Thoughts on fighter stances [Archive] - EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

Terron

01-14-2009, 09:06 AM

There is a lot I like about the changes. It does seem likely that fighters will be more balanced as raid tanks and they will have to be more active in managing hate. The defense stances seem well designed for that with just a few minor problems.Paladins should do some extra damage to undead even in defensive stance, since that may be where they are most of the time and it is an important part of the flavour of the class. The amount/chance could be reduced but there should be some.The offensive stance changes seem much poorer though.As a guard I like the DPS boost in offensive. If we are no longer to be the best raid MTs (which I agree with) then our single target solo DPS needs to come close to that of a berserker on a single target. I don't have the time to test the exact numbers though.I am not so keen on the extra damage taken but it is small enough to live with and I can understand why it is there.I can also understand the attraction of the simplicity of reversing the effects of taunts, and understand why it was done, but the effects feel horrible.As a guard I am supposed to protect others, not force damage on to them. The only way I would be likely to get aggro when in the new offensive stance would be after a memwipe, and since I will still have higher mitigation that most others my reaction woul probably to try to survvive long enough for the MT to take it off me, not push it off onto some squishie. I would be using thoings like block and ToS not any deaggos. So my taunts would be useless and useless abilities are not fun. I have too many abilities that are almost always useless already.For single target taunts without side effects reversing the effects would be fine if the target also changed to "raid friend". So if a squishie got aggro I could protect them by using a reversed taunt on them. Most fighters can get the Splitpaw taunt in addition to Rescue giving them two such abilities. This would let fighters continue to play a part in agrro management even when not tanking without giving enough control to tank in offensive mode, unless in a very small group, which should be possible.Changing encounter taunts to work on non-fighters in group when reversed in offensive mode would make then useful when tanking for a single group, but not for a raid tank. But it would enable a fighter in offensive to help push aggro away from the squishies in his group and thus help out with aggro control in a useful way.

Bakual

01-14-2009, 09:40 AM

<cite>Terron@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>As a guard I am supposed to protect others, not force damage on to them. The only way I would be likely to get aggro when in the new offensive stance would be after a memwipe, and since I will still have higher mitigation that most others my reaction woul probably to try to survvive long enough for the MT to take it off me, not push it off onto some squishie. I would be using thoings like block and ToS not any deaggos. So my taunts would be useless and useless abilities are not fun. I have too many abilities that are almost always useless already.</blockquote>I'm not sure if an offensive tank would be the first target after a mem-whipe anyway. Usually mob goes to hit healers or scout/mages anyway as they do probably generate much more hate than an offensive tank will do even without detaunts. Even if you get hit first, I'm sure mages get the attention half a second later <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />So if you gonna wait for MT to take agro back, then you're not allowed to taunt anyway, or you counter what your MT tries to do. But if you don't taunt - you will never have agro long enough to save some squishie. So it doesn't matter much if you detaunt or do nothing, you will most likely not get agro anyway <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Only thing I find interesting about the reversing of taunts is that fighter get more abilities to detaunt than any other classes, and that seems somewhat wrong from a mage side of view. But we will see how it works out <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Terron

01-14-2009, 10:20 AM

<cite>Bakual wrote:</cite><blockquote>I'm not sure if an offensive tank would be the first target after a mem-whipe anyway. Usually mob goes to hit healers or scout/mages anyway as they do probably generate much more hate than an offensive tank will do even without detaunts. Even if you get hit first, I'm sure mages get the attention half a second later <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" />So if you gonna wait for MT to take agro back, then you're not allowed to taunt anyway, or you counter what your MT tries to do. But if you don't taunt - you will never have agro long enough to save some squishie. So it doesn't matter much if you detaunt or do nothing, you will most likely not get agro anyway <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" />Only thing I find interesting about the reversing of taunts is that fighter get more abilities to detaunt than any other classes, and that seems somewhat wrong from a mage side of view. But we will see how it works out <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>On the second guild writ raid each sister targets a particular class type after mem-wiping which can be fighter, but I agree the chance of getting aggro is very small as a defensive tank in offensive stance. That was part of my point. Not only is the chance of getting aggro very small but deaggro is not what I would choose to do in such a situation anyway. The abilities will be made useless. Having experience of near useless abilities I find that they are not fun. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" /> Making have some use in offensive mode would make for much more fun.A SK in offensive mode wearing cloth to boost spell damage might want deaggros, but that is about it for fighters.

Mentalep

01-14-2009, 10:56 AM

There is one point about deaggro in offensive stance. Right now we have a very low threat ceiling when dpsing; we don't have any way to reduce or transfer threat, so if we're not tanking, we pretty much can't be outdamaging the tank (though the better taunts in GU51 will in themselves alleviate this a bit). I think it's a good thing that we are be given a little more control over the threat we put out when not tanking. However, making all of our taunts into detaunts goes way overboard, making it more awkward to pick up aggro when we need to do so.It also doesn't make any sense that we now have the best detaunt abilities in the game - we can pretty much drop to rock bottom on the hate list at will, and it seems like we'd be able to stay there as long as we want without having to scale back our dps at all. Isn't that broken? It's interesting that while passive hate decreasers and transfers are being scaled back or altered almost across the board to encourage more personal responsibility when dpsing, fighters will not have to be responsible at all when dpsing, because we'll be generating less threat than before and will have such powerful detaunts. Gut Kick and Siege will actually inflict damage while producing negative total threat.I think a good compromise would something like the following (oriented towards guardians because that's what I know):1) Remove the straight detaunt conversion from offensive stance.2) -10% threat gain AND -50% taunt effectiveness in offensive stance (currently it's just -10% threat, and remember that base taunt values have been amped up considerably compared to live).3) Remove the threat component from Gut Kick and Siege (and Lay Waste, if they add threat to it) in offensive stance only.4) Give us one detaunt, maybe on Head Trauma (or Gut Kick if you want to be consistent across fighters) in offensive stance only.This isn't exactly my ideal solution, but it would accomplish the following:1) Make it more difficult to hold aggro in offensive stance than defensive stance, as Aeralik intends, without making it completely impractical and self-defeating.2) Increase our threat ceiling when dpsing.3) Will give us a mild ability to lower our own threat when we need to, without making us the kings and queens of dropping aggro and without having to add a new combat art line.I also think your idea of deaggroing a group or raid friend has merit. It would accomplish a different goal than what I listed above, but I like it.

Terron

01-14-2009, 11:44 AM

It seems that the defensive stances are now the tanking stances and the offensive stances are the non-tanking stances.There is a shortage of places for fighters on raids since fewer tanks are needed than fighter classes.So fighters need something to do on raids when not tanking, and by adding that to the offensive stances it can be done without overpowering them when acting as fighters.DPSing shoudl be part of it, but they shouldn't be matching the pure DPS classes most of the time. It would be OK for berserkers and Sks to come close to T1 DPS on encounters withy very large numbers of mobs, and for paladins to do T1 DPS vs undead, but generally they should be behind and thus need something else to bring to a raid.Helping out with aggro control per my suggestions in the OP is in flavour for fighters but is only minor utility. Anyway each class should do something different.Monks and Bruisers have raid wide buffs that are almost good enough to get them places. If offensive stance buffed those buffs then raid slots might open for them.Berserkers buff their groups attack speed and DPS, and three years ago that could get them a spot as a mellee DPS group buffer. Now the diminishing returns effect makes the buff insignificant. If offensive stance added some other bonus to group members who are berserk then maybe a berseker could get a raid spot as a DPS group buffer. A bonus to multiattack would fit with their class theme very well.With berserkers buffing mellee DPS it would match if the other offensive plate tank boosted spell DPS. Perhaps SKs could grant a lifetap proc on hostile spells to group members when in offensive stance.As a defensive tank paladins should get something to help protect the raid. They already do some healing and buff healing a bit raid wide. Perhaps in their offensive or non-tabking stance they could buff it more. Enough perhaps that with 6 healers on a raid a paladin would be a viable alternative to a seventh healer. Maybe when they taunt in offensive mode part of the taunt could become a heal on the mobs target, and anything that would increase a threat position could cause a cure to be cast on the mobs target.Guardians are tricker. Perhaps might caused a stoneskin to be put on the mobs target when they do something that would normally cause a threat position increase.

Terron

01-14-2009, 12:08 PM

<cite>Mentalepsy wrote:</cite><blockquote>I also think your idea of deaggroing a group or raid friend has merit. It would accomplish a different goal than what I listed above, but I like it.</blockquote>Thanks.I think yours has merit too and considered something like it. But I can see why SoE want no taunting in offensive and I do not think they would go for it.Since the MT will have the pick of all buffs and can use the new taunts, and the scouts will get the mellee DPS buffs before a guard would I think we will be able to DPS to our max and not be able to get aggro even in offensive mode (assuming the MT is competant). Maybe the more offensive tanks might, particularly an AE one with a single target MT.They would still be able to deaggro themselves too easily with my idea, but could attempt to hold aggro in small groups by deaggroing the others. So the goals overlap a bit.

Besual

01-14-2009, 12:16 PM

Do we really need MORE threads about the SAME topic?

Mentalep

01-14-2009, 12:28 PM

Hmm... here's another similar idea. What if our taunts (but not our hate position increasers) looked something like this:1) In defensive stance, or no stance, increase the hostile target's hate towards the caster by whatever (say, 5k).2) In offensive stance, increase the hostile target's hate towards its current target by a smaller value (say, 1k) if that target is a fighter. This includes the caster. If it's not a fighter, decrease it by the same value.Then, when not tanking, we can help boost the tank's threat (thus decreasing our and the rest of the raid's relative threat level) or help redirect it away from someone else who's pulled aggro.

JinjAB

01-14-2009, 12:33 PM

Some good ideas here <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />I appreciate that these changes have probably been planned for a while and seeing them on test represents an almost final step. BUT please listen to the community and how they perceive having fun with their class and their ideas about balancing before finalising things.There is no rush to get this to live, the only important thing is to get it right.With some of the proposals that players have posted, there are a wealth of ideas to sit back and consider. Or, consider a well worded overall response that explains WHY & HOW..."The Devs want to distinguish single target tanks v multi target because... The Devs see fighters needing significant detaunts becuase.." etc.Aeralik, we don't expect a reply to every suggestion, and we appreciate that you have been on vacation and have alot of reading to do, but give us your vision and then when people make what look like good suggestions (as above) we can get them in perspective. If you listen to your subscribers and can incorporate some of their visions of the classes thousands play each day in all sorts of scenarios, you will earn massive kudos.Anyway, good thread Terron. And Besual, unless we make our voices heard and petition continuously about things we don't like and could change our desire to play, then we can't expect any action <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />

Terron

01-14-2009, 12:52 PM

<cite>Mentalepsy wrote:</cite><blockquote>Hmm... here's another similar idea. What if our taunts (but not our hate position increasers) looked something like this:1) In defensive stance, or no stance, increase the hostile target's hate towards the caster by whatever (say, 5k).2) In offensive stance, increase the hostile target's hate towards its current target by a smaller value (say, 1k) if that target is a fighter. This includes the caster. If it's not a fighter, decrease it by the same value.</blockquote>I'd be happy with that too.

Mentalep

01-14-2009, 01:22 PM

<cite>Terron@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Mentalepsy wrote:</cite><blockquote>Hmm... here's another similar idea. What if our taunts (but not our hate position increasers) looked something like this:1) In defensive stance, or no stance, increase the hostile target's hate towards the caster by whatever (say, 5k).2) In offensive stance, increase the hostile target's hate towards its current target by a smaller value (say, 1k) if that target is a fighter. This includes the caster. If it's not a fighter, decrease it by the same value.</blockquote>I'd be happy with that too.</blockquote>Personally I would also love to see more group support abilities like what you mentioned in your last post. Guardians have a few, like guardian sphere and sentry watch, but they don't really live up to their potential. We're supposed to be "defensive" tanks, so I'd like to see stronger group defensive abilities that aren't just straight taunts or personal damage reduction.

Elanjar

01-14-2009, 03:49 PM

<cite>Mentalepsy wrote:</cite><blockquote>There is one point about deaggro in offensive stance. Right now we have a very low threat ceiling when dpsing; we don't have any way to reduce or transfer threat, so if we're not tanking, we pretty much can't be outdamaging the tank (though the better taunts in GU51 will in themselves alleviate this a bit). I think it's a good thing that we are be given a little more control over the threat we put out when not tanking. However, making all of our taunts into detaunts goes way overboard, making it more awkward to pick up aggro when we need to do so.It also doesn't make any sense that we now have the best detaunt abilities in the game - we can pretty much drop to rock bottom on the hate list at will, and it seems like we'd be able to stay there as long as we want without having to scale back our dps at all. Isn't that broken? It's interesting that while passive hate decreasers and transfers are being scaled back or altered almost across the board to encourage more personal responsibility when dpsing, fighters will not have to be responsible at all when dpsing, because we'll be generating less threat than before and will have such powerful detaunts. Gut Kick and Siege will actually inflict damage while producing negative total threat.I think a good compromise would something like the following (oriented towards guardians because that's what I know):1) Remove the straight detaunt conversion from offensive stance.2) -10% threat gain AND -50% taunt effectiveness in offensive stance (currently it's just -10% threat, and remember that base taunt values have been amped up considerably compared to live).3) Remove the threat component from Gut Kick and Siege (and Lay Waste, if they add threat to it) in offensive stance only.4) Give us one detaunt, maybe on Head Trauma (or Gut Kick if you want to be consistent across fighters) in offensive stance only.This isn't exactly my ideal solution, but it would accomplish the following:1) Make it more difficult to hold aggro in offensive stance than defensive stance, as Aeralik intends, without making it completely impractical and self-defeating.2) Increase our threat ceiling when dpsing.3) Will give us a mild ability to lower our own threat when we need to, without making us the kings and queens of dropping aggro and without having to add a new combat art line.I also think your idea of deaggroing a group or raid friend has merit. It would accomplish a different goal than what I listed above, but I like it.</blockquote>I like this idea a lot. I had a similar idea that i /feedbacked. I still think that -50% and -10% is too much. I would do either -20% and -10% or just -50%. I think they should leave the taunts on those abilities also.As for the ideas that tanks can now get dps spots... Unless the make it so we can do some serious damage like competeing with T2 dps everytime, not just when we have a dirge and get lucky on the DA%, then why would any fighter ever get chosen over a different dps class. If we're dpsing its not like were gonna be able to pick up the mob. We're actually probably below the healers hate wise. And we have no other utility. No debuffs, no useful group buffs due to diminishing returns....

Terron

01-15-2009, 01:21 PM

<cite>Elanjar@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>As for the ideas that tanks can now get dps spots... Unless the make it so we can do some serious damage like competeing with T2 dps everytime, not just when we have a dirge and get lucky on the DA%, then why would any fighter ever get chosen over a different dps class. If we're dpsing its not like were gonna be able to pick up the mob. We're actually probably below the healers hate wise. And we have no other utility. No debuffs, no useful group buffs due to diminishing returns....</blockquote>Which is why I suggested for berzerkers having their offensive stance make their group buff better. I suggested adding a bit of +multiattack for berserk group members as an example of how that might be done.

Obadiah

01-15-2009, 01:42 PM

<cite>Terron@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Elanjar@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>As for the ideas that tanks can now get dps spots... Unless the make it so we can do some serious damage like competeing with T2 dps everytime, not just when we have a dirge and get lucky on the DA%, then why would any fighter ever get chosen over a different dps class. If we're dpsing its not like were gonna be able to pick up the mob. We're actually probably below the healers hate wise. And we have no other utility. No debuffs, no useful group buffs due to diminishing returns....</blockquote>Which is why I suggested for berzerkers having their offensive stance make their group buff better. I suggested adding a bit of +multiattack for berserk group members as an example of how that might be done.</blockquote>Well ... some fighters can parse pretty high now, right? Offensive stance changes have made slight increases to those numbers, right? Since fighters now go from having little or no deaggros to having the BEST SET OF DEaggros in the game, why WOULDN'T you throw the best buffs on them for encounters in which you don't anticipate needing a ST/OT?Sure, you won't bring extra fighters to the party in lieu of other DPS classes. But if you are bringing 2 or 3 anyway, you can get more DPS out of those 2 with less risk. I don't think more fighters on raids was the intent of the changes anyway though.

Junaru

01-15-2009, 01:50 PM

<cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Terron@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Elanjar@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>As for the ideas that tanks can now get dps spots... Unless the make it so we can do some serious damage like competeing with T2 dps everytime, not just when we have a dirge and get lucky on the DA%, then why would any fighter ever get chosen over a different dps class. If we're dpsing its not like were gonna be able to pick up the mob. We're actually probably below the healers hate wise. And we have no other utility. No debuffs, no useful group buffs due to diminishing returns....</blockquote>Which is why I suggested for berzerkers having their offensive stance make their group buff better. I suggested adding a bit of +multiattack for berserk group members as an example of how that might be done.</blockquote>Well ... some fighters can parse pretty high now, right? Offensive stance changes have made slight increases to those numbers, right? Since fighters now go from having little or no deaggros to having the BEST SET OF DEaggros in the game, why WOULDN'T you throw the best buffs on them for encounters in which you don't anticipate needing a ST/OT?Sure, you won't bring extra fighters to the party in lieu of other DPS classes. But if you are bringing 2 or 3 anyway, you can get more DPS out of those 2 with less risk. I don't think more fighters on raids was the intent of the changes anyway though.</blockquote>I somewhat agree with this statement. I've sometimes given up buffs that would increase my DPS because I was pulling aggro too much. With the new changes this shouldn't be an issue. But I still doubt a RL is going to tell buffing classes to buff a fighter because he pretty much has zero chance of getting aggro in a DPS role.

Elanjar

01-15-2009, 05:03 PM

<cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Terron@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Elanjar@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>As for the ideas that tanks can now get dps spots... Unless the make it so we can do some serious damage like competeing with T2 dps everytime, not just when we have a dirge and get lucky on the DA%, then why would any fighter ever get chosen over a different dps class. If we're dpsing its not like were gonna be able to pick up the mob. We're actually probably below the healers hate wise. And we have no other utility. No debuffs, no useful group buffs due to diminishing returns....</blockquote>Which is why I suggested for berzerkers having their offensive stance make their group buff better. I suggested adding a bit of +multiattack for berserk group members as an example of how that might be done.</blockquote>Well ... some fighters can parse pretty high now, right? Offensive stance changes have made slight increases to those numbers, right? Since fighters now go from having little or no deaggros to having the BEST SET OF DEaggros in the game, why WOULDN'T you throw the best buffs on them for encounters in which you don't anticipate needing a ST/OT?Sure, you won't bring extra fighters to the party in lieu of other DPS classes. But if you are bringing 2 or 3 anyway, you can get more DPS out of those 2 with less risk. I don't think more fighters on raids was the intent of the changes anyway though.</blockquote>Mine at least have not been increased. I would say they've been decreased. And the 2nd wont be able to be offensive anyway. Your second fighter is your OT who needs to be high on the hate list (just below the MT) so that he can pick up the mob should the MT go down. So the OT can not be in offensive. The 3rd tank right now is usually a brawler who are usually brought for dps anyway.

Obadiah

01-15-2009, 05:18 PM

<cite>Elanjar@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Terron@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Elanjar@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>As for the ideas that tanks can now get dps spots... Unless the make it so we can do some serious damage like competeing with T2 dps everytime, not just when we have a dirge and get lucky on the DA%, then why would any fighter ever get chosen over a different dps class. If we're dpsing its not like were gonna be able to pick up the mob. We're actually probably below the healers hate wise. And we have no other utility. No debuffs, no useful group buffs due to diminishing returns....</blockquote>Which is why I suggested for berzerkers having their offensive stance make their group buff better. I suggested adding a bit of +multiattack for berserk group members as an example of how that might be done.</blockquote>Well ... some fighters can parse pretty high now, right? Offensive stance changes have made slight increases to those numbers, right? Since fighters now go from having little or no deaggros to having the BEST SET OF DEaggros in the game, why WOULDN'T you throw the best buffs on them for encounters in which you don't anticipate needing a ST/OT?Sure, you won't bring extra fighters to the party in lieu of other DPS classes. But if you are bringing 2 or 3 anyway, you can get more DPS out of those 2 with less risk. I don't think more fighters on raids was the intent of the changes anyway though.</blockquote>Mine at least have not been increased. I would say they've been decreased. And the 2nd wont be able to be offensive anyway. Your second fighter is your OT who needs to be high on the hate list (just below the MT) so that he can pick up the mob should the MT go down. So the OT can not be in offensive. The 3rd tank right now is usually a brawler who are usually brought for dps anyway.</blockquote>Weird, cause I'm a Berserker too and my DPS is offensive stance has been improved by about 5% on Test. Not huge, but since I have such GREAT de-aggros now, I should be able to get a few more buffs to up it even more. And I can use the consumables to increase my DPS, which I don't bother with now lest I have aggro issues.I'm the OT and generally the only other fighter on our raids. I'm going offensive and dual-wielding right now on live. If the MT dies I will quit and join a different raiding group. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" /> I go defensive and use a shield on something difficult .... and that's what I'll continue to do after this update. The difference is, going forward I'll never ever ever accidentally draw aggro from DPSing like I do today on live. I don't see how that's a bad thing.

Elanjar

01-15-2009, 11:52 PM

Ya I just feel that the same DW offensive wont work as an OT.1: the dehate (less agro) and the detaunts (on your CA's 3 of them now) will have you too low on the hate list to easily pick up the mob2: currently you can snap the mob and while its running to you macro into defensive and a shield. With the changes you will have to macro to defensive first, then rescue. Its not a huge deal, but if you require 2-3 snaps since you are low on the hate list thats 3-4 extra dead squishies...

Terron

01-16-2009, 10:37 AM

<cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote> I don't think more fighters on raids was the intent of the changes anyway though.</blockquote>Probably not, but it is something that needs doing. The new offensive stances are a way to do that without affecting the balance of tanking.To put it another way fighters don't need the best deaggros in the game. They do need a reason for more than 2 or 3 of them to be taken on a raid.

Illine

01-16-2009, 12:21 PM

in raids, now you need more than just 2 tanks.yesterday we raided, and in one fight we needed 4 tanks. but with the changes, the advantage is that people won't take the tanks just for that fight, they will take them during the whole raid coz they raid buff and dps.then fighters need desaggro while in off stance but having too much desaggros might be useless. they just need enough desaggro for not holding back.plus tanks already have group and raid buffs, so they shouldn't have something else while in off stance. they still bring a bit more utility than scouts, or at least as much as rogues, so their dps should be on par with swash. don't make them too powerfull.

Dasein

01-16-2009, 12:22 PM

<cite>Terron@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote> I don't think more fighters on raids was the intent of the changes anyway though.</blockquote>Probably not, but it is something that needs doing. The new offensive stances are a way to do that without affecting the balance of tanking.To put it another way fighters don't need the best deaggros in the game. They do need a reason for more than 2 or 3 of them to be taken on a raid.</blockquote>The way to do that is to make all agro/hate related buffs exclusive to fighters, so only fighters could transfer hate from one fighter to another. Further, give all fighters certain fighter-only buffs which allow them to work together - for example, a shield wall buff where each fighter who participates adds 10% shield effectiveness to the target of the buff. This would allow fighters to help each other out, and greatly increase their utility beyond just tanking.

Elanjar

01-16-2009, 01:59 PM

<cite>Illine@Storms wrote:</cite><blockquote>in raids, now you need more than just 2 tanks.yesterday we raided, and in one fight we needed 4 tanks. but with the changes, the advantage is that people won't take the tanks just for that fight, they will take them during the whole raid coz they raid buff and dps.then fighters need desaggro while in off stance but having too much desaggros might be useless. they just need enough desaggro for not holding back.plus tanks already have group and raid buffs, so they shouldn't have something else while in off stance. they still bring a bit more utility than scouts, or at least as much as rogues, so their dps should be on par with swash. don't make them too powerfull.</blockquote>I'm not sure how getting deagros in offensive will make tanks more wanted for the entirety of a raid. We didnt get any new raid buffs or anything. They're the same old ones that havent earned us the extra spots yet. And the dps (for me) doesnt appear to have increased or at least not significantly enough to take the place of another dps class.

Terron

01-19-2009, 08:44 AM

<cite>Illine@Storms wrote:</cite><blockquote>plus tanks already have group and raid buffs, so they shouldn't have something else while in off stance. they still bring a bit more utility than scouts, or at least as much as rogues, so their dps should be on par with swash. don't make them too powerfull.</blockquote>The only fighters whose buffs and dps might get them a non-tanking place now are brawlers and they wouldn't be first choice.Fighters should not DPS as well as swashies (given equal buffs), nor should they debuff as well. The offensive fighters shouldn't be too far behind in DPS though.

EvilAstroboy

01-19-2009, 02:21 PM

<cite>Terron@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>It seems that the defensive stances are now the tanking stances and the offensive stances are the non-tanking stances.There is a shortage of places for fighters on raids since fewer tanks are needed than fighter classes.So fighters need something to do on raids when not tanking, and by adding that to the offensive stances it can be done without overpowering them when acting as fighters.DPSing shoudl be part of it, but they shouldn't be matching the pure DPS classes most of the time. It would be OK for berserkers and Sks to come close to T1 DPS on encounters withy very large numbers of mobs, and for paladins to do T1 DPS vs undead, but generally they should be behind and thus need something else to bring to a raid.Helping out with aggro control per my suggestions in the OP is in flavour for fighters but is only minor utility. Anyway each class should do something different.Monks and Bruisers have raid wide buffs that are almost good enough to get them places. If offensive stance buffed those buffs then raid slots might open for them.Berserkers buff their groups attack speed and DPS, and three years ago that could get them a spot as a mellee DPS group buffer. Now the diminishing returns effect makes the buff insignificant. If offensive stance added some other bonus to group members who are berserk then maybe a berseker could get a raid spot as a DPS group buffer. A bonus to multiattack would fit with their class theme very well.With berserkers buffing mellee DPS it would match if the other offensive plate tank boosted spell DPS. Perhaps SKs could grant a lifetap proc on hostile spells to group members when in offensive stance.As a defensive tank paladins should get something to help protect the raid. They already do some healing and buff healing a bit raid wide. Perhaps in their offensive or non-tabking stance they could buff it more. Enough perhaps that with 6 healers on a raid a paladin would be a viable alternative to a seventh healer. Maybe when they taunt in offensive mode part of the taunt could become a heal on the mobs target, and anything that would increase a threat position could cause a cure to be cast on the mobs target.Guardians are tricker. Perhaps might caused a stoneskin to be put on the mobs target when they do something that would normally cause a threat position increase.</blockquote>Have you been hiding under a rock? SKs give 5% base spell damage to the raid and 10% cast speed / reuse speed for their group, along with death march which massively boosts cast speed and dps as long as you keep killing mobs to refresh it. The group lifetap should be changed to any attack though to match the caster group they now fit in.

Prestissimo

01-20-2009, 01:50 AM

Personally, I think that on the paladin's defensive stance especially since it is a threat proc on melee attack that the melee skill should not be punished as well as the damage, but rather JUST the damage. The goal of that threat proc on melee attack is to proc the taunt on the auto attack, and by penalizing the hit rate while in that same stance, and thus lowering overall proc rates on the exact same buff, you end up contradicting the same spell that the buff is on.Ideally, the melee attack should hit for a lesser value of damage, but should not hit any less often. When you have a lower crush/slash/pierce, you do hit less often. I propose taking that skill penalty off of the defensive stance, even if you need to increase the auto attacks damage penalty to compensate since the goal of the defensive stance is to hit the mob in order to proc, not in order to damage.I don't know about the other fighters stances, but if they have a similar effect, then it should be applied the same. Otherwise, increase the proc rate of those taunts on auto attack to compensate for the fact that they will be missing more often due to reduced skill levels.