while a guardian will have several thousand more HPS than a comparable geared SK, and a LOT of % more avoidance, the DPS from the SK is always going to be several thousand more than what the guardian can put out. And that's cool.What's not cool is that DPS = hate. Which is why the aggro changes are so great. It's going back to the oldschool way of things, when taunts = hate, and DPS is just a byproduct of what you happen to play. As a guardian my DPS will always suck compared to the DPS of an SK, and likewise the SK will never be able to stand in front of the mobs that a guardian can and trade blow for blow, but when it comes to aggro management, they will be on par and equal.So please don't misquote me. I never said SKs were bad tanks. I specifically said they were spell tanks who are not very beefy and can tank in a pinch. SKs are most suited to OT roles because of their significant amount of DPS and group buffs. And people who play them shouldnt' be upset by that fact. If you wanted to be the guy at the front of the raid soaking up massive hits from the boss mobs, roll a guardian. If you want to be able to tank heroic instances OK while doing lots of DPS but be relegated to an OT roll/utility roll on a raid, then SK is perfect.I happen to love my SK. But I know the limitations of the class. Just like I know the limitations of my guardian (he'll never do DPS).

Mentalep

01-20-2009, 06:36 PM

<cite>Thanon@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote>Guardians are plate tanks, defensive tanks who hide behind a shield and did DPS on par with a templar. Their job is to TAUNT AND HOLD AGGRO USING TAUNTS, not by doing 7-9k DPS while using dual-wield and in offensive stance. If you want to do 7k DPS and dual wield, fine, but you should NOT be able to hold aggro while doing so. You aren't a tank anymore...you are a berserker.</blockquote>I'm happy to trade some dps for extra threat, and I think that (despite some missteps) this update is headed in the right direction - but even in GU51, equipping a shield (or any defensively-oriented gear) isn't trading dps for threat, it's trading dps and threat for survivability.Aside from threat-related AAs (of which there aren't that many), +aggression, or +taunt (which I have never even seen), maximizing threat is still going to involve maximizing damage. I can't think of any reason I should stop dual-wield tanking in GU51.

cr0wangel

01-20-2009, 07:00 PM

cr0wangel

01-20-2009, 07:07 PM

Junaru

01-20-2009, 07:08 PM

<cite>cr0wangel wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Skel@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote>Devs need to rethink things and realise that in a tanking situation if fighters do 1 DPS they will be incredibly boring to play and most of them will quit.Of course the 1 damage is a hyperbole, but simply holding agro is not an entertaining job.</blockquote>I rolled a zerker to be an offensive tank. I knew I wouldn't have the guardian defense, but I accepted that trade to be an offensive fighter. If SOE change this now, after... 4 years of playing? They don't think it's a bit late for changing the core of a class people have been playing and enjoying for 4 years? What I like to play is an offensive fighter, if the offensive fighter don't exist anymore after LU 51, I will not play a tank (as many others will do).</blockquote>Thats funny I rolled my Monk to be a DPS tank yet SOE feels the need to give plate tanks better DPS AA's.

lich1313

01-20-2009, 07:09 PM

<cite>Thanon@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote>The only people throwing a hissy fit are the Parser Generation of players who are FREAKING over the fact they are no longer going to be DPS while tanking.I actually called my wife and read her the post where Artelik (sorry don't know spelling on his name) tells people "if you only do 1 DPS of damage but keep the mob on you and survive the fight...you did your job". It was THAT important to me.People think it wasn't like that at the launch of the game. It WAS. It used to be that tanks used a SHIELD and SOAKED HITPOINTS while doing little/no damage, with the exceptions of Beserkers/SKs.Paladins are not supposed to be a DPS tank. They are a healer tank. Always have been. Should be. They should not be parsing 10k+. They are there to tank effectively while healing and helping with utility.Guardians are plate tanks, defensive tanks who hide behind a shield and did DPS on par with a templar. Their job is to TAUNT AND HOLD AGGRO USING TAUNTS, not by doing 7-9k DPS while using dual-wield and in offensive stance. If you want to do 7k DPS and dual wield, fine, but you should NOT be able to hold aggro while doing so. You aren't a tank anymore...you are a berserker.Bersekers. I don't see how much has changed. You can still DPS tank just fine. But an assassin you aren't.SKs. Spell tanks. Not very beefy, but can tank in a pinch. Mostly they are there to cast spells and AOE the crap out of stuff. Nothing has changed. You can still cast your spells, and now your AoEs even have some built-in taunts as well as your normal stuff.It's good that DPS is going down. It'll help mages be on par with scouts. Assassins are going to have to learn how to curb their DPS rather than rely on dirge hate/transfer/amends. That means SOME players are going to have to stop mashing their buttons. I'm FULLY behind the changes. The game is on the right track to getting back to the way it was at launch, which was BALANCED.</blockquote>You're first line is your statement and then you contradict yourself in the next eight paragraphs.This is a problem. This attitude about tanks coming from DPS classes. Do you think you can roll any tank you want and parse 7k+? I suggest you give it a shot and see if you can break 2k without some serious, dedicated practice.Tanks have busted their [Removed for Content] since EoF to learn to DPS. We were forced to, to earn a raid spot as the 3rd tank or even the OT.Your problem stems from this fact: The tanks you're being out parsed by, do YOUR job better than YOU, with less resources to achieve this. Cowboy up and get better, farm gear, research, learn, implement.

Igixnasii

01-20-2009, 07:21 PM

Plate tanks have a 3rd stance.. it's unstanced .. it offers no offensive or defensive buffs or liabilities and should be the choice of any OT that is expected to take over if the MT dies after the hate changes go in.They won't do the extra melee proc damage or have the to hit bonus of higher skills or extra strength damage, but they won't suffer a hate loss penalty and rescue and other hate tools will function as normal in the unstanced position.

lich1313

01-20-2009, 07:36 PM

Oh, and if you want balance, I can recommend a few other games to try. Especially if you pine for a four year old version of a current game.SKILL will always triumph over BALANCE... because BALANCE is dumb.

lich1313

01-20-2009, 07:39 PM

<cite>Igixnasii wrote:</cite><blockquote>Plate tanks have a 3rd stance.. it's unstanced .. it offers no offensive or defensive buffs or liabilities and should be the choice of any OT that is expected to take over if the MT dies after the hate changes go in.They won't do the extra melee proc damage or have the to hit bonus of higher skills or extra strength damage, but they won't suffer a hate loss penalty and rescue and other hate tools will function as normal in the unstanced position.</blockquote>Zerker's have no 3rd stance. Our class defining attribute (Berserk) has been attached to our Offensive and Defensive stances. That's why you're seeing players ask for the buffs to NOT be combined. Then "No" stance would be viable.And that's just a dumb statement. How do you feel about scouts going unstanced to improve the enjoyment of their classes? <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Thanon

01-20-2009, 07:54 PM

<cite>lich1313 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Thanon@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote>The only people throwing a hissy fit are the Parser Generation of players who are FREAKING over the fact they are no longer going to be DPS while tanking.I actually called my wife and read her the post where Artelik (sorry don't know spelling on his name) tells people "if you only do 1 DPS of damage but keep the mob on you and survive the fight...you did your job". It was THAT important to me.People think it wasn't like that at the launch of the game. It WAS. It used to be that tanks used a SHIELD and SOAKED HITPOINTS while doing little/no damage, with the exceptions of Beserkers/SKs.Paladins are not supposed to be a DPS tank. They are a healer tank. Always have been. Should be. They should not be parsing 10k+. They are there to tank effectively while healing and helping with utility.Guardians are plate tanks, defensive tanks who hide behind a shield and did DPS on par with a templar. Their job is to TAUNT AND HOLD AGGRO USING TAUNTS, not by doing 7-9k DPS while using dual-wield and in offensive stance. If you want to do 7k DPS and dual wield, fine, but you should NOT be able to hold aggro while doing so. You aren't a tank anymore...you are a berserker.Bersekers. I don't see how much has changed. You can still DPS tank just fine. But an assassin you aren't.SKs. Spell tanks. Not very beefy, but can tank in a pinch. Mostly they are there to cast spells and AOE the crap out of stuff. Nothing has changed. You can still cast your spells, and now your AoEs even have some built-in taunts as well as your normal stuff.It's good that DPS is going down. It'll help mages be on par with scouts. Assassins are going to have to learn how to curb their DPS rather than rely on dirge hate/transfer/amends. That means SOME players are going to have to stop mashing their buttons. I'm FULLY behind the changes. The game is on the right track to getting back to the way it was at launch, which was BALANCED.</blockquote>You're first line is your statement and then you contradict yourself in the next eight paragraphs.This is a problem. This attitude about tanks coming from DPS classes. Do you think you can roll any tank you want and parse 7k+? I suggest you give it a shot and see if you can break 2k without some serious, dedicated practice.Tanks have busted their [Removed for Content] since EoF to learn to DPS. We were forced to, to earn a raid spot as the 3rd tank or even the OT.Your problem stems from this fact: The tanks you're being out parsed by, do YOUR job better than YOU, with less resources to achieve this. Cowboy up and get better, farm gear, research, learn, implement.</blockquote>I don't have to <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> The devs agree with me and are making the relevant changes.I haven't worried about DPS from day one. I've been raid-tanking since before EQ2 launched, and done it in other games than this. I've specced defensive and worried about hiding behind my shield and soaking hitpoints, not doing DPS. When I want to DPS I go play my ranger.There's nothing to learn. The devs themselves have stated that even if you only do 1 point of DPS you are doing your job, so long as you hold hate and survive the fight. There is no "better". There simply is.I've played a defensive tank in more than just EQ2. I fully support the changes because it goes back to the way it used to be, and the way it is in other games. Defensive tanks don't DPS...they soak hitpoints and control aggro through taunts/defensive abilities. If they want to spec otherwise, go for it...but don't complain when you can't hold aggro as well as he who prioritizes taunts above DPS.I've never broken 2k DPS. As a matter of fact I've only broken 1k DPS on a couple of rare raid events when I'm not the MT. Our guild is clearing VP. My average zonewide DPS is 600. Why? Because I use my taunts and screw the DPS. I have maxed defensive stats (avoidance/etc) and I hide behind a shield while tanking mobs. I could care less if I do 1 point of DPS because my job isn't to do DPS, it's to keep the mob focused on me so the rest of the people in the group/raid can do their job. I already have close to the best gear in the game , with the exception of the new stuff coming out of TSO. I can go nowhere but up from here.You don't have to agree with me. At the end of the day, like it or not, these changes ARE coming. Taunts are going to be the only way to tank, and this is as it SHOULD be, as it used to be, and as it is in almost all of the other comparable games. If you don't like it...get hired by Sony and start developing the game.

circusgirl

01-20-2009, 07:57 PM

Our MT is an SK, and she's fantastic. Personally I think all SIX tanks should be viable as MT.

Lethe5683

01-20-2009, 08:01 PM

<cite>lich1313 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Igixnasii wrote:</cite><blockquote>Plate tanks have a 3rd stance.. it's unstanced .. it offers no offensive or defensive buffs or liabilities and should be the choice of any OT that is expected to take over if the MT dies after the hate changes go in.They won't do the extra melee proc damage or have the to hit bonus of higher skills or extra strength damage, but they won't suffer a hate loss penalty and rescue and other hate tools will function as normal in the unstanced position.</blockquote>Zerker's have no 3rd stance. Our class defining attribute (Berserk) has been attached to our Offensive and Defensive stances. That's why you're seeing players ask for the buffs to NOT be combined. Then "No" stance would be viable.And that's just a dumb statement. How do you feel about scouts going unstanced to improve the enjoyment of their classes? <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>Yeah the only problem is the buffs being combined into stances not the stances themselves. My assassin rarely uses offensive stance, it's basically like I only have one stance since the only thing usefull about it is a proc. I use it on hard nameds with a good tank and that's about it. My offensive skills are all almost 500 in defensive.

Jrral

01-21-2009, 12:19 AM

<cite>Aeralik wrote:</cite><blockquote>I still want this change to make the tanks choose which stance they are in given their current situation. A balanced stance essentially keeps things how they are now which would negate the idea behind a lot of the changes. Anyways, I am looking to make some minor changes to the offensive stance so that it is not quite as impacting on the smaller groups.</blockquote>I think all it takes is removing the active dethreat components from offensive stance. Leave the hate generation reduced, leave the defensive penalties intact, just let taunts and CAs with taunt components remain taunts. Less effective ones, but not actively countering attempts to generate aggro either. It's not just small groups that the current situation messes up, it's also off-tanks in full groups and raids. I know about the stance dance, but when the MT just got feared and the named's making a bee-line for the healer a casual group OT's already tangling their fingers trying to shift gears from DPS to tanking in the second or two they've got before the warden joins the tank on the floor.Another suggestion: make hate clearer in the logs and parses. Right now tanks seem focused on damage because that's what they can see. GU51 adds some hate in the parse, but the attitude seems to be "Damage has always generated more aggro than taunts. You say that's changed? Show me the parse or it didn't happen.". And nobody can show them a parse. Well, we can, but the response is "But that doesn't include aggro from damage, and that outweighs the taunts.". Get the numbers in the log, let everybody see from an ACT parse that defensive stance really is better at generating and holding aggro, and you won't have to force the high-end tanks to go defensive. And if taunts aren't working, there'll be solid numbers to show by how much they're falling short and how much adjustment really needs made.

MirageKnight

01-21-2009, 03:58 AM

I would suggest to change rescue or assult to 24hate up like paladin's holy ground instead of "balanced stance" suggestion.Either way, other fighters beside paladin will need some method to raise hate from bottom of the list.

CrazyMoogle

01-21-2009, 10:20 AM

<cite>Thanon@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote>I've never broken 2k DPS. As a matter of fact I've only broken 1k DPS on a couple of rare raid events when I'm not the MT. Our guild is clearing VP. My average zonewide DPS is 600.</blockquote>I'd very much like to see the log or parse of the fights where you are doing 600 DPS and holding aggro over the raid. Please post them.

Jrral

01-21-2009, 12:26 PM

<cite>Annara@Najena wrote:</cite><blockquote>I'd very much like to see the log or parse of the fights where you are doing 600 DPS and holding aggro over the raid. Please post them.</blockquote>Not a raid, but the group I run with did CoA night before last on live. Highly non-optimal group setup: 'zerker tank, warden healer, templar second healer, warlock for damage, paladin and guardian for... well, more damage. No scout hate transfers, 2 damage slots filled with tanks instead of DPS. My 'zerker was in defensive stance so taking the hit in damage, and has basically instance gear: RoK legendary and 1 T1 shard piece, AD3s across the board. The warlock is raid-geared: full T2 shard gear, mastered, 1 raid kill short of his mythical. The discrepancy showed in the parse: the 'zerker was topping out at 900dps, more often in the 650-750 neighborhood, while the warlock was starting at 3500dps and working up into the 4500dps neighborhood. And even with that discrepancy in damage, against a warlock putting out 4-8x the tank's damage my 'zerker didn't have much trouble holding aggro. The 'lock pulled aggro a few times, but I could grab it right back (and often didn't have to, a dethreat from the 'lock would half the time send the mob back to me). Yes, the 'lock was using his dethreats regularly, but then IMO that's what damage types are supposed to be doing anyway and my own wizard is religious about keeping them going too. The paladin and guardian were the two I had the most problem holding against, and I lost it to them mainly when they opened up with their own taunts and abilities that did direct hate. If damage is so key, how can I be holding aggro so well? And my experience on test is that, in defensive mode, my 'zerker with gear and a build identical to live is massively better at holding aggro against damage than on live.NB: I'd call our run successful. All the nameds died, Carotidcutter dropped (which made our templar happy, her dirge alt's been looking for that since just about forever) and we only had 1 death (the guardian, on the last named, and he wouldn't've died save for my having to use Adrenaline and going OOP before the fight was over).Yes, I've got the log and can re-run the parse.

EvilAstroboy

01-21-2009, 01:01 PM

<cite>Jrral@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Annara@Najena wrote:</cite><blockquote>I'd very much like to see the log or parse of the fights where you are doing 600 DPS and holding aggro over the raid. Please post them.</blockquote>Not a raid, but the group I run with did CoA night before last on live. Highly non-optimal group setup: 'zerker tank, warden healer, templar second healer, warlock for damage, paladin and guardian for... well, more damage. No scout hate transfers, 2 damage slots filled with tanks instead of DPS. My 'zerker was in defensive stance so taking the hit in damage, and has basically instance gear: RoK legendary and 1 T1 shard piece, AD3s across the board. The warlock is raid-geared: full T2 shard gear, mastered, 1 raid kill short of his mythical. The discrepancy showed in the parse: the 'zerker was topping out at 900dps, more often in the 650-750 neighborhood, while the warlock was starting at 3500dps and working up into the 4500dps neighborhood. And even with that discrepancy in damage, against a warlock putting out 4-8x the tank's damage my 'zerker didn't have much trouble holding aggro. The 'lock pulled aggro a few times, but I could grab it right back (and often didn't have to, a dethreat from the 'lock would half the time send the mob back to me). Yes, the 'lock was using his dethreats regularly, but then IMO that's what damage types are supposed to be doing anyway and my own wizard is religious about keeping them going too. The paladin and guardian were the two I had the most problem holding against, and I lost it to them mainly when they opened up with their own taunts and abilities that did direct hate. If damage is so key, how can I be holding aggro so well? And my experience on test is that, in defensive mode, my 'zerker with gear and a build identical to live is massively better at holding aggro against damage than on live.NB: I'd call our run successful. All the nameds died, Carotidcutter dropped (which made our templar happy, her dirge alt's been looking for that since just about forever) and we only had 1 death (the guardian, on the last named, and he wouldn't've died save for my having to use Adrenaline and going OOP before the fight was over).Yes, I've got the log and can re-run the parse.</blockquote>And at no point did you realise that the Paladin had ammends on the Warlock? Which was probably why you were having aggro issues with a Paladin. Im sorry but how can you tank VP and not have the gear to do more than 900dps? There is a Guard in my guild who doesnt even have his epic yet and does 2.5k in defensive.But yeah, like others have said the main issue is consolidating all buffs into stances that either [Removed for Content] you for everything but MT tanking or DPS with no chance in hell of saving the raid should the MT die. I will probably go stanceless on named encounters so I can pick up if I need to, but my point was that this was stupid.

Vanderlay

01-21-2009, 01:10 PM

After reading through 8 pages of this, I see that there is one class that is not complaining one bit. And that would be the Guardians. Why? Because most guards already tank mobs in defensive with their avoidance and mit as high as possible. With that being said, 5 out of 6 fighter classes are getting nerfed.As a zerker, I chose to play an offensive, damage dealing fighter that could tank and be able to do a decent amount of damage, AT THE EXPENSE OF SURVIVABILITY. Now it seems everyone will be required to be "A guard" in order to hold aggro. Hmmm....if 5 of the 6 classes are getting the offensive stance nerf and only 1 isn't, where does the problem lie?I think you devs need to think long and hard about what you decide to do with this whole GU51 update. You have a lot of paying customers that aren't going to be happy because of these changes. You are changing the way the game has been working (successfully I might add), into an unknown area that doesn't just affect the tanks. Now I have to respec, get different gear (god knows I won't be able to wear DPS gear anymore), and realize that I have wasted a ton of plat on Master Stances and buffs. Thanks for recognizing the hard work that people have put into their characters by giving them your "choices". Once again I say "YOUR CHOICES", not ours. Oh sure I can try and tank in offensive, which is why I chose a zerker over a guard, but when the wizzy dies because my dps isn't able to hold aggro anymore I can point the finger back at the devs. Sorry, there should be no reason why I have to tank in a defensive stance like a guard in order to hold aggro.

Illine

01-21-2009, 01:46 PM

<cite>Vanderlay wrote:</cite><blockquote>After reading through 8 pages of this, I see that there is one class that is not complaining one bit. And that would be the Guardians. Why? Because most guards already tank mobs in defensive with their avoidance and mit as high as possible. With that being said, 5 out of 6 fighter classes are getting nerfed.As a zerker, I chose to play an offensive, damage dealing fighter that could tank and be able to do a decent amount of damage, AT THE EXPENSE OF SURVIVABILITY. Now it seems everyone will be required to be "A guard" in order to hold aggro. Hmmm....if 5 of the 6 classes are getting the offensive stance nerf and only 1 isn't, where does the problem lie?I think you devs need to think long and hard about what you decide to do with this whole GU51 update. You have a lot of paying customers that aren't going to be happy because of these changes. You are changing the way the game has been working (successfully I might add), into an unknown area that doesn't just affect the tanks. Now I have to respec, get different gear (god knows I won't be able to wear DPS gear anymore), and realize that I have wasted a ton of plat on Master Stances and buffs. Thanks for recognizing the hard work that people have put into their characters by giving them your "choices". Once again I say "YOUR CHOICES", not ours. Oh sure I can try and tank in offensive, which is why I chose a zerker over a guard, but when the wizzy dies because my dps isn't able to hold aggro anymore I can point the finger back at the devs. Sorry, there should be no reason why I have to tank in a defensive stance like a guard in order to hold aggro.</blockquote>well then do a swash, they can dps and tank too.i think it's unfair a zerk can tank in offensive, survive and still have a great dps. on group setting :zerk, warden, templar, dirge, coercer, assassin ... the zerk was usually top 2 o 3 dps in AE encounter with very little difference between us three, because assassins don't dps that well on group while coercer are fine. plus the assassin, which didn't dps that way much wouldn't survive long if he takes aggro. for me it's worse.So here we have a tank that can deal a great amount of damage, hold aggro and stay alive. If we talk about "balance" .. then why are there many classes in EQ2 that can't deal as much damage and have a lot less survivability? if you want to dps like a scout, you should have a crappy mitig like a scout.I may not be aggree with the spell merging, coz it means less choices, but I like the fact that now tanks will have to tank and hold aggro in def stance. if you want to dps, then try to find a group with another tank, put your off stance and dps, with the boosts, you'll be able to reach the dps of scouts I guess.

Mentalep

01-21-2009, 01:48 PM

<cite>Vanderlay wrote:</cite><blockquote>As a zerker, I chose to play an offensive, damage dealing fighter that could tank and be able to do a decent amount of damage, AT THE EXPENSE OF SURVIVABILITY. Now it seems everyone will be required to be "A guard" in order to hold aggro. Hmmm....if 5 of the 6 classes are getting the offensive stance nerf and only 1 isn't, where does the problem lie?I think you devs need to think long and hard about what you decide to do with this whole GU51 update. You have a lot of paying customers that aren't going to be happy because of these changes. You are changing the way the game has been working (successfully I might add), into an unknown area that doesn't just affect the tanks. Now I have to respec, get different gear (god knows I won't be able to wear DPS gear anymore), and realize that I have wasted a ton of plat on Master Stances and buffs.</blockquote>So... when I tank in offensive stance as a guardian, dual-wielding and wearing as much dps gear as I can afford - which is exactly what I do most of the time, because damage is threat and taunts don't scale up - does that mean I'm a berserker and no longer a guardian?Go ahead and throw your dps gear away, if that's what you think you need to do. I'm keeping mine.

Xanrn

01-21-2009, 02:24 PM

<cite>Annara@Najena wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Thanon@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote>I've never broken 2k DPS. As a matter of fact I've only broken 1k DPS on a couple of rare raid events when I'm not the MT. Our guild is clearing VP. My average zonewide DPS is 600.</blockquote>I'd very much like to see the log or parse of the fights where you are doing 600 DPS and holding aggro over the raid. Please post them.</blockquote>Yeah 600 DPS is an utter lie for a raid tank, I mean [Removed for Content] are you even auto-attacking?And I hope you realise you aren't hold anything, the Coercer, Dirge, Assassin, Swashie, etc are doing your job for you.Brawlers should be DPS over Taunt, Zerker/SKs should be balanced between the 2 and Guardians/Paladins should be Taunts over DPS.Seriously don't see the point of making every do it the same way...

Bruener

01-21-2009, 02:53 PM

<cite>Illine@Storms wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vanderlay wrote:</cite><blockquote>After reading through 8 pages of this, I see that there is one class that is not complaining one bit. And that would be the Guardians. Why? Because most guards already tank mobs in defensive with their avoidance and mit as high as possible. With that being said, 5 out of 6 fighter classes are getting nerfed.As a zerker, I chose to play an offensive, damage dealing fighter that could tank and be able to do a decent amount of damage, AT THE EXPENSE OF SURVIVABILITY. Now it seems everyone will be required to be "A guard" in order to hold aggro. Hmmm....if 5 of the 6 classes are getting the offensive stance nerf and only 1 isn't, where does the problem lie?I think you devs need to think long and hard about what you decide to do with this whole GU51 update. You have a lot of paying customers that aren't going to be happy because of these changes. You are changing the way the game has been working (successfully I might add), into an unknown area that doesn't just affect the tanks. Now I have to respec, get different gear (god knows I won't be able to wear DPS gear anymore), and realize that I have wasted a ton of plat on Master Stances and buffs. Thanks for recognizing the hard work that people have put into their characters by giving them your "choices". Once again I say "YOUR CHOICES", not ours. Oh sure I can try and tank in offensive, which is why I chose a zerker over a guard, but when the wizzy dies because my dps isn't able to hold aggro anymore I can point the finger back at the devs. Sorry, there should be no reason why I have to tank in a defensive stance like a guard in order to hold aggro.</blockquote>well then do a swash, they can dps and tank too.i think it's unfair a zerk can tank in offensive, survive and still have a great dps. on group setting :zerk, warden, templar, dirge, coercer, assassin ... the zerk was usually top 2 o 3 dps in AE encounter with very little difference between us three, because assassins don't dps that well on group while coercer are fine. plus the assassin, which didn't dps that way much wouldn't survive long if he takes aggro. for me it's worse.So here we have a tank that can deal a great amount of damage, hold aggro and stay alive. If we talk about "balance" .. then why are there many classes in EQ2 that can't deal as much damage and have a lot less survivability? if you want to dps like a scout, you should have a crappy mitig like a scout.I may not be aggree with the spell merging, coz it means less choices, but I like the fact that now tanks will have to tank and hold aggro in def stance. if you want to dps, then try to find a group with another tank, put your off stance and dps, with the boosts, you'll be able to reach the dps of scouts I guess.</blockquote>This is an extremely poor example. You are complaining that an "offensive" fighter out dps'd 2 healers and 2 great utility classes in a group setting? There is nothing wrong with that at all. The assassin, an actual T1 dps out parsed the Zerk which is definitely in-line. On group encounters the Zerk is definitely going to do better because they are designed for that, and AE tank, just like a warlock will out parse a wiz on AE fights.The fact of the matter is that they need to completely get rid of taunts turning into detaunts in offensive stance. Instead of making offensive stance completely untankable with they should have just made defensive stance much more appealing. Offensive stance tanking should be useable still on trivial content. Like avatar geared tank going into a group instance. They should be able to tank in offensive, take slightly more damage for it, but increase their groups dps as much as possible. With the way the [Removed for Content]'d the stances that is not do-able now. Instead you are going to see tanks going stanceless which I am sure was not SOE's intent.With the way they are keeping things with tanks I can't wait till SOE announces LU 52, all utility classes will have their buffs merged in which case they will have to make a choice between providing utility and DPS'ing, all healer classes will have buffs merged in which they either heal or dps, etc.

Thanon

01-21-2009, 09:35 PM

<cite>Ummudien@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Annara@Najena wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Thanon@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote>I've never broken 2k DPS. As a matter of fact I've only broken 1k DPS on a couple of rare raid events when I'm not the MT. Our guild is clearing VP. My average zonewide DPS is 600.</blockquote>I'd very much like to see the log or parse of the fights where you are doing 600 DPS and holding aggro over the raid. Please post them.</blockquote>Yeah 600 DPS is an utter lie for a raid tank, I mean [Removed for Content] are you even auto-attacking?And I hope you realise you aren't hold anything, the Coercer, Dirge, Assassin, Swashie, etc are doing your job for you.Brawlers should be DPS over Taunt, Zerker/SKs should be balanced between the 2 and Guardians/Paladins should be Taunts over DPS.Seriously don't see the point of making every do it the same way...</blockquote>Had one of our guildies pull her parse log from last VP raid (Jan 14th)I did 811 zonewide DPS. I have full TSO shard gear (t1) including full set of t1 TSO jewlery, and random other fabled jewlery from VP/RoK raid zones. I have SoH shield and my fabled epic. The only thing I really need is mythical and Trak shield, when we get to it. But even then I don't plan on breaking much more than 1k, because I'm still going to be tanking as I've tanked for the past 7 years...with my taunts.Regardless of "how" I'm holding aggro, if it's through coercer, dirge, plus swash/assassin transfer, the point is I *am* holding aggro without doing DPS. While it is different (our other guardian is specced differently and he does 2.5kish while MTing) than some others, it is still effective, and after these changes goes live the oldschool method of TAUNT BEFORE DPS is going to be alot more prevalent.As it stands now I do little more than taunt when I'm MTing. I'm not there to do DPS. I'm there to hold the mob on me. However I do that matters not, all that matters is that I do my job, regardless of if I do 1 DPS or 5k DPS.Standard group is Me, Temp, Myst, Coerc, Dirge, Swash/Assassin. I tank, I use my taunts, my snap-abilities, and I keep the mob focused on me. End of story. Job accomplished, WITHOUT requiring huge numbers.I am specced differently than most "tanks" that come from the parser generation. I go for max defense, not max damage. Regardless of what you think, it's not a lie, by any means. My average DPS on raids is 600-800ish, because I don't do anything other than taunts + auto-attack.Who cares? At the end of the day the mobs die, I keep hate on me, and everyone goes home with updates.

Xanrn

01-21-2009, 09:54 PM

Ah so you basically have the raid setup so you can be pretty much afk and the mob will stay fixed on you. Got ya, yeah that takes alot of skill that does...Anyway the way you tank sounds abosolutely thrilling, sheesh and I thought EQ1 tanking was boring using everything I had...Well if you want to play half the game, who am I to argue.Oldschool Taunt before DPS? Yeah what Oldschool was that then?

Jrral

01-22-2009, 12:28 AM

<cite>EvilAstroboy wrote:</cite><blockquote>And at no point did you realise that the Paladin had ammends on the Warlock? Which was probably why you were having aggro issues with a Paladin. Im sorry but how can you tank VP and not have the gear to do more than 900dps? There is a Guard in my guild who doesnt even have his epic yet and does 2.5k in defensive.</blockquote>Well, for one thing I know for a fact the paladin didn't have Amends on anybody. I'd've been tipped off by the buff appearing, for one thing, and for another that would be a good way for the paladin to be pulling the mobs off the MT and my guildmates aren't stupid enough to go deliberately screwing up by the numbers that way. As far as VP... dude, casual players aren't going into VP, nor are they getting the gear they'd need to run that kind of content. I'm sure not tanking VP, not in my setup, and I've neither the dedicated play-time nor the connections to raid guilds for that level of content. I'd love to try it, but I'm not going to use 23 other people's repair bills to prove I'm just not geared for it. In case you hadn't noticed, there's a large portion of the player base who don't raid, aren't going to be in a position to raid (other than the occasional PR or dominus pick-up raid), and frankly aren't really that gung-ho about raiding.SOE spent a lot of effort over the last 8 months or so trying to attract the casual player base. RoK and TSO have had a lot of content that's geared to be a challenge but not utterly impossible without raid gear. I'm pretty sure they don't want to throw all that effort away by balancing the game for raiding at the expense of everyone below that level.

Thanon

01-22-2009, 03:37 AM

<cite>Ummudien@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote>Ah so you basically have the raid setup so you can be pretty much afk and the mob will stay fixed on you. Got ya, yeah that takes alot of skill that does...Anyway the way you tank sounds abosolutely thrilling, sheesh and I thought EQ1 tanking was boring using everything I had...Well if you want to play half the game, who am I to argue.Oldschool Taunt before DPS? Yeah what Oldschool was that then?</blockquote>Oldschool before children like you began running ACT and thinking that everything deals with getting the highest numbers on the parse <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />If you think controling aggro in a raid setting is easy, more power to you. If you prefer to DPS tank, that's your own issue. I don't prefer to DPS tank, I prefer to tank using taunts, and apparently the developers of SoE agree that the old-fashioned way (taunts before DPS) is the way they want the game to go, the way it used to be. This is why these changes have come about. They want tanks to keep hate using TAUNTS, not DPS. As has been stated...if you do 1 DPS but hold aggro and everyone survives...then you won.Soe admitted that the DPS numbers had gotten out of whack. The game is 5 years old. It's a little out of balance. It needs work to bring it back into reality. That's happening, slowly. To the ACT generation of players, the sky is falling. You've gotten so used to the parser running all the time that the only way you can function is if you can get those numbers as high as possible.Now you have to learn how to play the game again. Don't blame me. Talk to the Devs. If you don't like the way the tank changes are working...get hired by SoE and develop the game for them. Otherwise, it's a moot point.EVERYONE uses Dirge + Coercer in MT group, and as an added precaution throws in an assassin or swasher for their transfer as well, switching in/out a Warden as necessary. It's called smart raiding. The class makeups are there so you can have a maximized hate scenario. It's called strategy. Otherwise the MT group would consist of a completely different setup.Raid setups have ALWAYS been about maximizing group buffs and minimizing effort, as any successful raider knows. Troubs get put where they will be most effective, mages get put in the groups where their DPS will do the most, scouts where theirs will be the most effecient, and the MT gets put in a group that maximizes his threat output as well as his hitpoints/survivability. Does it make it easy? Raiding IS easy, if you apply intelligence. I can remember raiding on my warden back in DoF and literally healing in the MT group while watching Battlestar Galactica at the same time. Raiding in EQ2 has NEVER been that challenging.I'm sorry if you don't like to use brains before brawn. I prefer to use smarts when putting together a raid force. That includes making it as easy as possible to hold aggro. So much so that I can use ONLY my taunts and hold aggro, the very same way SoE wants it to work.Get used to it.*edited to add* Furthemore, if you think tanking purely by using taunts is ezmode, then you are sadly mistaken. The game is currently so skewed that it is actually *HARDER* to tank using the traditional method of taunting than it is by using DPS. That is the whole reason for these changes. I don't think I need to start pulling the various posts by devs stating how tank DPS is overpowered, tanks were never supposed to DPS for aggro in the first place, and how they want tanks taunting instead.

Illine

01-22-2009, 05:47 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Illine@Storms wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vanderlay wrote:</cite><blockquote>After reading through 8 pages of this, I see that there is one class that is not complaining one bit. And that would be the Guardians. Why? Because most guards already tank mobs in defensive with their avoidance and mit as high as possible. With that being said, 5 out of 6 fighter classes are getting nerfed.As a zerker, I chose to play an offensive, damage dealing fighter that could tank and be able to do a decent amount of damage, AT THE EXPENSE OF SURVIVABILITY. Now it seems everyone will be required to be "A guard" in order to hold aggro. Hmmm....if 5 of the 6 classes are getting the offensive stance nerf and only 1 isn't, where does the problem lie?I think you devs need to think long and hard about what you decide to do with this whole GU51 update. You have a lot of paying customers that aren't going to be happy because of these changes. You are changing the way the game has been working (successfully I might add), into an unknown area that doesn't just affect the tanks. Now I have to respec, get different gear (god knows I won't be able to wear DPS gear anymore), and realize that I have wasted a ton of plat on Master Stances and buffs. Thanks for recognizing the hard work that people have put into their characters by giving them your "choices". Once again I say "YOUR CHOICES", not ours. Oh sure I can try and tank in offensive, which is why I chose a zerker over a guard, but when the wizzy dies because my dps isn't able to hold aggro anymore I can point the finger back at the devs. Sorry, there should be no reason why I have to tank in a defensive stance like a guard in order to hold aggro.</blockquote>well then do a swash, they can dps and tank too.i think it's unfair a zerk can tank in offensive, survive and still have a great dps. on group setting :zerk, warden, templar, dirge, coercer, assassin ... the zerk was usually top 2 o 3 dps in AE encounter with very little difference between us three, because assassins don't dps that well on group while coercer are fine. plus the assassin, which didn't dps that way much wouldn't survive long if he takes aggro. for me it's worse.So here we have a tank that can deal a great amount of damage, hold aggro and stay alive. If we talk about "balance" .. then why are there many classes in EQ2 that can't deal as much damage and have a lot less survivability? if you want to dps like a scout, you should have a crappy mitig like a scout.I may not be aggree with the spell merging, coz it means less choices, but I like the fact that now tanks will have to tank and hold aggro in def stance. if you want to dps, then try to find a group with another tank, put your off stance and dps, with the boosts, you'll be able to reach the dps of scouts I guess.</blockquote>This is an extremely poor example. You are complaining that an "offensive" fighter out dps'd 2 healers and 2 great utility classes in a group setting? There is nothing wrong with that at all. The assassin, an actual T1 dps out parsed the Zerk which is definitely in-line. On group encounters the Zerk is definitely going to do better because they are designed for that, and AE tank, just like a warlock will out parse a wiz on AE fights.The fact of the matter is that they need to completely get rid of taunts turning into detaunts in offensive stance. Instead of making offensive stance completely untankable with they should have just made defensive stance much more appealing. Offensive stance tanking should be useable still on trivial content. Like avatar geared tank going into a group instance. They should be able to tank in offensive, take slightly more damage for it, but increase their groups dps as much as possible. With the way the [Removed for Content]'d the stances that is not do-able now. Instead you are going to see tanks going stanceless which I am sure was not SOE's intent.With the way they are keeping things with tanks I can't wait till SOE announces LU 52, all utility classes will have their buffs merged in which case they will have to make a choice between providing utility and DPS'ing, all healer classes will have buffs merged in which they either heal or dps, etc.</blockquote>no I am not complaining a zerk can dps, when we raid and kill trash, he is in off and dual wield and does great dps. good. but if he takes aggro he dies like a mage. that's normal, he gives up survivability for dps.What I think is a bit too much .. is being able to do great dps but still have a lot of survivability. A lot of supposed dps classes cannot dps as much in group settings (especially mages) and are usually being OS but heroic mobs. even assassins usually don't last long. So in a way, if a tank wants to be in off and dps like a T2 dps class, his survivability should be close to the one of a T2 dps classthen going stanceless may not be the idea, because you'll also loose all the merged buffs you got from stances ... and what aeralick said about merging buffs was because people were tired of rebuffing themself is a bit odd. except for crusaders, fighters have max 5 buffs and have always been able to cast them while moving. the problem was for bards, mages and priest who had 10+ buff to cast ... but merging everything is not much fun. As a coercer I wouldn't want my 3 group buffs merged into one and tanking 2 con slot ... coz I wouldn't be able to drop one of them anymore to solo buff someone else.

EvilAstroboy

01-22-2009, 09:21 AM

I wont be using either stance with the latest update. Id rather lose two buffs than deal with either of the lacking stances. No death march or disease debuff in offensive? Pretty sure those two boost dps. No damage at all in defensive? Why bother, Ill be able to hold aggro without a stance and not do [Removed for Content] dps.

Tandy

01-22-2009, 09:26 AM

<cite>EvilAstroboy wrote:</cite><blockquote>I wont be using either stance with the latest update. Id rather lose two buffs than deal with either of the lacking stances. No death march or disease debuff in offensive? Pretty sure those two boost dps. No damage at all in defensive? Why bother, Ill be able to hold aggro without a stance and not do [Removed for Content] dps.</blockquote>See my sk's damage in defensive isnt that horrible on test. sure its down some, but not in the crapper like some people are painting it to be. Give defensive a chance while tanking...it really isnt that horrible I promise.Offensive with this did take a hit. It was a bit faster than live, now that I have no debuff it feels slighty slower.

CrazyMoogle

01-22-2009, 10:56 AM

<cite>Jrral@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>some stuff</blockquote>Now do it again without the Paladin and tell us you never lose aggro.

CrazyMoogle

01-22-2009, 10:58 AM

<cite>Thanon@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote>Had one of our guildies pull her parse log from last VP raid (Jan 14th)</blockquote>Send someone the log. If you don't want to send it to me then that's fine, send it to someone else. The way things work is that if you're going to make "interesting" claims then you should expect to be expected to back them up.

Thanon

01-22-2009, 11:04 AM

<cite>Annara@Najena wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Thanon@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote>Had one of our guildies pull her parse log from last VP raid (Jan 14th)</blockquote>Send someone the log. If you don't want to send it to me then that's fine, send it to someone else. The way things work is that if you're going to make "interesting" claims then you should expect to be expected to back them up.</blockquote>Going back into VP tonight. You are more than welcome to log in and come along for the ride so you can see it first-hand, because even if I did send you the logs, or anyone else for that matter, all that would be said is that I "doctored" the logs.I know how posters like you are <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />You'll come up with every excuse under the sun as to why I'm wrong, and you're right, how I'm a liar, and you aren't, blah blah blah.Invitation extended. 7 p.m. UK time is when we roll into VP. Feel free to log onto my server. I will provide you with the Parse channel for our guild raids so you can see first-hand, without anyone doing any sort of doctoring, that my "claims" are absolutely fact.I expect to see you there!

Junaru

01-22-2009, 11:35 AM

I've never seen a tank flag for VP parsing that low. Our MT can parse that with autoattacks. Sorry not trying to jump into the fight just shocked by the numbers.

EvilAstroboy

01-22-2009, 12:19 PM

<cite>Jrral@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>EvilAstroboy wrote:</cite><blockquote>And at no point did you realise that the Paladin had ammends on the Warlock? Which was probably why you were having aggro issues with a Paladin. Im sorry but how can you tank VP and not have the gear to do more than 900dps? There is a Guard in my guild who doesnt even have his epic yet and does 2.5k in defensive.</blockquote>Well, for one thing I know for a fact the paladin didn't have Amends on anybody. I'd've been tipped off by the buff appearing, for one thing, and for another that would be a good way for the paladin to be pulling the mobs off the MT and my guildmates aren't stupid enough to go deliberately screwing up by the numbers that way. As far as VP... dude, casual players aren't going into VP, nor are they getting the gear they'd need to run that kind of content. I'm sure not tanking VP, not in my setup, and I've neither the dedicated play-time nor the connections to raid guilds for that level of content. I'd love to try it, but I'm not going to use 23 other people's repair bills to prove I'm just not geared for it. In case you hadn't noticed, there's a large portion of the player base who don't raid, aren't going to be in a position to raid (other than the occasional PR or dominus pick-up raid), and frankly aren't really that gung-ho about raiding.SOE spent a lot of effort over the last 8 months or so trying to attract the casual player base. RoK and TSO have had a lot of content that's geared to be a challenge but not utterly impossible without raid gear. I'm pretty sure they don't want to throw all that effort away by balancing the game for raiding at the expense of everyone below that level.</blockquote>Ammends doesnt have a big neon sign above the player with it on. Unless you went through every buff on your party (unlikely) you wouldnt have seen it. You would be suprised what paladins think is reasonable. Most paladins ive seen still ammends high dps classes even if they arent the primary tank, because its better for them to get aggro than a cloth wearer. The second comment was aimed at Thannon sorry.SoE spent a lot of effort effort attracting a casual player base? Funny, I never saw any ads. I hope thats working for them because they are about to [Removed for Content] off a lot of existing customers.

CrazyMoogle

01-22-2009, 02:43 PM

<cite>Thanon@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote>Going back into VP tonight. You are more than welcome to log in and come along for the ride so you can see it first-hand, because even if I did send you the logs, or anyone else for that matter, all that would be said is that I "doctored" the logs.I know how posters like you are <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />You'll come up with every excuse under the sun as to why I'm wrong, and you're right, how I'm a liar, and you aren't, blah blah blah.Invitation extended. 7 p.m. UK time is when we roll into VP. Feel free to log onto my server. I will provide you with the Parse channel for our guild raids so you can see first-hand, without anyone doing any sort of doctoring, that my "claims" are absolutely fact.I expect to see you there!</blockquote>I didn't ask for personal attacks, I asked you to provide the log. If not to me then there are a myriad of others on this forum (or eq2flames) that would be happy to receive it and break it down.

CrazyMoogle

01-22-2009, 02:47 PM

Also, I noticed you have your character profile blocked. I wanted to look up your character to see your gear as it is a marvel any guardian could be tanking VP and unable to hit 4 digits on a parse. Can you unblock your character profile?

Mentalep

01-22-2009, 03:24 PM

<cite>Annara@Najena wrote:</cite><blockquote>Also, I noticed you have your character profile blocked. I wanted to look up your character to see your gear as it is a marvel any guardian could be tanking VP and unable to hit 4 digits on a parse. Can you unblock your character profile?</blockquote>I'm wearing legendary and shard gear, and it would be hard for me to drop that low in the mismatched guild and pickup heroic groups I usually run.The funny thing is, pushing up your dps while using all of your taunts is pretty easy to do. Save for slanderous assault, which is situational at best, I thread all of my taunts into my combat art rotation. If one is up, then I use it. Thanon acts as if it takes a special kind of player with a sophisticated attitude to prioritize taunts over damage, when we're only talking about three combat arts out of a dozen - two of which are nearly instant-cast.Thanon apparently takes pride in his own lack of effort ("because I don't do anything other than taunts + auto-attack", which implies he won't even bother to land his debuffs), and attempts to justify it with a screen of non-competitiveness and purity of purpose, even though he's intentionally making the barest possible effort to hold aggro.Even though I agree with his basic assertion that holding aggro and surviving should be the first priority of the tank - if I didn't, I wouldn't be playing a guardian - his holier-than-thou attitude is unnecessary and short-sighted.Successfully fulfilling your primary role does not imply or require deliberately minimizing your overall contribution to the group. Nobody takes a wizard to a heroic because they want a group evac; my wizard has one, though, and if I refuse to use it, that doesn't make a better player.

Jrral

01-23-2009, 12:43 AM

<cite>EvilAstroboy wrote:</cite><blockquote>Ammends doesnt have a big neon sign above the player with it on. Unless you went through every buff on your party (unlikely) you wouldnt have seen it. You would be suprised what paladins think is reasonable. Most paladins ive seen still ammends high dps classes even if they arent the primary tank, because its better for them to get aggro than a cloth wearer. The second comment was aimed at Thannon sorry.SoE spent a lot of effort effort attracting a casual player base? Funny, I never saw any ads. I hope thats working for them because they are about to [Removed for Content] off a lot of existing customers.</blockquote>Oh, they spent a lot of effort. Effort that's being thrown away, because those customers they're going to run off are the casual players. Not that these changes aren't angering the high-end players too, but they're hitting the casuals hardest.As for the paladin and amends, I do check with her about those things. And while I wouldn't be suprised at what a random paladin thinks is reasonable, I would be suprised if this particular paladin set herself up to pull aggro when she'd taken the off-tank spot. I live only a couple of miles from her, I visit her and her husband (who's the third in our regular party) regularly. She's not going to go lying about things knowing that, sooner or later, I'll notice that buff when I check status on everybody and will literally be showing up on her doorstep to Have Words about it. Not that we won't have a pally off-tank putting amends on someone, but it's always done with the MT knowing about it and with an eye towards protecting the squishies without interfering with the MT keeping aggro.

Jrral

01-23-2009, 12:49 AM

<cite>Annara@Najena wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Jrral@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>some stuff</blockquote>Now do it again without the Paladin and tell us you never lose aggro.</blockquote>Been there, done that, got the dents in the armor to prove the mobs were paying attention to me instead of someone else. That example wasn't an oddball one, it's how things normally go for us. I won't say I never lose aggro, but since TSO came out I don't lose it often and I don't lose it for longer than it takes to hit the appropriate taunt or snap-aggro button.

lavrence

01-23-2009, 05:30 AM

OK first of all this idea is in no way shape or form meant for brawlers so monks and bruisers dont thinki am trying to nerf you hearall tanks are lossing buffs in NO STANCE ( leather tanks not included do to mid stance) so try this outTANKS loss buffs A, B, and Cmake a stance and call it ABCinclude in it buffs ABCNOTHING ELSEand problem solvedagain DO NOT TOUCH MONKS MID STANCE!!!!!!!!!!!!have a great day, problem here solved and people would be much happier with the LU most likelyLavrenceFae Monk (no clue y i picked fae) of najena

denmom

01-23-2009, 08:37 AM

<cite>Jrral@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>EvilAstroboy wrote:</cite><blockquote>Ammends doesnt have a big neon sign above the player with it on. Unless you went through every buff on your party (unlikely) you wouldnt have seen it. You would be suprised what paladins think is reasonable. Most paladins ive seen still ammends high dps classes even if they arent the primary tank, because its better for them to get aggro than a cloth wearer. The second comment was aimed at Thannon sorry.SoE spent a lot of effort effort attracting a casual player base? Funny, I never saw any ads. I hope thats working for them because they are about to [Removed for Content] off a lot of existing customers.</blockquote>Oh, they spent a lot of effort. Effort that's being thrown away, because those customers they're going to run off are the casual players. Not that these changes aren't angering the high-end players too, but they're hitting the casuals hardest.As for the paladin and amends, I do check with her about those things. And while I wouldn't be suprised at what a random paladin thinks is reasonable, I would be suprised if this particular paladin set herself up to pull aggro when she'd taken the off-tank spot. I live only a couple of miles from her, I visit her and her husband (who's the third in our regular party) regularly. She's not going to go lying about things knowing that, sooner or later, I'll notice that buff when I check status on everybody and will literally be showing up on her doorstep to Have Words about it. Not that we won't have a pally off-tank putting amends on someone, but it's always done with the MT knowing about it and with an eye towards protecting the squishies without interfering with the MT keeping aggro.</blockquote>Um...yah, I'm the Paladin from that run.I did not have Amends on anyone. I did consider whichever healer would prolly pull aggro, either the Temp or the Warden, but left it off and left it all in Jrral's capable hands.And yah, before we go into any instance that I'm playing off tank on, I will ask if I should put Amends on anyone. I'm not the MT, I won't use that unless there's a specific reason to.For the record, tho I did do damage, what I fell into doing was helping out by putting my ward on Jrral and keeping it going near 100% of the time. I have the AA in the Pally tree which cuts down the recast time.Now I admit that if in an utterly diff situation, say messing around with green or blue mobs in overland content, and Jrral was tanking, I might mess around and put Amends on him just to be a brat...but I'd not do that in a place that's not very forgiving of aggro being lost by the MT. We may mess around and be silly with overland mobs, but in instances we're very different in gameplay.

denmom

01-23-2009, 08:49 AM

<cite>Jrral@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Annara@Najena wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Jrral@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>some stuff</blockquote>Now do it again without the Paladin and tell us you never lose aggro.</blockquote>Been there, done that, got the dents in the armor to prove the mobs were paying attention to me instead of someone else. That example wasn't an oddball one, it's how things normally go for us. I won't say I never lose aggro, but since TSO came out I don't lose it often and I don't lose it for longer than it takes to hit the appropriate taunt or snap-aggro button.</blockquote>Um yah, I can back that up.When Jrral tanks, he doesn't lose aggro much. The one who pulls it from him, usually the 'Lock in our guild, has to be putting out a lot of damage to do that.I can tell when aggro is lost, I'm usually the healer in our instance runs and when the 'Lock drops in health, I know he's misbehaving...but a dethreat or two, snaps from Jrral, and it's back as it should be. I know when any one loses health it's because 1) they're getting too close to the mob's aoe's or 2) they're misbehaving and have pulled aggro off, 3) an add has wandered over.