SAVE fighter OFFSTANCES! [Archive] - EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

Antas22

01-11-2009, 06:39 PM

The fact of the matter is, some tank classes were putting up far too much DPS while tanking, because there really was no reason to use defensive stance before, given the diminishing returns nature of defense skills and mitigation. They've actually given defensive stance a purpose now. By doing it the way the have, they've also INCREASED the damage potential of fighter classes who aren't tanking, thus taking a step towards answering the other problem many fighters have complained about: the lack of raid spots for them. It's not a complete fix to that end yet, but if the offensive minded fighters can start putting out bigger numbers in a raid DPS role, you could start to see 4-5 fighters in a raid, instead of the current 2-3.This is by no means the death of the offensive stance, it's merely a correction of it so that it serves the purpose it is meant to serve, instead of turning tanks into DPS with agro. Does it need some further tweaking? Absolutely. But that's why it's in testing; the idea behind it is sound, however.Yea, I said it. Go ahead, flame on, but I challenge you to give me one logical reason a tank (who is tanking) should be even remotely close to the DPS of the classes dedicated to that in the context of normal group content. Am I going to miss topping or being second on the parse while tanking? Sure. However, if when it's complete they give me the tools to hold agro better without putting huge DPS numbers, that's just fine by me, that will allow other classes to open up more without me having to go out of my mind to keep up.

Maroger

01-11-2009, 06:49 PM

<cite>Antas@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>The fact of the matter is, some tank classes were putting up far too much DPS while tanking, because there really was no reason to use defensive stance before, given the diminishing returns nature of defense skills and mitigation. They've actually given defensive stance a purpose now. By doing it the way the have, they've also INCREASED the damage potential of fighter classes who aren't tanking, thus taking a step towards answering the other problem many fighters have complained about: the lack of raid spots for them. It's not a complete fix to that end yet, but if the offensive minded fighters can start putting out bigger numbers in a raid DPS role, you could start to see 4-5 fighters in a raid, instead of the current 2-3.This is by no means the death of the offensive stance, it's merely a correction of it so that it serves the purpose it is meant to serve, instead of turning tanks into DPS with agro. Does it need some further tweaking? Absolutely. But that's why it's in testing; the idea behind it is sound, however.Yea, I said it. Go ahead, flame on, but I challenge you to give me one logical reason a tank (who is tanking) should be even remotely close to the DPS of the classes dedicated to that in the context of normal group content. Am I going to miss topping or being second on the parse while tanking? Sure. However, if when it's complete they give me the tools to hold agro better without putting huge DPS numbers, that's just fine by me, that will allow other classes to open up more without me having to go out of my mind to keep up.</blockquote>For you this all about raiding - but not everyone in this game raids or group of wants to. THose people are being hurt too. They should not make changes solo to satisfy the raiding crowd. They may need to change the stances - but give players a choice between stance or buffs. ANd makes changes to the AAs and Taunts to get some of your idea across. Don't take a sledge hammer across the board -- unless you want to kill this game.

Noaani

01-11-2009, 06:54 PM

<cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote>unless you want to kill this game.</blockquote>A solo fighter is still able to solo, a grouping fighter is able to either tank or DPS, the only thing that is missing from the game on test that is on live is the ability for a fighter to hold aggro WHILE DPSing.You think this will kill the game?

Maroger

01-11-2009, 06:57 PM

<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote>unless you want to kill this game.</blockquote>A solo fighter is still able to solo, a grouping fighter is able to either tank or DPS, the only thing that is missing from the game on test that is on live is the ability for a fighter to hold aggro WHILE DPSing.You think this will kill the game?</blockquote>The way they have implemented YES. Damage output has been nerfed in both stances -- the problem was rolling the buffs into the stances. They should have left the buffs alone and made the changes only to the stances, the AA's and Taunt. They should also have made it so that players could either use their buffs or their stances but not both as it now the case. This is overkill and way overboard.

Antas22

01-11-2009, 06:57 PM

<cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Antas@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>The fact of the matter is, some tank classes were putting up far too much DPS while tanking, because there really was no reason to use defensive stance before, given the diminishing returns nature of defense skills and mitigation. They've actually given defensive stance a purpose now. By doing it the way the have, they've also INCREASED the damage potential of fighter classes who aren't tanking, thus taking a step towards answering the other problem many fighters have complained about: the lack of raid spots for them. It's not a complete fix to that end yet, but if the offensive minded fighters can start putting out bigger numbers in a raid DPS role, you could start to see 4-5 fighters in a raid, instead of the current 2-3.This is by no means the death of the offensive stance, it's merely a correction of it so that it serves the purpose it is meant to serve, instead of turning tanks into DPS with agro. Does it need some further tweaking? Absolutely. But that's why it's in testing; the idea behind it is sound, however.Yea, I said it. Go ahead, flame on, but I challenge you to give me one logical reason a tank (who is tanking) should be even remotely close to the DPS of the classes dedicated to that in the context of normal group content. Am I going to miss topping or being second on the parse while tanking? Sure. However, if when it's complete they give me the tools to hold agro better without putting huge DPS numbers, that's just fine by me, that will allow other classes to open up more without me having to go out of my mind to keep up.</blockquote>For you this all about raiding - but not everyone in this game raids or group of wants to. THose people are being hurt too. They should not make changes solo to satisfy the raiding crowd. They may need to change the stances - but give players a choice between stance or buffs. ANd makes changes to the AAs and Taunts to get some of your idea across. Don't take a sledge hammer across the board -- unless you want to kill this game.</blockquote>First of all...I raid EXTREMELY casually. One look at my gear easily proves that point. If anything, my viewpoint is much more scewed towards heroic content. Secondly, this is at most a VERY small hit to soloing fighters. Throw up offensive stance, oh NO, you're taking SLIGHTLY more damage...meanwhile you're putting out more than before, so mobs are going to drop more quickly. It's funny, because the arguments against this change are so inconsistent. People want to sacrifice survivability in group to put out more DPS so the mobs drop quicker, and are mad that they can't after these changes because they were putting up absurd DPS numbers before, but thats EXACTLY the change they're giving soloers.As I said, it still needs tweaking, particularly from an agro management side in defensive stance, but overall, I still haven't seen a sound argument why changes in this direction are bad for the game.

Tandy

01-11-2009, 07:08 PM

<cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote>The way they have implemented YES. Damage output has been nerfed in both stances -- the problem was rolling the buffs into the stances. They should have left the buffs alone and made the changes only to the stances, the AA's and Taunt. They should also have made it so that players could either use their buffs or their stances but not both as it now the case. This is overkill and way overboard.</blockquote>Flat out 100% total misinformation. Damage output is NOT lower in offensive stance, only in defensive stance. Offensive stance is close if not slighty higher than it is right now on live.

Ouchy Dathurts

01-11-2009, 07:16 PM

The people who made certain tanks to be rogues in plate will quit maybe but who cares about them? If you made a tank to tank you shouldn't care one bit. In fact you should be happy. The mechanics of the game were completely borked when 95% of someones agro is directly related to damage. You force tanks to do what they've been doing which is unfair to the people that made DPS to DPS.Unless you're going to boost DPS classes up to twice the damage they're doing to compensate in which case the content is going to get further jacked up.I made an assassin to be DPS, nothing else.I made a Guardian to tank, nothing else.I made a Mystic to heal, nothing else.I made a bruiser because I'm an idiot, nothing else. =)If you made your tank for the purpose of DPS or even became so attached to the DPS of your tank lately you're going to be angry, but you're playing your class for the wrong reasons. You should be angry at yourself for not thinking something like this was coming. If you're looking to be a DPS class role a DPS class, of which the tanks should not even be close to competing with.You tank in defensive stance, you're a tank, defending his group....how does that NOT make sense?

Dasein

01-11-2009, 07:52 PM

Tank DPS was never on par with the pure DPS classes. While certain tank builds could get some decent DPS numbers, the pure DPS classes could easily double or triple those same numbers in the same circumstances. The problem is not tank DPS, but rather the lack of real tanking utility provided by the defensive stance compared to the offensive stance. However, SOE's proposed fix does not address the root issues, and instead simply makes it impossible to tank in offensive stance via changes to hate generation. This is the wrong way to go.What is really needed is a reworking of the diminishing returns curve on defenisve stats. Tanking in offensive stance should make the tank more vulnerable, not less capable of holding agro. However, against easier content, there's no reason a tank needs to be in defensive stance, while in offesnive stance, a tank should be substantially more vulnerable to harder content. For example, if I'm tanking Karnors, which cons green to me, offensive stance should be fine, but if I'm tanking Lower Guk, I'd have to use defensive stance or I won't last long.

Maroger

01-11-2009, 08:25 PM

<cite>Dasein wrote:</cite><blockquote>Tank DPS was never on par with the pure DPS classes. While certain tank builds could get some decent DPS numbers, the pure DPS classes could easily double or triple those same numbers in the same circumstances. The problem is not tank DPS, but rather the lack of real tanking utility provided by the defensive stance compared to the offensive stance. However, SOE's proposed fix does not address the root issues, and instead simply makes it impossible to tank in offensive stance via changes to hate generation. This is the wrong way to go.What is really needed is a reworking of the diminishing returns curve on defenisve stats. Tanking in offensive stance should make the tank more vulnerable, not less capable of holding agro. However, against easier content, there's no reason a tank needs to be in defensive stance, while in offesnive stance, a tank should be substantially more vulnerable to harder content. For example, if I'm tanking Karnors, which cons green to me, offensive stance should be fine, but if I'm tanking Lower Guk, I'd have to use defensive stance or I won't last long.</blockquote>The mistake that is happening is that people don't understand DPS - it means damage per second. THink about it. It does not mean MASSIVE damage in one blow -- it means massive damage over a short period of times. There is no way a tank or an SK with a sword that is slow will equal the damage per second of the DPS class. They should still be able to deal massive damage but NOT QUICKLY in a short space of time.Developers and some players seem to think that DPS = DAMAGE. DPS is a time base factor. DAMAGE is just damage with no refence to speed of output.The SOE changes should concentrate not on merging buffs but rather on increasing aggo via TAUNT and certain parameter settings in STANCE and improving the AA lines. Their approach has been to nerf buffs by merging them into stances. I don't think they understand the difference themselves between DPS and Damage. A good tank should be able to hold aggro regardless of the stances he is in but they don't need to merge buffs to accomplish that goal.In the case of an SK damage is lower in offensive stance as they reduce the damage on our buffs when they merged them into the stance. So yes for us Damage is reduced on offense which is why buffs should not be merged. They need to go back to the drawing board.

katalmach

01-11-2009, 08:37 PM

<cite>Ouchy Dathurts wrote:</cite><blockquote>The people who made certain tanks to be rogues in plate will quit maybe but who cares about them? If you made a tank to tank you shouldn't care one bit. In fact you should be happy. The mechanics of the game were completely borked when 95% of someones agro is directly related to damage. You force tanks to do what they've been doing which is unfair to the people that made DPS to DPS.Unless you're going to boost DPS classes up to twice the damage they're doing to compensate in which case the content is going to get further jacked up.I made an assassin to be DPS, nothing else.I made a Guardian to tank, nothing else.I made a Mystic to heal, nothing else.I made a bruiser because I'm an idiot, nothing else. =)If you made your tank for the purpose of DPS or even became so attached to the DPS of your tank lately you're going to be angry, but you're playing your class for the wrong reasons. You should be angry at yourself for not thinking something like this was coming. If you're looking to be a DPS class role a DPS class, of which the tanks should not even be close to competing with.You tank in defensive stance, you're a tank, defending his group....how does that NOT make sense?</blockquote>It's not just about what makes sense, it's also about what is fun. I too made a mystic to heal and do nothing else - because back when I rolled my mystic (at launch), there was nothing much else for mystics to do, as mystic dps was essentially negligible.Then AAs came out, along with some other changes, and suddenly my mystic could DPS! Not enough to ri val true DPS classes, but enough that she could co ntribute to the damage dealt, while still keeping her group alive - and in easy fights where healing wasn't particularly necessary, I actually had something to do other than pointlessly ward and debuff. And you know what? I've always enjoyed my mystic, but I enjoy her so much more now that she can *also* dps, than back when she could do nohti ng but heal. Saying that "tanks should tank and healers should heal" may make sense, but does it make for fun gameplay ? I don't think so. Anyway; yes, offensive stance should be harder to tank in, but it should not be impossible. Having to be in defensive stance *all the time* is going to make things a whole lot more boring, in my opin ion. Also, buffs should be usable even without stances (no bu ff consolidation please).

Noaani

01-11-2009, 08:44 PM

<cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote>unless you want to kill this game.</blockquote>A solo fighter is still able to solo, a grouping fighter is able to either tank or DPS, the only thing that is missing from the game on test that is on live is the ability for a fighter to hold aggro WHILE DPSing.You think this will kill the game?</blockquote>The way they have implemented YES. Damage output has been nerfed in both stances -- the problem was rolling the buffs into the stances. They should have left the buffs alone and made the changes only to the stances, the AA's and Taunt. They should also have made it so that players could either use their buffs or their stances but not both as it now the case. This is overkill and way overboard.</blockquote>My guardian is doing about 600DPS more in off stance on test than he is on live... go figure.My monk is slightly up on DPS in off stance as well, though not 600 DPS more.

Noaani

01-11-2009, 08:48 PM

<cite>Possumu@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>It's not just about what makes sense, it's also about what is fun.</blockquote>Balance > fun.An overpowered clas that is fun for those playing it is unfun for those playing the other 23 classes.While it may be fun for those playing assassins to always out DPS others, it is not balanced, and is not fun for anyone else.While it may be fun for a warrior to out DPS a monk while tanking, it is not balanced, and is certianly not fun for the monk.

Lethe5683

01-11-2009, 08:54 PM

I like the changes myself, with the exception of buffs being tied to stances... it's not a big deal but it's rather annoying. Like trying to drive with a backseat driver annoying...

Zabjade

01-11-2009, 09:07 PM

I think the main tank and off tank are the ones who will be needed to maintain Defensive stance so that they can keep aggro and survive at the same time, all other tanks can swap to a DPS route without pulling aggro. Although I wonder if there is a use for Mongoose stance in AA now...perhaps it should be replaced?

Terron

01-11-2009, 09:27 PM

<cite>Antas@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>By doing it the way the have, they've also INCREASED the damage potential of fighter classes who aren't tanking, thus taking a step towards answering the other problem many fighters have complained about: the lack of raid spots for them. It's not a complete fix to that end yet, but if the offensive minded fighters can start putting out bigger numbers in a raid DPS role, you could start to see 4-5 fighters in a raid, instead of the current 2-3.</blockquote>I don't entirely agree with the OP but I do not think this is right.Fighters are not going to get any raid slots on the basis of their doing DPS unless that DPS rivals scouts and mages, which would be a big mistake. They are still only going to be taken to tank, unless they provide a useful buff (as monks used to) or some other utility for the raid.MTs can sometimes do high DPS now but a large part of that is the buffs they get. None MT fighters do not get their choice of buffs.

Noaani

01-11-2009, 10:22 PM

Fighters are not going to DPS like scouts or mages, correct.What this change will do is that in zones like SoH, where fighters are required for several mobs, guilds will think again before telling them to only bother logging in for those few fights. Those guilds that left their fighters in the raid the way it is on live will now have fighters that can feel like they aer contributing to the raid.

Elanjar

01-11-2009, 11:40 PM

<cite>Antas@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>The fact of the matter is, some tank classes were putting up far too much DPS while tanking, because there really was no reason to use defensive stance before, given the diminishing returns nature of defense skills and mitigation. They've actually given defensive stance a purpose now. By doing it the way the have, they've also INCREASED the damage potential of fighter classes who aren't tanking, thus taking a step towards answering the other problem many fighters have complained about: the lack of raid spots for them. It's not a complete fix to that end yet, but if the offensive minded fighters can start putting out bigger numbers in a raid DPS role, you could start to see 4-5 fighters in a raid, instead of the current 2-3.This is by no means the death of the offensive stance, it's merely a correction of it so that it serves the purpose it is meant to serve, instead of turning tanks into DPS with agro. Does it need some further tweaking? Absolutely. But that's why it's in testing; the idea behind it is sound, however.Yea, I said it. Go ahead, flame on, but I challenge you to give me one logical reason a tank (who is tanking) should be even remotely close to the DPS of the classes dedicated to that in the context of normal group content. Am I going to miss topping or being second on the parse while tanking? Sure. However, if when it's complete they give me the tools to hold agro better without putting huge DPS numbers, that's just fine by me, that will allow other classes to open up more without me having to go out of my mind to keep up.</blockquote>So you're saying that because a couple geared out tanks here and there were doing more damage than some precious assasin that doesnt know how to play his class, that all tanks across the board should not be allowed to do damage?The new stances are probably the worst thing I've ever seen in this game. I dont know any tank that out dps's or even approaches the "true" dps classes. Sure maybe they compete with the low-mid T2 dps, but we are "fighters" after all. I'd expect us to be able to add that much damage. A lot of the T2 dps classes get things in addition to their damage, like awesome debuffs and group buffs. Fighters doing T2 dps dont get good debuffs or utility buffs, instead they get to take a hit.What needed to be fixed about the stances was that agro could be held in offensive, but not in defensive. All they needed to do was make it possible to hold agro in defensive just as well as in offensive. Instead they've swung the pendelum to far the other way. A fighter should be able to hold agro just as well in either stance. Then based on group/raid situation (mob, instance, makeup, etc) they choose what stance/gear combination they need to survive.POINT: agro generation should be EQUAL in either stance. in offensive you get base taunt amounts + greater hate from dps. in defensive you get increased taunt amound, and extra hate gain to make up for the lower dps output.also i dont think the buff should be consolidated into the stances. I think some buffs can be consolidated but they should be put into one seperate buff from the stances.

Antas22

01-12-2009, 01:47 AM

<cite>Elanjar@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>So you're saying that because a couple geared out tanks here and there were doing more damage than some precious assasin that doesnt know how to play his class, that all tanks across the board should not be allowed to do damage?</blockquote>Tanks should not be able to rival the DPS of pure DPS classes while also holding agro and taking hits. Period. Who said geared out? I know instance geared Zerkers and Shadow Knights that can throw down 3-3.5k zonewides like it's nothing. My Bruiser when tanking can commonly throw down around 2.5-3k zone wides. That simply isn't fair to the instance geared Wizard who fights to put up the same numbers. You want to talk about geared out results? A Shadow Knight my Swash commonly runs with, with his mythical and a mixture of fabled instance gear + *some* (read: fairly little) raid gear throws down in the range of 6k zonewides. These are numbers similar to what most equally geared rogues and mages are capable of.Tanks SHOULD NOT be doing that. Period. Just because you can't do it doesn't mean the change shouldn't be made. It just means either A) your gear sucks, B) your group setup sucks, C) you just aren't very good at your class, because it really isn't that difficult with the way things currently are on live.It's a broken and unfair mechanic to allow fighters to tank in offensive stance, and it needed to be addressed, no matter how much some people may whine about it. I completely think fighters should be able to put up the kind of DPS numbers I just talked about. However, they shouldn't be able to hold agro or survive as effectively while doing so, and should indeed have a means of dropping their own agro, so as to not encroach on the person who IS holding it. Because even if agro control is exactly the same in both stances, there'd still be NO reason for a plate tank to ever use defensive stance (Brawlers would on the occassions they needed uncontested avoidance), as the nature of diminishing returns means that, as things are currently, you gain very little in the way of survivability by doing so (another thing that needs to be addressed, next time they raise the level cap, they need to fix the curve so this is less the case).

Noaani

01-12-2009, 02:09 AM

<cite>Elanjar@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>we are "fighters" after all.</blockquote>lol, brawlers use this as their reason for wanting to be as good a tank as plate classes, now plate classes use it as a reason to want to DPS better.Priceless imo.

McCr

01-12-2009, 03:47 AM

<cite>Ouchy Dathurts wrote:</cite><blockquote>The people who made certain tanks to be rogues in plate will quit maybe but who cares about them? If you made a tank to tank you shouldn't care one bit. In fact you should be happy. The mechanics of the game were completely borked when 95% of someones agro is directly related to damage. You force tanks to do what they've been doing which is unfair to the people that made DPS to DPS.Unless you're going to boost DPS classes up to twice the damage they're doing to compensate in which case the content is going to get further jacked up.I made an assassin to be DPS, nothing else.I made a Guardian to tank, nothing else.I made a Mystic to heal, nothing else.I made a bruiser because I'm an idiot, nothing else. =)If you made your tank for the purpose of DPS or even became so attached to the DPS of your tank lately you're going to be angry, but you're playing your class for the wrong reasons. You should be angry at yourself for not thinking something like this was coming. If you're looking to be a DPS class role a DPS class, of which the tanks should not even be close to competing with.You tank in defensive stance, you're a tank, defending his group....how does that NOT make sense?</blockquote>So, when you have 200 AA to spend on your tank you won't have a dps spec and a tank spec? oh wait eventually SOE will just nerf all the AA so if you are a tank you will just be able to tank... a tank with 100AA will be just a crap tank and one with 150AA will hold aggro sometimes and 200AA you can hold aggro all day (until they increase AAs then the current AAs will be nerfed to make you think you are getting something when you get to 250AA).I just hope change the mirror so instead of having a dps spec (which won't exist) and tank spec... you use it to see old memories of you actually doing some dps as a dps spec'd tank... and you can be happy now that you get to spam taunts and the mobs get to live a lil while longer before they die (woo hoo that sounds like fun.... NOT!)

xKHONSx

01-12-2009, 04:56 AM

<cite></cite>Antas@Oasis wrote:<blockquote>Yea, I said it. Go ahead, flame on, but I challenge you to give me one logical reason a tank (who is tanking) should be even remotely close to the DPS of the classes dedicated to that in the context of normal group content. Am I going to miss topping or being second on the parse while tanking? Sure. However, if when it's complete they give me the tools to hold agro better without putting huge DPS numbers, that's just fine by me, that will allow other classes to open up more without me having to go out of my mind to keep up.</blockquote>Someone standing there yelling at me telling yo momma jokes isn't going to [Removed for Content] me off as much as someone who punches me in the face. Punching things in the face makes more sense from an aggro standpoint, but that's just me.<cite></cite><cite></cite><cite>Elanjar@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>So you're saying that because a couple geared out tanks here and there were doing more damage than some precious assasin that doesnt know how to play his class, that all tanks across the board should not be allowed to do damage?The new stances are probably the worst thing I've ever seen in this game. I dont know any tank that out dps's or even approaches the "true" dps classes. Sure maybe they compete with the low-mid T2 dps, but we are "fighters" after all. I'd expect us to be able to add that much damage. A lot of the T2 dps classes get things in addition to their damage, like awesome debuffs and group buffs. Fighters doing T2 dps dont get good debuffs or utility buffs, instead they get to take a hit.What needed to be fixed about the stances was that agro could be held in offensive, but not in defensive. All they needed to do was make it possible to hold agro in defensive just as well as in offensive. Instead they've swung the pendelum to far the other way. A fighter should be able to hold agro just as well in either stance. Then based on group/raid situation (mob, instance, makeup, etc) they choose what stance/gear combination they need to survive.POINT: agro generation should be EQUAL in either stance. in offensive you get base taunt amounts + greater hate from dps. in defensive you get increased taunt amound, and extra hate gain to make up for the lower dps output.also i dont think the buff should be consolidated into the stances. I think some buffs can be consolidated but they should be put into one seperate buff from the stances.</blockquote>I agree with this entire post. The highlighted part is the truth of the matter. Offensive tanking wasn't too far off of what it should be. Some minor tweaks to the actual dps that tanks are doing was all that was needed to balance that aspect. Tanks should be able to put up T2 dps type numbers and if they are indeed doing more than T1 dps classes then either the dps'ers suck, the buffs in the group benefit the tank significantly more than they benefit the dps'ers, the tank has an obscene amount of dps buffs on him or a combination of all three. Usually it is more of the former and the dps'ers just suck.As a Monk tanking in offensive stance I already run a much larger risk of taking damage since our mitigation boost as well as our uncontested avoidance is directly tied into the defensive stance. If they had just tweaked offensive tanking there wouldn't even be a need for the 5% increase to damage taken on offensive stance. All they would have had to do was make it so every tank's stances worked like a Brawler, so everyone loses their mitigation and uncontested avoidance while in offensive stance and tie those very things in with defensive stance only. Problem solved without completely revamping combat/aggro mechanics.The only thing they would have had to overhaul was defensive tanking. They could implement the current changes on test and apply only the defensive tanking mechanics (except lose the .5 melee detriment since dps already drops significantly due to the loss of weapon skills).Instead of taking this approach and slightly tweaking offensive tanking and fixing defensive tanking they are once again reinventing the wheel when it is completely unnecessary. Why focus the little bit of money from dwindling subs into redoing combat mechanics every 1 - 1.5 years instead of tweaking/modifying existing mechanics and offering more content?Personally I would have much rather seen them do what I've mentioned. It would give people more choices in how they want to go about things. Instead it is literally watered down into two choices....click this button for tanking and click this button for dps'ing. There really isn't much middle ground now and there certainly isn't a lot of choice.

TheSpin

01-12-2009, 05:16 AM

I think a fighter in offensive stance should be able to stay close behind the tank in hate generation so that if they need to take over, they are able to. From a heroic instance aspect there is lo longer any reason to bring more than 1 fighter. Not that it has ever been a popular method, but at least bringing an extra tank used to bring extra surviveability to make up for the lower group dps.

Faelgalad

01-12-2009, 06:45 AM

My Vote for saving Off-Stance.As what nobody sees.Tanks in Offstance are the best Deaggro-DD's!So if you want to have uncomplicated Damage and Aggro, bring in some more Monks and SK's,which will not do nicely <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Vulkan_NTooki

01-12-2009, 07:22 AM

For heroic stuff.. all the tso instances except perhaps the moderate to hard/hard ones can be tanked by a scout.. some even by mages... Scouts keep aggro through dps, they can tank in offensive stance I assume, since they dont have that many taunting abilities to begin with.So.. for the casual game play.. lets say Crucible which Im quite familiar with, I can go full offensive with 25-30% avoidance and 45% mitigation and it can be solo healed in that setting by a descent healer...In this spec I would 4.5 - 7k dps depending on the group... (u know dirge, illu, etc). This is full dps AA spec btw.Now my non mythical less geared swashie wife does about 4k-5k dps in the same group with about 35-40% avoidance, and about 40% mitigation.If I dps in defensive my dps currently drops to 1.5k to 3k.. in GU51 it should drop by alot if I read these threads correctly.Now.. give me 1 good reason why my group should use me as Tank for this zone and loose out 1-5 to 4k dps instead of using the swashy? Or the highest dps scout in the group for that matter..

Terron

01-12-2009, 09:33 AM

<cite>xKHONSx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>Someone standing there yelling at me telling yo momma jokes isn't going to [Removed for Content] me off as much as someone who punches me in the face. Punching things in the face makes more sense from an aggro standpoint, but that's just me.<cite></cite></blockquote>No, it isn't just you. But the ability of mobs to run through people and even walls is just as senseless, and prevents anything resembling sensible tanking from working, unfortunately.

Feydakeen

01-12-2009, 09:50 AM

<cite>Ouchy Dathurts wrote:</cite><blockquote>I made a bruiser because I'm an idiot, nothing else. =)</blockquote>I LOLLed <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Sadly you can add paladin too...

Illine

01-12-2009, 09:54 AM

<cite>Possumu@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Ouchy Dathurts wrote:</cite><blockquote>The people who made certain tanks to be rogues in plate will quit maybe but who cares about them? If you made a tank to tank you shouldn't care one bit. In fact you should be happy. The mechanics of the game were completely borked when 95% of someones agro is directly related to damage. You force tanks to do what they've been doing which is unfair to the people that made DPS to DPS.Unless you're going to boost DPS classes up to twice the damage they're doing to compensate in which case the content is going to get further jacked up.I made an assassin to be DPS, nothing else.I made a Guardian to tank, nothing else.I made a Mystic to heal, nothing else.I made a bruiser because I'm an idiot, nothing else. =)If you made your tank for the purpose of DPS or even became so attached to the DPS of your tank lately you're going to be angry, but you're playing your class for the wrong reasons. You should be angry at yourself for not thinking something like this was coming. If you're looking to be a DPS class role a DPS class, of which the tanks should not even be close to competing with.You tank in defensive stance, you're a tank, defending his group....how does that NOT make sense?</blockquote>It's not just about what makes sense, it's also about what is fun. I too made a mystic to heal and do nothing else - because back when I rolled my mystic (at launch), there was nothing much else for mystics to do, as mystic dps was essentially negligible.Then AAs came out, along with some other changes, and suddenly my mystic could DPS! Not enough to ri val true DPS classes, but enough that she could co ntribute to the damage dealt, while still keeping her group alive - and in easy fights where healing wasn't particularly necessary, I actually had something to do other than pointlessly ward and debuff. And you know what? I've always enjoyed my mystic, but I enjoy her so much more now that she can *also* dps, than back when she could do nohti ng but heal. Saying that "tanks should tank and healers should heal" may make sense, but does it make for fun gameplay ? I don't think so. Anyway; yes, offensive stance should be harder to tank in, but it should not be impossible. Having to be in defensive stance *all the time* is going to make things a whole lot more boring, in my opin ion. Also, buffs should be usable even without stances (no bu ff consolidation please). </blockquote>I remember back in KoS, our MT and OT not even having their off stance in AD 3 because it was useless while raiding.For a while tanks had to go offensive to keep aggro, they got used to big damage.now they changed it back to normal, tanking in defensive. Off is only for solo or dps.I don't think it's fair for tanks to be able to deal great damage ( our zerk is usually on the top five dps in raid) and being able to tank. even if it's trash .. when scouts maybe dps a bit more but can't hold a mob. otherwise make the off stance a lot weaker in term of dps.but then it will be worse because you won't even take tanks for dps.but for me a tank in off stance should dps like a scout and take damage like a scout. right now zerks in off stance are much like scouts. They just deal a bit less damage but take a bit less damage. but on raid situation he doesn't live long.

Vulkan_NTooki

01-12-2009, 10:12 AM

<cite>Illine@Storms wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Possumu@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Ouchy Dathurts wrote:</cite><blockquote>The people who made certain tanks to be rogues in plate will quit maybe but who cares about them? If you made a tank to tank you shouldn't care one bit. In fact you should be happy. The mechanics of the game were completely borked when 95% of someones agro is directly related to damage. You force tanks to do what they've been doing which is unfair to the people that made DPS to DPS.Unless you're going to boost DPS classes up to twice the damage they're doing to compensate in which case the content is going to get further jacked up.I made an assassin to be DPS, nothing else.I made a Guardian to tank, nothing else.I made a Mystic to heal, nothing else.I made a bruiser because I'm an idiot, nothing else. =)If you made your tank for the purpose of DPS or even became so attached to the DPS of your tank lately you're going to be angry, but you're playing your class for the wrong reasons. You should be angry at yourself for not thinking something like this was coming. If you're looking to be a DPS class role a DPS class, of which the tanks should not even be close to competing with.You tank in defensive stance, you're a tank, defending his group....how does that NOT make sense?</blockquote>It's not just about what makes sense, it's also about what is fun. I too made a mystic to heal and do nothing else - because back when I rolled my mystic (at launch), there was nothing much else for mystics to do, as mystic dps was essentially negligible.Then AAs came out, along with some other changes, and suddenly my mystic could DPS! Not enough to ri val true DPS classes, but enough that she could co ntribute to the damage dealt, while still keeping her group alive - and in easy fights where healing wasn't particularly necessary, I actually had something to do other than pointlessly ward and debuff. And you know what? I've always enjoyed my mystic, but I enjoy her so much more now that she can *also* dps, than back when she could do nohti ng but heal. Saying that "tanks should tank and healers should heal" may make sense, but does it make for fun gameplay ? I don't think so. Anyway; yes, offensive stance should be harder to tank in, but it should not be impossible. Having to be in defensive stance *all the time* is going to make things a whole lot more boring, in my opin ion. Also, buffs should be usable even without stances (no bu ff consolidation please). </blockquote>I remember back in KoS, our MT and OT not even having their off stance in AD 3 because it was useless while raiding.For a while tanks had to go offensive to keep aggro, they got used to big damage.now they changed it back to normal, tanking in defensive. Off is only for solo or dps.I don't think it's fair for tanks to be able to deal great damage ( our zerk is usually on the top five dps in raid) and being able to tank. even if it's trash .. when scouts maybe dps a bit more but can't hold a mob. otherwise make the off stance a lot weaker in term of dps.but then it will be worse because you won't even take tanks for dps.but for me a tank in off stance should dps like a scout and take damage like a scout. right now zerks in off stance are much like scouts. They just deal a bit less damage but take a bit less damage. but on raid situation he doesn't live long.</blockquote>Sorry.. but this relates to player gear, skills and buffs..Any scout(except perhaps bards) will out dps a berserker provided they have the same quality of buffs, gear, skill.If your berserker does 5k dps, your scouts should be doing 7-8k..Not everyone is into maximizing stuff and spend the incredible amount of research it takes to find the best gear/way to increase your dps by thousands though.I out parse just about any dps classes when I run instances in PuG's.. the only exceptions are the min/max ers.. Why? I run in full offensive mode netting me max dps, almost max haste, 70-90 DA, Full AA DPS spec.. I have less avoidance/mitigation than a swashie.. but so what.. as long as healers dont find it hard to keep me and group alive, then I dont see the issue..Btw.. scouts/mages can allready tank up to moderate difficulty instances in TSO, so why shouldnt I get the dps of those said classes for the same instances if I make an effort?

Terron

01-12-2009, 10:22 AM

<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote>What this change will do is that in zones like SoH, where fighters are required for several mobs, guilds will think again before telling them to only bother logging in for those few fights. Those guilds that left their fighters in the raid the way it is on live will now have fighters that can feel like they aer contributing to the raid.</blockquote>There are guilds that expect fighters to sit out most of a raid like that?And players of fighters who accept that?I am surprised.

FreaklyCreak

01-12-2009, 10:50 AM

Is everyone on this post also /feedbacking on test? If your not then I doubt your word counts.Here is what I've feedbacked so far.-Compared all raidwide buffs, and noted that crusader felt weak if they still aren't putting out their own heals, damage or tanking role as others because there is another class on raid that is filling that spot already. I suggested possibly having a percent based resist boost on paladin as this would be a defined and heavy damage prevention amoung other suggestions instead of the weak 70ish to STA or WIS. -Guardian also feels weak but as the class is strong in tanking and damage absorption already it doesn't matter as much.What I plan to add to feedback is this:-Auto attack damage reduction on defense is rediculous, for every tank class this is a heavy source of damage and aggro. Even with taunt the damage will be so missed for pure flavor of it. (I.E. It's fun to watch AE and double attack do as much damage as they do.)-Offensive stance's role is UTTERLY changed, not just "revamped" but 100% changed. It used to be a way to gain MORE threat at the cost of one or more healers having to up their game.Suggestions to get you and the players happy. Or atleast what I think will make them happier then what is on test. -Change the INCREASE on incoming physical damage to a DECREASE on avoidance by a uncontested amount. (This will increase the value of stoneskins, damageshields, warden spores, and other procs) -Change the threat REVERSAL on all taunts to a large percentage drop in base taunt and taunt crit.

Junaru

01-12-2009, 11:53 AM

What they should do it for every player in your group you lose 0.1 in both d-stance and o-stance.If you are tanking in a full group you do 0.1 less damage for each member (0.5 total like it is on test). In o-stance you take 1% more damage (5% total). This help soloing, people who duo and keep balance between the stances.I doubt SOE will do it as we have suggested buffs being based off group members before and SOE never took to it.

Maroger

01-12-2009, 12:12 PM

It is just not the stances that have taken a hit. What Aeralik did not bother to detail in his notes was the major surgery and nerfing he performed on the AAs. ANY AA that gave significant damage has had the damage reduced. I suggest you check out the AA and not just look at the stances alone.Yes the notes are written to force you to concentrate on the stances -- BUT THE AAs are important too and they have taken a major hit. IN some cases you will lose as much as 50% of your damage due to AA changes.So this change should not be allowed to go forward - these changes are too radical - there is more to this than just stances.

Tandy

01-12-2009, 12:21 PM

<cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote>It is just not the stances that have taken a hit. What Aeralik did not bother to detail in his notes was the major surgery and nerfing he performed on the AAs. ANY AA that gave significant damage has had the damage reduced. I suggest you check out the AA and not just look at the stances alone.Yes the notes are written to force you to concentrate on the stances -- BUT THE AAs are important too and they have taken a major hit. IN some cases you will lose as much as 50% of your damage due to AA changes.So this change should not be allowed to go forward - these changes are too radical - there is more to this than just stances.</blockquote>You do realize the dmg numbers you see on your AA's are a reflection of your Int stat. Which if you are looking at them with no stance on, sicne you seem to be so put off by the stances...the dmg will be reduced by the HUGE int loss.None of my AA's were changed outside something reflecting the stances that I could spot. All my dmg spells had similar numbers to live with the SAME INT.

Maroger

01-12-2009, 01:15 PM

<cite>Xaren@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote>It is just not the stances that have taken a hit. What Aeralik did not bother to detail in his notes was the major surgery and nerfing he performed on the AAs. ANY AA that gave significant damage has had the damage reduced. I suggest you check out the AA and not just look at the stances alone.Yes the notes are written to force you to concentrate on the stances -- BUT THE AAs are important too and they have taken a major hit. IN some cases you will lose as much as 50% of your damage due to AA changes.So this change should not be allowed to go forward - these changes are too radical - there is more to this than just stances.</blockquote>You do realize the dmg numbers you see on your AA's are a reflection of your Int stat. Which if you are looking at them with no stance on, sicne you seem to be so put off by the stances...the dmg will be reduced by the HUGE int loss.None of my AA's were changed outside something reflecting the stances that I could spot. All my dmg spells had similar numbers to live with the SAME INT.</blockquote>This cannot be possibly true but then I don't know what AA's you have but Legionaire's smite has had its damages changed from Live to Test. On LIve the damage for my SK is 530-830 on test it is NOW 492-766. Nothing else about the character has changed. but the damage component of that AA HAS BEEN NERFED.

Tandy

01-12-2009, 01:27 PM

<cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Xaren@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote>It is just not the stances that have taken a hit. What Aeralik did not bother to detail in his notes was the major surgery and nerfing he performed on the AAs. ANY AA that gave significant damage has had the damage reduced. I suggest you check out the AA and not just look at the stances alone.Yes the notes are written to force you to concentrate on the stances -- BUT THE AAs are important too and they have taken a major hit. IN some cases you will lose as much as 50% of your damage due to AA changes.So this change should not be allowed to go forward - these changes are too radical - there is more to this than just stances.</blockquote>You do realize the dmg numbers you see on your AA's are a reflection of your Int stat. Which if you are looking at them with no stance on, sicne you seem to be so put off by the stances...the dmg will be reduced by the HUGE int loss.None of my AA's were changed outside something reflecting the stances that I could spot. All my dmg spells had similar numbers to live with the SAME INT.</blockquote>This cannot be possibly true but then I don't know what AA's you have but Legionaire's smite has had its damages changed from Live to Test. On LIve the damage for my SK is 530-830 on test it is NOW 492-766. Nothing else about the character has changed. but the damage component of that AA HAS BEEN NERFED.</blockquote>Currently on live Legionnaires smite with 4 AA's invested is 561-902 dmg for me with 797 int in Offensive stance.On test copy RIGHT NOW AS I TYPE THIS! Legionnaires smite with 4 AA's invested is 651-1002 dmg with 819 int in Offensive stance.The diffrence is adept 3 offensive on live and master 1 on test since I have other buffs in master, so the Int boost is higher.In no way shape, fashion, form or anythign else you can ever possibly think to say is that a NERF!!!!The damage is HIGHER for goodness sake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Please feel free to give me more examples I can disprove if you want.

Elanjar

01-12-2009, 01:28 PM

<cite>Antas@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Elanjar@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>So you're saying that because a couple geared out tanks here and there were doing more damage than some precious assasin that doesnt know how to play his class, that all tanks across the board should not be allowed to do damage?</blockquote>Tanks should not be able to rival the DPS of pure DPS classes while also holding agro and taking hits. Period. Who said geared out? I know instance geared Zerkers and Shadow Knights that can throw down 3-3.5k zonewides like it's nothing. My Bruiser when tanking can commonly throw down around 2.5-3k zone wides. That simply isn't fair to the instance geared Wizard who fights to put up the same numbers. You want to talk about geared out results? A Shadow Knight my Swash commonly runs with, with his mythical and a mixture of fabled instance gear + *some* (read: fairly little) raid gear throws down in the range of 6k zonewides. These are numbers similar to what most equally geared rogues and mages are capable of.Tanks SHOULD NOT be doing that. Period. Just because you can't do it doesn't mean the change shouldn't be made. It just means either A) your gear sucks, B) your group setup sucks, C) you just aren't very good at your class, because it really isn't that difficult with the way things currently are on live.It's a broken and unfair mechanic to allow fighters to tank in offensive stance, and it needed to be addressed, no matter how much some people may whine about it. I completely think fighters should be able to put up the kind of DPS numbers I just talked about. However, they shouldn't be able to hold agro or survive as effectively while doing so, and should indeed have a means of dropping their own agro, so as to not encroach on the person who IS holding it. Because even if agro control is exactly the same in both stances, there'd still be NO reason for a plate tank to ever use defensive stance (Brawlers would on the occassions they needed uncontested avoidance), as the nature of diminishing returns means that, as things are currently, you gain very little in the way of survivability by doing so (another thing that needs to be addressed, next time they raise the level cap, they need to fix the curve so this is less the case).</blockquote>I think you missed the rest of my post where i said it makes sense that a well played fighter (tank) should be able to reach comparable dps to a T2 dps class like a brigand or wizard. Brigands get the added ability of awesome debuffs (not to mention a well played brig can tank heroic content too...), I don't know wizards as well, but I've always though they should be T1 dps anyway. Fighters only other benefit is we get to hold agro and take a hit.I am one of those zerkers that with the right group spits out 3k parses. If I've got a dirge and I go offensive sure I can hit that, and I have mostly instance gear with a couple T1 raid items. But thats only with the right group and only in an easy zone where I can use offensive. In tougher zones where I have to use defensive I hit like maybe 1.8k less with no dirge. By myself fully temp'd the max dps I can hit is like 2.2k ish. Pretty sure a brig with equivalent gear can hit higher than that by themself.

ke'la

01-12-2009, 01:31 PM

<cite>Oakmiser@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote>Is everyone on this post also /feedbacking on test? If your not then I doubt your word counts.Here is what I've feedbacked so far.-Compared all raidwide buffs, and noted that crusader felt weak if they still aren't putting out their own heals, damage or tanking role as others because there is another class on raid that is filling that spot already. I suggested possibly having a percent based resist boost on paladin as this would be a defined and heavy damage prevention amoung other suggestions instead of the weak 70ish to STA or WIS. -Guardian also feels weak but as the class is strong in tanking and damage absorption already it doesn't matter as much.What I plan to add to feedback is this:-Auto attack damage reduction on defense is rediculous, for every tank class this is a heavy source of damage and aggro. Even with taunt the damage will be so missed for pure flavor of it. (I.E. It's fun to watch AE and double attack do as much damage as they do.)-Offensive stance's role is UTTERLY changed, not just "revamped" but 100% changed. It used to be a way to gain MORE threat at the cost of one or more healers having to up their game.Suggestions to get you and the players happy. Or atleast what I think will make them happier then what is on test. -Change the INCREASE on incoming physical damage to a DECREASE on avoidance by a uncontested amount. (This will increase the value of stoneskins, damageshields, warden spores, and other procs) -Change the threat REVERSAL on all taunts to a large percentage drop in base taunt and taunt crit.</blockquote>That is the whole point of the revamp, they don't want you in offensive while tanking, They want to give you the ablity to have the equivent DPS and Survivablity as the "Utility" Melee DPSers, and with that amount of DPS you will need ways to shed hate... sence that is the case, with Off stance what you need to look at is does it give you Equivilant DPS to say an equally equiped Bard(SK/Pally) or Rogue(Warrior/Brawler).

Dasein

01-12-2009, 01:44 PM

<cite>kela wrote:</cite><blockquote>That is the whole point of the revamp, they don't want you in offensive while tanking, They want to give you the ablity to have the equivent DPS and Survivablity as the "Utility" Melee DPSers, and with that amount of DPS you will need ways to shed hate... sence that is the case, with Off stance what you need to look at is does it give you Equivilant DPS to say an equally equiped Bard(SK/Pally) or Rogue(Warrior/Brawler).</blockquote>No other class has a stance which entirely prevents them from performing their primary role. In the case of tanks, that role is holding agro, and that can only be done in Defensive Stance. I could understand trading offensive for survivability in Offensive Stance, but not taunting abiliity entirely, and certainly not converting taunts into detaunts. Really, what this change highlights is that the game cannot support 6 fighter classes, and so non-tanking fighters get turned into half-[Removed for Content] DSP classes, which is to say, they have no functional role in a group or raid.

ke'la

01-12-2009, 02:19 PM

<cite>Dasein wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>kela wrote:</cite><blockquote>That is the whole point of the revamp, they don't want you in offensive while tanking, They want to give you the ablity to have the equivent DPS and Survivablity as the "Utility" Melee DPSers, and with that amount of DPS you will need ways to shed hate... sence that is the case, with Off stance what you need to look at is does it give you Equivilant DPS to say an equally equiped Bard(SK/Pally) or Rogue(Warrior/Brawler).</blockquote>No other class has a stance which entirely prevents them from performing their primary role. In the case of tanks, that role is holding agro, and that can only be done in Defensive Stance. I could understand trading offensive for survivability in Offensive Stance, but not taunting abiliity entirely, and certainly not converting taunts into detaunts. Really, what this change highlights is that the game cannot support 6 fighter classes, and so non-tanking fighters get turned into half-[Removed for Content] DSP classes, which is to say, they have no functional role in a group or raid.</blockquote>Ok fine if you want it to sololy cost surviablity, then they should die in 2 hits MAX in Offencive mode, and cannot equip shields.The WHOLE POINT, is to give them a role OTHER then Tank as only ONE tank is ever needed in a Group and max 3 or 4 in a raid.

Dasein

01-12-2009, 02:39 PM

<cite>kela wrote:</cite><blockquote>Ok fine if you want it to sololy cost surviablity, then they should die in 2 hits MAX in Offencive mode, and cannot equip shields.The WHOLE POINT, is to give them a role OTHER then Tank as only ONE tank is ever needed in a Group and max 3 or 4 in a raid.</blockquote>There's no role other than tank that cannot be better filled by many other classes than fighter.

denmom

01-12-2009, 02:48 PM

It's not just only playing the OT, it's also when one duos or trios and is either the main damager or contributes to it.I tend to duo with a healer, trio with a mage, or trio with two healers (Warden and Templar). The two healers isn't out of needing two, it's out of helping a friend's L80 Temp get some questing done, and my husband bringing his Warden along because 1) we like trio with the Temp, and 2) killing three birds with one stone as we do questing (he's still working on L80).When it's Pheep and the healers (lol, that sounds like a rock band), she's the one who's the main damager. I have to be, both healers are in a heal spec. I am usually in offensive stance for damage.However, with this new change, I cannot do that at all. Our game play will change to either bring in a PUG or wait for hours when one of our guild or the Temp's is online to run with us for damage.We aren't the only ones affected by these changes, other small number groups are. How many of you run with a friend or two, not really wanting more in the group, or if you do it's other friends/guildees?I run my Zerker and Monk as OT to the MT. How can I do my job of grabbing an add that's going to eat the healer and/or mage when everything I have going sheds hate? Sure, flip to defensive out of offensive, but unless I can generate hate instantly on the mob, I won't be able to pull it off. In the seconds to do that, it could well have killed the healer or mage.It's just a bad design, Ripley, it's a bad design.

Matia

01-12-2009, 02:58 PM

<cite>kela wrote:</cite><blockquote>The WHOLE POINT, is to give them a role OTHER then Tank as only ONE tank is ever needed in a Group and max 3 or 4 in a raid.</blockquote>So the point of this change is to give tanks something other than tanking to do in groups and raids.... So, in order to give healers something other to do, it would be acceptable to set them up with modes as well.In Healer Stance you heal and ward/shield a little better than normal, but do almost no damage and debuffs are cut in half.In Attack Stance your heals are reduced by 50% and your wards are half as effective, but your Damage goes up by 5%.Oh, and if you pick neither stance, they rolled your group buffs into your stances to "make it easy when buffing".Rogues would get (Don't play rogues much, so kinda making this up off the top of my head <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /> ) :In Damage Stance, you do DPS but have reduced armor and avoidance your back attacks/stealth skills won't function except in the other mode for anything but damage.In Sneaky Stance, your damage is cut by a multiplier of 0.5, but your avoidance goes up and your aggro is cut by a little.In neither of the above stances, your DPS is reduced because you aren't in Damage mode, but you also can't do stealth attacks because you aren't in stealth mode.There, now two other archetypes are set up with extra roles as well.

habby2

01-12-2009, 03:01 PM

<cite>Pheep@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>It's not just only playing the OT, it's also when one duos or trios and is either the main damager or contributes to it.I tend to duo with a healer, trio with a mage, or trio with two healers (Warden and Templar). The two healers isn't out of needing two, it's out of helping a friend's L80 Temp get some questing done, and my husband bringing his Warden along because 1) we like trio with the Temp, and 2) killing three birds with one stone as we do questing (he's still working on L80).When it's Pheep and the healers (lol, that sounds like a rock band), she's the one who's the main damager. I have to be, both healers are in a heal spec. I am usually in offensive stance for damage.However, with this new change, I cannot do that at all. Our game play will change to either bring in a PUG or wait for hours when one of our guild or the Temp's is online to run with us for damage.We aren't the only ones affected by these changes, other small number groups are. How many of you run with a friend or two, not really wanting more in the group, or if you do it's other friends/guildees?I run my Zerker and Monk as OT to the MT. How can I do my job of grabbing an add that's going to eat the healer and/or mage when everything I have going sheds hate? Sure, flip to defensive out of offensive, but unless I can generate hate instantly on the mob, I won't be able to pull it off. In the seconds to do that, it could well have killed the healer or mage.It's just a bad design, Ripley, it's a bad design.</blockquote>When you're the main damage dealer, go offensive, just don't hit any taunts. When you're OT'ing, hit the mob. Just because your taunts have become detaunts does not mean that your dps isn't generating aggro as normal.

Tandy

01-12-2009, 03:05 PM

<cite>Matia wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>kela wrote:</cite><blockquote>The WHOLE POINT, is to give them a role OTHER then Tank as only ONE tank is ever needed in a Group and max 3 or 4 in a raid.</blockquote>So the point of this change is to give tanks something other than tanking to do in groups and raids.... So, in order to give healers something other to do, it would be acceptable to set them up with modes as well.In Healer Stance you heal and ward/shield a little better than normal, but do almost no damage and debuffs are cut in half.In Attack Stance your heals are reduced by 50% and your wards are half as effective, but your Damage goes up by 5%.Oh, and if you pick neither stance, they rolled your group buffs into your stances to "make it easy when buffing".Rogues would get (Don't play rogues much, so kinda making this up off the top of my head <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /> ) :In Damage Stance, you do DPS but have reduced armor and avoidance your back attacks/stealth skills won't function except in the other mode for anything but damage.In Sneaky Stance, your damage is cut by a multiplier of 0.5, but your avoidance goes up and your aggro is cut by a little.In neither of the above stances, your DPS is reduced because you aren't in Damage mode, but you also can't do stealth attacks because you aren't in stealth mode.There, now two other archetypes are set up with extra roles as well.</blockquote>There is one fatal flaw to the logic there. Mobs (hopefully) only hit 1 person. Tanks hold their attention. If your a tank and not doing that you therefore NEED another role or your kinda useless. 2 or 3 or 4 healers can heal the tank and all take active part in the proccess, just like 2 or 3 or 4 DPS can all activly kill a mob and contribute. 2 or 3 or 4 tanks CANT do the same with one mob...it can only pick one of them to beat on.Tanking is a 1 person job in most situations, so those things you list are not really comparable examples.

Dasein

01-12-2009, 03:13 PM

<cite>Xaren@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Matia wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>kela wrote:</cite><blockquote>The WHOLE POINT, is to give them a role OTHER then Tank as only ONE tank is ever needed in a Group and max 3 or 4 in a raid.</blockquote>So the point of this change is to give tanks something other than tanking to do in groups and raids.... So, in order to give healers something other to do, it would be acceptable to set them up with modes as well.In Healer Stance you heal and ward/shield a little better than normal, but do almost no damage and debuffs are cut in half.In Attack Stance your heals are reduced by 50% and your wards are half as effective, but your Damage goes up by 5%.Oh, and if you pick neither stance, they rolled your group buffs into your stances to "make it easy when buffing".Rogues would get (Don't play rogues much, so kinda making this up off the top of my head <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /> ) :In Damage Stance, you do DPS but have reduced armor and avoidance your back attacks/stealth skills won't function except in the other mode for anything but damage.In Sneaky Stance, your damage is cut by a multiplier of 0.5, but your avoidance goes up and your aggro is cut by a little.In neither of the above stances, your DPS is reduced because you aren't in Damage mode, but you also can't do stealth attacks because you aren't in stealth mode.There, now two other archetypes are set up with extra roles as well.</blockquote>There is one fatal flaw to the logic there. Mobs (hopefully) only hit 1 person. Tanks hold their attention. If your a tank and not doing that you therefore NEED another role or your kinda useless. 2 or 3 or 4 healers can heal the tank and all take active part in the proccess, just like 2 or 3 or 4 DPS can all activly kill a mob and contribute. 2 or 3 or 4 tanks CANT do the same with one mob...it can only pick one of them to beat on.Tanking is a 1 person job in most situations, so those things you list are not really comparable examples.</blockquote>And that's the underlying problem with the game. There are too many fighter classes, while encounters are designed around a signle tank, or maybe a tank and off-tank at the raid level. What they need to do is completely change the interaction between classes so that fighters can provide extra buffs to other fighters - give a fighter a support stance which lends hate generation and defense to another fighter (and only fighter). Create more things like the Intercede line, so fighters can help each other out.

Tandy

01-12-2009, 03:19 PM

<cite>Dasein wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Xaren@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite> </cite>There is one fatal flaw to the logic there. Mobs (hopefully) only hit 1 person. Tanks hold their attention. If your a tank and not doing that you therefore NEED another role or your kinda useless. 2 or 3 or 4 healers can heal the tank and all take active part in the proccess, just like 2 or 3 or 4 DPS can all activly kill a mob and contribute. 2 or 3 or 4 tanks CANT do the same with one mob...it can only pick one of them to beat on.Tanking is a 1 person job in most situations, so those things you list are not really comparable examples.</blockquote>And that's the underlying problem with the game. There are too many fighter classes, while encounters are designed around a signle tank, or maybe a tank and off-tank at the raid level. What they need to do is completely change the interaction between classes so that fighters can provide extra buffs to other fighters - give a fighter a support stance which lends hate generation and defense to another fighter (and only fighter). Create more things like the Intercede line, so fighters can help each other out.</blockquote>Oh I 100% agree with you. I have always said it was a mistake to make 6 fighters. Tanks are one thing you need 1 per group but that leaves 5 other spots. Having so many tank classes was a flaw that at this point I dont know if they can fix in any way OTHER than something like they are doing. Having fighters have buffs to put on other fighters like crusaders giving mit to another fighter would be a good idea too. That would really add a whole new layer to strategys if we got whole lines of abilitys based on threat generation or resists or avoidance based on diffrent fighter pairings.

Matia

01-12-2009, 03:30 PM

<cite>Xaren@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Dasein wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Xaren@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite> </cite>There is one fatal flaw to the logic there. Mobs (hopefully) only hit 1 person. Tanks hold their attention. If your a tank and not doing that you therefore NEED another role or your kinda useless. 2 or 3 or 4 healers can heal the tank and all take active part in the proccess, just like 2 or 3 or 4 DPS can all activly kill a mob and contribute. 2 or 3 or 4 tanks CANT do the same with one mob...it can only pick one of them to beat on.Tanking is a 1 person job in most situations, so those things you list are not really comparable examples.</blockquote>And that's the underlying problem with the game. There are too many fighter classes, while encounters are designed around a signle tank, or maybe a tank and off-tank at the raid level. What they need to do is completely change the interaction between classes so that fighters can provide extra buffs to other fighters - give a fighter a support stance which lends hate generation and defense to another fighter (and only fighter). Create more things like the Intercede line, so fighters can help each other out.</blockquote>Oh I 100% agree with you. I have always said it was a mistake to make 6 fighters. Tanks are one thing you need 1 per group but that leaves 5 other spots. Having so many tank classes was a flaw that at this point I dont know if they can fix in any way OTHER than something like they are doing. Having fighters have buffs to put on other fighters like crusaders giving mit to another fighter would be a good idea too. That would really add a whole new layer to strategys if we got whole lines of abilitys based on threat generation or resists or avoidance based on diffrent fighter pairings.</blockquote>And that's what they should be doing. Rather than limiting the choices by the changes they are making now, they should add them.Quick examples:Give Pallies something more to contribute to their group (in a protective nature likely - durn goody goodies) and especialy to fighters.Give SK's something to amp up other tank types through hate/disease/etc.Guardians would be able to throw more metal between their compatriots for protection.Berserkers would egg their fighter friends on driving them to new heights of rage.Monks would discipline them into focus.Bruisers would loosen them up and get them going. Instead of making the different fighters even more generic, make them more disparate. Give each a distinct role/sub-role rather than just another flavor of the same thing.

Elanjar

01-12-2009, 03:41 PM

"Ok fine if you want it to sololy cost surviablity, then they should die in 2 hits MAX in Offencive mode, and cannot equip shields.The WHOLE POINT, is to give them a role OTHER then Tank as only ONE tank is ever needed in a Group and max 3 or 4 in a raid."...quotes not workin for some reasonAnyway, if that is really the case then I expect my offensive stance to give me at least 5k dps. Any i dont have my mythical. Cause otherwise why would I ever get chosen over any other dps class. Woot so i can do almost as much as a brig, oh wait they have dispatch lets just take an extra brig instead of another fighter...PS i like the idea of a third stance that helps other fighters. It would have to be a combined stance of some sort though for raid purposes. Basically an OT (or extra figher in group) could buff the offensive or defensive capabilities of the main tank while still maintaining decent agro/dmg/survivability.Zerker, SK, Bruiser buff offensive prownessGuard, Pally, Monk buff defensive prowness

Cusashorn

01-12-2009, 03:46 PM

I wanna know what they're gonna do with the Bralwer Middle Stance. It gives us both offense and defense, but obviously not as much as one or the other.I use that to tank, so why not give that an agro proc as well?

Ouchy Dathurts

01-12-2009, 07:17 PM

<cite>Possumu@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Ouchy Dathurts wrote:</cite><blockquote>The people who made certain tanks to be rogues in plate will quit maybe but who cares about them? If you made a tank to tank you shouldn't care one bit. In fact you should be happy. The mechanics of the game were completely borked when 95% of someones agro is directly related to damage. You force tanks to do what they've been doing which is unfair to the people that made DPS to DPS.Unless you're going to boost DPS classes up to twice the damage they're doing to compensate in which case the content is going to get further jacked up.I made an assassin to be DPS, nothing else.I made a Guardian to tank, nothing else.I made a Mystic to heal, nothing else.I made a bruiser because I'm an idiot, nothing else. =)If you made your tank for the purpose of DPS or even became so attached to the DPS of your tank lately you're going to be angry, but you're playing your class for the wrong reasons. You should be angry at yourself for not thinking something like this was coming. If you're looking to be a DPS class role a DPS class, of which the tanks should not even be close to competing with.You tank in defensive stance, you're a tank, defending his group....how does that NOT make sense?</blockquote>It's not just about what makes sense, it's also about what is fun. I too made a mystic to heal and do nothing else - because back when I rolled my mystic (at launch), there was nothing much else for mystics to do, as mystic dps was essentially negligible.Then AAs came out, along with some other changes, and suddenly my mystic could DPS! Not enough to ri val true DPS classes, but enough that she could co ntribute to the damage dealt, while still keeping her group alive - and in easy fights where healing wasn't particularly necessary, I actually had something to do other than pointlessly ward and debuff. And you know what? I've always enjoyed my mystic, but I enjoy her so much more now that she can *also* dps, than back when she could do nohti ng but heal. Saying that "tanks should tank and healers should heal" may make sense, but does it make for fun gameplay ? I don't think so. Anyway; yes, offensive stance should be harder to tank in, but it should not be impossible. Having to be in defensive stance *all the time* is going to make things a whole lot more boring, in my opin ion. Also, buffs should be usable even without stances (no bu ff consolidation please). </blockquote>Yes the point of a game is fun. But you can't just say screw the rules everyone have fun! A game needs to specify the rules and roles of all players. MMO designers tend to see people (the ones who made their classes for the wrong reasons and are now bored) complaining and they know the fastest way to make them shut their mouths is to just give them DPS. Everyone sees DPS and gets a little chubby so if you just give everyone a pile of it they'll just sit on their butts and keep their fat traps closed.Problem with that is they want more and more and more and the lines become skewed. Your role is now encroaching on someone elses role. That's not fun for them, if someone is muscling in on your territory you'd be mad too.There is a fine line to walk between fun and making sense. I never asked for any ability to tank on my Assassin. I didn't make him to tank and I couldn't care less if they took it away. Not that I think I can tank anything worth a crap.This game made some sense back in the day. Then you throw in AAs, AAs that get ever more rediculous, the jump in loot from EoF to RoK everyone is walking around with 100% crit and DA. Mythicals that are insanely over powered. You have a downward spiral that has gotten out of control. The problem with MMOs is no one takes baby steps, its massive leaps. Massive leaps in loot, massive leaps in AAs, in weapons. You can't hope to balance a game when each step you take forward is twice as bit as the one before it.Then you get to the whole point of too many classes. EQ1 people had a specialized job and they did it, in this its 24 classes doing 4 roles tops, 3 really since everyone does DPS. The waters are sullied and I think sony is trying to undo some of the crazyness they've done. I think its a good step but I honestly think there needs to be class mergers. I know no one likes the idea, I don't know if Sony can/will do it. But I think its the only true way to get to the root of the problem. I can say with 100% certainty that the next MMO they make won't have anywhere near 24 classes =P

Hirofortis

01-12-2009, 07:52 PM

<cite>Ouchy Dathurts wrote</cite><blockquote>Yes the point of a game is fun. But you can't just say screw the rules everyone have fun! A game needs to specify the rules and roles of all players. MMO designers tend to see people (the ones who made their classes for the wrong reasons and are now bored) complaining and they know the fastest way to make them shut their mouths is to just give them DPS. Everyone sees DPS and gets a little chubby so if you just give everyone a pile of it they'll just sit on their butts and keep their fat traps closed.Problem with that is they want more and more and more and the lines become skewed. Your role is now encroaching on someone elses role. That's not fun for them, if someone is muscling in on your territory you'd be mad too.There is a fine line to walk between fun and making sense. I never asked for any ability to tank on my Assassin. I didn't make him to tank and I couldn't care less if they took it away. Not that I think I can tank anything worth a crap.This game made some sense back in the day. Then you throw in AAs, AAs that get ever more rediculous, the jump in loot from EoF to RoK everyone is walking around with 100% crit and DA. Mythicals that are insanely over powered. You have a downward spiral that has gotten out of control. The problem with MMOs is no one takes baby steps, its massive leaps. Massive leaps in loot, massive leaps in AAs, in weapons. You can't hope to balance a game when each step you take forward is twice as bit as the one before it.Then you get to the whole point of too many classes. EQ1 people had a specialized job and they did it, in this its 24 classes doing 4 roles tops, 3 really since everyone does DPS. The waters are sullied and I think sony is trying to undo some of the crazyness they've done. I think its a good step but I honestly think there needs to be class mergers. I know no one likes the idea, I don't know if Sony can/will do it. But I think its the only true way to get to the root of the problem. I can say with 100% certainty that the next MMO they make won't have anywhere near 24 classes =P</blockquote>I agree, there are to many classes for the roles when you consider the balance. Realistically, change monks and bruisers into DPS and balance them as a t2 DPS calss. That is what they are used as anyway.The Zerk / Guard issue is old. Combine them and let AA's decide if they are a zerk or guards style. Pallys and SK's actually make sense. Equalize them in DPS and agro and all is good. there ya go. 3 Tanks Clases, 2 new DPS classes And a lot less grumbling. Well at least until someone goes, but I wanna be unique and be able to do everything and not need anyone to do all the content. Oh well, can't make everyone happy.Oh and the only diff between a dirge and a troub is the songs tehy sing. Now there is a class that could be easily combined and then the way you play your songs determines what you call yourself. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />So much easier to define your role by what you do and so much more customizable. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Matia

01-12-2009, 09:55 PM

<cite>Krunck@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Ouchy Dathurts wrote</cite><blockquote>Yes the point of a game is fun. But you can't just say screw the rules everyone have fun! A game needs to specify the rules and roles of all players. MMO designers tend to see people (the ones who made their classes for the wrong reasons and are now bored) complaining and they know the fastest way to make them shut their mouths is to just give them DPS. Everyone sees DPS and gets a little chubby so if you just give everyone a pile of it they'll just sit on their butts and keep their fat traps closed.Problem with that is they want more and more and more and the lines become skewed. Your role is now encroaching on someone elses role. That's not fun for them, if someone is muscling in on your territory you'd be mad too.There is a fine line to walk between fun and making sense. I never asked for any ability to tank on my Assassin. I didn't make him to tank and I couldn't care less if they took it away. Not that I think I can tank anything worth a crap.This game made some sense back in the day. Then you throw in AAs, AAs that get ever more rediculous, the jump in loot from EoF to RoK everyone is walking around with 100% crit and DA. Mythicals that are insanely over powered. You have a downward spiral that has gotten out of control. The problem with MMOs is no one takes baby steps, its massive leaps. Massive leaps in loot, massive leaps in AAs, in weapons. You can't hope to balance a game when each step you take forward is twice as bit as the one before it.Then you get to the whole point of too many classes. EQ1 people had a specialized job and they did it, in this its 24 classes doing 4 roles tops, 3 really since everyone does DPS. The waters are sullied and I think sony is trying to undo some of the crazyness they've done. I think its a good step but I honestly think there needs to be class mergers. I know no one likes the idea, I don't know if Sony can/will do it. But I think its the only true way to get to the root of the problem. I can say with 100% certainty that the next MMO they make won't have anywhere near 24 classes =P</blockquote>I agree, there are to many classes for the roles when you consider the balance. Realistically, change monks and bruisers into DPS and balance them as a t2 DPS calss. That is what they are used as anyway.The Zerk / Guard issue is old. Combine them and let AA's decide if they are a zerk or guards style. Pallys and SK's actually make sense. Equalize them in DPS and agro and all is good. there ya go. 3 Tanks Clases, 2 new DPS classes And a lot less grumbling. Well at least until someone goes, but I wanna be unique and be able to do everything and not need anyone to do all the content. Oh well, can't make everyone happy.Oh and the only diff between a dirge and a troub is the songs tehy sing. Now there is a class that could be easily combined and then the way you play your songs determines what you call yourself. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />So much easier to define your role by what you do and so much more customizable. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>Well, by that justification, why not just have one Int caster class. The only difference between them is their spells. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Or better yet, just make one class for each role and be done with it. One class named Tank, one named Healer, etc.

Dasein

01-12-2009, 10:08 PM

<cite>Matia wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Krunck@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Ouchy Dathurts wrote</cite><blockquote>Yes the point of a game is fun. But you can't just say screw the rules everyone have fun! A game needs to specify the rules and roles of all players. MMO designers tend to see people (the ones who made their classes for the wrong reasons and are now bored) complaining and they know the fastest way to make them shut their mouths is to just give them DPS. Everyone sees DPS and gets a little chubby so if you just give everyone a pile of it they'll just sit on their butts and keep their fat traps closed.Problem with that is they want more and more and more and the lines become skewed. Your role is now encroaching on someone elses role. That's not fun for them, if someone is muscling in on your territory you'd be mad too.There is a fine line to walk between fun and making sense. I never asked for any ability to tank on my Assassin. I didn't make him to tank and I couldn't care less if they took it away. Not that I think I can tank anything worth a crap.This game made some sense back in the day. Then you throw in AAs, AAs that get ever more rediculous, the jump in loot from EoF to RoK everyone is walking around with 100% crit and DA. Mythicals that are insanely over powered. You have a downward spiral that has gotten out of control. The problem with MMOs is no one takes baby steps, its massive leaps. Massive leaps in loot, massive leaps in AAs, in weapons. You can't hope to balance a game when each step you take forward is twice as bit as the one before it.Then you get to the whole point of too many classes. EQ1 people had a specialized job and they did it, in this its 24 classes doing 4 roles tops, 3 really since everyone does DPS. The waters are sullied and I think sony is trying to undo some of the crazyness they've done. I think its a good step but I honestly think there needs to be class mergers. I know no one likes the idea, I don't know if Sony can/will do it. But I think its the only true way to get to the root of the problem. I can say with 100% certainty that the next MMO they make won't have anywhere near 24 classes =P</blockquote>I agree, there are to many classes for the roles when you consider the balance. Realistically, change monks and bruisers into DPS and balance them as a t2 DPS calss. That is what they are used as anyway.The Zerk / Guard issue is old. Combine them and let AA's decide if they are a zerk or guards style. Pallys and SK's actually make sense. Equalize them in DPS and agro and all is good. there ya go. 3 Tanks Clases, 2 new DPS classes And a lot less grumbling. Well at least until someone goes, but I wanna be unique and be able to do everything and not need anyone to do all the content. Oh well, can't make everyone happy.Oh and the only diff between a dirge and a troub is the songs tehy sing. Now there is a class that could be easily combined and then the way you play your songs determines what you call yourself. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />So much easier to define your role by what you do and so much more customizable. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>Well, by that justification, why not just have one Int caster class. The only difference between them is their spells. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />Or better yet, just make one class for each role and be done with it. One class named Tank, one named Healer, etc.</blockquote>I tihnk that would make for a much better game. Stick with a very basic class system (fighter, healer, mage, rogue) and then use AAs and other forms of advancement options to differentiate individuas. Overall, I think this would produce a game which is easier to balance while providing players many more options.

Maroger

01-12-2009, 10:12 PM

<cite>Dasein wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Matia wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Krunck@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Ouchy Dathurts wrote</cite><blockquote>Yes the point of a game is fun. But you can't just say screw the rules everyone have fun! A game needs to specify the rules and roles of all players. MMO designers tend to see people (the ones who made their classes for the wrong reasons and are now bored) complaining and they know the fastest way to make them shut their mouths is to just give them DPS. Everyone sees DPS and gets a little chubby so if you just give everyone a pile of it they'll just sit on their butts and keep their fat traps closed.Problem with that is they want more and more and more and the lines become skewed. Your role is now encroaching on someone elses role. That's not fun for them, if someone is muscling in on your territory you'd be mad too.There is a fine line to walk between fun and making sense. I never asked for any ability to tank on my Assassin. I didn't make him to tank and I couldn't care less if they took it away. Not that I think I can tank anything worth a crap.This game made some sense back in the day. Then you throw in AAs, AAs that get ever more rediculous, the jump in loot from EoF to RoK everyone is walking around with 100% crit and DA. Mythicals that are insanely over powered. You have a downward spiral that has gotten out of control. The problem with MMOs is no one takes baby steps, its massive leaps. Massive leaps in loot, massive leaps in AAs, in weapons. You can't hope to balance a game when each step you take forward is twice as bit as the one before it.Then you get to the whole point of too many classes. EQ1 people had a specialized job and they did it, in this its 24 classes doing 4 roles tops, 3 really since everyone does DPS. The waters are sullied and I think sony is trying to undo some of the crazyness they've done. I think its a good step but I honestly think there needs to be class mergers. I know no one likes the idea, I don't know if Sony can/will do it. But I think its the only true way to get to the root of the problem. I can say with 100% certainty that the next MMO they make won't have anywhere near 24 classes =P</blockquote>I agree, there are to many classes for the roles when you consider the balance. Realistically, change monks and bruisers into DPS and balance them as a t2 DPS calss. That is what they are used as anyway.The Zerk / Guard issue is old. Combine them and let AA's decide if they are a zerk or guards style. Pallys and SK's actually make sense. Equalize them in DPS and agro and all is good. there ya go. 3 Tanks Clases, 2 new DPS classes And a lot less grumbling. Well at least until someone goes, but I wanna be unique and be able to do everything and not need anyone to do all the content. Oh well, can't make everyone happy.Oh and the only diff between a dirge and a troub is the songs tehy sing. Now there is a class that could be easily combined and then the way you play your songs determines what you call yourself. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />So much easier to define your role by what you do and so much more customizable. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>Well, by that justification, why not just have one Int caster class. The only difference between them is their spells. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />Or better yet, just make one class for each role and be done with it. One class named Tank, one named Healer, etc.</blockquote>I tihnk that would make for a much better game. Stick with a very basic class system (fighter, healer, mage, rogue) and then use AAs and other forms of advancement options to differentiate individuas. Overall, I think this would produce a game which is easier to balance while providing players many more options.</blockquote>In EQ1 with the basic classes you got to customize your class via the AA. And I think the AA system in EQ1 was great. Theone ine EQ2 is pretty pathetic by comparison. The basics were right for the classes and customization gave you a very wider latitude to specialize with your class - something you really can't do in this game. You could be unique via the AA in EQ1. Too cookie cutter in EQ2.

Tandy

01-12-2009, 10:34 PM

<cite>Maroger wrote:</cite><blockquote>In EQ1 with the basic classes you got to customize your class via the AA. And I think the AA system in EQ1 was great. Theone ine EQ2 is pretty pathetic by comparison. The basics were right for the classes and customization gave you a very wider latitude to specialize with your class - something you really can't do in this game. You could be unique via the AA in EQ1. Too cookie cutter in EQ2.</blockquote>Please go back to EQ1. I think they miss you.

Matia

01-12-2009, 10:53 PM

<cite>Dasein wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Matia wrote:</cite><blockquote>Well, by that justification, why not just have one Int caster class. The only difference between them is their spells. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />Or better yet, just make one class for each role and be done with it. One class named Tank, one named Healer, etc.</blockquote>I tihnk that would make for a much better game. Stick with a very basic class system (fighter, healer, mage, rogue) and then use AAs and other forms of advancement options to differentiate individuas. Overall, I think this would produce a game which is easier to balance while providing players many more options.</blockquote>It would also be a much more generic and bland game world and experience.. in my humble opinion.Plus, you don't need that many classes if you just have one per role. If scouts and mages are both DPS, you only need one.Rather than trying to make all fighters tanks, with one role (two if you count the everybody DPS's statement from earlier), come up with other roles they can fill that aren't second rate other class. If the only other role is a fill-in when there's not a mage/scout/etc around who can do it better.. that's poor design.I mean, if the folks designing things can do their stuff, they should be able to come up with a fighter way that multiple tanks can contribute just like multiple nukers can, like multiple healers can, etc without having to go the lazy route and say "Okay, there's only one tank and any other fighters can be a <insert class here> if we can't find a real one".Rather than defining the character abilities by the role, make the role defined by the character abilities. Is the always mentioned trick of "balance" harder, yes. Is there always going to be a possible problem with people saying "xxx does better than me, or better than I think they should"? Sure.But there's also a lot more diversity, a lot more people happy because their character is more relatable to, and more people happy that they aren't just another of the xx% playing the same thing as all the others.

Ouchy Dathurts

01-13-2009, 06:36 AM

EQ1s class balance system made more sense because less classes = more specialization. When I played (launch - right before PoP) the tanks were balanced in that they could all tank whatever. They had different ways of doing it but my guild off the top of my head had 3 warriors, 3 pallys, and 2 SKs. They could all fill in at the MT no problem. They were all necessary to some degree because some encounters had a lotta adds you had to get a man on. Granted the raid size was....well there was no raid so you had those slots if you wanted em.Some mobs had so many adds you needed chanters to get them on lockdown. Which gives a role to enchanters that isn't just DPS. In EQ2 you cant mez any epic mobs so they have no role to fill besides utility and DPS.Clerics were the best healers, Shaman were the best buffers/debuffers, etc, etc. Everyone had some sort of job that they did and no one else could really do. Monks were needed to pull things, which was a amazing art form that doesn't exist in this game.IMO when it really comes down to it. We dont need 2 clerics, we dont need 2 shamen, we dont need 2 druids. Brig/swash can be combined, the bards, the chanters, the sorcs, monk/bruiser. They're "different" but not different enough to really matter. The city thing who cares about its not an issue, hasnt been in years. Pally, SK, Guard are different enough where you can warrant having all 3. Assassin is a rogue from EQ1 basically, ranger is a ranger form EQ1, brig/swash is the "debuff" rogue which didnt exist there but its different enough to warrant existing, necro and conj are different enough. Zerkers you can do EQ1 style plate, 2hers, but not going to be tanking except in a pinch and not in a raiding environment.Again, not going to be a popular idea, but too many classes just leaves people in limbo. Less classes leads to more specialization for each existing class. That means a defined role to fill, which gives everyone an expectation. THIS is what I am and what I do and it's different than what someone else does.

Ouchy Dathurts

01-13-2009, 06:39 AM

Oh yes and I mean the EQ1 AA system you have WAYYYY more AAs, but they give little boosts not massive ones. They come faster (from mob killing) than they do here so its not an issue. But it gives people a ton of options, not just a cookie cutter role.Thats one of this games major flaws and with most MMOs in general. You need little boosts, you cant give people gigantic boosts every time you put something new in or it's going to spiral out of countrol dangerously....and you get what we have here today.

MrWolfie

01-13-2009, 12:58 PM

<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Possumu@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>It's not just about what makes sense, it's also about what is fun.</blockquote>Balance > fun.Well, since they've never gotten balance right (and they never will) they should just aim for fun. An overpowered clas that is fun for those playing it is unfun for those playing the other 23 classes.While it may be fun for those playing assassins to always out DPS others, it is not balanced, and is not fun for anyone else.And these changes will not alter that. In fact, that's never going to change while the dev in charge plays a DE assassin. While it may be fun for a warrior to out DPS a monk while tanking, it is not balanced, and is certianly not fun for the monk.LOL. I play a monk. And there's no way a similarly equipped tank will out-dps me if I'm not tanking.Everything you say is incorrect.These changes have nothing to do with balance, and to expect one person to make such sweeping changes without a firm grasp of all 24 classes' skills and abilities and how they interact with every possible combination is asking for trouble. I can categorically say there isn't anyone working for SOE on EQ2 that has that understanding.</blockquote>