How do we get all six fighter class's in a raid?

[Kimber]

<p>Well like it says how could we do this? </p><p>What would need to change to make this viable?</p><p>I have an idea  that would work for the Plate fighters.  Basicly every Plate fighter would get a new buff that would allow the MT for the raid to pull mitigation or dispurse damage to all the other tanks that have a shield equiped ( this would be a requirment for it to work ) so long as they are with in X meters of the MT.  It could be a proc that does this when the MT is below 50% health or proc if the MT gets hit for more than 50% of health whatever the case may be.  Now I would like to say that this would only work with 1 Guard 1 Zerk 1 Pally and 1 SK so that one of each would be needed to make it work, but how many Zerks are going to carry a board for the raid if they are not MT I know I wont I will be OT DW so that my DPS is better for the raid and have my board in my HB just incase I need to pull it out and MT.  So I would say you would need at least 3 other Plate fighters in the Raid with shields up for it to work and if it happens to be multipale of the same class like 1 SK and 2 Pally or 1 Guard 2 Pally or 1 Guard 2 SK whatever the combo then it will work but the minimum of 3 would need to apply imo.</p><p>For the Brawlers well guys tbh I dont know much about your class's but I think that maybe some raid wide avoidance buffs that stack or are differant in some way so that both are needed could work for ya'll.  I know that Brawlers are supposed to be the highest DPS of the fighters ( I think saw that some where or heard it not sure ).  Do you have any ideas that might make it more vialble to have both class's in the raid or even something that would incorperate all the fighters into the raids.</p><p>Well that is about it untill I get some feed back and think about it some more, and please lets keep it on topic guys not calling for any nerfs or anything like that I would really like to see all the fighters have a viable spot on raids instead of the normal set up where you end up with more than 1 of most ( not all though ) other class's in a raid.</p>

[Siatfallen]

<p>The answer here is simple: If you want 6 fighters in the raid, some of them need to be viable for something other than tanking. No raid should ever need 6 tanks.</p><p>Seems simple at first, but then the problem becomes: If one fighter class is viable aside from tanking ability, then they cannot be remotely close to tanking ability of the other fighters. Who is going to stop being a viable tank at raid level?I have an answer for you, but I will bet you, the brawler community will not like it.</p><p>So! 6 fighters in a raid, working something remotely close to optimal efficiency, is probably a lost cause. If we can get to one of each subclass (so 3 in total) as a standard setup again, that'd be a start.</p>

[Rahatmattata]

<p>I think three fighters is fine. A brawler, warrior, and crusader. No need for one of each subclass. You don't really need necromancers, conjourors, rangers, or wardens either.</p>

[Illine]

<p>I you want to bring 6 fighters you need to give them something to do other than dps.</p><p>Or you do like the zakaron fight ... but then you only need 4 fighters.</p><p>So ... paladins should be able to healer spec ... I just put some ideas .... but since paladins are "hybrids" cleric-fighter, they could with a stance specialize tanking, dps or healing. but I know, you don't bring healers just for the heals but also for the buffs ... and paladins should be able to get nice buffs to ... which they'll only be able to use when in healing mode. or when in healing stance, add effects to their current buffs so that they can really help healing.</p><p>SKs are hybrid mage-fighter so they should have a tank stance, a dps stance that would make them more mage-like. more dps, better spells, even their taunts would become damage spells -without the taunt- and their buffs would still help the group.</p><p>For zerk, monk and bruiser, they could be melee dps machines. Having a dps close to the rogues. but also they should bring other stuffs. Coz rogue dps is where it is because they debuff ... fighters, at least monks and bruisers just have 1 debuff, some buffs, but their avoidance buff should work aother way so that they still can dps and help the MT. Because right now brawlers have to choose whether dps or max their avoidance to help the MT. And it's not right, because it's one of the only class who has to choose to do one thing or another.</p><p>even guard should be able to have another role as a dps class. I usually don't talk about them coz I always see them as the perfect MT, but if your mt is a SK, you should still be able to bring a guard and thet guard would not just be a dead weight.</p><p>last, anyway you'll never bring 6 tanks, like you don't bring the 6 mages to a raid or the 6 scouts.</p><p>As long as you need so much enchanter and bards, you'll always be limited for the other class. Same if you need 7 or 8 healers, then some classes will go away.</p><p>I may be fatalist but it's too late and unless they change some things, you won't be able to bring the 24 classes to a raid. maybe if they make X5 raids you'll have 1 more groupe and then you can take some of the "unwanted" classes. Or If they change some sub-classes into ONE class, or if they share utility around the classes.</p><p>My main is a coercer so I would be [Removed for Content] off if they took away some of our utility to give it t another class, but since I play a lot my bruiser right now I understand that things are not balanced and some classes are less lucky than other. Now if hey boost brawlers or any other fighter ... which class will have to leave the raid force?</p><p>Imagine, you have a sorcerer, your guild uses 3 sorcerers ... you don't have the time to up an alt and the necro becomes as usefull as your sorcerer and bring other stuff. So they need a necro to the raid ... consequence one sorcerer need to leave or change his main. If now they also need a conju, the 2nd sorcerer needs to change or he will be BU. If you're not the best sorcerer and don't have the required alt, how do you do? You spent 4 years equiping him and now you just can't use him anymore? Not really nice, same for bards or chanty. Some people managed to level up those classes for the good of the guild, now the guild doesn't need them anymore ..; what will they do? You can't just put them away because you want to raid. They want to raid too.</p><p>for me the solution would be to give each class great buffs that make them very usefull but 3 or 4 tanks should be the max in a raid force. Now guards, paladins, sks, zerk, bruisers and monks should be as wanted for their buffs and their ability do dps/heal-utility as for their tanking abilities. but if it happens, what will be the difference between those 6 classes? Because there will always be some buffs more wanted than others. The monk haste is really nice coz it buffs casters and melee .. sks only buff mages, bruisers and zerk buff melee and paladins buff healers. Guards help the defense of every class I think with their raidwide buff so they mainly help the other tanks. then only the brawlers don't have a 2 group buff, then bruisers can't even bring utility or healing to their group or raid like the monk can, and the dps is not necessarily bigger enough to make them more wanted. So balancing is not easy ... so they overpowered SK to make them wanted in a raid, now they need to make brawlers overpowered too to make them wanted in raids ...</p><p>lol for a conclusion, never gonna happen to get 6 tanks into one raid ... 4 is enough, one in each group</p>

[Aull]

<p>Well having six tanks in the first place is where the issues lies cause not all six are needed for a raid. Trying to give each of the six tanks some type of individuality will be impossible.</p><p>Some tools are better fit for a certain job and not all tools can do what other tools do. This is where the imbalance comes when a certain class shines over another in a particular situation. I like the guardain/zerker or paly/sk comparisons becuase guards and paladins are better for the tougher mobs due to having better survival skills where zerks/sk's are good ae tanks. The brawlers are so close in comparison that having two of them seems almost meaningless. Niether are good at aoe, but their dps and tanking are very close. Only a very slight advantage goes to the monk in utility since bruisers don't have utility.</p><p>All in all it will be almost impossible to make each tank have something that a raid cannot do with out.</p>

[Bruener]

<p>Just because it isn't happening right now doesn't mean that things can't be changed so it does happen.  I know forever SKs were always told that they were going to be behind because they are "hybrids" and everybody will want the "pure" tanks, and hence so many SKs rerolled or quit.  Wow what do you know, a couple modifications and SKs are rocking now.  Every raid wants a SK.  Even further a lot more raids are rolling with 4 fighters now versus the 2-3 it always was in the past.  They made it so fighters do bring a little bit more through DPS and their raid wide than they did in the past.  A great first step.</p><p>Now to just figure out the next step so that 6 fighters are wanted on a raid.  First of all making enchanter and bard abilities raid wide instead would be a great start since those classes are soaking up 1/3 of the raid.  SOE needs to make it so that the optimum set up goes from having 4-5 bards and 4 enchanters to 2 bards and 2 chanters on a raid....bard and chanter abilities should be raid wide and not stack.</p><p>Next, the issue of 1/3 of the raid being made up of healers for tough mobs.  7-8 healers is pretty normal on raids so what can be done to fix that.  Basically each group should "need" 1 healer, than the MT and OT group should only have to roll with 2 healers each.  This one is tricky.  That is what they need to change about fighters.  Having additional fighters should significantly increase the survivability of the raid.  Fighters should be able to protect their fellow raid members through various buffs and abilities.  Soaking up damage for them, Paladins healing and curing them, SKs lifetapping for them, warriors mitigating for them, etc.  Brawlers need to be given an additional role of some type of utility.  Debuffs would be great to see on them, you know not something wussy but something that really makes a difference.  Tanks could buff crit mit of groups, debuff mobs for crits, stoneskin group, AE immunities, honestly there is so much that could be done.  And fighters should be the ones protecting groups, it should not be all on the hands of healers.</p><p>I guess my point is I always find it hilarious when people are saying it can't be done, or we are too far into the game, blah, blah, blah.  Look at the major changes they bring....proc changes, the fighter changes they wanted to add, heck just going from RoK to TSO we saw a major shift suddenly in what hybrids can bring to the table through DPS because of proper itemization.  6 fighters on a raid could easily be acheived, the trick is just making it so that 6 is the optimum and not 8 like some of those other archetypes.</p><p>EDIT: Forgot the very important point that all hate manipulation for groups, transfers and buffs, should be the responsibility of fighters.  Some fighters should be able to debuff hate, some should be able to transfer significant hate, some should be able to buff hate, some should be able to steal hate fromone and give it to another.  How the heck hate ever got to be abilities of other classes is beyond me.</p>

[Yimway]

<p>I'm sorry, but I'm not even remotely interested in seeing this as a reasonable raid build.</p><p>Anything requiring more than 3 fighters draws questions in my mind.</p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I'm sorry, but I'm not even remotely interested in seeing this as a reasonable raid build.</p><p>Anything requiring more than 3 fighters draws questions in my mind.</p></blockquote><p>I agree.  I say 4 max......one tank per group.  Even then it better be that there are actually 4 'things' needing to be seperately tanked.</p>

[Lleren]

<p>I think its a lost cause.</p><p>This could be more done with Raids that have to split into seperate parts, or mobs that had to be tanked away from each other.   Even so I think most raid guilds would simply gear an alt for those specific fights and not carry extra fighters through all the zones. </p><p>For proof note Sisters in Shard of Hate, several times I have seen it noted that if you dps fast enough or have folks that can actually heal you do not actually need a Brawler for that fight.  Have fought and beat them recently without a Brawler as well.</p><p>Useful utility for all 6 fighters , possible.  Hate Transfer/control is already taken.   </p><p>I would suggest a new  intercede style buff if anything to encourage multiple fighters in the raid.  Call it shieldwall.  Some of the damage taken by any fighter( 5-10% maybe ) on the raid is split between all the fighters on the raid. Maybe an additional few % for each additional different type of fighter ( guardian, berserker, monk, bruiser, shadowknight, paladin)     Even so that might be too powerful.  We already have the intercede line and many of us use it when there are spikes of damage, I am thinking of something much smaller, but constant. </p><p>As always my concerns are more towards entry level raiding then the top end.  I still pur with alts occasionally  on non- raid nights. </p>

[circusgirl]

<p>I don't know that 6 fighters is really what we need, but I would like to see 4 become fairly standard, and I think encouraging 1 fighter of each archetype is something to strive for.  </p><p>There are three important questions here: 1)where do those extra slots come from and 2)how do we make fighters desireable enough to fill them, and 3)how do we make sure raids are rolling with a diverse spread of fighters, not just a guardian and 2 SKs, for example.</p><p>I think #1 could be filled in large part by making the groupwide buffs of bards and enchanters raidwide, and perhaps eliminating concentration slot requirements for certain enchanter spells so that one illusionist and one coercer is enough to get things done in a raid.  This should hopefully leave us with 1 of each pure support class, and cuts down on the number of raid slots they monopolize <span style="font-style: italic;">without nerfing those classes.</span>  Such a decision would cause some bards to lose their slots, yes--but honestly, everyone else has to compete for their slot, and when you have folks sitting out raids or recruits hoping to join I don't think its ideal to have to have someone bot a dirge instead of bring along a full player.</p><p>#2 is trickier--how do you convince raidleaders to bring along an extra fighter instead of, say, a pure dps class?  I think there are two approaches to this situation, both of which are absolutely necessary.  The first is content, content, content, and I think the devs have been thinking about this a lot from the design of recent fights.  Having mobs memwipe/charm (Silverwing, Xebnok, avatar of Tranquility), send in add waves (loads of encounters), summon adds that can only be killed by one group (Zarrakon), summon adds that can only be killed by one archetype (byzola, Yzlak), etc. are all great ways to make 3+ fighters obligatory, at least when the encounter is fairly new and you don't have it on farm status.  The second necessity is to make us useful--but in such a way that you want multiple archetypes on a raid.</p><p>A good step in this direction was taken when they gave all fighters a raidwide and a groupwide buff (though brawlers still need a groupwide, please).  Next, they need to make what each archetype can do for a raid unique and have less overlap, but still remain extremely valuable.  The perfect example of such a skill is avoidance buffs--make these the sole domain of brawlers (giving plate tanks something useful in their stead) and alter them so that brawlers can use them to full effect while dpsing (for example, lower the chance for it to go off but make all avoidance count as uncontested when passed through the avoidance buff), and you create a niche for brawlers on a raid that any raidleader would be a fool not to take advantage of.  Remove the avoidance buffs from warriors and give them an ability similar to the avoidance buff, only instead of transferring avoidance it has a flat % chance (say 50%) of using the warrior's mitigation instead of the targets when the target is hit.  Take away the crusader's avoidance buff and give them an ability that they place on another that gives the target a 5-10% chance to stoneskin an incoming hit.  Then make these 3 abilities stack with eachother, but not with themselves (i.e., you could have a guardian with his mitigation lend on the monk, while receiving a stoneskin and an avoidance lend from the monk and the paladin).</p><p>Giving fighters some serious buffs that go on other fighters would go a long way towards bringing multiple tanks along, in my opinion.</p>

[Elanjar]

<p>You will never see all 6 fighters in an optimal raid setup because the current optimal raid setup requires 4 chanters and 4 bards. You have to sacrifice some classes to fit those extra 4 support classes and fighters are the perfect place to do it since you really only need MT, and OT, and an OOT (??).</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>#2 is trickier--how do you convince raidleaders to bring along an extra fighter instead of, say, a pure dps class?  I think there are two approaches to this situation, both of which are absolutely necessary.  The first is content, content, content, and I think the devs have been thinking about this a lot from the design of recent fights.  Having mobs memwipe/charm (Silverwing, Xebnok, avatar of Tranquility), send in add waves (loads of encounters), summon adds that can only be killed by one group (Zarrakon), summon adds that can only be killed by one archetype (byzola, Yzlak), etc. are all great ways to make 3+ fighters obligatory, at least when the encounter is fairly new and you don't have it on farm status.  The second necessity is to make us useful--but in such a way that you want multiple archetypes on a raid.</p></blockquote><p>It just doesn't hold water.  If content requries 4 tanks, it can be done with 2 tanks.</p><p>I know thats a generalizaiton, but 4 tanks means more heal targets meaning less focused healing.  Generally if you have 4 mobs on 4 fighters, its easyer to have 4 mobs on 2 fighters, and ultimately if you can survive it, 4 mobs on 1 fighter.</p><p>Its all about a pool of HP that your healing.  If your healers are good enough, one 30k pool is plenty for most fights.  A few require a 60k pool (2 fighters), but none require a 50k pool.</p><p>The only way to enforce more healers is to do it with artificial restrictions like they added to SoH.  And while that was mildly interesting and all for a bit, if all encounters, or even a large portion of encounters had such hockey tank dancing scripts, we'd all get tired of it really quick.</p><p>As I've said before, i have a very hard time seeing many scripts needing more than 3 fighters unless they're just specifically designed to have that barrier point, in which case, i'm not a big fan of that sollution.</p><p>3 fighters is fine, and maybe someday we can build the buff selection robust enough to allow for one of each subclass to be prefered.  The problem here is, one side of the sub-class will almost always 'edge' out the other.  Guard, Sk, Monk becomes the preffered path as an example.  Sure Pal, Zerker, Bruiser might work as an alternative, but it wont be a common or preferred solution.</p><p>Lastly adding scripted requirements for more fighters will not get more fighters in a raid guild.  We'll simply log in alts for those annoying scripts and move on.</p>

[circusgirl]

<p>@Atan</p><p>You'll note my suggestion included a lot more than content-based solutions.  I also suggested some small changes that would make bringing one tank of each archetype drastically improve survivability (3 types of stacking tank-to-tank buffs instead of just the avoidance buff as we have now).  With this suggestion, if you wanted to have your SK MT try to keep aggro on absolutely everything, the other tanks would be quite helpful with that whole "not dying" thing.  </p><p>Will some guilds forego running with a 3rd or 4th tank and just try to gear up alts?  Sure...or they'll try.  Even there you can force some measure of diversity just through itemization.  Plate and Leather tank gear only really overlaps when it comes to jewelry, and as a result it is far, far easier to gear up 2 plate tanks and a brawler than it is to gear 3 plate tanks.  Differentiating Warrior and Crusader gear might help with that as well.  In the end though, its often more of a pain to switch in a wizard for clearing trash than it is to just have your brawler there the whole time.  </p><p>Look, chances are any attempt we make won't be perfect, and some guilds will find ways to sidestep it.  Things don't have to be absolutely perfect, oor work 100% of the time.  Improvement is improvement.</p>

[Megavolt]

<p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>A good step in this direction was taken when they gave all fighters a raidwide and a groupwide buff (though brawlers still need a groupwide, please).  Next, they need to make what each archetype can do for a raid unique and have less overlap, but still remain extremely valuable.  The perfect example of such a skill is avoidance buffs--make these the sole domain of brawlers (giving plate tanks something useful in their stead) and alter them so that brawlers can use them to full effect while dpsing (for example, lower the chance for it to go off but make all avoidance count as uncontested when passed through the avoidance buff), and you create a niche for brawlers on a raid that any raidleader would be a fool not to take advantage of.  Remove the avoidance buffs from warriors and give them an ability similar to the avoidance buff, only instead of transferring avoidance it has a flat % chance (say 50%) of using the warrior's mitigation instead of the targets when the target is hit.  Take away the crusader's avoidance buff and give them an ability that they place on another that gives the target a 5-10% chance to stoneskin an incoming hit. <strong> Then make these 3 abilities stack with eachother, but not with themselves</strong> (i.e., you could have a guardian with his mitigation lend on the monk, <strong>while receiving a stoneskin and an avoidance lend from the monk and the paladin).</strong></p><p>Giving fighters some serious buffs that go on other fighters would go a long way towards bringing multiple tanks along, in my opinion.</p></blockquote><p>I was following ya and liking the idea but then I got confused by the bolded area. I like the idea but making these a raidwide instead of single target would probably be a cleaner and more desireable effect. Keeping the same hate transfers (AA's for monks, not sure for other fighters but they should have this if they dont)as they are now on those buffs would help control hate in a raid and group setup(if 2 fighters decided to group together). Basically working as a hate "splashout" by stealing raid hate and syphoning it to the other fighters in the raid.(again only knowing about the monk aa's but the syphoning effect if the buff is on a non-fighter and the feeding effect if it is on a fighter both working at the same time since it would go from single target to a raidwide)</p><p>That way both the MT and OT would benefit from hate disipitation of the raid, the raid benefits from the extra surviveability lended by the additional fighters, and the additional fighter benefits from just being a viable filler.</p><p>Oh and making heals from the healers land on the person who is targeted at the end of the cast when through-targeting through the mob would also make flip tanking viable, instead of wasting it on a corpse or someone who isn't the target of the mob anymore. Just a pet peave of mine when I play my healer and when I emergency grab a mob and the healers spells are wasted on the dead tank and I drop when I play my monk.</p>

[peepshow]

<p>At start I was thining they could merge the fighters into 3 classes, but I am honestly not sure that is the way to go anymore..</p><p>I like a lot of the ideas posted here, and I really do hope we have a dev following this talk here, cause this is really a place where all the real users get to share their thoughts..</p><p>As a Bruiser myself, I know how hard it is to get a spot in a raid, but to make it so that all raids would prefer at least 1 brawler, 1 crusader and 1 warrior would for sure be the best thing done in EQ2 for a long time..</p>

[firza]

<p>@ OP:</p><p>do you want all 6 fighter classes to have 1 slot in a raid, or do you want all 6 fighter classes to be an equal option to have in your raid, or do you want all 6 fighter classes to be a possible addition to a raid?</p><p>If 1 : That will never happen. And if it happens its by mistake, but probably not design. (although with SOE...)</p><p>If 2 : Will be very hard to accomplish. To many factors. Unless SOE decides to make them all copie paste...</p><p>If 3 : This is the case, albeit some bring more then others.</p>

[Kimber]

<p>@ Firza a little of all 3 lol......</p><p>More along the lines of seeing at least 4 of them in a raid all 6 would be great as that would mean that as a group each class would bring something to the table but 4 would be good imo, with the brake down being 3 plate and 1 brawler per raid group or 2 plate and 2 brawlers or whatever the raid decides but basicly make it so that there are 4 spots for fighters.  A good example that I saw above was the Bards they need/prefer to have 4 in a raid well there are only 2 class's there Dirge and Troub so from my stand point that would be 2 raid spots.  This however could be taken all the way and looked at that well then since there are 24 class then each class should have a spot.  Well tbh imo they should but we all know that that would not happen more than likely although imo it should but that is not the point here, the point here is that fighters as a whole get 2 spots in raids ( if the raid goes with an OT and I hav seen them go with out an OT ) but we have 6 class's, and how can this be changed for the better for us as a whole. </p><p>I really like some of the ideas posted up there so lets keep em coming who knows what will happen with this with any luck maybe some good</p>

[Phiyah]

<p>Not that I know all that much about raids.... But I always see people discussing this with what classes are 'wanted' in a raid. I am thinking if you are in a good guild - why isn't everybody just given a chance to be part of the raid? Taking turns? I mean it is a game and will it just totally ruin a raid if a (whoever is not 'wanted' ) is given a chance?</p><p>Please don't kill me, I'm a noob! <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/499fd50bc713bfcdf2ab5a23c00c2d62.gif" border="0" /></p>

[Kimber]

<p>@ Noori</p><p>Nps the reason is this most ( about 90% or more ) Raid forces are min/max set up.  They want to clear the content as fast as possable.  While this is not a bad thing the problem is this with that much of the raid forces out there with this attitude it makes it difficult to get into raid forces playing the class that you like unless it happens to be optimal choice for raids.  For instace I play a Zerk ( yes I tried guard and while ok I really prefer the zerk )  While there are Zerk MT and OT's out there with the rise of SK's and Guards still being the choice for MT those spots have gotten even fewer ( Brawlers have the really short end of the stick on this ) unless you are geared out and well we all know what you need to get gear you need to raid lol.  So I hope that this answers your question as to why things are the way they are. </p>

[Phiyah]

<p><cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>@ Noori</p><p>Nps the reason is this most ( about 90% or more ) Raid forces are min/max set up.  They want to clear the content as fast as possable.  While this is not a bad thing the problem is this with that much of the raid forces out there with this attitude it makes it difficult to get into raid forces playing the class that you like unless it happens to be optimal choice for raids.  For instace I play a Zerk ( yes I tried guard and while ok I really prefer the zerk )  While there are Zerk MT and OT's out there with the rise of SK's and Guards still being the choice for MT those spots have gotten even fewer ( Brawlers have the really short end of the stick on this ) unless you are geared out and well we all know what you need to get gear you need to raid lol.  So I hope that this answers your question as to why things are the way they are. </p></blockquote><p>Right - but it is the attitude as you say, that keeps it that way. Maybe if people would make a few allowances it could change... Thank you for the response and clarification! <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" /> </p>

[BChizzle]

<p>Forcing 6 fighter classes in a raid is a bad idea.  You don't need 6 types of scouts or 6 types of healers or 6 types of mages in any raid so why would you want 6 types of fighters.</p>

[peepshow]

<p><cite>Phiyah@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Right - but it is the attitude as you say, that keeps it that way. <span style="color: #ffffff;"><strong>Maybe if people would make a few allowances </strong></span>it could change... Thank you for the response and clarification! <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" /> </p></blockquote><p>This right here is the problem..</p><p>Hardcore guilds run 26-28 people in guild to have the strongest setup possible, but what ever setup they have all the non hardcore guild tries to copy and thus leaving no room for the "less wanted" classes..</p><p>Make it so there really is a purpose of having 3-4 fighters in a raid, bard buff raid wide and some of them with no consentration slot so you dont use more to get all buffs, same with enchanters and give miore room for the classes who wants to be there..</p><p>I'm sure its not just the fighters who feel this way, ask any summoner how hard it is to get a raid spot, other than the swap in for hearts/shards sometimes..</p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p><cite>Phiyah@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>@ Noori</p><p>Nps the reason is this most ( about 90% or more ) Raid forces are min/max set up. They want to clear the content as fast as possable. While this is not a bad thing the problem is this with that much of the raid forces out there with this attitude it makes it difficult to get into raid forces playing the class that you like unless it happens to be optimal choice for raids. For instace I play a Zerk ( yes I tried guard and while ok I really prefer the zerk ) While there are Zerk MT and OT's out there with the rise of SK's and Guards still being the choice for MT those spots have gotten even fewer ( Brawlers have the really short end of the stick on this ) unless you are geared out and well we all know what you need to get gear you need to raid lol. So I hope that this answers your question as to why things are the way they are.</p></blockquote><p>Right - but it is the attitude as you say, that keeps it that way. Maybe if people would make a few allowances it could change... Thank you for the response and clarification! <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" /></p></blockquote><p>Its not attitude......its SOE and game mechanics that keep it the way it is.  With very few exceptions there is no raid content that requires more than 2 tanks.  Even something like WOE which on the surface would make people think....."oh look two groups.........1 MT and 1 OT" ends up being far more optimal once you have a single tank that can simply tank everything.  </p><p>The more tanks you have the less efficient your raid healers and your DPS is.</p><p>Limited loot tables and various DKP systems that guilds use make it so gearing up as few tanks as possible/needed is optimal.</p>

[Seidhkona]

<p>I have run raids with as many as 8 plate tanks, and there has been one 24-paladin raid (it's on Youtube, so hunt for it).</p><p>You can add more fighter classes but you are sacrificing DPS when you do.  Some encounters this is OK, others, not so good.... if the encounter is doing nasty things over timed intervals so that you must burn it down quick or wipe, then extra fighter classes are a problem.</p><p>I've run plenty of Labs raids that were tank-heavy and we did fine - we didn't move as fast, but we munched right through.  Thugga, on the other hand, which is all about DPS, would be problematic.</p>

[Seidhkona]

<p><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>With very few exceptions there is no raid content that requires more than 2 tanks.</p></blockquote><p>One thing I've had great success doing is being placed as a paladin in the melee DPS group and putting Amends on whoever in that group is ganking aggro. That makes me their 13K ward, and I serve as a backup healer and DPS. In that kind of a role, I DPS more than the healers but much less than any true DPS, I'm healing in the range with the druids, and I'm enabling a real DPS-type to go all-out.</p><p>I think finding a role as a tank outside of MT/OT is up to the individual player, how you spec yourself, and your gear. If you are good and you can show that what you have to offer is of positive benefit, tehn you can find a raid role.</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Will some guilds forego running with a 3rd or 4th tank and just try to gear up alts?  Sure...or they'll try.  Even there you can force some measure of diversity just through itemization.  Plate and Leather tank gear only really overlaps when it comes to jewelry, and as a result it is far, far easier to gear up 2 plate tanks and a brawler than it is to gear 3 plate tanks.  Differentiating Warrior and Crusader gear might help with that as well.  In the end though, its often more of a pain to switch in a wizard for clearing trash than it is to just have your brawler there the whole time.  </p><p>Look, chances are any attempt we make won't be perfect, and some guilds will find ways to sidestep it.  Things don't have to be absolutely perfect, oor work 100% of the time.  Improvement is improvement.</p></blockquote><p>I don't agree on the Loot.  Cause even throwing all the raid dropped leather at a brawler, they still don't have the survivability of an SK in t2 shard gear.</p><p>I'm quite certain, we'd still bring Guard, SK, SK and just default the leather stuff to an alt for those rare cases an alt is needed.</p><p>I know your suggesting some sort of raidwide or tank to tank buff to make the brawler a wanted component vs another t1 dps or utility class.  I'm just having a hard time imagining what that buff would be that we'd want to make room for it.  Truthfully we're getting so far into the caps on avoidance and mitigation its just hard to invision something that would be noteworthy.  Even as a crit-mit buff, it might interest people who don't have any gear yet to bring them, but it doesn't take long till gear replaces the need for the class.  Maybe some single target raidally hp buff, or hp transfer?</p>

[circusgirl]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Will some guilds forego running with a 3rd or 4th tank and just try to gear up alts?  Sure...or they'll try.  Even there you can force some measure of diversity just through itemization.  Plate and Leather tank gear only really overlaps when it comes to jewelry, and as a result it is far, far easier to gear up 2 plate tanks and a brawler than it is to gear 3 plate tanks.  Differentiating Warrior and Crusader gear might help with that as well.  In the end though, its often more of a pain to switch in a wizard for clearing trash than it is to just have your brawler there the whole time.  </p><p>Look, chances are any attempt we make won't be perfect, and some guilds will find ways to sidestep it.  Things don't have to be absolutely perfect, oor work 100% of the time.  Improvement is improvement.</p></blockquote><p>I don't agree on the Loot.  Cause even throwing all the raid dropped leather at a brawler, they still don't have the survivability of an SK in t2 shard gear.</p><p>I'm quite certain, we'd still bring Guard, SK, SK and just default the leather stuff to an alt for those rare cases an alt is needed.</p><p>I know your suggesting some sort of raidwide or tank to tank buff to make the brawler a wanted component vs another t1 dps or utility class.  I'm just having a hard time imagining what that buff would be that we'd want to make room for it.  Truthfully we're getting so far into the caps on avoidance and mitigation its just hard to invision something that would be noteworthy.  Even as a crit-mit buff, it might interest people who don't have any gear yet to bring them, but it doesn't take long till gear replaces the need for the class.  Maybe some single target raidally hp buff, or hp transfer?</p></blockquote><p>The <span style="font-style: italic;">innate </span>survivability of a Shadowknight isn't actually all that higher than a brawler (wait, wait, stay with me here, I promise I'll explain).  Plate tanks naturally have very high mitigation, and very low avoidance, while brawlers have very high avoidance and very low mitigation.  There are 2 serious problems here, however: the first is that there are several very easily obtained adornment/food options that up avoidance, while no similar options exist to buff mitigation for plate tanks, which in essence allows Plate tanks to have high mitigation and moderate avoidance.  The second, and greater by far issue, is that the abilities of other classes work <span style="font-style: italic;">extremely </span>well with a plate tank to enhance their survivability, but only moderately or fairly poorly to enhance brawler survivability.  </p><p>The best examples I can give are shield ally and the avoidance lends that all fighters currently get.  Because a plate tank has low avoidance on their own, they have many chances for an avoidance lend like Tranquil Vision to go off, and because brawlers have very high avoidance, they are extremely likely to avoid for the plate tank if the avoidance lend procs.  A plate tank may have 70% mitigation but only 30-50% avoidance (against epic content--this is not talking about what you see in the persona window, but rather based on ACT's analysis of how many hits they actually avoid), but with the help of a dirge's stoneskin, cleric's SA, and brawler's avoidance lend, their avoidance can skyrocket from 40% to 80%.  Now you have a tank with extremely high mitigation AND extremely high avoidance, who as a result can survive anything.</p><p>Brawlers aren't inherently inferior.  Our interactions with other classes are simply less beneficial.  If plate tanks/healers could buff our mitigation to the same extremes that we can buff their avoidance, then there would be no survivability gap between brawlers and plate tanks.  If you made things such that Crusaders, Warriors, and Brawlers all had different, useful buffs that stacked with the other tank types but not with themselves, you create a situation in which it is more beneficial to bring 1 of each than say, 1 guard & 2 SKs.</p><p>And just to prove that I am not pulling numbers out of my butt...</p><p><img src="http://i732.photobucket.com/albums/ww329/Dharlette/avoidance_report2.jpg" width="694" height="294" /></p><p>MT's own avoidance: 11.97+4.93+19.01=35.91%Bard's stoneskin:11.27%Cleric's Shield Ally: 2.11+2.82=4.93%monk's tranquil vision: 23.24+2.11+7.75=33.10%</p><p>*Avoidance report is from ACT.  Brawler is in full defensive gear and spec, which allows for the high avoidance checks but results in dps about equal to a plate tank's (in this case, higher than the pally and lower than the SK).  This avoidance report was a personal best, and normal numbers are generally closer to 25% than 33%.</p>

[BChizzle]

<p>What does this have to do with  the rediculous idea of getting 6 fighters in raid Vinka?  If brawler avoid is so great then wouldn't having a brawler buff another brawler be the best idea?  And your idea of plate tanks buffing a brawler, so who does the brawler buff in that situation then?  What you are saying is the MT doesn't get an avoid buff so the brawler can get more mit right?  What is the sense in that?</p>

[Gaige]

<p><cite>Scipius@Splitpaw wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>As a Bruiser myself, I know how hard it is to get a spot in a raid, but to make it so that all raids would prefer at least 1 brawler, 1 crusader and 1 warrior would for sure be the best thing done in EQ2 for a long time..</p></blockquote><p>Today is your lucky day because that is the setup most raid guilds use!</p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p>Ok what exactly was the point of this thread? "How do we get all 6 fighters in a raid"? That is a bad goal IMO. A desired purpose for 1 of each "type" (Warrior, Crusader, Brawler)  would be a much better goal.</p><p>Fighters are tanks.....if there is a fighter present on a raid.....there better be something for him/her to tank otherwise you just wasted a slot.... Building in some crazy cross fighter buffs is nothing more than kludging content to make everyone feel all warm and fuzzy.</p><p>The truth is that......the fewer fighters a raid can get by with.....the more efficient the raid becomes.</p>

[Bruener]

<p><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Ok what exactly was the point of this thread? "How do we get all 6 fighters in a raid"? That is a bad goal IMO. A desired purpose for 1 of each "type" (Warrior, Crusader, Brawler)  would be a much better goal.</p><p>Fighters are tanks.....if there is a fighter present on a raid.....there better be something for him/her to tank otherwise you just wasted a slot.... Building in some crazy cross fighter buffs is nothing more than kludging content to make everyone feel all warm and fuzzy.</p><p>The truth is that......the fewer fighters a raid can get by with.....the more efficient the raid becomes.</p></blockquote><p>Yes, yes we all know that this is how current mechanics work.  That is the whole point of this thread to have changes made so that more fighters in a raid actually becomes BETTER.  I know, it is hard for some people to grasp.</p><p>Here is the thing, not all fighters are TANKS.  The only TANKS in a raid are the ones taht are actually being hit on by a mob at that time.  90% of the time in current content there is 1 TANK that is actually doing that function.  The other 9% of the time you might have an OT doing some TANKING.  And probably something like 1% of the time you might actually have 3 fighters TANKING.  The other role of fighters like everybody else is DPS and utility.  DPS is blah, especially when compared to utility classes.  Utility is poor, again go look at chanters/bards/rogues.</p><p>So, bringing more fighters, just like bringing more healers...should increase the survivability of raids.  Fighters should have abilities that help their group stay alive.  They should have abilities that they can lend to keep other fighters that are currently TANKING alive.  And I will say it again, manipulating HATE should be the sole realm of fighters.  Hate transfers, hate dumps, hate soaking, hate debuffs, hate buffs, etc....those should all be in the realm of fighters.  The first mistake SOE made was giving that utility away to the bards/chanters/scouts.</p>

[circusgirl]

<p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>What does this have to do with  the rediculous idea of getting 6 fighters in raid Vinka?  If brawler avoid is so great then wouldn't having a brawler buff another brawler be the best idea?  And your idea of plate tanks buffing a brawler, so who does the brawler buff in that situation then?  What you are saying is the MT doesn't get an avoid buff so the brawler can get more mit right?  What is the sense in that?</p></blockquote><p>1)I personally don't think 6 fighters is a reasonable goal--I think we should aim for 3, a warrior, crusader, and brawler, on each raid.</p><p>2)Having a brawler buff another brawler is great if you're going for maxing avoidance, but it doesn't mean anything if you're going to spike to death for want of mitigation.  As tranquil vision will have fewer opportunities to proc when used on a brawler, it is always more beneficial to place it on a plate tank over an equally geared/skilled brawler.</p><p>3)I suggested giving brawlers an avoidance buff, warriors a mitigation buff, and crusaders a stoneskin buff each of which is placed on another fighter within the raid, in lieu of having all 3 types of fighter have avoidance buffs.  I further suggested making these 3 types of buff stackable, so that while you can only have one avoidance buff on a plate tank, your warrior could be receiving avoidance from the brawler while giving the brawler mitigation, creating two <span style="font-style: italic;">balanced </span>and therefore viable tanks.</p><p>Obviously, the requests for replacing warrior's and crusader's avoidance buffs with a mitigation lend and a chance to stoneskin are kind of pie-in-the-sky, but frankly, any response to the question ''How do we get all six fighter class's in a raid'' is going to be comprised of a significant amount of wishful thinking.</p>

[Lleren]

<p><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Ok what exactly was the point of this thread? "How do we get all 6 fighters in a raid"? That is a bad goal IMO. A desired purpose for 1 of each "type" (Warrior, Crusader, Brawler)  would be a much better goal.</p><p><strong>Fighters are tanks</strong>.....if there is a fighter present on a raid.....there better be something for him/her to tank otherwise you just wasted a slot.... <strong>Building in some crazy cross fighter buffs is nothing more than kludging content to make everyone feel all warm and fuzzy.</strong></p><p><strong>The truth is that......the fewer fighters a raid can get by with.....the more efficient the raid becomes</strong>.</p></blockquote><p>Adding enough crazy buffs to any class such that 3 or 4 or more  of them are desired ( bards , chanters ) on a raid I would say is bad design as well.  Perhaps this will not be the case in t9 when most everyone will be capped on their appropriate crits and double attacks and self buff themselves a flurry.</p><p>More desirablity for 1 or 2 of every class would be an improvement, less disireability for 3 or 4.</p><p>One point, the last "best raid" setup thread I saw had a half utility class(bard,chanter) setup as the "winner" from the various posts, this was from back in RoK however.</p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p><cite>Noih@Kithicor wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Ok what exactly was the point of this thread? "How do we get all 6 fighters in a raid"? That is a bad goal IMO. A desired purpose for 1 of each "type" (Warrior, Crusader, Brawler) would be a much better goal.</p><p><strong>Fighters are tanks</strong>.....if there is a fighter present on a raid.....there better be something for him/her to tank otherwise you just wasted a slot.... <strong>Building in some crazy cross fighter buffs is nothing more than kludging content to make everyone feel all warm and fuzzy.</strong></p><p><strong>The truth is that......the fewer fighters a raid can get by with.....the more efficient the raid becomes</strong>.</p></blockquote><p>Adding enough crazy buffs to any class such that 3 or 4 or more of them are desired ( bards , chanters ) on a raid I would say is bad design as well.</p></blockquote><p>Agreed. </p><p>That said I think there is no way getting around the fact that fighters and too a certain extent healers have to be treated differently than everyone else.  Nobody questions needing 2..sometimes 3 healers just for the MT...not too mention healers for the rest of the raid.  I think the best we can hope for for fighters is content such that 1 per group is optimal.</p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Ok what exactly was the point of this thread? "How do we get all 6 fighters in a raid"? That is a bad goal IMO. A desired purpose for 1 of each "type" (Warrior, Crusader, Brawler) would be a much better goal.</p><p>Fighters are tanks.....if there is a fighter present on a raid.....there better be something for him/her to tank otherwise you just wasted a slot.... Building in some crazy cross fighter buffs is nothing more than kludging content to make everyone feel all warm and fuzzy.</p><p>The truth is that......the fewer fighters a raid can get by with.....the more efficient the raid becomes.</p></blockquote><p>Yes, yes we all know that this is how current mechanics work. That is the whole point of this thread to have changes made so that more fighters in a raid actually becomes BETTER. I know, it is hard for some people to grasp.</p><p>Here is the thing, not all fighters are TANKS. The only TANKS in a raid are the ones taht are actually being hit on by a mob at that time. 90% of the time in current content there is 1 TANK that is actually doing that function. The other 9% of the time you might have an OT doing some TANKING. And probably something like 1% of the time you might actually have 3 fighters TANKING. The other role of fighters like everybody else is DPS and utility. DPS is blah, especially when compared to utility classes. Utility is poor, again go look at chanters/bards/rogues.</p><p>So, bringing more fighters, just like bringing more healers...should increase the survivability of raids. Fighters should have abilities that help their group stay alive. They should have abilities that they can lend to keep other fighters that are currently TANKING alive. And I will say it again, manipulating HATE should be the sole realm of fighters. Hate transfers, hate dumps, hate soaking, hate debuffs, hate buffs, etc....those should all be in the realm of fighters. The first mistake SOE made was giving that utility away to the bards/chanters/scouts.</p></blockquote><p>I understand that is the utopian goal behind this thread but lets be realistic.....fighters serving a needed/useful non-tank role on a raid is not gonna happen....at least not in EQ2.   Look what has  happened when fighters started doing high DPS.......whine...QQ...whine...QQ.   I guess I can see them giving Crusaders some non-tank, non-DPS utilitiy but I doubt many Crusaders would embrace that.  And then what do you do about the fighters that only do one thing....how do you build a raid encounter such that bringing a 3rd+ Guardian or Bruiser is anything but a waste?   Not without making those classes take the spots of utility classes.</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The best examples I can give are shield ally and the avoidance lends that all fighters currently get.  Because a plate tank has low avoidance on their own, they have many chances for an avoidance lend like Tranquil Vision to go off, and because brawlers have very high avoidance, they are extremely likely to avoid for the plate tank if the avoidance lend procs.  A plate tank may have 70% mitigation but only 30-50% avoidance (against epic content--this is not talking about what you see in the persona window, but rather based on ACT's analysis of how many hits they actually avoid), but with the help of a dirge's stoneskin, cleric's SA, and brawler's avoidance lend, their avoidance can skyrocket from 40% to 80%.  Now you have a tank with extremely high mitigation AND extremely high avoidance, who as a result can survive anything.</p><p>Brawlers aren't inherently inferior.  Our interactions with other classes are simply less beneficial.  If plate tanks/healers could buff our mitigation to the same extremes that we can buff their avoidance, then there would be no survivability gap between brawlers and plate tanks.  If you made things such that Crusaders, Warriors, and Brawlers all had different, useful buffs that stacked with the other tank types but not with themselves, you create a situation in which it is more beneficial to bring 1 of each than say, 1 guard & 2 SKs.</p><p>And just to prove that I am not pulling numbers out of my butt...</p><p><img src="http://i732.photobucket.com/albums/ww329/Dharlette/avoidance_report2.jpg" width="694" height="294" /></p><p>MT's own avoidance: 11.97+4.93+19.01=35.91%Bard's stoneskin:11.27%Cleric's Shield Ally: 2.11+2.82=4.93%monk's tranquil vision: 23.24+2.11+7.75=33.10%</p><p>*Avoidance report is from ACT.  Brawler is in full defensive gear and spec, which allows for the high avoidance checks but results in dps about equal to a plate tank's (in this case, higher than the pally and lower than the SK).  This avoidance report was a personal best, and normal numbers are generally closer to 25% than 33%.</p></blockquote><p>Thing is, I can get my plate avoidance so far into diminishing returns, the actual difference between my avoidance and a brawlers is very, very small.  Self buffing to 78.4%, 15k by persona window with a cap around 17k?  As well as pushing mitigation to similar numbers.</p><p>Later I'll look at my own logs and avoidance reports, yours seems very off, in that our cleric is usually closer to 18% not 5%, and our MT is generally higher as well, and the rare times we bring a brawler, its no where near that number, probably closer to half that.</p><p>Lastly, I still think these theoretical buffs your talking about bringing ballance need alot more definition, as I'm just not seeing something that is both 1) sufficient magnitude to care about and 2) something soe would actually add.</p>

[circusgirl]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>Thing is, I can get my plate avoidance so far into diminishing returns, the actual difference between my avoidance and a brawlers is very, very small.  Self buffing to 78.4%, 15k by persona window with a cap around 17k?  As well as pushing mitigation to similar numbers.<p>Later I'll look at my own logs and avoidance reports, yours seems very off, in that our cleric is usually closer to 18% not 5%, and our MT is generally higher as well, and the rare times we bring a brawler, its no where near that number, probably closer to half that.</p><p>Lastly, I still think these theoretical buffs your talking about bringing ballance need alot more definition, as I'm just not seeing something that is both 1) sufficient magnitude to care about and 2) something soe would actually add.</p></blockquote><p>First off, what is displayed in the persona window and what you actually avoid against an epic encounter are very, very different things.  While a plate tank can easily get their persona window to SAY they have 78% avoidance, take a look at your avoidance reports and I think you'll find your actual avoidance is far, far lower than that against high-level mobs.  Uncontested avoidance is what matters for raids, and plate tanks can basically only raise that via food, drink, and adornments.</p><p>My own avoidance is about 92%, a little over 60% of which is probably uncontested--the reason my avoidance reports are so high is because a)I have extremely high avoidance, even for a monk and b)in the fights I parsed I'm in defensive stance and defensive gear.  If your monk is in offensive stance and is dpsing, his numbers will be far, far lower, since if that is the case he essentially has no more uncontested avoidance than a plate tank.  This is one of the serious issues with brawler desireability, since we can't both perform as utility to the maximum of our ability and dps.  </p><p>As far as your cleric pulling higher numbers, this parse happened to be particularly low for our inquisitor's shield ally, and  yes, oftentimes they are quite higher...which only adds to my point.  I'm not sure which is calculated first if both Shield Ally and Tranquil Vision go off, but if its Tranquil Vision, then that may be artificially depressing the cleric's avoidance parse.  </p>

[Kimber]

<p>OK I see a few questions about what is the point here and all that.  The point of this thread is to get ideas to make taking more than 2 fighters ( Tank and OT ) on a raid.  I see some of you saying well why would you need more than 2 or sometimes 3 if its scripted for it.  My point is this how many Bards go on raids? 4 right for optimal set up.  How many chanters ? 2-4 right.  How many healers 6-8 ( have seen 10 but 3 of them were Furies ) depending on the chanter situation?  2 Fighters that leaves 8  ( if you go with 2 fighters 4 bards 3 chanters 7 healers ) spots for DPS of which there are 8 class's that fit that roll and you often see more than one of them on raids depending on class ( not many Necros and Illy's out there on raids or they only take one or the other but that is a whole other topic as I play a Necro also <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> )</p><p>The point of this thread is what would need to happen to make it more desirable to take 4 or more fighters on raids is 6 optimal for us yes it would be do I see that happening no is 4 a better goal yes it is imo.  I go back to the whole point of raid content in this game and why raids are set up the way they are.  There are 24 class's and a full raid consists of 4 groups of 6 players which equals 24 players.  So you need one of each class for a raid the way its designed.  Is this what happens no its not and I realize that.  I would just like to see a few more spots open up for us as fighters give us something that we can bring to the raids that will help more than hinder with our non scout/wiz/warlock DPS. </p>

[Megavolt]

<p>I don't exactly know when sony lost touch with what a basic group was: 1 healer 1 fighter 2 utility 2 dps per group, and the mess that it has made of raiding is truly sickening. The same group dynamic that Norath was founded on should be applied to raiding through group buffs that inhance that core group- having each class providing a core ability that would make things unsurvivable without having that core group. Our reliance on overhealing (yes it is overhealing, because SOE has made it to where you have to bring a crapload of healers to every fight now, instead of balancing out to where 4 healers would be enough to keep survivability of the raid) has become a huge crutch. Rebalancing raids could be done with a few steps..</p><p>1)Giving healers set reactives/wards/hots that are raidwide but did not stack with each class would cut down on this. Having the amount of the raid wards scale with number of people in group/raid etc would keep shamans from falling below the others if reactives and hots are made raidwide. Have 1 quick cast group patch heal that is shared among healers, same cast same base amount, etc.</p><p>2)Having the hate control turned over completely to the fighters. Additional fighters brought in for each group (1 group, 1 fighter)and make it THEIR responsibility to control hate from that group. Group deagros, player targeted taunt-throughs  to be thrown at the MT affecting their hate on targeted enemies or encounters. A group without a fighter should be an agro maelstrom, not just a group able to throw their hate on the healer and get by without agro. Fighters should REQUIRED for agro management, not just an option. I know there are effects on epics and abilities that some classes would hate to lose, but making these existing effects non-required and adding desirable effects to replace them shouldn't be so bad.</p><p>3) Make bards the only ones with decent power regens. Make enchanters the only ones with power patches.</p><p>4)Let dps be the only ones that can truly let go focusing on nothing but the damage they are doing to the mob. A dps shouldn't have to worry about their agro because that should be their group fighters job.</p><p>Basically it makes the healers watch the groups lifebars, the fighters watch the groups agrometers, the power utility watch the groups power meters and the dps/debuffers watch the mobs life meter. Group dynamics within the raid are how they should be. Having each fighter archetype feed hate in different ways will keep it basically to a MT(the target, class interchangeable) a Warrior(feeds hate reactives to MT) a Crusader (feeds aoe taunt to the MT) and a brawler (feeds single target taunt to the MT). Having the MT's hate as the target the MT would basically be the guy with the best surviveability in the guild and can be interchanged between teh 4 archetypes because the majority of his hate would come from the other 3 guys basically pointing at the MT and saying "Look at him, he's the baddest dude we got" Vinka's idea of surviveability lends would also help keep the MT interchangeable by lending what surviveability is lacking in each class to the other classes. Having these lends only be offensive stance, and made up to be the loss of their survivability between switching stances(if a brawler loses 25% avoidance by switching to offensive, give that same avoidance to the target... don't just make it a passthrough effect). I personally think a better surviveability lend from crusaders would be a  heal on hit proc that lands on 100% of hits, as this plays more to a crusader role than a stoneskin (pallies heal, sk's tap, so their lend should be a self heal of some sort)</p><p>Should the MT always be a Plate, no.</p><p>Should the OT always be a Plate, no.</p><p>Should the dynamics of the raid help decide who should be either one, yes.</p>

[Gilasil]

<p>Of course you won't see people bringing 6 fighters  to existing encounters.  That's the whole point.  People will tend to bring what's optimum and six fighters is not optimum anywhere. </p><p>The question is:  What could be done to make six fighters optimum?</p><p>There are many fights which require two mobs be tanked simultaneously.   I don't know of any which require four be tanked simultaneously but it seems like that would make four op right there.  Up the brawler dps and/or raidwide buffs to justify bringing them along and there you have it.  Make some of the group buffs of other classes raidwide so there's no need to bring four of them.</p><p>Or *gasp* look at reality.  In real midieval battles there were LOTS of fighters.  That's about all there were.  Very few people running around in the back trying to backstab people (although battles often had many archers i.e. rangers).   Put together an encounter where fighters have to form some sort of shield wall to protect the squishies.  Ok, maybe not a shield wall (brawlers can't use shields) but they have to interpose themselves physically between the baddies and the squishies.  Just spread things out enough -- add enough mobs -- so that you NEED multiple fighters just to keep the squishies from getting squished.</p><p>Or you could do things like have four routes to some goal, and the raid must progress roughly equally along all four routes simultaneously.  One self contained group per route would become op and each group would need a tank.</p><p>The point is that something could be done if SoE actually wanted to do something.  The encounters would be different from existing encounters is all.  Some class tweaks would help but they could do a lot without tweaking classes.</p>

[Farore]

<p>Well here's my two cents.</p><p>I agree with most that having more than 2-3 fighters in a raid will never happen, because of the focused healing concept, where if there are 5 adds, you dont send 1 fighter at each one, you get 1 ae tank to get them all so the healers can just heal/buff that one tank.</p><p>This post is more going along the lines which many other classes are frustrated at: having a raid spot. Fighters, summoners, rangers, druids, and sometimes warlocks generally arent needed/wanted. We can thank TSO content for that slightly, because 8 healers is now the bar and we can thank soe for overpowering enchanters and bards(4 and 4 for raid setups). 8 healers(clerics and shammans ousting druids), 8 support, 2 tanks, 2 rogues leaves 4 spots left, which generally is one of the follow: 2nd brig, assassin, wizard, warlock(if gynok), brawler.</p><p>For those poor classes that CAN'T get their spots, fighters aren't alone, and i don't mean to be pessimistic, but you won't see it in eq2, mechanics have been setup for far too long to somehow make it so that 24 classes uniquely fill 24 raid spots(which is how it should be). Eq3, if it comes out, might be your best bet. Reason I can say this, is b/c I play a ranger <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  </p>

[Gaige]

<p>We use two rangers in our raid setup.</p>

[Lleren]

<p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>We use two rangers in our raid setup.</p></blockquote><p> Rangers are extremely underrated/underutilized for what a decent one can and does put out with VP gear and beyond.</p><p>Sadly I am no longer raiding on my Ranger.</p>

[Kimber]

<p>Here is the thing you say ""This post is more going along the lines which many other classes are frustrated at: having a raid spot."" That is not really the point of this although it may seem like it.  The point of this is how to make us viable not really take the spots from these other class's just make us a viable option to take give us something that will make the raid go well you know with 4 tanks doing X ability to increase Mit or spread damage of the MT to the other fighters we can do this still. </p><p>I am not sure if everyone unstands what I am getting at and I blame the fact that this is a wall of text and not a face to face conversation where so much more can be understood/implied.  So I will say this again and I hope that this is apperant.  My reason for starting this thread is not to bump class's from raid spots, it is to try and find a way to make taking 4 fighters or even 6 a viable option that would not decrease the surviability of the raid.  In other words a raid force compliled of 24 differant class's ( imo what should be the optimal set up ) is able to do the exact same thing as a raid comprised of 1-2 tanks 8 healers 4 bards 4 Chanters 2 Scouts and 4-5 DPS.  I hope this makes things a little clearer for those who are looking at this and going [Removed for Content] is going on here lol.  If not sorry I cannot explain my intentions better, I guess that is why I am a mechanic and not a writer <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /> </p>

[peepshow]

<p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Scipius@Splitpaw wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>As a Bruiser myself, I know how hard it is to get a spot in a raid, but to make it so that all raids would prefer at least 1 brawler, 1 crusader and 1 warrior would for sure be the best thing done in EQ2 for a long time..</p></blockquote><p>Today is your lucky day because that is the setup most raid guilds use!</p></blockquote><p>Not sure what rock you are hiding under..</p><p>I spend a little over 4 weeks trying to convince my rl (Who is also Guardian MT) that my Bruiser would be an asset to the raidforce, but with no luck what so ever..</p><p>Ended up playing my bard for way longer than I really wanted, while looking for a new guild.</p><p>Took me 5 weeks and about 10 nay sayers before I finally found a raidleader (Also Guardian MT) that was willing to let me in and give me a chance at a spot in all raids..</p><p>Warrior + 2 x Crusaders is the most used setup atm I think, 1 pally 1 sk, and I would love it if that where to chance so raid would be Warrior, Crusader and Brawler..</p><p>Then it would be up to all raid leaders to chose if they want, Guard/Zerker, SK/ Pally or Bruiser/Monk.. Would be something I could cope with a lot more, than being turned down because they already have a 3rd or even 4th plate tank..</p>

[Gaige]

<p><cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>In other words a raid force compliled of 24 differant class's ( imo what should be the optimal set up ) is able to do the exact same thing as a raid comprised of 1-2 tanks 8 healers 4 bards 4 Chanters 2 Scouts and 4-5 DPS.  I hope this makes things a little clearer for those who are looking at this and going [Removed for Content] is going on here lol.  </p></blockquote><p>That will not and should not ever happen.  That is just silly to even say.</p><p>Also, the "ideal" raid has not been and will never be one of each class.</p>

[Kimber]

<p>Why should it not happen?  What is your reasoning that it should not happen?  Now keep in mind that while IMO 24 class's should be the optimal set up I agree that its not.  I do not however see why a raid of all 24 class's should not be able to clear the same content and be a viable option to do it ( <strong>read not optimal but viable </strong>) </p><p>This is part of the problem IMO people tend to think OMG they are going after my raid spot they are going after my nitch my lil piece of the pie.  That is not the case here I am not in any way shape or form saying that Raids the way they are right now should have to change.  I am just asking what can be done to make it a viable option to do it differantly with out decreasing the surviability of the raid in regards to taking more fighters on the raid or all 24 class's on a raid.  What is wrong with that with making it so that more players can experiance end game content and enjoy doing so bringing something to the raid that is needed.  Enough though with the oh it cannot be done it should not be done and its just silly comments. </p><p>Back on topic I really like some of the ideas that we have here lets talk a bit more about them and get some more going here to see what we come up with to make this a viable option guys and gals.</p>

[peepshow]

<p>I really like the idea of giving each fighter type -read Warrior - Crusader - Brawler, a different single target, or even raidwide fighter buff, as already mentioned, should be something that does not affect the classes giving..</p><p>So Warriors give Mitigation to ALL Crusaders and Brawlers in raid, but not other Warriors, Crusaders give a huge HP buff to the 2 others and Brawlers gives some uncontested Avoidance. Should not stack ofc, so there would not be any reason to bring 2 Crusaders fx. Also the buff should remain the same no matter what stance the fighter is in, that way you can bring a sk in full dps stance and still have some use for him when there si no need for an OT..</p><p>if something like this happened I would be pretty sure ALL raids would ALWAYS bring 1 of each fighter to their raids.</p><p>As for fitting all 24 classes in a raid, I'm pretty sure it was never their intention, BUT the classes should be so balanced that you could chose between them all, and still have a chance to put down what you want to.. This is however a completely different talk, and I do think for now we should try to focus on getting not 6 fighters in raid, but 1 of each archtype..</p><p>Edit cause spelling is [Removed for Content] hard <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

[Kimber]

<p>That is what I am getting at tbh 1 of each arch type would be nice as you put it, and I like your idea about the warrior raising mit ,crusader buffing HP, the Brawler giving avoidance I still think ( and this is going for 4 fighters not 3 ) that they should stack or be differant in a way and help each fighter not just the none arch types in the raid, but make them equal in some way so that each could be used in place of the other and no better or worse than the other.</p><p>Some examples that come to mind would be:</p><p>1 Guards Buff Mit stone skins and such to all fighters in the raid</p><p>2 Zerks Buff Less Mit but added DPS to all fighters in the raid</p><p>3 Pally Buff total health of all fighters in the raid</p><p>4 SK Buff health regen of all fighters in raid threw life tap procs</p><p>5 Bruisers Buff uncontested avoidance to all fighters in the raid</p><p>6 Monk Buffs less uncontested avoidance but add something else to all fighters in the raid</p><p>I also really like the idea of makeing Hate management the responsibility of fighters we should ( imo ) be the ones dealing with this and directing it to the MT.</p><p>I also like the differant variations of the shield wall type thing that have come up and tbh I think that something like this might be the most likely option to make this happen as the Mit buff could be just enough to require 1 less healer chanter or bard if its set up right not making the optimal option of course but viable and would get 3 Plate fighters in the raid with the 4th fighter being a brawler with one of the buffs mentioned above possabley or even setting up the buffs listed above and setting up the shield wall type buff ( without making it op of course ) so that they could be used togather to make a viable option. </p>

[Aull]

<p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>In other words a raid force compliled of 24 differant class's ( imo what should be the optimal set up ) is able to do the exact same thing as a raid comprised of 1-2 tanks 8 healers <span style="font-size: small; color: #00ff00;">4 bards 4 Chanters </span>2 Scouts and 4-5 DPS.  I hope this makes things a little clearer for those who are looking at this and going [Removed for Content] is going on here lol.  </p></blockquote><p>That will not and should not ever happen.  That is just silly to even say.</p><p>Also, the "ideal" raid has not been and will never be one of each class.</p></blockquote><p>Four bards and four chanters are the standard. Now lets say that both of the two scouts are missing or two of the dps players can't make it to the raid.</p><p>Now to fill those spots a raid leader could bring fighter classes to fill those spots but bringing in more chanters or bards would again be better not just becuase of utility but for the high dps they can inflict. Most certainly the chanters.</p>

[peepshow]

<p>The only reason I think that the buffs should be the same and not stack is because it would be plain stupid for a raidleader to take 2 warriors > 1 warrior and 1 Brawler if he knew that his second warrior gave nothing at all to the raid where as the Brawler would give something..</p><p>If they make 6 different buffs there will also be a long talk about which are better than the others and stuff like that..</p><p>with 3 buffs only there would be no reason for "crybabys" as you would love to have em all and there for make room for em also <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

[Bruener]

<p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>In other words a raid force compliled of 24 differant class's ( imo what should be the optimal set up ) is able to do the exact same thing as a raid comprised of 1-2 tanks 8 healers 4 bards 4 Chanters 2 Scouts and 4-5 DPS.  I hope this makes things a little clearer for those who are looking at this and going [Removed for Content] is going on here lol.  </p></blockquote><p>That will not and should not ever happen.  That is just silly to even say.</p><p>Also, the "ideal" raid has not been and will never be one of each class.</p></blockquote><p>LoL, what Gage are you scared that you are going to lose your "second" ranger spot?  Just because something is not working that way now does not mean that things are working correctly.  It is not just irony that EQ2 was made with 24 classes and only 24 spots on raids.  Its amazing because some people just can't seem to think outside of thier little EQ2 box that is the current form of the game.  Hey, remember last expansion when hardly anybody used SKs on their rosters and just about every guild had a monk?  Or how about in T5 when basically everything was a tank and spank with one MT and no OT really needed?</p><p>Just because you don't want it to change to this Gage doesn't mean that it shouldn't be changed, nor does it mean that it won't.  That other ranger must be pretty good in the guild, since you seem worried about that extra spot leaving.</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>First off, what is displayed in the persona window and what you actually avoid against an epic encounter are very, very different things.  While a plate tank can easily get their persona window to SAY they have 78% avoidance, take a look at your avoidance reports and I think you'll find your actual avoidance is far, far lower than that against high-level mobs.  Uncontested avoidance is what matters for raids, and plate tanks can basically only raise that via food, drink, and adornments.</p><p>My own avoidance is about 92%, a little over 60% of which is probably uncontested--the reason my avoidance reports are so high is because a)I have extremely high avoidance, even for a monk and b)in the fights I parsed I'm in defensive stance and defensive gear.  If your monk is in offensive stance and is dpsing, his numbers will be far, far lower, since if that is the case he essentially has no more uncontested avoidance than a plate tank.  This is one of the serious issues with brawler desireability, since we can't both perform as utility to the maximum of our ability and dps.  </p></blockquote><p>I fully understand contested vs uncontested avoidance, and while I haven't tried to find your gear to inspect it, I HIGHLY doubt your remotely near 50% uncontested.  If you were, we'd be looking at brawler MT + Brawler Avoidance.  IE, 50% uncontested brawler avoidance + 18% shield ally + 12% PoS + 25% avoidance from 2nd brawler putting avoidance on 1st brawler == only strike thru damage.</p><p>I'll contend that my guard avoidance reports will match your brawler avoidance reports vs epics within 5% deviation.  Which was the point I was trying to make with why we'd just bring more plate over a brawler.</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>That will not and should not ever happen.  That is just silly to even say.</p><p>Also, the "ideal" raid has not been and will never be one of each class.</p></blockquote><p>Just because you don't want it to change to this Gage doesn't mean that it shouldn't be changed, nor does it mean that it won't.  That other ranger must be pretty good in the guild, since you seem worried about that extra spot leaving.</p></blockquote><p>Not only will it NOT be changed, I don't think it is even possible to make it true.</p><p>Because whatever is given to each class, players will find a way to better stack that than the person ballancing intended.  Simply put, the equation when taking in for all possible variables is far too complex to reach some magical harmony when one of each class is present.</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>First off, what is displayed in the persona window and what you actually avoid against an epic encounter are very, very different things.  While a plate tank can easily get their persona window to SAY they have 78% avoidance, take a look at your avoidance reports and I think you'll find your actual avoidance is far, far lower than that against high-level mobs.  Uncontested avoidance is what matters for raids, and plate tanks can basically only raise that via food, drink, and adornments.</p><p>My own avoidance is about 92%, a little over 60% of which is probably uncontested--the reason my avoidance reports are so high is because a)I have extremely high avoidance, even for a monk and b)in the fights I parsed I'm in defensive stance and defensive gear.  If your monk is in offensive stance and is dpsing, his numbers will be far, far lower, since if that is the case he essentially has no more uncontested avoidance than a plate tank.  This is one of the serious issues with brawler desireability, since we can't both perform as utility to the maximum of our ability and dps.  </p></blockquote><p>I fully understand contested vs uncontested avoidance, and while I haven't tried to find your gear to inspect it, I HIGHLY doubt your remotely near 50% uncontested.  If you were, we'd be looking at brawler MT + Brawler Avoidance.  IE, 50% uncontested brawler avoidance + 18% shield ally + 12% PoS + 25% avoidance from 2nd brawler putting avoidance on 1st brawler == only strike thru damage.</p><p>I'll contend that my guard avoidance reports will match your brawler avoidance reports vs epics within 5% deviation.  Which was the point I was trying to make with why we'd just bring more plate over a brawler.</p></blockquote><p>Thats not really how avoidance and avoidance checks work though.  But 50% uncontested is pretty easy to attain actually.</p><p>EDIT:</p><p>You can get 5 dodge from helm, 6 from Fist, 4.4 from food drink so 15.4% dodge. </p><p>You can get 6% riposte from set bp another 6% from 6 set bonus, 2% from neck so 14% riposte.</p><p>You can get 3% parry from 2 wrist items, 6% parry from 2 wrist adorns, 3% from cloak so 12% parry.</p><p>And then add in a fully AA'd defensive stance with lets say 55% deflection mod and mythical  for 41.8% min deflection with a proc from anashti ring that will bring you up to 48.6%</p><p>So as you can see 50% is not only possible it it relatively easy to attain.  Still doesn't matter though brawlers will still get squashed because avoidance doesn't mean jack all when mobs strike through everything and you don't have the mit to take the hits.</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I'll contend that my guard avoidance reports will match your brawler avoidance reports vs epics within 5% deviation. </p></blockquote><p>I seriously doubt it.</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I'll contend that my guard avoidance reports will match your brawler avoidance reports vs epics within 5% deviation. </p></blockquote><p>I seriously doubt it.</p></blockquote><p>I just checked last nights avoidance and I'm at 64% with roughly 14% comming from the templar.  Stoneskin only came in at 9% and its difficult to say how much was mine, temps, or dirges.</p><p>This was on switchmaster, so I'd be curious where a brawler avoidance report parses in on it. Like I said, I'll be surprised over a 5% deviation, so parse one at 70% and prove me wrong.</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I'll contend that my guard avoidance reports will match your brawler avoidance reports vs epics within 5% deviation. </p></blockquote><p>I seriously doubt it.</p></blockquote><p>I just checked last nights avoidance and I'm at 64% with roughly 14% comming from the templar.  Stoneskin only came in at 9% and its difficult to say how much was mine, temps, or dirges.</p><p>This was on switchmaster, so I'd be curious where a brawler avoidance report parses in on it. Like I said, I'll be surprised over a 5% deviation, so parse one at 70% and prove me wrong.</p></blockquote><p>Last time I tanked the adds on Umzok I was 73% with 9% stoneskin and 3% templar block.  I actually get overall less damage then our plate tanks if you spread it out over time, the problem is while the hardest hit on me was 18k the hardest one of our plate tanks might get hit on the same fight is probably 14k.  I die if its a double attack the plate tank doesn't that is the difference between plate and avoidance tanks, we clearly avoid a significant amount more however we just can't take the spike damage.</p>

[Megavolt]

<p><cite>Gilasil wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The question is:  What could be done to make six fighters optimum?</p></blockquote><p>That's just it, six fighters should NEVER be optimum because it stands outside the ratio in a normal group setup. Believe it or not the game was based around grouping and raiding is just a further expansion of this. Messing up the raid ratio vs. group ratio unbalances servers towards the raid ratios with people sitting around lfg for sometimes hours(and I'm not talking about the brawlers but that's seperate group issues in themselves). The same ratio for a basic group (1 fighter 1 healer 2 utility 2 dps) should be the same ratio for a raid (although TSO messed that up by requiring multiple healers for a normal group). 4 fighters 4 healers 8 utility 8 true dps should be what we should try to achieve in a normal raid... the TSO equivelant:4 fighters 8 healers 8 utility 4 true dps. That's why I wanted each archetype to be able to give something to the MT who himself could not give anything in return. . That would basically be 1 of each archetype plus the MT-4 total. With the surviveability buffs and outside taunts that MT should almost be interchangeable between the archetypes... simply being the "best" fighter in the raid.</p>

[Gaige]

<p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>LoL, what Gage are you scared that you are going to lose your "second" ranger spot?  Just because something is not working that way now does not mean that things are working correctly.  It is not just irony that EQ2 was made with 24 classes and only 24 spots on raids.  Its amazing because some people just can't seem to think outside of thier little EQ2 box that is the current form of the game.  Hey, remember last expansion when hardly anybody used SKs on their rosters and just about every guild had a monk?  Or how about in T5 when basically everything was a tank and spank with one MT and no OT really needed?</p><p>Just because you don't want it to change to this Gage doesn't mean that it shouldn't be changed, nor does it mean that it won't.  That other ranger must be pretty good in the guild, since you seem worried about that extra spot leaving.</p></blockquote><p>If they make a raid of all 24 classes or a raid with six fighters as viable and able to clear content as the ideal setup now, then they should do away with classes.</p><p>That is essentially what this would do.  There is no way that a raid with six fighters in it should be as good as a diverse raid with lots of dps/utility.</p><p>Its silly to even talk about it.</p>

[Bruener]

<p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>LoL, what Gage are you scared that you are going to lose your "second" ranger spot?  Just because something is not working that way now does not mean that things are working correctly.  It is not just irony that EQ2 was made with 24 classes and only 24 spots on raids.  Its amazing because some people just can't seem to think outside of thier little EQ2 box that is the current form of the game.  Hey, remember last expansion when hardly anybody used SKs on their rosters and just about every guild had a monk?  Or how about in T5 when basically everything was a tank and spank with one MT and no OT really needed?</p><p>Just because you don't want it to change to this Gage doesn't mean that it shouldn't be changed, nor does it mean that it won't.  That other ranger must be pretty good in the guild, since you seem worried about that extra spot leaving.</p></blockquote><p>If they make a raid of all 24 classes or a raid with six fighters as viable and able to clear content as the ideal setup now, then they should do away with classes.</p><p>That is essentially what this would do.  There is no way that a raid with six fighters in it should be as good as a diverse raid with lots of dps/utility.</p><p>Its silly to even talk about it.</p></blockquote><p>This is probably the most idiotic response I have seen.  So, let me get this straight...they should not have 6 fighters in raids as a viable way to clear content because it would cut down on the "diversity" that comes from having lots of dps/utility?  Do you know what the meaning of diversity is?  Raids right now are the more the opposite of diverse than they ever have been.  4 bards and 4 enchanters is not being diverse.  1 of each class is being diverse.</p><p>And just because 6 fighters would become nice to have on a raid...than they should get rid of all the other classes?  Why because instead of having more than 1 of certain classes instead they have 1 spot?  You know, a more unique spot than it is now?</p><p>Whats silly are your posts.  Just because you can't get out of the status quo.  You were probably one of the guys in RoK that said all single target mobs is how it is and how it is always going to be....you probably also said that if they actually had AE content that for some reason it would break the game.  Can we please get some thoughts into posts?</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>If they make a raid of all 24 classes or a raid with six fighters as viable and able to clear content as the ideal setup now, then they should do away with classes.</p><p>That is essentially what this would do.  There is no way that a raid with six fighters in it should be as good as a diverse raid with lots of dps/utility.</p><p>Its silly to even talk about it.</p></blockquote><p>Some people just don't get it man.</p><p>Needing 6 fighters in a raid is just silly.</p>

[Lleren]

<p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>In other words a raid force compliled of 24 differant class's ( imo what should be the optimal set up ) is able to do the exact same thing as a raid comprised of 1-2 tanks 8 healers 4 bards 4 Chanters 2 Scouts and 4-5 DPS.  I hope this makes things a little clearer for those who are looking at this and going [Removed for Content] is going on here lol.  </p></blockquote><p>That will not and should not ever happen.  That is just silly to even say.</p><p>Also, the "ideal" raid has not been and will never be one of each class.</p></blockquote><p>It would be moderately easy to make the ideal raid casual raid 1 of each class, it would be difficult to make the ideal serious raid one of each class.  It would be silly from the way the game has gone in the past, but quite possible.  The hard part is getting rid of two of any class that have more worthwhile buffs to cast then concentration slots  avaialable.</p><p>Note: Below is not a suggestion to be made so, merely an example of how  possible it is.   likely this would break current tier progression.</p><p>Make All Single and Group Buffs raidwide, same stacking rules.   Any Class without Signifiant Raidwides(by player estimation and useage in top tier guilds and/or high end herioc grouping) be modified until Thier usage goes up. </p>

[Couching]

<p><cite>tan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I just checked last nights avoidance and I'm at 64% with roughly 14% comming from the templar.  Stoneskin only came in at 9% and its difficult to say how much was mine, temps, or dirges.</p><p>This was on switchmaster, so I'd be curious where a brawler avoidance report parses in on it. Like I said, I'll be surprised over a 5% deviation, so parse one at 70% and prove me wrong.</p></blockquote><p>Your number of plate tank is about right. Avoidance of plate tanks is around 40%-45% in average and it is lower than brawlers.</p><p>My average avoidance on TSO raid mobs is about 50%-55% depending on targets. For example, I have about 51% avoidance on growth and 50% on war in the latest kill. On easier mobs such as gynok, penta, etc., my avoidance is about 55% in average. By the way, I am all the way for mitigation gear in my tank suit. Otherwise, I am sure 60% avoidance is possible for brawlers.</p>

[Gaige]

<p>Its both impossible and insane to make the ideal raid one of each class.</p><p>Impossible:  Guilds will always employ whatever classes they feel offer the most to the raid.  Unless every single class is totally interchangeable, some classes will be better than others, and those classes will get stacked.  Giving classes raidwide buffs and all that just opens up a different class to be overpowered and overused.  Get it down to 1 bard and 1 enchanter and raids will start bringing multiple shaman, or multiple sorcerors or multiple inquisitors.</p><p>Insane:  You would totally punish guilds by expecting them to field one of each class.  Its hard enough now to keep a roster capable of killing all the content in this game and it'd be impossible if guilds had to have one of every class on all the time.</p><p>My other commentary was to the posters saying current tier endgame content should be viable for a raid featuring six fighters.  NO.  No it shouldn't.  That is silly.  If any thrown together raid can be successful at endgame it makes classes pointless.  Why would people play scouts or mages if you could have a raid full of fighters and healers and beat everything?</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>By the way, I am all the way for mitigation gear in my tank suit. Otherwise, I am sure 60% avoidance is possible for brawlers.</p></blockquote><p>Of course it is.</p>

[Kimber]

<p>I find it funny that people will pull just parts of a full post to grip/whine about or say that it should not be and never will be and all this other stuff.  Try reading the whole post guys.  I say that while imo 1 of each class should be optimal I know that it is not and will not be also I say that 6 fighters imo should be optimal which would go with the 1 of each class I know that it is not.</p><p>I also say that imo I think that 4 fighters should be <span style="font-size: large; color: #ff0000;"><strong>VIABLE not optimal</strong> <span style="font-size: x-small; color: #ffffff;">can you read that part?  I really wish people would learn to read the whole post and not pick what they want to pay attention to.  I also say that it should be viable ( there is that word again I hope you can get it threw your heads ) not optimal ( there is that other phrase again can you see it ) for a raid of 24 differant class's to down the content.  As things stand now it is not viable to do it this way.  I see no reason not to make it a viable option not a you have to do it this way which is what we have now.  Yes some of the class's can be swapped out for others and things still be optimal T1 DPS is T1 DPS be it assassin or wiz they just do it differantly.</span></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;"> </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;">What I would like to see here though is a disscussion about how we can make it happen not a discussion/flame fest/whiner convention about why it should not happen.  I want to know what would be needed to make it viable not optimal ( there is that lil phrase again if you dont understand what it means by now please look it up the individual words at  <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/">http://dictionary.reference.com/</a> and figure it out please ) for 4 fighters to be able to get in a raid or 1 of each class for that matter but I would really prefer to stay with just the fighters as this is the fighters forum.  </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Thank you.</span></p>

[peepshow]

<p>IF they where to put 4 fighters in all raids, there would have to be some serious changes to the stances.. Make it so that a fighter in offensive stance can dish out loads of damage, but still but/protect what ever you wanted him to do..</p><p>What would keep the rl from taking an extra Assa or Briggy > the 4th fighter ? Now nothing, but that could perhaps be changed in the future..</p><p>I would be happy if they would just make it so you "need" 1 of each instead, and I'm pretty sure most of the people who wants 4 fighters are those who play the second Crusader/warrior in the forco atm <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>Stop being selfish, its not about winning or loosing spots now, its about getting the classes balanced to ensure there is no classes that are completely useless..</p><p>*Wonders if we have a Dev following this tread, and maybe get some ideas from it also*</p>

[Illine]

<p>If you want a viable diversity with tanking, you need to make some tanks equal.</p><p>right now SK  are the best. whether in AE aggro or solo aggro. monks are the worst.</p><p>so sure, RL will choose the best tank to fulfill the roles.</p><p>so there wouldn't be 6 fighters in a raid but you could more type of MT, OT and so on</p><p>but how do you make fighters equal? the thing about solo and AE tank is not great. every tank should be able to hold aggo on groups with any group setup and maybe some AA tweakings.</p><p>so having 6 tanks no !!  but having different set of tanks on different raid force would be great.</p>

[TheSpin]

<p>In another post in this part of the forums, I had a viable suggestion to increase the usefulness of fighters in raids.  Rather than thinking of fighters as 'tanks', I believe a slight shift should be made to think of fighters as group 'protectors' and group leaders.  Which is a responsibility most tanks have had to aquire in heroic content anyway.</p><p>What I mean by this, is giving the fighters the ability to help protect their group from aoe damage (which means future raid encounters would be given more aoe damage).  Also, in order to reduce the need for chanters and bards, fighters should be given a way to act as a utility class.  I think that adding utility to offensive stances, or adding a utility centric 3rd stance would be the best way to accomplish this.  A lot of class flavor could be added into this type of stance.  There could finally be a more meaningful difference between monks and bruisers for example.  I envision monks using their arts in tranquility to help restore power, while bruisers would perhaps become the preferred sidekick to the main tank by increasing both his surviveability and hate gain.</p><p>I don't really expect many players to like my ideas because it would require an actual change to the way raids are setup and how they work.  I think too many players may be too set in their ways to consider these types of options, but if you try not to think about everything you already know about raiding in EQ2 and look at it from a fresh viewpoint, I think it would really liven the game up.</p>

[Quicksilver74]

<p>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p><strong>Patch Notes 4-1-10</strong></p><p><strong>Fighters </strong>- Having 6 Fighters in a raid will now allow then to form "Ultra Mega Tank-o-Tron"</p><p>Bruiser and Monk will be the arms, crusaders will be the legs, Berserker will be the body, and Guardian will form... the head.  The head will have overall control of ultra Mega Tank-o-Tron, while each other fighter will have certain abilities that they can perform.  One arm will be dedicated to offensive attacks, while the other arm is dedicated to defensive blocks and deflections.  Each leg will have damaging Kick style abilities, as well as temporary abilities improving movement, and haste.  the body will have the core of the defensive abilities, as well as controlling the main temporary ability of Ultra Mega Tank-o-Tron, Adrenaline Explosion! </p><p>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p>lol jk.   Seriously though i'd like them to make 2 - 3 of the fighter classes simply "backup" tanks, who are slightly more proficient at other areas, such as DPS and utility.  Still useful to a raid, and maintaining the capacity to tank if necessary. </p>

[CHIMPNOODLE.]

<p><cite>Crabbok@The Bazaar wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p><strong>Patch Notes 4-1-10</strong></p><p><strong>Fighters </strong>- Having 6 Fighters in a raid will now allow then to form "Ultra Mega Tank-o-Tron"</p><p>Bruiser and Monk will be the arms, crusaders will be the legs, Berserker will be the body, and Guardian will form... the head.  The head will have overall control of ultra Mega Tank-o-Tron, while each other fighter will have certain abilities that they can perform.  One arm will be dedicated to offensive attacks, while the other arm is dedicated to defensive blocks and deflections.  Each leg will have damaging Kick style abilities, as well as temporary abilities improving movement, and haste.  the body will have the core of the defensive abilities, as well as controlling the main temporary ability of Ultra Mega Tank-o-Tron, Adrenaline Explosion! </p><p>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p></blockquote><p>LoL. That's a classic <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

[Farore]

<p><cite>Brickfist wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Gilasil wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The question is:  What could be done to make six fighters optimum?</p></blockquote><p>That's just it, six fighters should NEVER be optimum because it stands outside the ratio in a normal group setup. Believe it or not the game was based around grouping and raiding is just a further expansion of this. Messing up the raid ratio vs. group ratio unbalances servers towards the raid ratios with people sitting around lfg for sometimes hours(and I'm not talking about the brawlers but that's seperate group issues in themselves). The same ratio for a basic group (1 fighter 1 healer 2 utility 2 dps) should be the same ratio for a raid (although TSO messed that up by requiring multiple healers for a normal group). 4 fighters 4 healers 8 utility 8 true dps should be what we should try to achieve in a normal raid... the TSO equivelant:4 fighters 8 healers 8 utility 4 true dps. That's why I wanted each archetype to be able to give something to the MT who himself could not give anything in return. . That would basically be 1 of each archetype plus the MT-4 total. With the surviveability buffs and outside taunts that MT should almost be interchangeable between the archetypes... simply being the "best" fighter in the raid.</p></blockquote><p>The basic fact that a single grp needs needs 2 utility(and a raid needing 8 is the biggest problem as it is. Not saying you're wrong, you are absolutely correct, bard enchanter for a grp is supremely effecient, that is the problem here. 4 of the 24 classes make up utility, which is 1/6 of the total classes, and 8/24 raiders makes 1/3 of the raid. WHY should 1/6 of the eq2 classes form 1/3 of a raid. DPS, aka Rogues(yes they do have debuffs), soercerors, summoners, predators, together make 1/3 of the classes, and only 4 spots for them? this means that 1/3 of the classes has to fit in a 1/6 portion of the raid. The rolls have been flipped due to the overpowerd support. The same exact concept has happend to fighters, making up 1/4 of the total classes but(assume 4 fighters in a raid) they only account to 1/6 of the raid, meaning that all the cut classes are filled with support and a couple more healers....blame soe for this, healers and support play too big of a role to be able to afford bringing 6 fighters, 6 scouts, 6 healers, and 6 mages....</p>

[steelbadger]

<p>I would contend first of all that a 6-tank raid is viable for most stuff as it is, it lowers your dps some but you don't get laughed out of the zone by mobs.</p><p>Though I think you wanted to be more specific and what you actually want is for 6 tanks to be viable for a min-maxed raid; to be as DPS efficient as the current utility stacked raids.  Giving tanks additional defensive abilities is a pointless exercise as raids already have the ability to survive against any raid mob with only 2 or 3 tanks, raids will not add additional survivability when they have no problem with dying.  Either you die or you don't.  If you're not dying extra survivability is useless.  You can of course make mobs hit harder but then the 6 tank setup ceases to be a "viable option" and becomes a <em>required</em> setup to kill the newly buffed mobs.  <em>Requiring</em> 6 tanks (and, if we follow the line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion, 1 of each of the 24 classes) in a raid will kill most guilds, raids have to be flexible enough in build that they can take account of human failings like being ill, working late or going to parties during a raid night.</p><p>So, how about making fighters more raid dps efficient?  Giving them large raid wide buffs that do not stack with themselves is the only way to ensure that tanks do not start geting stacked in raids similar to the true utility classes are now.  A few problems:  They cannot infringe upon utility class buffs, or those utility classes will be be dropped for more dps.  They cannot buff things already commonly capped (INT, haste, DPS, STR, Crits) and they also need to be large enough to encourage the use of a tank instead of a dps class.  I would suggest that all those requirements make it nigh impossible to implement and SOE cannot afford to implement it and get it wrong as they would run into the "Oh no our Paladin is sick and can't turn up, oh well raid off for tonight as there's no way we can kill the mob with only 5 tanks" syndrome.</p><p>Sorry chaps, it can't work.</p>

[Kigneer]

<p><cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I have an idea  that would work for the Plate fighters.  Basicly every Plate fighter would get a new buff that would allow the MT for the raid to pull mitigation or dispurse damage to all the other tanks that have a shield equiped ( this would be a requirment for it to work ) so long as they are with in X meters of the MT.  It could be a proc that does this when the MT is below 50% health or proc if the MT gets hit for more than 50% of health whatever the case may be.  Now I would like to say that this would only work with 1 Guard 1 Zerk 1 Pally and 1 SK so that one of each would be needed to make it work, but how many Zerks are going to carry a board for the raid if they are not MT I know I wont I will be OT DW so that my DPS is better for the raid and have my board in my HB just incase I need to pull it out and MT.  So I would say you would need at least 3 other Plate fighters in the Raid with shields up for it to work and if it happens to be multipale of the same class like 1 SK and 2 Pally or 1 Guard 2 Pally or 1 Guard 2 SK whatever the combo then it will work but the minimum of 3 would need to apply imo.</p></blockquote><p>I've been running with a group that consists of 2 Pallies (he's MT, and I'm OT as he's specced for the MT role and I AoE/Mob control/Support). There's a Monk, an Illy and a Fury who dual modes (has gear for healing or dps depending on instance). Time or time a Wizzy; a Necro; a Warden or even a Conji joins us.</p><p>We make it work, no matter how many folks scream you can't do XYZ with such a group. Be it DF, or some other area. Why? Because we -- like raiders do 3x a week -- learn how to work together.</p><p>The biggest obstacle in groups/raids is this mindset every instance is Epicx4. They want a picture perfect group, and especially of like minded folks (usually that means a cussing and put down session is the norm in chat -- v-e-r-y negative energy when trying to achieve a positive goal). If they can't get it they don't even bother to try with what they have.</p><p>A guy who raids was with us in DF and while we wiped the 3rd time (being new to the instance anyway), he kept saying we can't do it with this group. Got a Templar to solo heal the Pally MT, and sure enough, surprised that raider that even the most new and imperfect can accomplish a goal...<em><strong>if they try</strong></em>.</p><p>This is why I like threads like this that is trying to be more inclusive than exclusive. A lot of times you only have what's online to play, and that maybe even 6 tanks. Each tank class has it's knack to bring to the fight, some have dps; some compensate with heals; some are AoE kings. But in my view from experience, if you get folks who know their class well and can compensate on the fly to different situations, you can make the impossible possible. It just takes patience (not a whine session).</p><p>Personally, EQ2 shouldn't be geared to classes but abilities. If XYZ tank has ABC ability that DEF group needs at the moment to compensate for the group mix, then make the call. Notice from time to time more calls for utility tanks in groups, which is a good sign, especially when healers are in short supply (probably burned out from all the shard runs). Changing the mechanics would be a pipe dream (to let each tank in the group add to the MT's mitigation, for example, instead of just relying on dps burns to clear zones). Tanks have 2 modes, defensive and offensive, if everyone is offensive why the heck is defensive tanking even there anymore? Let us use both modes for different instances, and let 2 or 3 tanks in a group add to the MT in a way more than being a meat wall to hold the mob (mezzers can even do that themselves).</p>

[Kimber]

<p>I see what you are saying there steel and you are right about not being laughed out of the zone by the mobs  as you can drop them even going fighter heavy but you will die more the more fighters in the raid.  A few of the mobs in th raid zones require x amount of DPS for x amount of time so that they will not AO and wipe the raid or you need to interupt it at just the right time and all this other stuff.  What I am trying to get at by adding some survivability if you take more fighters by allowing them to buff MT mitigation, dispurse MT damage and buff MT avoidance in the raid so that these things become survivable ( not always but possable to live threw it ) yes it would take longer to down the mob and clear the zone but it would be possable.  While IMO it should be optimal not required I know that it will not be optimal and to an extent agree that it should not be.  Yet I see no reason why it should not be vialble ( cause if it was you would see guilds do it more tbh to gear thier people out instead of zoneing peeps in for just the fights they need for updates )</p><p>As for infringeing on Utility class's spots well tbh imo Bard buffs should be raid wide.  I do not see a reason why they should not be really.  This would be a start to balancing the class's pve wise imo.  As if you can get the fighters and the bards fixed to the point where you only need 2 bards in the raid and 2 more fighters become a viable option to take in those spots we are that much closer to haveing balance as either or will work.  Yes there would be allot more to do but it would be a start imo.</p>

[Kigneer]

<p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>There is no way that a raid with six fighters in it should be as good as a diverse raid with lots of dps/utility.</p><p>Its silly to even talk about it.</p></blockquote><p>It's even sillier to forget there are <strong><em>utility tanks</em></strong>, and Paladins are one.</p><p>Personally, since there's 4 main groups of classes it should be 6-6-6-6 make up on raids anyway. This opens the door for many more people to participate in raids, than sitting on the sidelines.</p><p>Why have so many classes when only 1 or 2 of each main group is even used in raids in the first place? The very basics of game mechanics is screwed up in EQ2 when the ability to create a class falls short of the ability to even use it 79 levels later.</p>

[circusgirl]

<p>My plan for creating a situation in which min/max guilds will want to take at least 1 warrior, 1 crusader, 1 brawler:</p><p>Goal: Make the three classes of tank (warrior, brawler, crusader) all <em>viable</em> tanks while maintaining the uniqueness and differentness of those 3 classes in such a way that encourages min/maxing top-end guilds to bring one of each on raids.</p><p>Step 1: open space up on raids by reducing the # of slots alotted to support</p><p><ul><li>Make bard/enchanter's groupwide buffs raidwide--this cuts the value of piling on extra support classes and opens up slots</li></ul><div>Step 2: increase the utility of non-tanking fighters on raids without encouraging multiples of the same type</div><div><ul><li>Fold the plate tank's group buffs into their raidwides, buff the bruiser's raidwide slightly, denerf the monk's raidwide to pre-TSO levels</li><li>Remove the Avoidance lend buffs from Warriors and Crusadors</li><li>Give Warriors a new single-target buff that can be placed on anyone in raid that gives them a 50% chance to use the warriors mitigation instead of the target's when target is hit. (basically, replacement for the avoidance buff</li><li>Give Crusaders a new single-target buff that gives the target a 10% chance to stoneskin an attack with a melee weapon</li><li>Make the brawler's avoidance lend, warrior's mit lend, and crusador stoneskin buff all stackable</li></ul><div>Step 3: Differentiate fighter-types further by creating select immunities to certain control effects</div><div><ul><li>Remove Crane flock from brawler wis line, (upping crane whirl to AE autoattack like other fighters have) and replace it with immunity to stun</li><li>Replace one of the warrior endline AAs with immunity to knockback or stifle</li></ul><div>Step 4: Adjust content so that the best MT varies based upon the fight.</div><div><ul><li>Crusader MT example: Raid boss A carries the following buff: every melee hit on a target has a 100% chance to proc a 30 second Fear.  If you send anything but a crusader against him your tank will spend the entire fight feared and therefore useless</li><li>Brawler MT example: Raid boss B doesn't hit very hard on his own, but carries the following buff: every successful melee hit on a target has a 10% chance to cast a curse on target that drops mitigation to 0 (not by a flat # or %, but all the way to 0).  Avoidance tanking is far superior for this fight.</li><li>Brawler MT example 2: Raid boss A carries the following buff: every melee hit on a target has a 100% chance to proc a 30 second Stun.  Only a monk specced for the stun immunity described in step 3 can tank this mob</li><li>Warrior example 1: Mob hits really hard. (current method, lol)</li><li>Warrior example 2: Raid boss C carries the following buff: every melee hit on a target has a 100% chance to proc a 30 second Stifle.  Only a warrior specced for the stifle immunity described in step 3 can tank this mob.  Congratz--you now have a system that makes a raid leader <em>really</em> want to have a solid warrior, brawler, and crusader.  Make those mob buffs fairly common and  you avoid the pulling in of alts for individual fights.</li></ul></div></div></div></p>

[Gaige]

<p><cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>As for infringeing on Utility class's spots well tbh imo Bard buffs should be raid wide.  I do not see a reason why they should not be really.  This would be a start to balancing the class's pve wise imo.  As if you can get the fighters and the bards fixed to the point where you only need 2 bards in the raid and 2 more fighters become a viable option to take in those spots we are that much closer to haveing balance as either or will work.  Yes there would be allot more to do but it would be a start imo.</p></blockquote><p>If raids only needed 2 bards then they'd take more enchanters, or more healers, or more DPS.  Not more fighters.  More than 3 fighters is useless.</p>

[Gaige]

<p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Step 4: Adjust content so that the best MT varies based upon the fight.</p><div><div><div><ul><li>Crusader MT example: Raid boss A carries the following buff: every melee hit on a target has a 100% chance to proc a 30 second Fear.  If you send anything but a crusader against him your tank will spend the entire fight feared and therefore useless</li><li>Brawler MT example: Raid boss B doesn't hit very hard on his own, but carries the following buff: every successful melee hit on a target has a 10% chance to cast a curse on target that drops mitigation to 0 (not by a flat # or %, but all the way to 0).  Avoidance tanking is far superior for this fight.</li><li>Brawler MT example 2: Raid boss A carries the following buff: every melee hit on a target has a 100% chance to proc a 30 second Stun.  Only a monk specced for the stun immunity described in step 3 can tank this mob</li><li>Warrior example 1: Mob hits really hard. (current method, lol)</li><li>Warrior example 2: Raid boss C carries the following buff: every melee hit on a target has a 100% chance to proc a 30 second Stifle.  Only a warrior specced for the stifle immunity described in step 3 can tank this mob.  Congratz--you now have a system that makes a raid leader <em>really</em> want to have a solid warrior, brawler, and crusader.  Make those mob buffs fairly common and  you avoid the pulling in of alts for individual fights.</li></ul></div></div></div></blockquote><p>Congrats, now you have a system that punishes guilds if their warrior is offline the night Raid boss C is unlocked. Congrats, now you have a system that punishes guilds if their crusader is offline the night Raid boss A is up.</p><p>Congrats, now you have a system that punishes guilds due to turnover.  If their warrior quits they can just scratch off instance C until they recruit and gear up another one.</p><p>Great idea.</p>

[peepshow]

<p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>My plan for creating a situation in which min/max guilds will want to take at least 1 warrior, 1 crusader, 1 brawler:</p><p>Goal: Make the three classes of tank (warrior, brawler, crusader) all <em>viable</em> tanks while maintaining the uniqueness and differentness of those 3 classes in such a way that encourages min/maxing top-end guilds to bring one of each on raids.</p><p>Step 1: open space up on raids by reducing the # of slots alotted to support</p><ul><li>Make bard/enchanter's groupwide buffs raidwide--this cuts the value of piling on extra support classes and opens up slots</li></ul><div>Step 2: increase the utility of non-tanking fighters on raids without encouraging multiples of the same type</div><div><ul><li>Fold the plate tank's group buffs into their raidwides, buff the bruiser's raidwide slightly, denerf the monk's raidwide to pre-TSO levels</li><li>Remove the Avoidance lend buffs from Warriors and Crusadors</li><li>Give Warriors a new single-target buff that can be placed on anyone in raid that gives them a 50% chance to use the warriors mitigation instead of the target's when target is hit. (basically, replacement for the avoidance buff</li><li>Give Crusaders a new single-target buff that gives the target a 10% chance to stoneskin an attack with a melee weapon</li><li>Make the brawler's avoidance lend, warrior's mit lend, and crusador stoneskin buff all stackable</li></ul><div>Step 3: Differentiate fighter-types further by creating select immunities to certain control effects</div><div><ul><li>Remove Crane flock from brawler wis line, (upping crane whirl to AE autoattack like other fighters have) and replace it with immunity to stun</li><li>Replace one of the warrior endline AAs with immunity to knockback or stifle</li></ul><div>Step 4: Adjust content so that the best MT varies based upon the fight.</div><div><ul><li>Crusader MT example: Raid boss A carries the following buff: every melee hit on a target has a 100% chance to proc a 30 second Fear.  If you send anything but a crusader against him your tank will spend the entire fight feared and therefore useless</li><li>Brawler MT example: Raid boss B doesn't hit very hard on his own, but carries the following buff: every successful melee hit on a target has a 10% chance to cast a curse on target that drops mitigation to 0 (not by a flat # or %, but all the way to 0).  Avoidance tanking is far superior for this fight.</li><li>Brawler MT example 2: Raid boss A carries the following buff: every melee hit on a target has a 100% chance to proc a 30 second Stun.  Only a monk specced for the stun immunity described in step 3 can tank this mob</li><li>Warrior example 1: Mob hits really hard. (current method, lol)</li><li>Warrior example 2: Raid boss C carries the following buff: every melee hit on a target has a 100% chance to proc a 30 second Stifle.  Only a warrior specced for the stifle immunity described in step 3 can tank this mob.  Congratz--you now have a system that makes a raid leader <em>really</em> want to have a solid warrior, brawler, and crusader.  Make those mob buffs fairly common and  you avoid the pulling in of alts for individual fights.</li></ul></div></div></div></blockquote><p>I like this idea very much indeed.. would be nice to see, if not exactly, then something close to this for sure..</p><p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><p><span ><p>Congrats, now you have a system that punishes guilds if their warrior is offline the night Raid boss C is unlocked. Congrats, now you have a system that punishes guilds if their crusader is offline the night Raid boss A is up.</p><p>Congrats, now you have a system that punishes guilds due to turnover.  If their warrior quits they can just scratch off instance C until they recruit and gear up another one.</p><p>Great idea.</p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p>Hater <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Already now the guild is punished if the MT is not online, or if the OT is not there..</p><p>That's why many guilds always require higher raid attendance from their fighters than from the other chars.</p><p>Its SO easy to replace a dps, but a guild can not have room for more than 1 MT..</p></span></p>

[Megavolt]

<p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>My plan for creating a situation in which min/max guilds will want to take at least 1 warrior, 1 crusader, 1 brawler:</p><p>Goal: Make the three classes of tank (warrior, brawler, crusader) all <em>viable</em> tanks while maintaining the uniqueness and differentness of those 3 classes in such a way that encourages min/maxing top-end guilds to bring one of each on raids.</p><p>Step 1: open space up on raids by reducing the # of slots alotted to support</p><ul><li>Make bard/enchanter's groupwide buffs raidwide--this cuts the value of piling on extra support classes and opens up slots</li></ul><div>Step 2: increase the utility of non-tanking fighters on raids without encouraging multiples of the same type</div><div><ul><li>Fold the plate tank's group buffs into their raidwides, buff the bruiser's raidwide slightly, denerf the monk's raidwide to pre-TSO levels</li><li>Remove the Avoidance lend buffs from Warriors and Crusadors</li><li>Give Warriors a new single-target buff that can be placed on anyone in raid that gives them a 50% chance to use the warriors mitigation instead of the target's when target is hit. (basically, replacement for the avoidance buff</li><li>Give Crusaders a new single-target buff that gives the target a 10% chance to stoneskin an attack with a melee weapon</li><li>Make the brawler's avoidance lend, warrior's mit lend, and crusador stoneskin buff all stackable</li></ul><div>Step 3: Differentiate fighter-types further by creating select immunities to certain control effects</div><div><ul><li>Remove Crane flock from brawler wis line, (upping crane whirl to AE autoattack like other fighters have) and replace it with immunity to stun</li><li>Replace one of the warrior endline AAs with immunity to knockback or stifle</li></ul><div>Step 4: Adjust content so that the best MT varies based upon the fight.</div><div><ul><li>Crusader MT example: Raid boss A carries the following buff: every melee hit on a target has a 100% chance to proc a 30 second Fear.  If you send anything but a crusader against him your tank will spend the entire fight feared and therefore useless</li><li>Brawler MT example: Raid boss B doesn't hit very hard on his own, but carries the following buff: every successful melee hit on a target has a 10% chance to cast a curse on target that drops mitigation to 0 (not by a flat # or %, but all the way to 0).  Avoidance tanking is far superior for this fight.</li><li>Brawler MT example 2: Raid boss A carries the following buff: every melee hit on a target has a 100% chance to proc a 30 second Stun.  Only a monk specced for the stun immunity described in step 3 can tank this mob</li><li>Warrior example 1: Mob hits really hard. (current method, lol)</li><li>Warrior example 2: Raid boss C carries the following buff: every melee hit on a target has a 100% chance to proc a 30 second Stifle.  Only a warrior specced for the stifle immunity described in step 3 can tank this mob.  Congratz--you now have a system that makes a raid leader <em>really</em> want to have a solid warrior, brawler, and crusader.  Make those mob buffs fairly common and  you avoid the pulling in of alts for individual fights.</li></ul></div></div></div></blockquote><p>An addition to step 2 that I would like to see is make the avoidance/mit/stoneskin lends raidwide. Alotta raid mobs lately have been given big aoe melee swings/trauma aoes that something like the lends would be very useful in overall surviveability of the raid. It would basically function as giving fighters physical resistance buffs to back up other classes magical resistance buffs. Keeping the hate transfer aa's on them will also work as a sorta "hate syphon" within the raid also, effectively taking a percentage of the raids hate and pushing it at the other fighters. The addition of a BIG targeted hate transfer dump... not a deagro but a ca that would take hate from the caster and dump it onto the target, would help direct this big funnel of hate at the MT.</p><p>Only problem with step 4 I see is the control effect imunities we already have in game. Dumping an extra templar in the MT group and cycling j-cap basically negates that whole strat. Having something similar to the sisters in SoH but lasting on a single subclass the entire fight from start to finish would help in keeping solid brawler/crusader/warrior that is ready to tank a higher end raid mob in the guild, basically making an entire zone setup like a "Trials" type thing where every mob randomly picks what type of fighter he wants to tank.  It would keep it from being alted, or if an alt one that would truly have to know his class.</p><p>An example: a non-fighter hails a non-active raid boss, the raid boss replies "I will only deal with a (brawler/crusader/warrior) weakling. Leave my sight." The selected type hails the mob and starts a scipt, activating the mob and getting initial agro. He is also the only fighter that can get on the mobs hate list the entire fight. The reason a non-fighter hails first is to keep from accidentallly triggering the mob by having the random type he wants be the fist to hail.</p><p>This effectively lets the raid pick among that type for their strongest tank, arrange the groups to where this person is set up to MT, get prepared, and engages when ready. And I'm not talking just a single encounter like the sisters, but almost the entire zone.</p>

[Gaige]

<p><cite>Scipius@Splitpaw wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Hater <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></p><p>Already now the guild is punished if the MT is not online, or if the OT is not there..</p><p>That's why many guilds always require higher raid attendance from their fighters than from the other chars.</p><p>Its SO easy to replace a dps, but a guild can not have room for more than 1 MT..</p></blockquote><p>We still do content even if our MT or OT is offline, and we've done content with both of them offline and our only zerker on.</p><p>That is because raid mobs now do not have stupid scripts that make them possible for only some classes.</p>

[Gaige]

<p><cite>Brickfist wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>basically making an entire zone setup like a "Trials" type thing where every mob randomly picks what type of fighter he wants to tank.  It would keep it from being alted, or if an alt one that would truly have to know his class.</p><p>An example: a non-fighter hails a non-active raid boss, the raid boss replies "I will only deal with a (brawler/crusader/warrior) weakling. Leave my sight." The selected type hails the mob and starts a scipt, activating the mob and getting initial agro. He is also the only fighter that can get on the mobs hate list the entire fight. The reason a non-fighter hails first is to keep from accidentallly triggering the mob by having the random type he wants be the fist to hail.</p><p>This effectively lets the raid pick among that type for their strongest tank, arrange the groups to where this person is set up to MT, get prepared, and engages when ready. And I'm not talking just a single encounter like the sisters, but almost the entire zone.</p></blockquote><p>That idea is even WORSE.  Forcing guilds to have their warrior/brawler/crusader on for every single zone?  Never fear though since with persistant instances raids would just zone in and out until they got the warrior option then use their guardian MT like normal.</p>

[circusgirl]

<p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Step 4: Adjust content so that the best MT varies based upon the fight.</p><div><div><div><ul><li>Crusader MT example: Raid boss A carries the following buff: every melee hit on a target has a 100% chance to proc a 30 second Fear.  If you send anything but a crusader against him your tank will spend the entire fight feared and therefore useless</li><li>Brawler MT example: Raid boss B doesn't hit very hard on his own, but carries the following buff: every successful melee hit on a target has a 10% chance to cast a curse on target that drops mitigation to 0 (not by a flat # or %, but all the way to 0).  Avoidance tanking is far superior for this fight.</li><li>Brawler MT example 2: Raid boss A carries the following buff: every melee hit on a target has a 100% chance to proc a 30 second Stun.  Only a monk specced for the stun immunity described in step 3 can tank this mob</li><li>Warrior example 1: Mob hits really hard. (current method, lol)</li><li>Warrior example 2: Raid boss C carries the following buff: every melee hit on a target has a 100% chance to proc a 30 second Stifle.  Only a warrior specced for the stifle immunity described in step 3 can tank this mob.  Congratz--you now have a system that makes a raid leader <em>really</em> want to have a solid warrior, brawler, and crusader.  Make those mob buffs fairly common and  you avoid the pulling in of alts for individual fights.</li></ul></div></div></div></blockquote><p>Congrats, now you have a system that punishes guilds if their warrior is offline the night Raid boss C is unlocked. Congrats, now you have a system that punishes guilds if their crusader is offline the night Raid boss A is up.</p><p>Congrats, now you have a system that punishes guilds due to turnover.  If their warrior quits they can just scratch off instance C until they recruit and gear up another one.</p><p>Great idea.</p></blockquote><p>Hypothetical situation.  You  ToMC timer unlocks on monday, you go through the zone, and right after Xebnok your MT has to split due to a family emergency and none of your other tanks are solid enough to take Gynok down.  Is this the end of the world?</p><p>No...you go clear Palace with your offtank and the next day when you have the people you need you go back and take down Gynok.  HARDLY punishes a guild for their  crusader/brawler not logging in on one night.  It's only a punishment if they don't have a brawler/crusader in the raid force period.</p>

[Gaige]

<p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>It's only a punishment if they don't have a brawler/crusader in the raid force period.</p></blockquote><p>So what happens when you have player turnover?</p>

[Lleren]

<p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>It's only a punishment if they don't have a brawler/crusader in the raid force period.</p></blockquote><p>So what happens when you have player turnover?</p></blockquote><p>Same thing that always happens , you replace them, either out of your guilds alts or someone new.</p>

[Gaige]

<p><cite>Noih@Kithicor wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Same thing that always happens , you replace them, either out of your guilds alts or someone new.</p></blockquote><p>Except, until you replace them, there will be certain zones/mobs you aren't killing?</p>

[Lleren]

<p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Noih@Kithicor wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Same thing that always happens , you replace them, either out of your guilds alts or someone new.</p></blockquote><p>Except, until you replace them, there will be certain zones/mobs you aren't killing?</p></blockquote><p>Situation normal, can happen to any raidforce losing a key member.</p>

[Gaige]

<p><cite>Noih@Kithicor wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Situation normal, can happen to any raidforce losing a key member.</p></blockquote><p>I can't remember a mob that we were unable to kill due to having one player leave guild.  However if certain mobs 100% required a brawler to tank them and your brawler quit and it took a few weeks to recruit another one you certainly wouldn't be able to kill that particular mob.</p>

[Lleren]

<p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Noih@Kithicor wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Situation normal, can happen to any raidforce losing a key member.</p></blockquote><p>I can't remember a mob that we were unable to kill due to having one player leave guild.  However if certain mobs 100% required a brawler to tank them and your brawler quit and it took a few weeks to recruit another one you certainly wouldn't be able to kill that particular mob.</p></blockquote><p>This thread is about getting more fighters in a raidforce, preferably all 6.  If the sort of changes being discussed where implemented, it would be quite silly not to use all 6 to limit the chances of this situation happening.</p><p>More purpose for the "spare" Fighters in the raid then they have in the current implementaion would also be nessesary.</p>

[TheSpin]

<p>In this thread, almost everyone talks about how encounters should be designed in order to force more fighters into the raid.  SoE has been trying to do this to some degree for a long time now, and people just adjust their tactics and figure something else out.</p><p>I think that changes to the classes themselves to make them more useful to the raidforce would be a better solution than adjusting encounters.</p>

[Bruener]

<p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>As for infringeing on Utility class's spots well tbh imo Bard buffs should be raid wide.  I do not see a reason why they should not be really.  This would be a start to balancing the class's pve wise imo.  As if you can get the fighters and the bards fixed to the point where you only need 2 bards in the raid and 2 more fighters become a viable option to take in those spots we are that much closer to haveing balance as either or will work.  Yes there would be allot more to do but it would be a start imo.</p></blockquote><p>If raids only needed 2 bards then they'd take more enchanters, or more healers, or more DPS.  Not more fighters.  More than 3 fighters is useless.</p></blockquote><p>Oh if only people could take off the blinders.  The FIRST step would be making bard and enchanter buffs raid wide.  The fact that 4-5 slots in a raid are for bards and 4 slots are for enchanters is WRONG.  1/3 of the raid made up of 2 archetypes is back asswards (although once again I am sure that you will make up some lame excuse "just because that is the way it is").  Suddenly with their buffs being raidwide you open up 4-5 slots.</p><p>The next step is figuring out what can be done to make sure those spots are filled with the classes that are currently "lacking" in raids.  That means more fighters and summoners.  It means you have to make sure that it is worth bringing them over another rogue, or another t1 dps, or another healer.  So, simple man...the point of this whole thread...is the question what can be done to make sure that happens?  I know it is probably tough for you, but try and use that imagination a little and if you were a developer and your boss just came to you and said, "hey, I want you to make it so that in an ideal raid we are using 6 healers, 6 fighters, 6 scouts, and 6 mages.  Do it and you get a bonus, if you can't than you are fired and I will find somebody that can."  So what would you do?</p><p>If it was me, after changes were done so that utility did not stack as well as it does now, I would make sure that bringing fighters both increased survivability and the dps of raids.  Fighters should be the commanders on the battle fields as such they should be able to buff their comrades.  Some should be able to buff them for more dps and some should be able to buff them for survivability.  Fighters should also manipulate the hate in raids...to ensure that it is focused where it needs to be.  Hate should be the sole realm of fighters and stripped from the classes that currently hold some of that utility.  Hate buffs, debuffs, transfers, etc should all be done by the different fighters.  Survivability wise fighters could have various tools at thier disposal.  Tools like stoneskins, AE immunities, damage soaking, lifetaps, wards, avoidance check buffs, mitigation check buffs, crit mit increasers, crit mit check buffs, resistance buffs, +defense skills, +parry skills, etc.</p><p>So, the way to approach this thread is to think of it as if you were a developer and you were given the responsibility to make it so 6 fighters were wanted on an optimum raid set-up.  No more than 6 though.</p>

[Megavolt]

<p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Brickfist wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>basically making an entire zone setup like a "Trials" type thing where every mob randomly picks what type of fighter he wants to tank.  It would keep it from being alted, or if an alt one that would truly have to know his class.</p><p>An example: a non-fighter hails a non-active raid boss, the raid boss replies "I will only deal with a (brawler/crusader/warrior) weakling. Leave my sight." The selected type hails the mob and starts a scipt, activating the mob and getting initial agro. He is also the only fighter that can get on the mobs hate list the entire fight. The reason a non-fighter hails first is to keep from accidentallly triggering the mob by having the random type he wants be the fist to hail.</p><p>This effectively lets the raid pick among that type for their strongest tank, arrange the groups to where this person is set up to MT, get prepared, and engages when ready. And I'm not talking just a single encounter like the sisters, but almost the entire zone.</p></blockquote><p>That idea is even WORSE.  Forcing guilds to have their warrior/brawler/crusader on for every single zone?  Never fear though since with persistant instances raids would just zone in and out until they got the warrior option then use their guardian MT like normal.</p></blockquote><p>No, just a single zone. And not a lock for the entire zone to that type, but each mob randomly locking to a different type. But that was just an idea that was thrown out there as a posibility vs the stun/fear/stifle  type thing which  is already beatable with what we have available in the game, ala Drushhk tactics. Zoning in and out until you got the warrior option would only help on the first mob, not the mobs following it, so yes having a warrior/brawler/crusader on to handle that zone would be a requirement, like having 8 healers and 8 power regen classes is pretty much a requirement for the zones we have now.</p>

[Gaige]

<p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>It means you have to make sure that it is worth bringing them over another rogue, or another t1 dps, or another healer. </p></blockquote><p>It is never worth bringing a fighter over another rogue, another T1 dps or another healer.  Never.  Ever.  Never.  IF they make changes to FORCE guilds to bring more fighters all it does is switch fighters with bards/enchanters because fighters would have to be AMAZING for a raid to use more than 3 of them.  If they were that amazing they'd be used over those classes, but then they'd be so overpowered and overvalued they'd be the new bard/enchanter.  So nothing changes except the name of the rl person getting into the raid.</p>

[Gaige]

<p><cite>Brickfist wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>like having 8 healers and 8 power regen classes is pretty much a requirement for the zones we have now.</p></blockquote><p>No current zones require 8 healers and 8 power regen classes.</p>

[Illine]

<p>zarrakon, you need 4 groups</p><p>since all tanks need to tank, you need healers to keep them alive</p><p>at first 2 healers per group ... then less when better equiped</p><p>4 tanks, 8 healers ... at least 8 regen mana makes 20 spot (only 4 spots for dps)</p><p>I find it amazing in raids now you usually see 3 illus, 1 coercer, 3 dirges, 2 troubs but I understand why ... i played with my alt bruiser yesterday for her mythical and I usually do 3k when unbuffed ... with all the buffs on me (illu, dirge, troub, fury) I was able to parse up to 7k, I find it amazing, so I understand why you need all those buffers, they can help a lot with dps. 4k dps just with buffs ...</p><p>now we should try to make up for it another way ... you're not obliged to take 8 buffers, but it's very important for the dps to have them !!</p>

[Gaige]

<p>We done Zarrakon with two tanks and six healers, can't remember how many mana regen though.</p>

[LygerT]

<p>yes, this whole thread is pointless until the time that a raid force does not require 3/4 of its whole to be comprised of healers and utility.</p>

[circusgirl]

<p><cite>TheSpin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>In this thread, almost everyone talks about how encounters should be designed in order to force more fighters into the raid.  SoE has been trying to do this to some degree for a long time now, and people just adjust their tactics and figure something else out.</p><p>I think that changes to the classes themselves to make them more useful to the raidforce would be a better solution than adjusting encounters.</p></blockquote><p>Though there have been a handful of efforts to get other classes tanking, enough to show that someone wants us all to be tanks, the mechanics of how raid encounters are designed more or less sabotaged that goal.  Most of those huge trauma-based AEs are actually spells, not combat arts, which means that they can't be avoided and only mitigated, which in and of itself creates a big skew towards plate.  On top of that, giving raidmobs a chance to strikethrough and completely ignore avoidance really screws with brawler MTs, as does the fact that our biggest taunts (peel and Divide & Conquer) were made useless by giving every mob an immunity to aggro-locks.  </p><p>In essence, when these fights (and raid mechanics in general) were being designed, they weren't thinking about how brawlers would tank them.  <em>That's </em>what needs to change, developers need to be thinking about <em>all</em> tanks when they are designing content.</p><p>With that said, I also think that there should be a greater benefit to bringing fighters along.</p>

[Kimber]

<p>I see some good ideas up there and some not so good.  I would like to say that again I am not asking for 6 fighters to be optimal or for all class's to be optimal ( although some people seem to think so )  I would just like to see it as a viable option and we have some ideas up there that could make this possable. </p><p>I do not like the idea of creating content to force the issue though.  I think balance of the types would be better or makeing it so the types support each other better to increase survivablitly is more along the lines we need to be looking.</p>

[Bruener]

<p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>It means you have to make sure that it is worth bringing them over another rogue, or another t1 dps, or another healer. </p></blockquote><p>It is never worth bringing a fighter over another rogue, another T1 dps or another healer.  Never.  Ever.  Never.  IF they make changes to FORCE guilds to bring more fighters all it does is switch fighters with bards/enchanters because fighters would have to be AMAZING for a raid to use more than 3 of them.  If they were that amazing they'd be used over those classes, but then they'd be so overpowered and overvalued they'd be the new bard/enchanter.  So nothing changes except the name of the rl person getting into the raid.</p></blockquote><p>Its amazing how you quote this little sentence out of my whole statement and completely ignore the rest.  Hey, here is an idea....instead of saying how the game is currently why don't you try and address the topic of the thread and come up with an idea on how you would adjust abilities to make it so 4-6 fighters are along for the raid on a optimum raidforce.</p><p>I am pretty sure all of us here know how the current system works.  What exactly is so bad in adjusting fighter abilities to want more than 2 in a raid?  I mean do you really have a good reason or are you going to keep trying to lecture us on how things are set up right now?</p>

[LygerT]

<p>because if a fighter is as needed for utility as they are for tanking then they would outclass just about any other class in the game.</p><p>you are talking about upping the count of a raid force to something such as a X6 to get all 6 fighters on a raid or you are talking about completely overhauling not only raid encounters but also all 24 classes in the game. if you have all 6 fighter types on the raid then you would also need all 6 healers, DPS and utility. brawlers for example already have their useful areas, if raid forces want to ignore those then there is nothing you can to do put an end to that aside from sony coding it so there is no choice but have only 1 type of any class in a raid group, is that what you want?</p>

[TheSpin]

<p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>As for infringeing on Utility class's spots well tbh imo Bard buffs should be raid wide.  I do not see a reason why they should not be really.  This would be a start to balancing the class's pve wise imo.  As if you can get the fighters and the bards fixed to the point where you only need 2 bards in the raid and 2 more fighters become a viable option to take in those spots we are that much closer to haveing balance as either or will work.  Yes there would be allot more to do but it would be a start imo.</p></blockquote><p>If raids only needed 2 bards then they'd take more enchanters, or more healers, or more DPS.  Not more fighters.  More than 3 fighters is useless.</p></blockquote><p>Oh if only people could take off the blinders.  The FIRST step would be making bard and enchanter buffs raid wide.  The fact that 4-5 slots in a raid are for bards and 4 slots are for enchanters is WRONG.  1/3 of the raid made up of 2 archetypes is back asswards (although once again I am sure that you will make up some lame excuse "just because that is the way it is").  Suddenly with their buffs being raidwide you open up 4-5 slots.</p><p>The next step is figuring out what can be done to make sure those spots are filled with the classes that are currently "lacking" in raids.  That means more fighters and summoners.  It means you have to make sure that it is worth bringing them over another rogue, or another t1 dps, or another healer.  So, simple man...the point of this whole thread...is the question what can be done to make sure that happens?  I know it is probably tough for you, but try and use that imagination a little and if you were a developer and your boss just came to you and said, "hey, I want you to make it so that in an ideal raid we are using 6 healers, 6 fighters, 6 scouts, and 6 mages.  Do it and you get a bonus, if you can't than you are fired and I will find somebody that can."  So what would you do?</p><p>If it was me, after changes were done so that utility did not stack as well as it does now, I would make sure that bringing fighters both increased survivability and the dps of raids.  Fighters should be the commanders on the battle fields as such they should be able to buff their comrades.  Some should be able to buff them for more dps and some should be able to buff them for survivability.  Fighters should also manipulate the hate in raids...to ensure that it is focused where it needs to be.  Hate should be the sole realm of fighters and stripped from the classes that currently hold some of that utility.  Hate buffs, debuffs, transfers, etc should all be done by the different fighters.  Survivability wise fighters could have various tools at thier disposal.  Tools like stoneskins, AE immunities, damage soaking, lifetaps, wards, avoidance check buffs, mitigation check buffs, crit mit increasers, crit mit check buffs, resistance buffs, +defense skills, +parry skills, etc.</p><p>So, the way to approach this thread is to think of it as if you were a developer and you were given the responsibility to make it so 6 fighters were wanted on an optimum raid set-up.  No more than 6 though.</p></blockquote><p>This outlines the exact problem as I see it.  Too many chanters and bards are required for raiding.  Not only that, but they've given chanters so much dps in addition to their 'utility' role that they don't all even rely on their utility to play their class.</p><p>There are a couple of ways this problem could be solved, but there is definately a real need to find ways to get fighters into some of the chanter and bard spots.  Making fighters aoe absorbers and making more chanter/bard buffs raidwide would be one way.  Allowing fighters to fulfill some of the duties of the chanters/bards is another.</p>

[Bruener]

<p><cite>Lyger@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>because if a fighter is as needed for utility as they are for tanking then they would outclass just about any other class in the game.</p><p>you are talking about upping the count of a raid force to something such as a X6 to get all 6 fighters on a raid or you are talking about completely overhauling not only raid encounters but also all 24 classes in the game. if you have all 6 fighter types on the raid then you would also need all 6 healers, DPS and utility. brawlers for example already have their useful areas, if raid forces want to ignore those then there is nothing you can to do put an end to that aside from sony coding it so there is no choice but have only 1 type of any class in a raid group, is that what you want?</p></blockquote><p>Brainstorm.  Maybe utility is exactly what fighters need.  You can call it utility, or you can call it whatever you want.  But bringing moer fighters should increase the survivabilty of the raid.  Whether that is by controlling the hate of the raid or absorbing damage for others.</p><p>How exactly would changing things to that direction cause fighters to "outclass" other classes?  I mean a rogue can jack their survivability way up and go tank any instance zone, out dps fighters, and debuff the heck out of the mob.  Chanters increase the dps of a raid/group by huge amounts, they are t1 DPS, and probably the best solo class in the game.  Bards, bring huge amounts of dps to raids (4-5 optimum set up) and are high T2 dps.  Healers....well the fact that 8 healers is pretty norm shows how much utility they can bring.</p><p>So, yea.  I think fighters should be wanted for their "survival" and "agro" utilty in a raid as much as that 1 is wanted for tanking.  The only toes I can see this stepping on are the extra bards/chanters which everybody can agree hold way too many spots on raids and the extra healers above 6 that almost are always being brought along to ensure success.</p>

[steelbadger]

<p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Brainstorm.  Maybe utility is exactly what fighters need.  You can call it utility, or you can call it whatever you want.  But bringing moer fighters should increase the survivabilty of the raid.  Whether that is by controlling the hate of the raid or absorbing damage for others.</p><p>How exactly would changing things to that direction cause fighters to "outclass" other classes?  I mean a rogue can jack their survivability way up and go tank any instance zone, out dps fighters, and debuff the heck out of the mob.  Chanters increase the dps of a raid/group by huge amounts, they are t1 DPS, and probably the best solo class in the game.  Bards, bring huge amounts of dps to raids (4-5 optimum set up) and are high T2 dps.  Healers....well the fact that 8 healers is pretty norm shows how much utility they can bring.</p><p>So, yea.  I think fighters should be wanted for their "survival" and "agro" utilty in a raid as much as that 1 is wanted for tanking.  The only toes I can see this stepping on are the extra bards/chanters which everybody can agree hold way too many spots on raids and the extra healers above 6 that almost are always being brought along to ensure success.</p></blockquote><p>Can't work.</p><p>Premise 1)  Raids have plenty of survivability as it is to kill everything in game without additional tanking survivability mechanics.</p><p>Premise 2)  Survivability ceases to have meaning when you can already stay alive, if you could stay alive before these changes then you will stay alive after without needing to use the additional survivability mechanics; you will be no more or less dead than you were before.</p><p>Premise 3)  The focus of raid is to kill mobs as quickly as possible with the minimum of fuss.</p><p>Conclusion:  Adding additional survivability mechanics to tanks would have little/no effect as no-one is going to sacrifice dps for survivability when survivability isn't an issue.  People do not fail at killing mobs in TSO due to low survivability but due to scripted failure conditions.</p><p>Or maybe you can make mobs hit harder so that the extra survivability <em>is</em> needed?  Well then you can't raid if any one of your tanks fails to turn up.  Oh Good.  That'll work.</p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p>LOl 8 pages on this.</p><p>3 Fighters......one of each type is all we should hope for and expect.   The classes and the raid encounters should be designed to encourage stiff competition amongst those 3 for the varius tanking roles required for any given raid.   Not this one-shoe fits all approach we have been dealing with since forever where the only thing that changes from time to time is the brand of shoe.</p><p>Trying to create ghetto roles or force room for 6 fighters is not what we need and would only add frustration to raiding.</p>

[Bruener]

<p><cite>steelbadger wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Brainstorm.  Maybe utility is exactly what fighters need.  You can call it utility, or you can call it whatever you want.  But bringing moer fighters should increase the survivabilty of the raid.  Whether that is by controlling the hate of the raid or absorbing damage for others.</p><p>How exactly would changing things to that direction cause fighters to "outclass" other classes?  I mean a rogue can jack their survivability way up and go tank any instance zone, out dps fighters, and debuff the heck out of the mob.  Chanters increase the dps of a raid/group by huge amounts, they are t1 DPS, and probably the best solo class in the game.  Bards, bring huge amounts of dps to raids (4-5 optimum set up) and are high T2 dps.  Healers....well the fact that 8 healers is pretty norm shows how much utility they can bring.</p><p>So, yea.  I think fighters should be wanted for their "survival" and "agro" utilty in a raid as much as that 1 is wanted for tanking.  The only toes I can see this stepping on are the extra bards/chanters which everybody can agree hold way too many spots on raids and the extra healers above 6 that almost are always being brought along to ensure success.</p></blockquote><p>Can't work.</p><p>Premise 1)  Raids have plenty of survivability as it is to kill everything in game without additional tanking survivability mechanics.</p><p>Premise 2)  Survivability ceases to have meaning when you can already stay alive, if you could stay alive before these changes then you will stay alive after without needing to use the additional survivability mechanics; you will be no more or less dead than you were before.</p><p>Premise 3)  The focus of raid is to kill mobs as quickly as possible with the minimum of fuss.</p><p>Conclusion:  Adding additional survivability mechanics to tanks would have little/no effect as no-one is going to sacrifice dps for survivability when survivability isn't an issue.  People do not fail at killing mobs in TSO due to low survivability but due to scripted failure conditions.</p><p>Or maybe you can make mobs hit harder so that the extra survivability <em>is</em> needed?  Well then you can't raid if any one of your tanks fails to turn up.  Oh Good.  That'll work.</p></blockquote><p>Except you are forgetting the fact that the way a lot of raids, especially through progression, survive is bringing extra healers.  The whole reason a lot of times raids have 8 healers on a raid.  Fighters bringing better survivability for their groups means less healers balancing things back out.  Than because fighters can DPS more than healers you can drop the extra healers to get more DPS while making sure survivability is high.</p><p>Having a fighter in a group should mean that a single healer in the group has an easier time keeping the group alive.</p>

[LygerT]

<p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Lyger@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>because if a fighter is as needed for utility as they are for tanking then they would outclass just about any other class in the game.</p><p>you are talking about upping the count of a raid force to something such as a X6 to get all 6 fighters on a raid or you are talking about completely overhauling not only raid encounters but also all 24 classes in the game. if you have all 6 fighter types on the raid then you would also need all 6 healers, DPS and utility. brawlers for example already have their useful areas, if raid forces want to ignore those then there is nothing you can to do put an end to that aside from sony coding it so there is no choice but have only 1 type of any class in a raid group, is that what you want?</p></blockquote><p>Brainstorm.  Maybe utility is exactly what fighters need.  You can call it utility, or you can call it whatever you want.  But bringing moer fighters should increase the survivabilty of the raid.  Whether that is by controlling the hate of the raid or absorbing damage for others.</p><p>How exactly would changing things to that direction cause fighters to "outclass" other classes?  I mean a rogue can jack their survivability way up and go tank any instance zone, out dps fighters, and debuff the heck out of the mob.  Chanters increase the dps of a raid/group by huge amounts, they are t1 DPS, and probably the best solo class in the game.  Bards, bring huge amounts of dps to raids (4-5 optimum set up) and are high T2 dps.  Healers....well the fact that 8 healers is pretty norm shows how much utility they can bring.</p><p>So, yea.  I think fighters should be wanted for their "survival" and "agro" utilty in a raid as much as that 1 is wanted for tanking.  The only toes I can see this stepping on are the extra bards/chanters which everybody can agree hold way too many spots on raids and the extra healers above 6 that almost are always being brought along to ensure success.</p></blockquote><p>you still ignored the main point, the point that fighters are not above the rest of the classes. why should tanks be so useful that they be chosen over other classes like druids who for the most part don't get chosen at all?</p>

[Illine]

<p>they shouldn't but why bards and chanty and high dps classes are so wanted? because they are in a way a lot superior to others.</p><p>the point is not making the fighters a necessity, just make them more desired by giving them more roles (like a stance to increase their dps a lot but decrease their defense the the one of a scout for exemple)</p>

[Bruener]

<p><cite>Lyger@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Lyger@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>because if a fighter is as needed for utility as they are for tanking then they would outclass just about any other class in the game.</p><p>you are talking about upping the count of a raid force to something such as a X6 to get all 6 fighters on a raid or you are talking about completely overhauling not only raid encounters but also all 24 classes in the game. if you have all 6 fighter types on the raid then you would also need all 6 healers, DPS and utility. brawlers for example already have their useful areas, if raid forces want to ignore those then there is nothing you can to do put an end to that aside from sony coding it so there is no choice but have only 1 type of any class in a raid group, is that what you want?</p></blockquote><p>Brainstorm.  Maybe utility is exactly what fighters need.  You can call it utility, or you can call it whatever you want.  But bringing moer fighters should increase the survivabilty of the raid.  Whether that is by controlling the hate of the raid or absorbing damage for others.</p><p>How exactly would changing things to that direction cause fighters to "outclass" other classes?  I mean a rogue can jack their survivability way up and go tank any instance zone, out dps fighters, and debuff the heck out of the mob.  Chanters increase the dps of a raid/group by huge amounts, they are t1 DPS, and probably the best solo class in the game.  Bards, bring huge amounts of dps to raids (4-5 optimum set up) and are high T2 dps.  Healers....well the fact that 8 healers is pretty norm shows how much utility they can bring.</p><p>So, yea.  I think fighters should be wanted for their "survival" and "agro" utilty in a raid as much as that 1 is wanted for tanking.  The only toes I can see this stepping on are the extra bards/chanters which everybody can agree hold way too many spots on raids and the extra healers above 6 that almost are always being brought along to ensure success.</p></blockquote><p>you still ignored the main point, the point that fighters are not above the rest of the classes. why should tanks be so useful that they be chosen over other classes like druids who for the most part don't get chosen at all?</p></blockquote><p>Yes, I realize some classes have trouble finding their way into raid rosters period.....summoners, druids, brawlers.  However that is a completely different topic and there are plenty of threads with ideas for adjustments to increase their desireability.  Knowing SOE those classes will be must-haves come the next x-pac.  And than where did that get us in increasing the role of "fighters"?  90% of raid content is basically done by 1 fighter tanking.  The other 10% can be done by using just 2 fighters total for tanking.  That is a very limited role when there are 6 fighter classes.  In the perfect world SOE had imagined pre-launch there are 24 raid slots and 24 classes.  That is not just irony.</p><p>So, in a perfect raid set up it should be 6 fighters, 6 healers, 6 scouts, and 6 mages.  As it is right now fighter spots are sacrificed to bring more of each of the other 3.  Chanters/bards and extra healers being who the spots are sacrificed for.  Fix it so utility does not stack like it does now.  Than fix it so Fighters increase survivability to the point where you don't need 2 healers in a group, instead you role with 1 healer and 1 fighter in a group.  Wow, suddenly you are ensuring 4 fighters in a raid.  Now what do you do to pick up the other 2 spots.  Imo Brawlers are the key.  They need specific utility to increase their desireability on raids.  So while the plate tanks are increasing group survivability Brawlers need other unique abilities.  Large hate transfers, or dumps would be a great start.  Maybe limit the avoidance buffs to Brawler only.  Specific group buffs that could increase DPS of those around them more.</p><p>Definitely a tough undertaking, but if you don't think it can be done than honestly you should probably quit playing a "game" where at any point Developers can completely change the aspect of how the game works.  I mean how many times have we seen classes change in their viability already?  Its not like you have to look back very far...just link RoK monk and SK.</p>

[peepshow]

<p>A perfect raid does not consist of 6 fighters, 6 healers, 6 mages and 6 scouts imo..</p><p>3 fighters is enough, 6 healers should also be enough, ofc this depends if you run a 2 or a 3 healer MT group.</p><p>Rest of the spots can be equally used between mages and scouts, but I see no reason why you should force em to use 1 of each class..</p><p>Sure there can be an advantage, and all classes could bring something to the raid, but there should still be choices.</p>

[Kimber]

<p>My point in starting this topic was not to make 6 Fighters, 6 Healers, 6 Mages and 6 Scouts ( 1 of each class in other words ) the optimal set up.  I started this topic to get ideas on what would be needed to make 4-6 fighters viable to take not prefered.  Yes that would be nice but not practical unless they redo allot.</p><p>Every time I log in to check I see a few more good ideas so lets keep them comeing who knows maybe a dev watching the thread and taking all this in <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

[Illine]

<p>the perfect raid depends on the target</p><p>but it's not 6 fighters.</p>

[Bruener]

<p><cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>My point in starting this topic was not to make 6 Fighters, 6 Healers, 6 Mages and 6 Scouts ( 1 of each class in other words ) the optimal set up.  I started this topic to get ideas on what would be needed to make 4-6 fighters viable to take not prefered.  Yes that would be nice but not practical unless they redo allot.</p><p>Every time I log in to check I see a few more good ideas so lets keep them comeing who knows maybe a dev watching the thread and taking all this in <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" /></p></blockquote><p>You know you keep saying this, and it doesn't make any sense.  Please define "viable".  Does it mean that the mob is killable just not optimum?  Because if that is the case than 4-6 fighters has always been "viable".  Its a lot harder, and takes longer....but it is "viable".</p><p>Now if you want to talk about 4-6 fighters being a great raid set up that is where most of this discussion is going.  There is a huge difference between "viable" and "inter-changeable".  Most fighters would like to see it so that having 4-6 fighters on a raid is not considered a detriment.  Hence all the discussion about opening up raid spots that other classes are currently hogging...bards, chanters, and healers.</p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Now if you want to talk about 4-6 fighters being a great raid set up that is where most of this discussion is going. There is a huge difference between "viable" and "inter-changeable". Most fighters would like to see it so that having 4-6 fighters on a raid is not considered a detriment. Hence all the discussion about opening up raid spots that other classes are currently hogging...bards, chanters, and healers.</p></blockquote><p>Simply not gonna happen.......at least not in EQ2 unless pretty much everything(classes, buffs, mobs, etc) are redone from the ground up.</p><p>Tanks do not stack..........healing does....DPS does......  They can come up with fancier ways for fighters to 'intercede' eachother or whatever but all that does is spread the healing out....which just makes things take longer to kill.</p><p>Having one of each fighter type (warrior,brawler,crusader) and designing raids such that each one can be fully utilized without being a detriment to the raid or eachother is what we really need.</p><p>The question asked in the title of this thread can already be done......just /invite 6 fighters.  Your raid will suck but you can do it.</p>

[LygerT]

<p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Yes, I realize some classes have trouble finding their way into raid rosters period.....summoners, druids, brawlers.  However that is a completely different topic and there are plenty of threads with ideas for adjustments to increase their desireability.  Knowing SOE those classes will be must-haves come the next x-pac.  And than where did that get us in increasing the role of "fighters"?  90% of raid content is basically done by 1 fighter tanking.  The other 10% can be done by using just 2 fighters total for tanking.  That is a very limited role when there are 6 fighter classes.  In the perfect world SOE had imagined pre-launch there are 24 raid slots and 24 classes.  That is not just irony.</p><p>So, in a perfect raid set up it should be 6 fighters, 6 healers, 6 scouts, and 6 mages.  As it is right now fighter spots are sacrificed to bring more of each of the other 3.  Chanters/bards and extra healers being who the spots are sacrificed for.  Fix it so utility does not stack like it does now.  Than fix it so Fighters increase survivability to the point where you don't need 2 healers in a group, instead you role with 1 healer and 1 fighter in a group.  Wow, suddenly you are ensuring 4 fighters in a raid.  Now what do you do to pick up the other 2 spots.  Imo Brawlers are the key.  They need specific utility to increase their desireability on raids.  So while the plate tanks are increasing group survivability Brawlers need other unique abilities.  Large hate transfers, or dumps would be a great start.  Maybe limit the avoidance buffs to Brawler only.  Specific group buffs that could increase DPS of those around them more.</p><p>Definitely a tough undertaking, but if you don't think it can be done than honestly you should probably quit playing a "game" where at any point Developers can completely change the aspect of how the game works.  I mean how many times have we seen classes change in their viability already?  Its not like you have to look back very far...just link RoK monk and SK.</p></blockquote><p>well, with the snap aggro tools all tanks have and many of them tied to damaging abilities you guys who want to promote 6 fighters in a raid can go right ahead and you can deal with the nightmare of dealing with who tanks what and when when the time comes. i'll expect to see the chaos when it unfolds and then i'll watch you try to figure out ways of smoothing out something we all knew was a bad idea.</p><p>there isn't enough well played fighters left in this game to fit with your ideals, desiring or requiring 6 fighters would be a nightmare, finding usefulness for those extras is almost as bad due to how many poor played fighters i have seen coming up who have no idea how to read what abilities do. you also can't have an ideal raid force of 6 of each category or you have the most simple of mobs and scripts, who wants to go back to tank and spank 2 minute boss fights again? i don't.</p><p>they couldn't get the fighter revamp to work, i seriously don't know why you think this one is above that either. the devs idea for tanks is not DPS or utility, it is to take damage for the raid and that is all. i wouldn't expect to see much more DPS or raid utility, just small tweaks to try and improve usefulness. every fighter does still have their personal area where they are the best at, brawlers for example just are the least desirable for the raiding aspect of the game mainly due to the mindset of the players who if they are not seeing good DPS or survivability then what good are they? most don't pay attention to avoidance reports or their utility because it is transparent unless you actually look for it.</p>

[Bruener]

<p><cite>Lyger@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Yes, I realize some classes have trouble finding their way into raid rosters period.....summoners, druids, brawlers.  However that is a completely different topic and there are plenty of threads with ideas for adjustments to increase their desireability.  Knowing SOE those classes will be must-haves come the next x-pac.  And than where did that get us in increasing the role of "fighters"?  90% of raid content is basically done by 1 fighter tanking.  The other 10% can be done by using just 2 fighters total for tanking.  That is a very limited role when there are 6 fighter classes.  In the perfect world SOE had imagined pre-launch there are 24 raid slots and 24 classes.  That is not just irony.</p><p>So, in a perfect raid set up it should be 6 fighters, 6 healers, 6 scouts, and 6 mages.  As it is right now fighter spots are sacrificed to bring more of each of the other 3.  Chanters/bards and extra healers being who the spots are sacrificed for.  Fix it so utility does not stack like it does now.  Than fix it so Fighters increase survivability to the point where you don't need 2 healers in a group, instead you role with 1 healer and 1 fighter in a group.  Wow, suddenly you are ensuring 4 fighters in a raid.  Now what do you do to pick up the other 2 spots.  Imo Brawlers are the key.  They need specific utility to increase their desireability on raids.  So while the plate tanks are increasing group survivability Brawlers need other unique abilities.  Large hate transfers, or dumps would be a great start.  Maybe limit the avoidance buffs to Brawler only.  Specific group buffs that could increase DPS of those around them more.</p><p>Definitely a tough undertaking, but if you don't think it can be done than honestly you should probably quit playing a "game" where at any point Developers can completely change the aspect of how the game works.  I mean how many times have we seen classes change in their viability already?  Its not like you have to look back very far...just link RoK monk and SK.</p></blockquote><p>well, with the snap aggro tools all tanks have and many of them tied to damaging abilities you guys who want to promote 6 fighters in a raid can go right ahead and you can deal with the nightmare of dealing with who tanks what and when when the time comes. i'll expect to see the chaos when it unfolds and then i'll watch you try to figure out ways of smoothing out something we all knew was a bad idea.</p><p>there isn't enough well played fighters left in this game to fit with your ideals, desiring or requiring 6 fighters would be a nightmare, finding usefulness for those extras is almost as bad due to how many poor played fighters i have seen coming up who have no idea how to read what abilities do. you also can't have an ideal raid force of 6 of each category or you have the most simple of mobs and scripts, who wants to go back to tank and spank 2 minute boss fights again? i don't.</p><p>they couldn't get the fighter revamp to work, i seriously don't know why you think this one is above that either. the devs idea for tanks is not DPS or utility, it is to take damage for the raid and that is all. i wouldn't expect to see much more DPS or raid utility.</p></blockquote><p>Most of you guys sound like people in the financial industry 2 years ago that were saying that the economy is all good, completely blind to the actual trends of the market and the fact that the fall was right around the corner.  Keep on handing out those sub-prime loans.  So, now your argument is that there aren't enough "good" playing fighters out there now to fill in the holes?  What a load.  So many people shelved their fighters to bring that extra bard on the raid because that is what the raid wanted.  Honestly there are many people out there that would love to level up, or dust off their fighter.....once the need comes up.  Its the same deal with summoners....I guess you will say that because there are so few good summoners now that there is no sense in increasing their raid viability.  After all the good ones are already representatives on raids....</p><p>Fighters learn to play together just like every other class out there.  Its not like playing a fighter takes a ton of skill...anymore than fighting another type of class well does.  Oh wait, I take that back...sometimes bringing that extra dirge/chanter along for their buffs is worth going with a mediocre player.</p><p>The fact is that current mechanics are what control what classes are being played, by what people, and how many.  Hhhhmmm, lets see, what is a direct example of that....oh, I know...SKs.  Suddenly SKs get their long awaited fix and people that previously had betrayed to Pally have betrayed back, people that had shelved their SK a long time ago for a new main are suddenly playing them a lot more, people are actually roling the class up as alts...a lot to be future mains.  Lets see, another example....monks.  In RoK a lot of bruisers betrayed to monk because they were a "must-have" type of class on raids.  Every raid had a monk on their roster hence a lot of people had monk mains.  TSO comes along and that has changed.  Suddenly monks are scarce, people re-rolled to toons that will make the roster, probably not as many monk alts being levelled, etc.</p><p>Its not like making classes more desired on raids takes a complete over-haul of the system.  A few tweaks is it and things change...hence everytime an x-pac comes out.</p>

[LygerT]

<p>nope, i'm saying no raid force has needed/wanted or desired 6 tanks on it for as long as i have been playing and for the most part it hasn't been an issue. if you think that is the reason for the decline in the population then i think we can just agree that we have differing opinions.</p><p>fighters are just as dysfunctional as any other class in the game. if i have to go and tell another fighter that they shouldn't hit sacrament because they are too shallow to figure it out on their own then i won't. hence you get a weaker population because the standard keeps getting lower. if you think there isn't more tanks who don't know how to play then those that do then consider yourself lucky to be not have to play in that atmosphere.</p>

[Bruener]

<p><cite>Lyger@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>nope, i'm saying no raid force has needed/wanted or desired 6 tanks on it for as long as i have been playing and for the most part it hasn't been an issue. if you think that is the reason for the decline in the population then i think we can just agree that we have differing opinions.</p><p>fighters are just as dysfunctional as any other class in the game. if i have to go and tell another fighter that they shouldn't hit sacrament because they are too shallow to figure it out on their own then i won't. hence you get a weaker population because the standard keeps getting lower. if you think there isn't more tanks who don't know how to play then those that do then consider yourself lucky to be not have to play in that atmosphere.</p></blockquote><p>No, I think that the % of players that don't know how to play for fighters is the same for every other class.  I think the reason there doesn't seem to be as many "good" fighters out there is because of the limited amount of role that fighters play.  Solo isn't as good as other classes, 1 per group, 2-3 per raid max.  Where as u can seem to snatch up a chanter or bard anywhere because of the amount needed in groups and raids.  How many times do you see "Group lookin for tank..."?  And than in that same group they probably already have a chanter and bard lined up...</p><p>And just because raid forces haven't needed/wanted or desired more than 3 fighters doesn't mean that it can't change.  A few tweaks, a couple descent abilities, and its amazing how fast the face of the raid scene can change.  And there is no way you can deny that Lyger.</p>

[Gaige]

<p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite><span style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">And just because raid forces haven't needed/wanted or desired more than 3 fighters doesn't mean that it can't change.  A few tweaks, a couple descent abilities, and its amazing how fast the face of the raid scene can change.  And there is no way you can deny that Lyger.</span></cite></p></blockquote><p>All six fighters in a raid does is shaft some other class and turn them into the new "fighter".  You're swapping one set of unhappy players for another.  </p>

[Bruener]

<p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite><span style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">And just because raid forces haven't needed/wanted or desired more than 3 fighters doesn't mean that it can't change.  A few tweaks, a couple descent abilities, and its amazing how fast the face of the raid scene can change.  And there is no way you can deny that Lyger.</span></cite></p></blockquote><p>All six fighters in a raid does is shaft some other class and turn them into the new "fighter".  You're swapping one set of unhappy players for another.  </p></blockquote><p>How exactly?  If fighters somehow take the extra spots that bards/chanters/extra healers take right now how exactly does that shaft some other class?  Not to mention class balance is a completely seperate issue than archetype representation in raids.</p><p>Of course not playing any type of fighter class I am sure you can't even come close to understanding.  I mean wouldn't it be nice if only 3 scouts were ever wanted on raids, and each expansion depending on how SOE rolls the dice only a certain 3 most of the time are there.  So now you are saying just because fighters have the shaft now....they shouldn't fix it?</p>

[Gaige]

<p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Of course not playing any type of fighter class I am sure you can't even come close to understanding.  I mean wouldn't it be nice if only 3 scouts were ever wanted on raids, and each expansion depending on how SOE rolls the dice only a certain 3 most of the time are there.  So now you are saying just because fighters have the shaft now....they shouldn't fix it?</p></blockquote><p>Yup, I never played a brawler for the first 3 1/2 years of this game.  I have no idea what its like playing a brawler and trying to find a spot in a high end raid guild.</p>

[Farore]

<p>At least Gage is being honest about his ignorance, you have to give him credit for admitting it...</p>

[Bruener]

<p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Of course not playing any type of fighter class I am sure you can't even come close to understanding.  I mean wouldn't it be nice if only 3 scouts were ever wanted on raids, and each expansion depending on how SOE rolls the dice only a certain 3 most of the time are there.  So now you are saying just because fighters have the shaft now....they shouldn't fix it?</p></blockquote><p>Yup, I never played a brawler for the first 3 1/2 years of this game.  I have no idea what its like playing a brawler and trying to find a spot in a high end raid guild.</p></blockquote><p>Thanks for proving my point on good fighters having to reroll.</p>

[Gaige]

<p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Thanks for proving my point on good fighters having to reroll.</p></blockquote><p>Right, because I rerolled to the highly touted and often recruited ranger class.</p>

[peepshow]

<p>Not that rerolling to a Ranger has anything to do with this tread <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" /></p><p>Fact is that as it is right now, there is no balance in how the fighters work or are used, and that is what we should try to focus on, not to have 6 fighters in a raid, that would be absurd imo..</p><p>1 of each "type" should be the goal, and for those who chose to have a 4th, there should be some kind of advantage in that also, less dps but better survuvability perhaps..</p><p>There are lots of very nice suggestions in this tread, you just need to sort all the bs and whine from it first..</p>

[Hardain]

<p>It's impossible, like it has been said over and over again.</p>

[Bruener]

<p><cite>Hardain@Runnyeye wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>It's impossible, like it has been said over and over again.</p></blockquote><p>Yeah, and the universe revolves around the Earth still.</p>

[Gaige]

<p>Its possible, they'd just have to make them so overpowered to accomplish it that they'd make a lot of classes worthless in the process.</p>

[circusgirl]

<p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Its possible, they'd just have to make them so overpowered to accomplish it that they'd make a lot of classes worthless in the process.</p></blockquote><p>That's not necessarilly true.</p><p>It's possible to create additional roles/purpose for fighters through content and things like buffs in such a way that you want no more than one of each class, or one of each subclass.  Sure, if you decided to buff fighters dps super high you'de steal slots from scouts, but that is hardly the only way to make us desireable.</p><p>First off, as has been stated before, we could create empty slots by making bard/chanter buffs raidwide and forcing utility classes to compete for their raidslot just like everyone else.  You'd still have at least 4 utility classes, but it would be the end of bringing in a mediocre dirge because your OT really needs Hyran's, or having someone bot a troub.  Frankly, I'm totally okay with this.  If you're a fighter you have to be <em>[Removed for Content] good</em> to earn a raid slot.  Same thing is true for pretty much every other class, and yet we consider it acceptable that to get a raid slot as a bard you only have to be mediocre?  My raidforce has some pretty [Removed for Content] good bards, but there have been nights when someone's botted one of them when we had real people waiting for a slot to open up.  Pretty much everyone suggests making their buffs raidwide.  It doesn't make them useless (on the contrary, it makes them better) but it does open up 2-3 raid slots.</p><p>In terms of making fighters desireable without letting guilds lay on 4 shadowknights, you can use a similar tactic there.  Fold the group buffs that were given at TSO launch into the raidwide buffs, and give a boost to the brawler raidwides since we don't have a group buff.  Now you add a lot to your raid by bringing different fighters along and getting new buffs.</p><p>On top of that, scrap the avoidance buffs that warriors and crusaders have and replace them with a % chance to use the warriors mitigation instead of the targets for warriors and some sort of stoneskin proc for crusaders (perhaps, every time the crusader casts a spell, gives a 5% chance to stoneskin the target).  Now you have 3 different types of survivability buffs from the 3 tank archetypes, and you can make them all stackable such that you drastically increase your tanks survivability by bringing different types of content.</p><p>Then make content that is geared to be tanked by different types of tanks.  Raid mob A fears constantly.  Raid mob B procs a curse that drops mitigation to 0 when he hits you (so avoidance tanking is stronger) etc.  Perhaps these mobs could be killable by a guard tank, but are designed in such a way that you could take them down much faster with significantly less gear or progression elsewhere if you have the type of tank that the encounter is designed for.  That way, a less diverse raid can take them...but min/maxing raids that seek to progress quickly through content will want different types of tank to get there <em>first.</em></p>

[Bruener]

<p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Its possible, they'd just have to make them so overpowered to accomplish it that they'd make a lot of classes worthless in the process.</p></blockquote><p>That's not necessarilly true.</p><p>It's possible to create additional roles/purpose for fighters through content and things like buffs in such a way that you want no more than one of each class, or one of each subclass.  Sure, if you decided to buff fighters dps super high you'de steal slots from scouts, but that is hardly the only way to make us desireable.</p><p>First off, as has been stated before, we could create empty slots by making bard/chanter buffs raidwide and forcing utility classes to compete for their raidslot just like everyone else.  You'd still have at least 4 utility classes, but it would be the end of bringing in a mediocre dirge because your OT really needs Hyran's, or having someone bot a troub.  Frankly, I'm totally okay with this.  If you're a fighter you have to be <em>[Removed for Content] good</em> to earn a raid slot.  Same thing is true for pretty much every other class, and yet we consider it acceptable that to get a raid slot as a bard you only have to be mediocre?  My raidforce has some pretty [Removed for Content] good bards, but there have been nights when someone's botted one of them when we had real people waiting for a slot to open up.  Pretty much everyone suggests making their buffs raidwide.  It doesn't make them useless (on the contrary, it makes them better) but it does open up 2-3 raid slots.</p><p>In terms of making fighters desireable without letting guilds lay on 4 shadowknights, you can use a similar tactic there.  Fold the group buffs that were given at TSO launch into the raidwide buffs, and give a boost to the brawler raidwides since we don't have a group buff.  Now you add a lot to your raid by bringing different fighters along and getting new buffs.</p><p>On top of that, scrap the avoidance buffs that warriors and crusaders have and replace them with a % chance to use the warriors mitigation instead of the targets for warriors and some sort of stoneskin proc for crusaders (perhaps, every time the crusader casts a spell, gives a 5% chance to stoneskin the target).  Now you have 3 different types of survivability buffs from the 3 tank archetypes, and you can make them all stackable such that you drastically increase your tanks survivability by bringing different types of content.</p><p>Then make content that is geared to be tanked by different types of tanks.  Raid mob A fears constantly.  Raid mob B procs a curse that drops mitigation to 0 when he hits you (so avoidance tanking is stronger) etc.  Perhaps these mobs could be killable by a guard tank, but are designed in such a way that you could take them down much faster with significantly less gear or progression elsewhere if you have the type of tank that the encounter is designed for.  That way, a less diverse raid can take them...but min/maxing raids that seek to progress quickly through content will want different types of tank to get there <em>first.</em></p></blockquote><p>At least somebody else can understand that simple changes could be made to help make more fighters wanted in raids.  Gage, honestly, why do you think that they would have to over-power fighters to get this done?  Because another fighter would bring more survivability to a raid its not like they are all of a sudden going to be over-powered for groups or solo...since really the mechanisms are designed more for the raid scene.  It also doesn't mean that all of a sudden you are bringing extra fighters instead of every other class.  You make the chanter/bard buffs raid wide, heck even rogue buffs should have longer duration so that stacking them up doesn't make as much sense.  You free up quite a few slots just by doing that.  T1 DPS would still remain T1 dps and own the parse (even more since those high parsing enchanters might not look as tempting since their buffs in raid wouldn't stack).  Utility classes still have their spots (just not the huge amount of extra slots they have now).  Healers still are going to have at least 6 spots (less than current set up though because fighters would add survivabilty to the raid).  And now you have reason to bring more than 2 fighters.</p><p>Its not like this is rocket science.  Its simple, adjust X...increase Y....X spots become Y spots.</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Its possible, they'd just have to make them so overpowered to accomplish it that they'd make a lot of classes worthless in the process.</p></blockquote><p>That's not necessarilly true.</p><p>It's possible to create additional roles/purpose for fighters through content and things like buffs in such a way that you want no more than one of each class, or one of each subclass.  Sure, if you decided to buff fighters dps super high you'de steal slots from scouts, but that is hardly the only way to make us desireable.</p><p>First off, as has been stated before, we could create empty slots by making bard/chanter buffs raidwide and forcing utility classes to compete for their raidslot just like everyone else.  You'd still have at least 4 utility classes, but it would be the end of bringing in a mediocre dirge because your OT really needs Hyran's, or having someone bot a troub.  Frankly, I'm totally okay with this.  If you're a fighter you have to be <em>[Removed for Content] good</em> to earn a raid slot.  Same thing is true for pretty much every other class, and yet we consider it acceptable that to get a raid slot as a bard you only have to be mediocre?  My raidforce has some pretty [Removed for Content] good bards, but there have been nights when someone's botted one of them when we had real people waiting for a slot to open up.  Pretty much everyone suggests making their buffs raidwide.  It doesn't make them useless (on the contrary, it makes them better) but it does open up 2-3 raid slots.</p><p>In terms of making fighters desireable without letting guilds lay on 4 shadowknights, you can use a similar tactic there.  Fold the group buffs that were given at TSO launch into the raidwide buffs, and give a boost to the brawler raidwides since we don't have a group buff.  Now you add a lot to your raid by bringing different fighters along and getting new buffs.</p><p>On top of that, scrap the avoidance buffs that warriors and crusaders have and replace them with a % chance to use the warriors mitigation instead of the targets for warriors and some sort of stoneskin proc for crusaders (perhaps, every time the crusader casts a spell, gives a 5% chance to stoneskin the target).  Now you have 3 different types of survivability buffs from the 3 tank archetypes, and you can make them all stackable such that you drastically increase your tanks survivability by bringing different types of content.</p><p>Then make content that is geared to be tanked by different types of tanks.  Raid mob A fears constantly.  Raid mob B procs a curse that drops mitigation to 0 when he hits you (so avoidance tanking is stronger) etc.  Perhaps these mobs could be killable by a guard tank, but are designed in such a way that you could take them down much faster with significantly less gear or progression elsewhere if you have the type of tank that the encounter is designed for.  That way, a less diverse raid can take them...but min/maxing raids that seek to progress quickly through content will want different types of tank to get there <em>first.</em></p></blockquote><p>At least somebody else can understand that simple changes could be made to help make more fighters wanted in raids.  Gage, honestly, why do you think that they would have to over-power fighters to get this done?  Because another fighter would bring more survivability to a raid its not like they are all of a sudden going to be over-powered for groups or solo...since really the mechanisms are designed more for the raid scene.  It also doesn't mean that all of a sudden you are bringing extra fighters instead of every other class.  You make the chanter/bard buffs raid wide, heck even rogue buffs should have longer duration so that stacking them up doesn't make as much sense.  You free up quite a few slots just by doing that.  T1 DPS would still remain T1 dps and own the parse (even more since those high parsing enchanters might not look as tempting since their buffs in raid wouldn't stack).  Utility classes still have their spots (just not the huge amount of extra slots they have now).  Healers still are going to have at least 6 spots (less than current set up though because fighters would add survivabilty to the raid).  And now you have reason to bring more than 2 fighters.</p><p>Its not like this is rocket science.  Its simple, adjust X...increase Y....X spots become Y spots.</p></blockquote><p>Except, I fail to see how any of that would actually motivate me to bring more fighters.</p><p>We don't want or need to bring 6 fighters to a raid.  We rarely want to bring more than 3.  Finding a way to motivate us to bring a different sub-type for each of those 3 would be a worthwhile effort.</p><p>Trying to re-engineer the game to bring 6 tanks to a 4 group raid is [Removed for Content] in the wind.</p>

[Gaige]

<p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Gage, honestly, why do you think that they would have to over-power fighters to get this done?  </p></blockquote><p>Because no matter what you do to other classes, those spots won't go to fighters unless fighters are overpowered.  Two fighters, three at the most, period.  Survivability isn't an issue.  Fighters can't heal.  If they give fighters amazing buffs, plus the ability to tank, plus the dps they currently do, that = overpowered.</p><p>If they don't do that, or scale up their dps even more, even if bards/enchanters get raidwide buffs those slots will go towards more sorcerors, more predators, more rogues, more anything but fighters.</p><p>Unless they change the entire mechanics of the game and how encounters work, totally butcher some classes or make fighters the one stop can do everything class, you're not getting more than three of them on any raid built to truly succeed in the endgame.</p>

[Bruener]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Its possible, they'd just have to make them so overpowered to accomplish it that they'd make a lot of classes worthless in the process.</p></blockquote><p>That's not necessarilly true.</p><p>It's possible to create additional roles/purpose for fighters through content and things like buffs in such a way that you want no more than one of each class, or one of each subclass.  Sure, if you decided to buff fighters dps super high you'de steal slots from scouts, but that is hardly the only way to make us desireable.</p><p>First off, as has been stated before, we could create empty slots by making bard/chanter buffs raidwide and forcing utility classes to compete for their raidslot just like everyone else.  You'd still have at least 4 utility classes, but it would be the end of bringing in a mediocre dirge because your OT really needs Hyran's, or having someone bot a troub.  Frankly, I'm totally okay with this.  If you're a fighter you have to be <em>[Removed for Content] good</em> to earn a raid slot.  Same thing is true for pretty much every other class, and yet we consider it acceptable that to get a raid slot as a bard you only have to be mediocre?  My raidforce has some pretty [Removed for Content] good bards, but there have been nights when someone's botted one of them when we had real people waiting for a slot to open up.  Pretty much everyone suggests making their buffs raidwide.  It doesn't make them useless (on the contrary, it makes them better) but it does open up 2-3 raid slots.</p><p>In terms of making fighters desireable without letting guilds lay on 4 shadowknights, you can use a similar tactic there.  Fold the group buffs that were given at TSO launch into the raidwide buffs, and give a boost to the brawler raidwides since we don't have a group buff.  Now you add a lot to your raid by bringing different fighters along and getting new buffs.</p><p>On top of that, scrap the avoidance buffs that warriors and crusaders have and replace them with a % chance to use the warriors mitigation instead of the targets for warriors and some sort of stoneskin proc for crusaders (perhaps, every time the crusader casts a spell, gives a 5% chance to stoneskin the target).  Now you have 3 different types of survivability buffs from the 3 tank archetypes, and you can make them all stackable such that you drastically increase your tanks survivability by bringing different types of content.</p><p>Then make content that is geared to be tanked by different types of tanks.  Raid mob A fears constantly.  Raid mob B procs a curse that drops mitigation to 0 when he hits you (so avoidance tanking is stronger) etc.  Perhaps these mobs could be killable by a guard tank, but are designed in such a way that you could take them down much faster with significantly less gear or progression elsewhere if you have the type of tank that the encounter is designed for.  That way, a less diverse raid can take them...but min/maxing raids that seek to progress quickly through content will want different types of tank to get there <em>first.</em></p></blockquote><p>At least somebody else can understand that simple changes could be made to help make more fighters wanted in raids.  Gage, honestly, why do you think that they would have to over-power fighters to get this done?  Because another fighter would bring more survivability to a raid its not like they are all of a sudden going to be over-powered for groups or solo...since really the mechanisms are designed more for the raid scene.  It also doesn't mean that all of a sudden you are bringing extra fighters instead of every other class.  You make the chanter/bard buffs raid wide, heck even rogue buffs should have longer duration so that stacking them up doesn't make as much sense.  You free up quite a few slots just by doing that.  T1 DPS would still remain T1 dps and own the parse (even more since those high parsing enchanters might not look as tempting since their buffs in raid wouldn't stack).  Utility classes still have their spots (just not the huge amount of extra slots they have now).  Healers still are going to have at least 6 spots (less than current set up though because fighters would add survivabilty to the raid).  And now you have reason to bring more than 2 fighters.</p><p>Its not like this is rocket science.  Its simple, adjust X...increase Y....X spots become Y spots.</p></blockquote><p>Except, I fail to see how any of that would actually motivate me to bring more fighters.</p><p>We don't want or need to bring 6 fighters to a raid.  We rarely want to bring more than 3.  Finding a way to motivate us to bring a different sub-type for each of those 3 would be a worthwhile effort.</p><p>Trying to re-engineer the game to bring 6 tanks to a 4 group raid is [Removed for Content] in the wind.</p></blockquote><p>So, your telling me that if having a fighter in a group helped absorb AE damage for the group that you wouldn't bring the fighter.  So, you take a small loss in DPS by using a fighter that is going offensive, and yet you help keep the group alive making sustained DPS higher...hhhhmmm.</p><p>So your telling me that if fighters actually were the controllers of hate, like they should have been from the start...that there wouldn't be one in each group?  Also, with Vinka's idea having each archetype have a different kind of "lending" buff instead of all of them having just an avoidance buff that it wouldn't help make more than 2 fighters viable?  Hmmm, MT (warrior) gets Crusader stoneskin buff, and brawler avoidance buff....oh wait, we actually have fights that have some OT'ing why not bring that extra Warriors/brawler/crusader for their T2 dps and than of course the hate utility and group buffs they could bring along with that "lend" buff they could bring.  Wow, looks like it would be great to have 4 fighters in a raid no problem.</p><p>There is no re-engineering of the game involved.  It is tweaking current abilities like group buffs to have hate control components, group buffs that help soak some damage from AEs for fellow group members, tweaking the current avoidance buffs to have flavor for different fighters....however the first thing that really needs to be done is fixing current utility classes and how well they stack.  And there was a post a while ago where Aeralik acknowledged the problem and it was under radar...when they fix it though they want to make sure they do it right so it will take a while...just like proc changes were on the radar for quite a while.</p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p>3....maybe 4 figters is the most we should ever see on raids.</p><p>Trying to retool classes and encounters to somehow make having more than that would amount to what is called a "kludge".</p><p>A buff given to Guards or any other fighter for that matter that would be so amazing to warrant replacing a DPSer or Bard or other utility would by default make said fighter way overpowered.</p><p>Making Bard/Enchanter buffs raidwide would open up room for more DPS classes....not more tanks.</p><p>What we need SOE to concentrate efforts on is balancing the fighters so that those 1-4 fighter slots can be fairly and equally  competed for.</p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>when they fix it though they want to make sure they do it right so it will take a while...</p></blockquote><p>Ok now we really are in lala land.</p>

[Bruener]

<p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Gage, honestly, why do you think that they would have to over-power fighters to get this done?  </p></blockquote><p>Because no matter what you do to other classes, those spots won't go to fighters unless fighters are overpowered.  Two fighters, three at the most, period.  Survivability isn't an issue.  Fighters can't heal.  If they give fighters amazing buffs, plus the ability to tank, plus the dps they currently do, that = overpowered.</p><p>If they don't do that, or scale up their dps even more, even if bards/enchanters get raidwide buffs those slots will go towards more sorcerors, more predators, more rogues, more anything but fighters.</p><p>Unless they change the entire mechanics of the game and how encounters work, totally butcher some classes or make fighters the one stop can do everything class, you're not getting more than three of them on any raid built to truly succeed in the endgame.</p></blockquote><p>How, how and how?  This post makes no sense what-so-ever.  So if they gave fighters good reason to have more than 2 to 3 on a raid you are calling them OP'd.  Even though that reason is probably a good balance of the DPS they can bring along with utility that could be added?  How is that OP'd.  Its not like it is going to make them solo better.  Its not like having survivability buffs is going to make sure you have 4 fighters in a group for heroic.  Now, it might make it so that instead of 2 healers in a group you could take 2 fighters.</p><p>The same holds true for raids.  Your definition of over-powered doesn't make any sense at all.  Over-powered would be if you brought 9 fighters on a raid to ensure success.  Over-powered would be if fighters had T1 DPS plus that extra utility....you know like Enchanters now.</p><p>Balanced is having T2 type dps and some extra utility for raids.  Balanced is not having 4-5 bards and 4 enchanters on a raid.  Balanced is not having 8 healers on a raid with only 2 fighters.</p><p>Answer me this Gage...are rogues currently OP'd?  Because they do exactly what you talk about.  They have better than offensive fighter DPS plus they have great utility.  Heck every single class now for some reason has utility.  Predators get a crit debuff, poison proc buff, temp buffs....I mean [Removed for Content].  Are T1 dps now OP'd than because they get both fantastic DPS plus they get to bring some utility?</p><p>So, again why exactly do you think it would make Fighters OP'd by having more than 2 on a raid, but no more than 6.  I mean every other type of class stacks, DPS stacks, utiilty stacks, and healers stack.  Fighters should stack, and stack just as well.</p>

[Landiin]

Really; If they would make guards T1 dps and give us a complete heal in Ostance, FD in no stance, bloodleter in Dstance I think we could fit more then 4 on the raid. Plus it would balance us up.

[circusgirl]

<p>Frankly, any individual class that does not have more than one representative on a raid is NOT overpowered.  This means that the 3-6 fighters per raid people have been talking about here is perfectly reasonable, and not remotely overpowered.  Changing group buffs to raidwides has 0 impact on soloing or heroic instancing, so again, so long as you don't have multiples of the same type of fighter on a raid (which would be pointless since under my suggestion these raidwides don't stack) they're not overpowered.  Changing the lend-type buffs might make it so that you could have multiple combinations of 2 fighters in a group with a solo healer when you were considering two healers instead of just plate tank+brawler+solo healer, but tank+tank+healer is no more unbalanced than tank+healer+healer.  Again, not overpowered.</p><p>What would be unbalanced is if a raidforce said ''okay, we need 4 tanks for this encounter, lets bring guardian, sk, sk, sk'' or any other combination of overpowered class of the expansion.  Thats why all of my suggestions have focused on ways to bring diversity, and not just force many tanks.</p>

[Gaige]

<p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>So, your telling me that if having a fighter in a group helped absorb AE damage for the group that you wouldn't bring the fighter.  So, you take a small loss in DPS by using a fighter that is going offensive, and yet you help keep the group alive making sustained DPS higher...hhhhmmm.</p><p>So your telling me that if fighters actually were the controllers of hate, like they should have been from the start...that there wouldn't be one in each group?  Also, with Vinka's idea having each archetype have a different kind of "lending" buff instead of all of them having just an avoidance buff that it wouldn't help make more than 2 fighters viable?  Hmmm, MT (warrior) gets Crusader stoneskin buff, and brawler avoidance buff....oh wait, we actually have fights that have some OT'ing why not bring that extra Warriors/brawler/crusader for their T2 dps and than of course the hate utility and group buffs they could bring along with that "lend" buff they could bring.  Wow, looks like it would be great to have 4 fighters in a raid no problem.</p></blockquote><p>We can already keep our groups alive through AEs.  So no, we wouldn't bring more fighters, we'd bring more DPS.  Group survivabilty is fine already.</p><p>Hate isn't an issue.  Fighter survivability isn't an issue.</p><p>None of these "fixes" do anything at all.</p>

[Gaige]

<p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Answer me this Gage...are rogues currently OP'd?  Because they do exactly what you talk about.  They have better than offensive fighter DPS plus they have great utility.  Heck every single class now for some reason has utility.  Predators get a crit debuff, poison proc buff, temp buffs....I mean [Removed for Content].  Are T1 dps now OP'd than because they get both fantastic DPS plus they get to bring some utility?</p></blockquote><p>Can rogues MT or OT raids consistently?  No.</p><p>Can predators MT or OT raids consistently?  No.</p><p>Neither of those scout classes have the defensive abilities or hate control abilities required to do those jobs on raids.  ONLY FIGHTERS can fill those roles.</p><p>Rogues/predators bring DPS, some debuffing and one or two "trick" things to the raid, but mostly DPS.</p><p>Fighters bring DPS, some buffing, and the ABILITY TO TANK AND OFFTANK to the raid.</p><p>Its already the same.  What irritates fighters it that their role doesn't stack like DPS/healing does.  However, we've never had to call off a raid because our assassin missed we have done that when both our MT and OT missed.</p><p>More valuable, less slots.  That is just how it is.</p>

[Kimber]

<p>Gage you did not have to call off the raid due to the Scouts not showing cause you could get others to fill the spot.  The MT and OT not showing caused you to call it off I can understand that.  However if you carried more than 2 fighters in the raid say 4 guess what you would not have had to call it off cause you would have had a MT and OT in the other 2 fighters, and could fill the spots you had with DPS if you wanted.  We are not saying if these changes happen you would have to bring more fighters we are just saying that it would be nice for the fighters to have more slots if the RL choose to not take them that is the RL choice.  We are asking for a little more utility so that if they make the Bard buffs raid wide that taking more fighters would increase the survivability of the raid making the healers jobs a lil easier and it would be the RL choice as to what fills those spots.  Does he want to kill the content faster or his healers to have a bit of an easier time and still down the content.</p>

[Illine]

<p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Answer me this Gage...are rogues currently OP'd?  Because they do exactly what you talk about.  They have better than offensive fighter DPS plus they have great utility.  Heck every single class now for some reason has utility.  Predators get a crit debuff, poison proc buff, temp buffs....I mean [Removed for Content].  Are T1 dps now OP'd than because they get both fantastic DPS plus they get to bring some utility?</p></blockquote><p>Can rogues MT or OT raids consistently?  No.</p><p>Can predators MT or OT raids consistently?  No.</p><p>Neither of those scout classes have the defensive abilities or hate control abilities required to do those jobs on raids.  ONLY FIGHTERS can fill those roles.</p><p>Rogues/predators bring DPS, some debuffing and one or two "trick" things to the raid, but mostly DPS.</p><p>Fighters bring DPS, some buffing, and the ABILITY TO TANK AND OFFTANK to the raid.</p><p>Its already the same.  What irritates fighters it that their role doesn't stack like DPS/healing does.  However, we've never had to call off a raid because our assassin missed we have done that when both our MT and OT missed.</p><p>More valuable, less slots.  That is just how it is.</p></blockquote><p>that's the pb</p><p>even when grouping, you can bring 2 heals, more than 2 dps, 2 buffers but not 2 tanks. Tanks should be able to fill different roles.</p><p>I liked the idea a a real dps stance where fighter could equal rogues in dps and lose survivability ... like rogues.</p><p>that's one of the answers with making tanks more wanted</p>

[Baccalarium]

<p>I'm not going to dig through all the posts to link to specific ones, but I'll comment from the point of view of a healer seeing so few fighters around and regularly not enough highly geared fighters to even run harder instances.</p><p>If you want more fighters,   adding capabilities to fighters that make them compete with dps and utility classes just doesn't seem right.    You're not adding a fighter spot untill you've turned the fighter into a better utility class than the existing utlity class.   At that point the fighter is only a fighter in that he's got red crossed swords in front of his name.</p><p>Yes some encounteres have been done to require multiple fighters for the task of tanking.   That is controlling an encounter (hate),  and mitigating the damage done by the ecounter (staying alive long enough to be healed).   Fighters have cooperative ways to deal with damage and mitigation already in terms of intercedes and bufs,    there might be ways to enhance the usefulness of those effects in ways that don't trivialize encounters.   With many raids I've seen where fighters are often fighting in offensive,  the value of those mitigation bufs must not be all that valuable.  I have seen less well setup raids saved by intercedes though.</p><p>Biggest most visible role of fighters is in controlling mobs.  If offtanks were needed to continously contribute to that role rather than only contributing in specially designed encounters, or few a few seconds after a memwipe  it seems like that a need for more fighters in a raid could be justified.</p><p>Someone suggested fighters be the kings of hate.   I can see something like figthers having bufs or transfers that allow offtanks to contribute a large porition(50%)  of their hate to the main tank( probably while keeping their hate for themselves as well) .      This might be caveated by offtank's target being epic,   only if the creature is big can multiple fighters get a hold on it.    Now this might trivialize hate in many encounters as dps'ers could be competing with 3 or 4 fighters worth of stacked hate.   To combat it epic encounters might have pick up targetting logic that they combined hate of players in a similar manner when picking targets.   Perhaps an Epic x4 takes the wizards hate and 50% of the hate of 3 other players close to him in deciding if the wizard is tasty.  </p><p>Dragon Fighter (or I'll get the tail buf)</p><p>Duration: untill cancelledTarget:Group or Raid Friend (if fighter)</p><p>Creates a link between the target and the caster.  Each time thecaster uses a combat art the art will increase hate toward the casterand toward the target of "Dragon Fighter", if the combat art target is epic.</p><p>I'm lousy with names but perhaps that gives ideas.</p>

[Gaige]

<p><cite>Illine@Storms wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I liked the idea a a real dps stance where fighter could equal rogues in dps and lose survivability ... like rogues.</p><p>that's one of the answers with making tanks more wanted</p></blockquote><p>As soon as scouts get a "real" defensive stance that allows us to tank as well as a fighter while losing dps... like fighters.</p>

[Landiin]

<p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Illine@Storms wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I liked the idea a a real dps stance where fighter could equal rogues in dps and lose survivability ... like rogues.</p><p>that's one of the answers with making tanks more wanted</p></blockquote><p>As soon as scouts get a "real" defensive stance that allows us to tank as well as a fighter while losing dps... like fighters.</p></blockquote><p>that is just absurd Gage. Fighters need to be a jack of all trades and master too..</p>

[Gaige]

<p><cite>Toran@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>that is just absurd Gage. Fighters need to be a jack of all trades and master too..</p></blockquote><p>Why is it absurd for a scout to DPS well and then hit a button and be able to MT raids, but its not absurd for the fighter class?</p><p>Fighters don't need to be jack of all trades.  They excel at aggro control and defense.  That excellence comes at the cost of DPS.  Giving them a button to click that lets them out DPS rogues is as absurd as absurd gets.</p>

[Novusod]

<p>I have been thinking about this for a while and I think the best way to do this would be to give the Fighter Archtype something akin to a set buff. No individual fighter would receive any new buffs. It would work similar to equiping gear of the same set to recieve a 3, 4, 5, or 6 peice set bonus. In this mechanic raids with three or more fighters would start receiving set buffs from having extra fighters in the raid. Under current mechanics having 6 fighters in the raid severely [Removed for Content] the raid. The NEW idea is to give raids a six fighter set buff bonus that more than offsets the liability of having non-desirable classes in raid.</p><p>This should probably be carried over arch types as well so each archtype as a really nice 6 set bonus.</p><p>Idealy you have 6 fighters, 6 mages, 6 healers, 6 scouts. The major part of the raids utility in the future will come from having the set bonus and not the stacking of individual classes.</p>

[Landiin]

<p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Toran@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>that is just absurd Gage. Fighters need to be a jack of all trades and master too..</p></blockquote><p>Why is it absurd for a scout to DPS well and then hit a button and be able to MT raids, but its not absurd for the fighter class?</p><p>Fighters don't need to be jack of all trades.  They excel at aggro control and defense.  That excellence comes at the cost of DPS.  Giving them a button to click that lets them out DPS rogues is as absurd as absurd gets.</p></blockquote><p>I was being facetious Gage. I figured it would be obvious by how I said fighters should be..</p>

[Illine]

<p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Illine@Storms wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I liked the idea a a real dps stance where fighter could equal rogues in dps and lose survivability ... like rogues.</p><p>that's one of the answers with making tanks more wanted</p></blockquote><p>As soon as scouts get a "real" defensive stance that allows us to tank as well as a fighter while losing dps... like fighters.</p></blockquote><p>well rogues can tank many things as long as the adds in xebnok.</p><p>Rogues and scouts are always needed as a dps class ... what I say is just give fighter another role than just tank ... In my raid, the only fighter that has a real high dps are the MT and Ot on trash. Because they have an amazing quantity of buffs on them. so it's not relevant.</p><p>But The fighters that are not well buffed don't dps much compared to scout ... and I think their dps should be close when dpsing ... since they don't tank, they don't take damage ... their dps should be higher, that way they could be a wanted spot to a raid ... and not just being an alt you log on some encounters.</p><p>As I said, I don't believe there should be 6 tank spots on a raid ... 4 is the max to me, but the 2 that don't tank should be able to bring enough to the raid in term of dps/buff/survivability to be wanted.</p><p>And I don't think it would make them overpowered ... but if they change things so a raid needs less regen mana/buffers ... you could add one more fighter if the fighter brings something ... otherwise you'll bring a dps class ... again</p>

[Gaige]

<p><cite>Illine@Storms wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I think their dps should be close when dpsing ... since they don't tank, they don't take damage ... their dps should be higher, that way they could be a wanted spot to a raid ... and not just being an alt you log on some encounters.</p></blockquote><p>The problem is they <em>CAN</em> tank.  They may not be tanking, but they can.  That is why giving them a toggleable button that allows them to DPS like rogues would be overpowered because if the going gets tough, bam there they go, tanking again.</p><p>You can't give classes the best of both worlds like that, look at our current illusionist issue.  Amazing dps and amazing buffs means that illys compete/beat wizards and are also more useful than wizards.</p><p>If tanks could DPS on par or better than rogues, and then with the click of a button pick up stray adds or MT the named until recovery or whatever, that is overpowered.</p><p>One role, or crappy at multiple rolls.  That is how it should be.</p>

[Siatfallen]

<p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Illine@Storms wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I think their dps should be close when dpsing ... since they don't tank, they don't take damage ... their dps should be higher, that way they could be a wanted spot to a raid ... and not just being an alt you log on some encounters.</p></blockquote><p>The problem is they <em>CAN</em> tank.  They may not be tanking, but they can.  That is why giving them a toggleable button that allows them to DPS like rogues would be overpowered because if the going gets tough, bam there they go, tanking again.</p><p>You can't give classes the best of both worlds like that, look at our current illusionist issue.  Amazing dps and amazing buffs means that illys compete/beat wizards and are also more useful than wizards.</p><p>If tanks could DPS on par or better than rogues, and then with the click of a button pick up stray adds or MT the named until recovery or whatever, that is overpowered.</p><p>One role, or crappy at multiple rolls.  That is how it should be.</p></blockquote><p>Rogues bring more than DPS as well. Brigand DPS alone accounts for ~20% increased raid DPS - that makes him easily able to compete with a fighter doing as much DPS as he does. The fighter gives survivability to the raid, the brigand gives debuffs.</p><p>If the complaint here is that rangers no longer have a solid lead in DPS over the other rogues, then I suggest you take that up. It's somewhat out of my league, since I've never played a ranger over level 10, and that debate really doesn't belong here for all I can tell.</p>

[Illine]

<p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Illine@Storms wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I think their dps should be close when dpsing ... since they don't tank, they don't take damage ... their dps should be higher, that way they could be a wanted spot to a raid ... and not just being an alt you log on some encounters.</p></blockquote><p>The problem is they <em>CAN</em> tank.  They may not be tanking, but they can.  That is why giving them a toggleable button that allows them to DPS like rogues would be overpowered because if the going gets tough, bam there they go, tanking again.</p><p>You can't give classes the best of both worlds like that, look at our current illusionist issue.  Amazing dps and amazing buffs means that illys compete/beat wizards and are also more useful than wizards.</p><p>If tanks could DPS on par or better than rogues, and then with the click of a button pick up stray adds or MT the named until recovery or whatever, that is overpowered.</p><p>One role, or crappy at multiple rolls.  That is how it should be.</p></blockquote><p>rogues with the AA and the appropriate gear can tank ... almost as well as a brawler and dps more ... so don't tell me scouts cannot tank.</p><p>so since rogues can tank like brawlers, brawlers should be able to dps like rogues, no??, plus rogues still have the upper hand, they debuff a lot.</p><p>don't tell me brawlers would be overpowered anyway.</p><p>but fighters need to bring something else since they can't all be top at what their are doing.</p><p>like wardens, they may not be the best buffers but they are the one with the most heal power or assassin, they don't bring utility but are the best dps or gardians who bring the best survivability. Since not all tanks can have the best survivability nor dps nor buff nor heal power .... they need a bit of both to make them wanted. Not necessary but usefull.</p>

[Gaige]

<p><cite>Illine@Storms wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>rogues with the AA and the appropriate gear can tank ... almost as well as a brawler and dps more ... so don't tell me scouts cannot tank.</p><p>so since rogues can tank like brawlers, brawlers should be able to dps like rogues, no??, plus rogues still have the upper hand, they debuff a lot.</p></blockquote><p>We had a bruiser MT all of the avatars, all of Tomb, Palace to Mynzak, YIS to Ykesha, Zarrakon and Munzok's to Gozak.</p><p>Can rogues do that?</p><p>Anyone can tank heroic content so I don't care about that.  This thread is about raids, so I'm talking about raids.  What brigand have you seen MT those zones and the avatars?  What swash?</p>

[Aull]

<p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Illine@Storms wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>rogues with the AA and the appropriate gear can tank ... almost as well as a brawler and dps more ... so don't tell me scouts cannot tank.</p><p>so since rogues can tank like brawlers, brawlers should be able to dps like rogues, no??, plus rogues still have the upper hand, they debuff a lot.</p></blockquote><p>We had a bruiser MT all of the avatars, all of Tomb, Palace to Mynzak, YIS to Ykesha, Zarrakon and Munzok's to Gozak.</p><p>Can rogues do that?</p><p>Anyone can tank heroic content so I don't care about that.  This thread is about raids, so I'm talking about raids.  What brigand have you seen MT those zones and the avatars?  What swash?</p></blockquote><p>I can agree on both counts. It would be hard to envision a rouge actually tanking since most raid guilds are already equiped with a solid plate to begin with. I doubt that any rogue would spec for tanking anyway since "DPS" is what people are so crazy about.</p><p>While rogues can tank instances just as effectively as any brawler the rogues do not have any Oh <a href="mailto:!@#$">!@#$</a> snap aggro abilities that could help them in a raid setting if aggro starts bouncing around. Now for a rogue to actually tank these tso raid zones I am sure that any dps class would need to hold back just to insure that the rogue will be able to hold aggro, but cutting back on dps is something that no guild wants any part of.</p>

[Bruener]

<p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Illine@Storms wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>rogues with the AA and the appropriate gear can tank ... almost as well as a brawler and dps more ... so don't tell me scouts cannot tank.</p><p>so since rogues can tank like brawlers, brawlers should be able to dps like rogues, no??, plus rogues still have the upper hand, they debuff a lot.</p></blockquote><p>We had a bruiser MT all of the avatars, all of Tomb, Palace to Mynzak, YIS to Ykesha, Zarrakon and Munzok's to Gozak.</p><p>Can rogues do that?</p><p>Anyone can tank heroic content so I don't care about that.  This thread is about raids, so I'm talking about raids.  What brigand have you seen MT those zones and the avatars?  What swash?</p></blockquote><p>I would be willing that your raid force could buff a rogue up to tank just about every single zone.  Tomb would be cake.  Palace would be pretty easy, and you know a rogue could OT the x2 on Anashti.  Probably the majority of encounters could be tanked by a good rogue in a good guild.</p><p>Once you get past the agro good healers are going to be able to keep up a tank spec'd rogue.</p><p>So....now where are my rogue-like debuffs....</p>

[circusgirl]

<p>Gage is correct that it would be overpowered to <em>simultaneously</em> be a solid tank AND do rogue-like dps.  However, what would not be overpowered is for a tank to have <em>either</em> survivability or dps.  Switching at the click of a button would be a bit too much, but if a fighter switched gear, called home, put on his dps gear, and switched specs in such a way that left him with thoroughly mediocre (i.e. scout-like) survivability and this gave him rogue level dps, that would be in NO way overpowered.  Essentially you then have a rogue without the utility, who makes up for it by being able to go home and change roles when its needed.  In large part thats where I would like to see brawlers go.  We should exist on a spectrum of trading off dps for survivability, with, crusader level survivability and warrior level dps on one extreme and scout survivability with brigand-level dps on the other end (minus the utility).  We're then slightly worse than a pure class on either end, but aren't deadweight when not tanking and worth bringing along for our flexibility if content frequently requires a 3rd or 4th tank.</p>

[Illine]

<p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Illine@Storms wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>rogues with the AA and the appropriate gear can tank ... almost as well as a brawler and dps more ... so don't tell me scouts cannot tank.</p><p>so since rogues can tank like brawlers, brawlers should be able to dps like rogues, no??, plus rogues still have the upper hand, they debuff a lot.</p></blockquote><p>We had a bruiser MT all of the avatars, all of Tomb, Palace to Mynzak, YIS to Ykesha, Zarrakon and Munzok's to Gozak.</p><p>Can rogues do that?</p><p>Anyone can tank heroic content so I don't care about that.  This thread is about raids, so I'm talking about raids.  What brigand have you seen MT those zones and the avatars?  What swash?</p></blockquote><p>In theory yes .. as in KoS swash could tank one of the 3 princes with the god spec ..; swash can OT the adds in xebnok  and I think they could have a nice survivability with the good gear and the healers. They would not be as good as tank on aggro management and survivability but would be close.</p><p>I don't talk about assassin or ranger or bards because they are weaker but the class the closest to brawler is rogue and i really think swash are just below brawlers in term of survivability while brawlers are not just below rogues in term of dos/utility.</p><p>As said circusgirl, I don't think a switch button is the good idea, because it would be too powerfull ... but i repeat raids need to be able to bring tanks even if they are not supposed to tank on this raid. healers don't always heal when it's not needed ... so why tanks could only tank? it's not logical ... A fighter could dps, when I imagine a monk ... i imagine him doing great damage to his oponent, same for a Sk with a claymore or a zerk with a great two handed axe.</p><p>I D&D for exemple fighters usually deal more damage than rogues ... unless the rogue is behind and hit with a sneak attack.</p><p>I understand when you're in tanking mode, you work more on keeping the attention of the mob and defend yourself than dps; If you have your shield hidding you to protect your face, then it's hard to deal massive damage. But if you're in off stance, willing to hit the mob with your big weapon, what could stop him from doing that?</p><p>I'm more scared to face a zerk with a big axe than a rogue with a knife (different matter if I wasn't seeing the rogue <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> ).</p><p>for me if you need 4 fighters for some fighters, those fighters should be part of your roster and not just some equiped alt. But to need them you need to give them something else to do then tanking. I Eof they gave a desaggro in the monk and bruiser tree ... this means they were seeing brawlers as a pseudo dps class.</p><p>I want to be able to tank with my bruiser as well as any other tank even though I know I have problems with group encounters that zerk or ZK or even paladin won't have but I also want to be wanted for something else because 2 tanks are not stacking in a group compared to any other class. they are even annoying each other sometimes. same for raids.</p><p>I remember on VP the only usefulness of brawlers was click on shinies on nexona, click on statues on druushk, give another chance for the MT not to be obliged to move on silverwing ...</p>

[peepshow]

<p>But..</p><p>I don't want my Brawler to be T1 dps, if that was what I wanted to do, I would have made an Assassin instead!!!</p><p>How nice would it be if you had to call home every 6th mob mob to be able to dps between the ones where you have to OT, and in case I have my "so called dps spec" what if the MT goes down, do I just let the mob go loose and hope for it not to hit me ?</p><p>*I just sacrificed all my sirvivability for dps, so I'm not pressing rescue*</p><p>Screw that, I want my toon to be able to tank in defensive stance, solo in middle stance and dps in offensive stance..</p><p>in a raid I will be using offensive, and when things go crazy I swap to defensive (Should be instant) and tank the mob while MT gets up and rebuffed.</p>

[Landiin]

<p><cite>Scipius@Splitpaw wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>But..</p><p>I don't want my Brawler to be T1 dps, if that was what I wanted to do, I would have made an Assassin instead!!!</p><p>How nice would it be if you had to call home every 6th mob mob to be able to dps between the ones where you have to OT, and in case I have my "so called dps spec" what if the MT goes down, do I just let the mob go loose and hope for it not to hit me ?</p><p>*I just sacrificed all my sirvivability for dps, so I'm not pressing rescue*</p><p>Screw that, I want my toon to be able to tank in defensive stance, solo in middle stance and dps in offensive stance..</p><p>in a raid I will be using offensive, and when things go crazy I swap to defensive (Should be instant) and tank the mob while MT gets up and rebuffed.</p></blockquote><p>I know right, I want a heal and FD for my guard too.</p>

[Anariale]

<p>The solution is acutally really simple... buff the raid-wide buffs that each of the fighters get to a point that you would have to be a momo to take another DPS instead of a fighter class that you're missing.</p><p>Its 6 abilities that need tweaking... thats it.</p>

[Gaige]

<p><cite>Anariale wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The solution is acutally really simple... buff the raid-wide buffs that each of the fighters get to a point that you would have to be a momo to take another DPS instead of a fighter class that you're missing.</p><p>Its 6 abilities that need tweaking... thats it.</p></blockquote><p>Right, turning fighters into the new bards/enchanters.  What a fix!</p>

[Bruener]

<p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Anariale wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The solution is acutally really simple... buff the raid-wide buffs that each of the fighters get to a point that you would have to be a momo to take another DPS instead of a fighter class that you're missing.</p><p>Its 6 abilities that need tweaking... thats it.</p></blockquote><p>Right, turning fighters into the new bards/enchanters.  What a fix!</p></blockquote><p>Yeah, imagine that....fighters actually taking up 4-5 slots on a raid...OMG end of the raid world as we know it.</p><p>Not to mentiont unnlike bard/chanters raid wide buffs don't stack.</p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Anariale wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The solution is acutally really simple... buff the raid-wide buffs that each of the fighters get to a point that you would have to be a momo to take another DPS instead of a fighter class that you're missing.</p><p>Its 6 abilities that need tweaking... thats it.</p></blockquote><p>Right, turning fighters into the new bards/enchanters.  What a fix!</p></blockquote><p>Yeah, imagine that....fighters actually taking up 4-5 slots on a raid...OMG end of the raid world as we know it.</p><p>Not to mentiont unnlike bard/chanters raid wide buffs don't stack.</p></blockquote><p>Fear not..im sure soon you will get your wish that Bloodletter stack......then your 4-5 fighters (read SK) per raid will be possible.</p><p>Hell why we are at it....lets give you a raidwide power regen buff equal to what a chanter can do and throw in some Bard level buffs.  The circle will be complete....you will not only tank better than a Warrior.....or DPS like a mage......but now buff like a Chanter or Bard.</p>

[peepshow]

<p>Nobody is saying we want to replace any of theo ther classes, we just want to be able to actually copmpete for the spots in raids..</p><p>As of now, most raids are Guard/SK/SK, Guard/Zerker/SK or Guard/SK/Pally..</p><p>All we ask for it that this pattern is changed to:</p><p>Warrior/Crusader/Brawler instead.. It really is'nt much to ask for I think..</p><p>There has already been LOTS of very good ideas on how to make this happen, some also quite usefull, but sure there has been some BS inbetween also..</p><p>But hey, its their [Removed for Content] job to make this happen, and our job is to pay for it, we are paying, now you go and do you part of the deal also..</p>

[Illine]

<p>yeah no need to be sarcastic ...</p><p>it's amazing, nothing is done for fighters ... the fighter revamp was canceled coz lots of bad things but they also canceled the good things. Now we don't hear about it any more and not fixes on fighters any time soon.</p><p>like they changed the proc things .. for exemple they changed the cacophonie proc for it to be melee based but the proc on the bruiser off stance is heat and hasn't been fixed. They even fixed the crit on some swash procs.</p><p>So I sometimes believe they already put the brawler class into the trash can and forgot about them. We still don't have any AE auto attack just a stupid weak proc that procs less often than your auto attack, less crit and DA ... and I don't think they need a fighter revamp to do that.</p><p>then for group buffs ... it's not usefull enough .. the SK buffs only mages, paladin only priests, bruiser only melee and tanks zerk only melee too, guard increase everybody's defense and monk buffs everybody.</p><p>Every fighter buff should be usefull for every class. (bruiser M1 buff is 69 str; +5%CA +16% taunts ... the worst thing is that the T7 spell is 57 str; +5% CA; +16% taunts ... so between boths just a +12 str bonus ... woot .. amazing)</p><p>so bruiser should have desaggro buff on the spell without the AAs, I don't know the other class enough to give exemples of what could be needed but make our buffs more usefull or give us another reason than tanking in a raid would be a good start.</p><p>I know some monks and bruiser are on big guilds and play but there are few of them and even them realise there are problems.</p>

[Bruener]

<p><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Anariale wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The solution is acutally really simple... buff the raid-wide buffs that each of the fighters get to a point that you would have to be a momo to take another DPS instead of a fighter class that you're missing.</p><p>Its 6 abilities that need tweaking... thats it.</p></blockquote><p>Right, turning fighters into the new bards/enchanters.  What a fix!</p></blockquote><p>Yeah, imagine that....fighters actually taking up 4-5 slots on a raid...OMG end of the raid world as we know it.</p><p>Not to mentiont unnlike bard/chanters raid wide buffs don't stack.</p></blockquote><p>Fear not..im sure soon you will get your wish that Bloodletter stack......then your 4-5 fighters (read SK) per raid will be possible.</p><p>Hell why we are at it....lets give you a raidwide power regen buff equal to what a chanter can do and throw in some Bard level buffs.  The circle will be complete....you will not only tank better than a Warrior.....or DPS like a mage......but now buff like a Chanter or Bard.</p></blockquote><p>Can we make some kind of rule for the General Fighter discussions that morons can't post here?  Seriously, why are you trying to turn this discussion into a "nerf SK" thread once again....tool.  Did I say anywhere that SKs should get buffs like that?  Did it seem to you that I was just talking about SKs?  Because if it did maybe you should learn how to comprehend English a little better.  I have posted many ideas in this thread pertaining...you know to the topic.  The topic of increased amount of fighters in raids.</p><p>Maybe it is just something that is very hard for Guards to understand....since they have always had a guaranteed spot in raids since launch.  Of course if you guys had it your way it would be back to RoK where it was Guard MT and Guard OT for a lot of raids.</p><p>So sick of this petty Guard jealousy that keeps popping up in every thread.  I am sorry you struggle.  Get better.  Stop trying to break a class that finally got what was coming to it.</p>

[Landiin]

<p>SK's got more then what they had coming. You got DPS, survivability and mega hate. Thats more then any fighter has ever had. Yea I am glad you guys got beafed up but they went way over the top like normal. It is not yalls fault but quit acting like it didn't happen...</p>

[LygerT]

<p>of course it is going to be a biased discussion and it will only be moreso as other fighters get more and more fed up. no, bloodletter shouldn't be layerable to allow you even more free roam on positions in a raid, that is the complete opposite of what this thread was originally trying to achieve.</p>

[Bruener]

<p><cite>Toran@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>SK's got more then what they had coming. You got DPS, survivability and mega hate. Thats more then any fighter has ever had. Yea I am glad you guys got beafed up but they went way over the top like normal. It is not yalls fault but quit acting like it didn't happen...</p></blockquote><p>Yeah, imagine that the offensive Plate fighter got DPS, which in turn equals agro.  Not like good ole' RoK where SKs were 2nd to last for DPS...and last for hate.  Mega hate I will give you, and I love it.  Survivability...how exactly does SKs having the 3rd or 4th best survivability seem over the top?  Oh wait, let me guess you are going to pull the "whine" card that if you are DW'ing you have less survivability...so do you DW against tough mobs?  Guards = best survivability, great ST agro control, and 4th for DPS.  Zerks = 2nd best survivability, good DPS and great AE agro control.  Paladins = 3rd or 4th best survivability, good DPS, best hate.</p><p>Wow, what do you know.  Its not the end of the world.  So can we please move past the /cry I am not a SK discussion?</p><p>Anyway...back to the topic.  Tweaking raid-wide buffs so that they are more beneficial but not stackable might be enough to bring 4+ fighters.  Something that raid-wides effect the entire raid, maybe add more survivability or something.</p>

[LygerT]

<p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Toran@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>SK's got more then what they had coming. You got DPS, survivability and mega hate. Thats more then any fighter has ever had. Yea I am glad you guys got beafed up but they went way over the top like normal. It is not yalls fault but quit acting like it didn't happen...</p></blockquote><p>Yeah, imagine that the offensive Plate fighter got DPS, which in turn equals agro.  Not like good ole' RoK where SKs were 2nd to last for DPS...and last for hate.  Mega hate I will give you, and I love it.  Survivability...how exactly does SKs having the 3rd or 4th best survivability seem over the top?  Oh wait, let me guess you are going to pull the "whine" card that if you are DW'ing you have less survivability...so do you DW against tough mobs?  Guards = best survivability, great ST agro control, and 4th for DPS.  Zerks = 2nd best survivability, good DPS and great AE agro control.  Paladins = 3rd or 4th best survivability, good DPS, best hate.</p><p>Wow, what do you know.  Its not the end of the world.  So can we please move past the /cry I am not a SK discussion?</p><p>Anyway...back to the topic.  Tweaking raid-wide buffs so that they are more beneficial but not stackable might be enough to bring 4+ fighters.  Something that raid-wides effect the entire raid, maybe add more survivability or something.</p></blockquote><p>SKs do not have 3/4th in survivability, do not delude to try and let people think you are as poor off as that. death march, cast haste buff for not only hostile spells but beneficial as well so your healers become more godly regardless of group makeup for a period of time to make up for your "lack of survivability".  then you add in the still single best deathsave with a rediculously fast recast and you soon see that you are being ignorant or trying to lead people to believe that it is true.</p><p>i have witnessed poor new to 80 SKs do fine with solo healers due in part to deathmarch, bloodletter and the now newer and better health siphons. endgame tank avoidance is nearly equal between, as well as health, lower mitigation does not account for much in incoming damage and i have seen endgame SKs tank nearly as well as our MT guard.</p><p>personally i think the main issue of this thread lies in brawlers, they need a hand in their DPS or utility to be more desirable but there is many who wish to tank. i have no issue with one or the other so long as they cannot do both at the same time.</p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p>I apologize for my part in derailing this thread.</p><p>Back on topic.......</p><p>I think what we should all hope for is a meaningful, useful spot on raids for one of each fighter "type".....Warrior, Crusader and Brawler.  They should be have to "compete" equally and fairly for who gets to serve what fighter roles are required for the raid at hand.   Thats what the goal of balance IMO should be.</p><p>I think that can be accomplished without stepping on other classes or trying to kludge fighters by giving them buffs that are ghetto version of things other archtypes provide.  Would require some class design tweaks as well as raid encounter tweaks.</p><p>6 fighters....multiples of each class on raid....no thanks.  We already have too much of that with the other archetypes.</p>

[Bruener]

<p><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I apologize for my part in derailing this thread.</p><p>Back on topic.......</p><p>I think what we should all hope for is a meaningful, useful spot on raids for one of each fighter "type".....Warrior, Crusader and Brawler.  They should be have to "compete" equally and fairly for who gets to serve what fighter roles are required for the raid at hand.   Thats what the goal of balance IMO should be.</p><p>I think that can be accomplished without stepping on other classes or trying to kludge fighters by giving them buffs that are ghetto version of things other archtypes provide.  Would require some class design tweaks as well as raid encounter tweaks.</p><p>6 fighters....multiples of each class on raid....no thanks.  We already have too much of that with the other archetypes.</p></blockquote><p>Honestly I would like to see it be 4 fighters on a raid for the ideal set up.  1 fighter in each group is definitely not to much to ask for and would be less than the other classes represent on a raid.  1 fighter to help out each group.  Not sure if raid-wide buffs are necessarily the best means for this or if it would be tweaking the group buffs that are around.  The biggest problem I see is the fact that Warriors/Brawlers seem to have no place in a caster group versus Crusaders.  Of course, now adays groups are more hybrid in nature all around.  I think if they adjusted things so that the buffs/benefits Brawlers/Warriors recieved and gave to a Caster group were more beneficial than it would go a long way for making sure there is 1 fighter in a group.</p><p>This is probably right on the horizon right now though with the changes they are "supposedly" going to be making with merging "crits".</p>

[Beghauns]

<p>"They should be have to "compete" equally and fairly for who gets to serve what fighter roles are required for the raid at hand.   Thats what the goal of balance IMO should be."</p><p>If thats the case they're going to have to give warriors a lot more useful stuff since we're one trick ponys guardians more so then zerkers.  Sk's and pallys can do other things off heal dps ward etc, brawlers used to be able to dps quite well compared to the rest and also they could tank when needed.  Meanwhile the warrior can only just sits there and get hit while doing whatever he can to keep the mob angry dps taunts etc.</p>

[LygerT]

<p>3 fighters is fine, one of each archtype. sony tried it in the past and it somewhat worked but no one liked the idea of forcing raids to work around a mob in particular simply due to scripting saying you have to have X types of fighters in the raid.</p>

[peepshow]

<p>In a perfect work there would be the NEED of 3 fighters, 1 of each type..</p><p>Guards and Zerkers should compete for the warrior</p><p>SK's and Pally's for the Crusader spot</p><p>Bruiser's and Monk's for the Brawler spot..</p><p>Both of the 2 classes should be able to forfill the role just as good as the counterpart, so if a Guild chose to run with a Zerker MT, he SHOULD be able to MT just as good as ANY guardian with same skills/gear, and the same for the other 2 "types" of course..</p><p>This would imo, make a lot of people happy.</p><p>And for the gyu who is tired of playing his uber leet dos toon, and now wants to MT in raids, he can actually pick between something, instead of thinkin, I wana MT i need to make a Guardian..</p><p>Choices is what we need in this game, and balance in classes <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>I don't mind my Brawler being 3rd on the list in Tanking and Warriors number 1 choice for MT'ing, as long as I get the chance to raid and feel needed in raids..</p>

[Illine]

<p><cite>Scipius@Splitpaw wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>In a perfect work there would be the NEED of 3 fighters, 1 of each type..</p><p>Guards and Zerkers should compete for the warrior</p><p>SK's and Pally's for the Crusader spot</p><p>Bruiser's and Monk's for the Brawler spot..</p><p>Both of the 2 classes should be able to forfill the role just as good as the counterpart, so if a Guild chose to run with a Zerker MT, he SHOULD be able to MT just as good as ANY guardian with same skills/gear, and the same for the other 2 "types" of course..</p><p>This would imo, make a lot of people happy.</p><p>And for the gyu who is tired of playing his uber leet dos toon, and now wants to MT in raids, he can actually pick between something, instead of thinkin, I wana MT i need to make a Guardian..</p><p>Choices is what we need in this game, and balance in classes <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></p><p>I don't mind my Brawler being 3rd on the list in Tanking and Warriors number 1 choice for MT'ing, as long as I get the chance to raid and feel needed in raids..</p></blockquote><p>What they tried to do was MT paladin or gard  .. OT SK or Zerk  and brawler <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" />.</p><p>I would see more a paladin MT than a zerk ...</p><p>problem ... as many have already said ... how do you make 2 different classes as viable for a spot? They all have their strengths and weaknesses and if only one strength is better for one role, then that class will usually be taken.</p><p>During the fighter revap they said guard and paladin would be both single target tanks and the paladin would be just a little behind guard ... but this little behind can make all the difference when you need to choose who's your MT. Do you need more dps? survivability? something else?</p><p>same for brawlers ... how make them equally wanted but still different? you see that even with bards and chanty ... the illu is more wanted than the coercer and the dirge more wanted than the troubador .. assassin more than the ranger .. etc usually both classes have the same goal but one is more desirable ... and it will always be the same with fighters. Some will be more wanted than other and if you only need 3 or 4 fighter .. you'll take the best ones. right now brawlers are not on the top 4 <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />.</p>

[therodge]

<p>well its kinda cheap but a 2. small changes (and mobs being balanced for them) would probobly give all fighters (well atleast 1 in each group) their slot</p><p>1. add a spell effect to raidwides like so</p><p>1a. guardians/zerkers + 5 spell double attack + 5 flurry</p><p>1b. sks/paladins +10 spell double attack</p><p>1c bruiser/monk + 10 flurry</p><p>these should have the following line entered</p><p>: if in raid</p><p>they could not stack with the raidwide of the same archetype  but would stack with the raidwide of other archetyles.</p><p>2. ajust raid most named to have a high damage focus damage zw aoe that has the line</p><p>if not fighter</p><p>make it 30-50k focus depending on difficulty of mob</p><p>the give all fighters the following ca</p><p>genraric group intercede 01</p><p>caster receives 5% damage of target</p><p>so fighter takes 25% of the focus aoe keeps group alive and with the raidwides being both useful and unstackable guarentees 1 of each archetpe .</p><p>i know this is a little forced but meh.</p>

[Illine]

<p><cite>therodge wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>well its kinda cheap but a 2. small changes (and mobs being balanced for them) would probobly give all fighters (well atleast 1 in each group) their slot</p><p>1. add a spell effect to raidwides like so</p><p>1a. guardians/zerkers + 5 spell double attack + 5 flurry</p><p>1b. sks/paladins +10 spell double attack</p><p>1c bruiser/monk + 10 flurry</p><p>these should have the following line entered</p><p>: if in raid</p><p>they could not stack with the raidwide of the same archetype  but would stack with the raidwide of other archetyles.</p><p>2. ajust raid most named to have a high damage focus damage zw aoe that has the line</p><p>if not fighter</p><p>make it 30-50k focus depending on difficulty of mob</p><p>the give all fighters the following ca</p><p>genraric group intercede 01</p><p>caster receives 5% damage of target</p><p>so fighter takes 25% of the focus aoe keeps group alive and with the raidwides being both useful and unstackable guarentees 1 of each archetpe .</p><p>i know this is a little forced but meh.</p></blockquote><p>yeah but what if you want or have a paladin AND a SK ... or a guard AND a zerk??</p><p>no since they are different classes their raid buffs should stack ... you should be able to bring along 2 warriors, 2 crusaders or 2 brawlers without problem. because they are different classes and if buffs don't stack only the best class or most usefull of both will be used.</p><p>And useless to force taking fighters ... they need to ive usefull things without being necessary. You can succed a raid with 3 chanty or bard .. they are not a must have class. They are great and very usefull but not necessary. You need to give fighters a reason to be in group/raid other than tanking. They should not be a dead weight, they should bring things along that are usefull and prized but not overlly powerfull that you need them to succeed.</p><p>just think about it ...</p>

[AziBam]

<p><cite>Novusod wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I have been thinking about this for a while and I think the best way to do this would be to give the Fighter Archtype something akin to a set buff. No individual fighter would receive any new buffs. It would work similar to equiping gear of the same set to recieve a 3, 4, 5, or 6 peice set bonus. In this mechanic raids with three or more fighters would start receiving set buffs from having extra fighters in the raid. Under current mechanics having 6 fighters in the raid severely [Removed for Content] the raid. The NEW idea is to give raids a six fighter set buff bonus that more than offsets the liability of having non-desirable classes in raid.</p><p>This should probably be carried over arch types as well so each archtype as a really nice 6 set bonus.</p><p>Idealy you have 6 fighters, 6 mages, 6 healers, 6 scouts. The major part of the raids utility in the future will come from having the set bonus and not the stacking of individual classes.</p></blockquote><p>A similar idea to this came up in an SK thread a while back.  I think it's a good one.  Raids could still choose to go another route with their class selection but at least the idea of a diverse makeup wouldn't be a death knell if the buffs were sufficiently potent.  I would have no problems with this buff only growing with each different fighter class and not growing with duplicate classes (as in zerk, guard, monk, paladin, bruiser, sk gives more benefit than zerk, zerk, guard, sk, sk, sk.)</p><p>I have to admit I'm a bit amused that so many of us are willing to "settle" for 3 total fighter positions on a raid.  I'm not sure I understand why we would think it's ideal to have 6-8 scouts, 6-8 casters, 6-8 healers...but no more than 3 fighters.  I DO understand why it's that way with the current mechanics...just not sure why we think that that's the way it SHOULD be.  /shrug  BTW, I am not saying that I think that all 6 of the fighter classes have to be TANKING in each raid.  Just have a good reason to be there that benefits the raid as much or more than a duplicate of another class would.</p>

[circusgirl]

<p>Some notes since there's new info from fanfaire</p><p><ul><li>Bard/chanter buffs are going raidwide, and some buffs (TC for sure, don't know about others) will become castable once for each group by a single utility class.  We're looking at 2-4 fresh slots opening up.</li><li>Summoners will become mage equivalent of brigands (will likely be claiming 1 of those free slots</li><li>All crits are being combined, and each class will have a critical multiplyer that determines how much benefit you get out of +crit on an item in any particular field.  This might provide an easy way for devs to balance fighter dps.</li><li>There was a note on EQ2flames that the brawler avoidance buff was going to be improved, and that brawlers would have higher avoidance.  Block and deflect are being consolidated.  Haven't heard this repeated from multiple news sources though, so don't know how reliable it will be.</li></ul><div></div></p>

[Rahatmattata]

<p><cite>Azian@Everfrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I have to admit I'm a bit amused that so many of us are willing to "settle" for 3 total fighter positions on a raid.</p></blockquote><p>Because when it comes down to it, fighters are tanks, and there is no reason to bring 6 tanks on a raid. You can't give them enough dps where you would bring one over a predator or sorcerer. You can't give them enough utility to convince raids to bring a fighter over an enchanter or bard. And you don't need 6 of them tanking unless SOE starts making encounters that require it.</p><p>You could give them some dps and utility while not tanking, which we have, but you're still better off bringing a pure class in that spot instead. I see no problem with having some classes less desirable for raiding than others, as long as they can do other things really well, like solo/pvp/heroic. For example if you want to be a soloing beast that can do amazing things by themselves, roll that class, but they don't have much use on a raid. Many other MMOs do this and it works out fine.</p>

[peepshow]

<p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Some notes since there's new info from fanfaire</p><p><ul><li>Bard/chanter buffs are going raidwide, and some buffs (TC for sure, don't know about others) will become castable once for each group by a single utility class.  We're looking at 2-4 fresh slots opening up.</li><li>Summoners will become mage equivalent of brigands (will likely be claiming 1 of those free slots</li><li>All crits are being combined, and each class will have a critical multiplyer that determines how much benefit you get out of +crit on an item in any particular field.  This might provide an easy way for devs to balance fighter dps.</li><li>There was a note on EQ2flames that the brawler avoidance buff was going to be improved, and that brawlers would have higher avoidance.  Block and deflect are being consolidated.  Haven't heard this repeated from multiple news sources though, so don't know how reliable it will be.</li></ul><div></div></p></blockquote><p>Well, it looks like good news..</p><p>not sure about the crit combination idea, but the rest of it, sure sounds nice</p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p><cite>Azian@Everfrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Novusod wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I have been thinking about this for a while and I think the best way to do this would be to give the Fighter Archtype something akin to a set buff. No individual fighter would receive any new buffs. It would work similar to equiping gear of the same set to recieve a 3, 4, 5, or 6 peice set bonus. In this mechanic raids with three or more fighters would start receiving set buffs from having extra fighters in the raid. Under current mechanics having 6 fighters in the raid severely [Removed for Content] the raid. The NEW idea is to give raids a six fighter set buff bonus that more than offsets the liability of having non-desirable classes in raid.</p><p>This should probably be carried over arch types as well so each archtype as a really nice 6 set bonus.</p><p>Idealy you have 6 fighters, 6 mages, 6 healers, 6 scouts. The major part of the raids utility in the future will come from having the set bonus and not the stacking of individual classes.</p></blockquote><p>A similar idea to this came up in an SK thread a while back. I think it's a good one. Raids could still choose to go another route with their class selection but at least the idea of a diverse makeup wouldn't be a death knell if the buffs were sufficiently potent. I would have no problems with this buff only growing with each different fighter class and not growing with duplicate classes (as in zerk, guard, monk, paladin, bruiser, sk gives more benefit than zerk, zerk, guard, sk, sk, sk.)</p><p>I have to admit I'm a bit amused that so many of us are willing to "settle" for 3 total fighter positions on a raid. I'm not sure I understand why we would think it's ideal to have 6-8 scouts, 6-8 casters, 6-8 healers...but no more than 3 fighters. I DO understand why it's that way with the current mechanics...just not sure why we think that that's the way it SHOULD be. /shrug BTW, I am not saying that I think that all 6 of the fighter classes have to be TANKING in each raid. Just have a good reason to be there that benefits the raid as much or more than a duplicate of another class would.</p></blockquote><p>Because like it or not fighters are tanks...if you think otherwise you rolled the wrong archetype.</p><p>There is no possible way they could give us something else "to do" on a raid that would be equiv to what a DPS, Util or Healer brings without making us way OP.</p><p>For every tank you bring on a raid......assuming there is something for him to tank you need to be able to support him with buffs and heals.  There are only 24 slots on a raid....not enough room to support 6 tanks.</p>

[Bruener]

<p><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Azian@Everfrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Novusod wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I have been thinking about this for a while and I think the best way to do this would be to give the Fighter Archtype something akin to a set buff. No individual fighter would receive any new buffs. It would work similar to equiping gear of the same set to recieve a 3, 4, 5, or 6 peice set bonus. In this mechanic raids with three or more fighters would start receiving set buffs from having extra fighters in the raid. Under current mechanics having 6 fighters in the raid severely [Removed for Content] the raid. The NEW idea is to give raids a six fighter set buff bonus that more than offsets the liability of having non-desirable classes in raid.</p><p>This should probably be carried over arch types as well so each archtype as a really nice 6 set bonus.</p><p>Idealy you have 6 fighters, 6 mages, 6 healers, 6 scouts. The major part of the raids utility in the future will come from having the set bonus and not the stacking of individual classes.</p></blockquote><p>A similar idea to this came up in an SK thread a while back. I think it's a good one. Raids could still choose to go another route with their class selection but at least the idea of a diverse makeup wouldn't be a death knell if the buffs were sufficiently potent. I would have no problems with this buff only growing with each different fighter class and not growing with duplicate classes (as in zerk, guard, monk, paladin, bruiser, sk gives more benefit than zerk, zerk, guard, sk, sk, sk.)</p><p>I have to admit I'm a bit amused that so many of us are willing to "settle" for 3 total fighter positions on a raid. I'm not sure I understand why we would think it's ideal to have 6-8 scouts, 6-8 casters, 6-8 healers...but no more than 3 fighters. I DO understand why it's that way with the current mechanics...just not sure why we think that that's the way it SHOULD be. /shrug BTW, I am not saying that I think that all 6 of the fighter classes have to be TANKING in each raid. Just have a good reason to be there that benefits the raid as much or more than a duplicate of another class would.</p></blockquote><p>Because like it or not fighters are tanks...if you think otherwise you rolled the wrong archetype.</p><p>There is no possible way they could give us something else "to do" on a raid that would be equiv to what a DPS, Util or Healer brings without making us way OP.</p><p>For every tank you bring on a raid......assuming there is something for him to tank you need to be able to support him with buffs and heals.  There are only 24 slots on a raid....not enough room to support 6 tanks.</p></blockquote><p>So a tank is somebody that takes the damage from mobs so that their group can stay alive.  Doing so allows focused healing through the "tank" so that the rest of the group can focus on DPS/utility/healing.</p><p>So....why can't each group have a "tank" to help absorb that damage?  That is what tanks do.  So having a fighter in the group should help mitigate damage done to the group.  They are the tank...they take the beating so others can do their job better while the healers can concentrate on healing their "tank".</p><p>4 fighters on a raid.  Add in 2 brawlers that provide more of a utility/DPS advantage and you are talking about 6 fighters in a raid.  Replace the "extra" healer spots with "fighter" spots.</p>

[circusgirl]

<p>Brawlers are still tanks.  Current mechanics happen to make us generally mediocre tanks, but we're still tanks.</p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Azian@Everfrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Novusod wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I have been thinking about this for a while and I think the best way to do this would be to give the Fighter Archtype something akin to a set buff. No individual fighter would receive any new buffs. It would work similar to equiping gear of the same set to recieve a 3, 4, 5, or 6 peice set bonus. In this mechanic raids with three or more fighters would start receiving set buffs from having extra fighters in the raid. Under current mechanics having 6 fighters in the raid severely [Removed for Content] the raid. The NEW idea is to give raids a six fighter set buff bonus that more than offsets the liability of having non-desirable classes in raid.</p><p>This should probably be carried over arch types as well so each archtype as a really nice 6 set bonus.</p><p>Idealy you have 6 fighters, 6 mages, 6 healers, 6 scouts. The major part of the raids utility in the future will come from having the set bonus and not the stacking of individual classes.</p></blockquote><p>A similar idea to this came up in an SK thread a while back. I think it's a good one. Raids could still choose to go another route with their class selection but at least the idea of a diverse makeup wouldn't be a death knell if the buffs were sufficiently potent. I would have no problems with this buff only growing with each different fighter class and not growing with duplicate classes (as in zerk, guard, monk, paladin, bruiser, sk gives more benefit than zerk, zerk, guard, sk, sk, sk.)</p><p>I have to admit I'm a bit amused that so many of us are willing to "settle" for 3 total fighter positions on a raid. I'm not sure I understand why we would think it's ideal to have 6-8 scouts, 6-8 casters, 6-8 healers...but no more than 3 fighters. I DO understand why it's that way with the current mechanics...just not sure why we think that that's the way it SHOULD be. /shrug BTW, I am not saying that I think that all 6 of the fighter classes have to be TANKING in each raid. Just have a good reason to be there that benefits the raid as much or more than a duplicate of another class would.</p></blockquote><p>Because like it or not fighters are tanks...if you think otherwise you rolled the wrong archetype.</p><p>There is no possible way they could give us something else "to do" on a raid that would be equiv to what a DPS, Util or Healer brings without making us way OP.</p><p>For every tank you bring on a raid......assuming there is something for him to tank you need to be able to support him with buffs and heals. There are only 24 slots on a raid....not enough room to support 6 tanks.</p></blockquote><p>So a tank is somebody that takes the damage from mobs so that their group can stay alive. Doing so allows focused healing through the "tank" so that the rest of the group can focus on DPS/utility/healing.</p><p>So....why can't each group have a "tank" to help absorb that damage? That is what tanks do. So having a fighter in the group should help mitigate damage done to the group. They are the tank...they take the beating so others can do their job better while the healers can concentrate on healing their "tank".</p><p>4 fighters on a raid. Add in 2 brawlers that provide more of a utility/DPS advantage and you are talking about 6 fighters in a raid. Replace the "extra" healer spots with "fighter" spots.</p></blockquote><p>I admit I have not seen most of the harder raid encounters but of the ones I have seen or the ones my raid force is tackling at the moment.....there is not a single one where the amount of DMG others in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th groups take is significant enough to warrant filling a slot in each of those groups with a class just so it can help mitigate some of that dmg.  Doing so would only serve to extend the duration of the fights....which in turn probably creates more work for the healers than would be saved.</p><p>Trust me....our raid force takes pretty much whatever we can get....we often have 4+ fighters just to fill slots and still even we struggle with what to do with the extras...........would gladly take just about any other class if we had the option.</p><p>This dream of 6 fighter in a raids....all contributing something equally benifical is nice and all but I just do not see it happening without some serious redesign of classes, mechanics and encounters.</p>

[thial]

<p>3 fighters max is all you should need and ever need. To balance out so all 6 fighters can fit in a raid and have a role does not sound appealing to me unless a particular encounter requires more than 3 which I have yet to see. When talking about raids you should only need one beefy MT one OT with AoE agro control and one backup....Prefurably you wan't your beefy tank to be a guardian or pally(pally needs some work in the beefy part mainly more hp's) for AoE sk or zerk(zerk needs to be even with sk or sk needs a nerf either one would do) and the back up should be a brawler. For a brawler to fill the backup role they need to get a little more survivablity. Maybe a reactive heal for both brawlers that comes in when under 20% to help deal with spike damage, not a full heal just like a 15-20% heal and for the most part a brawler should have rogue like dps. I also thinkg guardians and paladins should have a single target taunt that makes it so other fighter hate position increasers don't have affect unless the said fighter dies 45 sec recast 20 sec duration this would help the AoE fighters so they can go buck wild and not worry to much about riping a mob they shouldn't have off the MT this taunt is not a lock from dps though the Mt can still loose the mobs via dps.... All fighter main role in a raid is to take damage second role is to dps and lastly bring some utility but nothing more than bard or chanter....Another crazy idea I have is fighters should be able to transfer hate to eachother..With all that said though I still fill that raids are fine its the balance between heroic content and raid content that makes me not wan't to play my class but thats a discussion left for another topic...</p>

[Kimber]

<p>I have a question did you ever read the rest of the posts in this thread?  I guess not.....sorry to be rude but this thread is all about getting more fighters in the raid slots not making it maditory or optimal or anything like that just giving all fighters the tools to make it an option to take us on raids with out making the raid an instant epic fail on the first named because there are 6 fighters and 4 of those are taking up 1 bard spot 1 chanter spot and 2 healer spots ( or whatever the raid leader thinks he  can live without&nbsp<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> throwing everything out of balance so the job cannot get done.  We want to see balance with this and make is so that bringing more fighters increases the surviability of the raid by it needing a lil less heals or buffs or whatever.  So you can still do the content with 6 fighters in your raid will it be fast no but can it be done yes.  That is what most of us here on this thread want not to be uber DPS or any crap like that we just want it to be an option not oh you wont make it past that with out 6 fighters. </p><p>Although allot of guilds cannot raid without 4 bards can they wonder why that is................</p>

[Raahl]

<p>Copied here by request.</p><p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Damage types</span></strong> - Each class should do a different type of damage.  Each classes auto attack will still do physical, all the combat arts should do the classes given damage type.</p><ul><li>Crusaders = Divine </li><li>Warriors = Physical </li><li>Brawlers = Elemental</li></ul><p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Survivability</span></strong> - Each fighter class should have the same survivability. Do away with the Mitigation and Avoidance stats. These stats make it impossible to allow the non-plate tanks to be MT. Instead have a stat called Defense. This is a combination of Mitigation and avoidance and each piece of armor will have a Defense value. Armor can then be balanced for each armor type. With any class able to MT because of a high Defense value.</p><p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Hate Generation</span></strong> - Each class will generate hate from their CA's and taunts. When mobs are susceptible to a fighters damage type, and CA's that cause that damage type will get a bonus to their hate. The reason the bonus is only to the CA's is because it would give warriors an edge because their damage type is the same as their auto attack type. Each class will have similar taunts with no class having a large edge. All current hate transfer abilities will be removed from the fighter classes. This includes Amends. Otherwise it unbalances hate.</p><p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">DPS</span></strong> - Seeing that DPS will come from the CA's which in turn causes hate. Each class should have their CA's balanced with the other fighter classes. This will ensure that no one class will dominate hate generation. Each fighter class should be able to output roughly the same DPS.</p><p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Group Buffs</span></strong> - Each class should have skills to buff their group to protect them from their given damage type. These should be relatively minor so that fighters do not take the place of the utility classes.</p><p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Mob Debuffs</span></strong> - Each fighter class should have 1 maybe two abilities that debuff the mob to their damage type. Again these should be minor as to not take over the debuffing classes.</p><p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Stances</strong></span> - There should only be 2 stances that every fighter class shares. These stances should not have negative effects on them.</p><ul><li>Defensive stance - Increases Health and Defense by 20%, possibly additional % to all resistances. </li><li>Offensive stance - Increases CA damage by 20%, possible a DPS Mod and/or haste element to it. </li></ul><p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Hate Transfer</span></strong> - In order to encourage raids to have 4 fighters in each raid, fighters should have the ability to transfer a portion of their hate to the MT of the raid. This amount should probably be rather small so we do not step on the abilities of the other hate transferring classes.</p><p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Utility</span></strong> - I am unsure how this would be changed. Each fighter class should have utility abilities that do not affect hate or DPS. These can be used to help make each fighter class different in some way.</p><p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Raid Mob Changes</span></strong> - Raid mobs will need to be susceptable to a given figher damage type, with each damage type being equally represented throughout the tier.  Any fighter doing the damage type that the mob is susceptable to should also gain additional hate from that mob.  These changes should encourage raids to swap the MT job between the different fighter classes.</p><p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Final Note</span></strong> - I know that these type of changes would make the fighter classes very similar. Unfortunately this is something I see having to happen in order to gain balance. If each class is to have a chance to MT and play an active role in a raid we all must have similar tanking capabilities. If one class out-performs the others then you will see them dominating the MT spot.</p>

[Levatino]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>That will not and should not ever happen.  That is just silly to even say.</p><p>Also, the "ideal" raid has not been and will never be one of each class.</p></blockquote><p>Just because you don't want it to change to this Gage doesn't mean that it shouldn't be changed, nor does it mean that it won't.  That other ranger must be pretty good in the guild, since you seem worried about that extra spot leaving.</p></blockquote><p>Not only will it NOT be changed, I don't think it is even possible to make it true.</p><p>Because whatever is given to each class, players will find a way to better stack that than the person ballancing intended.  Simply put, the equation when taking in for all possible variables is far too complex to reach some magical harmony when one of each class is present.</p></blockquote><p>then perhaps a raid should get a very high bonus if they come with the 24 classes make it so that it's a very viable choice and perhaps even beats the current optimal setup..</p><p>what this bonus is or should be must be determined yet but my 2 cents it should be very high so raidguilds should consider this as a number one option.</p>

[Levatino]

<p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Its both impossible and insane to make the ideal raid one of each class.</p><p>Impossible:  Guilds will always employ whatever classes they feel offer the most to the raid.  Unless every single class is totally interchangeable, some classes will be better than others, and those classes will get stacked.  Giving classes raidwide buffs and all that just opens up a different class to be overpowered and overused.  Get it down to 1 bard and 1 enchanter and raids will start bringing multiple shaman, or multiple sorcerors or multiple inquisitors.</p><p>Insane:  You would totally punish guilds by expecting them to field one of each class.  Its hard enough now to keep a roster capable of killing all the content in this game and it'd be impossible if guilds had to have one of every class on all the time.</p><p>My other commentary was to the posters saying current tier endgame content should be viable for a raid featuring six fighters.  NO.  No it shouldn't.  That is silly.  If any thrown together raid can be successful at endgame it makes classes pointless.  Why would people play scouts or mages if you could have a raid full of fighters and healers and beat everything?</p></blockquote><p>impossible insane? why? People in raiding guilds are always encouraged to reroll cause of the need for a certain class and the less need of the class they have now..</p><p>I agree it isn't easy to have 24 different classes available but if they are it should be encouraged to make a raid set up of 24 different classes. Like I stated in my last post, a very high bonus perhaps..</p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p><cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I have a question did you ever read the rest of the posts in this thread? I guess not.....sorry to be rude but this thread is all about getting more fighters in the raid slots not making it maditory or optimal or anything like that just giving all fighters the tools to make it an option to take us on raids with out making the raid an instant epic fail on the first named because there are 6 fighters and 4 of those are taking up 1 bard spot 1 chanter spot and 2 healer spots ( or whatever the raid leader thinks he can live without <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" /> throwing everything out of balance so the job cannot get done. We want to see balance with this and make is so that bringing more fighters increases the surviability of the raid by it needing a lil less heals or buffs or whatever. So you can still do the content with 6 fighters in your raid will it be fast no but can it be done yes. That is what most of us here on this thread want not to be uber DPS or any crap like that we just want it to be an option not oh you wont make it past that with out 6 fighters.</p><p>Although allot of guilds cannot raid without 4 bards can they wonder why that is................</p></blockquote><p>Well I did read the thread and what is being asked for is silly.</p><p>Raiding is about optimizing not simply getting it done with any 12 or 24 people.</p><p>No raidforce that is serious is going to take fighter #4+  unless it can contribute something equal or better than another healer or scout or mage....which would mean changes would have to be made to fighters that would make them OP.</p>

[Levatino]

<p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Its already the same.  What irritates fighters it that their role doesn't stack like DPS/healing does.  However, we've never had to call off a raid because our assassin missed we have done that when both our MT and OT missed.</p><p>More valuable, less slots.  That is just how it is.</p></blockquote><p>translated, we don't have any other fighters in raidguild cause we only need 2.. so you are punished cause you don't have listed more fighters.. so perhaps list more fighters or ask your dps guys to roll a fighter and get him/her as good back ups if needed..</p><p>minmaxing raidguilds don't have good reserves? man how stupid can you be? like in sports you are as good as your bench is..</p>

[Kigneer]

<cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>There is no possible way they could give us something else "to do" on a raid that would be equiv to what a DPS, Util or Healer brings without making us way OP.</p><p>For every tank you bring on a raid......assuming there is something for him to tank you need to be able to support him with buffs and heals.  There are only 24 slots on a raid....not enough room to support 6 tanks.</p></blockquote> Paladins have plenty to do than just tank. Haven't been a raid I wasn't hitting/casting/healing and even rezzing (sometimes all at once 1-2-3...rez...1-2-3) -- and too often we heal ourselves (especially when the healers focus solely on the MT, leaving the rest to their own devices - and doing things like rezzing those very healers!). Pallys are defensive utility tanks -- nope nothing on dps -- but we can hold the fort literally (can't count the times a Pally was the last standing, and sometimes the only save in a wipe). DPS isn't the end-all-end-all in these encounters, because if the boss/mob burns the dpsers down faster than healers can keep them up (or the dedicated healers are struck dead first), they're not much help.

[Kimber]

<p><img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" /></p><p>Nice points up there.</p><p>Lets say this just as an example. </p><p>In optimal normal raid right now MT has 70 % mit ( normal mit not crit mit ) and 70 % avoidance.  That is pretty good right outstanding great go burn the mobs fast get it done.</p><p>Now for the raid that has 6 fighters 1 of each class they would get a set bonus as it were MT 80 % Mit 80 % avoid but you lose some DPS and heals to make this happen so it will take longer to burn the mobs but you can still get it done.  what is wrong with that?</p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p><cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" /></p><p>Now for the raid that has 6 fighters 1 of each class they would get a set bonus as it were MT 80 % Mit 80 % avoid but you lose some DPS and heals to make this happen so it will take longer to burn the mobs but you can still get it done. what is wrong with that?</p></blockquote><p>Nothing is wrong with that....its just the only raids that would do that are ones that cannot otherwise fill those slots with more optimal classes to make the burn go faster.   So nothing would change.</p>

[Kimber]

<p>I guess I see it very differantly.  I think allot would change you would see even more guilds raiding.  Part of the problem right now that I see is this.  If you do not have 4 bards 3-4 Chanters X healers X DPS and 1-2 tanks you are sunk dead in the water never able to clear more than T1 Raid zones maybe some of the T2 stuff but forget VP or anything above that.  Now before you say well recruit the class's you need while a very good point and it happens.  I just changed guilds on my lv 80 because 2 bards and 2 chanters left they got thier Myths and did not want to go back and do the content again to gear others up ( after they left the mass exodous from the guild continued and we lost even more players over the next 2-3 weeks due to inability to raid including anouther bard and anouther chanter leaving the guild with just 1 of each&nbsp<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />   Happens every day tbh but that is what happend.  Now in that guild we had 1 Zerk 1 Guard 1 Pally 2 SK 1 Monk and 1 Brusier for fighters.  Yet we could not raid why because its not a viable option to take all that in place of those that left first.  So to me this being an option would open the doors to allot of people that might not get the better gear or even raid.  They would still have to put the time in and it would not be handed to them on a plater tbh they would have to work harder and longer for it as it would take more time but they could still get it done.  My point is this it would open more of the game up to more players even those that play the "" less desirable"" class's.</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I guess I see it very differantly.  I think allot would change you would see even more guilds raiding.  Part of the problem right now that I see is this.  If you do not have 4 bards 3-4 Chanters X healers X DPS and 1-2 tanks you are sunk dead in the water never able to clear more than T1 Raid zones maybe some of the T2 stuff but forget VP or anything above that.  </p></blockquote><p>This is already changing.  Bard and Enchanter buffs are going raidwide.  Enchanter single targets are going to 4 target usable. Rogue debuffs are being consolidated so you only need one rogue type.</p><p>If rogue's are getting paired down to one raid slot, why should fighters get 6?  I don't see it as viable, never saw it as important.  Fighters getting 3 slots I can live with, but its only going to be for specific zones / encounters at best. </p><p>Fact is, these slots that are being freed up aren't going to be freed up for much else than t1 dps classes. </p><p>The best sollution I can find for having more than 1-2 fighters on a raid is removing hate transfers from non-fighter classes and giving fighters threat transfer.  So that if you need more aggro control, you bring more fighters.  If raidwide all non-tanking fighters can contribute 30-50% of their hate generation to a maintank, and no other class can contribute to that MT's hate significantly, then as raidwide dps gets higher and higher, the more insentive to trade in more fighter types.  The natural desire would be to add the best dps fighters given the liklihood of the additional fighters rarely tanking, but providing a dps and aggro support role.</p><p>Thats about the only way I see us _wanting_ to bring a brawler along.  Granted, thats suggesting taking utility from dirges and providing it to all fighters.  I don't think its out of lore to allow fighters to 'rally' hate in this way, but I can see dirges that are already getting kicked in the nuts even more upset with something like this.</p>

[Kimber]

<p>K</p><p>Yes Bard Buffs are going raid wide with the next exp.  I think that is mentiond on a previous post some place up there.</p><p>Rouges are not getting pared down to 1 slot.  Brigs and Swash are getting some stuff traded around and Summoners are getting some debuffs from them to debuff magic or something like that.  Its not going down to 1 slot for rouges there will still be 2 slots for em.</p><p>Last part since it seems people cannot read or understand the written word or in this case typed. </p><p><strong><span style="font-size: large;">THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT MAKING 6 FIGHTERS OPTIMAL ITS ABOUT MAKING IT VIABLE.</span></strong></p><p>I hope that clears it up for those that are having trouble with this.</p>

[thial]

<p>They said they are addressing the issue of needing multiple support classes. Hopefully it works out. So when this is done maybe than you can put more fighters in a raid force BUT it's still not going to be optimul for progression as it should not be. Those support classes will be replaced by more true DPS'ers in a organized raid guild....Adding more fighters just upsets the balance of the raid on many aspects... The game should not be tailored so more fighters can fit in a raid slot...fighters should not be replacing any true dps or support classes period..If all you have to go into a raid with is 6-7 fighters a handfull of heals and dps with minimul support thats your own fault for and you should not be able to progress further than a guild that has a fine tailored raid force which put the effort and time in to get that raid force where it is...So in all maybe you can get 4 fighters (one in each group) to have a role in a raid but your going to have to be selective on the fighters and not just throw in any fighters and expect to win.  I'm not saying that heavy fighter raids should not be cabable of killing stuff it just should not be clear sailing as it seems ya'll wan't...I'm sorry i just don't see any resons to change this at all. Each fighter does bring a little flavor to the raid force but stacking up on fighters should not be a viable option for progression.</p><p>key points</p><p>FIGHTERS SHOULD NOT BE REPLACING THE ROLE OF A TRUE DPS CLASS OR A SUPPORT OR A HEALER CLASS FOR THE SAKE OF BAD RAID MANAGMENT.</p>

[Kimber]

<p><cite>Jdark@Everfrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>They said they are addressing the issue of needing multiple support classes. Hopefully it works out. So when this is done maybe than you can put more fighters in a raid force BUT it's still not going to be optimul for progression as it should not be. Those support classes will be replaced by more true DPS'ers in a organized raid guild....Adding more fighters just upsets the balance of the raid on many aspects... The game should not be tailored so more fighters can fit in a raid slot...fighters should not be replacing any true dps or support classes period..If all you have to go into a raid with is 6-7 fighters a handfull of heals and dps with minimul support thats your own fault for and you should not be able to progress further than a guild that has a fine tailored raid force which put the effort and time in to get that raid force where it is...So in all maybe you can get 4 fighters (one in each group) to have a role in a raid but your going to have to be selective on the fighters and not just throw in any fighters and expect to win.  I'm not saying that heavy fighter raids should not be cabable of killing stuff it just should not be clear sailing as it seems ya'll wan't...I'm sorry i just don't see any resons to change this at all. Each fighter does bring a little flavor to the raid force but stacking up on fighters should not be a viable option for progression.</p><p>key points</p><p>FIGHTERS SHOULD NOT BE REPLACING THE ROLE OF A TRUE DPS CLASS OR A SUPPORT OR A HEALER CLASS FOR THE SAKE OF BAD RAID MANAGMENT.</p></blockquote><p>Then stacking of any class should not yeild benifits to the raid and a poorly managed raid roster that does not include all 24 class's in a raid should not be able to clear anything either.  There are 24 class and 24 spots in a raid coincidence I think not.</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Rouges are not getting pared down to 1 slot.  Brigs and Swash are getting some stuff traded around and Summoners are getting some debuffs from them to debuff magic or something like that.  Its not going down to 1 slot for rouges there will still be 2 slots for em.</p></blockquote><p>Yes they are.  You'll only need one or the other.  You'll remove the 2nd rogue and replace it with a single summoner.</p><p>You'll remove 4ish bards and replace them with t1 dps, you'll remove 1-2 enchanters and replace them with t1 dps.</p><p>As I stated in my post, the only way to make more fighters desirable is to keep the hate mechanic locked into these arch-types.  Providing fighters with the only basis for hate transfer is the only viable way I see to do this.</p><p>Lastly, discussing whats viable isn't really important, as its viable to clear PR with 24 paladins.  The only thing that really will matter is what is practical.</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Then stacking of any class should not yeild benifits to the raid and a poorly managed raid roster that does not include all 24 class's in a raid should not be able to clear anything either.  There are 24 class and 24 spots in a raid coincidence I think not.</p></blockquote><p>Actually, its complete coincidence and get this into your head.</p><p>Remember at launch factions actually mattered, and an evil aligned player suffered being in a good aligned guild?</p><p>At the time the 24 classes were initially built, and the decision to make 24 of them, it was NEVER intended for a guild to carry all 24 classes on the roster, much less bring 24 to a raid.</p><p>Its best you get that idea out of your head.</p>

[Kimber]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Rouges are not getting pared down to 1 slot.  Brigs and Swash are getting some stuff traded around and Summoners are getting some debuffs from them to debuff magic or something like that.  Its not going down to 1 slot for rouges there will still be 2 slots for em.</p></blockquote><p>Yes they are.  You'll only need one or the other.  You'll remove the 2nd rogue and replace it with a single summoner.</p><p>You'll remove 4ish bards and replace them with t1 dps, you'll remove 1-2 enchanters and replace them with t1 dps.</p><p>As I stated in my post, the only way to make more fighters desirable is to keep the hate mechanic locked into these arch-types.  Providing fighters with the only basis for hate transfer is the only viable way I see to do this.</p><p>Lastly, discussing whats viable isn't really important, as its viable to clear PR with 24 paladins.  The only thing that really will matter is what is practical.</p></blockquote><p>I guess we are reading the rouge thing differantly as my understanding is Brig and Swash will still be needed and there will be 1 spot for a Sum instead of 3 rouge spots usually 2 brigs and 1 swash or 1 brig and 2 swash.</p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p><cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><strong><span style="font-size: large;">THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT MAKING 6 FIGHTERS OPTIMAL ITS ABOUT MAKING IT VIABLE.</span></strong></p></blockquote><p>Depends on how you define "viable"....because as I define it....6 fighter raids are already viable....you just have to settle for lower tier raids.  Ive had to do more raids than I care to count with 6...sometimes more fighters.</p><p>Sorry, but your example is a problem with players and guild/raid management not the game....you cannot expect to be able to keep on trucking everytime you have a mass exodus.   If you lose the bulk of your raidforce....guess what...its time to either find another guild or start over.....recruiting replacements for what was lost, gearing up, etc.</p>

[Seidhkona]

<p><cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><strong><span style="font-size: large;">THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT MAKING 6 FIGHTERS OPTIMAL ITS ABOUT MAKING IT VIABLE.</span></strong></p></blockquote><p>What YOU aren't getting is that it is already viable.  There are a lot of raids in game that you can do with 6-8 tank classes in the raid. I know this because Legends of the Tundra has done this a lot... I don't know how many raids we did where we had a half dozen tanks and another handful of clerics all clanking around all over the place!</p><p>There will always be some raid encounters that require a specific raid makeup to tackle. Thugga HAS to have a ton of DPS. But there's plenty of raiding available, you just have to get some friends together and do it.</p><p>I will admit, a tank-heavy raidforce is never going to be able to do the cutting edge hardest raid content. But then, a lot of "optimally configured" raidforces can't do the leading edge stuff either, or not until late in an expansion.  That's the nature of the art... teh dedicated hardcore raiders get to the bleeding edge, toughest raids, the rest follow later as we all gear up, or can do them in the next tier.</p><p>/shrug</p><p>I don't raid to get the uberest loot - I do it because it's fun to do a harder target with a bunch of my friends. Labs of Lord Vyemm is still a fun romp, and so is Courts. And then we get to try harder stuff in pickup raids or filling in with bigger raidforces, and we have fun doing that too.</p>

[Bruener]

<p><cite>Jdark@Everfrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>FIGHTERS SHOULD NOT BE REPLACING THE ROLE OF A TRUE DPS CLASS OR A SUPPORT <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">OR A HEALER CLASS</span> FOR THE SAKE OF BAD RAID MANAGMENT.</p></blockquote><p>There I fixed that for you.  Fighters should not be replacing the role of True DPS and Support classes.  Their spots on raid should be 12 slots.  The other 12 slots should be fighters and healers.  Right now with the current mechanics raids roll healer heavy because they have to to survive a lot of the content.  That means 8 healers.  Those extra healer spots should be the spots that fighters aim for.  Having a fighter in each group should help that group survive.  Example, said fighter in a group allows group members to take 25% less damage on incoming.  Now instead of a second healer in a lot of group you can roll with 1 healer and 1 fighter.  1 fighter that mitigates damage for the group, a fighter that creates better DPS than a second healer, and is there in emergency situations to pick up mobs.  Sounds like a pretty good reason to have a fighter in a group instead of a 2nd healer to me.</p><p>So fighters "tank" for their group.  You can even add in different abilities where Fighters do a group-wide Intercede for incoming AEs.  That way the fighter is "tanking" and taking the damage for their group, and is a focal point for the healer.  The whole goal of a tank.  All it takes is a little motivation to bring more fighters on a raid.  At least with these ideas we would see 4 fighters on a raid.  Add in a little flavor for Brawlers as utility tanks also and there might actually be reason to bring 5-6 fighters on a raid.  But God forbid we break the status quo....oh wait, news flash the status quo is changing.  /Cheer for bard/chanter buffs going raid-wide.  /Cheer for healing adjustment for Druids.  /Cheer for added Summoner utility.  Next x-pac is going to see a completely different raid make-up than the current TSO.  Its funny some people just can't accept it.</p>

[Kimber]

<p><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><strong><span style="font-size: large;">THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT MAKING 6 FIGHTERS OPTIMAL ITS ABOUT MAKING IT VIABLE.</span></strong></p></blockquote><p>Depends on how you define "viable"....because as I define it....6 fighter raids are already viable....you just have to settle for lower tier raids.  Ive had to do more raids than I care to count with 6...sometimes more fighters.</p><p>Sorry, but your example is a problem with players and guild/raid management not the game....you cannot expect to be able to keep on trucking everytime you have a mass exodus.   If you lose the bulk of your raidforce....guess what...its time to either find another guild or start over.....recruiting replacements for what was lost, gearing up, etc.</p></blockquote><p>I started this thread well before that happend and as I said I found anouther guild.  I guess I count viable as being able to do any zone with 1 of each class in the raid all 24 class's however we are just here in this forum to discuss the 6 fighter class so I will stick to that.  I really do not see why you cannot have all 6 fighter class in a raid and down whatever content.  Yes it would take longer and all that I am not saying it should be easy by anymeans it should be harder imo but still able to be done.  I am pretty sure that if you take a raid of appropriat geared people into a T1 raid zone with 1 of each fighter class in the raid you will not clear it.  I do not see why you should not be able to though.  Call me stubborn all you want but I really dont see the problem with wanting this.  It would not be game breaking to be able to do it if it was you would not have people going into SoH and killing the lv 80 ^^^ x4 Trash with 1 group made up of a Guard, Zerk, Pally, Sin, Dirge and a Fury.  Or going into PR with 9 players and clearing, or hitting up Thuuga with a X2.  I know allot of this stuff can be done as is what I would like to see and want for the all the fighters is to see us all have a spot in the raid doing the tier we need not back tracking and doing T1 zones with that make up but being able to progress granted at a slower pace than a optimized min max guild but still able to progress.</p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p>Maybe its just me and my force, but every fighter I know that likes his class and is serious about raiding.....wants to be MT or OT........nothing else....not a buff bott, not an occasional dmg interceptor, not ghetto DPS or ghetto healing......they want to play a 100% active tank role in the raid.   I know I cannot stand being #3 or #4 fighter on a raid.</p><p>The basic funciton and role of the fighter archetype is unique in that is simply does not stack....like healing or dps or even utility.</p><p>I like it that way......If I wanna raid, I either have to compete and prove myself worthy of that MT or OT slot or I re-roll.</p>

[Illine]

<p>so the futur raid would be :</p><p>1 MT</p><p>1 OT</p><p>maybe a third tank</p><p>2 rogues</p><p>2 summoners</p><p>2 bards</p><p>2 chanty</p><p>7 healers</p><p>2 predators</p><p>2 sorcerers</p><p>it makes 22 people. Now why could we get the 6 mages and 6 scouts, 6 heals but not more than 3 fighters? why couldn't they stack? like someone said, improve the hate of the MT as a buff. anyway, dirge will always be usefull and not just because of the hate buff.</p><p>or as another said, give enough survivability so you don't need to bring 8 healers (one in each group)</p><p>some fighters as guardian or paladin should be defensive utility oriented as some other like zerk and SK dps utility oriented and brawlers ... I don't know right now but bringing too much fighters shouldn't impare you. but bring survivability.</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>There I fixed that for you.  Fighters should not be replacing the role of True DPS and Support classes.  Their spots on raid should be 12 slots.  The other 12 slots should be fighters and healers.  Right now with the current mechanics raids roll healer heavy because they have to to survive a lot of the content.  That means 8 healers.  Those extra healer spots should be the spots that fighters aim for.  Having a fighter in each group should help that group survive.  Example, said fighter in a group allows group members to take 25% less damage on incoming.  Now instead of a second healer in a lot of group you can roll with 1 healer and 1 fighter.  1 fighter that mitigates damage for the group, a fighter that creates better DPS than a second healer, and is there in emergency situations to pick up mobs.  Sounds like a pretty good reason to have a fighter in a group instead of a 2nd healer to me.</p></blockquote><p>While a noble idea, unless fighters get a cure spell and a cure curse spell, they will not replace additional healers.</p><p>I still see the answer in utility, and utility focused around hate mechanics.</p><p>All the changes put forward are only going to increase raidwide dps significantly, making the challenge of controlling aggro even more difficult.  The upcomming fighter revamp will have a lot to do with the aggro management.</p><p>And its just a decision for them to make regarding how much aggro a single tank can manage.  Maybe a single guard can tank for 150k dps unassisted.  But when your raid force is pushing 250k-500k, it becomes necesary for additional fighters to aid in that aggro management. </p><p>Certainly they can just decided to allow one fighter to manage the max available dps output, but I don't think thats a wise decision.  Which classes they enable to assist with that problem become the classes that get to gobble up what slots don't go to additional t1 dps.  If they want it to be fighters, it will be fighters that get abilities to this effect.</p>

[thial]

<p><cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Jdark@Everfrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>They said they are addressing the issue of needing multiple support classes. Hopefully it works out. So when this is done maybe than you can put more fighters in a raid force BUT it's still not going to be optimul for progression as it should not be. Those support classes will be replaced by more true DPS'ers in a organized raid guild....Adding more fighters just upsets the balance of the raid on many aspects... The game should not be tailored so more fighters can fit in a raid slot...fighters should not be replacing any true dps or support classes period..If all you have to go into a raid with is 6-7 fighters a handfull of heals and dps with minimul support thats your own fault for and you should not be able to progress further than a guild that has a fine tailored raid force which put the effort and time in to get that raid force where it is...So in all maybe you can get 4 fighters (one in each group) to have a role in a raid but your going to have to be selective on the fighters and not just throw in any fighters and expect to win.  I'm not saying that heavy fighter raids should not be cabable of killing stuff it just should not be clear sailing as it seems ya'll wan't...I'm sorry i just don't see any resons to change this at all. Each fighter does bring a little flavor to the raid force but stacking up on fighters should not be a viable option for progression.</p><p>key points</p><p>FIGHTERS SHOULD NOT BE REPLACING THE ROLE OF A TRUE DPS CLASS OR A SUPPORT OR A HEALER CLASS FOR THE SAKE OF BAD RAID MANAGMENT.</p></blockquote><p>Then stacking of any class should not yeild benifits to the raid and a poorly managed raid roster that does not include all 24 class's in a raid should not be able to clear anything either.  There are 24 class and 24 spots in a raid coincidence I think not.</p></blockquote><p>Thats like saying there are 6 spots in a group and 6 tanks so all 6 tanks should fit in one group and be able to do an instance  sure you could probally do df but out side of that your not going to progress very far...</p><p>and atm each fighter does bring something to the table to support the raid</p><p>Guardians give a weak deffense buff,</p><p>zerks give a DPS buff with some extra stuff in it when you put the AA's into it like reuse time or the likes can't remember</p><p>pallys give heal and wis</p><p>Shadowknights give sta and spell amount</p><p>bruzers give  taunt amounts and Ca damage</p><p>monks increase casting and attack speed</p><p>I may not be 100% correct on these buffs but that sure sounds like each tank brings something to the table and it's about where it should be with maybe a small tweak here and there to get higher amounts</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Illine@Storms wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>so the futur raid would be :</p><p>1 MT</p><p>1 OT</p><p>maybe a third tank</p><p>2 rogues</p><p>2 summoners</p><p>2 bards</p><p>2 chanty</p><p>7 healers</p><p>2 predators</p><p>2 sorcerers</p></blockquote><p>No.</p><p>1 MT1 OT6 Healers2 Bards1 Rogue1 Summoner2 Chanters10 Preds/Sorcerers</p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>All the changes put forward are only going to increase raidwide dps significantly, making the challenge of controlling aggro even more difficult. The upcomming fighter revamp will have a lot to do with the aggro management.</p></blockquote><p>Remains to be seen how they go about fixing the whole hate-mechanics.  It would be interesting to put hate-xfer in the hands of the "fighters".   But still I do not see that leading to more than 3-4 fighters per raid.</p><p>Personally I think hate management should be the responsibility of everyone......currently everyone has gotten too spoiled by the MT having just the right buffs or self hate to let them not have to worry about what buttons they press or how often.</p>

[Illine]

<p><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Maybe its just me and my force, but every fighter I know that likes his class and is serious about raiding.....wants to be MT or OT........nothing else....not a buff bott, not an occasional dmg interceptor, not ghetto DPS or ghetto healing......they want to play a 100% active tank role in the raid.   I know I cannot stand being #3 or #4 fighter on a raid.</p><p>The basic funciton and role of the fighter archetype is unique in that is simply does not stack....like healing or dps or even utility.</p><p>I like it that way......If I wanna raid, I either have to compete and prove myself worthy of that MT or OT slot or I re-roll.</p></blockquote><p>you reroll and then we are all stuck coz not enough tanks for grouping.</p><p>right now it's always hard to find tanks for grouping coz the raid tanks usually don't like grouping, it's boring and the non raid tank .. people laugh about them coz their equipment suck and they can't hold aggro.</p><p>Why because you find so many more raid equiped healers or buffers or dps than tanks.</p><p>if they only wanted people to bring 2 or 3 tanks in a raid they should have done 2 or 3 or max 4 tanks. They created 6 tanks ..; stupid mistake so now they should give those fighters a chance of raiding without having to reroll.</p><p>I like tanking with my bruiser but each time I have mythical dps in my group I struggle with aggro and i'm starting being sick of tanking. Because there's no way I can keep up with their dps. It really sucks.</p><p>I understand maybe having 6 fighters (not tanks) may be a bit too much but you should be able to use 4 of them without problem. Maybe not always for tanking. People who play fighters usually like to tank but I Know they also like to dps or like paladins heals and rez.</p><p>or they make both brawlers dps ... and it's done ... 4 fighters .. 4 tanks ...</p><p>anyway there one big problem about that, and if they don't solve it quick ... there won't be much tanks left</p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Illine@Storms wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>so the futur raid would be :</p><p>1 MT</p><p>1 OT</p><p>maybe a third tank</p><p>2 rogues</p><p>2 summoners</p><p>2 bards</p><p>2 chanty</p><p>7 healers</p><p>2 predators</p><p>2 sorcerers</p></blockquote><p>No.</p><p>1 MT1 OT6 Healers2 Bards1 Rogue1 Summoner2 Chanters10 Preds/Sorcerers</p></blockquote><p>Thats pretty much how I see things ending up after the changes talked about at FF are implemented.</p><p>Works for me......but then I am not a Rogue =P</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>All the changes put forward are only going to increase raidwide dps significantly, making the challenge of controlling aggro even more difficult. The upcomming fighter revamp will have a lot to do with the aggro management.</p></blockquote><p>Remains to be seen how they go about fixing the whole hate-mechanics.  It would be interesting to put hate-xfer in the hands of the "fighters".   But still I do not see that leading to more than 3-4 fighters per raid.</p></blockquote><p>3-4 is atleast one more than most generally field now.  It also would allow for where dps scales higher to have incentive to drop one for additional fighters.  Yes, its potentially managing hate by raid roster ballancing vs player self moderation, but its eq2, you think dps is going to ever hold back?</p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>All the changes put forward are only going to increase raidwide dps significantly, making the challenge of controlling aggro even more difficult. The upcomming fighter revamp will have a lot to do with the aggro management.</p></blockquote><p>Remains to be seen how they go about fixing the whole hate-mechanics. It would be interesting to put hate-xfer in the hands of the "fighters". But still I do not see that leading to more than 3-4 fighters per raid.</p></blockquote><p>3-4 is atleast one more than most generally field now. It also would allow for where dps scales higher to have incentive to drop one for additional fighters. Yes, its potentially managing hate by raid roster ballancing vs player self moderation, but its eq2, you think dps is going to ever hold back?</p></blockquote><p>LOL well we almost always have 3-4 tanks.......LOL even sometimes on WOE runs so I guess Im looking at things from a different perspective.  The last thing I want is to see more fighters on raids. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

[Illine]

<p><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Illine@Storms wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>so the futur raid would be :</p><p>1 MT</p><p>1 OT</p><p>maybe a third tank</p><p>2 rogues</p><p>2 summoners</p><p>2 bards</p><p>2 chanty</p><p>7 healers</p><p>2 predators</p><p>2 sorcerers</p></blockquote><p>No.</p><p>1 MT1 OT6 Healers2 Bards1 Rogue1 Summoner2 Chanters10 Preds/Sorcerers</p></blockquote><p>Thats pretty much how I see things ending up after the changes talked about at FF are implemented.</p><p>Works for me......but then I am not a Rogue =P</p></blockquote><p>yeah it's sooooooooo balanced <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

[Kimber]

<p>Oh I agree we all want to be MT or OT you will get no argument from me there.</p>

[Bruener]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Illine@Storms wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>so the futur raid would be :</p><p>1 MT</p><p>1 OT</p><p>maybe a third tank</p><p>2 rogues</p><p>2 summoners</p><p>2 bards</p><p>2 chanty</p><p>7 healers</p><p>2 predators</p><p>2 sorcerers</p></blockquote><p>No.</p><p>1 MT1 OT6 Healers2 Bards1 Rogue1 Summoner2 Chanters10 Preds/Sorcerers</p></blockquote><p>My predictions.  And we can definitely pull it back up so I can laugh at u guys when it is right....</p><p>4 Fighters (Guard, Crusader, Brawler, +1)</p><p>2 Rogues</p><p>2 Summoners</p><p>2 Bards</p><p>2 Chanters</p><p>7 Healers</p><p>5 Sorc/Pred (Easily replaced with good T2 DPS'ers)</p><p>Bookmark this one.  Because this is most likely how the waters will settle.</p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p><cite>Illine@Storms wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Illine@Storms wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>so the futur raid would be :</p><p>1 MT</p><p>1 OT</p><p>maybe a third tank</p><p>2 rogues</p><p>2 summoners</p><p>2 bards</p><p>2 chanty</p><p>7 healers</p><p>2 predators</p><p>2 sorcerers</p></blockquote><p>No.</p><p>1 MT1 OT6 Healers2 Bards1 Rogue1 Summoner2 Chanters10 Preds/Sorcerers</p></blockquote><p>Thats pretty much how I see things ending up after the changes talked about at FF are implemented.</p><p>Works for me......but then I am not a Rogue =P</p></blockquote><p>yeah it's sooooooooo balanced <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></p></blockquote><p>Well not until the game/classes/encounters are adjusted such that any of the 6 fighter types are viable for those MT and OT slots.</p><p>That should be the goal......not kludging things up such that each of those 6 has some slot on a raid.</p>

[thial]

<p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Jdark@Everfrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>FIGHTERS SHOULD NOT BE REPLACING THE ROLE OF A TRUE DPS CLASS OR A SUPPORT <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">OR A HEALER CLASS</span> FOR THE SAKE OF BAD RAID MANAGMENT.</p></blockquote><p>There I fixed that for you.  Fighters should not be replacing the role of True DPS and Support classes.  Their spots on raid should be 12 slots.  The other 12 slots should be fighters and healers.  Right now with the current mechanics raids roll healer heavy because they have to to survive a lot of the content.  That means 8 healers.  Those extra healer spots should be the spots that fighters aim for.  Having a fighter in each group should help that group survive.  Example, said fighter in a group allows group members to take 25% less damage on incoming.  Now instead of a second healer in a lot of group you can roll with 1 healer and 1 fighter.  1 fighter that mitigates damage for the group, a fighter that creates better DPS than a second healer, and is there in emergency situations to pick up mobs.  Sounds like a pretty good reason to have a fighter in a group instead of a 2nd healer to me.</p><p>So fighters "tank" for their group.  You can even add in different abilities where Fighters do a group-wide Intercede for incoming AEs.  That way the fighter is "tanking" and taking the damage for their group, and is a focal point for the healer.  The whole goal of a tank.  All it takes is a little motivation to bring more fighters on a raid.  At least with these ideas we would see 4 fighters on a raid.  Add in a little flavor for Brawlers as utility tanks also and there might actually be reason to bring 5-6 fighters on a raid.  But God forbid we break the status quo....oh wait, news flash the status quo is changing.  /Cheer for bard/chanter buffs going raid-wide.  /Cheer for healing adjustment for Druids.  /Cheer for added Summoner utility.  Next x-pac is going to see a completely different raid make-up than the current TSO.  Its funny some people just can't accept it.</p></blockquote><p>So you want a guardian in each group on a raid or you want to take more skills that define gaurds and spread them to the rest of the fighters...</p><p>I do agree with giving more fighters utility when it comes to agro but still no need to have more than 3-4 fighters on a raid</p>

[Gaige]

<p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>My predictions.  And we can definitely pull it back up so I can laugh at u guys when it is right....</p><p>4 Fighters (Guard, Crusader, Brawler, +1)</p><p>2 Rogues</p><p>2 Summoners</p><p>2 Bards</p><p>2 Chanters</p><p>7 Healers</p><p>5 Sorc/Pred (Easily replaced with good T2 DPS'ers)</p><p>Bookmark this one.  Because this is most likely how the waters will settle.</p></blockquote><p>I seriously doubt a fighter per group will ever happen unless SOE uses a gimmick to force raids to do that.  Two rogues is normal, two summoners I doubt it unless the debuff is must have, at least two dirges and a troub, at least two illys and a coercer, and you're not going to easily replace T1 dps with T2 dps, unless your T1 dps sucks making that argument a moot point.</p>

[Raahl]

<blockquote><p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><strong><em>Bruener wrote:</em></strong></p><p>My predictions.  And we can definitely pull it back up so I can laugh at u guys when it is right....</p><p>4 Fighters (Guard, Crusader, Brawler, +1)</p><p>2 Rogues</p><p>2 Summoners</p><p>2 Bards</p><p>2 Chanters</p><p>7 Healers</p><p>5 Sorc/Pred (Easily replaced with good T2 DPS'ers)</p><p>Bookmark this one.  Because this is most likely how the waters will settle.</p></blockquote><p>I seriously doubt a fighter per group will ever happen unless SOE uses a gimmick to force raids to do that.  Two rogues is normal, two summoners I doubt it unless the debuff is must have, at least two dirges and a troub, at least two illys and a coercer, and you're not going to easily replace T1 dps with T2 dps, unless your T1 dps sucks making that argument a moot point.</p></blockquote><p>Gage do you think it would be possible to allow 4 fighters work together in order to tank raid mobs?  Each using their abilities to distract and keep them off of the non-fighter classes?</p><p>I know there's nothing really in game like this now.  But I think it would be interesting to see how it would work out.</p>

[Gaige]

<p><cite>Raahl wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Gage do you think it would be possible to allow 4 fighters work together in order to tank raid mobs?  Each using their abilities to distract and keep them off of the non-fighter classes?</p><p>I know there's nothing really in game like this now.  But I think it would be interesting to see how it would work out.</p></blockquote><p>Past 3 fighters, unless its a gimmick fight, the healing becomes too spread out.  In fact now you really only want to use 3 fighters if its a fight like say contested Anashti where you have the main mob with adds, summoned adds and a curse that doesn't allow you to target.  The 3rd fighter is mostly insurance if your OT can't target.</p><p>Anything is possible, SOE could easily code it to where you need 4 fighters in raid to kill even the easiest trash.  Do I think they will?  No.  The sweet spot is 3: one of each archetype.  Anything beyond that is forced and would require gimmicks or huge mechanics changes.</p><p>Besides, AoC had that no MT mentality and raiding in that game was a huge mess with mobs just all over the place.</p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p><cite>Raahl wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Gage do you think it would be possible to allow 4 fighters work together in order to tank raid mobs? Each using their abilities to distract and keep them off of the non-fighter classes?</p><p>I know there's nothing really in game like this now. But I think it would be interesting to see how it would work out.</p></blockquote><p>Well technically that is possible today.   Now getting your healers to agree to take part is a different story.</p>

[Maamadex]

<p>Well in most cases keeping a raid mob off non fighter classes can be done by one tank? And the offtank? Seems like adding more to the mix, unless the encounter calls for it is overkill.</p>

[Bruener]

<p>Take away hate buffs and hate transfers and see how much more other classes would enjoy to have more fighters on raids to help control a mob.</p>

[Gaige]

<p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Take away hate buffs and hate transfers and see how much more other classes would enjoy to have more fighters on raids to help control a mob.</p></blockquote><p>Ya and then see how unplayable the game is, how scripts won't work, and how healing would be totally screwed.  Sounds like a great idea.</p>

[Levatino]

<p>so every fighter should have one healer assigned to him/her permanently..</p>

[Bruener]

<p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Take away hate buffs and hate transfers and see how much more other classes would enjoy to have more fighters on raids to help control a mob.</p></blockquote><p>Ya and then see how unplayable the game is, how scripts won't work, and how healing would be totally screwed.  Sounds like a great idea.</p></blockquote><p>Did you play early EQ1?  You know...when it was good?</p><p>This easy-mode hate that everybody has gotten used to is the whole problem.  Every class should have to control their hate....the fact that every DPS class gets to open up with their DPS off the bat shows there is a problem.  You did that in EQ1 you died, over and over again.  You actually had to worry about hate.  So making it so that fighters were the ones that controlled hate, through their abilities with snaps and etc....DPS would be very thankful to have them along for the ride.  Oh wait, thats right everybody just wants to be able to sit there and start firing rain of arrows on incoming of mobs.</p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>This easy-mode hate that everybody has gotten used to is the whole problem.</p></blockquote><p>LOL at this coming from an SK.</p>

[circusgirl]

<p>Alright, so lets look at the issues here:  24 raidslots, 24 classes, and while we are unlikely to have all 24 classes present on a raid, working towards that does seem to be a decent goal.  So, first up, where are there slots currently being held up?  The devs have done a fairly decent job dealing with bards/chanters hogging slots.  Sure, there are arguments for still bringing extra dirges/troubs for CoB, PoM, or for things like hyrans, but there is a good chance that once things settle down and guilds get used to it, those slots will dissapear as raids choose not to replace the members that they lose.  So, assuming that that more or less works, what are our slot hogs?  At this point, I think we mainly have extra slots going to healers.  The ideal should be 2 shamans, 2 druids, and 2 clerics, but currently we often have more along the lines of 3-4 shamans, 3-4 clerics, depending on the competency of the raid force.  The devs are working on switching out some of those shamans/clerics for druids, but that's still a lot of healers.  So...what can we do to shift those slots?</p><p>So.  Little known that it is, brawlers can be about as effective as putting that third healer in the MT group.  Granted, we cripple our dps in the doing, but avoidance buffs are really powerful.  The problem is, of course, that you can only put one on the MT, and they are only really truly powerful when put on a plate MT by a brawler in full defensive spec, gear, and stance.  So...why not extend this ability to defend another tank using one's own defensive stats to the other tank classes.  Sure, you could have your SK put his avoidance lend on the MT, but without much uncontested avoidance it doesn't do that much good.  Why not give crusaders something like a heal lend--50% of all the healing they do (via a pally's heals or a SKs lifetap) is applied to the target of their lend as well as to the heal's target.  And then give warriors a mitigation lend, such that the target of the lend has a 50% chance of using the caster's mitigation instead of their own when hit (which makes a nice compliment to a brawler's avoidance lend, in that it should be about as good for us as our avoidance is for them!)</p><p>Start stacking those buffs on your tanks, and quite quickly you'll realize that you don't need 3 healers in your MT group.</p><p>Another issue that's been pointed out a lot recently is that tanks want to, well, tank.  The current pattern is to have one MT who does everything, and an OT that mops up adds...but does that have to always be the case?  Why not have one zone that is really designed for a guardian tank (say, hard hitting standard mobs), another that's best suited to being tanked by a crusader (fear's all around!), and one that is best tanked by a brawler (horrible things happen to you every time you actually get hit)?  Maybe these zones could be done by any tank, but will be progressed through faster by a guild that brings along and raises up different types of tanks.  That way everyone gets their shot in the spotlight.</p>

[Gaige]

<p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>This easy-mode hate that everybody has gotten used to is the whole problem. </p></blockquote><p>I played AoC where all fighters had was snap aggro abilities and everyone had to watch their hate and it was a horrible mess.  The system as it is works fine.  MT with OTs who can actually CONTROL mobs allow for intelligent script design instead of tank/spank fests.</p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Another issue that's been pointed out a lot recently is that tanks want to, well, tank.  The current pattern is to have one MT who does everything, and an OT that mops up adds...but does that have to always be the case?  Why not have one zone that is really designed for a guardian tank (say, hard hitting standard mobs), another that's best suited to being tanked by a crusader (fear's all around!), and one that is best tanked by a brawler (horrible things happen to you every time you actually get hit)?  Maybe these zones could be done by any tank, but will be progressed through faster by a guild that brings along and raises up different types of tanks.  That way everyone gets their shot in the spotlight.</p></blockquote><p>QFE</p><p>This is about the only good idea in this whole thread.</p><p>I would love to have raid zones where we would swap out between the 3 fighter types depending on the mob......much better than using the same MT from start to finish.  Enough variety within a raid zone that gives each fighter type a chance to shine.</p>

[Nero]

<p>4 fighters?Not 6 fighters, but only 4 fighters?Can you be satisfied by 4 fighters in a raid?</p><p>In the Japanese server, there have been already 4 fighters in most raid.But even so, there are hardly any room for fighters.</p><p>To be honest, I don't know how 6 fighters can participate in a raid.But I feel that even 4 fighters is few for enough fighters to participate in a raid.</p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p><cite>Nero wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>4 fighters?Not 6 fighters, but only 4 fighters?Can you be satisfied by 4 fighters in a raid?</p></blockquote><p>Yes.  And really 3 is probably the most for most raids.</p>

[Nero]

<p><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Nero wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>4 fighters?Not 6 fighters, but only 4 fighters?Can you be satisfied by 4 fighters in a raid?</p></blockquote><p>Yes.  And really 3 is probably the most for most raids.</p></blockquote><p>Oh....I have been plagued with culture shock by reading this thread, which indicates that current raids in US servers need only 3 fighters.I can't help but asking like the OP.How do we get all six fighter class's in a raid?</p>

[Anariale]

<p><cite>Nero wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Nero wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>4 fighters?Not 6 fighters, but only 4 fighters?Can you be satisfied by 4 fighters in a raid?</p></blockquote><p>Yes.  And really 3 is probably the most for most raids.</p></blockquote><p>Oh....I have been plagued with culture shock by reading this thread, which indicates that current raids in US servers need only 3 fighters.I can't help but asking like the OP.How do we get all six fighter class's in a raid?</p></blockquote><p>Ill answer again rather...  you make the raid buffs the fighter classes give so powerful that you would have to be silly not to take them.</p><p>The bottom line is this, we will never have an encounter that requires 6 tanks all tanking individual mobs.  At the same time, you cant just increase the DPS of the individual classes, because then raids will flip flop and have 20 fighters in them and no scouts or mages or whatever.  Instead, the best means is to increase buffs that each class gives that dont stack with one another.  Thus making it so that the best raid is one of each of the 24 classes.</p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p>I never understood how people got the idea that because there are 24 classes and 24 raid slots that raids were somehow meant to have 1 of each.</p><p>By that logic what 12 classes are suppose to be excluded from x2 raids?</p><p>To me X slots just means your raidforce can bring whatever X players are best for them given their skillset, gear and  encounter requirements.</p>

[Bruener]

<p><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I never understood how people got the idea that because there are 24 classes and 24 raid slots that raids were somehow meant to have 1 of each.</p><p>By that logic what 12 classes are suppose to be excluded from x2 raids?</p><p>To me X slots just means your raidforce can bring whatever X players are best for them given their skillset, gear and  encounter requirements.</p></blockquote><p>Or, since x2 has 12 slots maybe it means one of each of the class.  1 warrior, 1 crusader, 1 brawler, 1 druid, 1 cleric, 1 shaman, 1 bard, 1 predator, 1 rogue, 1 chanter, 1 sorcerer, 1 summoner = 12.  Makes sense to me.  x2 is a completely different beast though because a lot of the time you get the x4 players that can power their way with very bizarre set ups anyway.  But if SOE did it correctly where 1 of each class was closest to the most optimum raid set up than x2 would fall into place.</p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I never understood how people got the idea that because there are 24 classes and 24 raid slots that raids were somehow meant to have 1 of each.</p><p>By that logic what 12 classes are suppose to be excluded from x2 raids?</p><p>To me X slots just means your raidforce can bring whatever X players are best for them given their skillset, gear and  encounter requirements.</p></blockquote><p>Or, since x2 has 12 slots maybe it means one of each of the class.  1 warrior, 1 crusader, 1 brawler, 1 druid, 1 cleric, 1 shaman, 1 bard, 1 predator, 1 rogue, 1 chanter, 1 sorcerer, 1 summoner = 12.  Makes sense to me.  x2 is a completely different beast though because a lot of the time you get the x4 players that can power their way with very bizarre set ups anyway.  But if SOE did it correctly where 1 of each class was closest to the most optimum raid set up than x2 would fall into place.</p></blockquote><p>I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone from SOE from 5 years ago til now that would say that was ever their intent for 24 or 12slot raids.</p>

[Illine]

<p><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I never understood how people got the idea that because there are 24 classes and 24 raid slots that raids were somehow meant to have 1 of each.</p><p>By that logic what 12 classes are suppose to be excluded from x2 raids?</p><p>To me X slots just means your raidforce can bring whatever X players are best for them given their skillset, gear and  encounter requirements.</p></blockquote><p>then why couldn't there be 1 representant of each class?</p><p>Nobody says you should BE OBLIGED to bring 6 fighters. But bringing 6 fighters shouldn't be an handicap.</p>

[Baccalarium]

<p>Just a healer here, but my perspective:</p><p>If your DPS players don't have enough DPS,  bring more dps players.    In some encounters one flavor of DPS is more useful than others.</p><p>If your priests don't have enough heals/cures,  bring more priests.  In some encounteres one flavor of DPS is more useful than others.</p><p>If your fighter doesn't have enough agro control/damage mitigation.... the current state of affairs doesn't make the answer bring more fighters.  Instead you bring more support classes?</p><p>It doesn't seem to me that the questions is how do you get six fighters on a raid,  but how do you get it so that adding more fighters increases the raids ability to perform the role the fighter brings to the raid. </p><p>I've seen many ideas in these threads that would seem to help the answer that    Most of the ones that make sense to me are along the lines of mitigation, avoidance, hate shares/lends/bufs more useful.     In fact (just restating the parts I liked from others)</p><p>Warriors - lend/buf/share mitigation to the main tank.Brawlers - lend/buf/share avoidance to the main tank.Crusadors - lend/buf/  heals (or a heal multiplier, or lifetapish thing) to the main tank.</p><p>All fighters - lend/buf/share hate to the main tank. All fighters - already have intercede type abilities, but their value seems limited currently.   Perhaps making it easier to chain/stack intercede(intercept?) from multiple fighters would help as well.</p><p>Most these shouldn't come at a disavantage to the fighter performing their role.  Just because you're helping the main tank, shouldn't prevent you from being able to off tank effectively as well.</p><p>How do you avoid these additional fighters just looking like a support class.  Do they need to be in contact with the mobs to do this. </p><p>If the Warrior/Brawler/Crusador specific lends/bufs above are raid wide, are there flavors specifc to the 6 classes that let them all stack, of make there still a benefit to adding another tank after you get to three?</p><p>Dimishing returns will likely still come into play, for the addition of one or two of these effects to be meaningful, and yet the combination of 6 of them not to trivialize and encouter.   (Remember I'm a healer,   I don't want you just marching around with infinite survivability or I'm out of a job too.  Besides trvialized content, isn't all that fun anyway.)</p><p>Generic fighter Hate buf/lend idea?   Reverse Rescue.  instead of stealing the mob drops a substantial portion of your current hate to to the target of the ability (presumably the main tank).   Or drops you x positions of hate,  and gives that amount of hate to the main tank?  Something to allow a tank to lend/buf hate, but still requires you to be generating it your self.   Still allows some control over how far up the hate ladder the off-tank is working.   How painful would it be if rescue just only worked as it does now if the target was non-fighter, and worked in reverse if target was fighter.</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Illine@Storms wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I never understood how people got the idea that because there are 24 classes and 24 raid slots that raids were somehow meant to have 1 of each.</p><p>By that logic what 12 classes are suppose to be excluded from x2 raids?</p><p>To me X slots just means your raidforce can bring whatever X players are best for them given their skillset, gear and  encounter requirements.</p></blockquote><p>then why couldn't there be 1 representant of each class?</p><p>Nobody says you should BE OBLIGED to bring 6 fighters. But bringing 6 fighters shouldn't be an handicap.</p></blockquote><p>I already refuted this multiple times.</p><p>It was never meant for there to be 24 unique classes on a raid.</p><p>When the game started, faction was important, and it wasn't really intended for evil toons to be in a good faction guild and vice versa.</p><p>It wasn't till after launch that things slowly changed to allow evils in good guilds and so on.  When the decision was made for 24 classes and 24 man raids, it was never concidered that we'd run a 1:1 between class and raid slot.</p><p>This is just an ideal that people have adopted in recent years.</p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Illine@Storms wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I never understood how people got the idea that because there are 24 classes and 24 raid slots that raids were somehow meant to have 1 of each.</p><p>By that logic what 12 classes are suppose to be excluded from x2 raids?</p><p>To me X slots just means your raidforce can bring whatever X players are best for them given their skillset, gear and encounter requirements.</p></blockquote><p>then why couldn't there be 1 representant of each class?</p><p>Nobody says you should BE OBLIGED to bring 6 fighters. But bringing 6 fighters shouldn't be an handicap.</p></blockquote><p>I already refuted this multiple times.</p><p>It was never meant for there to be 24 unique classes on a raid.</p><p>When the game started, faction was important, and it wasn't really intended for evil toons to be in a good faction guild and vice versa.</p><p>It wasn't till after launch that things slowly changed to allow evils in good guilds and so on. When the decision was made for 24 classes and 24 man raids, it was never concidered that we'd run a 1:1 between class and raid slot.</p><p>This is just an ideal that people have adopted in recent years.</p></blockquote><p>Yeah its been awhile but I recall there was originally going be alot more meaning between being "evil"or "good".</p><p>Part of me still finds it odd that SKs and Pallys can group or raid together.</p>

[Illine]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Illine@Storms wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I never understood how people got the idea that because there are 24 classes and 24 raid slots that raids were somehow meant to have 1 of each.</p><p>By that logic what 12 classes are suppose to be excluded from x2 raids?</p><p>To me X slots just means your raidforce can bring whatever X players are best for them given their skillset, gear and  encounter requirements.</p></blockquote><p>then why couldn't there be 1 representant of each class?</p><p>Nobody says you should BE OBLIGED to bring 6 fighters. But bringing 6 fighters shouldn't be an handicap.</p></blockquote><p>I already refuted this multiple times.</p><p>It was never meant for there to be 24 unique classes on a raid.</p><p>When the game started, faction was important, and it wasn't really intended for evil toons to be in a good faction guild and vice versa.</p><p>It wasn't till after launch that things slowly changed to allow evils in good guilds and so on.  When the decision was made for 24 classes and 24 man raids, it was never concidered that we'd run a 1:1 between class and raid slot.</p><p>This is just an ideal that people have adopted in recent years.</p></blockquote><p>I understand and many understand also. i don't say it should be the optimal set up but should be possible.</p><p>or at least make fighters unique in a way they have all good things to bring on a raid.</p><p>Like healers ... you could bring just one type of healer or at leat warders and clerics ... but you usually bring also 1 or 2 druids .. why? because even if they heal equally, they all bring something different to a raid, in term of buffs, healing types, dps, helping others dps .. making other resist more, have more Hps and so on</p><p>fighters should all bring something different that makes them wanted. not just tanking. their archetype is fighter, not tank !!</p><p>maybe not 6 fighters as I said, 4 maybe .. anyway, makes them wanted for something else than just tanking.</p>