BRAWLER CHANGES - WHEN????????Here's a few ideas. [Archive]

mr23sgte

07-31-2009, 05:53 PM

The entire Brawler AA Stamina line needs to be completely reworked.The Brawler 3rd Wisdom AA Crane twirl needs to be changed to 40% AE AA like all other fighter classes.The Brawler Wis AA endline ability Crane Flock needs to be changed to a Overpowered Win ability like the SK sacrament line since this wis line is about AE - its a plausible place to make a change so both Brawlers get AE help they need so badly.Brawler TSO - lower recast of Inner Focus to match Intercept - if my role is to be avoidance buff/blocker.Brawler - Change the level 50 FEAR Instill Panic/Doubts CA Brawlers get to a taunt/Debuff or damage + hate. Since Brawlers dont have a shield bash/Tower of Stone like ability.Monk TSO AA - up Med healingMonk EOF AA - Change Superior Riposte AA to what it was at launch - 10 second AE block, but make it group. (cut n' past Swashy ability - since your good at that)I think the I've seen Monk AE Dragonfire not resist maybe 1 time when I needed it to work - and its Master for Christ's sake. my aggression is maxed.MONKS DONT NEED MORE HASTE!!! I am like 300ish in raids- 150 self buffed - its ridiculous - how bout just change the whole Everburning line to something useful.Bruisers need their worthless Stun mit stance changed too - Move that TSO AA to the Brawler TSO tree and drop that laughable +25 damage Lightening Strike AA

Aule

07-31-2009, 06:44 PM

I have a thread going in the Bruiser forum (also known as the not-visited-by-dev's forum). Mostly aimed at bruiser problems since I'm not familiar enough to discuss the Monk problems. It does have some commonality for monks with the section on KOS / Brawler AA tree. <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=454233" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=454233</a>

BChizzle

07-31-2009, 07:10 PM

Brawlers don't need an ae auto attack they should just fix cranetwirl to work more effectively.Why would you want craneflock to be OP to only be nerfed later aka peel?The notion that we are avoidance buff blockers is dumb, while we perform that role great we are tanks not bards.ANYWAYS, I have stated it what seems like a million times, brawlers need a bit of help in ae agro generation, and taking spike damage that is all. They don't need a whole class rebalance when a couple tweaks will do.

Rahatmattata

08-01-2009, 02:56 PM

A couple of mild tweaks would fix a lot of things for a lot of classes, but unfortunately that seems to be an impossible task for the class dev. Less playing solitair at work and more doing stuff IMO.

Aull

08-02-2009, 12:22 AM

<cite>Dredful@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote> The entire Brawler AA Stamina line needs to be completely reworked.The Brawler 3rd Wisdom AA Crane twirl needs to be changed to 40% AE AA like all other fighter classes.The Brawler Wis AA endline ability Crane Flock needs to be changed to a Overpowered Win ability like the SK sacrament line since this wis line is about AE - its a plausible place to make a change so both Brawlers get AE help they need so badly.Brawler TSO - lower recast of Inner Focus to match Intercept - if my role is to be avoidance buff/blocker.Brawler - Change the level 50 FEAR Instill Panic/Doubts CA Brawlers get to a taunt/Debuff or damage + hate. Since Brawlers dont have a shield bash/Tower of Stone like ability.Monk TSO AA - up Med healingMonk EOF AA - Change Superior Riposte AA to what it was at launch - 10 second AE block, but make it group. (cut n' past Swashy ability - since your good at that)I think the I've seen Monk AE Dragonfire not resist maybe 1 time when I needed it to work - and its Master for Christ's sake. my aggression is maxed.MONKS DONT NEED MORE HASTE!!! I am like 300ish in raids- 150 self buffed - its ridiculous - how bout just change the whole Everburning line to something useful.Bruisers need their worthless Stun mit stance changed too - Move that TSO AA to the Brawler TSO tree and drop that laughable +25 damage Lightening Strike AA</blockquote>I agree with most of your post. I would hate to see the brusiers get another monk type of ability in that brusiers could loose that stun portion of this ability via aa's similar to the monks choices.It is just my opinion but bruiser's getting a tsunami type ability in their aa choice and mythical weapon has tread on what once made the monk different. These two brawlers are have become so similar it is a slap in the face at least to me. Of all the fighters these two share so many of the same probs because these two again are almost a split image of each other.The brawlers do need help in aoe aggro and spike damage that BChizzle has mentioned, but also they need to become less alike to allow some individuality between them.It would be nice to see one brawler excelling in a certain area and the other brawler excelling in the oposite end of the spectrum. Then if both were grouped together they could complement each other and the group making them stronger while giving appeal to have both present.

Nulgara

08-03-2009, 06:04 PM

BChizzle I'm wondering what your reasoning is to be against a change to crane twirl. its does crap for dmg and has such a lwo proc chance in comparison to other fighter ae abilities its pathetic.16% chance to proc a measly 500 dmg ae isnt gonan hold agro if you got a lock or a swash in your group. to put it in perspective my SK when in ae tank spec with 40 ae auto attack hits 4 mobs in front of him A LOT for an average of 5k per mob, and holy crap let it double attack and watch the numbers fly. my monks ae ability in that aspect is nothing, literally nothing. just cause you enjoy the tabfest of trying to tank a mulit mob encounter doesnt mean the rest of us do. it is unbalanced and has been since the release of RoK. to even remotely match the dmg potential of the 4 plate tanks ae auto attack capability crane twirl would need a huge boost in proc chance %.my sk40% AE auto5k avg hit x4 on average every third swing. so in 10 swings thats 60k dmgmy monk16% ae for 500 dmg same set of 4 mobs triggers if lucky 2 in 10 swings. 4k dmghmm.. that look balanced to you. no thanks ill take the 60k in 10 swings. even at 100% proc chance your looking at 20k in 10 swings with it hitting 4 mobs.as far as the OP.yes stam line needs some serious love. crane flock needs changes cause when raid buffed its pointless ot use it. i like the idea of changing instill doubt to a tount type thing. agree with upping med healing. and yes pleasse change ever burning to something useful.

BChizzle

08-03-2009, 06:39 PM

<cite>Nulgara@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>BChizzle I'm wondering what your reasoning is to be against a change to crane twirl. its does crap for dmg and has such a lwo proc chance in comparison to other fighter ae abilities its pathetic.16% chance to proc a measly 500 dmg ae isnt gonan hold agro if you got a lock or a swash in your group. to put it in perspective my SK when in ae tank spec with 40 ae auto attack hits 4 mobs in front of him A LOT for an average of 5k per mob, and holy crap let it double attack and watch the numbers fly. my monks ae ability in that aspect is nothing, literally nothing. just cause you enjoy the tabfest of trying to tank a mulit mob encounter doesnt mean the rest of us do. it is unbalanced and has been since the release of RoK. to even remotely match the dmg potential of the 4 plate tanks ae auto attack capability crane twirl would need a huge boost in proc chance %.my sk40% AE auto5k avg hit x4 on average every third swing. so in 10 swings thats 60k dmgmy monk16% ae for 500 dmg same set of 4 mobs triggers if lucky 2 in 10 swings. 4k dmghmm.. that look balanced to you. no thanks ill take the 60k in 10 swings. even at 100% proc chance your looking at 20k in 10 swings with it hitting 4 mobs.as far as the OP.yes stam line needs some serious love. crane flock needs changes cause when raid buffed its pointless ot use it. i like the idea of changing instill doubt to a tount type thing. agree with upping med healing. and yes pleasse change ever burning to something useful.</blockquote>For one it hits 8 targets which is kind of unique, secondly it is a proc so for example it can go off multiple times on our blue ae plus unlike your sk we duel wield (ie we are hitting 3 times every 1.5 seconds), third why when you at least have something thats different do you want to get rid of it and make tanks all cookie cutter. Yes they should up the effectiveness of cranetwirl but we don't need an ae auto attack, and for whatever reason we might want to ae auto we can hit craneflock and we are good.I'd say double its damage and bring it up to a 33% proc so its going off every round.

Nulgara

08-03-2009, 09:33 PM

ok i see where your coming from. i agree double the dmg and 33% proc chance would be an excellent boost to the ability.i dont want it to be cookie cutter either, was jsut comparing the two differetn types of ae aa's for fighters. the plates get much more out of theres simply cause the brawler version doesnt reach full potential unless theres 8 mobs around you which except for select encounters is pretty rare. good points though man and i agree with ya and woudl be happy if something similar to your suggestion was put in.

Illine

08-04-2009, 05:14 AM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>For one it hits 8 targets which is kind of unique, secondly it is a proc so for example it can go off multiple times on our blue ae plus unlike your sk we duel wield (ie we are hitting 3 times every 1.5 seconds), third why when you at least have something thats different do you want to get rid of it and make tanks all cookie cutter. Yes they should up the effectiveness of cranetwirl but we don't need an ae auto attack, and for whatever reason we might want to ae auto we can hit craneflock and we are good.I'd say double its damage and bring it up to a 33% proc so its going off every round.</blockquote>what's the point of having an ability different from everybody if it's way weaker than other's ability?Like for the crit or DA in our AAs ... ours is different from the other fighters ... but it's also weaker so we're unique but we're weaker .. wooot.Things need to be different, but things should be quite alike if they want us to tank as effectively.It's sad but it means then do have as much dps and as much defense.for dps ... first thing to do is to make the dps AAs equal. or then make one have more crit, another one have more DA and the last one have more AE attack. Give us also some end abilities unique and usefull and powerfull.and make CAs from AA scale effectively with level. The CAs we get from the AA treee are usually underpowered compared to other CAs at level 80. Shouldn't be that way.

Lord Hackenslash

08-04-2009, 01:09 PM

<cite>Nulgara@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>BChizzle I'm wondering what your reasoning is to be against a change to crane twirl. its does crap for dmg and has such a lwo proc chance in comparison to other fighter ae abilities its pathetic.16% chance to proc a measly 500 dmg ae isnt gonan hold agro if you got a lock or a swash in your group. to put it in perspective my SK when in ae tank spec with 40 ae auto attack hits 4 mobs in front of him A LOT for an average of 5k per mob, and holy crap let it double attack and watch the numbers fly. my monks ae ability in that aspect is nothing, literally nothing. just cause you enjoy the tabfest of trying to tank a mulit mob encounter doesnt mean the rest of us do. it is unbalanced and has been since the release of RoK. to even remotely match the dmg potential of the 4 plate tanks ae auto attack capability crane twirl would need a huge boost in proc chance %.my sk40% AE auto5k avg hit x4 on average every third swing. so in 10 swings thats 60k dmgmy monk16% ae for 500 dmg same set of 4 mobs triggers if lucky 2 in 10 swings. 4k dmghmm.. that look balanced to you. no thanks ill take the 60k in 10 swings. even at 100% proc chance your looking at 20k in 10 swings with it hitting 4 mobs.as far as the OP.yes stam line needs some serious love. crane flock needs changes cause when raid buffed its pointless ot use it. i like the idea of changing instill doubt to a tount type thing. agree with upping med healing. and yes pleasse change ever burning to something useful.</blockquote>Just a small clarification. you cannot aoe double attack. you can only double attack off the primary swing. The Aoe attack and the double attack are both procs off our original single swing. A proc cannot cause another proc so the aoe will not trigger off the second attack. I agree that brawlers need love in the AoE aggro department just want to clarify the numbers for an accurate comparison.

Aull

08-04-2009, 01:44 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>For one it hits 8 targets which is kind of unique, secondly it is a proc so for example it can go off multiple times on our blue ae plus unlike your sk we duel wield (ie we are hitting 3 times every 1.5 seconds), third why when you at least have something thats different do you want to get rid of it and make tanks all cookie cutter. Yes they should up the effectiveness of cranetwirl but we don't need an ae auto attack, and for whatever reason we might want to ae auto we can hit craneflock and we are good.I'd say double its damage and bring it up to a 33% proc so its going off every round.</blockquote>I like your idea. No more cookie cutter molded tanks. It would still be a benefit to brawlers but at the same time would not be overpowering them making brawlers better aoe than the current aoe fighters.I also preach that if SOE would just modify monks dragon rage and bruiser manhandle to affect encounter fights it would give brawlers a nice boost in ae encounter fights. This would not be overpowering at all and I think it could be implimented very soon and no waiting for six more months for any change.I know that brawlers do need help in aoe but I also support that not all classes need to become aoe specialists.

mr23sgte

08-04-2009, 01:54 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Nulgara@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>BChizzle I'm wondering what your reasoning is to be against a change to crane twirl. its does crap for dmg and has such a lwo proc chance in comparison to other fighter ae abilities its pathetic.16% chance to proc a measly 500 dmg ae isnt gonan hold agro if you got a lock or a swash in your group. to put it in perspective my SK when in ae tank spec with 40 ae auto attack hits 4 mobs in front of him A LOT for an average of 5k per mob, and holy crap let it double attack and watch the numbers fly. my monks ae ability in that aspect is nothing, literally nothing. just cause you enjoy the tabfest of trying to tank a mulit mob encounter doesnt mean the rest of us do. it is unbalanced and has been since the release of RoK. to even remotely match the dmg potential of the 4 plate tanks ae auto attack capability crane twirl would need a huge boost in proc chance %.my sk40% AE auto5k avg hit x4 on average every third swing. so in 10 swings thats 60k dmgmy monk16% ae for 500 dmg same set of 4 mobs triggers if lucky 2 in 10 swings. 4k dmghmm.. that look balanced to you. no thanks ill take the 60k in 10 swings. even at 100% proc chance your looking at 20k in 10 swings with it hitting 4 mobs.as far as the OP.yes stam line needs some serious love. crane flock needs changes cause when raid buffed its pointless ot use it. i like the idea of changing instill doubt to a tount type thing. agree with upping med healing. and yes pleasse change ever burning to something useful.</blockquote>For one it hits 8 targets which is kind of unique, secondly it is a proc so for example it can go off multiple times on our blue ae plus unlike your sk we duel wield (ie we are hitting 3 times every 1.5 seconds), third why when you at least have something thats different do you want to get rid of it and make tanks all cookie cutter. Yes they should up the effectiveness of cranetwirl but we don't need an ae auto attack, and for whatever reason we might want to ae auto we can hit craneflock and we are good.I'd say double its damage and bring it up to a 33% proc so its going off every round.</blockquote>Yeah double dmg and increased proc chance woulrd work too Blanka vs AE AAI disagree - we offer 30%+ avoid on the mt when we use our avoid buff. It's not prefered role, but effective none-the-less

BChizzle

08-04-2009, 02:16 PM

<cite>Dredful@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Nulgara@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>BChizzle I'm wondering what your reasoning is to be against a change to crane twirl. its does crap for dmg and has such a lwo proc chance in comparison to other fighter ae abilities its pathetic.16% chance to proc a measly 500 dmg ae isnt gonan hold agro if you got a lock or a swash in your group. to put it in perspective my SK when in ae tank spec with 40 ae auto attack hits 4 mobs in front of him A LOT for an average of 5k per mob, and holy crap let it double attack and watch the numbers fly. my monks ae ability in that aspect is nothing, literally nothing. just cause you enjoy the tabfest of trying to tank a mulit mob encounter doesnt mean the rest of us do. it is unbalanced and has been since the release of RoK. to even remotely match the dmg potential of the 4 plate tanks ae auto attack capability crane twirl would need a huge boost in proc chance %.my sk40% AE auto5k avg hit x4 on average every third swing. so in 10 swings thats 60k dmgmy monk16% ae for 500 dmg same set of 4 mobs triggers if lucky 2 in 10 swings. 4k dmghmm.. that look balanced to you. no thanks ill take the 60k in 10 swings. even at 100% proc chance your looking at 20k in 10 swings with it hitting 4 mobs.as far as the OP.yes stam line needs some serious love. crane flock needs changes cause when raid buffed its pointless ot use it. i like the idea of changing instill doubt to a tount type thing. agree with upping med healing. and yes pleasse change ever burning to something useful.</blockquote>For one it hits 8 targets which is kind of unique, secondly it is a proc so for example it can go off multiple times on our blue ae plus unlike your sk we duel wield (ie we are hitting 3 times every 1.5 seconds), third why when you at least have something thats different do you want to get rid of it and make tanks all cookie cutter. Yes they should up the effectiveness of cranetwirl but we don't need an ae auto attack, and for whatever reason we might want to ae auto we can hit craneflock and we are good.I'd say double its damage and bring it up to a 33% proc so its going off every round.</blockquote>Yeah double dmg and increased proc chance woulrd work too Blanka vs AE AAI disagree - we offer 30%+ avoid on the mt when we use our avoid buff. It's not prefered role, but effective none-the-less</blockquote>The main problem is it didn't really scale all that great, when the aa's came out in KoS a tank doing 1k dps was good. Problem now is weapons are hitting for so much the cranetwirl aa didn't scale up the same it went up like 10% dmg or so in the 10 levels while weapon damage went up 500% or more.

Quicksilver74

08-05-2009, 10:27 AM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>The main problem is it didn't really scale all that great, when the aa's came out in KoS a tank doing 1k dps was good. Problem now is weapons are hitting for so much the cranetwirl aa didn't scale up the same it went up like 10% dmg or so in the 10 levels while weapon damage went up 500% or more.</blockquote> I brought this up at Fan Faire, and it's something they are going to look into. Both Crane Twirl and the STA line version. If these abilities are scaled up I think that woudl be nice. The one good thing about Crane Twirl is that it does also work on single target mobs. Personally I'd like to see Crane Twirl buffed to be about 3,000 - 3,500 damage at rank 8, at lvl 90.

Aule

08-05-2009, 02:28 PM

Wonder if they'll be able to come up with a method of it auto scaling more closely to match the power scale that increases every time there's a new expansion with regards to melee swings damage.

BChizzle

08-05-2009, 04:19 PM

<cite>Crabbok@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>The main problem is it didn't really scale all that great, when the aa's came out in KoS a tank doing 1k dps was good. Problem now is weapons are hitting for so much the cranetwirl aa didn't scale up the same it went up like 10% dmg or so in the 10 levels while weapon damage went up 500% or more.</blockquote> I brought this up at Fan Faire, and it's something they are going to look into. Both Crane Twirl and the STA line version. If these abilities are scaled up I think that woudl be nice. The one good thing about Crane Twirl is that it does also work on single target mobs. Personally I'd like to see Crane Twirl buffed to be about 3,000 - 3,500 damage at rank 8, at lvl 90. </blockquote>I'd prefer half your damage but double the proc rate so you are less likely for it not to go off.

Aull

08-05-2009, 08:46 PM

I would agree again with BChizzle. I think crane twirl having a highter proc rate would be a better at 1200-1700 damage than the the current proc rate with 3000-3500 damage.In the past I did half way support a 40% aoe auto attack, but I do think that just doing what has been mentioned here to crane twirl would be a huge step for brawlers in helping their aoe issues.

BChizzle

08-05-2009, 10:06 PM

<cite>Aule@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote>Wonder if they'll be able to come up with a method of it auto scaling more closely to match the power scale that increases every time there's a new expansion with regards to melee swings damage.</blockquote>Maybe, or just keep adjusting it for example by the 2nd expansin on a level tier it gets worse.

circusgirl

08-06-2009, 10:13 AM

Frankly, I would much prefer they switch it to autoattack damage now and then we never have to worry about them not adjusting it again.

ShinGoku

10-05-2009, 07:38 AM

I still think the 40% ae would be better, our weapons auto damage hitting 8 targets would be sweet!

BChizzle

10-05-2009, 08:33 AM

<cite>ShinGoku wrote:</cite><blockquote>I still think the 40% ae would be better, our weapons auto damage hitting 8 targets would be sweet!</blockquote>Tank ae frontal auto attacks hit 4 targets. Our proc is a true 360 degree ae that hits 8 targets.

Ambrin

10-05-2009, 11:56 AM

My personal suggestion for Crane Twirl would be to keep the damage as it is now and make it a 100% chance of proccing off auto attacks (possibly mainhand only?).Even if we assumed main hand only, that would still be an extra ~500 damage every auto attack round to 8 targets near us. With the haste monks get this would (for me anyways) be an extra ~333 DPS per mob that is near me, more than enough to hold agro in multi-mob situations.As for Craneflock, I would suggest making it a permanent +15 AE auto attack. This would really cement in our ability to hold multiple mobs as a brawler, especially when chain pulling large encounters where you don't want to wait on Craneflock between pulls.

Yimway

10-05-2009, 12:15 PM

When? How about if ever?I don't know when it will happen but I do know this:You can get 3 other classes that aren't 'broken' to 80/200 before any brawler changes will be made.

BChizzle

10-05-2009, 02:21 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>When? How about if ever?I don't know when it will happen but I do know this:You can get 3 other classes that aren't 'broken' to 80/200 before any brawler changes will be made.</blockquote>OMG broken class<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> OMG they can't tank!OMG they can't parse either yet I pull 10k parses on avatars and Ykesha cry cry cry.We can't solo though right? Well there must be something we can't do?

Dorieon

10-06-2009, 06:19 AM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>When? How about if ever?I don't know when it will happen but I do know this:You can get 3 other classes that aren't 'broken' to 80/200 before any brawler changes will be made.</blockquote>This makes me laugh. You are technically correct that in brawler changes will be rare and prob not happening, but you are implying that we need alot of help.I feel for the up and coming brawler but outside of AE agro and a slight mit increase (not even sure we need that tbh) they can't give us anything that won't totally make brawlers the new SK. That might be fun but I don't want it to happen.

BChizzle

10-06-2009, 07:18 AM

Yimway

10-07-2009, 01:30 PM

<cite>Dorieon@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>When? How about if ever?I don't know when it will happen but I do know this:You can get 3 other classes that aren't 'broken' to 80/200 before any brawler changes will be made.</blockquote>This makes me laugh. You are technically correct that in brawler changes will be rare and prob not happening, but you are implying that we need alot of help.I feel for the up and coming brawler but outside of AE agro and a slight mit increase (not even sure we need that tbh) they can't give us anything that won't totally make brawlers the new SK. That might be fun but I don't want it to happen.</blockquote>Whoa!I'm not saying you need alot of help. I've seen brawlers tank plenty of things. In RoK we purposefully had a Bruiser tank a bunch of raid zones just cause people said it couldn't/wouldn't/shouldn't work.However, the people who play the class are constantly asking for help and can't decide what the class should be molded too. And those concerns may never be addressed.If you don't play a brawler effectively now, or you don't have fun with it, or you can't find a raid slot, I'm suggesting for those folks re-rolling is going to be a quickler sollution than waiting for the class to be changed to your liking.

RafaelSmith

10-07-2009, 01:46 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>AE agro is still a problem, its not fun tabbing through stuff to hold agro.</blockquote>Tell me about it <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

BChizzle

10-07-2009, 02:09 PM

<cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>AE agro is still a problem, its not fun tabbing through stuff to hold agro.</blockquote>Tell me about it <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>I'll agree with you that its not just an brawler problem but a single target tank problem, I just post from teh brawler perspective but I have heard from many guards with the same issues.

RafaelSmith

10-07-2009, 02:53 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>AE agro is still a problem, its not fun tabbing through stuff to hold agro.</blockquote>Tell me about it <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>I'll agree with you that its not just an brawler problem but a single target tank problem, I just post from teh brawler perspective but I have heard from many guards with the same issues.</blockquote>Yeah, while its unfortunate what SOE has done with tanks in general......particulary the Defensive/ST ones....its really unfortunate what they have done....or not done for Brawlers. I know several people that absolutely enjoy playing thier brawlers....many still claim their brawler is their favorite class but when push comes to shove they find themselves having to play some alt on raids. Its only when one of our groups has extra space that many of them get to run instances. I honestly have no idea if the problem is real or simply the fact that everyone and their brother has been conditioned to think that Brawlers cannot tank. All I do know is that alot of my Brawler friends suffer from what I perceive as a "identity" problem. We simply do not know how to best use them for raids and such which just frustrates them even more.I will say that while TSO has pretty much made me bench my Guard.....if I were a Brawler I would have benched him or quit the game long ago. There are limits to how much BS I can take from SOE in terms of class balance and class vision. I seriously would not hold my breath for the current issues with Brawlers and ST tanks to be fixed any time soon if at all. SOE has found what they like in terms of content and class design and single target, single function tanks do not fit very well into it.

Aull

10-07-2009, 04:26 PM

Identity is definately an issue for most players asking "are brawlers tanks or dps"? Most players who never played a brawler think they are a dps class and not a tank.Another issue that throws everyone off is that fact that both brawlers are very much alike. The brawler class needs the sub-class "monk" to vary from sub-class "bruiser". What also makes it tough for brawlers is that four plate tanks is all this game has ever needed. The only way I see brawlers actually seeing improvements is to either become true to their nature and be tanks or loosing tanking skills they possess and become full out dps. Utility is not an option since there are to many utility classes now.Sorry but I can't see both brawlers having plate like survial and rogue dps while they tank. If that happens then the plate tanks will become like brawlers are now.

BChizzle

10-07-2009, 04:50 PM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>Identity is definately an issue for most players asking "are brawlers tanks or dps"? Most players who never played a brawler think they are a dps class and not a tank.Another issue that throws everyone off is that fact that both brawlers are very much alike. The brawler class needs the sub-class "monk" to vary from sub-class "bruiser". What also makes it tough for brawlers is that four plate tanks is all this game has ever needed. The only way I see brawlers actually seeing improvements is to either become true to their nature and be tanks or loosing tanking skills they possess and become full out dps. Utility is not an option since there are to many utility classes now.Sorry but I can't see both brawlers having plate like survial and rogue dps while they tank. If that happens then the plate tanks will become like brawlers are now.</blockquote>Monks and bruisers are as alike as guards and zerkers or sk's and palys. They aren't the same thing at all. Brawlers also tank fine, ae agro is an issue but thats 1 thing not a laundry list. People like to exaggerate plain and simple it perpetuates even further in game and people beleive the hype and then end up not inviting that brawler to tank.

Aull

10-07-2009, 06:24 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>Identity is definately an issue for most players asking "are brawlers tanks or dps"? Most players who never played a brawler think they are a dps class and not a tank.Another issue that throws everyone off is that fact that both brawlers are very much alike. The brawler class needs the sub-class "monk" to vary from sub-class "bruiser". What also makes it tough for brawlers is that four plate tanks is all this game has ever needed. The only way I see brawlers actually seeing improvements is to either become true to their nature and be tanks or loosing tanking skills they possess and become full out dps. Utility is not an option since there are to many utility classes now.Sorry but I can't see both brawlers having plate like survial and rogue dps while they tank. If that happens then the plate tanks will become like brawlers are now.</blockquote>Monks and bruisers are as alike as guards and zerkers or sk's and palys. They aren't the same thing at all. Brawlers also tank fine, ae agro is an issue but thats 1 thing not a laundry list. People like to exaggerate plain and simple it perpetuates even further in game and people beleive the hype and then end up not inviting that brawler to tank.</blockquote>I will make it known so that noone is confused. My post(s) are not based on what other players have posted but from my experiences. My experiences are/will be different from what others experience. Could it be fact or fiction when I post something that I witnessed or are all other players posts fact or fiction? Who decides? I would also like to make known that I am not a super elite brawler, zerker, or sk but I do play the classes even though that doesn't constitute I am an expert.That being said I do agree that ae aggro for brawlers is my biggest concern for the class. Tanking is spikey but doable on higher lvl mobs with very good gear and attentive healers. Good healers can keep the worst survivors alive. Yes people exaggerate on issues. I for one have been known to do it and my apologies. I still believe that the two brawlers share many of the same concerns because both are very similar in how they operate.

Errolflynn

10-08-2009, 07:32 AM

Having an Alt Monk on which I like to tank, I'll add my 2 coppers. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" />Brawlers have 3 main problems.1: AE agro. When you watch a Zerker or SK round up all the mobs they can find and hold agro on them it makes me sick knowing I would have trouble holding agro on just a few at a time.2: Spike damage. Brawlers need something to smooth it out.3: Player perception, both for Brawlers themselves and other players a like. Usually I only tank for guild groups but on the occasion I have tanked for others they are really surprised to find a Monk tanking. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" />Other than that I think Brawlers are fine. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/385970365b8ed7503b4294502a458efa.gif" border="0" />

Yimway

10-08-2009, 11:21 AM

<cite>Errolflynn@Befallen wrote:</cite><blockquote>3: Player perception, both for Brawlers themselves and other players a like.</blockquote>Brawlers are the ones to blame for that.Over the years from even original launch thru each expansion, I've been confronted with inviting a brawler to a group to fill a tank roll and they refuse to do it and say their dps, not a tank.While thats not all brawlers, far, far too many of them have had this attitude over time, and that has molded player perception. Changing that now after 5 years of precedence isn't going to be an easy task.

Aull

10-08-2009, 11:48 AM

The other night a monk is spamming 70's channel "aob group lf tank and dps". This went on for an hour. In reality the group members should have told the monk to tank it and find two more dps classes instead.I do agree that many brawlers burn their own hides when they spec/gear for only dps and renounce having any tanking value. What looks bad is when a plate tank goes link dead and if a brawler is in the group that brawler will not man up and tank because they "think" they are just dps. Go figure.For instance tanking brawlers need help in aoe aggro and that is about it. I am not saying that brawlers need to become aoe damage specialist like the crusaders and the zerker, but a nice boost in aoe threat would be very nice. If monk dragonrage and bruiser manhandle became encounter procs then that would be a nice boost without overpowering the brawlers. It would at least get brawlers by until the next expac comes out.

RafaelSmith

10-08-2009, 01:41 PM

Yeah, seeing "LFM Need tank" in chat.....then doing a /who on the person and finding out they are a Brawler happens alot on my server. Clear sign of a group to stay clear of because it obviously has at least 1 person that just wants to be carried thru an instance. Brawlers are more than capable of tanking instances....trust me lack of AE aggro is not a valid excuse. =PThen there is the times I have put out "LFM need DPS".....and I get a million Brawlers sending me tells. Not saying its all brawlers but I have known a few that are happy/comfortable with the preception their class has because it gives them an excuse to tag along in groups and not be expected to fill any actual role.

Aull

10-08-2009, 02:19 PM

Tanking requires a bit more attention and concentration then say just pressing buttons and trying to dps. Brawlers struggle in aoe when tanking but they do very well vs single target. One thing I like about tanking is that I receive the best buffs the group has to offer.Some of my highest instance parsing happens when I am tanking due to these buffs. So if a brawler wants to parse high in an instance group I would advise being the tank just for all the best buffs if they are available.

BChizzle

10-08-2009, 04:47 PM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>Tanking requires a bit more attention and concentration then say just pressing buttons and trying to dps. Brawlers struggle in aoe when tanking but they do very well vs single target. One thing I like about tanking is that I receive the best buffs the group has to offer.Some of my highest instance parsing happens when I am tanking due to these buffs. So if a brawler wants to parse high in an instance group I would advise being the tank just for all the best buffs if they are available.</blockquote>It is kind of a misconception that brawler aoe is weak. The truth is as a monks at least can do excellent dps on an AE fight, for example I can really throw up some huge numbers on like gynok and ykesha and the two highest dps components on those will be my ae proc and my blue ae. The advantage ae tanks have is more at the beginning of fights and being able to lock down those adds relatively easy, as a brawler you have to go tab crazy its just not fun.

RafaelSmith

10-08-2009, 05:20 PM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>Tanking requires a bit more attention and concentration then say just pressing buttons and trying to dps. Brawlers struggle in aoe when tanking but they do very well vs single target. One thing I like about tanking is that I receive the best buffs the group has to offer.Some of my highest instance parsing happens when I am tanking due to these buffs. So if a brawler wants to parse high in an instance group I would advise being the tank just for all the best buffs if they are available.</blockquote>The problem at least from my experience is that for every Brawler out there that is good at and likes to tank there are 9 that will come up with every excuse in the book as to why they cant tank. Its a mystery to me why they rolled tanks in the first place.

Aull

10-08-2009, 05:54 PM

<cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>Tanking requires a bit more attention and concentration then say just pressing buttons and trying to dps. Brawlers struggle in aoe when tanking but they do very well vs single target. One thing I like about tanking is that I receive the best buffs the group has to offer.Some of my highest instance parsing happens when I am tanking due to these buffs. So if a brawler wants to parse high in an instance group I would advise being the tank just for all the best buffs if they are available.</blockquote>The problem at least from my experience is that for every Brawler out there that is good at and likes to tank there are 9 that will come up with every excuse in the book as to why they cant tank. Its a mystery to me why they rolled tanks in the first place.</blockquote>Exactly. The arch-type fighter = tank. Any class or sub-class exsisting in the fighter arch-type is first and foremost a tank. They can dps but again due to the arch-type their dps will not be as strong as classes/sub-classes of the scout or mage arch-types. Brawlers are not hybrids in my opinion either.

RafaelSmith

10-08-2009, 06:01 PM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>Tanking requires a bit more attention and concentration then say just pressing buttons and trying to dps. Brawlers struggle in aoe when tanking but they do very well vs single target. One thing I like about tanking is that I receive the best buffs the group has to offer.Some of my highest instance parsing happens when I am tanking due to these buffs. So if a brawler wants to parse high in an instance group I would advise being the tank just for all the best buffs if they are available.</blockquote>The problem at least from my experience is that for every Brawler out there that is good at and likes to tank there are 9 that will come up with every excuse in the book as to why they cant tank. Its a mystery to me why they rolled tanks in the first place.</blockquote>Exactly. The arch-type fighter = tank. Any class or sub-class exsisting in the fighter arch-type is first and foremost a tank. They can dps but again due to the arch-type their dps will not be as strong as classes/sub-classes of the scout or mage arch-types. Brawlers are not hybrids in my opinion either.</blockquote>Yep.I hope I don't sound like I am bashing Brawlers too much but it just that some of the most annoying, selfish and usless players ive had to deal with have been Brawlers. Refusing to tank for groups, expecting to be dragged along as some sorta DPS fill in....then QQ when I won't take them to WoE or stick them in the "thanks for comming" group on x4 raids =P. Just gets old afterwhile and while some of it maybe due to issues with the class....I seriously doubt its as much as people claim. Ive been is countless groups that were tanked nicely by a Brawler so I know its more player than class that is the issue. Which is true of all classes.

Aull

10-08-2009, 06:28 PM

I hear ya. I am not trying to bash brawlers or players. I do think I am trying to bash mentalities. I think BChizz said it best that some players over exaggerate things a bit about classes in this game. I have done it myself. In the end though the truth is evident but some just don't want to believe it.

Ambrin

10-08-2009, 07:01 PM

<cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yep.I hope I don't sound like I am bashing Brawlers too much but it just that some of the most annoying, selfish and usless players ive had to deal with have been Brawlers. Refusing to tank for groups, expecting to be dragged along as some sorta DPS fill in....then QQ when I won't take them to WoE or stick them in the "thanks for comming" group on x4 raids =P. Just gets old afterwhile and while some of it maybe due to issues with the class....I seriously doubt its as much as people claim. Ive been is countless groups that were tanked nicely by a Brawler so I know its more player than class that is the issue. Which is true of all classes.</blockquote>I don't like tanking most heroics in PuG's simply because in most of the content there are a fair number of AE fights and no matter what I do, each of the DPS classes invariable ends up attacking a different target and complaining when I can't hold agro off every single one of them for pull after pull after pull. As much as I can say "assist me please" they never do, and even tab targeting I can still lose agro on multi-mob encounters simple because I might not be able to put out enough DPS to hold the needed agro. If I can get into a good guild group who does actually listen, I have no problem holding 100% agro on any amounts of adds, I did Guk3 with no problems as the tank, ring events and all. The biggest problem I have when tanking is that people don't listen to me and refuse to assist me because, you know, that 1s gap between when I acquire a new target is killing their parse!As far as DPS goes, I can also fill that role quite well in any content, In heroic stuff with the gear I have it's not unusual to see me at the top of a parse. Even in raids, if you give me the right buffs I can parse very well. On my last SoH when (for the first time) I was in a group with the buffs and stuff I wanted/needed on me I pulled off a nearly 8000 zonewide and on certain fights my DPS spiked up to 12,000. The only person who did more zonewide (and on most fights) than me was our top assassin. Now, I'm sure if you gave the buffs and what not to one of out other melee DPS classes (the only other scout we had besides a bard was a brigand in another group) they could do as well or better, but for what it's worth I can through out some decent numbers.Now, do I like DPS'ing in raids? Sure, give me some buffs and I'll DPS to my hearts content. Is DPSing what I want to do in raids? No, I would rather tank. In a lot of ways I am fighting against the perceptions of my guild leader (Paladin OT) and our raid leader (SK MT) on this one. Basically the hardest raid stuff I've tanked (for the duration of the boss kill) is the adds on Xebnok (the ones he spawns with and the ones that spawn during the fight). Even though those adds don't hit for a lot, the leaders were really concerned about me only having one healer in the group (an inquisitor).

BChizzle

10-08-2009, 07:10 PM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>I hear ya. I am not trying to bash brawlers or players. I do think I am trying to bash mentalities. I think BChizz said it best that some players over exaggerate things a bit about classes in this game. I have done it myself. In the end though the truth is evident but some just don't want to believe it.</blockquote>You aren't bashing, you are really describing alot of brawlers. They will complain about not being able to tank yet they've never actually tried to tank, they will complain about hold ae agro yet they dont set their aa's for ae agro, they will say devs never do anything to help brawlers yet we just had a whole AA line redone for us in TSO, countless number of items changed for us, we've pretty much had our mit buffed to plate levels yet people complain.

Aull

10-08-2009, 07:25 PM

<cite>Ambrin@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yep.I hope I don't sound like I am bashing Brawlers too much but it just that some of the most annoying, selfish and usless players ive had to deal with have been Brawlers. Refusing to tank for groups, expecting to be dragged along as some sorta DPS fill in....then QQ when I won't take them to WoE or stick them in the "thanks for comming" group on x4 raids =P. Just gets old afterwhile and while some of it maybe due to issues with the class....I seriously doubt its as much as people claim. Ive been is countless groups that were tanked nicely by a Brawler so I know its more player than class that is the issue. Which is true of all classes.</blockquote>I don't like tanking most heroics in PuG's simply because in most of the content there are a fair number of AE fights and no matter what I do, each of the DPS classes invariable ends up attacking a different target and complaining when I can't hold agro off every single one of them for pull after pull after pull. As much as I can say "assist me please" they never do, and even tab targeting I can still lose agro on multi-mob encounters simple because I might not be able to put out enough DPS to hold the needed agro. If I can get into a good guild group who does actually listen, I have no problem holding 100% agro on any amounts of adds, I did Guk3 with no problems as the tank, ring events and all. The biggest problem I have when tanking is that people don't listen to me and refuse to assist me because, you know, that 1s gap between when I acquire a new target is killing their parse!As far as DPS goes, I can also fill that role quite well in any content, In heroic stuff with the gear I have it's not unusual to see me at the top of a parse. Even in raids, if you give me the right buffs I can parse very well. On my last SoH when (for the first time) I was in a group with the buffs and stuff I wanted/needed on me I pulled off a nearly 8000 zonewide and on certain fights my DPS spiked up to 12,000. The only person who did more zonewide (and on most fights) than me was our top assassin. Now, I'm sure if you gave the buffs and what not to one of out other melee DPS classes (the only other scout we had besides a bard was a brigand in another group) they could do as well or better, but for what it's worth I can through out some decent numbers.Now, do I like DPS'ing in raids? Sure, give me some buffs and I'll DPS to my hearts content. Is DPSing what I want to do in raids? No, I would rather tank. In a lot of ways I am fighting against the perceptions of my guild leader (Paladin OT) and our raid leader (SK MT) on this one. Basically the hardest raid stuff I've tanked (for the duration of the boss kill) is the adds on Xebnok (the ones he spawns with and the ones that spawn during the fight). Even though those adds don't hit for a lot, the leaders were really concerned about me only having one healer in the group (an inquisitor).</blockquote>Good post. I to have endured the non assisting group mates and it makes for a rough grouping no doubt. I would like for other brawlers to experience that they are not just dps and that brawlers can indeed tank.

BChizzle

10-08-2009, 08:17 PM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>Good post. I to have endured the non assisting group mates and it makes for a rough grouping no doubt. I would like for other brawlers to experience that they are not just dps and that brawlers can indeed tank.</blockquote>I just let the healer know to let them die they usually learn quickly after that. Same if I bring a 2nd tank along in group they are always doing stupid things like hitting positionals and grabbing agro, like sorry but if I am doing 15k dps and some random pali is doing 3k dps and he pulls a mob off me something tells me I don't care if he dies he's being stupid.

RafaelSmith

10-08-2009, 09:17 PM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Ambrin@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yep.I hope I don't sound like I am bashing Brawlers too much but it just that some of the most annoying, selfish and usless players ive had to deal with have been Brawlers. Refusing to tank for groups, expecting to be dragged along as some sorta DPS fill in....then QQ when I won't take them to WoE or stick them in the "thanks for comming" group on x4 raids =P. Just gets old afterwhile and while some of it maybe due to issues with the class....I seriously doubt its as much as people claim. Ive been is countless groups that were tanked nicely by a Brawler so I know its more player than class that is the issue. Which is true of all classes.</blockquote>I don't like tanking most heroics in PuG's simply because in most of the content there are a fair number of AE fights and no matter what I do, each of the DPS classes invariable ends up attacking a different target and complaining when I can't hold agro off every single one of them for pull after pull after pull. As much as I can say "assist me please" they never do, and even tab targeting I can still lose agro on multi-mob encounters simple because I might not be able to put out enough DPS to hold the needed agro. If I can get into a good guild group who does actually listen, I have no problem holding 100% agro on any amounts of adds, I did Guk3 with no problems as the tank, ring events and all. The biggest problem I have when tanking is that people don't listen to me and refuse to assist me because, you know, that 1s gap between when I acquire a new target is killing their parse!As far as DPS goes, I can also fill that role quite well in any content, In heroic stuff with the gear I have it's not unusual to see me at the top of a parse. Even in raids, if you give me the right buffs I can parse very well. On my last SoH when (for the first time) I was in a group with the buffs and stuff I wanted/needed on me I pulled off a nearly 8000 zonewide and on certain fights my DPS spiked up to 12,000. The only person who did more zonewide (and on most fights) than me was our top assassin. Now, I'm sure if you gave the buffs and what not to one of out other melee DPS classes (the only other scout we had besides a bard was a brigand in another group) they could do as well or better, but for what it's worth I can through out some decent numbers.Now, do I like DPS'ing in raids? Sure, give me some buffs and I'll DPS to my hearts content. Is DPSing what I want to do in raids? No, I would rather tank. In a lot of ways I am fighting against the perceptions of my guild leader (Paladin OT) and our raid leader (SK MT) on this one. Basically the hardest raid stuff I've tanked (for the duration of the boss kill) is the adds on Xebnok (the ones he spawns with and the ones that spawn during the fight). Even though those adds don't hit for a lot, the leaders were really concerned about me only having one healer in the group (an inquisitor).</blockquote>Good post. I to have endured the non assisting group mates and it makes for a rough grouping no doubt. I would like for other brawlers to experience that they are not just dps and that brawlers can indeed tank.</blockquote>See thats just it......the deal with AE and stupid group members has nothing to do with being a Brawler and its not unique to brawlers. I face the same thing anytime I tank a instance. I balme the fact that DPS have been spoiled by grouping with easy-mode Crusaders where aggro is not an issue. I know when I play my Assassin and group with crusaders I really can pretty much do what I want, target what I want without any worries.Brawlers are tanks....if they are in a group or raid and not tanking they really are just wasted slot...just like a Warrior would be.

BChizzle

10-09-2009, 01:17 PM

<cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>See thats just it......the deal with AE and stupid group members has nothing to do with being a Brawler and its not unique to brawlers. I face the same thing anytime I tank a instance. I balme the fact that DPS have been spoiled by grouping with easy-mode Crusaders where aggro is not an issue. I know when I play my Assassin and group with crusaders I really can pretty much do what I want, target what I want without any worries.Brawlers are tanks....if they are in a group or raid and not tanking they really are just wasted slot...just like a Warrior would be.</blockquote>I will disagree with that, sometimes I'll bring a zerker along for his buffs or a good tank that can dps ok. You can't always have the optimal set up and you don't really always need it.

RafaelSmith

10-09-2009, 01:57 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>See thats just it......the deal with AE and stupid group members has nothing to do with being a Brawler and its not unique to brawlers. I face the same thing anytime I tank a instance. I balme the fact that DPS have been spoiled by grouping with easy-mode Crusaders where aggro is not an issue. I know when I play my Assassin and group with crusaders I really can pretty much do what I want, target what I want without any worries.Brawlers are tanks....if they are in a group or raid and not tanking they really are just wasted slot...just like a Warrior would be.</blockquote>I will disagree with that, sometimes I'll bring a zerker along for his buffs or a good tank that can dps ok. You can't always have the optimal set up and you don't really always need it.</blockquote>Only time Ill take a 2nd fighter is when I cant get a Scout or Mage or someone already in the group doesnt have a chanter bot they can box =P The truth is a 2nd fighter in a group is a last resort. And as a Guard the last thing I need in a group is some tag along fighter messing with aggro which is pretty much what always happens when I bring along a Brawler.

Prestissimo

10-10-2009, 05:38 PM

<cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>Only time Ill take a 2nd fighter is when I cant get a Scout or Mage or someone already in the group doesnt have a chanter bot they can box =P The truth is a 2nd fighter in a group is a last resort. And as a Guard the last thing I need in a group is some tag along fighter messing with aggro which is pretty much what always happens when I bring along a Brawler.</blockquote>Then you need to find fighters that understand group mechanics, not just "spam moar hate!1" because if you have 2 fighters that know how to work together, they can generate beyond rediculous hate and can serve other purposes as well. You can divide damage between the tanks via intercept and make the job easier on the healer if you have a regenerative healer solo healing. If you have a warlock that likes to drop "oh holy crap unholy crit rift!" you can keep them up alot easier and you have the capacity to keep agro off them even with rediculous rifts. Theres more, but you have to be able to work around what you have and make the most out of it because when I'm on my SK and bring an alianced bruiser along, we pull room after room at a time and destroy it and the bruiser contributes about 70% of the overall hate but thats mostly because he knows what he's doing and I know how to manipulate hate.

Aull

10-10-2009, 05:39 PM

<cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>See thats just it......the deal with AE and stupid group members has nothing to do with being a Brawler and its not unique to brawlers. I face the same thing anytime I tank a instance. I balme the fact that DPS have been spoiled by grouping with easy-mode Crusaders where aggro is not an issue. I know when I play my Assassin and group with crusaders I really can pretty much do what I want, target what I want without any worries.Brawlers are tanks....if they are in a group or raid and not tanking they really are just wasted slot...just like a Warrior would be.</blockquote>I will disagree with that, sometimes I'll bring a zerker along for his buffs or a good tank that can dps ok. You can't always have the optimal set up and you don't really always need it.</blockquote>Only time Ill take a 2nd fighter is when I cant get a Scout or Mage or someone already in the group doesnt have a chanter bot they can box =P The truth is a 2nd fighter in a group is a last resort. And as a Guard the last thing I need in a group is some tag along fighter messing with aggro which is pretty much what always happens when I bring along a Brawler.</blockquote>I know when I am tanking on my zerker and if a brawler is in the group that I too have a hellofva time holding aggro on a single target. This usually occurs when the brawler in question is a novice and has dragon rage (monks threat proc) or manhandle (bruiser theat/damage proc) running. However even with dragons rage and manhandle not active aggro will bounce between us but not as bad.Most bruisers will not deactivate manhandle since it also gives them extra damage.

BChizzle

10-10-2009, 08:30 PM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>I know when I am tanking on my zerker and if a brawler is in the group that I too have a hellofva time holding aggro on a single target. This usually occurs when the brawler in question is a novice and has dragon rage (monks threat proc) or manhandle (bruiser theat/damage proc) running. However even with dragons rage and manhandle not active aggro will bounce between us but not as bad.Most bruisers will not deactivate manhandle since it also gives them extra damage.</blockquote>They should put an agro meter in this game for those type of situations.

Aull

10-10-2009, 09:51 PM

LOL. Nice.

RafaelSmith

10-11-2009, 02:09 PM

<cite>ReverendPaqo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>Only time Ill take a 2nd fighter is when I cant get a Scout or Mage or someone already in the group doesnt have a chanter bot they can box =P The truth is a 2nd fighter in a group is a last resort. And as a Guard the last thing I need in a group is some tag along fighter messing with aggro which is pretty much what always happens when I bring along a Brawler.</blockquote>Then you need to find fighters that understand group mechanics, not just "spam moar hate!1" because if you have 2 fighters that know how to work together, they can generate beyond rediculous hate and can serve other purposes as well. You can divide damage between the tanks via intercept and make the job easier on the healer if you have a regenerative healer solo healing. If you have a warlock that likes to drop "oh holy crap unholy crit rift!" you can keep them up alot easier and you have the capacity to keep agro off them even with rediculous rifts. Theres more, but you have to be able to work around what you have and make the most out of it because when I'm on my SK and bring an alianced bruiser along, we pull room after room at a time and destroy it and the bruiser contributes about 70% of the overall hate but thats mostly because he knows what he's doing and I know how to manipulate hate.</blockquote>Yeah sure but I am talking about group instancing here. One fighter that knows how to play and has the proper hate buffs is optimal...both for healers and for speed of clearing the instance. While things can be done well with a 2nd fighter it just adds a level of complexity to the group which is not needed. That 2nd fighter would be better served tanking his own group. At this point people do instances for fun....no need to create more work than is needed is all im saying.

Prestissimo

10-11-2009, 03:55 PM

<cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yeah sure but I am talking about group instancing here. One fighter that knows how to play and has the proper hate buffs is optimal...both for healers and for speed of clearing the instance. While things can be done well with a 2nd fighter it just adds a level of complexity to the group which is not needed. That 2nd fighter would be better served tanking his own group. At this point people do instances for fun....no need to create more work than is needed is all im saying.</blockquote>I'm also talking about instancing. I bring the bruiser along because as long as you know how to handle the hate with 2 fighters, and as long as the other fighter knows how to handle hate with a second fighter, there really is no issue with holding agro. The bruiser LOVES getting amends because then he can ninja pull mobs onto me because he's devious like that, but by no means does he require it to prevent him from pulling agro. Besides, the monk/bruiser raid wide buff is equally as good for groups as it is for raids, and I don't object to having the zerker/sk buffs either.Without him in group, I can't pull entire rooms at a time because I'll die from the damage. With him, he can intercede and give me a nice chunk of avoidance and pull some mobs off to spread the damage out so our healer can use their group heals to better effect and he can use his own heals which otherwise would go to waste since bruiser heals are self heals including the NICE one on their mythical. On my warden for example, he can't heal more than 3.2k damage per second on one person, but if the damage is spread out across the group, he's hit 12k hps before on valdoartus varsoon and could have still gone higher. While that is an extreme example since it was on varsoon in the fire room and he's a warden and I'm thuroughly enjoying their OP group heal numbers, it is not an example that cannot be used as an example. If you have a healer that can push more group heals than they can single target heals, it would be better to spread the damage out slightly especially if you have a fight such as many small mobs so that their group heals can be used rather than wasted. Might as well use it if its there, even if it is in an unconventional manner. Bruisers intercede + self heal and avoidance buff on a plate tank is a great example of making it easier on the healer with 2 fighters.TBH, if both fighters know how to play with more than one fighter in group, it will actually make your agro easy mode. It's just that key part of both knowing how to work together to utilize each other's hate rather than work against each other which unfortunately is designed to naturally happens unless you manipulate your hate output. (Now we wont run my tanks with his anymore since I will have an 80 troub and on our servers troubs are a myth.)

RafaelSmith

10-12-2009, 10:46 AM

<cite>ReverendPaqo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yeah sure but I am talking about group instancing here. One fighter that knows how to play and has the proper hate buffs is optimal...both for healers and for speed of clearing the instance. While things can be done well with a 2nd fighter it just adds a level of complexity to the group which is not needed. That 2nd fighter would be better served tanking his own group. At this point people do instances for fun....no need to create more work than is needed is all im saying.</blockquote>I'm also talking about instancing. I bring the bruiser along because as long as you know how to handle the hate with 2 fighters, and as long as the other fighter knows how to handle hate with a second fighter, there really is no issue with holding agro. The bruiser LOVES getting amends because then he can ninja pull mobs onto me because he's devious like that, but by no means does he require it to prevent him from pulling agro. Besides, the monk/bruiser raid wide buff is equally as good for groups as it is for raids, and I don't object to having the zerker/sk buffs either.Without him in group, I can't pull entire rooms at a time because I'll die from the damage. With him, he can intercede and give me a nice chunk of avoidance and pull some mobs off to spread the damage out so our healer can use their group heals to better effect and he can use his own heals which otherwise would go to waste since bruiser heals are self heals including the NICE one on their mythical. On my warden for example, he can't heal more than 3.2k damage per second on one person, but if the damage is spread out across the group, he's hit 12k hps before on valdoartus varsoon and could have still gone higher. While that is an extreme example since it was on varsoon in the fire room and he's a warden and I'm thuroughly enjoying their OP group heal numbers, it is not an example that cannot be used as an example. If you have a healer that can push more group heals than they can single target heals, it would be better to spread the damage out slightly especially if you have a fight such as many small mobs so that their group heals can be used rather than wasted. Might as well use it if its there, even if it is in an unconventional manner. Bruisers intercede + self heal and avoidance buff on a plate tank is a great example of making it easier on the healer with 2 fighters.TBH, if both fighters know how to play with more than one fighter in group, it will actually make your agro easy mode. It's just that key part of both knowing how to work together to utilize each other's hate rather than work against each other which unfortunately is designed to naturally happens unless you manipulate your hate output. (Now we wont run my tanks with his anymore since I will have an 80 troub and on our servers troubs are a myth.)</blockquote>Maybe its easier for Pally to work with another fighter in terms of hate.....but for me on my Guard every time I group with another fighter.....of any type it turns into a mess. Typically I just give up and tell the other one to tank......ok usually its my healer telling me to do that. Or could be the few times I have taken a 2nd fighter ive gotten idiots.

BChizzle

10-12-2009, 01:41 PM

<cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>ReverendPaqo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yeah sure but I am talking about group instancing here. One fighter that knows how to play and has the proper hate buffs is optimal...both for healers and for speed of clearing the instance. While things can be done well with a 2nd fighter it just adds a level of complexity to the group which is not needed. That 2nd fighter would be better served tanking his own group. At this point people do instances for fun....no need to create more work than is needed is all im saying.</blockquote>I'm also talking about instancing. I bring the bruiser along because as long as you know how to handle the hate with 2 fighters, and as long as the other fighter knows how to handle hate with a second fighter, there really is no issue with holding agro. The bruiser LOVES getting amends because then he can ninja pull mobs onto me because he's devious like that, but by no means does he require it to prevent him from pulling agro. Besides, the monk/bruiser raid wide buff is equally as good for groups as it is for raids, and I don't object to having the zerker/sk buffs either.Without him in group, I can't pull entire rooms at a time because I'll die from the damage. With him, he can intercede and give me a nice chunk of avoidance and pull some mobs off to spread the damage out so our healer can use their group heals to better effect and he can use his own heals which otherwise would go to waste since bruiser heals are self heals including the NICE one on their mythical. On my warden for example, he can't heal more than 3.2k damage per second on one person, but if the damage is spread out across the group, he's hit 12k hps before on valdoartus varsoon and could have still gone higher. While that is an extreme example since it was on varsoon in the fire room and he's a warden and I'm thuroughly enjoying their OP group heal numbers, it is not an example that cannot be used as an example. If you have a healer that can push more group heals than they can single target heals, it would be better to spread the damage out slightly especially if you have a fight such as many small mobs so that their group heals can be used rather than wasted. Might as well use it if its there, even if it is in an unconventional manner. Bruisers intercede + self heal and avoidance buff on a plate tank is a great example of making it easier on the healer with 2 fighters.TBH, if both fighters know how to play with more than one fighter in group, it will actually make your agro easy mode. It's just that key part of both knowing how to work together to utilize each other's hate rather than work against each other which unfortunately is designed to naturally happens unless you manipulate your hate output. (Now we wont run my tanks with his anymore since I will have an 80 troub and on our servers troubs are a myth.)</blockquote>Maybe its easier for Pally to work with another fighter in terms of hate.....but for me on my Guard every time I group with another fighter.....of any type it turns into a mess. Typically I just give up and tell the other one to tank......ok usually its my healer telling me to do that. Or could be the few times I have taken a 2nd fighter ive gotten idiots.</blockquote>You've gotten idiots. Like I said I'll bring a scrub tank along and be doing 10k more dps then them and watch them pull agro, the only way it is remotely possible is if they are being stupid and hitting positionals. I just let my healer know not to bother healing them and eventually they learn. Part of being a good tank is knowing the right times to be tops agro and when to be just enough behind where 1 positional gets you to the top that doesn't change just because it is group content.

RafaelSmith

10-12-2009, 04:30 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>ReverendPaqo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yeah sure but I am talking about group instancing here. One fighter that knows how to play and has the proper hate buffs is optimal...both for healers and for speed of clearing the instance. While things can be done well with a 2nd fighter it just adds a level of complexity to the group which is not needed. That 2nd fighter would be better served tanking his own group. At this point people do instances for fun....no need to create more work than is needed is all im saying.</blockquote>I'm also talking about instancing. I bring the bruiser along because as long as you know how to handle the hate with 2 fighters, and as long as the other fighter knows how to handle hate with a second fighter, there really is no issue with holding agro. The bruiser LOVES getting amends because then he can ninja pull mobs onto me because he's devious like that, but by no means does he require it to prevent him from pulling agro. Besides, the monk/bruiser raid wide buff is equally as good for groups as it is for raids, and I don't object to having the zerker/sk buffs either.Without him in group, I can't pull entire rooms at a time because I'll die from the damage. With him, he can intercede and give me a nice chunk of avoidance and pull some mobs off to spread the damage out so our healer can use their group heals to better effect and he can use his own heals which otherwise would go to waste since bruiser heals are self heals including the NICE one on their mythical. On my warden for example, he can't heal more than 3.2k damage per second on one person, but if the damage is spread out across the group, he's hit 12k hps before on valdoartus varsoon and could have still gone higher. While that is an extreme example since it was on varsoon in the fire room and he's a warden and I'm thuroughly enjoying their OP group heal numbers, it is not an example that cannot be used as an example. If you have a healer that can push more group heals than they can single target heals, it would be better to spread the damage out slightly especially if you have a fight such as many small mobs so that their group heals can be used rather than wasted. Might as well use it if its there, even if it is in an unconventional manner. Bruisers intercede + self heal and avoidance buff on a plate tank is a great example of making it easier on the healer with 2 fighters.TBH, if both fighters know how to play with more than one fighter in group, it will actually make your agro easy mode. It's just that key part of both knowing how to work together to utilize each other's hate rather than work against each other which unfortunately is designed to naturally happens unless you manipulate your hate output. (Now we wont run my tanks with his anymore since I will have an 80 troub and on our servers troubs are a myth.)</blockquote>Maybe its easier for Pally to work with another fighter in terms of hate.....but for me on my Guard every time I group with another fighter.....of any type it turns into a mess. Typically I just give up and tell the other one to tank......ok usually its my healer telling me to do that. Or could be the few times I have taken a 2nd fighter ive gotten idiots.</blockquote>You've gotten idiots. Like I said I'll bring a scrub tank along and be doing 10k more dps then them and watch them pull agro, the only way it is remotely possible is if they are being stupid and hitting positionals. I just let my healer know not to bother healing them and eventually they learn. Part of being a good tank is knowing the right times to be tops agro and when to be just enough behind where 1 positional gets you to the top that doesn't change just because it is group content.</blockquote>Yep. My original point was that there really is no valid reason to run 2 tanks in group instances.....Sure its possible to make it work and if both are really good at their toons you can accomplish some interesting things....but nothing that would not be alot easier and more efficient if you just had a solid single tank group with good class makeup.I know on my Assassin which is really the only toon a do PuGs with its hard enough finding a single competent tank......but finding 2 that are both good and can work out the synergy involved is impossible. On my assassin if I accept a invite to a PuG...and then realize it has a fighter yet they are "seeking a tank"......i disband.Unless content is designed specifically around it..2 tanks in a group makes no sense.Personally I think alot of people are asking for the wrong type of tank balance........trying to tweak/kludge content so that 2 tanks in a group or 6 in a raid is somehow optimal is stupid. Should instead be asking that all 6 tank classes are designed and balanced properly so that they all can compete for whatever tank roles may exist in a group or raid.. ..but those tank spots should make sense and actually be required.

Aule

10-12-2009, 08:00 PM

I've tanked every group instance with my alt bruiser. Every time I group with people I don't already know I end up with comments of "I didn't realize bruisers could tank that well". Most of the things that really annoy me about the current state of brawlers are little things that could be fixed in less than a day. Just change all the ca's/aa's that rely on int, spell crit, or base spell damage to rely on str, melee crit and base melee damage and that would be a big step in the right direction. Allowing aggro lock to work in more places, or altering the mechanic, either way. Also, if you're going to have strikethrough, at least have the damage that get's through mitigated by your deflection chance (and only deflection). That would give us a step towards being able to take the hits that get by.

Aull

10-12-2009, 08:54 PM

<cite>Aule@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote>I've tanked every group instance with my alt bruiser. Every time I group with people I don't already know I end up with comments of "I didn't realize bruisers could tank that well". Most of the things that really annoy me about the current state of brawlers are little things that could be fixed in less than a day. Just change all the ca's/aa's that rely on int, spell crit, or base spell damage to rely on str, melee crit and base melee damage and that would be a big step in the right direction. Allowing aggro lock to work in more places, or altering the mechanic, either way. Also, if you're going to have strikethrough, at least have the damage that get's through mitigated by your deflection chance (and only deflection). That would give us a step towards being able to take the hits that get by.</blockquote>I agree. Not just for brawlers but I would place the guardian there as well.For me I still believe that giving brawlers and guards better aoe threat capabilities can and should be done now without waiting till the next expansion. That is priority number 1.Avoidance issues and strikethrough can worked out as we journey along to the next expansion.

Aule

10-13-2009, 03:19 AM

I did get a reply from a pm a sent Aerilak about the easy stuff. He was considerate enough to inform me, just in case I hadn't heard, that they have plans to consolidate crits in the expansion.

Dechau

10-13-2009, 05:54 AM

I dont really see or feel the need to be fixed cause in my book we are defo not broken..My bruiser is not uber geared, but I have tanked all heroic instances, solo tanked WoE, raid MT'ed Xebnok/Kultak/Stalker with no problems..Sure I spike a little, but nothing healers cant heal through.. So because the Guardians don't spike as much does that make me broken ??I think not, cause the Guardian can't go into dps mode and spike 13k like I can, so sure he can have a little advantage in tanking..As mentioned before, I also get the - I did not know Bruiser could tank this - a lot of times, and that's a good thing, cause tbh I also got the - I did not know that Dirges could DPS like that - when I was on him.. It does not mean Bruisers suck or needs to be fixed, it just means that there are to many people playing who knows very little about the other 23 classes in the game, cause they have 1 main and have never played an alt..Or they have 1 main and 1 alt and no idea how the rest of the toons work, that their fault and not the Dev’s fault, still does not make us broken or anything..Sure there are things that are not working 100 % as intended, but the same goes for all the other fighters also, all 24 classes prolly have something that is not working correct, so we are not unique in that way at all..Just start with the obvious things like the 40 % AoE AA, stuff that should have been the same from start but still is’nt..We are just fine as we are now, but as all classes you can improve us even more if you want..

jrolla777

10-13-2009, 12:52 PM

<cite>Aule@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote>I did get a reply from a pm a sent Aerilak about the easy stuff. He was considerate enough to inform me, just in case I hadn't heard, that they have plans to consolidate crits in the expansion.</blockquote>Ive read this as well, but it doesnt address some key issues.Crane twirl and dragonfire are on spell crit. With the consolidation of crits, these skills/AA abilities still need to be moved to melee. As i understand the crit consolidation, different classes will have modifiers for melee, spell, heal, etc. Brawlers will not have the spell modifier and thus i think Crane twirl (and other abilities currently using spell crit) will still not crit like our melee skills/autoattack.

BChizzle

10-13-2009, 01:37 PM

Aule

10-13-2009, 06:49 PM

Yeah, I was looking forward to the fighter 2.0 brawler results. And I pm'd him back pointing out what Nancy said, presupposing that consolidation of melee/spell crit and melee/spell base damage doesn't just become hostile crit and hostile base damage and so affect everything.

etch666

10-14-2009, 01:00 PM

I am hoping for sweeping changes and fixes to bruisers via aa's in the next expansion, I cannot stand another xpac of having crappy hit rates when tanking orange epic mobs, perhaps this isnt a problem for monks but it is for bruisers.Fix the hit rate / resist rate on our rescues.Fix the ae agro issues.Fix the aa lines so that they look similar to other tanks in regards to crit / da etc.Make one of our big CA's un resistable - something we can use on the pull that isnt rescue. Its funny to pull a mob with ranged weapon to have it miss twice, then when it gets close - use a couple ca's and a round of auto attack to have them all miss.

Quicksilver74

10-15-2009, 03:13 PM

I agree hit rates are terrible... absolutely terrible to the point that we CANNOT, absolutely CANNOT tank in defensive unless 1 of 2 conditions are met: Our raid has terrible DPS and that is why they aren't pulling aggroor We are tanking a mob that nobody is damaging, IE 2 of the adds on pentaclypse, ultaclypse, or something similar. In defensive I've seen hit rates as low as 15% on epic mobs. That is just plain stupid.

RafaelSmith

10-15-2009, 03:18 PM

<cite>Crabbok@Befallen wrote:</cite><blockquote>In defensive I've seen hit rates as low as 15% on epic mobs. That is just plain stupid.</blockquote>Ouch, and here I thought I had it bad when forced to use Defensive.

Morghus

10-15-2009, 03:33 PM

<cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Crabbok@Befallen wrote:</cite><blockquote>In defensive I've seen hit rates as low as 15% on epic mobs. That is just plain stupid.</blockquote>Ouch, and here I thought I had it bad when forced to use Defensive.</blockquote>Yea, some devs apparently thought it would be cool to give mobs uncontested dodge, parry, riposte, deflect, AND block values.

BChizzle

10-15-2009, 06:54 PM

Dechau

10-16-2009, 04:34 AM

Monks don't suffer from going defensive ??You can say as a Bruiser you defensive stance will make sure you wont get killed, cause no mob is hitting you long enough to make you death..its just impossible to keep it on you while in Def.. Middle stance is useable, but if you really want to be sure you can hold mobs, you will need offensive..So yea PLZ pretty PLZ with sugar on top..FIX OUR HITRATES <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" />

Eliezer

11-24-2009, 05:49 PM

It seems to me that all this boils down to design issues. You cannot have 6 different Tank Classes and expect them all to be the same. If that were the case, then you'd really have one class that you slapped some cosmetic differences on.Instead, I think the way to go is to simply either design content that is varied, or content that is adaptive.For the former, imagine an encounter where there is a Boss that required a Plate Tank, but had some super fast sub-bosses that could only be Off-Tanked by an Avoidance based tank like a Brawler?For the latter, imagine that instances might have scripted interactive events or somesuch that would allow different group/raid makeups to shine."If we go left, we face The Hammer. A giant that can pulverize a man in one blow. If we go right, we face..." blah blah blahOthewise, this is a circular and never ending argument. If Plate and Leather tanks are the same in all respects, as far as what they can do and what they can tank, why kid ourselves that they are different? I mean, people in this thread are even bemoaning that Monks and Bruisers aren't different enough! You cannot be both different and equal.

Lethe5683

11-24-2009, 06:34 PM

Everyone who's complaing about monk and bruiser not being different... that is one of the things making it harder to balance brawlers. Monks and bruisers really should never have been two seperate classes to begin with.<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Brawlers don't need an ae auto attack they should just fix cranetwirl to work more effectively.Why would you want craneflock to be OP to only be nerfed later aka peel?The notion that we are avoidance buff blockers is dumb, while we perform that role great we are tanks not bards.ANYWAYS, I have stated it what seems like a million times, brawlers need a bit of help in ae agro generation, and taking spike damage that is all. They don't need a whole class rebalance when a couple tweaks will do.</blockquote>AoE autoattack would NOT be overpowered. All other tanks get it, there's no reason that we shouldn't too.<cite>Eliezer wrote:</cite><blockquote>You cannot be both different and equal.</blockquote>Yes you can. By achiving the same goal through different yet equally effective methods.<cite>Dechau wrote:</cite><blockquote>Monks don't suffer from going defensive ??You can say as a Bruiser you defensive stance will make sure you wont get killed, cause no mob is hitting you long enough to make you death..its just impossible to keep it on you while in Def.. Middle stance is useable, but if you really want to be sure you can hold mobs, you will need offensive..So yea PLZ pretty PLZ with sugar on top..FIX OUR HITRATES <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>Brawler stances really shouldn't have any penalties of any sort.

BChizzle

11-24-2009, 07:07 PM

<cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote>AoE autoattack would NOT be overpowered. All other tanks get it, there's no reason that we shouldn't too.</blockquote>All other tanks get plate armor you think we should get plate too?

Lethe5683

11-25-2009, 08:40 AM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote>AoE autoattack would NOT be overpowered. All other tanks get it, there's no reason that we shouldn't too.</blockquote>All other tanks get plate armor you think we should get plate too?</blockquote>What the hell are you talking about? Brawlers have much mroe reason to have AoE autoatatck than any of the plate tanks do, but having plate armor on brawlers would be rediculous to say the least. Through AAs we get no AoE autoattack, and less DA/Crit than any of the plate tanks. Our supposed advantage is the ability to dual weild while still having our "shield" which isn't really true since we need to be in defensive as well which means our hit rates will be CRAP.

Lethe5683

11-25-2009, 08:44 AM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>ShinGoku wrote:</cite><blockquote>I still think the 40% ae would be better, our weapons auto damage hitting 8 targets would be sweet!</blockquote>Tank ae frontal auto attacks hit 4 targets. Our proc is a true 360 degree ae that hits 8 targets.</blockquote>Our proc is also a crap amount of damage with a terrible proc rate. Who gives a [Removed for Content] if a disgustingly weak proc can hit 8 targets when a single DA autoattack does as much if not more damage.

Eliezer

11-25-2009, 11:04 AM

<cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Eliezer wrote:</cite><blockquote>You cannot be both different and equal.</blockquote>Yes you can. By achiving the same goal through different yet equally effective methods.</blockquote>If you to split hairs, different and equal are by definition NOT the same. Effectively they are either the same or they are not. This is a video game, there isn't anything really "different" it all boils down to numbers. A "punch" for 1000 damage/threat is the same as an "Axe Blow" for 1000 damage/threat or whatever.If you are interchangeable, then you are effectively the same, it is just different animations/fluff/cosmetics.Your goal can be reached by making Monks tank exactly like a Guardian and just making the Monk do "dodgy" animations which explains why he mitigates the same samage as a Plate Tank. Or whatever. But in the end, you cannot balance everything, it just isn't feasible.I still say the only way to achieve equity and retain class distinctiveness is by altering the content not by altering the classes.

Aull

11-25-2009, 11:41 AM

I still think that needs to stay as a proc. Up the trigger rating some and increase damage to compensate.I do think that altering content and not classes will be better than making all fighters "equal". All tanks should be able to have good "aggro" tools both st and aoe, but tanks like the zerker should be better aoe "dps" since in the beginning that is what made the zerker special as a class.Guardian, paladin, & monk should have had aoe aggro all along and zerkers, sk's, and bruisers should be aoe dps. All capable of doing st and ae content but not all doing it soley through dps.

Eliezer

11-25-2009, 12:09 PM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>I still think that needs to stay as a proc. Up the trigger rating some and increase damage to compensate.I do think that altering content and not classes will be better than making all fighters "equal". All tanks should be able to have good "aggro" tools both st and aoe, but tanks like the zerker should be better aoe "dps" since in the beginning that is what made the zerker special as a class.Guardian, paladin, & monk should have had aoe aggro all along and zerkers, sk's, and bruisers should be aoe dps. All capable of doing st and ae content but not all doing it soley through dps.</blockquote>Agreed. However, as long as they are "different" that is mutually exclusive with "same." :-pPart of the problem is the community as well. MMO Players are notorious for tearing apart the math. If one thing is quantifiably "better" in any way, shape, or form there will be balance complaints.However, I concur that there is no reason not to give them all good AOE aggro abilities, but the bottom line is that calls for equalization and calls for differentiation are mutually exclusive design goals.

BChizzle

11-25-2009, 01:14 PM

<cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Our proc is also a crap amount of damage with a terrible proc rate. Who gives a [Removed for Content] if a disgustingly weak proc can hit 8 targets when a single DA autoattack does as much if not more damage.</blockquote>I agree the proc rate should be increased and damage increased, but I will disagree with your solution of dropping the proc all together. We already have an ae auto attack when we hit craneflock even if its just 16 seconds, I think cranetwirl should stay but be fixed to be more inline with ae auto attack damage. At one point before auto attack damage went sky rocketing it was an effective way to maintain ae agro, then mythicals hit and plate tanks are doing 7-8k hits x4 and it got unbalanced.

Lethe5683

11-25-2009, 06:14 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Our proc is also a crap amount of damage with a terrible proc rate. Who gives a [Removed for Content] if a disgustingly weak proc can hit 8 targets when a single DA autoattack does as much if not more damage.</blockquote>I agree the proc rate should be increased and damage increased, but I will disagree with your solution of dropping the proc all together. We already have an ae auto attack when we hit craneflock even if its just 16 seconds, I think cranetwirl should stay but be fixed to be more inline with ae auto attack damage. At one point before auto attack damage went sky rocketing it was an effective way to maintain ae agro, then mythicals hit and plate tanks are doing 7-8k hits x4 and it got unbalanced.</blockquote>I understand what you mean, but do you think that they intend do fix autoatatck damage anytime soon? Or even keep it from further spiraling out of control? If it was a proc that somehow scaled with weapon damage that would be fine. But I don't see any way of doing that, or any reason we sholdn't get AoE autoattack all the time, not just once every 3 pulls.<cite>Eliezer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Eliezer wrote:</cite><blockquote>You cannot be both different and equal.</blockquote>Yes you can. By achiving the same goal through different yet equally effective methods.</blockquote>If you to split hairs, different and equal are by definition NOT the same. Effectively they are either the same or they are not. This is a video game, there isn't anything really "different" it all boils down to numbers. A "punch" for 1000 damage/threat is the same as an "Axe Blow" for 1000 damage/threat or whatever.If you are interchangeable, then you are effectively the same, it is just different animations/fluff/cosmetics.Your goal can be reached by making Monks tank exactly like a Guardian and just making the Monk do "dodgy" animations which explains why he mitigates the same samage as a Plate Tank. Or whatever. But in the end, you cannot balance everything, it just isn't feasible.I still say the only way to achieve equity and retain class distinctiveness is by altering the content not by altering the classes.</blockquote>You are misunderstanding the defenition of equal. Equal only means the same when talking in terms on quantity or quality, but not when describing subtle differences.Here's a hypothetical situation which is obviously not like the way classes are currently in EQ2:Tank 1:-High Mit-Low Avoidance-Medium DPSTank 2:-Low Mit-High Avoidance-High DPSNow those are clearly different but look equal on paper. Clearly though this would not work in reality since of the way avoidance works in EQ2. This could be fixed though just by instead giving Tank 1 some "oh sensored" aggro management abilities for when their medicore DPS isn't enough to hold hate. Then in turn giving Tank 2 some "oh sensored" defensive abilities to keep them from dieing everytime there is unusually high spike damage. In theory this would make two different but equal tank types.

Rahatmattata

11-25-2009, 11:01 PM

<cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Tank 1:-High Mit-Low Avoidance-Medium DPSTank 2:-Low Mit-High Avoidance-High DPSUm, I know it's just hypothetical, but that is not equal. For your model to be equal either tank1 would need high dps, or tank2 would need medium dps.</blockquote>

Eliezer

11-26-2009, 04:05 PM

<cite>Trisscuit@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>You are misunderstanding the defenition of equal. Equal only means the same when talking in terms on quantity or quality, but not when describing subtle differences. Here's a hypothetical situation which is obviously not like the way classes are currently in EQ2:Tank 1:-High Mit-Low Avoidance-Medium DPSTank 2:-Low Mit-High Avoidance-High DPS Now those are clearly different but look equal on paper. Clearly though this would not work in reality since of the way avoidance works in EQ2. This could be fixed though just by instead giving Tank 1 some "oh sensored" aggro management abilities for when their medicore DPS isn't enough to hold hate. Then in turn giving Tank 2 some "oh sensored" defensive abilities to keep them from dieing everytime there is unusually high spike damage. In theory this would make two different but equal tank types.</blockquote>No, I understand what you are getting at. However, I am being more realistic about it. In your example, you have two tanks that have 3 different stats on their character sheet, but in the end, can tank the same mobs equally well.I don't have an issue with that, and that is certainly a good compromise if that can be achieved. That being said, it doesn't answer the more metaphysical issue: If they can do everything the same, what is the point of those 3 different stats being different? It becomes simply a matter of esthetics.I am positing that there is no reason to have Mitigation tanks AND avoidance tanks if there are not some instances when one or the other are superior. See what I am getting it? There are two reasons to have diversity, either they have functional differences, or merely cosmetic ones.EDIT: And even beyond this, different specs, different AA selectsions, etc. should provide some functional differences or else again, what is the point?

Lethe5683

11-27-2009, 03:11 AM

<cite>Eliezer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Trisscuit@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>You are misunderstanding the defenition of equal. Equal only means the same when talking in terms on quantity or quality, but not when describing subtle differences. Here's a hypothetical situation which is obviously not like the way classes are currently in EQ2:Tank 1:-High Mit-Low Avoidance-Medium DPSTank 2:-Low Mit-High Avoidance-High DPS Now those are clearly different but look equal on paper. Clearly though this would not work in reality since of the way avoidance works in EQ2. This could be fixed though just by instead giving Tank 1 some "oh sensored" aggro management abilities for when their medicore DPS isn't enough to hold hate. Then in turn giving Tank 2 some "oh sensored" defensive abilities to keep them from dieing everytime there is unusually high spike damage. In theory this would make two different but equal tank types.</blockquote>No, I understand what you are getting at. However, I am being more realistic about it. In your example, you have two tanks that have 3 different stats on their character sheet, but in the end, can tank the same mobs equally well.I don't have an issue with that, and that is certainly a good compromise if that can be achieved. That being said, it doesn't answer the more metaphysical issue: If they can do everything the same, what is the point of those 3 different stats being different? It becomes simply a matter of esthetics.I am positing that there is no reason to have Mitigation tanks AND avoidance tanks if there are not some instances when one or the other are superior. See what I am getting it? There are two reasons to have diversity, either they have functional differences, or merely cosmetic ones.EDIT: And even beyond this, different specs, different AA selectsions, etc. should provide some functional differences or else again, what is the point?</blockquote>I know that each would be superior for certain situations but that doesn't make them unbalanced as long as there is a fairly equal amount of situations that are advantageous to both. Right now avoidance tanking has almost no advantage in any situation.<cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Tank 1:-High Mit-Low Avoidance-Medium DPSTank 2:-Low Mit-High Avoidance-High DPSUm, I know it's just hypothetical, but that is not equal. For your model to be equal either tank1 would need high dps, or tank2 would need medium dps.</blockquote></blockquote>My mistake but you get the idea.Fixed:Tank 1:-High Mit-Medium Avoidance-Medium DPSTank 2:-Low Mit-High Avoidance-High DPS

BChizzle

11-27-2009, 03:52 AM

<cite>Trisscuit@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>My mistake but you get the idea.Fixed:Tank 1:-High Mit-Medium Avoidance-Medium DPSTank 2:-Low Mit-High Avoidance-High DPS</blockquote>Thank Brell you guys don't do tank balancing. The building block on how tanks should be should all start with each and every one of them being able to tank content relatively equal, period. The methods of how that is done can be attained through avoidance, mit, heals/wards, saves etc how its done should be the difference not the end result of one tank being better then another (and not something as imbalanced as a low mit/high avoid vs med avoid/high mit balanced with a dps increase.) This also goes both ways one tank shouldn't be overtly superior in agro generation or dps. Differences can exist but they should be subtle that is what balance is all about.

Lethe5683

11-27-2009, 06:42 AM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Trisscuit@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>My mistake but you get the idea.Fixed:Tank 1:-High Mit-Medium Avoidance-Medium DPSTank 2:-Low Mit-High Avoidance-High DPS</blockquote>Thank Brell you guys don't do tank balancing. The building block on how tanks should be should all start with each and every one of them being able to tank content relatively equal, period. The methods of how that is done can be attained through avoidance, mit, heals/wards, saves etc how its done should be the difference not the end result of one tank being better then another (and not something as imbalanced as a low mit/high avoid vs med avoid/high mit balanced with a dps increase.) This also goes both ways one tank shouldn't be overtly superior in agro generation or dps. Differences can exist but they should be subtle that is what balance is all about.</blockquote>Thanks for stating the obvious. That was only a crude example to show how balance != the same.

BChizzle

11-27-2009, 08:18 AM

<cite>Trisscuit@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>Thanks for stating the obvious. That was only a crude example to show how balance != the same.</blockquote>Considering your example I think you needed the obvious stated.

Aull

11-27-2009, 09:08 PM

I agree that since brawlers are listed as fighters they to should be relatively equal but if brawler dps remains as good as it is will that not conflict with the other plates loosing out? Or is brawler dps equal or behind them now?

BChizzle

11-27-2009, 11:57 PM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>I agree that since brawlers are listed as fighters they to should be relatively equal but if brawler dps remains as good as it is will that not conflict with the other plates loosing out? Or is brawler dps equal or behind them now?</blockquote>All tanks are relatively close in DPS except guards who kind of get shafted.

Aull

11-28-2009, 01:56 AM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>I agree that since brawlers are listed as fighters they to should be relatively equal but if brawler dps remains as good as it is will that not conflict with the other plates loosing out? Or is brawler dps equal or behind them now?</blockquote>All tanks are relatively close in DPS except guards who kind of get shafted.</blockquote>If that is the case then yes all tanks should be relatively equal. If guard dps continues to suck then they should have other abilities that will at least let them have better chances at aggro retention than what they have now.Thanks for your answer Bchizz.

BChizzle

11-28-2009, 07:31 AM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>If that is the case then yes all tanks should be relatively equal. If guard dps continues to suck then they should have other abilities that will at least let them have better chances at aggro retention than what they have now.Thanks for your answer Bchizz.</blockquote>And agro wise they do, but thats kind of where it goes bad. Whats the difference between the second person on the hate meter being at 50% vs 55%? I really like the whole ae tank vs single target and heals vs mit vs avoid differences to a certain point. I can live with an ae tank outparsing me on ae encounters and me outparsing them on single target there is enough of a mix of them in the game. I do think though that single target tanks need to be able to ae tank equal to what ae tanks can do on a single target that is a huge imbalance.End of the day tanks have to be balanced better IMOOne last edit: I think SK's should be the mark where all tanks should be, use their spot as an example and bring every other tank to their balance. There is a reason why so many sk's are around now when a year ago you'd have a better chance spotting bigfoot.

Aull

11-28-2009, 10:43 AM

I still think that each tank should have an area of play that they excel in over another tank. With six tanks that might be hard to make happen but honestly monks should have something that make them stand out just like a paladin should have something that makes them stand out.

BChizzle

11-28-2009, 05:01 PM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>I still think that each tank should have an area of play that they excel in over another tank. With six tanks that might be hard to make happen but honestly monks should have something that make them stand out just like a paladin should have something that makes them stand out.</blockquote>Ya I completely agree with you. I would say though just off the top of my head that monks probably have the best raidwide buff, guardians best dmg absorbtion, SK's best all roundedness, paly best agro transfer, zerk best ae, and bruiser best solo. I think there is enough to make the classes different.

Mosha D'Khan

11-30-2009, 10:46 AM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>I still think that each tank should have an area of play that they excel in over another tank. With six tanks that might be hard to make happen but honestly monks should have something that make them stand out just like a paladin should have something that makes them stand out.</blockquote>Ya I completely agree with you. I would say though just off the top of my head that monks probably have the best raidwide buff, guardians best dmg absorbtion, SK's best all roundedness, paly best agro transfer, zerk best ae, and bruiser best solo. I think there is enough to make the classes different.</blockquote>WOW..... way to throw bruisers under the bus. if we are makeing them solo then why even have the class..... lets make them excel in dps unstead of something every class can do LOL

Aull

11-30-2009, 01:00 PM

I don't think he was intentionally trying to throw bruisers under the bus. It was just a statement off the top of his head. I personally think that guards should have greatest damage absorbtion potential and decent group protection abilities. Zerks greatest aoe damage potential period with lesser group utility. Sk having good aoe damage, best debuffs, soild tank.Monks having a strong combination of being able to tank, excellent group utility and good st dps. Paladins similar to monk but lesser st dps than the monk yet better aoe damage. Basically monks & paladins being most versitile and can cover other areas. Bruisers greatest single target damage potential and 3rd in aoe dps, but lacks the appeal of group utility.That is again just my thoughts as to what I have always thought each fighter was in the world of norrath.

BChizzle

11-30-2009, 05:52 PM

<cite>Mosha DKhan wrote:</cite><blockquote>WOW..... way to throw bruisers under the bus. if we are makeing them solo then why even have the class..... lets make them excel in dps unstead of something every class can do LOL</blockquote>Truth is I had a hard time coming up with what bruisers are best at, but if you were reading what I said earlier I said specifically using DPS as a measurement for balance is a horrible idea.

Lethe5683

11-30-2009, 07:46 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>I still think that each tank should have an area of play that they excel in over another tank. With six tanks that might be hard to make happen but honestly monks should have something that make them stand out just like a paladin should have something that makes them stand out.</blockquote>Ya I completely agree with you. I would say though just off the top of my head that monks probably have the best raidwide buff, guardians best dmg absorbtion, SK's best all roundedness, paly best agro transfer, zerk best ae, and bruiser best solo. I think there is enough to make the classes different.</blockquote>Using your example we would need to heavily nerf almost half the other classes since they are good at solo and highly desired in groups and raids. Using solo ability to balance any class vs another should never for a second considered at all unless what you are balancing is solo ability.

BChizzle

11-30-2009, 10:09 PM

<cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>I still think that each tank should have an area of play that they excel in over another tank. With six tanks that might be hard to make happen but honestly monks should have something that make them stand out just like a paladin should have something that makes them stand out.</blockquote>Ya I completely agree with you. I would say though just off the top of my head that monks probably have the best raidwide buff, guardians best dmg absorbtion, SK's best all roundedness, paly best agro transfer, zerk best ae, and bruiser best solo. I think there is enough to make the classes different.</blockquote>Using your example we would need to heavily nerf almost half the other classes since they are good at solo and highly desired in groups and raids. Using solo ability to balance any class vs another should never for a second considered at all unless what you are balancing is solo ability.</blockquote>You are sadly mistaken if you think I want my class to just be known for having the best raidwide buff, I was giving an example of how things are right now. The guy stated each tank should have something that makes them stand out and I agreed and stated what came to mind.

Aull

11-30-2009, 10:29 PM

Best in basket weaving. No other class is doing that. <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Traxor

12-07-2009, 02:41 AM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>Best in basket weaving. No other class is doing that. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>Underwater Basket weaving. Lets include the difficult parts of the game. There is the holding your breath praying brawlers get fixed next expansion. Like we do every expansion. Guess what. Im breaking the NDA. Brawlers will be broken next expansion.(We all know the water is there to make the reeds softer essentually making it easier, Just like they try to pretend they give brawlers something amazing like 100 percent avoidance for a duration or targert lock. Pffff brawlers arent broken.)

The_Cheeseman

01-24-2010, 01:11 PM

That's right, brawlers are in great shape! Why, look at everything a brawler gets:The lowest uncontested avoidance of all the fighter classes!The lowest damage mitigation of all the fighter classes!Loads of pointless contested avoidance to allow MOBs to show-off their Strikethroughs!The excitement of random 1-shot deaths, made even more harrowing by lack of any form of personal death save!The thrill of deperately tabbing-between countless MOBs to try and hold aggro without any significant AoE DPS!Single-target DPS output to compete with bards, summoners, and druids!Invaluable utility effects like group-wide feign death!But wait... There's MORE! Act now and you can be the laughing stock of the entire EQ2 population! Earn the scorn and derision of your peers while you listen to people talk about raids you've never seen in level chat! Free yourself from the responsibility of a dedicated class role and embark on a relaxing vacation free of raiding and PuGs, be a brawler!

circusgirl

01-24-2010, 04:44 PM

<cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite><blockquote>That's right, brawlers are in great shape! Why, look at everything a brawler gets:The lowest uncontested avoidance of all the fighter classes!The lowest damage mitigation of all the fighter classes!Loads of pointless contested avoidance to allow MOBs to show-off their Strikethroughs!The excitement of random 1-shot deaths, made even more harrowing by lack of any form of personal death save!The thrill of deperately tabbing-between countless MOBs to try and hold aggro without any significant AoE DPS!Single-target DPS output to compete with bards, summoners, and druids!Invaluable utility effects like group-wide feign death!But wait... There's MORE! Act now and you can be the laughing stock of the entire EQ2 population! Earn the scorn and derision of your peers while you listen to people talk about raids you've never seen in level chat! Free yourself from the responsibility of a dedicated class role and embark on a relaxing vacation free of raiding and PuGs, be a brawler!</blockquote>I'm sorry but brawlers do NOT have the lowest uncontested avoidance. That's complete and utter bull. It's pretty easy for a raiding monk to have upwards of 40% uncontested avoidance. Granted, we can give this to the plate tanks and turn them into way more uber tanks, but hey, at least that guarantees us at least one raid slot in any guild where the leader has half a brain. Not to mention, we dps more along the lines of just below the brigands, are on top of the fighter dps for single target (unless you're competing against a Shadowknight with obscene buffage), and have hands down the BEST single-target aggro generation in game. We beat the pants off a guardian when it comes to holding aggro for sure. Look, brawlers desperately need to be fixed, yes. I'm certainly not going to pretend that everything is all peachey-keen, but stuff like this just exacerbates the problem by making people think we're worthless when we're not.

Siatfallen

01-25-2010, 01:46 AM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite><blockquote>That's right, brawlers are in great shape! Why, look at everything a brawler gets:The lowest uncontested avoidance of all the fighter classes!The lowest damage mitigation of all the fighter classes!Loads of pointless contested avoidance to allow MOBs to show-off their Strikethroughs!The excitement of random 1-shot deaths, made even more harrowing by lack of any form of personal death save!The thrill of deperately tabbing-between countless MOBs to try and hold aggro without any significant AoE DPS!Single-target DPS output to compete with bards, summoners, and druids!Invaluable utility effects like group-wide feign death!But wait... There's MORE! Act now and you can be the laughing stock of the entire EQ2 population! Earn the scorn and derision of your peers while you listen to people talk about raids you've never seen in level chat! Free yourself from the responsibility of a dedicated class role and embark on a relaxing vacation free of raiding and PuGs, be a brawler!</blockquote>I'm sorry but brawlers do NOT have the lowest uncontested avoidance. That's complete and utter bull. It's pretty easy for a raiding monk to have upwards of 40% uncontested avoidance. Granted, we can give this to the plate tanks and turn them into way more uber tanks, but hey, at least that guarantees us at least one raid slot in any guild where the leader has half a brain. Not to mention, we dps more along the lines of just below the brigands, are on top of the fighter dps for single target (unless you're competing against a Shadowknight with obscene buffage), and have hands down the BEST single-target aggro generation in game. We beat the pants off a guardian when it comes to holding aggro for sure. Look, brawlers desperately need to be fixed, yes. I'm certainly not going to pretend that everything is all peachey-keen, but stuff like this just exacerbates the problem by making people think we're worthless when we're not.</blockquote>x2 this.I'm guessing the claim about DPS being on par with bards comes from before the proc nerf (so all the way back before summer?), where I distinctly remember people here complaining about dirges creeping over them on palace trash parses and troubadours being about equal. Could we axe this one already?As for parsing on par with summoners on single target content... Do your summoners suck or something?Uncontested avoidance being the lowest of all fighters was true from KoS (where uncontested avoidance was introduced in the first place, along with mob to hit bonuses) and up until now - in offensive stance it is still true I suppose, because of how brawler stances work; looking at defensive stance, it hasn't been true since the launch of tSO - you can complain about us needing to spend points in the tSO AA tree to obtain the edge our classes are supposed to have from the get-go if you want, though; that does suck.The rest seems about right.And Vinka should stop beating the pants off her guild's guardians.

The_Cheeseman

01-25-2010, 06:46 AM

Okay, I fully admit to employing hyperbole in that post, but it was really more of a "blow-off steam" thing than a "I want to post an honest measurement of brawler abilities."However, I do still claim that we have the lowest uncontested avoidance in the majority of situations. Brawlers can only match the uncontested avoidance of a shield-wearer when we are in defensive stance. In that stance, our melee accuracy is abysmal (like all fighters) and since most of our aggro relies on melee attacks, holding aggro in defensive is extremely difficult, if possible at all. Therefore, I claim that since most tanks do so in offensive (or for brawlers, balanced) stance, we do, in fact, have lower uncontested than other fighters.Also, bards definitely account for a lot more DPS than monks, they just don't show as much of it on ACT. We can generally parse higher than an individual bard, but that DPS number we got was also inflated by the bard himself. Heck, if it were possible to show how much of the raid's overall DPS was thanks to bards, we'd probably have predators and sorcerers up in arms.Yes, we do have the highest single-target aggro generation (as long as we're in offensive stance). In fact, our single-target aggro generation is even slightly higher than the aggro SKs and Paladins can generate against every MOB around them! Why am I suddenly not feeling so special...Getting brawlers fixed isn't going to happen unless SOE realizes how honestly broken we are. I love my class as much as anybody, which is why I have played this monk for 5 years. However, there definitely are major flaws in the current design of the class, and they definitely are causing brawlers to be considered the least-useful class in the game. Playing it off like we're only minorly inconvenienced when we're almost completely unable to compete with other classes in our primary role will only serve to make others wonder why we're complaining. Brawlers are broken, we need to be fixed.

Terron

01-25-2010, 11:59 AM

<cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite><blockquote>However, I do still claim that we have the lowest uncontested avoidance in the majority of situations. Brawlers can only match the uncontested avoidance of a shield-wearer when we are in defensive stance. In that stance, our melee accuracy is abysmal (like all fighters) and since most of our aggro relies on melee attacks, holding aggro in defensive is extremely difficult, if possible at all. Therefore, I claim that since most tanks do so in offensive (or for brawlers, balanced) stance, we do, in fact, have lower uncontested than other fighters.</blockquote>Guardian's accuracy is not abyssmal in defensive (due to the group buff they have).Warriors in offensive stance for max damage and thus aggro will usually be dual wielding and thus not be getting uncontested avoidance either.But when you are able to tank in offensive is when you don't need the avoidance. It is when you need to be in defensive that it really matters.

Gilasil

01-25-2010, 03:28 PM

Several people mentioned DPS as one thing which can be balanced.I agree IF and ONLY IF it's understood that we're talking about T1 DPS here.If the class isn't good enough to tank, and is only brought along on groups and raids for dps, then they need to generate as much dps as other classes which are brought along solely for dps. Nobody's going to bring along a crappy fighter just because his dps isn't qute as deep in the gutter as other fighters, when they can instead bring along a dps class which does MUCH nicer dps.Brawlers aren't even close to T1 dps currently.In any event, by now SoE has made all the decisions they're going to make with regards to the new expansion. What will be will be and we'll find out if brawlers get shafted this year too.

ShinGoku

01-25-2010, 07:45 PM

My magic 8-ball says.... Outlook not very good at all.

Aull

01-25-2010, 09:02 PM

My questions are how many brawlers want brawlers to be strickly dps and loose survivability as the cost for that increase in dps?OrHow many brawlers want brawlers to be as good as plate tanks in survival and loose what dps they currently have?These questions are probably irrelevant now any way.

Mosha D'Khan

01-26-2010, 01:18 AM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>My questions are how many brawlers want brawlers to be strickly dps and loose survivability as the cost for that increase in dps?OrHow many brawlers want brawlers to be as good as plate tanks in survival and loose what dps they currently have?These questions are probably irrelevant now any way. </blockquote>well cant do either of these with out taking away what brawlers really are. if they just make avoidance worth something and nerf plate tanks aviodance so it would match the mit a brawler could get things my even out.

alabama

01-26-2010, 02:08 PM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>My questions are how many brawlers want brawlers to be strickly dps and loose survivability as the cost for that increase in dps?OrHow many brawlers want brawlers to be as good as plate tanks in survival and loose what dps they currently have?These questions are probably irrelevant now any way. </blockquote>Why should we lose dps to gain survivability, the plates except for guards out dps us.Why should we lose survivability to gain dps when all fighters except for guards have better survivability then us and have better dps.They have us so messed up most of you are willing to settle for a crumb, well i want my sandwich back they can keep the crumbs

Gilasil

01-26-2010, 03:38 PM

This is actually a good question. We can't really expect SoE to slot brawlers into a desired place when even the players can't agree what brawlers should do. It's not reasonable to give them both T1 DPS and good tanking ability.There was a poll some time ago on EQFlames and as I recall there wasn't any clear direction from people who were supposedly playing brawlers.If it were up to me, with one caveat I'd put them into the usual fighter role of tank. They're fighters, they can already tank if geared better then average, it's a reasonable place for them to be. HOWEVER:That caveat is that there is a problem which all fighters face which also must be addressed. That problem is there's no need for more then one fighter in a group or (usually) 2 or so in a raid. Extra fighters just drag everyone else down by taking slots which could have been given to another non-fighter class which could contribute more. SoE needs to find a reason why groups can profitably use more then one fighter just like groups can currently profitably use more then one healer, scout, or caster. Likewise, they need to fix it so that raids can profitably use more then two fighters, just like raids can currently use more then two healers, scouts, or casters. Things should be set up so that frequently an optimum raid force would consist of six fighters.If SoE can't or won't fix this problem that all fighters face, then adding brawlers to the mix just means even more fighters competing for too few slots. In that case it would probably be best for everyone for brawlers to be made into T1 melee dps instead, with survivability comperable to other T1 melee dps.But I'd prefer the tanking role. That's what I had in mind when I rolled my brawler, that's what I enjoy doing.

mr23sgte

01-26-2010, 05:54 PM

<cite>ShinGoku wrote:</cite><blockquote>My magic 8-ball says.... Outlook not very good at all.</blockquote>My Tarot cards agree with your 8-ball

Aull

01-26-2010, 10:15 PM

<cite>Gilasil wrote:</cite><blockquote>This is actually a good question. We can't really expect SoE to slot brawlers into a desired place when even the players can't agree what brawlers should do. It's not reasonable to give them both T1 DPS and good tanking ability.There was a poll some time ago on EQFlames and as I recall there wasn't any clear direction from people who were supposedly playing brawlers.If it were up to me, with one caveat I'd put them into the usual fighter role of tank. They're fighters, they can already tank if geared better then average, it's a reasonable place for them to be. HOWEVER:That caveat is that there is a problem which all fighters face which also must be addressed. That problem is there's no need for more then one fighter in a group or (usually) 2 or so in a raid. Extra fighters just drag everyone else down by taking slots which could have been given to another non-fighter class which could contribute more. SoE needs to find a reason why groups can profitably use more then one fighter just like groups can currently profitably use more then one healer, scout, or caster. Likewise, they need to fix it so that raids can profitably use more then two fighters, just like raids can currently use more then two healers, scouts, or casters. Things should be set up so that frequently an optimum raid force would consist of six fighters.If SoE can't or won't fix this problem that all fighters face, then adding brawlers to the mix just means even more fighters competing for too few slots. In that case it would probably be best for everyone for brawlers to be made into T1 melee dps instead, with survivability comperable to other T1 melee dps.But I'd prefer the tanking role. That's what I had in mind when I rolled my brawler, that's what I enjoy doing.</blockquote>Brilliant post.It has been said that dps, utility, and heals stack. Tanking to a point doesn't. I think that is why many brawlers claim or want to be more dps oriented. Brawler utility is not a reason for having them in groups or raids cause they really do not offer much. Tanking has always been centered around a plate/shield wearing fighter too. So again this leaves brawlers with the title that if you want a tank get a plate and if you want dps get a dps class.If brawlers remain a mix of ok tanking and ok dps then they will continue to suffer. Brawlers not being able to excel in either department is what keeps them lingering in the shadows.I don't think that any fighter like my sk should be dumping out high dps numbers on both single and aoe targets in plate armor and using a sword and board and having solid utility should be happening. This too has made many brawlers who witness this ponder the question as why this is allowed to happen for a class like the sk and brawlers remain in their current state of not being able to dump out those dps numbers duel wielding and their survival still not up to par.Brawlers even with what survival tools are given them will go "splat" in a moments notice faster and far more consistantly than a plate fighter. This has been stated more times than I can recall. This for one should most definately be addressed if brawlers are to fulfil what a fighter tries to accomplish.

Gungo

01-26-2010, 10:53 PM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gilasil wrote:</cite><blockquote>This is actually a good question. We can't really expect SoE to slot brawlers into a desired place when even the players can't agree what brawlers should do. It's not reasonable to give them both T1 DPS and good tanking ability.There was a poll some time ago on EQFlames and as I recall there wasn't any clear direction from people who were supposedly playing brawlers.If it were up to me, with one caveat I'd put them into the usual fighter role of tank. They're fighters, they can already tank if geared better then average, it's a reasonable place for them to be. HOWEVER:That caveat is that there is a problem which all fighters face which also must be addressed. That problem is there's no need for more then one fighter in a group or (usually) 2 or so in a raid. Extra fighters just drag everyone else down by taking slots which could have been given to another non-fighter class which could contribute more. SoE needs to find a reason why groups can profitably use more then one fighter just like groups can currently profitably use more then one healer, scout, or caster. Likewise, they need to fix it so that raids can profitably use more then two fighters, just like raids can currently use more then two healers, scouts, or casters. Things should be set up so that frequently an optimum raid force would consist of six fighters.If SoE can't or won't fix this problem that all fighters face, then adding brawlers to the mix just means even more fighters competing for too few slots. In that case it would probably be best for everyone for brawlers to be made into T1 melee dps instead, with survivability comperable to other T1 melee dps.But I'd prefer the tanking role. That's what I had in mind when I rolled my brawler, that's what I enjoy doing.</blockquote>Brilliant post.It has been said that dps, utility, and heals stack. Tanking to a point doesn't. I think that is why many brawlers claim or want to be more dps oriented. Brawler utility is not a reason for having them in groups or raids cause they really do not offer much. Tanking has always been centered around a plate/shield wearing fighter too. So again this leaves brawlers with the title that if you want a tank get a plate and if you want dps get a dps class.If brawlers remain a mix of ok tanking and ok dps then they will continue to suffer. Brawlers not being able to excel in either department is what keeps them lingering in the shadows.I don't think that any fighter like my sk should be dumping out high dps numbers on both single and aoe targets in plate armor and using a sword and board and having solid utility should be happening. This too has made many brawlers who witness this ponder the question as why this is allowed to happen for a class like the sk and brawlers remain in their current state of not being able to dump out those dps numbers duel wielding and their survival still not up to par.Brawlers even with what survival tools are given them will go "splat" in a moments notice faster and far more consistantly than a plate fighter. This has been stated more times than I can recall. This for one should most definately be addressed if brawlers are to fulfil what a fighter tries to accomplish.</blockquote>Just ot be fair you cant just lump shadowknights into the dps vs tanking debate of brawlers, because zerkers produce comparable dps. Paladins even out dps brawlers vs aoe encounters and are not terribly behind them in single target. Heck even guards do more aoe dps then brawlers if they spec for aoe auto atk.

Aull

01-27-2010, 01:25 AM

Very true Gungo. My zerker too does excellent fighter dps. Not as strong in single target but with his mythical aoe dps is far better than my bruisers aoe dps. Not trying to change the subject but if my zerker didn't have the mythical then he to would be behind crusaders in aoe just for the fact that crusaders have more aoe abilites.That is why I believe that many brawlers are upset when they do not have the survival of plates and brawler dps isn't as high zw when comparing them to the more aoe damage that plates have if aoe targets are heavly present. In a raid and heroic setting at least. Single target dps for the brawlers is good in everyday norrath and same for survival with same lvl or lower lvl mobs.I do believe that brawler avoidance should be noticable or actually work vs the higher lvl mobs. Its just sad when a brawler is tanking and everything looks good until they are against a mob that strikes through any avoid defense they possess and then splat. Dead brawler. This might not be as evident with fully end game geared brawlers. For those that are not fully end game geared are the ones that suffer the most.

ShinGoku

01-27-2010, 09:05 AM

<cite>Hereo@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>ShinGoku wrote:</cite><blockquote>My magic 8-ball says.... Outlook not very good at all.</blockquote>My Tarot cards agree with your 8-ball</blockquote>/nods slowly.My divining rod says the same, as do my chicken bones and my force meditations lol

BChizzle

01-27-2010, 11:15 PM

<cite>ShinGoku wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Hereo@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>ShinGoku wrote:</cite><blockquote>My magic 8-ball says.... Outlook not very good at all.</blockquote>My Tarot cards agree with your 8-ball</blockquote>/nods slowly.My divining rod says the same, as do my chicken bones and my force meditations lol</blockquote>My dice say you guys are dumb for believing in the predictions of inanimate objects.

Aull

01-27-2010, 11:22 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>ShinGoku wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Hereo@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>ShinGoku wrote:</cite><blockquote>My magic 8-ball says.... Outlook not very good at all.</blockquote>My Tarot cards agree with your 8-ball</blockquote>/nods slowly.My divining rod says the same, as do my chicken bones and my force meditations lol</blockquote>My dice say you guys are dumb for believing in the predictions of inanimate objects.</blockquote>LOL.

Rahatmattata

01-28-2010, 05:57 AM

I think the easiest quickest fix would be to boost brawler dps so that bruiser dps is comparable to swash and monk comparable to brigand. You would be able to hold aggro. This should make brawlers the highest dps fighters to offset being the spikeyest/softest. I mean, a good rogue should be putting out more damage than a shadowknight.This would bring more raid desirability. You can bring rogues for debuffs, or brawlers for snap tanking/avoidance buff/other... Raid dps would go up with brig debuffs, and tanks would take less damage with swash debuffs, but brawlers would bring the same personal dps and support the raid in different ways. It might be better to bring a bruiser that parses like a swash and can do other utility type things on a raid rather than another assassin that parses a bit higher.You would still have the same survivability you have now (which isn't horrible), but do enough dps and other tricks to warrant a slot in a raid/group. I admit I've never played a brawler passed 50, and I don't know the details of how to work something like that out... but I think the general idea could work for most brawlers.

Novusod

01-28-2010, 09:06 AM

<cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote>I think the easiest quickest fix would be to boost brawler dps so that bruiser dps is comparable to swash and monk comparable to brigand. You would be able to hold aggro. This should make brawlers the highest dps fighters to offset being the spikeyest/softest. I mean, a good rogue should be putting out more damage than a shadowknight.This would bring more raid desirability. You can bring rogues for debuffs, or brawlers for snap tanking/avoidance buff/other... Raid dps would go up with brig debuffs, and tanks would take less damage with swash debuffs, but brawlers would bring the same personal dps and support the raid in different ways. It might be better to bring a bruiser that parses like a swash and can do other utility type things on a raid rather than another assassin that parses a bit higher.You would still have the same survivability you have now (which isn't horrible), but do enough dps and other tricks to warrant a slot in a raid/group. I admit I've never played a brawler passed 50, and I don't know the details of how to work something like that out... but I think the general idea could work for most brawlers.</blockquote>If you never played a brawler past 50 then you have no clue what you are talking about. The brawlers are NOT dps. Brawlers are not even dps among fighters. The raid main brawlers are TANKS. Those who care deeply about the class want to be tanks. I have tanked Ykesha and Avatars on my bruiser and I use the tank avatar gearset. Those who say brawlers are not tanks are out of their minds. Yes there are some broken mechanics that work against the brawlers such as strikethrough/double attacks but that does not mean Brawlers are not tanks. It is players like you that confuse the issues and give brawlers a bad name.

Aull

01-28-2010, 11:00 AM

I know this is old but this described what to expect from brawlers. <a href="http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/everquest-ii/guide/page_7.html">http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/everquest-...ide/page_7.html</a>

jrolla777

01-28-2010, 07:44 PM

<cite>gamespy wrote:</cite><blockquote>Brawlers would much rather use a blunt any day. cant argue with thatBrawlers get many area-of-effect (AoE) attacks, thus making them more able to hold aggro of many monsters. wrongFighters to the core, Monks will still be responsible for bearing the brunt of their party's foe's attacks. yup we're tanks afterall</blockquote>so yeah, its all old information. but it was fun to read about the old class quests we did at release.

Rahatmattata

01-28-2010, 08:36 PM

<cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote>I think the easiest quickest fix would be to boost brawler dps so that bruiser dps is comparable to swash and monk comparable to brigand. You would be able to hold aggro. This should make brawlers the highest dps fighters to offset being the spikeyest/softest. I mean, a good rogue should be putting out more damage than a shadowknight.This would bring more raid desirability. You can bring rogues for debuffs, or brawlers for snap tanking/avoidance buff/other... Raid dps would go up with brig debuffs, and tanks would take less damage with swash debuffs, but brawlers would bring the same personal dps and support the raid in different ways. It might be better to bring a bruiser that parses like a swash and can do other utility type things on a raid rather than another assassin that parses a bit higher.You would still have the same survivability you have now (which isn't horrible), but do enough dps and other tricks to warrant a slot in a raid/group. I admit I've never played a brawler passed 50, and I don't know the details of how to work something like that out... but I think the general idea could work for most brawlers.</blockquote>If you never played a brawler past 50 then you have no clue what you are talking about. The brawlers are NOT dps. Brawlers are not even dps among fighters. The raid main brawlers are TANKS. Those who care deeply about the class want to be tanks. I have tanked Ykesha and Avatars on my bruiser and I use the tank avatar gearset. Those who say brawlers are not tanks are out of their minds. Yes there are some broken mechanics that work against the brawlers such as strikethrough/double attacks but that does not mean Brawlers are not tanks. It is players like you that confuse the issues and give brawlers a bad name. </blockquote>I don't even get what you are ranting about dude. I suggested brawler's do more dps and you get butt hurt? Doesn't surprise me really. Most people are pretty dumb.

Couching

01-28-2010, 08:48 PM

<cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote>I think the easiest quickest fix would be to boost brawler dps so that bruiser dps is comparable to swash and monk comparable to brigand. You would be able to hold aggro. This should make brawlers the highest dps fighters to offset being the spikeyest/softest. I mean, a good rogue should be putting out more damage than a shadowknight.This would bring more raid desirability. You can bring rogues for debuffs, or brawlers for snap tanking/avoidance buff/other... Raid dps would go up with brig debuffs, and tanks would take less damage with swash debuffs, but brawlers would bring the same personal dps and support the raid in different ways. It might be better to bring a bruiser that parses like a swash and can do other utility type things on a raid rather than another assassin that parses a bit higher.You would still have the same survivability you have now (which isn't horrible), but do enough dps and other tricks to warrant a slot in a raid/group. I admit I've never played a brawler passed 50, and I don't know the details of how to work something like that out... but I think the general idea could work for most brawlers.</blockquote>If you never played a brawler past 50 then you have no clue what you are talking about. The brawlers are NOT dps. Brawlers are not even dps among fighters. The raid main brawlers are TANKS. Those who care deeply about the class want to be tanks. I have tanked Ykesha and Avatars on my bruiser and I use the tank avatar gearset. Those who say brawlers are not tanks are out of their minds. Yes there are some broken mechanics that work against the brawlers such as strikethrough/double attacks but that does not mean Brawlers are not tanks. It is players like you that confuse the issues and give brawlers a bad name. </blockquote>I don't even get what you are ranting about dude. I suggested brawler's do more dps and you get butt hurt? Doesn't surprise me really. Most people are pretty dumb.</blockquote>There is no free lunch in the world. If you think so, you are wrong.Brawlers are tanks not dpsers. I would rather get survivability fix instead of tiny dps boost.

Rahatmattata

01-29-2010, 02:08 AM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>There is no free lunch in the world. If you think so, you are wrong.I don't know what this has to do with anything. Just felt like inserting a random slogan I guess?Brawlers are tanks not dpsers. I would rather get survivability fix instead of tiny dps boost.Unless you have the defense and saves of a guard/pally you will still not be the main tank for raids. Unless you have better dps than a shadowknight you will not be the prefered tank for groups, and with less survivabilty than a sk & zerker you will still not be the OT for raids. So, if you want to tank be glad that you already can tank with some effort. If you want to be invited to a raid bring something that makes you worth dropping an assassin/rogue/warrior/crusader for. And if you expect all six tanks to do the same dps, have the same defense, and equal types of utility, keep giving SOE your 15 bucks and dreaming the dream.Brawlers have always been the squishiest tanks that mitigate damage with avoidance, stuns, and knockbacks, and have unique tools/tricks, were the best soloers, and the highest dps fighters. A good all-around class. T8 has not been good for brawlers and they no longer have the highest potential for dps, and aren't the best soloers, but fact is if you want to be a beast tank, you don't roll a monk. You already can tank. SOE can either try to make all fighters completely equal in solo, group, raid, pvp and revamp basically the entire game by adjusting every fighter and then adjusting content to compensate, and other class buffs... or they can give brawlers T2 dps and call it done. All the brawlers that want to be pure tanks can roll plate. All the brawlers that want to continue being a jack-of-all trades that can tank, dps, solo, pvp, and farm plat get a nice buff which will maybe get them a try-out in a raid guild they wouldn't have gotten otherwise.I do think brawlers should have the highest HP of all fighters though. Anyway, good luck with whatever it is you want/expect a brawler to be. Oh btw, my guardian wants more defense too... but I'd take more dps in a flash. Maybe I could actually tank in dstance with a fat tower shield and 3 healers if SOE made me do more dps.</blockquote>

Couching

01-29-2010, 12:18 PM

<cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote>-deleted</blockquote>fixing survivability = asking for best defensive tank?Any tank shouldn't be one shotted no matter in raid or heroic instance. Otherwise, it's not tank.Making brawler T2 dps without debuff/utilities that rogues have = summoners in old school = unwelcome in raids or heroic instances = that's why summoners got some love in SF.Your post shows your narrow mindedness and zero understanding of brawlers.Oh, and learn to read, fixing brawler survivability didn't mean we are asking for best defensive tank.

Rahatmattata

01-29-2010, 02:54 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>learn to read, fixing brawler survivability didn't mean we are asking for best defensive tank.</blockquote>L2Read. I didn't say you asked for the best survivability. I said Unless you have the defense and saves of a guard/pally you will still not be the main tank for raids. with less survivabilty than a sk & zerker you will still not be the OT for raidsWhich means any survivability boost you get means dickall cuz you will still be sat on the bench if/when there is a decent geared/played plate tank around. Your only hope is to do enough dps to make it worth letting you tag along."Making brawler T2 dps without debuff/utilities that rogues have = summoners"I already addressed this. To put it in simple words since you failed to understand the first time: Summoners do very little else worth while besides dps, so they get sat. Brawler utility makes them nice to have around on a raid, but they need to be parsing higher to make them worth recruiting rather than a second brig or assassin. Hopefully that sentence isn't too hard for you to wrap your head around.

Quicksilver74

01-29-2010, 03:15 PM

Rahatamata, or however you spell it... Dude I think you don't have a very good understanding of what a Raiding Brawler has to go through. Increasing Brawler DPS will do nothing. What I mean by that, is that any realistic boost we could expect, would not be enough to justify bringing a brawler on raids. The only way that a pure DPS boost would get brawlers into raids, would be to give us so much DPS that brawlers are rivaling Assasin's in DPS. If that happened, it would be a catastrophic failure of class balance. How would that be fair to Assasins? How would that be fair to rangers? Trust me dude, I wish I had assasin quality DPS, but the fact is, it wouldn't be fair. And anything short of that, would simply not be enough to justify bringing a useless class into a raid. We are fighters. We are meant to tank. Would we all like a free DPS boost? Sure we would, but Couching's Comment about there being no such thing as a free lunch is VERY valid in this case. The way that EQ2 works, is that you don't get something without cost. We don't want Devs simply looking at ways to improve our DPS, because the opportunity cost, is that they are no longer looking at ways to improve our tanking / survivability. Any Brawler in a raid needs to be able to tank. It doesn't mean he has to be THE MAIN TANK, but he shoudl be able to pick up adds, or hold a named if the MT dies, and our problems have been that we cannot reliably do that, due to survivability issues. Strikethrough, Doubleattacks, and the whole randomness of avoidance have been the thorn in our side for quite awhile now. This is the priority. So yeah, a DPS boost sounds wonderful, but first thing's first... Fix our core issues; fix our survivability first. Then after we are able to perform our tanking roles, then I'll worry more about our DPS concerns.

Couching

01-29-2010, 03:31 PM

<cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>learn to read, fixing brawler survivability didn't mean we are asking for best defensive tank.</blockquote>L2Read. I didn't say you asked for the best survivability. I said Unless you have the defense and saves of a guard/pally you will still not be the main tank for raids. with less survivabilty than a sk & zerker you will still not be the OT for raidsLearn to read. I didn't ask for less survivability than sk and zerker. They are offensive fighters as well as brawlers. They have higher aoe dps and brawlers have higher single target dps. Also, crusader are better than brawler in solov and heroic instances. There is no reason to make brawler less survivability than other offensive fighters when they are better in solo and heroic instances already.Which means any survivability boost you get means dickall cuz you will still be sat on the bench if/when there is a decent geared/played plate tank around. Your only hope is to do enough dps to make it worth letting you tag along."Making brawler T2 dps without debuff/utilities that rogues have = summoners"I already addressed this. To put it in simple words since you failed to understand the first time: Summoners do very little else worth while besides dps, so they get sat. Brawler utility makes them nice to have around on a raid, but they need to be parsing higher to make them worth recruiting rather than a second brig or assassin. Hopefully that sentence isn't too hard for you to wrap your head around.Lol, utilities from brawlers made them nice? LOLWhat a good joke of today.</blockquote>

mr23sgte

01-29-2010, 04:39 PM

mr23sgte

01-29-2010, 04:39 PM

WTB: Monk AA Rework

Rahatmattata

01-30-2010, 05:28 AM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote>Learn to read. I didn't ask for less survivability than sk and zerker. They are offensive fighters as well as brawlers. They have higher aoe dps and brawlers have higher single target dps. Also, crusader are better than brawler in solov and heroic instances. Learn to read I already said "T8 has not been good for brawlers and they no longer have the highest potential for dps, and aren't the best soloers"There is no reason to make brawler less survivability than other offensive fighters when they are better in solo and heroic instances already.Brawlers should have better dps than any plate fighter and solo better. So shadowknights are OP and doing far too much dps for the amount of survivability they have. That doesn't mean brawlers should follow suit. They've always had the least survivability, and my magic 8-ball says they always will.Lol, utilities from brawlers made them nice? LOLWhat a good joke of today.Snap tanking, avoidance buff, raidwide haste & CA damage is pretty decent and a lot more than a summoner brings to the table. If you had rogue dps with that utility you might actually be able to bump a second rogue/pred for a guild invite.Bottom line is if your passion is tanking and you don't enjoy being a jack of all trades but a master of none you rolled the wrong class. It's been this way for five years, you'd think you'd learn. It is my opinion that a bump of dps would be much more valuable to getting invites than a bump of survivability, and the natural choice the devs would make for boosting brawlers. Most likely they'd do a little of both. But I believe brawlers still won't be the OT, still won't be the MT, and without bringing something to a raid besides guardian-level dps and the current utility they have to offer, many of you will still be left out in favor of rogues and preds.If you aren't in a raid to MT or OT you are there to do dps. If brawlers want to MT they have to become the most defensive tank in the game. If brawlers want to be picked as OT over crusaders/zerkers, they would have to have way better threat control than they do now, on par with berserkers at least... and yes they would have to have a survivability bump... and they would have to overcome a five year stigma from the player base that has decided shield & plate > leather & fists (but good tanks will be able to prove themselves regardless of the class they are playing). Most of the brawler posts I see are complaints about threat and crying about crane twirl.Basically, (assuming a guild can find a decent plate, or doesn't let you tag along cuz you're friends/family, or much better geared than the average guildy) you aren't going to be MT without the defense of a guard, and your chances of getting that are pretty [Removed for Content] slim. And you aren't going to be OT without better threat control which means more dps. And if you can't MT and you can't OT and you have sub-par dps, you get in the position the class is in now. So, in my view brawlers need more dps anyway you spin it, and I've already said several times why I think it would be worth bringing a high parsing brawler over a second rogue/pred. Quicksilver74 you kind of made my point when you said how would brawlers parsing T1 dps be fair to predators? You are exactly right, it wouldn't. This is because brawlers bring more than pure dps, and you obviously realize this. Therefore they should not be parsing as high as assassins, but more along the lines of a rogue, and if brawlers and rogues are parsing equally, it would be much more beneficial to bring a brawler rather than a second brigand or swash, possibly even a second assassin.Anyway, I could go on but I've said my piece and I'm getting bored of saying the same things in different words because you have no reading comprehension. I'm sure you would love to have the survivability of a plate tank. Good luck with it.</blockquote></blockquote>

Siatfallen

01-30-2010, 06:23 AM

<a></a>Rahatmattata:What you suggest was discussed back in February last year onwards (I cannot remember where exactly, but somewhere on these boards). A few brawlers liked the idea (myself included) while others wanted to move in the direction of being purely tanks, arguing either that giving us DPS equal to rogues would be OP and that the developers would never do it, or that we would be useless even if we got that (not the same people making these two points, mind you). You'll find that, after tSO and the role of brawlers here, most of the people still playing the class as their main character in a raiding capacity now want to tank; there's been a fairly strong push towards making stuff like strikethrough not-broken, to make brawler tanking not only theoretically viable but also competitive with plate tanking.I don't like this idea; I think that, the class being what it is as far as concept goes, we should be and always will be at the bottom of the survivability competition; what's debatable as far as I'm concerned is how far behind we should be. I'm not in beta, so I really can't say if that'll hold true in the next expansion; what I can see is that we were moved heavily in the direction of tanking in tSO, and it did not make us equal to the plate tanks, despite the efforts made (y'know, before fighters stopped being touched at all).If this trend holds true, I think it's fairly clear that we should be given a clear and defined edge over other fighters. I don't really care if that edge comes in the form of comparatively high single target AND multi-target DPS (and hence aggro), signifigantly higher single target DPS with the AoE potential about where it is today, a meaningful advantage in the form of buffs provided or something else entirely no one on these boards have even considered (okay, maybe I'd be less-than-fine with this last option).The point is, after tSO (where the monk raidwide was nerfed badly and DPS dropped signifigantly compared to other classes), the merit of a brawler is measured in terms of tanking ability - because we suck adly at pretty much everything else. The only reasonable thing is to look at where brawlers end up in that regard first, and then adjust the other aspects of the class to make it viable based on that. That's the point you're missing and it's why you're running into a wall here.I agree with your idea that we should be ahead of other fighters in terms of DPS; I also agree that we should be lower in survivability than any given plate tank. Many here, you'll find, do not.

Couching

01-30-2010, 12:18 PM

<cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote>Learn to read. I didn't ask for less survivability than sk and zerker. They are offensive fighters as well as brawlers. They have higher aoe dps and brawlers have higher single target dps. Also, crusader are better than brawler in solov and heroic instances. Learn to read I already said "T8 has not been good for brawlers and they no longer have the highest potential for dps, and aren't the best soloers"Incorrect. In your mind, it's SK and SK is op. The fact is not only SK. Pal can solo much better than brawlers and pal is also one of the most popular heroic tanks as well.There is no reason to make brawler less survivability than other offensive fighters when they are better in solo and heroic instances already.Brawlers should have better dps than any plate fighter and solo better. So shadowknights are OP and doing far too much dps for the amount of survivability they have. That doesn't mean brawlers should follow suit. They've always had the least survivability, and my magic 8-ball says they always will.Learn 2 read, it's crusader, not just shadow knights. Pal can solo much better than brawlers as well. Both crusaders can even solo epicx4. Even it's easiest epicx4, none of other fighters can do that.Lol, utilities from brawlers made them nice? LOLWhat a good joke of today.Snap tanking, avoidance buff, raidwide haste & CA damage is pretty decent and a lot more than a summoner brings to the table. If you had rogue dps with that utility you might actually be able to bump a second rogue/pred for a guild invite.Snap tanking can be done by any fighter on live servers and plate tanks are much better because they have much better survivability.For raidwide, beserker and SK raidwide buffs are better than monk and bruiser. Bottom line, they are not any worse.For CA damage, you are making contradiction again since you have admitted that brawlers's dps is no longer the best of all fighters. Don't make nonsense excuse that is because SK is OP. Again, not just SK can out parse brawlers in most heroic instances. Berserker and Pal can also out parse brawlers in most heroic instances as well.Currently, brawlers are worse than crusader in solo and on the bottom of group instances, most unwanted heroic tank because we have the worst aoe dps and aggro.Bottom line is if your passion is tanking and you don't enjoy being a jack of all trades but a master of none you rolled the wrong class. Stupidest comment since you have already contradicted to your earlier comment that brawlers are no longer best on solo and dps of all fighters and most unwelcome heroic instance tank.In this case, we have 100% right to get our survivability fixed and be on par with other plate offensive tanks as well.It's been this way for five years, you'd think you'd learn. It is my opinion that a bump of dps would be much more valuable to getting invites than a bump of survivability, and the natural choice the devs would make for boosting brawlers. Most likely they'd do a little of both. But I believe brawlers still won't be the OT, still won't be the MT, and without bringing something to a raid besides guardian-level dps and the current utility they have to offer, many of you will still be left out in favor of rogues and preds.And your opinion means nothing except narrow mindedness and zero understanding of brawlers.rest of your post is deleted because full of BS with narrow mindedness.</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>Let me tell you what the fact is.The fact is that it's not only brawlers were whining in TSO. Most guardians were whining as well, especially from your post as a guardian.The only difference was that too many guardians lack of skills and can't compete with other plate tanks when Aeralik finally raised (I would rather say he fixed ) the survivability of other plate tanks.He stated clearly that one of the goals in fighter revamp was to make the survivability gap between fighters much less than before so that every fighter can do the core job as a fighter; tanking for the group and in raid. In his original words, he used the word of fighter instead of warrior and crusader or plate tank.In his intention, brawlers survivability fix was in the stage 2 of fighter revamp. Unfortunately, fighter revamp stage 2 was scrapped because most fighters didn't want to be one clicky bot; click taunt to hold aggro without fun.All in all, your biased opinion is far away from the truth that the supposed core of brawler in raid was dps and utilities. Wrong.First, plate tanks have more utilities than brawlers.Second, it's design intention that brawlers are no longer best in solo and zw dps in heroic instances because our survivability was supposed to be fixed in TSO.Last, be a better player so that you won't be replaced. Stop calling OP to other fighters.Because of NDA, I can't make comment of brawlers in Beta. But one thing for sure is that brawlers are on the right track in beta.

Couching

01-30-2010, 01:20 PM

<cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite><blockquote><a></a>Rahatmattata:What you suggest was discussed back in February last year onwards (I cannot remember where exactly, but somewhere on these boards). A few brawlers liked the idea (myself included) while others wanted to move in the direction of being purely tanks, arguing either that giving us DPS equal to rogues would be OP and that the developers would never do it, or that we would be useless even if we got that (not the same people making these two points, mind you). You'll find that, after tSO and the role of brawlers here, most of the people still playing the class as their main character in a raiding capacity now want to tank; there's been a fairly strong push towards making stuff like strikethrough not-broken, to make brawler tanking not only theoretically viable but also competitive with plate tanking.The direction of any class is controlled (or made) by soe developers instead of discussion by players. We didn't push brawlers to any direction instead, we followed the direction from developers. You were unhappy because you didn't like the direction made by Aeralik. Aeralik has stated clearly that every fighter should be able to do the core job of fighter and it's tanking. That's why he fixed the survivability gap between fighters. Due to his limited time, survivability fix of brawlers was set in stage 2 of fighter revamp. We got screwed in TSO that is not the intention from SoE. It's because fighter revamp stage 2 got scrapped.</blockquote>

Rahatmattata

01-30-2010, 03:32 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><blockquote>Learn 2 read, it's crusader, not just shadow knights. Pal can solo much better than brawlers as well. Both crusaders can even solo epicx4. Even it's easiest epicx4, none of other fighters can do that.I never said only shadowknights are OP. I fully agree paladins are OP as well. If you think I ONLY think SKs are OP look at some of my other posts. Anyway who the fk cares? It makes no difference to the discussion. Shadowknights are IMO the "most" OP so I used them in the discussion... stop trying to look into things too much.__________________________________________________For CA damage, inc irrelavent wall of text because I don't know how to read.I'm talking about bruiser's raidwide Brutality that gives CA damage, so... whatever. There is no contradiction, just your inability to read once again.__________________________________________________ __Currently, brawlers are worse than crusader in solo and on the bottom of group instances, most unwanted heroic tank because we have the worst aoe dps and aggro.Exactly.__________________________________________________ ___Bottom line is if your passion is tanking and you don't enjoy being a jack of all trades but a master of none you rolled the wrong class. Stupidest comment since you have already contradicted to your earlier comment that brawlers are no longer best on solo and dps of all fighters and most unwelcome heroic instance tank.I haven't contradicted anything and you obviously just see words on your computer monitor and then your brain makes up whatever it feels like. I even said "master of none", so [Removed for Content] you don't even make any sense. Do you even know what a jack of all trades but a master of none is? _________________________________________________ ____And your opinion means nothing except narrow mindedness and zero understanding of brawlers.You're right, my opinion means nothing. And your opinion means less than squat. The game devs will do what they want and follow their vision, and just because you wish your class played a certain way really means jack sht. If you want to continue arguing with me please read carefully, because you are saying I said things that I never did and it is really annoying when people do that.</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>

Couching

01-30-2010, 04:05 PM

<cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote>I never said only shadowknights are OP. I fully agree paladins are OP as well. If you think I ONLY think SKs are OP look at some of my other posts. Anyway who the fk cares? It makes no difference to the discussion. Shadowknights are IMO the "most" OP so I used them in the discussion... stop trying to look into things too much.</blockquote>Classic statement.You can keep trolling how OP crusaders are and making fake role for brawlers in raid instead of improving your skill as a guardian. Keep crying and whining for a slot just because you play a guardian.

Aull

01-30-2010, 06:46 PM

What I am about to type here is in no way intended to flame, debunk, or argue with anyone here. Anyway here is my beef with what I am reading here.From what I am gathering is that most brawlers are saying we need more survivability which is good. However I can't help but look over many posts that deal with brawlers posting parses of what their brawler is doing.If brawlers do see better survivability next expac how many that wanted this survivability will start posting how brawler dps sucks here in a few weeks/months?Also how will having better raid survivability ensure that a brawler will get a slot when crusaders and the warriors already have those mt and ot positions filled currently?How many bralwers here have rerolled an alt dps toon cause the tanking positions in their raids have more than enough already?

Siatfallen

01-30-2010, 07:52 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>The direction of any class is controlled (or made) by soe developers instead of discussion by players. We didn't push brawlers to any direction instead, we followed the direction from developers. You were unhappy because you didn't like the direction made by Aeralik. Aeralik has stated clearly that every fighter should be able to do the core job of fighter and it's tanking. That's why he fixed the survivability gap between fighters. Due to his limited time, survivability fix of brawlers was set in stage 2 of fighter revamp. We got screwed in TSO that is not the intention from SoE. It's because fighter revamp stage 2 got scrapped. </blockquote>Your statement is simply incorrect. It is true that at the launch of tSO, Aeralik set a vision - one that I admittedly did not like (and like just about everyone else, I especially disliked the implementation). It is also true that stage two helped in some regard with this, and that we were severely hurt by this never reaching live.What you're missing from the equation is the amount of active feedback and response time Brawler itemization and class vision was given around mid-tSO.There's a reason a lot of raid-level items suddenly had +crush and +deflection chance added; the developers did not wake up one morning and realise that "Oh shoot, we forgot this". Instead, they actively contacted membes of the community and asked what items were problematic, said they'd look it over. I remember the avatar breastplate (the tanky one) being a subject for discussion for quite some time (as you may recall, it was never adjusted to be on par with comparable plate gear; instead, the rest of the avatar gear was eventually nerfed to match it).As a player who's been in the game for as long as you have in a raiding capacity, I'm surprised you did not know this - it has been discussed on the forums before.Additionally, following the departure of Aeralik at head mechanics honcho (I believe this was back somewhat before fan faire... But I could be off, my memory isn't what it never was... I think), players were, again, contacted in a quite active capacity about future visions of the brawler classes. I cannot say for certain that the feedback given was followed to the letter; you're the person in beta, not me.What I can say is that at least from this perspective, it seems the developers have been paying a great deal of attention to player perspective this time around; I'm glad you can give some kind of comment on positive developments from beta (NDA being what it is, I suppose I'll live with not knowing for sure for another few weeks. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> ); whatever issues may be left after beta, developers did their best to arrive at beta prepared.None of this has even been secret or covert to any degree - we were told quite directly when fighter revamp 2.0 did not happen that the developers would be actively gathering input from the player base, to avoid wasting time (and hence money) on that scale again. I could have sworn this was stated in a producer's letter at some point.Being people who're employed to do their job efficiently, they've been doing so. Since the launch of Summoner's Fate will mark the first major class changes, I suppose you're in a better position than I am in judging how well they've been doing.Finally: Aeralik began talking about these things during late RoK - that's a year and a half ago or so by now. Whatever you're doing in beta, I hope you're not seing half solutions and "a project that will continue into the expansion" again.Aull: A full-on tanking role may help us in the raiding department - I'm not entirely sold on the idea because there's very few tanking spots on a raid force to begin with... But that's another discussion entirely. I don't think that'll be the main problem, though. It'll just be the same old of "why would we want a brawler on any raidforce anyway?" debate - nothing these forums have not seen many threads on already; I remember the first back in DoF, and remember several from KoS; they've been pretty common ever since (okay, so there was a period where "when will peel be nerfed?" was a more common topic). If there's to be a problem, I think it'll be this:Our viability as heroic tanks from when I really remember it (KoS, EoF and RoK) has always been being able to tank a zone (though it'd be somewhat harder than with some other tanks in terms of survivability) while making the run faster due to higher personal DPS. This has blatantly not been the case in tSO due to the amount of AE content, but if it does not return with SF, I don't foresee the complaints from brawlers going away anytime soon either. That could just be me, though.

Couching

01-30-2010, 08:43 PM

<cite>iatfallen wrote:</cite><blockquote>What you're missing from the equation is the amount of active feedback and response time Brawler itemization and class vision was given around mid-tSO.What I can say is that at least from this perspective, it seems the developers have been paying a great deal of attention to player perspective this time around;</blockquote>Clearliy, you misunderstood what the purpose of feedback from players is.The purpose of feedback is to let designers know if everything is working as intended (match their vision) or not.If not, they can fix it.Players don't make the direction or vision of this game but game designers.When the feedback is totally against to their vision, the feedback is ignored.Brawlers won't be T2 dps just because a feedback from a crying guardian.Let's look at brawler itemization in mid-tso. Those itemization were all around one core and the only core; tanking. No body can deny that. We finally got equal deflection chance on fighter gear as what plate tanks got, shield effectiveness.Developers have been paying a great deal on improving brawlers survivability on itemization based on players' feedback because at that moment, we were way far behind the vision they set in this game.

Rahatmattata

01-30-2010, 08:57 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>You can keep trolling how OP crusaders are and making fake role for brawlers in raid instead of improving your skill as a guardian. Keep crying and whining for a slot just because you play a guardian.</blockquote>How is doing dps and providing utility/support a false roll for brawlers? That is exactly what almost every brawler does in a raid. However they need a boost somewhere to make them more desirable. I tossed out an idea that might make brawlers more desirable in raids, and you jumped all over it like flies on a [Removed for Content]. My suggestion had nothing to do with guardian raid desirability, it is about brawlers. This is like talking to a little kid.Oh yea... and nerf shadowknights. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/ed515dbff23a0ee3241dcc0a601c9ed6.gif" border="0" />

Maamadex

01-30-2010, 10:03 PM

Raid desirability for some classes will always be [Removed for Content] <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /> 24 classes, 24 spots. That almost always insures imbalance. I think EQ2 just has too many classes, thats its main issue.

Xaile

01-31-2010, 07:11 PM

For everyone that says "Brawlers are fighters and should be able to take hits just as well as plate tanks", I don't entirely agree. From what I've seen, enchanters don't pull the same personal dps as equally geared/skilled wizards/warlocks, but nobody says "They're mages and should all pull the same dps as a sorcerer." Brigs don't pull the same personal damage as an assassin, but everyone wants one around because of the powerful debuffs they provide that far more than make up for the minimal damage difference. Bards do even less personal damage, but nobody says they should do the same damage as an assassin just because they're a scout.Right now, when DPS'ing, there is absolutely nothing that makes us worth having over an assassin or brig. When tanking, there is absolutely nothing that makes us worth having over any plate tank. The ability to switch between dps and tanking is nifty (even though SK's can do it better), but I feel that brawlers need some crucial, irreplacable utility to back it up (avoidance buff doesn't count, all fighters can do that). TSO killed Peel/Tsunami (and D&C/Brunami) and monk raidwide.If you just make brawlers able to take hits exactly like plate tanks, then all the fighters will become homogenized, the same class with different animations (which I don't want to see, although I'd like to see hate control looked at more). I strongly support more utility for brawlers to differentiate them from the plate tanks and make them worth having around when not tanking.(also, please scale back SK's)

Aull

01-31-2010, 07:34 PM

<cite>Xaile wrote:</cite><blockquote>For everyone that says "Brawlers are fighters and should be able to take hits just as well as plate tanks", I don't entirely agree. From what I've seen, enchanters don't pull the same personal dps as equally geared/skilled wizards/warlocks, but nobody says "They're mages and should all pull the same dps as a sorcerer." Brigs don't pull the same personal damage as an assassin, but everyone wants one around because of the powerful debuffs they provide that far more than make up for the minimal damage difference. Bards do even less personal damage, but nobody says they should do the same as an assassin just because they're a scout.Right now, when DPS'ing, there is absolutely nothing that makes us worth having over an assassin or brig. When tanking, there is absolutely nothing that makes us worth having over any plate tank. The ability to switch between dps and tanking is nifty (even though SK's can do it better), but I feel that brawlers need some crucial, irreplacable utility to back it up (avoidance buff doesn't count, all fighters can do that). TSO killed Peel/Tsunami (and D&C/Brunami) and monk raidwide.If you just make brawlers able to take hits exactly like plate tanks, then all the fighters will become homogenized, the same class with different animations (which I don't want to see, although I'd like to see hate control looked at more). I strongly support more utility for brawlers to differentiate them from the plate tanks and make them worth having around when not tanking.(also, please scale back SK's)</blockquote>I just want there to be individuality with in the fighter arch-type similar to how scouts are currently. Like you said just because a bard is a scout should not constitute that the bards should be doing assassin like dps. I still support that brawler avoidance should allow them to have better survival than they currently have. Having brawlers become just as apt to take hits as plates should not be so.Tsunami spin off type abilities should have never migrated to the other fighters. To late for my complaints on that now, but that to me was a rip off to the monks and what made monks unique is now gone. Each fighter should have something that only that sub-class in the fighter arch-type holds special and it should not be infringed on.

Couching

01-31-2010, 10:10 PM

<cite>Xaile wrote:</cite><blockquote>For everyone that says "Brawlers are fighters and should be able to take hits just as well as plate tanks", I don't entirely agree. From what I've seen, enchanters don't pull the same personal dps as equally geared/skilled wizards/warlocks, but nobody says "They're mages and should all pull the same dps as a sorcerer." Brigs don't pull the same personal damage as an assassin, but everyone wants one around because of the powerful debuffs they provide that far more than make up for the minimal damage difference. Bards do even less personal damage, but nobody says they should do the same damage as an assassin just because they're a scout.I haven't seen anyone here asking for taking hits just as well as plate tanks. Plate tanks have higher mitigation and of course, they take hits better than brawlers with less mitigation. However, mitigation is not the only facotr of survivability. What we are asking is to have comparable survivability as offensive plate tanks espeically when plate offensive tanks can solo better than brawlers and more welcome in heroic instances at same time. They also have better utilities and raidwide buffs. Look at zerker and sk raidwide, I will trade ours for it anyday. There is serious imbalance between crusaders, zerker and brawlers in the current state. Right now, when DPS'ing, there is absolutely nothing that makes us worth having over an assassin or brig. When tanking, there is absolutely nothing that makes us worth having over any plate tank. The ability to switch between dps and tanking is nifty (even though SK's can do it better), but I feel that brawlers need some crucial, irreplacable utility to back it up (avoidance buff doesn't count, all fighters can do that). TSO killed Peel/Tsunami (and D&C/Brunami) and monk raidwide.Utility? The most important utility that brawlers in raid is off tanking, snap tanking and CC tanking. That's why increasing dps or adding another bard alike utility is not on the priority list of raiding brawlers. Survivability fix is the most important.If you just make brawlers able to take hits exactly like plate tanks, then all the fighters will become homogenized, the same class with different animations (which I don't want to see, although I'd like to see hate control looked at more). I strongly support more utility for brawlers to differentiate them from the plate tanks and make them worth having around when not tanking.(also, please scale back SK's)Again, no body asking to make brawlers take hits as well as plate tanks. </blockquote>

Xaile

01-31-2010, 11:28 PM

I apologize, it was poor word choice on my part. When I said "take hits", I meant "reduce overall incoming damage", including mitigation, avoidance, procs such as stoneskin as well as cooldowns. And personally, I don't think there should be 6 classes with the same ability to reduce overall incoming damage and same hate control, because then everything is basically being homogenized into the same class just with different combat animations.And yes, as of right now, brawler's utility consists only of off tanking, add tanking, etc. I never said that wasn't how it was, I am suggesting though that that perhaps should change. Because the only way to make the fighters not homogenous at tanking is to make some better/worse at reducing overall incoming damage and/or make some better/worse at managing hate, and if that's the case, there needs to be something returned for those classes who don't reduce overall incoming damage as well as the others.I don't want the six fighters to be the same class with different animations. Not all scouts do the same damage, not all mages do the same damage, not all priests are equally adept at healing, so why should all fighters be identical?(That said, there is drastic need of rebalance, because currently, there is no return for brawler's decreased ability to reduce overall incoming damage, because plate tanks currently have both more utility and comparable ST damage while having superior AE damage. This needs to change.)

Couching

02-01-2010, 12:19 AM

<cite>Xaile wrote:</cite><blockquote>I apologize, it was poor word choice on my part. When I said "take hits", I meant "reduce overall incoming damage", including mitigation, avoidance, procs such as stoneskin as well as cooldowns. And personally, I don't think there should be 6 classes with the same ability to reduce overall incoming damage and same hate control, because then everything is basically being homogenized into the same class just with different combat animations.</blockquote>In fact, 6 fighter classes all have different overall incoming damage reduction.However, overall incoming damage reduction didn't equal to survivability. For example, zerker and pal have better overall incoming damage reduction than sk but which class is easier to keep up in raids? It's SK.For your suggestion, there is already a class in the game, it's Swashy; high ST damage, very high aoe dps, good utilities and debuff. Frankly speaking, I don't mind to be such a class but hi, why don't you play swashy instead of brawler? Just as many players have said, there are too many classes in this game. It's impossible to make 24 unique classes with unique role.When brawlers is no longer the best in solo of all fighters and being most unwanted tank in heroic content and raid, it's time to give brawlers something. That's why we were supposed to get survivability fix in the scrapped fighter revamp stage 2 as the compensation.

Aull

02-01-2010, 12:56 AM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Xaile wrote:</cite><blockquote>I apologize, it was poor word choice on my part. When I said "take hits", I meant "reduce overall incoming damage", including mitigation, avoidance, procs such as stoneskin as well as cooldowns. And personally, I don't think there should be 6 classes with the same ability to reduce overall incoming damage and same hate control, because then everything is basically being homogenized into the same class just with different combat animations.</blockquote>In fact, 6 fighter classes all have different overall incoming damage reduction.However, overall incoming damage reduction didn't equal to survivability. For example, zerker and pal have better overall incoming damage reduction than sk but which class is easier to keep up in raids? It's SK.For your suggestion, there is already a class in the game, it's Swashy; high ST damage, very high aoe dps, good utilities and debuff. Frankly speaking, I don't mind to be such a class but hi, why don't you play swashy instead of brawler? Just as many players have said, there are too many classes in this game. It's impossible to make 24 unique classes with unique role.When brawlers is no longer the best in solo of all fighters and being most unwanted tank in heroic content and raid, it's time to give brawlers something. That's why we were supposed to get survivability fix in the scrapped fighter revamp stage 2 as the compensation.</blockquote>Well said and I agree. I wait to see what actually happens for brawlers. I hope it is a great increase for my bruiser and monk.

Xaile

02-01-2010, 01:42 AM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Frankly speaking, I don't mind to be such a class but hi, why don't you play swashy instead of brawler? Just as many players have said, there are too many classes in this game. It's impossible to make 24 unique classes with unique role.</blockquote>Frankly speaking, I don't mind to be a class that has the survivability of a plate tank, but hi, why don't you play a plate tank instead of a brawler? There are too many classes in this game, true. However, it doesn't mean we should strive to make them homogenous.That said, I do think that brawlers need an improvement to their survivability, but I also think we should be trying to get some more individuality among the fighters instead of trying to make them all the same.

Couching

02-01-2010, 02:08 AM

<cite>Xaile wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Frankly speaking, I don't mind to be such a class but hi, why don't you play swashy instead of brawler? Just as many players have said, there are too many classes in this game. It's impossible to make 24 unique classes with unique role.</blockquote>Frankly speaking, I don't mind to be a class that has the survivability of a plate tank, but hi, why don't you play a plate tank instead of a brawler? There are too many classes in this game, true. However, it doesn't mean we should strive to make them homogenous.That said, I do think that brawlers need an improvement to their survivability, but I also think we should be trying to get some more individuality among the fighters instead of trying to make them all the same.</blockquote>You sound like that the survivability is the only difference between fighters and it is incorrect.Moreover, if you like the idea of diversity, you should embrace the idea of avoidance tank more.The playing style and mechanic are far away from mitigation tank. So, you are just contradiction to yourself.

Xaile

02-01-2010, 02:46 AM

You're awfully hostile, just because I have a different opinion.I'm not going to continue the argument, because you clearly don't agree with my opinions about brawler utility and I clearly don't agree with your opinions about ideal relative fighter survivability.Just...try to have an open mind, please. Something that everyone needs to work from time to time, myself included.

Couching

02-01-2010, 02:48 AM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Xaile wrote:</cite><blockquote>I apologize, it was poor word choice on my part. When I said "take hits", I meant "reduce overall incoming damage", including mitigation, avoidance, procs such as stoneskin as well as cooldowns. And personally, I don't think there should be 6 classes with the same ability to reduce overall incoming damage and same hate control, because then everything is basically being homogenized into the same class just with different combat animations.</blockquote>In fact, 6 fighter classes all have different overall incoming damage reduction.However, overall incoming damage reduction didn't equal to survivability. For example, zerker and pal have better overall incoming damage reduction than sk but which class is easier to keep up in raids? It's SK.For your suggestion, there is already a class in the game, it's Swashy; high ST damage, very high aoe dps, good utilities and debuff. Frankly speaking, I don't mind to be such a class but hi, why don't you play swashy instead of brawler? Just as many players have said, there are too many classes in this game. It's impossible to make 24 unique classes with unique role.When brawlers is no longer the best in solo of all fighters and being most unwanted tank in heroic content and raid, it's time to give brawlers something. That's why we were supposed to get survivability fix in the scrapped fighter revamp stage 2 as the compensation.</blockquote>Well said and I agree. I wait to see what actually happens for brawlers. I hope it is a great increase for my bruiser and monk.</blockquote>There are some nice changes and I believe you will like those changes.

Couching

02-01-2010, 02:54 AM

<cite>Xaile wrote:</cite><blockquote>You're awfully hostile, just because I have a different opinion.I'm not going to continue the argument, because you clearly don't agree with my opinions about brawler utility and I clearly don't agree with your opinions about ideal relative fighter survivability.Just...try to have an open mind, please. Something that I need to work on as well.</blockquote>I feel sorry that you just pick up a wrong class.Brawlers were tank since game launch.If you want to be an utility oriented class, chanter or bard is a good choice.By the way, it doesn't matter whose opinion is right or wrong because only developers' opinions matter.

PrimusPilus

02-14-2010, 08:59 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>There are some nice changes and I believe you will like those changes.</blockquote>The NDA has been lifted, and so I will mention a few changes seen on beta and sceduled for SF (which may or may not change but probably won't change drastically anyway):In defensive stance, you are currently immune to strikethrough, and they may later make you immune or resistant to double attack and such, if it can be coded and works in the game.There are a number of death save or next hit(s) saves and suchlike, many instacast, and Tsunami at M1 can be 20 seconds (still takes too long to cast but you can now use some instacast saves to cover that).Taunts do a LOT more threat now, and are thus worth casting to geain aggro and hold it, even over CA's, and thus they are worth beefing up even more with AA's. This of course includes our AE taunt, which now helps a lot to hold AE (for one encounter) aggro. Also there are a numer of new special threat adds that for a short time add threat or hate position or both, one even adds 25% damage reducing onto it's threat (for like 20 seconds). taunts do more aggro in defensive stance, although not a lot more it is noticable (I still think rage needs an extra defensive stance threat add).Monks now have more tools for AE aggro of multiple groups, like a defensive stance only Dragonsbreath threat component, up to 24 seconds of Crane Flock, and using the above threat/heate position stuff while switching targets.In short, some stuff now made it possible for my monk to do instances even against mutiple mobs and groups and hold aggro well enough, much better than formerly. It may take a while for peeps to notice this, but I suspect peeps will more and more relaise monks can now hold adequate aggro against multiple mobs, and have better and possibly later good surivability and much better short term aggro at least versus epics. This progress also looks to continue, although more slowly, since the Devs have seen the problems and are working to fix them, as seen by the progress made so far.