Name 3 things.. (fighter revamp) [Archive] - Page 2

Gisallo

04-14-2009, 09:22 PM

<cite>Rythalian@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>/tears hair out in frustrationWhy are you folks so intent on jumping down Couching's throat when all he is doing is pointing out the truth of what SOE has given us?In RoK, brawlers had a clear and viable raid role. It was exactly what you plate folks are advocating, and, I believe, most brawlers were quite happy with it. In that role, brawlers could DPS quite well (85-90% the level of a rogue, ~15-20% more than any plate tank), we had good utility buffs (better raidwide than plate fighters, good secondary avoidance for the main tank, etc) and we had a combination of (1) great snap aggro and (2) better SHORT TERM survival abilities than plate tanks to enable us to be great recovery tanks in oh s$%t situations. THAT was a role that got brawlers invited to raids.In TSO, Sony blew that role apart. Look at the brawler TSO AAs. I ran out of DPS AA's at 185. There was literally not another point I could spend to improve my DPS in ANY WAY. And, the DPS AAs they did give us were quite lackluster. The tanking AAs, on the other hand, were many and meaningful. Meantime, as is fitting, they gave rogues and T1 DPS great DPS AAs. They gave other tanks a lot of snap aggro and short term survival abilities. They gave other tanks more DPS AAs. They nerfed brawler (monk at least) raidwide and improved other fighters'. End result? Brawlers are now at ~65% the DPS potential of rogues and equal or behind other tanks. Our utility buffs are WORSE than other tanks, all of whom have both raidwide and group buffs. Every other tank in the game has snap aggro and short term survival.Every brawler in the game will agree with you that they have not succeeded in making brawlers competitive in survivability as raid MTs. But it is plainly obvious that is what they TRIED to do. Net net, they broke our existing role and failed to take it far enough to give us a new one. Most brawlers, I think would agree completely that being forced into an MT role is a bad thing. There are already too many classes vying for those few slots.</blockquote>Dude my only issue is that Couching seems to be ignoring a mjor issue. At this point SOE appears to have no clue what do with Brawlers. I agree you guys had a role in RoK and I wish they would have left it alone. It made it more than practical to have 3 fighters on a raid. I though the idea of pigeon holing tanks into either just an OT or MT role was silly because there are more than enough slots for healers, dps and utility and far too few for fighters.Brawlers got the changes they did because Aeralik decided it was brilliant to make them just be an OT or MT like the rest of the fighters. To do this some profound changes had to be made to them. This idea blew up in his face and now SOE has not clue what to do with the fighter change and this lack of knowledge is hurting brawlers more than any other fighter. I am just getting frustrated that Couching is making it sound like SOE is knwoingly and intelligently keeping brawlers in this hole. This is not the case, rather brawlers are simply the largest casualty of the death of fighter 2.0 and the lack of direction that now exists.Couching. If I was wrong in my interpretation that you want to be an MT I apologize, but when stubbornly stick to the line that SOE has a clue as to where they want to go with fighters at this point what conclusion can I come too. Every indicator says that while in October Aeralik knew where he wanted to go, as of March though SOE does not because they have determined that Aeralik's ideas were unacceptable. What the plan was in October through March is now irrelevant because they have been thrown in the trash. I do feel for brawlers in that they are most definitely on the shortest end of this failed "revamp", but that doesn't change the fact that it is back to the drawing board. As such the brawlers really need to start getting a united voice. As long as there are 3 or 4 different voices there will not be half of the incentive for SOE to really start buckling down and trying to fix this issue.

caspervw

04-14-2009, 11:55 PM

<cite>Valkenberg@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rythalian@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>/tears hair out in frustrationWhy are you folks so intent on jumping down Couching's throat when all he is doing is pointing out the truth of what SOE has given us?In RoK, brawlers had a clear and viable raid role. It was exactly what you plate folks are advocating, and, I believe, most brawlers were quite happy with it. In that role, brawlers could DPS quite well (85-90% the level of a rogue, ~15-20% more than any plate tank), we had good utility buffs (better raidwide than plate fighters, good secondary avoidance for the main tank, etc) and we had a combination of (1) great snap aggro and (2) better SHORT TERM survival abilities than plate tanks to enable us to be great recovery tanks in oh s$%t situations. THAT was a role that got brawlers invited to raids.In TSO, Sony blew that role apart. Look at the brawler TSO AAs. I ran out of DPS AA's at 185. There was literally not another point I could spend to improve my DPS in ANY WAY. And, the DPS AAs they did give us were quite lackluster. The tanking AAs, on the other hand, were many and meaningful. Meantime, as is fitting, they gave rogues and T1 DPS great DPS AAs. They gave other tanks a lot of snap aggro and short term survival abilities. They gave other tanks more DPS AAs. They nerfed brawler (monk at least) raidwide and improved other fighters'. End result? Brawlers are now at ~65% the DPS potential of rogues and equal or behind other tanks. Our utility buffs are WORSE than other tanks, all of whom have both raidwide and group buffs. Every other tank in the game has snap aggro and short term survival.Every brawler in the game will agree with you that they have not succeeded in making brawlers competitive in survivability as raid MTs. But it is plainly obvious that is what they TRIED to do. Net net, they broke our existing role and failed to take it far enough to give us a new one. Most brawlers, I think would agree completely that being forced into an MT role is a bad thing. There are already too many classes vying for those few slots.</blockquote>Dude my only issue is that Couching seems to be ignoring a mjor issue. At this point SOE appears to have no clue what do with Brawlers. I agree you guys had a role in RoK and I wish they would have left it alone. It made it more than practical to have 3 fighters on a raid. I though the idea of pigeon holing tanks into either just an OT or MT role was silly because there are more than enough slots for healers, dps and utility and far too few for fighters.Brawlers got the changes they did because Aeralik decided it was brilliant to make them just be an OT or MT like the rest of the fighters. To do this some profound changes had to be made to them. This idea blew up in his face and now SOE has not clue what to do with the fighter change and this lack of knowledge is hurting brawlers more than any other fighter. I am just getting frustrated that Couching is making it sound like SOE is knwoingly and intelligently keeping brawlers in this hole. This is not the case, rather brawlers are simply the largest casualty of the death of fighter 2.0 and the lack of direction that now exists.Couching. If I was wrong in my interpretation that you want to be an MT I apologize, but when stubbornly stick to the line that SOE has a clue as to where they want to go with fighters at this point what conclusion can I come too. Every indicator says that while in October Aeralik knew where he wanted to go, as of March though SOE does not because they have determined that Aeralik's ideas were unacceptable. What the plan was in October through March is now irrelevant because they have been thrown in the trash. I do feel for brawlers in that they are most definitely on the shortest end of this failed "revamp", but that doesn't change the fact that it is back to the drawing board. As such the brawlers really need to start getting a united voice. As long as there are 3 or 4 different voices there will not be half of the incentive for SOE to really start buckling down and trying to fix this issue. </blockquote>You missed the point of what he was saying. The TSO brawler tree's are heavily, heavily slanted towards tanking, specifically raid tanking. More so than any other fighter types. Couching was simply pointing out that fact shows SOE has an idea for where they want Brawlers to go. His point was that the TSO aa's were meant to be a part of the 'fighter revamp'. Their intention was to finish the revamp early in this expansion. That has not happened and the result has been that brawlers lost their historical role, and have not yet been given the tools to compete for any new ones. The aa trees alone improve brawler raid tanking ability significantly, but still leaves them short of plate tanks. On the other hand, the increase in melee mod, and dps-heavy aa's plate tanks were given, has allowed them to dps as well or better than brawlers. There is now nothing a brawler can do better, yet many things they do worse.Couching was not arguing one view or the other, just stating where SOE seems to of been heading, as shown by the TSO aa trees. The problem is they are only half way done. It was one thing when the rest was going to be addressed relatively soon, but now that it looks like it might stay this way the entire expansion, that's a problem.Brawlers don't need a unified voice. What they need is for SOE to step up and say what position/role they want brawlers to fill, then give them the tools to do it. There will be some that would prefer one slant or another, but a vast majority would be more than happy to just have something they could accell at.

Couching

04-15-2009, 12:44 AM

Very well said caspervw and it is exactly what I meant and what happened.

Bartus

04-15-2009, 01:18 AM

Bartus

04-15-2009, 01:18 AM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bartuski wrote:</cite><blockquote>1. Put Monks/Bruisers in their own category(removing them from a "Fighter or Tank" and make them DPS). A Medium armor tank is pointless when you have to rely on Avoidance. Tanks are meant to take a beating therefor the 4 plate tanks do a hell of a lot better job.2. Give Monks more versatility in their attacks. As it stands, its basically just stand there and spam your CA's. Atleast the Bruiser has positional attacks or other combo attacks that require the mob to be knocked down giving it more "spice" to their attacks. The Monks attacks are boring as hell.3. Give the Brawlers a [Removed for Content] "role" for god sake. Right now, no one wants us because we arent as good of tanks as plate wearers nor is our dps as good as the Pure DPS classes. Were useless right now other then for farming Shinies. Seriously... I've played the Monk for 3 yrs now and cant stand what they've done with the class. I ask myself why am I continuing to play the [Removed for Content] guy because we cant do either that great. I seriously get turned down from many many groups simply because im a "monk".. Now come on.. thats a [Removed for Content] joke.Im honestly considering betraying over to a Bruiser because they deal some more dps and require atleast some attention to play.</blockquote>HELL NO.They could redesign us as a class and [Removed for Content] off the half of the brawler community that chooses to tank in favor of the ones that like to dps, or...THEY COULD FIX THE AVOIDANCE/MITIGATION DISPARITY TO MAKE PLATE AND AVOIDANCE TANKING EQUALLY VIABLE!Fix broken mechanics, don't redefign classes. I'm pretty sure the devs learned their less from trying to fundamentally alter the Paladin class.</blockquote> Hell no? Wow..Honestly, after coming over to EQ2 after playing an EQ1 monk for 6 yrs, seing as how the Monk STILL does not have a [Removed for Content] role in this game, why not make it easy and put both Brawlers in a subclass of their own(Brawler dps). Ive played the Monk since day 1. Ive been through all the changes and seen what theyve tried to do but honestly after seing all the changes to all the other tanks, we still have no genuine role. We arent the best of tanks and I dont care what others out there say. We are NOT better tanks then the 4 Plate wearers, even with great gear. DPS wise were not even close to Pure scout or caster dps even geared.Im wondering WHY the hell they went from the dmg fiend Monk in EQ1 to a terrible no role "tank" monk in EQ2... The worlds still Everquest, just different times. WHY did they change them into the tank subclass. Pointless.Simple, Make them their own Dps subclass which would be the brawler dps. 4 Tanks is enough and their all plate wearers.

Couching

04-15-2009, 01:50 AM

What you did is just a name change.You still have to face the dps balance problem; better than all plate tanks but worse than rogue? Or on par with rogue.I still don't think our dps should be on par with rogue. If so, our survivability will be reduced.If I want rogue dps, I will pick up rogue, not monk. I don't want to be a fragile rogue.I want tank that's why I picked fighter.I want better dps than heavy weighted plate tanks, that's why I picked monk.Bottom line for me, if monk dps can't be better than plate tanks, we need to have same survivability as plate tanks.

Bartus

04-15-2009, 02:26 AM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>What you did is just a name change.You still have to face the dps balance problem; better than all plate tanks but worse than rogue? Or on par with rogue.I still don't think our dps should be on par with rogue. If so, our survivability will be reduced.If I want rogue dps, I will pick up rogue, not monk. I don't want to be a fragile rogue.I want tank that's why I picked fighter.I want better dps than heavy weighted plate tanks, that's why I picked monk.Bottom line for me, if monk dps can't be better than plate tanks, we need to have same survivability as plate tanks.</blockquote>I didnt change any name. I changed the way the class is subclassed. Why change the class entirely from 1 game to the next? It stumps me.EQ1 had a Rogue/Ranger, EQ2 Has a Rogue/Ranger. Their DPS but their classified as a Rogue type subclass dps. Why cant a Monk be a Brawler subclass dps how they were in EQ1? Doesnt make sense what they did WHY they did it..If you want a fighter and tank, pure and simple play one of the four plate wearers because theyll tank better. Its a fact.Monks have been in the sh!tter for the past few yrs as a whole cause of the changes. Sony has NO [Removed for Content] clue what they want the Monk class to be... Honestly

Couching

04-15-2009, 02:34 AM

You still didn't answer how to balance dps and survivability with brawler and rogue.If brawlers still have lower dps but better survivability than rogue, what you did is just a name change.If brawlers have on par dps as rogue, it's impossible to keep our survivabiltiy. Or even we did, brawlers are still incompetent to raid. We are just another summoner, T2 dps with little to no utility.If you really like to dps, you should pick up rogue or predator rather than asking people who like to tank to pick up plate tanks.

caspervw

04-15-2009, 02:59 AM

<cite>Toran@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Fact > your assumption.The fact is most of brawlers tanking aa in TSO is for raid tanking, not heroic instance tanking.You keep saying bleh bleh bleh about brawlers shouldn't be MT or primary OT. The fact is all TSO aa were designed with fighter revamp part 2.In their idea, monk should have better survivability than berserker, SK and bruiser. On the hands, SK, zerker and bruisers have dps advantage over monk.It's pity that fighter revamp part 2 was cancelled and they didn't have time to fix every fighter's TSO aa at the same time.Though, it didn't change the vision of monk unless they revamp all brawler tso aa and give us more choices for dps. At the moment, our role is tanking in raids.</blockquote>Couching, you are so delusional if you think a monk should tank better then a SK. Plate > Leather; yea brawlers should be able to avoid for 4 or 5 rounds but when they do get hit, you get you head knocked off. Brawlers are strikers aka DPS in no way should you be able to tank as well as a plate fighter. On the reverse side a plate fighter should not be able to DPS like a leather fighter.</blockquote>The whole leather/plate thing is silly. Arguing realism in a game dominated by magic is...silly. D&D was the first introduction pretty much any fantasy MMORG player had access to (well, for those who've been alive long enough to remember a time before MMORGs...), and it had monks by the time EQ1 came out, and they were very much front line fighters.A tank can be whatever they want it to be realism be damned. I'm pretty sure a 200000 pound dragon swinging a 15000 pound leg tipped with 5 foot long razor sharp claws would make just as short work of a carbon-nanotube reinforced titanium exoskeleton as a silk dress.

Siatfallen

04-15-2009, 03:04 AM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>You still didn't answer how to balance dps and survivability with brawler and rogue.If brawlers still have lower dps but better survivability than rogue, what you did is just a name change.If brawlers have on par dps as rogue, it's impossible to keep our survivabiltiy. Or even we did, brawlers are still incompetent to raid. We are just another summoner, T2 dps with little to no utility.If you really like to dps, you should pick up rogue or predator rather than asking people who like to tank to pick up plate tanks.</blockquote>You are missing one major point here, and an important one: Even if we are brought on par with rogue DPS, we will still not have their debuffs. In other words, we will lack in that area of utility. Running only rarely with a brigand in our raid until recently, I'm seeing raidwide DPS increase by around 20% because of the prescence of a well played brigand alone.So, it's simply not true that we would overpower rogues if we were brought on par with them as far as DPS goes.If - and note, I do say if - you want to go that route, the situation would likely end up being something like this:Short-term raid tanking capability (tsunami + Bob & weave, External calm etc). Lack of long-term raid tanking ability.Utility in the form of avoidance transfers and raidwide buff.DPS on par with rogues.Limited OT capability in defensive setup, at the cost of DPS.Does this sound familiar? If not, it's pretty much the description of brawlers in offensive specs in RoK - with a very slight DPS boost.We had a role in RoK specced like this, and a viable one at that. Why would this be any different now?

Couching

04-15-2009, 03:19 AM

<cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>You still didn't answer how to balance dps and survivability with brawler and rogue.If brawlers still have lower dps but better survivability than rogue, what you did is just a name change.If brawlers have on par dps as rogue, it's impossible to keep our survivabiltiy. Or even we did, brawlers are still incompetent to raid. We are just another summoner, T2 dps with little to no utility.If you really like to dps, you should pick up rogue or predator rather than asking people who like to tank to pick up plate tanks.</blockquote>You are missing one major point here, and an important one: Even if we are brought on par with rogue DPS, we will still not have their debuffs. In other words, we will lack in that area of utility. Running only rarely with a brigand in our raid until recently, I'm seeing raidwide DPS increase by around 20% because of the prescence of a well played brigand alone.So, it's simply not true that we would overpower rogues if we were brought on par with them as far as DPS goes.If - and note, I do say if - you want to go that route, the situation would likely end up being something like this:Short-term raid tanking capability (tsunami + Bob & weave, External calm etc). Lack of long-term raid tanking ability.Utility in the form of avoidance transfers and raidwide buff.DPS on par with rogues.Limited OT capability in defensive setup, at the cost of DPS.Does this sound familiar? If not, it's pretty much the description of brawlers in offensive specs in RoK - with a very slight DPS boost.We had a role in RoK specced like this, and a viable one at that. Why would this be any different now?</blockquote>That's why I said even if we kept our survivability and get dps on par with rogue, we still won't be competive enough because we didn't have utility.The utilities, avoidance trasnfer and raidwide buff, you listed are almost none exist. Why?For avoidance transfer, if we are not in defensive, our avoidance is a lot worse than any plate tanks with shield. It is silly and stupid to take monk avoidance when he is in offensive.To make our avoidance buff truely shine, you have to stay in defensive. In defensive, our dps is ugly and it's impossible to make our dps in defensive to be the same as rogue. Not a chance.So your assumption that rogue level dps with avoidance as utility is none exist. You have to pick one, not both.For raidwide, sorry to say that, monk is one of worst of all fighters. Zerker and SK's raidwide are much better than ours.Last utility you said, emergency tank; I already stated that any OT in raid can do it. I am not sure why you keep thinking it's an achievement for monk or brawler?The role in TSO is totally different from ROK because we finally get more uncontested avoidance than plate tanks. We are not a short term tank anymore.

Siatfallen

04-15-2009, 03:42 AM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>You still didn't answer how to balance dps and survivability with brawler and rogue.If brawlers still have lower dps but better survivability than rogue, what you did is just a name change.If brawlers have on par dps as rogue, it's impossible to keep our survivabiltiy. Or even we did, brawlers are still incompetent to raid. We are just another summoner, T2 dps with little to no utility.If you really like to dps, you should pick up rogue or predator rather than asking people who like to tank to pick up plate tanks.</blockquote>You are missing one major point here, and an important one: Even if we are brought on par with rogue DPS, we will still not have their debuffs. In other words, we will lack in that area of utility. Running only rarely with a brigand in our raid until recently, I'm seeing raidwide DPS increase by around 20% because of the prescence of a well played brigand alone.So, it's simply not true that we would overpower rogues if we were brought on par with them as far as DPS goes.If - and note, I do say if - you want to go that route, the situation would likely end up being something like this:Short-term raid tanking capability (tsunami + Bob & weave, External calm etc). Lack of long-term raid tanking ability.Utility in the form of avoidance transfers and raidwide buff.DPS on par with rogues.Limited OT capability in defensive setup, at the cost of DPS.Does this sound familiar? If not, it's pretty much the description of brawlers in offensive specs in RoK - with a very slight DPS boost.We had a role in RoK specced like this, and a viable one at that. Why would this be any different now?</blockquote>That's why I said even if we kept our survivability and get dps on par with rogue, we still won't be competive enough because we didn't have utility.The utilities, avoidance trasnfer and raidwide buff, you listed are almost none exist. Why?For avoidance transfer, if we are not in defensive, our avoidance is a lot worse than any plate tanks with shield. It is silly and stupid to take monk avoidance when he is in offensive.To make our avoidance buff truely shine, you have to stay in defensive. In defensive, our dps is ugly and it's impossible to make our dps in defensive to be the same as rogue. Not a chance.So your assumption that rogue level dps with avoidance as utility is none exist. You have to pick one, not both.For raidwide, sorry to say that, monk is one of worst of all fighters. Zerker and SK's raidwide are much better than ours.Last utility you said, emergency tank; I already stated that any OT in raid can do it. I am not sure why you keep thinking it's an achievement for monk or brawler?The role in TSO is totally different from ROK because we finally get more uncontested avoidance than plate tanks. We are not a short term tank anymore.</blockquote>I understand what Aeralik was trying to do with the tSO brawler changes. I also happen to think it's a bad joke - except that it's actually landed in the game. Good thing there's new management now, they may realise the set direction is not for the best and change it - blame my inherent capacity for optimism for that belief.Avoidance: Range is 20 meters for the avoidance buff. Often, then OT will be outside that range, and his avoidance buff will do nothing at all for the MT. Hence the brawler avoidance buff - being the tertiary fighter means that we can stay near the MT while the OT takes care of, well, OTing.Also, whatever your source of avoidance reports, they must simply look different than mine did from RoK - or maybe our OT simply often forgot to actually place the avoidance buff on our MT on raids when I wasn't there. I don't know - and at this point, it will be hard to test.Emergency tanking: Again, the OT can't be two places at once. With DPS solidly above any other fighter, the brawler will be brought for that, and when the OT is busy doing his job and the MT goes down, the brawler will keep the raid going until the MT is back in the fight again. I did this during RoK, in offensive spec.Monk raidwide was nerfed while everything else was boosted by a lot. This is a major problem in class balance, and should be readjusted in favour of the brawler. This, the brawler community as a whole, yourself included, has been saying since Beta. As the devs have finally admitted to settling down and going over their revamp again, starting from scratch, this is not the time to stop saying it.Bottom line is this: tSO saw a change in brawler functionality more thorough than even LU 13 managed to be, and very late in this game's development. Not only that, but on top of it, we were calibrated to fit into a role already well covered by other classes in the game with very few spots in a raid available - and we were, by design, worse at it than they were. I do not for one moment believe that SoE was seriously trying to make brawlers equal to plate tanks in survivability - in fact, at the beginning of the fighter revamp, it was stated clearly that this was not the intention at all. We were supposed to be "the more DPS oriented fighters" - that this did not happen either is a testament to the lack of forethought involved in the revamp on the whole, but that's a rant for another day. We were brought closer in survivability, but we were not made competetive, and while all of this happened, major improvements were made to plate fighters in areas previously reserved for brawlers, DPS probably being the most obvious.On the whole, it was a horrible decision, and one I'd be happy seeing revoked rather than reinforced, hence my suggestiopns above. I'm not even beginning to say the brawler class, in its current mutilated state, is capable of filling the role I'm outlining.

Couching

04-15-2009, 04:17 AM

<cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite><blockquote>Avoidance: Range is 20 meters for the avoidance buff. Often, then OT will be outside that range, and his avoidance buff will do nothing at all for the MT. Hence the brawler avoidance buff - being the tertiary fighter means that we can stay near the MT while the OT takes care of, well, OTing.Also, whatever your source of avoidance reports, they must simply look different than mine did from RoK - or maybe our OT simply often forgot to actually place the avoidance buff on our MT on raids when I wasn't there. I don't know - and at this point, it will be hard to test.You still dodge the fact that brawlers have to stay in defensive to get uncontested deflection. When we are in offensive, the only uncontested deflection is from our mythical and it's tiny comparing to shield.Of course, you can say it's better than nothing when OT is out of range of MT. However, it is not the scene you described that monk can deal rogue dps and avoid a lot of hits for MT with our avoidance buff at same time. We can't have both at same time. It is very easy to test. Actually it doesn't need to test becasue any brawler should understand that our uncontested deflection is tied to defensive stance.Emergency tanking: Again, the OT can't be two places at once. With DPS solidly above any other fighter, the brawler will be brought for that, and when the OT is busy doing his job and the MT goes down, the brawler will keep the raid going until the MT is back in the fight again. I did this during RoK, in offensive spec.Have you ever think that any plate tank can do it as well as brawler? I am not saying 2nd tank who is tanking adds. I am saying the 3rd tank.Bottom line is this: tSO saw a change in brawler functionality more thorough than even LU 13 managed to be, and very late in this game's development. Not only that, but on top of it, we were calibrated to fit into a role already well covered by other classes in the game with very few spots in a raid available - and we were, by design, worse at it than they were. I do not for one moment believe that SoE was seriously trying to make brawlers equal to plate tanks in survivability - in fact, at the beginning of the fighter revamp, it was stated clearly that this was not the intention at all. We were supposed to be "the more DPS oriented fighters" - that this did not happen either is a testament to the lack of forethought involved in the revamp on the whole, but that's a rant for another day. We were brought closer in survivability, but we were not made competetive, and while all of this happened, major improvements were made to plate fighters in areas previously reserved for brawlers, DPS probably being the most obvious.On the whole, it was a horrible decision, and one I'd be happy seeing revoked rather than reinforced, hence my suggestiopns above. I'm not even beginning to say the brawler class, in its current mutilated state, is capable of filling the role I'm outlining.</blockquote>I am not all against your idea of what role of brawlers should be. But the role you described is none exist in TSO.If we still had superior raidwide than plate tanks, sure it would be good. (SK and zerker are better)If we still could get aggro immedately in emergency, sure it is good. (At the moment, peel didn't work on most TSO targets)If we still could deal more dps than all plate tanks, sure it is good. (In high end raid, our dps is at bottom of all fighters)However, one thing SoE did right is they finally give brawlers more uncontested avoidance than plate tanks. It is the great improvement but it is not enough to make most brawlers comparative to plate tanks in survivability.You kept saying brawlers shouldn't compete with very few spots in raid, MT and OT(s). The fact is, dps spot competition is even cruel in min/max raid.In high end raids, you need 7-8 healers, 4 chanters, 4-6 bards and 2-3 tanks for most high end encounters. Let's count how many spots left for dpsers and how many competitors in this game? Rogue, predator, sorcerers and summoners. If you think it is easier to get a spot as dpser, you are wrong.Not to say, I don't believe we will ever get rogue dps and keep our survivability at same time in eq2. If we ever did, be ready for petition/protest from rogues/summoners.

Davngr1

04-15-2009, 04:33 AM

i read all the new post and like the idea about brawler avoidance buff becoming the selling point of the class. for instance give it uncontested avoidance( in any stance), make it work differently then the other fighter avoidance buffs(better) so that a brawler becomes the a highly wanted raid addition for the MT avoid. but i still feel that brawlers need a boost across the board not just high end raiding.

Gisallo

04-15-2009, 07:33 AM

<cite>caspervw wrote:</cite><blockquote>Brawlers don't need a unified voice. What they need is for SOE to step up and say what position/role they want brawlers to fill, then give them the tools to do it. There will be some that would prefer one slant or another, but a vast majority would be more than happy to just have something they could accell at.</blockquote>Do you seriously think SOE is going to do this? They just did with fighter 2.0. We all saw what happened when SOE said "okay people this is what we are going to do with fighters" without coordination with the player base. It was an unmitigated PR disaster which SOE is not going to repeat anytime soon. Prior to TSO and failed fighter 2.0 I would completely agree with you. However seeing what just happened, constractive feedback as to direction with a united voice is not only necessary from a common sense point of view but has actually BEEN asked for from SOE.

Lethe5683

04-15-2009, 09:41 AM

<cite>Bartuski wrote:</cite><blockquote> Hell no? Wow..Honestly, after coming over to EQ2 after playing an EQ1 monk for 6 yrs, seing as how the Monk STILL does not have a [Removed for Content] role in this game, why not make it easy and put both Brawlers in a subclass of their own(Brawler dps). Ive played the Monk since day 1. Ive been through all the changes and seen what theyve tried to do but honestly after seing all the changes to all the other tanks, we still have no genuine role. We arent the best of tanks and I dont care what others out there say. We are NOT better tanks then the 4 Plate wearers, even with great gear. DPS wise were not even close to Pure scout or caster dps even geared.Im wondering WHY the hell they went from the dmg fiend Monk in EQ1 to a terrible no role "tank" monk in EQ2... The worlds still Everquest, just different times. WHY did they change them into the tank subclass. Pointless.Simple, Make them their own Dps subclass which would be the brawler dps. 4 Tanks is enough and their all plate wearers.</blockquote>Why change them from EQ1? Maybe because EQ1 was an absolutly terrible game with stupid mechanics all around.

Landiin

04-15-2009, 11:11 AM

<cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Why change them from EQ1? Maybe because EQ1 was an absolutly terrible game with stupid mechanics all around.</blockquote>Yea thats why it is still going strong..

jrolla777

04-15-2009, 12:02 PM

Toran, where are your assumptions about what the brawler class should be coming from? i ask because you dont seem to be up to date with brawlers this expansion.Your guild brawlers are severely undergeared, so maybe thats why you think we are sub-tanks.you dont raid TSO and your guild mostly doesnt have mythical either, so please dont tell us about raid tanking. because everytime you say stuff liek that, its just your opinion, but you CAPSLOCK AND THINK ITS SOE'S VISIONive never had a problem with koto, but you give your guild a bad name. throwing around blanket statements about a class you dont seem to know much about.

Landiin

04-15-2009, 12:26 PM

<cite>Nancy@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>Toran, where are your assumptions about what the brawler class should be coming from? i ask because you dont seem to be up to date with brawlers this expansion.Your guild brawlers are severely undergeared, so maybe thats why you think we are sub-tanks.you dont raid TSO and your guild mostly doesnt have mythical either, so please dont tell us about raid tanking. because everytime you say stuff liek that, its just your opinion, but you CAPSLOCK AND THINK ITS SOE'S VISIONive never had a problem with koto, but you give your guild a bad name. throwing around blanket statements about a class you dont seem to know much about.</blockquote>lol I don't have to be in a top end raiding guild to know brawlers shouldn't be a main tanking class. If you want to be a real tank re-roll a plat class. Nancy I remember back when I first grouped with you in PoF and you didn't know crap about your class and my guild owned the server. So Yea I know a bit about end game tanking. Yea it might not be TSO but i know where brawlers should be in the scheme of thing vs you it seems. But I'm glad yo finally learn to play your toon better, now keep on following like you always have.I could care less what you think of KOTO. I am pretty sure we will always have a better rep then you and your guild..

Siatfallen

04-15-2009, 12:45 PM

jrolla777: Nice. Imply that the man is a terrible player and undermine his arguments by that logic. Couldn't have done it better myself. I happen to agree with him, though.It doesn't take a lot of thinking to figure out that the vision introduced with the launch of tSO has sent the desirability of the brawler class spiralling downwards.We can either build on the vision and try to patch it, or we can scratch it and return to the somewhat functional model in place before. You see most non-brawlers commenting here building on what they knew to be the brawler class during the game before tSO and it does not surprise me in the least, since we have been completely unable to validate our new role through actual gameplay. Running instances is more than enough to see the core of the problem, raiding only reinforces it.I remember shocked guildmates asking, back during January as we were beginning to gear up during tSO, what the hell happened to brawler DPS? My only valid reply was "SoE decided we shouldn't be doing that anymore. I'm apparently a tank now". That was, simply put, the best available explanation.I don't see this argument selling, though, and I figure it's a lost cause by now, unless we're suddenly made unbalanced on a scale equal to the Shadowknight's current condition.Couching: I agree with your perspective really. The reason to bring brawlers as the third tank on a raid over a plate tank should be improved DPS. With especially AE fighters parsing where they do, that means the only acceptable levels of DPS to make that valid at all is where rogues are, or higher. Otherwise, the raid will bring a SK or (once the SK is at long last nerfed back into place) possibly a berserker.

jrolla777

04-15-2009, 12:46 PM

<cite>Toran@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>lol I don't have to be in a top end raiding guild to know brawlers shouldn't be a main tanking class. If you want to be a real tank re-roll a plat class. Nancy I remember back when I first grouped with you in PoF and you didn't know crap about your class and my guild owned the server. So Yea I know a bit about end game tanking. Yea it might not be TSO but i know where brawlers should be in the scheme of thing vs you it seems. But I'm glad yo finally learn to play your toon better, now keep on following like you always have.I could care less what you think of KOTO. I am pretty sure we will always have a better rep then you and your guild..</blockquote> didnt know crap about my class? thanks, thats nice of you to say, but i disagree. I was topping parses in t5 with my royal great flail but that’s not the point.I’ve been around as long as you if not longer. I think since playing a monk from release I should know brawler abilities and roles fairly well. I created a monk because all fighters should be able to tank effectively, in different ways. thru mitigation or avoidance, or spike damage preventative measures.as it stands now, brawlers need better survivability or better dps. but to have you say we arent tanks is ridiculous. Ive never asked to take damage better than a guard, but since our dps is similar to plates in tso, something is not right.

jrolla777

04-15-2009, 12:49 PM

<cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite><blockquote>jrolla777: Nice. Imply that the man is a terrible player and undermine his arguments by that logic. Couldn't have done it better myself. I happen to agree with him, though.</blockquote>sorry since i just woke up, but i wasnt trying to imply he was a terrible player. in fact i think most people know toran as a decent player at least. I brought up the tso raiding aspect, because i dont feel toran sees the brawler shortcomings in raiding these days. our dps is on par with other tanks since we have same damagae table and monk ca's are some of the lowest around. and our survivability in most cases is worse than other tanks.i think toran feels for brawlers in that regard. but i think we're tanks, wether he agrees or not. look at the aa skills we have and the way uncontested avoidance was changed this expansion.edit: my grammar is horrible

Couching

04-15-2009, 01:20 PM

<cite>Toran@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>lol I don't have to be in a top end raiding guild to know brawlers shouldn't be a main tanking class. If you want to be a real tank re-roll a plat class. Nancy I remember back when I first grouped with you in PoF and you didn't know crap about your class and my guild owned the server. So Yea I know a bit about end game tanking. Yea it might not be TSO but i know where brawlers should be in the scheme of thing vs you it seems. But I'm glad yo finally learn to play your toon better, now keep on following like you always have.I could care less what you think of KOTO. I am pretty sure we will always have a better rep then you and your guild..</blockquote>Dude, you have admitted that you know nothing about end game tanking in TSO.The fact in end game tanking, brawlers are viable to tank any mobs including the hardest mobs as any plate tanks.Though, viable didn't mean we are better tanks than guardians.I am appreciated that SoE finally made its word: Brawlers tanking in raid is viable in a different way of plate tanks.The current issue is we are inferior than plate tanks in survivability, dps and utility at all. We should be superior than plate tanks in some area. We need a fix so that we can be superior than plate tanks in either dps or survivability or utility for better class balance.The debate of whether brawler can or can't tank in raid is nonsense. We already did it in high end tso raids.

circusgirl

04-15-2009, 01:57 PM

Can we tank any TSO raid mob? Sure...when we're overgeared for it. But the fact of the matter is, we're not going to be tanking any mob that's right on the edge of our guild's progression, like a plate MT can, and thats the difference. Given that our dps is clearly not above plate tanks, and our survivability is clearly below them, SoE needs to either:a)increase survivability to EQUAL plate tanks orb)increase dps to FAR EXCEED plate tanks orc)increase utility FAR EXCEED plate tanks ord)increase dps and utility to moderately exceed plate tanksSo lets talk about ways to do this, categorically.Survivability<ul><li>Increase Meditative Healing to 40%, as was planned with the fighter revamp</li><li>+mitigation increase added to many pieces of the TSO raid set </li><li>Strikethrough removed from raidmobs</li><li>Tsunami cast time made .5 seconds or instacast</li><li>Add in more mitigation based adornments, particularly geared for crushing weapons</li><li>Make Inner Focus work for all types of damage, not just melee</li><li>Replace the Altruism AA with a deathsave of some sort-for us, not for the MT healer.</li><li>Increase the uncontested avoidance on brawler's defensive stances to be GREATER THAN the uncontested avoidance offered on a fabled TSO shield (as was planned with the fighter revamp)</li></ul><div>DPS</div><div><ul><li>Change Everburning line to be a dps mod instead of haste for monks</li><li>40% AoE autoattack instead of crane twirl in the wis AA line (Like ALL OTHER FIGHTERS)</li><li>Equal DA and MC for the same number of AA points invested in the brawler KoS AA line</li><li>More damage to Combination</li><li>Seperate, DPS oriented brawler gear with dps stats instead of tank stats, so we can select a dps role via gear swaps</li><li>flurry, melee crit bonus, base combat art damage, or some other form of buff that is not made up for via raid buffs on our offensive stance</li></ul><div>Utility</div><div><ul><li>De-nerf the monk raidwide back up to 14%</li><li>Give brawlers a groupwide buff, like all fighters have</li><li>give brawlers uncontested avoidance somehow in all stances, or reduce the amount of uncontested avoidance that plate tanks have, to make our avoidance buff fundamentally better than the plate tank's buff</li><li>Put in an Enhance: Tranquil Vision as an AA ability, perhaps to replace either the Heal AA, Inner focus, or one of the other totally mediocre Monk AAs, to increase the % chance that our avoidance buff will proc.</li><li>Remove the immunity to Peel from TSO raid mobs (to make snap-aggro a viable role)</li><li>Make tsunami instant cast or .5 second cast (to make snap-aggro a viable role)</li></ul><div>Edit:yes, these suggestions are geared towards monks. Bruisers feel free to bring your own input, since I'm not familiar enough with your needs to make suggestions there.</div></div></div>

Landiin

04-15-2009, 02:32 PM

<cite>Nancy@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>didnt know crap about my class? thanks, thats nice of you to say, but i disagree. I was topping parses in t5 with my royal great flail but that’s not the point.I’ve been around as long as you if not longer. I think since playing a monk from release I should know brawler abilities and roles fairly well. I created a monk because all fighters should be able to tank effectively, in different ways. thru mitigation or avoidance, or spike damage preventative measures.as it stands now, brawlers need better survivability or better dps. but to have you say we arent tanks is ridiculous. Ive never asked to take damage better than a guard, but since our dps is similar to plates in tso, something is not right.</blockquote>Yea your right I should not of said that my bad and felt bad for doing so but couldn't get back on to correct it. I posted in haste while on works computer, I had and have no issue with you.You guys can attack me, my guild, and guild mates all you want and say I don't about raiding in ToS. your right I haven't raid much of ToS but that does not mean I don't' know about raiding. I probably know more about raiding than most of you posting but the fact is I don't have time to raid like I like to to my kids needing a father ATM. In EQ and up until PoF I have always been in the hard core raiding.All that does not change the fact that brawlers shouldn't be any where close to tanking like plate tank. I do think they should have snap tanking abilities but not long lasting tanking abilities. Your primary role should be the DPS of the fighter class kind of like predators are of the scout class.You guys keeps saying thats not now it is in ToS. We are not talking about how it is now. I am talking about how they need to make it. 6 classes can't be balanced for the MT job or the OT job or the dps job in the fighter tree. Each Arche needs their roll. I just happen to think it should be warrior , crusader brawler. If SOE makes it brawler, crusader, warrior the so be it, I'll reroll. But the fact does not change that all 6 classes can not be balance correct for all 3 jobs.. THAT IS FACT!!!Couching;I have never admitted I know nothing about end game tanking. Have I done it in a while no, but I have, it don't take a genus to know how to tank, or to play any of these classes, so don't act like it does. It does however take a bit of understanding and knowlage of the classes and how the need to work together.I don't think there is many that think I don't know how to tank.. Have I had my moments? sure who hasn't but for the most part people will say I am alright.

Couching

04-15-2009, 02:45 PM

<cite>Toran@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>All that does not change the fact that brawlers shouldn't be any where close to tanking like plate tank. I do think they should have snap tanking abilities but not long lasting tanking abilities. Your primary role should be the DPS of the fighter class kind of like predators are of the scout class.You guys keeps saying thats not now it is in ToS. We are not talking about how it is now. I am talking about how they need to make it. 6 classes can't be balanced for the MT job or the OT job or the dps job in the fighter tree. Each Arche needs their roll. I just happen to think it should be warrior , crusader brawler. If SOE makes it brawler, crusader, warrior the so be it, I'll reroll. But the fact does not change that all 6 classes can not be balance correct for all 3 jobs.. THAT IS FACT!!!</blockquote>In your idea, brawler should be best in dps and worst in tanking, vice versa, warrior is worst in dps but best in survivability.I agree if raiders are majority of this game. The fact is not.What you said was the situation in the game launch. Guess what? None stop whining from casual guardians that they can't solo well.That's why SoE kept raising guardian dps and people still want more dps for guardians in this thread !!!That's why warriors don't deserve superior survivability than other tanks becasue their dps is not behind other tanks. You can't get everthing superior!Same as crusaders. Their dps are insane, especially SK. They don't deserve better survivability than brawlers anymore.And I wll tell you, it's impossible for SoE to nerf guardians dps because the majority in eq2 are casual players.Honestly, SOE is in the right direction: Making all fighters viable to solo, to tank in group and raids.You have to deal with it or quit.

Siatfallen

04-15-2009, 02:50 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Can we tank any TSO raid mob? Sure...when we're overgeared for it. But the fact of the matter is, we're not going to be tanking any mob that's right on the edge of our guild's progression, like a plate MT can, and thats the difference. Given that our dps is clearly not above plate tanks, and our survivability is clearly below them, SoE needs to either:a)increase survivability to EQUAL plate tanks orb)increase dps to FAR EXCEED plate tanks orc)increase utility FAR EXCEED plate tanks ord)increase dps and utility to moderately exceed plate tanksSo lets talk about ways to do this, categorically.Survivability<ul><li>Increase Meditative Healing to 40%, as was planned with the fighter revamp</li><li>+mitigation increase added to many pieces of the TSO raid set </li><li>Strikethrough removed from raidmobs</li><li>Tsunami cast time made .5 seconds or instacast</li><li>Add in more mitigation based adornments, particularly geared for crushing weapons</li><li>Make Inner Focus work for all types of damage, not just melee</li><li>Replace the Altruism AA with a deathsave of some sort-for us, not for the MT healer.</li></ul><div>DPS</div><div><ul><li>Change Everburning line to be a dps mod instead of haste for monks</li><li>40% AoE autoattack instead of crane twirl in the wis AA line (Like ALL OTHER FIGHTERS)</li><li>Equal DA and MC for the same number of AA points invested in the brawler KoS AA line</li><li>More damage to Combination</li><li>Seperate, DPS oriented brawler gear with dps stats instead of tank stats, so we can select a dps role via gear swaps</li><li>flurry, melee crit bonus, base combat art damage, or some other form of buff that is not made up for via raid buffs on our offensive stance</li></ul><div>Utility</div><div><ul><li>De-nerf the monk raidwide back up to 14%</li><li>Give brawlers a groupwide buff, like all fighters have</li><li>give brawlers uncontested avoidance somehow in all stances, or reduce the amount of uncontested avoidance that plate tanks have, to make our avoidance buff fundamentally better than the plate tank's buff</li><li>Put in an Enhance: Tranquil Vision as an AA ability, perhaps to replace either the Heal AA, Inner focus, or one of the other totally mediocre Monk AAs, to increase the % chance that our avoidance buff will proc.</li><li>Remove the immunity to Peel from TSO raid mobs (to make snap-aggro a viable role)</li><li>Make tsunami instant cast or .5 second cast (to make snap-aggro a viable role)</li></ul><div>Edit:yes, these suggestions are geared towards monks. Bruisers feel free to bring your own input, since I'm not familiar enough with your needs to make suggestions there.</div></div></div></blockquote>You are forgetting: Recalibrate tSO AA options so there are many more viable options that does not involve tanking.Even for a tanking setup, there are simply too many tanking-specific AA options at the moment. We can't possibly get all of them anyway, so what's the point?

jrolla777

04-15-2009, 02:52 PM

<cite>Toran@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>All that does not change the fact that brawlers shouldn't be any where close to tanking like plate tank. </blockquote>maybe i should reread some of your posts, because i dont understand where this idea is coming from. our dps is not greater than yours, and our utility is not greater than yours. It sounds like you dont want brawlers to step on your toes, thats the dev's decision not mine.our role is defined, but teh execution from the class balancing devs has been inadequatewhen i started my monk, the creation description didnt say, "You will be no where close to plate tanks ability"Here's my beef, if the plate tank cant log in one night for the raid, i dont feel the consensus should be, "oh well guess we cant raid tonight, we could have nancy tank but brawlers aren't tanks, so lets just cancel the raid tonight."i dont understand why you want to push brawlers away from that spot

Couching

04-15-2009, 03:02 PM

<cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite><blockquote>You are forgetting: Recalibrate tSO AA options so there are many more viable options that does not involve tanking.Even for a tanking setup, there are simply too many tanking-specific AA options at the moment. We can't possibly get all of them anyway, so what's the point?</blockquote>I got all of TSO tanking aa because all of our dps aa are junk. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2e207fad049d4d292f60607f80f05768.gif" border="0" />

Siatfallen

04-15-2009, 03:15 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite><blockquote>You are forgetting: Recalibrate tSO AA options so there are many more viable options that does not involve tanking.Even for a tanking setup, there are simply too many tanking-specific AA options at the moment. We can't possibly get all of them anyway, so what's the point?</blockquote>I got all of TSO tanking aa because all of our dps aa are junk. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2e207fad049d4d292f60607f80f05768.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>Oh, same here - the thing is, though, there's still tanking AA left in that tree I haven't touched, even in my tank spec. There's just too many of them.

circusgirl

04-15-2009, 03:35 PM

I fully agree with that assessment--there's just not very many options for us if we choose to dps. I'd like to see something like Inner Focus changed to a dps ability, since right now its suckage incarnate. Alternately maybe the mend AA ability should be switched to a dps option, since its overstacked anyway? I agree that we need to drop some of the tanking options for dps, the question is just which ones.And...given that both this thread and the SK nerf thread have kind of been subsumed by brawler issues...does anyone feel like taking the time to either dig up the old monk issues thread and update it or start a new one so that we can put all this feedback somewhere that isn't 15 pages into a whine-fest?

jrolla777

04-15-2009, 03:40 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote> I'd like to see something like Inner Focus changed to a dps ability, since right now its suckage incarnate. </blockquote>i disagree, inner focus has a number of uses. i wont get in to them all, but with huge melee aoes and spiek damage, this ability definately better off than some other aa choices

Couching

04-15-2009, 03:42 PM

Actually inner focus rocks in raid tanking.It's the only stoneskin ability we got and it is the only reliable live saving tool we have in raid.For dps aa, it's simple. Give us something like knight stances: raise auto attack modifier to replace dps aa that raise few % of our small CAs.

circusgirl

04-15-2009, 04:03 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Actually inner focus rocks in raid tanking.It's the only stoneskin ability we got and it is the only reliable live saving tool we have in raid.For dps aa, it's simple. Give us something like knight stances: raise auto attack modifier to replace dps aa that raise few % of our small CAs.</blockquote>I like that idea. I honestly have been having trouble with getting Inner focus to be useful--but thats probably more a function of me not having learned how to set up an effective raid timer than anything else.

Landiin

04-15-2009, 04:27 PM

<cite>Nancy@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>Here's my beef, if the plate tank cant log in one night for the raid, i dont feel the consensus should be, "oh well guess we cant raid tonight, we could have nancy tank but brawlers aren't tanks, so lets just cancel the raid tonight."i dont understand why you want to push brawlers away from that spot</blockquote>I'd say find a more reliable plate tank. Or have a back up in the raid setup, yea you will lose some DPS but /shrug.I am pushing brawlers away from the spot because there are already 4 classes that can be MT or 3 OT's and 6 if your not pushing the edge. Each fighter can't have the same job and be ballanced good.IMO Scouts have the best structures tree, Predators have the high DPS low util, rogues have DPS and some util, bard have lower DPS and high util. Fighters can be structured sort of the same. (High DPS, low survivability and mid util), (DPS, mid survivability, high util), (lower DPS, high survivability and low util). This could be a primary stance.. then secondary stance could kind of reverse the role but not as grate to out do a primary stance of another arche type. Notice I didn't assign a arche type to any roll for sake of argument. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Elanjar

04-15-2009, 04:54 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Can we tank any TSO raid mob? Sure...when we're overgeared for it. But the fact of the matter is, we're not going to be tanking any mob that's right on the edge of our guild's progression, like a plate MT can, and thats the difference. Given that our dps is clearly not above plate tanks, and our survivability is clearly below them, SoE needs to either:a)increase survivability to EQUAL plate tanks orb)increase dps to FAR EXCEED plate tanks orc)increase utility FAR EXCEED plate tanks ord)increase dps and utility to moderately exceed plate tanksSo lets talk about ways to do this, categorically.Survivability<ul><li>Increase Meditative Healing to 40%, as was planned with the fighter revamp</li><li>+mitigation increase added to many pieces of the TSO raid set </li><li>Strikethrough removed from raidmobs</li><li>Tsunami cast time made .5 seconds or instacast</li><li>Add in more mitigation based adornments, particularly geared for crushing weapons</li><li>Make Inner Focus work for all types of damage, not just melee</li><li>Replace the Altruism AA with a deathsave of some sort-for us, not for the MT healer.</li><li>Increase the uncontested avoidance on brawler's defensive stances to be GREATER THAN the uncontested avoidance offered on a fabled TSO shield (as was planned with the fighter revamp)</li></ul><div>DPS</div><div><ul><li>Change Everburning line to be a dps mod instead of haste for monks</li><li>40% AoE autoattack instead of crane twirl in the wis AA line (Like ALL OTHER FIGHTERS)</li><li>Equal DA and MC for the same number of AA points invested in the brawler KoS AA line</li><li>More damage to Combination</li><li>Seperate, DPS oriented brawler gear with dps stats instead of tank stats, so we can select a dps role via gear swaps</li><li>flurry, melee crit bonus, base combat art damage, or some other form of buff that is not made up for via raid buffs on our offensive stance</li></ul><div>Utility</div><div><ul><li>De-nerf the monk raidwide back up to 14%</li><li>Give brawlers a groupwide buff, like all fighters have</li><li>give brawlers uncontested avoidance somehow in all stances, or reduce the amount of uncontested avoidance that plate tanks have, to make our avoidance buff fundamentally better than the plate tank's buff</li><li>Put in an Enhance: Tranquil Vision as an AA ability, perhaps to replace either the Heal AA, Inner focus, or one of the other totally mediocre Monk AAs, to increase the % chance that our avoidance buff will proc.</li><li>Remove the immunity to Peel from TSO raid mobs (to make snap-aggro a viable role)</li><li>Make tsunami instant cast or .5 second cast (to make snap-aggro a viable role)</li></ul><div>Edit:yes, these suggestions are geared towards monks. Bruisers feel free to bring your own input, since I'm not familiar enough with your needs to make suggestions there.</div></div></div></blockquote>From a purely selfish view I'd prefer brawlers be taken towards the dps/utility direction and be made effective "temporary snap tanks" (in raid settings). I think brawlers should be give appropriate abilities to tank any instanced zone. But on the raid scheme, even if they gave you plate tank survivability I highly doubt you would ever oust guards, and 3 plate tanks gunning for the OT spot is already a lot of competition. There are a lot more DPS spots to spread around to the different classes then there are tank spots.

victer

04-15-2009, 05:12 PM

nancy is an excellent player and im not saying that becuase he is in my guild im saying that because ive played with him for 3+ years. Sometimes he gets drunk and passes out mid pull but ive gotten used to that. Ive always said that id be scared to see him play a plate tank cause he might take my raid spot.Now about the different tanking types...In my vision of the game I see plate tanks tanking the hard hitting mobs more then brawlers tanking them. I just dont see some dude danceing around a big dragon rather then some dude standing there in huge heavy armor taking hits. Thats not to say that brawlers should not be able to tank raids ... im saying that when it comes to "end-game" mobs where they are hitting you very hard i see it more suitible for someone in heavy armor tanking the hit rather then some guy in a dress dodgeing.I see brawlers as more of a utility/dammage class where they help thier comrades and help kill the thing dead. I also see then being able to stand in there and keep the mob off everyone else and dodging the attacks for a little while while the plate tank gets back on his feet and gets ready. I just dont see brawlers as the type of class that should be able to start and finish an entire raid zone. I see them as support. But Isnt that the way the game is?The only thing i'd like to see them get help with is more DPS and utility when they are in a dps role (this should not increase thier DPS while in a tank role). I dont think they should be able to compete with the true dps classes but they definetly need help with bringing them a tad higher then plate tank dps while also bringing thier utility higer so that you hear more grps say hey i want the monk in my grp!

Aull

04-15-2009, 05:19 PM

This has been said before but even swashies and brigs (who are not classified as fighters) can tank instance zones and they still have all the utility, debuffs, and dps. Noone has a problem with rogues doing this, yet brawlers getting dps enhancements would make them overpowered?Brawlers asking for higher dps separation from the sk and zerker isn't asking to much. For what I have seen not many brawlers are asking for debuffs. As far as utility goes I cannot see how this would help brawlers since the other utility classes have more than enough support abilities to go around.

Elanjar

04-15-2009, 05:42 PM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>This has been said before but even swashies and brigs (who are not classified as fighters) can tank instance zones and they still have all the utility, debuffs, and dps. Noone has a problem with rogues doing this, yet brawlers getting dps enhancements would make them overpowered?Brawlers asking for higher dps separation from the sk and zerker isn't asking to much. For what I have seen not many brawlers are asking for debuffs. As far as utility goes I cannot see how this would help brawlers since the other utility classes have more than enough support abilities to go around.</blockquote>But maybe if they provided enough, or the right type of support we wouldnt see bards and chanters filling 8 out of 24 raid spots. Its still dumb that 4 classes dominate that much of a raid.

Couching

04-15-2009, 05:49 PM

Plate tanks should be better tank just because they have more mitigation is very inaccurate.A good tank is getting mobs on him and not die.You can either mitigte damage or avoid hits; different ways but same result.For more dps and utility, sure, look at RoK. all plate tanks are whining how suck their raidwide is. In the end, they have better raidwide than brawlers in tso.It's the same as what happened on guardian; supposed lowest dps tank with best survivability. But with whining of can't solo well, guardian dps is on par or even better than brawlers in raids in tso.Make brawlers a viable tank and make some encounters that brawlers can tank it much easier than plate tanks is a good way to make brawlers useful in raids.

circusgirl

04-15-2009, 06:14 PM

Frankly, I would be satisfied to fill the "third tank" position...if they make that a needed and viable position. What this means is more fights where a third or fourth tank is necessary. They've actually been doing a not-entirely-abysmal job of this lately, with fights like Zarrakon which require four tanks and to a lesser extent ones like Kultak and Xebnok where a third tank makes things easier. It can also be done by creating situations in which your OT is busy with a task like adds, but something periodically happens to the MT to take them out of commission (like charm). Monks are ideally suited to fill that niche...except that by making almost all raid mobs immune to peel and by granting TSO raid mobs strikethrough that role has been all but destroyed for monks. We used to be great snap aggro, but now aside from a handful of encounters, a snap aggro tank just isn't all that necessary. This is the role that it seems a lot of plate tanks want us in (to reduce/prevent competition for the OT role) and its not too far off from what a lot of monk's want too. In a lot of ways, its what we used to have before they killed our dps, killed peel, killed our utility, and killed tsunami.If we don't have the survivability to tank for long periods, however, we need the dps/utility to make up for it. That means dps on the level of a rogue, and our ability to snap tank combined with whatever buffs and additional utility we have needs to be at least as useful overall to the raid as a brigand's debuffs. This could be done, and it wouldn't require too many changes, you'de just need to up our base autoattack damage, give us 40% AE autoattack, equal DA/MC to other tanks, a bit more Melee crit bonus, a groupwide buff, denerf our raidwide, take strikethrough away from raid mobs, make peel work on raidmobs again, revamp our AAs for more dps improvements, and make our avoidance buff clearly superior to other tank's. If SoE's willing to go all the way with the third-tank role, I'll be happy to take it--so long as they don't do it half-[Removed for Content] and leave us in the end with a clear and useful purpose.

Landiin

04-15-2009, 07:23 PM

See Vinka gets it..

Siatfallen

04-15-2009, 07:54 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Frankly, I would be satisfied to fill the "third tank" position...if they make that a needed and viable position. What this means is more fights where a third or fourth tank is necessary. They've actually been doing a not-entirely-abysmal job of this lately, with fights like Zarrakon which require four tanks and to a lesser extent ones like Kultak and Xebnok where a third tank makes things easier. It can also be done by creating situations in which your OT is busy with a task like adds, but something periodically happens to the MT to take them out of commission (like charm). Monks are ideally suited to fill that niche...except that by making almost all raid mobs immune to peel and by granting TSO raid mobs strikethrough that role has been all but destroyed for monks. We used to be great snap aggro, but now aside from a handful of encounters, a snap aggro tank just isn't all that necessary. This is the role that it seems a lot of plate tanks want us in (to reduce/prevent competition for the OT role) and its not too far off from what a lot of monk's want too. In a lot of ways, its what we used to have before they killed our dps, killed peel, killed our utility, and killed tsunami.If we don't have the survivability to tank for long periods, however, we need the dps/utility to make up for it. That means dps on the level of a rogue, and our ability to snap tank combined with whatever buffs and additional utility we have needs to be at least as useful overall to the raid as a brigand's debuffs. This could be done, and it wouldn't require too many changes, you'de just need to up our base autoattack damage, give us 40% AE autoattack, equal DA/MC to other tanks, a bit more Melee crit bonus, a groupwide buff, denerf our raidwide, take strikethrough away from raid mobs, make peel work on raidmobs again, revamp our AAs for more dps improvements, and make our avoidance buff clearly superior to other tank's. If SoE's willing to go all the way with the third-tank role, I'll be happy to take it--so long as they don't do it half-[Removed for Content] and leave us in the end with a clear and useful purpose.</blockquote>Vinka's usually arguing from a much more tank-oriented perspective than I am. As I find myself very much agreeing with her perspective, we're probably getting somewhere on this.I daresay no monk would really be unhappy with this role being realised for brawlers - it fits the concept perfectly, and leaves room for both DPS- and tank orientation inside the build (pretty much dependent on which aspect you want to focus on).If no one has serious complaints with this happening, then I suggest we start giving focused feedback with the objective of becoming just that. It seems, frankly, more viable than asking to become MT on par with a guardian or a purist DPS class.

circusgirl

04-15-2009, 08:04 PM

And lo, peace was declared among the fractions, and the class had a vision....because like two monks in a rando hijacked thread came to a consensus. Now to convince the devs!You gonna make the focused feedback thread, Eilien? I'm supposed to be essaying tonight (as you may have noticed from me obsessively checking the boards as a form of procrastination today).

Siatfallen

04-15-2009, 08:25 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>And lo, peace was declared among the fractions, and the class had a vision....because like two monks in a rando hijacked thread came to a consensus. Now to convince the devs!You gonna make the focused feedback thread, Eilien? I'm supposed to be essaying tonight (as you may have noticed from me obsessively checking the boards as a form of procrastination today).</blockquote>Haha, I know how that goes. I'm handing in my thesis paper this tuesday. Why do you think I've been so active here?I'll write something coherent on it during the weekend at the latest. The sooner the better, I know, but I'll wait until after sending the paper to be printed. It'll also give everyone and their aunt time to jump in from the side and tell us what a horrible idea this is. ;p

Couching

04-15-2009, 08:35 PM

It does worth a try. But honestly, we won't get rogue dps and keep our survivability. Sorry man, it's not gonna happen.Making us a viable raid tank is much easier for SOE than making us T2 dps and keep our survivability.It is just as impossible as making us T1 dps or guardian survivability.

caspervw

04-15-2009, 09:30 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Frankly, I would be satisfied to fill the "third tank" position...if they make that a needed and viable position. What this means is more fights where a third or fourth tank is necessary. They've actually been doing a not-entirely-abysmal job of this lately, with fights like Zarrakon which require four tanks and to a lesser extent ones like Kultak and Xebnok where a third tank makes things easier. It can also be done by creating situations in which your OT is busy with a task like adds, but something periodically happens to the MT to take them out of commission (like charm). Monks are ideally suited to fill that niche...except that by making almost all raid mobs immune to peel and by granting TSO raid mobs strikethrough that role has been all but destroyed for monks. We used to be great snap aggro, but now aside from a handful of encounters, a snap aggro tank just isn't all that necessary. This is the role that it seems a lot of plate tanks want us in (to reduce/prevent competition for the OT role) and its not too far off from what a lot of monk's want too. In a lot of ways, its what we used to have before they killed our dps, killed peel, killed our utility, and killed tsunami.If we don't have the survivability to tank for long periods, however, we need the dps/utility to make up for it. That means dps on the level of a rogue, and our ability to snap tank combined with whatever buffs and additional utility we have needs to be at least as useful overall to the raid as a brigand's debuffs. This could be done, and it wouldn't require too many changes, you'de just need to up our base autoattack damage, give us 40% AE autoattack, equal DA/MC to other tanks, a bit more Melee crit bonus, a groupwide buff, denerf our raidwide, take strikethrough away from raid mobs, make peel work on raidmobs again, revamp our AAs for more dps improvements, and make our avoidance buff clearly superior to other tank's. If SoE's willing to go all the way with the third-tank role, I'll be happy to take it--so long as they don't do it half-[Removed for Content] and leave us in the end with a clear and useful purpose.</blockquote>How much more dps do brawlers need to have, compared to the plate tanks, to make them a better choice as a '3rd fighter'? The plate tanks can fill that role too, and have the option to also step in and OT or MT. If a brawler does 10% more dps, is that enough to sacrifice the flexibility?I think you'll find that in practice, trying to find a spot for a fighter that can't tank is gonna be pretty hard.The glory days of RoK for monks aren't going to return. Even if the raid-buff was returned, the benefit is much smaller now with the overall advance of stats. It's hard for me to imagine a raid buff (let alone 2, one for monks one for bruisers) that would be so much more valuable compared to plate tanks current ones, that you'd choose them for that. Plate tanks already have snap aggro tools, so they can fill that role quite well. That leaves dps as the one place where you could make a significant distinction. The problem is there isn't a lot of room between tanks and t2 right now. Even when just looking at trash fights, the difference is a couple percent of raid dps.I dunno how your guilds work, but I'd rather have added flexibility and do 150kdps than lose flexibility and do 153k (i.e. replace a plate tank with 'rogue-like' dps brawler).Utility is pretty much spoken for, as they've aluded to in the summoners posts. Good luck getting a bigger chunk of that to justify a spot.

Lethe5683

04-15-2009, 09:52 PM

<cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Frankly, I would be satisfied to fill the "third tank" position...if they make that a needed and viable position. What this means is more fights where a third or fourth tank is necessary. They've actually been doing a not-entirely-abysmal job of this lately, with fights like Zarrakon which require four tanks and to a lesser extent ones like Kultak and Xebnok where a third tank makes things easier. It can also be done by creating situations in which your OT is busy with a task like adds, but something periodically happens to the MT to take them out of commission (like charm). Monks are ideally suited to fill that niche...except that by making almost all raid mobs immune to peel and by granting TSO raid mobs strikethrough that role has been all but destroyed for monks. We used to be great snap aggro, but now aside from a handful of encounters, a snap aggro tank just isn't all that necessary. This is the role that it seems a lot of plate tanks want us in (to reduce/prevent competition for the OT role) and its not too far off from what a lot of monk's want too. In a lot of ways, its what we used to have before they killed our dps, killed peel, killed our utility, and killed tsunami.If we don't have the survivability to tank for long periods, however, we need the dps/utility to make up for it. That means dps on the level of a rogue, and our ability to snap tank combined with whatever buffs and additional utility we have needs to be at least as useful overall to the raid as a brigand's debuffs. This could be done, and it wouldn't require too many changes, you'de just need to up our base autoattack damage, give us 40% AE autoattack, equal DA/MC to other tanks, a bit more Melee crit bonus, a groupwide buff, denerf our raidwide, take strikethrough away from raid mobs, make peel work on raidmobs again, revamp our AAs for more dps improvements, and make our avoidance buff clearly superior to other tank's. If SoE's willing to go all the way with the third-tank role, I'll be happy to take it--so long as they don't do it half-[Removed for Content] and leave us in the end with a clear and useful purpose.</blockquote>Vinka's usually arguing from a much more tank-oriented perspective than I am. As I find myself very much agreeing with her perspective, we're probably getting somewhere on this.I daresay no monk would really be unhappy with this role being realised for brawlers - it fits the concept perfectly, and leaves room for both DPS- and tank orientation inside the build (pretty much dependent on which aspect you want to focus on).If no one has serious complaints with this happening, then I suggest we start giving focused feedback with the objective of becoming just that. It seems, frankly, more viable than asking to become MT on par with a guardian or a purist DPS class.</blockquote>Even I agree with this.

Lethe5683

04-15-2009, 09:54 PM

<cite>caspervw wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Frankly, I would be satisfied to fill the "third tank" position...if they make that a needed and viable position. What this means is more fights where a third or fourth tank is necessary. They've actually been doing a not-entirely-abysmal job of this lately, with fights like Zarrakon which require four tanks and to a lesser extent ones like Kultak and Xebnok where a third tank makes things easier. It can also be done by creating situations in which your OT is busy with a task like adds, but something periodically happens to the MT to take them out of commission (like charm). Monks are ideally suited to fill that niche...except that by making almost all raid mobs immune to peel and by granting TSO raid mobs strikethrough that role has been all but destroyed for monks. We used to be great snap aggro, but now aside from a handful of encounters, a snap aggro tank just isn't all that necessary. This is the role that it seems a lot of plate tanks want us in (to reduce/prevent competition for the OT role) and its not too far off from what a lot of monk's want too. In a lot of ways, its what we used to have before they killed our dps, killed peel, killed our utility, and killed tsunami.If we don't have the survivability to tank for long periods, however, we need the dps/utility to make up for it. That means dps on the level of a rogue, and our ability to snap tank combined with whatever buffs and additional utility we have needs to be at least as useful overall to the raid as a brigand's debuffs. This could be done, and it wouldn't require too many changes, you'de just need to up our base autoattack damage, give us 40% AE autoattack, equal DA/MC to other tanks, a bit more Melee crit bonus, a groupwide buff, denerf our raidwide, take strikethrough away from raid mobs, make peel work on raidmobs again, revamp our AAs for more dps improvements, and make our avoidance buff clearly superior to other tank's. If SoE's willing to go all the way with the third-tank role, I'll be happy to take it--so long as they don't do it half-[Removed for Content] and leave us in the end with a clear and useful purpose.</blockquote>How much more dps do brawlers need to have, compared to the plate tanks, to make them a better choice as a '3rd fighter'? The plate tanks can fill that role too, and have the option to also step in and OT or MT. If a brawler does 10% more dps, is that enough to sacrifice the flexibility?I think you'll find that in practice, trying to find a spot for a fighter that can't tank is gonna be pretty hard.The glory days of RoK for monks aren't going to return. Even if the raid-buff was returned, the benefit is much smaller now with the overall advance of stats. It's hard for me to imagine a raid buff (let alone 2, one for monks one for bruisers) that would be so much more valuable compared to plate tanks current ones, that you'd choose them for that. Plate tanks already have snap aggro tools, so they can fill that role quite well. That leaves dps as the one place where you could make a significant distinction. The problem is there isn't a lot of room between tanks and t2 right now. Even when just looking at trash fights, the difference is a couple percent of raid dps.I dunno how your guilds work, but I'd rather have added flexibility and do 150kdps than lose flexibility and do 153k (i.e. replace a plate tank with 'rogue-like' dps brawler).Utility is pretty much spoken for, as they've aluded to in the summoners posts. Good luck getting a bigger chunk of that to justify a spot.</blockquote>There is no way in *ell you are doing 150,000 dps.

Landiin

04-16-2009, 01:23 AM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>It does worth a try. But honestly, we won't get rogue dps and keep our survivability. Sorry man, it's not gonna happen.Making us a viable raid tank is much easier for SOE than making us T2 dps and keep our survivability.It is just as impossible as making us T1 dps or guardian survivability.</blockquote>Well no your not gonna keep your survivability if you get rogue like dps. Once again your wanting to compete for the main tank spot when it seems most of your arche type wants dps/snap tanking. Gage tried to force the brawler should compete for main tanks too back in the day but he failed and you will too.

Couching

04-16-2009, 02:28 AM

<cite>Toran@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>It does worth a try. But honestly, we won't get rogue dps and keep our survivability. Sorry man, it's not gonna happen.Making us a viable raid tank is much easier for SOE than making us T2 dps and keep our survivability.It is just as impossible as making us T1 dps or guardian survivability.</blockquote>Well no your not gonna keep your survivability if you get rogue like dps. Once again your wanting to compete for the main tank spot when it seems most of your arche type wants dps/snap tanking. Gage tried to force the brawler should compete for main tanks too back in the day but he failed and you will too.</blockquote>I never said anything about MT. I said class balance is my concern. When brawlers can't get better dps than plate tanks, we should have better survivability than plate tanks. It's plain and simple.You can whine or troll whatever you like.The fact is crusaders and brawlers have tanked avatars and other hardest mobs successfully in TSO. You can keep whining that crusaders and brawlers should be worse tank than warriors. /shrug

Bartus

04-16-2009, 02:46 AM

<cite>Nancy@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>Toran, where are your assumptions about what the brawler class should be coming from? i ask because you dont seem to be up to date with brawlers this expansion.Your guild brawlers are severely undergeared, so maybe thats why you think we are sub-tanks.you dont raid TSO and your guild mostly doesnt have mythical either, so please dont tell us about raid tanking. because everytime you say stuff liek that, its just your opinion, but you CAPSLOCK AND THINK ITS SOE'S VISIONive never had a problem with koto, but you give your guild a bad name. throwing around blanket statements about a class you dont seem to know much about.</blockquote> If you compare a Plate tank in equivalent gear to a Monk, the Plate tank will win hands down. Its a fact. If you put an equally geared Monk and equally geared DPS class regardless of Melee or caster/ranged, the pure DPS classes will win hands down. Were a hybrid type class that cant do either that well and thats terrible because no one wants that nowadays in the game. They want either a Pure tank(Plate) or Pure dps and were neither of those right now.The Monk has NO role right now. We don't do either of our forced roles as well as the pure classes. As it stands, we have no "pure" lable to our class. This is where Ive been trying to get at..

Couching

04-16-2009, 03:18 AM

<cite>caspervw wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Frankly, I would be satisfied to fill the "third tank" position...if they make that a needed and viable position. What this means is more fights where a third or fourth tank is necessary. They've actually been doing a not-entirely-abysmal job of this lately, with fights like Zarrakon which require four tanks and to a lesser extent ones like Kultak and Xebnok where a third tank makes things easier. It can also be done by creating situations in which your OT is busy with a task like adds, but something periodically happens to the MT to take them out of commission (like charm). Monks are ideally suited to fill that niche...except that by making almost all raid mobs immune to peel and by granting TSO raid mobs strikethrough that role has been all but destroyed for monks. We used to be great snap aggro, but now aside from a handful of encounters, a snap aggro tank just isn't all that necessary. This is the role that it seems a lot of plate tanks want us in (to reduce/prevent competition for the OT role) and its not too far off from what a lot of monk's want too. In a lot of ways, its what we used to have before they killed our dps, killed peel, killed our utility, and killed tsunami.If we don't have the survivability to tank for long periods, however, we need the dps/utility to make up for it. That means dps on the level of a rogue, and our ability to snap tank combined with whatever buffs and additional utility we have needs to be at least as useful overall to the raid as a brigand's debuffs. This could be done, and it wouldn't require too many changes, you'de just need to up our base autoattack damage, give us 40% AE autoattack, equal DA/MC to other tanks, a bit more Melee crit bonus, a groupwide buff, denerf our raidwide, take strikethrough away from raid mobs, make peel work on raidmobs again, revamp our AAs for more dps improvements, and make our avoidance buff clearly superior to other tank's. If SoE's willing to go all the way with the third-tank role, I'll be happy to take it--so long as they don't do it half-[Removed for Content] and leave us in the end with a clear and useful purpose.</blockquote>How much more dps do brawlers need to have, compared to the plate tanks, to make them a better choice as a '3rd fighter'? The plate tanks can fill that role too, and have the option to also step in and OT or MT. If a brawler does 10% more dps, is that enough to sacrifice the flexibility?I think you'll find that in practice, trying to find a spot for a fighter that can't tank is gonna be pretty hard.The glory days of RoK for monks aren't going to return. Even if the raid-buff was returned, the benefit is much smaller now with the overall advance of stats. It's hard for me to imagine a raid buff (let alone 2, one for monks one for bruisers) that would be so much more valuable compared to plate tanks current ones, that you'd choose them for that. Plate tanks already have snap aggro tools, so they can fill that role quite well. That leaves dps as the one place where you could make a significant distinction. The problem is there isn't a lot of room between tanks and t2 right now. Even when just looking at trash fights, the difference is a couple percent of raid dps.I dunno how your guilds work, but I'd rather have added flexibility and do 150kdps than lose flexibility and do 153k (i.e. replace a plate tank with 'rogue-like' dps brawler).Utility is pretty much spoken for, as they've aluded to in the summoners posts. Good luck getting a bigger chunk of that to justify a spot.</blockquote>I have to agree with caspervw that dps and utility won't make us a viable 3rd tank in raids.In TSO, it's handy to have 3 tanks in raid. 2 tanks on named and 1 tank on adds. In many encounters, both two tanks have to tank named alternatively. If monk can only tank when tsnumai is up, monk is out.It's silly if you call yourself 3rd tank but can only tank when tsunami is up. Dps and utility won't make us a viable choice of 3rd tank in raid.

circusgirl

04-16-2009, 04:22 AM

I'm advocating the third tank position, and I do NOT think that this means that we have to be made of paper whenever tsunami isn't up. In my vision of the class, a brawler should be able to take the hits, but shouldn't be the BEST at taking the hits--i.e., we fall behind the plate tanks on pure survivability, but not obscenely far behind.Personally, I think that if they bumped our dps up to brigand levels in a purely offensive setup (i.e., a setup that couldn't be used for tanking) and gave us better avoidance transfer, denerfed the raidwide, and a groupwide buff along with the tsunami, peel, and AA changes that have already been mentioned, there would be no need to nerf our defensive capabilities beyond what they are now and to be honest we could still have a bit more in the way of defensive capabilities before we became unbalanced. A key thing here is that there should be two modes for a monk to be in--one should be a purely defensive spec in which our dps is about equal to plate tanks and our survivability is just very slightly below them, to the point where we could tank a raid mob appropriate to our raid's progression but would not be the very best at it, and another mode in which our defensive capabilities are pretty mediocre and we have about the survivability only slightly above a scouts with dps just slightly below a T2 scout like a brigand, but maintain full utility functionality (and this here is tricky, since currently a lot of our utility in the form of our avoidance buff requires us to be defensive to obtain its full benefit). Essentially, we receive flexibility as a kind of utility. On those fights that require more than two fighters we can be really and truly useful (and those fights should be frequent!) but the raid doesn't have to waste time gearing up an extra low-dps plate tank since they have a player in the force that with a switch of an AA spec and a gear macro can become a scout or tank at will.We should be the choice tank for things like Zarrakon, Yzlak in the new x4, the adds on Kultak, for when Xebnok charms the MT, for when the MT's screen turns yellow on switchmaster and you want someone to grab aggro FAST and hold it with ease until your MT is back. And we should be more than adequate for tanking an instance. I would especially like to see the role of our avoidance buff improved and expanded--given a higher chance to work than plate tank's or to have some way of it working well even when we're in offensive stance. On those few mobs which are straightforward enough to be done with just two tanks--which, by the way, need to be rare enough or interspersed with more complicated mobs so that its always worth bringing a brawler--we should be able to switch out some gear and make a strong, though by no means dominant, showing on the parse. On the level of balancing us for heroic content, I would be really thrilled to see tranquil vision have enough of an impact than when a group is deciding that their plate tank doesn't quite have the defensive capabilities to run an instance with one healer, they should be advertising "second healer or brawler needed for daily double run!" in the 70-79 chat channel.So to recap my personal vision:<ul><li>Brawlers are capable of solid but not exceptional tanking or solid but not exceptional dps, but not both simultaneously</li><li>Brawler utility is strong whether defensively or offensively geared/specced, with a special emphasis on making the MT more solid</li><li>Raid instances are tailored to need a third tank frequently, or via special scripts to require fighter dps</li><li>Brawlers have separate gear options for tanking and dpsing</li><li>Brawlers are flexible and capable of filling a variety of roles in heroic content (tank, dps, that spot that normally goes to the second healer that you maybe-sort-of-kind-of-need)</li><li>Brawlers remain solid in solo situations</li></ul><div>Is it asking for a lot? Yeah, kind of. But we were going to be getting a lot with the fighter revamp in its original form, and that says to me that the devs were willing to give it to us because they know we're behind right now. If we can get behind this then I think we have a shot.</div>

caspervw

04-16-2009, 11:34 AM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Personally, I think that if they bumped our dps up to brigand levels in a purely offensive setup (i.e., a setup that couldn't be used for tanking) and gave us better avoidance transfer, denerfed the raidwide, and a groupwide buff along with the tsunami, peel, and AA changes that have already been mentioned, there would be no need to nerf our defensive capabilities beyond what they are now and to be honest we could still have a bit more in the way of defensive capabilities before we became unbalanced. A key thing here is that there should be two modes for a monk to be in--one should be a purely defensive spec in which our dps is about equal to plate tanks and our survivability is just very slightly below them, to the point where we could tank a raid mob appropriate to our raid's progression but would not be the very best at it, and another mode in which our defensive capabilities are pretty mediocre and we have about the survivability only slightly above a scouts with dps just slightly below a T2 scout like a brigand, but maintain full utility functionality (and this here is tricky, since currently a lot of our utility in the form of our avoidance buff requires us to be defensive to obtain its full benefit). Essentially, we receive flexibility as a kind of utility. On those fights that require more than two fighters we can be really and truly useful (and those fights should be frequent!) but the raid doesn't have to waste time gearing up an extra low-dps plate tank since they have a player in the force that with a switch of an AA spec and a gear macro can become a scout or tank at will.</blockquote>I don't see them inventing a new type of avoidance buff such as 'grants a fighter ally 25% uncontested avoidance'. So there will always be the problem of the avoid buff being useless in offensive stance. And I still go back to what I said above, even if they did everything you've outlined above, why would you take a monk over a SK for the role you describe above? A SK can do everything you outlined (including giving very good avoid buff while in full offensive mode) and has the flexibility to also tank anything. Again it comes back to this balance; 2-3k more personal dps (1-2% more raid dps) for the 3rd fighter (in your vision where brawlers are clearly ahead of plate tanks) vs. the ability to tank anything, anytime.

Landiin

04-16-2009, 01:01 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>I never said anything about MT. I said class balance is my concern. When brawlers can't get better dps than plate tanks, we should have better survivability than plate tanks. It's plain and simple.</blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite> <blockquote>But honestly, we won't get rogue dps and keep our survivability.</blockquote>You said it right there. You want DPS and survivability. You clearly want to be a main tank and have rogue dps.I have been saying all along you guys should be DPS for the fighter tree. Your the one constantly coming back with wanting survivability. Most other brawlers here want DPS/utility/snap agro.. But you keep derailing them. If you want to tank so bad go roll a plate tank.<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>The fact is crusaders and brawlers have tanked avatars and other hardest mobs successfully in TSO. You can keep whining that crusaders and brawlers should be worse tank than warriors. /shrug</blockquote>I've never said they haven't! Where have I EVER said they haven't tanked them? Only thing I have said is they should not be able to tank them as well as a warrior. The raid should find it hard to keep them up if tanking for a long stent. Brawlers more so then Crusaders.I would be dumb to want it where Crusader's or Brawler's could not tank these for a short stint. Thats called snap tanking in case you can't figure that out. I've never ever said you should not have snap tanking abilities.You only read what you want because you want your class to tank as well as a plate tank. You want that you can't deny it, its all over all your post.There are more brawlers here wanting DPS, utilities and being happy with being 3rd tank.. Snap agro tank (see above if you can't remember what that is) until the MT or OT is back up and buffed. Quite derailer the brawler tree from being mostly unified simply because you want to tank like a plate tank. Do all you fellow brawlers a favor and go roll a plate class. I'll suggest a warrior if you want to be a main tank.

circusgirl

04-16-2009, 01:05 PM

I think if they give us enough utility it'll be worth taking a brawler over a third plate tank yes.Obviously, SKs are overpowered, everyone knows this and its something that we don't have to belabor any more. The devs know it. For the time being SKs are running a bit outside their intended role, and need to be reigned in, so they are a bad example. But I firmly believe that with enough utility, higher dps and more flexibility to switch between roles as needed the ideal setup will be to bring one warrior, one crusador, and one brawler.

Landiin

04-16-2009, 01:11 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>I think if they give us enough utility it'll be worth taking a brawler over a third plate tank yes.Obviously, SKs are overpowered, everyone knows this and its something that we don't have to belabor any more. The devs know it. For the time being SKs are running a bit outside their intended role, and need to be reigned in, so they are a bad example. But I firmly believe that with enough utility, higher dps and more flexibility to switch between roles as needed the ideal setup will be to bring one warrior, one crusador, and one brawler.</blockquote>Yup I agree Vinka

Morrolan V

04-16-2009, 01:50 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>I'm advocating the third tank position, and I do NOT think that this means that we have to be made of paper whenever tsunami isn't up. In my vision of the class, a brawler should be able to take the hits, but shouldn't be the BEST at taking the hits--i.e., we fall behind the plate tanks on pure survivability, but not obscenely far behind.Personally, I think that if they bumped our dps up to brigand levels in a purely offensive setup (i.e., a setup that couldn't be used for tanking) and gave us better avoidance transfer, denerfed the raidwide, and a groupwide buff along with the tsunami, peel, and AA changes that have already been mentioned, there would be no need to nerf our defensive capabilities beyond what they are now and to be honest we could still have a bit more in the way of defensive capabilities before we became unbalanced. A key thing here is that there should be two modes for a monk to be in--one should be a purely defensive spec in which our dps is about equal to plate tanks and our survivability is just very slightly below them, to the point where we could tank a raid mob appropriate to our raid's progression but would not be the very best at it, and another mode in which our defensive capabilities are pretty mediocre and we have about the survivability only slightly above a scouts with dps just slightly below a T2 scout like a brigand, but maintain full utility functionality (and this here is tricky, since currently a lot of our utility in the form of our avoidance buff requires us to be defensive to obtain its full benefit). Essentially, we receive flexibility as a kind of utility. On those fights that require more than two fighters we can be really and truly useful (and those fights should be frequent!) but the raid doesn't have to waste time gearing up an extra low-dps plate tank since they have a player in the force that with a switch of an AA spec and a gear macro can become a scout or tank at will.We should be the choice tank for things like Zarrakon, Yzlak in the new x4, the adds on Kultak, for when Xebnok charms the MT, for when the MT's screen turns yellow on switchmaster and you want someone to grab aggro FAST and hold it with ease until your MT is back. And we should be more than adequate for tanking an instance. I would especially like to see the role of our avoidance buff improved and expanded--given a higher chance to work than plate tank's or to have some way of it working well even when we're in offensive stance. On those few mobs which are straightforward enough to be done with just two tanks--which, by the way, need to be rare enough or interspersed with more complicated mobs so that its always worth bringing a brawler--we should be able to switch out some gear and make a strong, though by no means dominant, showing on the parse. On the level of balancing us for heroic content, I would be really thrilled to see tranquil vision have enough of an impact than when a group is deciding that their plate tank doesn't quite have the defensive capabilities to run an instance with one healer, they should be advertising "second healer or brawler needed for daily double run!" in the 70-79 chat channel.So to recap my personal vision:<ul><li>Brawlers are capable of solid but not exceptional tanking or solid but not exceptional dps, but not both simultaneously</li><li>Brawler utility is strong whether defensively or offensively geared/specced, with a special emphasis on making the MT more solid</li><li>Raid instances are tailored to need a third tank frequently, or via special scripts to require fighter dps</li><li>Brawlers have separate gear options for tanking and dpsing</li><li>Brawlers are flexible and capable of filling a variety of roles in heroic content (tank, dps, that spot that normally goes to the second healer that you maybe-sort-of-kind-of-need)</li><li>Brawlers remain solid in solo situations</li></ul><div>Is it asking for a lot? Yeah, kind of. But we were going to be getting a lot with the fighter revamp in its original form, and that says to me that the devs were willing to give it to us because they know we're behind right now. If we can get behind this then I think we have a shot.</div></blockquote>These are excellent thoughts, Vinka.I think that we are honing in on some important points and great ideas for fixing the situation.To your second bullet point above, I think that a very important issue has been brought out. Our avoidance buff, placed on the MT, needs to be meaningful WHATEVER mode we are in. I have two suggestions for this:1. Keep the uncontested portion of our avoidance intact regardless of our stance. Some might say that's overpowering, but I don't see how. We take a huge hit to our contested avoidance and mitigation in offensive stance. We won't be tanking anything meaningful in o-stance. Additionally, plate tanks get their uncontested block if they equip a shield in o-stance. Why should we, the avoidance tanks, be disadvantaged in this way? This was perhaps less of an issue when plate tanks would equip a two hander or dual wield to dps, but with mythicals . . .2. If 1 is for some reason rejected, change our avoidance buff (possibly through an AA) such that the UNCONTESTED portion of our deflection applies to the target of the buff regardless of our stance, but is reduced or eliminated as to direct attacks on the brawler if we are in o-stance or mid-stance. Essentially, if you are in o-stance and cast avoidance on another, you are focusing on deflecting blows from them AT THE EXPENSE of defending yourself.

Couching

04-16-2009, 02:02 PM

<cite>Toran@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>I never said anything about MT. I said class balance is my concern. When brawlers can't get better dps than plate tanks, we should have better survivability than plate tanks. It's plain and simple.</blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite> <blockquote>But honestly, we won't get rogue dps and keep our survivability.</blockquote>You said it right there. You want DPS and survivability. You clearly want to be a main tank and have rogue dps.How can you get the conclusion that I want rogue dp and be MT? Learn to read.I have been saying all along you guys should be DPS for the fighter tree. Your the one constantly coming back with wanting survivability. Most other brawlers here want DPS/utility/snap agro.. But you keep derailing them. If you want to tank so bad go roll a plate tank.Again, you can't read. I said we have less dps than plate tanks so we should have better survivability. It's impossible to get guardian dps nerfed and we won't get better dps.With your logic, if you want to dps, roll a brawler.<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>The fact is crusaders and brawlers have tanked avatars and other hardest mobs successfully in TSO. You can keep whining that crusaders and brawlers should be worse tank than warriors. /shrug</blockquote>I've never said they haven't! Where have I EVER said they haven't tanked them? Only thing I have said is they should not be able to tank them as well as a warrior. The raid should find it hard to keep them up if tanking for a long stent. Brawlers more so then Crusaders.And I didn't say they can tank as well as guardian, zereker shouldn't be any better than crusader especially pal.I would be dumb to want it where Crusader's or Brawler's could not tank these for a short stint. Thats called snap tanking in case you can't figure that out. I've never ever said you should not have snap tanking abilities.Lol, snap aggro and tank for a short stint? Dude, crusaders and brawlers have already done tanking hardest mobs from beginning to end. If you call it short stint, you can keep lying to yourself.You only read what you want because you want your class to tank as well as a plate tank. You want that you can't deny it, its all over all your post.When we have worse dps and survivability than plate tanks, we deserve same or better survivability than plate tanks.There are more brawlers here wanting DPS, utilities and being happy with being 3rd tank.. Snap agro tank (see above if you can't remember what that is) until the MT or OT is back up and buffed. Quite derailer the brawler tree from being mostly unified simply because you want to tank like a plate tank. Do all you fellow brawlers a favor and go roll a plate class. I'll suggest a warrior if you want to be a main tank.Wrong, they said they will accept being 3rd tank if and only if we have better dps and utility than plate tanks. And it will never happen because too many whining guardians want more dps. </blockquote>

Davngr1

04-16-2009, 02:22 PM

these changes are about balance not about one class being happy, that was the problem with SK, the changes made the class happy but they are now a bit out of balance. knowing this brawlers can never have as much survibality as plate tanks, why? because if brawlers start tanking epic mobs as well as plate tanks they will make all the other tanks obsolete. why bring a tank that regularly gets hit when you can bring a tank that does not get hit? you can't give any tank both the abillity to take a hit AND avoidance to rarely get hit. if i raided my brawler i would be happy with lower end t2 dps, the abillity to help tanks control encoutners and a solid avoidance buff in any stance. those choices aren't in any way over powerd and they give brawlers something the raid would need at least one for. btw.. i dont raid any fihter class BUT i do play my fighters and am intersted in balance as much as those who raid them.

Couching

04-16-2009, 02:35 PM

That's why all plate tanks need a big nerf on their dps if they want to keep better surivivability than brawlers.Brawlers should have better dps than plate tanks rather than worse or equal.

circusgirl

04-16-2009, 02:59 PM

I don't think we should push fighters away from tanking--we are and always will be tanks. This does not mean, however, that we have to be MT--if encounters are designed to require multiple tanks, there are more tank positions to be filled than just MT and OT. Brawlers should be the top choice for this third tank position. There are actually quite a few encounters that are designed along these lines, and it seems to be the direction that the devs are going for and as such its a very good niche to fill. Some examples:<ul><li>The Sisters in Hate--the script requires you to have at least one fighter of each class-pair unless you're overgeared to the point of trivializing the fight</li><li>Maestro--makes one tank incapable of holding aggro. Combined with frequent memwipes makes a third tank highly desireable</li><li>Byzola--Class-specific adds make some form of fighter dps necessary</li><li>Strange Stalker--the add constantly memwiping means a single OT would be unable to hold aggro</li><li>Xebnok the wretched--add waves plus charm taking MT out of commission makes a third tank extremely helpful</li><li>Kultak the cruel--two sets of adds at the start which both memwipe make having at least three tanks helpful</li><li>Switchmaster--fail-mechanism trigger on the MT would make a snap-aggro capable tank very useful (though this requires reversal of peel immunity)</li><li>Yzlak--class-specific adds like Byzola with a far stricter fail mechanism make fighter dps valuable</li><li>Zarrakon--mobs that must be quickly grabbed by a tank in each of 4 groups or they'll insta-kill healers make 4 tanks an absolute necessity.</li></ul>The fact of the matter is that the current swing of zone design has made the niche for a third tank--not just a snap tank, a genuine third tank which happens to specialize in snap-aggro and surviving the dangerous transition period between aggro switches, with the capability to switch to a dps mode when necessary--all we need are the tools to fill that niche.Unfortunately, we lost some of the tools needed to do that this expansion. I think our first priority really needs to be having the immunity to peel's aggro lock removed and to get rid of strikethrough, so that we can actually grab aggro when we need to.

Siatfallen

04-16-2009, 03:02 PM

<cite>caspervw wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Personally, I think that if they bumped our dps up to brigand levels in a purely offensive setup (i.e., a setup that couldn't be used for tanking) and gave us better avoidance transfer, denerfed the raidwide, and a groupwide buff along with the tsunami, peel, and AA changes that have already been mentioned, there would be no need to nerf our defensive capabilities beyond what they are now and to be honest we could still have a bit more in the way of defensive capabilities before we became unbalanced. A key thing here is that there should be two modes for a monk to be in--one should be a purely defensive spec in which our dps is about equal to plate tanks and our survivability is just very slightly below them, to the point where we could tank a raid mob appropriate to our raid's progression but would not be the very best at it, and another mode in which our defensive capabilities are pretty mediocre and we have about the survivability only slightly above a scouts with dps just slightly below a T2 scout like a brigand, but maintain full utility functionality (and this here is tricky, since currently a lot of our utility in the form of our avoidance buff requires us to be defensive to obtain its full benefit). Essentially, we receive flexibility as a kind of utility. On those fights that require more than two fighters we can be really and truly useful (and those fights should be frequent!) but the raid doesn't have to waste time gearing up an extra low-dps plate tank since they have a player in the force that with a switch of an AA spec and a gear macro can become a scout or tank at will.</blockquote>I don't see them inventing a new type of avoidance buff such as 'grants a fighter ally 25% uncontested avoidance'. So there will always be the problem of the avoid buff being useless in offensive stance. And I still go back to what I said above, even if they did everything you've outlined above, why would you take a monk over a SK for the role you describe above? A SK can do everything you outlined (including giving very good avoid buff while in full offensive mode) and has the flexibility to also tank anything. Again it comes back to this balance; 2-3k more personal dps (1-2% more raid dps) for the 3rd fighter (in your vision where brawlers are clearly ahead of plate tanks) vs. the ability to tank anything, anytime.</blockquote>I understand why the avoidance buff adjustments might seem like a strange thing to aim for, and how it will, balancewise, be difficult. I've thought up a few ways of doing this for monks, however. Bruisers... I don't know the class well enough, but I would assume some of the below might feasibly apply to them as well:1: Change our healing recast reduction on Heal to "Enhance: Tranquil Vision II" with the following effect: Whenever the monk fails a deflection check (which is the last in the avoidance spread), the target of Tranquil Vision is healed for x amount of HP (possibly % of damage taken?). In defensive and balanced stance, the monk gains hate to the mob dealing the damage.If it is estimated that signifigantly lowering our survivability is needed to carry these changes through, change this AA with meditative healing instead of the heal AA.2: Change the same AA as above: Grant increased minimum deflection to the brawler, but only on avoidance checks made as a result of Tranquil Vision. This might be hard to program correctly, and may further need to be balanced between stances. +minimum deflection on TV checks in offensive, something else entirely in defensive?3: Originally Vinka's idea: Increase the chance for TV to trigger above the normal cap of 54%.

Morrolan V

04-16-2009, 03:15 PM

<cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote>these changes are about balance not about one class being happy, that was the problem with SK, the changes made the class happy but they are now a bit out of balance. knowing this brawlers can never have as much survibality as plate tanks, why? because if brawlers start tanking epic mobs as well as plate tanks they will make all the other tanks obsolete. why bring a tank that regularly gets hit when you can bring a tank that does not get hit? you can't give any tank both the abillity to take a hit AND avoidance to rarely get hit. if i raided my brawler i would be happy with lower end t2 dps, the abillity to help tanks control encoutners and a solid avoidance buff in any stance. those choices aren't in any way over powerd and they give brawlers something the raid would need at least one for. btw.. i dont raid any fihter class BUT i do play my fighters and am intersted in balance as much as those who raid them.</blockquote>I don't think anyone here disagrees. Low T2 (slightly behind brigands) is exactly the level of DPS I see brawlers looking for.Clearly, the point is balance.

circusgirl

04-16-2009, 03:23 PM

Yup, brigand dps (while offensively geared/specced, not while tanking) is the goalpost for at least me right now, since their primary function is kings of debuff with dps a secondary concern.

Siatfallen

04-16-2009, 03:30 PM

<cite>Rythalian@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote>these changes are about balance not about one class being happy, that was the problem with SK, the changes made the class happy but they are now a bit out of balance. knowing this brawlers can never have as much survibality as plate tanks, why? because if brawlers start tanking epic mobs as well as plate tanks they will make all the other tanks obsolete. why bring a tank that regularly gets hit when you can bring a tank that does not get hit? you can't give any tank both the abillity to take a hit AND avoidance to rarely get hit. if i raided my brawler i would be happy with lower end t2 dps, the abillity to help tanks control encoutners and a solid avoidance buff in any stance. those choices aren't in any way over powerd and they give brawlers something the raid would need at least one for. btw.. i dont raid any fihter class BUT i do play my fighters and am intersted in balance as much as those who raid them.</blockquote>I don't think anyone here disagrees. Low T2 (slightly behind brigands) is exactly the level of DPS I see brawlers looking for.Clearly, the point is balance.</blockquote>It all depends on how it ends up looking. In relation to brigands, the equation we have to make is this:Brigands do (let's say) slightly more DPS than brawlers, and they bring the best debuffs in the game to the raid, increasing raidwide DPS output by approximately 20% (a very rough estimate based on our parses with and without a brigand, I admit).To balance this, the advantage of having a brawler in the raid, DPS set aside, needs to be slightly bigger than having the brigand - and it needs to be as impossible to replace with a different class.If we cannot achieve that, then having the brawler do less DPS than the brigand is a bad decision.Of course, comparing apples and oranges is difficult, but I daresay that is the above holds true, then we're not talking about small buffs being needed for brawler utility. Restoring the monk raidwide to pre-tSO launch status and bringing the bruiser's up to that level would be a big start, though, and with added survivability buffs for the MT, I guess it's not looking too bad?

Morrolan V

04-16-2009, 03:44 PM

You have to look at the overall raid makeup, but I would not suggest that the goal is to make having a brawler on the raid more desireable than having the FIRST brigand or swash.Rather, I would say the goal is to make having a brawler on the raid more desireable than having the SECOND OR THIRD brigand/swash.

Elanjar

04-16-2009, 03:44 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yup, brigand dps (while offensively geared/specced, not while tanking) is the goalpost for at least me right now, since their primary function is kings of debuff with dps a secondary concern.</blockquote>Lets not forget that when spec'd and geared for it Brigs can tank pretty good too. I see no reason brawlers shouldn't be able to do brig dps when offensively spec'd.edit: i can't type O.o

Landiin

04-16-2009, 03:49 PM

<cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite><blockquote>It all depends on how it ends up looking. In relation to brigands, the equation we have to make is this:Brigands do (let's say) slightly more DPS than brawlers, and they bring the best debuffs in the game to the raid, increasing raidwide DPS output by approximately 20% (a very rough estimate based on our parses with and without a brigand, I admit).To balance this, the advantage of having a brawler in the raid, DPS set aside, needs to be slightly bigger than having the brigand - and it needs to be as impossible to replace with a different class.If we cannot achieve that, then having the brawler do less DPS than the brigand is a bad decision.Of course, comparing apples and oranges is difficult, but I daresay that is the above holds true, then we're not talking about small buffs being needed for brawler utility. Restoring the monk raidwide to pre-tSO launch status and bringing the bruiser's up to that level would be a big start, though, and with added survivability buffs for the MT, I guess it's not looking too bad?</blockquote>I don't know why you would need to b e slightly better then a brigand, they just need to give brawlers something that IS need other then DPS.Othern then that I think it looks good unless your Couching then you clearly wan to be able to tank.<cite></cite>

Couching

04-16-2009, 04:55 PM

No offense, but it's impossible to get brawler dps on par or even better than brigand.For class balance, a big nerf on plate tanks is needed rather than buffing up brawler dps.Let me say it straight. It's complex enough to balance 6 fighters. Now, you want to balance 6 fighters AND T2 dps, not just rouge if our dps were raised to t2, at same time. No a chance. Rogue should be T2 dps and brawler should be T3. All plate tanks should be T4.Asking better survivability is reasonable for brawler since we are fighters, especially when plate tanks dps are on par with us.However, asking rouge dps for brawler just because plate tanks dps are too good. It's stupid. You should fix the overpowered plate tanks rather than making a new problem.

Morrolan V

04-16-2009, 06:25 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>No offense, but it's impossible to get brawler dps on par or even better than brigand.For class balance, a big nerf on plate tanks is needed rather than buffing up brawler dps.Let me say it straight. It's complex enough to balance 6 fighters. Now, you want to balance 6 fighters AND T2 dps, not just rouge if our dps were raised to t2, at same time. No a chance. Rogue should be T2 dps and brawler should be T3. All plate tanks should be T4.Asking better survivability is reasonable for brawler since we are fighters, especially when plate tanks dps are on par with us.However, asking rouge dps for brawler just because plate tanks dps are too good. It's stupid. You should fix the overpowered plate tanks rather than making a new problem.</blockquote>I agree with Couch. Rogues are DPS first. We need to be about 10% behind them, with plate tanks about 10-15% behind us. Right now, we are 30% behind rogues, even with plate tanks.Asking for DPS even with Rogues is the wrong message.

Landiin

04-16-2009, 06:37 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>The fact is crusaders and brawlers have tanked avatars and other hardest mobs successfully in TSO. You can keep whining that crusaders and brawlers should be worse tank than warriors. /shrug</blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Asking better survivability is reasonable for brawler since we are fighters, especially when plate tanks dps are on par with us.</blockquote>If you can tank avators now, why do you need better survivability? Seems like you have more then enough now. <cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite> <blockquote>No offense, but it's impossible to get brawler dps on par or even better than brigand.Why is it impossible to get brawlers dps up? What is making it impossible?For class balance, a big nerf on plate tanks is needed rather than buffing up brawler dps.Again proof you are wanting to be tank and not what the brawlers in general want.Let me say it straight. It's complex enough to balance 6 fighters. Now, you want to balance 6 fighters AND T2 dps, not just rouge if our dps were raised to t2, at same time. No a chance.No it isnt' that complex, I an other have listed plenty of way to do this and keep every arche branch viable for a spot in a group and raid.Rogue should be T2 dps and brawler should be T3. All plate tanks should be T4.Why should brawlers be T3 and keep thier avator tanking survivability and plate be reduced to T4?Asking better survivability is reasonable for brawler since we are fighters, especially when plate tanks dps are on par with us.see above..However, asking rouge dps for brawler just because plate tanks dps are too good. It's stupid. You should fix the overpowered plate tanks rather than making a new problem.I don't even want to comment on this idioticy.</blockquote>

Couching

04-16-2009, 08:41 PM

<cite>Rythalian@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>No offense, but it's impossible to get brawler dps on par or even better than brigand.For class balance, a big nerf on plate tanks is needed rather than buffing up brawler dps.Let me say it straight. It's complex enough to balance 6 fighters. Now, you want to balance 6 fighters AND T2 dps, not just rouge if our dps were raised to t2, at same time. No a chance. Rogue should be T2 dps and brawler should be T3. All plate tanks should be T4.Asking better survivability is reasonable for brawler since we are fighters, especially when plate tanks dps are on par with us.However, asking rouge dps for brawler just because plate tanks dps are too good. It's stupid. You should fix the overpowered plate tanks rather than making a new problem.</blockquote>I agree with Couch. Rogues are DPS first. We need to be about 10% behind them, with plate tanks about 10-15% behind us. Right now, we are 30% behind rogues, even with plate tanks.Asking for DPS even with Rogues is the wrong message.</blockquote>Exactly.We should be about 10% behind rouges. Offensive plate tanks should be about 10%-15% behind us on single target and they should be about 10%-30% ahead of us in aoe content, depending on how many targets, with similar survivability.For defensive plate tanks, they should be 25%-30% behind us on single and aoe targets but they have best survivability of all fighters.

Siatfallen

04-16-2009, 08:47 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rythalian@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>No offense, but it's impossible to get brawler dps on par or even better than brigand.For class balance, a big nerf on plate tanks is needed rather than buffing up brawler dps.Let me say it straight. It's complex enough to balance 6 fighters. Now, you want to balance 6 fighters AND T2 dps, not just rouge if our dps were raised to t2, at same time. No a chance. Rogue should be T2 dps and brawler should be T3. All plate tanks should be T4.Asking better survivability is reasonable for brawler since we are fighters, especially when plate tanks dps are on par with us.However, asking rouge dps for brawler just because plate tanks dps are too good. It's stupid. You should fix the overpowered plate tanks rather than making a new problem.</blockquote>I agree with Couch. Rogues are DPS first. We need to be about 10% behind them, with plate tanks about 10-15% behind us. Right now, we are 30% behind rogues, even with plate tanks.Asking for DPS even with Rogues is the wrong message.</blockquote>Exactly.We should be about 10% behind rouges. Offensive plate tanks should be about 10%-15% behind us on single target and they should be about 10%-30% ahead of us in aoe content, depending on how many targets, with similar survivability.For defensive plate tanks, they should be 25%-30% behind us on single and aoe targets but they have best survivability of all fighters.</blockquote>That's not going to happen.AoE tanks will retain better survivability than monks - because the stated intended goal here is to get out of the way of the MT raid spot. Give us the survivability of berserkers, and we're much, much too close. Better than where we are now, in fact.

Couching

04-16-2009, 08:48 PM

<cite>Toran@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>Too much troll so I deleted</blockquote>Can you stop trolling just because I pointed out the truth that guardian is overpowered in dps?If guardians want to keep their advantage in tanking, best survivability, their dps should be nerfed.

Couching

04-16-2009, 08:56 PM

<cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rythalian@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>No offense, but it's impossible to get brawler dps on par or even better than brigand.For class balance, a big nerf on plate tanks is needed rather than buffing up brawler dps.Let me say it straight. It's complex enough to balance 6 fighters. Now, you want to balance 6 fighters AND T2 dps, not just rouge if our dps were raised to t2, at same time. No a chance. Rogue should be T2 dps and brawler should be T3. All plate tanks should be T4.Asking better survivability is reasonable for brawler since we are fighters, especially when plate tanks dps are on par with us.However, asking rouge dps for brawler just because plate tanks dps are too good. It's stupid. You should fix the overpowered plate tanks rather than making a new problem.</blockquote>I agree with Couch. Rogues are DPS first. We need to be about 10% behind them, with plate tanks about 10-15% behind us. Right now, we are 30% behind rogues, even with plate tanks.Asking for DPS even with Rogues is the wrong message.</blockquote>Exactly.We should be about 10% behind rouges. Offensive plate tanks should be about 10%-15% behind us on single target and they should be about 10%-30% ahead of us in aoe content, depending on how many targets, with similar survivability.For defensive plate tanks, they should be 25%-30% behind us on single and aoe targets but they have best survivability of all fighters.</blockquote>That's not going to happen.AoE tanks will retain better survivability than monks - because the stated intended goal here is to get out of the way of the MT raid spot. Give us the survivability of berserkers, and we're much, much too close. Better than where we are now, in fact.</blockquote>It's already happened.Aeralik has stated that the goal of fighter revamp part 1 is to make every fighter viable in raid tanking. It is realized in TSO.The survivability difference between brawers, especially bruiser, and offensive plate tanks is not that much with high end gear. In my opinion, bruiser with best gear is even with berserker with best gear.The problem is monk is defensive brawler and we should be at least the same survivability as bruiser but we didn't.The direction is right but the detail is messed up; plate tanks are superior than monk in both dps and survivability.

Siatfallen

04-16-2009, 09:32 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rythalian@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>No offense, but it's impossible to get brawler dps on par or even better than brigand.For class balance, a big nerf on plate tanks is needed rather than buffing up brawler dps.Let me say it straight. It's complex enough to balance 6 fighters. Now, you want to balance 6 fighters AND T2 dps, not just rouge if our dps were raised to t2, at same time. No a chance. Rogue should be T2 dps and brawler should be T3. All plate tanks should be T4.Asking better survivability is reasonable for brawler since we are fighters, especially when plate tanks dps are on par with us.However, asking rouge dps for brawler just because plate tanks dps are too good. It's stupid. You should fix the overpowered plate tanks rather than making a new problem.</blockquote>I agree with Couch. Rogues are DPS first. We need to be about 10% behind them, with plate tanks about 10-15% behind us. Right now, we are 30% behind rogues, even with plate tanks.Asking for DPS even with Rogues is the wrong message.</blockquote>Exactly.We should be about 10% behind rouges. Offensive plate tanks should be about 10%-15% behind us on single target and they should be about 10%-30% ahead of us in aoe content, depending on how many targets, with similar survivability.For defensive plate tanks, they should be 25%-30% behind us on single and aoe targets but they have best survivability of all fighters.</blockquote>That's not going to happen.AoE tanks will retain better survivability than monks - because the stated intended goal here is to get out of the way of the MT raid spot. Give us the survivability of berserkers, and we're much, much too close. Better than where we are now, in fact.</blockquote>It's already happened.Aeralik has stated that the goal of fighter revamp part 1 is to make every fighter viable in raid tanking. It is realized in TSO.The survivability difference between brawers, especially bruiser, and offensive plate tanks are not that much with high end gear. In my opinion, bruiser with best gear is even with berserker with best gear.The problem is monk is defensive brawler and we should be at least the same survivability as bruiser but we didn't.The direction is right but the detail is messed up; plate tanks are superior than monk in both dps and survivability.</blockquote>The idea of being a third-string tank is being worse at tanking than the main (MT) and the secondary (OT), but specialised to fulfill a very specific role. See Vinka's outline above.What you're suggesting, if I understand correctly, is basically increasing monk survivability to the point where the only reason we're not playing OT is lack of AoE aggro. I'm pretty sure I do not agree with that perspective.We're getting a boost to tanking capabilities with a great many items currently being ajusted to benefit deflection chance as well as shield effectiveness. If our purpose is as discussed here, I really don't think we need more than that. You said it yourself: We can tank avatars now. For a emergency tank, why is that even necessary?

Couching

04-16-2009, 09:45 PM

<cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rythalian@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>No offense, but it's impossible to get brawler dps on par or even better than brigand.For class balance, a big nerf on plate tanks is needed rather than buffing up brawler dps.Let me say it straight. It's complex enough to balance 6 fighters. Now, you want to balance 6 fighters AND T2 dps, not just rouge if our dps were raised to t2, at same time. No a chance. Rogue should be T2 dps and brawler should be T3. All plate tanks should be T4.Asking better survivability is reasonable for brawler since we are fighters, especially when plate tanks dps are on par with us.However, asking rouge dps for brawler just because plate tanks dps are too good. It's stupid. You should fix the overpowered plate tanks rather than making a new problem.</blockquote>I agree with Couch. Rogues are DPS first. We need to be about 10% behind them, with plate tanks about 10-15% behind us. Right now, we are 30% behind rogues, even with plate tanks.Asking for DPS even with Rogues is the wrong message.</blockquote>Exactly.We should be about 10% behind rouges. Offensive plate tanks should be about 10%-15% behind us on single target and they should be about 10%-30% ahead of us in aoe content, depending on how many targets, with similar survivability.For defensive plate tanks, they should be 25%-30% behind us on single and aoe targets but they have best survivability of all fighters.</blockquote>That's not going to happen.AoE tanks will retain better survivability than monks - because the stated intended goal here is to get out of the way of the MT raid spot. Give us the survivability of berserkers, and we're much, much too close. Better than where we are now, in fact.</blockquote>It's already happened.Aeralik has stated that the goal of fighter revamp part 1 is to make every fighter viable in raid tanking. It is realized in TSO.The survivability difference between brawers, especially bruiser, and offensive plate tanks are not that much with high end gear. In my opinion, bruiser with best gear is even with berserker with best gear.The problem is monk is defensive brawler and we should be at least the same survivability as bruiser but we didn't.The direction is right but the detail is messed up; plate tanks are superior than monk in both dps and survivability.</blockquote>The idea of being a third-string tank is being worse at tanking than the main (MT) and the secondary (OT), but specialised to fulfill a very specific role. See Vinka's outline above.What you're suggesting, if I understand correctly, is basically increasing monk survivability to the point where the only reason we're not playing OT is lack of AoE aggro. I'm pretty sure I do not agree with that perspective.We're getting a boost to tanking capabilities with a great many items currently being ajusted to benefit deflection chance as well as shield effectiveness. If our purpose is as discussed here, I really don't think we need more than that. You said it yourself: We can tank avatars now. For a emergency tank, why is that even necessary?</blockquote>We can't be OT is because we don't have enough aoe aggro. It's has nothing about survivability. For example, guardian can't be OT in this expansion becasue not enough aoe aggro in high end raids. By the way, it didn't mean 3rd tank should be less survivability than OT.It didn't mean we should be worse in survivability than sk, zerker and bruiser becasue our dps is worse than them at same time. Why should we be worse in survivability and dps than bruiser, sk and zerker at same time? Give me a solid reason.PS; I disagree the concept of your 3rd tank=emergency. 3rd tank is not emergency tank. 3rd tank has to tank named with MT alternatively whenever when main tank is charmed or killed. It's more than emergency tank.

Landiin

04-16-2009, 10:54 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Toran@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>Too much troll so I deleted</blockquote>Can you stop trolling just because I pointed out the truth that guardian is overpowered in dps?If guardians want to keep their advantage in tanking, best survivability, their dps should be nerfed.</blockquote>yea when you quite QQing about not being able to tank as good as plate class.If you can't come up with any thing better then that to counter my post then don't quate me.<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>PS; I disagree the concept of your 3rd tank=emergency. 3rd tank is not emergency tank. 3rd tank has to tank named with MT alternatively whenever when main tank is charmed or killed. It's more than emergency tank.</blockquote>This I agree with. Brawlers should be able to tank it for a short stint with some kind of FTW short term avoidance self-buffs.

Siatfallen

04-16-2009, 11:57 PM

<cite>Toran@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Toran@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>Too much troll so I deleted</blockquote>Can you stop trolling just because I pointed out the truth that guardian is overpowered in dps?If guardians want to keep their advantage in tanking, best survivability, their dps should be nerfed.</blockquote>yea when you quite QQing about not being able to tank as good as plate class.If you can't come up with any thing better then that to counter my post then don't quate me.<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>PS; I disagree the concept of your 3rd tank=emergency. 3rd tank is not emergency tank. 3rd tank has to tank named with MT alternatively whenever when main tank is charmed or killed. It's more than emergency tank.</blockquote>This I agree with. Brawlers should be able to tank it for a short stint with some kind of FTW short term avoidance self-buffs.</blockquote>That's pretty much my perspective when it comes to "hurty" mobs. On things like Zarrakon's adds or Xebnok, we absolutely need to be able to fill our role as tank full time if need be (I dunno, your group DPS sucks and you get chained on the adds on Zarrakon?), but that's about the extent of it.If we become viable as tanks for Avatars (as in: It's not just possible to do it, it's actually a question of why you wouldn't considering we're giving brawlers better DPS than guardians), then the entire idea of making us the third tank on a raid is void. Then, we'd be an extremely gear-demanding MT class. In which case our DPS shouldn't be much higher than it is now.We can discuss the problems (and I think there are quite a few) of the OT classes coming too close to guardians in survivability, eventually replacing them. But I don't think that's a brawler concern honetsly. What we need to focus on with this idea is staying alive for around 30 seconds, to allow the tank to get rezzed, get back on his feet, and get the mob back on him. We do not need plate tank survivability to get either of those jobs done. We can't be much lower than we are currently, but that's an aside.This vision, I really cannot agree with at all - am I missing something, because it sounds to me like that's what you're advocating Couching? No offense or anything, I just get the feeling I'm missing something here.My alternate solution? We should do more DPS than the plate tanks period. As I'm sure you're aware, that doesn't really leave much room for us to be in, if we're too land between, say, SKs and Brigands. Which honestly means the only way we're going to get that through in a meaningful fashion is to insist that SK dps should be nerfed quite a bit to preserve our role. But then, that's what everyone's saying anyway.

Raznor2

04-17-2009, 03:50 AM

If they give brawlers a sizeable advantage in uncontested avoidance then have encounters that put a premium on avoidance there's your nitch, a third tank slot for avoidance encounters.~Raithan

Landiin

04-17-2009, 12:09 PM

<cite>Raznor269 wrote:</cite><blockquote>If they give brawlers a sizeable advantage in uncontested avoidance then have encounters that put a premium on avoidance there's your nitch, a third tank slot for avoidance encounters.~Raithan</blockquote>Well not really <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Historically tanks with sizable avoidance are OP. If they fixed their avoidance and mitigation model then maybe. Like now plate tanks have to have high avoidance because mitigation is not all that meaningful like it should be.The thing about being an avoidance tank is you avoid all hits but when you get hit you will come close to dieing do to low mitigation (vs heavy hitting encounters). So to be a 3rd fighter and 3rd "snap" tank they would have to give brawlers a high avoidance short term buff along with a peal like skill that they wouldn't nerf.

Lethe5683

04-17-2009, 12:17 PM

<cite>Toran@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Raznor269 wrote:</cite><blockquote>If they give brawlers a sizeable advantage in uncontested avoidance then have encounters that put a premium on avoidance there's your nitch, a third tank slot for avoidance encounters.~Raithan</blockquote>Well not really <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" /> Historically tanks with sizable avoidance are OP. If they fixed their avoidance and mitigation model then maybe. Like now plate tanks have to have high avoidance because mitigation is not all that meaningful like it should be.The thing about being an avoidance tank is you avoid all hits but when you get hit you will come close to dieing do to low mitigation (vs heavy hitting encounters). So to be a 3rd fighter and 3rd "snap" tank they would have to give brawlers a high avoidance short term buff along with a peal like skill that they wouldn't nerf.</blockquote>Plate tanks shouldn't be able to get high avoidance, that's the problem. No plate tank gear should have +defense, should have less agi. Also brawlers still need uncontested avoidance that's not tied to stances.

Couching

04-17-2009, 12:36 PM

<cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite><blockquote>What we need to focus on with this idea is staying alive for around 30 seconds, to allow the tank to get rezzed, get back on his feet, and get the mob back on him. We do not need plate tank survivability to get either of those jobs done. We can't be much lower than we are currently, but that's an aside.Mind if I ask you a question, how long haven't you play your monk in TSO raid? I have checked your profile and I realized your rarely play monk in TSO raid. Please don't make something with imagination. Your so called vision is horrible. Tanking for 30 sec? Are you kidding me? Not to say, you still dodge the most important question: why should we be worse tank than bruiser? Bruiser survivability is about the same as offensive plate tanks in TSO. Also, why should monk survivability be worse than offensive plate tanks when they have more dps and better utilities? The fact is, DPS and utility won't make it when you need a tank to actually tank in raid. And 3 rd tank is not just to stay alive for around 30 sec. Please don't make comment of something you don't know.This vision, I really cannot agree with at all - am I missing something, because it sounds to me like that's what you're advocating Couching? No offense or anything, I just get the feeling I'm missing something here.Because 3rd has to tank main target with main tank alternatively, not just 30 sec.My alternate solution? We should do more DPS than the plate tanks period. As I'm sure you're aware, that doesn't really leave much room for us to be in, if we're too land between, say, SKs and Brigands. Which honestly means the only way we're going to get that through in a meaningful fashion is to insist that SK dps should be nerfed quite a bit to preserve our role. But then, that's what everyone's saying anyway.Horrible solution.</blockquote>

Lethe5683

04-17-2009, 12:38 PM

<blockquote><cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite><blockquote>Not to say, you still dodge the most important question: why should we be worse tank than bruiser? Bruiser survivability is about the same as offensive plate tanks in TSO. </blockquote></blockquote> Don't spread this misinformation pleas.

Couching

04-17-2009, 12:42 PM

<cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote><cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite><blockquote>Not to say, you still dodge the most important question: why should we be worse tank than bruiser? Bruiser survivability is about the same as offensive plate tanks in TSO. </blockquote></blockquote> Don't spread this misinformation pleas.</blockquote>It is.You don't know it's because you don't raid so that you can't get raid gear.In raid, bruisers with TSO gear is comparable with offensive plate tanks in survivability.50% chance stoneskin proc when you get hurt over 40% hp for the win.Though, I am not complaining how good bruiser is in TSO. They are in better shape than monk but they are still worse than most plate tanks overall, less aoe dps and less aoe aggro than all plate tanks and worse single dps than sk.

Lethe5683

04-17-2009, 12:46 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote><cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite><blockquote>Not to say, you still dodge the most important question: why should we be worse tank than bruiser? Bruiser survivability is about the same as offensive plate tanks in TSO. </blockquote></blockquote> Don't spread this misinformation pleas.</blockquote>It is.You don't know it's because you don't raid so that you can't get raid gear.In raid, bruisers with TSO gear is comparable with offensive plate tanks in survivability.50% chance stoneskin proc when you get hurt over 40% hp for the win.Though, I am not complaining how good bruiser is in TSO. They are in better shape than monk but they are still worse than most plate tanks overall, less aoe dps and less aoe aggro than sk and zerker.</blockquote>Hard to belive but raids are one of the least important parts of the game anyways. So saying they are as good as plate tanks in general while that's only true in raids is mis information. And knowing the way devs tend to pickup only the most un related comments and apply them to class design that's only likely to cause problems.

Couching

04-17-2009, 01:01 PM

<cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Hard to belive but raids are one of the least important parts of the game anyways. So saying they are as good as plate tanks in general while that's only true in raids is mis information. And knowing the way devs tend to pickup only the most un related comments and apply them to class design that's only likely to cause problems.</blockquote>Not really. raid is least important for you but not for others.However, I agree that there is a problem in TSO bruiser and monk tree. Most of our tanking aa are mainly for raid, not group encounter.For example, 50% chance to proc stoneskin when you get hurt over 40% hp is very very powerful in raid tanking but it's junk in group encounter. Most mobs in heroic instances won't hit bruiser over 40% hp.

circusgirl

04-17-2009, 02:17 PM

Siatfallen is currently the monk for the number one Antonia Bayle raid guild, and I can vouch for him having a pretty solid understanding of things--he just tends to fall more on the dps side of things, while Couching is more defensive and I fall in the very middle with a position that I like and want to be able to do both quite effectively. AB is a bit behind most other servers due to high competition and lag, so he's only taken down a few avatars and probably isn't putting up your numbers, Couching, but he's not a scrub.

BChizzle

04-17-2009, 02:44 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Siatfallen is currently the monk for the number one Antonia Bayle raid guild, and I can vouch for him having a pretty solid understanding of things--he just tends to fall more on the dps side of things, while Couching is more defensive and I fall in the very middle with a position that I like and want to be able to do both quite effectively. AB is a bit behind most other servers due to high competition and lag, so he's only taken down a few avatars and probably isn't putting up your numbers, Couching, but he's not a scrub. </blockquote>Couching does better dps, and Siatfallen sits and watches his guild pull Avatars. Not sure he can understand how monks measure up as tanks from outside of the raid. However, maybe if monks were better at tanking he might get to be in the raid on avatar pulls.

Siatfallen

04-17-2009, 04:48 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Siatfallen is currently the monk for the number one Antonia Bayle raid guild, and I can vouch for him having a pretty solid understanding of things--he just tends to fall more on the dps side of things, while Couching is more defensive and I fall in the very middle with a position that I like and want to be able to do both quite effectively. AB is a bit behind most other servers due to high competition and lag, so he's only taken down a few avatars and probably isn't putting up your numbers, Couching, but he's not a scrub. </blockquote>Couching does better dps, and Siatfallen sits and watches his guild pull Avatars. Not sure he can understand how monks measure up as tanks from outside of the raid. However, maybe if monks were better at tanking he might get to be in the raid on avatar pulls.</blockquote>That's a fairly accurate assesment. In all justice, just to defend my personal pride and whatnot, I was in for our Avatar of Storms kill, but mostly because our brigand was late. Good thing that fight's an exceedingly easy one.Parsing below Couching? Yep, I'd be surprised if that was not the case. ZW on palace trash is around 8-8.5k. Used to be less, but actually getting a stable brigand in the guild's helped a lot.Since the launch of tSO, I've been sitting a good deal on raids. Some of it is class viability, some of it is RL related.Guild's raid schedule is however 4 days a week which translates into 13 hours. Way below hardcore guilds I suppose, but the "you don't raid in tSO" argument is hardly valid. "You can't talk about avatars in tSO in general, since you've only personally been in on the kill of one" is, and I try to take that into account when making this or that statement.As for kills, I've been in on everything my guild has killed, except for Avatar of Tranquility and instanced Anashti Sul, both have been killed once by the guild.As for looking up my profile: You're right, I don't have much tSO loot you'd expect the only brawler in a raiding guild where we are to have. The brawler specific loot has yet to drop (who else would take it after all?), and set pieces are currently going to troubadours to get them their 5-piece set bonus. They're in the raid all the time, so they take priority.As for me tanking on avatars: I highly doubt that's going to happen. Our MT is a Guardian, and I hope it'll stay that way. I'd honestly question what guardians would be doing on raids if not MTing, especially this expansion (in RoK,"OTing" would have made sense I suppose)? I've never considered it viable for the monk class to contest that spot, and I honestly think I'd go find another MMO to play if that's what the monk class ends up as. No offense to anyone, it's better than our current misery obviously. I just think it's profoundly outside the concept of the class.OT is a zerker (we have 2) or a shadowknight. Better AoE aggro = Monk SoL. I would not mind becoming viable here at all really, it'd make sense to me. It's just not what I really foresee happening, as this class has always been built to be single target - I'm not sure exactly why it couldn't change really, except that no monks really seem to want to get behind the idea.So, if I am to take up a tank spot after the revamp, I'm guessing that'll be the third in the raid - I'd not mind that at all, and some parts of tSO seems to be designed for it. The monk class just isn't, and hardly all of tSO really requires a third tank anyway. Point in case would be the Avatars we've killed so far.Again, what I'm commenting on with survivability, Couching, is solely from the perspective of actually taking that third spot. My simple question, which you insist on answering with personal attacks, is why we need plate survivability to fill it? I get that bruisers have it better in that department than we do, I don't think it's called for, but for the context of the change we're talking about here only, do we need it? Do bruisers, or would they be better served with upping their raidwide buff instead of it?Right now, I can tank Xebnok and Zarrakon adds just fine (and as Couching hinted, my gear is hardly exceptional given those mobs). If we're third tanks, we need that, and the ability to hold the main mob in an encounter while the MT is down for the count, charmed, or whatever else. We can do that now (mostly - strikethrough on mobs ftl). Let's assume that our selfstun (that no longer stuns, but never mind that) is actually sufficient to keep you alive after the healers have had the duration of Tsunami and Bob&Weave to adjust. For me it usually is, but in all justice, I don't know how that works on avatars. If that holds true, you have solid tanking for a minute (well, 54 seconds plus superior riposte). For snap tanking, do you think we need more than that?I started out this entire suggestion with a very explicit "if" on the topic of actually taking monks down that path. If you don't agree with it, that's perfectly fine. I'm not sure how it'll play out myself. If you think the assesments on what's needed to get there are wildly inaccurate on my part, state it. Don't give me the "you don't know tSO raiding" line. Because by your standards, maybe a handful of brawlers actually writing on these boards do, apparently. If there's some perspective at those lofty heights I fail to comprehend, explain it.

Couching

04-17-2009, 07:42 PM

<cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite><blockquote>That's a fairly accurate assesment. In all justice, just to defend my personal pride and whatnot, I was in for our Avatar of Storms kill, but mostly because our brigand was late. Good thing that fight's an exceedingly easy one.Parsing below Couching? Yep, I'd be surprised if that was not the case. ZW on palace trash is around 8-8.5k. Used to be less, but actually getting a stable brigand in the guild's helped a lot.Since the launch of tSO, I've been sitting a good deal on raids. Some of it is class viability, some of it is RL related. Guild's raid schedule is however 4 days a week which translates into 13 hours. Way below hardcore guilds I suppose, but the "you don't raid in tSO" argument is hardly valid. "You can't talk about avatars in tSO in general, since you've only personally been in on the kill of one" is, and I try to take that into account when making this or that statement.As for kills, I've been in on everything my guild has killed, except for Avatar of Tranquility and instanced Anashti Sul, both have been killed once by the guild.As for looking up my profile: You're right, I don't have much tSO loot you'd expect the only brawler in a raiding guild where we are to have. The brawler specific loot has yet to drop (who else would take it after all?), and set pieces are currently going to troubadours to get them their 5-piece set bonus. They're in the raid all the time, so they take priority.It's not personal attacks. I was pointing out the truth: you really lack of the raiding experience in TSO due to class viability, real life issue and lack of gear. Frankly speaking, i was shocked when I checked the only brawler in a so called avatar killing guild with 12k hp, 2 pieces of class gear. I am sorry to say that why troub got 5 and you got 2? Because you can't raid so you don't get enough dkp or any other reason? In TSO, tank needs TSO class set more than any other classes due to mobs in TSO can hit critically and double attack. There is no way for you to tank real named with 12k hp and 2 set pieces. Of course you got the wrong conclusion that monk can't tank and shouldn't tank in TSO. It's not because monk shouldn't or can't tank, it's because you don't get enough gear to make it come true.Without tanking experience in TSO, it's very inappropriate for you to say that monk should be in role of 30 sec tank. No, we don't.As for me tanking on avatars: I highly doubt that's going to happen. Our MT is a Guardian, and I hope it'll stay that way. I'd honestly question what guardians would be doing on raids if not MTing, especially this expansion (in RoK,"OTing" would have made sense I suppose)? I've never considered it viable for the monk class to contest that spot, and I honestly think I'd go find another MMO to play if that's what the monk class ends up as. No offense to anyone, it's better than our current misery obviously. I just think it's profoundly outside the concept of the class.So your MT will never miss raid, never leave this game? I highly doubted. What I said is brawlers should be viable to tank all named in raid with right gear. I didn't say we should be superior than guardian. However, guardian dps in both single and aoe should be worse than brawler as trade off. It's called class balance.When the MT can't show up in raid, or OT can't show up, brawlers should be able to step up to take MT or OT position rather than just call it a day. OT is a zerker (we have 2) or a shadowknight. Better AoE aggro = Monk SoL. I would not mind becoming viable here at all really, it'd make sense to me. It's just not what I really foresee happening, as this class has always been built to be single target - I'm not sure exactly why it couldn't change really, except that no monks really seem to want to get behind the idea.So, if I am to take up a tank spot after the revamp, I'm guessing that'll be the third in the raid - I'd not mind that at all, and some parts of tSO seems to be designed for it. The monk class just isn't, and hardly all of tSO really requires a third tank anyway. Point in case would be the Avatars we've killed so far.Point is you have just killed the easiest avatar and of course you don't need 3rd tanks in raid. Actually the avatars you have killed just need one tank for MT. However, in some encounters in tso, it's good to have 3rd tank tanking named with MT. It's not mandatory but it makes the encounter much easier especially on heavy laggy servers, such as in crushbone. Again, what I'm commenting on with survivability, Couching, is solely from the perspective of actually taking that third spot. My simple question, which you insist on answering with personal attacks, is why we need plate survivability to fill it?Again, it's not personal attack. Even you have admitted you didn't raid a lot with your monk in tso. For the survivability, of course we do because the role of tank in raid is survivability. Unless you want to be in raid with different role. Otherwise, we need equal survivability as offensive plate tanks when they have better dps and better utility.I get that bruisers have it better in that department than we do, I don't think it's called for, but for the context of the change we're talking about here only, do we need it? Do bruisers, or would they be better served with upping their raidwide buff instead of it?No, raidwide is not going to cute it. I already stated that if you need a tank in raid, survivability is the most important factor for raid leader to determine who gets in and who sits out of raid. Right now, I can tank Xebnok and Zarrakon adds just fine (and as Couching hinted, my gear is hardly exceptional given those mobs). If we're third tanks, we need that, and the ability to hold the main mob in an encounter while the MT is down for the count, charmed, or whatever else. We can do that now (mostly - strikethrough on mobs ftl). Let's assume that our selfstun (that no longer stuns, but never mind that) is actually sufficient to keep you alive after the healers have had the duration of Tsunami and Bob&Weave to adjust. For me it usually is, but in all justice, I don't know how that works on avatars. If that holds true, you have solid tanking for a minute (well, 54 seconds plus superior riposte). For snap tanking, do you think we need more than that?Again, that's why I said you have little clue of tanking in TSO. Any plate tank can do it better and fit it better in the situation you described if monk can only survive for 30 sec or 54 sec. Why do you want a class who can only tank for 30 sec or 54 sec in raid rather than getting someone who can actually tank from beginning to end if necessary? Tiny dps advantage or utility is not going to cute it. Lets face the fact. How much dps do you expect monk dealing more than plate tanks on single target? 1k or 2k? or even 3k?Not to say, sk and zerker raidwide and group wide buffs are too powerful, unless SoE nerf sk and zerker raidwide, it's no way for monk of getting better utility than them. Also, we are not going to deal extra 3k dps on single target than sk or zerker, no way. The whole vision in your post is none existence.I started out this entire suggestion with a very explicit "if" on the topic of actually taking monks down that path. If you don't agree with it, that's perfectly fine. I'm not sure how it'll play out myself. If you think the assesments on what's needed to get there are wildly inaccurate on my part, state it. Don't give me the "you don't know tSO raiding" line. Because by your standards, maybe a handful of brawlers actually writing on these boards do, apparently. If there's some perspective at those lofty heights I fail to comprehend, explain it.I already explained it. Your assumption of emergency tank is a pity.</blockquote>

Siatfallen

04-17-2009, 08:28 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite><blockquote>That's a fairly accurate assesment. In all justice, just to defend my personal pride and whatnot, I was in for our Avatar of Storms kill, but mostly because our brigand was late. Good thing that fight's an exceedingly easy one.Parsing below Couching? Yep, I'd be surprised if that was not the case. ZW on palace trash is around 8-8.5k. Used to be less, but actually getting a stable brigand in the guild's helped a lot.Since the launch of tSO, I've been sitting a good deal on raids. Some of it is class viability, some of it is RL related. Guild's raid schedule is however 4 days a week which translates into 13 hours. Way below hardcore guilds I suppose, but the "you don't raid in tSO" argument is hardly valid. "You can't talk about avatars in tSO in general, since you've only personally been in on the kill of one" is, and I try to take that into account when making this or that statement.As for kills, I've been in on everything my guild has killed, except for Avatar of Tranquility and instanced Anashti Sul, both have been killed once by the guild.As for looking up my profile: You're right, I don't have much tSO loot you'd expect the only brawler in a raiding guild where we are to have. The brawler specific loot has yet to drop (who else would take it after all?), and set pieces are currently going to troubadours to get them their 5-piece set bonus. They're in the raid all the time, so they take priority.It's not personal attacks. I was pointing out the truth: you really lack of the raiding experience in TSO due to class viability, real life issue and lack of gear. Frankly speaking, i was shocked when I checked the only brawler in a so called avatar killing guild with 12k hp, 2 pieces of class gear. I am sorry to say that why troub got 5 and you got 2? Because you can't raid so you don't get enough dkp or any other reason? In TSO, tank needs TSO class set more than any other classes due to mobs in TSO can hit critically and double attack. There is no way for you to tank real named with 12k hp and 2 set pieces. Of course you got the wrong conclusion that monk can't tank and shouldn't tank in TSO. It's not because monk shouldn't or can't tank, it's because you don't get enough gear to make it come true.Without tanking experience in TSO, it's very inappropriate for you to say that monk should be in role of 30 sec tank. No, we don't.As for me tanking on avatars: I highly doubt that's going to happen. Our MT is a Guardian, and I hope it'll stay that way. I'd honestly question what guardians would be doing on raids if not MTing, especially this expansion (in RoK,"OTing" would have made sense I suppose)? I've never considered it viable for the monk class to contest that spot, and I honestly think I'd go find another MMO to play if that's what the monk class ends up as. No offense to anyone, it's better than our current misery obviously. I just think it's profoundly outside the concept of the class.So your MT will never miss raid, never leave this game? I highly doubted. What I said is brawlers should be viable to tank all named in raid with right gear. I didn't say we should be superior than guardian. However, guardian dps in both single and aoe should be worse than brawler as trade off. It's called class balance.When the MT can't show up in raid, or OT can't show up, brawlers should be able to step up to take MT or OT position rather than just call it a day. OT is a zerker (we have 2) or a shadowknight. Better AoE aggro = Monk SoL. I would not mind becoming viable here at all really, it'd make sense to me. It's just not what I really foresee happening, as this class has always been built to be single target - I'm not sure exactly why it couldn't change really, except that no monks really seem to want to get behind the idea.So, if I am to take up a tank spot after the revamp, I'm guessing that'll be the third in the raid - I'd not mind that at all, and some parts of tSO seems to be designed for it. The monk class just isn't, and hardly all of tSO really requires a third tank anyway. Point in case would be the Avatars we've killed so far.Point is you have just killed the easiest avatar and of course you don't need 3rd tanks in raid. Actually the avatars you have killed just need one tank for MT. However, in some encounters in tso, it's good to have 3rd tank tanking named with MT. It's not mandatory but it makes the encounter much easier especially on heavy laggy servers, such as in crushbone. Again, what I'm commenting on with survivability, Couching, is solely from the perspective of actually taking that third spot. My simple question, which you insist on answering with personal attacks, is why we need plate survivability to fill it?Again, it's not personal attack. Even you have admitted you didn't raid a lot with your monk in tso. For the survivability, of course we do because the role of tank in raid is survivability. Unless you want to be in raid with different role. Otherwise, we need equal survivability as offensive plate tanks when they have better dps and better utility.I get that bruisers have it better in that department than we do, I don't think it's called for, but for the context of the change we're talking about here only, do we need it? Do bruisers, or would they be better served with upping their raidwide buff instead of it?No, raidwide is not going to cute it. I already stated that if you need a tank in raid, survivability is the most important factor for raid leader to determine who gets in and who sits out of raid. Right now, I can tank Xebnok and Zarrakon adds just fine (and as Couching hinted, my gear is hardly exceptional given those mobs). If we're third tanks, we need that, and the ability to hold the main mob in an encounter while the MT is down for the count, charmed, or whatever else. We can do that now (mostly - strikethrough on mobs ftl). Let's assume that our selfstun (that no longer stuns, but never mind that) is actually sufficient to keep you alive after the healers have had the duration of Tsunami and Bob&Weave to adjust. For me it usually is, but in all justice, I don't know how that works on avatars. If that holds true, you have solid tanking for a minute (well, 54 seconds plus superior riposte). For snap tanking, do you think we need more than that?Again, that's why I said you have little clue of tanking in TSO. Any plate tank can do it better and fit it better in the situation you described if monk can only survive for 30 sec or 54 sec. Why do you want a class who can only tank for 30 sec or 54 sec in raid rather than getting someone who can actually tank from beginning to end if necessary? Tiny dps advantage or utility is not going to cute it. Lets face the fact. How much dps do you expect monk dealing more than plate tanks on single target? 1k or 2k? or even 3k?Not to say, sk and zerker raidwide and group wide buffs are too powerful, unless SoE nerf sk and zerker raidwide, it's no way for monk of getting better utility than them. Also, we are not going to deal extra 3k dps on single target than sk or zerker, no way. The whole vision in your post is none existence.I started out this entire suggestion with a very explicit "if" on the topic of actually taking monks down that path. If you don't agree with it, that's perfectly fine. I'm not sure how it'll play out myself. If you think the assesments on what's needed to get there are wildly inaccurate on my part, state it. Don't give me the "you don't know tSO raiding" line. Because by your standards, maybe a handful of brawlers actually writing on these boards do, apparently. If there's some perspective at those lofty heights I fail to comprehend, explain it.I already explained it. Your assumption of emergency tank is a pity.</blockquote></blockquote>One reply to this: I have 4 pieces of class gear. You're probably seeing what I was wearing for a RoK instance a few days back. Go ahead and assume a few more things to support your conclusions, instead of providing arguments for them.

Couching

04-17-2009, 09:41 PM

<cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite><blockquote>One reply to this: I have 4 pieces of class gear. You're probably seeing what I was wearing for a RoK instance a few days back. Go ahead and assume a few more things to support your conclusions, instead of providing arguments for them.</blockquote>Then my point is even stronger.We already are a viable tank in TSO raid. And you want to nerf us to be a 30 sec or 54 sec emergency tank with fewe extra dps? Give me a break, you have no clue of what you are doing.The current issues are that plate tanks are overpowered and they need a nerf rather than nefing us since we are already on the bottom of survivability, utility and dps.

Siatfallen

04-18-2009, 12:06 AM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite><blockquote>One reply to this: I have 4 pieces of class gear. You're probably seeing what I was wearing for a RoK instance a few days back. Go ahead and assume a few more things to support your conclusions, instead of providing arguments for them.</blockquote>Then my point is even stronger.We already are a viable tank in TSO raid. And you want to nerf us to be a 30 sec or 54 sec emergency tank with fewe extra dps? Give me a break, you have no clue of what you are doing.The current issues are that plate tanks are overpowered and they need a nerf rather than nefing us since we are already on the bottom of survivability, utility and dps.</blockquote>So what you're saying is: I'm a scub with no experience in tSO raiding - but when I disprove you on that count, I'm clueless because my vision of what a brawler should be (as opposed to what it currently is) does not coincide with yours? By extension, you realise you just called 3 or 4 monks clueless at once, in this thread, right (and a guardian, as it happens)? Arrogant much?I really want to follow your argument here, but it doesn't look like you're presenting one. Are you just disregarding everything said because it does not fit into your vision? Otherwise, examples have been given for the kind of role we want to take up. Look up Vinka's notes, I've no desire to restate them for you again. Then answer those.Survivability: I'm not asking for a nerf to monks. You're asking to be buffed up there while at the same time getting improved DPS. I'm simply asking you if you really think that's viable?We agree that AoE tanks need to be nerfed DPSwise before finding a place for brawlers is going to be viable on that scale - because right now, they're too close to where we're both looking at placing us.I recognise that the monk is a somewhat passable tank at the moment if it's the only alternate you have. I also happen to think it's a dead end for the class to be stuck in, and hence I'm supporting what I see as a viable alternative. As you can see, I'm not the only one. Of course I'm tank specced at the moment. I would prefer being DPS, loved doing that through RoK, but I'm not clueless. What exactly here escapes you?Edits: Omg double negations.

Couching

04-18-2009, 12:57 AM

<cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite><blockquote>One reply to this: I have 4 pieces of class gear. You're probably seeing what I was wearing for a RoK instance a few days back. Go ahead and assume a few more things to support your conclusions, instead of providing arguments for them.</blockquote>Then my point is even stronger.We already are a viable tank in TSO raid. And you want to nerf us to be a 30 sec or 54 sec emergency tank with fewe extra dps? Give me a break, you have no clue of what you are doing.The current issues are that plate tanks are overpowered and they need a nerf rather than nefing us since we are already on the bottom of survivability, utility and dps.</blockquote>So what you're saying is: I'm a scub with no experience in tSO raiding - but when I disprove you on that count, I'm clueless because my vision of what a brawler should be (as opposed to what it currently is) does not coincide with yours? By extension, you realise you just called 3 or 4 monks clueless at once, in this thread, right (and a guardian, as it happens)? Arrogant much?I am not sure why you were so offended.I didn't say anything about you as a person but I said you have no experience in tso raiding as a monk because you, with 4 pieces, don't even know we can tank in tso raid. Thank you for proving I am correct. Also, that guardian is clueless because he kept saying brawlers shouldn't and can't tank in raids. Yes, he is clueless because the fact proved him wrong.I really want to follow your argument here, but it doesn't look like you're not presenting one. Are you just disregarding everything said because it does not fit into your vision? Otherwise, examples have been giving for the kind of role we want to take up. Look up Vinka's notes, I've no desire to restate them for you again. Then answer those.Learn to read if you can't.Survivability: I'm not asking for a nerf to monks. You're asking to be buffed up there while at the same time getting improved DPS. I'm simply asking you if you really think that's viable?It's much viable than asking brignad dps for monk and keep current survivability. I hope you are not kidding.When offensive tanks have better aoe and single dps than brawlers, what's wrong to get monk survivability on par with offensive plate tanks? Not to say, bruiser is already there.We agree that AoE tanks need to be nerfed DPSwise before finding a place for brawlers is going to be viable on that scale - because right now, they're too close to where we're both looking at placing us.You still dodge the most important question: Why should monk be worse survivability than offensive plate tanks that can deal higher aoe dps and better utility?Even if they got dps nerf on single target, aoe plate tanks will always do more aoe dps than single target tank, monk. It's fair enough to get same survivability as them when they have higher aoe dps and we have higher single dps.I recognise that the monk is a somewhat passable tank at the moment if it's the only alternate you have. I also happen to think it's a dead end for the class to be stuck in, and hence I'm supporting what I see as a viable alternative.Actually your vision is the dead end unless we can get rid of tanking in raid. As long as our role is tanking in raid, survivability is the prime factor.Your vision of emergency tank is not going to help us because that role is easily covered by 3rd plate tank.As you can see, I'm not the only one. Of course I'm tank specced at the moment. I would prefer being DPS, loved doing that through RoK, but I'm not clueless. What exactly here escapes you?Even in your good, old days: RoK. Brawlers can tank in Rok raid, of course, plate tanks were better in rok. But it didn't mean we were just emergency tank for few sec tanking. The fact is I have tanked VP for my guild when I was the only fighter online. I have also done off tanking shade and phara dar in VP when our off tank was absent. At that time, I didn't have avatar gear. Vp geared monk is enough to tank VP. Enough said. And I am not the only one. I know a lot of monks tanking for their guilds and no, tanking is not dead end because all of those guilds are top guilds on each server. More important, they got a slot rather than sit out of raid.</blockquote>

Landiin

04-18-2009, 03:33 AM

Couching just spews the same thing over and over. If he can't disprove you he tries to discredit you by saying you don't raid TSO or know blah blah. It doesn't matter to him how his fellow brawlers want their class to go. He for some reason rolled a brawler thinking it should be a viable raid tank like a plate tank is..

circusgirl

04-18-2009, 05:37 AM

Couching, I have nothing but respect for you as a monk, but you really need to cut the ad hominem attacks. As one of maybe three brawlers on AB in a position to reasonably evaluate Siatfallen, I feel pretty darn comfortable saying he's not a scrub. He knows the class, he knows raiding, and his opinion is every bit as important here as yours. I happen to agree with you on a lot of issues, and I definetely prefer tanking to dpsing and think that we will first and foremost always be tanks. I also agree with Eilien on lots of things. All three of us, however, are intelligent raiding monks who know our stuff, so lets talk about the substance of the changes we want to come to the class, instead of about how qualified we are to adress the issues.

Davngr1

04-18-2009, 06:37 AM

there are 6 tanks, they can't all be MT. please people lets try to be less selfish and think about game balance.

Couching

04-18-2009, 09:34 AM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Couching, I have nothing but respect for you as a monk, but you really need to cut the ad hominem attacks. As one of maybe three brawlers on AB in a position to reasonably evaluate Siatfallen, I feel pretty darn comfortable saying he's not a scrub. He knows the class, he knows raiding, and his opinion is every bit as important here as yours. I happen to agree with you on a lot of issues, and I definetely prefer tanking to dpsing and think that we will first and foremost always be tanks. I also agree with Eilien on lots of things. All three of us, however, are intelligent raiding monks who know our stuff, so lets talk about the substance of the changes we want to come to the class, instead of about how qualified we are to adress the issues.</blockquote>I didn't say he is a scrub. Please pointed it out. What I said is he didn't raid tso much and he has admitted that he sat out of raid many times due to many reasons. That's why he didn't know monk is viable to tank in tso raid.I respected his opinion. However, his opinion can't be against the fact.It's reasonable to question him why his vision is benefit to monk: get us a slot in raid. He made a vision by his observation and imagination that doesn't exist in the game: brigand dps and emergency tank.On the contrary, my vision is based on the fact in the game: a lot of monks got a raid slot because they can tank in raids and those guilds are most successful on each server.We don't need brigand dps to get a slot in raid. What we need is slightly higher dps on single target than offensive plate tanks (aoe tanks) with same survivability.Still, no body can answer me the most important question:Why should monk be worse survivability than offensive plate tanks that can deal higher aoe dps and better utility?Even if they got dps nerf on single target, aoe plate tanks still do more aoe dps than single target tank, monk. It's fair enough to get same survivability as them when they have higher aoe dps and we have higher single dps.And we don't need the overpowered plate tank to tell us we can't and shouldn't tank in raids, especially in a guild that doesn't even raid much tso content.

Siatfallen

04-18-2009, 11:47 AM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Couching, I have nothing but respect for you as a monk, but you really need to cut the ad hominem attacks. As one of maybe three brawlers on AB in a position to reasonably evaluate Siatfallen, I feel pretty darn comfortable saying he's not a scrub. He knows the class, he knows raiding, and his opinion is every bit as important here as yours. I happen to agree with you on a lot of issues, and I definetely prefer tanking to dpsing and think that we will first and foremost always be tanks. I also agree with Eilien on lots of things. All three of us, however, are intelligent raiding monks who know our stuff, so lets talk about the substance of the changes we want to come to the class, instead of about how qualified we are to adress the issues.</blockquote>I didn't say he is a scrub. Please pointed it out. What I said is he didn't raid tso much and he has admitted that he sat out of raid many times due to many reasons. That's why he didn't know monk is viable to tank in tso raid.I respected his opinion. However, his opinion can't be against the fact.It's reasonable to question him why his vision is benefit to monk: get us a slot in raid. He made a vision by his observation and imagination that doesn't exist in the game: brigand dps and emergency tank.On the contrary, my vision is based on the fact in the game: a lot of monks got a raid slot because they can tank in raids and those guilds are most successful on each server.We don't need brigand dps to get a slot in raid. What we need is slightly higher dps on single target than offensive plate tanks (aoe tanks) with same survivability.Still, no body can answer me the most important question:Why should monk be worse survivability than offensive plate tanks that can deal higher aoe dps and better utility?Even if they got dps nerf on single target, aoe plate tanks still do more aoe dps than single target tank, monk. It's fair enough to get same survivability as them when they have higher aoe dps and we have higher single dps.And we don't need the overpowered plate tank to tell us we can't and shouldn't tank in raids, especially in a guild that doesn't even raid much tso content.</blockquote>Your argument makes no sense. At least, I cannot make sense of it. Since this is apparently a problem relating to reading comprehension, let me list what I read you're saying in a way that makes it as clear as I can:1: Monks are not the best for tanking. In fact, as fighters go, we're the worst.2: Monks are the worst AE aggro fighters in the game.3: Monks are close to if not the lowest DPS in the game, aside from healers.4: Monks do not posses exceptional qualities in the form of utility (or anything else, really) that makes them pull ahead of other fighters in any one area.5: Monks are viable tanks. Monks who are willing to tank get raid spots.6: People who contest that the future of the monk class lies in the present tank focus lack tSO raid experience.... So what's your definition of "viable", again?I do not contest that we can get the job done. My question is: Why would anyone want to have us do it? You're saying it yourself, we don't do anything others cannot do better.If you come up with a reason for it (aside from "It's more convenient than recruiting someone new who may be useless", or "people the toon is controlled by an awesome player who can make up for its obvious shortcomings" which, while very true, is not relevant for class balance discussions such as this one) well, that's fine. What's your problem with the monk class, then? If that's the case, then clearly we have a role. Rejoice, share it with everyone else, and let's end this long and painful exposition of monk inferiority complex (TM), which has been roaming these boards since tSO launch. We could at least change the same old song to "monks are somewhat underpowered" in that case.As for raiding activity, I just looked it up. I'm sitting around 80% since tSO launch, and I've sat out for the entirety of one raid there. I am however sitting on fights where the raid's no use for a monk as far as optimal setups go. Since that was not ever the case in RoK, I think it's fair to say it's a major change.On DPS scaling between AoE tanks and brawlers, and pardon it's taken me this long to actually repeat my reply to that point explicitly - it's stated before, but going over it, I'm not surprised you missed it, I probably would have myself. I suck at writing short and coherent posts:Ideally, I'd simply have the brawlers gain access to AE damage (Wis line in the brawler tree is one obvious place to start) and call it good. Realistically, with the current state of fighter DPS, that would probably land us too high compared to the scouts if done. So again, the solution seems to be adjusting AE fighter DPS downwards. The position they fill on raids is needed more or less all the time; they do not need DPS as such to make for a selling argument in a raid setting at all. They just have it anyway (and it happens to be their main aggro tool). That's half the problem.RoK tanking: I never MTed VP, because we always had a plate tank online. I probably could have, since I tanked Phara Dar in offensive gear, spec and stance (started back one day when I forgot to actually change to tank gear; it worked out pretty well, so I saw no reason to stop doing that). It's not like there's a load of AE encounters to keep locked down in VP, and that's the only real problem I can see. However, the viability of it was little enough that we continued using the guardian for the MT spot - because he was the more solid tank. That's how it needs to be. I don't have a problem with the monk being able to MT if for whatever reason the guard is not around. We were able to do that in RoK, and comfortably so with the proper gear (experience only extends to SoH and some VP OTing here, but brawlers were tanking avatars then too, so...). But I don't think the class should be designed around being able to do so. By moving us ever close to plate survivability, that's exactly what's happening. This is why I really do not like the tSO AA tree. Aside from not managing to bring us to an equal footing with the MT choices andCome to think of it, you're probably right in that this makes "Emergency tank" a pretty misleading term. I want us to be far enough behind that we don't end up taking over the guardian's job once we get high-end gear. That's not in the spirit of what I think this class should be - and it leaves the guardian in a pretty bad spot.

dreken

04-18-2009, 11:53 AM

alot more then just 3 things but top for me are1) AA's more specialized2) need 2 handed weapons to be more effective and useful, (i myself prefer them)3) Survivability

bluephoenix2473

04-18-2009, 02:09 PM

Well i'm new to starting a tank so right away if this thought is off base that is fine. I wondered if in redoing how hate controls tanking if the values of how hate is gain should be a focus point rather than dps and major taunt values revamped. As it stands to my understanding 1 dammage = 1 hate and healing a little less. Should say 1 damage only be around .75 hate and healing .65 or such??? In theory that would allow the taunts be more powerfull and not end up changing everyones dps at all. I started recently to make a tank after hitting 80 with my warden and started monk and realized that monks can tank higher lvl stuff but it takes alot better gear on end lvl content which is more than i want to do since my warden will always be my main i'm sure so i'm trying a guard and read how they are having so much trouble with argo only with sk's. Long story short i feal that the dps should be a good amount of hate but primarily taunts are what make any fighter class hold argo properly and keep the major dps squishys safe. Just the way the fighter deals with incoming damage making the difference of how they tank. I also don't want an "easy mode" and the first revamp was way to much into easy tanking, not everyone should be able to tank like a king just like the person behind the healer is most of what makes them a good healer as I well know. Never have a read an idea of changing those values in the game rather than constantly tweeking the poop out of the fighters to make them worse.

Couching

04-18-2009, 07:00 PM

<cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite><blockquote>Your argument makes no sense. At least, I cannot make sense of it. Since this is apparently a problem relating to reading comprehension, let me list what I read you're saying in a way that makes it as clear as I can:1: Monks are not the best for tanking. In fact, as fighters go, we're the worst.2: Monks are the worst AE aggro fighters in the game.3: Monks are close to if not the lowest DPS in the game, aside from healers.4: Monks do not posses exceptional qualities in the form of utility (or anything else, really) that makes them pull ahead of other fighters in any one area.5: Monks are viable tanks. Monks who are willing to tank get raid spots.6: People who contest that the future of the monk class lies in the present tank focus lack tSO raid experience.... So what's your definition of "viable", again?I do not contest that we can get the job done. My question is: Why would anyone want to have us do it? You're saying it yourself, we don't do anything others cannot do better.If you come up with a reason for it (aside from "It's more convenient than recruiting someone new who may be useless", or "people the toon is controlled by an awesome player who can make up for its obvious shortcomings" which, while very true, is not relevant for class balance discussions such as this one) well, that's fine. What's your problem with the monk class, then? If that's the case, then clearly we have a role. Rejoice, share it with everyone else, and let's end this long and painful exposition of monk inferiority complex (TM), which has been roaming these boards since tSO launch. We could at least change the same old song to "monks are somewhat underpowered" in that case.Viable is different from perferable. In SoE's vision, every fighter is tank. Take it or not, it's their vision and they did it in their design. In EoF, I have tanked almost every instance named from MMIS, rumblers, gardeners in EH to wuoshi and growth beast. In RoK, even you have admitted that you can tank VP with vp gear. Not to say in TSO, in survivability, plate tanks finally get less uncontested avoidance than brawlers. As I stated in other posts, I granted what they did is in the right direction. However, it didn't mean everything is perfect. The biggest problem is that plate tanks are overpowered. Can you deny it? Most people in eq2 admitted that sk is overpowered, except sk itself, and guardians are overpowerd in their single and aoe dps comparing to other fighters. It's plain and simple that guardians with best survivability should be worst in single and aoe dps.You asked me what the problem is of monk and you already listed those problems. Aren't we worst in survivability of all fighters? Aren't we worst on dps and utilities? You have all admitted in your different posts. The difference bewteen you and me is that you want to give up the role of tanking and switch to pure dps. And I disagree. SoE will never make us T2 dps. Aeralik has already said it in monk forum when we asked for T2 dps. He said we are fighters, not dpsers. Even with new management, it's not going to happened since it's the vision from game launch to TSO. Look at all our our aa tree and mythical. Most is made for tanking. In TSO, it's really handy to have 3 different tanks in raid: Highest mitigation tank (best survivability), aoe aggro tank and avoidance tank. We got a role and it is avoidance tank from game launch to TSO.Last, we have a role in raid but it didn't mean everything is ok. We need a fix in our dps and or we deserve better survivability is what I insisted.</blockquote>If you still can't understand why we got a tank role with worst survivability, it's because you never tried. In some fights, it's good to let brawler tank. In some fights, it's good to have brawler avoidance buff. In some fights, it's good to let brawlers off tanking with MT.Again, it didn't mean everything is ok. Monk dps should be better plate tanks but we are not. It needs to be fixed.Also, you still didn't answer the most important question: Why should offensive plate tanks and offensive brawler, bruiser, deserve better survivability than monk when they can deal more dps and better utility? Monk is defensive brawler and we should be at least with same survivability as bruiser.

Davngr1

04-18-2009, 07:46 PM

Siatfallen

04-18-2009, 07:58 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite><blockquote>Your argument makes no sense. At least, I cannot make sense of it. Since this is apparently a problem relating to reading comprehension, let me list what I read you're saying in a way that makes it as clear as I can:1: Monks are not the best for tanking. In fact, as fighters go, we're the worst.2: Monks are the worst AE aggro fighters in the game.3: Monks are close to if not the lowest DPS in the game, aside from healers.4: Monks do not posses exceptional qualities in the form of utility (or anything else, really) that makes them pull ahead of other fighters in any one area.5: Monks are viable tanks. Monks who are willing to tank get raid spots.6: People who contest that the future of the monk class lies in the present tank focus lack tSO raid experience.... So what's your definition of "viable", again?I do not contest that we can get the job done. My question is: Why would anyone want to have us do it? You're saying it yourself, we don't do anything others cannot do better.If you come up with a reason for it (aside from "It's more convenient than recruiting someone new who may be useless", or "people the toon is controlled by an awesome player who can make up for its obvious shortcomings" which, while very true, is not relevant for class balance discussions such as this one) well, that's fine. What's your problem with the monk class, then? If that's the case, then clearly we have a role. Rejoice, share it with everyone else, and let's end this long and painful exposition of monk inferiority complex (TM), which has been roaming these boards since tSO launch. We could at least change the same old song to "monks are somewhat underpowered" in that case.Viable is different from perferable. In SoE's vision, every fighter is tank. Take it or not, it's their vision and they did it in their design. In EoF, I have tanked almost every instance named from MMIS, rumblers, gardeners in EH to wuoshi and growth beast. In RoK, even you have admitted that you can tank VP with vp gear. Not to say in TSO, in survivability, plate tanks finally get less uncontested avoidance than brawlers. As I stated in other posts, I granted what they did is in the right direction. However, it didn't mean everything is perfect. The biggest problem is that plate tanks are overpowered. Can you deny it? Most people in eq2 admitted that sk is overpowered, except sk itself, and guardians are overpowerd in their single and aoe dps comparing to other fighters. It's plain and simple that guardians with best survivability should be worst in single and aoe dps.You asked me what the problem is of monk and you already listed those problems. Aren't we worst in survivability of all fighters? Aren't we worst on dps and utilities? You have all admitted in your different posts. The difference bewteen you and me is that you want to give up the role of tanking and switch to pure dps. And I disagree. SoE will never make us T2 dps. Aeralik has already said it in monk forum when we asked for T2 dps. He said we are fighters, not dpsers. Even with new management, it's not going to happened since it's the vision from game launch to TSO. Look at all our our aa tree and mythical. Most is made for tanking. In TSO, it's really handy to have 3 different tanks in raid: Highest mitigation tank (best survivability), aoe aggro tank and avoidance tank. We got a role and it is avoidance tank from game launch to TSO.Last, we have a role in raid but it didn't mean everything is ok. We need a fix in our dps and or we deserve better survivability is what I insisted.</blockquote>If you still can't understand why we got a tank role with worst survivability, it's because you never tried. In some fights, it's good to let brawler tank. In some fights, it's good to have brawler avoidance buff. In some fights, it's good to let brawlers off tanking with MT.Again, it didn't mean everything is ok. Monk dps should be better plate tanks but we are not. It needs to be fixed.Also, you still didn't answer the most important question: Why should offensive plate tanks and offensive brawler, bruiser, deserve better survivability than monk when they can deal more dps and better utility? Monk is defensive brawler and we should be at least with same survivability as bruiser.</blockquote>You say viable, I say passable. We apparently mean the same thing.But you admit in the above that if you take an SK or a berserker and place him in the spot a monk would otherwise occupy, the result is better than keeping the monk there, right?That means SoEs experiment to turn brawlers into tanks (more so than we were in RoK which is where I want to be) has failed. We have gained no desirability from it, because they have kept us below the competition. This was stated, quite blantantly, to be done by design, during beta. Under way, they then forgot to make sure brawlers were parsing higher than other fighters, and what you see is the result. We got closer on survivability, but it doesn't matter. You should still bring the better toon - which is not us. In return, we lost what used to define this class. Give me one example where it's preferable to bring a monk over any other fighter class? I recognise that there are benefits to bringing a monk at times - but when do they outweigh what another fighter could bring to the table?The problem with monks in tSO is not only bad execution. It's bad design in the first place. They didn't have a clear vision for us, gave us something we did not need for the perfectly functional role (well, quirky, but when hasn't brawlers been?), and hence we lost more or less all desirability as a class.AE tank survivability: They should have better survivability because they're plate tanks. We should have surperior DPS, hands down, because we're not. At the end of the day, that's been the hierachy since KoS at least (when I started raiding at all, so I can't say much from before then). It hasn't changed. It's been explained to us that it is not intended for us to get there. Bruisers are there (though at the low end), which obviously goes against that.Post by Aeralik: Link please? I must have missed that one. It's always fun to read his replies; they're a study in being condescending in text. It's quite impressive at that.Bruisers: You are correct, by design bruisers should have less survivability than monks. This is a lingering problem from RoK, further enforced by badly balanced AA. Dunno what to tell you there; I still think monks got too many tanking AA in that tree, and bruisers are the same.Wanting to be pure DPS? That's a long standing joke in my guild actually. I was an honourary scout officer in the guild for a bit (since we didn't actually have a scout officer, but two fighters). But in all seriousness, if that's what I wanted, why exactly am I not playing a rogue or predator? Or, heck, a bard, even those outparse us now and then (and as I understand, just as an aside, that only gets worse with gear progression?).I just want to play a toon that feels like what I used to have, not this gimped excuse for a tank class. In order to get there, more survivability is not needed - we're closer to plate than we were during RoK.I'll openly admit, I may end up liking your idea if that's what they go through with - it does entail some of the elements I'm looking for, as opposed to what we have now. But it's not what I'd like to aim for - as long as we do not end up being guardians in leather armour, I'll live.But my perspective is still pretty much this: We were fine in RoK, mostly. This class had a perfectly functional profile. It got wrecked by a heavy-handed design decision made by a developer who had what probably looked like a good idea on paper. Then this change got changed halfway through and we were left short on getting even where we were supposed to. When they moved to recover this problem, they changed vision again (making us even more tank oriented). They also unbalanced the entire fighter architecture so badly the had to admit needing to stop and start over. Not that the present situation is any good for us either really.

Couching

04-18-2009, 08:36 PM

<cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite><blockquote>You say viable, I say passable. We apparently mean the same thing.But you admit in the above that if you take an SK or a berserker and place him in the spot a monk would otherwise occupy, the result is better than keeping the monk there, right?No, what I said is that plate tanks can fit the role in your idea of emergency tank, tanking for 30 sec, better. In my perspective, brawler is avoidance tank not emergency tank. We can step up to OT or MT if necessary but emergency tank can't.That means SoEs experiment to turn brawlers into tanks (more so than we were in RoK which is where I want to be) has failed. We have gained no desirability from it, because they have kept us below the competition. This was stated, quite blantantly, to be done by design, during beta. Under way, they then forgot to make sure brawlers were parsing higher than other fighters, and what you see is the result.They didn't fail to make brawlers into tanks because we can be useful in raid with our tanking capability.We got closer on survivability, but it doesn't matter. You should still bring the better toon - which is not us. In return, we lost what used to define this class. Give me one example where it's preferable to bring a monk over any other fighter class? I recognise that there are benefits to bringing a monk at times - but when do they outweigh what another fighter could bring to the table?Again, you got wrong conclusion because you never tried to actually tank in TSO. For example, penta/ulta is perfect for brawler tanking. They are gimped after SOE shortened the disarm duration and lower the chance to damage players weapon. But still, this fight is much easier with brawler tanking. There are more fights that brawlers can be a good choice if not the best choice. You need to find out by yourself. The problem with monks in tSO is not only bad execution. It's bad design in the first place. They didn't have a clear vision for us, gave us something we did not need for the perfectly functional role (well, quirky, but when hasn't brawlers been?), and hence we lost more or less all desirability as a class.Again, wrong conclusion. In fact, TSO is a big improvement. They finally gave brawlers more uncontested avoidance and it should be done in the beginning when they introduced the uncontested avoidance in eq2.AE tank survivability: They should have better survivability because they're plate tanks. We should have surperior DPS, hands down, because we're not. At the end of the day, that's been the hierachy since KoS at least (when I started raiding at all, so I can't say much from before then). It hasn't changed. It's been explained to us that it is not intended for us to get there. Bruisers are there (though at the low end), which obviously goes against that.No, plate tank should have better mitigation, not better survivability. Survivability is a mix of mitigation, avoidance and class live saving tools. The only reason why guardian has best survivability over other fighters is because they had worst dps over all fighters, not because their name is guardian.That's why brawlers have less survivability than plate tanks because we had much better dps than plate tanks in the game launch. Now, aoe tanks have better dps, we should get at least same survivability becasue we don't get dps advantage anymore. Post by Aeralik: Link please? I must have missed that one. It's always fun to read his replies; they're a study in being condescending in text. It's quite impressive at that.I was trying to find it out in monk forum. It's in either monk forum or beta forum. Can't really remeber. Bruisers: You are correct, by design bruisers should have less survivability than monks. This is a lingering problem from RoK, further enforced by badly balanced AA. Dunno what to tell you there; I still think monks got too many tanking AA in that tree, and bruisers are the same.It's plain and simple that we need a fix in our survivability.Wanting to be pure DPS? That's a long standing joke in my guild actually. I was an honourary scout officer in the guild for a bit (since we didn't actually have a scout officer, but two fighters). But in all seriousness, if that's what I wanted, why exactly am I not playing a rogue or predator? Or, heck, a bard, even those outparse us now and then (and as I understand, just as an aside, that only gets worse with gear progression?).I just want to play a toon that feels like what I used to have, not this gimped excuse for a tank class. In order to get there, more survivability is not needed - we're closer to plate than we were during RoK.All what I can say is because you dislike to tank in raid. I admired the change of making our survivability closer to plate tanks. Plate tanks survivability was ridiculous overpowered in Rok. They can get over 40% block anytime with proper gear. I am glad SoE finally addressed this issue.I'll openly admit, I may end up liking your idea if that's what they go through with - it does entail some of the elements I'm looking for, as opposed to what we have now. But it's not what I'd like to aim for - as long as we do not end up being guardians in leather armour, I'll live.The fact is we will never be guardian because mitigation is the king of survive. Unless we get more mitigation than guardian but it's highly unlikely.But my perspective is still pretty much this: We were fine in RoK, mostly. This class had a perfectly functional profile. It got wrecked by a heavy-handed design decision made by a developer who had what probably looked like a good idea on paper. Then this change got changed halfway through and we were left short on getting even where we were supposed to. When they moved to recover this problem, they changed vision again (making us even more tank oriented). They also unbalanced the entire fighter architecture so badly the had to admit needing to stop and start over. Not that the present situation is any good for us either really.It is true that we got screwed especially in dps comparing to plate tanks.However, I don't think it's a bad idea to make every fighter viable to tank mobs in raid (fighter revamp part 1 with TSO released). Berserker was fighting MT role with guardian for a long time. Pal was fighting MT role as well, same as SK. Why not? This game is not full of min/max guilds. Majority in this game are casual guilds. They may or may not have a guardian. Even they have a guardian as MT, usually the MT won't show up constantly for casual guilds. I admired what SoE did so that most casual guilds won't call it a day just because their MT wasn't online. It's exactly what happened in my gaming experience. Guild was going to call it a day because MT was absent or off tank was absent in EoF and RoK. I told them, give me a chance to tank. They did and we got phat loots. Same in TSO, when our MT and OT left the guild, we can still farming everything we had. How? I was tanking with other tank from gynok to avatars until we got a new gaurdian and geared him up.</blockquote>

Novusod

04-18-2009, 09:40 PM

A Monk or Bruiser asking for more DPS is like a Fury asking for more DPS. Do raids bring Furies for their DPS? A good fury can both keep their group alive and throw down nice dps. Yes furies are brought for their extra dps but the key word here is it is Extra dps and no one would bring a fury to raid that didn't heal or cure. The primary role of all healers is to heal with a secondary role to dps and buff others. The primary role of a fighter is too stay alive and not die and make sure others in the raid don't die. These are the core mechanics of the archtype and not something that can be escaped. Many Monks and Bruisers think this logic does not apply to them and that they can get by on DPS alone. Nobody is going to want another glass cannon with rouge DPS when rouges bring other utilty while enchanters with their monstrous utility are also DPS'ing competitively. Asking for more DPS is asking to give up your raid spot and the total loss of raid viability of both brawlers.A good brawler is defined not by how well they DPS but by how well they can tank. Going forward a brawler needs to be able to hold and survive against the main mob for more than just 10 or 30 seconds. If the main tank is charmed or dies it is the brawler that needs to pick it up especially if the OT is busy with adds. As the third tank the brawler needs to hold the mob until the next charm. This is a job lasts longer than 30 seconds and happens more othen than our 100% parry are on cooldown. There have been dozens of good ideas to improve Monk and Bruiser tanking. They just need implement two or three of those ideas to get monks and bruisers into the third tank role.

Raznor2

04-19-2009, 04:31 AM

<cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Toran@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Raznor269 wrote:</cite><blockquote>If they give brawlers a sizeable advantage in uncontested avoidance then have encounters that put a premium on avoidance there's your nitch, a third tank slot for avoidance encounters.~Raithan</blockquote>Well not really <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" /> Historically tanks with sizable avoidance are OP. If they fixed their avoidance and mitigation model then maybe. Like now plate tanks have to have high avoidance because mitigation is not all that meaningful like it should be.The thing about being an avoidance tank is you avoid all hits but when you get hit you will come close to dieing do to low mitigation (vs heavy hitting encounters). So to be a 3rd fighter and 3rd "snap" tank they would have to give brawlers a high avoidance short term buff along with a peal like skill that they wouldn't nerf.</blockquote>Plate tanks shouldn't be able to get high avoidance, that's the problem. No plate tank gear should have +defense, should have less agi. Also brawlers still need uncontested avoidance that's not tied to stances.</blockquote>Both are good points and they both lead to what I'm getting at. First they need to work out how mitigation and avoidance work in relation to each other, they should be equivalent. Once you have mitigation and avoidance working in a balanced way you then can make encounters that dictate which is better for that fight. For example, you have strikethrough that ignores avoidance, say there was the equivalent for mitigation or a mob that reduced a tank's mitigation to the equivalent of leather. In that situation, the mob would not have to hit as hard and avoiding the hits would be more favorable since the mob wipes out a plate tank's mitigation advantage. Same can be done the other way, a raid mob can have very strong strikethrough and it's damage can be very high, in a fight like that mitigation becomes more important.The important thing in all of this is that by making more diverse raid fights you create opportunities for more tanks to shine. So instead of 6 tanks vying for one MT spot you have fights that require more than one kind of tank.~Raithan

Davngr1

04-19-2009, 04:53 AM

<cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>A Monk or Bruiser asking for more DPS is like a Fury asking for more DPS. Do raids bring Furies for their DPS? A good fury can both keep their group alive and throw down nice dps. Yes furies are brought for their extra dps but the key word here is it is Extra dps and no one would bring a fury to raid that didn't heal or cure. The primary role of all healers is to heal with a secondary role to dps and buff others. The primary role of a fighter is too stay alive and not die and make sure others in the raid don't die. These are the core mechanics of the archtype and not something that can be escaped. Many Monks and Bruisers think this logic does not apply to them and that they can get by on DPS alone. Nobody is going to want another glass cannon with rouge DPS when rouges bring other utilty while enchanters with their monstrous utility are also DPS'ing competitively. Asking for more DPS is asking to give up your raid spot and the total loss of raid viability of both brawlers.A good brawler is defined not by how well they DPS but by how well they can tank. Going forward a brawler needs to be able to hold and survive against the main mob for more than just 10 or 30 seconds. If the main tank is charmed or dies it is the brawler that needs to pick it up especially if the OT is busy with adds. As the third tank the brawler needs to hold the mob until the next charm. This is a job lasts longer than 30 seconds and happens more othen than our 100% parry are on cooldown. There have been dozens of good ideas to improve Monk and Bruiser tanking. They just need implement two or three of those ideas to get monks and bruisers into the third tank role.</blockquote> brawlers need more dps period because they don't have hate buffs/ca's (reinforce, give, deathmarch, sacrament, signil, ect..) so for the most part their dps is how they control encoutners. of course in raid i agree that brawelrs should help control encounters and keep dps alive. the problem is that you can't give brawlers too much longevity against raid mobs or they will replace all tanks since avoidance > mitt. i think a solid avoid buff would get brawlers in raid with out unbalancing the game.ps. i guess DC and peel are hate buffs but even peel is nothing compared to plate tank abilitys.

Novusod

04-19-2009, 07:25 AM

<cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>A Monk or Bruiser asking for more DPS is like a Fury asking for more DPS. Do raids bring Furies for their DPS? A good fury can both keep their group alive and throw down nice dps. Yes furies are brought for their extra dps but the key word here is it is Extra dps and no one would bring a fury to raid that didn't heal or cure. The primary role of all healers is to heal with a secondary role to dps and buff others. The primary role of a fighter is too stay alive and not die and make sure others in the raid don't die. These are the core mechanics of the archtype and not something that can be escaped. Many Monks and Bruisers think this logic does not apply to them and that they can get by on DPS alone. Nobody is going to want another glass cannon with rouge DPS when rouges bring other utilty while enchanters with their monstrous utility are also DPS'ing competitively. Asking for more DPS is asking to give up your raid spot and the total loss of raid viability of both brawlers.A good brawler is defined not by how well they DPS but by how well they can tank. Going forward a brawler needs to be able to hold and survive against the main mob for more than just 10 or 30 seconds. If the main tank is charmed or dies it is the brawler that needs to pick it up especially if the OT is busy with adds. As the third tank the brawler needs to hold the mob until the next charm. This is a job lasts longer than 30 seconds and happens more othen than our 100% parry are on cooldown. There have been dozens of good ideas to improve Monk and Bruiser tanking. They just need implement two or three of those ideas to get monks and bruisers into the third tank role.</blockquote> brawlers need more dps period because they don't have hate buffs/ca's (reinforce, give, deathmarch, sacrament, signil, ect..) so for the most part their dps is how they control encounters.Brawlers don't need more DPS . Brawlers need to fill in their weak spots in terms of hate and give them some type of equivalent to (reinforce, deathmarch, sacrament, signil, ect..). Give brawlers more hate and they wouldn't need to go full on DPS just to get agro. of course in raid i agree that brawelrs should help control encounters and keep dps alive. the problem is that you can't give brawlers too much longevity against raid mobs or they will replace all tanks since avoidance > mitt.Plate tanks have just as much avoidance as brawlers and that is where the imbalance comes from. They need to make avoidance and mitt equal and then balance it out. i think a solid avoid buff would get brawlers in raid with out unbalancing the game.Brawlers need a solid long duration avoid buff that allows them to fill the third tank role. No healer would accept just being able to heal for 30 seconds so why should a tank class be able to do its' job for just 30 seconds. There needs to be long duration survivability that allows brawlers to fill a tanking role. Without that survivability there is NO reason to bring a brawler to raid.ps. i guess DC and peel are hate buffs but even peel is nothing compared to plate tank abilitys.And that is something that need to change and point to constant brawler complaints.</blockquote>

Couching

04-19-2009, 10:17 AM

<cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>A Monk or Bruiser asking for more DPS is like a Fury asking for more DPS. Do raids bring Furies for their DPS? A good fury can both keep their group alive and throw down nice dps. Yes furies are brought for their extra dps but the key word here is it is Extra dps and no one would bring a fury to raid that didn't heal or cure. The primary role of all healers is to heal with a secondary role to dps and buff others. The primary role of a fighter is too stay alive and not die and make sure others in the raid don't die. These are the core mechanics of the archtype and not something that can be escaped. Many Monks and Bruisers think this logic does not apply to them and that they can get by on DPS alone. Nobody is going to want another glass cannon with rouge DPS when rouges bring other utilty while enchanters with their monstrous utility are also DPS'ing competitively. Asking for more DPS is asking to give up your raid spot and the total loss of raid viability of both brawlers.A good brawler is defined not by how well they DPS but by how well they can tank. Going forward a brawler needs to be able to hold and survive against the main mob for more than just 10 or 30 seconds. If the main tank is charmed or dies it is the brawler that needs to pick it up especially if the OT is busy with adds. As the third tank the brawler needs to hold the mob until the next charm. This is a job lasts longer than 30 seconds and happens more othen than our 100% parry are on cooldown. There have been dozens of good ideas to improve Monk and Bruiser tanking. They just need implement two or three of those ideas to get monks and bruisers into the third tank role.</blockquote> brawlers need more dps period because they don't have hate buffs/ca's (reinforce, give, deathmarch, sacrament, signil, ect..) so for the most part their dps is how they control encoutners. of course in raid i agree that brawelrs should help control encounters and keep dps alive. the problem is that you can't give brawlers too much longevity against raid mobs or they will replace all tanks since avoidance > mitt.Incorrect. mit is king of survivability. Why is guardian still the best tank in raid? Becasue they can get highest mitigation over all fighters. No body care how many hits you can avoid if you could be one or two shotted, you are still worthless as a tank. To be a qualified tanks, you need enough mitigation/hp to take at least 3 hits becasue mobs can double attack. Guardians can take more hits than any other fighters in raids. It is why guardian is the best tank. Not to say, getting small melee hits is actually a good thing for survive, higher chance to proc stoneskin and recative heal. i think a solid avoid buff would get brawlers in raid with out unbalancing the game.ps. i guess DC and peel are hate buffs but even peel is nothing compared to plate tank abilitys.</blockquote>

Couching

04-19-2009, 10:27 AM

<cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote> brawlers need more dps period because they don't have hate buffs/ca's (reinforce, give, deathmarch, sacrament, signil, ect..) so for the most part their dps is how they control encounters.Brawlers don't need more DPS . Brawlers need to fill in their weak spots in terms of hate and give them some type of equivalent to (reinforce, deathmarch, sacrament, signil, ect..). Give brawlers more hate and they wouldn't need to go full on DPS just to get agro. of course in raid i agree that brawelrs should help control encounters and keep dps alive. the problem is that you can't give brawlers too much longevity against raid mobs or they will replace all tanks since avoidance > mitt.Plate tanks have just as much avoidance as brawlers and that is where the imbalance comes from. They need to make avoidance and mitt equal and then balance it out.It's a great improvement in TSO that brawlers finally have more avoidance than plate tanks in raid. However, current healing spells are against avoidance tank.Most powerful healing is stoneskin: The more often you got hit, the more to proc. Heal over time and reactive heal are also against avoidance tank.Only ward is about equal for both mitigation and avoidance tank. Even SoE made avoidance and mit equal, mitigation tanks are still better in survivability because it's much easier for healers to keep them up with current healing spells. That's why any whine about avoid > mit is clueless of this game. i think a solid avoid buff would get brawlers in raid with out unbalancing the game.Brawlers need a solid long duration avoid buff that allows them to fill the third tank role. No healer would accept just being able to heal for 30 seconds so why should a tank class be able to do its' job for just 30 seconds. There needs to be long duration survivability that allows brawlers to fill a tanking role. Without that survivability there is NO reason to bring a brawler to raid.ps. i guess DC and peel are hate buffs but even peel is nothing compared to plate tank abilitys.And that is something that need to change and point to constant brawler complaints.</blockquote></blockquote>

Davngr1

04-19-2009, 02:53 PM

<cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>A Monk or Bruiser asking for more DPS is like a Fury asking for more DPS. Do raids bring Furies for their DPS? A good fury can both keep their group alive and throw down nice dps. Yes furies are brought for their extra dps but the key word here is it is Extra dps and no one would bring a fury to raid that didn't heal or cure. The primary role of all healers is to heal with a secondary role to dps and buff others. The primary role of a fighter is too stay alive and not die and make sure others in the raid don't die. These are the core mechanics of the archtype and not something that can be escaped. Many Monks and Bruisers think this logic does not apply to them and that they can get by on DPS alone. Nobody is going to want another glass cannon with rouge DPS when rouges bring other utilty while enchanters with their monstrous utility are also DPS'ing competitively. Asking for more DPS is asking to give up your raid spot and the total loss of raid viability of both brawlers.A good brawler is defined not by how well they DPS but by how well they can tank. Going forward a brawler needs to be able to hold and survive against the main mob for more than just 10 or 30 seconds. If the main tank is charmed or dies it is the brawler that needs to pick it up especially if the OT is busy with adds. As the third tank the brawler needs to hold the mob until the next charm. This is a job lasts longer than 30 seconds and happens more othen than our 100% parry are on cooldown. There have been dozens of good ideas to improve Monk and Bruiser tanking. They just need implement two or three of those ideas to get monks and bruisers into the third tank role.</blockquote> brawlers need more dps period because they don't have hate buffs/ca's (reinforce, give, deathmarch, sacrament, signil, ect..) so for the most part their dps is how they control encounters.Brawlers don't need more DPS . Brawlers need to fill in their weak spots in terms of hate and give them some type of equivalent to (reinforce, deathmarch, sacrament, signil, ect..). Give brawlers more hate and they wouldn't need to go full on DPS just to get agro. of course in raid i agree that brawelrs should help control encounters and keep dps alive. the problem is that you can't give brawlers too much longevity against raid mobs or they will replace all tanks since avoidance > mitt.Plate tanks have just as much avoidance as brawlers and that is where the imbalance comes from. They need to make avoidance and mitt equal and then balance it out. i think a solid avoid buff would get brawlers in raid with out unbalancing the game.Brawlers need a solid long duration avoid buff that allows them to fill the third tank role. No healer would accept just being able to heal for 30 seconds so why should a tank class be able to do its' job for just 30 seconds. There needs to be long duration survivability that allows brawlers to fill a tanking role. Without that survivability there is NO reason to bring a brawler to raid.ps. i guess DC and peel are hate buffs but even peel is nothing compared to plate tank abilitys.And that is something that need to change and point to constant brawler complaints.</blockquote></blockquote>that's cool man we have about the same view about what the class needs, you just want hate buffs and i would like to see my brawler get more dmg either way works tbh. and the avoid buff i mentioned was a utillity for the MT not a self buff.

Davngr1

04-19-2009, 02:57 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>A Monk or Bruiser asking for more DPS is like a Fury asking for more DPS. Do raids bring Furies for their DPS? A good fury can both keep their group alive and throw down nice dps. Yes furies are brought for their extra dps but the key word here is it is Extra dps and no one would bring a fury to raid that didn't heal or cure. The primary role of all healers is to heal with a secondary role to dps and buff others. The primary role of a fighter is too stay alive and not die and make sure others in the raid don't die. These are the core mechanics of the archtype and not something that can be escaped. Many Monks and Bruisers think this logic does not apply to them and that they can get by on DPS alone. Nobody is going to want another glass cannon with rouge DPS when rouges bring other utilty while enchanters with their monstrous utility are also DPS'ing competitively. Asking for more DPS is asking to give up your raid spot and the total loss of raid viability of both brawlers.A good brawler is defined not by how well they DPS but by how well they can tank. Going forward a brawler needs to be able to hold and survive against the main mob for more than just 10 or 30 seconds. If the main tank is charmed or dies it is the brawler that needs to pick it up especially if the OT is busy with adds. As the third tank the brawler needs to hold the mob until the next charm. This is a job lasts longer than 30 seconds and happens more othen than our 100% parry are on cooldown. There have been dozens of good ideas to improve Monk and Bruiser tanking. They just need implement two or three of those ideas to get monks and bruisers into the third tank role.</blockquote> brawlers need more dps period because they don't have hate buffs/ca's (reinforce, give, deathmarch, sacrament, signil, ect..) so for the most part their dps is how they control encoutners. of course in raid i agree that brawelrs should help control encounters and keep dps alive. the problem is that you can't give(as in don't have it now) brawlers too much longevity against raid mobs or they will replace all tanks since avoidance > mitt.Incorrect. mit is king of survivability. Why is guardian still the best tank in raid? Becasue they can get highest mitigation over all fighters. No body care how many hits you can avoid if you could be one or two shotted, you are still worthless as a tank. To be a qualified tanks, you need enough mitigation/hp to take at least 3 hits becasue mobs can double attack. Guardians can take more hits than any other fighters in raids. It is why guardian is the best tank. Not to say, getting small melee hits is actually a good thing for survive, higher chance to proc stoneskin and recative heal. i think a solid avoid buff would get brawlers in raid with out unbalancing the game.ps. i guess DC and peel are hate buffs but even peel is nothing compared to plate tank abilitys.</blockquote></blockquote>couch.. you're the clueless one L2R i clearly said *IF* brawlers have too much longevity they will replace mitt tanks. why have a tank that gets hit all the time when you have a tank that gets hit less IF he lives thru the hits with not problem? IF couch IF brawlers recive to much longevity IF

Couching

04-19-2009, 03:28 PM

<cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>A Monk or Bruiser asking for more DPS is like a Fury asking for more DPS. Do raids bring Furies for their DPS? A good fury can both keep their group alive and throw down nice dps. Yes furies are brought for their extra dps but the key word here is it is Extra dps and no one would bring a fury to raid that didn't heal or cure. The primary role of all healers is to heal with a secondary role to dps and buff others. The primary role of a fighter is too stay alive and not die and make sure others in the raid don't die. These are the core mechanics of the archtype and not something that can be escaped. Many Monks and Bruisers think this logic does not apply to them and that they can get by on DPS alone. Nobody is going to want another glass cannon with rouge DPS when rouges bring other utilty while enchanters with their monstrous utility are also DPS'ing competitively. Asking for more DPS is asking to give up your raid spot and the total loss of raid viability of both brawlers.A good brawler is defined not by how well they DPS but by how well they can tank. Going forward a brawler needs to be able to hold and survive against the main mob for more than just 10 or 30 seconds. If the main tank is charmed or dies it is the brawler that needs to pick it up especially if the OT is busy with adds. As the third tank the brawler needs to hold the mob until the next charm. This is a job lasts longer than 30 seconds and happens more othen than our 100% parry are on cooldown. There have been dozens of good ideas to improve Monk and Bruiser tanking. They just need implement two or three of those ideas to get monks and bruisers into the third tank role.</blockquote> brawlers need more dps period because they don't have hate buffs/ca's (reinforce, give, deathmarch, sacrament, signil, ect..) so for the most part their dps is how they control encoutners. of course in raid i agree that brawelrs should help control encounters and keep dps alive. the problem is that you can't give(as in don't have it now) brawlers too much longevity against raid mobs or they will replace all tanks since avoidance > mitt.Incorrect. mit is king of survivability. Why is guardian still the best tank in raid? Becasue they can get highest mitigation over all fighters. No body care how many hits you can avoid if you could be one or two shotted, you are still worthless as a tank. To be a qualified tanks, you need enough mitigation/hp to take at least 3 hits becasue mobs can double attack. Guardians can take more hits than any other fighters in raids. It is why guardian is the best tank. Not to say, getting small melee hits is actually a good thing for survive, higher chance to proc stoneskin and recative heal. i think a solid avoid buff would get brawlers in raid with out unbalancing the game.ps. i guess DC and peel are hate buffs but even peel is nothing compared to plate tank abilitys.</blockquote></blockquote>couch.. you're the clueless one L2R i clearly said *IF* brawlers have too much longevity they will replace mitt tanks. why have a tank that gets hit all the time when you have a tank that gets hit less IF he lives thru the hits with not problem? IF couch IF brawlers recive to much longevity IF</blockquote>It's doesn't matter you said IF or not.I can replace any tank in your sentence: the problem is that you can't give guardian too much longevity against raid mobs or they will replace all tanks. Then let's see the reason or cause:since avoidance > mitt.It is stupid and out of logic because in current eq2 mechanics, mit > avoid rather than avoid > mit.I am not against the conclusion but I am agaisnt the cause.So what I disagreed is avoid > mit. No, it's not.

Lethe5683

04-19-2009, 06:06 PM

Why would anyone want threat over and equal amount of DPS? Brawlers should be holding most of their aggro through DPS, this is what's supposed to make up for our lower survivability. If we had significantly improved DPS including AoE autoattack of 40% or more than we would truely be the adaptible and diverse class we are ment to me instead of some saps who are bad at everything.

Morghus

04-19-2009, 06:15 PM

<cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote>ps. i guess DC and peel are hate buffs but even peel is nothing compared to plate tank abilitys.</blockquote>DC and peel don't even function fully on the current raid mobs, not even on adds.

Davngr1

04-20-2009, 03:01 AM

<cite>Morghus wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote>ps. i guess DC and peel are hate buffs but even peel is nothing compared to plate tank abilitys.</blockquote>DC and peel don't even function fully on the current raid mobs, not even on adds.</blockquote>i agree the two abilitys are broken, soe should not take away a classes ONLY emergency agro ability and leave the others untouched.<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>A Monk or Bruiser asking for more DPS is like a Fury asking for more DPS. Do raids bring Furies for their DPS? A good fury can both keep their group alive and throw down nice dps. Yes furies are brought for their extra dps but the key word here is it is Extra dps and no one would bring a fury to raid that didn't heal or cure. The primary role of all healers is to heal with a secondary role to dps and buff others. The primary role of a fighter is too stay alive and not die and make sure others in the raid don't die. These are the core mechanics of the archtype and not something that can be escaped. Many Monks and Bruisers think this logic does not apply to them and that they can get by on DPS alone. Nobody is going to want another glass cannon with rouge DPS when rouges bring other utilty while enchanters with their monstrous utility are also DPS'ing competitively. Asking for more DPS is asking to give up your raid spot and the total loss of raid viability of both brawlers.A good brawler is defined not by how well they DPS but by how well they can tank. Going forward a brawler needs to be able to hold and survive against the main mob for more than just 10 or 30 seconds. If the main tank is charmed or dies it is the brawler that needs to pick it up especially if the OT is busy with adds. As the third tank the brawler needs to hold the mob until the next charm. This is a job lasts longer than 30 seconds and happens more othen than our 100% parry are on cooldown. There have been dozens of good ideas to improve Monk and Bruiser tanking. They just need implement two or three of those ideas to get monks and bruisers into the third tank role.</blockquote> brawlers need more dps period because they don't have hate buffs/ca's (reinforce, give, deathmarch, sacrament, signil, ect..) so for the most part their dps is how they control encoutners. of course in raid i agree that brawelrs should help control encounters and keep dps alive. the problem is that you can't give(as in don't have it now) brawlers too much longevity against raid mobs or they will replace all tanks since avoidance > mitt.Incorrect. mit is king of survivability. Why is guardian still the best tank in raid? Becasue they can get highest mitigation over all fighters. No body care how many hits you can avoid if you could be one or two shotted, you are still worthless as a tank. To be a qualified tanks, you need enough mitigation/hp to take at least 3 hits becasue mobs can double attack. Guardians can take more hits than any other fighters in raids. It is why guardian is the best tank. Not to say, getting small melee hits is actually a good thing for survive, higher chance to proc stoneskin and recative heal. i think a solid avoid buff would get brawlers in raid with out unbalancing the game.ps. i guess DC and peel are hate buffs but even peel is nothing compared to plate tank abilitys.</blockquote></blockquote>couch.. you're the clueless one L2R i clearly said *IF* brawlers have too much longevity they will replace mitt tanks. why have a tank that gets hit all the time when you have a tank that gets hit less IF he lives thru the hits with not problem? IF couch IF brawlers recive to much longevity IF</blockquote>It's doesn't matter you said IF or not.I can replace any tank in your sentence: the problem is that you can't give guardian too much longevity against raid mobs or they will replace all tanks. Then let's see the reason or cause:since avoidance > mitt.It is stupid and out of logic because in current eq2 mechanics, mit > avoid rather than avoid > mit.I am not against the conclusion but I am agaisnt the cause.So what I disagreed is avoid > mit. No, it's not.</blockquote> the best defence against an attack is to not be there. sure the way the game currently is mit tanks > avoidance tanks, but what brawler made their toon with tanking raid mobs in mind? very small percentage im sure. tbh i rolled my bruiser to be my wizard in leather and to scream thru instances at 100 mph. sure players that choose to raid brawlers deserve a solid function in raid, i just don't think being the main tank is the one most want. i could wrong and that is why these discussions are important.

Couching

04-20-2009, 12:31 PM

<cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote> the best defence against an attack is to not be there. No, it's only for solo. We are talking in a group or raid situation. You have a team back you up. In this case, there are more to consider than just tank itself. In current eq2 mechanics, mit > avoid. Almost all healing spells were designed for mitigation tanks. It's much easier for healers to keep mit tanks up than keep avoid tanks up due to less damage spike. sure the way the game currently is mit tanks > avoidance tanks, but what brawler made their toon with tanking raid mobs in mind? very small percentage im sure. For old school monks, when we created our toon, we were told that every fighter can tank all content in this game with different ways. A lot of monks have done raid tanking in T5. Monk was welcome in raid tanking in T5.When SoE introduced uncontested avoidance in this game, it totally screwed monk. Our deflection became contested in raid = junk and plate tanks can keep their avoidance from shield in raid. It caused that plate tanks have more avoidance than brawlers in raid. tbh i rolled my bruiser to be my wizard in leather and to scream thru instances at 100 mph. sure players that choose to raid brawlers deserve a solid function in raid, i just don't think being the main tank is the one most want. i could wrong and that is why these discussions are important.Bruiser dps is far behind wizard. Bruiser dps is not even T2. I am not sure why you got the wrong impression of bruiser is dpsers rather than tank.</blockquote>

Windowlicker

04-20-2009, 12:38 PM

Brawlers should be great at avoiding hits, and the second they get hit .. they should die. I'm sorry, but there's no reason anyone can give me that a toon wearing leather should be anywhere near a plate class in survivability.

Couching

04-20-2009, 12:41 PM

<cite>Zahne@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>Brawlers should be great at avoiding hits, and the second they get hit .. they should die get hurt based on their mitigation. I'm sorry, but there's no reason anyone can give me that a toon wearing leather should be anywhere near a plate class in survivability mitigation.</blockquote>First, We wear leather armor but our mitigation, with mythical, is chain, not leather. 2nd, there are jewelry with mitigation.3rd, healer and bard mitigation buff.Last, I fixed it for you.

Siatfallen

04-20-2009, 01:27 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Zahne@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>Brawlers should be great at avoiding hits, and the second they get hit .. they should die. I'm sorry, but there's no reason anyone can give me that a toon wearing leather should be anywhere near a plate class in survivability mitigation.</blockquote>First, We wear leather armor but our mitigation is chain, not leather. 2nd, there are jewelry with mitigation.3rd, healer and bard mitigation buff.Last, I fixed it for you.</blockquote>Actually, the point made, from a perspective of realism (such as it is, this being a fantasy game) is a valid one. The conclusion that we should die the moment we get hit, however, would completely ruin any fighter class, to the point of making it unplayable.We really shouldn't have plate mitigation or survivability, given what the class supposedly is. Class balance > Realism, however. If there's no other way to achieve class balance, then so be it - I find it hard to believe that's the case, though.But that's a fairly long debate we've gone over above already.Brawler from 100% to dead in one hit (or one double attack), given gear of the appropriate level for the mob, is not functional in the least. The discussion is how vulnerable the class should be to damage spikes.

Novusod

04-20-2009, 01:43 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Zahne@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>Brawlers should be great at avoiding hits, and the second they get hit .. they should die. I'm sorry, but there's no reason anyone can give me that a toon wearing leather should be anywhere near a plate class in survivability mitigation.</blockquote>First, We wear leather armor but our mitigation is chain, not leather. 2nd, there are jewelry with mitigation.3rd, healer and bard mitigation buff.Last, I fixed it for you.</blockquote>The Reason leather tanks should have higher mitigation is that current game mechanics demand it for balance. You cannot realistically balance plate with leather in a game where mitigation trumps all other stats.Also might I add there have been experiments with giving Monks and Bruisers plate tank like mitigation. This was the <a href="http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e38/Novuso/EverQuest/TSO_PvPgear.jpg" target="_blank">Leather Plate Armor</a> set that was used for a little while by me and other bruisers in TSO beta. This 7 piece set of armor has almost 2000 more mitigation on it than current brawler leathers. Things were a lot more balanced with the extra mit than what currently passes for balance on the live servers.Maybe there are other ways to balance Plate with Leather that have not been tried such as giving each piece of Leather an inate 300 point ward to make up for the lack of mitigation. Maybe balance can be achieved by giving leather twice the health of plate so spikes are a bit less likely to kill the leather tank. Either way something has to be done because the current state of imbalance is unacceptable. The is NO advantage to wearing leather compared to plate. Leather is simply the inferior armor type. So where is the balance in that???

Couching

04-20-2009, 01:44 PM

<cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Zahne@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>Brawlers should be great at avoiding hits, and the second they get hit .. they should die. I'm sorry, but there's no reason anyone can give me that a toon wearing leather should be anywhere near a plate class in survivability mitigation.</blockquote>First, We wear leather armor but our mitigation is chain, not leather. 2nd, there are jewelry with mitigation.3rd, healer and bard mitigation buff.Last, I fixed it for you.</blockquote>Actually, the point made, from a perspective of realism (such as it is, this being a fantasy game) is a valid one. The conclusion that we should die the moment we get hit, however, would completely ruin any fighter class, to the point of making it unplayable.We really shouldn't have plate mitigation or survivability, given what the class supposedly is. Class balance > Realism, however. If there's no other way to achieve class balance, then so be it - I find it hard to believe that's the case, though.But that's a fairly long debate we've gone over above already.Brawler from 100% to dead in one hit (or one double attack), given gear of the appropriate level for the mob, is not functional in the least. The discussion is how vulnerable the class should be to damage spikes.</blockquote>In this game, damage is mitigated by mitigation.The mitigation is a mix of armor, jewelry, and buffs.Survivabiliy is a mix of mitigation, hp, avoidance and life saving tools.Any statement such as plate tanks should have better survivability or mitigate damage better is very inaccurate.I am not sure why some plate tanks keep posting that they should have better survivability just because they wear plate. The fact is, you can get mitigation from other sources, such as jewelry, stance and buff.In raid, with same group setup, my mitigation in defensive is about 100 more than our zerker and SK in offensive. I used a lot of jewelry with mitigation and they didn't.In this case, who should mitigate damage better? Me, not them.

Davngr1

04-20-2009, 02:24 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote> the best defence against an attack is to not be there. No, it's only for solo. We are talking in a group or raid situation. You have a team back you up. In this case, there are more to consider than just tank itself. In current eq2 mechanics, mit > avoid. Almost all healing spells were designed for mitigation tanks. It's much easier for healers to keep mit tanks up than keep avoid tanks up due to less damage spike.that's my point IF those spikes are demished by giving brawlers more longevity in raid encounters they will make plate tanks obsolete, since anyone that tanks knows that not getting hit is better then getting hit. sure the way the game currently is mit tanks > avoidance tanks, but what brawler made their toon with tanking raid mobs in mind? very small percentage im sure. For old school monks, when we created our toon, we were told that every fighter can tank all content in this game with different ways. A lot of monks have done raid tanking in T5. Monk was welcome in raid tanking in T5. in old school T5 troubs where tanking too, does not mean it's a good direction for the game.When SoE introduced uncontested avoidance in this game, it totally screwed monk. Our deflection became contested in raid = junk and plate tanks can keep their avoidance from shield in raid. It caused that plate tanks have more avoidance than brawlers in raid. yea i agree here making all avoidance contested screwd brawlers. tbh i rolled my bruiser to be my wizard in leather and to scream thru instances at 100 mph. sure players that choose to raid brawlers deserve a solid function in raid, i just don't think being the main tank is the one most want. i could wrong and that is why these discussions are important.Bruiser dps is far behind wizard. Bruiser dps is not even T2. I am not sure why you got the wrong impression of bruiser is dpsers rather than tank. it's not an impresion when i rolled my bruiser he was along with monk the highest dps fighter in burst dmg ofcourse now plate tanks(exept most guards) are doing more/equal dps. that is what has to be delt with IMO. BTW i can tank everything my guard can with my bruiser and tank any group im in because there is IMO no need to have two tanks in a group of 6 players. brawlers should stay viablein herroic content, there is no doubt about that. what i suggest is to balance raid tanking so that brawlers falls into a utillity/dps/3rd/4th tanks slot instead of the main tank slot. IF you want to main tank roll a plate tank. </blockquote></blockquote>

Couching

04-20-2009, 02:35 PM

<cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote> the best defence against an attack is to not be there. No, it's only for solo. We are talking in a group or raid situation. You have a team back you up. In this case, there are more to consider than just tank itself. In current eq2 mechanics, mit > avoid. Almost all healing spells were designed for mitigation tanks. It's much easier for healers to keep mit tanks up than keep avoid tanks up due to less damage spike.that's my point IF those spikes are demished by giving brawlers more longevity in raid encounters they will make plate tanks obsolete, since anyone that tanks knows that not getting hit is better then getting hit.No, because getting more small hits > few medium hits so that you can get more stoneskin proc and reactive heal. sure the way the game currently is mit tanks > avoidance tanks, but what brawler made their toon with tanking raid mobs in mind? very small percentage im sure. For old school monks, when we created our toon, we were told that every fighter can tank all content in this game with different ways. A lot of monks have done raid tanking in T5. Monk was welcome in raid tanking in T5. in old school T5 troubs where tanking too, does not mean it's a good direction for the game.And troubs is not fighter but brawlers are.When SoE introduced uncontested avoidance in this game, it totally screwed monk. Our deflection became contested in raid = junk and plate tanks can keep their avoidance from shield in raid. It caused that plate tanks have more avoidance than brawlers in raid. yea i agree here making all avoidance contested screwd brawlers. tbh i rolled my bruiser to be my wizard in leather and to scream thru instances at 100 mph. sure players that choose to raid brawlers deserve a solid function in raid, i just don't think being the main tank is the one most want. i could wrong and that is why these discussions are important.Bruiser dps is far behind wizard. Bruiser dps is not even T2. I am not sure why you got the wrong impression of bruiser is dpsers rather than tank. it's not an impresion when i rolled my bruiser he was along with monk the highest dps fighter in burst dmg ofcourse now plate tanks(exept most guards) are doing more/equal dps. that is what has to be delt with IMO. BTW i can tank everything my guard can with my bruiser and tank any group im in because there is IMO no need to have two tanks in a group of 6 players. brawlers should stay viablein herroic content, there is no doubt about that. what i suggest is to balance raid tanking so that brawlers falls into a utillity/dps/3rd/4th tanks slot instead of the main tank slot.What I said is brawlers should be able to tank all content as other fighters. When other fighters have better survivability, they should have less dps than brawlers, vice versa. Some selfish plate tanks want to keep their survivability and dps at same time. IF you want to main tank roll a plate tank. IF plate tanks want to monopolize main tank, their dps need a nerf.</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>

Davngr1

04-20-2009, 03:05 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote> the best defence against an attack is to not be there. No, it's only for solo. We are talking in a group or raid situation. You have a team back you up. In this case, there are more to consider than just tank itself. In current eq2 mechanics, mit > avoid. Almost all healing spells were designed for mitigation tanks. It's much easier for healers to keep mit tanks up than keep avoid tanks up due to less damage spike.that's my point IF those spikes are demished by giving brawlers more longevity in raid encounters they will make plate tanks obsolete, since anyone that tanks knows that not getting hit is better then getting hit.No, because getting more small hits > few medium hits so that you can get more stoneskin proc and reactive heal. there are almost no small hits in raids, if you don't avoid a 12k double attack crit you will most likely be dead no matter what tank you are. not being hit will always be better then getting hit. sure the way the game currently is mit tanks > avoidance tanks, but what brawler made their toon with tanking raid mobs in mind? very small percentage im sure. For old school monks, when we created our toon, we were told that every fighter can tank all content in this game with different ways. A lot of monks have done raid tanking in T5. Monk was welcome in raid tanking in T5. in old school T5 troubs where tanking too, does not mean it's a good direction for the game.And troubs is not fighter but brawlers are. for balance you need for each tank to have a niche/roll in raid IF you just make them all the same longevity, the best one will get invited and the rest will sit. brawlers need a role i just don't think main tank is the right role for brawlers since so many other classes are already competative in this area.When SoE introduced uncontested avoidance in this game, it totally screwed monk. Our deflection became contested in raid = junk and plate tanks can keep their avoidance from shield in raid. It caused that plate tanks have more avoidance than brawlers in raid. yea i agree here making all avoidance contested screwd brawlers. tbh i rolled my bruiser to be my wizard in leather and to scream thru instances at 100 mph. sure players that choose to raid brawlers deserve a solid function in raid, i just don't think being the main tank is the one most want. i could wrong and that is why these discussions are important.Bruiser dps is far behind wizard. Bruiser dps is not even T2. I am not sure why you got the wrong impression of bruiser is dpsers rather than tank. it's not an impresion when i rolled my bruiser he was along with monk the highest dps fighter in burst dmg ofcourse now plate tanks(exept most guards) are doing more/equal dps. that is what has to be delt with IMO. BTW i can tank everything my guard can with my bruiser and tank any group im in because there is IMO no need to have two tanks in a group of 6 players. brawlers should stay viablein herroic content, there is no doubt about that. what i suggest is to balance raid tanking so that brawlers falls into a utillity/dps/3rd/4th tanks slot instead of the main tank slot.What I said is brawlers should be able to tank all content as other fighters. When other fighters have better survivability, they should have less dps than brawlers, vice versa. Some selfish plate tanks want to keep their survivability and dps at same time. IF you want to main tank roll a plate tank. IF plate tanks want to monopolize main tank, their dps need a nerf. agreed</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> either way i play a brawler and totaly agree that they need some work.

Couching

04-20-2009, 03:21 PM

Actually there are a lot of small hits in raids when you have enough mitigation.Most raid mobs including avatars average hits on him is about 5k or even less.

Elanjar

04-20-2009, 05:25 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>In this game, damage is mitigated by mitigation.The mitigation is a mix of armor, jewelry, and buffs.Survivabiliy is a mix of mitigation, hp, avoidance and life saving tools.Any statement such as plate tanks should have better survivability or mitigate damage better is very inaccurate.I am not sure why some plate tanks keep posting that they should have better survivability just because they wear plate. The fact is, you can get mitigation from other sources, such as jewelry, stance and buff.In raid, with same group setup, my mitigation in defensive is about 100 more than our zerker and SK in offensive. I used a lot of jewelry with mitigation and they didn't.In this case, who should mitigate damage better? Me, not them.</blockquote>If thats the case then you have nothing to complain about and I would venture to say that brawlers are not broken....

Couching

04-20-2009, 05:43 PM

<cite>Elanjar@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>In this game, damage is mitigated by mitigation.The mitigation is a mix of armor, jewelry, and buffs.Survivabiliy is a mix of mitigation, hp, avoidance and life saving tools.Any statement such as plate tanks should have better survivability or mitigate damage better is very inaccurate.I am not sure why some plate tanks keep posting that they should have better survivability just because they wear plate. The fact is, you can get mitigation from other sources, such as jewelry, stance and buff.In raid, with same group setup, my mitigation in defensive is about 100 more than our zerker and SK in offensive. I used a lot of jewelry with mitigation and they didn't.In this case, who should mitigate damage better? Me, not them.</blockquote>If thats the case then you have nothing to complain about and I would venture to say that brawlers are not broken....</blockquote>Why not?In my example, it proved that plate tank should not have better survivability just becasue they wear plate; armor is not the only source of getting mitigation.However, the problem remains that brawlers have less dps than plate tanks when both are in offensive and eq2 mechanics are unfriendly to avoidance tank; it caused that plate tanks are preferable and better tank in tanking.I can't see why plate tanks should be better in both dealing dps and tanking.

Elanjar

04-20-2009, 05:56 PM

l2p i'm tired of reading your garbage on these forums. none of your posts are constructive, and all i see is nerf nerf QQ

Couching

04-20-2009, 06:04 PM

<cite>Elanjar@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>l2p i'm tired of reading your garbage on these forums. none of your posts are constructive, and all i see is nerf nerf QQ</blockquote>Nice, another Bruener. Maybe you should cry less on nerfing other class first.

Landiin

04-20-2009, 07:00 PM

It is getting quite comical in here keep it going..

circusgirl

04-21-2009, 02:45 AM

Plate tanks should have higher mitigation than leather tanks. However, this does not mean they should necessarilly have better survivability. As has been stated before, survivability is determined by:1)mit2)avoidance3)buffs/heals/items/things other classes give you4)special survivability abilities the tank has (i.e. tower of stone, tsunami, etc.)Assuming that the classes are not being balanced on another factor, such as dps, utility, or aggro abilities (which is currently quite true since monk dps falls behind several plate tanks and due to the combination of peel/D&C not working on raid mobs and our lousy AoE aggro we fall behind just about EVERYONE except maybe guards there, and we have no group-wide buff like plate tanks do), these 4 traits should be different between all tanks but should result in equal overall survivability. So, plate tanks SHOULD have high mitigation, low avoidance, medium special survivability abilities, and take good advantage of buffs/heals. To balance this with brawlers, brawlers could have high avoidance, low mit, medium special abilities, good advantage of buffs and heals.Here are the problems. First of all, avoidance is inherently less useful than mitigation. Spike damage has the consequence of making healers have a harder time keeping us up and makes certain types of heals less useful on us, which drops us down on #3 on the list. Second of all, plate tanks actually have medium-to-high avoidance, since there are many ways of increasing avoidance as a plate tank (food, drink, +parry, +defense, 3% riposte adorns, two 3% parry adorns) while brawlers are stuck with very low mitigation and almost no way to raise it (basically a few pieces of jewelry with mitigation on them). Buffs and Heals are generally designed for plate tanks (see: reactive heals) and the nature of avoidance makes many items and abilities that proc when a tank is hit far, far less useful (ward items, stoneskins, etc.). We have a slight advantage on special abilities I think, though I don't know the other plate tank classes well enough to be sure.So, how to fix this disparity--the first option is to fix it in an area other than survivability, i.e., by bringing up brawler's dps/aggro/utility abilities compared to other tanks. This could be done by making peel work in raids, 40% AE autoattack in AA lines for better aggro/dps, making AA lines equal to other plate tanks, higher autoattack table, making everburning buff something other than haste, fixing crane flock, giving us uncontested avoidance in all stances to make our raid buff more desireable, or basically anything that the utility tank/dps camp has asked for.The second option is to leave dps alone and balance those 4 ways to be survivable so that brawlers EQUAL plate tanks. I don't think we need or should have plate tank mitigation, but given all the ways available for plate tanks to increase their avoidance, brawlers should have more comparable +mitigation options. This means +mitigation increase on our class sets, +mitigation adornments, more items that buff our mit, etc. The ways in which itemization and buffs/heals are biased against brawlers need to be fixed--more items that proc wards on successful blocks or deflects, for example. I personally would really like to see us shine in area #4--special abilities. More things we can throw up to make us survive better, and on faster recasts. In the end, I'd like to see us balance the following ways on these four areas:Warriors: Mitigation 5, Avoidance 3, Outside effects 3, Specials 1Crusadors: Mitigation 4, Avoidance 2, Outside effects 3, Specials 3Brawlers: Mitigation 2, Avoidance 5, Outside effects 2, Specials 3 Overall though, they should score the same, and have EQUAL survivability...that is, so long as things remain not fixed on the utility/dps/aggro fronts.

Gisallo

04-21-2009, 10:39 AM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Overall though, they should score the same, and have EQUAL survivability...that is, so long as things remain not fixed on the utility/dps/aggro fronts.</blockquote>This is of course assuming that Brawlers in whatever revamp is does, are planned to be as viable at MT and OT as Plate wearers. I think this idea has issues for the following reasons. First, there are already, for the most part only 2 "pure" tank slotsa in the raid. It was awsome, in my opinion, that Brawlers had tools that made them viable as a fighter/snap tank in a raid, I would like to see this trend continued WITH still making Brawlers more than capable instance tanks. Secondly I think SOE is going to be VERY hesitant on simply imposing an idea on any class at this point. They basically tried doing this with Fighter 2.0 for all of the fighters and this attempt at imposing a specifc paradigm blew up in their faces. They abandoned the plan and stated that they would not proceed with the revamp without community input. If you take this and logically extend it this means they may well look at what the brawler community thinks their class should be. The lack of unity (yes I am beating a dead horse) in the brawler community will make following through on this promise, at least as it faces the brawlers, problematic at best.As I said, your idea is not only fine but necessary IF Brawlers are to be 100% tanks jousting with the plate wearers for the MT and OT positions, but asking for this same surviveability if this ends up not being the case seems a little...off.

Couching

04-21-2009, 12:15 PM

<cite>Valkenberg@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Overall though, they should score the same, and have EQUAL survivability...that is, so long as things remain not fixed on the utility/dps/aggro fronts.</blockquote>This is of course assuming that Brawlers in whatever revamp is does, are planned to be as viable at MT and OT as Plate wearers. I think this idea has issues for the following reasons. First, there are already, for the most part only 2 "pure" tank slotsa in the raid. It was awsome, in my opinion, that Brawlers had tools that made them viable as a fighter/snap tank in a raid, I would like to see this trend continued WITH still making Brawlers more than capable instance tanks.Can we stop talking something didn't exist? Snap tank? It's included in the job of off tank(s) in raid. Any raid leader with a clue won't give a spot to anyone who is merely for snap tank role in a raid. Any fighter has to be able to tank if necessary. Any decent off tank can grab named immedately after MT got owned. We don't need snap tank role because it is the job that any off tank should do. How about let zerker and sk be snap tank since they have better aggro than brawlers in TSO raid? If anyone insists ther is a role of snap tank, you guys can take it, but don't push it to brawlers, thank you.Secondly I think SOE is going to be VERY hesitant on simply imposing an idea on any class at this point. They basically tried doing this with Fighter 2.0 for all of the fighters and this attempt at imposing a specifc paradigm blew up in their faces. They abandoned the plan and stated that they would not proceed with the revamp without community input. If you take this and logically extend it this means they may well look at what the brawler community thinks their class should be. The lack of unity (yes I am beating a dead horse) in the brawler community will make following through on this promise, at least as it faces the brawlers, problematic at best.Again, dont' make up something doesnt exist. We don't need a unified voice in brawlers community because we are fighters. This excuse is failed and I am happy with SoE's vision; we are tank. The current issue is plate tanks are overpowered rather than lack of vision for brawlers.As I said, your idea is not only fine but necessary IF Brawlers are to be 100% tanks jousting with the plate wearers for the MT and OT positions, but asking for this same surviveability if this ends up not being the case seems a little...off.Here is a simple question; are you willing to drop 20%-30% dps to keep your advantage of survivability than brawlers? If not, stop being selfish and no body should be overpowered as what plate tanks are now.Maybe it's time for you guys to get a unified voice: whether you want to keep overpowered dps or overpowered survivability than brawlers as plate tanks.</blockquote>

Landiin

04-21-2009, 12:55 PM

OMG Couching quit trolling and QQing.. Your one of the few brawlers that want the MT spot. So stop saying it is SOE path and start saying that is what YOU want.. YOU YOU YOU..

Obadiah

04-21-2009, 01:12 PM

<cite>Toran@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>OMG Couching quit trolling and QQing.. Your one of the few brawlers that want the MT spot. So stop saying it is SOE path and start saying that is what YOU want.. YOU YOU YOU..</blockquote>You know .... there was this really good idea in the OP:<cite>Akuu@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote>you DO NOT comment on other replies... This is a step to prevent derailing the thread.</blockquote>If you deleted everything but the replies that fit this mold (including this reply) maybe it would be worth leaving the thread open. Really belongs on flames or in General Gameplay or NGD right now as it's all just random Fighter debate.

Gisallo

04-21-2009, 01:22 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote>Can we stop talking something didn't exist? Snap tank? It's included in the job of off tank(s) in raid. Any raid leader with a clue won't give a spot to anyone who is merely for snap tank role in a raid. Any fighter has to be able to tank if necessary. Any decent off tank can grab named immedately after MT got owned. We don't need snap tank role because it is the job that any off tank should do. How about let zerker and sk be snap tank since they have better aggro than brawlers in TSO raid? If anyone insists ther is a role of snap tank, you guys can take it, but don't push it to brawlers, thank you.Well I got that term for the job from well... brawlers. And guess whats that is what brawlers were in RoK. Plenty of raid forces had em so I guess 99% of the raid forces were idiots. You may not have liked the role but there it was, in just about every raid force that had them along. Sometimes you need that class because the MT and OT are already busy, one of them drops and what do you do? If zerkers and sks were already that in the past fine. Heck if you could make them that and still keep them plate tanks, fine but how do you take a plate tank and completely change their role? Again, dont' make up something doesnt exist. We don't need a unified voice in brawlers community because we are fighters. This excuse is failed and I am happy with SoE's vision; we are tank. That was Aeralik's vision. A vision that saw him demoted and a vision that was killed by SOE. Think that vision still exists and you are living in a dream world.Here is a simple question; are you willing to drop 20%-30% dps to keep your advantage of survivability than brawlers? If not, stop being selfish and no body should be overpowered as what plate tanks are now.Maybe it's time for you guys to get a unified voice: whether you want to keep overpowered dps or overpowered survivability than brawlers as plate tanks.Well lets see thats completely illogical. Lets give up the surviveability and make it so that they can't tank. Lets give up the dps and make it so they can not keep aggro. LKets break all of the fighters rather than figuring out how to fix those that need it. Quite brilliant of you sir. There is only one thing I can see this coming down to. "Better to see others nerfed, than my class fixed in a way that does not fit into my personal vision."I know you will insist that it is SOE's vision but that is now an assumption on your part with the death of 2.0. I know you will NEVER accept it but that is the harsh reality of it.What I love is that I do want brawlers fixed. One of my favorite guild mates is a Monk who is now gearing up a defiler because of how broken you guys are now. He LOVES his Monk. I WANT HIM FIXED! But since I mention inconvenient truths I am somehow the enemy to be labasted by you. Whatever.</blockquote></blockquote>

circusgirl

04-21-2009, 01:36 PM

I'm honestly not fixated on either role--I want my class to be viable and useful, and will be happy to see it done EITHER by increasing our dps/utility/aggro OR by increasing our mitigation/avoidance/special defensive abilities. I'm perfectly happy to see it done either way...I just want us to be viable.

Hirofortis

04-21-2009, 01:38 PM

Vision of a tankWhen a tank is tanking, they can go into defensive stance.This will increase the survivability so they can ugh, tank the mob and hold agro.When they go into offensive stance, they loose survivablity, heck they are not trying to not take damage, so they should loose survivability, and they get more DPS for doing this. Beyond this it is simply a matter of how the classes do it.Warriors increase defense and mit to survive.Crusaders use spells to help them survive.Brawlers deflect damage, harden there bodies and increase there bodies healing ability to help them survive.This is a very simple concept but could easily meet all the things peps want. Tanks could be tanks and when not tanking could go DPS. In order to go DPS you loose survivability, I would say to the level of a scout since that is about t2 dps. So in ofensive they should be able to dps like a troub or a dirge.

Lethe5683

04-21-2009, 01:39 PM

<cite>Valkenberg@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote><blockquote>Can we stop talking something didn't exist? Snap tank? It's included in the job of off tank(s) in raid. Any raid leader with a clue won't give a spot to anyone who is merely for snap tank role in a raid. Any fighter has to be able to tank if necessary. Any decent off tank can grab named immedately after MT got owned. We don't need snap tank role because it is the job that any off tank should do. How about let zerker and sk be snap tank since they have better aggro than brawlers in TSO raid? If anyone insists ther is a role of snap tank, you guys can take it, but don't push it to brawlers, thank you.Well I got that term for the job from well... brawlers. And guess whats that is what brawlers were in RoK. Plenty of raid forces had em so I guess 99% of the raid forces were idiots. You may not have liked the role but there it was, in just about every raid force that had them along. Sometimes you need that class because the MT and OT are already busy, one of them drops and what do you do? If zerkers and sks were already that in the past fine. Heck if you could make them that and still keep them plate tanks, fine but how do you take a plate tank and completely change their role? I'm a brawler and am fine with snap tank role as long as our DPS is signifcantly increased, otherwise no way in *ell.Again, dont' make up something doesnt exist. We don't need a unified voice in brawlers community because we are fighters. This excuse is failed and I am happy with SoE's vision; we are tank. That was Aeralik's vision. A vision that saw him demoted and a vision that was killed by SOE. Think that vision still exists and you are living in a dream world.Aeralik was demoted? Really? What is his position now then?Here is a simple question; are you willing to drop 20%-30% dps to keep your advantage of survivability than brawlers? If not, stop being selfish and no body should be overpowered as what plate tanks are now.Maybe it's time for you guys to get a unified voice: whether you want to keep overpowered dps or overpowered survivability than brawlers as plate tanks.Well lets see thats completely illogical. Lets give up the surviveability and make it so that they can't tank. Lets give up the dps and make it so they can not keep aggro. LKets break all of the fighters rather than figuring out how to fix those that need it. Quite brilliant of you sir. There is only one thing I can see this coming down to. "Better to see others nerfed, than my class fixed in a way that does not fit into my personal vision."The plate tanks don't need to loose anything except a bit of uncontested avoidance, which is fixed by removing def skill from their gear. Brawlers only need their DA/Crit/AoE autoattack to be brought up to the same level as plate tanks. That would bring them pretty close to balanced.</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>

circusgirl

04-21-2009, 01:41 PM

All 6 fighters already out-dps troubs and dirges in most cases, except when those bards are really decked out, specced for dps (which is dumb for a bard, to be honest) and are getting great buffs from the group.

Lethe5683

04-21-2009, 01:42 PM

Couching

04-21-2009, 01:47 PM

<cite>Valkenberg@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote>Can we stop talking something didn't exist? Snap tank? It's included in the job of off tank(s) in raid. Any raid leader with a clue won't give a spot to anyone who is merely for snap tank role in a raid. Any fighter has to be able to tank if necessary. Any decent off tank can grab named immedately after MT got owned. We don't need snap tank role because it is the job that any off tank should do. How about let zerker and sk be snap tank since they have better aggro than brawlers in TSO raid? If anyone insists ther is a role of snap tank, you guys can take it, but don't push it to brawlers, thank you.Well I got that term for the job from well... brawlers. And guess whats that is what brawlers were in RoK. Plenty of raid forces had em so I guess 99% of the raid forces were idiots. You may not have liked the role but there it was, in just about every raid force that had them along. Sometimes you need that class because the MT and OT are already busy, one of them drops and what do you do? It's called 3rd tank, not snap tank. Any off tank when he is not tanking can take that role as well. It's nonsense to say there is a snap tank since it's included in the job of off tanking.If zerkers and sks were already that in the past fine. Heck if you could make them that and still keep them plate tanks, fine but how do you take a plate tank and completely change their role? Again, dont' make up something doesnt exist. We don't need a unified voice in brawlers community because we are fighters. This excuse is failed and I am happy with SoE's vision; we are tank. That was Aeralik's vision. A vision that saw him demoted and a vision that was killed by SOE. Think that vision still exists and you are living in a dream world.No, he got demoted because the stupid CA merge and unnecessary defensive and offensive stance restriction and wrong classification.Lets face the fact. No matter how you dislike the category he made: aoe tank and single target tank. It does exist in this game. However, what the stupid he did was making pal to be single target tank and bruiser as aoe tank. It's totally against the class capability. He was hated by every pal and bruiser when he made this change. If he classified sk, zerker and pal as aoe tanks, guardin, monk and bruiser as single target tank, he would not suffer so much hate. Here is a simple question; are you willing to drop 20%-30% dps to keep your advantage of survivability than brawlers? If not, stop being selfish and no body should be overpowered as what plate tanks are now.Maybe it's time for you guys to get a unified voice: whether you want to keep overpowered dps or overpowered survivability than brawlers as plate tanks.Well lets see thats completely illogical. Lets give up the surviveability and make it so that they can't tank. Lets give up the dps and make it so they can not keep aggro. LKets break all of the fighters rather than figuring out how to fix those that need it. Quite brilliant of you sir. There is only one thing I can see this coming down to. "Better to see others nerfed, than my class fixed in a way that does not fit into my personal vision."Again, your post is almost identical as broken op sk. I am not surprised when people are trying to keep their op class. The fact is, it's always easier to nerf OP classes rather than boost other classes. I know you will insist that it is SOE's vision but that is now an assumption on your part with the death of 2.0. I know you will NEVER accept it but that is the harsh reality of it.The reality is that SOE is trying to fix broken itemization for brawler tanking. More gear with +crushing and deflection chance. They didn't change their vision; we are tank. I hope you can ACCEPT that we are playing the game designed by SOE, not you or player x, y, z.What I love is that I do want brawlers fixed. One of my favorite guild mates is a Monk who is now gearing up a defiler because of how broken you guys are now. He LOVES his Monk. I WANT HIM FIXED! But since I mention inconvenient truths I am somehow the enemy to be labasted by you. Whatever.Your fix is making brawler a scout or a role can be covered by off tank, snap tank, no thanks. We are fighters not scout.</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>

Hirofortis

04-21-2009, 01:49 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>All 6 fighters already out-dps troubs and dirges in most cases, except when those bards are really decked out, specced for dps (which is dumb for a bard, to be honest) and are getting great buffs from the group.</blockquote>If a class is DPS specced, then that would be where you would expect it to be. I am not here to argue over specs. I am saying that the tanks in DPS mode should be dpsing around a t2 scout in exchange for loosing there survivability. As far as a bard being decked out, any class when decked out can get some pretty nice DPS, if ya know how to play the class and have things specced out right. And even if a bard is dps specced they still have a TON of utility. Look at any raidforce and what would they prefer? 4 dirges and 1 to 2 troubs. The only other class that gets that many raid spots is healers. So I don't think that bards need to worry about how they fit in here.

Yimway

04-21-2009, 03:21 PM

I've been avoiding this discussion until we hear what the new communication lines are going to be. I decided to jump in again though since that seems to be taking a while.We need to just take a step back from dps as the focal part of the discussion for a minute and first provide a basis for what things should always be true about fighters. This is a rough description of how I see fighters being balanced in EQ2AggroFirst and foremost, aggro generation on both ST and AoE targets needs to be effective on ALL fighters.Yes, All fighters must be able to generate hate effectively in both situations. Aggro is a core task of the fighter class and should never be conditional based upon encounter makeup. The idea of dividing up aggro of different encounter types between the different fighters was flawed.This can be achieved by abilities similar to the new SK sacrament line. Something that hits in AoE and has a significant over time component that causes additional hate to apply for the duration of the ability. What will differ about the ability type between classes is how much DPS is generated by the ability. A guardian may get a on mob damage a 50% chance to increase a hate position with a dps component on the aoe of 0 damage.A bruiser may get a on mob damage a 30% chance to increase a hate position with a recurring dps component of 4k crushing on target every 4 seconds.Note - I've not done the exact math on where these %'s and damage numbers need to be, this is just a concept demonstration. Rather than hate position (which is on SK sacrament already) these could all be adjusted for a static hate amount like say 7k threat instead of 1 hate position.ST vs AoEIt is still fine to differentiate tanks based upon this idea, providing we separate dps from aggro. In this model ST tanks simply deal more damage to single targets where AoE tanks deal more damage to AoE targets. Providing threat generation works for both in both encounter types this dps segmentation provides class differentiation.DPS vs SurvivabilityThe final differentiation between tanks should be their damage output. There needs to be a clear trade off as survivability buffs / abilities / gear are traded for dps generating abilities and gear. The key here is changes in configurations related to survivability should have little impact to Aggro potential. Providing dps output becomes 20% or less of total Aggro potential, the trade off of DPS vs Survivability becomes a gear driven decision rewarding veteran fighters with more output while still providing their role.That being said, there must be a real Survivability decrease for DPS to be increased. Some component of this needs to be significant enough and designed to scale regardless of gear. This can be total avoidance penalties, ie a 25% decrease in avoidance applied AFTER the current final calculation. Lastly, between the separate fighters there will be some classes more innately survivable and some classes least survivable. It is important that the less innate survivability a fighter has the more dps potential it should be capable of.Fighter DistinctionsOk, so to then rank and divide fighters up:AoE and ST Threat becomes nearly constant between all fighters with no one fighter more than 20% more effective than any other.AoE Dps Fighters in Order of DPS potential:Bruiser > SK > ZerkerST DPS fighters in order of DPS potential:Monk > Paly > GuardAoE DPS fighters in order of survivability potential:Zerker > SK > BruiserST DPS fighters in order of survivabilty potential:Guard > Paly > MonkConclusionsThe current game mechanics do not hold up to this break down of fighters. And this is why a fighter revamp is required. The previous revamp failed primarily for 2 reasons. Aggro was trying to be divided up by class, and class mechanics were being adjusted to trade Aggro for Dps with Survivability remaining a near constant.I argue that there can be survivability differences between the tanks, and yes, some tanks will be better suited for their ST or AoE roles in raid content, where others will be better for heroic content, etc. These are the relative tradeoffs we made when we rolled classes in the first place. I believe the above system can be effective enough to allow ANY fighter to be useful in all content scenarios and provides a community agreeable consensus on where different classes are accepted to both excel at as well as what their weaknesses might be.I believe if a fighter revamp was to be approached with the above roadmap and the results then compared and held accountable to a similar metric of class specifications, then we can deliver something that is significantly better than what we have and provide more meaning to each fighter class.

Couching

04-21-2009, 03:45 PM

There are some serious problems in your proposal.First, why is pal single target tank? They are aoe tank with current CA/spells. Pal is not going to be single target tank with a simple replacement of amend. They still got 6 aoe spell/CA. They still have clear advantages in aoe aggro/dps over monk and guardian.Second, why is bruiser aoe tank? They have 0% aoe auto attack and only 2 CAs comparing to pal, your supposed ST tank with 6 aoe spells/ca and 40% aoe auto attack, not to say SK and zerker, 100% aoe auto attack. How can a bruiser deal more AoE dps with 0% aoe auto attack and 2 CAs over SK and zerker? It's impossible.Third, AOE tanks have clear advantage over ST tanks in heroic instances. They can clear instances much faster because their higher aoe dps. Even in an instance full of individual mobs, they can pull 3-4 individual mobs at same time and done the instances much faster.That's why in Aeralik's proposal, ST tanks have better survivability in return.Now, in your proposal, you didn't answer the question; do ST tanks have better survivability than AoE tanks? If so, what's the survivability order of all fighters? If not, AoE tanks are op in your proposal.Last, all fighters have to be able to tank all content, no exception. It's impossible to make a certain tank with better survivability in raid but not in heroic, vice versa. When you give someone better survivability, it works on all content. PS: I still think it didn't make any sense to classify pal to ST tank and bruiser to AOE tank. You need to overhaul every CA and spells to make them to their new role. Why? It's wasting time since we already have 3 aoe tanks, zerker, sk and pal vs 3 single target tanks, guardian, monk and bruiser.

Landiin

04-21-2009, 04:07 PM

I agree with Atan and is pretty much what I have been saying.<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>ST vs AoEIt is still fine to differentiate tanks based upon this idea, providing we separate dps from aggro. In this model ST tanks simply deal more damage to single targets where AoE tanks deal more damage to AoE targets. Providing threat generation works for both in both encounter types this dps segmentation provides class differentiation.</blockquote>This is fine as long as the AoE tank's AE CA damage per mob is lower then the ST tank's ST CA damage. Because their AE CA will hit a single target as well as it will hit multi target encounters. Their AE attacks need to be green CA also unless they give the ST tank as may blue AE taunts as they give AoE tanks blue CA.Not ever responding to Couching as I knew he would be QQ about it and not be able to comprehend most of what he read other then his class wasn't in contention for the MT roll.

Yimway

04-21-2009, 05:00 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>There are some serious problems in your proposal.First, why is pal single target tank? They are aoe tank with current CA/spells. Pal is not going to be single target tank with a simple replacement of amend. They still got 6 aoe spell/CA. They still have clear advantages in aoe aggro/dps over monk and guardian.Second, why is bruiser aoe tank? They have 0% aoe auto attack and only 2 CAs comparing to pal, your supposed ST tank with 6 aoe spells/ca and 40% aoe auto attack, not to say SK and zerker, 100% aoe auto attack. How can a bruiser deal more AoE dps with 0% aoe auto attack and 2 CAs over SK and zerker? It's impossible.Third, AOE tanks have clear advantage over ST tanks in heroic instances. They can clear instances much faster because their higher aoe dps. Even in an instance full of individual mobs, they can pull 3-4 individual mobs at same time and done the instances much faster.That's why in Aeralik's proposal, ST tanks have better survivability in return.Now, in your proposal, you didn't answer the question; do ST tanks have better survivability than AoE tanks? If so, what's the survivability order of all fighters? If not, AoE tanks are op in your proposal.Last, all fighters have to be able to tank all content, no exception. It's impossible to make a certain tank with better survivability in raid but not in heroic, vice versa. When you give someone better survivability, it works on all content. PS: I still think it didn't make any sense to classify pal to ST tank and bruiser to AOE tank. You need to overhaul every CA and spells to make them to their new role. Why? It's wasting time since we already have 3 aoe tanks, zerker, sk and pal vs 3 single target tanks, guardian, monk and bruiser.</blockquote>1) Because it imballances items to have 4 or 5 aoe tanks and 1 or 2 st tanks. Yes, I'm suggesting a more comprehensive revamp of the paladin class. Yes, alot of your aoe abilities become aoe hate with ST damage. I'm saying in my outline where tanks should be, some tanks will need more work than others to fall into those boundries. You don't lose your ability to tank encounters under my model, you simply only dps effectively vs one at a time instead of all at once.2) See #1. It isn't hard to change the bruiser to more aoe attacks and weaker ST hits. It isn't hard to provide them aoe auto attack. It isn't impossible to design them to be 50% of the dps of a monk on ST, 80% of a monk on 2 targets, 110% on 3, 140% on 5, 170% on 6 and cap at 200% on n number of targets. Yes, your aoe's might get an aggregate cap of no more than a max of say 20k damage on a particular CA with no maximum of in range targets. The more targets in range the less damage on each one due to the aggregate cap. In this way your dps never exceeds 200% of your ST counterpart no matter the size of the target encounters. Caping AoE swings would be needed as well, Yes this is new code that doesn't exist in game, but thats what revamps require.3) Yes some tanks will be more effective in some situations than others, however they will all be viable as 'tanks' for all content. Yes the ZW parse might be down 5K total bringing a ST take to an AoE dungeon, but 5k translated to an entire dungeon is OMG 10 more mins of fighting. How much longer does it take you to find the AoE tank vs ST tank, is 10 mins really a concern?No, I didn't spell out the overall survivability list for fighters, but I implied it.Guard > Zerk > Pal > Sk > Monk > BruiserIt is reasonable for ST tanks to have marginally better survivability vs ST mobs, that may however only come down to specific single target debuffs, but there are many options here to provide a *marginal* difference. I think its more important to develop a consensus of where they should be, then figure out exactly how to model it. Ie, we need a blueprint before we have a prototype.Reguarding your last statement, it becomes harder to place them in the correct dps and survivability tiers making SK, Zerker, Pal the aoe tanks when you considered shared itemization and logically it just breaks down in a more reasonable matter placing the hybrid tanks in the median of both scales.

Yimway

04-21-2009, 05:04 PM

<cite>Toran@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>I agree with Atan and is pretty much what I have been saying.<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>ST vs AoEIt is still fine to differentiate tanks based upon this idea, providing we separate dps from aggro. In this model ST tanks simply deal more damage to single targets where AoE tanks deal more damage to AoE targets. Providing threat generation works for both in both encounter types this dps segmentation provides class differentiation.</blockquote>This is fine as long as the AoE tank's AE CA damage per mob is lower then the ST tank's ST CA damage. Because their AE CA will hit a single target as well as it will hit multi target encounters. Their AE attacks need to be green CA also unless they give the ST tank as may blue AE taunts as they give AoE tanks blue CA.Not ever responding to Couching as I knew he would be QQ about it and not be able to comprehend most of what he read other then his class wasn't in contention for the MT roll.</blockquote>Yes, it is important to balance aoe abilities with the understanding that power cost is irrelevant and you have to consider them as ST usable 100% of the time. Opening up their ability to hit more targets with less damage is one option. Alternatively longer recast timers works too.We need to leave contention for the MT roll out of the fighter blueprint short term. Yes, in my example the guardian still remains the most survivable tank for raiding, but there are other ways to make different tanks more viable by making encounters more diverse in the types of damage the output vs each fighters potential unique resistances to specific damage types. All in all, this is a much deeper discusion point that should be addressed AFTER we clean up fighters in reguards to standard aggro - survivability - dps.

Siatfallen

04-21-2009, 05:34 PM

<cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Toran@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>OMG Couching quit trolling and QQing.. Your one of the few brawlers that want the MT spot. So stop saying it is SOE path and start saying that is what YOU want.. YOU YOU YOU..</blockquote>You know .... there was this really good idea in the OP:<cite>Akuu@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote>you DO NOT comment on other replies... This is a step to prevent derailing the thread.</blockquote>If you deleted everything but the replies that fit this mold (including this reply) maybe it would be worth leaving the thread open. Really belongs on flames or in General Gameplay or NGD right now as it's all just random Fighter debate.</blockquote>Any request along the lines of "please stick to the subject" on a forum with this many users and with a subject people feel this strongly about is fairly hopeless. Also, "state 3 points you'd like to see changed" is rather too broad to really give much in the way of contructive feedback.That said, if the OP of this thread wants to do something constructive about it, he needs to keep a summary on hos first post, compiling the ideas brought up. That saves a lot of time scrolling through the remaining debate.

Couching

04-21-2009, 05:39 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>There are some serious problems in your proposal.First, why is pal single target tank? They are aoe tank with current CA/spells. Pal is not going to be single target tank with a simple replacement of amend. They still got 6 aoe spell/CA. They still have clear advantages in aoe aggro/dps over monk and guardian.Second, why is bruiser aoe tank? They have 0% aoe auto attack and only 2 CAs comparing to pal, your supposed ST tank with 6 aoe spells/ca and 40% aoe auto attack, not to say SK and zerker, 100% aoe auto attack. How can a bruiser deal more AoE dps with 0% aoe auto attack and 2 CAs over SK and zerker? It's impossible.Third, AOE tanks have clear advantage over ST tanks in heroic instances. They can clear instances much faster because their higher aoe dps. Even in an instance full of individual mobs, they can pull 3-4 individual mobs at same time and done the instances much faster.That's why in Aeralik's proposal, ST tanks have better survivability in return.Now, in your proposal, you didn't answer the question; do ST tanks have better survivability than AoE tanks? If so, what's the survivability order of all fighters? If not, AoE tanks are op in your proposal.Last, all fighters have to be able to tank all content, no exception. It's impossible to make a certain tank with better survivability in raid but not in heroic, vice versa. When you give someone better survivability, it works on all content. PS: I still think it didn't make any sense to classify pal to ST tank and bruiser to AOE tank. You need to overhaul every CA and spells to make them to their new role. Why? It's wasting time since we already have 3 aoe tanks, zerker, sk and pal vs 3 single target tanks, guardian, monk and bruiser.</blockquote>1) Because it imballances items to have 4 or 5 aoe tanks and 1 or 2 st tanks. Yes, I'm suggesting a more comprehensive revamp of the paladin class. Yes, alot of your aoe abilities become aoe hate with ST damage. I'm saying in my outline where tanks should be, some tanks will need more work than others to fall into those boundries. You don't lose your ability to tank encounters under my model, you simply only dps effectively vs one at a time instead of all at once.2) See #13) Yes some tanks will be more effective in some situations than others, however they will all be viable as 'tanks' for all content. Yes the ZW parse might be down 3K total bringing a ST take to an AoE dungeon, but 3k translated to an entire dungeon is OMG 7 more mins of fighting. How much longer does it take you to find the AoE tank vs ST tank, is 7 mins really a concern?Yes, for most people who run instances group everyday, it's an issue. Why not? Still, where is the niche for ST tank ?No, I didn't spell out the overall survivability list for fighters, but I implied it.Guard > Zerk > Pal > Sk > Monk > BruiserI am pretty sure it's a very bad model and most crusaders and brawlers will be agaisnt it, especially monk got worse dps and survivability than zerker and sk at same time. Moreover, why does zerker has better survivability than pal when zerker has better dps?Besides, what's the niche for brawlers, especially monk. We have worse overall dps than all aoe tanks in heroic groups and 2nd worst survivability. Your role for monk is failed, epic fail.I have to say it's another arrogant proposal from the point of veiw of guardian.It is reasonable for ST tanks to have marginally better survivability vs ST mobs, that may however only come down to specific single target debuffs, but there are many options here to provide a *marginal* difference. I think its more important to develop a consensus of where they should be, then figure out exactly how to model it. Ie, we need a blueprint before we have a prototype.Reguarding your last statement, it becomes harder to place them in the correct dps and survivability tiers making SK, Zerker, Pal the aoe tanks when you considered shared itemization and logically it just breaks down in a more reasonable matter placing the hybrid tanks in the median of both scales.Actually not.In your design, guardian is overpowered again as in rok, best MT and OT at same time. Why? Because you said single target tank can hold aoe targets too, just not as good as ae tank, but good enough.In your proposal, best MT and OT will be two guaridans or 1 guardian and 1 zerker. All other 4 fighters can deleted their toon and quit this game. Sorry man, it's even worse than what Aeralik's old fighter revamp part 2.</blockquote>Survivability is the most important factor for fighters. The next is aggro and dps.Anyone with best survivability should be worst in dps/aggro so that it won't be overpowered.A more reasonable order of dps and survivability should be:Single target DPS/aggro:bruiser = monk > SK = zerker > guardian>palAOE DPS/aggro:SK = zerker > pal > bruiser = monk > guardianSurvivability:Guardian = Pal > monk = zerker = bruiser = skIn this case, guardian and pal are candidate of MT. Guardian is still slightly better since guardian has slightly better aggro/dps on main target but pal is good enough to be either MT or OT.For the other 4 fighters, brawlers have more dps/aggro on single target and sk/zerker have better aoe dps/aggro. It makes sk/zerker good candidate as OT on adds. Brawlers don't have enough aoe aggro to be off tank on adds but we are good enough to off tank on main target with MT.

Gisallo

04-21-2009, 05:48 PM

<cite>Toran@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>I agree with Atan and is pretty much what I have been saying.<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>ST vs AoEIt is still fine to differentiate tanks based upon this idea, providing we separate dps from aggro. In this model ST tanks simply deal more damage to single targets where AoE tanks deal more damage to AoE targets. Providing threat generation works for both in both encounter types this dps segmentation provides class differentiation.</blockquote>This is fine as long as the AoE tank's AE CA damage per mob is lower then the ST tank's ST CA damage. Because their AE CA will hit a single target as well as it will hit multi target encounters. Their AE attacks need to be green CA also unless they give the ST tank as may blue AE taunts as they give AoE tanks blue CA.Not ever responding to Couching as I knew he would be QQ about it and not be able to comprehend most of what he read other then his class wasn't in contention for the MT roll.</blockquote>The one issue of this is how to balance it. Aeraliks idea for ST vs AE design actually had Guards being better or = aggro and dps on up to four targets if you just crunched the numbers. That is the problem with trying to balance based on these issues. That is why I and others have been proposing smarter content design rather than changing the classes because you just continue the nerf/buff/nerf roller coaster

Yimway

04-21-2009, 05:52 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>There are some serious problems in your proposal.First, why is pal single target tank? They are aoe tank with current CA/spells. Pal is not going to be single target tank with a simple replacement of amend. They still got 6 aoe spell/CA. They still have clear advantages in aoe aggro/dps over monk and guardian.Second, why is bruiser aoe tank? They have 0% aoe auto attack and only 2 CAs comparing to pal, your supposed ST tank with 6 aoe spells/ca and 40% aoe auto attack, not to say SK and zerker, 100% aoe auto attack. How can a bruiser deal more AoE dps with 0% aoe auto attack and 2 CAs over SK and zerker? It's impossible.Third, AOE tanks have clear advantage over ST tanks in heroic instances. They can clear instances much faster because their higher aoe dps. Even in an instance full of individual mobs, they can pull 3-4 individual mobs at same time and done the instances much faster.That's why in Aeralik's proposal, ST tanks have better survivability in return.Now, in your proposal, you didn't answer the question; do ST tanks have better survivability than AoE tanks? If so, what's the survivability order of all fighters? If not, AoE tanks are op in your proposal.Last, all fighters have to be able to tank all content, no exception. It's impossible to make a certain tank with better survivability in raid but not in heroic, vice versa. When you give someone better survivability, it works on all content. PS: I still think it didn't make any sense to classify pal to ST tank and bruiser to AOE tank. You need to overhaul every CA and spells to make them to their new role. Why? It's wasting time since we already have 3 aoe tanks, zerker, sk and pal vs 3 single target tanks, guardian, monk and bruiser.</blockquote>1) Because it imballances items to have 4 or 5 aoe tanks and 1 or 2 st tanks. Yes, I'm suggesting a more comprehensive revamp of the paladin class. Yes, alot of your aoe abilities become aoe hate with ST damage. I'm saying in my outline where tanks should be, some tanks will need more work than others to fall into those boundries. You don't lose your ability to tank encounters under my model, you simply only dps effectively vs one at a time instead of all at once.2) See #13) Yes some tanks will be more effective in some situations than others, however they will all be viable as 'tanks' for all content. Yes the ZW parse might be down 3K total bringing a ST take to an AoE dungeon, but 3k translated to an entire dungeon is OMG 7 more mins of fighting. How much longer does it take you to find the AoE tank vs ST tank, is 7 mins really a concern?Yes, for most people who run instances group everyday, it's an issue. Why not? Still, where is the niche for ST tank ?No, I didn't spell out the overall survivability list for fighters, but I implied it.Guard > Zerk > Pal > Sk > Monk > BruiserI am pretty sure it's a very bad model and most crusaders and brawlers will be agaisnt it, especially monk got worse dps and survivability than zerker and sk at same time. Moreover, why does zerker has better survivability than pal when zerker has better dps?Besides, what's the niche for brawlers, especially monk. We have worse overall dps than all aoe tanks in heroic groups and 2nd worst survivability. Your role for monk is failed, epic fail.I have to say it's another arrogant proposal from the point of veiw of guardian.It is reasonable for ST tanks to have marginally better survivability vs ST mobs, that may however only come down to specific single target debuffs, but there are many options here to provide a *marginal* difference. I think its more important to develop a consensus of where they should be, then figure out exactly how to model it. Ie, we need a blueprint before we have a prototype.Reguarding your last statement, it becomes harder to place them in the correct dps and survivability tiers making SK, Zerker, Pal the aoe tanks when you considered shared itemization and logically it just breaks down in a more reasonable matter placing the hybrid tanks in the median of both scales.Actually not.In your design, guardian is overpowered again as in rok, best MT and OT at same time. Why? Because you said single target tank can hold aoe targets too, just not as good as ae tank, but good enough.In your proposal, best MT and OT will be two guaridans or 1 guardian and 1 zerker. All other 4 fighters can deleted their toon and quit this game. Sorry man, it's even worse than what Aeralik's old fighter revamp part 2.</blockquote>Survivability is the most important factor for fighters. The next is aggro and dps.Anyone with best survivability should be worst in dps/aggro so that it won't be overpowered.A more reasonable order of dps and survivability should be:Single target DPS/aggro:bruiser = monk > SK = zerker > guardian>palAOE DPS/aggro:SK = zerker > pal > bruiser = monk > guardianSurvivability:Guardian = Pal > monk = zerker = bruiser = skIn this case, guardian and pal are candidate of MT. Guardian is still slightly better since guardian has slightly better aggro/dps on main target but pal is good enough to be either MT or OT.For the other 4 fighters, brawlers have more dps/aggro on single target and sk/zerker have better aoe dps/aggro. It makes sk/zerker good candidate as OT on adds. Brawlers don't have enough aoe aggro to be off tank on adds but we are good enough to off tank on main target with MT.</blockquote>Crouching, I wont bother responding to you if your replies are this cluttered / junked up.I'll answer a couple things.A zerker has more survivability but LESS dps than a paladin on ST mobs. Your juding my blueprint based upon current game mechanics and NOT the tiers I'm suggesting. Zerker would have far greater AoE dps than any of the ST tanks. Paladin will have more ST dps than at least zerker and sk, probably near same as bruiser on ST. Yes, thats a huge difference from where they are in game today.Monks have high ST dps, making them likely more effective for most raid encounters while less effective for group dps roles. Now, under my model they can still tank heroic zones just fine, they'll just have half the dps as a bruiser doing the same role. But yes, if you want to find a flaw in my model, there is little reason to bring a bruiser on a raid that consists of all ST mobs. Is that a flaw of tank design or encounter design?In general though, your continueing to apply current state of fighters to statements on my suggestions rather than looking at the classes under a new light and whether that makes since from the 50,000 ft view. I continue to argue we can't bang out minor symantics without a over arcing vision. It's clear Aeralik's vision from the previous effort was flawed, I'm trying to make suggestions to an over arching blueprint that will provide both viable tanking with a reasonable spread of dps / survivability.Lastly, I find your suggestions in the post to be inefectual. We should not deliniate hate generation between the different fighters and that is a core arguement in my blueprint. You could have simply rejected my suggestions at the first point in my post as you seem to think we should only allow certain tanks to be effective at tanking certain content. The core element in my suggestions for class ballancing is to make all tanks viable for holding both ST and AoE aggro and to differentiate them based upon something else. You're welcome to reject my idea at that point and we can hold off discussing any other element, cause without that element none of the rest really makes sense.

Yimway

04-21-2009, 06:01 PM

<cite>Valkenberg@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>The one issue of this is how to balance it. Aeraliks idea for ST vs AE design actually had Guards being better or = aggro and dps on up to four targets if you just crunched the numbers. That is the problem with trying to balance based on these issues. That is why I and others have been proposing smarter content design rather than changing the classes because you just continue the nerf/buff/nerf roller coaster</blockquote>I think most of the community realizes this was a bad idea.What makes since of locking ST tanks out of tanking any content with over 4 mobs? Especially when nothing prevents AoE tanks from effectively tanking ST mobs. All tanks should be able to generate hate in all types of encounters. Of course there can be some variations between the classes, and some classes might do that more via dps than taunts, but effectively all should be able to generate both types of aggro.Aeralik's idea on this has been refuted, and I think we need to just set it aside and start looking at other options.

Hirofortis

04-21-2009, 06:02 PM

You know that since pallys and SK's can heal and have many other spells at there command there survivability is much higher than many think. Of course if your trying to play your sk like a wizzy or a paly like a templar or even anything other than the hybrid they are you do not know much about the class. With that being said, you can keep the survivability between the classes a lot closer by balancing out the differering ways that this survivability is carried out. A guard may be able to take more damage simply because that is there survivability model. A pally will take more but can heal, the same with a SK. So on and so forth. We need to look at how they survive any given fight and we can balance that. Likewise when it comes to DPS, they loose survivibility. I would say take a scout, figure out what the % increase a tank has over them in survivabilty and that is the % reduction that that tank will get when in ofensive. In turn they get more DPS. As far as the ST/AE idea. AoE damage must be less than any ST attack or it thows the whole model off. But an AoE tank should never be sooo much better that no one wants to use the other tanks. It is fine to have some tanks better at a certain job, as long as the Content is balanced to provide enough variety to all areas. Oh, and until SOE actually has something solid we are not going to hear anything from them, so this as official a place as we are gonna get until they have something solid to tell us. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Couching

04-21-2009, 06:11 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Crouching, I wont bother responding to you if your replies are this cluttered / junked up.I'll answer a couple things.A zerker has more survivability but LESS dps than a paladin on ST mobs. Your juding my blueprint based upon current game mechanics and NOT the tiers I'm suggesting. Zerker would have far greater AoE dps than any of the ST tanks. Paladin will have more ST dps than at least zerker and sk, probably near same as bruiser on ST. Yes, thats a huge difference from where they are in game today.Monks have high ST dps, making them likely more effective for most raid encounters while less effective for group dps roles. Now, under my model they can still tank heroic zones just fine, they'll just have half the dps as a bruiser doing the same role. But yes, if you want to find a flaw in my model, there is little reason to bring a bruiser on a raid that consists of all ST mobs. Is that a flaw of tank design or encounter design?Yes, it's flawed. Brawlers are tank, not dpsers. With your proposal, we are inferior dpser comparing to real dpsers and we can't tank in raid. no thanks.In general though, your continueing to apply current state of fighters to statements on my suggestions rather than looking at the classes under a new light and whether that makes since from the 50,000 ft view. I continue to argue we can't bang out minor symantics without a over arcing vision. It's clear Aeralik's vision from the previous effort was flawed, I'm trying to make suggestions to an over arching blueprint that will provide both viable tanking with a reasonable spread of dps / survivability.Lastly, I find your suggestions in the post to be inefectual. We should not deliniate hate generation between the different fighters and that is a core arguement in my blueprint. You could have simply rejected my suggestions at the first point in my post as you seem to think we should only allow certain tanks to be effective at tanking certain content. The core element in my suggestions for class ballancing is to make all tanks viable for holding both ST and AoE aggro and to differentiate them based upon something else. You're welcome to reject my idea at that point and we can hold off discussing any other element, cause without that element none of the rest really makes sense.</blockquote>I have to say that you have no idea of what's needed in eq2 raids.Ok, your core element is fine but it is epic fail when you give guardian and zerker superior survivability than other tanks.Do you really think that pal can be a useful char in raid just because he has more dps than guardian in ST? Survivability wise, guardian is 1st and pal is 3rd.Do you really think that SK can be a useful char in raid just because he has more dps/aggro than zerker when zerker is clearly better in survivability, in your proposal, zerker is 2nd and sk is 4th.Dude, I have told you that survivability is the most and almost the only criterion for MT and one more criterion, aggro, for OT. However, in your proposal since all tanks are viable for holding both ST and AOE aggro, survivability is the only criterion for both MT and OT.Yes, guardian is best MT and OT in raid in your proposal.Zerker is 2nd best MT and OT in raid in your proposal.Both crusader and brawler are inferior tank candidate in raid in your proposal.Epic fail design.Even aeralik's proposal is hundred times better than yours.If you still can't uderstand, I will speak it out clearly; if you are going to split fighters in different tier of survivability, all fighters can't be viable to all ST and AOE targets.It's plain and simple that any MT candidate with superior survivability can't be able to hold aoe targets, otherwise, this class will be best at both MT and OT.

Yimway

04-21-2009, 06:26 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Lastly, I find your suggestions in the post to be inefectual. We should not deliniate hate generation between the different fighters and that is a core arguement in my blueprint. You could have simply rejected my suggestions at the first point in my post as you seem to think we should only allow certain tanks to be effective at tanking certain content. The core element in my suggestions for class ballancing is to make all tanks viable for holding both ST and AoE aggro and to differentiate them based upon something else. You're welcome to reject my idea at that point and we can hold off discussing any other element, cause without that element none of the rest really makes sense.</blockquote>bility and all tanks are viable for holding both ST and AOE aggro.Yes, guardian is best MT and OT in raid in your proposal.Zerker is 2nd best MT and OT in raid in your proposal.Both crusader and brawler are inferior tank candidate in raid in your proposal.Epic fail design.Even aeralik's proposal is hundred times better than yours.</blockquote>You may think so, but we use an SK maintank now. Does he have the survivability of my guardian? Not quite. Is survivability of MT the key driving factor for raid success? Nope.Now, if the difference lets say from guardian all the way to SK in my model is at most 10%, does that preclude a SK from MTing? I don't really think so, however maybe he's better suited for AoE OT for adds that are dps burned. Where a zerker is better suited for OTing adds while raid burns named. A bruiser then would be awesome at aoe burn on heroic adds. It may simply mean SK wouldn't get any short term survivability / bloodletter proc in exchange for far more aoe dps potential. However he'd still be able to gear to basically the same passive stats as a guard.However, since guards and sk's nearly share the same loot tables the only differences in survivability really come down to buffs and aa. There should be some gap between them. I would suggest a relatively small gap accross all fighters, just as I'd recommend a smaller differencial between thier dps potentials.I'd like to hear your suggestion on exactly how you make all fighters equal MT's, keep their dps ballanced, and don't overpower one significantly though. So please, I'm sitting on the edge of my seat, biting my nails waiting on your answer.

Yimway

04-21-2009, 06:34 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Dude, I have told you that survivability is the most and almost the only criterion for MT and one more criterion, aggro, for OT. However, in your proposal since all tanks are viable for holding both ST and AOE aggro, survivability is the only criterion for both MT and OT.</blockquote>Read my first post. I said all fighters need to be EFFECTIVE. I didn't not say they all need to be the same. A variation of effectiveness to deliniate min/max for raid effectiveness is reasonable. However remaining within some boundrary of one another makes them all effective at tanking heroic instances.

Siatfallen

04-21-2009, 06:41 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>There are some serious problems in your proposal.First, why is pal single target tank? They are aoe tank with current CA/spells. Pal is not going to be single target tank with a simple replacement of amend. They still got 6 aoe spell/CA. They still have clear advantages in aoe aggro/dps over monk and guardian.Second, why is bruiser aoe tank? They have 0% aoe auto attack and only 2 CAs comparing to pal, your supposed ST tank with 6 aoe spells/ca and 40% aoe auto attack, not to say SK and zerker, 100% aoe auto attack. How can a bruiser deal more AoE dps with 0% aoe auto attack and 2 CAs over SK and zerker? It's impossible.Third, AOE tanks have clear advantage over ST tanks in heroic instances. They can clear instances much faster because their higher aoe dps. Even in an instance full of individual mobs, they can pull 3-4 individual mobs at same time and done the instances much faster.That's why in Aeralik's proposal, ST tanks have better survivability in return.Now, in your proposal, you didn't answer the question; do ST tanks have better survivability than AoE tanks? If so, what's the survivability order of all fighters? If not, AoE tanks are op in your proposal.Last, all fighters have to be able to tank all content, no exception. It's impossible to make a certain tank with better survivability in raid but not in heroic, vice versa. When you give someone better survivability, it works on all content. PS: I still think it didn't make any sense to classify pal to ST tank and bruiser to AOE tank. You need to overhaul every CA and spells to make them to their new role. Why? It's wasting time since we already have 3 aoe tanks, zerker, sk and pal vs 3 single target tanks, guardian, monk and bruiser.</blockquote>1) Because it imballances items to have 4 or 5 aoe tanks and 1 or 2 st tanks. Yes, I'm suggesting a more comprehensive revamp of the paladin class. Yes, alot of your aoe abilities become aoe hate with ST damage. I'm saying in my outline where tanks should be, some tanks will need more work than others to fall into those boundries. You don't lose your ability to tank encounters under my model, you simply only dps effectively vs one at a time instead of all at once.2) See #13) Yes some tanks will be more effective in some situations than others, however they will all be viable as 'tanks' for all content. Yes the ZW parse might be down 3K total bringing a ST take to an AoE dungeon, but 3k translated to an entire dungeon is OMG 7 more mins of fighting. How much longer does it take you to find the AoE tank vs ST tank, is 7 mins really a concern?Yes, for most people who run instances group everyday, it's an issue. Why not? Still, where is the niche for ST tank ?No, I didn't spell out the overall survivability list for fighters, but I implied it.Guard > Zerk > Pal > Sk > Monk > BruiserI am pretty sure it's a very bad model and most crusaders and brawlers will be agaisnt it, especially monk got worse dps and survivability than zerker and sk at same time. Moreover, why does zerker has better survivability than pal when zerker has better dps?Besides, what's the niche for brawlers, especially monk. We have worse overall dps than all aoe tanks in heroic groups and 2nd worst survivability. Your role for monk is failed, epic fail.I have to say it's another arrogant proposal from the point of veiw of guardian.It is reasonable for ST tanks to have marginally better survivability vs ST mobs, that may however only come down to specific single target debuffs, but there are many options here to provide a *marginal* difference. I think its more important to develop a consensus of where they should be, then figure out exactly how to model it. Ie, we need a blueprint before we have a prototype.Reguarding your last statement, it becomes harder to place them in the correct dps and survivability tiers making SK, Zerker, Pal the aoe tanks when you considered shared itemization and logically it just breaks down in a more reasonable matter placing the hybrid tanks in the median of both scales.Actually not.In your design, guardian is overpowered again as in rok, best MT and OT at same time. Why? Because you said single target tank can hold aoe targets too, just not as good as ae tank, but good enough.In your proposal, best MT and OT will be two guaridans or 1 guardian and 1 zerker. All other 4 fighters can deleted their toon and quit this game. Sorry man, it's even worse than what Aeralik's old fighter revamp part 2.</blockquote>Survivability is the most important factor for fighters. The next is aggro and dps.Anyone with best survivability should be worst in dps/aggro so that it won't be overpowered.A more reasonable order of dps and survivability should be:Single target DPS/aggro:bruiser = monk > SK = zerker > guardian>palAOE DPS/aggro:SK = zerker > pal > bruiser = monk > guardianSurvivability:Guardian = Pal > monk = zerker = bruiser = skIn this case, guardian and pal are candidate of MT. Guardian is still slightly better since guardian has slightly better aggro/dps on main target but pal is good enough to be either MT or OT.For the other 4 fighters, brawlers have more dps/aggro on single target and sk/zerker have better aoe dps/aggro. It makes sk/zerker good candidate as OT on adds. Brawlers don't have enough aoe aggro to be off tank on adds but we are good enough to off tank on main target with MT.</blockquote>A few quetions to this:1: Guardians are listed as lowest DPS on AoE and are ahead of only paladins on ST. They have no survivability over a paladin. Will it be possible to make the Guardian viable for the MT spot by virtue on the advantage in ST DPS alone, rather than bringing the paladin to tank with the added flexibility?2: Guardian and paladin is listed as lowest on AoE DPS/aggro - Do you mean lowest for DPS, while still very strong on aggro generation (ST)? Otherwise, obviously, this is a major revision of the current paradigm.3: I assume the above implies that all fighters should get the same amount of buffs (utility & whatnot)? If so, it'll entail some major nerfs or boosts to make happen. Not opposed to it really, just sayin'.

Gisallo

04-21-2009, 06:45 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Valkenberg@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>The one issue of this is how to balance it. Aeraliks idea for ST vs AE design actually had Guards being better or = aggro and dps on up to four targets if you just crunched the numbers. That is the problem with trying to balance based on these issues. That is why I and others have been proposing smarter content design rather than changing the classes because you just continue the nerf/buff/nerf roller coaster</blockquote>I think most of the community realizes this was a bad idea.What makes since of locking ST tanks out of tanking any content with over 4 mobs? Especially when nothing prevents AoE tanks from effectively tanking ST mobs. All tanks should be able to generate hate in all types of encounters. Of course there can be some variations between the classes, and some classes might do that more via dps than taunts, but effectively all should be able to generate both types of aggro.Aeralik's idea on this has been refuted, and I think we need to just set it aside and start looking at other options.</blockquote>Oh I agree but certain people can't get past minutia. They rail about classes doing too much dps, forgetting that dps is their primary way of maintaining aggro. They ignore looking at the fact that fighters get dps and thus hate from different venues, CA, AA, taunt, AA stuff like reinforcement etc. They vapor lock on dps and don't put it into proper context. I agree with you that your plan should work though but these people would NEVER agree.Hypothetical. Tomorrow all fighters can generate identical aggro both AE and ST. Some do it through taunts, others reactives, whatever. one type of class can do more ST dps, the other more AE dps. They will look at the parsse however and scream that the AE tanks are OP, even if they are just as surviveable and just as aggro generating. They forget this.Hypothetical single target tank single target CA 3000 pts of damageHypothetical AE tank CA 1000 points of damage.Seem okay? Not to them. Yes in the single target encouter the ST tank will do more dps. HOWEVER 3 target encounter 3000 pts. 4 4000 pts 5 5000 and so on. Throw in enough AE encounters and OMG that AE tank is OP look at his dps. Basically few people want to be on equal footing, have a niche what have you. They want to walk into ANY scenario and say "look I am uber!!!!"

Couching

04-21-2009, 06:57 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Lastly, I find your suggestions in the post to be inefectual. We should not deliniate hate generation between the different fighters and that is a core arguement in my blueprint. You could have simply rejected my suggestions at the first point in my post as you seem to think we should only allow certain tanks to be effective at tanking certain content. The core element in my suggestions for class ballancing is to make all tanks viable for holding both ST and AoE aggro and to differentiate them based upon something else. You're welcome to reject my idea at that point and we can hold off discussing any other element, cause without that element none of the rest really makes sense.</blockquote>bility and all tanks are viable for holding both ST and AOE aggro.Yes, guardian is best MT and OT in raid in your proposal.Zerker is 2nd best MT and OT in raid in your proposal.Both crusader and brawler are inferior tank candidate in raid in your proposal.Epic fail design.Even aeralik's proposal is hundred times better than yours.</blockquote>You may think so, but we use an SK maintank now. Does he have the survivability of my guardian? Not quite. Is survivability of MT the key driving factor for raid success? Nope.Everyone knows that sk is oped. And yes, SK's survivability is almost identical as guardian on live. Actually, it's arguable that SK survivability is even better since bloodletter is so overpowered. Comparing guardian and SK with 6 set pieces, 10300 mit vs 9k mit with 2 bloodletters, yes, sk is almost better than guardian.Seriously, dude, you have asked me to focus on your proposal rather than current mechanics. Now, you use current mechanics to debate with me. I don't buy it.Now, if the difference lets say from guardian all the way to SK in my model is at most 10%, does that preclude a SK from MTing? I don't really think so, however maybe he's better suited for AoE OT for adds that are dps burned. Where a zerker is better suited for OTing adds while raid burns named. A bruiser then would be awesome at aoe burn on heroic adds. It may simply mean SK wouldn't get any short term survivability / bloodletter proc in exchange for far more aoe dps potential. However he'd still be able to gear to basically the same passive stats as a guard.However, since guards and sk's nearly share the same loot tables the only differences in survivability really come down to buffs and aa. There should be some gap between them. I would suggest a relatively small gap accross all fighters, just as I'd recommend a smaller differencial between thier dps potentials.I'd like to hear your suggestion on exactly how you make all fighters equal MT's, keep their dps ballanced, and don't overpower one significantly though. So please, I'm sitting on the edge of my seat, biting my nails waiting on your answer.</blockquote>It's simple. Survivability of all fighters should be close. Because survivability is the most important factor for raid to determine MT and OT, one more criterion, aoe aggro.Anyone with best survivability should be worst in dps/aggro so that it won't be best MT and OT at same time.A more reasonable order of dps and survivability should be:Single target DPS/aggro:bruiser = monk > SK = zerker > guardian>palAOE DPS/aggro:SK = zerker > pal > bruiser = monk > guardianSurvivability:Guardian = Pal > monk = zerker = bruiser = skIn this case, guardian and pal are candidate of MT. Guardian is still slightly better since guardian has slightly better aggro/dps on main target but pal is good enough to be either MT or OT.For the other 4 fighters, brawlers have more dps/aggro on single target and sk/zerker have better aoe dps/aggro. It makes sk/zerker good candidate as OT on adds. Brawlers don't have enough aoe aggro to be off tank on adds but we are good enough to off tank on main target with MT.In my proposal, guardian has to compete with pal for MT. Zereker and SK have to compete for OT. Monk and bruisers have to compete for 3rd tank.

Couching

04-21-2009, 07:11 PM

<cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Survivability is the most important factor for fighters. The next is aggro and dps.Anyone with best survivability should be worst in dps/aggro so that it won't be overpowered.A more reasonable order of dps and survivability should be:Single target DPS/aggro:bruiser = monk > SK = zerker > guardian>palAOE DPS/aggro:SK = zerker > pal > bruiser = monk > guardianSurvivability:Guardian = Pal > monk = zerker = bruiser = skIn this case, guardian and pal are candidate of MT. Guardian is still slightly better since guardian has slightly better aggro/dps on main target but pal is good enough to be either MT or OT.For the other 4 fighters, brawlers have more dps/aggro on single target and sk/zerker have better aoe dps/aggro. It makes sk/zerker good candidate as OT on adds. Brawlers don't have enough aoe aggro to be off tank on adds but we are good enough to off tank on main target with MT.</blockquote>A few quetions to this:1: Guardians are listed as lowest DPS on AoE and are ahead of only paladins on ST. They have no survivability over a paladin. Will it be possible to make the Guardian viable for the MT spot by virtue on the advantage in ST DPS alone, rather than bringing the paladin to tank with the added flexibility?What flexibility do you really need as MT other than don't die and hold main target? There should be at least 2 tanks in the raid, 3 is even better. Guardian with slightly better dps/aggro means it's easier for guardian to hold aggro on main targets. It's an advantage for guardian as MT. On the contrary, pal is suffice to be MT, same survivability, with better flexibility as OT if necessary.2: Guardian and paladin is listed as lowest on AoE DPS/aggro - Do you mean lowest for DPS, while still very strong on aggro generation (ST)? Otherwise, obviously, this is a major revision of the current paradigm.Pal is not listed as lowest on AoE dps/aggro. Pal is 2nd best, behind sk and zerker on AoE/aggro since pal has better survivability. 3: I assume the above implies that all fighters should get the same amount of buffs (utility & whatnot)? If so, it'll entail some major nerfs or boosts to make happen. Not opposed to it really, just sayin'.Not really major nerfs or boosts. SK and zerker are best on aoe aggro/dps on live server. Pal has very strong aoe aggro as well. It's very easy to tune down pal's aoe aggro with changing the percentage of amend. For single target dps, change plate tanks auto attack modifier to rogue and give brawler equal crit, da, aoe auto attacks as other plate tanks. I don't call it major boost except aoe auto attack. For survivability, bruiser is already smiliar as plate tanks, except sk and guardian. SK is op. What we need to do is fix meditative healing for monk, 15% raised to 40%, and slightly boost to pal survivability to make it on par with guardian.</blockquote>

Couching

04-21-2009, 07:13 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Dude, I have told you that survivability is the most and almost the only criterion for MT and one more criterion, aggro, for OT. However, in your proposal since all tanks are viable for holding both ST and AOE aggro, survivability is the only criterion for both MT and OT.</blockquote>Read my first post. I said all fighters need to be EFFECTIVE. I didn't not say they all need to be the same. A variation of effectiveness to deliniate min/max for raid effectiveness is reasonable. However remaining within some boundrary of one another makes them all effective at tanking heroic instances.</blockquote>Interpreted for you: Brawler is ok to tank heroic instances but not raid. No thanks.

Landiin

04-21-2009, 08:08 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Interpreted for you: Brawler is ok to tank heroic instances but not raid. No thanks.</blockquote>Interpreted: I should be able to be MT no matter what! I read it once and thats the way it has to be..Brawlers will alway really only be 2nd or 3rd tank unless verry well eqpt, so get us to or reroll.

Gisallo

04-21-2009, 08:26 PM

<cite>Toran@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Interpreted for you: Brawler is ok to tank heroic instances but not raid. No thanks.</blockquote>Interpreted: I should be able to be MT no matter what! I read it once and thats the way it has to be..Brawlers will alway really only be 2nd or 3rd tank unless verry well eqpt, so get us to or reroll.</blockquote>Exactly and this is what gets under my skin. If he just wanted to say "I want to be an MT" I would be like "fine okay". I woiuld disagree. I think in order to have as many fighters getting raid slots we need to fill various roles, the same as every other class. Templars are NOT interchangeable with Inquisitors or mystics in the MT group (with a defiler sitting there already) etc. I even pointed out to him once that it appeared that the issue was HIS desire to be an MT, he said "no thats just what Aeralik said". Luckily here the truth finally came out. Anything short or MT for a Monk is not good enough. Not good enough because he has already said he wants/expects Monks to be single target. ST means MT. I am glad that is finally out of the way.

Couching

04-21-2009, 08:29 PM

<cite>Valkenberg@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Toran@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Interpreted for you: Brawler is ok to tank heroic instances but not raid. No thanks.</blockquote>Interpreted: I should be able to be MT no matter what! I read it once and thats the way it has to be..Brawlers will alway really only be 2nd or 3rd tank unless verry well eqpt, so get us to or reroll.</blockquote>Exactly and this is what gets under my skin. If he just wanted to say "I want to be an MT" I would be like "fine okay". I woiuld disagree. I think in order to have as many fighters getting raid slots we need to fill various roles, the same as every other class. Templars are NOT interchangeable with Inquisitors or mystics in the MT group (with a defiler sitting there already) etc. I even pointed out to him once that it appeared that the issue was HIS desire to be an MT, he said "no thats just what Aeralik said". Luckily here the truth finally came out. Anything short or MT for a Monk is not good enough. Not good enough because he has already said he wants/expects Monks to be single target. ST means MT. I am glad that is finally out of the way.</blockquote>I have already posted my proposal of fighter revamp; MT is guardian and pal.I can't believe that people can be that low and lying for a game. Good job, dude.

BChizzle

04-21-2009, 08:56 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>In my proposal, guardian has to compete with pal for MT. Zereker and SK have to compete for OT. Monk and bruisers have to compete for 3rd tank.</blockquote>Your proposal is unacceptable unless SOE designs raids to need a 3rd tank.

Couching

04-21-2009, 09:00 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>In my proposal, guardian has to compete with pal for MT. Zereker and SK have to compete for OT. Monk and bruisers have to compete for 3rd tank.</blockquote>Your proposal is unacceptable unless SOE designs raids to need a 3rd tank.</blockquote>Not really, it's nice to have 3rd tank in a lot of encounters in tso.Otherwise, what role do you think it's useful for brawler in raids?

BChizzle

04-21-2009, 10:34 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>In my proposal, guardian has to compete with pal for MT. Zereker and SK have to compete for OT. Monk and bruisers have to compete for 3rd tank.</blockquote>Your proposal is unacceptable unless SOE designs raids to need a 3rd tank.</blockquote>Not really, it's nice to have 3rd tank in a lot of encounters in tso.Otherwise, what role do you think it's useful for brawler in raids?</blockquote>No its not nice to have a 3rd tank its a waste of a raid spot where you can put a dps. If there is no need for a 3rd tank then having one is dumb. Basically you are trying to niche brawlers into some corner that fits where your raid leader puts you. It isn't effective and you can be relaced by any number of classes and increase raid productivity.

Couching

04-21-2009, 11:44 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>In my proposal, guardian has to compete with pal for MT. Zereker and SK have to compete for OT. Monk and bruisers have to compete for 3rd tank.</blockquote>Your proposal is unacceptable unless SOE designs raids to need a 3rd tank.</blockquote>Not really, it's nice to have 3rd tank in a lot of encounters in tso.Otherwise, what role do you think it's useful for brawler in raids?</blockquote>No its not nice to have a 3rd tank its a waste of a raid spot where you can put a dps. If there is no need for a 3rd tank then having one is dumb. Basically you are trying to niche brawlers into some corner that fits where your raid leader puts you. It isn't effective and you can be relaced by any number of classes and increase raid productivity.</blockquote>Then what's the role of brawler in the raid? for example, what's your role in the raid? Dps? No way, any real dpser can beat your dps in your guild I am pretty sure.By the way, 3rd tank is not a waste for a lot of encounters. For example, first blob in inner stronghold. The add will mem wipe during the fight. For most guilds, they don't have enough dps to beat blob fast enough. It's good to have 2 off tanks on the add. There are a lot of encounters are handy with 3rd tank unless you have very very high dps and thos guilds can be counted with 2 hands.

BChizzle

04-22-2009, 01:39 AM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Then what's the role of brawler in the raid? for example, what's your role in the raid? Dps? No way, any real dpser can beat your dps in your guild I am pretty sure.By the way, 3rd tank is not a waste for a lot of encounters. For example, first blob in inner stronghold. The add will mem wipe during the fight. For most guilds, they don't have enough dps to beat blob fast enough. It's good to have 2 off tanks on the add. There are a lot of encounters are handy with 3rd tank unless you have very very high dps and thos guilds can be counted with 2 hands. </blockquote>Here is where you thinking fails you. Most guilds might not be able to dps the blob mob fast enough right now, but eventually they will and good bye monk usefullness. Are you saying we should only be useful for the first half of expansions? Most classes get better and more useful as expansions progress not the other way around, gee I wonder where the problem is here?

Couching

04-22-2009, 01:46 AM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Then what's the role of brawler in the raid? for example, what's your role in the raid? Dps? No way, any real dpser can beat your dps in your guild I am pretty sure.By the way, 3rd tank is not a waste for a lot of encounters. For example, first blob in inner stronghold. The add will mem wipe during the fight. For most guilds, they don't have enough dps to beat blob fast enough. It's good to have 2 off tanks on the add. There are a lot of encounters are handy with 3rd tank unless you have very very high dps and thos guilds can be counted with 2 hands. </blockquote>Here is where you thinking fails you. Most guilds might not be able to dps the blob mob fast enough right now, but eventually they will and good bye monk usefullness. Are you saying we should only be useful for the first half of expansions? Most classes get better and more useful as expansions progress not the other way around, gee I wonder where the problem is here?</blockquote>You have told us that even your guild guardian can out parse you in raids. You said monk shouldn't be 3rd tank and also we can't parse well than plate tanks. Then what is your role in your guild raid?

Landiin

04-22-2009, 01:57 AM

-blah nm-

BChizzle

04-22-2009, 03:06 AM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>You have told us that even your guild guardian can out parse you in raids. You said monk shouldn't be 3rd tank and also we can't parse well than plate tanks. Then what is your role in your guild raid?</blockquote>My personal role in my guild is to collect loot so they have a tank for Zarrakon and if any other types of encounters like those happen. The absolute truth is my guild wouldn't miss a step without me in raid, my mages and healers might be sad for no RW, but w/e. So at best I am a buffer with 2 buffs. I can and have tanked everything there is to tank, but thats beyond the point that is the exception to the rule not the rule. You fail to see the reality of the situation, brawlers need to be useful and since we are tanks we should be viable as tanks, but not as some sort of 3rd tank role you have made up to make yourself feel good about being a buffbot. We need to be viable MT or OT's plain and simple. Do we need to be as good as a guard? No, but we should be pretty [Removed for Content] close.EDIT: DPS wise, brawlers and plates are very close, however, I think what every forgets is that guards and zerks are still using the offhand from VP when dpsing, as soon as they get that upgraded they pass us by a mile.

Couching

04-22-2009, 11:13 AM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>You have told us that even your guild guardian can out parse you in raids. You said monk shouldn't be 3rd tank and also we can't parse well than plate tanks. Then what is your role in your guild raid?</blockquote>My personal role in my guild is to collect loot so they have a tank for Zarrakon and if any other types of encounters like those happen. The absolute truth is my guild wouldn't miss a step without me in raid, my mages and healers might be sad for no RW, but w/e. So at best I am a buffer with 2 buffs. I can and have tanked everything there is to tank, but thats beyond the point that is the exception to the rule not the rule. You fail to see the reality of the situation, brawlers need to be useful and since we are tanks we should be viable as tanks, but not as some sort of 3rd tank role you have made up to make yourself feel good about being a buffbot. We need to be viable MT or OT's plain and simple. Do we need to be as good as a guard? No, but we should be pretty [Removed for Content] close.EDIT: DPS wise, brawlers and plates are very close, however, I think what every forgets is that guards and zerks are still using the offhand from VP when dpsing, as soon as they get that upgraded they pass us by a mile.</blockquote>And that's why I said we should have same survivability as offenisve plate tanks. We should be viable to tank all content.Though, even in your idea, close to guardian, is 3rd tank. Because guardian is still better and you won't be MT when guardian is up in raid.Last, whether you need 3rd tank in raid or not is decided by raid CONTENT. Fighter revamp can't cover raid content. It's necessary for SOE to make content that needs 3rd tank so that brawlers can get a spot in raid.

Yimway

04-22-2009, 11:18 AM

The brawlers raid desireability simply isn't a primary concern when laying out and ballancing between fighters. We need to look at aggro / dps / survivability.Brawlers by default in leather drop in the survivability department and gain in the dps department, but being a fighter classes them into a dps tier that will never be a prime choice for raid invites.Sure this is a problem, but this isn't a problem that needs to be or should be solved by the basic framework the fighter revamp is built to. This is more a class specific issue that needs some attention than it is an archtype concern.*IF* making brawlers more raid desireable is a concern, then subclass specific utility is the clear sollution for improving their desirability. If it was my job to make them more desirable, I'd increase their ability to raid wide buff dps with something crazy like monk 5% increase raid wide CA damage, bruiser 5% raidwide spell damamge. If DPS escelation is an issue, then I'd look at making the tank avoidance cap able to be raised via a ST buff from a brawler. IE, the presence of a brawler and his buff on MT will change the diminishing returns curve on that tank, shift it out 5-10% from where it is now.My opinioin is requiring a 3rd fighter in a tanking role isn't likely to become a universal need. If we're going to make them more desirable, we have to make raidwide dps be as good as or better with a brawler present and do that by raising everyone's dps enough to compensate for the dps differential in bringing a brawler instead of a t1 class. So, don't buff brawler to t1 dps as that just gets everyone [Removed for Content]. Allow them to be the best fighter dps while increasing base damage of others on raid sufficiently to make them as good as or better than having an extra dps class in that role. I would also have them keep their 'rodeo clown' raid role as it is a nice unique defining ability even if it isn't enough to make them desirable on raids.I do agree that plate fighters will be fighting for spots. Guard and Pal fighting for one slot, and Sk vs Zerker for the other. I'm not sold which in honesty is the defacto MT vs OT. I really think that varies from encounter to encounter.But I contend the brawler issue is secondary to the primary fighter changes that need to happen, and thus my sollutions for the brawler issue are clearly unique utility and not core fighter paradigm adjustments.

Lethe5683

04-22-2009, 11:20 AM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>You have told us that even your guild guardian can out parse you in raids. You said monk shouldn't be 3rd tank and also we can't parse well than plate tanks. Then what is your role in your guild raid?</blockquote>My personal role in my guild is to collect loot so they have a tank for Zarrakon and if any other types of encounters like those happen. The absolute truth is my guild wouldn't miss a step without me in raid, my mages and healers might be sad for no RW, but w/e. So at best I am a buffer with 2 buffs. I can and have tanked everything there is to tank, but thats beyond the point that is the exception to the rule not the rule. You fail to see the reality of the situation, brawlers need to be useful and since we are tanks we should be viable as tanks, but not as some sort of 3rd tank role you have made up to make yourself feel good about being a buffbot. We need to be viable MT or OT's plain and simple. Do we need to be as good as a guard? No, but we should be pretty [Removed for Content] close.EDIT: DPS wise, brawlers and plates are very close, however, I think what every forgets is that guards and zerks are still using the offhand from VP when dpsing, as soon as they get that upgraded they pass us by a mile.</blockquote>And that's why I said we should have same survivability as offenisve plate tanks. We should be viable to tank all content.</blockquote>That probably wouldn't even be hard to do... give us defensive stance uncontested deflection reguardless of stance and some sort of deathsave to protect us from getting DA one shotted. A passive death save that is, since theres no way to tell when the mob is going to get lucky. An idea I have for one is... when the brawler falls below 50% health proc a stoneskin that absorbs 2 attacks if they are greater than 25% max hp. Of course this would have to be not an instant recharge or it would be exploitable, maybe it could refresh every 30sec-1min. (just a random time I put out there).

circusgirl

04-22-2009, 11:27 AM

Or they could fix meditative healing like they were planning to--so that we heal for 40% on any physical hit that is greater than 40% of our total hp.

Yimway

04-22-2009, 11:28 AM

<cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>We need to be viable MT or OT's plain and simple. Do we need to be as good as a guard? No, but we should be pretty [Removed for Content] close.EDIT: DPS wise, brawlers and plates are very close, however, I think what every forgets is that guards and zerks are still using the offhand from VP when dpsing, as soon as they get that upgraded they pass us by a mile.</blockquote>And that's why I said we should have same survivability as offenisve plate tanks. We should be viable to tank all content.</blockquote>That probably wouldn't even be hard to do... give us defensive stance uncontested deflection reguardless of stance and some sort of deathsave to protect us from getting DA one shotted. A passive death save that is, since theres no way to tell when the mob is going to get lucky. An idea I have for one is... when the brawler falls below 50% health proc a stoneskin that absorbs 2 attacks if they are greater than 25% max hp. Of course this would have to be not an instant recharge or it would be exploitable, maybe it could refresh every 30sec-1min. (just a random time I put out there).</blockquote>Its been said many times, but I'll say it again.There is no need for more than 2 tanking fighters for the majority of the content. The rare need is covered in most guilds via 'alt tanks'.Making a brawler able to tank similar to other tanks in raids will not magically open up raid slots to fighters. Making them more effective tanks than plate tanks will not magically open up more raid slots to fighters. We all get this?No matter where you adjust the 6 fighters, there will NEVER be need for more than 3, and rarely will there be a real need for more than 2 without changing the content first. So no matter how well they all tank, there will be a near defacto choice of which 2 are best, and their subclass partners will be a less popular but still used alternative.Nothing we do about sculpting fighter's abilities to tank will change the number of slots for tanks on raids!You must look at providing defensive or offensive utility that is significant enough to offset bringing another t1 dps or bringing another healer/debuffer in order to give consideration for more fighter slots. It simply makes the most since to let the plate tanks fight over the raid tanking role and provide brawlers a dps/utility hybrid role significant enough to give pause to inviting one vs doubling up on any one dps class.

Hirofortis

04-22-2009, 11:30 AM

<cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote>That probably wouldn't even be hard to do... give us defensive stance uncontested deflection reguardless of stance and some sort of deathsave to protect us from getting DA one shotted. A passive death save that is, since theres no way to tell when the mob is going to get lucky. An idea I have for one is... when the brawler falls below 50% health proc a stoneskin that absorbs 2 attacks if they are greater than 25% max hp. Of course this would have to be not an instant recharge or it would be exploitable, maybe it could refresh every 30sec-1min. (just a random time I put out there).</blockquote>Ooo, can the guards have a passive death save to, since your asking for things that not everyone has, lets get it to all the tanks. I am tired of being one shoted as well, oh wait, it's the healers job to give us a death save. Dangit.

Lethe5683

04-22-2009, 11:49 AM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>So no matter how well they all tank, there will be a near defacto choice of which 2 are best, and their subclass partners will be a less popular but still used alternative.</blockquote>Yes, which means if they are close enough any fighter has a chance to tank in raids if they are good enough.

Lethe5683

04-22-2009, 11:49 AM

<cite>Krunck@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote>That probably wouldn't even be hard to do... give us defensive stance uncontested deflection reguardless of stance and some sort of deathsave to protect us from getting DA one shotted. A passive death save that is, since theres no way to tell when the mob is going to get lucky. An idea I have for one is... when the brawler falls below 50% health proc a stoneskin that absorbs 2 attacks if they are greater than 25% max hp. Of course this would have to be not an instant recharge or it would be exploitable, maybe it could refresh every 30sec-1min. (just a random time I put out there).</blockquote>Ooo, can the guards have a passive death save to, since your asking for things that not everyone has, lets get it to all the tanks. I am tired of being one shoted as well, oh wait, it's the healers job to give us a death save. Dangit. </blockquote>You have a death save already and superior mitigation. I don't really care though weather or not guards get a death save like that, actually it might make sense for guards and paladins to have that.

Yimway

04-22-2009, 12:10 PM

<cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>So no matter how well they all tank, there will be a near defacto choice of which 2 are best, and their subclass partners will be a less popular but still used alternative.</blockquote>Yes, which means if they are close enough any fighter has a chance to tank in raids if they are good enough.</blockquote>Honestly, they'd all have to be EXACTLY the same, in which case, why have 6 classes?Even if the difference min/maxing is only 1%, people are still going to min/max and pick the winner is the defacto choice.If we can't get past that not all fighters will be a MT choice, I don't think we'll get very far in a fighter revamp. As I said, there are more ways to increase fighter raid slots than everyone tanking the same.

Hirofortis

04-22-2009, 12:13 PM

<cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Krunck@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote>That probably wouldn't even be hard to do... give us defensive stance uncontested deflection reguardless of stance and some sort of deathsave to protect us from getting DA one shotted. A passive death save that is, since theres no way to tell when the mob is going to get lucky. An idea I have for one is... when the brawler falls below 50% health proc a stoneskin that absorbs 2 attacks if they are greater than 25% max hp. Of course this would have to be not an instant recharge or it would be exploitable, maybe it could refresh every 30sec-1min. (just a random time I put out there).</blockquote>Ooo, can the guards have a passive death save to, since your asking for things that not everyone has, lets get it to all the tanks. I am tired of being one shoted as well, oh wait, it's the healers job to give us a death save. Dangit. </blockquote>You have a death save already and superior mitigation. I don't really care though weather or not guards get a death save like that, actually it might make sense for guards and paladins to have that.</blockquote>We actually don't. We have a death stall. lol. If it procs, we are gonna die. wether right then or 30 seconds from then, we die.

Couching

04-22-2009, 12:36 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>So no matter how well they all tank, there will be a near defacto choice of which 2 are best, and their subclass partners will be a less popular but still used alternative.</blockquote>Yes, which means if they are close enough any fighter has a chance to tank in raids if they are good enough.</blockquote>Honestly, they'd all have to be EXACTLY the same, in which case, why have 6 classes?Even if the difference min/maxing is only 1%, people are still going to min/max and pick the winner is the defacto choice.If we can't get past that not all fighters will be a MT choice, I don't think we'll get very far in a fighter revamp. As I said, there are more ways to increase fighter raid slots than everyone tanking the same.</blockquote>You should get past that guardian and zerker deserve the best on survivability of all fighters. How dare you make pal as 3rd in survivability and compete with guardian, best survivability, for MT spot? Also, sk as 4th in survivability is not going to compete with zerker, 2nd survivability for OT. That's why I said your proposal of fighter revamp is completely failed. TNow you are complaining that people have to past that not all fighters will be a MT choice. Sure, I agree. But MT shouldn't be monopolized by one class. Same as OT.The current issue is that you only need 2 or 3 fighters in raids. So competition is always up no matter what the fighter revamp is.The goal of fighter revamp should be making the competition fair rather than making some classes monoplize raid spots as what it is on live servers.

Hirofortis

04-22-2009, 12:51 PM

Just make monks leather scouts and then we can move on. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Yimway

04-22-2009, 12:52 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Honestly, they'd all have to be EXACTLY the same, in which case, why have 6 classes?Even if the difference min/maxing is only 1%, people are still going to min/max and pick the winner is the defacto choice.If we can't get past that not all fighters will be a MT choice, I don't think we'll get very far in a fighter revamp. As I said, there are more ways to increase fighter raid slots than everyone tanking the same.</blockquote>You should get past that guardian and zerker deserve the best on survivability of all fighters. How dare you make pal as 3rd in survivability and compete with guardian, best survivability, for MT spot? Also, sk as 4th in survivability is not going to compete with zerker, 2nd survivability for OT. That's why I said your proposal of fighter revamp is completely failed. TNow you are complaining that people have to past that not all fighters will be a MT choice. Sure, I agree. But MT shouldn't be monopolized by one class. Same as OT.The current issue is that you only need 2 or 3 fighters in raids. So competition is always up no matter what the fighter revamp is.The goal of fighter revamp should be making the competition fair rather than making some classes monoplize raid spots as what it is on live servers.</blockquote>Drama much Crouching?Guard gets short term mit buffs, zerk gets short term aoe dps stuff. Both have value, but it gives a MINOR benefit to guard. Given what diminishign returns is, it really is getting more and more minor.Paly gets heals, SK gets AoE dps, its a natural effect that this places pally slightly above SK in survivability, it MAY in fact place them higher or at the same level as Zerk. But all in all, the range of survivability between the 4 is very, very small. So much so, its really only going to matter for your toughest fights which one you run with. Yes, people are going to min/max which is the best, but they all remain viable for 99% of the content.I agree the recamp shouldn't monopolize raid slots, however there are 6 fighters there simply must be more than 2 raid slots/roles for them to fill to make them desirable.And as I've repeated many times now, MT/OT on the plate classes. Then adjust brawler to either raidwide dps mods or ST survivability increasers. Either way they can earn spaces if the impact of those buffs is significant enough (as I've already stated several examples of).Making a bruiser out tank a guardian does not open up more fighter slots. I can't see how this fixes anything.

Yimway

04-22-2009, 01:03 PM

<cite>Krunck@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>Just make monks leather scouts and then we can move on. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>I know your being sarcastic, but I don't agree with that idea.They should be effective tanks, in fact I think perhaps they should be nearly the best instance tanks. That is they should have ample survivability for nearly all heroic content, they should have sufficient hate both ST and AoE to manage aggro of all heroic content, and they should have defacto the highest tank dps while doing so.In a raid though, they shouldn't be T1 dps. They should be the best fighter dps while also providing some sort of raidwide buff that adds more dps to the raid than the differential between brawler vs assasin dps. That being having an assasin + brawler = more raidwide dps than having 2 assasins. OR having a plate tank + brawler buff on him is hands down more survivability than having plate tank + extra healer / debuffer.This paradigm sorta makes since as you look at other archtypes. Scouts have the T1 dps subclass, the hybrid dps/debuff subclass, then the utility + smallest dps subclass. Mages break into similar tradeoffs. Healer sdo as well, but not as clearly.Fighters should break into best survivability subclass, hybrid survivability/debuff (or heal) subclass, and dps + utility subclass.

Couching

04-22-2009, 01:11 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Honestly, they'd all have to be EXACTLY the same, in which case, why have 6 classes?Even if the difference min/maxing is only 1%, people are still going to min/max and pick the winner is the defacto choice.If we can't get past that not all fighters will be a MT choice, I don't think we'll get very far in a fighter revamp. As I said, there are more ways to increase fighter raid slots than everyone tanking the same.</blockquote>You should get past that guardian and zerker deserve the best on survivability of all fighters. How dare you make pal as 3rd in survivability and compete with guardian, best survivability, for MT spot? Also, sk as 4th in survivability is not going to compete with zerker, 2nd survivability for OT. That's why I said your proposal of fighter revamp is completely failed. TNow you are complaining that people have to past that not all fighters will be a MT choice. Sure, I agree. But MT shouldn't be monopolized by one class. Same as OT.The current issue is that you only need 2 or 3 fighters in raids. So competition is always up no matter what the fighter revamp is.The goal of fighter revamp should be making the competition fair rather than making some classes monoplize raid spots as what it is on live servers.</blockquote>Drama much Crouching?It's in your proposal, not drama.Guard gets short term mit buffs, zerk gets short term aoe dps stuff. Both have value, but it gives a MINOR benefit to guard. Given what diminishign returns is, it really is getting more and more minor.Paly gets heals, SK gets AoE dps, its a natural effect that this places pally slightly above SK in survivability, it MAY in fact place them higher or at the same level as Zerk. But all in all, the range of survivability between the 4 is very, very small. So much so, its really only going to matter for your toughest fights which one you run with. Yes, people are going to min/max which is the best, but they all remain viable for 99% of the content.Most crusaders already stated in different threads that such as ward or heal is not good enough to compensate worse survivability than guardian. No, it's not. pal and guardian survivability should be same. SK and zerker should be same in survivability as well.I agree the recamp shouldn't monopolize raid slots, however there are 6 fighters there simply must be more than 2 raid slots/roles for them to fill to make them desirable.And in your proposal, pal won't have a chance to compete MT with guardian. SK won't have chance to compete with zerker.And as I've repeated many times now, MT/OT on the plate classes. Then adjust brawler to either raidwide dps mods or ST survivability increasers. Either way they can earn spaces if the impact of those buffs is significant enough (as I've already stated several examples of).No, raidwide didn't work well. A lot of brawlers already got what you said powerful raidwides, such as 5% CA, and still sit out raid. Also, what you said ST survivability increaser so that we can tank heroic instances..lol. I have said it many times and I will say it again. Brawlers are not interested to be a buff bot. Otherwise, we will choice bards, not brawlers.Making a bruiser out tank a guardian does not open up more fighter slots. I can't see how this fixes anything.And I haven't seen anyone said that making bruiser out tank a guardian. Stop drama.</blockquote>

Yimway

04-22-2009, 01:26 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Most crusaders already stated in different threads that such as ward or heal is not good enough to compensate worse survivability than guardian. No, it's not. pal and guardian survivability should be same. SK and zerker should be same in survivability as well.I agree the recamp shouldn't monopolize raid slots, however there are 6 fighters there simply must be more than 2 raid slots/roles for them to fill to make them desirable.And in your proposal, pal won't have a chance to compete MT with guardian. SK won't have chance to compete with zerker.And as I've repeated many times now, MT/OT on the plate classes. Then adjust brawler to either raidwide dps mods or ST survivability increasers. Either way they can earn spaces if the impact of those buffs is significant enough (as I've already stated several examples of).No, raidwide didn't work well. A lot of brawlers already got what you said powerful raidwides, such as 5% CA, and still sit out raid. Also, what you said ST survivability increaser so that we can tank heroic instances..lol. I have said it many times and I will say it again. Brawlers are not interested to be a buff bot. Otherwise, we will choice bards, not brawlers.Making a bruiser out tank a guardian does not open up more fighter slots. I can't see how this fixes anything.And I haven't seen anyone said that making bruiser out tank a guardian. Stop drama.</blockquote></blockquote>1) Heal's not good enough? Parse it, make it better. Just cause current mechanics don't validate it doesn't mean new mechanics can not. Again, your apply the current state of the classes to a hypothetical new metric. 2) My example I think they can, if survivability is really, really close, and aoe dps is better, there is competition. But really, the classes should be close enough that you just pick which ever player has the most skill between the 2.3) Brawler raidwides didn't work cause they weren't significant. They were minor increases to CA damage, NOT BASE damage increasers. The current itteration of the buffs are too easily surpassed with gear that bringing them doesn't have impact. The buff has to be designed that even with the best gear in game, having the buff makes you better. The fact that the current buff isn't valued does NOT invalidate that a buff sollution will not work.4) I'm not creating drama. Several brawlers here make statements about making them tank as good as guard or as good as all other tanks. My point, which should be freaking self evident, if you take it to the absolute extreme and make them the best tanks, it still doesn't change we only need 2 tanks on a raid.If your going to bring more than 2 fighters it HAS to be cause your bringing the 3rd or 4th one for something OTHER THAN TANKING. Lets just accept the general population isn't going to accept bringing a fighter for t1 dps, or as a healer, and that only leaves buffs and debuffs. Though if you think there is something else for the 3rd fighter to do, please share.

Couching

04-22-2009, 01:56 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>1) Heal's not good enough? Parse it, make it better. Just cause current mechanics don't validate it doesn't mean new mechanics can not. Again, your apply the current state of the classes to a hypothetical new metric. I don't want to debate with you since it's already done with cruasders with developers. You can keep your opinion and on the other hand, crusaders have different opinion.2) My example I think they can, if survivability is really, really close, and aoe dps is better, there is competition. But really, the classes should be close enough that you just pick which ever player has the most skill between the 2.Then just say it they have same survivability, problem solved. The rest is player skill.3) Brawler raidwides didn't work cause they weren't significant. They were minor increases to CA damage, NOT BASE damage increasers. The current itteration of the buffs are too easily surpassed with gear that bringing them doesn't have impact. The buff has to be designed that even with the best gear in game, having the buff makes you better. The fact that the current buff isn't valued does NOT invalidate that a buff sollution will not work.Actually it is not a good solution. Brawlers have 5% accuracy and it's not surpassed with gear. The fact remains the same. Most brawlers sat out of raid in TSO.4) I'm not creating drama. Several brawlers here make statements about making them tank as good as guard or as good as all other tanks. My point, which should be freaking self evident, if you take it to the absolute extreme and make them the best tanks, it still doesn't change we only need 2 tanks on a raid.Brawlers should be the same survivability as offensive plate tanks, but not guardian. What you said was guardian in your last post. Don't try to mix two different concept. Moreover, in most tso raids, it's good to have 3 fighters. Only in very few guilds, they may not need 3rd tank in raids. If your going to bring more than 2 fighters it HAS to be cause your bringing the 3rd or 4th one for something OTHER THAN TANKING. Lets just accept the general population isn't going to accept bringing a fighter for t1 dps, or as a healer, and that only leaves buffs and debuffs. Though if you think there is something else for the 3rd fighter to do, please share.With same survivability as offensive plate tank. brawler, 3rd tank, can off tank main target with MT when off tank is tanking adds. In some encounters, main targets can charm or mem wipe, also, there are adds during the fight. Having a 3rd tank is a good plus for raids. Bottom line for brawlers, we need to be able to tank all content, not just heroic instances. That's the promise from SOE since the game launch to TSO. </blockquote>

Landiin

04-22-2009, 02:07 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Bottom line for brawlers, we need to be able to tank all content, not just heroic instances. That's the promise from SOE since the game launch to TSO.</blockquote>Where have they ever "promised" that? Please link it for me..

Yimway

04-22-2009, 02:13 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote>Actually it is not a good solution. Brawlers have 5% accuracy and it's not surpassed with gear. The fact remains the same. Most brawlers sat out of raid in TSO.<snip>Moreover, in most tso raids, it's good to have 3 fighters. Only in very few guilds, they may not need 3rd tank in raids. <snip>Bottom line for brawlers, we need to be able to tank all content, not just heroic instances. That's the promise from SOE since the game launch to TSO. </blockquote></blockquote>1) Yes 5% accuracy, and guess what, we parsed it and the net impact of having the brawler for this effect vs another dps class, well dps class won. 5% accuracy in itself wasn't enough of a buff.2) Very few fights require more than 2, not enough to carry a 3rd fighter on the roster. As I said previously, we have an assasin log in a fighter alt for these few fights, then we go back to 2 assasins. I wouldn't be surprised if we're by any means the only guild carrying a 3rd fighter in this fashion.3) Bottom line if all 6 fighters can tank all content, it doesn't add more fighters to the raid.

Landiin

04-22-2009, 02:25 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>3) Bottom line if all 6 fighters can tank all content, it doesn't add more fighters to the raid.</blockquote>Exactly all 3 sub-class's of fighters should be needed in a raid. Not all 3 can be MT or OT, being MT and OT sub-classes are mostly already assigned to plate it only makes since to adjust the brawlers to do another roll. But really IF they swapped it all around and my sub-class wasn't no longer the defunct MT of choice but I had a need spot on the raid so be it. I would just re-roll the class that was and go on with life and knowing that my current class has a spot.

Couching

04-22-2009, 02:31 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote>Actually it is not a good solution. Brawlers have 5% accuracy and it's not surpassed with gear. The fact remains the same. Most brawlers sat out of raid in TSO.Moreover, in most tso raids, it's good to have 3 fighters. Only in very few guilds, they may not need 3rd tank in raids. Bottom line for brawlers, we need to be able to tank all content, not just heroic instances. That's the promise from SOE since the game launch to TSO. </blockquote></blockquote>1) Yes 5% accuracy, and guess what, we parsed it and the net impact of having the brawler for this effect vs another dps class, well dps class won. 5% accuracy in itself wasn't enough of a buff.The fact is there won't be any buff that make assassin+ brawler > 2 assassin in dps. Highest zw trash parse of assassin is 23k and highest monk parse is 12.6k on eq2 flames. Even on main target, assassin dps is often the double of brawlers.You can insist it's the way to go. The fact is you can't design a raid wide buff that is not a game broken to make it worthy to get a brawler in instead of real dpsers when brawlers can't tank.2) Very few fights require more than 2, not enough to carry a 3rd fighter on the roster. As I said previously, we have an assasin log in a fighter alt for these few fights, then we go back to 2 assasins. I wouldn't be surprised if we're by any means the only guild carrying a 3rd fighter in this fashion.I disagree. It may be your guild doesn't have enough progression in TSO or your guild is really that exceptional and doesn't need 3rd tanks. For most guilds, 3rd tank makes a lot of fights much easier in TSO.3) Bottom line if all 6 fighters can tank all content, it doesn't add more fighters to the raid.That's content problem. Stop being selfish. How about make warrior buff bot? No? then don't push it to other classes. </blockquote>

Hirofortis

04-22-2009, 02:46 PM

I am sorry, but you cannot just out and say all 3 sub types should be needed on a raid. That is silly. Viable options, yes. Needed, no. We need to look at this from a best case scenerio in which you should be able to mix and match different classes and still atain similar results. This would make raids much more flexible and would work out better.As far as the third tank option. Why would you need a third tank? Rare occasions when a mob is designed that way. Thats about it. Switch in/Switch out as needed. Heck that is how most of the encounters are going anyway. Just switch out the classes ya need for any given mob and move on. The simple fact is you will NEVER need every class on a raid. Here is why, 24 classes, 24 spots. If you went by some ofthe theroies here you could only have 1 of every class and that would be the end. Since that idea will never fly, lets just not wory about that. Unless you want to have 6 tanks on a raid. lol. Someone is always going to be feeling left out so lets get back to the idea of tanks.What should a tank be able to do, how can we make sure that we can accomplish this goal without being overpowered and how can we make sure that a tank is a viable option knowing that different tanking styles will be better in different situations.Also understand that each time new gear comes out it upsets the balance so it needs to be designed so that gear changes do not make the model obsolete.

RafaelSmith

04-22-2009, 02:50 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote>Bottom line for brawlers, we need to be able to tank all content, not just heroic instances. That's the promise from SOE since the game launch to TSO. </blockquote></blockquote>Not sure they ever made such a promise but if they did....they were either lieing or down right stupid...or both....Because its impossible. At least not with 6 so called 'different' classes that are competing for 1/6 or 2/24 'slots. And with SOE's simplistic encounter design...there will never be the need for more than 2..maybe 3 'tanks'....The mistake you make and alot of people are making...including the guys in red....is that if fighter is present on either a raid or group.....there better be something for him to tank...otherwise its a wasted slot.

Couching

04-22-2009, 02:56 PM

True, not all classes are needed. Only certain classes are needed and the rest classes have to compete for other slots in raids.That's why I said fighter revamp should be fair to all fighters rather than perferable to warrior or any class.For 3rd tank, actually SoE is trying to make a room for 3rd tank.When 30%-40% of raid content is designed friendly for 3 tanks, it's not rare.

therodge

04-22-2009, 02:57 PM

<cite>Krunck@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>I am sorry, but you cannot just out and say all 3 sub types should be needed on a raid. That is silly. Viable options, yes. Needed, no. We need to look at this from a best case scenerio in which you should be able to mix and match different classes and still atain similar results. This would make raids much more flexible and would work out better.As far as the third tank option. Why would you need a third tank? Rare occasions when a mob is designed that way. Thats about it. Switch in/Switch out as needed. Heck that is how most of the encounters are going anyway. Just switch out the classes ya need for any given mob and move on. The simple fact is you will NEVER need every class on a raid. Here is why, 24 classes, 24 spots. If you went by some ofthe theroies here you could only have 1 of every class and that would be the end. Since that idea will never fly, lets just not wory about that. Unless you want to have 6 tanks on a raid. lol. Someone is always going to be feeling left out so lets get back to the idea of tanks.What should a tank be able to do, how can we make sure that we can accomplish this goal without being overpowered and how can we make sure that a tank is a viable option knowing that different tanking styles will be better in different situations.Also understand that each time new gear comes out it upsets the balance so it needs to be designed so that gear changes do not make the model obsolete.</blockquote>but what if classes were balanced so it did fly? i think thats what alot of fighter threads are about.

Couching

04-22-2009, 03:03 PM

<cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote>Bottom line for brawlers, we need to be able to tank all content, not just heroic instances. That's the promise from SOE since the game launch to TSO. </blockquote></blockquote>Not sure they ever made such a promise but if they did....they were either lieing or down right stupid...or both....Because its impossible. At least not with 6 so called 'different' classes that are competing for 1/6 or 2/24 'slots. And with SOE's simplistic encounter design...there will never be the need for more than 2..maybe 3 'tanks'....I feel sorry to say so when you don't even raid most TSO encoutners. You have no right to say that raid doesn't need 3 tanks. The fact is for most guilds, it's much easier to progress in TSO with 3rd tank in raid. The mistake you make and alot of people are making...including the guys in red....is that if fighter is present on either a raid or group.....there better be something for him to tank...otherwise its a wasted slot.</blockquote>

RafaelSmith

04-22-2009, 03:10 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>True, not all classes are needed. Only certain classes are needed and the rest classes have to compete for other slots in raids.That's why I said fighter revamp should be fair to all fighters rather than perferable to warrior or any class.For 3rd tank, actually SoE is trying to make a room for 3rd tank.When 30%-40% of raid content is designed friendly for 3 tanks, it's not rare.</blockquote>The only way to make it fair to all would be to make each fighter desireable for something besides 'tanking'.Thats not gonna happen because the scouts and mages would uproar. I mean this whole failed revamp was the brainchild of someone that saw some parses on EQ2 flames and thought fighters were doing too much DMG.Fighters are tanks.....pure and simple... I dont like it.....but thats what SOE and the other 3 archetypes want/demand/expect. If a fighter is present....he needs to either be tanking or be waiting to tank something as part of an encounter.The other problem is that SOE balances around Raids....which is most cases results in the exact opposite effect outside of raiding. While a good Guard may currently be the most optimal raid MT choice(I personally think that is BS....SK seems to me to be the most optimal when you take into account everything that is required of a raid MT).....Guard is the least optimal choice for TSO instances..To achieve true equality for all 6 fighters for all the games content would require.....yeah a new game.

RafaelSmith

04-22-2009, 03:14 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote>Bottom line for brawlers, we need to be able to tank all content, not just heroic instances. That's the promise from SOE since the game launch to TSO. </blockquote></blockquote>Not sure they ever made such a promise but if they did....they were either lieing or down right stupid...or both....Because its impossible. At least not with 6 so called 'different' classes that are competing for 1/6 or 2/24 'slots. And with SOE's simplistic encounter design...there will never be the need for more than 2..maybe 3 'tanks'....I feel sorry to say so when you don't even raid most TSO encoutners. You have no right to say that raid doesn't need 3 tanks. The fact is for most guilds, it's much easier to progress in TSO with 3rd tank in raid. The mistake you make and alot of people are making...including the guys in red....is that if fighter is present on either a raid or group.....there better be something for him to tank...otherwise its a wasted slot.</blockquote></blockquote>Hence the reason I said....2 maybe 3....I know there are raids/encounters that require a 3rd. SOE created this problem.......lets face it ....balancing 4 fighter types that essentially function the same is easy....throw in 2 that are totally different....and all the sudden balance becomes alot harder......at least not without making dynamic encounters that take into account who is present.

Yimway

04-22-2009, 03:30 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote>You can insist it's the way to go. The fact is you can't design a raid wide buff that is not a game broken to make it worthy to get a brawler in instead of real dpsers when brawlers can't tank.3) Bottom line if all 6 fighters can tank all content, it doesn't add more fighters to the raid.That's content problem. Stop being selfish. How about make warrior buff bot? No? then don't push it to other classes. </blockquote></blockquote>1) Wanna bet? Yes, we can design a raid wide buff that adds up to 15k dps. Base damage modifer is the most obvious as it scales better, but substantial proc rate modifers do as well.2) Ok, so we'll revamp fighters and change all the content to make that revamp work? I don't think thats happening. If we accept that we have to revamp within the content we have, my statement stands.

BChizzle

04-22-2009, 03:44 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>And that's why I said we should have same survivability as offenisve plate tanks. We should be viable to tank all content.Though, even in your idea, close to guardian, is 3rd tank. Because guardian is still better and you won't be MT when guardian is up in raid.Last, whether you need 3rd tank in raid or not is decided by raid CONTENT. Fighter revamp can't cover raid content. It's necessary for SOE to make content that needs 3rd tank so that brawlers can get a spot in raid.</blockquote>Again this is where you fail with your so called 3rd tank idea. Under the way things are right now, if the guard is unable to tank for whatever reason the OT (Zerk, Paly, SK) becomes the MT for the raid not a brawler. Like I said we need to be viable MT material, so close that any difference is very little. Some made up 3rd tank role is not a solution because there is no such thing other then in the world you made up for yourself to justify why you are in a raid every day.

Couching

04-22-2009, 03:46 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote>You can insist it's the way to go. The fact is you can't design a raid wide buff that is not a game broken to make it worthy to get a brawler in instead of real dpsers when brawlers can't tank.3) Bottom line if all 6 fighters can tank all content, it doesn't add more fighters to the raid.That's content problem. Stop being selfish. How about make warrior buff bot? No? then don't push it to other classes. </blockquote></blockquote>1) Wanna bet? Yes, we can design a raid wide buff that adds up to 15k dps. Base damage modifer is the most obvious as it scales better, but substantial proc rate modifers do as well.And it's called overpowered. Still, you think it's not op with a raid wide buff offers 15k dps and SOE didn't think so.2) Ok, so we'll revamp fighters and change all the content to make that revamp work? I don't think thats happening. If we accept that we have to revamp within the content we have, my statement stands.</blockquote>We don't need to redesign current content. In TSO raid content, 30%-40% is designed for 3 or 4 tanks.Look at the new X4, not sure you have been there or not.First encounter is 3 named and named has aoe to stop you switching target. This fight is easy with 3 tanks.Second encounter, you need to kill class adds in a very short period. This fight is also designed for 3-4 tanks in the raid.The 4th encounter, it's also handy to have 3 tanks in raids.There are 6 named in new X4, I haven't been 5th and 6 th so that I don't know if we need 3 tanks or not.So 3 of first 4 encounters are friendly to have 3-4 fighters in the raid.I have to say SOE is working on more content that needs more than 1 or 2 tanks in raid.

Couching

04-22-2009, 03:50 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>And that's why I said we should have same survivability as offenisve plate tanks. We should be viable to tank all content.Though, even in your idea, close to guardian, is 3rd tank. Because guardian is still better and you won't be MT when guardian is up in raid.Last, whether you need 3rd tank in raid or not is decided by raid CONTENT. Fighter revamp can't cover raid content. It's necessary for SOE to make content that needs 3rd tank so that brawlers can get a spot in raid.</blockquote>Again this is where you fail with your so called 3rd tank idea. Under the way things are right now, if the guard is unable to tank for whatever reason the OT (Zerk, Paly, SK) becomes the MT for the raid not a brawler. Like I said we need to be viable MT material, so close that any difference is very little. Some made up 3rd tank role is not a solution because there is no such thing other then in the world you made up for yourself to justify why you are in a raid every day.</blockquote>Learn to read dude.I said we should have the same survivability as offensive plate tanks so that when guardian is unable to tank, got pwnt, for example, we can tank main target.Why should we need guardian survivability to off tank main target but offensive plate tank is able to tank main target with same survivability as brawler. Your logic is broken.Not to say, for most guilds, a lot of content is much easier than 2 tanks in raid.

BChizzle

04-22-2009, 03:51 PM

<cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>Hence the reason I said....2 maybe 3....I know there are raids/encounters that require a 3rd. SOE created this problem.......lets face it ....balancing 4 fighter types that essentially function the same is easy....throw in 2 that are totally different....and all the sudden balance becomes alot harder......at least not without making dynamic encounters that take into account who is present.</blockquote>There are very few encounters that require more then 2 tanks. As a matter of fact the only ones are Xebnok and Zarrakon, the rest can be done with 2 tanks, also you can probably throw a swashy/brigand in to fulfill the tank role on those 2 encounters anyways. This made up 3rd tank 'role' is non existant.

Couching

04-22-2009, 04:00 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>Hence the reason I said....2 maybe 3....I know there are raids/encounters that require a 3rd. SOE created this problem.......lets face it ....balancing 4 fighter types that essentially function the same is easy....throw in 2 that are totally different....and all the sudden balance becomes alot harder......at least not without making dynamic encounters that take into account who is present.</blockquote>There are very few encounters that require more then 2 tanks. As a matter of fact the only ones are Xebnok and Zarrakon, the rest can be done with 2 tanks, also you can probably throw a swashy/brigand in to fulfill the tank role on those 2 encounters anyways. This made up 3rd tank 'role' is non existant.</blockquote>It's impossible to beat gynok with 2 tanks for most guilds. Only very few guilds have done it with 2 tanks.The comment of the rest can be done with 2 tanks is idiotic. Sure, and how many guilds really beat those encounters with 2 tanks?My point is that it's EASIER to beat those encounters with 3 tanks.

BChizzle

04-22-2009, 04:06 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Learn to read dude.I said we should have the same survivability as offensive plate tanks so that when guardian is unable to tank, got pwnt, for example, we can tank main target.Why should we need guardian survivability to off tank main target but offensive plate tank is able to tank main target with same survivability as brawler. Your logic is broken.Not to say, for most guilds, a lot of content is much easier than 2 tanks in raid.</blockquote>Stop 'pigeon holing' brawlers into the position that you use to justify your spot in raid. This made up 3 tank role is completely false. There is no use for a 3rd tank unless content is designed around the need for one which it isn't. Which means Aerlalik's idea of AE vs ST tanks is clearly superior to yours as at least it defines specific roles for tanks to be useful on raids. The 3rd tank role isn't a role at all unless content design is built upon it, which it isn't. Single grouping is designed around the need for 1 tank, and raiding 2. Short of making every encounter like 3 Princes there is no need for a third tank.

BChizzle

04-22-2009, 04:09 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>It's impossible to beat gynok with 2 tanks for most guilds. Only very few guilds have done it with 2 tanks.The comment of the rest can be done with 2 tanks is idiotic. Sure, and how many guilds really beat those encounters with 2 tanks?My point is that it's EASIER to beat those encounters with 3 tanks.</blockquote>Actually 2 tanks is easy for gynok, and becomes easier as people get geared. You are just proving my point that your so called 3rd tank role becomes more and more less useful as progression happens. I am sorry your guild can't 2 tank Gynok, but most guilds killing him can.

Yimway

04-22-2009, 04:13 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>1) Wanna bet? Yes, we can design a raid wide buff that adds up to 15k dps. Base damage modifer is the most obvious as it scales better, but substantial proc rate modifers do as well.And it's called overpowered. Still, you think it's not op with a raid wide buff offers 15k dps and SOE didn't think so.2) Ok, so we'll revamp fighters and change all the content to make that revamp work? I don't think thats happening. If we accept that we have to revamp within the content we have, my statement stands.</blockquote>We don't need to redesign current content. In TSO raid content, 30%-40% is designed for 3 or 4 tanks.Look at the new X4, not sure you have been there or not.First encounter is 3 named and named has aoe to stop you switching target. This fight is easy with 3 tanks.</blockquote>1) It isn't overpowered if the presence of one brawler benefits the raidwide 5k more than the presence of 2 assasins. That was my point, and if we want to make more raid slots for fighters, its going to take things like this. If we don't want more fighter slots in raids, we'll leave brawler utility where it is.Even if the encounters require 3 tanks, why in your estimation would I not bring SK, SK, Guard? I mean the SK's are going to do more for buffing group dps than the brawler would, and if it requires 3 tanks, good chance there's some potential aoe dps the brawler currently doesn't bring. Even if the brawler had the same survivability, why wouldn't I bring plate?Lastly keep in mind to make brawlers have the same survivability, we have to not only revamp class mechanics, but we also have to revamp itemization and effects. Is the brawler community as a whole going to appreciate leather dps gear being driven more to mitigation and uncontested avoidance specializing instead of dps?2) The 1st encounter, you can just dps thru one of those nameds with SK OT. Sacrament + Thoughtsnap + Magnote = no 3rd tank. Not tried any further yet.

Couching

04-22-2009, 04:14 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Learn to read dude.I said we should have the same survivability as offensive plate tanks so that when guardian is unable to tank, got pwnt, for example, we can tank main target.Why should we need guardian survivability to off tank main target but offensive plate tank is able to tank main target with same survivability as brawler. Your logic is broken.Not to say, for most guilds, a lot of content is much easier than 2 tanks in raid.</blockquote>Stop 'pigeon holing' brawlers into the position that you use to justify your spot in raid. This made up 3 tank role is completely false. There is no use for a 3rd tank unless content is designed around the need for one which it isn't. Which means Aerlalik's idea of AE vs ST tanks is clearly superior to yours as at least it defines specific roles for tanks to be useful on raids. The 3rd tank role isn't a role at all unless content design is built upon it, which it isn't. Single grouping is designed around the need for 1 tank, and raiding 2. Short of making every encounter like 3 Princes there is no need for a third tank.</blockquote>Clearly, you need to learn how to read.I didn't say 3rd tank is needed. I said it's easier to beat encounters with 3rd tank for most guilds.Raid is all about balance of (raid) survivability and (raid) dps so that raid can beat raid target. For most guilds, they don't have exceptional dps, healing and survivability, extra tank is a good choice to help them beat hard encounter. Also I have said it's not needed for exceptional guilds. However, most guilds are not exceptional.Last, you want to get survivability close to guardain and my idea is to get survivability as offensive tank. How much the different between you and me?

Couching

04-22-2009, 04:17 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>It's impossible to beat gynok with 2 tanks for most guilds. Only very few guilds have done it with 2 tanks.The comment of the rest can be done with 2 tanks is idiotic. Sure, and how many guilds really beat those encounters with 2 tanks?My point is that it's EASIER to beat those encounters with 3 tanks.</blockquote>Actually 2 tanks is easy for gynok, and becomes easier as people get geared. You are just proving my point that your so called 3rd tank role becomes more and more less useful as progression happens. I am sorry your guild can't 2 tank Gynok, but most guilds killing him can.</blockquote>You can keep bulling. Not every server has no population as your server without lag.Your argument is based on a perfect environment and my post is based on reality you may suffer.

Davngr1

04-22-2009, 04:24 PM

it's easier to balance 24 slots then it is to balance 6. if devs want to open up raid spots for at least one of each sub-class they need to give all classes raid wide buffs so IF a raid leader wants to replace a utillity class with something else he can do so with out loosing massive raid efficiency.

Couching

04-22-2009, 04:27 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>1) It isn't overpowered if the presence of one brawler benefits the raidwide 5k more than the presence of 2 assasins. That was my point, and if we want to make more raid slots for fighters, its going to take things like this. If we don't want more fighter slots in raids, we'll leave brawler utility where it is.It's not going to happen. Even zerker, best raidwide and group wide buffs on the live servers, still pointless to bring zerker to raid if they don't need to tank.Even if the encounters require 3 tanks, why in your estimation would I not bring SK, SK, Guard? I mean the SK's are going to do more for buffing group dps than the brawler would, and if it requires 3 tanks, good chance there's some potential aoe dps the brawler currently doesn't bring. Even if the brawler had the same survivability, why wouldn't I bring plate?Ya, it's so easy to use an OP class to replace brawler. I won't deny it. Actually, SK can replace any fighter on the live server. What's your point then? SK being MT and SK OT > all other combinations of fighters. Lastly keep in mind to make brawlers have the same survivability, we have to not only revamp class mechanics, but we also have to revamp itemization and effects. Is the brawler community as a whole going to appreciate leather dps gear being driven more to mitigation and uncontested avoidance specializing instead of dps?We don't need to revamp class mechanics. I already said bruiser survivability in TSO is about equal as offensive plate tank. It's not hard to fix monk survivability with some tuning. The current problem is plate tanks deal too much dps comparing brawlers and have better survivability at same time. 2) The 1st encounter, you can just dps thru one of those nameds with SK OT. Sacrament + Thoughtsnap + Magnote = no 3rd tank. Not tried any further yet.Ya, it's so easy to use an OP class so that you don't need 3rd tank. Wait a sec, didn't you guys keep pushing to nerf sk? </blockquote>

BChizzle

04-22-2009, 04:31 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>It's impossible to beat gynok with 2 tanks for most guilds. Only very few guilds have done it with 2 tanks.The comment of the rest can be done with 2 tanks is idiotic. Sure, and how many guilds really beat those encounters with 2 tanks?My point is that it's EASIER to beat those encounters with 3 tanks.</blockquote>Actually 2 tanks is easy for gynok, and becomes easier as people get geared. You are just proving my point that your so called 3rd tank role becomes more and more less useful as progression happens. I am sorry your guild can't 2 tank Gynok, but most guilds killing him can.</blockquote>You can keep bulling. Not every server has no population as your server without lag.Your argument is based on a perfect environment and my post is based on reality you may suffer.</blockquote>Wait so now we are building brawler roles to combat lag? Great idea I suggest our raidwide gets an added buff of reducing lag, that will certainly get us in every raid, SOE make it happen.

Yimway

04-22-2009, 04:32 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Even if the encounters require 3 tanks, why in your estimation would I not bring SK, SK, Guard? I mean the SK's are going to do more for buffing group dps than the brawler would, and if it requires 3 tanks, good chance there's some potential aoe dps the brawler currently doesn't bring. Even if the brawler had the same survivability, why wouldn't I bring plate?</blockquote>Ya, it's so easy to use an OP class to replace brawler. I won't deny it. Actually, SK can replace any fighter on the live server. What's your point then? SK being MT and SK OT > all other combinations of fighters. </blockquote>Nerf Sk, go back to my first question, why would I bring brawler instead of plate?

Couching

04-22-2009, 04:33 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>It's impossible to beat gynok with 2 tanks for most guilds. Only very few guilds have done it with 2 tanks.The comment of the rest can be done with 2 tanks is idiotic. Sure, and how many guilds really beat those encounters with 2 tanks?My point is that it's EASIER to beat those encounters with 3 tanks.</blockquote>Actually 2 tanks is easy for gynok, and becomes easier as people get geared. You are just proving my point that your so called 3rd tank role becomes more and more less useful as progression happens. I am sorry your guild can't 2 tank Gynok, but most guilds killing him can.</blockquote>You can keep bulling. Not every server has no population as your server without lag.Your argument is based on a perfect environment and my post is based on reality you may suffer.</blockquote>Wait so now we are building brawler roles to combat lag? Great idea I suggest our raidwide gets an added buff of reducing lag, that will certainly get us in every raid, SOE make it happen.</blockquote>Great, you really can't raid read.So lag is just the only factor in the real world?Players gear, raid setup, player skill, etc all didn't count?Stop being an idiot, thanks.

RafaelSmith

04-22-2009, 04:33 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote>SK being MT and SK OT > all other combinations of fighters. </blockquote></blockquote>Yes.

Couching

04-22-2009, 04:34 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Even if the encounters require 3 tanks, why in your estimation would I not bring SK, SK, Guard? I mean the SK's are going to do more for buffing group dps than the brawler would, and if it requires 3 tanks, good chance there's some potential aoe dps the brawler currently doesn't bring. Even if the brawler had the same survivability, why wouldn't I bring plate?</blockquote>Ya, it's so easy to use an OP class to replace brawler. I won't deny it. Actually, SK can replace any fighter on the live server. What's your point then? SK being MT and SK OT > all other combinations of fighters. </blockquote>Nerf Sk, go back to my first question, why would I bring brawler instead of plate?</blockquote>Why not when brawler has same survivability as offensive plate tank and we supposed to have better ST dps and aggro. In this case, brawlers is better choice to off tank main target than aoe plate tanks.

BChizzle

04-22-2009, 04:35 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Clearly, you need to learn how to read.I didn't say 3rd tank is needed. I said it's easier to beat encounters with 3rd tank for most guilds.Raid is all about balance of (raid) survivability and (raid) dps so that raid can beat raid target. For most guilds, they don't have exceptional dps, healing and survivability, extra tank is a good choice to help them beat hard encounter. Also I have said it's not needed for exceptional guilds. However, most guilds are not exceptional.Last, you want to get survivability close to guardain and my idea is to get survivability as offensive tank. How much the different between you and me?</blockquote>I would suggest removing the third tank for a brigand would make encounters easier then having a 3rd tank, or perhaps just loading up on healers. Neither of those helps a brawler out.And again, you clearly tell me I need to 'learn to read' yet you still throw up a scenario where a brawler becomes less and less effective and guilds progress through content. You clearly state having better heals and dps makes the need for an extra tank deminish, well what to you think gearing up does to a raid?

BChizzle

04-22-2009, 04:40 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Great, you really can't raid.So lag is just the only factor in the real world?Players gear, raid setup, player skill, etc all didn't count?Stop being an idiot, thanks.</blockquote>This make absolutely no sense. But since you want to make it personal by name calling, I am twice the brawler you will ever be, so questioning my raiding ability is just lawl. Fact is you are trying to justify your role in a raid and then push that fantasy ideal on everyone else. You have no retort, I clearly pointed out the huge gaping flaws in your plan and you have now moved to name calling. Lets just hope SOE is smart enough not to listen to you.

Couching

04-22-2009, 04:41 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Clearly, you need to learn how to read.I didn't say 3rd tank is needed. I said it's easier to beat encounters with 3rd tank for most guilds.Raid is all about balance of (raid) survivability and (raid) dps so that raid can beat raid target. For most guilds, they don't have exceptional dps, healing and survivability, extra tank is a good choice to help them beat hard encounter. Also I have said it's not needed for exceptional guilds. However, most guilds are not exceptional.Last, you want to get survivability close to guardain and my idea is to get survivability as offensive tank. How much the different between you and me?</blockquote>I would suggest removing the third tank for a brigand would make encounters easier then having a 3rd tank, or perhaps just loading up on healers. Neither of those helps a brawler out.And again, you clearly tell me I need to 'learn to read' yet you still throw up a scenario where a brawler becomes less and less effective and guilds progress through content. You clearly state having better heals and dps makes the need for an extra tank deminish, well what to you think gearing up does to a raid?</blockquote>It's really nonsense to argu with you since you want brawlers to have better survivability than most plate tank except guardian. Ok, let it be. And what's brawler's role in raid in your eyes? You never answer me the question but keep criticize that 3rd tank is not needed. Fine.For 2nd question in your post. It's not just happened on brawler, actually it happened on guardian as well. When raid is really geared up, guardian is useless.When brawlers can help their guilds progress in raids, they are useful. After that, it's really doesn't matter who is tanking in the raid.

Couching

04-22-2009, 04:46 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Great, you really can't raid.So lag is just the only factor in the real world?Players gear, raid setup, player skill, etc all didn't count?Stop being an idiot, thanks.</blockquote>This make absolutely no sense. But since you want to make it personal by name calling, I am twice the brawler you will ever be, so questioning my raiding ability is just lawl. Fact is you are trying to justify your role in a raid and then push that fantasy ideal on everyone else. You have no retort, I clearly pointed out the huge gaping flaws in your plan and you have now moved to name calling. Lets just hope SOE is smart enough not to listen to you.</blockquote>The fact is you really can't read.Where did I question your raiding ability?I said there are more factors that affect raid than just lag.You can't deny it and started making up that I question your raiding ability. No I didnt and please stop making up story.

BChizzle

04-22-2009, 04:46 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>It's really nonsense to argu with you since you want brawlers to have better survivability than most plate tank except guardian. Ok, that it be. And what' brawler's role in raid in your eyes? You never answer me the question but keep criticize that 3rd tank is not needed. Fine.For 2nd question in your post. It's not just happened on brawler, actually it happened on guardian as well. When raid is really geared up, guardian is useless.When brawlers can help their guilds progress in raids, they are useful. After that, it's really doesn't matter who is tanking in the raid.</blockquote>I already did answer your question, quite directly as to what the current role is for brawlers. Perhaps you should take your own advice about learning to read.

Elanjar

04-22-2009, 05:02 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Great, you really can't raid.So lag is just the only factor in the real world?Players gear, raid setup, player skill, etc all didn't count?Stop being an idiot, thanks.</blockquote>This make absolutely no sense. But since you want to make it personal by name calling, I am twice the brawler you will ever be, so questioning my raiding ability is just lawl. Fact is you are trying to justify your role in a raid and then push that fantasy ideal on everyone else. You have no retort, I clearly pointed out the huge gaping flaws in your plan and you have now moved to name calling. Lets just hope SOE is smart enough not to listen to you.</blockquote>The fact is you really can't read.Where did I question your raiding ability?I said there are more factors that affect raid than just lag.You can't deny it and started making up that I question your raiding ability. No I didnt and please stop making up story.</blockquote>..... who cant read??

Couching

04-22-2009, 05:07 PM

<cite>Elanjar@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Great, you really can't raid.So lag is just the only factor in the real world?Players gear, raid setup, player skill, etc all didn't count?Stop being an idiot, thanks.</blockquote>This make absolutely no sense. But since you want to make it personal by name calling, I am twice the brawler you will ever be, so questioning my raiding ability is just lawl. Fact is you are trying to justify your role in a raid and then push that fantasy ideal on everyone else. You have no retort, I clearly pointed out the huge gaping flaws in your plan and you have now moved to name calling. Lets just hope SOE is smart enough not to listen to you.</blockquote>The fact is you really can't read.Where did I question your raiding ability?I said there are more factors that affect raid than just lag.You can't deny it and started making up that I question your raiding ability. No I didnt and please stop making up story.</blockquote>..... who cant read??</blockquote>Ok, it's my fault. I was going to type read, rather than raid, sorry.

Elanjar

04-22-2009, 05:17 PM

Yimway

04-22-2009, 05:17 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Ya, it's so easy to use an OP class to replace brawler. I won't deny it. Actually, SK can replace any fighter on the live server. What's your point then? SK being MT and SK OT > all other combinations of fighters. </blockquote>Nerf Sk, go back to my first question, why would I bring brawler instead of plate?</blockquote>Why not when brawler has same survivability as offensive plate tank and we supposed to have better ST dps and aggro. In this case, brawlers is better choice to off tank main target than aoe plate tanks.</blockquote>I wouldn't chose the brawler. The group buffs from Sk, Zerker, or even guard/pally would be more useful for a 3rd add tank than bringing a brawler IMO.My point being though, unless all 6 bring the exact same thing to the group, then there is going to be a preference for Tank1, Tank2, and Tank3 thus leaving 3-5 other classes out of the mix. I still strongly feel bringing something to the raid other than tanking is going to be what drives bringing 3 or more fighters to raid.As others have said, if its just for tanking, you eventually gear to a point that 2 can do the job of 3.

BChizzle

04-22-2009, 05:30 PM

<cite>Elanjar@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>Either way thats only half the tanks.... Plus the MT is pretty much locked down as Guardian only, so theres really only 2 spots for the other 5 to compete for. And the 3rd tank (which is optional though more common) is pretty much brawler only ground since it usually requires strong snap agro, and short duration extreme survivability and agro since the 3rd tank rarely has a legit tanking heal setup.</blockquote>Fact is people complain about the SK's night and day, but buffing them to be compitent tanks made them a viable role for any raid spot as per even Couching's admittance, so making sure the rest of the tanks are also as equal will do the same. It isn't as complicated as people may seem, and instead of screaming nerf sk they should be figuring out what can be changed with other classes to make them as viable. When all things are equal, you can give slight advantages to certain classes for flair, for example guardians saves and massive single target agro, sk and zerk ae etc etc. However, the differences shouldn't be the huge divide we have right now. Fact is if for whatever reason a guard can't make it to raid, the second and third options aren't going to be 'OK the brawler can tank it' and they should be. Instead its 'OK the zerk can tank it and we will get the warden to log on his sk alt for adds'.

Elanjar

04-22-2009, 05:32 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Elanjar@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Great, you really can't raid.So lag is just the only factor in the real world?Players gear, raid setup, player skill, etc all didn't count?Stop being an idiot, thanks.</blockquote>This make absolutely no sense. But since you want to make it personal by name calling, I am twice the brawler you will ever be, so questioning my raiding ability is just lawl. Fact is you are trying to justify your role in a raid and then push that fantasy ideal on everyone else. You have no retort, I clearly pointed out the huge gaping flaws in your plan and you have now moved to name calling. Lets just hope SOE is smart enough not to listen to you.</blockquote>The fact is you really can't read.Where did I question your raiding ability?I said there are more factors that affect raid than just lag.You can't deny it and started making up that I question your raiding ability. No I didnt and please stop making up story.</blockquote>..... who cant read??</blockquote>Ok, it's my fault. I was going to type read, rather than raid, sorry.</blockquote>LOL thats hilar

Elanjar

04-22-2009, 05:35 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Elanjar@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>Either way thats only half the tanks.... Plus the MT is pretty much locked down as Guardian only, so theres really only 2 spots for the other 5 to compete for. And the 3rd tank (which is optional though more common) is pretty much brawler only ground since it usually requires strong snap agro, and short duration extreme survivability and agro since the 3rd tank rarely has a legit tanking heal setup.</blockquote>Fact is people complain about the SK's night and day, but buffing them to be compitent tanks made them a viable role for any raid spot as per even Couching's admittance, so making sure the rest of the tanks are also as equal will do the same. It isn't as complicated as people may seem, and instead of screaming nerf sk they should be figuring out what can be changed with other classes to make them as viable. When all things are equal, you can give slight advantages to certain classes for flair, for example guardians saves and massive single target agro, sk and zerk ae etc etc. However, the differences shouldn't be the huge divide we have right now. Fact is if for whatever reason a guard can't make it to raid, the second and third options aren't going to be 'OK the brawler can tank it' and they should be. Instead its 'OK the zerk can tank it and we will get the warden to log on his sk alt for adds'.</blockquote>You can't buff up all the other tanks to SK lvl though because the only way they could do that is basically to make all tanks the same. Everyone would have the same abilities etc... And then its really "why take a brawler over a plate? or why take a zerker over a guard?" etc.... because they're all the same. If that were they case they minaswell merge all the classes. I mean whats the point of having a leather avoidance tank when their leather armor has the same mitigation value of plate armor....Brawlers survivability should be enhanced via passive stoneskins, ward procs, and chance at % damage reduction. They also need to have their dps buffed so that they are noticeably on top of the plate fighters again. That way they'll have the higher dps, still tank through avoidance and somewhat pay the penalty of spiking although it will be much less often.SK's need to be toned down to the other 3 plate levels while the brawlers are brought up to that level. With the exception of agro generation just sucks period atm, guards, zerks, and pallies are actually pretty balanced. I might even throw bruisers in there too.

Couching

04-22-2009, 06:01 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Ya, it's so easy to use an OP class to replace brawler. I won't deny it. Actually, SK can replace any fighter on the live server. What's your point then? SK being MT and SK OT > all other combinations of fighters. </blockquote>Nerf Sk, go back to my first question, why would I bring brawler instead of plate?</blockquote>Why not when brawler has same survivability as offensive plate tank and we supposed to have better ST dps and aggro. In this case, brawlers is better choice to off tank main target than aoe plate tanks.</blockquote>I wouldn't chose the brawler. The group buffs from Sk, Zerker, or even guard/pally would be more useful for a 3rd add tank than bringing a brawler IMO.Of course another sk or zerker or even guard/pal can compete the position of 3rd tank. There is always competition for raid spot. Though, as long as brawlers have same survivability as offensive tank, brawler's higher uncontested avoidance in raid is the unique advantage over plate tanks. Imo, brawler is a better choice than another healer or plate tank. My point being though, unless all 6 bring the exact same thing to the group, then there is going to be a preference for Tank1, Tank2, and Tank3 thus leaving 3-5 other classes out of the mix. I still strongly feel bringing something to the raid other than tanking is going to be what drives bringing 3 or more fighters to raid.The criterion is you can't strip the tanking capability of giving raidwide buff to any fighter. That's why most brawlers are against your idea, making brawlers for tanking heroic instances only. As others have said, if its just for tanking, you eventually gear to a point that 2 can do the job of 3.It's already 5 months after TSO released. Majority still can't pass most TSO content. As I stated, as long as brawlers are helpful for raid progression as 3rd tank, it's acceptable for most guilds. After gearing up, who can't main tank in raid as fighter? Does it mean guardian is useless? No.</blockquote>

BChizzle

04-22-2009, 06:06 PM

<cite>Elanjar@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>You can't buff up all the other tanks to SK lvl though because the only way they could do that is basically to make all tanks the same. Everyone would have the same abilities etc... And then its really "why take a brawler over a plate? or why take a zerker over a guard?" etc.... because they're all the same. If that were they case they minaswell merge all the classes. I mean whats the point of having a leather avoidance tank when their leather armor has the same mitigation value of plate armor....Brawlers survivability should be enhanced via passive stoneskins, ward procs, and chance at % damage reduction. They also need to have their dps buffed so that they are noticeably on top of the plate fighters again. That way they'll have the higher dps, still tank through avoidance and somewhat pay the penalty of spiking although it will be much less often.SK's need to be toned down to the other 3 plate levels while the brawlers are brought up to that level. With the exception of agro generation just sucks period atm, guards, zerks, and pallies are actually pretty balanced. I might even throw bruisers in there too.</blockquote>That is not true at all. Tanks can be equal without being the exact same thing. For example just even look at weapons they use, and no I don't think they should give brawlers more mit that isn't the answer. Damage reduction maybe, some way to stop a strikethrough maybe, some way to make it that every double attack that hits does so for half damage maybe. There are plenty of ways to make brawlers survive better then just giving them mit, however, to sit here and say doing one thing will be the fix I can't say that, it would need to be put in and tested. End of the day tanks need to be balanced better and SK is the perfect example of how a tank that most raids didn't even care to have can be made viable with some fixes. Anyways, simply tacking mit onto leather gear isn't the answer.

Elanjar

04-22-2009, 06:15 PM

I never said you couldnt make them all equal. I just said you can't make them all equal at an SK lvl. SK's are too powerful and this is shown by the fact that they can outshine any tank in any group. If you gave all the fighters a way to be equally powerful in any group they'd all be exactly the same with different spell names.....

BChizzle

04-22-2009, 06:16 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote>Of course another sk or zerker or even guard/pal can compete the position of 3rd tank. There is always competition for raid spot. Though, as long as brawlers have same survivability as offensive tank, brawler's higher uncontested avoidance in raid is the unique advantage over plate tanks. Imo, brawler is a better choice than another healer or plate tank. The criterion is you can't strip the tanking capability of giving raidwide buff to any fighter. That's why most brawlers are against your idea, making brawlers for tanking heroic instances only. It's already 5 months after TSO released. Majority still can't pass most TSO content. As I stated, as long as brawlers are helpful for raid progression as 3rd tank, it's acceptable for most guilds. After gearing up, who can't main tank in raid as fighter? Does it mean guardian is useless? No.</blockquote></blockquote>Brawlers don't have the highest uncontested avoidance in your scenario. In order for a brawler to even be close to a plate tank in uncontested avoidance is if they are in defensive stance and geared defensively. But why in the role of snap agro last for 20-30 secs with B&W and Tsunami would you even be in defensive other then to limit you raid further by not effectively dpsing. Fact is you can throw a plate tank in with the avoidance buff on the MT have that plate tank be offensive and he will have more uncontested avoid and be more effective dpsing.Now if your suggesting that we have the same amount of uncontested avoid as plate tanks while in offensive so we can buff the mt with our avoid then we aren't 3rd tanks at all we are just low dpsing buff bots. And if thats is what you want us to be then at least admit it instead of making up this fictional 3rd tank role. SOE can fix that easy, just make our avoidance buff a 20% stoneskin instead then we can be buff bots and not have to worry about what stance we are in, but we will still not be tanks.

Couching

04-22-2009, 06:27 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Brawlers don't have the highest uncontested avoidance in your scenario. In order for a brawler to even be close to a plate tank in uncontested avoidance is if they are in defensive stance and geared defensively. But why in the role of snap agro last for 20-30 secs with B&W and Tsunami would you even be in defensive other then to limit you raid further by not effectively dpsing. Fact is you can throw a plate tank in with the avoidance buff on the MT have that plate tank be offensive and he will have more uncontested avoid and be more effective dpsing.Now if your suggesting that we have the same amount of uncontested avoid as plate tanks while in offensive so we can buff the mt with our avoid then we aren't 3rd tanks at all we are just low dpsing buff bots. And if thats is what you want us to be then at least admit it instead of making up this fictional 3rd tank role. SOE can fix that easy, just make our avoidance buff a 20% stoneskin instead then we can be buff bots and not have to worry about what stance we are in, but we will still not be tanks.</blockquote>Your logic is totally broken. You want everything, no you are not going to get everything.There is nothing wrong to off tank in defensive. Sure, plate tanks with shield have higher uncontested avoidance than brawler when both are in offensive. But so what? Brawlers have more uncontested avoidance than plate tanks in defensive. Our avoidance buff is the best when we are in defensive. It works better than extra healer or extra plate tanks for MT.It's a trade off; few extra thousand dps from plate tanks or higher survivability offered from brawler.Besides, all your points that we were not tanks based on MT would not die, charm, etc. The fact is, for majority guilds in this game, it's not rare that MT got pwnt in hard encounters. When MT got owned, sure we can tank main target and yes we are tanks in raid.

Hirofortis

04-22-2009, 06:50 PM

It is funny, but I decided to test my monks max avoidance and with less gear I can easily match and beat my guards avoidance. Now with that being said, at the high end of gear, yes, my guard has some very good avoidance, but this is a gear isue and an issue with diminishing returns. The only thing I see wrong with brawlers right now is if they get hit they get hit hard. Of course if your wearing a piece of leather you should expect that. If you want to tank raid mobs that hit for so much damage your going to need stronger armor. So the question is, are brawlers trying to be raid tanks? If so, then you have a whole different issue. If your looking to secure a raid spot for yourself, get in line. If you want to be a viable option to be chosen for on a raid, that is realistic.This would need a small boost in DPS for sure, some utility abilities. I know monk haste is pretty useless with how high all the other buffs are already. I could see a brawler being able to cast a cross raid buff that would help whoever as long as the brawler is close. Overall there is really only a few rolls in a raid.Someone to get hit and hold agro - TankSomeone to Heal - HealerSomeone to Buff/Debuff - DPS and UtilitySomeone to DPS - DPSYou don't need a bunch of peeps taking damage, becasue each person that is going to be taking damage needs healers to support them and since there is a limited amout of spots, that is just not a viable option. So the 3rd tank idea really is just a situational thought. What other areas can we look at to make this work.

Yimway

04-22-2009, 06:56 PM

<cite>Krunck@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>You don't need a bunch of peeps taking damage, becasue each person that is going to be taking damage needs healers to support them and since there is a limited amout of spots, that is just not a viable option. So the 3rd tank idea really is just a situational thought. What other areas can we look at to make this work.</blockquote>Most encounters that require more than 2 tanks do so by removing one tank from being active (fear, charm, mez, no targeting buff, etc).Actively tanking by more than 2 fighters is very rare in my experience.

BChizzle

04-22-2009, 07:03 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Your logic is totally broken. You want everything, no you are not going to get everything.There is nothing wrong to off tank in defensive. Sure, plate tanks with shield have higher uncontested avoidance than brawler when both are in offensive. But so what? Brawlers have more uncontested avoidance than plate tanks in defensive. Our avoidance buff is the best when we are in defensive. It works better than extra healer or extra plate tanks for MT.It's a trade off; few extra thousand dps from plate tanks or higher survivability offered from brawler.Besides, all your points that we were not tanks based on MT would not die, charm, etc. The fact is, for majority guilds in this game, it's not rare that MT got pwnt in hard encounters. When MT got owned, sure we can tank main target and yes we are tanks in raid.</blockquote>My logic is fine. Yours, however, is completely flawed because you look at things in only one way to justify your position rather then understanding the larger picture. Simple fact is by being in offensive the mobs die faster and your tank gets hit less and your block buff is less important. So yes having a plate tank in offensive block buffing the MT is better then having a monk in defensive.

Couching

04-22-2009, 07:21 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Your logic is totally broken. You want everything, no you are not going to get everything.There is nothing wrong to off tank in defensive. Sure, plate tanks with shield have higher uncontested avoidance than brawler when both are in offensive. But so what? Brawlers have more uncontested avoidance than plate tanks in defensive. Our avoidance buff is the best when we are in defensive. It works better than extra healer or extra plate tanks for MT.It's a trade off; few extra thousand dps from plate tanks or higher survivability offered from brawler.Besides, all your points that we were not tanks based on MT would not die, charm, etc. The fact is, for majority guilds in this game, it's not rare that MT got pwnt in hard encounters. When MT got owned, sure we can tank main target and yes we are tanks in raid.</blockquote>My logic is fine. Yours, however, is completely flawed because you look at things in only one way to justify your position rather then understanding the larger picture. Simple fact is by being in offensive the mobs die faster and your tank gets hit less and your block buff is less important. So yes having a plate tank in offensive block buffing the MT is better then having a monk in defensive.</blockquote>Nice math and logic.Few extra thousands dps can kill named with millions hp much faster, I got to write it down. Thank you for your math lesson.On the contrary, brawler avoidance buff in defensive is much better than plate tanks's avoidance buff for MT in survivability. By your logic, there is no reason to invite a monk to raid as off tank since monk has worst aoe dps and aggro. Also, monk is not MT and can't beat plate tanks dps in offensive. Oh, and your guild is exceptional (serious, not sarcastic) so your guild doesn't need 3rd tank for most encounters.So what is your role in raid?Also, you have suggested to give monk superior survivability than other plate tanks except guardian. If it was true, MT is still guardian and OT is still aoe plate tanks. What's the role of monk in raid with your suggestion, superior survivability?

BChizzle

04-22-2009, 08:39 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Nice math and logic.Few extra thousands dps can kill named with millions hp much faster, I got to write it down. Thank you for your math lesson.On the contrary, brawler avoidance buff in defensive is much better than plate tanks's avoidance buff for MT in survivability. By your logic, there is no reason to invite a monk to raid as off tank since monk has worst aoe dps and aggro. Also, monk is not MT and can't beat plate tanks dps in offensive. Oh, and your guild is exceptional (serious, not sarcastic) so your guild doesn't need 3rd tank for most encounters.So what is your role in raid?Also, you have suggested to give monk superior survivability than other plate tanks except guardian. If it was true, MT is still guardian and OT is still aoe plate tanks. What's the role of monk in raid with your suggestion, superior survivability?</blockquote>You just fail to see the light. If a monk can step in and tank just as effective as any plate tank then they become more then just buff bots. So either we are tanks or we aren't but last time I checked we were tanks so we should be just as effective as any other tanks. Personally I don't care if my class is a dps class a support class a healer or a tank class, what I care about is that as long as I am one of those types of classes I am able to do the job that my class is designed for. Monks are TANKS plain and simple we should be able to tank as effectively as any other tank.

BChizzle

04-22-2009, 08:41 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Krunck@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>You don't need a bunch of peeps taking damage, becasue each person that is going to be taking damage needs healers to support them and since there is a limited amout of spots, that is just not a viable option. So the 3rd tank idea really is just a situational thought. What other areas can we look at to make this work.</blockquote>Most encounters that require more than 2 tanks do so by removing one tank from being active (fear, charm, mez, no targeting buff, etc).Actively tanking by more than 2 fighters is very rare in my experience.</blockquote>Exactly. Pretty much brawlers are only used for their utility, nobody sits around and says, 'Well if we had a brawler this would be dead.'

Garnaf

04-22-2009, 08:44 PM

1) Fighter Stances. Make stances comperable between all fighters (For example, the Crusader defense stance is bar none the WEAKEST defense stance, only boosting Defense and Aggression. Warriors get Parry, Brawlers get parry AND deflection. why can't crusaders get shield effectiveness OR [not and, OR] parry to make their less sucky?)2) More Stance fixes. Eliminate the -skills on the Defense stance and just make it reduce overall damage output. This results in more hits and thus more chances for hate procs to go off, as well as just generally more hits. (I know the primary reason I don't use Defense stance is that I can't hit the fattest part of an ogre's butt while I'm using it.)3) When 'balancing' fighters, don't resort to Nerf Bat as option 1. It's always possible to raise others up to the highest point on the pyramid rather than just hammer the pyramid into the ground.

Couching

04-22-2009, 08:46 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Nice math and logic.Few extra thousands dps can kill named with millions hp much faster, I got to write it down. Thank you for your math lesson.On the contrary, brawler avoidance buff in defensive is much better than plate tanks's avoidance buff for MT in survivability. By your logic, there is no reason to invite a monk to raid as off tank since monk has worst aoe dps and aggro. Also, monk is not MT and can't beat plate tanks dps in offensive. Oh, and your guild is exceptional (serious, not sarcastic) so your guild doesn't need 3rd tank for most encounters.So what is your role in raid?Also, you have suggested to give monk superior survivability than other plate tanks except guardian. If it was true, MT is still guardian and OT is still aoe plate tanks. What's the role of monk in raid with your suggestion, superior survivability?</blockquote>You just fail to see the light. If a monk can step in and tank just as effective as any plate tank then they become more then just buff bots. So either we are tanks or we aren't but last time I checked we were tanks so we should be just as effective as any other tanks. Personally I don't care if my class is a dps class a support class a healer or a tank class, what I care about is that as long as I am one of those types of classes I am able to do the job that my class is designed for. Monks are TANKS plain and simple we should be able to tank as effectively as any other tank.</blockquote>That's why I said we need same survivability as aoe plate tanks. All what you said is almost the same as what I said.And still, you won't be MT and OT for aoe adds.

Boldac

04-22-2009, 09:02 PM

Not that it matters....but here's my thoughts....and I'll caveat it with this statement first. THROW AWAY THE IDEA OF AOE vs SINGLE TARGET TANKS for aggro purposes. Sure the classes with more AoE ca's will have an easier time with area aggro, don't hamstring the others, especially when alot of encouters are multiple mobs.Ok, now that I got that out. Here's my thoughts in a personal preference order.1. Create a reason to have more than 2 fighters on a raid. If it means overlapping raid wide buffs and making their effects stack, or upping the damage potential of fighters in offensive stance. Some form of incentive for bringing more than just a main and off tank. Heck, make the raid wide buffs enhanced by those in offensive stance. Just some reason for using more than 2. The idea of having 2 versions of the raid wide buff based on stance crossed my mind as well. While in defensive, some things could be heal crit or beneficial casting speed or defense bonus, while in offensive it would increase offensive spell/ca damage, hostile timer redux for casting/reuse, etc.2. Enhance the stances and create a larger distinction between the offensive and defensive stance. In other words, tweak the stances to provide massive amounts of defense (and only defense or defensive abilities) while in defensive stance. This goes hand in hand with doing the same for offensive stance. While a well geared tank with a solid group could potentially tank easy instances in offensive with this setup, the bonuses from the defensive stance should be such as to encourage fighters in the tank mode to use defensive. I'm not saying that when equally geared/played a fighter in offensive should outparse assassins or rangers in terms of dps potential, but they should provide a very noticable dps potential increase over fighters in defensive.3. Distinction between fighter classes. Guardians should be able to soak the most amount of damage outright, with pallies and sk's being able to soak damage and compensate via their heals/lifetaps. At the same time, berserkers need to live up to their name and be able to outright "ignore" damage while berserk. And brawlers are the obvious answer. They should, to quote Muhammad Ali, "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee". With monks being slightly more defensive in nature and bruisers being more offensive. If I had to rank fighters in the following categories: total mitigation, avoidance, damage output...I would do it like so...(listed from best to worst)Total Mit: Guardian, Paladin, SK, Zerk, Monk/Bruiser (the gap between the first 3 would be minimal, with a noticable gap between sk and zerk and a very distinct gap between zerk and the brawlers with both brawlers having near identical mit)Avoidance: Monk, Bruiser, Guardian/SK/Pally, Zerk (The gap between monk and bruiser would be negligable with a very noticable gap between the brawlers and the rest of the fighters)Damage output: Berserked Zerk, Monk/Bruiser, Non-berserk zerk, SK, Pally, Guardian (Pretty self explanatory I think. A berserked zerker should be top of the fighter dps chain, the down side, the berserk damage would come in waves, while the brawlers should have the best overall dps with bruisers edging out monks just a hair, then the "calm" zerker, sk would be next based on the offensive nature of their spells/ca's with paladins next and guardians last.)Keep in mind, I'm talking about potential, not parsed. A fighter with crappy gear played by a phenomenal player will be a great fighter. A fighter with top gear and played by a crap player will still be crappy.