Multi Target Tank = Single target also, so why make single and multi target tanks?? [Archive]

Trojenn

02-15-2009, 06:52 PM

Let me see if I understand this right... Palidens and Guardians are now supposed to be "" SINGLE TARGET "" tanks and Shadowknights and Berserkers are " MULTI TARGET " tanks.So, limiting this to just warriors for my question, if a Zerker can hold agro against 4 mobs and no one pulls agro, then they will be just as good as holding agro on a SINGLE target. Aside from a few classes, most are single target damage dealers, so even on a Multi target encounter, the majority of damage is being applied to a single target, not only is the Berserker holding agro against the other mobs but is still manageing to hold agro against the """ TARGETED MOB """.Guardians on the other hand are supposed to be SINGLE target tanks, and are not built for holding multiple target encounters. So when they pull an encounter of mobs they are good at holding the targeted mob but cannot do crap for realy holding the rest of the encounter.Does anyone else see the issue here. By putting classifications on what type of tank you are, you are limiting the desireability of what tanks people will play. TSO grp instances have ALOT of multi mob encounters in them so why would someone take a guardian or palli over a Zerker or SK. If one tank can do the job of both "" Multi and Single "" what is the need of a tank that can only do one "" Multi OR Single "".As for Brawlers, I play a Bruiser but for nothing more then farming so I realy cannot justify posting on either of the brawler classes. I am however sure that this will apply for yall to.Aarelik, I would realy appreciate a reasoning behind the classifieing the need to make tanks either Single or Multi target capable. If you can please post an explanation of why these changes are being made and implemented I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks.

MellowBob

02-15-2009, 07:08 PM

Single target tanks = high single aggro, high survivability.Multi target tanks = moderate multiple aggro, low survivability.Holding aggro = tank maxing out their hate potential AND responsibility of dps to watch their hate meter.This should be LU51 if they do it right.The argument of multi target tank can hold aggro as well as single tank is moot with LU51. The dicipline of the raid dps determins who hold aggro.Edit: I was a bit brash in my statement.

Couching

02-15-2009, 07:42 PM

<cite>MellowBob wrote:</cite><blockquote>Single target tanks = high single aggro, high survivability.Multi target tanks = moderate multiple aggro, low survivability.Holding aggro = tank maxing out their hate potential AND responsibility of dps to watch their hate meter.This is LU51.The argument of multi target tank can hold aggro as well as single tank is moot with LU51. The dicipline of the raid dps determins who hold aggro.</blockquote>Who said it? If you can quote it, please do it.Guardian is the only single target tank has slightly better survivability than aoe tanks.For pally, I don't see why pally has advantage on survivabilty over sk and zerker.Not to say, monk is the worst in survivability of all fighters.This statement doesnt stand for monk and pally.

Troubor

02-15-2009, 08:49 PM

<cite>MellowBob wrote:</cite><blockquote>Single target tanks = high single aggro, high survivability.Multi target tanks = moderate multiple aggro, low survivability.Holding aggro = tank maxing out their hate potential AND responsibility of dps to watch their hate meter.This should be LU51 if they do it right.The argument of multi target tank can hold aggro as well as single tank is moot with LU51. The dicipline of the raid dps determins who hold aggro.Edit: I was a bit brash in my statement.</blockquote>Yes, but this still just shows that the OP is right, the whole concept is flawed. First, why make such a distinction, it's an artificial and arbitary way to make each tank class unique. Are they so devoid of creativity that they can't find a way to keep the Guardian unique from a Berserker, the Paladin unique from a Shadowknight, a Monk unique from a Brusier without resorting to this tripe? What about a Paladin who enjoys being the OT for a raid guild or alliance, after this fiasco what then? Most guilds and groups ALREADY HAVE a perfectly good guardian MT. They aren't going to fire the guy, why should they? I have my mythical, and enough masters that you can't pay me to betray to SK just so I can be a "multi target" tank under their flawed inane vision. This doesn't even get into the RP aspects of not wanting to do this, in character my paladin would never betray either, yes there's only two or three RP servers but I find it amusing how the developers just seem to ignore this too in an indirect way. So, what do I do now? Part time OT when I'm only tanking one other add? Pray I can still grab multiple adds, and hope I'm not kicked out if I can't? Really, what do they suggest? I don't want to be MT. I like my role. What do they suggest I do?Well, they are taking extra time, GU 51 will now be the Lavastorm revamp, the fighter nerf/castration/fiasco will be GU 52, from what I understand. I HONESTLY believe they are only doing minor changes, and the delay is to get us to forget or at least not have the fighter nerfs on the forefront of our mind for an extra month or two, THEN Drop them in. So, I won't say I am quitting when this rolls in. I will say I'll see if I do keep playing a week or two after this. If I can still do my "job", then sure. I've seen other nerfs and changes I found idiotic, but managed to adapt, and maybe I can here too. But I just keep thinking this is the one that will make it too hard to adapt for many. It won't be a factor of skill either, just a factor of too drastic of a change simply due to one man's flawed vision.

Danelin

02-15-2009, 09:45 PM

Yeah. The Single target VS Multitarget argument is a messed way of doing things anyway. Defensive tanking needs some boosting right now, and guardians could use a little out of encounter loving. On the other hand, completely re-working two aspects of the game, while removing all variety from how tanking is accomplished is a poorly reasoned change.Edited to relocate the body of the post to a more appropriate thread.

LygerT

02-16-2009, 03:54 AM

welcome to 3 years ago, i hope you realize zerks and SKs were and have been AE tanks for years, i don't see why it is just now becoming an argument.the reason it is now an argument is because TSO heroic zones are loaded with AE encounters, i was against this ideal but it is not our choice in how the game develops. in my ideal world there would be AE zones and there would be tough single target zones, unfortunately that is not how it evolved into. some people call that segregation but what is worse? all zones having AE mobs or only half of them?alternately raids don't have to have tough single target bosses but the large majority of them are. there have been changes to put in more reliance on the offtank with some raid bosses having adds spawn, static adds that need to be tanked and even many adds that can hit as hard or harder than bosses. ideally i like that latter in some occasions but for the most part those duties are few and far between still.

Detor

02-16-2009, 10:40 AM

<cite>Lyger@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>welcome to 3 years ago, i hope you realize zerks and SKs were and have been AE tanks for years, i don't see why it is just now becoming an argument.</blockquote>Yeah, but the classes now labeled "single-target" weren't always focused on single target. A paladin could hold aggro from an AoE DPS class better than a SK and had about just as many AOE damage spells, by all accounts that meant that for '3 years' as you said, paladins would have been considered a multi-target tank.The ideal for all tanks was to hold aggro no matter the encounter size before; it isn't until now that people are getting labeled 'single-target' and find themselves with smaller encounter-wide taunts, while those that got picked as multi-target get large encounter-wide taunts that have the same, full effect on single mob encounters just as much as multiple targets. There's a reason those picked to be multi-target tanks keep saying "everything's fine, quite whining" while the single-target tanks keep creating new threads repeating the same things numerous others have come to realize about encounter taunts working on single targets. Imagine if your encounter taunt wouldn't work against the current target you have, and you had to rely on your single target taunt to keep aggro of the mob you have targetted. Then the single target tanks would have 1 taunt to use against encounters of multiple mobs, and multi target tanks would have 1 taunt to use against encounters of 1 mob. I'm guessing you wouldn't like that idea anymore than the single target tanks like their current encounter taunt.

Eugam

02-16-2009, 11:13 AM

<cite>Lyger@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>welcome to 3 years ago, i hope you realize zerks and SKs were and have been AE tanks for years, i don't see why it is just now becoming an argument.the reason it is now an argument is because TSO heroic zones are loaded with AE encounters, i was against this ideal but it is not our choice in how the game develops. in my ideal world there would be AE zones and there would be tough single target zones, unfortunately that is not how it evolved into. some people call that segregation but what is worse? all zones having AE mobs or only half of them?alternately raids don't have to have tough single target bosses but the large majority of them are. there have been changes to put in more reliance on the offtank with some raid bosses having adds spawn, static adds that need to be tanked and even many adds that can hit as hard or harder than bosses. ideally i like that latter in some occasions but for the most part those duties are few and far between still.</blockquote>Very well said <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />What people dont realize is that it was always this way. It is much less about the tanks ability then the groups damage style. If a monk tanks the damage-dealers have to control encounter AE much more. And on multiple encounters people have to take care with blue AE.The real problems are possibly the zones and encounters. As soon as a certain amount of DSP is required to survive a fight AND when there are a lot of mobs, then its becoming stange. Cavern of the Afflicted has to many linked groups at once and i am not sure if the guardians survivability is balanced against the SK AE hate. If the guardian has enough survivability to allow the group burn one linked encounter after the other without letting the healers (except druid/warden) go oom, then is would be ok aka balanced. Same ofc goes for the other tanks

Slowin

02-16-2009, 11:24 AM

I don't completely understand people's gripe with single target vs. multitarget simply because thats how it functions now on live, with the big difference that your AE taunts as they are on live are next to useless. As far as i'm aware, ever tank now has multiple abilities to increase threat to the target encounter (including the threat added to Free AE's) and can probably in theory hold aggro better on test with multiple targets than they do now. So the way i see it, single target tanks on test are seeing an upgrade compared to live in holding aggro on multiple targets and having to use less power on single targets and AE tanks.. which was basically zerker/pally on live now see a slight upgrade in holding aggro against multimob encounters, and bruisers see a HUGE upgrade in holding aggro.The anomaly here is still the SK which holds aggro in AE almost the best of any tank atm as a ST tank.. so that doesn't seem right. I don't think anyone will be having a tougher time holding aggro against groups then they are on live right now -- in fact it should be easier since you're relying less on hate transfers, and your group taunt is now 5-10x more effective with a HUGE threat increase and a significant recast decrease.

RafaelSmith

02-16-2009, 12:01 PM

Trying to segregate the tanks into AE -vs- Single is a very flawed approach but its been that way for while....as others have said its just that TSO brought to lite just how flawed the concept is.We have several factors at play that make this bad for the singlet taget tanks.First, single target tanks are the lowest DPS onesSecond, TSO is full of multi-target "encounters"....i realize the bosses are mostly single but the trash is heavy in AEThird, several of the TSO instances demand high DPS to really get thru them.This makes for giving the AE tanks a huge advantage...not only can they handle the aggro but they also contribute quite abit to the overall speed in getting thru these instances. What little disadvantage they may have on "paper" against single targets never comes into play.Assuming equal gear and skill.....the "speed" and "group efficiency" advantage that a Zerker or SK brings to a TSO instance over a Guard is major. There is simply no advantage or reason to use a guard to MT TSO instances over an SK or Zerker.SOE needs to get over this seesaw approach to balance. And we players need to get beyond the .."well is sucked for us last expansion....now its your turn".

Motzi

02-16-2009, 12:47 PM

<cite>Detor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Lyger@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>welcome to 3 years ago, i hope you realize zerks and SKs were and have been AE tanks for years, i don't see why it is just now becoming an argument.</blockquote>Yeah, but the classes now labeled "single-target" weren't always focused on single target. A paladin could hold aggro from an AoE DPS class better than a SK and had about just as many AOE damage spells, by all accounts that meant that for '3 years' as you said, paladins would have been considered a multi-target tank.</blockquote>We ran a Pal OT for our multi-target tank, cause we found them to be the best multitarget tank in game. With GU51, we're having to tell him to betray or hit the road. I won't be surprised if he /ragequits.I agree with others sentiments, we'll all run with multi-target tanks and let the single target tanks rot. The survivabiltiy differences just aren't THAT significant. And honestly, tank survivability hasn't been an issue for a long, LONG time.

Bruener

02-16-2009, 02:11 PM

<cite>Motzi@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Detor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Lyger@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>welcome to 3 years ago, i hope you realize zerks and SKs were and have been AE tanks for years, i don't see why it is just now becoming an argument.</blockquote>Yeah, but the classes now labeled "single-target" weren't always focused on single target. A paladin could hold aggro from an AoE DPS class better than a SK and had about just as many AOE damage spells, by all accounts that meant that for '3 years' as you said, paladins would have been considered a multi-target tank.</blockquote>We ran a Pal OT for our multi-target tank, cause we found them to be the best multitarget tank in game. With GU51, we're having to tell him to betray or hit the road. I won't be surprised if he /ragequits.I agree with others sentiments, we'll all run with multi-target tanks and let the single target tanks rot. The survivabiltiy differences just aren't THAT significant. And honestly, tank survivability hasn't been an issue for a long, LONG time.</blockquote>And yet almost everybody and their brother still uses a Guard as MT. Survivability is still an issue and come the changes for GU 51 it is just going to make things even worse. 4 out of the 6 tanks are supposed to be the offensive style fighters and yet SOE is making it so everybody needs to be defensive to tank. Why would you bring the offensive to do the job a defensive tank can do easier. And those 2 are the single target tanks. I feel not bad at all for them not being able to have the AE tools SKs and Zerks have. This x-pac is still 50% single target if not more and you find reason to complain that 50% of the content is designed for taht type of tank style? Raid content this is even worse.The only 1 I feel for is Paladins. They are told that now they are to be competing with Guards for the MT spot and yet they are being handed less survivability tools than a Guard...so what is the incentive to replace that Guard again? And lets face it folks, tanking in defensive on Test right now is easy-mode agro for any tank. So every tank can hold the mob without worrying about DPS at all, and you are telling me there is going to be incentive to bring the offensive type tanks...when according to Aeralik their primary function is tanking, leave the DPS to scouts and mages. Woot, back to 2 fighters on a raid.

Motzi

02-16-2009, 02:27 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Motzi@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote></blockquote>This x-pac is still 50% single target if not more and you find reason to complain that 50% of the content is designed for taht type of tank style? Raid content this is even worse.</blockquote>No, the complaint is changing the Paladin from an AoE tank to a single target tank when their AoE tanking ability is the only reason we put one on the roster. The Paladin has reason to be hurt over this.I think we will ultimately replace the Guard MT though, the feeling is if an SK can maintain the ST aggro as well as Multiple Targets, that once our SK is geared as well as our Guard, he'll be effective enough to replace him. Time will tell.

Kordran

02-16-2009, 02:31 PM

<cite>Motzi@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>We ran a Pal OT for our multi-target tank, cause we found them to be the best multitarget tank in game. With GU51, we're having to tell him to betray or hit the road. I won't be surprised if he /ragequits.</blockquote>Honestly, I'd hold off on forcing your Palading MA/OT from betraying. Even with the changes in GU51, the class will still have the best snap aggro and a wide variety of AEs. The Paladin will pretty much be the only fighter who can also effectively OT in offensive and not have to worry about the switchout to defensive; Holy Ground + Restitution will mean they can literally go from the bottom of the threat list to the top in under a second.The death of the Paladin as an effective OT may be premature. Right now, to my knowledge there's been no extensive player testing done on how this actually works out in raids. We'll have to see what happens when it goes live.

MellowBob

02-16-2009, 02:42 PM

<cite>Motzi@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>I think we will ultimately replace the Guard MT though, the feeling is if an SK can maintain the ST aggro as well as Multiple Targets, that once our SK is geared as well as our Guard, he'll be effective enough to replace him. Time will tell.</blockquote>With the upcoming dps "tweak", I doubt it. Also, I think you'll find the raid dps will actually go up with a single target tank than with a multi target tank.

Motzi

02-16-2009, 03:14 PM

<cite>MellowBob wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote></blockquote>With the upcoming dps "tweak", I doubt it. Also, I think you'll find the raid dps will actually go up with a single target tank than with a multi target tank.</blockquote>This is predicated on the notion that any dps class is currently holding back for aggro reasons...

Scaler

02-16-2009, 03:48 PM

<cite>Motzi@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Motzi@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote></blockquote>This x-pac is still 50% single target if not more and you find reason to complain that 50% of the content is designed for taht type of tank style? Raid content this is even worse.</blockquote>No, the complaint is changing the Paladin from an AoE tank to a single target tank when their AoE tanking ability is the only reason we put one on the roster. The Paladin has reason to be hurt over this.I think we will ultimately replace the Guard MT though, the feeling is if an SK can maintain the ST aggro as well as Multiple Targets, that once our SK is geared as well as our Guard, he'll be effective enough to replace him. Time will tell.</blockquote>The Guards that still have the MT spot, are there because they are the best geared from last expansion. Open your eyes!

Bruener

02-16-2009, 04:07 PM

<cite>Scaler wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Motzi@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Motzi@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote></blockquote>This x-pac is still 50% single target if not more and you find reason to complain that 50% of the content is designed for taht type of tank style? Raid content this is even worse.</blockquote>No, the complaint is changing the Paladin from an AoE tank to a single target tank when their AoE tanking ability is the only reason we put one on the roster. The Paladin has reason to be hurt over this.I think we will ultimately replace the Guard MT though, the feeling is if an SK can maintain the ST aggro as well as Multiple Targets, that once our SK is geared as well as our Guard, he'll be effective enough to replace him. Time will tell.</blockquote>The Guards that still have the MT spot, are there because they are the best geared from last expansion. Open your eyes!</blockquote>And like always there have been many Guards that leave, just like a lot of other people, from this game. And guess what, they are replaced with another Guard. Guards always have, and still do have, more survivability tools than any other tank. The survivability gap has definitely gotten smaller since the changes to TSO...but come the next fighter update where they are trying to make all tanks play like Guardians in defensive....Guards will still have the edge on survivability. Why would you want to use any other class to MT than? Unless of course you have a good player on another fighter type filling in the role of MT until you get a new Guard and get him geared up.

Coho1

02-16-2009, 04:42 PM

Only problem I have is a paladin should be a multitarget tank.. The good equivalent of the SK. Look at pali lore..

LygerT

02-16-2009, 05:03 PM

<cite>Motzi@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>MellowBob wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote></blockquote>With the upcoming dps "tweak", I doubt it. Also, I think you'll find the raid dps will actually go up with a single target tank than with a multi target tank.</blockquote>This is predicated on the notion that any dps class is currently holding back for aggro reasons...</blockquote>if your comparison is how aggro is on live now then you really need to look harder at things on test. also realize offtank dps and aggro is not always comparable to the MTs unless you are working on completely trivial content where even a cloth wearer could tank.

Aven Elonis

02-16-2009, 05:15 PM

Single target - Red Icons , Group targets - Green Icons, Out of Encounter (OoE) targets - Blue IconsGuardian (mine on Test) Taunts4 (Single) , 2 (Group), 1 (OoE) Arts11 (Single), 1 (OoE) Rescues5 (Single) – Rescue, Reinforcement, ToS AA – Call of the Warrior and Sneering Assault and eventually – Sentinel Strike (final in ToS AA) I'd be interested to see the same set of info for the other fighters on test. Note on Live - 2 less Single taunts and no OoE taunt.

Motzi

02-16-2009, 05:36 PM

<cite>Lyger@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote>This is predicated on the notion that any dps class is currently holding back for aggro reasons...</blockquote>if your comparison is how aggro is on live now then you really need to look harder at things on test. also realize offtank dps and aggro is not always comparable to the MTs unless you are working on completely trivial content where even a cloth wearer could tank.</blockquote>huh? what?I didn't follow this response at all.On test, MT and OT are locked to defensive stance, lowering raid wide dps a few %. Fore raidwide to go up, one of 2 things has to be true. 1) Dps are holding back in live (not my experience) 2) More dps abilities are comming to dps classes on fighter revamp (not that i saw on test).My group wide parsing on test is down compared to live, cause well, the tank's dps is down. Group content really isn't a very good test subject though as fights just don't last long enough.

Motzi

02-16-2009, 05:42 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>And like always there have been many Guards that leave, just like a lot of other people, from this game. And guess what, they are replaced with another Guard. Guards always have, and still do have, more survivability tools than any other tank. The survivability gap has definitely gotten smaller since the changes to TSO...but come the next fighter update where they are trying to make all tanks play like Guardians in defensive....Guards will still have the edge on survivability. Why would you want to use any other class to MT than? Unless of course you have a good player on another fighter type filling in the role of MT until you get a new Guard and get him geared up.</blockquote>I disagree, we've stuck with guards more because of the snap aggro abilities, survivability was a much smaller reason. Maybe my raids are just different than others, but wiping, or failure is rarely from tank survivability. It is from not doing the right script dance, stuns, other non-tanking related issues. When any fighter can hold aggro, and any geared plate tank can survive well enough, we're going to go with who does the most dps and can tank the widest range of content.

Eugam

02-17-2009, 02:48 AM

<cite>Aven Elonis wrote:</cite><blockquote>Single target - Red Icons , Group targets - Green Icons, Out of Encounter (OoE) targets - Blue IconsGuardian (mine on Test) Taunts4 (Single) , 2 (Group), 1 (OoE) Arts11 (Single), 1 (OoE) Rescues5 (Single) – Rescue, Reinforcement, ToS AA – Call of the Warrior and Sneering Assault and eventually – Sentinel Strike (final in ToS AA) I'd be interested to see the same set of info for the other fighters on test. Note on Live - 2 less Single taunts and no OoE taunt.</blockquote>Hehe,Monk on Test:Taunts:1 single, 1 group, 0 blueArts:dunno, maybe 5 single with a hate mod on them, 1 blue art with a hate mod on it. 1blue without hate modrescues: 1+1 One rescue and peel.

Aven Elonis

02-17-2009, 02:55 PM

Relative to my post:Taunts mean that they have a hate compontent to them, they may or may not also do damage.Combat Arts mean damage with or without other effects (excluding aggro)Single target - Red Icons , Group targets - Green Icons, Out of Encounter (OoE) targets - Blue IconsMonk (based on your post for Test) Taunts6 (Single) , 1 (Group), 1 (OoE) Arts?? (Single), 1 (OoE) Rescues2 (Single) – Rescue, Peel

Aeralik

02-17-2009, 03:11 PM

They are quite a bit different if you look at the broader picture. A single target tanks has better power efficiency with single targets, quicker reuse on skills, and higher overall single target threat. The aoe tanks then tend to use slower casting, longer reuse, and more power consuming abilities. The aoe tanks also tend to be your greater overall damage tanks while the singles are a bit more defensive oriented. The differences are definitely subtle but they are there. You have to keep in mind we have to walk a narrow line to ensure all tanks are viable in group and raid settings while also having some differences so that each tank has their niche.

Couching

02-17-2009, 03:17 PM

<cite>Aven Elonis wrote:</cite><blockquote>Relative to my post:Taunts mean that they have a hate compontent to them, they may or may not also do damage.Combat Arts mean damage with or without other effects (excluding aggro)Single target - Red Icons , Group targets - Green Icons, Out of Encounter (OoE) targets - Blue IconsMonk (based on your post for Test) Taunts6 (Single) , 1 (Group), 1 (OoE)2 (Single), 3 if you spec int line for Eagle cry in brawler tree. Arts?? (Single), 1 (OoE)11(Single), 13 if you spec str line for Pressure Point and agi line for Batn Flurry in brawler tree.1 (OoE), 2 if you spec wis line for Crane Sweep in brawler tree. Rescues2 (Single) – Rescue, Peel4 (Single) – Rescue, Peel, Sneering Assault, Hidden openings</blockquote>Fixed it for you.

Bremer

02-17-2009, 03:21 PM

<cite>Aeralik wrote:</cite><blockquote>They are quite a bit different if you look at the broader picture. A single target tanks has better power efficiency with single targets, quicker reuse on skills, and higher overall single target threat. The aoe tanks then tend to use slower casting, longer reuse, and more power consuming abilities. The aoe tanks also tend to be your greater overall damage tanks while the singles are a bit more defensive oriented. The differences are definitely subtle but they are there. You have to keep in mind we have to walk a narrow line to ensure all tanks are viable in group and raid settings while also having some differences so that each tank has their niche.</blockquote>This is the Idon'tknowhowmany post ensuring that single target tanks are great at everything? Why is there not one single saying that AE tanks will be good for something? Can you name one tiny little benefit you get for letting an AE tank MT a raid over an single target tank?

Dasein

02-17-2009, 03:34 PM

<cite>Aeralik wrote:</cite><blockquote>They are quite a bit different if you look at the broader picture. A single target tanks has better power efficiency with single targets, quicker reuse on skills, and higher overall single target threat. The aoe tanks then tend to use slower casting, longer reuse, and more power consuming abilities. The aoe tanks also tend to be your greater overall damage tanks while the singles are a bit more defensive oriented. The differences are definitely subtle but they are there. You have to keep in mind we have to walk a narrow line to ensure all tanks are viable in group and raid settings while also having some differences so that each tank has their niche.</blockquote>Survivability is far more important than damage output in higher-end tanking, so to give one type of tank greater survivability is grossly unfair. All tanks must have equal survivability - this includes both overall damage and spike damage protection - if they are to be viable, else the optimal strategy for tanking will always tend to the tank with the most survivability.

Motzi

02-17-2009, 03:36 PM

<cite>Bremer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aeralik wrote:</cite><blockquote>They are quite a bit different if you look at the broader picture. A single target tanks has better power efficiency with single targets, quicker reuse on skills, and higher overall single target threat. The aoe tanks then tend to use slower casting, longer reuse, and more power consuming abilities. The aoe tanks also tend to be your greater overall damage tanks while the singles are a bit more defensive oriented. The differences are definitely subtle but they are there. You have to keep in mind we have to walk a narrow line to ensure all tanks are viable in group and raid settings while also having some differences so that each tank has their niche.</blockquote>This is the Idon'tknowhowmany post ensuring that single target tanks are great at everything? Why is there not one single saying that AE tanks will be good for something? Can you name one tiny little benefit you get for letting an AE tank MT a raid over an single target tank?</blockquote>Sure, if you run an SK MT and a zerker OT, you never need to gear any other tanks. Since both can maintain single target aggro on test, power is never an issue for any geared player in a stacked group, and survivability is high enough that good healers will make up for the rest. You can keep your roster smaller and not worry about carrying a ST tank.

RafaelSmith

02-17-2009, 03:37 PM

<cite>Aeralik wrote:</cite><blockquote>They are quite a bit different if you look at the broader picture. A single target tanks has better power efficiency with single targets, quicker reuse on skills, and higher overall single target threat. The aoe tanks then tend to use slower casting, longer reuse, and more power consuming abilities. The aoe tanks also tend to be your greater overall damage tanks while the singles are a bit more defensive oriented. The differences are definitely subtle but they are there. You have to keep in mind we have to walk a narrow line to ensure all tanks are viable in group and raid settings while also having some differences so that each tank has their niche.</blockquote>To be honest, I think it is you that does not see the entire broader picture. You seem to be entirely focused on the math involved and 'paperdoll' stats instead of the net result.While on paper and in the examine window things like power efficiency, recast times, etc look good.....what really matters is the net result and success/efficiency of the group.If Fighter A can hold aggro the best regardless of the type of content, can take the DMG regardless of what his 'paperdoll' surviveability may be and contributes to the group having less wipes and clearing an instance in a short order .....then it matters not one bit how 'efficient' fighter B might be if his aggro is questionable, his group wipes due to aggro losses, and his low DPS means it takes them 2x as long to clear. There is no longer a 'choice' in fighters....you go with Fighter B only when you run out of Fighter As. That my friend is NOT balance.While currently Guards are the preferred raid MT choice....I fully admit that.....we are one of the worst choices for things outside of raids. The efficiency of our taunts, their short-reuse mean nothing in most TSO instances. That my friend is NOT balance.All things being equal (gear, skill, AAs, masters, buffs, etc) there should not be a clearly superior choice for MT in raids or groups.

Siatfallen

02-17-2009, 03:54 PM

<cite>Aeralik wrote:</cite><blockquote>They are quite a bit different if you look at the broader picture. A single target tanks has better power efficiency with single targets, quicker reuse on skills, and higher overall single target threat. The aoe tanks then tend to use slower casting, longer reuse, and more power consuming abilities. The aoe tanks also tend to be your greater overall damage tanks while the singles are a bit more defensive oriented. The differences are definitely subtle but they are there. You have to keep in mind we have to walk a narrow line to ensure all tanks are viable in group and raid settings while also having some differences so that each tank has their niche.</blockquote>This is possibly true for plate tanks, I really don't know. It is, however, not the case at all for brawlers at present.Bruisers have better survivability than monks, supposedly the single target class of that archetype.Come to think of it, why did brawler DPS on the whole (and monk DPS in particular) suffer a huge drop in tSO, comparatively? Was this an intentional nerf to our competitiveness? Because if so, it was exactly the opposite of what was needed. I'd like to see you use this fighter revamp to put brawlers (for the first time since Desert of Flames) back in the game in a role that doesn't begin with "almost as good to have along as <x class>".Stop trying to treat us like tanks and downplaying the other vital parts of these two classes; it's killing both of them at the moment. This entire revamp has been designed around making tanks tank in defensive stance, and that's fine; but fighters have also attained a DPS mode (offensive stance), and given that this should be the brawler's area of speciality, you have severely misbalanced this; Zerkers and especially SKs are pulling ahead of us there, and it's getting ridiculous.Fix this, before this supposedly last step in the fighter revamp goes live.

Couching

02-17-2009, 04:03 PM

<cite>Aeralik wrote:</cite><blockquote>They are quite a bit different if you look at the broader picture. A single target tanks has better power efficiency with single targets, quicker reuse on skills, and higher overall single target threat. The aoe tanks then tend to use slower casting, longer reuse, and more power consuming abilities. The aoe tanks also tend to be your greater overall damage tanks while the singles are a bit more defensive oriented. The differences are definitely subtle but they are there. You have to keep in mind we have to walk a narrow line to ensure all tanks are viable in group and raid settings while also having some differences so that each tank has their niche.</blockquote>Where is better survivability for monk when comparing so called aoe tanks, SK, Zerker and Bruiser?

Glerin

02-17-2009, 04:21 PM

<cite>Aeralik wrote:</cite><blockquote>A single target tanks has better power efficiency with single targetswe all know power is a very big issue nowdays... right?quicker reuse on skills, and higher overall single target threat.Marginally higher single target threat, but is it still possible for AoE tanks to keep ST aggro? if they can, does it matter we have more ST threat then?The aoe tanks then tend to use slower casting, longer reuse, and more power consuming abilities. The aoe tanks also tend to be your greater overall damage tanks while the singles are a bit more defensive oriented. So your saying that SK's, who can put out about 500HPS, have 3x healthbars with 6set bonus (double bloodletter), another 2k unconcious health, divine aura, shadowknights fury, their mythical, have -less- survivability then a paladin? I dunno how it looks on paper - but in practice, the reality is that SK > paladin survivability, dps and aggro The differences are definitely subtle but they are there. You have to keep in mind we have to walk a narrow line to ensure all tanks are viable in group and raid settings while also having some differences so that each tank has their niche.it's very subtle, but the whole idea of aoe vs st is ust not possible to balance in a fair way, defensive vs offensive, is.</blockquote>why is the change being delayed anyway? what's being changed that isnt on test?

Obadiah

02-17-2009, 04:40 PM

<cite>Glerin wrote:</cite><blockquote>why is the change being delayed anyway? what's being changed that isnt on test?</blockquote>Yeah it's been the same for what, 3 weeks now? The only hints we have are:"This next update will see a few dps adjustments. Some will go down a little while others are getting a little bonus to even things out a bit more.""Really isnt much changing. Some small adjustments here and there but otherwise its largely going to be what it is now."I would guess it's all going in when the next big batch of changes go to Test, which means we will continue to argue over and speculate and Test nothing of consequence for another week or so. Party on. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" />EDIT: You know ... since he said "Some" will see their DPS go down, I'd have to guess that Berserkers are included in that. Since the existing changes already gave us the lowest TPS on single targets from taunts, the greatest chance of all Fighters to have our taunts resisted, and reduced our DPS by >40% ... well it's going to be a long week waiting for this other shoe to drop.

xKHONSx

02-17-2009, 05:08 PM

<cite>Aeralik wrote:</cite><blockquote>They are quite a bit different if you look at the broader picture. A single target tanks has better power efficiency with single targets, quicker reuse on skills, and higher overall single target threat. The aoe tanks then tend to use slower casting, longer reuse, and more power consuming abilities. The aoe tanks also tend to be your greater overall damage tanks while the singles are a bit more defensive oriented. The differences are definitely subtle but they are there. You have to keep in mind we have to walk a narrow line to ensure all tanks are viable in group and raid settings while also having some differences so that each tank has their niche.</blockquote>I love your asinine reasoning for a system that is clearly fundamentally flawed. Power efficiency? Really? Who cares. In a raid power is a non-issue with all of the Bards and Chanters around. In groups it is generally a non-issue as well since most groups run with at least a Bard or Chanter not to mention all of the power proccing gear and adorns you can use. People or groups who have power issues will have power issues regardless. Me 1, You 0Quicker reuse/casting vs slower reuse/casting? Once again who cares. Generally speaking skills that are slower casting and slower reuse usually hit for significantly more or are some kind of powerful ability. In the end it equals out and your point is moot. Me 2, You 0Offensive tanks do more damage than single target tanks? Duh. They have many skills that work on groups of mobs whereas a single target tank has very few AEs. This alone will create a large gap in dps. Add in the fact that AEs work on single target mobs but single target abilities don't work on groups of mobs and this widens the gap. Yes using an AE on a single mob isn't as power efficient, but see my first point and you get the picture. Me 3, You 0Single target tanks are a bit more defense oriented? Interesting because my main is a Monk and has been classified into the single target tank category, yet if a Berserker or SK who are classified as AE tanks specced for pure defensive capabilities they can easily meet or surpass my defensive capabilities. Bruisers are supposedly an AE tank now since they have one extra AE ability over Monks, but their DPS and tanking potential are both a bit higher than a Monks. Guardians have the highest defensive capabilities in the game, but the way you bunched single target tanks into one group in your statement makes it false. We won't even go into how vastly superior Plate gear is versus Leather, but I will mention the fact that the KoS AAs are shared between each pair of companion classes and are obviously available to both the AE and Single target counterpart. The first two levels of the TSO tree are available to every fighter and the third tree is shared between the companion classes. That leaves one full tree and eight abilities in the TSO tree to really be able to differentiate classes via AAs. I don't know about other classes but the Monk EoF tree is a joke and so are the Monk Specific TSO AAs. Overall survivability/defensive capabilities between companion classes are pretty close and not even worth worrying about. Me 4, You 0Tanking a group of mobs vs tanking one mob? A single target tank will absolutely lose aggro on a group of mobs to an equally geared/skilled AE dps class. An AE tank will hold aggro on single mobs as easily as they will hold aggro on groups of mobs. Does the primary mob the group is attacking peel off onto the group when an AE tank is at the helm? Nope. Does everything but the primary mob the group is attacking peel off onto the group when a ST tank is at the helm? Most definitely when AE dps classes are around. Can an AE tank hold aggro on one mob as easily as a ST tank. Yep. So let's just arbitrarily say that this expansion is exactly 50% single mobs and 50% grouped mobs. That means an AE tank is 100% efficient because they can tank all content without issues, however, a ST tank is only about 50% efficient because all of those grouped mobs are usually on the AE dps. Me 5, You 0.

Morrolan V

02-17-2009, 05:56 PM

<cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aeralik wrote:</cite><blockquote>They are quite a bit different if you look at the broader picture. A single target tanks has better power efficiency with single targets, quicker reuse on skills, and higher overall single target threat. The aoe tanks then tend to use slower casting, longer reuse, and more power consuming abilities. The aoe tanks also tend to be your greater overall damage tanks while the singles are a bit more defensive oriented. The differences are definitely subtle but they are there. You have to keep in mind we have to walk a narrow line to ensure all tanks are viable in group and raid settings while also having some differences so that each tank has their niche.</blockquote>This is possibly true for plate tanks, I really don't know. It is, however, not the case at all for brawlers at present.Bruisers have better survivability than monks, supposedly the single target class of that archetype.Come to think of it, why did brawler DPS on the whole (and monk DPS in particular) suffer a huge drop in tSO, comparatively? Was this an intentional nerf to our competitiveness? Because if so, it was exactly the opposite of what was needed. I'd like to see you use this fighter revamp to put brawlers (for the first time since Desert of Flames) back in the game in a role that doesn't begin with "almost as good to have along as ".Stop trying to treat us like tanks and downplaying the other vital parts of these two classes; it's killing both of them at the moment. This entire revamp has been designed around making tanks tank in defensive stance, and that's fine; but fighters have also attained a DPS mode (offensive stance), and given that this should be the brawler's area of speciality, you have severely misbalanced this; Zerkers and especially SKs are pulling ahead of us there, and it's getting ridiculous.Fix this, before this supposedly last step in the fighter revamp goes live.</blockquote>I have to agree. Brawlers in general and Monks in particular have taken a huge step backward in comparative raid utility in TSO. Even with all of the tanking AA's (at the expense of any decent DPS adds) in the TSO brawler/monk tree, we are still not competitive with any plate wearing tank in terms of survivability in raid tanking. On the DPS front, during RoK, an equally geared brawler with comparative group buffs could put out 85-90% the DPS of a rogue. That seemed about right, and I never heard anyone (brawlers or scouts) complaining about it. In TSO, it has dropped to more like 60-65%. At these numbers, there is no longer a viable spot for DPS-oriented fighters on raids.These changes are an opportunity to correct this. Since you are substanitally nerfing all fighter's DPS potential while tanking, you have the opportunity to substantially boost their DPS output while in offensive mode. Brawlers in particular need a SUBSTANTIAL boost, both relative to other fighters and relative to other melee DPS.Related to this, is the current game design's incredible overreliance on bards and chanters. The best raid designs have four of each. Given that chanters are BOTH irreplaceable group utility and T1 DPS, there is no excuse for a top end raid force not carrying one in each group.So consider:MT, Temp, Defiler, Warden, Coercer, DirgeOT, Inq, Mystic, Chanter, Dirge, (Brig/Swash/Assassin)Troub, Illusionist, (Fury/Temp/Inq), Caster, Caster, (Caster/Assassin)Dirge, Chanter, Healer, Scout, Scout, ScoutI think few would argue that this construction, except for special needs in a very few specialized fights, is pretty close to an ideal survivability/DPS setup. Where are the places on this raid for non-tanking fighters? The three "scout" spots in the melee DPS group are where they could have gone back in RoK when they were able to almost keep up with rogues.* If a fighter puts out 90% of the DPS of a rogue, then you can argue that their differentiated utility (secondary avoidance on the tank, raidwide buff, oh %$#^ snap aggro) justifies a place for them over a second or third brigand/swash/ranger. At 60-65% the DPS, that is no longer a viable argument.* Note: as it is currently constituted, the overshoot on SK's DPS together with their very significant caster-oriented group buffs could justify a spot for one in the caster group. I suspect that will change.

Aven Elonis

02-17-2009, 06:05 PM

Thanks Couching, now it would be interesting if we can get a SK, Pally, Zerker and Bruiser to post the same info. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />

Aven Elonis

02-17-2009, 06:18 PM

<cite>Aeralik wrote:</cite><blockquote>They are quite a bit different if you look at the broader picture. A single target tanks has better power efficiency with single targets, quicker reuse on skills, and higher overall single target threat. The aoe tanks then tend to use slower casting, longer reuse, and more power consuming abilities. The aoe tanks also tend to be your greater overall damage tanks while the singles are a bit more defensive oriented. The differences are definitely subtle but they are there. You have to keep in mind we have to walk a narrow line to ensure all tanks are viable in group and raid settings while also having some differences so that each tank has their niche.</blockquote>I think a more specific "white paper" on what you (i.e. SOE) think the role and position of all fighters in a solo, group and raid setup is would be a useful thing. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />A bit hard for us to comment in a constructive manner when at best we seem to get parts and pieces as we go. (And yes I'm doing test as I can.)

Elanjar

02-17-2009, 06:22 PM

Hrm. I'm doin this purely from memory so someone correct me if I miss anything.Relative to my post:Taunts mean that they have a hate compontent to them, they may or may not also do damage.Combat Arts mean damage with or without other effects (excluding aggro)Single target - Red Icons , Group targets - Green Icons, Out of Encounter (OoE) targets - Blue IconsZerker (based on your post for Test) Taunts3 (Single) , 1 (Group), 2 (OoE) Arts9 (+2/3 via AA) (Single), 1 (Group), 3 (OoE), 2 AOE melee temp buffs Rescues3 (Single), 1 (OoE) (requires target) basically for quick summary. 9 ST CA's, 1 encounter CA, 2 open CA's. 1 ST taunt, 1 encounter taunt, 1 open taunt. 1 of the open CA's have hate component. 2 ST CA's have hate component. 3 of our positionals (including the open) comes from AA's. it is also important to not that many of our "open" skills are frontal only so positioning is important which makes them more difficult to use.

denmom

02-17-2009, 06:33 PM

<cite>Aeralik wrote:</cite><blockquote>They are quite a bit different if you look at the broader picture. A single target tanks has better power efficiency with single targets, quicker reuse on skills, and higher overall single target threat. The aoe tanks then tend to use slower casting, longer reuse, and more power consuming abilities. The aoe tanks also tend to be your greater overall damage tanks while the singles are a bit more defensive oriented. The differences are definitely subtle but they are there. You have to keep in mind we have to walk a narrow line to ensure all tanks are viable in group and raid settings while also having some differences so that each tank has their niche.</blockquote>Your description of the aoe tank is exactly what a Paladin is. At least in my experience.I use aoes, I eat up the power bar like candy.Why you put them into ST status makes utterly no sense.Also your comment on "ensure all tanks are viable in group and raid setting" is rather amusing...the changes makes all tanks play the same, you've taken out their differences to fit them into your little narrow definition of ST and MT tanks.It was fine the way it was. All that needed to be done was just adjust things here and there, not the whole revamp.SOE spent time and money with the Living Legacy program to win back old subscribers. Time and money is being spent on the current Recruit A Friend program. These people come in, play the game as is, learn how to play their fighters, and then the revamp hits.A clear case of bait and switch.I understand that a game must change and evolve to be viable and keep up, but changes such as these are a danger to a game's subscriptions. There have already been warnings from players of leaving. Yes, rage quitters and such, but for every rage quitter there are serious subscribers who will end their subscrptions, voting with their wallets.It really makes me wonder how many subscribers will leave when these all go live.

mr23sgte

02-17-2009, 06:48 PM

<blockquote><cite>Aeralik wrote:</cite><blockquote>They are quite a bit different if you look at the broader picture. A single target tanks has better power efficiency with single targets, quicker reuse on skills, and higher overall single target threat. The aoe tanks then tend to use slower casting, longer reuse, and more power consuming abilities. The aoe tanks also tend to be your greater overall damage tanks while the singles are a bit more defensive oriented. The differences are definitely subtle but they are there. You have to keep in mind we have to walk a narrow line to ensure all tanks are viable in group and raid settings while also having some differences so that each tank has their niche.</blockquote></blockquote>Could you explain why Brawlers AA's get less DA, less Melee Crit and less AE autoattack than all other fighter classes???? SeriouslyMonks don't have better survivability or utility. We have 1 group(raidwide buff) when all other non-Brawlers get multiple group buffs. We have no Passive hate generation and do less DPS than most of the fighters.Is any of this going to change? With your record history of responding to Monk issues I'm guessing "NO"

Kordran

02-17-2009, 06:48 PM

<cite>Pheep@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>It really makes me wonder how many subscribers will leave when these all go live.</blockquote>Honestly, I doubt there will be many. For casuals who tank some instances, do some soloing/duoing, etc. the overall effect on their gameplay should be minimal. The mediocre tanks will probably get a bit better since holding aggro will be easier, and I doubt many would even notice the loss of DPS (heck, how many casuals out there even run ACT?) in most situations. And I'd guess that makes up a majority of EQ2's population these days.For the rest, it may be enough for them to sideline their tanks and play another toon, but I doubt they'll be hitting the cancel button in large numbers. Those who /ragequit will be a very small percentage, probably so small it would even be statistically significant when they go over their subscription numbers for that quarter.

denmom

02-17-2009, 07:02 PM

<cite>Kordran wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Pheep@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>It really makes me wonder how many subscribers will leave when these all go live.</blockquote>Honestly, I doubt there will be many. For casuals who tank some instances, do some soloing/duoing, etc. the overall effect on their gameplay should be minimal. The mediocre tanks will probably get a bit better since holding aggro will be easier, and I doubt many would even notice the loss of DPS (heck, how many casuals out there even run ACT?) in most situations. And I'd guess that makes up a majority of EQ2's population these days.For the rest, it may be enough for them to sideline their tanks and play another toon, but I doubt they'll be hitting the cancel button in large numbers. Those who /ragequit will be a very small percentage, probably so small it would even be statistically significant when they go over their subscription numbers for that quarter.</blockquote>Probably right...it's just idle speculation for me at the moment.

Aven Elonis

02-17-2009, 07:35 PM

Thanks Elanjar - Need Pally, SK and Bruiser <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />I'll combined into a summary post once all classes have posted. I'm interested in seeing how the classes compared on this.

Mentalep

02-17-2009, 08:15 PM

<cite>Aeralik wrote:</cite><blockquote>They are quite a bit different if you look at the broader picture. A single target tanks has better power efficiency with single targets, quicker reuse on skills, and higher overall single target threat. The aoe tanks then tend to use slower casting, longer reuse, and more power consuming abilities. The aoe tanks also tend to be your greater overall damage tanks while the singles are a bit more defensive oriented. The differences are definitely subtle but they are there. You have to keep in mind we have to walk a narrow line to ensure all tanks are viable in group and raid settings while also having some differences so that each tank has their niche.</blockquote>Hold on a minute, Aeralik.When you say that the differences are subtle, I assume you mean one of two things:1) The single-target advantages of the single-target tanks are subtle.2) The overall differences between ST and MT tanks are subtle.If it's the latter... that's just blatantly untrue. To say that a shadowknight and a monk would only perform subtly differently tanking, say, Befallen - or even tier 4 Runnyeye, for that matter - that honestly makes no sense. The shadowknight will have the easier time holding aggro by far. Put a warlock in the group with that monk and the difference is even more evident.If it's the former, then I have to ask: if ST tanks get subtle advantages in their niche, why do MT tanks get massive advantages in their niche?Power efficiency only matters when you're comparing similar ability sets. Brawlers (including bruisers, who are now supposed to be aoe tanks) and guardians do not have many aoe threat abilities in the first place, especially blue ones. It's silly to say that I'm at a disadvantage tanking multiple mobs because I use more power or my debuffs only hit one target - no, I'm at a disadvantage because I can't generate nearly as much aoe threat in the first place.

Xanrn

02-17-2009, 08:18 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aeralik wrote:</cite><blockquote>They are quite a bit different if you look at the broader picture. A single target tanks has better power efficiency with single targets, quicker reuse on skills, and higher overall single target threat. The aoe tanks then tend to use slower casting, longer reuse, and more power consuming abilities. The aoe tanks also tend to be your greater overall damage tanks while the singles are a bit more defensive oriented. The differences are definitely subtle but they are there. You have to keep in mind we have to walk a narrow line to ensure all tanks are viable in group and raid settings while also having some differences so that each tank has their niche.</blockquote>Where is better survivability for monk when comparing so called aoe tanks, SK, Zerker and Bruiser?</blockquote>QFEYou have not used an ounce of logic with this stupid single target defensive, multi target offensive spiel, its more of your "Good = Defensive, Evil = Offensive" dribble.Where the hell exactly do you get Monks are more Defensive while wearing Leather and Dual Wielding than Zerkers and Shadowknights wearing Plate and using Sword and Board? I really want to know.Hell I want to know how you can you think Monks have better defence than Bruisers, have you even bothered to compare the AAs and Mythical Epics of the Fighter classes?Get a Monk and a Bruiser with 200 AA and Mythical, same gear. Bruiser has alot more mit/damage absorb and better "oh crap abilities". They have 2 Stoneskin Procs, what do Monks get instead a pathetic one shot 100% avoid and a rubbish heal proc. The only thing Monks have better than the Bruisers is slightly more avoidance and slightly better short term mitt buffs.(which we have to pay through the nose for).The EoF Monk tree is pretty bad with abosuletely pathetic jokes for End Abilties (and we have one less than everyone).The Brawler TSO tree is rubbish for utility and dps, seriously what is 15% damage increase too Lightning Hands? like 25 extra damage per trigger? What happens to the Rescue Reuse reduction when you further reduce the recast anyway?The Monk TSO tree is a joke, a pointless peel reuse reduction, a pointless Heal reuse reduction (and we still have the same damm thing as our 4 Set Bonus), pay 5 points to remove the stun from an ability that shouldn't have had it too begin with, 2 minor dps upgrades, the aforementioned pretty rubbish Heal on Damage Proc oh and yeah the 2 Worst Freakin End Abilitys off any class.And you still haven't fixed Strikethrough on the Monk Mythical to actually be something bloody USEFUL and no 15% Deflection Chance didn't make up for crap.

Bruener

02-17-2009, 08:56 PM

<cite>Aeralik wrote:</cite><blockquote>They are quite a bit different if you look at the broader picture. A single target tanks has better power efficiency with single targets, quicker reuse on skills, and higher overall single target threat. The aoe tanks then tend to use slower casting, longer reuse, and more power consuming abilities. The aoe tanks also tend to be your greater overall damage tanks while the singles are a bit more defensive oriented. The differences are definitely subtle but they are there. You have to keep in mind we have to walk a narrow line to ensure all tanks are viable in group and raid settings while also having some differences so that each tank has their niche.</blockquote>So, since the ST tanks are going to be the slightly more "defensive" tanks and the AE tanks are going to be the more "offensive" tanks....and now you are nerfing fighter DPS when tanking so that it is utter crap, and forcing fighters to go defensive and accept this dps when they are tanking, and you are "tweaking" fighter dps to leave DPS to scouts and mages...why again would you want to bring an "offensive" tank on a raid again?You are opening a complete can of worms with this update, trying to fix something that was not broken at all....and each time you post it makes it look worse and worse.Forecast: Raids will consist of Guard - MT, Paladin - OT....rest of fighters - sitting on the side-lines.

mr23sgte

02-18-2009, 01:18 AM

<cite>Ummudien@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aeralik wrote:</cite><blockquote>They are quite a bit different if you look at the broader picture. A single target tanks has better power efficiency with single targets, quicker reuse on skills, and higher overall single target threat. The aoe tanks then tend to use slower casting, longer reuse, and more power consuming abilities. The aoe tanks also tend to be your greater overall damage tanks while the singles are a bit more defensive oriented. The differences are definitely subtle but they are there. You have to keep in mind we have to walk a narrow line to ensure all tanks are viable in group and raid settings while also having some differences so that each tank has their niche.</blockquote>Where is better survivability for monk when comparing so called aoe tanks, SK, Zerker and Bruiser?</blockquote>QFEYou have not used an ounce of logic with this stupid single target defensive, multi target offensive spiel, its more of your "Good = Defensive, Evil = Offensive" dribble.Where the hell exactly do you get Monks are more Defensive while wearing Leather and Dual Wielding than Zerkers and Shadowknights wearing Plate and using Sword and Board? I really want to know.Hell I want to know how you can you think Monks have better defence than Bruisers, have you even bothered to compare the AAs and Mythical Epics of the Fighter classes?Get a Monk and a Bruiser with 200 AA and Mythical, same gear. Bruiser has alot more mit/damage absorb and better "oh crap abilities". They have 2 Stoneskin Procs, what do Monks get instead a pathetic one shot 100% avoid and a rubbish heal proc. The only thing Monks have better than the Bruisers is slightly more avoidance and slightly better short term mitt buffs.(which we have to pay through the nose for).The EoF Monk tree is pretty bad with abosuletely pathetic jokes for End Abilties (and we have one less than everyone).The Brawler TSO tree is rubbish for utility and dps, seriously what is 15% damage increase too Lightning Hands? like 25 extra damage per trigger? What happens to the Rescue Reuse reduction when you further reduce the recast anyway?The Monk TSO tree is a joke, a pointless peel reuse reduction, a pointless Heal reuse reduction (and we still have the same damm thing as our 4 Set Bonus), pay 5 points to remove the stun from an ability that shouldn't have had it too begin with, 2 minor dps upgrades, the aforementioned pretty rubbish Heal on Damage Proc oh and yeah the 2 Worst Freakin End Abilitys off any class.And you still haven't fixed Strikethrough on the Monk Mythical to actually be something bloody USEFUL and no 15% Deflection Chance didn't make up for crap.</blockquote>A great summary that will get ignored

ShinGoku

02-18-2009, 06:44 AM

<cite>Hereo@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Ummudien@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aeralik wrote:</cite><blockquote>They are quite a bit different if you look at the broader picture. A single target tanks has better power efficiency with single targets, quicker reuse on skills, and higher overall single target threat. The aoe tanks then tend to use slower casting, longer reuse, and more power consuming abilities. The aoe tanks also tend to be your greater overall damage tanks while the singles are a bit more defensive oriented. The differences are definitely subtle but they are there. You have to keep in mind we have to walk a narrow line to ensure all tanks are viable in group and raid settings while also having some differences so that each tank has their niche.</blockquote>Where is better survivability for monk when comparing so called aoe tanks, SK, Zerker and Bruiser?</blockquote>QFEYou have not used an ounce of logic with this stupid single target defensive, multi target offensive spiel, its more of your "Good = Defensive, Evil = Offensive" dribble.Where the hell exactly do you get Monks are more Defensive while wearing Leather and Dual Wielding than Zerkers and Shadowknights wearing Plate and using Sword and Board? I really want to know.Hell I want to know how you can you think Monks have better defence than Bruisers, have you even bothered to compare the AAs and Mythical Epics of the Fighter classes?Get a Monk and a Bruiser with 200 AA and Mythical, same gear. Bruiser has alot more mit/damage absorb and better "oh crap abilities". They have 2 Stoneskin Procs, what do Monks get instead a pathetic one shot 100% avoid and a rubbish heal proc. The only thing Monks have better than the Bruisers is slightly more avoidance and slightly better short term mitt buffs.(which we have to pay through the nose for).The EoF Monk tree is pretty bad with abosuletely pathetic jokes for End Abilties (and we have one less than everyone).The Brawler TSO tree is rubbish for utility and dps, seriously what is 15% damage increase too Lightning Hands? like 25 extra damage per trigger? What happens to the Rescue Reuse reduction when you further reduce the recast anyway?The Monk TSO tree is a joke, a pointless peel reuse reduction, a pointless Heal reuse reduction (and we still have the same damm thing as our 4 Set Bonus), pay 5 points to remove the stun from an ability that shouldn't have had it too begin with, 2 minor dps upgrades, the aforementioned pretty rubbish Heal on Damage Proc oh and yeah the 2 Worst Freakin End Abilitys off any class.And you still haven't fixed Strikethrough on the Monk Mythical to actually be something bloody USEFUL and no 15% Deflection Chance didn't make up for crap.</blockquote>A great summary that will get ignored</blockquote>QFE. Especially seeing as Aeralik has already answered his one monk thread for the year.

Nero

02-18-2009, 11:09 AM

<cite>Aeralik wrote:</cite><blockquote>They are quite a bit different if you look at the broader picture. A single target tanks has better power efficiency with single targets, quicker reuse on skills, and higher overall single target threat. The aoe tanks then tend to use slower casting, longer reuse, and more power consuming abilities. The aoe tanks also tend to be your greater overall damage tanks while the singles are a bit more defensive oriented. The differences are definitely subtle but they are there. You have to keep in mind we have to walk a narrow line to ensure all tanks are viable in group and raid settings while also having some differences so that each tank has their niche.</blockquote>No balance = no fun.At the same time, no diversity = no fun.Your job is making the game more enjoyable.But if all fighters become Guardian-ish, it's no more fun.It is not because I wanted to play Guardian that I started this game.If you are professional, please make balance and diversity at the same time come true.

Bodracoran

02-18-2009, 11:13 AM

Multi target tanks would have to be able to hold agro on a single target mob if they can hold agro on a bunch.The fact is AOE's work on 1 target, but single target spells/ca's dont work on groups.Not to mention all the new instances are chock full of group encounters.Spliting the fighters up as such is craping on 3 classes you deem "single target" or "inferior" tanks.This is not a good area for creating diversity in tanks...

MrWolfie

02-18-2009, 01:51 PM

My Monk is the tank in a duo/trio. I'm AA specced to offer me the highest possible defence/deflection/parry and I have T8 Legendary equipment (a whole set) just for tanking defensively.In defensive stance (Crouching Tiger - Adept III) not only does my hit rate drop from 90%+ to 56%, but the "bonuses" afforded by the defensive stance do little in the way of protection against heroic mobs that are higher level than me. My avoidance is well over 75% - but even when doing green heroics in TSO, this is NOT what we're seeing in parses. A level 70 end-mob in an instance (I was not mentored, so he was green to me) hit me 52.17% of the time - where's my 75% avoidance?? His autoattack alone hit me 27% of the time and he's TEN levels lower than me!!It's a no-brainer to imagine what happens when I try to tank a level 83/84/85 ^^^. (In fact, once, while doing my Epic with a full group of enlisted peeps, I pulled one of the names needed for an update and it immediately hit me three times and killed me outright - that's over 11,000 hp in three attacks).And then, when I do get hit by these mobs it's for huge amounts 'cos of my "mitigation" is leather-based and an 25% extra is utterly useless - this level 70 mob did and average of 2600+ every time he hit me. I can tell you that no other "tank" in this game gets owned by mobs ten levels lower, while in defensive stance, with all their AAs maxxed for defensive tanking.In my opinion, not only do Monks need the changes that everyone else is asking for in this thread that are long overdue, but our defensive stance needs MASSIVE improvement (not reducing my capability to land CAs & autoattack - a big part of aggro holding, and upping my mitigation - lots!). Indeed, AVOIDANCE for so-called avoidance tanks needs to be fixed so it works against all mobs, not just ones that are grey or solo.

ShinGoku

02-18-2009, 02:01 PM

<cite>MrWolfie wrote:</cite><blockquote>My Monk is the tank in a duo/trio. I'm AA specced to offer me the highest possible defence/deflection/parry and I have T8 Legendary equipment (a whole set) just for tanking defensively.In defensive stance (Crouching Tiger - Adept III) not only does my hit rate drop from 90%+ to 56%, but the "bonuses" afforded by the defensive stance do little in the way of protection against heroic mobs that are higher level than me. My avoidance is well over 75% - but even when doing green heroics in TSO, this is NOT what we're seeing in parses. A level 70 end-mob in an instance (I was not mentored, so he was green to me) hit me 52.17% of the time - where's my 75% avoidance?? His autoattack alone hit me 27% of the time and he's TEN levels lower than me!!It's a no-brainer to imagine what happens when I try to tank a level 83/84/85 ^^^. (In fact, once, while doing my Epic with a full group of enlisted peeps, I pulled one of the names needed for an update and it immediately hit me three times and killed me outright - that's over 11,000 hp in three attacks).And then, when I do get hit by these mobs it's for huge amounts 'cos of my "mitigation" is leather-based and an 25% extra is utterly useless - this level 70 mob did and average of 2600+ every time he hit me. I can tell you that no other "tank" in this game gets owned by mobs ten levels lower, while in defensive stance, with all their AAs maxxed for defensive tanking.In my opinion, not only do Monks need the changes that everyone else is asking for in this thread that are long overdue, but our defensive stance needs MASSIVE improvement (not reducing my capability to land CAs & autoattack - a big part of aggro holding, and upping my mitigation - lots!). Indeed, AVOIDANCE for so-called avoidance tanks needs to be fixed so it works against all mobs, not just ones that are grey or solo.</blockquote>/QFEYes, thats two from me on 1 thread! Must tell the devs something surely?

Kokus

02-18-2009, 02:37 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aeralik wrote:</cite><blockquote>They are quite a bit different if you look at the broader picture. A single target tanks has better power efficiency with single targets, quicker reuse on skills, and higher overall single target threat. The aoe tanks then tend to use slower casting, longer reuse, and more power consuming abilities. The aoe tanks also tend to be your greater overall damage tanks while the singles are a bit more defensive oriented. The differences are definitely subtle but they are there. You have to keep in mind we have to walk a narrow line to ensure all tanks are viable in group and raid settings while also having some differences so that each tank has their niche.</blockquote>Where is better survivability for monk when comparing so called aoe tanks, SK, Zerker and Bruiser?</blockquote>Go tank more epic mobs for us please Couching. K, thanks.

Gungo

02-18-2009, 02:55 PM

2 things really quick since monks seem to be misstating facts again1) Bruiser are not AOE tanks. Bruiser do not even remotely compare to zerk/sk aoe agro. Bruisers actually produce less aoe agro then paladins on TEST. To even suggest we are aoe tanks on test is complete and utter BS started by aerilik. You can keep clumping us in the aoe debate but it only proves how clueless the posters are.2) Previously monks keep saying FALSE facts such as bruiser have higher mit/avoidance then monks.... WRONG go check. You myth adds more mit then our AA ability adds and your temp buffs add more mit as well. We still cant use our stun/mit buff.Continue on your tirade

Xanrn

02-18-2009, 03:12 PM

1) No we aren't, we are using the Bruiser = AoE Tanks rubbish as an example of why Aeralik doesn't know what the hell he is talking about.2) Who said you get more Avoidance than Monks?2b) Yes you do get more mit, without mythicals you get Chain Mit. With Mythicals you get 10% Dmg Absorb which is better.So what if your Chain mit is 85% of ours, the 10% damage absorb is twice what I get from my Myth (5.2% last time I check and now I have TSO gear with more mit, so its dropped more) and Damage Absorb isn't effected by anything else.Oh wow I can get more mit than a bruiser for 30 seconds of every 2 minutes 30 seconds and thats barely and I have to pay 5 points just to remove the [Removed for Content] stun and 4(out 5) more points to reduce the reuse.You can argue till your blue in the face, but facts are facts Bruisers are better defensive Tanks than Monks in T8. Your mythical is better for Tanking and so are your AAs.

Couching

02-18-2009, 03:13 PM

<cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote>2 things really quick since monks seem to be misstating facts again1) Bruiser are not AOE tanks. Bruiser do not even remotely compare to zerk/sk aoe agro. Bruisers actually produce less aoe agro then paladins on TEST. To even suggest we are aoe tanks on test is complete and utter BS started by aerilik. You can keep clumping us in the aoe debate but it only proves how clueless the posters are.2) Previously monks keep saying FALSE facts such as bruiser have higher mit/avoidance then monks.... WRONG go check. You myth adds more mit then our AA ability adds and your temp buffs add more mit as well. We still cant use our stun/mit buff.Continue on your tirade</blockquote>Before getting epic, bruiser has slightly advantage over monk in avoidance is true due to bruiser got str/agi self buff and monk got str/wis.After getting mythical, monk has higher avoidance from mythical.For damage mitigation, bruiser chain mit aa + 10% damage reduction > monk epic chain mitigation. The only exception is when monk has our stun mitigation temp buff up (stun can be removed by tso aa) and it's 30 sec for every 3 minutes. In other word, bruiser can mitigate damage better than monk 6/7 while tanking.Even counting on spend aa, jcap, chi and gear, our temp mitigation buff is 1:30 minutes reuse. In other word, bruiser can still mitigate damage better than monk 1:30 over every 2 minutes.When we say bruiser can mitiage damage better than monk, it's not far from truth.

mr23sgte

02-18-2009, 05:51 PM

forget it - its pointless........

Gungo

02-18-2009, 08:21 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote>2 things really quick since monks seem to be misstating facts again1) Bruiser are not AOE tanks. Bruiser do not even remotely compare to zerk/sk aoe agro. Bruisers actually produce less aoe agro then paladins on TEST. To even suggest we are aoe tanks on test is complete and utter BS started by aerilik. You can keep clumping us in the aoe debate but it only proves how clueless the posters are.2) Previously monks keep saying FALSE facts such as bruiser have higher mit/avoidance then monks.... WRONG go check. You myth adds more mit then our AA ability adds and your temp buffs add more mit as well. We still cant use our stun/mit buff.Continue on your tirade</blockquote>Before getting epic, bruiser has slightly advantage over monk in avoidance is true due to bruiser got str/agi self buff and monk got str/wis.After getting mythical, monk has higher avoidance from mythical.For damage mitigation, bruiser chain mit aa + 10% damage reduction > monk epic chain mitigation. The only exception is when monk has our stun mitigation temp buff up (stun can be removed by tso aa) and it's 30 sec for every 3 minutes. In other word, bruiser can mitigate damage better than monk 6/7 while tanking.Even counting on spend aa, jcap, chi and gear, our temp mitigation buff is 1:30 minutes reuse. In other word, bruiser can still mitigate damage better than monk 1:30 over every 2 minutes.When we say bruiser can mitiage damage better than monk, it's not far from truth.</blockquote>Welcome to 3 months ago. Monks got Agi added to defensive stance. On test monks got more agi and bruisers loose more agi in merger. Furthermore Deflection > Agi. even if bruisers have 100 more agi its less then 1% of contested avodiance. You gain more avoidance gain through the 14 deflection from avodi buff, which is further increased through deflection chance %. Your on the monk forums telling monks not to worry about base avodiance and contested avoidance but yet your trying to make a claim ~100 agi makes some difference in avodiance. Again I rather have 14 deflection then 100 more agi.Monks have 2 short duration mit buffs. Alternate between the two wee monks now have more mit then bruiser 1 min every 1.5 minutes.

Couching

02-18-2009, 08:52 PM

<cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote>2 things really quick since monks seem to be misstating facts again1) Bruiser are not AOE tanks. Bruiser do not even remotely compare to zerk/sk aoe agro. Bruisers actually produce less aoe agro then paladins on TEST. To even suggest we are aoe tanks on test is complete and utter BS started by aerilik. You can keep clumping us in the aoe debate but it only proves how clueless the posters are.2) Previously monks keep saying FALSE facts such as bruiser have higher mit/avoidance then monks.... WRONG go check. You myth adds more mit then our AA ability adds and your temp buffs add more mit as well. We still cant use our stun/mit buff.Continue on your tirade</blockquote>Before getting epic, bruiser has slightly advantage over monk in avoidance is true due to bruiser got str/agi self buff and monk got str/wis.After getting mythical, monk has higher avoidance from mythical.For damage mitigation, bruiser chain mit aa + 10% damage reduction > monk epic chain mitigation. The only exception is when monk has our stun mitigation temp buff up (stun can be removed by tso aa) and it's 30 sec for every 3 minutes. In other word, bruiser can mitigate damage better than monk 6/7 while tanking.Even counting on spend aa, jcap, chi and gear, our temp mitigation buff is 1:30 minutes reuse. In other word, bruiser can still mitigate damage better than monk 1:30 over every 2 minutes.When we say bruiser can mitiage damage better than monk, it's not far from truth.</blockquote>Welcome to 3 months ago. Monks got Agi added to defensive stance. On test monks got more agi and bruisers loose more agi in merger. Furthermore Deflection > Agi. even if bruisers have 100 more agi its less then 1% of contested avodiance. You gain more avoidance gain through the 14 deflection from avodi buff, which is further increased through deflection chance %. Your on the monk forums telling monks not to worry about base avodiance and contested avoidance but yet your trying to make a claim ~100 agi makes some difference in avodiance. Again I rather have 14 deflection then 100 more agi.Monks have 2 short duration mit buffs. Alternate between the two wee monks now have more mit then bruiser 1 min every 1.5 minutes.</blockquote>Don't forget that bruiser gets agi on defensive stance as well with that change.bruiser still get extra 100+ agi from self buff and bruiser avoidance buff gives bruiser another extra 70+ agi. It's about 3%-4% basic aovidance.The 14 deflections give us about only 2% on deflection. Even with deflection chance, it's still worse than bruiser avoidance. My statements still stand, bruiser has slightly avoidance advantage over monk before getting mythical.For raid tanking, contested avoidance is useless. However, people run heroic instances daily. You can't deny that. Bottom line, 14 deflection isn't better than 170+ agi.For mitigation, bruiser has two temp mitigation buffs as well as monk. The only difference is you can't remove stun from one of them. However, bruiser 2nd temp mitigation buff is more than monk's 2nd temp mitigation buff. Just as what I said, bruiser can mitigate damage better than monk.

Xanrn

02-18-2009, 08:57 PM

Yeah because you don't have a short term mit buff that burns Health.Oh wait yes you do.And our 30 Root Mit Buff is 800 mit and so in noway surpasss your 10% dmg absorb.Bruiser with Myth has more Mit than Monk anytime the the Big Mitt buff isn't up.

Gungo

02-19-2009, 03:19 AM

Your numbers are WRONG 14 deflection is more then 2% and 150+ agi is less then 4%. Keep playing with those numbers but the fact is deflection > agi. You, I and every brawler playiong this game knows this simple fact. So wait Ummudien your saying the bruisers 900 mit 40% (2% every 3 secs) health draining buff with 3 min durationis better then a monk with 800+ mit for 30secs followed by thier ~3k mit buff for 30 secs. Then when the bruiser gets thier mythical with 10% physical damage reduction then becomes better except when the monk casts his ~3k it buff. And then the monk gets his mythical which adds ~600 more mitigation then the bruiser AA equivilant.Lets not forget the monk mythical significantly increases the monks UNCONTESTED and contested avodiance further over bruisers. But hey lets sit here and moan how monks have less mitgation when in fact the numbers SHOW OTHERWise. Compare the mitigation number sbetween a monk and bruiser usign the same gear w AA and mythicals the monk wins every time. Add in the bruiser short duration(3 min) hp drain mit buff and rotate the monks short duration mit buffs and the monk wins the mit argument the majority of the time. The numbers dont lie only the monks on these boards do.

Morrolan V

02-19-2009, 03:33 AM

Let's focus on the real issues here.Do we really want to argue over who is the 5th best tank in the game vs. the 6th?Mitigation >>>> Avoidance for survivability. Period. Plate tanks have VASTLY more mitigation than brawlers, and so it will always be. If I am in a good group, I can get to 9300 mitigation FOR THE 30 SECONDS OF EVERY 2 1/2 MINUTES THAT IRON STANCE IS ACTIVE. Either of our two primary raid tanks can hit that number with no temporary buffs running. My avoidance can be over 90% base value (and sometimes is) and it will make no difference. I get hit in streaks and I die. Plate tanks get hit in streaks and they live.Either brawler is a fine tank for instances - I have tanked every heroic zone in the game, except the ring events in Inner Stronghold (Aeralik, a pox on the notion of single vs multi target tanking). We are not, and are not going to be, the best choice for raid tanking.What we need to focus on is the incredible fracking over we have gotten in relative DPS potential in TSO.