New fighter roles [Archive] - EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

Bremer

01-28-2009, 01:25 PM

Just read the article on eq2players (http://eq2players.station.sony.com/news_archive_content.vm?id=2046&section=News&locale=en_US)"Guardians, Paladins, and Monks will fall into the single target group. They will be the most effective at engaging a single NPC. In raid situations, this would mean that you’d want one of these guys to keep the main NPC’s attention. The same would hold true running through an instance where there is a main NPC who has minions as backup."Ok, sounds good for them, these are the tanks supposed to be the best for everything, raiding and heroic tanking."Berserkers, Shadowknights, and Bruisers are group target (or AE) tanks. They will be the most effective at scooping up several NPCs and keeping them occupied. They’ll be excellent at off-tanking, but by no means does that mean that they can’t be the main tank in appropriate situations."Translates to "They are worse at gaining and maintaining hate of a mob and worse at surviving the mobs hitting them, but by no means does that mean that they can't be the main tank." (The latter part of the sentence shows the guy who wrote the article has a great sense of humor.)So the intention of the figher changes is to split fighters into primary tanks who can hold mobs and survive their damage and second rate tanks who suck at both. Observant readers might have identified a minor flaw in this. Could it happen, that if the intended result of this re"balacing" is supposed be that one set of tanks is better at holding mobs and better at staying alive while holding them while the other set of tanks is harder to keep alive and worse at the holding the mob, that only idiots and masochistic raid leaders would put one of the latter set as MT?This attempt to balance tanks makes absolutely no sense at all. Raid tanking is all about single target tanking and survivability. How can one believe that you can balance tanks by make one set best at both disciplines and one set worse at both? In case you didn't notice, there is absolutely no need at all for multi target tanks in EQ2 raiding. I don't know one sinlge encounter where you would fail if not all mobs are on one tank. So again, for raiding all you need is single target hate and survivability. You can't mean these changes serious as they are now planned.

Gisallo

01-28-2009, 01:39 PM

<cite>Bremer wrote:</cite><blockquote>Just read the article on eq2players (http://eq2players.station.sony.com/news_archive_content.vm?id=2046&section=News&locale=en_US)"Guardians, Paladins, and Monks will fall into the single target group. They will be the most effective at engaging a single NPC. In raid situations, this would mean that you’d want one of these guys to keep the main NPC’s attention. The same would hold true running through an instance where there is a main NPC who has minions as backup."Ok, sounds good for them, these are the tanks supposed to be the best for everything, raiding and heroic tanking."Berserkers, Shadowknights, and Bruisers are group target (or AE) tanks. They will be the most effective at scooping up several NPCs and keeping them occupied. They’ll be excellent at off-tanking, but by no means does that mean that they can’t be the main tank in appropriate situations."Translates to "They are worse at gaining and maintaining hate of a mob and worse at surviving the mobs hitting them, but by no means does that mean that they can't be the main tank." (The latter part of the sentence shows the guy who wrote the article has a great sense of humor.)So the intention of the figher changes is to split fighters into primary tanks who can hold mobs and survive their damage and second rate tanks who suck at both. Observant readers might have identified a minor flaw in this. Could it happen, that if the intended result of this re"balacing" is supposed be that one set of tanks is better at holding mobs and better at staying alive while holding them while the other set of tanks is harder to keep alive and worse at the holding the mob, that only idiots and masochistic raid leaders would put one of the latter set as MT?This attempt to balance tanks makes absolutely no sense at all. Raid tanking is all about single target tanking and survivability. How can one believe that you can balance tanks by make one set best at both disciplines and one set worse at both? In case you didn't notice, there is absolutely no need at all for multi target tanks in EQ2 raiding. I don't know one sinlge encounter where you would fail if not all mobs are on one tank. So again, for raiding all you need is single target hate and survivability. You can't mean these changes serious as they are now planned.</blockquote>Basically what it comes down to is this. SOE made two many classes to be able to simultaneously balance them and maintain their individuality. So how to address this? You creat an artifical (and arguably unworkable system) that lets them say "well yes he is better than you at A but you are better than him at B. They can then all pat themselves all on the back at what a great con job....er I mean job they did on balancing the classes.

Lolianna

01-28-2009, 02:41 PM

MMMmmm fighter rolls; yummy! My provi cannot wait to get the recipe.LoL. I'm sorry, I couldn't resist that one. It is fighter roles, not fighter rolls. I am still smiling; that's too cute.Anyway, back to the discussion.

Morrolan V

01-28-2009, 02:52 PM

Think this through.Do you really think it's going to be THAT much harder for a Zerker, SK or Bruiser to hold aggro on a single target than for a Guard, Pally or Monk? All of your group hate abilities ALSO WORK ON SINGLE TARGETS. Yes, they are less power efficient. When is power for the MT an issue in raids? Well constructed raids have enough bards and chanters to make it beside the point.Conversely, take a Monk or post-Amends Pally to Ykesha's Outer Stronghold and see how well their SINGLE TARGET hate abilities work on the multiple encounter ring events in there.Likewise, watch an equally geared zerker or SK match (or very nearly match) a brawler in single target DPS while EASILY DOUBLING their AOE output.It's not balanced, but it's not you who are on the short end of the stick.

Bremer

01-28-2009, 03:38 PM

<cite>Morrolan V wrote:</cite><blockquote>Think this through.Do you really think it's going to be THAT much harder for a Zerker, SK or Bruiser to hold aggro on a single target than for a Guard, Pally or Monk? It's the declared intent of the changes to ensure that.All of your group hate abilities ALSO WORK ON SINGLE TARGETS. No, AE autoattack doesn't and that almost sums up all AE hate abilities a Beserker has. And they altered abilities like the single target taunts to be a lot more powerful for some tanksYes, they are less power efficient. When is power for the MT an issue in raids? When you best and only defensive ability drains 40 % of your power every 90 seconds?</blockquote>

Bremer

01-28-2009, 03:39 PM

<cite>Meerah@Permafrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>MMMmmm fighter rolls; yummy! My provi cannot wait to get the recipe.LoL. I'm sorry, I couldn't resist that one. It is fighter roles, not fighter rolls. I am still smiling; that's too cute.Anyway, back to the discussion.</blockquote>Ooops, lol. Can happen if words in your native language translate to similar written words in Englisch ^^

Morrolan V

01-28-2009, 03:52 PM

Every fighter I know would be glad to spend 40% of his or her power for the benefits of Adrenaline.The equivalent of AoE autoattack on a single target is . . . autoattack, so yes, it does work on single targets.Yes, they reduced the recast on the single target taunt for the "single target" tanks. It does increase the efficiency and single target hate output of those tanks. For the most part, raids are about holding single target aggro, so that's a minor advantage. For the majority of the instanced heroic content in TOS, though, the balance tips very heavily in favor of the multi-target tanks.The differences will mean that the multi target tanks have to work harder to hold aggro on single targets, and spend more of their power on hate. But in several situations I can think of they will mean that the single target tanks simply CANNOT hold aggro, no matter how hard they work.

Frijoles

01-28-2009, 03:58 PM

<cite>Gisallo@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bremer wrote:</cite><blockquote>Just read the article on eq2players (http://eq2players.station.sony.com/news_archive_content.vm?id=2046§ion=News&locale=en_US)"Guardians, Paladins, and Monks will fall into the single target group. They will be the most effective at engaging a single NPC. In raid situations, this would mean that you’d want one of these guys to keep the main NPC’s attention. The same would hold true running through an instance where there is a main NPC who has minions as backup."Ok, sounds good for them, these are the tanks supposed to be the best for everything, raiding and heroic tanking."Berserkers, Shadowknights, and Bruisers are group target (or AE) tanks. They will be the most effective at scooping up several NPCs and keeping them occupied. They’ll be excellent at off-tanking, but by no means does that mean that they can’t be the main tank in appropriate situations."Translates to "They are worse at gaining and maintaining hate of a mob and worse at surviving the mobs hitting them, but by no means does that mean that they can't be the main tank." (The latter part of the sentence shows the guy who wrote the article has a great sense of humor.)So the intention of the figher changes is to split fighters into primary tanks who can hold mobs and survive their damage and second rate tanks who suck at both. Observant readers might have identified a minor flaw in this. Could it happen, that if the intended result of this re"balacing" is supposed be that one set of tanks is better at holding mobs and better at staying alive while holding them while the other set of tanks is harder to keep alive and worse at the holding the mob, that only idiots and masochistic raid leaders would put one of the latter set as MT?This attempt to balance tanks makes absolutely no sense at all. Raid tanking is all about single target tanking and survivability. How can one believe that you can balance tanks by make one set best at both disciplines and one set worse at both? In case you didn't notice, there is absolutely no need at all for multi target tanks in EQ2 raiding. I don't know one sinlge encounter where you would fail if not all mobs are on one tank. So again, for raiding all you need is single target hate and survivability. You can't mean these changes serious as they are now planned.</blockquote>Basically what it comes down to is this. SOE made two many classes to be able to simultaneously balance them and maintain their individuality. So how to address this? You creat an artifical (and arguably unworkable system) that lets them say "well yes he is better than you at A but you are better than him at B. They can then all pat themselves all on the back at what a great con job....er I mean job they did on balancing the classes.</blockquote>I smell another LU13 debacle brewing."Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana (1863-1952)

RafaelSmith

01-28-2009, 04:02 PM

<cite>Morrolan V wrote:</cite><blockquote>Think this through.Do you really think it's going to be THAT much harder for a Zerker, SK or Bruiser to hold aggro on a single target than for a Guard, Pally or Monk? All of your group hate abilities ALSO WORK ON SINGLE TARGETS. Yes, they are less power efficient. When is power for the MT an issue in raids? Well constructed raids have enough bards and chanters to make it beside the point.Conversely, take a Monk or post-Amends Pally to Ykesha's Outer Stronghold and see how well their SINGLE TARGET hate abilities work on the multiple encounter ring events in there.Likewise, watch an equally geared zerker or SK match (or very nearly match) a brawler in single target DPS while EASILY DOUBLING their AOE output.It's not balanced, but it's not you who are on the short end of the stick.</blockquote>Agreed.Based on what I have seen on test the changes with GU51 will not change much with regards the disperity between single and AE tanks. Single target tanks will still struggle 10x as much against AE than AE tanks struggle against single...if they struggle at all.While I applaud the devs desire to shake things up with how tanks function....the whole idea of thinking breaking tanks up into single target -vs- AE cat ever be fairly balanced is flawed.

01-28-2009, 06:06 PM

It is clear that the Guardian is the base standard from which all tank adjustments are made. The dps tanks are getting hurt the most by this because the changes are de-linking dps from hate position. There really is no reason for zerks after these changes. At least Pallies and Sks are the good and evil versions of each others. I know so little about Monks vs Bruisers, other than the supposed differences, that I am not going to go there.If AE tanks are better at holding multiple mobs BUT they are squishier, how does that make sense? If a class has less 1 v 1 survivability, how does that class have better 5 v 1 survivability?Zerks have better AEs (supposedly) but lower attack skills. Does that make any sense? AEs have lower to hit modifiers to begin with and that is stacked with lower attack skiils. Where is the logic? There is none because there cannot be any. Once the concept of holding aggro with dps goes out the window, the concept of a dps tank goes out the window.The devs should just suck it up and merge zerks into guards and be done with it. It solves all of their problems. I wouldn't be happy about it but if I haven't quit as a zerk yet, I won't then.

Soefje

01-28-2009, 06:08 PM

<cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>While I applaud the devs desire to shake things up with how tanks function....the whole idea of thinking breaking tanks up into single target -vs- AE cat ever be fairly balanced is flawed.</blockquote>Back in LU13, I as a warlock main, complained loudly about being made into a AOE mage. Never liked it, still don't, so changed to SK as a main. Now I am being made into an AOE tank. I think I will like being an AOE tank.

RafaelSmith

01-28-2009, 06:13 PM

<cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>Once again we have to think about the content. This single target or AE target efficiency only matters for raids...and then for only a few mobs.But for everything else....like TSO.....the "advantage" of the single target tanks in terms of holding aggro on a single target hardly ever come into play while being able to tank groups is a huge advantage</blockquote>Wait. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean.Since [almost] every raid mob - trash or otherwise - is a single target doesn't single vs AE target efficiency come into play CONSTANTLY?And are you suggesting that there are hardly any single target mobs in TSO heroic content? Cause it gets really old seeing people say that. It's just not true. I don't pretend to have percentages of linked heroic mobs vs. single targets, but if it's a "majority" that are linked it's a pretty farging slim one.</blockquote>I can fully see the advantage my class has against raid content....I do not deny that.But compared to the advantage that a AE tank has in heroic dungeons as well as being pretty [Removed for Content] good against alot of the raid content..there is no comparison....one blows the other away.The job of a tank in a instance is to keep aggro on the mobs...no matter if hose mobs come in...one at a time or 20 at a time.That is not balanced.I have witnessed first hand how much better a AE tank tanks these instances than I do...Can I do it..sure but the level of frustration in doing it not only for me but also for the rest of my group is simply not worth it most of the time.Its pretty clear SOE wants Guards to be the raid MT of choice...its ironic that since the release of TSO and now with the changes of GU51 I find myself really only looking forward to doing raids. I dread being asked by guildmates to go run a TSO instance because I know it will not be fun for any of us.

RafaelSmith

01-28-2009, 06:19 PM

<cite>Kraace@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>While I applaud the devs desire to shake things up with how tanks function....the whole idea of thinking breaking tanks up into single target -vs- AE cat ever be fairly balanced is flawed.</blockquote>Back in LU13, I as a warlock main, complained loudly about being made into a AOE mage. Never liked it, still don't, so changed to SK as a main. Now I am being made into an AOE tank. I think I will like being an AOE tank.</blockquote>The funny thing is that i left EQ2 just around the time LU13 happened.Just recently came back around August 08.And now here they go again.Its like SOE really does not want me around =P

victer

01-28-2009, 06:44 PM

I am getting really super sick of all these people complaining about TSO content having lots of AE targets. Do you guys realize that this is the ONLY expansion that has ever had a ton of AE encounters? Every other expansion only had a very small handful of AE encounters and all of the AE classes begged for 4 years for MORE AE CONTENT. Now that we have quite a bit in TSO everyone else is crying. It makes me very frustrated. Is the AE classes never allowed to shine? Where were you guys for the last 4 years complaining that your AE hate or your AE dps was too low? I'll tell you were I was. I was in the back row doing mediocre DPS and tanking hoping for the 1-2 AE encounters to come up in the zone so people will actually notice me. All this means is now SOE will think twice about releasing anything else in the game that has alot of AE targets. And that just makes me sad.

RafaelSmith

01-28-2009, 06:59 PM

<cite>Victer@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>I am getting really super sick of all these people complaining about TSO content having lots of AE targets. Do you guys realize that this is the ONLY expansion that has ever had a ton of AE encounters? Every other expansion only had a very small handful of AE encounters and all of the AE classes begged for 4 years for MORE AE CONTENT. Now that we have quite a bit in TSO everyone else is crying. It makes me very frustrated. Is the AE classes never allowed to shine? Where were you guys for the last 4 years complaining that your AE hate or your AE dps was too low? I'll tell you were I was. I was in the back row doing mediocre DPS and tanking hoping for the 1-2 AE encounters to come up in the zone so people will actually notice me. All this means is now SOE will think twice about releasing anything else in the game that has alot of AE targets. And that just makes me sad.</blockquote>Believe it or not I actually agree with you. With regards to AE...RoK was designed poorly..SOE needs to learn to design expansions and content that does not have a heavy bias toward one segment of the playerbase...its needs to have something for everyone.I still argue that the whole AE -vs- Single target tanking should be achieved via AAs instead of classes....there is simply no way to balance tanks using this method.Dividing the tank classes like they are is only a recipe for having to toggle back and forth which 3 get screwed with each expansion.Not what I call a good method of balance.

Obadiah

01-28-2009, 07:04 PM

<cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Victer@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>I am getting really super sick of all these people complaining about TSO content having lots of AE targets. Do you guys realize that this is the ONLY expansion that has ever had a ton of AE encounters? Every other expansion only had a very small handful of AE encounters and all of the AE classes begged for 4 years for MORE AE CONTENT. Now that we have quite a bit in TSO everyone else is crying. It makes me very frustrated. Is the AE classes never allowed to shine? Where were you guys for the last 4 years complaining that your AE hate or your AE dps was too low? I'll tell you were I was. I was in the back row doing mediocre DPS and tanking hoping for the 1-2 AE encounters to come up in the zone so people will actually notice me. All this means is now SOE will think twice about releasing anything else in the game that has alot of AE targets. And that just makes me sad.</blockquote>Believe it or not I actually agree with you. With regards to AE...RoK was designed poorly..SOE needs to learn to design expansions and content that does not have a heavy bias toward one segment of the playerbase...its needs to have something for everyone.</blockquote>Like, for example, TSO, which has a lot of each.

Soefje

01-28-2009, 07:44 PM

The whole AOE thing to me is just plain stupid. The designer has a choice, 1 mob that is a tough ^^^, or a watered-down version with 2 x ^^. What difference does it make? The fights last the same amount of time. In the majority of instances the groups could be replaced with a single mob and the feel of the instance does not change. Even though I have great AOE tools as a SK, I still find that it is perferable to pull one mob at a time, burn it and move on.I guess my other question is whether we will ever see the AOE bugs fixed, or will I still pull everything in the room, through the wall, the floor and the ceiling. And there are some places where it is just to tight to use and AOE. And when groups are spread all over the area, you hit them with an AOE and pull the whole room due to the social aggro.

Xethren

01-29-2009, 11:23 AM

<cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Morrolan V wrote:</cite><blockquote>Think this through.Do you really think it's going to be THAT much harder for a Zerker, SK or Bruiser to hold aggro on a single target than for a Guard, Pally or Monk? All of your group hate abilities ALSO WORK ON SINGLE TARGETS. Yes, they are less power efficient. When is power for the MT an issue in raids? Well constructed raids have enough bards and chanters to make it beside the point.Conversely, take a Monk or post-Amends Pally to Ykesha's Outer Stronghold and see how well their SINGLE TARGET hate abilities work on the multiple encounter ring events in there.Likewise, watch an equally geared zerker or SK match (or very nearly match) a brawler in single target DPS while EASILY DOUBLING their AOE output.It's not balanced, but it's not you who are on the short end of the stick.</blockquote>Agreed.Based on what I have seen on test the changes with GU51 will not change much with regards the disperity between single and AE tanks. Single target tanks will still struggle 10x as much against AE than AE tanks struggle against single...if they struggle at all.While I applaud the devs desire to shake things up with how tanks function....the whole idea of thinking breaking tanks up into single target -vs- AE cat ever be fairly balanced is flawed.</blockquote>Totally agree. Makes me wonder if Im wasting my time getting a Guard up, since the AE tanks shine a lot more in TSO dungeons.

Illine

01-29-2009, 12:26 PM

<cite>Bremer wrote:</cite><blockquote>Just read the article on eq2players (http://eq2players.station.sony.com/news_archive_content.vm?id=2046§ion=News&locale=en_US)"Guardians, Paladins, and Monks will fall into the single target group. They will be the most effective at engaging a single NPC. In raid situations, this would mean that you’d want one of these guys to keep the main NPC’s attention. The same would hold true running through an instance where there is a main NPC who has minions as backup."Ok, sounds good for them, these are the tanks supposed to be the best for everything, raiding and heroic tanking."Berserkers, Shadowknights, and Bruisers are group target (or AE) tanks. They will be the most effective at scooping up several NPCs and keeping them occupied. They’ll be excellent at off-tanking, but by no means does that mean that they can’t be the main tank in appropriate situations."Translates to "They are worse at gaining and maintaining hate of a mob and worse at surviving the mobs hitting them, but by no means does that mean that they can't be the main tank." (The latter part of the sentence shows the guy who wrote the article has a great sense of humor.)So the intention of the figher changes is to split fighters into primary tanks who can hold mobs and survive their damage and second rate tanks who suck at both. Observant readers might have identified a minor flaw in this. Could it happen, that if the intended result of this re"balacing" is supposed be that one set of tanks is better at holding mobs and better at staying alive while holding them while the other set of tanks is harder to keep alive and worse at the holding the mob, that only idiots and masochistic raid leaders would put one of the latter set as MT?This attempt to balance tanks makes absolutely no sense at all. Raid tanking is all about single target tanking and survivability. How can one believe that you can balance tanks by make one set best at both disciplines and one set worse at both? In case you didn't notice, there is absolutely no need at all for multi target tanks in EQ2 raiding. I don't know one sinlge encounter where you would fail if not all mobs are on one tank. So again, for raiding all you need is single target hate and survivability. You can't mean these changes serious as they are now planned.</blockquote>you read it wrong.it means that there are some tanks better at MTing and other as OTing. In raids you usually have the big boss and many adds. the MT tanks the boss (guard, paladin ou monk) while the OT tanks the adds (zerk, SK or Bruiser).same for groups, nowhere it's written one type has less survivability than the other.but single target tanks will have troubles on groups while multi target tanks will have a bit more trouble on single target (usually they said, they will have to use their AE threat which costs more mana). so Multi target tanks will need a coercer to keep their mana up <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

jadsded

01-29-2009, 01:09 PM

While I completely agree these changes are dumb and are going to suck for all classes involved, I disagree that AOE tanks are getting hosed worse than single targets. I have two characters at 80, my Guard and my Dirge. Since TSO was released, I play my dirge almost exclusively. Playing an RoK legendary equiped guard in TSO is... well... near impossible. I have done most of the instances with my dirge, and for those of you who are trying to propagate that there is a "balance" in single vs linked encounters... you are either crazy or flat out trying to persuade others into believing a lie. Sure most of the bosses in the dungeons are single targets, but getting to them in most zones means plenty of linked targets. I for one will never step foot again into CoA with my guard, it's just too rediculous to even try. So that means I could go to DF and get 2 shards each time I want to play my guard, or I can go do fun exciting zones on my dirge... I have never wanted to ever betray to a zerk before these changes and this expansion took the fun out of my guardian, now I'm actually contemplating it. The thing that stops me is hope that these changes will actually help guards - even with linked encounters, and the fact that if I betray it means hours and hours of doing old content and losing what few masters I have.The most frustrating part about this is that all the devs really needed to do was to go back to the original intent of tanks and everyone would have been happy. They could have nerfed hate based tanks DPS and actually given them the hate generation they needed (there would have still been complaints, but not as much since we really don't care as much about dps as keeping everyone alive). They could have pretty much left DPS tanks alone, maybe nerfed their survivability slightly (where needed) - so that if you were inviting a guard, you would be able to do a zone with one healer which would open up a spot for another dps, and if you brought a zerker, sk, brawler, you would need 2 heals, but their dps plus the secondary healers dps would balance out... I don't know... doesn't that kinda sound uhh balanced?On a side note, I think I have only grouped with a guard maybe 3 times since TSO launched... They just aren't doing instances. Current state, guard + instances = broken.

Obadiah

01-29-2009, 02:43 PM

<cite>jadsded wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have done most of the instances with my dirge, and for those of you who are trying to propagate that there is a "balance" in single vs linked encounters... you are either crazy or flat out trying to persuade others into believing a lie. Sure most of the bosses in the dungeons are single targets, but getting to them in most zones means plenty of linked targets. I for one will never step foot again into CoA with my guard, it's just too rediculous to even try. </blockquote>I'm one of those crazy liars. And now because I'm so tired of listening to people say the opposite, I feel obliged to compile statistics on the number of linked encounters vs. single target encounters in each instance.Plenty of linked encounters to get to the named mobs yes .... and plenty of single target encounters.CoA is extreme AE, true. It makes me feel funny it's so extreme. But .... at the same time, that upper level contains more single target encounters than linked encounters. (Assuming you fight the ones that repop only once each <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" />) And what's great about those particular AE encounters is, who really cares about aggro on any specific mob? Just grab a zombie and knock it down. It's pure fun regardless of tank. Then you fall down the well and - ooh, what's this? A dozen single target encounters, a few more in one side room, then a couple of linked mobs and a ST in another. Some singles in a pool. Then finally a stretch of 8-10 large linked encounters. But even that zone which you cite as a prime example of AE-favoritism ... if you go encounter by encounter is gosh darn close to even. Gets more ST-sided the more times you fight the Jester, more AE-sided the more times you fight the repopping zombies.Some zones have more AE encounters than ST, some have more ST than AE. I have no specific numbers to back this up, nor do you. I feel like it's a pretty even mix, you feel like it's all AE. So now I'm forced to go back and put numbers on each one because we all like to throw out our assertions without backing them up. But saying the expansion is all AE, or 95% AE as someone put it, is balderdash.EDIT: On a side note, every TSO instance run except one OoA trip that I've done on a toon other than my Berserker has had a Guardian tank. And no, not the same one. Only one of those tanks had any issues, and those were on Zaza and Ankef in Scion because he refused to believe they did anything memwipe or memblur related so he quit the group calling us all aggro-stealing jerks despite the fact that no one was doing over 900 DPS. He also wanted to get his mythical so he would be immune to "Riptoast". (Yay for voice chat) Point is, that wasn't a class issue or an AE vs ST issue (Zaza was mezzed anyway). That was a riptoast issue.

Bremer

01-29-2009, 02:51 PM

<cite>Illine@Storms wrote:</cite><blockquote>it means that there are some tanks better at MTing and other as OTing. In raids you usually have the big boss and many adds. the MT tanks the boss (guard, paladin ou monk) while the OT tanks the adds (zerk, SK or Bruiser).No, you usally have always one big mob and at best a few encounters with heroic adds a scout could tank off."In raid situations, this would mean that you’d want one of these guys to keep the main NPC’s attention. The same would hold true running through an instance where there is a main NPC who has minions as backup"And as you can read the changes are also supposed to make sure that the single target tanks can also hold these add. And anyway, what has this to do with tanking? Existing as a class only to tank mobs a scout could tank as well? same for groups, nowhere it's written one type has less survivability than the other.It is. Aeralik made a post on the beta boards that their premise for survivabilty of Fighters is: Guardian, small gap, Paladin, bigger gap, Beserkers and Shadowknightsbut single target tanks will have troubles on groups while multi target tanks will have a bit more trouble on single target (usually they said, they will have to use their AE threat which costs more mana). so Multi target tanks will need a coercer to keep their mana up <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" />Again, in raiding AE threat doesn't matter. It is all about single target threat. And the official ranking for plate tanks for single target threat is Guardian, Paladin, gap, Beserkers and Shadowknights, exactly as for survivabilty. So by taking a Beserker as tank you get worse single target hate and worse survivabilty. So Guardians and Paladins are better MTs because they take damage better and can hold the mob better, they are better OTs, because they can tank AE adds as well as single target adds and they can pick up mobs faster if eg the MT died because they have Holy Ground and Reinforcement. </blockquote>This revamp as it is planned screws all AE tanks for raiding because they not only always were the tanks with less survivabilty, but now this update also aims to ensure that they are also worse at holding mobs. This completely eleminates for any rational raid leder the choice to take an AE tank as MT or OT, only as 2nd rate tank, 2nd rate DD or 2nd rate support. Why would you bring a class to a raid that is good at nothing?The only way not to make this update a kick in the nuts of all "AE" tanks is dropping the AE/single target premise. You want two tank types, you have two fields that matter for raid tanking (survivabilty and hate gain). How hard is it to come up with an approach like maybe, if it's not to absurd, one type of tank is slightly better with survivabilty while the other type is better with hate gain?

Thanon

01-29-2009, 03:21 PM

<cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite>Its pretty clear SOE wants Guards to be the raid MT of choice...its ironic that since the release of TSO and now with the changes of GU51 I find myself really only looking forward to doing raids. I dread being asked by guildmates to go run a TSO instance because I know it will not be fun for any of us.</blockquote>Ayep. Tis why my guardian has been doing mostly only raids, and I've been leveling an SK on the side to eventually transition over as my Instance tank, while keeping the Guardian for my raid tank.I'm fine with different rolls for each type of tank, but TSO is so AoE heavy that a Guardian really SUCKS because we have little/no AoE control. On raids, sure, we shine, and I guess in the end that's "fair" since we are the preferred tank of choice for MT on raids, but I have a sad face because it's not that fun to run instances anymore.

irvisscott

01-29-2009, 03:42 PM

<cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>jadsded wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have done most of the instances with my dirge, and for those of you who are trying to propagate that there is a "balance" in single vs linked encounters... you are either crazy or flat out trying to persuade others into believing a lie. Sure most of the bosses in the dungeons are single targets, but getting to them in most zones means plenty of linked targets. I for one will never step foot again into CoA with my guard, it's just too rediculous to even try. </blockquote>I'm one of those crazy liars. And now because I'm so tired of listening to people say the opposite, I feel obliged to compile statistics on the number of linked encounters vs. single target encounters in each instance.Plenty of linked encounters to get to the named mobs yes .... and plenty of single target encounters.CoA is extreme AE, true. It makes me feel funny it's so extreme. But .... at the same time, that upper level contains more single target encounters than linked encounters. (Assuming you fight the ones that repop only once each <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" />) And what's great about those particular AE encounters is, who really cares about aggro on any specific mob? Just grab a zombie and knock it down. It's pure fun regardless of tank. Then you fall down the well and - ooh, what's this? A dozen single target encounters, a few more in one side room, then a couple of linked mobs and a ST in another. Some singles in a pool. Then finally a stretch of 8-10 large linked encounters. But even that zone which you cite as a prime example of AE-favoritism ... if you go encounter by encounter is gosh darn close to even. Gets more ST-sided the more times you fight the Jester, more AE-sided the more times you fight the repopping zombies.Some zones have more AE encounters than ST, some have more ST than AE. I have no specific numbers to back this up, nor do you. I feel like it's a pretty even mix, you feel like it's all AE. So now I'm forced to go back and put numbers on each one because we all like to throw out our assertions without backing them up. But saying the expansion is all AE, or 95% AE as someone put it, is balderdash.EDIT: On a side note, every TSO instance run except one OoA trip that I've done on a toon other than my Berserker has had a Guardian tank. And no, not the same one. Only one of those tanks had any issues, and those were on Zaza and Ankef in Scion because he refused to believe they did anything memwipe or memblur related so he quit the group calling us all aggro-stealing jerks despite the fact that no one was doing over 900 DPS. He also wanted to get his mythical so he would be immune to "Riptoast". (Yay for voice chat) Point is, that wasn't a class issue or an AE vs ST issue (Zaza was mezzed anyway). That was a riptoast issue.</blockquote>What does the mobs being linked have to do with it being aoe content or not? Does anyone not pull those singles or groups several at a time, thus making it all aoe content?

Obadiah

01-29-2009, 03:44 PM

Hey, I didn't say that. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" />The Guardian I know the best has had zero issues with TSO content. Granted gear makes a large difference.But ... GU51 should make it even better FFS! I would be willing to bet that if the changes currently on Test were made, but Aeralik never made the statement that Fighters X, Y, and Z were AE tanks and A, B, and C were ST .... you would be a lot more content with the changes, which IMO should increase a Guard's AE (and that of every other fighter) threat considerably from what it is today.I mean look at the complaints in the last two threads. AE tanks are now screwed over for raiding, ST tanks are now screwed over for AE intances. If they weren't "assigned" that label officially, I don't think those complaints would arise as a result of these changes themselves. But now that the "AE vs ST" monkey is out of the bag, that will be the theme of complaints from both sides of the fence for the foreseeable future.Personally I know my Berserker is fine as an OT on raids, and fine to MT if our normal MT isn't there. I know the Guardians I know can tank instances just fine without making things slow. I know there are some instances where they will have a slight edge, and some where I would. The fighter classes have gotten a lot more vanilla between GU50 and GU51. The differences shrink all the time as more and more people complain that "class X has this ability and we don't."

Obadiah

01-29-2009, 03:48 PM

<cite>Mobmasher@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>What does the mobs being linked have to do with it being aoe content or not? Does anyone not pull those singles or groups several at a time, thus making it all aoe content?</blockquote>Well that depends. Last PUG I did in OoA and AoB, someone else in the group grabbed the next encounter as we fought the first. Was great. OoA 15 minutes, AoB 31. Last PUG I did in Deep Forge I was in Defensive Stance with 2 furies and I still dared not pull more than one mob at a time.

LygerT

01-29-2009, 03:50 PM

or they could have just made some zones that were single target based and some that were heavy AE target based. that way single target tanks don't feel stressed out unless they want to try and tackle an AE zone. of course though, that never went through.

RafaelSmith

01-29-2009, 04:18 PM

<cite>jadsded wrote:</cite><blockquote>On a side note, I think I have only grouped with a guard maybe 3 times since TSO launched... They just aren't doing instances. Current state, guard + instances = broken.</blockquote>Its funny and sad......I get asked often by guildmates to MT TSO instances....i refuse to do any but the 2 or 3 easy ones....half the people don't understand why I refuse...the other half are the ones that have actually been with me to the instances and they understand why I refuse.

victer

01-29-2009, 04:19 PM

<cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote> That was a riptoast issue.</blockquote>rofl thats classici love you kurgan

Kordran

01-29-2009, 04:30 PM

One thing that I think also bears worth mentioning is that this all doesn't just fall on the shoulders of the fighters, either. This update will require changes in how both tanks and DPS classes play, and Aeralik has made it clear that he sees aggro management as everyone's responsibility, not just the tank's.Of course, the real concern through all of this is that the single-target tanks fear they're soon to become obsolete (edit: some Guardians feel that way right now). Groups will shun them because the AE DPS classes want to blow stuff up, and the AE tanks make it easier for them to do that. I guess we'll see if that happens, but it is certainly possible.For fighters with established characters who already have a raid slot, etc. then I think the changes will be manageable. Guilds will adjust and do what they need to do. Some may be mercenary enough to kick their Paladin OTs and replace them, but I imagine most won't, out of loyalty to the player if nothing else. If that player leaves though, will the guild be going out of their way to find another Paladin? Not likely. Most likely, they'll be looking for an SK as a replacement.The question I find myself asking is what about new players, or people starting new fighters? Seriously, post GU51 I would have to ask why would anyone choose to play the Guardian or Paladin? I'm not being rhetorical here, I'm being completely serious. In this new paradigm, playing a single-target tank is just asking for a lot of aggravation as you level and gear up, and for what? The only long-term goal that is viable for the Guardian is as a raid MT. That's one slot, for a limited number of radiding guilds on a server. For a Paladin? I'm still not clear on what Aeralik sees the Paladin's role in raids to be. I suspect Monks largely feel the same way.When you have 50% of the plate tanks in the game suddenly declared to be "sub-optimal" for heroic content, and rigidly defined roles in raiding, I honestly don't see how this helps the game in the near- or long-term. I still won't say the sky is falling here, not until these changes have a chance to settle out; but there's storm clouds on the horizon.

victer

01-29-2009, 04:38 PM

And ill say it again.I have absolutely 0 concern about people worrying that they are obsolete because there are lots of AE encounters.How do you think the AE classes felt for the last 4 years?Are we not allowed to shine for 1 expansion?All this complaining is gonna make the next expansion have very low ammounts of AE encounters and then were back to scare one with AE classes not living up to thier potential.

liveja

01-29-2009, 04:39 PM

<cite>Lyger@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>or they could have just made some zones that were single target based and some that were heavy AE target based. that way single target tanks don't feel stressed out unless they want to try and tackle an AE zone. of course though, that never went through.</blockquote>I think a MUCH better idea is the one Noanni suggested: give all "single target" tanks AOE taunts, but make them cost a lot more power to cast, just as "area effect" tanks have single target taunts that are more expensive. It makes sense, & allows both types to overcome their downside.I think, tho, that making some dungeons AOE & some single target would simply exacerbate the problem of people feeling as if their class mechanics are preventing them from experiencing all the available content, whereas Noanni's idea would (I think) alleviate that issue.

RafaelSmith

01-29-2009, 04:51 PM

<cite>Kordran wrote:</cite><blockquote>Of course, the real concern through all of this is that the single-target tanks fear they're soon to become obsolete (edit: some Guardians feel that way right now). Groups will shun them because the AE DPS classes want to blow stuff up, and the AE tanks make it easier for them to do that. I guess we'll see if that happens, but it is certainly possible.</blockquote>I think something that SOE fails to see is that TSO is essentially a grindfest...everyone wants shards and as many as they can get in the quickest time. That may not be what SOE intended with the design of the dungeons but its reality.When it comes to grinding for your 5th or 6th shard gear in instances you have done over and over....its all about efficiency, speed and being able to go all out.Nothing is efficeint about using a Guard to MT the TSO instances......there is more burdon on the group members to behave, hold back, etc....and the healers to keep those AE dpers from dieing. The comment about Guards being more efficient and single target tanking just made me laugh...considering it usually means less efficiency for everyone else.I know in my guild...our DPS classes have to hold back quite abit when I am their tank -vs- when our SK is...that is frustrating for everyone involved. Ive been in groups with a SK tanking...ive run ACT...I can see that the wizards are able to do much more with less fear of dieing....and the rate at which we get thru the instances is usually 2-3x as faster...due to faster pulling, faster killing and less down time due to deaths.Raids are entirely different story. I just want to look forward to and enjoy other parts of the game not just 1 or 2 nights a week of raids.

LygerT

01-29-2009, 04:53 PM

once that happens i will gladly point towards class mergers, there will be no real point having an AE tank once we are all forced to tank defensively.the issue you're seeing gaylon is something that i have been mentioning here or there over the forum.

RafaelSmith

01-29-2009, 04:55 PM

Morrolan V

01-29-2009, 04:58 PM

LygerT

01-29-2009, 05:00 PM

<cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Victer@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>And ill say it again.I have absolutely 0 concern about people worrying that they are obsolete because there are lots of AE encounters.How do you think the AE classes felt for the last 4 years?Are we not allowed to shine for 1 expansion?All this complaining is gonna make the next expansion have very low ammounts of AE encounters and then were back to scare one with AE classes not living up to thier potential.</blockquote>So your idea of balance is to cycle thru who gets screwed/left out with each expansion?</blockquote>that's generally how it works, guards were the best tanks hands down in RoK, they got knocked down a step. SKs were next to the bottom of the barrel in every area and they got 3 steps up. there was little AE content in RoK so now there is tons of heroic AE content in TSO, this all points to SK and to a lesser extent zerk love and guard nerf. next expansion a new rise of power will take place, it gets tiring but that is really just how it's always been.

victer

01-29-2009, 05:01 PM

I never said pay back is a bI never said that haveing alot of AE content one expantion and then very little the next is balance.I said where were you the last 4 year complaining about your AE agro and AE dps?

Kordran

01-29-2009, 05:01 PM

<cite>Victer@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>And ill say it again.I have absolutely 0 concern about people worrying that they are obsolete because there are lots of AE encounters.How do you think the AE classes felt for the last 4 years?Are we not allowed to shine for 1 expansion?All this complaining is gonna make the next expansion have very low ammounts of AE encounters and then were back to scare one with AE classes not living up to thier potential.</blockquote>You seem to be intentionally not getting the issue. Right now, you can (and could) tank the more single-target encounters just fine in RoK. Perhaps you felt that you didn't "shine", but the disparity exists because an AE tank can, by definition, tank both single and multi-mob encounters just as easily; your only penalty under the new system is somewhat higher power consumption, something that will be easily mitigated by having a regen class in your group (which most groups already do). On the other hand, single-target tanks cannot do multi-mob encounters as easily and there's no class that can be added to the group to mitigate that deficiency. A Warlock in a group with a Guardian or Paladin will either have to significantly ramp down their DPS, or die. Frequently. Realistically, the choice many are going to make is to not group with those classes.An analogy would be a manual process versus an automated one. Let's use pies as an example; everyone loves a good pie. You have a baker who sets out to make a single pie. He is an expert in pie-making, and his pies are delicious. It is what he is best at doing. You also have a factory with large machines that make pies by the hundreds at a time. Not quite a delicious perhaps, but still quite tasty. If you have a customer who orders one pie, then both the baker and the factory are capable of filling that order. The baker will be much more efficient at it, and the pie will taste a bit better, but both are completely capable of providing the customer with that pie. There's your single-target tanks.Now, another customer comes in, and says they need 200 pies by tomorrow morning. While the baker could certainly attempt to make 200 hand-made pies, it would be extremely difficult and impractical. Even if he managed to do it, the quality would most likely be poorer, and of course it wouldn't be particularly pleasant for him. On the other hand, this is exactly what the factory was built to do, and within few hours, those 200 pies would be ready for delivery. Their quality is good, they are made efficiently, and far exceed what the baker was capable of making. There's your multi-target tanks. See the difference?The imbalance that exists is that the penalty to the multi-target tank who's tanking single mobs is significantly lower than the penalty to the single-target tank who is forced to tank multiple mobs. Both in terms of game mechanics, and frankly, the fun of playing the class. A Guardian trying to hold aggro against a Warlock in a large encounter of linked and unlinked mobs (think: Guk) is nothing but an extreme source of frustration.And now I'm feeling hungry. I think I'll go have some dutch apple pie.

liveja

01-29-2009, 05:02 PM

<cite>Victer@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>I said where were you the last 4 year complaining about your AE agro and AE dps?</blockquote>I don't recall AOE classes having a major problem prior to ROK. Could you remind me what it was?

victer

01-29-2009, 05:06 PM

sure dude.We were never really playing up to our potential and now that we have more chances to everyone else is calling foul play.Pretty [Removed for Content] simple.

RafaelSmith

01-29-2009, 05:07 PM

<cite>Victer@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>I never said pay back is a bI never said that haveing alot of AE content one expantion and then very little the next is balance.I said where were you the last 4 year complaining about your AE agro and AE dps?</blockquote>Actually I took a break...only came back last year......so I will give admit that I did not have much insight into how things were thru EoF or even RoK at release.But once I got myself leveled and geared up....our guild had basically 2 interchangeable tanks for both group and raids....me and SK.Since TSO we are still interchangeable for raid MT/OT slots but no where near close for TSO instances...at least beyond the stupid easy Scion and Forge.

Obadiah

01-29-2009, 05:07 PM

<cite>Morrolan V wrote:</cite><blockquote>Payback for past issues is a stupid way to design an expansion. If you'll notice, you don't see a lot of "single target" tanks asking for changes to the content or for AoE tanks to get nerfed. We are asking for a real balance in the tools we have to meet the content. Your experience of being a little worse off on single targets, in terms of efficiency and dps, is very different from a single target tank facing places like Ykesha's Outer Stronghold.</blockquote>It seems odd seeing all these complaints from ST tanks about AE content ... as we stand on the brink of an update that should (should) make it considerably easier for them to hold aggro in multi-mob situations. Wacky.

Kordran

01-29-2009, 05:09 PM

<cite>Victer@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>sure dude.We were never really playing up to our potential and now that we have more chances to everyone else is calling foul play.Pretty [Removed for Content] simple.</blockquote>Please, enough of the drama. I don't see any Paladins or Guardians here calling foul play. I see them calling for balance. All tanks should be equally capable (and equally absent of frustration) in managing both single and multiple mob encounters. The differences should be in terms of efficiency, not capability. Is that really so difficult for you to understand?

liveja

01-29-2009, 05:10 PM

<cite>Victer@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>sure dude.We were never really playing up to our potential and now that we have more chances to everyone else is calling foul play.Pretty [Removed for Content] simple.</blockquote>I'm not sure what you mean, since prior to ROK there were lots of linked encounters. Where, precisely, were you unable to play up to your potential 4 years ago?Note that the removal of linked encounters from Ant, CL, & Nek only affected those zones.

Kordran

01-29-2009, 05:12 PM

<cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>It seems odd seeing all these complaints from ST tanks about AE content ... as we stand on the brink of an update that should (should) make it considerably easier for them to hold aggro in multi-mob situations. Wacky.</blockquote>How is a single blue AE attack with 3-5K threat attached to it going to make it "considerably easier" for a Guardian to hold aggro against a Warlock in Guk? Oh, and keep in mind that Guardians also had their encounter taunt nerfed so that it's no longer castable while they are stunned/stifled. Please, enlighten us all, because I sure don't see it.

RafaelSmith

01-29-2009, 05:15 PM

<cite>Kordran wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>It seems odd seeing all these complaints from ST tanks about AE content ... as we stand on the brink of an update that should (should) make it considerably easier for them to hold aggro in multi-mob situations. Wacky.</blockquote>How is a single blue AE attack with 3-5K threat attached to it going to make it "considerably easier" for a Guardian to hold aggro against a Warlock in Guk? Please, enlighten us all, because I sure don't see it.</blockquote>Was about to ask the same thing....when its all said and done..in terms of AE aggro tools....the only extra thing we are getting is the +threat added to the blue AE. Oh and a slight reduction in the reuse of our ridicously slow casting green AE.

Obadiah

01-29-2009, 05:17 PM

<cite>Kordran wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>It seems odd seeing all these complaints from ST tanks about AE content ... as we stand on the brink of an update that should (should) make it considerably easier for them to hold aggro in multi-mob situations. Wacky.</blockquote>How is a single blue AE attack with 3-5K threat attached to it going to make it "considerably easier" for a Guardian to hold aggro against a Warlock in Guk? Please, enlighten us all, because I sure don't see it.</blockquote>If that's the only difference you noticed from live to test, you might want to look again.

Kordran

01-29-2009, 05:18 PM

<cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>If that's the only difference you noticed from live to test, you might want to look again.</blockquote>Nice job at not answering the question. Educate us.Edit: If you're referring to the change in threat mechanics for damage done to a group of mobs, when you're talking about high AE DPS classes like the Warlock, the benefit to tanks is marginal because they're still bombing everything in the area at a rate that the Guardian can't hope to match. At most, if a Guard throws out all of his AE taunts, I think he's looking at generating somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.5-3K TPS (note that the AE taunts for a single-target tank have a higher recast time than with the multi-target tanks). This is against the Warlock, who even in instance gear can put out 6K DPS against groups of mobs; with a raiding Warlock you can easily be looking at over 10K. Your assertion doesn't add up.I would also point out that on Test, to my knowledge there has been zero coordinated playtesting in zones like Guk. It's all been the easy instances like Deep Forge and Scion. Guk is an exercise in frustration for Guardians right now, and I don't see how anything has been made easier for them; in fact, with the change to their green taunt, it's been made harder.

Obadiah

01-29-2009, 05:34 PM

<cite>Kordran wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>If that's the only difference you noticed from live to test, you might want to look again.</blockquote>Nice job at not answering the question. Again, I say, enlighten us all with your boundless and infinite wisdom.</blockquote>Your AE taunt alone has more than quadrupled in AE TPS generation. That's just ONE ability and that goes from ~150 TPS to 660. One ability. Are you honestly suggesting that you are not gaining AE Aggro in this update? I mean ... really?

victer

01-29-2009, 05:39 PM

<cite>Flaye@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>I'm not sure what you mean, since prior to ROK there were lots of linked encounters. Where, precisely, were you unable to play up to your potential 4 years ago?Note that the removal of linked encounters from Ant, CL, & Nek only affected those zones.</blockquote>Are we playing the same game?Forgive my numbers of instances i cant rememeber exact numbers. Original Release - 1 Heroic instance and a few raid instances. Group places were EF and Lavastorm for leveling up. All single target.DOF - 3-4 Heroic instances and a few raid instances. Cazel's Mesa and the bird zone is about the only heroic ones i can think of with a FEW grped encounters. The only raid instance with AE encounters was Poets. All else single target.KOS - 4-5 Heroic insatances and a few raid instances. Ravasect zone is the only heroic instance with about half AE content. Everything else single target. (random heroic zones may have a few AE encounters but was 90% single target)EOF - 4-5 Heroic instances all single target. Raids all single target. A few expections in each zone but still mostly single target.ROK - 4-5 Heroic instances all single target. Raids all single target.TSO - 18 heroic instance most trash mobs AE all names single target. Raids all single target.Now you may be able to pick through some of the expantions and say HEY!!! You forgot X zone had enoucnters in them! But can you say that there was more or even 1/2 AE 1/2 single target? I doubt it.The point is AE classes for 4 year where never given the content to fully utilize thier skills. While single target classes played to thier fullest 95% of the time. We now have an expantion that ONLY THE HEROIC CONTENT is focused alot around TRASH MOB encounters and everyone is going crazy saying AE classes have it easy.AE classes spent 4 years hopeing for a zone that was mostly AE encounter so they could strut thier stuff.Again. Where was the AE hate and AE dps whineing from the single target classes for 4 years?

RafaelSmith

01-29-2009, 05:40 PM

<cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kordran wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>If that's the only difference you noticed from live to test, you might want to look again.</blockquote>Nice job at not answering the question. Again, I say, enlighten us all with your boundless and infinite wisdom.</blockquote>Your AE taunt alone has more than quadrupled in AE TPS generation. That's just ONE ability and that goes from ~150 TPS to 660. One ability. Are you honestly suggesting that you are not gaining AE Aggro in this update? I mean ... really?</blockquote>Gaining yes.But nowhere near strong enough or fast enough to keep up with the amount of raw DPS a good AE dps class can deal even under the "fixed" AE dmg threat distribution.Look, I am not saying we cant tank these places...we can but when doing so requires 10x the effort on everyone in the group -vs- another tank type and its takes 2x as long to clear the zone...then why bother?

Kordran

01-29-2009, 05:42 PM

<cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>Your AE taunt alone has more than quadrupled in AE TPS generation. That's just ONE ability and that goes from ~150 TPS to 660. One ability. Are you honestly suggesting that you are not gaining AE Aggro in this update? I mean ... really?</blockquote>Good grief. You do realize that the primary way that Guardians hold aggro now is through their DPS, and there's a significant reduction across the board in damage output, and a steep drop in autoattack damage (on the order of about 25%) because they're being forced to tank in defensive? That their encounter taunt has been changed so it cannot be cast while stunned/stifled?Your position is like telling someone you'll give them a shotgun to bring to a knife fight, but that you're also going to tie their hands behind their back. Why should they complain? After all, they have a gun now instead of a knife.

Hirofortis

01-29-2009, 05:48 PM

Hey SOE,Can you just combine the Guard and Zeerk classes and make it a function of AA's as to whether or not they act like a zerker or a guard.There,Problem solved.This debate has been going on for longer than I care to remember. I have watched each expansion fli things back and forth as to who was the better tank for this or that. Really, in the end, it becomes the players that define whether the role works or not. I run a zerker and a guard and I have seen both sides. It is funny to watch a zerker get 15k DPS on an AOE encounter and see them complain that they are not the best tank. Likewise it is funny to watch a guard complain that they only run 5k and can't hold agro from the DPS.It would be nice to live in a perfect world, but that does not exist. I have watched SK's take over the role as an instance tank and watch my guard get pushed to the side. Then I see things flip back the other way and watch the SK's get pushed out on the bigger mobs. Is it fair, no. Are the mechanics broken, probably. Instead of being a whiny baby though, maybe you can come up with some suggestions on how it mght work. Zerks were originally chain wearing tanks, suprise. They traded off survivability for more DPS. SK's traded some defense for being able to cast spells.Pallys traded off to be able to heal.Monks and brusiers I feel sorry for, I run a monk myself and they get hit so hard they should not even be called a tank. More of a leather scout if ya ask me.So here are my thoughts:Getting taunts in line. ** Absolutly Needed ** They have not kept up with the overall trend and it is good to see them fixed.Zerks. If you want DPS, go chain and loose some tanking ability. If you wear plate, you get increased defense and survivability but you loose DPS and act more like a guard in ability.Guards. You wanted survivabilty, you got it. You get taunts that are great and you traded off DPS for it. Sorry.SK's. You wanted spells, FD and the chance to do some neat stuff like harm touch. You got it. Your survivabilty is based on lessened armor but more life taps and stealing others mit.Pallys, you get wards, heals, nukes and CA's as well as tuants now. Work on your survivability based upon these methods.AOE, vs Single combat. Whether a mob is a ^^^ or a group of ^, they all have the same HP and arguably the same average DPS. ASsuming this is functioning correctly, then when a lot of mobs come a running, then those with more AOE ability are going to be able to grab the mobs that the single target tank is not focusing on. In a single target situation the ST tanks should be able to hold onto that mobs attention and keep it going. Hopefully this is how it is working. I have seen more AOE content with TSO than I ever saw in RoK. I also know that I can tank it on my guard or zerker the same. Given good healers, proper buffs and knowing when and where to use my mini buffs, I have no problem with survivability to either of these toons. I have pallys and SK friends who tank all the instances and we rotate on raids as to who tanks what.Guess what, it works.Maybe you need to stop looking at things in such a limited perspective as from where I sit when gear is equal, I find that all the classes can do the job. They just carry it out in a different manner.Peace to you all80 guard, 80 zerk, 80 monk not happy with all things, but can make it work.

Kordran

01-29-2009, 05:56 PM

<cite>Krunck@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have seen more AOE content with TSO than I ever saw in RoK. I also know that I can tank it on my guard or zerker the same. Given good healers, proper buffs and knowing when and where to use my mini buffs, I have no problem with survivability to either of these toons. I have pallys and SK friends who tank all the instances and we rotate on raids as to who tanks what.Guess what, it works.</blockquote>So let me get this straight. You've tanked Guk both as a Guard and Zerk, and you've not seen any differences in those zones? The experience is the same, the DPS classes (particularly the AE DPS classes) are pumping out the same amount of damage, maximizing their DPS and you've been able to hold aggro just fine?That's contrary to abolutely everything I've heard in my own guild and have read from other Guardians. The consensus seems to be that the AE DPS classes have to ramp back for the Guard, versus a Shadow Knight (or the Paladin with Amends as it is on live right now). That, in fact, by tanking with your Guard in Guk, you're forcing them to [Removed for Content] their damage output so they don't rip and die.If it really is just as easy for Guardians as the AE tanks, then why do so many of them despise tanking Guk?

Obadiah

01-29-2009, 06:11 PM

<cite>Kordran wrote:</cite><blockquote>If it really is just as easy for Guardians as the AE tanks, then why do so many of them despise tanking Guk?</blockquote>So you've tanked Guk on Test and on Live as a Guard and not noticed any difference in your ability to hold AE aggro?Actually, Lower Guk seemed to be more ST than AE, but that's not really important. What's important is, talking about how things are on live is entirely moot and we shouldn't even be talking about it. If you've tested the changes and there are still severe AE aggro issues, that's worth discussing. I could not possibly care less that Guards hold aggro on live via DPS because THEY AREN'T GOING TO NEXT WEEK. Nor is anyone else.If you would rather have a 1600 TPS AE ability that you could use while stunned/stifled than a 3600 TPS ST one, more power to you. I would have no qualms about trading. Can I have ur reactive too? <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" />

Gisallo

01-29-2009, 06:28 PM

<cite>Kordran wrote:</cite><blockquote>The question I find myself asking is what about new players, or people starting new fighters? Seriously, post GU51 I would have to ask why would anyone choose to play the Guardian or Paladin? I'm not being rhetorical here, I'm being completely serious. In this new paradigm, playing a single-target tank is just asking for a lot of aggravation as you level and gear up, and for what? The only long-term goal that is viable for the Guardian is as a raid MT. That's one slot, for a limited number of radiding guilds on a server. For a Paladin? I'm still not clear on what Aeralik sees the Paladin's role in raids to be. I suspect Monks largely feel the same way.</blockquote>Yeah, until the next expansion when the bulk of the end game instance content is largely ST. Thats the problem. The artificial construct of AE vs ST makes the balance completely dependent on the content of instances. The old paradigm Offensive vs defensive can scale regardless of the content (if doen right). With the current set up though you can simply change the instance design and one tank suddenly rises to the top so your "balance" will change every 6 months to a year even if you do not touch class design. BRILLIANT if you are only looking for job security. Every 6 months say "Boss the classes are out of balance again I need more money for overtime because we gotta fix this fast!!"

RafaelSmith

01-29-2009, 06:32 PM

<cite>Gisallo@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yeah, until the next expansion when the bulk of the end game instance content is largely ST. Thats the problem. The artificial construct of AE vs ST makes the balance completely dependent on the content of instances.</blockquote>They should have stuck with the Def -vs- Off measure of tanking.......AE -vs- ST is flawed in every way and can never be "balanced".

Gisallo

01-29-2009, 06:35 PM

<cite>Krunck@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>Hey SOE,Can you just combine the Guard and Zeerk classes and make it a function of AA's as to whether or not they act like a zerker or a guard.There,Problem solved.</blockquote>Hate to say it but I have to agree as much as I love my zerker. I think this should be done for other classes as well. Do this and it will help eliminate complaints about "wah I can't get a raid slot", "wah I can't get picked for instance groups" "wah I can't solo etc". It now comes down to how you build the class, equip etc. Basically it comes down to your player skill and you can't hide behind a real (or more often imaginary) imbalance. Clearly others won't want it and this kinda change is so sweeping SOE will never spend the time and money to do it, BUT it would eliminate about 75% of the whining that has been going on since ROK.

Elanjar

01-29-2009, 06:35 PM

<cite>Kordran wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Victer@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>sure dude.We were never really playing up to our potential and now that we have more chances to everyone else is calling foul play.Pretty [Removed for Content] simple.</blockquote>Please, enough of the drama. I don't see any Paladins or Guardians here calling foul play. I see them calling for balance. All tanks should be equally capable (and equally absent of frustration) in managing both single and multiple mob encounters. The differences should be in terms of efficiency, not capability. Is that really so difficult for you to understand?</blockquote>A capable tank is an efficient tank? How do you differentiate them on efficiency? The only way i can think of would be power vs dps or survivability vs dps or survivability vs power. And everyone knows power is a BS way to balance it cause it just means that for whatever class gets the power shaft we just have to have a chanter with us always. And then were back to the whole point of this [Removed for Content]'d update.

Elanjar

01-29-2009, 06:37 PM

<cite>Gisallo@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Krunck@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>Hey SOE,Can you just combine the Guard and Zeerk classes and make it a function of AA's as to whether or not they act like a zerker or a guard.There,Problem solved.</blockquote>Hate to say it but I have to agree as much as I love my zerker. I think this should be done for other classes as well. Do this and it will help eliminate complaints about "wah I can't get a raid slot", "wah I can't get picked for instance groups" "wah I can't solo etc". It now comes down to how you build the class, equip etc. Basically it comes down to your player skill and you can't hide behind a real (or more often imaginary) imbalance. Clearly others won't want it and this kinda change is so sweeping SOE will never spend the time and money to do it, BUT it would eliminate about 75% of the whining that has been going on since ROK.</blockquote>You do this though and there will be no differentiation at the raid level. Its all about min maxing so eventually there will be a "one best way" and either you play like that or you're second rate. Like right now there is arguably one way to spec a zerker and one way to spec a guard. Combine the classes and you'll end up with one way to spec a warrior. And that is called WoW.

Gisallo

01-29-2009, 07:54 PM

<cite>Elanjar@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gisallo@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Krunck@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>Hey SOE,Can you just combine the Guard and Zeerk classes and make it a function of AA's as to whether or not they act like a zerker or a guard.There,Problem solved.</blockquote>Hate to say it but I have to agree as much as I love my zerker. I think this should be done for other classes as well. Do this and it will help eliminate complaints about "wah I can't get a raid slot", "wah I can't get picked for instance groups" "wah I can't solo etc". It now comes down to how you build the class, equip etc. Basically it comes down to your player skill and you can't hide behind a real (or more often imaginary) imbalance. Clearly others won't want it and this kinda change is so sweeping SOE will never spend the time and money to do it, BUT it would eliminate about 75% of the whining that has been going on since ROK.</blockquote>You do this though and there will be no differentiation at the raid level. Its all about min maxing so eventually there will be a "one best way" and either you play like that or you're second rate. Like right now there is arguably one way to spec a zerker and one way to spec a guard. Combine the classes and you'll end up with one way to spec a warrior. And that is called WoW.</blockquote>Do you read what you write? Tell me as a practical matter, how is this any different than it is now? When it comes to Min/Maxing a raid its already WoW as you called it. As it stands with the AE vs ST thing, Guardians are THE MT choice and there is one way to spec them as you said, not me. Zerkers are a possible OT choice. The reason being that the add situations can be AE encounters. But in the end there is arguably just one way to spec for each job, again your ords not mine. IF you were to eliminate the class issue and make it an AA issue then your AA mirror actually serves a purpose also. Again, as you said, there is arguably one way to spec a guard or a zerker. Have a raid or instance that is largely ST (including adds) throw on your ST build, AE throw on your AE build. Now the mirror has a use and its a matter of player skill and not what class you rolled that determines who gets the slot. Now does this mean a Guardian doesn't have a leg up on a raid just because his class starts with a "G"? Yepper. But it also means a Guardian won't say they are at a disadvantage in AE related instances. You now have a situation where knowing your builds and your class gets you a chance to App and not the fact you are class "A" or "B". The idea of having 24 classes and only 24 raid slots is a completely failing proposition once min/maxing becomes involved. THIS also creates what you call the WoW effect because even if there is another type of fighter, caster or scout, if your class doesn't fit into the calculations of min maxing, effectively you have just a Warrior or whatever because the other one simply doesn't exist for practical purposes

Excalibre33

01-29-2009, 11:21 PM

The entire perception of balance needs to be simplified. Balance class-specific equipment against class-specific equipment. Balance AAs against AAs. Balance hotbars against hotbars.

Noaani

01-29-2009, 11:42 PM

<cite>Victer@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>We were never really playing up to our potential and now that we have more chances to everyone else is calling foul play.</blockquote>Personally, I am calling it unbalanced. I don't want to see bezerkers changed (I want to see another small nerf to SK DPS in both off and def, but thats a topic for another day), but I also want to see guardians, monks and paladins bought up to the same level.The fact that bezerkers have been underpowered as tanks since the start of RoK has little meaning to current class balance. It sucks for those zerkers that played though that time, but is not an excuse to have the class overpowered no (in comparison to other fighters).SoE have a habbit of taking overpowered classes and nerfing them into nothingness (Summoners during KoS/EoF), or taking nothing classes and buffing them so they are the OP flavour of the month (coercers), but that doesn't mean it is a good thing.All that accomplishes is a second change to those classes later on down the road (summoners are hopfully getting theirs soon, as are chanters). Sending the patch live with AE tanks able to generate better AE hate AND ST hate means that either the AE fighters or the ST fighters will get changed latter on... I personally just want that to happen before this all hits live.

Noaani

01-29-2009, 11:44 PM

<cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>It seems odd seeing all these complaints from ST tanks about AE content ... as we stand on the brink of an update that should (should) make it considerably easier for them to hold aggro in multi-mob situations. Wacky.</blockquote>After this update, a guardian in particular is able to hold better AE hate than before it, however, they are not able to hold AE hate as well as a bezerker (which is expected), the real issue is that they can't hold single target hate as well as a bezerker either, assuming that bezerker is willing to use a decient amount of power to hold aggro.My issue is not that guardians, monks or paladins specifically need a boost, its that they need a boost only when compared along side an AE tank (its either that or nerf the hell out of the AE tanks, which I don't want to even suggest).

victer

01-30-2009, 02:27 AM

the point im trying to get across is what would happen next tier (mythicals are gone) or even next expansion without new levels and there is a hell of alot less AE content. Where does that leave everyone with everyones current reactions?Lets face is if there wasnt a bunch of AE targets this time around where the AE classes get to go all out there wouldnt be anything remotely close to the complaints we have now. And lets remember... these are HEROIC targets mostly where raiding targets are still mostly singles. All this complaining about heroic content is screwing over the raiding aspect.If all these complaints go thru i predict a very dim future for the whole AE community unless they consistently bring out expansion after expansion with tons of AE content. Which we know they just are not going to do. So then we are back at it with people complaining that AE people are haveing a hard time keeping up.But hey my prediction cant be that bad right? After all that's how its been for the last 4 years. ST classes shine while AE classes wait for the 2-3 encounters they can do well on.

circusgirl

01-30-2009, 03:25 AM

Personally, I'm willing to deal with the whole AE/ST distinction...so long as they give ALL ST tanks the edge in surviveability. Right now monks are getting the shaft--we have all the uselessness of being incapable of picking up groups larger than 5 mobs, and none of this supposed extra surviveability to make up for it. Don't get me wrong, I like this update overall, and I do think Aerelik intends us to be doing more tanking in raids (at least from the looks of TSO AA abilities like meditative healing and inner focus, two well-meaning but horribly designed abilities). But monks need a serious bit of help with surviving through TSO's raid mobs.And as an aside, this whole kick about all raidmobs being all single target is bull. Xebnok the Wretched, Kultak the Cruel, and Gynok all have multiple adds. So do the first two nameds in ToMC for that matter. In fact, everything in ToMC except the Naga and some trash.

Obadiah

01-30-2009, 03:37 AM

<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>It seems odd seeing all these complaints from ST tanks about AE content ... as we stand on the brink of an update that should (should) make it considerably easier for them to hold aggro in multi-mob situations. Wacky.</blockquote>After this update, a guardian in particular is able to hold better AE hate than before it, however, they are not able to hold AE hate as well as a bezerker (which is expected), the real issue is that they can't hold single target hate as well as a bezerker either, assuming that bezerker is willing to use a decient amount of power to hold aggro.My issue is not that guardians, monks or paladins specifically need a boost, its that they need a boost only when compared along side an AE tank (its either that or nerf the hell out of the AE tanks, which I don't want to even suggest).</blockquote>Their single target taunt alone is 4 times as powerful. If you include the AE and ST taunts, it's still a 3 to 2 ratio for the Guardian. They all have twice the Aggression bonus in defensive stance than Berserkers making for more powerful taunts in general and making them more readily able to approach "unresistable" taunts. The guardian has a substantially more powerful reactives. How is it that they cannot hold ST aggro better than a berserker?

Glerin

01-30-2009, 04:10 AM

does it really matter if a single target tank have 10x the hate on a single target mob, if a aoe tank can keep aggro on it just as fine anyway?

Obadiah

01-30-2009, 04:34 AM

Noaani

01-30-2009, 06:42 AM

<cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>How is it that they cannot hold ST aggro better than a berserker?</blockquote>Because even in defensive stance, a bezerker (and even moreso, a shadowknight) has a much much higher DPS output than a guardian or paladin.The DPS difference between the classes more than makes up for the relativly small amount of pure threat generation that the single target tanks are able to put out.I'm only going on what I have seen. Same equipment, same player, higher single target hate on a zerker than a guard. The guard only held aggro through positional increasers.

Noaani

01-30-2009, 06:49 AM

<cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Glerin wrote:</cite><blockquote>does it really matter if a single target tank have 10x the hate on a single target mob, if a aoe tank can keep aggro on it just as fine anyway?</blockquote>Nope. Likewise for AE.</blockquote>And this is the issue.A guardian is unable to hold aggro on multi mob encounters against a wizard (even without casting Fission). Although wizard AE DPS is fairly high (top 5 in the game imo), it is clearly far from the AE DPS that warlocks can put out. If a guardian can not hold aggro against a wizard on AE mobs, how can he be expected to hold aggro against a warlock?If the warlock has to tone down his DPS when in a group with a guardian, but not with an SK or zerker (which, in groups with these tanks a warlock has no need to hold back), is it a penalty to warlocks or to guardians?The issue is only an issue when the whole picture is looked at. Zerkers and SKs are able to hold single target aggro against any class in the game, unless there is a major gear difference. They are also able to hold AE hate with absolute ease. Guardians and paladins are able to hold single target hate as well as the other classes (in terms of they will have aggro, good luck pulling it off them), but on AE fights they are handicapped to the point of me not wanting to take a guardian to Nu'Roga on test, not even to test it out again.

Illine

01-30-2009, 06:51 AM

<cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Glerin wrote:</cite><blockquote>does it really matter if a single target tank have 10x the hate on a single target mob, if a aoe tank can keep aggro on it just as fine anyway?</blockquote>Nope. Likewise for AE.</blockquote>it's for security margins.let's say a zerk has the aggro on one mob but it's freaking close to the hate generated by the mythical wiz. Now the wiz casts ice comet, which crit and double spell ... crap ... the zerk looses aggro ... he must use a rescue ... crap all down ... byebye wiz <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />a guard who has 10 times more aggro won't have the pb ...must be easier too when the mob mem wipe a lot. solo taunts take less time to cast and are generate more hate to a single mob than AE taunt. so the guard will have less trouble taking back the mob than a zerk.but still look at wiz and warlock. even if one is AE mage and the other single mob mage ... both of them can do great dps on either single or encounter. same for tanks

Illine

01-30-2009, 06:55 AM

Bremer

01-30-2009, 08:19 AM

Bremer

01-30-2009, 08:23 AM

Bremer

01-30-2009, 08:30 AM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>And as an aside, this whole kick about all raidmobs being all single target is bull. Xebnok the Wretched, Kultak the Cruel, and Gynok all have multiple adds. So do the first two nameds in ToMC for that matter. In fact, everything in ToMC except the Naga and some trash.</blockquote>Do you know any raid who wasn't capable of handling the first nameds in the Tomb without an AE tank? How long of the total fight duration do these named trash adds live? 10 %? 50 % of the fighters are AE tank. Do you think you desperately need an AE tank in your raid for dealing with adds that only appear in 10 % of the encounters and only live 10 % of the time of these encounters?

Noaani

01-30-2009, 09:04 AM

<cite>Bremer wrote:</cite><blockquote>You are talking about pre LU51. And all this stuff doesn't apply for raiding.</blockquote>As I have said, I am talking about test_copy.No tank is able to hold aggro from a wizard on live, not if that wizard is going all out. Just an fyi, thats how you can tell if I am talking about live. On live DPS pull aggro all the time, on test they only pull aggro on AE encounters with a single target tank.

Noaani

01-30-2009, 09:07 AM

<cite>Bremer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>And as an aside, this whole kick about all raidmobs being all single target is bull. Xebnok the Wretched, Kultak the Cruel, and Gynok all have multiple adds. So do the first two nameds in ToMC for that matter. In fact, everything in ToMC except the Naga and some trash.</blockquote>Do you know any raid who wasn't capable of handling the first nameds in the Tomb without an AE tank? How long of the total fight duration do these named trash adds live? 10 %? 50 % of the fighters are AE tank. Do you think you desperately need an AE tank in your raid for dealing with adds that only appear in 10 % of the encounters and only live 10 % of the time of these encounters?</blockquote>From what I have seen of TSO raiding (15 named encounters, not including avatars), every raid named that is worth the time to kill has adds of some form, any of which can one shot a mage, aka they need to be tanked.

Noaani

01-30-2009, 09:09 AM

<cite>Bremer wrote:</cite><blockquote>That's wrong. Since RoK Guardians can rival the single target DPS of Beserkers. And now in def stance versus orange mobs this will tilt over in favor of Guardians because they simply can hit the mob more often than a Beserker due to higher melee skills and Strikethrough. And on top of this they get a lot more single target taunt power.</blockquote>If your bezerker has issues with melee skills, that needs to be dealt with between him and your raid leader. That is no excuse for a bezerker to parse below a guardian in DPS on any encounter in the game.Oh, and lol at the extra strikethrough DPS.

Noaani

01-30-2009, 09:12 AM

<cite>Illine@Storms wrote:</cite><blockquote>yeah but remember before LU 51, 20% of the damage done to an encounter were spreading on the encounter. so a warlock casting an AE was giving hate to all the contounter +20% par mob on the encounter. Now it's over. the only hate the warlock will give to the mob is if he hits the mob.</blockquote>Thats all good in theory, and if I were sitting here talking about how things worked in theory, that would be a valid point.However, I am talking not from theory, but from practise on the test_copy server.

Siatfallen

01-30-2009, 10:23 AM

<cite>Victer@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Flaye@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>I'm not sure what you mean, since prior to ROK there were lots of linked encounters. Where, precisely, were you unable to play up to your potential 4 years ago?Note that the removal of linked encounters from Ant, CL, & Nek only affected those zones.</blockquote>Are we playing the same game?Forgive my numbers of instances i cant rememeber exact numbers. Original Release - 1 Heroic instance and a few raid instances. Group places were EF and Lavastorm for leveling up. All single target.DOF - 3-4 Heroic instances and a few raid instances. Cazel's Mesa and the bird zone is about the only heroic ones i can think of with a FEW grped encounters. The only raid instance with AE encounters was Poets. All else single target.KOS - 4-5 Heroic insatances and a few raid instances. Ravasect zone is the only heroic instance with about half AE content. Everything else single target. (random heroic zones may have a few AE encounters but was 90% single target)EOF - 4-5 Heroic instances all single target. Raids all single target. A few expections in each zone but still mostly single target.ROK - 4-5 Heroic instances all single target. Raids all single target.TSO - 18 heroic instance most trash mobs AE all names single target. Raids all single target.Now you may be able to pick through some of the expantions and say HEY!!! You forgot X zone had enoucnters in them! But can you say that there was more or even 1/2 AE 1/2 single target? I doubt it.The point is AE classes for 4 year where never given the content to fully utilize thier skills. While single target classes played to thier fullest 95% of the time. We now have an expantion that ONLY THE HEROIC CONTENT is focused alot around TRASH MOB encounters and everyone is going crazy saying AE classes have it easy.AE classes spent 4 years hopeing for a zone that was mostly AE encounter so they could strut thier stuff.Again. Where was the AE hate and AE dps whineing from the single target classes for 4 years?</blockquote>Let me, just to demonstrate, go over the heroic instances (and contested zones) in KoS here; I think it's fair to say your view can be contested:Nest of the great egg: Bit heavy on the single target end, but AE content still present.The Vaults of El'Arad: AE content all over. Granted, the last named was single target - but most stuff in here was groups.Sanctum of Scaleborn (not an instance per se, but still): Decent mix of group and single target encounters. Annoying scaling between solo- group- and named encounter, but balance between single targets and grous maintained throughout.Palace of the Awakened (again, no group instance as such, but i'd still have to count it here): Numerous AE fights present - sadly most nameds remained single target, even the dragon in there.Halls of Fate: Again, decent balance. Granted, probably too many ST nameds, but the trash made AE aggro enough of a bother for single target tanks to let the AE classes shine as well.Ravasect: Group encounters are very, very regular, perhaps even the norm.Blackscale Sepulcher: More than enough AE content present here. The final encounter was essentially a controlled AE fight.

Obadiah

01-30-2009, 10:38 AM

<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>How is it that they cannot hold ST aggro better than a berserker?</blockquote>Because even in defensive stance, a bezerker (and even moreso, a shadowknight) has a much much higher DPS output than a guardian or paladin.The DPS difference between the classes more than makes up for the relativly small amount of pure threat generation that the single target tanks are able to put out.I'm only going on what I have seen. Same equipment, same player, higher single target hate on a zerker than a guard. The guard only held aggro through positional increasers.</blockquote>That's absolutely ludicrous. You are telling me an equally geared Berserker did 50% more DPS on a single target than the Guardian despite having lower CA amounts and 20ish less melee skills? There's no one here that would believe that. Because that's the difference in the "relatively small amount of pure threat generation" which is 4500 TPS for a Guardian from two taunts alone. It's also wholly different from my experience and that of anyone else that's posted about it in these forums.

RafaelSmith

01-30-2009, 10:55 AM

Amazing that people sit here throwing out numbers for ST TPS or AE TPS as if they are remotely comparable...Its apples to rotten oranges. Then SOE trying to claim that somehow the degree to which ST tanks struggle against AE is balanced against the degree to which a AE tank "struggles" against a single target. BS. Show me one single target in TSO where a SK has anywhere near the struggle keeping aggro on that a Guard does with the AE in GuK. And struggle is more than ou using abit more power or taking abit more DMG...that can easily be overcome.The tanks job...irregardless of the nature of the content is to keep the aggro....SOE has decreed that that job should be done entirely via taunts/threat.AE threat is a superset of ST threat... Someone can have 100k ST TPS but if their overall AE TPS is 1000...they fail at being the MT.

Gisallo

01-30-2009, 12:03 PM

<cite>Glerin wrote:</cite><blockquote>does it really matter if a single target tank have 10x the hate on a single target mob, if a aoe tank can keep aggro on it just as fine anyway?</blockquote>Yes. Why? because things mem wipe, fear etc and once you enter a raid set up damage gets buffed big time in raids and even under the rules on test straight aggro does not. This game is NOT City of heroes where I just stand there on my tank spam my taunts and can be assured aggro is maintained, there are mobs designed specifically to mess that up.Yeah if my zerker doesn't face a mem wipe and isn't feared in a standard INSTANCE I shouldn't have that much trouble holding aggro (unless a predator or mage spikes) BUT if that happens I am likely burning a rescue to get the name back so I can use my dps to get back up the hate tree. A Guardian can pop a single target taunt with a vastly faster reuse and get back up the tree instead under the right circumstances. In a raid this additional hate is even more valuable because of how much dps scales and hate does not.Also people keep forgetting how it was that Zerkers were doing more dps. We were/are tanking in offensive stance and really this was just to EQUAL the aggro generated by a Guard in defensive stance. Yes this got changed as of Figter 1.0 because we all got a dps nerf. Now fighter 2.0 is coming and to be honest it looks like that balance is being restored BUT the zerker now can NOT use offensive stance to equal the ST aggro generation of the Guard even with the guard still having better ST survivability.

Gisallo

01-30-2009, 12:27 PM

<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Glerin wrote:</cite><blockquote>does it really matter if a single target tank have 10x the hate on a single target mob, if a aoe tank can keep aggro on it just as fine anyway?</blockquote>Nope. Likewise for AE.</blockquote>And this is the issue.A guardian is unable to hold aggro on multi mob encounters against a wizard (even without casting Fission). Although wizard AE DPS is fairly high (top 5 in the game imo), it is clearly far from the AE DPS that warlocks can put out. If a guardian can not hold aggro against a wizard on AE mobs, how can he be expected to hold aggro against a warlock?If the warlock has to tone down his DPS when in a group with a guardian, but not with an SK or zerker (which, in groups with these tanks a warlock has no need to hold back), is it a penalty to warlocks or to guardians?The issue is only an issue when the whole picture is looked at. Zerkers and SKs are able to hold single target aggro against any class in the game, unless there is a major gear difference. They are also able to hold AE hate with absolute ease. Guardians and paladins are able to hold single target hate as well as the other classes (in terms of they will have aggro, good luck pulling it off them), but on AE fights they are handicapped to the point of me not wanting to take a guardian to Nu'Roga on test, not even to test it out again.</blockquote>Really I haven't noticed that when running on my Mystic in groups with a Guard tanking. Just saying. Is it harder? To here them talk yep. But here is the Problem. A) the entire AE vs ST is a mess to start. B) the differences really are balancedwith raiding in mind and not Instancing. So we can sit here all we want and say "wah class A is OP." Problem is we will be saying class B is OP next expansion. Not because of "well class B was op last time so its their turn on the nerf bus" but because of the nature of the instances and the screwed up concept tanks are being balanced on.Next expansion I promise you will be largely ST. Now while AE tanks MAY be abole to hold aggro just about as well (barring mem wipe fear etc.) they are still more squishy in ST encounters than the ST tanks. So next expansion this whole scenario will be flipped.The only fix is to do away with the AE/ST concept and/or a class merger. I see neither of these options coming anytime soon. Hence my leveling a mystic so I can rotate characters come each expansion since I have a personal rule against betraying every couple of years (I know people who do that).

Obadiah

01-30-2009, 12:46 PM

The AE / ST has been there since launch - albeit not the same 3 classes of each. The big difference now is someone actually SAID it so everyone is up in arms about it. Sadly the monkey won't go back into the bottle. Pandora can't go back into the box, he only comes out.

victer

01-30-2009, 12:48 PM

I am going to be the third zerker in this thread to confirm that anyone saying that zerkers DPS is more then gaurds while both in Dstance with same gear/skill/grpsetup is FALSE. The only time I will do more then a gaurd in D stance is if there are multiples.And thats one thing that scares me. SOE seen alot of tanks doing big numbers while tanking... outparseing people they shouldnt be. And i think thats a huge reason why they are makeing these changes.But guess what? Not one of those tanks were pulling those numbers while in DStance. That is a fact. All of those high parseing tanks were tanking in offensive stance. So the solution SHOULD be force people to tank in Dstance (which has been done) but then why the hell do they reduce our dammage even more in Dstance? it doesnt make sence.They are looking at parses with tanks tanking in OStance and are like zomg! tanks are doing too much DPS while tanking!... so lets force them to go to Dstance and also force a -0.5 melee modifier on them.They dont realize that if they would just force us to tank in DStance then that is enough and we will be exaclty where we should be. This additional -0.5 melee modifier is dps OVERKILL.

Kordran

01-30-2009, 01:29 PM

I think this goes back to the developers stating that if the tank does 1 DPS but is able to hold aggro, then he's doing his job and they're okay with that. I suspect that any talk about who's doing more or less DPS in defensive is going to fall on deaf ears because, frankly, they don't care.In the new paradigm, tanks are being balanced based on their overall threat generation in defensive, not their DPS. Obviously DPS is still a factor in threat, but it's secondary. Come next Tuesday, it'll be all about the TPS, not DPS.

victer

01-30-2009, 01:49 PM

Yep and thats the problem. Dont you see?Zerkers have 1 more AE taunt then gaurds do. Is that were my AE hate comes from? Nope. My AE hate comes mostly from AOE autoattack....huh what? my autoattack got nerfed 25-30%? hmmmmmm....huh what? my Dstance has the lowest agression of all tanks (to boost taunts)? hmmmmmm....huh what? my Dstance has only +hate mod and hate mod does not effect taunts? So i need to use hate mod on DPS? hmmmmmmm.....I dont think people realize how much zerkers relied on thier DPS and will CONTINUE to rely on dps to maintain ST or AE agro. The devs say they dont care if tanks do 1 dps. But zerkers sure as hell do.Will i be able to tank with these changes? Yep every tank will. But the whole idea behind what they want to do contradicts the way zerkers are played and what they are giving us. That is a fact.

Mentalep

01-30-2009, 01:54 PM

<cite>Victer@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>huh what? my Dstance has only +hate mod and hate mod does not effect taunts? So i need to use hate mod on DPS? hmmmmmmm.....</blockquote>Where has this been stated?

victer

01-30-2009, 01:58 PM

<cite>Mentalepsy wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Victer@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>huh what? my Dstance has only +hate mod and hate mod does not effect taunts? So i need to use hate mod on DPS? hmmmmmmm.....</blockquote>Where has this been stated?</blockquote>from <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=440462" target="_blank">this</a> test update thread<ul><li>Hate gain mods will no longer affect taunt adjustments. </li></ul>

Kordran

01-30-2009, 02:05 PM

<cite>Victer@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>Will i be able to tank with these changes? Yep every tank will. But the whole idea behind what they want to do contradicts the way zerkers are played and what they are giving us. That is a fact.</blockquote>I understand completely. I primarily play a Paladin, and the world has completely shifted beneath our feet. I suspect, however, that asking to have your DPS increased as a means to help you hold aggro is a non-starter. Making an argument that your AE taunts should be boosted, or your Aggression bonus increased ... they may be receptive to those kinds of arguments if you can provide the threat numbers to demonstrate where you feel you're lacking. But just removing the damage modifier to boost your auto-attack damage? I don't see any chance of that happening. Particularly because every other fighter class would be screaming to have the same thing done for them.

Suraklin

01-30-2009, 02:09 PM

This is probably just a prelude to them finally saying there's too many classes to work on so we're merging classes. Bards will merge into one class, Monk and Bruiser, both Druid Classes, both Sorcerer classes, both Shaman Classes, etc.Then people will quit in disgust and try Vanguard until they ruin it completely lol.

Bremer

01-30-2009, 02:16 PM

RafaelSmith

01-30-2009, 02:20 PM

<cite>Suraklin wrote:</cite><blockquote>This is probably just a prelude to them finally saying there's too many classes to work on</blockquote>Which something that should have been painfully obvious since day 1.At this point I would be all for class merging.......lets face it they only balance things around raids.....they could care less what that means in terms of balance outside of raids.........In raids...Guards and Zerkers are Warriors.......as MT we end up pretty [Removed for Content] close in our spec and gear....after GU51 we're both forced to MT in D and told that our DPS doesnt matter....for Guard thats not much different than its always been...but for Zerker its sorta contrarty to their class description.Come GU51 The fighters are more the same and cookie cutter than ever...why not make it official?

Obadiah

01-30-2009, 02:20 PM

<cite>Kordran wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Victer@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>Will i be able to tank with these changes? Yep every tank will. But the whole idea behind what they want to do contradicts the way zerkers are played and what they are giving us. That is a fact.</blockquote>I understand completely. I primarily play a Paladin, and the world has completely shifted beneath our feet. I suspect, however, that asking to have your DPS increased as a means to help you hold aggro is a non-starter. Making an argument that your AE taunts should be boosted, or your Aggression bonus increased ... they may be receptive to those kinds of arguments if you can provide the threat numbers to demonstrate where you feel you're lacking. But just removing the damage modifier to boost your auto-attack damage? I don't see any chance of that happening. Particularly because every other fighter class would be screaming to have the same thing done for them.</blockquote>He doesn't mean just for Berserkers. It's overkill for all Fighters. I would tend to agree, but meh. Probably not changing. Hurts some tanks more than others - particularly those of us for who have lower threat from taunts, smaller CAs than others and also rely on DPS to gain aggro because our stance has +Hate mods that only add to hate gained from damage. But if I were Dude for a day, I'd get rid of it for all Fighters.Fighters in TSO and moreso in GU51 are indeed more cookie cutter as we gain more and more of the same things as a result of people complaining that we don't have exactly the same things. And ST vs. AE fighters have existed since launch. It just was implemented in their abilities and not announced, which is the only difference now. But there are still enough differences that we're distinct classes. They'll never merge them, and that's a good thing.

Kordran

01-30-2009, 02:23 PM

<cite>Suraklin wrote:</cite><blockquote>This is probably just a prelude to them finally saying there's too many classes to work on so we're merging classes. Bards will merge into one class, Monk and Bruiser, both Druid Classes, both Sorcerer classes, both Shaman Classes, etc.Then people will quit in disgust and try Vanguard until they ruin it completely lol.</blockquote>This is OT, but honestly I wouldn't object to that. The Achilles' heel of this game is the sheer number of classes that it has and the balancing headache it introduces, particularly when combined with achievements. Combining the classes back into their base class (Warrior, Sorceror, Summoner, Cleric, Shaman, Druid, Bard, etc.) could be very beneficial if done correctly. Honestly, the only classes that I don't know what they'd do with are the Paladin/Shadowknight and Ranger/Assassin. Those are two sets of classes that are on completely opposite ends of the spectrum, and merging them really wouldn't make much sense. Leaving those classes out of it, you'd be down to 14 classes from 24. Still a large selection to choose from. Of course, that has the same chance as them introducing the class who's name begins with Beast... Oh no! I just went there...

Loxus

01-30-2009, 02:33 PM

<cite>Gisallo@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kordran wrote:</cite><blockquote>The question I find myself asking is what about new players, or people starting new fighters? Seriously, post GU51 I would have to ask why would anyone choose to play the Guardian or Paladin? I'm not being rhetorical here, I'm being completely serious. In this new paradigm, playing a single-target tank is just asking for a lot of aggravation as you level and gear up, and for what? The only long-term goal that is viable for the Guardian is as a raid MT. That's one slot, for a limited number of radiding guilds on a server. For a Paladin? I'm still not clear on what Aeralik sees the Paladin's role in raids to be. I suspect Monks largely feel the same way.</blockquote>Yeah, until the next expansion when the bulk of the end game instance content is largely ST. Thats the problem. The artificial construct of AE vs ST makes the balance completely dependent on the content of instances. The old paradigm Offensive vs defensive can scale regardless of the content (if doen right). With the current set up though you can simply change the instance design and one tank suddenly rises to the top so your "balance" will change every 6 months to a year even if you do not touch class design. BRILLIANT if you are only looking for job security. Every 6 months say "Boss the classes are out of balance again I need more money for overtime because we gotta fix this fast!!"</blockquote>^^^^ Is exactly why ST Vs. AE tank concept will fail and cause a massive rewrite of tanks (Again) in the future once the current content devs leave or move on.

Kordran

01-30-2009, 02:40 PM

<cite>Loxus@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>Is exactly why ST Vs. AE tank concept will fail and cause a massive rewrite of tanks (Again) in the future once the current content devs leave or move on.</blockquote>Actually it wouldn't take a massive rewrite to eliminate the artificial differences they've introduced. The easiest, most straight-forward solution? Attach a threat component to all AE attacks, and convert a couple of the Guardian's single target attacks to blue AE's (or even better, make that an option through achievements, giving them the choice as to whether they want to use the single target version or the AE version).

RafaelSmith

01-30-2009, 02:50 PM

<cite>Kordran wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Loxus@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>Is exactly why ST Vs. AE tank concept will fail and cause a massive rewrite of tanks (Again) in the future once the current content devs leave or move on.</blockquote>Actually it wouldn't take a massive rewrite to eliminate the artificial differences they've introduced. The easiest, most straight-forward solution? Attach a threat component to all AE attacks, and convert a couple of the Guardian's single target attacks to blue AE's (or even better, make that an option through achievements, giving them the choice as to whether they want to use the single target version or the AE version).</blockquote>THey have sorta already done something like this with Lay Waste AA.It shares the same timer/reuse as our blue AE....so its a choice as to which one to use.On test Lay Waste now has +threat to it.....so its truely a choice...single target DMG/hate or blue AE DMG/hate...not both.One or two more AAs to give us options like that would be nice.

victer

01-30-2009, 02:54 PM

<cite>Kordran wrote:</cite><blockquote>But just removing the damage modifier to boost your auto-attack damage? I don't see any chance of that happening. Particularly because every other fighter class would be screaming to have the same thing done for them.</blockquote>You might have missunderstood me. I am asking for the -0.5 modifier to be removed for everyone not just zerkers.I have to ask myself why did they add this negetive melee modifier? The only answer i can think of is because tanks currently are parseing much higher then they should be when tanking. I get that and I agree.What they dont realize is that these tanks that are parseing this high are doing so in offensive stance. There is no tank doing very high dps in DStance. So to me the solution should be force people to tank in DStance. What they have done however is force us to go into DStance and also take 25-30% of our auto attack damage. And that right there effects some tanks a hell of alot more then others. So why not just forget the 0.5 melee modifier for everyone.

Bremer

01-30-2009, 03:00 PM

Or they should give tanks that do currently 2/3 of their hate gain/DPS with auto attack dps adequate taunts to compensate the hate gain loss.

Brook

01-30-2009, 03:07 PM

I think they approached balancing all wrong from the get-go.One of the best features this game had above others was the ability to choose how you wanted to play and not be told how you are going to play. I don't see that as being fun. IMO all they needed to do was scale back on damage output of tanks a bit and make the taunts stronger, with AA lines that allowed us to choose what we wanted to enhance to fit our individual playstyle. The blending of buffs into stances was not the greatest idea I have seen SOE come up with considering that some people have played 4 years a certain way with what they gave us to work with.I will adapt as long as it is fun but if I don't like it can I get a class respec to an assassin?

Bruener

01-30-2009, 03:08 PM

<cite>Victer@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kordran wrote:</cite><blockquote>But just removing the damage modifier to boost your auto-attack damage? I don't see any chance of that happening. Particularly because every other fighter class would be screaming to have the same thing done for them.</blockquote>You might have missunderstood me. I am asking for the -0.5 modifier to be removed for everyone not just zerkers.I have to ask myself why did they add this negetive melee modifier? The only answer i can think of is because tanks currently are parseing much higher then they should be when tanking. I get that and I agree.What they dont realize is that these tanks that are parseing this high are doing so in offensive stance. There is no tank doing very high dps in DStance. So to me the solution should be force people to tank in DStance. What they have done however is force us to go into DStance and also take 25-30% of our auto attack damage. And that right there effects some tanks a hell of alot more then others. So why not just forget the 0.5 melee modifier for everyone.</blockquote>This is an extremely good point. They are making it so none of the taunts work in offensive, putting a big negative hate mod on there and also by merging the buffs into stances they make it so D-stance is going to be much more needed to tank.They are trying to solve tanks parsing too high while tanking when it is in fact them tanking in offensive. The negative to skills in defensive alone makes a parse go down quite a bit.By simply keeping the changes the way they are on live, except removing the -.5 modifier, tanks will still be using defensive stance for anything that is not trivialized and their parses will be going down. Maybe not as low as the defiler on the raid, but lower than what the furies can parse....this doesn't seem bad to me.But no, SOE gets an idea and they love to over-due it by a ton and shift things completely to the other end of the spectrum. I think they would actually enjoy seeing tanks do 1 dps and holding hate. How fun!!!

Mentalep

01-30-2009, 03:18 PM

<cite>Victer@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Mentalepsy wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Victer@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>huh what? my Dstance has only +hate mod and hate mod does not effect taunts? So i need to use hate mod on DPS? hmmmmmmm.....</blockquote>Where has this been stated?</blockquote>from <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=440462" target="_blank">this</a> test update thread<ul><li>Hate gain mods will no longer affect taunt adjustments. </li></ul></blockquote>That says taunt adjustments, not taunts. I'm not sure exactly what that means, but it sounds to me like an item that has +100 taunt value will always apply +100, regardless of whether your hate mod is 0% or 100%.In other words, (taunt x 2.0) + 100, instead of (taunt + 100) x 2.0.Has a developer specifically confirmed what you're saying?

Bremer

01-30-2009, 03:26 PM

<cite>Mentalepsy wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote>from <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=440462" target="_blank">this</a> test update thread<ul><li>Hate gain mods will no longer affect taunt adjustments. </li></ul></blockquote>That says taunt adjustments, not taunts. I'm not sure exactly what that means, but it sounds to me like an item that has +100 taunt value will always apply +100, regardless of whether your hate mod is 0% or 100%.In other words, (taunt x 2.0) + 100, instead of (taunt + 100) x 2.0.Has a developer specifically confirmed what you're saying?</blockquote>No, noone has said what it means and with the often confusing update notes it could mean anything.

Obadiah

01-30-2009, 03:26 PM

<cite>Mentalepsy wrote:</cite><blockquote>That says taunt adjustments, not taunts. I'm not sure exactly what that means, but it sounds to me like an item that has +100 taunt value will always apply +100, regardless of whether your hate mod is 0% or 100%.Has a developer specifically confirmed that this means all taunts period?</blockquote>If your taunt does 3000-4000, that's the taunt adjustment. It "adjusts" your threat level by 3000-4000. That number will not be modified by +Hate Gain. It's confirmed via tooltip and ACT threat parses. I thought it was confirmed by Aeralik but I can't find it. Would be nice to know beyond a reasonable doubt.

Mentalep

01-30-2009, 03:30 PM

<cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Mentalepsy wrote:</cite><blockquote>That says taunt adjustments, not taunts. I'm not sure exactly what that means, but it sounds to me like an item that has +100 taunt value will always apply +100, regardless of whether your hate mod is 0% or 100%.Has a developer specifically confirmed that this means all taunts period?</blockquote>If your taunt does 3000-4000, that's the taunt adjustment. It "adjusts" your threat level by 3000-4000. That number will not be modified by +Hate Gain. It's confirmed via tooltip and ACT threat parses. I thought it was confirmed by Aeralik but I can't find it. Would be nice to know beyond a reasonable doubt.</blockquote>Speaking for myself, I would certainly not expect +5% hate gain to be reflected in my taunt tooltips, any more than I would expect to see "Increases hate by 50" (or 25 or whatever) in the tooltip of a combat art that deals 1000 damage, nor in the combat log after I use such a combat art.Does ACT actually have access to behind-the-scenes hate, or is it just reading out of the combat log?

victer

01-30-2009, 03:34 PM

<cite>Mentalepsy wrote:</cite><blockquote>That says taunt adjustments, not taunts. I'm not sure exactly what that means, but it sounds to me like an item that has +100 taunt value will always apply +100, regardless of whether your hate mod is 0% or 100%.In other words, (taunt x 2.0) + 100, instead of (taunt + 100) x 2.0.Has a developer specifically confirmed what you're saying?</blockquote>This may sound rude but I have to ask. Do you even play a tank class?What is this magical +taunt item you are talking about? Items come with +hate gain... +base taunts... or a taunting proc.There are no items that add +taunt value or whatever. So your magical taunt calulation is pulled out of thin air.When i read that patch update it tells me that hate gain does not effect taunts anymore. And there has not been anyone to confirm otherwise.

Obadiah

01-30-2009, 03:56 PM

<cite>Mentalepsy wrote:</cite><blockquote>Speaking for myself, I would certainly not expect +5% hate gain to be reflected in my taunt tooltips, any more than I would expect to see "Increases hate by 50" (or 25 or whatever) in the tooltip of a combat art that deals 1000 damage, nor in the combat log after I use such a combat art.Does ACT actually have access to behind-the-scenes hate, or is it just reading out of the combat log?</blockquote>Why wouldn't you expect it in taunts though? I mean, if you have +8% base CA damage, THAT gets reflected in the tooltip. So if you have +5% hate gain, why wouldn't that be reflected in taunt values - i.e. values that are already showing hate, not damage.ACT reads the combat logs, which now show threat gained from using taunts. There is no way currently to parse the hate gained from DPS to the best of my knowledge because that's not in the logs. If you do 100 damage, thereby adding 108 hate if you have 8% hate gain, there's no way to see it.It's a moot point. We can speculate all we want. Although I'm confident in my assertions, I think we'd both agree an answer would be nice. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />

Kordran

01-30-2009, 04:55 PM

If you look at your character on Test, +hate modifiers clearly do not affect taunts. In your defensive stats, you'll see values for Taunt Critical and Taunt Amount. Taunt Amount is what would increase the value of your taunts, and is separate from the "Hate Mod" amount, which is what affects the amount of hate generated through damage.

Mentalep

01-30-2009, 05:23 PM

<cite>Victer@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Mentalepsy wrote:</cite><blockquote>That says taunt adjustments, not taunts. I'm not sure exactly what that means, but it sounds to me like an item that has +100 taunt value will always apply +100, regardless of whether your hate mod is 0% or 100%.In other words, (taunt x 2.0) + 100, instead of (taunt + 100) x 2.0.Has a developer specifically confirmed what you're saying?</blockquote>This may sound rude but I have to ask. Do you even play a tank class?What is this magical +taunt item you are talking about? Items come with +hate gain... +base taunts... or a taunting proc.There are no items that add +taunt value or whatever. So your magical taunt calulation is pulled out of thin air.When i read that patch update it tells me that hate gain does not effect taunts anymore. And there has not been anyone to confirm otherwise.</blockquote>I remembered hearing a few patches back that +taunt value had been added to some fabled gear, which is gear that I don't have access to and have rarely seen.If it doesn't exist, then that's my mistake.

Mentalep

01-30-2009, 05:28 PM

<cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Mentalepsy wrote:</cite><blockquote>Speaking for myself, I would certainly not expect +5% hate gain to be reflected in my taunt tooltips, any more than I would expect to see "Increases hate by 50" (or 25 or whatever) in the tooltip of a combat art that deals 1000 damage, nor in the combat log after I use such a combat art.Does ACT actually have access to behind-the-scenes hate, or is it just reading out of the combat log?</blockquote>Why wouldn't you expect it in taunts though? I mean, if you have +8% base CA damage, THAT gets reflected in the tooltip. So if you have +5% hate gain, why wouldn't that be reflected in taunt values - i.e. values that are already showing hate, not damage.ACT reads the combat logs, which now show threat gained from using taunts. There is no way currently to parse the hate gained from DPS to the best of my knowledge because that's not in the logs. If you do 100 damage, thereby adding 108 hate if you have 8% hate gain, there's no way to see it.It's a moot point. We can speculate all we want. Although I'm confident in my assertions, I think we'd both agree an answer would be nice. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>Well, I wouldn't expect it because it's not specific to taunts; it's a global modifier, or at least it looks like one. The behavior I would expect is that whenever hate is calculated, the base hate value is fed into the hate mod function, and the result is used internally and only seen by the system.If that is in fact the case, then we wouldn't know how +hate affects taunts any more clearly than we would know how it effects damage.Does hate mod currently affect taunt tooltips on live?

Gisallo

01-31-2009, 06:32 AM

<cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>How is it that they cannot hold ST aggro better than a berserker?</blockquote>Because even in defensive stance, a bezerker (and even moreso, a shadowknight) has a much much higher DPS output than a guardian or paladin.The DPS difference between the classes more than makes up for the relativly small amount of pure threat generation that the single target tanks are able to put out.I'm only going on what I have seen. Same equipment, same player, higher single target hate on a zerker than a guard. The guard only held aggro through positional increasers.</blockquote>That's absolutely ludicrous. You are telling me an equally geared Berserker did 50% more DPS on a single target than the Guardian despite having lower CA amounts and 20ish less melee skills? There's no one here that would believe that. Because that's the difference in the "relatively small amount of pure threat generation" which is 4500 TPS for a Guardian from two taunts alone. It's also wholly different from my experience and that of anyone else that's posted about it in these forums.</blockquote>Ignore Nooani he has shown pretty clearly at this point he knows nothing abou tanks. Heck he did even know an OT's job was to take adds in another thread, he thought it was the job of a third tank.

Bonez005

01-31-2009, 04:52 PM

<cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Morrolan V wrote:</cite><blockquote>Payback for past issues is a stupid way to design an expansion. If you'll notice, you don't see a lot of "single target" tanks asking for changes to the content or for AoE tanks to get nerfed. We are asking for a real balance in the tools we have to meet the content. Your experience of being a little worse off on single targets, in terms of efficiency and dps, is very different from a single target tank facing places like Ykesha's Outer Stronghold.</blockquote>It seems odd seeing all these complaints from ST tanks about AE content ... as we stand on the brink of an update that should (should) make it considerably easier for them to hold aggro in multi-mob situations. Wacky.</blockquote>Seriously, its like they are only reading one part of the update... Everyone that is complaining here most likely hasn't read enough and didn't bother test copying with their usual crew.Myself, after doing BOTH, find these changes to be ALOT better. Now my only complaint is that the LU was pushed back because of all these lazy people who don't know how to do a little ground work (or the ones who did play test using the same DPS aggro they are used to without even watching their new found potential). Blows my mind, really.

Gisallo

01-31-2009, 05:18 PM

<cite>Bonez005 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Morrolan V wrote:</cite><blockquote>Payback for past issues is a stupid way to design an expansion. If you'll notice, you don't see a lot of "single target" tanks asking for changes to the content or for AoE tanks to get nerfed. We are asking for a real balance in the tools we have to meet the content. Your experience of being a little worse off on single targets, in terms of efficiency and dps, is very different from a single target tank facing places like Ykesha's Outer Stronghold.</blockquote>It seems odd seeing all these complaints from ST tanks about AE content ... as we stand on the brink of an update that should (should) make it considerably easier for them to hold aggro in multi-mob situations. Wacky.</blockquote>Seriously, its like they are only reading one part of the update... Everyone that is complaining here most likely hasn't read enough and didn't bother test copying with their usual crew.Myself, after doing BOTH, find these changes to be ALOT better. Now my only complaint is that the LU was pushed back because of all these lazy people who don't know how to do a little ground work (or the ones who did play test using the same DPS aggro they are used to without even watching their new found potential). Blows my mind, really.</blockquote>Well I knoiw in instances tanks may not have problems (we will simply have to see if the added hate makes up for all the extra missing we will do in D-stance. Think thats stupid, we already had a nasty miss rate in d-stance as it was.) The problem is going to possibly be in raids. First both tanks stuck in D-stance, even on trash (when Aeralik said this would NOT happen a month ago hows that for BS) is goign to make fights take longer and put more pressure on the healers. Also the entire idea of a 3rd tank (another thing Aeralik said was going to remain viable) is largely blown.If you are an instance tank, or already have your MT or OT slot sewn up you are probably okay. If you are a brawler or the "third tank" on a raid you are probably screwed. Funny, when Aeralki has been saying all along this will make the third tank more viable, and that OT's will be able to burn in offensive stance then go to defensive stance when needed with ease. Yeah nice con-job. I should have expected it though after my time playing my ranger. Eventually me and a bunch of ranger buddies finally said "please Aeralik don't touch the class anymore we are messed up enough as it is". I can only assume a tank outdps'd Aeralik on his asassain at some point so he decided they needed "fixing" too. All I can say is "everyone, welcome to the world of Aeralik."

Morrolan V

01-31-2009, 07:18 PM

<cite>Bonez005 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Morrolan V wrote:</cite><blockquote>Payback for past issues is a stupid way to design an expansion. If you'll notice, you don't see a lot of "single target" tanks asking for changes to the content or for AoE tanks to get nerfed. We are asking for a real balance in the tools we have to meet the content. Your experience of being a little worse off on single targets, in terms of efficiency and dps, is very different from a single target tank facing places like Ykesha's Outer Stronghold.</blockquote>It seems odd seeing all these complaints from ST tanks about AE content ... as we stand on the brink of an update that should (should) make it considerably easier for them to hold aggro in multi-mob situations. Wacky.</blockquote>Seriously, its like they are only reading one part of the update... Everyone that is complaining here most likely hasn't read enough and didn't bother test copying with their usual crew.Myself, after doing BOTH, find these changes to be ALOT better. Now my only complaint is that the LU was pushed back because of all these lazy people who don't know how to do a little ground work (or the ones who did play test using the same DPS aggro they are used to without even watching their new found potential). Blows my mind, really.</blockquote>I have done plenty of testing on Test Copy. I cajoled many of my guildies to copy over so that we would have a good baseline to test against. So, don't assume what others have and haven't done.I agree that the changes are closing some threat generation gaps that have existed, and the changes DO make it easier for single target tanks to hold aggro in "normal" multi-mob situations. In particular, the change to implied threat generation across linked encounters seems to have made things better.The fact that things will be "better" than they are on live, however, does not mean that the Single Target/Multi Target tank dichotomy is a good design. My issue is not with whether some things are moving in the right direction for some classes (they are). It is with the entire concept of single target/multi target tanking as a design and balancing aim.