Fighter Revamp?

[Rosss]

<p>So was there any mention at all of the fighter revamp at FF09?  I did not see any real changes to fighters specifically in post re: expansion notes.  Is the fighter revamp a lost cause?</p>

[Kordran]

<p>From what I can tell, the fighter revamp is still dead and buried. Resurrecting it in whole or in part doesn't appear to be on the agenda. Not that I blame them; I don't think they're particularly interested in revisiting that whole 3-month long episode of fail (both from the perspective of customer relations, and from the amount of wasted development time).</p><p>Edit: That's not to say there won't be any class balancing done, but I haven't heard about anything along the lines of what they were trying to do with the original GU51 update.</p>

[Freliant]

<p>The fighter changes are going to go through, but not all at once. They are going to spoon feed the changes little by little as updates come and go.</p><p>They learned that a needed change like the fighter change, can't be done in a one shot deal cause you get people with the cold water chills that just refuse to jump in.</p><p>I doubt they will give it much publicity, and the changes will seem largely unnoticed until its fully implemented. They started with the hate meter, and if my thoughts are correct, the next change will come in the form of AAs that will affect the way specific fighter abilities work. Granting boosts in taunts to the classes that need it, and decreasing their resists where appropriete.</p><p>I can be quoted 1 year from now.</p>

[Deson]

<p><cite>Freliant wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The fighter changes are going to go through, but not all at once. They are going to spoon feed the changes little by little as updates come and go.</p><p>They learned that a needed change like the fighter change, can't be done in a one shot deal cause you get people with the cold water chills that just refuse to jump in.</p><p>I doubt they will give it much publicity, and the changes will seem largely unnoticed until its fully implemented. They started with the hate meter, and if my thoughts are correct, the next change will come in the form of AAs that will affect the way specific fighter abilities work. Granting boosts in taunts to the classes that need it, and decreasing their resists where appropriete.</p><p>I can be quoted 1 year from now.</p></blockquote><p>The issue wasn't cold water chills, the issue was forced mechanics vs. more organic choices. Most people liked the bulk of the fighter changes and ideas but the overall execution was lacking at best. No matter how those terrible parts are presented, they'll get the exact sme response.</p>

[Kordran]

<p><cite>Freliant wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>I doubt they will give it much publicity, and the changes will seem largely unnoticed until its fully implemented. They started with the hate meter, and if my thoughts are correct, the next change will come in the form of AAs that will affect the way specific fighter abilities work. Granting boosts in taunts to the classes that need it, and decreasing their resists where appropriete.</blockquote><p>I would guess that the AA changes that they plan for the next expansion could address the problems that some classes (particularly Guardians) have with AE threat. As far as taunts are concerned, I'll bet that the one other thing that may survive is the changes to how the Aggression skill works and boosts to threat folded in with the change to the system that deals with criticals.</p><p>But all that is a far cry from what the original fighter revamp was going to be.</p>

[Freliant]

<p><cite>Deson wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The issue wasn't cold water chills, the issue was forced mechanics vs. more organic choices. Most people liked the bulk of the fighter changes and ideas but the overall execution was lacking at best. No matter how those terrible parts are presented, they'll get the exact sme response.</p></blockquote><p>The "terrible" parts people were refering to, was the ability to do Offensive stance DPS, and have Defensive buffs going. They didn't want to give up their defenses, even if their dps was increasing. They wanted both, and did an uproar over that. The devs decided they were not going to be bullied, put it on the back of the leaving Director, and he took the hit and left.</p><p>I have said it before, and I will say it again: once a player is given something, even if its unintentional, they feel they are now entitled to that, and will fight tooth and nail to keep it. Fighters got really high dps, and no they don't want to give it up, even if its for the overall health of the game.</p><p>Meh, the next expansion will hopefully address this. I am just honestly afraid of what is going to end up happening, with end-game dps next expansion... T7 ended in 5k dps for T1 classes... T8 is around 20k ZW for T1 classes... does that mean T9 will be close to 100k??? *shudders*</p>

[Bruener]

<p><cite>Freliant wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Deson wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The issue wasn't cold water chills, the issue was forced mechanics vs. more organic choices. Most people liked the bulk of the fighter changes and ideas but the overall execution was lacking at best. No matter how those terrible parts are presented, they'll get the exact sme response.</p></blockquote><p>The "terrible" parts people were refering to, was the ability to do Offensive stance DPS, and have Defensive buffs going. They didn't want to give up their defenses, even if their dps was increasing. They wanted both, and did an uproar over that. The devs decided they were not going to be bullied, put it on the back of the leaving Director, and he took the hit and left.</p><p>I have said it before, and I will say it again: once a player is given something, even if its unintentional, they feel they are now entitled to that, and will fight tooth and nail to keep it. Fighters got really high dps, and no they don't want to give it up, even if its for the overall health of the game.</p><p>Meh, the next expansion will hopefully address this. I am just honestly afraid of what is going to end up happening, with end-game dps next expansion... <strong>T7 ended in 5k dps for T1 classes... T8 is around 20k ZW for T1 classes... does that mean T9 will be close to 100k??? *shudders*</strong></p></blockquote><p>Its just a number.  And it is all relative to the amount of hp that current mobs have.  Yes T1 DPS in T7 ended with 5k DPS...guess what the T7 mobs had a  lot less hp's.  If T1 DPS does go up to 100k DPS....don't you think that the mobs are going to have 5x as many hp as they do now?</p><p>As long as SOE makes sure that hate moves up in relation there is no difference tomorrow from today.  Bigger numbers on mobs with bigger hp pools.</p>

[Obadiah]

<p><cite>Freliant wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Deson wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The issue wasn't cold water chills, the issue was forced mechanics vs. more organic choices. Most people liked the bulk of the fighter changes and ideas but the overall execution was lacking at best. No matter how those terrible parts are presented, they'll get the exact sme response.</p></blockquote><p>The "terrible" parts people were refering to, was the ability to do Offensive stance DPS, and have Defensive buffs going. They didn't want to give up their defenses, even if their dps was increasing. They wanted both, and did an uproar over that. The devs decided they were not going to be bullied, put it on the back of the leaving Director, and he took the hit and left.</p><p>I have said it before, and I will say it again: once a player is given something, even if its unintentional, they feel they are now entitled to that, and will fight tooth and nail to keep it. Fighters got really high dps, and no they don't want to give it up, even if its for the overall health of the game.</p><p>Meh, the next expansion will hopefully address this. I am just honestly afraid of what is going to end up happening, with end-game dps next expansion... T7 ended in 5k dps for T1 classes... T8 is around 20k ZW for T1 classes... does that mean T9 will be close to 100k??? *shudders*</p></blockquote><p>Lower DPS while tanking was a concern only inasmuch as there was no<strong> increase</strong> to the DPS done by any other classes to offset the loss of group DPS.</p><p>But the biggest concern was the taunt mechanic. Having one ability that casts every 3- 4 seconds and is by far more important than anything else ... I don't think many would say that's a very good idea unless the object is to make multi-boxing as easy as possible.</p>

[Deson]

<p><cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Lower DPS while tanking was a concern only inasmuch as there was no<strong> increase</strong> to the DPS done by any other classes to offset the loss of group DPS.</p><p>But the biggest concern was the taunt mechanic. Having one ability that casts every 3- 4 seconds and is by far more important than anything else ... I don't think many would say that's a very good idea unless the object is to make multi-boxing as easy as possible.</p></blockquote><p>Another issue was that it was forced.  There was no way to hold aggro out of defensive with the change as proposed and defensive was a big dps penalty. The change as was was basically forcing things with mechanics that should have been done with content and better balanced abilities.</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Deson wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Lower DPS while tanking was a concern only inasmuch as there was no<strong> increase</strong> to the DPS done by any other classes to offset the loss of group DPS.</p><p>But the biggest concern was the taunt mechanic. Having one ability that casts every 3- 4 seconds and is by far more important than anything else ... I don't think many would say that's a very good idea unless the object is to make multi-boxing as easy as possible.</p></blockquote><p>Another issue was that it was forced.  There was no way to hold aggro out of defensive with the change as proposed and defensive was a big dps penalty. The change as was was basically forcing things with mechanics that should have been done with content and better balanced abilities.</p></blockquote><p>I would expect that point to be conceeded and that dps stance tanking will be possible, but the overall hate and survivability potential will be maximized in a deffensive posture.</p>

[Phank]

<p>Seriously, can we drop this now?</p>

[Deson]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Deson wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Lower DPS while tanking was a concern only inasmuch as there was no<strong> increase</strong> to the DPS done by any other classes to offset the loss of group DPS.</p><p>But the biggest concern was the taunt mechanic. Having one ability that casts every 3- 4 seconds and is by far more important than anything else ... I don't think many would say that's a very good idea unless the object is to make multi-boxing as easy as possible.</p></blockquote><p>Another issue was that it was forced.  There was no way to hold aggro out of defensive with the change as proposed and defensive was a big dps penalty. The change as was was basically forcing things with mechanics that should have been done with content and better balanced abilities.</p></blockquote><p>I would expect that point to be conceeded and that dps stance tanking will be possible, but the overall hate and survivability potential will be maximized in a deffensive posture.</p></blockquote><p>I hope so but from the sound of the debuff swaps coming for rogues/summoners,  Aeralik is playing 12 classes zero-sum for balancing.</p>

[Obadiah]

<p><cite>Phank wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Seriously, can we drop this now?</p></blockquote><p>No, let's discuss it more because I'd like to point out [again] that in the revamp Berserkers were given the lowest (by far) and most resistable of all tanks. But I'm not bitter or anything. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/ed515dbff23a0ee3241dcc0a601c9ed6.gif" border="0" /></p>

[Freliant]

<p><cite>Deson wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Lower DPS while tanking was a concern only inasmuch as there was no<strong> increase</strong> to the DPS done by any other classes to offset the loss of group DPS.</p><p>But the biggest concern was the taunt mechanic. Having one ability that casts every 3- 4 seconds and is by far more important than anything else ... I don't think many would say that's a very good idea unless the object is to make multi-boxing as easy as possible.</p></blockquote><p>Another issue was that it was forced.  There was no way to hold aggro out of defensive with the change as proposed and defensive was a big dps penalty. The change as was was basically forcing things with mechanics that should have been done with content and better balanced abilities.</p></blockquote><p>Wrong... if you stayed in "no stance" then you had all your taunts, and didn't have the 50% penalty to your auto attack. So you had this hybryd type stance with no dps benefits, but not defensive penalties either. There was actually going to be 3 stances, instead of the now REQUIRED offensive stance for End raid agro holding.</p><p>Fighters (non-crusadors) shot themselves in the foot by fighting that change.</p>

[Kordran]

<p><cite>Freliant wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Deson wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Lower DPS while tanking was a concern only inasmuch as there was no<strong> increase</strong> to the DPS done by any other classes to offset the loss of group DPS.</p><p>But the biggest concern was the taunt mechanic. Having one ability that casts every 3- 4 seconds and is by far more important than anything else ... I don't think many would say that's a very good idea unless the object is to make multi-boxing as easy as possible.</p></blockquote><p>Another issue was that it was forced.  There was no way to hold aggro out of defensive with the change as proposed and defensive was a big dps penalty. The change as was was basically forcing things with mechanics that should have been done with content and better balanced abilities.</p></blockquote><p>Wrong... if you stayed in "no stance" then you had all your taunts, and didn't have the 50% penalty to your auto attack. So you had this hybryd type stance with no dps benefits, but not defensive penalties either. There was actually going to be 3 stances, instead of the now REQUIRED offensive stance for End raid agro holding.</p><p>Fighters (non-crusadors) shot themselves in the foot by fighting that change.</p></blockquote><p>Forgetting the fact that all our buffs were also tied to those stances. So going with "no stance" also meant going without your own buffs. Yeah, that was such a <em>fantastic</em> choice. This notion that you seem to have that going stancless was a kind of stance is just ridiculous.</p>

[feldon30]

Actually the issue with the Fighter Revamp was a) forced playstyle and B) tanking would have become so boring that every tank would have quit the game. Also trying to enforce "AoE tanks" vs "single target tanks" trying to paint people into a corner. The good parts of Fighter Revamp was increasing taunts to allow fighters to do their jobs, and fixes to Brawler AAs and making them the best avoidance tanks in the game and also have more of a role in raids than as the 7th and 8th scout classes. These are the parts that are still going forward.

[RafaelSmith]

<p>The lack of any update on the Fighter revamp from Fan Fair is discouraging.  Not that I expected anything......I have a feeling that if in fact any fighter revamp is planned we will be hearing very little about it given the epic fail that they had the first time around.</p><p>8+ more months of TSO for my Guardian to struggle with is not what I call fun.</p><p>I like new content....Odus was actually something I liked in EQ1 so I am looking forward to the new expansion....just not sure I can stomach playing the game til then with broken fighter mechanics.</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The lack of any update on the Fighter revamp from Fan Fair is discouraging.  Not that I expected anything......I have a feeling that if in fact any fighter revamp is planned we will be hearing very little about it given the epic fail that they had the first time around.</p></blockquote><p>I'm quite confident it is comming, and I'm sure there will be ample test time, maybe only in Beta, but I'm sure it will be vetted.</p>

[Kordran]

<p>On the other hand, they don't need a "revamp" ... something as simple as adding a blue AE taunt with a DoT component and reasonably fast recast, and I think that would go a long way in helping you in the aggro department with TSO content. But I honestly think they don't really see the class as having a problem, probably because it's mostly looked at through the prism of raiding tanks, where a Guardian in T4 fabled is nothing short of a juggernaut. There's been threads about this on the Fighter forums, but who knows how much of it is actually getting through to them.</p>

[Kordran]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>I'm quite confident it is comming, and I'm sure there will be ample test time, maybe only in Beta, but I'm sure it will be vetted.</blockquote><p>ROFL. Hope springs eternal from the man who just about gave up playing his Guardian and planned on switching to what? A Coercer was it?</p><p>You know what they say: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.</p><p>Edit: I guess we'll see what you think a few months down the road, after all that warm, fuzzy feel-good mojo and dev stroking from the FF has worn off, and cold reality settles in for the winter. I should bookmark this post.</p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p><cite>Kordran wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>On the other hand, they don't need a "revamp" ... something as simple as adding a blue AE taunt with a DoT component and reasonably fast recast, and I think that would go a long way in helping you in the aggro department with TSO content. But I honestly think they don't really see the class as having a problem, probably because it's mostly looked at through the prism of raiding tanks, where a Guardian in T4 fabled is nothing short of a juggernaut. There's been threads about this on the Fighter forums, but who knows how much of it is actually getting through to them.</p></blockquote><p>That was actually my biggest objection to the now scrapped fighter revamp.........too much overkill/overfix. Would have just replaced one broken system with another.</p><p>While the problem outside of raiding seems big....its nothing that cannot be fixed with some minor tweaks or changes to some classes. </p><p>There were alot of good ideas discussed back then and even some good ones today.  We just have not clue whatsover that any of that is being considered or that they even acknowledge that there are problems. </p>

[woolf2k]

<p>oh they're doing it already..</p><p>crit change</p><p>double attack consolidation</p><p>buff consolidation</p><p>ability swapping swash/brigand troub/enchanter...</p><p>it just doesn't have a giant FIGHTER REVAMP label on it... </p><p>and who knows what else as a result of these changes...</p><p>i gotta admit...it's smarter this way... </p>

[feldon30]

The fighter revamp is a new taunt crit stat, changes to Brawler and Warrior AAs, among other things. Not massive changes but some stuff does need to be done.

[Landiin]

<p><cite>From the </cite><a href="list.m?topic_id=454098">Slides from the Mechanics and Tradeskill Panel (Fan Faire 2009)</a> post</p><blockquote><span ><p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Fighter Balance Part II</span></strong></p><p>* Adjust taunts and hate gain abilities.* Consolidate Block and Deflection. Use one standard modifier.* Brawlers will gain a clear advantage to avoidance proxy buffs.* Improve desirability of defensive stance.* Defensive and Damage balancing.</p></span></blockquote><p>We'll see, its a long time till Feb..</p>

[Kordran]

<p>That's a far cry from the fiasco that was the fighter revamp. As long as "defensive and damage balancing" doesn't mean forced stance choices (e.g.: being required to effectively tank in defensive) then all well and good.</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Kordran wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>I'm quite confident it is comming, and I'm sure there will be ample test time, maybe only in Beta, but I'm sure it will be vetted.</blockquote><p>ROFL. Hope springs eternal from the man who just about gave up playing his Guardian and planned on switching to what? A Coercer was it?</p><p>You know what they say: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.</p><p>Edit: I guess we'll see what you think a few months down the road, after all that warm, fuzzy feel-good mojo and dev stroking from the FF has worn off, and cold reality settles in for the winter. I should bookmark this post.</p></blockquote><p>They inserted my brain chip at fanfaire.  It may take me a few months to hack my way around it.</p>

[Kordran]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>They inserted my brain chip at fanfaire.  It may take me a few months to hack my way around it. </blockquote><p>Heh, one of the advantages of being cynical by nature is that I'm rarely disappointed.</p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p><cite>Kordran wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>That's a far cry from the fiasco that was the fighter revamp. As long as "defensive and damage balancing" doesn't mean forced stance choices (e.g.: being required to effectively tank in defensive) then all well and good.</p></blockquote><p>Except the fan fair slides also mentioned the merging of buffs with stances which IMO was one of the worst and most boneheaded parts of that fiasco.</p>

[Kordran]

<p><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>Except the fan fair slides also mentioned the merging of buffs with stances which IMO was one of the worst and most boneheaded parts of that fiasco.</blockquote><p>Then they'll get the same chorus of responses that they did last time. Of course, it would be easier for them to just push it through with the expansion because of the NDA. If no one outside of beta can talk about it, it'll make things significantly easier for them ... until the point it's released, of course.</p>

[Deson]

<p><cite>Kordran wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>Except the fan fair slides also mentioned the merging of buffs with stances which IMO was one of the worst and most boneheaded parts of that fiasco.</blockquote><p>Then they'll get the same chorus of responses that they did last time. Of course, it would be easier for them to just push it through with the expansion because of the NDA. If no one outside of beta can talk about it, it'll make things significantly easier for them ... until the point it's released, of course.</p></blockquote><p>Because beta leaks about anything major don't happen...</p><p>No way they sneak the bad ideas in.</p>

[Kordran]

<p><cite>Deson wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Kordran wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>Except the fan fair slides also mentioned the merging of buffs with stances which IMO was one of the worst and most boneheaded parts of that fiasco.</blockquote><p>Then they'll get the same chorus of responses that they did last time. Of course, it would be easier for them to just push it through with the expansion because of the NDA. If no one outside of beta can talk about it, it'll make things significantly easier for them ... until the point it's released, of course.</p></blockquote><p>Because beta leaks about anything major don't happen...</p><p>No way they sneak the bad ideas in.</p></blockquote><p>For sure it would get out, but it would only be discussed on EQ2Flames (which developers cannot or will not participate on); any threads here that would even whiff at discussing beta material would just be deleted by the moderators.</p>

[Illine]

<p><cite>Kordran wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>From what I can tell, the fighter revamp is still dead and buried. Resurrecting it in whole or in part doesn't appear to be on the agenda. Not that I blame them; I don't think they're particularly interested in revisiting that whole 3-month long episode of fail (both from the perspective of customer relations, and from the amount of wasted development time).</p><p>Edit: That's not to say there won't be any class balancing done, but I haven't heard about anything along the lines of what they were trying to do with the original GU51 update.</p></blockquote><p>it was not a total failure, there had nice things. but they didn't keep the nice things to work on what wasn't good.</p><p>They just took it all away</p>

[Seolta]

<p>Mark my words...the fighter revamp will be at least 90% of what was originally planned, but they will try to push it through in chunks so players don't freak out and just plain cancel their subs en masse.</p><p>"Defensive and Damage balancing" means they want tanks to have massively nerfed DPS in defensive and have massively nerfed survivability in offensive. (and I wouldn't be at all suprised if they attempt to nerf "No stance" so that it ceases to be a viable choice)</p><p>When (and if) the changes show up on test before going live, any feedback we give will get massive pushback from SOE and if lucky we *might* be able to mitigate the level of nerf to some very small extent.</p>

[mr23sgte]

<p><cite>Kordran wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>I'm quite confident it is comming, and I'm sure there will be ample test time, maybe only in Beta, but I'm sure it will be vetted.</blockquote><p>ROFL. Hope springs eternal from the man who just about gave up playing his Guardian and planned on switching to what? A Coercer was it?</p><p>You know what they say: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.</p><p>Edit: I guess we'll see what you think a few months down the road, after all that warm, fuzzy feel-good mojo and dev stroking from the FF has worn off, and cold reality settles in for the winter. I should bookmark this post.</p></blockquote><p>Nice!</p>

[Freliant]

<p>All fighters should start prepping from now, because it has been said a long time ago, that being able to MT in offensive was not and is not the intended way to do content.</p><p>When they make the upcoming changes, you will have decreased survivability when in offensive stance, and increased agro generation and defenses in defensive stance. Consolidating buffs is just one part of this. What use is increasing the dps output in offensive stance if you could just put up your defensive buffs as well?</p><p>What will end up happening if they listen to the community, is that all raid tanks will instinctively go to offensive in order to min/max their raids. Go look at current raids and run a poll if you want to: How many MTs run in Offensive vs Defensive and why?</p><p>If offensive doesn't have survivability penalties, then it will be the stance of choice... I do, however, oppose the removal of taunts in offensive stance. Just because you decided to switch to a stance that allows for greater precision and damage of your strikes, doesn't mean your mouth was suddenly shut.</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Freliant wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>What will end up happening if they listen to the community, is that all raid tanks will instinctively go to offensive in order to min/max their raids. Go look at current raids and run a poll if you want to: How many MTs run in Offensive vs Defensive and why?</p><p>If offensive doesn't have survivability penalties, then it will be the stance of choice... I do, however, oppose the removal of taunts in offensive stance. Just because you decided to switch to a stance that allows for greater precision and damage of your strikes, doesn't mean your mouth was suddenly shut.</p></blockquote><p>Its not just offensive stance, we're running offensive and dual wield just to build enough aggro to keep the mob off squishies.  On top of that we're using JoA and other items that add even higher survivability hits to keep aggro.</p><p>While we should be able to tank in offensive/dw where things don't pose a challenge (vp trash, poa trash, etc), we shouldn't be forced into this posture to do our jobs.</p><p>Just as we shouldn't be forced into defensive posture to fight x4 mobs that the defiler can solo heal while we're in offensive/dual wield stance.</p><p>Its not hard to take what was the fighter revamp and allow for these.  The largest missing aspect was removing the buff consolidation, adding proper non-scaling penalties to offensive stance, and changing taunts from rapid spam to Taunt over Time.  Make those 3 adjustments, and I'm onboard with the fighter revamp again.</p>

[The_Cheeseman]

<p>Personally, I'd love to see taunts changed to act more like debuffs; an instantly-refreshing, targetted toggle with a reocurring power cost that applies threat-over-time to the target or encounter. With that, you don't have to spam the taunt button over and over, but it still requires you to choose the best target(s) for the ability. Of course, for this to work, the effect would need to be unresistable. Perhaps the amount of threat-per-tick would simply be mitigated against MOBs who are supposed to be hard to control.</p><p>Also, we need to kill the idea of single-target and multi-target tanks. EVERY tank needs to be able to fill the role of heroic MT in an average situation; once that is accomplished, THEN start finding ways to make them unique. I am personally rather tired of certain tanks lacking the tools to handle certain encounters, it only serves to stratify classes and make building successful groups more difficult.</p><p>Personally, I'd be content to see that all six fighter classes were given the exact same abilities. Sure it may be a bit homogenous, but as a a brawler who has played since launch, I am past the point of caring. I just want to be able to do my job without having to work twice as hard, spec twice as effectively, and equip myself twice as well as plate tanks. So if losing some individuality is what it takes for me to actually enjoy fulfilling the role my class was "supposedly" designed to handle, so be it.</p><p>Basically: a multiplicity of choices is worthless if none of them work.</p>

[Freliant]

<p>Atan, my view on the whole issue is... if you are the Main Tank, then you should be in defensive reguardless of what you are fighting. If you are NOT the MT, then you get to decide what stance you want to be in, depending on what is coming your way. A fighter in offensive stance should be T2 dps, and be just as squishy as other T2 dps classes.</p><p>There is (imo) no logical reason on how a fighter can put down all his defenses (as when they go into offensive stance) and stay alive through a direct blow from a monster deemed "epic". He is epic for a reason, and not just because he has alot of health.</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Freliant wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Atan, my view on the whole issue is... if you are the Main Tank, then you should be in defensive reguardless of what you are fighting. If you are NOT the MT, then you get to decide what stance you want to be in, depending on what is coming your way. A fighter in offensive stance should be T2 dps, and be just as squishy as other T2 dps classes.</p><p>There is (imo) no logical reason on how a fighter can put down all his defenses (as when they go into offensive stance) and stay alive through a direct blow from a monster deemed "epic". He is epic for a reason, and not just because he has alot of health.</p></blockquote><p>It's agood thing you don't play a MT, and don't really have a valued opinion on how to play one then <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" /></p><p>Of course every trash mob could be upped to be end-tier boss dps output for the MT to mitigate, then the option shouldn't exist, but well, at some point the lower tier trash mobs become just that, trash to practice dps on.</p>

[Landiin]

<p><cite>Freliant wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Atan, my view on the whole issue is... if you are the Main Tank, then you should be in defensive reguardless of what you are fighting. If you are NOT the MT, then you get to decide what stance you want to be in, depending on what is coming your way. A fighter in offensive stance should be T2 dps, and be just as squishy as other T2 dps classes.</p><p>There is (imo) no logical reason on how a fighter can put down all his defenses (as when they go into offensive stance) and stay alive through a direct blow from a monster deemed "epic". He is epic for a reason, and not just because he has alot of health.</p></blockquote><p>If fighting an epic name with in +/- 5 Levels yes we should be forced into D stance. However the hit we would take in O stance shouldn't be so big that we couldn't tank heroic in O Stance maybe even epic trash.</p>

[Freliant]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Freliant wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Atan, my view on the whole issue is... if you are the Main Tank, then you should be in defensive reguardless of what you are fighting. If you are NOT the MT, then you get to decide what stance you want to be in, depending on what is coming your way. A fighter in offensive stance should be T2 dps, and be just as squishy as other T2 dps classes.</p><p>There is (imo) no logical reason on how a fighter can put down all his defenses (as when they go into offensive stance) and stay alive through a direct blow from a monster deemed "epic". He is epic for a reason, and not just because he has alot of health.</p></blockquote><p>It's agood thing you don't play a MT, and don't really have a valued opinion on how to play one then <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" /></p><p>Of course every trash mob could be upped to be end-tier boss dps output for the MT to mitigate, then the option shouldn't exist, but well, at some point the lower tier trash mobs become just that, trash to practice dps on.</p></blockquote><p>I have been MT for many raids Pre-RoK and have been OT for ROK and TSO raids, and I speak from experience. As for your comment on "trash mob could be upped to be end-tier boss dps", you have completely misunderstood my point.</p><p>Refrase: MT defenses should be so low in offensive stance as to be detrimental to their survival vs even trash raid mobs. I didn't say they should increase trash dps output. Like I said "They should do T2 dps, and have T2 survivability". They should survive just as long as a fury when they get agro if they are in offensve since they are not focusing on defending themselves while in offensive.</p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p><cite>Freliant wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>e: MT defenses should be so low in offensive stance as to be detrimental to their survival vs even trash raid mobs. I didn't say they should increase trash dps output. Like I said "They should do T2 dps, and have T2 survivability". They should survive just as long as a fury when they get agro if they are in offensve since they are not focusing on defending themselves while in offensive.</p></blockquote><p>I agree the differences between the stances should be drastic....not this wash we have today.</p><p>But they can accomplish that without having to mess with buffs, force buffs, make our +threat all the sudden be -threat.</p><p>Design the stances such that if I want to tank in O....its gonna hurt.....hurt really bad.......and really [Removed for Content] off my healers.  SOE wont need to force me into D-stance......my healers and raids will.</p><p>I would be perfectly fine if in O-stance I ended up  with the mit of a brawler and avoidance of a mage....just dont limit my options to tank or try to tank like that.</p>

[Landiin]

<p><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I agree the differences between the stances should be drastic....not this wash we have today.</p><p>But they can accomplish that without having to mess with buffs, force buffs, make our +threat all the sudden be -threat.</p><p>Design the stances such that if I want to tank in O....its gonna hurt.....hurt really bad.......and really [Removed for Content] off my healers.  SOE wont need to force me into D-stance......my healers and raids will.</p><p>I would be perfectly fine if in O-stance I ended up  with the mit of a brawler and avoidance of a mage....just dont limit my options to tank or try to tank like that.</p></blockquote><p>Yea what he said <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

[Generic123]

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">I think there is a great deal of denial over what tanking has become.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>For a while now Fighters have simply been DPS classes with ubar defenses.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>Instead of tanking they simply DPS that are also the target for hate buffs and hate dumps.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>The problem with that is if all tanking means is that you are a DPS class that receives buffs, why shouldn’t scouts or mages be tanks too?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span></span></span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Times New Roman;">When it comes right down to it the most of the objections were red herrings, and what people really objected to was the fact they were no longer going to be a DPS class.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>Player choice never entered into it, if your DPS were doing their job there is only once choice now.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">   </span>At present you have abilties that are best for generation agro, and with the change you would as well. </span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">The importance of autoattack may be an issue, but I suspect not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>There isn’t that much difference between playing to avoid preempting autoattck and playing to avoid preempting taunts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>The real kicker here, though, is that there is a very easy solution to this, simply have autoattack generate hate in offensive stance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>Reduce the damage by 50%, but add an additional 100% hate generation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span></span></span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">This would have made autoattack even more important if that’s what people really wanted.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>You could even do the same thing with damage CA’s and keep taunts at the same level they are now.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>This wasn’t even something most people would even consider, because what they really wanted was to remain a DPS class and had no inclination to give up any DPS.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span></span></span></p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p><cite>Generic123 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">I think there is a great deal of denial over what tanking has become.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For a while now Fighters have simply been DPS classes with ubar defenses.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead of tanking they simply DPS that are also the target for hate buffs and hate dumps.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The problem with that is if all tanking means is that you are a DPS class that receives buffs, why shouldn’t scouts or mages be tanks too?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Times New Roman;">When it comes right down to it the most of the objections were red herrings, and what people really objected to was the fact they were no longer going to be a DPS class.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Player choice never entered into it, if your DPS were doing their job there is only once choice now.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At present you have abilties that are best for generation agro, and with the change you would as well. </span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">The importance of autoattack may be an issue, but I suspect not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There isn’t that much difference between playing to avoid preempting autoattck and playing to avoid preempting taunts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The real kicker here, though, is that there is a very easy solution to this, simply have autoattack generate hate in offensive stance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Reduce the damage by 50%, but add an additional 100% hate generation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">This would have made autoattack even more important if that’s what people really wanted.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You could even do the same thing with damage CA’s and keep taunts at the same level they are now.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This wasn’t even something most people would even consider, because what they really wanted was to remain a DPS class and had no inclination to give up any DPS.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></p></blockquote><p>Well....I for one hated the proposed changes that were in the fighter revamp....had nothing to do with me wanting to keep my DPS...if you can even call it that.   While things are frustrating for me now....and yeah those changes would have made them easier.....it would have been too easy....too easy-mode.  No thanks.</p><p>I hate having to focus so much of my play on DPS...just so I can do my job of keeping aggro....its not why I rolled a Guardian.......if I wanted to top the DPS chart...I would not have picked a Guardian or even a fighter for that matter.</p>

[Rageincarnate]

<p>i just ask one thing.. while you guys are debating this .. keep in mind encounters like munzoks and byzola where fighters have to dps class adds.. dont break these encounters with the "fixes"  and if im right t2 dps is roughly rogue dps..   soo what does that mean for swashies and berzerkers?  .. just something to think about.</p>

[Skwor]

<p>Oh look, another thread where fighters want T1 dps and full tanking surival abilities, this is so 6 months ago. Give it a rest</p>

[Kordran]

<p><cite>Toran@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>If fighting an epic name with in +/- 5 Levels yes we should be <strong><span style="font-size: medium;">forced</span></strong> into D stance. However the hit we would take in O stance shouldn't be so big that we couldn't tank heroic in O Stance maybe even epic trash.</blockquote><p>You used the "F" word. I'll give you another: FAIL.</p>

[Gungo]

<p>Things mentioned at fan fair</p><p>taunt critBuff consolidationdefensive stance/offensive stance changesCrit coefficentsGear changes (such as avatar gear revamp)</p><p>Seems to me the fighter changes are still coming. Stop crying abotu overpowered dps.</p>

[Seolta]

<p>Limiting player options and <em><strong>forcing</strong><span style="font-style: normal;"> them to play a specific way is never a good thing; it will </span><strong>always</strong><span style="font-style: normal;"> [Removed for Content] people off and drive them to other games.</span></em></p><p>This is true regardless of your viewpoint on the subject.</p>

[Landiin]

<p><cite>Kordran wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Toran@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>If fighting an epic name with in +/- 5 Levels yes we should be <strong><span style="font-size: medium;">forced</span></strong> into D stance. However the hit we would take in O stance shouldn't be so big that we couldn't tank heroic in O Stance maybe even epic trash.</blockquote><p>You used the "F" word. I'll give you another: FAIL.</p></blockquote><p>Forced, Forced and Forced... Get use to it.. You can run in O stance if you want but you will be forceing your healers to res you. <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

[Besual]

<p><cite>Seolta@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Limiting player options and <em><strong>forcing</strong><span style="font-style: normal;"> them to play a specific way is never a good thing; it will </span><strong>always</strong><span style="font-style: normal;"> [Removed for Content] people off and drive them to other games.</span></em></p><p>This is true regardless of your viewpoint on the subject.</p></blockquote><p>You mean "forced" as in "forced into offstance to hold agro"?</p>

[Jrral]

<p><cite>Skwor wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Oh look, another thread where fighters want T1 dps and full tanking surival abilities, this is so 6 months ago. Give it a rest</p></blockquote><p>My concerns about any revamp are the same ones as over the winter:</p><ol><li>When I'm MT I need to be able to hold aggro. Right now the game mechanics make DPS the biggest contributor to holding aggro, what with gear and all. If fighters are required to run defensive and take a hit to DPS to successfully main-tank, hate generation and taunts and such need adjusted so that the tank can consistently hold aggro against well-behaved damage classes. The winter's proposal was actually fairly good in this regard.</li><li>When playing off-tank, I need to be able to DPS well enough to not be dead weight while also being able to tank well enough to do my job when needed. This is where the winter's proposal fell down. In defensive stance I could tank well enough but I couldn't contribute the DPS needed the majority of the time, so the group was better off with another caster or scout who'd let them kill the mobs before they needed an OT. At the same time offensive stance gave me great DPS but made me incapable of grabbing adds or picking up the mobs if the MT went down, and what's the use of an off-tank who can't tank when things go south?</li><li>When playing DPS... well, I'm not a DPS class, now am I? The winter's proposal really felt like it was trying to make fighters choose between being MT and being DPS, ignoring the OT job entirely.</li></ol>

[Bruener]

<p><cite>Jrral@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Skwor wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Oh look, another thread where fighters want T1 dps and full tanking surival abilities, this is so 6 months ago. Give it a rest</p></blockquote><p>My concerns about any revamp are the same ones as over the winter:</p><ol><li>When I'm MT I need to be able to hold aggro. Right now the game mechanics make DPS the biggest contributor to holding aggro, what with gear and all. If fighters are required to run defensive and take a hit to DPS to successfully main-tank, hate generation and taunts and such need adjusted so that the tank can consistently hold aggro against well-behaved damage classes. The winter's proposal was actually fairly good in this regard.</li><li>When playing off-tank, I need to be able to DPS well enough to not be dead weight while also being able to tank well enough to do my job when needed. This is where the winter's proposal fell down. In defensive stance I could tank well enough but I couldn't contribute the DPS needed the majority of the time, so the group was better off with another caster or scout who'd let them kill the mobs before they needed an OT. At the same time offensive stance gave me great DPS but made me incapable of grabbing adds or picking up the mobs if the MT went down, and what's the use of an off-tank who can't tank when things go south?</li><li><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">When playing DPS... well, I'm not a DPS class, now am I? The winter's proposal really felt like it was trying to make fighters choose between being MT and being DPS, ignoring the OT job entirely.</span></strong></li></ol></blockquote><p>This is exactly the problem I have with the changes they tried to make before and by the sounds of it they are going to make anyway at next expansion launch.  Specifically if SOE is going to make it so fighters can't stance dance than the DPS mode better be serious DPS mode.  None of this weak T2 DPS, because otherwise the fighter is just going to be a complete drag on the raid...ensuring 2 fighters max on a raid.  Stance dancing specifically is an argument that DPS classes use to complain about fighter DPS in an attempt to keep it low.  If they are taking away that option to be able to switch from a DPS mode to a tank mode with a click than fighter DPS in a DPS mode better be TOP t2 DPS at the least.  No other classes have to choose between 2 different roles.  Are rogues and summoners going to have to choose whether they can debuff or if they can DPS?  Are utility classes going to have to choose whether they can bring their utility OR DPS?  Are healers going to have to choose whether they can heal OR DPS...no middle ground?</p><p>Just like before I really don't understand what SOEs entire hang up on changing fighter mechanics is.  Yes most of the time fighters use offensive stance to do their job, because they can.  They have to load up on healers already because of cure mechanics and heal mechanics so they force tanks to sacrifice survivability for more DPS to contribute to the raid and to hold agro on bringing more DPS classes since other than healers that is all a raid wants.  So, going tank mode is it going to mean less healers needed?  Because right now SOE forces over-healing on everything which is ridiculous...and limits fighter spots even more.</p><p>Everything about the fighter revamp reeked, and if it is even close to what it was before people are going to have even a harder time trying to find fighters to do anymore.  There will be a lot of switching of mains or just plain cancelling of accounts, I know if I don't like it I am out, if they choose to force fighters to choose one role or another (and keep them crappy at the role most will be playing 90% of the time, DPS)....something no other class has to do.</p>

[Trynnus1]

<p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Jrral@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Skwor wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Oh look, another thread where fighters want T1 dps and full tanking surival abilities, this is so 6 months ago. Give it a rest</p></blockquote><p>My concerns about any revamp are the same ones as over the winter:</p><ol><li>When I'm MT I need to be able to hold aggro. Right now the game mechanics make DPS the biggest contributor to holding aggro, what with gear and all. If fighters are required to run defensive and take a hit to DPS to successfully main-tank, hate generation and taunts and such need adjusted so that the tank can consistently hold aggro against well-behaved damage classes. The winter's proposal was actually fairly good in this regard.</li><li>When playing off-tank, I need to be able to DPS well enough to not be dead weight while also being able to tank well enough to do my job when needed. This is where the winter's proposal fell down. In defensive stance I could tank well enough but I couldn't contribute the DPS needed the majority of the time, so the group was better off with another caster or scout who'd let them kill the mobs before they needed an OT. At the same time offensive stance gave me great DPS but made me incapable of grabbing adds or picking up the mobs if the MT went down, and what's the use of an off-tank who can't tank when things go south?</li><li><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">When playing DPS... well, I'm not a DPS class, now am I? The winter's proposal really felt like it was trying to make fighters choose between being MT and being DPS, ignoring the OT job entirely.</span></strong></li></ol></blockquote><p>This is exactly the problem I have with the changes they tried to make before and by the sounds of it they are going to make anyway at next expansion launch.  Specifically if SOE is going to make it so fighters can't stance dance than the DPS mode better be serious DPS mode.  None of this weak T2 DPS, because otherwise the fighter is just going to be a complete drag on the raid...ensuring 2 fighters max on a raid.  Stance dancing specifically is an argument that DPS classes use to complain about fighter DPS in an attempt to keep it low.  If they are taking away that option to be able to switch from a DPS mode to a tank mode with a click than fighter DPS in a DPS mode better be TOP t2 DPS at the least.  No other classes have to choose between 2 different roles.  Are rogues and summoners going to have to choose whether they can debuff or if they can DPS?  Are utility classes going to have to choose whether they can bring their utility OR DPS?  Are healers going to have to choose whether they can heal OR DPS...no middle ground?</p><p>Just like before I really don't understand what SOEs entire hang up on changing fighter mechanics is.  Yes most of the time fighters use offensive stance to do their job, because they can.  They have to load up on healers already because of cure mechanics and heal mechanics so they force tanks to sacrifice survivability for more DPS to contribute to the raid and to hold agro on bringing more DPS classes since other than healers that is all a raid wants.  So, going tank mode is it going to mean less healers needed?  Because right now SOE forces over-healing on everything which is ridiculous...and limits fighter spots even more.</p><p>Everything about the fighter revamp reeked, and if it is even close to what it was before people are going to have even a harder time trying to find fighters to do anymore.  There will be a lot of switching of mains or just plain cancelling of accounts, I know if I don't like it I am out, if they choose to force fighters to choose one role or another (and keep them crappy at the role most will be playing 90% of the time, DPS)....something no other class has to do.</p></blockquote><p>QFE - Fighters bring little utility to raids. Right now we tank and DPS some. If I have to choose between the two then SOE better make sure that every other class has to make that choice too. That is choose between their primary and secondary role. Oh wait, that means that those limited encounters where everyone has to DPS (there are a few raid encounters where everyone has to hit the mob) wont work anymore because some classes should now not do any DPS right?</p><p>Doing the stance dance and switching gear when you wipe is part of waht makes a great tank. We maximize our DPS output at the cost of survivability already. This should be our choice to make and balance. Aggro is NOT in a tanks control due to the high DPS output of other classes and transfers. Fix this along with hit% penalties of Def stance and I would be more inclined to tank some named in Def stance. As for OTing, well if the MT goes down with these changes the OT does not have a hope in .... to pickup the mob. Similarly, as a MT if you go down getting back to the top of the hate list is very difficult for encounters where the mob uses memwipes etc. because you have already used some if not all of your snaps.</p><p>The bottom line is half the changes were good (not great) while the other half was VERY bad. If not done correctly many tanks will rerole or leave altogether and then who is going to tank for you group? Everyone needs to enjoy the class they play or they wont play it so becareful what you wish for.</p>

[Gungo]

<p>Sorry huge misconceptions here</p><p>OT job is to hold agro and stay alive. Its not to make the parse or be a dps class at the same time.</p><p>Sorry if you felt that way but the whole offtank putting out massive dps is actually a NEW feature that came about around the end ROK. Before that shadowknights sucked, paladins never had dps, and zerks were subpar dps, and brawlers couldnt hold aoe agro.  All of a sudden in ROK people got dps and in TSO fighters got inflated with dps and everyone feels entitled to the broken dps. An offtank should be like a paladin druing EOF able to hold agor and stay alive without competing on the parse with t1/t2 dps classes, anything else is flat out broken.</p>

[Bruener]

<p><cite>Gungo wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Sorry huge misconceptions here</p><p>OT job is to hold agro and stay alive. Its not to make the parse or be a dps class at the same time.</p><p>Sorry if you felt that way but the whole offtank putting out massive dps is actually a NEW feature that came about around the end ROK. Before that shadowknights sucked, paladins never had dps, and zerks were subpar dps, and brawlers couldnt hold aoe agro.  All of a sudden in ROK people got dps and in TSO fighters got inflated with dps and everyone feels entitled to the broken dps. An offtank should be like a paladin druing EOF able to hold agor and stay alive without competing on the parse with t1/t2 dps classes, anything else is flat out broken.</p></blockquote><p>This is a load of crap.  You know what, before the end of RoK the job of utility classes was to bring their utility too, they do T2 dps now, some do T1 type DPS.  The job of healers was to heal...guess what some healers can push T2 DPS numbers.  The job of rogues is to debuff, guess what they debuff and have HIGH T2 DPS.  The job of the OT is to OT, when he is needed.  That ends up being less than 10% of the content out there.  The rest of the time he is dead weight than.  With how DPS oriented SOE has made everything blame SOE for making it so all classes work towards more DPS to get the job done.</p><p>And your memory is pretty darn foggy because I specifically remember RoK, EoF, and KoS having fighters making the top 5 in the parses.  The people that knew how to play well have always been able to push descent DPS out of fighters.  And lol at your stupid Paladin example.  Yeah, just the opposite of what SOE wants to move towards....a tank that Amends one target and than could afk tank while going completely defensive.  Sounds like a fun class to play.  Get ready for massive re-rolling and cancelling of tank subs if they make tanking that bland across the board.</p><p>If SOE messes up and makes every fighter play like a Guardian, guess what.  It means even less fighters on raids.  It means even less people playing fighters than now.  It means the tank that has the best defensive, aka Guards, will be the only tank you see....because guess what, nobody plays Guard-style better than Guards.  Sounds fun huh?  I can't wait till SOE uses the same type of logic saying other classes can only perform one role at a time.  That means sorry chanters, if you decide you want to use any of your utility it means your DPS is going to be below Templar DPS.  Sorry rogues, if you expect to be able to debuff mobs for the raid your going to have to settle for less than Guard DPS.  Sounds fun for the others now doesn't it?</p>

[Jrral]

<p><cite>Gungo wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Sorry huge misconceptions here</p><p>OT job is to hold agro and stay alive. Its not to make the parse or be a dps class at the same time.</p></blockquote><p>No, that's the MT's job. The OT's job is to stay alert for adds that need grabbed and brought to the MT, for mobs that've gotten loose from the MT and need kept off the rest of the group until the MT can get control again, or for the MT going down and the OT having to take over as tank until the MT's back in the game. While he's not doing that he needs to put out decent DPS and generally not be a dead slot while he's waiting for one of those situations to come up. I liken it to a firefighter: their job may be fighting fires, but they'll spend 90% of their time being a cook or janitor or mechanic or whatever else is needed around the firehouse. When they aren't fighting fires they need to be able to do those other jobs decently well, because those jobs need doing. But when the bell sounds, they have to be able to stop being those other things, jump in the truck and be a firefighter.</p><p>The problem for tanks is that, as the game stands now, they <em>have</em> to be able to put out DPS to hold aggro. Their job isn't to do DPS, it's to hold aggro, but DPS is the most effective tool they have for holding aggro. Before you take away that tool, you need to have something at least as effective to replace it with.</p>

[Gungo]

<p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Gungo wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Sorry huge misconceptions here</p><p>OT job is to hold agro and stay alive. Its not to make the parse or be a dps class at the same time.</p><p>Sorry if you felt that way but the whole offtank putting out massive dps is actually a NEW feature that came about around the end ROK. Before that shadowknights sucked, paladins never had dps, and zerks were subpar dps, and brawlers couldnt hold aoe agro.  All of a sudden in ROK people got dps and in TSO fighters got inflated with dps and everyone feels entitled to the broken dps. An offtank should be like a paladin druing EOF able to hold agor and stay alive without competing on the parse with t1/t2 dps classes, anything else is flat out broken.</p></blockquote><p>This is a load of crap.  You know what, before the end of RoK the job of utility classes was to bring their utility too, they do T2 dps now, some do T1 type DPS.  The job of healers was to heal...guess what some healers can push T2 DPS numbers.  The job of rogues is to debuff, guess what they debuff and have HIGH T2 DPS.  The job of the OT is to OT, when he is needed.  That ends up being less than 10% of the content out there.  The rest of the time he is dead weight than.  With how DPS oriented SOE has made everything blame SOE for making it so all classes work towards more DPS to get the job done.</p><p>And your memory is pretty darn foggy because I specifically remember RoK, EoF, and KoS having fighters making the top 5 in the parses.  The people that knew how to play well have always been able to push descent DPS out of fighters.  And lol at your stupid Paladin example.  Yeah, just the opposite of what SOE wants to move towards....a tank that Amends one target and than could afk tank while going completely defensive.  Sounds like a fun class to play.  Get ready for massive re-rolling and cancelling of tank subs if they make tanking that bland across the board.</p><p>If SOE messes up and makes every fighter play like a Guardian, guess what.  It means even less fighters on raids.  It means even less people playing fighters than now.  It means the tank that has the best defensive, aka Guards, will be the only tank you see....because guess what, nobody plays Guard-style better than Guards.  Sounds fun huh?  I can't wait till SOE uses the same type of logic saying other classes can only perform one role at a time.  That means sorry chanters, if you decide you want to use any of your utility it means your DPS is going to be below Templar DPS.  Sorry rogues, if you expect to be able to debuff mobs for the raid your going to have to settle for less than Guard DPS.  Sounds fun for the others now doesn't it?</p></blockquote><p>Its 100% TRUE.  You can;t even argue what i wrote. Shadowknights completely sucked before tso and were not even wanted in  raids.  Paladins never had dps and frankly still dont dps well yet were the most desired raid offtank in eof. Zerkers were never topping parses unless the majoirty of yoru guild blew and while brawlers could parse in the top 5 they couldnt hold agro on aoe npcs and still can't.</p><p>[Removed for Content] are you trying to argue with me for are you saying the above is not true because i can pull countless threads that say otherwise or pull out countless parses from high end raiding that says otherwise. The BS about utility classes is funny too you act like healers and utlity were useless for 4 years. Please come back to reality because right now you ran so far off the dock your drowning.</p><p>Your sky is falling debate holds no water for 4 years we never had a problem fielding fighters in raids (always has been one of the most played subclasses). The issue was always not enough fighters were wanted in raids and guess what even with higher dps guilds still dont want more then 3-4 fighters in a guild. Show me a guild who recruits fighters for DPS slots and i will show you a guild that sucks.</p>

[Haze]

<p>Yea, there will be a fighter revamp in Febuary and the months leading up to it. As long as they:</p><ul><li>Fighter self buffs consolidated into 1 buff (no tauntability or anything, just the normal buffs). So all of those buffs can be casted at once, with 1 concentration point. None of these buffs should increase or decrease threat.</li><li>Defensive stance needs to have mitigation / avoidances increased by.. oh... just add a 0 or 2 to the current number.</li><li>Defensive stance increases hate gain with each attack for fighters, with each hit taken for crusaders (or something, whatever.. just something to increase threat). This <strong>cannot</strong> be some stupidly low number either.</li><li>Offensive stance decreases hate gain by a substantial amount, and provides a substantial increase in DPS.</li></ul><p>There.. those things would make a world of difference. And hey, something everyone can agree on.</p>

[Gungo]

<p><cite>Jrral@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Gungo wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Sorry huge misconceptions here</p><p>OT job is to hold agro and stay alive. Its not to make the parse or be a dps class at the same time.</p></blockquote><p>No, that's the MT's job. The OT's job is to stay alert for adds that need grabbed and brought to the MT, for mobs that've gotten loose from the MT and need kept off the rest of the group until the MT can get control again, or for the MT going down and the OT having to take over as tank until the MT's back in the game. While he's not doing that he needs to put out decent DPS and generally not be a dead slot while he's waiting for one of those situations to come up. I liken it to a firefighter: their job may be fighting fires, but they'll spend 90% of their time being a cook or janitor or mechanic or whatever else is needed around the firehouse. When they aren't fighting fires they need to be able to do those other jobs decently well, because those jobs need doing. But when the bell sounds, they have to be able to stop being those other things, jump in the truck and be a firefighter.</p><p>The problem for tanks is that, as the game stands now, they <em>have</em> to be able to put out DPS to hold aggro. Their job isn't to do DPS, it's to hold aggro, but DPS is the most effective tool they have for holding aggro. Before you take away that tool, you need to have something at least as effective to replace it with.</p></blockquote><p>While i can agree with what you wrote nothing you wrote says that fighters should be able to tank and DPS at the same time when taunts are fixed. That is the issue with the system.</p><p>I dont mind if fighters that are not needed are in offensive stance doing t2/t3 dps. Offensive should also be the soloing stance/dps stance. But when tanking they should be in defensive or taking alot more damage then normal.</p><p>Avoidance, physical damage reduction and agro should be significantly lower in offensive, and physical damage reduction, avodiance, and agro should be much higher in defensive, while dps is lower.</p><p>The only issue I had with the previous figther update was the recast on switching stances. Once that was/is fixed there should be nothing precluding what you wrote about grabing adds and takign them to the tank, about switch tanking etc. In fact it will show who are better players by those being who are able to transfer the roles when needed.</p><p>As the game stands now yes taunts are inadequte and I would not recomend lowering dps on a fighter but the idea is and always has been included with the changes to taunts.</p>

[Jrral]

<p><cite>Gungo wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>While i can agree with what you wrote nothing you wrote says that fighters should be able to tank and DPS at the same time when taunts are fixed. That is the issue with the system.</p></blockquote><p>You're right, fighters don't neccesarily have to both tank and DPS at the same time. But if they can't, then to successfully off-tank they need to be able to switch modes quickly and in mid-fight. And switch back again, because once the MT's back up and ready you want the OT to let go of the mobs. Basically, one way or another fighters need to be viable off-tanks and be able to do the things an OT needs to do as well as being viable main tanks and able to hold aggro against similarly-geared damage classes. They <em>do not</em> need to be viable replacements for damage classes (replacements in the sense of being brought along primarily for their ability to deal damage).</p><p>There's also the issue of the canonical tank/healer duo or the low-damage small group (eg. a berserker helping out a couple of healers who need to kill things a bit faster), but I figure if fighters have the tools to be viable off-tanks those same tools should work nicely in those situations without needing anything special done.</p>

[TwistedFaith]

<p>Aeralik has decided what he wants to do, the dog and pony show of asking the playerbase a few months back has been done and now we get the changes.</p><p>Why is this new news to anyone, this is how decisions are made. SOE asks the playerbase, the playerbase replies, SOE does what it wants anyway.</p><p>Q. Do you want tank changes?</p><p>A. No.</p><p>Result. Tank changes happen anyway</p><p>Q. Do you want spell consolidation?</p><p>A. No.</p><p>Result. Changes happen anyway</p><p>etc etc</p>

[Gungo]

<p><cite>TwistedFaith wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Aeralik has decided what he wants to do, the dog and pony show of asking the playerbase a few months back has been done and now we get the changes.</p><p>Why is this new news to anyone, this is how decisions are made. SOE asks the playerbase, the playerbase replies, SOE does what it wants anyway.</p><p>Q. Do you want tank changes?</p><p>A. No.</p><p>Result. Tank changes happen anyway</p><p>Q. Do you want spell consolidation?</p><p>A. No.</p><p>Result. Changes happen anyway</p><p>etc etc</p></blockquote><p>Ironically enough the 2 ideas you brought up in your post are being changed directly through player feeedback.</p><p>Tank balance has been one of the biggest complaints on this board since the game was released. There is absolutely no denying that.</p><p>The spell consolidation was one of the biggest reasons players who left the game cited for leaving eq2.</p><p>The original fighter changes as designed are not getting implemented but alt of the ideas are still getting put through. In fact there was only a few issues people had with the fighter changes before. I actually liked some of the changes like increasing taunts, taunt crits, aggression, etc. I personally only had issue with the stance recasts. I really didnt feel stance switching was detrimental. Some people didnt like the consolidation of fighter buffs. I couldnt care less. Some people didnt like lower dps in defenesive and lower hate in offensive. I actually thought that is how the game SHOULD be. Bottom line is a few people will cry if thier personal opinion is not used regardless of the majoirty of the feedback for the changes. If we could go back 5 years add these changes and release the game then just as it is currently designed I am sure I am not the only person who wonders how big this game could of been. It is a bit late for that I suppose in the world of MMO's the damage was done and it becomes infinitely harder to attract a large influx of new players after the hype of a games initial release.</p>

[Jgok]

<p><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Generic123 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">I think there is a great deal of denial over what tanking has become.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For a while now Fighters have simply been DPS classes with ubar defenses.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead of tanking they simply DPS that are also the target for hate buffs and hate dumps.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The problem with that is if all tanking means is that you are a DPS class that receives buffs, why shouldn’t scouts or mages be tanks too?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Times New Roman;">When it comes right down to it the most of the objections were red herrings, and what people really objected to was the fact they were no longer going to be a DPS class.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Player choice never entered into it, if your DPS were doing their job there is only once choice now.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At present you have abilties that are best for generation agro, and with the change you would as well. </span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">The importance of autoattack may be an issue, but I suspect not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There isn’t that much difference between playing to avoid preempting autoattck and playing to avoid preempting taunts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The real kicker here, though, is that there is a very easy solution to this, simply have autoattack generate hate in offensive stance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Reduce the damage by 50%, but add an additional 100% hate generation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">This would have made autoattack even more important if that’s what people really wanted.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You could even do the same thing with damage CA’s and keep taunts at the same level they are now.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This wasn’t even something most people would even consider, because what they really wanted was to remain a DPS class and had no inclination to give up any DPS.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></p></blockquote><p>Well....I for one hated the proposed changes that were in the fighter revamp....had nothing to do with me wanting to keep my DPS...if you can even call it that.   While things are frustrating for me now....and yeah those changes would have made them easier.....it would have been too easy....too easy-mode.  No thanks.</p><p>I hate having to focus so much of my play on DPS...just so I can do my job of keeping aggro....its not why I rolled a Guardian.......if I wanted to top the DPS chart...I would not have picked a Guardian or even a fighter for that matter.</p></blockquote><p>Gaylon has it, right there. I'm a paladin, I don't do DPS. Maybe some of those those myth'ed- and fabled- and mastered-out paladins can parse 10k zonewide while tanking, but most of us can't. My biggest single hit is one nuke that does around 2.5k damage, and it's on a 1-minute recast.</p><p>The buff consolidation was pointless. Taking away 1k hp from me in offensive stance does nothing significant to lower my survivability, but taking away my crappy damage/stun proc while in defensive WOULD hurt my aggro-generating ability. If they want us to choose buffs rather than just activate everything, maybe they should bring back the concentration costs on some of the self-buffs, and make us choose rather than making our choices for us. As it is, it's impossible for me to even use the 5 concentration that I have.</p><p>I say give us more choices, not less. Right now the ONLY choice for end-game instances is to tank in offensive stance with all buffs up. Personally, I think that raids and harder heroic instances should be <strong>almost</strong> impossible to tank in offensive stance, but mid-range to easy heroics should be tankable in offensive at a slightly higher cost in required healing.</p><p>My normal "playing around" group is paladin/mystic/berserker/templar, with SK/Monk or Monk/Warden thrown in, depending on who's online at the time. That's a pretty low-dps group even with things the way they are now. Requiring one or two tanks to be in defensive stance and severely nerfing their dps at the same time would kill those groups, and one or more of us would pretty much HAVE to roll up a dps class just to keep the group viable. Sure, I could replace the mystic/paladin combo with an Illusionist/Wizard combo (which I am already leveling up, actually), but I prefer playing the paladin and mystic.</p><p>If they continue releasing small chunks of the fighter revamp as it was before, I guess I'll just have to bite the bullet, join the bandwagon and start using my swashy, illy, or wizard instead of my paladin and/or mystic. We have enough freakin' dps-class players out there, but if they turn the paladin into a taunt-bot, he just won't be fun to play anymore.</p><p>Most of the complaints I've seen about fighters doing to much dps are regarding fighters in full fabled/shard/raid gear with mythical weapons. Normal fighters, in mastercrafted gear, (especially paladins) don't out-dps much of anything. Maybe the "problem" is with the exponential increase in power that came with TSO raid gear (both on the fighter and on the scout/mage side of things), and not with the fighters themselves.</p><p>Oh, and... Nerf Amends if you have to, but don't turn it into a freakin' taunt. It's a bloody class-defining ability for paladins, and you want to make it into just another taunt?! Cut the hate transfer in half if you must, but leave the ability in.</p>

[TwistedFaith]

<p><cite>Gungo wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>TwistedFaith wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Aeralik has decided what he wants to do, the dog and pony show of asking the playerbase a few months back has been done and now we get the changes.</p><p>Why is this new news to anyone, this is how decisions are made. SOE asks the playerbase, the playerbase replies, SOE does what it wants anyway.</p><p>Q. Do you want tank changes?</p><p>A. No.</p><p>Result. Tank changes happen anyway</p><p>Q. Do you want spell consolidation?</p><p>A. No.</p><p>Result. Changes happen anyway</p><p>etc etc</p></blockquote><p>Ironically enough the 2 ideas you brought up in your post are being changed directly through player feeedback.</p><p>Tank balance has been one of the biggest complaints on this board since the game was released. There is absolutely no denying that.</p><p>The spell consolidation was one of the biggest reasons players who left the game cited for leaving eq2.</p><p>The original fighter changes as designed are not getting implemented but alt of the ideas are still getting put through. In fact there was only a few issues people had with the fighter changes before. I actually liked some of the changes like increasing taunts, taunt crits, aggression, etc. I personally only had issue with the stance recasts. I really didnt feel stance switching was detrimental. Some people didnt like the consolidation of fighter buffs. I couldnt care less. Some people didnt like lower dps in defenesive and lower hate in offensive. I actually thought that is how the game SHOULD be. Bottom line is a few people will cry if thier personal opinion is not used regardless of the majoirty of the feedback for the changes. If we could go back 5 years add these changes and release the game then just as it is currently designed I am sure I am not the only person who wonders how big this game could of been. It is a bit late for that I suppose in the world of MMO's the damage was done and it becomes infinitely harder to attract a large influx of new players after the hype of a games initial release.</p></blockquote><p>LOL I have NEVER heard anyone ever say in the 4yrs I have been playing EQ2, I am quiting because I dont like the name of the spells or how the spells work. As for the fighter changes, I know for a fact all the tanks in my guild hated the changes, they claimed it turned them into more like tanks in WOW hitting the same buttons over and over again.</p><p>The answer to EQ2's population problems is not to copy and past WOW into the game, because Bizzard do it better than anything SOE can do. But I guess if you want to play a game that is geared towards the loss common denominator then you should be landed.</p>

[Gungo]

<p><cite>TwistedFaith wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>LOL I have NEVER heard anyone ever say in the 4yrs I have been playing EQ2, I am quiting because I dont like the name of the spells or how the spells work. As for the fighter changes, I know for a fact all the tanks in my guild hated the changes, they claimed it turned them into more like tanks in WOW hitting the same buttons over and over again.</p><p>The answer to EQ2's population problems is not to copy and past WOW into the game, because Bizzard do it better than anything SOE can do. But I guess if you want to play a game that is geared towards the loss common denominator then you should be landed.</p></blockquote><p>Spell Consolidation and spell renaming are two completely different things. Spell consolidation is when people were complaining of to many buffs or to much spamming combat attacks that do relatively nothing. People wanted a better perceived reaction from thier Combat arts. I am not saying i agree with it but it was for the longest time the #1 reason people quit the game.</p><p>Regardless of your WOW banter. It still doesnt change the fact tanking is constantly asked to be addressed.</p>

[TwistedFaith]

<p><cite>Gungo wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p> People wanted a better perceived reaction from thier Combat arts. I am not saying i agree with it but it was for the longest time the #1 reason people quit the game.</p><p>Regardless of your WOW banter. It still doesnt change the fact tanking is constantly asked to be addressed.</p></blockquote><p>Any facts to back this up or just one of those made up facts that people use to support a point of view?</p><p>Its obvious to me that SOE are making the game more and more simpler, wether thats because they dont have the man power to support eq2 or they want to bring in more of the WOW crowd, who knows.</p><p>I know one thing though, the more they change the game to be more like WOW, the less people I talk with want to play.</p>

[Gilasil]

<p>I tried out the fighter changes on Test including some group runs.  While some of the people who opposed the changes did try them out, many did not.</p><p>I never had a problem with tanking strictly in defensive.  Of course my bruiser would never dare tank anything in anything else.  To me defensive == tanking.  If you're tanking you should be in defensive and vice versa.  End of story.  Only exception is if you're fighting something you can almost solo.</p><p>I liked the greatly enhanced taunt ability.  Also the slightly increased dps in offensive.    If I want to dps offensive is just fine with me.  Likewise, it's only fair if, while in offensive, I'm as squishy as any of the squishy classes (trust me, by bruiser is).</p><p>I know people complained bitterly about how this made tanking consist of hitting two buttons over and over.  I don't look at it like that.  To me, the real skill of tanking isn't mashing buttons but knowing how to pull, what mobs to pull next, how to get them back to the group, keeping an eye out for adds, do we kill the adds next or the named, etc.  The tank gets to execute tactical decisions most other classes don't bother with anymore.  MUCH more interesting then how many buttons I can mash.</p><p>A lot of the fighter revamp touched things which didn't need to be touched.  Such as spell consolotation.  Great, so I got the same effect with one spell instead of three.  Big whoop.  However, it didn't really hurt anything. </p><p>While the fighter revamp didn't touch on core issues (lack of need for 6 fighters in a raid, brawler issues) it didn't really hurt anything and dealt with some secondary issues such as making taunts mean more.  The extra DPS in offensive was also a good thing and would have helped fighters.</p><p>Oh well.</p><p>Fighters in offensive should be T2 DPS (where in T2 depends on the tank i.e. brawlers should still be higher then guardians).  As I understand it, T2 is for classes which bring something else to the raid besides JUST DPS which would be any fighter in offensive.  In theory, a fighter might be able to take over if the MT buys it.   (although a switch in the middle of the fight is often problematical and most brawlers would only be able to take over for a few seconds if that in non-trivial raid zones i.e. until Tsunami or its equivalent ran out, but that might be enough).  Classes which ONLY bring DPS and never anything else can have the T1 DPS, but I think fighters should have T2.</p><p>It IS a good idea to give players choices; but I can't help wondering if much of this outcry was more because fighters wanted to keep high on the parse (offensive stance + tank is probably the most thoroughly buffed toon in the raid or group) and the whole choice thing was a red herring.   If having choice is so important there are better ways to do it. </p><p>If having choice is still important people should be pushing for more buffs then concentration slots, or opposing buffs of which only one can be active, or CAs which can be combined in various ways for different effects.  I haven't seen any of that.</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Gilasil wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I know people complained bitterly about how this made tanking consist of hitting two buttons over and over.  I don't look at it like that.  To me, the real skill of tanking isn't mashing buttons but knowing how to pull, what mobs to pull next, how to get them back to the group, keeping an eye out for adds, to we kill the adds next or the main named, etc.  The tank gets to execute tactical decisions most other classes don't bother with anymore.  MUCH more interesting then how many buttons I can mash.</p></blockquote><p>lol, simply lol.</p><p>Most content we just room pull anyway.</p><p>You seem to equate tanking == group leadership, which isn't really true.</p><p>This is eq2, and there is offensive tanking and offensive tanking classes, and there is defensive tanking, and defensive tank classes.</p><p>All have their place, and there are times where defensive classes will tank offensively and when offensive tank classes will tank defensively.  Its actually a really good thing that the classes and content are that diverse.</p><p>The problem with tanks and the revamp is simply that taunts never scaled with everything else AND offensive stance penalties became trivial to overcome with the gear mudflation.</p><p>Adjust taunts to work off MC or the consolidated crit chance.  Make ca bonus work for taunt bonus.  And lastly make the defensive penalties for o-stance represent a universal penalty that can't be overcome (negates deflection/block bonus and increases damage received by 20%).</p><p>Either tanking style should be viable, and each should have its penalties and rewards.</p>

[Gilasil]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Gilasil wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I know people complained bitterly about how this made tanking consist of hitting two buttons over and over.  I don't look at it like that.  To me, the real skill of tanking isn't mashing buttons but knowing how to pull, what mobs to pull next, how to get them back to the group, keeping an eye out for adds, to we kill the adds next or the main named, etc.  The tank gets to execute tactical decisions most other classes don't bother with anymore.  MUCH more interesting then how many buttons I can mash.</p></blockquote><p><strong>Most content we just room pull anyway.<span style="color: #ff0000;"> Then you're tanking stuff that's so far below you you might as well be in offensive.  I'd agree with that.  Why you bother with trivial content I don't know.  Personally, I like the challange of a difficult pull.  But some people like their content easy so have fun.</span></strong></p><p><strong>You seem to equate tanking == group leadership, which isn't really true.</strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">The mob spawns an add in the middle of the fight.  You do NOT have time to huddle with the raid leader.  You have to deal with it right there.  In routine runs the tank ends up making a lot of tactical decisions and what to pull next in a room is one of them.  Oh yes, you mainly fight stuff for which you are so overpowered that's a non-issue.</span></p></blockquote>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Gilasil wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><blockquote><p><strong>Most content we just room pull anyway.<span style="color: #ff0000;"> Then you're tanking stuff that's so far below you you might as well be in offensive.  I'd agree with that.  Why you bother with trivial content I don't know.  Personally, I like the challange of a difficult pull.  But some people like their content easy so have fun.</span></strong></p><p><strong></strong><span style="color: #ff0000;"></span></p></blockquote></blockquote><p>I'm talking about 90% of the TSO content.</p>

[Gungo]

<p><cite>TwistedFaith wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Gungo wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p> People wanted a better perceived reaction from thier Combat arts. I am not saying i agree with it but it was for the longest time the #1 reason people quit the game.</p><p>Regardless of your WOW banter. It still doesnt change the fact tanking is constantly asked to be addressed.</p></blockquote><p>Any facts to back this up or just one of those made up facts that people use to support a point of view?</p><p>Its obvious to me that SOE are making the game more and more simpler, wether thats because they dont have the man power to support eq2 or they want to bring in more of the WOW crowd, who knows.</p><p>I know one thing though, the more they change the game to be more like WOW, the less people I talk with want to play.</p></blockquote><p>Would a dev qoute work? They said during the first time they mentioned spell consolidation it was one of the main feedback reports they recieved. In fact if you look at the current fan faire report fyreflyte had on his list rebuffing taking to long as feedback.</p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p><cite>Gilasil wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>To me, the real skill of tanking isn't mashing buttons but knowing how to pull, what mobs to pull next, how to get them back to the group, keeping an eye out for adds, do we kill the adds next or the named, etc. The tank gets to execute tactical decisions most other classes don't bother with anymore. MUCH more interesting then how many buttons I can mash.</p></blockquote><p>The fighers job is to keep the aggro and be "tanky" enough so that the healer is able to keep him up.</p><p>Both of those are entirely based on the tank, his/her gear, the healer, his/her gear, the makeup of the group and the zone/encounter at hand.   Players should have the choice to handle it however best works for them.....if it means the tank can be crazy and tank in cloth with a couple of daggers.....so beit.    SOE forcing each archetype to play in the same way is not the answer to the problems we see in the game today.</p><p>Fighters need to be tweaked......not revamped.</p>

[Noaani]

<p><cite>TwistedFaith wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>Any facts to back this up or just one of those made up facts that people use to support a point of view?</blockquote><p>Search 3 year old developer posts.</p>

[Giral]

<p>problem with eq2 is they give it all away , and then go back and nerf everything afterwards,  AA's when introduced, they nerfed stuff from classes and made you reget it thru AA's , after people figured out what aa's were best , they went back and nerfed alot of the good AA's, so that people would have to spread thier points around more(have more abilites/skils/buffs)</p><p>to many buffs/skills ? well aa's added to that (and they keep on adding )</p><p>and now that another expansion is coming, and the level going to 90(and each class will probably get another skill/ability = most likely something you lose in the spell consoidation that they will give back as a new thing lol)  and you will have even more aa points to spend = more buffs/spells/abilities(some new ones will be passive,but not many will waste more points in old tree unless they are well worth it /dont hold breath it will probably be something that they take away from you and make you get it back thru aa's )</p><p>.</p><p>i think everyone agreed that each class could have a couple abilities merged, and some buffs merged (except the buff discription would then be so long it would have to scroll off the page lol)</p><p>but when spell  consolidation was anounced (i believe back in 2007 fan faire ?) the on going thread was a landslide majority vote against it .  there was just to many things that could go wrong if they merged to much or merged  the wrong abilities and the players (for good reason) would rather have a couple low dmg attacks, and a couple of extra buffs to cast then trust the devs to fiddle with it it all : ) <<-- and so spell consolidation was Cancelled (actualy put on the backburned for a long time,to ease those players concience)</p><p>.</p><p>they should never have introduced stances for the tanks(nor any other class afterwards), we had def tanks and offensive tanks at release , they should have tweaked them to fill thier rolls better and then they should have allowed for AA's to let ther players decide if they wanted to be more def or offensive or a mix of both. or some wierd experiment of non of the above : )</p><p>they should have released AA's with less points to spend so people could only have gotten 1 full tree initialy</p><p>then opened it to 2, then with class specific aa's only allowed one tree at first, then in time 2, and then with shadow aa's only allow 5 points in each line, and only 2 end abilities</p><p>and then with next expansion opened up an additonal 30 points to spend in any tree</p><p>and then if there was any tweaks needed for def or offensive etc make minor adjustments up and down to balance things out a little better but we dont need perfect balance .</p><p> bad player can just play the Flavor of the Years classes, and skilled players can play the les used,harder to master classes and excell with them where others never could</p><p>.</p><p>but in this game they just go overboard , and everytime they do it still isnt enough , "its to hard to get 200 AA's " . well IMO people by now should only be able to get 100 AA's across all trees (they would have alot less skills/abilties/buffs, and be alot less for the devs to have to Tweak for balance, but they wouldnt have to consoidate lol )</p><p>add in magic mirrors and people have 2 seperate aa tree's =  differant abilities/buffs/skills/etc</p><p>add in stances and you have 12 tank classes to balance instead of 6</p><p>its why everyone is so cookie cutter in this game</p><p>there is just a couple of paths for all classes in thier aa trees and everyone can have Both (and now people want to have a 3rd option for magic mirror lol)</p><p>they dont have unlimted resources, but yet they keep throwing abilities at the players and then they do as they always do and take stuff away after giving away to much to begin with . lack of planning for the long hual , they should have held back on the aa's and made the aa's take longer to get. (becuase they know people would complian its to long and then they should have nerfed it a tiny bit to make people happy )</p><p>in the end everyone suffers becuase the devs never plan ahead, we wouldnt be in many of these predictiments where the Players have to have stuff condolidated/merged/taken away/made easier(just to get them back again in an AA in an expansion) ,, if they just slowed thier roll (a long time ago)</p><p>.</p><p>they cant even think up new names for spells/abilities. heck they cant even think up a new name for the new achievements lol,. instead we will have 2 entiredly diffrent AA's the ones for points and ones for the things you done.</p>

[Jrral]

<p><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The fighers job is to keep the aggro and be "tanky" enough so that the healer is able to keep him up.</p><p>Both of those are entirely based on the tank, his/her gear, the healer, his/her gear, the makeup of the group and the zone/encounter at hand.   Players should have the choice to handle it however best works for them.....if it means the tank can be crazy and tank in cloth with a couple of daggers.....so beit.    SOE forcing each archetype to play in the same way is not the answer to the problems we see in the game today.</p></blockquote><p>Seconded. My thought: yeah, if I'm going to go tank Palace of the Ancient or the like, I should need to crank up the defense as far as I can to survive. These are the toughest zones and nastiest mobs in the game, me and the healers should have to pull every trick we've got out of our bags (and invent a few on the spot) if we want to win. But by the same token, if I <em>am</em> able to tank PotA, and I'm running around Kylong Plains helping two or three healers run quests and generally terrorize low-green solo mobs, I shouldn't need to even <em>think</em> about defensive abilities to tank successfully. If even a bunch of that sort of mob at once could pose a significant threat to me with that much healing on tap, Anashti Sul would have my hide for a scrub-rag without working up a sweat. I mean, a solo iksar from Kunzar's Edge just isn't that close in power to one of the nastiest goddesses in the pantheon and shouldn't be. Yeah, it means if I'm geared for that kind of raiding I'm going to find solo content boring and not even a challenge. That comes with the territory. If I don't like being bored, I know where to find Anashti for a rematch.</p>

[Jonger79]

<p>IMO, I think a system that requires a tank in defensive on tougher mobs and either stance on weaker ones is just fine. No reason to make it impossible to hold agro on a weak mob if the fighter feels like doing some DPS.</p><p>Basically with the previous changes we were going to be forced to tank in defensive on trash and everything else, forcing out DPS in the toilet and putting us to sleep having nothing enjoyable to even strive for.</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Jonger79 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>IMO, I think a system that requires a tank in defensive on tougher mobs and either stance on weaker ones is just fine. No reason to make it impossible to hold agro on a weak mob if the fighter feels like doing some DPS.</p></blockquote><p>No a system that 'requires' it is a failed system.</p><p>A system that rewards that decision for tougher con mobs is a sensible system.</p>

[Rorasis]

<p>I'm too busy attacking the guy who insulted my mother rather than attacking the guy ripping into my spine.   Wait...</p><p>The best system for fighters to gain threat, imo, is doing DPS with high threat modifiers on their damage.   Taunting for hate is rather silly.</p>

[Landiin]

So is standing in front of a fire breathing dragon.. that argument is just as silly..

[Nero]

<p>Variety of holding aggro, imo</p><p>Guardian: high taunt, a lot of snap aggro, Moderate</p><p>Berserker: high dps, a lot of snap aggro(Rescue, Sneering Asault, Cry of the Warrior, Jeering Onslaught, Insolence with mythical), and Berserker needs an ability about hate like Moderate or Amends, imo</p><p>Paladin: high taunt, Amends</p><p>Shadowknight: high dps, a few snap aggro(Rescue, Sneering Asault, Grave Sacrament, Touch of Death with mythical)</p><p>Monk: high taunt and high dps</p><p>Bruiser: high taunt and high dps</p><p>Just a thought....</p>

[Rahatmattata]

<p><cite>Nero wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Variety of holding aggro, imo</p><p>Guardian: high taunt, a lot of snap aggro, Moderate</p><p>Berserker: high dps, a lot of snap aggro(Rescue, Sneering Asault, Cry of the Warrior, Jeering Onslaught, Insolence with mythical), and Berserker needs an ability about hate like Moderate or Amends, imo</p><p>Paladin: high taunt, Amends</p><p>Shadowknight: high dps, a few snap aggro(Rescue, Sneering Asault, Grave Sacrament, Touch of Death with mythical)</p><p>Monk: high taunt and high dps</p><p>Bruiser: high taunt and high dps</p><p>Just a thought....</p></blockquote><p>Hrm.... sign me up for berserker then.</p>

[Besual]

<p><cite>Riliszkas@Splitpaw wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I'm too busy attacking the guy who insulted my mother rather than attacking the guy ripping into my spine.   Wait...</p><p>The best system for fighters to gain threat, imo, is doing DPS with high threat modifiers on their damage.   Taunting for hate is rather silly.</p></blockquote><p>SOE should replace "taunts" with "tactical commands" to stop such "smart" posts.</p>