Some ideas to differentiate tanks and improve GU 51

[DeadNamespace]

<p>All classes competing for the same primary role (tanking, healing, dps) need to be evenly matched in their effectiveness of performing that role.  The various classes can reach the goal in different ways, but the end result performance needs to be approximately the same.  I think the healing classes are a reasonable example of this with HoTs, Wards, and Reactives being different ways to reach the same goal of keeping other characters alive.  Different flavor and mechanics with about the same end result.  I think the 6 tank classes are currently not so close to striking this balance.If a class is significantly behind its peers in competing for the primary role, then that class needs more of the secondary stuff (utility, buffs, debuffs, etc.) to help make up for that difference, or they need to be able to convert to perform a secondary function (like tanks and healers becoming dps when they are pushed out of the tanking/healing role).The primary functions of tanks are to "hold aggro" and "take damage".  The tank classes need to be able to perform these two tasks with similar ability.  I think that dividing tanks into "single target" and "AoE" is a folly for this reason.  I think that the primary division of tanks should be the following : Guardians, Paladins, Monks should be slightly more defensive (no more than 10-15% better than Berserker, SK, Bruiser)Berserker, SK, Bruiser should be slightly better at threat generation (again no more than 10-15% better than Guard, Pal, Monk)Tanks should also be divided in the following ways :Guardians and Berserkers should be slightly better at absorbing raw melee damage (pierce, crush, slash) through superior mitigationPaladins and SKs should be slightly better at absorbing magical damage (fire, cold, arcane) through their special defensive buffs, personal wards, and ability to reflect spells back at the mobs or something like thatMonks and Bruisers should be slightly better at avoiding/negating special control effects (charm, stun, stifle, root) through self-only cures and short-term immunity buffs and/or through higher avoidance causing the effects to "miss" outright.I think this makes sense with the "flavor" of the classes : guardians and berserkers shrugging off the greatest physical damage, paladins and SKs being spell-casting specialists themselves are good at dealing with spell damage, Monks and Bruisers specialize in avoiding the dangerous control effects so they never land on them.  This division has the side effect of making monks and bruisers better able to hold aggro with their "active aggro toolset", i.e. they have no passive aggro abilities and suffer the most when a control effect shuts down their aggro generation.  In addition, the aggro tools of the Paladin and SK need to keep in mind that their combat time needs to be somewhat devoted to casting their personal wards and utility spells, so they need tools like the current revised Amends that gives good threat generation up front and then follows up with "threat-over-time" so that they are free to cast other spells if needed.This proposed division gives all classes a niche for raiding as well.  Pure brutal melee targets would best be tanked by a Guardian or Berserker, mobs with significant magical damage procs and AoEs would be better tanked by a Pal/SK, and mobs with especially annoying or difficult to manage control effects could be tanked by Monks/Bruisers.  If Survival is of utmost importance, then use Guard/Pal/Monk, if the script calls for the fastest burn possible (race-to-kill type of scenario) then a Berserker/SK/Bruiser would be best (superior threat generation means all of the raid's DPS classes can pump out more damage without taking aggro).  If Bers/SK/Bruiser produce even 1k more TPS than Guard/Pal/Monk on average, that means every DPS class in the raid that is currently "aggro-limited" (which should hopefully apply to 6 to 14 people) can pump out 1k - 1.2k more DPS (given individual de-aggro capabilities, say TPS = 80% of DPS), that would mean 6k to 17k more raid-wide DPS for using the superior threat classes.  All classes are still close enough in ability to be interchangeable in heroic instances.  If necessary, Monks/Bruisers would be the least capable instance tanks, but have the highest potential to change into a DPS substitute (i.e truly give them higher O-stance DPS potential, this currently not really the case).As far as stances are concerned, I agree that defensive stance needs a boost to be the primary stance of choice for tanking.  But the only thing defensive stance should really need, is higher TPS potential than offensive stance.  If you give up a small amount of offense for a huge boost to threat generation, what tank would not do it in a group where you have 3 or 4 DPS that are "aggro-limited"?  If your choice is between 1) a tank in offensive doing 7k DPS / 8k TPS, with 2 healers working to keep that tank alive (no healer dps) and 3 DPSers doing 10k DPS / 8k TPS or 2) a tank in defensive doing 4k DPS / 10k TPS with 1 healer working to keep him up and a 2nd healer healing occasionally and still doing an average of 2k DPS (healing requirement lessened) with 3 DPSers doing 12.5k DPS / 10k TPSguess which one you pick?1) Group 1 DPS = 7k + 3*10k = 37k DPS2) Group 2 DPS = 4k + 2k + 3*12.5k = 43.5k DPSAfter these upcoming changes of course the smart tanks are going to maximize their TPS (forget personal DPS) and unleash the power hiding in their "aggro-limited" DPSer group-mates.  The foolish tanks are going to continue to swoon over their personal parses while their DPSer group-mates stare at the 99% on the aggro-meter frantically trying to shed aggro so they can resume DPSing.Offensive stance can then give the DPS needed to make soloing feasible and make duo-grouping with a healer viable as well, no need for a drastic threat reduction in O-stance, just let the damage generate the normal threat.  In a duo with a DPS class, the DPS class either spends more time dumping aggro or if the sacrifice is too great, try running the tank in D-stance and freeing up to the DPSer to do more, every duo/small group can explore to find the point of maximization.  An important part of this is also to make sure every DPS class has some good de-aggro abilities at their disposal so they can fine tune their DPS for the current group, i.e. spend proportionally more time dumping aggro in a group where the tank's TPS is below average for whatever reason (gear/skill differential).  I think some DPS classes need some help in this regard.There is obviously a careful balance to strike when designing classes to be different enough to give a unique feel and flavor to the gameplay of a class, but also give similar result performance at the primary role in the final analysis.</p>

[LygerT]

<p>that was alot of info, too bad different classes will never be equals.</p>

[dreiden]

<p>I think you have some great ideas. I agree that the differance between tanks should not be aoe vs single target. I like the idea of melee vs spell vs control. That makes it so you could need all three for raids depending on targets.</p>

[Vulkan_NTooki]

<p>I like alot of what you say here.. interesting approach..</p><p>I do however feel that aggro should be equal in defensive and offensive.</p><p>The loss of dps aggro you loose from switching from offensive to defensive should = the taunt/hate gain you gain in defensive. This way defensive/offensive is a matter of surviveability vs damage.</p>

[Kurindor_Mythecnea]

<p><cite>Vulkan_NTooki wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I like alot of what you say here.. interesting approach..</p><p>I do however feel that aggro should be equal in defensive and offensive.</p><p>The loss of dps aggro you loose from switching from offensive to defensive should = the taunt/hate gain you gain in defensive. This way defensive/offensive is a matter of surviveability vs damage.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ffff00;">I agree with Vulkan. =O</span></p>

[Noaani]

<p><cite>Vulkan_NTooki wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I like alot of what you say here.. interesting approach..</p><p>I do however feel that aggro should be equal in defensive and offensive.</p><p>The loss of dps aggro you loose from switching from offensive to defensive should = the taunt/hate gain you gain in defensive. This way defensive/offensive is a matter of surviveability vs damage.</p></blockquote><p>I personally disagree, but only because of the lengths that the offensive stance would need to go to in order to balance this out.</p><p>Since the idea is to not have fighters dealing high DPS while tanking, in order to maintain the same level of hate in each stance,they would need to drastically reduce the survivability of fighters in offensive stance.</p><p>Obviously your idea here is to allow a tank to DPS if they have good healers in their group, while still maintaining aggro. in order to do that in a balanced way, fighter survivability would need to be reduced to the point of needing 2 full time healers for any heroic content. If this happened, mages would be better at tanking heroic content than am off stance fighter (due mostly to ecxessive stoneskin procs from items).</p><p>I don't want this to happen, and I am sure fighters don't want this to happen. If any change was made that allowed fighters to hold aggro in off stance, but did not reduce their survivability in a manner such as this, the whole point of these changes would have been passed by, as fighters will continue to DPS while tanking.</p>

[Lethe5683]

<p>I think offensive should keep the hate penalties but loose the + to damage taken.</p>

[Antryg Mistrose]

<p><cite>DeadNamespace wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Guardians, Paladins, Monks should be slightly more defensive (no more than 10-15% better than Berserker, SK, Bruiser)Berserker, SK, Bruiser should be slightly better at threat generation (again no more than 10-15% better than Guard, Pal, Monk)Tanks should also be divided in the following ways :Guardians and Berserkers should be slightly better at absorbing raw melee damage (pierce, crush, slash) through superior mitigationPaladins and SKs should be slightly better at absorbing magical damage (fire, cold, arcane) through their special defensive buffs, personal wards, and ability to reflect spells back at the mobs or something like thatMonks and Bruisers should be slightly better at avoiding/negating special control effects (charm, stun, stifle, root) through self-only cures and short-term immunity buffs and/or through higher avoidance causing the effects to "miss" outright.</p></blockquote><p>Given most of the damage from mobs, especially raid mobs is straight  out autoattack - that leaves crusaders with nothing, and would require avoidance tanking being (finally) fixed.</p><p>Balancing 6 classes to all tank is hard.  Both now and in the past.  Even wtih the brawlers relegated to TankAtAPinch but do better dps and have better buffs because avoidance tanking has never worked still leaves 4.</p><p>All these remaining classes wear the same (plate) armour - with no real way of having them all do an equal job, and still be different and fun to play.</p><p>An arbitary ST / MT distinction cannot help but leave MultiTarget tanks lacking on single hard targets, or (more likely) and as is the case on Test now, SingleTarget tanks lacking on multiple targets.  I really wish they'd have a serious look at a different way to seperate the tanks, or admit they can't and give them all ST and MT capability.</p>

[Lethe5683]

<p>The main problem is the game mechanics are just not correct for making this game work the way it's supposed to.  TBH I'd rather have them put more work into making an "eq 3" with smart game mechanics.</p>

[Noaani]

<p><cite>Antryg Mistrose wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>Given most of the damage from mobs, especially raid mobs is straight  out autoattack - that leaves crusaders with nothing, and would require avoidance tanking being (finally) fixed.</blockquote><p>If it was done in a manner where the crusader had a chance to outright resist magic based attacks and possibly a reliable single effect reflect/absorb buff (think Tower of Stone, but for magical based attacks), I can think of several TSO raid mobs where I would prefer a crusader over a guardian.</p><p>It would mean that guilds would have a reason to have both a warrior and a crusader on their roster, and both in main tank positions. The guardian will be MTing most of the time, but the crusader would have its time to shine.</p><p>Of all the ideas in the OP, this was actually the only one I would be very happy to see implemented.</p>

[Dasein]

<p>There's a few problems with this approach. Raid damage types are not evenly distributed, and physical damage is by far the most common type. Further, other classes can already provide big boosts to resists and wards, making the proposed strengths of crusaders far less useful than the strengths of warriors. Second, raids are not likely to switch tanks over the course of a zone. They will stick with an established MT/OT setup, and work through whatever difficulties that may present. Based on your vision, that means keeping your guardian as MT, and then improving resists via buff classes and gear. Really it wouldn't change much over how things are now.</p>

[Noaani]

<p><cite>Dasein wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>There's a few problems with this approach. Raid damage types are not evenly distributed, and physical damage is by far the most common type. Further, other classes can already provide big boosts to resists and wards, making the proposed strengths of crusaders far less useful than the strengths of warriors. Second, raids are not likely to switch tanks over the course of a zone. They will stick with an established MT/OT setup, and work through whatever difficulties that may present. Based on your vision, that means keeping your guardian as MT, and then improving resists via buff classes and gear. Really it wouldn't change much over how things are now.</p></blockquote><p>Whats a better effect, the one that prevents a 5k hit every 10 seconds that your healers would have simply healed through, or one that prevents a 30k hit every 50 seconds?</p><p>The 5k every 10 seconds will parse as a better ability, but the 30k will provide a better benefit. Most of the big hits from raid mobs are non melee based, so having additional protection to them could be better, depending on how it was done.</p>

[JinjAB]

<p>Some good ideas there <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>In addition, I feel that AE encounters should be handled by type of weapon (equip a 2 hander and your taunts are able to affect multi mobs)</p><p>And I would lean towards the Guards taking even more damage then the Zerks, but the Zerks having less DPS penalty (the same with Monk vs Bruiser and Pally v SK)</p><p>And then, the AA lines, dont make similar abilities available across all tanks, but continue to make them more specialised, with a token nod at another classes ability i.e. Tsunami is purely Bruiser, monks last longer, Bruisers deal more riposte damage, Warriors and Crusaders either don't get anything like it or a very reduced duration and only with certain weapon combo, but still not as effective.</p><p>Constructive ideas FTW!</p>

[Lethe5683]

<p><cite>Jinj@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Some good ideas there <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></p><p>In addition, I feel that AE encounters should be handled by type of weapon (equip a 2 hander and your taunts are able to affect multi mobs)</p><p>And I would lean towards the Guards taking even more damage then the Zerks, but the Zerks having less DPS penalty (the same with Monk vs Bruiser and Pally v SK)</p><p>And then, the AA lines, dont make similar abilities available across all tanks, but continue to make them more specialised, with a token nod at another classes ability i.e. Tsunami is purely Bruiser, monks last longer, Bruisers deal more riposte damage, Warriors and Crusaders either don't get anything like it or a very reduced duration and only with certain weapon combo, but still not as effective.</p><p>Constructive ideas FTW!</p></blockquote><p>If there's anything I truely hate about this game it's the notion that tanks should be segregated into "AoE" tanks and "single target" tanks.</p>

[Dasein]

<p><cite>Noaani wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Dasein wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>There's a few problems with this approach. Raid damage types are not evenly distributed, and physical damage is by far the most common type. Further, other classes can already provide big boosts to resists and wards, making the proposed strengths of crusaders far less useful than the strengths of warriors. Second, raids are not likely to switch tanks over the course of a zone. They will stick with an established MT/OT setup, and work through whatever difficulties that may present. Based on your vision, that means keeping your guardian as MT, and then improving resists via buff classes and gear. Really it wouldn't change much over how things are now.</p></blockquote><p>Whats a better effect, the one that prevents a 5k hit every 10 seconds that your healers would have simply healed through, or one that prevents a 30k hit every 50 seconds?</p><p>The 5k every 10 seconds will parse as a better ability, but the 30k will provide a better benefit. Most of the big hits from raid mobs are non melee based, so having additional protection to them could be better, depending on how it was done.</p></blockquote><p>Those 30k hits are likely one of three things: A critical, which is random, a double attack, which is also random (and could also be a critical), or a fail condition which needs to be avoided. Unless you can time those 30k hits, your big blocker isn't going to be all that useful in most fights.</p>

[JinjAB]

<p><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>If there's anything I truely hate about this game it's the notion that tanks should be segregated into "AoE" tanks and "single target" tanks.</p></blockquote><p>Me too Lethe! So making it down to equipment not AA build or class could be a workable solution. Plus we get some use out of 2 handers again.</p>

[Grobi]

<p>im not on the testserver so i dont have to full knowlege of the changes but what makes a bruiser become a multitarget tank ? we have 2 aoe attacks on rather long recast and 1 green encounter taunt , are they some big changes there ?</p><p>i dont see the picture to say bruiser is multi and paladin is single ( with the most aoe attacks a tank can get ).</p><p>my other question is as a dirge , is battle cry still usefull on a tank in def stance or should i cast it after the changes on a dps class to boost the dmg output ?</p><p>sorry for my bad english ( im german )</p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p><cite>Jinj@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Some good ideas there <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></p><p>In addition, I feel that AE encounters should be handled by type of weapon (equip a 2 hander and your taunts are able to affect multi mobs)</p><p>And I would lean towards the Guards taking even more damage then the Zerks, but the Zerks having less DPS penalty (the same with Monk vs Bruiser and Pally v SK)</p><p>And then, the AA lines, dont make similar abilities available across all tanks, but continue to make them more specialised, with a token nod at another classes ability i.e. Tsunami is purely Bruiser, monks last longer, Bruisers deal more riposte damage, Warriors and Crusaders either don't get anything like it or a very reduced duration and only with certain weapon combo, but still not as effective.</p><p>Constructive ideas FTW!</p></blockquote><p>Interesting idea of making taunts be AE when using a 2hander.  Ive wondered why SOE pretty much abandoned 2handers....at least for fighters.   Would be nice to make them somewhat viable again or at least situational.  I would definately sacrifice the benifit of my shield in the heavy AE instances if it meant better aggro.</p><p>Would have to redo end-game itemization since as far as I know there are not worthy 2handers.</p>

[DeadNamespace]

<p><cite>Dasein wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>There's a few problems with this approach. Raid damage types are not evenly distributed, and physical damage is by far the most common type. Further, other classes can already provide big boosts to resists and wards, making the proposed strengths of crusaders far less useful than the strengths of warriors. Second, raids are not likely to switch tanks over the course of a zone. They will stick with an established MT/OT setup, and work through whatever difficulties that may present. Based on your vision, that means keeping your guardian as MT, and then improving resists via buff classes and gear. Really it wouldn't change much over how things are now.</p></blockquote><p>That is why I am not suggesting there be a huge difference or advantage even in the tank's specialized area.  Pal/SK would not be too far behind Guard/Zerk in physical damage mitigation (5% to 15% range at most I would think).  However, by giving them a special niche type ability, they have a reason to step up into the MT role for certain encounters and raid's have a reason to bring a variety of tank types.  Honestly, even Guard is slightly better as MT for most raids, how is that different from the current situation?</p>

[Mathafern]

<p><cite>DeadNamespace wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>That is why I am not suggesting there be a huge difference or advantage even in the tank's specialized area.  Pal/SK would not be too far behind Guard/Zerk in physical damage mitigation (5% to 15% range at most I would think).  However, by giving them a special niche type ability, they have a reason to step up into the MT role for certain encounters and raid's have a reason to bring a variety of tank types.  Honestly, even Guard is slightly better as MT for most raids, how is that different from the current situation?</blockquote><p>65%-80% is a 15% difference.  If 100 damage would be done, one takes 35 damage the other 20.</p><p>So a 15% difference in Mit is 35/20 = 175% damage taken.</p><p>This is why Guard/Zerk will always be better MT on the hardest content, given same Masters/Gear/Buffs.</p>

[DeadNamespace]

<p><cite>Dasein wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Noaani wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Dasein wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>There's a few problems with this approach. Raid damage types are not evenly distributed, and physical damage is by far the most common type. Further, other classes can already provide big boosts to resists and wards, making the proposed strengths of crusaders far less useful than the strengths of warriors. Second, raids are not likely to switch tanks over the course of a zone. They will stick with an established MT/OT setup, and work through whatever difficulties that may present. Based on your vision, that means keeping your guardian as MT, and then improving resists via buff classes and gear. Really it wouldn't change much over how things are now.</p></blockquote><p>Whats a better effect, the one that prevents a 5k hit every 10 seconds that your healers would have simply healed through, or one that prevents a 30k hit every 50 seconds?</p><p>The 5k every 10 seconds will parse as a better ability, but the 30k will provide a better benefit. Most of the big hits from raid mobs are non melee based, so having additional protection to them could be better, depending on how it was done.</p></blockquote><p>Those 30k hits are likely one of three things: A critical, which is random, a double attack, which is also random (and could also be a critical), or a fail condition which needs to be avoided. Unless you can time those 30k hits, your big blocker isn't going to be all that useful in most fights.</p></blockquote><p>Imagine if Pal/SK had a personal buff like "the next magical attack that does more than 30% HP in damage is negated" 1 trigger with a 30 sec re-use.  Now a mob that cast a 100k magic attack every minute, it would pretty much have to be tanked by a Pal/SK in this case, or deal with MT going down every minute.  I would not advocate something this extreme, but you can see how creative design of mob abilities and player counter-abilities can create a viable niche for every type of tank.Or Imagine a raid mob that regularly tried to charm the MT and then buff him to be a DPS god (boost DPS say by 1000%) and then sicked him on the lowest person on the raid mob's hate list.  What if monks and bruisers both had a "close mind" / "slippery mind" / "shrug off mental control" type ability with good re-use time, would they become the ideal MT for that raid mob?Just some quick examples of ways to make give all tanks a shot at being MT without having to make 1 tank the definitive all-the-time raid MT of choice.</p>

[Lord Hackenslash]

<p><cite>DeadNamespace wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Tanks should also be divided in the following ways :Guardians and Berserkers should be slightly better at absorbing raw melee damage (pierce, crush, slash) through superior mitigationPaladins and SKs should be slightly better at absorbing magical damage (fire, cold, arcane) through their special defensive buffs, personal wards, and ability to reflect spells back at the mobs or something like thatMonks and Bruisers should be slightly better at avoiding/negating special control effects (charm, stun, stifle, root) through self-only cures and short-term immunity buffs and/or through higher avoidance causing the effects to "miss" outright.I think this makes sense with the "flavor" of the classes : guardians and berserkers shrugging off the greatest physical damage, paladins and SKs being spell-casting specialists themselves are good at dealing with spell damage, Monks and Bruisers specialize in avoiding the dangerous control effects so they never land on them.  This division has the side effect of making monks and bruisers better able to hold aggro with their "active aggro toolset", i.e. they have no passive aggro abilities and suffer the most when a control effect shuts down their aggro generation.  In addition, the aggro tools of the Paladin and SK need to keep in mind that their combat time needs to be somewhat devoted to casting their personal wards and utility spells, so they need tools like the current revised Amends that gives good threat generation up front and then follows up with "threat-over-time" so that they are free to cast other spells if needed.This proposed division gives all classes a niche for raiding as well.  Pure brutal melee targets would best be tanked by a Guardian or Berserker, mobs with significant magical damage procs and AoEs would be better tanked by a Pal/SK, and mobs with especially annoying or difficult to manage control effects could be tanked by Monks/Bruisers.  If Survival is of utmost importance, then use Guard/Pal/Monk, if the script calls for the fastest burn possible (race-to-kill type of scenario) then a Berserker/SK/Bruiser would be best (superior threat generation means all of the raid's DPS classes can pump out more damage without taking aggro).  If Bers/SK/Bruiser produce even 1k more TPS than Guard/Pal/Monk on average, that means every DPS class in the raid that is currently "aggro-limited" (which should hopefully apply</p></blockquote><p>They tried to do this back in LU13 I think it was and that was part of what broke crusaders for the following 2-3years. the mobs are all heavy melee and we all need to be able to tank heavy melee mobs. Please don't suggest that SK and paladins become spell tanking speciallists. The raid and group instance content just isn't built that way and there is no mechanic in game that would make up for the loss you suggested in defense vs melee attacks that any tank couldnt make up by throwing on a couple pieces of resist gear. Any serious tank carries 2 - 3 bags of resist gear as it is for such reasons.</p><p>I agree that there should not be as large of a divide between single target and aoe tanking and it woulod only take a few minor tweaks to fix it. For example give Give Guardian Hold The Line ability a encounter taunt instead of a single target taunt. that with a decent swashbuckler giving aggro is about all they need to hold aggro off most warlocks and conjurors. if the guard is really worried they have an aoe tree in KoS AA line that makes the aoe aggro alot easier. also they need to take away the penalties from the guardian and zerker death saves. and that would be a good step in the right direction.</p><p>Tank balance needs to be done slowly with a scalpel and not with a machete.</p><p>As for brawlers, thats a bit more tricky but they have many posts dedicated to the subject that need to turn into dialogues with the devs so that they can make the call to stay offensive and give up tanking utility or to become more defensive and loose some offense. It is a tricky road for them since half the brawlers see it one way vs the other. Again they need more aoe aggro tools but those can be modded off thier exsisting skills. </p><p>A complete and total revamp of all Tanking mechanics is not needed and would serve to break things even more.</p>

[DeadNamespace]

<p><cite>Mathafern@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>DeadNamespace wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>That is why I am not suggesting there be a huge difference or advantage even in the tank's specialized area.  Pal/SK would not be too far behind Guard/Zerk in physical damage mitigation (5% to 15% range at most I would think).  However, by giving them a special niche type ability, they have a reason to step up into the MT role for certain encounters and raid's have a reason to bring a variety of tank types.  Honestly, even Guard is slightly better as MT for most raids, how is that different from the current situation?</blockquote><p>65%-80% is a 15% difference.  If 100 damage would be done, one takes 35 damage the other 20.</p><p>So a 15% difference in Mit is 35/20 = 175% damage taken.</p><p>This is why Guard/Zerk will always be better MT on the hardest content, given same Masters/Gear/Buffs.</p></blockquote><p>Yeah, that is not what I meant, sorry if I was unclear.  I meant that the final damage taken (net performance) would differ by 5 to 15 percent.  If a mob would do 1000 DPS to a training dummy and only 200 DPS to a Guardian (assuming they are setting the defensive standard) then the other tanks should be taking at most 230 DPS (if you use the 15% number), with similar gear and AAs, etc.</p>

[Dasein]

<p><cite>DeadNamespace wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Dasein wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Noaani wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Dasein wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>There's a few problems with this approach. Raid damage types are not evenly distributed, and physical damage is by far the most common type. Further, other classes can already provide big boosts to resists and wards, making the proposed strengths of crusaders far less useful than the strengths of warriors. Second, raids are not likely to switch tanks over the course of a zone. They will stick with an established MT/OT setup, and work through whatever difficulties that may present. Based on your vision, that means keeping your guardian as MT, and then improving resists via buff classes and gear. Really it wouldn't change much over how things are now.</p></blockquote><p>Whats a better effect, the one that prevents a 5k hit every 10 seconds that your healers would have simply healed through, or one that prevents a 30k hit every 50 seconds?</p><p>The 5k every 10 seconds will parse as a better ability, but the 30k will provide a better benefit. Most of the big hits from raid mobs are non melee based, so having additional protection to them could be better, depending on how it was done.</p></blockquote><p>Those 30k hits are likely one of three things: A critical, which is random, a double attack, which is also random (and could also be a critical), or a fail condition which needs to be avoided. Unless you can time those 30k hits, your big blocker isn't going to be all that useful in most fights.</p></blockquote><p>Imagine if Pal/SK had a personal buff like "the next magical attack that does more than 30% HP in damage is negated" 1 trigger with a 30 sec re-use.  Now a mob that cast a 100k magic attack every minute, it would pretty much have to be tanked by a Pal/SK in this case, or deal with MT going down every minute.  I would not advocate something this extreme, but you can see how creative design of mob abilities and player counter-abilities can create a viable niche for every type of tank.Or Imagine a raid mob that regularly tried to charm the MT and then buff him to be a DPS god (boost DPS say by 1000%) and then sicked him on the lowest person on the raid mob's hate list.  What if monks and bruisers both had a "close mind" / "slippery mind" / "shrug off mental control" type ability with good re-use time, would they become the ideal MT for that raid mob?Just some quick examples of ways to make give all tanks a shot at being MT without having to make 1 tank the definitive all-the-time raid MT of choice.</p></blockquote><p>So what youo end up with are gimmick fights designed to be tanked by specific classes. The solution to the need for only a few tanks is to give all tanks abilities to assist other tanks. That is, make things like agro control stack in the way healing and DPS stack. Currently if two tanks are both taunting an encounter, they're being counter-productive as the mob will bounce between them, thus requiring healers to divide their efforts. To allow for multiple tanks in a raid, allow tanks to cooperate on agro control, and give tanks an arsenal of abilities which allow them to support the MT. Perhaps instead of having an offensive and defensive stance, tanks could have an MT and support stance. MT stance would function like defensive stance, while the support stance would allow the tank to transfer a portion of their hate to the MT, as well as utilize other abilities to improve the MT's survivability. This would include things like a shield wall, where tanks could improve the shield effectiveness of the MT, or enhanced death prevention and spike damage prevention. Basically, instead of having the MT be a stand-alone job, you would have a defensive line of fighters working to support each other. One - the MT - would be the point, but having solid fighter support would be essential to a raid, just like having solid healing, DPS and utility is important.</p>

[Vulkan_NTooki]

<p><cite>Noaani wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Vulkan_NTooki wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I like alot of what you say here.. interesting approach..</p><p>I do however feel that aggro should be equal in defensive and offensive.</p><p>The loss of dps aggro you loose from switching from offensive to defensive should = the taunt/hate gain you gain in defensive. This way defensive/offensive is a matter of surviveability vs damage.</p></blockquote><p>I personally disagree, but only because of the lengths that the offensive stance would need to go to in order to balance this out.</p><p>Since the idea is to not have fighters dealing high DPS while tanking, in order to maintain the same level of hate in each stance,they would need to drastically reduce the survivability of fighters in offensive stance.</p><p>Obviously your idea here is to allow a tank to DPS if they have good healers in their group, while still maintaining aggro. in order to do that in a balanced way, fighter survivability would need to be reduced to the point of needing 2 full time healers for any heroic content. If this happened, mages would be better at tanking heroic content than am off stance fighter (due mostly to ecxessive stoneskin procs from items).</p><p>I don't want this to happen, and I am sure fighters don't want this to happen. If any change was made that allowed fighters to hold aggro in off stance, but did not reduce their survivability in a manner such as this, the whole point of these changes would have been passed by, as fighters will continue to DPS while tanking.</p></blockquote><p>I disagree with you too.. Tanks should be able to hold aggro through dps in offensive.. however, defensive should be a viable way to also hold aggro. The idea behind the fighter change was to give fighters an opportunity to tank in defensive rather than offensive and still be able to maintain aggro. My opinion is that u can live with both solutions. Making defensive and offensive more meaningful as you tank easy or hard content.</p><p>There is NO viable reason as to why a tank shouldnt be able to tank in offensive and keep aggro at the same time. There are however questionable reasons.. like dps classes thinking fighters do too much dmg. Which have been discussed over and over again..</p>

[DeadNamespace]

<p><cite>Vulkan_NTooki wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Noaani wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Vulkan_NTooki wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I like alot of what you say here.. interesting approach..</p><p>I do however feel that aggro should be equal in defensive and offensive.</p><p>The loss of dps aggro you loose from switching from offensive to defensive should = the taunt/hate gain you gain in defensive. This way defensive/offensive is a matter of surviveability vs damage.</p></blockquote><p>I personally disagree, but only because of the lengths that the offensive stance would need to go to in order to balance this out.</p><p>Since the idea is to not have fighters dealing high DPS while tanking, in order to maintain the same level of hate in each stance,they would need to drastically reduce the survivability of fighters in offensive stance.</p><p>Obviously your idea here is to allow a tank to DPS if they have good healers in their group, while still maintaining aggro. in order to do that in a balanced way, fighter survivability would need to be reduced to the point of needing 2 full time healers for any heroic content. If this happened, mages would be better at tanking heroic content than am off stance fighter (due mostly to ecxessive stoneskin procs from items).</p><p>I don't want this to happen, and I am sure fighters don't want this to happen. If any change was made that allowed fighters to hold aggro in off stance, but did not reduce their survivability in a manner such as this, the whole point of these changes would have been passed by, as fighters will continue to DPS while tanking.</p></blockquote><p>I disagree with you too.. Tanks should be able to hold aggro through dps in offensive.. however, defensive should be a viable way to also hold aggro. The idea behind the fighter change was to give fighters an opportunity to tank in defensive rather than offensive and still be able to maintain aggro. My opinion is that u can live with both solutions. Making defensive and offensive more meaningful as you tank easy or hard content.</p><p>There is NO viable reason as to why a tank shouldnt be able to tank in offensive and keep aggro at the same time. There are however questionable reasons.. like dps classes thinking fighters do too much dmg. Which have been discussed over and over again..</p></blockquote><p>Tanks really need to be able to trade/focus resources in 3 different areas : Defense, Threat, Damage.  We almost need 1 set of stances (probably 3 stances, give plate tanks a "mid-stance") that trades damage for defense, and another set of stances that trades damage for threat.  So in a group with many aggro-limited DPSers, tanks give up personal DPS to gain additional threat and actually increase the damage of the group (see the examples in the OP).  At the same time, they can also trade in defense for more damage on easier content.  Soloing tanks can trade threat for damage and select a level of defense/offense that best suits the content (usually max damage is best for soloing but who knows, for some circumstances of gear/AAs/mobs it might be best to select a more defensive posture).I would say they need 3 stances to give the most choices possible so the decision is not so absolute black and white.  Perhaps one set of the stances could be a non-upgradeable thing acquired early in a tank's career (so we aren't forcing tanks to collect an unbalanced number of abilities (more masters/adepts) compared to other classes.  (For example, skill boosts don't scale well anyway.  I never understood why the devs strained the system with skill mods spiraling out of control.)</p>

[DeadNamespace]

<p><cite>Dasein wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>So what youo end up with are gimmick fights designed to be tanked by specific classes. The solution to the need for only a few tanks is to give all tanks abilities to assist other tanks. That is, make things like agro control stack in the way healing and DPS stack. Currently if two tanks are both taunting an encounter, they're being counter-productive as the mob will bounce between them, thus requiring healers to divide their efforts. To allow for multiple tanks in a raid, allow tanks to cooperate on agro control, and give tanks an arsenal of abilities which allow them to support the MT. Perhaps instead of having an offensive and defensive stance, tanks could have an MT and support stance. MT stance would function like defensive stance, while the support stance would allow the tank to transfer a portion of their hate to the MT, as well as utilize other abilities to improve the MT's survivability. This would include things like a shield wall, where tanks could improve the shield effectiveness of the MT, or enhanced death prevention and spike damage prevention. Basically, instead of having the MT be a stand-alone job, you would have a defensive line of fighters working to support each other. One - the MT - would be the point, but having solid fighter support would be essential to a raid, just like having solid healing, DPS and utility is important.</p></blockquote><p>I admit it does have the danger of becoming "gimmicky".  Your solution is a very good one as well.  I have read suggestions like it before, and the only thing that worries me about it is the drastic changes that would need to happen for it to work.  I know it comes down to the details, perhaps there is a smooth way to transition to such a system.</p>

[LygerT]

<p>the ideas wont work because you're just taking one set of game mechanics out of one box and putting them into a new box, it may look like something different on the outside but on the inside you still have the same issues.</p><p>it's in people's nature to be jealous of others and want what they have. you can live and work with the skills you have to the best of your ability or you can play another class, that's pretty much it for your options.</p><p>now i'm not saying that there couldn't be better balance between tanks still even before these upcoming fighter changes. tank snaps need to be better coded so that whoever hits their buttons first doesn't own the mobs completely until that ability wears off.</p><p>a certain class does need to be toned down some as well, i don't care what happened in the past, tanks should be balanced instead of power being transferred from expansion to expansion. i only really have an issue when i see classes become overpowered. add in content balancing on top and you have a big mess where AE tanks dominate some content but not others. so by changing AE vs ST tanks you might fix one problem but then create another, it is a never ending cycle unless you simply balance tank abilities so they basically do the same job in different ways and balance AE and single target content in zones.</p><p>i would have to guess most people aren't fairweather players because it takes alot of time to devote to building a character to the best of its ability only to find yourself in an expansion or 2 you take a shot, get aggravated and stop playing. some people then come back later when changes are made, some do not. some expansions are better about content and class balance, others are not. of course you can't always make everyone happy but there has always been criteria that has helped to keep the majority happy.</p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p><cite>Dasein wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>DeadNamespace wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Dasein wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Noaani wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Dasein wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>There's a few problems with this approach. Raid damage types are not evenly distributed, and physical damage is by far the most common type. Further, other classes can already provide big boosts to resists and wards, making the proposed strengths of crusaders far less useful than the strengths of warriors. Second, raids are not likely to switch tanks over the course of a zone. They will stick with an established MT/OT setup, and work through whatever difficulties that may present. Based on your vision, that means keeping your guardian as MT, and then improving resists via buff classes and gear. Really it wouldn't change much over how things are now.</p></blockquote><p>Whats a better effect, the one that prevents a 5k hit every 10 seconds that your healers would have simply healed through, or one that prevents a 30k hit every 50 seconds?</p><p>The 5k every 10 seconds will parse as a better ability, but the 30k will provide a better benefit. Most of the big hits from raid mobs are non melee based, so having additional protection to them could be better, depending on how it was done.</p></blockquote><p>Those 30k hits are likely one of three things: A critical, which is random, a double attack, which is also random (and could also be a critical), or a fail condition which needs to be avoided. Unless you can time those 30k hits, your big blocker isn't going to be all that useful in most fights.</p></blockquote><p>Imagine if Pal/SK had a personal buff like "the next magical attack that does more than 30% HP in damage is negated" 1 trigger with a 30 sec re-use. Now a mob that cast a 100k magic attack every minute, it would pretty much have to be tanked by a Pal/SK in this case, or deal with MT going down every minute. I would not advocate something this extreme, but you can see how creative design of mob abilities and player counter-abilities can create a viable niche for every type of tank.Or Imagine a raid mob that regularly tried to charm the MT and then buff him to be a DPS god (boost DPS say by 1000%) and then sicked him on the lowest person on the raid mob's hate list. What if monks and bruisers both had a "close mind" / "slippery mind" / "shrug off mental control" type ability with good re-use time, would they become the ideal MT for that raid mob?Just some quick examples of ways to make give all tanks a shot at being MT without having to make 1 tank the definitive all-the-time raid MT of choice.</p></blockquote><p>So what youo end up with are gimmick fights designed to be tanked by specific classes. The solution to the need for only a few tanks is to give all tanks abilities to assist other tanks. That is, make things like agro control stack in the way healing and DPS stack. Currently if two tanks are both taunting an encounter, they're being counter-productive as the mob will bounce between them, thus requiring healers to divide their efforts. To allow for multiple tanks in a raid, allow tanks to cooperate on agro control, and give tanks an arsenal of abilities which allow them to support the MT. Perhaps instead of having an offensive and defensive stance, tanks could have an MT and support stance. MT stance would function like defensive stance, while the support stance would allow the tank to transfer a portion of their hate to the MT, as well as utilize other abilities to improve the MT's survivability. This would include things like a shield wall, where tanks could improve the shield effectiveness of the MT, or enhanced death prevention and spike damage prevention. Basically, instead of having the MT be a stand-alone job, you would have a defensive line of fighters working to support each other. One - the MT - would be the point, but having solid fighter support would be essential to a raid, just like having solid healing, DPS and utility is important.</p></blockquote><p>I game that allowed that would be great.  Sadly EQ2 is not nor ever will have that.  It would require so much redesign of not just the classes but the content.   Maybe EQ3 if there ever is such a thing.</p><p>Personally, when I created my first Guardian back at launch.....the description of the class led me to believe it would be given a large arsenal of abilities to not necessarily be the MT but to be able to protect others via things like blocking, shield walls, complicated 'intercede' type stuff, etc.</p><p>But SOE decided to stick with the same old EQ1 simplistic formula for content......except try to split the EQ1 warrior into 6 different yet "equal" classes.....The never got it right.......and here 5 years later are still trying to figure it out.  Its just not possible.</p><p>Amazing that anyone ever thought that having 6 classes competeing and only viable for 1/6 group slots or 2/24 raid slots was ever going to work.</p>