Latest changest to fighter stances

[Splater]

<p>the new change to fighter off stances is a very good idea but there are problems with it still:</p><p>while i fully agree with new not being able to use taunts while in offence stance instead of the detaunt that was previous on test there are still a couple of small issues</p><p>on my Guard while in offence stance I am still able to cast 2 of my shadows aa taunts: Sentinel Strike and Snearing Assault</p><p>the other problem is my Kick line attack and aoe attack still give a large taunt, while on my guard this is not an issues as I'm MT and wont be using my offence stance it is a big issue on my Bruiser</p><p>a bruiser while raiding will hardly ever be in def stance, so raiding or grouping in off stance as DPS a bruiser will be unable to use the kick line or aoe line bacuse they still add a big taunt, and could pull agro. it may be worth combinding the old system of negative taunt value in off stance for these melee attacks, as if a fighter isn't tanking they will need to at least have some sort of deagro</p><p>the other issue that will killing the solo abilities of tanks is the extra 5% damage we take while in off stance, surly now fighters are unable to use most taunts in off stance this can be removed as we will be unable to solo as well as other classes due to taking extra damage <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> or if we solo in def stance it will take forever to kill anything due to the damage reduction penalty of the def stance</p><p>this will not be as bad for Brawlers as they can use mixed stance for soloing and still do ok dps, other tanks ie warriors and crusaders dont have this option so PLEASE remove this 5% extra damage from fighter off Stances</p>

[TheSpin]

<p>I think these changes sound like positive ones.  A fighter should still be able to generate some aggro in offensive stance, and be able to switch quickly to defensive stance to take over for the primary tank when necessary.  Whatever taunts still work should be able to keep you high on the hate list without actually pulling aggro, and I think that's perfect.</p><p>As for taking more damage in offensive stance, as long as the damage output is increased to match I think it's a good change.  Five percent isn't so high that you'll suddenly become squishy.  When it comes to soloing most tanks I know do everything they can to increase their dps, so it's already pretty common for tanks to sacrifice some surviveability when soloing.</p>

[Junaru]

<p>I know others like the idea of having the detaunts removed from O-stance but I kind of liked them.</p><p>I can tell you without a doubt that not being able to use my taunts in O-stance isn't going to stop my Monk from tanking in it in nearly any of the TSO instance. If SOE is fine with that so am I then. I thought the whole point was to stop that. Oh well the only thing GU51 does for me then is gives me stronger hate on my taunts.</p>

[Mentalep]

<p>What exactly happened here?  The taunt reversal was scrapped and was replaced with taunts being uncastable, and the extra threat on certain attacks was left intact?</p><p>I think they ought to just go ahead and add one detaunt ability line for all fighters, and reduce the new taunts to zero while in offensive stance.  It was obviously broken for fighters to have a nearly unlimited threat ceiling by reversing all of our taunts, but having large taunts lashed to damage abilities in offensive stance could potentially make our threat ceiling even lower than on live, even with the -10% threat modifier.  Adding one weak to moderate detaunt (and not forcing us to avoid certain staple combat arts) would help us out without breaking our detaunt ability compared with scouts and mages.</p>

[Geothe]

<p>I dont have a fighter, but since taunts are no longer castable in offensive stance, does this mean that fighters wont be able to complete their HOs either?Being as most of them require the fighter to TAUNT. lol</p>

[habby2]

<p>I didn't have a chance to test it yet, but from the way it reads on the stance (at least the guardian stance), that the taunt portion of the CA won't take affect.</p>

[Uwopo]

<p>I don't think this is a good change at all.  If we're going to be using offensive stance in a DPSing role, we need some way to control our aggro, especially since some of the +damage/aggro control buffs boost aggro on fighter classes and decrease it on others.</p><p>I agree that the initial reversal of taunts into detaunts was too much, because it guaranteed that a fighter could go 100% all out and never, ever take aggro in offensive stance, but now we've gone too far in the other direction.</p><p>Personally, I think the focus of this change revolves around a problem that doesn't really exist.  Equally geared DPS classes in my groups always beat me on the parse unless there's something about an encounter that prevents them from being able to DPS properly.  If the tank in a group is beating true DPS classes on the parse, it's because they are better geared or the group buffs are stacked in favor of the tank.  The tank in a group is not competing with DPS classes for a spot in the group, they're competing with other tanks.  Nerfing the tanks DPS won't help T2 DPS classes get more groups, it's just going to mean that I need to favor T1 DPS classes in order to clear an instance as efficiently as I could before the change.</p><p>If one of the purposes of this change is to give fighters an alternate role (DPS) when we're not the ones tanking, then we need to be given tools to properly manage our aggro when performing that role.</p>

[Anaun]

<p>The inability to use any taunts while in offensive stance also breaks the ability to use fighter solo HO's in offensive stance.</p><p>Bad change, IMO.</p>

[Kaarim]

<p>Shadowknight level 76 Taunt and Disease Debuff ability Chastisement issue.With the new change to having offensive stance prevent taunts from working...this is also preventing The disease mitigation debuff component. This is an issue to me since I am a raider and debuffs are essential. Can someone please make it so that in offensive stance it prevents any "Increase Threat" but doesn't lose the second part to the combat art? I believe Offensive stance is to increase DPS..if this is a penalty of being in Offensive then it seems to be more of a nerf lowering DPS since Shadowknights do Disease Damage. Please look into this and make it so that in offensive it either prevents the threat componant or complete remove the component when you switch stances or a fine tuned alternative.</p><p>Also please looking into the Paladins AoE taunt as well since theirs have Divine Mitigation debuff tied to the taunt.</p><p>I'm not sure if warriors have this issue as well but will like this to be looked at more closely and tweaked better..the ideas are awesome and I'm all up for em' just needs some reworking.</p><p>Thanks.</p>