Name 3 things.. (fighter revamp)

[Siatfallen]

<p><cite>Boldac wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>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.</p><p>Ok, now that I got that out.  Here's my thoughts in a personal preference order.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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. </p><p>If I had to rank fighters in the following categories:  total mitigation, avoidance, damage output...I would do it like so...</p><p>(listed from best to worst)</p><p>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)</p><p>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)</p><p>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.)</p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p>Vision and so on, I can agree or disagree with I suppose, but there is one glaring problem here: Berserkers will be berserking more or less constantly while in offensive (unless you changed that from the current state of affairs). This means they'll have the highest DPS potential of all fighters.At the same time, they're rated as fairly high on survivability.</p><p>You aren't by any chance playing a zerker, are you?</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>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.</p><p>And still, you won't be MT and OT for aoe adds.</p></blockquote><p>So we are single target tanks with the survivability of AOE target ones?  The game already has that, they are called scouts.  Only scouts can dps and debuff etc so once again why bring a brawler?</p>

[Couching]

<p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>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.</p><p>And still, you won't be MT and OT for aoe adds.</p></blockquote><p>So we are single target tanks with the survivability of AOE target ones?  The game already has that, they are called scouts.  Only scouts can dps and debuff etc so once again why bring a brawler?</p></blockquote><p>I gave up after reading your post that scouts have same survivability as aoe plate tanks.</p>

[Lethe5683]

<p><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>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.</p><p>And still, you won't be MT and OT for aoe adds.</p></blockquote><p>So we are single target tanks with the survivability of AOE target ones?  The game already has that, they are called scouts.  Only scouts can dps and debuff etc so once again why bring a brawler?</p></blockquote><p>I gave up after reading your post that scouts have same survivability as aoe plate tanks.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">More like the survivability of brawlers with no deflection...</span></p>

[Elanjar]

<p><cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Boldac wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>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.</p><p>Ok, now that I got that out.  Here's my thoughts in a personal preference order.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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. </p><p>If I had to rank fighters in the following categories:  total mitigation, avoidance, damage output...I would do it like so...</p><p>(listed from best to worst)</p><p>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)</p><p>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)</p><p>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.)</p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p>Vision and so on, I can agree or disagree with I suppose, but there is one glaring problem here: Berserkers will be berserking more or less constantly while in offensive (unless you changed that from the current state of affairs). This means they'll have the highest DPS potential of all fighters.At the same time, they're rated as fairly high on survivability.</p><p>You aren't by any chance playing a zerker, are you?</p></blockquote><p>Berserkers are actually berserk more often when in defensive (assuming they have a dirge/warden to buff s/c/p).</p><p>Anyway i'd disagree I don't think a berserker should ever be the top dps of the fighters (relatively speaking). Highest DPS should be bruisers with Monks just behind (IE statisitically the same). After that should come SKs and berserkers tied. Then the pallies and guards.</p><p>Avoidance. Monks should obviously be highest with bruisers just behind (statistically the same). Then all the plate tanks should have relatively similar avoidance. I'd say warriors should get a little bit better shields gearwise but other than that it should be similar. The differences in the plates come in that Warriors mitigate more dmg, while pallies ward and heal to make up the mitigation difference, and SK's lifetap the differences.</p><p>Since brawlers take a lot more spikes due to leather mitigation they should get buffs either temporary or permanent that give them passive stoneskins or damage reductions, etc....</p><p>So like a monk could have a temp buff that lasts for 35 seconds on a 55 second recast that gives them an XX% chance to stoneskin a hit. Then bruisers could get one that has the same duration and such but gives a higher % chance to reduce the damage of a hit by 50%. Both brawler could have a perma ability that gives them a 75% chance to avoid the second strike on a double attack. Etc....</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>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.</p><p>And still, you won't be MT and OT for aoe adds.</p></blockquote><p>So we are single target tanks with the survivability of AOE target ones?  The game already has that, they are called scouts.  Only scouts can dps and debuff etc so once again why bring a brawler?</p></blockquote><p>I gave up after reading your post that scouts have same survivability as aoe plate tanks.</p></blockquote><p>Sorry but scouts can get 6k mit with 50% avoidance, sounds kind of close to what a zerker DW weapons might be at amirite?</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Elanjar@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Berserkers are actually berserk more often when in defensive (assuming they have a dirge/warden to buff s/c/p).</p><p>Anyway i'd disagree I don't think a berserker should ever be the top dps of the fighters (relatively speaking). Highest DPS should be bruisers with Monks just behind (IE statisitically the same). After that should come SKs and berserkers tied. Then the pallies and guards.</p><p>Avoidance. Monks should obviously be highest with bruisers just behind (statistically the same). Then all the plate tanks should have relatively similar avoidance. I'd say warriors should get a little bit better shields gearwise but other than that it should be similar. The differences in the plates come in that Warriors mitigate more dmg, while pallies ward and heal to make up the mitigation difference, and SK's lifetap the differences.</p><p>Since brawlers take a lot more spikes due to leather mitigation they should get buffs either temporary or permanent that give them passive stoneskins or damage reductions, etc....</p><p>So like a monk could have a temp buff that lasts for 35 seconds on a 55 second recast that gives them an XX% chance to stoneskin a hit. Then bruisers could get one that has the same duration and such but gives a higher % chance to reduce the damage of a hit by 50%. Both brawler could have a perma ability that gives them a 75% chance to avoid the second strike on a double attack. Etc....</p></blockquote><p>The argument that one tank should dps over another is silly.  Who cares?  Tanks should do tank lvl dps thats it.</p>

[Lethe5683]

<p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I gave up after reading your post that scouts have same survivability as aoe plate tanks.</p></blockquote><p>Sorry but scouts can get 6k mit with 50% avoidance, sounds kind of close to what a zerker DW weapons might be at amirite?</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">My assassin has 55% mit and 72% avoidance...</span></p><p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The argument that one tank should dps over another is silly.  Who cares?  Tanks should do tank lvl dps thats it.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">lol, quiet you.</span></p> <p><cite>Elanjar@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p> <blockquote><p>Avoidance. Monks should obviously be highest with bruisers just behind (statistically the same).</p></blockquote> <p><span style="color: #00ccff;">Monks have higher avoidance than bruisers? Since when?</span></p>

[Couching]

<p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>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.</p><p>And still, you won't be MT and OT for aoe adds.</p></blockquote><p>So we are single target tanks with the survivability of AOE target ones?  The game already has that, they are called scouts.  Only scouts can dps and debuff etc so once again why bring a brawler?</p></blockquote><p>I gave up after reading your post that scouts have same survivability as aoe plate tanks.</p></blockquote><p>Sorry but scouts can get 6k mit with 50% avoidance, sounds kind of close to what a zerker DW weapons might be at amirite?</p></blockquote><p>Most zerkers still use shield in tanking.</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Not really, zerker can get higher mitigtion in offensive, 8k+, and even higher in defensive 9k+ with 6 set.</p></blockquote><p>If a zerker is 8k mit then he's not really going offensive now is he?</p>

[Couching]

<p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Not really, zerker can get higher mitigtion in offensive, 8k+, and even higher in defensive 9k+ with 6 set.</p></blockquote><p>If a zerker is 8k mit then he's not really going offensive now is he?</p></blockquote><p>No, that's why I changed it. Though, most zerkers still use shield while tanking. On hard named, in defensive with shield, zerkers have much better survivability than scouts.</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">My assassin has 55% mit and 72% avoidance...</span></p><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">lol, quiet you.</span></p><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">Monks have higher avoidance than bruisers? Since when?</span></p></blockquote><p>Monks higher avoid due to mythical deflection chance, but bruiser stoneskin if stoneskin counts as an avoid makes them actually better at avoiding.  And about your assassin that was my point, thx for catching it.</p>

[Landiin]

<p><cite>Krunck@Everfrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>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.</blockquote><p>There are 4 arche types, <strong>12 classes</strong> and 24 subclassess. There is NO reason all 12 classes can't have a NEEDED skill for raids. This is already true for every arche type just about except for fighters. So again there is no reason all 3 classes of fighters can't be made to be needed on raids.</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Toran@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>There are 4 arche types, <strong>12 classes</strong> and 24 subclassess. There is NO reason all 12 classes can't have a NEEDED skill for raids. This is already true for every arche type just about except for fighters. So again there is no reason all 3 classes of fighters can't be made to be needed on raids.</p></blockquote><p>QFE!</p><p>I would say this is the exact truth, except poor summoners are also in the sinking brawler boat to Uselessville.</p>

[Elanjar]

<p><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">Monks have higher avoidance than bruisers? Since when?</span></p></blockquote><p>i said should lol. As in if I were to rebalance the tanks thats how I would do it. But by more i mean the standard deviations would overlap so statistically speaking their avoidance is the same but raw averages the monk would have a slight advantage.</p>

[Elanjar]

<p><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Not really, zerker can get higher mitigtion in offensive, 8k+, and even higher in defensive 9k+ with 6 set.</p></blockquote><p>If a zerker is 8k mit then he's not really going offensive now is he?</p></blockquote><p>No, that's why I changed it. Though, most zerkers still use shield while tanking. On hard named, in defensive with shield, zerkers have much better survivability than scouts.</p></blockquote><p>True but we only do high dps (which is what everyone has a problem with) when were in offensive dual wielding like a scout... and we only do that on encounters that we wont get pwnt on with only 55% mit and 50-60ish avoidance... So we really dont over dps that much since a scout could easily tank that stuff while doing higher dps....</p><p>edit: wellllllll depending on the scout i guess their dps would go down since a lot of positionals are important</p>

[Lethe5683]

<p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">My assassin has 55% mit and 72% avoidance...</span></p><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">lol, quiet you.</span></p><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">Monks have higher avoidance than bruisers? Since when?</span></p></blockquote><p>Monks higher avoid due to mythical deflection chance, but bruiser stoneskin if stoneskin counts as an avoid makes them actually better at avoiding.  And about your assassin that was my point, thx for catching it.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">Balancing classes around mythicals is stupid.</span></p>

[Lethe5683]

<p><cite>Elanjar@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">Monks have higher avoidance than bruisers? Since when?</span></p></blockquote><p>i said should lol. As in if I were to rebalance the tanks thats how I would do it. But by more i mean the standard deviations would overlap so statistically speaking their avoidance is the same but raw averages the monk would have a slight advantage.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">I don't think so, bruisers are more agile.  They should both also have around the same DPS too.</span></p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">My assassin has 55% mit and 72% avoidance...</span></p><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">lol, quiet you.</span></p><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">Monks have higher avoidance than bruisers? Since when?</span></p></blockquote><p>Monks higher avoid due to mythical deflection chance, but bruiser stoneskin if stoneskin counts as an avoid makes them actually better at avoiding.  And about your assassin that was my point, thx for catching it.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">Balancing classes around mythicals is stupid.</span></p></blockquote><p>Agreed.  Too bad it already happens.</p>

[Lethe5683]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">Balancing classes around mythicals is stupid.</span></p></blockquote><p>Agreed.  Too bad it already happens.</p><p><span style="color: #00ccff;"></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">As far as I'm concerned they should test classes for balance using the appropriate mastercrafted armor/jewelery/weapons then design equipment after.</span></p>

[circusgirl]

<p>I think content should be balanced in such a way so that having at least one of each of the 12 class-pairs is necessary.  In terms of fighters, this means you basically want one warrior, one crusader, and one brawler on each raid.  The warriors and crusadors are normally set in terms of the OT/MT role, which means the devs really need to create a need for a third high-dps fighter on raids, and for fights frequently to require at least 3 fighters.  Yzlak in Munzok's material bastion is a great example--if you tried to do that fight with just a guard and a shadowknight, for example, you're likely to be constantly spawning the x4 adds and wiping.  A brawler there is really useful.</p><p>In large part, this is going to come down to content.  Fights like the sisters in Hate, Yzlak, and Zarrakon are pushing things in the right direction.  Shard of Hate was done quite well in terms of encouraging bringing a brawler--they're useful on pretty much every boss in there--the first named's memwipes make our snap-aggro useful, Master P requires multiple fighters to avoid the curse, and the 3rd boss again memwipes constantly.  The sisters have a script that explicitely requires a brawler unless you get very lucky or have already overgeared for the fight, Maestro memwipes and makes one fighter incapable of tanking, and Byzola creates a situation in which a dps-geared fighter is useful.</p><p>In TSO, the scripts are really pushing for multiple tanks as well.  Yes, they all pretty much <span style="font-style: italic;">can</span> be done without brawlers, but it really helps to have 3 tanks on most fights.  If the content is asking for it, brawlers can have a clear and useful niche within a raid as a flexible hybrid capable of using gear swamps, AA swaps, and stance switches to move from a tanking role to a dps role as necessary.</p>

[Noaani]

<p><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">Balancing classes around mythicals is stupid.</span></p></blockquote><p>Agreed.  Too bad it already happens.</p><p><span style="color: #00ccff;"></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">As far as I'm concerned they should test classes for balance using the appropriate mastercrafted armor/jewelery/weapons then design equipment after.</span></p></blockquote><p>There are different requirements for a toon when facing heroic and eipc content, and mythical weapons mostly focus on that.</p><p>A toon that is not raiding can be balanced just fine for heroic content using their fabled epic, as this should be as much of a baseline as any item in the game for any class. For raid purposes, using mythicals is equally viable when balancing, as every raider should have it by now.</p><p>I don't like balancing classes via items at all, but mythicals are a definate and obvious exception to this rule. The are items that no one has any reason to replace, and every raider should have. Essentially, they are the first items in the game that should be consdered standard for a particular playstyle, so balancing that playstyle with them is acceptable.</p>

[Couching]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">My assassin has 55% mit and 72% avoidance...</span></p><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">lol, quiet you.</span></p><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">Monks have higher avoidance than bruisers? Since when?</span></p></blockquote><p>Monks higher avoid due to mythical deflection chance, but bruiser stoneskin if stoneskin counts as an avoid makes them actually better at avoiding.  And about your assassin that was my point, thx for catching it.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">Balancing classes around mythicals is stupid.</span></p></blockquote><p>Agreed.  Too bad it already happens.</p></blockquote><p>Classes should be balaned with and without gear at same time.</p><p>For example, old guardian mythical is a very bad example. It broke the dps and survivability balance between guardian and zerker.</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite> </cite></p><p>Agreed.  Too bad it already happens.</p></blockquote><p>Classes should be balaned with and without gear at same time.</p><p>For example, old guardian mythical is a very bad example. It broke the dps and survivability balance between guardian and zerker.</p></blockquote><p>Personally I think class balancing needs to work like this.</p><p>1) ballance them with all MC gear</p><p>2) apply all heroic fabled/quest fabled/t2 shard gear to them,  now check, does the order of balance change from #1, if so adjust</p><p>3) apply mythical and all instanced raid gear to them, check again, does the order of balance change from #1. if so adjust</p><p>4) apply all conested loot.... you get the idea.</p><p>There should be a clear baseline set by MC gear, the same pecking order should fall out in whatever aspect of game play as the quality tier of items changes.</p><p>Basically, I would audit whatever I designed in this manner to make sure no one change / upgrade I provided broke the tiers.  If it does, then I'd adjust the item / aa / spell to make it fall in line again.</p>

[Grumpy_Warrior_01]

<p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I think content should be balanced in such a way so that having at least one of each of the 12 class-pairs is necessary.</p></blockquote><p>Absolutely wrongheaded.  By "content" you seem to mean raid encounters here.  If this became a reality for more than the few novelty encounters that require certain archetypes or classes, and your brawler/enchanter/bard/whatever is not online that night, then you're screwed.  Inflexibility like you are suggesting would put way too much pressure on raid guilds to maintain (and gear up) an overflow of classes.</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Grumpy_Warrior_01 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I think content should be balanced in such a way so that having at least one of each of the 12 class-pairs is necessary.</p></blockquote><p>Absolutely wrongheaded.  By "content" you seem to mean raid encounters here.  If this became a reality for more than the few novelty encounters that require certain archetypes or classes, and your brawler/enchanter/bard/whatever is not online that night, then you're screwed.  Inflexibility like you are suggesting would put way too much pressure on raid guilds to maintain (and gear up) an overflow of classes.</p></blockquote><p>True, however, you can design the encounters to be easier with each class.  But when its easier to drop a fighter for an actual dps you get into a grey area.  Technically for most fights in this game you can get away with having just 1 fighter.  Why not have more stuff designed like Zarrakon, like Xebnok etc.  Afterall it is a raid not a single group zone.</p>

[Lleren]

<p><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">Balancing classes around mythicals is stupid.</span></p></blockquote><p>Agreed.  Too bad it already happens.</p><p><span style="color: #00ccff;"></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">As far as I'm concerned they should test classes for balance using the appropriate mastercrafted armor/jewelery/weapons then design equipment after.</span></p></blockquote><p>QFE</p>

[Artalis the Elder]

<p>1) Some way to put hate generations in the hands of the fighter and to require skill to master it.</p><p style="padding-left: 30px;">For instance: In order to maximize their damage and minimize their threat Assassins and to a lesser extent Rangers utilize a concealment chain and other dps classes utilize optimized cast orders to maximize their damage.</p><p style="padding-left: 30px;">What I'd like to see is a couple of CA's/Short-Term buffs that create a "setup" for later ca's to optimize the fighter's hate generation.  And/Or, instead of Taunts simply applying threat, make subsequent ca's/attacks hit for more threat (scaling by spell/ca quality) for a certain duration (again scaling by spell/ca quality)</p><p>2) Some way for individuals to exercise more individuality in equipping their characters.</p><p style="padding-left: 30px;">For instance: Weapon and Armor Specialization, allow characters to spend their aa's to widen their options.</p><p style="padding-left: 30px;">Like a Two-Hander line that allows a character to utilize a two-handed weapon in such a way that it is actually competitive with other weapon types.</p><p style="padding-left: 30px;">Or Armor/Weapon Training that would allow us to break down the limitations of classes (for the price of AA's) For instance, if a Mage class really really wants to wear plate armor or use a sword (Gandalf anyone?) why is there some magical force keeping him from strapping it on? Ok maybe he'll have to spend 100aa in training to do it, but the OPTION should be there. Granted he'll be gimped dps/utility-wise beside the specialists who wear paper but thats the price to pay for that added survivability.</p><p style="padding-left: 30px;">Similarly should someone wish to play their Guardian as a leather/chain-wearing bodyguard utilizing their skills to protect others, or a Berserker wishing to rush into battle naked save for a pair of axes and a loincloth should have some VIABLE way to do so.</p><p style="padding-left: 30px;">The above are partially devils advocate arguments but the ideas are there. The possibilities that they open up makes the idea of trying out such things exciting and fun, which is what the game is supposed to be about.</p><p style="padding-left: 30px;">Right now there is pretty much one RIGHT way to gear out and spec most characters especially for raiding. This is boring and completely against what was intended by the Alternate Advancement system. Maybe by giving more choices we can diversify things a bit.</p><p style="padding-left: 30px;">I also think that the "Change Weild Style" option that was on the Dark Fury Sword/Halberd of Anuk is something that should be applied to all Epics...again OPTIONS.</p><p>3)  I'd like to see Combat Arts become a more important factor in damage, I think that its kind of silly that they are simply filler to try to squeeze in between auto attacks.</p><p style="padding-left: 30px;">Up the damage on Combat Arts SUBSTANTIALLY for all fighters.</p><p>In closing I know that item #2 is fairly radical, and probably will be looked at with scorn. But I think it would be nice and since we're dreaming here...</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Maer@Guk wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>3)  I'd like to see Combat Arts become a more important factor in damage, I think that its kind of silly that they are simply filler to try to squeeze in between auto attacks.</p><p style="padding-left: 30px;">Up the damage on Combat Arts SUBSTANTIALLY for all fighters.</p></blockquote><p>I have some strong opinions on this as well, dunno how accepted they would be by the community though.</p><p>It is my opinion that timing CA's is not the right mechanic for introducing 'skill' to the game.  While it currently is what seperates skilled players from average players, I don't feel its the best mechanic for this. </p><p>I advocate breaking auto attack from spell/ca casting.  Allow auto attack to go off while casting, then normalize autoattack damage wherever it needs to be.  It becomes nearly constant at this point.</p><p>A different mechanic should be utilized to introduce player 'skill' to the game.  I prefer a mechanic that requires more reaction decision, more player coordination, and more situational awareness. </p><p>I personally would recomend a revamp of the HO system to achieve this.  Adding more specialized effects to the completion while giving the group more control of the path of advancing them to effects that are needed at given times in an encounter.  Also re-introduce the failure penalty for hitting the wrong ability.</p><p>By making them more powerful, you also have to make them harder to complete, and require concentrated, coordinated effort to complete.  I also think the mob itself could throw specific counters / complications to the wheel forcing you to have to react differently at different times to different mobs.</p><p>When I think about types of effects to unlock, I think about things like a countersong effect that players would try to unlock to block a joust call, an effect that increases heal mod by 3k for 30 seconds, one that does spel mod by 3k for 30 seconds, another for base heal, base spell, base ca modifers, others for deffensive effects.  There are a ton of possibilities that could be added here to provide tangible benefit to completing them and allow for a higher skill and coordination effort from players to yeild greater rewards than listening for 'dings' to press a button.</p><p>I just don't like chicken pecking ca / spells between monotone 'dings' as equating to player skill, its not a good mechanic, it isn't interesting, and something far better could replace it.</p>

[Aull]

<p>H.O.'s could be an area where developers could make fighters alittle more distinct. Instead of all fighters having the same basic H.O. each class or even sub class could have something unique that could increase others around them or even provide a short temp group or even personal buff. Interesting thought.</p>

[circusgirl]

<p>Alternatively, what if there were HOs designed for raids, in which each <span style="font-style: italic;">archetype </span>worked together to get off an extra powerful ability.  The idea here would be to reward raids for bringing many classes on a raid.</p>

[Golbezz]

<p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Alternatively, what if there were HOs designed for raids, in which each <span style="font-style: italic;">archetype </span>worked together to get off an extra powerful ability.  The idea here would be to reward raids for bringing many classes on a raid.</p></blockquote><p>I seem to remember this being the case in that T5 raid zone in LS: <a href="http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/Commune_of_K%27Dal">http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/Commune_of_K%27Dal</a></p><p>These days people seem too busy to care much about trying for the multiple class HO's on raids. I guess that can be expected with recent raids making players watch for effects that can be raid wiping.</p>

[Golbezz]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>It is my opinion that timing CA's is not the right mechanic for introducing 'skill' to the game.  While it currently is what seperates skilled players from average players, I don't feel its the best mechanic for this. </p><p>I personally would recomend a revamp of the HO system to achieve this.  Adding more specialized effects to the completion while giving the group more control of the path of advancing them to effects that are needed at given times in an encounter.  Also re-introduce the failure penalty for hitting the wrong ability.</p><p>I just don't like chicken pecking ca / spells between monotone 'dings' as equating to player skill, its not a good mechanic, it isn't interesting, and something far better could replace it. </p></blockquote><p>Something has replaced listening to the 'dings' from ACT to know when auto-attack goes off. I'm not sure if it's in the default or other custom UI's but profit UI has a nice little melee/ranged auto attack bar to help with timing. Switching the current combat system requiring timing to a "spam CA's as fast as possible" system isn't the answer.</p><p>Switching back to the system where the HO will end if anyone hits the wrong button is not a good idea considering that spell lag issues still remain in the game for some players. I'm sorry but when my EVAC button is flashing during an active HO I'm not going to stop doing everything until 1 of my other CA/spells refreshes that will complete it. I really wonder what the devs were thinking making the SK evac button flash during some active HO's.</p><p>The devs could add a few more options to HO's but I think they should remain a small bonus.</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Golbezz wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>It is my opinion that timing CA's is not the right mechanic for introducing 'skill' to the game.  While it currently is what seperates skilled players from average players, I don't feel its the best mechanic for this. </p><p>I personally would recomend a revamp of the HO system to achieve this.  Adding more specialized effects to the completion while giving the group more control of the path of advancing them to effects that are needed at given times in an encounter.  Also re-introduce the failure penalty for hitting the wrong ability.</p><p>I just don't like chicken pecking ca / spells between monotone 'dings' as equating to player skill, its not a good mechanic, it isn't interesting, and something far better could replace it. </p></blockquote><p>Something has replaced listening to the 'dings' from ACT to know when auto-attack goes off. I'm not sure if it's in the default or other custom UI's but profit UI has a nice little melee/ranged auto attack bar to help with timing. Switching the current combat system requiring timing to a "spam CA's as fast as possible" system isn't the answer.</p><p>Switching back to the system where the HO will end if anyone hits the wrong button is not a good idea considering that spell lag issues still remain in the game for some players. I'm sorry but when my EVAC button is flashing during an active HO I'm not going to stop doing everything until 1 of my other CA/spells refreshes that will complete it. I really wonder what the devs were thinking making the SK evac button flash during some active HO's.</p><p>The devs could add a few more options to HO's but I think they should remain a small bonus.</p></blockquote><p>Even with the integrated ui timer bar, its still not really a very interesting system for adding skill to the game.  Coordinated attack systems require more skill, communication, and cognitive focus and I lean towards them for offering a 'player skill' component to the combat system.</p><p>As with any online game, ping rate will always influence how well player skill can affect in game results.  I don't think you try to code around it though, you just accept it as a constant.</p><p>When I think of coordinated HO type stuff, I think of someone calling the desired pattern ahead of time, with all players ready to execute it in order in a brief window.  Yes, it becomes difficult to complete them, yes you have to be prepared for it and react quickly and efficiently, yes you have to time them between events that would take priority (aoe's etc), but I feel the things you think make it unworkable, are all elements that could define player skill.</p><p>Even look at Lotro's simple combat opportunity system.  I think its over simplified, but to get big rewards from it players have to communicate the call, be in range with an ability ready, and get them off quickly.  When someone doesn't follow the called pattern, and effect still happens, just a weaker one.  When multiple people don't follow the called pattern, an extremely weak / ineffective ability is unlocked.</p><p>And really for eq2, it doesn't have to be the HO system, it could be something else.  I just find attack timing to be a pretty bland 'skill' component to the combat system and believe the game would be better off introducing something more complex / interesting.</p>

[thial]

<p>havn't read everything but ill post my 3 things</p><p>1. Bring guard, zerker, pally, monk and bruzer taunts up to the same hate amounts as SK taunts.</p><p>2. Increase warrior CA damage or at least make them generate more hate or have the debuffs generate more hate.(and I don't mean add hate values just increase how much the mob hates me for stabing it with a precise strike to the ribs.)I won't comment on brawler or crusadors but I'm sure they wouldn't mind,  although some fighters don't need an increase.</p><p>3. Remove or reduce the mitigation curve.</p>

[Golbezz]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Even with the integrated ui timer bar, its still not really a very interesting system for adding skill to the game.  Coordinated attack systems require more skill, communication, and cognitive focus and I lean towards them for offering a 'player skill' component to the combat system.</p><p>As with any online game, ping rate will always influence how well player skill can affect in game results.  I don't think you try to code around it though, you just accept it as a constant.</p><p>When I think of coordinated HO type stuff, I think of someone calling the desired pattern ahead of time, with all players ready to execute it in order in a brief window.  Yes, it becomes difficult to complete them, yes you have to be prepared for it and react quickly and efficiently, yes you have to time them between events that would take priority (aoe's etc), but I feel the things you think make it unworkable, are all elements that could define player skill.</p><p>Even look at Lotro's simple combat opportunity system.  I think its over simplified, but to get big rewards from it players have to communicate the call, be in range with an ability ready, and get them off quickly.  When someone doesn't follow the called pattern, and effect still happens, just a weaker one.  When multiple people don't follow the called pattern, an extremely weak / ineffective ability is unlocked.</p><p>And really for eq2, it doesn't have to be the HO system, it could be something else.  I just find attack timing to be a pretty bland 'skill' component to the combat system and believe the game would be better off introducing something more complex / interesting. </p></blockquote><p>More complex systems in the game will end up driving people away. Look at other games in terms of simple vs complex combat and you will have a good idea of what people want. With that being said I don't think EQ2 should be made any easier.</p><p>I don't want people trying to coordinate HO's in vent while raid leaders are trying to run the raid. There is no need to make the system more complex and DPS classes would not be happy with any system that screws their DPS in order to complete the HO. As it is now DPS classes can continue their ideal cast order and complete the HO when the right CA comes up in their casting rotation.</p><p>I believe player skill should be decided by mastering CONTENT not game mechanics.</p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p><cite>Jdark@Everfrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>havn't read everything but ill post my 3 things</p><p>1. Bring guard, zerker, pally, monk and bruzer taunts up to the same hate amounts as SK taunts.</p><p>2. Increase warrior CA damage or at least make them generate more hate or have the debuffs generate more hate.(and I don't mean add hate values just increase how much the mob hates me for stabing it with a precise strike to the ribs.)I won't comment on brawler or crusadors but I'm sure they wouldn't mind, although some fighters don't need an increase.</p><p>3. Remove or reduce the mitigation curve.</p></blockquote><p>I can definately agree with #1 and #2.   Its pretty telling to have both an SK and Guard "go all out" against the same single mob  while watching the threat meter.  Don't think in all such experiments I have done that my value has gone over 50%.</p><p>Not too sure #3 is needed.</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Golbezz wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I believe player skill should be decided by mastering CONTENT not game mechanics.</p></blockquote><p>Then why not have a single button combat system?  Auto spell On</p><p>The mechanics need to be interesting as well, or its just mind numbing grind thru mechanics to get content.</p><p>To your other point, if a mage can unlock a 35% base damage increase for 36 seconds by taking 10s or less to coordinate an attack, I think you'll find they'll sacrafice their 'cast order' for a breif moment to unlock substantial reward.</p>

[Golbezz]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Then why not have a single button combat system?  Auto spell On</p><p>The mechanics need to be interesting as well, or its just mind numbing grind thru mechanics to get content.</p><p>To your other point, if a mage can unlock a 35% base damage increase for 36 seconds by taking 10s or less to coordinate an attack, I think you'll find they'll sacrafice their 'cast order' for a breif moment to unlock substantial reward. </p></blockquote><p>They already have auto attack for melee and ranged.</p><p>Unless you're in a guild that takes 5 minutes to kill easy raid trash mobs this isn't going to be worth the time for most players. Players in general aren't interested in more coordination with the game mechanics. Go start a group and try to coordinate HO's with a bunch of pickups and you will see what I mean.</p>

[urgthock]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Maer@Guk wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>3)  I'd like to see Combat Arts become a more important factor in damage, I think that its kind of silly that they are simply filler to try to squeeze in between auto attacks.</p><p style="padding-left: 30px;">Up the damage on Combat Arts SUBSTANTIALLY for all fighters.</p></blockquote><p>I have some strong opinions on this as well, dunno how accepted they would be by the community though.</p><p>It is my opinion that timing CA's is not the right mechanic for introducing 'skill' to the game.  While it currently is what seperates skilled players from average players, I don't feel its the best mechanic for this. </p><p>I advocate breaking auto attack from spell/ca casting.  Allow auto attack to go off while casting, then normalize autoattack damage wherever it needs to be.  It becomes nearly constant at this point.</p><p>A different mechanic should be utilized to introduce player 'skill' to the game.  I prefer a mechanic that requires more reaction decision, more player coordination, and more situational awareness. </p><p>I personally would recomend a revamp of the HO system to achieve this.  Adding more specialized effects to the completion while giving the group more control of the path of advancing them to effects that are needed at given times in an encounter.  Also re-introduce the failure penalty for hitting the wrong ability.</p><p>By making them more powerful, you also have to make them harder to complete, and require concentrated, coordinated effort to complete.  I also think the mob itself could throw specific counters / complications to the wheel forcing you to have to react differently at different times to different mobs.</p><p>When I think about types of effects to unlock, I think about things like a countersong effect that players would try to unlock to block a joust call, an effect that increases heal mod by 3k for 30 seconds, one that does spel mod by 3k for 30 seconds, another for base heal, base spell, base ca modifers, others for deffensive effects.  There are a ton of possibilities that could be added here to provide tangible benefit to completing them and allow for a higher skill and coordination effort from players to yeild greater rewards than listening for 'dings' to press a button.</p><p>I just don't like chicken pecking ca / spells between monotone 'dings' as equating to player skill, its not a good mechanic, it isn't interesting, and something far better could replace it.</p></blockquote><p>I agree with you 100%. I play a swash and sometimes I go to bed with my ears ringing... ding...ding...ding...ding...ding.</p><p>There has GOT to be a better way to introduce player skill than...      ding > click > ding > click. I don't even think I would call this skill since ACT has made it so almost ANYONE can do it. CA <strong>order</strong> is still a good indicator/descriptor of player skill, but I really wish they would change the way autoattack works as mentioned above. Thank you for taking the time to read my post.</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Golbezz wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Then why not have a single button combat system?  Auto spell On</p><p>The mechanics need to be interesting as well, or its just mind numbing grind thru mechanics to get content.</p><p>To your other point, if a mage can unlock a 35% base damage increase for 36 seconds by taking 10s or less to coordinate an attack, I think you'll find they'll sacrafice their 'cast order' for a breif moment to unlock substantial reward. </p></blockquote><p>They already have auto attack for melee and ranged.</p><p>Unless you're in a guild that takes 5 minutes to kill easy raid trash mobs this isn't going to be worth the time for most players. Players in general aren't interested in more coordination with the game mechanics. Go start a group and try to coordinate HO's with a bunch of pickups and you will see what I mean.</p></blockquote><p>Certainly, you can continue to ignore the mechanic and be roughly where you already are.  Again, skill is something that should seperate players and there's nothing wrong with that.</p><p>You're not going to get anyone interested in coordinating HO's cause there is little to no reward for the effort.  Put the reward in, and getting player buy-in is not difficult to achieve.</p><p>As far as the trash mobs, yes, there is enough of that crap in SoH, PoA, VP, etc that anything to focus on thru that monotony is worthwhile imo.</p>

[Lethe5683]

<p><span style="color: #00ccff;">I time my CAs but not with ACT or any other third party mods.  I don't use any addons that directly affect gameplay.  Parse doesn't count as it's just a measurement.</span></p>

[Morrolan V]

<p><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">I time my CAs but not with ACT or any other third party mods.  I don't use any addons that directly affect gameplay.  Parse doesn't count as it's just a measurement.</span></p></blockquote><p>So you don't time AEs with ACT?</p>

[circusgirl]

<p>You're crippling your dps if you're not timing your CAs.  Even if you can just stare at your combat window to get a CA in between each autoattack you're still crippling yourself--you'll never realize when those moments pop up that you can get two CAs in.</p>

[Kordran]

<p><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">I time my CAs but not with ACT or any other third party mods.  I don't use any addons that directly affect gameplay.  Parse doesn't count as it's just a measurement.</span></p></blockquote><p>I can almost guarantee you that you're not timing your CAs as well as you think you are if you're just doing it visually. ACT is a tool, use it for all it's worth; there's also UI mods that will meter your auto-attack. In both cases, they're doing nothing that the game doesn't provide you with in some form or fashion, it just helps you do it better.</p>

[Lethe5683]

<p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>You're crippling your dps if you're not timing your CAs.  Even if you can just stare at your combat window to get a CA in between each autoattack you're still crippling yourself--you'll never realize when those moments pop up that you can get two CAs in.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">I can't be crippeling my DPS too badly if I'm outparseing people of the same class when they are in better groups with better gear unless they just suck.  Which I guess is possible.</span></p>

[circusgirl]

<p>Perhaps they too are not playing the class to its full potential?</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Perhaps they too are not playing the class to its full potential?</p></blockquote><p>You can time CA's without any add-ons it is pretty easy.</p>

[Vlahkmaak]

<p>1.) Threat attached to more CA and higher taunt values like original gu51 on test.</p><p>2.) Blue threat attached to CA for non aoe damage dealing fighters.</p><p>3.) Drop the - attk values on defense stance add damage proc on offensive stances with greater avoidance and mit penalties.  Offensive stance should be viable for trash mobs and easy nameds where "easy" is determined by quality of the tanks gear and his/her healers and raid force standing behind said tank.</p><p>4.) Give the brawlers 40% AOE already even if it is 360 degrees. </p><p>5.) Clearly define 2 MT and 2 OT roles and support tank and develop Combat Arts/Skills around those classes to perform that main function.  Give brawlers more judo like debuffs (epic stuns, joint locks, etc and/or raid utility). </p>

[Jaale]

i think that a lot of the replys are thinking to small, so not being one to complain without offering my own views here goes. 1: at the moment we have to balence, solo, group and raid, this is understandably difficult, so i propose a buff system that signifigantly increases the tank over normal buffing. So in solo you are as normal, in a group you get an addtional increase to your def stance, this is seperate to normal buffs, or an increase to your dps if you are in off stance in a group with another tank. If you are in a raid then your def is boosted much more again. This still means that you need the group and raid buffs you normally get but it means that you can adjust solo, group and raid seperately. So: Solo off/def - normal Group def - group bonus, off - buff if with other tank. Raid def - massive buff, off -similar to group. I'm sure some number monkey can work this out better than me. 2: even out tanks, give guards more aggro, give pallies + parry and betterend tos ability, etc just look up and down this post to see them. 3: define tanks better, what are their roles? Clarification please, and speak the community to see what they want as well!

[Lethe5683]

<p><span style="color: #00ccff;">I don't see what is so hard about timing autoattack.  I only type /weap after all buffs are on then count the delay between each swing.</span></p>

[scalzo]

<p>1. Increase AE aggro of Brawlers plz. How many solo encounters is there in the instances?</p><p>2. Less dependency on hate transfers plz. It sucks always trying to find a dirge, assassin, coercer, or swashy for a group. Why cant we just have a healer n tank and all nukers without aggro issues?</p><p>3. Let all fighters regardless of class raid tank. Don't make it easier for one class and a lot harder for another. Let the AA set up determine the tanks survivability not the class. All fighters should be able to tank all content. All mages dps and utility, all scouts dps and utility, all priests heal, so all fighter tanks. Makes sense uh?</p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p><cite>scalzo wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>. All fighters should be able to tank all content. All mages dps and utility, all scouts dps and utility, all priests heal, so all fighter tanks. Makes sense uh?</p></blockquote><p>No doesn't really make much sense.  </p><p>Sounds boring.</p><p>Why even have 24 classes...or 12...or 6?....might as well just have 4.</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Akodia@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">I don't see what is so hard about timing autoattack.  I only type /weap after all buffs are on then count the delay between each swing.</span></p></blockquote><p>Start doing /weap thru the fight.</p><p>Your delay changes as procs and temp buffs fire.  Your weapon delay is not a fixed constant.  Mine changes drastically over a 3 min fight.  I find using the in game UI mods the best means of timing them.  I started with a custom one I downloaded with a progress bar on it, but I'm tweaking that to give more input by coloring it differently if 1,2,3, or 4 ca's are expected to be possible to cast on the current progress delay.</p><p>I can promise you, using your described method, you are not reaching your potential.</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>scalzo wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>. All fighters should be able to tank all content. All mages dps and utility, all scouts dps and utility, all priests heal, so all fighter tanks. Makes sense uh?</p></blockquote><p>No doesn't really make much sense.  </p><p>Sounds boring.</p><p>Why even have 24 classes...or 12...or 6?....might as well just have 4.</p></blockquote><p>I'm more of the opinion all fighters should build effective hate on all content.  I would differentiate fighters by how they avoid or mitigate damage, and how they deal dammage.  AoE fighters should be terrific AoE dps while ST tanks should be more effective ST dps/debuffs.</p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>scalzo wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>. All fighters should be able to tank all content. All mages dps and utility, all scouts dps and utility, all priests heal, so all fighter tanks. Makes sense uh?</p></blockquote><p>No doesn't really make much sense.</p><p>Sounds boring.</p><p>Why even have 24 classes...or 12...or 6?....might as well just have 4.</p></blockquote><p>I'm more of the opinion all fighters should build effective hate on all content. I would differentiate fighters by how they avoid or mitigate damage, and how they deal dammage. AoE fighters should be terrific AoE dps while ST tanks should be more effective ST dps/debuffs.</p></blockquote><p>Lately, I am more of the opinion that the whole archetype system in EQ2 = fail.</p><p>The game is simply too simple to support it.  Encounters and mob AI is too simplistic.</p><p>When the vast majority of the games encounters boil down to tank-keep aggro, heal tank, DPS before tank dies......the classes that can achieve that the easiest and in the shortest possible time will trump all others.  Paperdoll percentage differences of surviveability become rather meaningless.</p>

[LygerT]

<p>it just needs more differentiated encounters.</p><p>for raid it has always been 1 boss and a few groups of adds...  then in heroic instances it seems to be the opposite where even boss encounters are multi target. TSO is just a very confused expansion but the content is still the same stuff just in a different package. most of the time when i offtank i don't even move, try making offtanks have some more challenging multi epic named to tank or do something active while waiting for some adds to pop. heroic instances should never have all been AE oriented, a good half yes, not all.</p>

[Lleren]

<p>There really appear to be 3 main "tank/fighter"types</p><p>A - Great single target hate control and survivabilty, best vs single targets, can tank the same mobs as B but it takes more effort from everyone</p><p>B - Great AoE hate control and survivability , best vs multiple targets, can also tank the same named as A , just takes a little more gear or healer skill ...</p><p>C - Great single target Hate control, Snap aggro and temporary invulnerabilitys, great surviveability  vs anything for a little bit.  Then takes a different style of healing then type A or B to survive well.</p><p>There is a real purpose for all 3 types in a Raid.  Not so much though, in a group...</p><p>I would really like to see all 3 types strengthened for thier specific "job" during a raid.  However,  A decent fighter of any of the three types should be able to tank a group instance in gear they have aquired from tanking easier instances in the same expansion. </p><p>Bad Tanks should be able to tank the first third of the content, average the next third, and skilled the last third, with comparably skilled companions.  Type A,B and C can come in any range from bad to skilled and of course raid gear makes everything easier. </p>