Suggestions for future fighter class changes. [Archive]

Raahl

06-29-2009, 04:14 PM

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

Aull

06-29-2009, 08:46 PM

I will say that you have some interesting points but it basically sets them all as clones with little room for individuality.Opinions will vary no matter what happens, but I for one do not want my bruiser being able to do everything that my zerker can do nor do I want my zerker and sk being equal either. Much of the problem is envy of what another fighter has that keeps this so called imbalance on going.I honestly feel that developers should state what should be expected of each fighter class and stick to that. Right now every fighter that doesn't have any ae capability wants it because tso is a very aoe heavy content expac. Taking strengths from one class and giving it to another is what can and will break the game.I do feel that class individuality is what made this game so special and having all the fighters being equal will ruin that and many will quit. It will be tough to do with six fighters.

Kimber

06-29-2009, 11:03 PM

Some good ideas there why not put them in the other thread here in this forum about getting more fighters into raids. That way the Devs only need to look at 1 thread with this isssue.

Raahl

06-30-2009, 09:58 AM

I copied it into the other thread. I started my own because it may be too easy to get overlooked in a 13+ page thread. Aull - As far as Tanking abilities each fighter should have the same capabilities, IMO.What sets each class apart should be their utility abilities. The extras that don't affect Tanking or DPS. Each class would also have their individual look when in combat. Different moves and animations. You'd still be in the same armor type, so your character will still look different.I was trying to think of the main Utility abilities for each class. These are just a few I could think of.<ul><li>Crusaders: Heals (others only) and Rezzes (Self heals would make them a better tank)</li><li>Monks: Stealth and Feign Death</li><li>Warriors: Repair Armor and ??? (This is tough, because almost everything I think of affects their tanking/dps)</li></ul>Again the main purpose of my post is to balance the fighter classes to allow each to have a chance at being the MT for raids. Also to give a reason for multiple fighters to be in a raid at the same time. It would be nice for 6 fighters to have a productive place in a raid, but I just don't see that ever being realistic. Now 4 fighters could be possible.

Kimber

06-30-2009, 11:56 AM

I understand that lol its getting a lil silly in that thread tbh allot of no never /whine /cry going on but some great ideas here that I wanted to see over there to throw in the mix to keep it going. Also from what I am reading about the next expansion some of our feed back here may be getting up there as they are changing the bard buffs to raid wide and a few other things so some spots might be opening up. Now if they just figure out how to make fighters viable options for those spots.

Raahl

06-30-2009, 12:49 PM

<cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>I understand that lol its getting a lil silly in that thread tbh allot of no never /whine /cry going on but some great ideas here that I wanted to see over there to throw in the mix to keep it going. </blockquote>Yea I really want to have a solution that helps every fighter class. I know it's probably a pipe dream but I'd like to see a time where Brawlers have raids to be MT in. I don't even play a brawler.I also want the non-MT fighters in a raid to have a purpose other than being a so-so DPS addition. I'd like to help the MT keep aggro while protecting my group somewhat. Maybe some non-fighter mit/resist/shielding buffs for the group. We can bicker all day long, in the long run the only solution that will be a long lasting one is a balanced one. Otherwise Sony will forever be tweaking and changing the system on us, invalidating one fighter class while raising another.We have to come up with solutions for the entire fighter problem, not band aid fixes.

Yimway

06-30-2009, 01:00 PM

I poopoo these ideas, we might as well make them all the same class.

RafaelSmith

06-30-2009, 01:39 PM

No thanks. We already have too much similarity amongst the classes....we need more diversity not less.If the solution is to implement changes like these we might as well just remove the 24 classes and just have 4.But judging by what they are planning for rogues and others you might get your wish afterall.

Landiin

06-30-2009, 01:40 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>I poopoo these ideas, we might as well make them all the same class.</blockquote>/agree why have 6 fighters if they are all the same..

Illine

06-30-2009, 02:44 PM

<cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote>Hey all. Let's brainstorm some changes to make the fighter classes more balanced and changes that will allow for multiple fighters to be wanted for raids.If you post, please include changes for all classes or for the fighter class overall. Asking for changes to one class does not help balance our archtype. Also, please no calls for nerfing classes.Damage types - Each class should do a different type of damage. Each classes auto attack will still do physical, all the combat arts should do the classes given damage type.<ul><li>Crusaders = Divine</li><li>Warriors = Physical</li><li>Brawlers = Elemental</li></ul>and what about noxious damage??Survivability - Each fighter class should have the same survivability. Do away with the Mitigation and Avoidance stats. These stats make it impossible to allow the non-plate tanks to be MT. Instead have a stat called Defense. This is a combination of Mitigation and avoidance and each piece of armor will have a Defense value. Armor can then be balanced for each armor type. With any class able to MT because of a high Defense value.Hate Generation - Each class will generate hate from their CA's and taunts. When mobs are susceptible to a fighters damage type, and CA's that cause that damage type will get a bonus to their hate. The reason the bonus is only to the CA's is because it would give warriors an edge because their damage type is the same as their auto attack type. Each class will have similar taunts with no class having a large edge. All current hate transfer abilities will be removed from the fighter classes. This includes Amends. Otherwise it unbalances hate.DPS - Seeing that DPS will come from the CA's which in turn causes hate. Each class should have their CA's balanced with the other fighter classes. This will ensure that no one class will dominate hate generation. Each fighter class should be able to output roughly the same DPS.can't be done that way coz some fighters have other means of hate generation like paladins. And making all their CA do as much damage is like making only one class. no diversity anymoreGroup Buffs - Each class should have skills to buff their group to protect them from their given damage type. These should be relatively minor so that fighters do not take the place of the utility classes.Mob Debuffs - Each fighter class should have 1 maybe two abilities that debuff the mob to their damage type. Again these should be minor as to not take over the debuffing classes.Stances - There should only be 2 stances that every fighter class shares. These stances should not have negative effects on them.<ul><li>Defensive stance - Increases Health and Defense by 20%, possibly additional % to all resistances.</li><li>Offensive stance - Increases CA damage by 20%, possible a DPS Mod and/or haste element to it. </li></ul>why brawlers can't keep their 3rd stance?Hate Transfer - In order to encourage raids to have 4 fighters in each raid, fighters should have the ability to transfer a portion of their hate to the MT of the raid. This amount should probably be rather small so we do not step on the abilities of the other hate transferring classes.Utility - I am unsure how this would be changed. Each fighter class should have utility abilities that do not affect hate or DPS. These can be used to help make each fighter class different in some way.Raid Mob Changes - Raid mobs will need to be susceptable to a given figher damage type, with each damage type being equally represented throughout the tier. Any fighter doing the damage type that the mob is susceptable to should also gain additional hate from that mob. These changes should encourage raids to swap the MT job between the different fighter classes.no make fighters almost immune to one type of damage. Like paladins should absorb 80% of all divine damage ... then every mob with divine spells should be tanked by paladins (but can another class tank it? yes .. harder but possible so no need of the paladin anyway :p)Final Note - I know that these type of changes would make the fighter classes very similar. Unfortunately this is something I see having to happen in order to gain balance. If each class is to have a chance to MT and play an active role in a raid we all must have similar tanking capabilities. If one class out-performs the others then you will see them dominating the MT spot.</blockquote>yeah, make only one fighter, fuuun !!!

Raahl

06-30-2009, 02:49 PM

Then stop whining about class x and accept whatever scraps Sony decides to hand you. People constantly are complaining when Sony changes the classes often in the name of balance only to throw balance even futher out of wack. At first Guardian's were the end to be all tank. What happened? The other tanks complained, so Guardians got the nerf bat. Complain about class x and the nerf bat swings. Stop complaining and offer solutions for the whole problem with the fighter classes.I play a Guardian because I like the image of a full plate tank, some like the image of a robe clad monk. As long as I can effectively tank, offer something to a group if I'm not MT and be capable of solo'ing then I am happy. Here I thought this was what the other fighters wanted.

RafaelSmith

06-30-2009, 02:55 PM

<cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote>Then stop whining about class x and accept whatever scraps Sony decides to hand you. People constantly are complaining when Sony changes the classes often in the name of balance only to throw balance even futher out of wack.At first Guardian's were the end to be all tank. What happened? The other tanks complained, so Guardians got the nerf bat. Complain about class x and the nerf bat swings.Stop complaining and offer solutions for the whole problem with the fighter classes.I play a Guardian because I like the image of a full plate tank, some like the image of a robe clad monk. As long as I can effectively tank, offer something to a group if I'm not MT and be capable of solo'ing then I am happy. Here I thought this was what the other fighters wanted.</blockquote>Well alot of the so called "whining" is because to achieve that so called balance SOE has done exactly what you talk about......with each step of so called balance all they did was make the classes more the same......particulary with the plates.You like the image of a full plate tank? guess what there are 4 of those not just Guardian...all of them in pretty much the same gear, wielding 1h swords and using a tower shield.

Raahl

06-30-2009, 03:11 PM

<blockquote>Illine@Storms wrote:<cite>and what about noxious damage??</cite><cite>can't be done that way coz some fighters have other means of hate generation like paladins. And making all their CA do as much damage is like making only one class. no diversity anymore</cite><cite>why brawlers can't keep their 3rd stance?</cite><cite>no make fighters almost immune to one type of damage. Like paladins should absorb 80% of all divine damage ... then every mob with divine spells should be tanked by paladins (but can another class tank it? yes .. harder but possible so no need of the paladin anyway :p)</cite><cite>yeah, make only one fighter, fuuun !!!</cite></blockquote>1. Noxious falls under a scout more. I chose to leave it there. Now it could be debated to give that ability to a fighter type.2a. What other means of hate generation? Pretty much anything that overly modifies hate will either be removed or a equivelent be added to the other fighter classes.2b. There would be diversity. Each class does a different damage type and utility. Having one fighter type have superior DPS and equal tanking abilities would be overpowering. Fighters focus too much on DPS as it is. We all should be similar and if you want more DPS for a fighter class, then that class should be a mage or scout. #1 thing fighters do is tank.3. Please enlighten me on the 3rd stance. If it affects offense or defense then I'd expect it would either be adapted for all classes or dropped.4. IMO, It's easier for Sony to change mobs abilities if adjustments are needed vs. another change to a class which could possibly throw things out of whack again. But something like what you suggest could work. 5. If you read and comprehended what I wrote, you would understand that each class would be different, just not in the tanking/dps area. Come on people! Open your minds just a little. Think out of the box just a little. To me the #1 role of a fighter is to tank, do you disagree with me on this?

RafaelSmith

06-30-2009, 03:18 PM

<cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote>To me the #1 role of a fighter is to tank, do you disagree with me on this?</blockquote>Yes it is......just like the #1 role of a Priest is to heal....and each of the 3 types does it different.

Raahl

06-30-2009, 03:19 PM

<cite></cite><blockquote><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>Raahl wrote:Then stop whining about class x and accept whatever scraps Sony decides to hand you. People constantly are complaining when Sony changes the classes often in the name of balance only to throw balance even futher out of wack.At first Guardian's were the end to be all tank. What happened? The other tanks complained, so Guardians got the nerf bat. Complain about class x and the nerf bat swings.Stop complaining and offer solutions for the whole problem with the fighter classes.I play a Guardian because I like the image of a full plate tank, some like the image of a robe clad monk. As long as I can effectively tank, offer something to a group if I'm not MT and be capable of solo'ing then I am happy. Here I thought this was what the other fighters wanted.</blockquote>Well alot of the so called "whining" is because to achieve that so called balance SOE has done exactly what you talk about......with each step of so called balance all they did was make the classes more the same......particulary with the plates.You like the image of a full plate tank? guess what there are 4 of those not just Guardian...all of them in pretty much the same gear, wielding 1h swords and using a tower shield.</blockquote>Yea it's hard to separate the plate tanks. Damage type is a start, but I believe that the utility differences will be what can separate the plate tanks. The difference can be in how the tank defends their group members. For example: Right now Paladins can heal party members and use amends. Guardians can Rescue and intercept damage from group members. Somehow these could be included in the utility abilities of each class to make them unique. Instead of dismissing this, try finding a way to make the classes different without affecting their tanking or dps abilities.

Raahl

06-30-2009, 03:24 PM

<blockquote><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>Raahl wrote:To me the #1 role of a fighter is to tank, do you disagree with me on this?</blockquote>Yes it is......just like the #1 role of a Priest is to heal....and each of the 3 types does it different.</blockquote>Yes and priest heals are a different discussion.So should all fighters be able to tank equally or should some tank better than others?

circusgirl

06-30-2009, 06:05 PM

Alright, so the OP has an excellent goal: to make all fighters solid tanks, and to create a situation in which a raidforce keeps at least 3 tanks (one of each type) and uses a different one to MT different encounters based on the situation.His setup has one major downside...he accomplishes this primarily through homogenizing tanks, as oppossed to differentiating them and simply having content play to different tanks strengths. First off--while avoidance tanking has been an issue for a while, the mechanic needs to be fixed, not rolled into mitigation which is what you're suggesting. Right now brawlers can acheive very high avoidance (up to about 90% uncontested and about 60% contested on the high end) but remain with very low mitigation, while plate tanks can obtain both very high mitigation and, with the help of a brawler's avoidance lend and a cleric's shield ally, up to about 75% actual avoidance (as in, the % of incoming blows that are actually avoided, not what the persona window says). Basically, plate tanks can have it both ways, while brawlers only get avoidance. So lets look at solutions:Avoidance LendsCurrently all tanks have an avoidance lend, which basically works as follows: when the target's own avoidance check fails, the spell "Grants a 54% chance to avoid being hit by a melee attack using the targets avoidance" If placed on a plate tank by a brawler, this buff is 15-30% uncontested avoidance to the MT, but gives very little benefit if placed on a brawler by a plate tank. Lets look at ways to close this tanking disparity while differentiating fighters:<ul><li>remove the avoidance lend from plate tanks altogether</li><li>Give Warriors a mitigation lend that works as follows: When target is hit by a melee weapon, they have a 50% chance to use the caster's mitigation instead of the target's.</li><li>Give Crusaders a heal lend that works as follows: 50% of all healing done by the caster (via lifetaps, a paladin's heals, procs, etc.) is applied to the target of the heal lend as well as to the heal's normal target.</li></ul><div>This basically means that not only are these buffs powerful and unique enough to encourage bringing one of each tank type, it also creates a method (via the warriors mitigation lend) by which a brawler can up their mitigation just like a plate tank can up their avoidance using a brawler.</div><div></div><div>Immunities</div><div>Currently, crusaders have an AA option giving them fear immunity. This makes it very easy to create situations in which a crusader is the best tank (just have the boss fear fighters constantly). Why not extend this concept to other tanks with different immunities?</div><div><ul><li>Give Warriors an immunity to knockbacks via AA choices (warriors are faaar too stable to be punched around!). </li><li>Give Brawlers an immunity to stuns (brawlers are so in touch with their own body that it is impossible to disable them like this)</li><li>Create different raid mobs that play to these new strengths. A mob that stuns fighters constantly is now best tanked by a brawler, while one that knockbacks HARD with every successful hit is best tanked by a warrior, and one that perma-fears fighters is best tanked by a crusader.</li></ul><div>Itemization</div><div>Currently itemization is really poor when it comes to plate tanks vs. brawlers. +mitigation increase is a big source of the problem, in that it ignores the mitigation curve entirely and aside from one very hard to obtain cloak is not available for brawlers, but the problem goes deeper. While adornments are available for plate tanks giving uncontested avoidance (parry adorns for wrists, riposte adorns for slashing weapons, dodge/parry food) very little in the way of mitigation is available to brawlers, all of it on extremely high-end items. Let's have some solid adorns for crushing weapons, and some ways for brawlers to up their mit as easily as plate tanks up their avoidance.</div></div><div></div>

Uglukson

07-01-2009, 01:23 AM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Alright, so the OP has an excellent goal: to make all fighters solid tanks, and to create a situation in which a raidforce keeps at least 3 tanks (one of each type) and uses a different one to MT different encounters based on the situation.His setup has one major downside...he accomplishes this primarily through homogenizing tanks, as oppossed to differentiating them and simply having content play to different tanks strengths. First off--while avoidance tanking has been an issue for a while, the mechanic needs to be fixed, not rolled into mitigation which is what you're suggesting. Right now brawlers can acheive very high avoidance (up to about 90% uncontested and about 60% contested on the high end) but remain with very low mitigation, while plate tanks can obtain both very high mitigation and, with the help of a brawler's avoidance lend and a cleric's shield ally, up to about 75% actual avoidance (as in, the % of incoming blows that are actually avoided, not what the persona window says). Basically, plate tanks can have it both ways, while brawlers only get avoidance. So lets look at solutions:Avoidance LendsCurrently all tanks have an avoidance lend, which basically works as follows: when the target's own avoidance check fails, the spell "Grants a 54% chance to avoid being hit by a melee attack using the targets avoidance" If placed on a plate tank by a brawler, this buff is 15-30% uncontested avoidance to the MT, but gives very little benefit if placed on a brawler by a plate tank. Lets look at ways to close this tanking disparity while differentiating fighters:<ul><li>remove the avoidance lend from plate tanks altogether</li><li>Give Warriors a mitigation lend that works as follows: When target is hit by a melee weapon, they have a 50% chance to use the caster's mitigation instead of the target's.</li><li>Give Crusaders a heal lend that works as follows: 50% of all healing done by the caster (via lifetaps, a paladin's heals, procs, etc.) is applied to the target of the heal lend as well as to the heal's normal target.</li></ul><div>This basically means that not only are these buffs powerful and unique enough to encourage bringing one of each tank type, it also creates a method (via the warriors mitigation lend) by which a brawler can up their mitigation just like a plate tank can up their avoidance using a brawler.</div><div></div><div>Immunities</div><div>Currently, crusaders have an AA option giving them fear immunity. This makes it very easy to create situations in which a crusader is the best tank (just have the boss fear fighters constantly). Why not extend this concept to other tanks with different immunities?</div><div><ul><li>Give Warriors an immunity to knockbacks via AA choices (warriors are faaar too stable to be punched around!). </li><li>Give Brawlers an immunity to stuns (brawlers are so in touch with their own body that it is impossible to disable them like this)</li><li>Create different raid mobs that play to these new strengths. A mob that stuns fighters constantly is now best tanked by a brawler, while one that knockbacks HARD with every successful hit is best tanked by a warrior, and one that perma-fears fighters is best tanked by a crusader.</li></ul><div>Itemization</div><div>Currently itemization is really poor when it comes to plate tanks vs. brawlers. +mitigation increase is a big source of the problem, in that it ignores the mitigation curve entirely and aside from one very hard to obtain cloak is not available for brawlers, but the problem goes deeper. While adornments are available for plate tanks giving uncontested avoidance (parry adorns for wrists, riposte adorns for slashing weapons, dodge/parry food) very little in the way of mitigation is available to brawlers, all of it on extremely high-end items. Let's have some solid adorns for crushing weapons, and some ways for brawlers to up their mit as easily as plate tanks up their avoidance.</div></div><div></div></blockquote>Some excellent ideas. Making the avoidance buff a unique brawler thing is something that would help brawlers secure a spot in raid more regularly, and I believe something about making the brawler avoidance buff "clearly the best" of the fighter avoidance sharing buffs was mentioned at Fan Faire. Making it share defensive stance values whilst in offensive stance would be even better.

circusgirl

07-01-2009, 02:10 AM

I'de like to see the brawler avoidance stance altered such that it only uses deflection (instead of parry/dodge/riposte, etc) but treat all deflection as uncontested. That way it would decouple the effectiveness of tranquil vision/shake off from the defensive stance and we could BOTH help our MT, AND dps.

Aule

07-01-2009, 02:45 AM

Why not consolidate down to 1 class then and give you 1 class AA that you can use to pick which one of the 6 former class names you'd like to show up on the who list? (Oh and your damage type.)

Grumpy_Warrior_01

07-01-2009, 09:43 AM

Brawler - Best Solo - Good Group - Worst RaidCrusader - Good Solo - Best Group - Good RaidWarrior - Worst Solo - Good Group - Best RaidBrawlers, Crusaders and Warriors are CLASSES. Tanking and dps are ROLES.CLASS balance is not limited to one ROLE.Some are arguing for tanking equality and you can forget that. It will never happen. There will always be a better raid tank class, a better group tank class, and a better solo class than the others. As it should be.BALANCED does not mean EQUAL.

Landiin

07-01-2009, 01:36 PM

circusgirl

07-01-2009, 02:14 PM

Frankly, that list is rubbish. First off, Shadowknights can solo significantly better than brawlers can. They can take on more mobs than us, and with lifetap survive significantly better when farming heroics. Plus they can still flop they way around.Secondly...remember that whole thing where the devs decided they were going to make it inanely easy to solo your way up to 80? Frankly, the first 70 levels go so [Removed for Content] fast that all that matters anymore is grouping or raiding.Balance all the classes to be different but equal in each playstyle. A shadowknight and a brawler might solo using very different means, but both should be equally good at it. Likewise, a guardian and a monk might have very different roles on a raid, but both should be desireable.

RafaelSmith

07-01-2009, 02:23 PM

Grumpy_Warrior_01

07-01-2009, 03:53 PM

<cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>First, thats not how things are now. Currently the gap between "worse","good" and "best" are rather small for some of the fighter type while huge for others.Second, I think its a stupid and extremely restrictive way to approach fighter balance.When we create our toons we are creating classes to experiecne the game....not a class to raid with or a class or solo with or a class to group with.I do not recall ever seeing any warning on character select that said....By creating a Guardian unless you are fortunate to end up as the one MT for a raid guild your gaming experience is going to suck and be frustrating.</blockquote>Gaylon, I did not mean to imply that's how things are now. The colored list is my model of EQII fighter tanking balance which seems to be what this thread revolves around. If you don't think it's accurate, then tell us what balance should look like.I am completely frustrated by all of the same things you are frustrated by. To play my guardian best, I need a raid. To be adequate in a group, I need a perfect setup and 5 understanding groupmates. Certain other fighter classes SMOKE me on nearly every aspect of the archetype. Doesn't matter which class you play, there will be strengths and shortcomings built into the class by design in the name of balance. The "stupid" chart above is trying to make that point. The players who think they should be great at everything are barking up the wrong tree.

RafaelSmith

07-01-2009, 04:06 PM

<cite>Grumpy_Warrior_01 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>First, thats not how things are now. Currently the gap between "worse","good" and "best" are rather small for some of the fighter type while huge for others.Second, I think its a stupid and extremely restrictive way to approach fighter balance.When we create our toons we are creating classes to experiecne the game....not a class to raid with or a class or solo with or a class to group with.I do not recall ever seeing any warning on character select that said....By creating a Guardian unless you are fortunate to end up as the one MT for a raid guild your gaming experience is going to suck and be frustrating.</blockquote>Gaylon, I did not mean to imply that's how things are now. The colored list is my model of EQII fighter tanking balance which seems to be what this thread revolves around. If you don't think it's accurate, then tell us what balance should look like.I am completely frustrated by all of the same things you are frustrated by. To play my guardian best, I need a raid. To be adequate in a group, I need a perfect setup and 5 understanding groupmates. Certain other fighter classes SMOKE me on nearly every aspect of the archetype. Doesn't matter which class you play, there will be strengths and shortcomings built into the class by design in the name of balance. The "stupid" chart above is trying to make that point. The players who think they should be great at everything are barking up the wrong tree.</blockquote>The problem with that chart is that I think using the performance of a particular class in those 3 game areas (solo, group, raid) as couterbalances to eachother is flawed.Right now everyone and their brother says Guards are fine and balanced because we are still the premier raid MT tank.........well then....by that logic...Brawlers are fine because they are solo kings? I do not think anyone would say that Brawlers are "fine".Trying to balance that way is what has led us to where things are today with SKs. They needed something to make them viable and wanted for raids......in doing so they made them pretty much kings of all 3 game areas....with the exception of a few select raid mobs. While the plates may have been brought more in balance for a very small percentage of the games content....they were brought further out of balance for everything else.Its simply a flawed way to balance and continuing to do it this way will always end up screwing someone somewhere.Balance or whatever you wanna call it needs to be fair across all the game areas equally.Not sure what the answer honestly.......I think its probably never going to be possible because I feel the whole archetype system was flawed from the beginning.

circusgirl

07-01-2009, 04:31 PM

All 3 classes of fighter should be able to solo (currently, all 3 can, though guardians are a little slower than other classes). All 3 classes of fighter should be able to tank groups (currently the case, though it is especially easy for crusaders, especially difficult for brawlers, and middling for warriors), and all 3 classes of fighter should be able to raid tank. Frankly, except for like 3 brawlers worldwide, that's not the case. Guardians obviously make great MTs, as do SKs (actually, every group I've ever raided with has used a shadowknight MT), Pallies, and Zerkers. Brawlers right now are way behind in this department, mostly because of mechanics and itemization bias, as oppossed to say, Combat arts or class abilities. It would not be hard to tweak the system such that a raidforce would want to keep and maintain 3 fighters, one of each class, each of which takes their turn at the helm depending on the content they're facing. It would be even easier to create a situation in which any one of the 6 tank classes could be MT, and it is only the skill of the player that determines who gets the slot.

Grumpy_Warrior_01

07-01-2009, 05:04 PM

<cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>The problem with that chart is that I think using the performance of a particular class in those 3 game areas (solo, group, raid) as couterbalances to eachother is flawed.Right now everyone and their brother says Guards are fine and balanced because we are still the premier raid MT tank.........well then....by that logic...Brawlers are fine because they are solo kings? I do not think anyone would say that Brawlers are "fine".Trying to balance that way is what has led us to where things are today with SKs. They needed something to make them viable and wanted for raids......in doing so they made them pretty much kings of all 3 game areas....with the exception of a few select raid mobs. While the plates may have been brought more in balance for a very small percentage of the games content....they were brought further out of balance for everything else.Its simply a flawed way to balance and continuing to do it this way will always end up screwing someone somewhere.Balance or whatever you wanna call it needs to be fair across all the game areas equally.Not sure what the answer honestly.......I think its probably never going to be possible because I feel the whole archetype system was flawed from the beginning.</blockquote>Oh I agree SK's are now ridiculous due to "balancing," but it doesn't look like that's changing any time soon.The flaw happened when Moorgard diplomatically stated, "All fighters are tanks," ambiguously mapping a broad role to an entire archetype without any further explanation. This led some to optimistically conclude that "All fighters are cutting-edge raid boss main tanks." And the campaign to make this wish come true has not stopped even to this day. Brigands are not fighters, but they make excellent tanks for certain types of content. That doesn't make them raid main tanks. There is a vast chasm between tanking Guk and tanking Zarrakon. Just saying "I am a tank" is not enough information for the complexity of this game, and it never was.Anybody that believes fighter balance means tanking equality on all types of content, I've got some nice subprime mortgage derivatives to show you.

Couching

07-01-2009, 06:58 PM

Landiin

07-01-2009, 07:17 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Grumpy_Warrior_01 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Brawler - Best Solo - Good Group - Worst RaidCrusader - Good Solo - Best Group - Good RaidWarrior - Worst Solo - Good Group - Best RaidBrawlers, Crusaders and Warriors are CLASSES. Tanking and dps are ROLES.CLASS balance is not limited to one ROLE.Some are arguing for tanking equality and you can forget that. It will never happen. There will always be a better raid tank class, a better group tank class, and a better solo class than the others. As it should be.BALANCED does not mean EQUAL.</blockquote>It's dumb. Why? Because in eq2, solo content is about only 1% or even less, the rest is group and raid content.Are you trying to tell all brawlers to quit eq2 after first week or first 20-30 hours of every expansion or being screwed in the rest of the year?Not to say, crusader, especially SK is better than brawlers in solo.</blockquote>It clearly shows ever class bing good at group content so I don't know wha the hlel your talking about...

Mirander_1

07-01-2009, 09:45 PM

I'm far from an expert on this type of stuff, but I'd like to throw in my two cents:I think, to balance Fighters, it requires both Fighters and Mobs to be designed in a specific way: mobs must fall into well-defined archetypes, and each Fighter class must be designed to counter ones of those archetypes. It also has to be fairly easy to identify which archetype the mob falls into, and have an even enough spread, to ensure that each class gets used.Warriors should be best used against mobs that use physical damage, and fall into a 'slow but powerful' style. Basically, lots of spike damage that other fighters have trouble standing against.Brawlers should be for physical mobs that use lots of quick-but-weak damage. This would be a difficult balancing act, but the damage would have to be low enough that Brawlers can handle being occasionally hit, but high enough that the other fighters, with their lower avoidance, take too much damage for healers to easily keep up.Crusaders physical defense would be no match for the others, but they'd be the best equipped to take down casters.I know, it'd probably be incredibly complicated to actually get the game set up to work like this, but in theory at least, I think this would work.

Couching

07-01-2009, 10:58 PM

<cite>Toran@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Grumpy_Warrior_01 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Brawler - Best Solo - Good Group - Worst RaidCrusader - Good Solo - Best Group - Good RaidWarrior - Worst Solo - Good Group - Best RaidBrawlers, Crusaders and Warriors are CLASSES. Tanking and dps are ROLES.CLASS balance is not limited to one ROLE.Some are arguing for tanking equality and you can forget that. It will never happen. There will always be a better raid tank class, a better group tank class, and a better solo class than the others. As it should be.BALANCED does not mean EQUAL.</blockquote>It's dumb. Why? Because in eq2, solo content is about only 1% or even less, the rest is group and raid content.Are you trying to tell all brawlers to quit eq2 after first week or first 20-30 hours of every expansion or being screwed in the rest of the year?Not to say, crusader, especially SK is better than brawlers in solo.</blockquote>It clearly shows ever class bing good at group content so I don't know wha the hlel your talking about...</blockquote>Because math is too hard for you to understand?When solo content or the time you can spend on solo is less than 1% of this game and raid is the most time consuming, making brawler best in solo for 1% content and worst in biggest part of this game is not balanced.

Landiin

07-02-2009, 01:09 AM

If you have to resort to slurs to make you fell smart then you have showed us all how intelligent you are. Any ways..There is more solo content than group, there is more group content than raid.. by my math you class is better at more content then any other in this setup. It may not be the content you want and that is the case I am guessing from all of your other good posts.

Couching

07-02-2009, 01:20 AM

Then I fully support the idea of making warrior best in solo and worst in raid content. You should support it too especially you thought solo content is much more than group and raid.

Rotate

07-02-2009, 04:36 AM

Brawler - Good Solo - Worst Group - Worst RaidCrusader - Best Solo - Best Group - Good RaidWarrior - Worst Solo - Good Group - Best RaidHehe there i fixed it.. they had to be one class that was worst at group.. and yep its brawler!. As for as solo content, non mythical crusaiders vrs non mythical brawlers.... Crusaiders do alot better vrs heroics and such solo. As a monk before i got my mythical it was hell trying to solo named in kc. When i see wardens,, furys, scouts. well every class expect brawlers and warriors soloing in there lol.. non myth farming masters.I kinda like that idea of each fighter class getting an imunity to something.. like crusader gets imunity to fear.

Illine

07-02-2009, 08:08 AM

<cite>Grumpy_Warrior_01 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Brawler - Best Solo - Good Group - Worst RaidCrusader - Good Solo - Best Group - Good RaidWarrior - Worst Solo - Good Group - Best Raid</blockquote>as said ... brawlers are the the best soloers anymore. they are just the best to go from point A to B without dying ..; with many see invi on the way.then when you look a priests or mages or scouts it's not like thatcoercer and illus are great soloers and a great in group and raid.Mystics are good soloers and good in raid, rogues are also great soloers and very needed in raid. Why because they have very specific spells and abilities that makes them ubber and needed.so each tank should have abilities and/or spells that makes them needed compared to the other tanks. As someone said ... some mob would be better tanked by brawlers and some others better tanked by crusaders or warriors.crusaders would be the mage tankers. Warriors the dragon tankers and brawlers the fast hitting guys with strikethough tankers (but brawlers evasion should be immune to strikethrough).why? because crusaders would have ways to protect themsel from magic hits but would be weaker against spike damage. Warriors would be the best suited to resist spike damage but would be hit too often to resist to quick fighters while brawlers would have a hard time resisting to a dragon claw but could dodge easy some mobs.sure, any fighter could tank any mob, but make things harder. like someone who strikethrough would hit the warrior as if he had no armor, like the mob could hit hit on the weak parts of the armor. So his armor wouldn't be of much use compared to brawlers and they couldn't elude as much. crusaders should have some kind of divine shield absorbing some of the magic damage.so now you should at least have 3 fighters .. and 3 different one.then having other fighters? why not if as someone said, making their raidwide buffs great so it would increase heals/dps in such way it would be stupid not to at least have 4 of them .. things like that.so dps won't cry coz a fighter can dps more than him but he would be happy, coz having a fighter would make him see big numbers.and if you don't want to do things like than, then make brawlers scout and you will only have 4 fighters and that's all ... brawler will be wanted for their dps ... but you have to make things clear and maybe change the KoS and EoF trees to show those changes. Coz now there are strange things on each of those trees.

Landiin

07-02-2009, 12:20 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Then I fully support the idea of making warrior best in solo and worst in raid content. You should support it too especially you thought solo content is much more than group and raid.</blockquote>Works for me but sadly the majority of the people playing our classes disagree with you.

Landiin

07-02-2009, 12:23 PM

<cite>Rotate@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>Brawler - Good Solo - Worst Group - Worst RaidCrusader - Best Solo - Best Group - Good RaidWarrior - Worst Solo - Good Group - Best RaidHehe there i fixed it.. they had to be one class that was worst at group.. and yep its brawler!. As for as solo content, non mythical crusaiders vrs non mythical brawlers.... Crusaiders do alot better vrs heroics and such solo. As a monk before i got my mythical it was hell trying to solo named in kc. When i see wardens,, furys, scouts. well every class expect brawlers and warriors soloing in there lol.. non myth farming masters.I kinda like that idea of each fighter class getting an imunity to something.. like crusader gets imunity to fear.</blockquote>He made the post as a suggestion of things could be made not how the are.. as the tittle of the thread suggest.

Xanrn

07-02-2009, 12:31 PM

<cite>Toran@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>If you have to resort to slurs to make you fell smart then you have showed us all how intelligent you are. Any ways..There is more solo content than group, there is more group content than raid.. by my math you class is better at more content then any other in this setup. It may not be the content you want and that is the case I am guessing from all of your other good posts.</blockquote>You are failing to see the point. Solo content is not repeatable in 99.9% of the game.Solo content is a delivery system designed to get you Levels and AAs.You then grind Group/Raid hour upon hour to get gear. Raid grinding takes longer than Group grinding.Any raiding lvl 80 Brawler likely spends 50% of more of his time logged on, raiding. Hell I am in the high 70%s or more.So no that wholeBrawler - Best Solo - Good Group - Worst RaidCrusader - Good Solo - Best Group - Good RaidWarrior - Worst Solo - Good Group - Best RaidIs a pile of stinky crap and anyone who thinks this should be true, needs to leave. Because the vast majority of us are sick to death of fools spouting this crap like the gospel truth.Nowhere on char creation does it say "Brawlers are excellent soloers, who are not wanted in groups or raids and we don't plan to fix that."That has never been and should never be the design behind the classes.Anyone can Solo so [Removed for Content] is the point of being "Best Solo", nothing thats what.

RafaelSmith

07-02-2009, 12:41 PM

Being able to solo slow or fast really makes no difference in the sense that it does not limit where you can go...and since solo is well....solo being "Worst" at it does not in anyway make you a liability to anyone else.Now not being able to hold aggro in groups or constantly being one-shotted by raid mobs is a different story.Solo balance should not take into accout group......group should not take into acount raids......We all need to be viable and balanced at each level play without using our performance in the other areas as a counterweight.And no single fighter type should be King or close to king at everything in the game.The reverse as well......no single fighter should be the suck at 80% of the game because he happens to be good at the other 20%.

circusgirl

07-02-2009, 02:04 PM

<cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>Being able to solo slow or fast really makes no difference in the sense that it does not limit where you can go...and since solo is well....solo being "Worst" at it does not in anyway make you a liability to anyone else.Now not being able to hold aggro in groups or constantly being one-shotted by raid mobs is a different story.Solo balance should not take into accout group......group should not take into acount raids......We all need to be viable and balanced at each level play without using our performance in the other areas as a counterweight.And no single fighter type should be King or close to king at everything in the game.The reverse as well......no single fighter should be the suck at 80% of the game because he happens to be good at the other 20%.</blockquote>Couldn't have said it better myself.

Landiin

07-02-2009, 03:19 PM

RafaelSmith

07-02-2009, 03:32 PM

<cite>Toran@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>Being able to solo slow or fast really makes no difference in the sense that it does not limit where you can go...and since solo is well....solo being "Worst" at it does not in anyway make you a liability to anyone else.Now not being able to hold aggro in groups or constantly being one-shotted by raid mobs is a different story.Solo balance should not take into accout group......group should not take into acount raids......We all need to be viable and balanced at each level play without using our performance in the other areas as a counterweight.And no single fighter type should be King or close to king at everything in the game.The reverse as well......no single fighter should be the suck at 80% of the game because he happens to be good at the other 20%.</blockquote>THen again, lets just have one fighter.. because 6 doing the same thing, even if it is not in the same way is a bit redundent and unneeded.</blockquote>Thats pretty much the same conclusion I reached pretty much every time "Fighters" have been discussed since the games launch.It seems to be what everyone wants they just dont want to admit it i guess.I mean Crusaders/SKs got some love in TSO...........what did it really result in......4 plates that really are not much different......we pretty much end up with the same level of "tankyness"....forced to focus on DPS for aggro.....Ide say we are already beyond redundent.....and many of us approaching the level of uneeded.

circusgirl

07-02-2009, 06:58 PM

Fighters can be equally useful WITHOUT being the same and without class consolidation.Hell, look at brawlers--the way we tank is drastically different from plates, and yes, right now the mechanics of it are a bit broken, but that could easily be fixed and we could have a tank that is totally different in the way it works from any other. Embrace our differences, tweak the issues they cause that make things not viable, and improve us via DIFFERENTIATION.Why not give brawlers and warriors each a unique immunity to a specific control effect like crusaders have? And that avoidance buff (the one that's the same across all 6 fighters?) chuck it and make it something new! Then make avoidance tanking truly viable, and differentiate crusaders a bit more from warriors and quite suddenly we have 6 very different, very useful tanks.

Illine

07-03-2009, 09:41 AM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Why not give brawlers and warriors each a unique immunity to a specific control effect like crusaders have? And that avoidance buff (the one that's the same across all 6 fighters?) chuck it and make it something new! Then make avoidance tanking truly viable, and differentiate crusaders a bit more from warriors and quite suddenly we have 6 very different, very useful tanks.</blockquote>but then what will be the difference between both brawlers (since not much of a difference right now)bruisers had close mind which made them immune for a short period against all cc. we would loose one of the things that makes us different from monks.

Bruener

07-03-2009, 12:14 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Why not give brawlers and warriors each a unique immunity to a specific control effect like crusaders have? And that avoidance buff (the one that's the same across all 6 fighters?) chuck it and make it something new! Then make avoidance tanking truly viable, and differentiate crusaders a bit more from warriors and quite suddenly we have 6 very different, very useful tanks.</blockquote>I have seen you make this argument a few times. And while it sounds nice you do realize that Crusaders hardly ever spec for fear immunity right? It is an endline ability on a KoS line that is completely useless. I used it the first few times against VS, but after that I didn't even spec it for that fight because we lose out on quite a bit going to that spec. So, I guess if you could convince SOE to give you a similar type of immunity as an endline ability on a completely useless line that you would not ever really spec unless it was a fight where it was extremely beneficial like VS because otherwise the loss in other lines don't make it worth it...than it would probably work out.Than of course there is the fact that one type off immunity (stun immunity) would seem much better than the other types of immunities (fear) because SOE puts stun on a lot more mobs than they do fear. Or you have the fact that other classes/items make the immunities practically worthless. You can have multiple items now that proc immunities to control effects and abilities like Sanctuary make it so that people are still going to use the tank that takes the hits the best to tank things. I mean you have the proc on the Guard mythical, the Tyrannus wrist, and avatar chime that can all proc the immunities if it is an immunity heavy fight. Sanctuary for pull and you are golden.

Illine

07-03-2009, 12:58 PM

well if they add 25 more point you will be able to spec on that line without loosing points on other lines <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />.but why give stun immunity to brawlers? because when you're stun you loose your avoidance so brawlers are a lot more weak agaisnt stun than other fighters.

circusgirl

07-03-2009, 02:09 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Why not give brawlers and warriors each a unique immunity to a specific control effect like crusaders have? And that avoidance buff (the one that's the same across all 6 fighters?) chuck it and make it something new! Then make avoidance tanking truly viable, and differentiate crusaders a bit more from warriors and quite suddenly we have 6 very different, very useful tanks.</blockquote>I have seen you make this argument a few times. And while it sounds nice you do realize that Crusaders hardly ever spec for fear immunity right? It is an endline ability on a KoS line that is completely useless. I used it the first few times against VS, but after that I didn't even spec it for that fight because we lose out on quite a bit going to that spec. So, I guess if you could convince SOE to give you a similar type of immunity as an endline ability on a completely useless line that you would not ever really spec unless it was a fight where it was extremely beneficial like VS because otherwise the loss in other lines don't make it worth it...than it would probably work out.Than of course there is the fact that one type off immunity (stun immunity) would seem much better than the other types of immunities (fear) because SOE puts stun on a lot more mobs than they do fear. Or you have the fact that other classes/items make the immunities practically worthless. You can have multiple items now that proc immunities to control effects and abilities like Sanctuary make it so that people are still going to use the tank that takes the hits the best to tank things. I mean you have the proc on the Guard mythical, the Tyrannus wrist, and avatar chime that can all proc the immunities if it is an immunity heavy fight. Sanctuary for pull and you are golden.</blockquote>Personally I'm totally okay with an immunity being placed at the end of a worthless line. Brawlers have a horrifically useless stamina line that could have an immunity plunked into it. I know I would switch out our sta line for whatever line it is that crusaders use in a heartbeat, without even looking at what's in it up to that point. I don't know about the warrior lines. And as for the usefullness of various immunities, it wouldn't be hard to make sure that the number of mobs and instances with each type of control effect are well balanced if you sent this out with a new expansion.

Bruener

07-03-2009, 03:06 PM

So, you would spec 24 points into a completely useless line...and when I say useless I mean useless to get fear immunity that only is semi-useful on 1-2 mobs in an expansion? Be careful for what you wish for because if they are extending out the current KoS tree they might through an endline ability on the end of the most useless tree you have forcing you to spec 30 points into a line that has no other benefits what so ever.

Illine

07-04-2009, 02:45 PM

the line is not that useless in theorya group perma ward, a bonus in skills, a fear immunity and bonuses for other group members.it's nice ... now maybe the ward doesn't scale with the new damages dones by mbs. Just like many KoS tree attacks are almost useless by the damage they do. Skill bonus might be good when in def stance. I mean, many classes would want somethin like that. zerk, bruisers ... have a hard time touching the mob in defensive stance without a dirge, templar or warden.the ward should be at least as powerfull as the defiler/mystic group buff to be usefull (and I think it's all kind of damages).

YummiOger

07-05-2009, 02:55 PM

Couching

07-05-2009, 05:06 PM

<cite>Ahdam@Permafrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Grumpy_Warrior_01 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Brawler - Best Solo - Good Group - Worst RaidCrusader - Good Solo - Best Group - Good RaidWarrior - Worst Solo - Good Group - Best RaidBlah Blah Blah...BALANCED does not mean EQUAL.</blockquote> -> It's dumb. Why? Because in eq2, solo content is about only 1% or even less, the rest is group and raid content. <- Are you trying to tell all brawlers to quit eq2 after first week or first 20-30 hours of every expansion or being screwed in the rest of the year?Not to say, crusader, especially SK is better than brawlers in solo.</blockquote>i must say this makes me LOL. Do you even play EQ2? ALL overland zones are SOLO. lol @1% ...</blockquote>ROFL, you must enjoy killing mobs in overland zones everyday even after you have done all solo quests.That's why we should make warriors being best in SOLO, killing mobs in overland zones, and worst in raids because a lot of warriors like and thought overlands zones are fun and enjoy it everyday.Are you a plat farmer?

Raahl

07-06-2009, 10:14 AM

I just don't see a way that Sony can make an avoidance tank work as a MT for Raids. This is why I thought combining Mit and Avoidance would be best. This one point in itself could make it possible for all tanks to start being MT. Though other tweaks may be needed to avoid one class from being over powered.Avoidance tanks have a big problem when they get hit. Low Mitigation blows through their health very rapidly. Perhaps this can be fixed with a larger health pool?I guess my may point to this post is to find a way for all fighter classes to have a role during raids. Swapping out MT roles as needed and having more than a second rate DPS role.

Bruener

07-06-2009, 12:30 PM

<cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote>I just don't see a way that Sony can make an avoidance tank work as a MT for Raids. This is why I thought combining Mit and Avoidance would be best. This one point in itself could make it possible for all tanks to start being MT. Though other tweaks may be needed to avoid one class from being over powered.Avoidance tanks have a big problem when they get hit. Low Mitigation blows through their health very rapidly. Perhaps this can be fixed with a larger health pool?I guess my may point to this post is to find a way for all fighter classes to have a role during raids. Swapping out MT roles as needed and having more than a second rate DPS role.</blockquote>Well, the problem is that a lot of people, in fact most people, don't think Brawlers should MT as well as the other Plate tanks. It doesn't make sense that a leather wearing class, DW'ing, would take blows like a Plate wearing tank. Yes brawlers are tanks, and yes brawlers can tank great...in group content. In fact in content where there aren't mobs 5+ levels above them Brawlers are fantastic tanks because of their avoidance. But, in the content where you have Ykesha hammering on a player it would not make any sense that when he connects with a leather wearing tank that he mitigates damage just as much as a full plate tank.That being said believe me I am not a brawler hater. I just don't think their role should ever be that of the MT on raids. Instead, Brawlers are the utility tank and should be adjusted to make sure they fullfill that role well enough to have a spot on a raid. A bump in DPS (although SOEs retarted fighter changes probably won't allow this), a little additional utility, and Brawlers are back on the board.

BChizzle

07-06-2009, 12:38 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Well, the problem is that a lot of people, in fact most people, don't think Brawlers should MT as well as the other Plate tanks. It doesn't make sense that a leather wearing class, DW'ing, would take blows like a Plate wearing tank. Yes brawlers are tanks, and yes brawlers can tank great...in group content. In fact in content where there aren't mobs 5+ levels above them Brawlers are fantastic tanks because of their avoidance. But, in the content where you have Ykesha hammering on a player it would not make any sense that when he connects with a leather wearing tank that he mitigates damage just as much as a full plate tank.That being said believe me I am not a brawler hater. I just don't think their role should ever be that of the MT on raids. Instead, Brawlers are the utility tank and should be adjusted to make sure they fullfill that role well enough to have a spot on a raid. A bump in DPS (although SOEs retarted fighter changes probably won't allow this), a little additional utility, and Brawlers are back on the board.</blockquote>This is a pretty ignorant statement. Have you ever see a brawler tank Ykesha? They do extremely well if not better then most plate tanks when it comes to single target. As far as this DW crap goes when a brawler that knows his stuff is tanking they aren't doing more dps then plate tanks if anything they are doing less due the fact they have to overcompensate their equipment to be able to tank in the first place. The only problem with a avoidance tank is spike damage at the extreme end of things, if they come up with a way to keep that from happening avoidance tanks are fine.

Raahl

07-06-2009, 12:42 PM

Brawlers use other skills and abilities to avoid damage or lessen the impact of a blow. Plate tanks let their armor do the work for them. In the long run both have the same end effect. The player gets hit for less damage.Using plate as a way to define the best tank is, IMO, a bad way to go. To me a Brawler makes the most out of the armor he has. A hit can be turned into a glancing blow, lessening it's effectiveness. Due to mental and physical conditioning, some wounds can be shrugged off. Again, I do not play a brawler. I just see them as being very viable MT's for tough mobs. Just not as Sony has them designed. <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

BChizzle

07-06-2009, 12:43 PM

Raahl

07-06-2009, 12:46 PM

<blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Raahl wrote:I just don't see a way that Sony can make an avoidance tank work as a MT for Raids. This is why I thought combining Mit and Avoidance would be best. This one point in itself could make it possible for all tanks to start being MT. Though other tweaks may be needed to avoid one class from being over powered.Avoidance tanks have a big problem when they get hit. Low Mitigation blows through their health very rapidly. Perhaps this can be fixed with a larger health pool?I guess my may point to this post is to find a way for all fighter classes to have a role during raids. Swapping out MT roles as needed and having more than a second rate DPS role.</blockquote>How would you know? I mean seriously, half the problem is this stupid label people put on brawlers that they can't tank.</blockquote>So how many Named Raid mobs can Brawlers tank? The only way for me to know is for you to enlighten me.

BChizzle

07-06-2009, 12:46 PM

<cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote>Brawlers use other skills and abilities to avoid damage or lessen the impact of a blow. Plate tanks let their armor do the work for them. In the long run both have the same end effect. The player gets hit for less damage.Using plate as a way to define the best tank is, IMO, a bad way to go. To me a Brawler makes the most out of the armor he has. A hit can be turned into a glancing blow, lessening it's effectiveness. Due to mental and physical conditioning, some wounds can be shrugged off. Again, I do not play a brawler. I just see them as being very viable MT's for tough mobs. Just not as Sony has them designed. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>Seeing as how at least 1 brawler has tanked the hardest mobs in this game rather easily I think your statement is seriously flawed. They need love in the area of ae agro generation and spike damage but beyond that the class works great.

BChizzle

07-06-2009, 12:47 PM

<cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Raahl wrote:I just don't see a way that Sony can make an avoidance tank work as a MT for Raids. This is why I thought combining Mit and Avoidance would be best. This one point in itself could make it possible for all tanks to start being MT. Though other tweaks may be needed to avoid one class from being over powered.Avoidance tanks have a big problem when they get hit. Low Mitigation blows through their health very rapidly. Perhaps this can be fixed with a larger health pool?I guess my may point to this post is to find a way for all fighter classes to have a role during raids. Swapping out MT roles as needed and having more than a second rate DPS role.</blockquote>How would you know? I mean seriously, half the problem is this stupid label people put on brawlers that they can't tank.</blockquote>So how many Named Raid mobs can Brawlers tank? The only way for me to know is for you to enlighten me.</blockquote>Any raid mob that doesnt require ae agro.

Raahl

07-06-2009, 12:55 PM

<blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote> Raahl wrote:So how many Named Raid mobs can Brawlers tank? The only way for me to know is for you to enlighten me.</blockquote>Any raid mob that doesnt require ae agro.</blockquote>Ok so why don't we see them tanking raids more? Is it because they are so much more difficult to keep alive that the groups opt for the easier route (plate tank)?Seriously, I'd like to see one of these battles.

BChizzle

07-06-2009, 01:08 PM

<cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote>Ok so why don't we see them tanking raids more? Is it because they are so much more difficult to keep alive that the groups opt for the easier route (plate tank)?Seriously, I'd like to see one of these battles. </blockquote>I'd say for the most part it is people like you who make vast generalizations about stuff they don't know about, couple that with the fact mechanic wise plate tanks get a huge head start usually gear wise in expansions. As far as seeing 'one of these battle', here you go me tanking Avatar of Flame. I wouldn't call it much of a battle though I spiked once.<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tgdi7Tx-KHk&feature=related" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tgdi...feature=related</a>

Bruener

07-06-2009, 02:55 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Well, the problem is that a lot of people, in fact most people, don't think Brawlers should MT as well as the other Plate tanks. It doesn't make sense that a leather wearing class, DW'ing, would take blows like a Plate wearing tank. Yes brawlers are tanks, and yes brawlers can tank great...in group content. In fact in content where there aren't mobs 5+ levels above them Brawlers are fantastic tanks because of their avoidance. But, in the content where you have Ykesha hammering on a player it would not make any sense that when he connects with a leather wearing tank that he mitigates damage just as much as a full plate tank.That being said believe me I am not a brawler hater. I just don't think their role should ever be that of the MT on raids. Instead, Brawlers are the utility tank and should be adjusted to make sure they fullfill that role well enough to have a spot on a raid. A bump in DPS (although SOEs retarted fighter changes probably won't allow this), a little additional utility, and Brawlers are back on the board.</blockquote>This is a pretty ignorant statement. Have you ever see a brawler tank Ykesha? They do extremely well if not better then most plate tanks when it comes to single target. As far as this DW crap goes when a brawler that knows his stuff is tanking they aren't doing more dps then plate tanks if anything they are doing less due the fact they have to overcompensate their equipment to be able to tank in the first place. The only problem with a avoidance tank is spike damage at the extreme end of things, if they come up with a way to keep that from happening avoidance tanks are fine.</blockquote>Yes, yes we get it. Brawlers CAN MT raids currently. Heck, I bet a rogue spec'd to tank can MT any mob currently...its all based on the healers behind them. The ignorance is in the fact that a few people think that Brawlers should be as good of MTs as Guards or the other plate tanks for that matter. Than of course they want the best DPS too, and oh yeah they also want extra utility. Honestly, why would you want to compete with the other 4 plate tanks on the very limited MT or OT spot. Brawlers niche should be the utility tank like they always have been. Yep, when content is trivialized of course they can MT anything...just like an OT becomes even less used (fun stuff tanking the entire Gynok encounter).That being said I am all about giving Brawlers some luvin. Just not the luvin to make them take hits like Plate tanks.

Grumpy_Warrior_01

07-06-2009, 02:59 PM

I suspect at your level of play there's some seriously talented non-tanks making it possible for you to do extrordinary things. It always makes me chuckle to see "I tank this" and "I tank that" as if it's a one-man show.PS: Haha Bruener, you beat me to it.

BChizzle

07-06-2009, 03:04 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Well, the problem is that a lot of people, in fact most people, don't think Brawlers should MT as well as the other Plate tanks. It doesn't make sense that a leather wearing class, DW'ing, would take blows like a Plate wearing tank. Yes brawlers are tanks, and yes brawlers can tank great...in group content. In fact in content where there aren't mobs 5+ levels above them Brawlers are fantastic tanks because of their avoidance. But, in the content where you have Ykesha hammering on a player it would not make any sense that when he connects with a leather wearing tank that he mitigates damage just as much as a full plate tank.That being said believe me I am not a brawler hater. I just don't think their role should ever be that of the MT on raids. Instead, Brawlers are the utility tank and should be adjusted to make sure they fullfill that role well enough to have a spot on a raid. A bump in DPS (although SOEs retarted fighter changes probably won't allow this), a little additional utility, and Brawlers are back on the board.</blockquote>This is a pretty ignorant statement. Have you ever see a brawler tank Ykesha? They do extremely well if not better then most plate tanks when it comes to single target. As far as this DW crap goes when a brawler that knows his stuff is tanking they aren't doing more dps then plate tanks if anything they are doing less due the fact they have to overcompensate their equipment to be able to tank in the first place. The only problem with a avoidance tank is spike damage at the extreme end of things, if they come up with a way to keep that from happening avoidance tanks are fine.</blockquote>Yes, yes we get it. Brawlers CAN MT raids currently. Heck, I bet a rogue spec'd to tank can MT any mob currently...its all based on the healers behind them. The ignorance is in the fact that a few people think that Brawlers should be as good of MTs as Guards or the other plate tanks for that matter. Than of course they want the best DPS too, and oh yeah they also want extra utility. Honestly, why would you want to compete with the other 4 plate tanks on the very limited MT or OT spot. Brawlers niche should be the utility tank like they always have been. Yep, when content is trivialized of course they can MT anything...just like an OT becomes even less used (fun stuff tanking the entire Gynok encounter).That being said I am all about giving Brawlers some luvin. Just not the luvin to make them take hits like Plate tanks.</blockquote>Stop telling brawlers they should be something not a tank. The class is a tank class plain and simple. They should be able to tank as good as plate tanks plain and simple. If you want ultility roll a ultility class. Anyways, no rogue is MTing and mob currently it just isn't happening or possible, please don't try and compare a brawler to a class with similar mit but a significant amount less of avoidance.

BChizzle

07-06-2009, 03:06 PM

<cite>Grumpy_Warrior_01 wrote:</cite><blockquote>I suspect at your level of play there's some seriously talented non-tanks making it possible for you to do extrordinary things. It always makes me chuckle to see "I tank this" and "I tank that" as if it's a one-man show.PS: Haha Bruener, you beat me to it.</blockquote>Ya its the healers doing something special? Because my healers are somehow super healers and they don't heal like any other healers in this game right? You guys are delusional, quite simply played properly a brawler is just as effective as any plate tank please cry now about it more because you feel threatened it is funny.

Maamadex

07-06-2009, 03:07 PM

Thats the main thing really, if they don't compete for an actual tank spot, and they are "utility" they'll probably not have a spot in a raid at all. Dps perhaps, but even then... heh. Any tank that calls itself utility is really not grasping what a fighter is. There are classes that way outweight any utility a fighter can bring. Mind you, I'm not saying brawlers shouldn't be a MT or OT either, there are guilds i know who have or have had them as MT etc. Just saying Utility isn't what i'd call them at all. How many times would you be like, oh we'd have that encounter if we just had some monk buffs.

BChizzle

07-06-2009, 03:16 PM

<cite>Maamadex wrote:</cite><blockquote>Thats the main thing really, if they don't compete for an actual tank spot, and they are "utility" they'll probably not have a spot in a raid at all. Dps perhaps, but even then... heh. Any tank that calls itself utility is really not grasping what a fighter is. There are classes that way outweight any utility a fighter can bring. Mind you, I'm not saying brawlers shouldn't be a MT or OT either, there are guilds i know who have or have had them as MT etc. Just saying Utility isn't what i'd call them at all. How many times would you be like, oh we'd have that encounter if we just had some monk buffs.</blockquote>The way things are its good to have 3-4 tanks in your raid guild. Where it becomes tricky is unlike every other class when a fighter isn't tanking they need a secondary role to be useful hence dps and having offensive stances etc. I dps will always be able to dps a healer will always be able to heal, if there is nothing to tank you need to find something else to do. This dual role isn't just limited to one type of tank its all of them. However, saying one fighter class shouldn't be as effective tanks is completely stupid, they are tanks they all should be able to fill that role.

Maamadex

07-06-2009, 03:18 PM

I agree, usually you have room for 3 or so tanks in a raid, if you get all the healers and chanters and bards. That leaves dps classes. Unless a brawler is gonna be one of those tanks, taking up OT or MT duty if need be, most people will just choose a dps. There just isn't room. Of course if they aren't tanking something they'll dps, just saying having an extra tank around for utility is ridiculous. Silly concept. If they gave brawlers some unique utility that'd be one thing, but no fighter really has utility, paladins can rez but do you bring one for that?

Bruener

07-06-2009, 03:48 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Well, the problem is that a lot of people, in fact most people, don't think Brawlers should MT as well as the other Plate tanks. It doesn't make sense that a leather wearing class, DW'ing, would take blows like a Plate wearing tank. Yes brawlers are tanks, and yes brawlers can tank great...in group content. In fact in content where there aren't mobs 5+ levels above them Brawlers are fantastic tanks because of their avoidance. But, in the content where you have Ykesha hammering on a player it would not make any sense that when he connects with a leather wearing tank that he mitigates damage just as much as a full plate tank.That being said believe me I am not a brawler hater. I just don't think their role should ever be that of the MT on raids. Instead, Brawlers are the utility tank and should be adjusted to make sure they fullfill that role well enough to have a spot on a raid. A bump in DPS (although SOEs retarted fighter changes probably won't allow this), a little additional utility, and Brawlers are back on the board.</blockquote>This is a pretty ignorant statement. Have you ever see a brawler tank Ykesha? They do extremely well if not better then most plate tanks when it comes to single target. As far as this DW crap goes when a brawler that knows his stuff is tanking they aren't doing more dps then plate tanks if anything they are doing less due the fact they have to overcompensate their equipment to be able to tank in the first place. The only problem with a avoidance tank is spike damage at the extreme end of things, if they come up with a way to keep that from happening avoidance tanks are fine.</blockquote>Yes, yes we get it. Brawlers CAN MT raids currently. Heck, I bet a rogue spec'd to tank can MT any mob currently...its all based on the healers behind them. The ignorance is in the fact that a few people think that Brawlers should be as good of MTs as Guards or the other plate tanks for that matter. Than of course they want the best DPS too, and oh yeah they also want extra utility. Honestly, why would you want to compete with the other 4 plate tanks on the very limited MT or OT spot. Brawlers niche should be the utility tank like they always have been. Yep, when content is trivialized of course they can MT anything...just like an OT becomes even less used (fun stuff tanking the entire Gynok encounter).That being said I am all about giving Brawlers some luvin. Just not the luvin to make them take hits like Plate tanks.</blockquote>Stop telling brawlers they should be something not a tank. The class is a tank class plain and simple. They should be able to tank as good as plate tanks plain and simple. If you want ultility roll a ultility class. Anyways, no rogue is MTing and mob currently it just isn't happening or possible, please don't try and compare a brawler to a class with similar mit but a significant amount less of avoidance.</blockquote>Where did I say brawler should be something "not a tank"? Do you have reading problems? Brawlers should be utility tanks, just like they always have been. It worked out real well in RoK where a monk specifically could insta grab a mob and Tsunami long enough for a raid to recover, or could "peel" adds back to the OT or MT. Meanwhile they put out descent DPS while they did it along with monks having a pretty sweet raid-wide buff.The problem is that you rolled a class that doesn't suit your needs. If you wanted to MT a raid you should have rolled a Guard. If you wanted to be the primary OT you should have rolled a Zerk or Crusader (nice that SKs are finally in that list). If you wanted to be more of an "oh sh*t" tank that brings along some good utility than you rolled a brawler.Stop trying to make a class into something it wasn't designed for.

BChizzle

07-06-2009, 03:57 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Well, the problem is that a lot of people, in fact most people, don't think Brawlers should MT as well as the other Plate tanks. It doesn't make sense that a leather wearing class, DW'ing, would take blows like a Plate wearing tank. Yes brawlers are tanks, and yes brawlers can tank great...in group content. In fact in content where there aren't mobs 5+ levels above them Brawlers are fantastic tanks because of their avoidance. But, in the content where you have Ykesha hammering on a player it would not make any sense that when he connects with a leather wearing tank that he mitigates damage just as much as a full plate tank.That being said believe me I am not a brawler hater. I just don't think their role should ever be that of the MT on raids. Instead, Brawlers are the utility tank and should be adjusted to make sure they fullfill that role well enough to have a spot on a raid. A bump in DPS (although SOEs retarted fighter changes probably won't allow this), a little additional utility, and Brawlers are back on the board.</blockquote>This is a pretty ignorant statement. Have you ever see a brawler tank Ykesha? They do extremely well if not better then most plate tanks when it comes to single target. As far as this DW crap goes when a brawler that knows his stuff is tanking they aren't doing more dps then plate tanks if anything they are doing less due the fact they have to overcompensate their equipment to be able to tank in the first place. The only problem with a avoidance tank is spike damage at the extreme end of things, if they come up with a way to keep that from happening avoidance tanks are fine.</blockquote>Yes, yes we get it. Brawlers CAN MT raids currently. Heck, I bet a rogue spec'd to tank can MT any mob currently...its all based on the healers behind them. The ignorance is in the fact that a few people think that Brawlers should be as good of MTs as Guards or the other plate tanks for that matter. Than of course they want the best DPS too, and oh yeah they also want extra utility. Honestly, why would you want to compete with the other 4 plate tanks on the very limited MT or OT spot. Brawlers niche should be the utility tank like they always have been. Yep, when content is trivialized of course they can MT anything...just like an OT becomes even less used (fun stuff tanking the entire Gynok encounter).That being said I am all about giving Brawlers some luvin. Just not the luvin to make them take hits like Plate tanks.</blockquote>Stop telling brawlers they should be something not a tank. The class is a tank class plain and simple. They should be able to tank as good as plate tanks plain and simple. If you want ultility roll a ultility class. Anyways, no rogue is MTing and mob currently it just isn't happening or possible, please don't try and compare a brawler to a class with similar mit but a significant amount less of avoidance.</blockquote>Where did I say brawler should be something "not a tank"? Do you have reading problems? Brawlers should be utility tanks, just like they always have been. It worked out real well in RoK where a monk specifically could insta grab a mob and Tsunami long enough for a raid to recover, or could "peel" adds back to the OT or MT. Meanwhile they put out descent DPS while they did it along with monks having a pretty sweet raid-wide buff.The problem is that you rolled a class that doesn't suit your needs. If you wanted to MT a raid you should have rolled a Guard. If you wanted to be the primary OT you should have rolled a Zerk or Crusader (nice that SKs are finally in that list). If you wanted to be more of an "oh sh*t" tank that brings along some good utility than you rolled a brawler.Stop trying to make a class into something it wasn't designed for.</blockquote>Your idea is stupid why would you want a tank to peel a mob and tsunami when you can just have a tank you know pick the mob up and tank it? People saying things about utility tank just worsen the problem a tanks job is to tank mobs not for 12 seconds. Name me a single tank class that cannot pick up a raid mob instantly if the MT goes down its called back up tanking and EVERY tank can do it, it isn't some specific job for brawlers. As far as me rolling a class that doesn't suit my needs I pretty much am certain I tank anything and everything better then any tank in your guild so really get a clue. And sorry when I signed up as a brawler it didn't say "Brawlers are a tank but only for 12 seconds" in the character choice. I love these cry baby plate tanks who want some advantage not from having any sort of skill but rather just giftwrapped to them. FACTS ARE IF YOU A TANK YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TANK PLAIN AND SIMPLE, NOT SOME BS MADE UP ROLL TO MAKE SUCKHOLE CRAPPY PLATE TANKS FEEL BETTER ABOUT THEMSELVES.

RafaelSmith

07-06-2009, 04:14 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Your idea is stupid why would you want a tank to peel a mob and tsunami when you can just have a tank you know pick the mob up and tank it? People saying things about utility tank just worsen the problem a tanks job is to tank mobs not for 12 seconds. Name me a single tank class that cannot pick up a raid mob instantly if the MT goes down its called back up tanking and EVERY tank can do it, it isn't some specific job for brawlers. As far as me rolling a class that doesn't suit my needs I pretty much am certain I tank anything and everything better then any tank in your guild so really get a clue. And sorry when I signed up as a brawler it didn't say "Brawlers are a tank but only for 12 seconds" in the character choice. I love these cry baby plate tanks who want some advantage not from having any sort of skill but rather just giftwrapped to them. FACTS ARE IF YOU A TANK YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TANK PLAIN AND SIMPLE, NOT SOME BS MADE UP ROLL TO MAKE SUCKHOLE CRAPPY PLATE TANKS FEEL BETTER ABOUT THEMSELVES.</blockquote>LOL well said.We use the best played, geared fighter to MT.All these recent threads about comming up with other things for fighters to do.....ghetto bards, ghetto "shamans", yada yada yada crack me up...."utility tank" [Removed for Content] is that? who comes up with these labels anyways?. My guess its people trying to justify bringing fighters to raids that have no use or business being there.Fighters are tanks.......all 6 of them.....1 per group....2 per raid...sometimes 3. If you have a fighter in attendence on a raid or group and he/she never tanks anything then you just wasted a slot.SOE created 6 fighters.....all within the same archetype........the primary and only purpose for that archetype's existence is to tank. SOE needs to make sure all 6 have the means to do that no matter what the content is otherwise we have no balance.

circusgirl

07-06-2009, 04:22 PM

Brawlers shouldn't be guards, any more than brawlers should be paladins, shadowknights, zerkers, or than a monk should be a bruiser!But what we are, should be, and always will be is a tank. There honestly isn't an absolute hierarchy for raid MT among plate tanks (my raidforce uses a shadowknight and we passed the guilds that use guardians to be #1 on our server...not because SK is superior, but because of player skill). If a paladin, zerker, or shadowknight is a viable choice for MT, why not brawlers? I don't think we need to be the best flat out at the role, but we should be able to compete for it, and let the skill of the player decide who gets the slot, not their class. I would say brawlers should be about as capable as a zerker or a paladin. SKs are a bit OP, and guards were always intended to be the best choice for the role, but I really don't see why we shouldn't be able to compete for those slots. It wouldn't even be a hard fix to make--give brawlers an immunity to strikethrough, and up the strikethrough amount on raid mobs (so plate tank's avoidance is as low as brawlers mitigation in raids), and then give warriors a mitigation lend that does as much for a brawler's survivability as a brawler's avoidance lend does for a plate tanks. Problem solved.

Grumpy_Warrior_01

07-06-2009, 05:38 PM

<cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>SOE created 6 fighters.....all within the same archetype........the primary and only purpose for that archetype's existence is to tank. SOE needs to make sure all 6 have the means to do that no matter what the content is otherwise we have no balance.</blockquote>I'm not sure you can use archetype as an excuse for lack of nuance in some people's vision for fighters. Look at the scout archetype for example. What is their primary function -- melee dps? Then how do you explain bards? Mages, what is their primary reason for being -- spell dps? Then explain summoners. The Priest archetype's core purpose is heals -- so how do you explain druids? All of the archetypes have multiple capabilities in various quantities. Saying "all fighters are equal raid boss tanks" is just as dubious as saying all scouts dish out equal melee dps.

BChizzle

07-06-2009, 05:49 PM

<cite>Grumpy_Warrior_01 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>SOE created 6 fighters.....all within the same archetype........the primary and only purpose for that archetype's existence is to tank. SOE needs to make sure all 6 have the means to do that no matter what the content is otherwise we have no balance.</blockquote>I'm not sure you can use archetype as an excuse for lack of nuance in some people's vision for fighters. Look at the scout archetype for example. What is their primary function -- melee dps? Then how do you explain bards? Mages, what is their primary reason for being -- spell dps? Then explain summoners. The Priest archetype's core purpose is heals -- so how do you explain druids? All of the archetypes have multiple capabilities in various quantities. Saying "all fighters are equal raid boss tanks" is just as dubious as saying all scouts dish out equal melee dps.</blockquote>There is no role when a scout no matter what the mob isnt expected to dps there is no mob where a healer isn't expected to heal and there is no mob where a mage isnt expected to dps so there should be no mob where a tank isnt expecte dto tank.

Bruener

07-06-2009, 05:55 PM

Well, you guys can argue all you want but the Brawler was designed as a Psuedo DPS-Tank class. And that is where SOE will find the most luck with fitting them into their niche. Odds are with the future fighter changes Brawlers will once agani become the top DPS of fighters, and rightly so.

BChizzle

07-06-2009, 06:02 PM

Couching

07-06-2009, 06:39 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Well, you guys can argue all you want but the Brawler was designed as a Psuedo DPS-Tank class. And that is where SOE will find the most luck with fitting them into their niche. Odds are with the future fighter changes Brawlers will once agani become the top DPS of fighters, and rightly so.</blockquote>Incorrect.In the game launch, all fighter classes were made for tank and we were told all fighters can fill the role of tank in the game. In T5, monk is one of best tanks for raid.Even in the future of fighter balance, dps in defensive is just a tool for aggro. Brawlers may get a bit higher dps than other fighters in defensive stance but the trade off is we have less aggro from other aspects such as taunt or proc, etc.. The overall aggro generation of all fighters will be roughly equal.

Grumpy_Warrior_01

07-06-2009, 07:03 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote> In T5, monk is one of best tanks for raid.</blockquote>I'm glad somebody finally admits to a raid tanking imbalance in favor of the monk. ;)

BChizzle

07-06-2009, 07:11 PM

<cite>Grumpy_Warrior_01 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote> In T5, monk is one of best tanks for raid.</blockquote>I'm glad somebody finally admits to a raid tanking imbalance in favor of the monk. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></blockquote>It isn't a secret monks were good tanks when this game launched. That is the problem they took away our shields and gave us crap, then we went to being near useless until EoF where we started becoming useful again. Fact is if you are a tank thats not a tank you are a raider thats not raiding. Any tank can be replaced by a dps role if they arent tanking.

Grumpy_Warrior_01

07-06-2009, 07:25 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>It isn't a secret monks were good tanks when this game launched. That is the problem they took away our shields and gave us crap, then we went to being near useless until EoF where we started becoming useful again. Fact is if you are a tank thats not a tank you are a raider thats not raiding. Any tank can be replaced by a dps role if they arent tanking.</blockquote>They took away your shield and gave you an internal round shield, so you wouldn't have to wear one and could dual wield with the secondary slot.

BChizzle

07-06-2009, 07:41 PM

<cite>Grumpy_Warrior_01 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>It isn't a secret monks were good tanks when this game launched. That is the problem they took away our shields and gave us crap, then we went to being near useless until EoF where we started becoming useful again. Fact is if you are a tank thats not a tank you are a raider thats not raiding. Any tank can be replaced by a dps role if they arent tanking.</blockquote>They took away your shield and gave you an internal round shield, so you wouldn't have to wear one and could dual wield with the secondary slot.</blockquote>This is where plate tanks just don't get it. If I am not in defensive I don't have an 'internal shield' so I have garbage for mit garbage for avoidance, however you can be in offensive stance with a shield, even more so you also have the mit I have in defensive when your in offensive plus you have more avoidance. In defensive any supposed dps advantage brawler tanks might have is pretty much gone due to the fact they have to overcompensate their gear towards tanking.Lets put it simply for you, a full on defensive brawler is parsing the same or less then a full on defensive plate tank.

Grumpy_Warrior_01

07-07-2009, 12:26 AM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Lets put it simply for you, a full on defensive brawler is parsing the same or less then a full on defensive plate tank.</blockquote>I think you're just talking out of your bellybutton now. Who is "a full on defensive brawler" and show us the ACT parses you've been collecting that allow you to make this claim. Either way, apparently "a full on defensive brawler" can survive tanking long enough for you to parse his dps adequately against "a full on defensive plate tank." So this brawler isn't as fragile as you make him out to be.

BChizzle

07-07-2009, 12:57 AM

<cite>Grumpy_Warrior_01 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Lets put it simply for you, a full on defensive brawler is parsing the same or less then a full on defensive plate tank.</blockquote>I think you're just talking out of your bellybutton now. Who is "a full on defensive brawler" and show us the ACT parses you've been collecting that allow you to make this claim. Either way, apparently "a full on defensive brawler" can survive tanking long enough for you to parse his dps adequately against "a full on defensive plate tank." So this brawler isn't as fragile as you make him out to be.</blockquote>LOL wow. I said brawlers CAN tank things and provided a freaking full video of me tanking one of the toughest encounters in this game. On top of that I am probably one of the very few people who can compare an avatar fight with a plate tank vs a leather one with my ACT records. What you fail to understand for some reason is what you perceive as a brawlers strengths IE being and to dps good have absolutely no bearing when it comes to a brawler tanking because if you compare a tanking brawler to a plate one the numbers are extremely close and well balanced. The funny thing here is while I play it you are just making stuff up because thats how think things should be.That is not to say there aren't things that can balance it further, IE some sort of spike management, you see brawlers depend on avoid, strikethrough negates that, plate tanks depends on mit but there is no such thing as mit strikethrough, you would have to be pretty dumb not to see the imbalance that creates. There are other things too like how heals work, for instance reactives proc when yo get hit, but a brawler isn't getting hit as much so not proccing them as much, the fact we swing more and as a result get hit for way more dmg shield procs.

Bruener

07-07-2009, 10:34 AM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Grumpy_Warrior_01 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Lets put it simply for you, a full on defensive brawler is parsing the same or less then a full on defensive plate tank.</blockquote>I think you're just talking out of your bellybutton now. Who is "a full on defensive brawler" and show us the ACT parses you've been collecting that allow you to make this claim. Either way, apparently "a full on defensive brawler" can survive tanking long enough for you to parse his dps adequately against "a full on defensive plate tank." So this brawler isn't as fragile as you make him out to be.</blockquote>LOL wow. I said brawlers CAN tank things and provided a freaking full video of me tanking one of the toughest encounters in this game. On top of that I am probably one of the very few people who can compare an avatar fight with a plate tank vs a leather one with my ACT records. What you fail to understand for some reason is what you perceive as a brawlers strengths IE being and to dps good have absolutely no bearing when it comes to a brawler tanking because if you compare a tanking brawler to a plate one the numbers are extremely close and well balanced. The funny thing here is while I play it you are just making stuff up because thats how think things should be.That is not to say there aren't things that can balance it further, IE some sort of spike management, you see brawlers depend on avoid, strikethrough negates that, plate tanks depends on mit but there is no such thing as mit strikethrough, you would have to be pretty dumb not to see the imbalance that creates. There are other things too like how heals work, for instance reactives proc when yo get hit, but a brawler isn't getting hit as much so not proccing them as much, the fact we swing more and as a result get hit for way more dmg shield procs.</blockquote>Ok, sorry all you other Brawlers according to this guy everything is fine because he can MT avatars with his guild. This whole Brawlers having issues is all just a myth and you guys should just learn 2 play better I guess.Or.....this guy has an avatar gear raid force keeping him up on encouters that are trivial to them. Were you MT'ing that Avatar the first time you killed it or the 50th time you killed it?There is always the small minority of a class that try and say their class is working fine, even though they may be behind the curve a lot. Its like it strokes their ego because they are somewhat successful at playing a class that is having trouble competing.

Couching

07-07-2009, 02:15 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Grumpy_Warrior_01 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Lets put it simply for you, a full on defensive brawler is parsing the same or less then a full on defensive plate tank.</blockquote>I think you're just talking out of your bellybutton now. Who is "a full on defensive brawler" and show us the ACT parses you've been collecting that allow you to make this claim. Either way, apparently "a full on defensive brawler" can survive tanking long enough for you to parse his dps adequately against "a full on defensive plate tank." So this brawler isn't as fragile as you make him out to be.</blockquote>LOL wow. I said brawlers CAN tank things and provided a freaking full video of me tanking one of the toughest encounters in this game. On top of that I am probably one of the very few people who can compare an avatar fight with a plate tank vs a leather one with my ACT records. What you fail to understand for some reason is what you perceive as a brawlers strengths IE being and to dps good have absolutely no bearing when it comes to a brawler tanking because if you compare a tanking brawler to a plate one the numbers are extremely close and well balanced. The funny thing here is while I play it you are just making stuff up because thats how think things should be.That is not to say there aren't things that can balance it further, IE some sort of spike management, you see brawlers depend on avoid, strikethrough negates that, plate tanks depends on mit but there is no such thing as mit strikethrough, you would have to be pretty dumb not to see the imbalance that creates. There are other things too like how heals work, for instance reactives proc when yo get hit, but a brawler isn't getting hit as much so not proccing them as much, the fact we swing more and as a result get hit for way more dmg shield procs.</blockquote>Ok, sorry all you other Brawlers according to this guy everything is fine because he can MT avatars with his guild. This whole Brawlers having issues is all just a myth and you guys should just learn 2 play better I guess.Or.....this guy has an avatar gear raid force keeping him up on encouters that are trivial to them. Were you MT'ing that Avatar the first time you killed it or the 50th time you killed it?There is always the small minority of a class that try and say their class is working fine, even though they may be behind the curve a lot. Its like it strokes their ego because they are somewhat successful at playing a class that is having trouble competing.</blockquote>He didn't say brawler is working fine. He said brawler can tank avatars because we are tanks. The brawler issue in my point of view is that we can tank but we are inferior than aoe plate tanks in aoe aggro and inferior than single target plate tanks in survivability. In other word, brawler is always the least choice for MT and OT in raid. For example, I have done tanking most avatars and all instance named in my guild progression. However, MT is still guardian or SK as long as guardian or SK is online because they have better survivability. I have even done off tanking gynok adds. Does it mean brawler aoe aggro is fine and we can replace SK or zerker as OT in raid? No. SK and zerker have much better aoe aggro than brawlers and they are always a better choice as OT. What's the niche of brawlers in raid? Tiny dps advantage over other fighter is not going to make brawler available in raid. Utility? Ha, plate tanks have more and better buff than brawlers. PS: SK is overpowered. Best choice of OT and even best choice of MT after getting end game gear. It's ironic that a SK dares to ask brawlers to be out of raid tanking when his class is totally OP in both MT and OT and doing massive dps at the same time.

BChizzle

07-07-2009, 03:03 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Ok, sorry all you other Brawlers according to this guy everything is fine because he can MT avatars with his guild. This whole Brawlers having issues is all just a myth and you guys should just learn 2 play better I guess.Or.....this guy has an avatar gear raid force keeping him up on encouters that are trivial to them. Were you MT'ing that Avatar the first time you killed it or the 50th time you killed it?There is always the small minority of a class that try and say their class is working fine, even though they may be behind the curve a lot. Its like it strokes their ego because they are somewhat successful at playing a class that is having trouble competing.</blockquote>Sorry you can't read, nothing I can do about that, I clearly pointed out the flaws with brawlers in my post but you probably couldn't understand it. I'd write it in crayon for you, but I think you would be more interested in eating the crayon then you would be in the actual post. As far as 'somewhat successful' well that just depends on how you look at it doesn't it. If you mean that I have tanked more mobs successfully then you and dps higher then you well I guess you could call it that, most would call it being a good player though, much like how most would think your post stinks of ignorant banter and envy.Its not a bad thing to recognize certain classes could use some help in some areas, hell its not bad to recognize some classes could use some nerfing. What is a bad thing is when people like you make blanket statements based upon compete fantasy. And as far as using my guild as an excuse, my guild doesn't play my toon, they don't choose gear on my toon, they don't position the mobs and move the mobs when needed, they don't use my saves and self heal when needed, they don't produce enough agro to hold the mob, they each have their job but its not tanking.

Bruener

07-07-2009, 05:18 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Grumpy_Warrior_01 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Lets put it simply for you, a full on defensive brawler is parsing the same or less then a full on defensive plate tank.</blockquote>I think you're just talking out of your bellybutton now. Who is "a full on defensive brawler" and show us the ACT parses you've been collecting that allow you to make this claim. Either way, apparently "a full on defensive brawler" can survive tanking long enough for you to parse his dps adequately against "a full on defensive plate tank." So this brawler isn't as fragile as you make him out to be.</blockquote>LOL wow. I said brawlers CAN tank things and provided a freaking full video of me tanking one of the toughest encounters in this game. On top of that I am probably one of the very few people who can compare an avatar fight with a plate tank vs a leather one with my ACT records. What you fail to understand for some reason is what you perceive as a brawlers strengths IE being and to dps good have absolutely no bearing when it comes to a brawler tanking because if you compare a tanking brawler to a plate one the numbers are extremely close and well balanced. The funny thing here is while I play it you are just making stuff up because thats how think things should be.That is not to say there aren't things that can balance it further, IE some sort of spike management, you see brawlers depend on avoid, strikethrough negates that, plate tanks depends on mit but there is no such thing as mit strikethrough, you would have to be pretty dumb not to see the imbalance that creates. There are other things too like how heals work, for instance reactives proc when yo get hit, but a brawler isn't getting hit as much so not proccing them as much, the fact we swing more and as a result get hit for way more dmg shield procs.</blockquote>Ok, sorry all you other Brawlers according to this guy everything is fine because he can MT avatars with his guild. This whole Brawlers having issues is all just a myth and you guys should just learn 2 play better I guess.Or.....this guy has an avatar gear raid force keeping him up on encouters that are trivial to them. Were you MT'ing that Avatar the first time you killed it or the 50th time you killed it?There is always the small minority of a class that try and say their class is working fine, even though they may be behind the curve a lot. Its like it strokes their ego because they are somewhat successful at playing a class that is having trouble competing.</blockquote>He didn't say brawler is working fine. He said brawler can tank avatars because we are tanks.The brawler issue in my point of view is that we can tank but we are inferior than aoe plate tanks in aoe aggro and inferior than single target plate tanks in survivability. In other word, brawler is always the least choice for MT and OT in raid. For example, I have done tanking most avatars and all instance named in my guild progression. However, MT is still guardian or SK as long as guardian or SK is online because they have better survivability.I have even done off tanking gynok adds. Does it mean brawler aoe aggro is fine and we can replace SK or zerker as OT in raid? No. SK and zerker have much better aoe aggro than brawlers and they are always a better choice as OT. What's the niche of brawlers in raid?Tiny dps advantage over other fighter is not going to make brawler available in raid.Utility?Ha, plate tanks have more and better buff than brawlers.PS: SK is overpowered. Best choice of OT and even best choice of MT after getting end game gear. It's ironic that a SK dares to ask brawlers to be out of raid tanking when his class is totally OP in both MT and OT and doing massive dps at the same time.</blockquote>Lol, taking low blows just because you are playing a toon that isn't in line with the other tanks. Yes I probably can out play both of you guys. I have been playing a SK since launch and boy do I ever love the changes. Yep, got the love we finally deserve, hence why I would love to see Brawlers get some luv now. However, you have many brawlers that want to be DPS machines, some that want great utility, and than some (the vocal minority) that want to expect to be top raid tanks. This is exactly why SOE can't decide what to do with Brawlers because for crying out loud they can't even come close to making up their mind on what they want. More people probably rolled the class expecting to play a Pseudo DPS-Tank role...which is how Brawlers have been advertised. The character they are based on from EQ1 were no where close to "Tanks". Hence why Brawlers have hate transfers and in the past always had higher DPS. That is their niche, and when done right they can fill a great role...i.e. Monks in RoK.But yeah, keep braggin about all that you can do....I mean obviously it has nothing to do with the fact that you are geared past the content.

BChizzle

07-07-2009, 05:39 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Lol, taking low blows just because you are playing a toon that isn't in line with the other tanks. Yes I probably can out play both of you guys. I have been playing a SK since launch and boy do I ever love the changes. Yep, got the love we finally deserve, hence why I would love to see Brawlers get some luv now. However, you have many brawlers that want to be DPS machines, some that want great utility, and than some (the vocal minority) that want to expect to be top raid tanks. This is exactly why SOE can't decide what to do with Brawlers because for crying out loud they can't even come close to making up their mind on what they want. More people probably rolled the class expecting to play a Pseudo DPS-Tank role...which is how Brawlers have been advertised. The character they are based on from EQ1 were no where close to "Tanks". Hence why Brawlers have hate transfers and in the past always had higher DPS. That is their niche, and when done right they can fill a great role...i.e. Monks in RoK.But yeah, keep braggin about all that you can do....I mean obviously it has nothing to do with the fact that you are geared past the content.</blockquote>LOL@this SK talking like he has a clue about brawlers. Like I said, I out tank and dps you, tell me again why my toon isn't in line? Brawlers need specific slight tweaks in certain areas not a whole class revamp like they did with SK's, its funny but I recall when the SK niche was 'What the hell is an SK?' Maybe you guys should have stuck to that role amirite?

Couching

07-07-2009, 05:58 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Grumpy_Warrior_01 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Lets put it simply for you, a full on defensive brawler is parsing the same or less then a full on defensive plate tank.</blockquote>I think you're just talking out of your bellybutton now. Who is "a full on defensive brawler" and show us the ACT parses you've been collecting that allow you to make this claim. Either way, apparently "a full on defensive brawler" can survive tanking long enough for you to parse his dps adequately against "a full on defensive plate tank." So this brawler isn't as fragile as you make him out to be.</blockquote>LOL wow. I said brawlers CAN tank things and provided a freaking full video of me tanking one of the toughest encounters in this game. On top of that I am probably one of the very few people who can compare an avatar fight with a plate tank vs a leather one with my ACT records. What you fail to understand for some reason is what you perceive as a brawlers strengths IE being and to dps good have absolutely no bearing when it comes to a brawler tanking because if you compare a tanking brawler to a plate one the numbers are extremely close and well balanced. The funny thing here is while I play it you are just making stuff up because thats how think things should be.That is not to say there aren't things that can balance it further, IE some sort of spike management, you see brawlers depend on avoid, strikethrough negates that, plate tanks depends on mit but there is no such thing as mit strikethrough, you would have to be pretty dumb not to see the imbalance that creates. There are other things too like how heals work, for instance reactives proc when yo get hit, but a brawler isn't getting hit as much so not proccing them as much, the fact we swing more and as a result get hit for way more dmg shield procs.</blockquote>Ok, sorry all you other Brawlers according to this guy everything is fine because he can MT avatars with his guild. This whole Brawlers having issues is all just a myth and you guys should just learn 2 play better I guess.Or.....this guy has an avatar gear raid force keeping him up on encouters that are trivial to them. Were you MT'ing that Avatar the first time you killed it or the 50th time you killed it?There is always the small minority of a class that try and say their class is working fine, even though they may be behind the curve a lot. Its like it strokes their ego because they are somewhat successful at playing a class that is having trouble competing.</blockquote>He didn't say brawler is working fine. He said brawler can tank avatars because we are tanks.The brawler issue in my point of view is that we can tank but we are inferior than aoe plate tanks in aoe aggro and inferior than single target plate tanks in survivability. In other word, brawler is always the least choice for MT and OT in raid. For example, I have done tanking most avatars and all instance named in my guild progression. However, MT is still guardian or SK as long as guardian or SK is online because they have better survivability.I have even done off tanking gynok adds. Does it mean brawler aoe aggro is fine and we can replace SK or zerker as OT in raid? No. SK and zerker have much better aoe aggro than brawlers and they are always a better choice as OT. What's the niche of brawlers in raid?Tiny dps advantage over other fighter is not going to make brawler available in raid.Utility?Ha, plate tanks have more and better buff than brawlers.PS: SK is overpowered. Best choice of OT and even best choice of MT after getting end game gear. It's ironic that a SK dares to ask brawlers to be out of raid tanking when his class is totally OP in both MT and OT and doing massive dps at the same time.</blockquote>Lol, taking low blows just because you are playing a toon that isn't in line with the other tanks. Yes I probably can out play both of you guys. I have been playing a SK since launch and boy do I ever love the changes. Yep, got the love we finally deserve, hence why I would love to see Brawlers get some luv now. However, you have many brawlers that want to be DPS machines, some that want great utility, and than some (the vocal minority) that want to expect to be top raid tanks. This is exactly why SOE can't decide what to do with Brawlers because for crying out loud they can't even come close to making up their mind on what they want. More people probably rolled the class expecting to play a Pseudo DPS-Tank role...which is how Brawlers have been advertised. The character they are based on from EQ1 were no where close to "Tanks". Hence why Brawlers have hate transfers and in the past always had higher DPS. That is their niche, and when done right they can fill a great role...i.e. Monks in RoK.But yeah, keep braggin about all that you can do....I mean obviously it has nothing to do with the fact that you are geared past the content.</blockquote>Pseudo DPS-Tank role? Yes, that's how SK and zerker are. And why should SK have more survivability than other Pseudo DPS-tanks? Why should SK have best aggro on aoe targets and single target at same time? Why should SK deal so much DPS but can be best OT and one of best MT choices at same time?Your double standard is really disgusting.You have nothing to be proud of your skill as an SK- way overpowered class in eq2. Come back and talk about skill when you can hold gynok adds as brawlers with zero aoe rescue, zero aoe auto attack and only 1 group taunt for every 20 sec.Last, I started to main tank gynok, penta, and some avatars since February because we lost our guardian and SK in a row. Thank you for telling me that I was geared past the content since February, ROFL.

Bruener

07-07-2009, 06:25 PM

EDIT: Some people are too dense to even waste breath on.

BChizzle

07-07-2009, 07:04 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>EDIT: Some people are too dense to even waste breath on.</blockquote>Its nice to see you admit you were wrong, its ok it happens.

Lord Hackenslash

07-08-2009, 01:57 PM

So, let me preface this by saying that I agree brawlers need to be looked at for class balance. That being said, I see a lot of brawlers talking about their inability to tank and I am wondering how many have tried it seriously. Last night I was playing my alt brigand and joined a group for Najena's hollow tower. Not a difficult zone but one that is filled with multiple mob encounters. When I joined I saw the only fighter class in the group was a bruiser. This made me wary as I have had mixed experiences with brawler tanks. (yes I also tend to be wary of Sk and Berzerker tanks for similar reasons as I am about to explain.) Someone in the group asked the Bruiser if he is geared for tanking and the Bruiser replied "yes I have tier 2 shard armor and fabled epic" which is more than sufficient to tank this zone in my opinion. So we go to the zone and I take a look at the Bruiser's gear as I usually do to get an idea of where I should start with my aggro output. As it turns out the Bruiser is indeed in full tier 2 shard armor, however it is the hybrid druid leather dps set. There is not a single ounce of defense, parry, or aggression on any piece of the armor as far as I can see. His jewelry was all melee crit and double attack gear with no defensive stats. For the record we did complete the zone and there were a few deaths but a lot of this was probably due to the lack of a bard for aggro management and the tank being the least equipped member of the group which was had a few mythical dps. So my point being, is this guy seriously expecting to be a tank? He is not alone in this. In my experience most brawlers I see don't wear their own class armor because it is too defensive. Um... at what point did someone decide that defensive equipment was not for tanking. So I ask, those of you doubting your ability to tank, do you actually own a set of equipment that is defensive or is the assumption because you couldn't tank a zone in an offensive set off gear that the defensive set wouldn't help you? Again I do see some issues with the Brawler tanking mechanics, particularly in aoe aggro and spike damage mitigation but there is also a problem with the way some of you are gearing up. This also applies to some plate tanks, SK and Zerk in particular that value DPS above all else. But I feel these classes are better suited to the content so I am more interested in fixing the real issues with brawlers at this time. Yes there needs to be a crushing equivalent to the Smoldering Balanced Ayr Stone but considering I see so few brawlers using the parry adornments for wrist or even the mitigation adornment I wonder if it would see much use. Oddly I do tend to see these on the few raiding Brawlers I know and can't help but wonder if that difference in mindset is why they have a raid spot to begin with.

RafaelSmith

07-08-2009, 03:26 PM

<cite>Melina@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>So I ask, those of you doubting your ability to tank, do you actually own a set of equipment that is defensive or is the assumption because you couldn't tank a zone in an offensive set off gear that the defensive set wouldn't help you?</blockquote>Not a Bruiser, but for heroic content we face alot of the same problems....although they have it much worse since even in full out DPS gear/mode a Guardian still has some level of surviveability...enough that we don't overwhelm healers.I only doubt my ability to tank most things as a Guardian/Defensive tank.....I instead try to do my best to mimic a Zerker or SK.DPS is king and really the only thing to focus gear on. I got my pure "tank/defensive" gear which for the most part sit in my bags for that once in a blue moon time where I actually need to be a Tank instead of a glorified scout that happens to have some higher mit and avoidance. For the other 98% of the content out there being defensive, wearing defensive gear, having as high surviveability as possible is meaningless and makes me a nothing more than a liability to my group.All we really end up doing is shifting the surviveability part of being a tank to the healers in exchange for unsuring that those healers only have to worry about healing us.

circusgirl

07-08-2009, 11:16 PM

Raahl

07-14-2009, 03:46 PM

I really didn't mean to have this become a fight between the fighter classes. Sigh....

Landiin

07-14-2009, 04:55 PM

Don't worry Raahl any time you say something about fighters there will always be pages of arguments to follow. That is the only sure thing you can count on really <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

RafaelSmith

07-14-2009, 10:00 PM

<cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote>I really didn't mean to have this become a fight between the fighter classes. Sigh....</blockquote>Fighting is what we do <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Its in our blood!!

Illine

07-16-2009, 07:01 AM

I like to tank with by bruiser but last time in mira 2 there was also a zerk with his mythical and T2 set armor (and I have mythical and T2 set armor also) and first he told me to tank, I said OK ... so I start ... but as soon as there was multiple mobs, I just couldn't take the mobs off him. Or I had to use all my taunts just for one mob.Zerk can generate too much aggro, and I was in offensive mod on the trash ... so in the end, it was him who started to tank.what I also realised is that on our mythical (I don't know for the other fighters) whe have no aggression boost whatsoever. We have +deflection, + crushing, a tsunami, and damage/aggro proc, DA, a crit proc ... a damage absorbtion ... It's all great to take damage, I love my mythical .... but when you look at most of the dps mythics they have +10% to CAs, spell DA and so on ... so their mythical increases their dps while ours increase our defense but not our aggro. no +10% to each taunt or + aggression ...I know that the zerk mythical enables him to increase his aggro to an illimited amount of targets ... I think.So that's the difference, tanks are not just the ones who take the blows and stay alive ... that, brawlers are just as good as plate on heroic encounters ... less when it becomes orange, but on heroic instances you can deal with it and kill the mob, especially with the mythical. But a tank is also the one who keeps all the mobs to him to protect his group, and that's where brawlers have a hard time, especially against mythical dps. We can compete on single target aggro with all our tools (even though sometimes I use all my locks but the mobs goes straight back to the wiz ...) but it's awfull on multi targets.And that's also why some don't want to tank anymore, it's coz it's painfull and very tiring to do some instances with dps classes who burst everything and then yell at you coz you can't keep them on you.Well sorry but when I have use my 2 useless taunts, D&C, rescue, drag and so on, well I cannot do much more than dps and hope I get him back.so if you want bruisers to tank and want to tank, give them the proper tools.

Illine

07-16-2009, 07:04 AM

<cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Melina@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>So I ask, those of you doubting your ability to tank, do you actually own a set of equipment that is defensive or is the assumption because you couldn't tank a zone in an offensive set off gear that the defensive set wouldn't help you?</blockquote>Not a Bruiser, but for heroic content we face alot of the same problems....although they have it much worse since even in full out DPS gear/mode a Guardian still has some level of surviveability...enough that we don't overwhelm healers.I only doubt my ability to tank most things as a Guardian/Defensive tank.....I instead try to do my best to mimic a Zerker or SK.DPS is king and really the only thing to focus gear on. I got my pure "tank/defensive" gear which for the most part sit in my bags for that once in a blue moon time where I actually need to be a Tank instead of a glorified scout that happens to have some higher mit and avoidance. For the other 98% of the content out there being defensive, wearing defensive gear, having as high surviveability as possible is meaningless and makes me a nothing more than a liability to my group.All we really end up doing is shifting the surviveability part of being a tank to the healers in exchange for unsuring that those healers only have to worry about healing us.</blockquote>well usually healers want you to tank in off mod so that they don't get bored :p

Gilasil

07-16-2009, 05:46 PM

<cite>Melina@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>So, let me preface this by saying that I agree brawlers need to be looked at for class balance. That being said, I see a lot of brawlers talking about their inability to tank and I am wondering how many have tried it seriously.Last night I was playing my alt brigand and joined a group for Najena's hollow tower. Not a difficult zone but one that is filled with multiple mob encounters. When I joined I saw the only fighter class in the group was a bruiser. This made me wary as I have had mixed experiences with brawler tanks. (yes I also tend to be wary of Sk and Berzerker tanks for similar reasons as I am about to explain.)Someone in the group asked the Bruiser if he is geared for tanking and the Bruiser replied "yes I have tier 2 shard armor and fabled epic" which is more than sufficient to tank this zone in my opinion. So we go to the zone and I take a look at the Bruiser's gear as I usually do to get an idea of where I should start with my aggro output. As it turns out the Bruiser is indeed in full tier 2 shard armor, however it is the hybrid druid leather dps set. There is not a single ounce of defense, parry, or aggression on any piece of the armor as far as I can see. His jewelry was all melee crit and double attack gear with no defensive stats. For the record we did complete the zone and there were a few deaths but a lot of this was probably due to the lack of a bard for aggro management and the tank being the least equipped member of the group which was had a few mythical dps. So my point being, is this guy seriously expecting to be a tank?He is not alone in this. In my experience most brawlers I see don't wear their own class armor because it is too defensive. Um... at what point did someone decide that defensive equipment was not for tanking.So I ask, those of you doubting your ability to tank, do you actually own a set of equipment that is defensive or is the assumption because you couldn't tank a zone in an offensive set off gear that the defensive set wouldn't help you?Again I do see some issues with the Brawler tanking mechanics, particularly in aoe aggro and spike damage mitigation but there is also a problem with the way some of you are gearing up. This also applies to some plate tanks, SK and Zerk in particular that value DPS above all else. But I feel these classes are better suited to the content so I am more interested in fixing the real issues with brawlers at this time.Yes there needs to be a crushing equivalent to the Smoldering Balanced Ayr Stone but considering I see so few brawlers using the parry adornments for wrist or even the mitigation adornment I wonder if it would see much use.Oddly I do tend to see these on the few raiding Brawlers I know and can't help but wonder if that difference in mindset is why they have a raid spot to begin with.</blockquote>I'll address this.I presume the bruiser was wearing the Wilderness Warrior set which is the only other T2 set they can equip. I consider that set good for DPS while the other set is good for tanking. I'm trying to get both sets at the moment (except for slots which have better). I would not wear the Wilderness Warrior set if I were going to tank. Other brawlers I know seem to be of the same opinion and in fact I got the idea of having both from a monk who was doing likewise.A brawler cannot have JUST tanking gear because they are usually expected to DPS. Expecially in raids where they are almost always included (if they're included) for DPS. In that situation if you want to be a valued member of the raid you want to get as high as you can in the parse which means you need DPS gear. You'll never top the parse unless everyone else is pretty bad, but you certainly want to get as high as possible.In the past I had many bad experiences while tanking due to my inability to take punishment no matter what I did. Whle my gear at the time was not as good as T2, it was the best I could get at the time (typically pre TOS legendary and low end fabled).Since then I've upgraded my gear (mythical + T2 or better and I don't wear DPS gear while tanking unless it's the best tanking item I can get for that slot), CAs (mostly mastered out), and AAs (200) and I've discovered that low and behold I can tank! Even some raid mobs (mainly for short periods of time when the MT buys it). Except a similarly equipped guardian (or any plate tank) would be considered MT material for our raiding group -- a slot which will never be given to a brawler. A decision I agree with as my survivability even now is simply not good enough for that slot. At least for the boss mobs.It's not that brawlers can't tank at all. It's just that they have a disadvantage when it comes to tanking. In exchange they were given improved DPS which is nice, and which is usually the reason we're included in groups and raids. So brawlers truly are hybrids -- tanking+dps but not as good at either as a dedicated class. Brawlers who want to be included really do need to pay attention to DPS.As for your bruiser in that instance -- if he was going to wear DPS gear while tanking he needs some talking to. You can have bad players in any class. Maybe there's a lot of brawlers who only wear DPS gear. Of course, if the only job you ever have is DPS that's probably what you'll gear up for. Generally, the only time you're going to see a brawler tanking is when there is no plate tank, which I suspect was your situation there. Consequently, brawlers usually try to get the DPS as good as they can. So yes, there is some player perception reinforcing the idea that brawlers can't tank, but there is a nub of truth to it too -- in order to tank a given mob, a brawler needs better gear then a plate tank tanking the same mob.Now that my bruiser has gotten much better I've discovered a flip side to the brawler situation and for hybrids in general. When you're sort of good in two things you're going to be worse then a dedicated class in either (can't out DPS a DPS class, can't out tank a plate tank) and nobody's going to be thrilled about taking you along. BUT if you get good enough, you can stand in for either slot. Thus a well equipped and played brawler has the option of either tanking OR dps depending on what's called for. Which is kind of nice. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /> Bottom line. Until the next expansion I can actually enjoy my bruiser as I have a variety of things I can do well enough for people to let me do them. Once the gear is reset I figure I"ll have to work hard for another year before I'm halfway decent at anything.