Guardians in SF [Archive] - EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

Rahatmattata

02-05-2010, 06:14 PM

The NDA is over, so let's hear it... How are guardians and fighter balance in general in SF <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/0a4d7238daa496a758252d0a2b1a1384.gif" border="0" />I'm not in beta but I did see the warrior and guardian AAs a couple weeks ago. Not sure if they've changed. If this is up-to-date, I'm liking it. Lots of defensive goodies.Increased duration of reinforcment is cool (5 seconds max?).Unyielding Will change is sweet. Especially with the additional healing, EoF AAs to reduce recast, and the ability to decide when you use it... dare I say it's better than bloodletter?Quicker block and tower of stone recast I like. The casting time of ToS has always bothered me though. If it was a base 0.5 second cast time like a standard combat art that would be awesome. Can't have it all I guess.Group deaggro with threat boost to you is something a lot of guards have been asking for. This should help in groups without the holy trinity of hate feeds. The wording makes me wonder is it a new ability or does moderate just get upgraded?Aggressive Entry will help establish aggro on pull. Good stuffs.Last Man Standing is the ability I'm most excited about. More defense wewt.Nothing very exciting in the warrior tree, but the final ability Experienced Insight looks worth getting.So, looks like we will still have the worst threat of all plate tanks, but we are getting a boost to threat. And tbh, guards were never aggro magnents. That's kind of what paladins were known for. I'm happy for some threat boosts and I personally don't mind other fighters having way better threat control and dps if we have better survivability. I haven't really analyzed other fighter AAs yet to see what they get defensively, but I hope this gives guardians a clear defensive edge once again.Again, my post is based only on these 2 screenshots which may be out-dated and innacurrate by now.<img src="http://sf-aa.zxq.net/warrior.jpg" width="1680" height="1003" /><img src="http://sf-aa.zxq.net/guardian.jpg" width="1680" height="1003" />

Landiin

02-05-2010, 07:18 PM

<cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote>The NDA is over, so let's hear it... How are guardians and fighter balance in general in SF <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/0a4d7238daa496a758252d0a2b1a1384.gif" border="0" />I'm not in beta but I did see the warrior and guardian AAs a couple weeks ago. Not sure if they've changed. If this is up-to-date, I'm liking it. Lots of defensive goodies.Increased duration of reinforcment is cool (5 seconds max?).Unyielding Will change is sweet. Especially with the additional healing, EoF AAs to reduce recast, and the ability to decide when you use it... dare I say it's better than bloodletter?Quicker block and tower of stone recast I like. The casting time of ToS has always bothered me though. If it was a base 0.5 second cast time like a standard combat art that would be awesome. Can't have it all I guess.Group deaggro with threat boost to you is something a lot of guards have been asking for. This should help in groups without the holy trinity of hate feeds. The wording makes me wonder is it a new ability or does moderate just get upgraded?Aggressive Entry will help establish aggro on pull. Good stuffs.Last Man Standing is the ability I'm most excited about. More defense wewt.Nothing very exciting in the warrior tree, but the final ability Experienced Insight looks worth getting.So, looks like we will still have the worst threat of all plate tanks, but we are getting a boost to threat. And tbh, guards were never aggro magnents. That's kind of what paladins were known for. I'm happy for some threat boosts and I personally don't mind other fighters having way better threat control and dps if we have better survivability. I haven't really analyzed other fighter AAs yet to see what they get defensively, but I hope this gives guardians a clear defensive edge once again.Again, my post is based only on these 2 screenshots which may be out-dated and innacurrate by now.</blockquote>Unyielding will is no where near as good ad blood letter. Don't get me wrong it IS a vast improvement over the current ability after you spend the AA's to upgraded. You can crit the heal part of it but I've never had it completely heal me in any of my test.Improved moderate covers the entire group except fighters.To hold aggro in heroic groups with skilled players you will still have to take a hate transfer class with you or your group will have to throttle their DPS. We are still far far behind other plat tanks AoE and ST wise as far as sustained threat goes granted improved moderate does make it not so painful if you can't find a hate transfer to group.With the improvements to UY, ToS and Block we are basically set at MT in raids. However it looks like the same rule will apply in SF as now; Once you learn the encounters you will want one of the other tanks with their huge aggro to MT. Now let the toll Sk Flame fly...

Rahatmattata

02-06-2010, 12:35 AM

<cite>Toran@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>Unyielding will is no where near as good ad blood letter.I haven't played the beta version of SF, but if your heart doesn't 'splode and it heals your for 55-60% ? at master, how is that not anywhere near as good as blood letter? Recast is shorter, you decide when you want to use it, and you can use it several times in an encounter. Maybe not better in your opinion, but nowhere near as good?Improved moderate covers the entire group except fighters.Is improved moderate a new ability or an enhancement for moderate?</blockquote>

Macross_JR

02-06-2010, 12:52 AM

Improved Moderate is a new ability. You will be able to have it up and still put Moderate on another to cap them on -hate.

Landiin

02-06-2010, 02:59 AM

BL is a fire and forget 100% heal from death. UY you have to use before you die and isn't 100%. Say your stunned feared are get [Removed for Content] PWNed you'll never get a chance to get UY off where as BL is setting there ready to be use. So yea it is no where near as good as BL.Is UY nice after spending the 5 AA needed to get it that way? Yes it is, but it IMO it no where as nice as the fire and forget BL.

Yimway

02-09-2010, 05:18 PM

We have much the same issues as before.We have good raid MT tools and poor heroic ae tools. Keep in mind the group moderate only lowers the groups aggro, with still nearly no tools for us to generate ae threat, the lowered value only delays the time for something to peal off you by a few seconds.You will still be required to bring atleast one ae threat transfer if you intend to tank an instance that has ae content.

Macross_JR

02-10-2010, 05:52 AM

I'm not so sure about that anymore Atan, I'm sitting at +30 hate mod solo.

Valiantsword

02-10-2010, 06:50 AM

Theres alot of nice things comin to help with agro and multi mob holding abilities I like it , lots of good changes however I wish they would fix Dragoons Reflex. You got the Sks who can use the same kind of avoidance spells for about 25sec if spec sta and 200AA , Monks the same . They can use all their abilities while having avoid why do Guards and Zerks get the shaft on this. At the present you cant even toggle Dragonz reflex off early, your stiffled and hoping no one ganks agro. Personally I only use it for Typhus ,but Id use it alot more if it didnt have a stupid penalty that no other tanks get as penaltys while using avoid abilities , weak very weak. Also our group stone skin is such a waste the way it is. If you use it in TSO you might as well be suicidal all the mobs have multiple aoes all it takes is soaking up damage from your group once and have the mob double attack you and BAM your dead and offtank is runnin with it. Fix that crap and take all these [Removed for Content] penalties away hell lower the ability dont make it be able to back fire and kill us! Also another thing bothering me ALL other tanks can self cure something on themselves Gaurds and Zerks are at the merci of the healer to cure. I cant tell ya how many times Ive seen people in group runs die because im stunned and the healer is healing on incoming forgetting to cure so i can actually attack in the 1st crucial 10 sec of a fight. Ridiculous that all other tank classes can self cure that and save the group from a wipe. Hell I can take 15 mobs in a zone at a time but if I cant get a cure then everyones dead. I have a 80 Guard main , SK and Monk all myth , Ive played all fighters I hate takin my guard on instance runs anymore cuz on my SK its all easy mode. No heals I heal myself , no cures I cure myself , charm and fear comin np Ill either prepare for it or cure it when it hits , all the while guard is at the mercy of the healer wheres that balance?

Yimway

02-10-2010, 01:35 PM

<cite>Githil@Permafrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>I'm not so sure about that anymore Atan, I'm sitting at +30 hate mod solo.</blockquote>And how do you propose building hate to multiple encounters beating on your group spread out over 20 meters?Lets say 3 groups of 4 mobs. How you going to build any hate for that +30 modifier to multiply?I agree, if you can build a group of 6 people that are content with waiting for you to pull single encounters, we can hold aggro on them.I challenge you to form a pug of 6 random eq2 players content with this in todays game.

VikingGamer

02-10-2010, 02:11 PM

<cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote> I personally don't mind other fighters having way better threat control and dps if we have better survivability.</blockquote>I think this is exactly the problem. I haven't been in EQ2 for but a few weeks so I can't speak to tanking in this game but I see this as a recurring problem in a number of other games. The dps based tank classes always seem to have significantly better threat than the survivablity tank. It is like they are getting two for the price of one or that the devs simply forgot that damage also causes threat when balancing time came around. Gladiators vs Templars had this problem in Aion and Warrior vs. Deathknights in WoW are two glaring examples outside of eq2.The problem with letting this stand is that groups would rather be able to pump up their dps if they can so they will take the tank that has the best threat output while still maintaining the minumum necessary survivablity. As long as the healer can keep the tank up, extra survivability means nothing. Getting though the instance faster means everything. In Aion the Templar was the explicit main tank, glads were explicitly an off tank and temps would still sit out of a timed dark poeta run to a well geared glad because the glad could bring more dps and threat, had enough survivablity and could get the instance done faster for better loot.Threat is not optional for tanking. You can play around with balancing survivablity vs dps vs other utilities but if you are going to tank you must have the threat generation or you will get passed over. Every tank, if they are going to bother calling them a tank, needs to have the full deal threat package or they will be sitting out of things that their threat package is not designed for.

Landiin

02-10-2010, 02:25 PM

I stopped leveling my mini me(sk) to do instances in hopes we would be somewhat fixed in SF. As hard as most of us has tried in beta, it seems to of landed on deaf ears or drowned out out by troll span or resistance from some of our own class. If your not a MT in guild that will have the gear needed and or have people carry you through Instances or mind doing them slow IDK what to tell you. It may be better for you to betray or roll a crusader because honestly I don't see any gear coming from the instances that gonna help you out with hate issues not that is should be done via gear to begin with.

Rahatmattata

02-10-2010, 05:03 PM

I was writing this kinda lengthy response but then I thought why bother? The whole tank balance thing is something I've typed about a lot in other threads, my opinions haven't really changed much, and I have nothing new to say about it.Except for: I'm sorry for you if you can't hold aggro worth a [Removed for Content], don't get invited to groups, get sat in raids in favor of a shadowknight tank, etc. That must really suck. Dunno what to tell you.

RafaelSmith

02-10-2010, 06:08 PM

<cite>VikingGamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote>I personally don't mind other fighters having way better threat control and dps if we have better survivability.</blockquote>I think this is exactly the problem. I haven't been in EQ2 for but a few weeks so I can't speak to tanking in this game but I see this as a recurring problem in a number of other games. The dps based tank classes always seem to have significantly better threat than the survivablity tank. It is like they are getting two for the price of one or that the devs simply forgot that damage also causes threat when balancing time came around. Gladiators vs Templars had this problem in Aion and Warrior vs. Deathknights in WoW are two glaring examples outside of eq2.The problem with letting this stand is that groups would rather be able to pump up their dps if they can so they will take the tank that has the best threat output while still maintaining the minumum necessary survivablity. As long as the healer can keep the tank up, extra survivability means nothing. Getting though the instance faster means everything. In Aion the Templar was the explicit main tank, glads were explicitly an off tank and temps would still sit out of a timed dark poeta run to a well geared glad because the glad could bring more dps and threat, had enough survivablity and could get the instance done faster for better loot.Threat is not optional for tanking. You can play around with balancing survivablity vs dps vs other utilities but if you are going to tank you must have the threat generation or you will get passed over. Every tank, if they are going to bother calling them a tank, needs to have the full deal threat package or they will be sitting out of things that their threat package is not designed for.</blockquote>In my experience across a few different MMOs the problem is always the same.........the people playing the "hybrid","DPS tanks", "utility tanks", whatever term you choose always seem to feel entitled to having out of balance surviveability. Its the reason we have the problem we do now with SKs. Its actually the fault of the devs......when it comes to tanks and high end content all that matters in EQ2 is surviveability, the onyl reason to bring a fighter to a raid is to tank.,, so with adequate surviveability I can see why those fighter classes feel they get shafted.IMO a high DPS tank or utility tank should be an absolute nightmare to keep alive....that the price they should pay for being able to do high DPS or offer groups/raids something else besides meatshield. I have no issue with a SK pumping out close to mage/scout DPS as long as they take DMG like said mage/scout. But being able to pump out that sorta DMG while also taking DMG better or even close to a Guard is what makes things unbalanced.I still think that without threat nothing else that a tank has matters so threat should be equal for all fighters........DPS and how we take DMG is where the scales of balance should be applied. Balance is a give and take........atm that give/take ratio for Crusaders....SKs especially is way out of balance.

Bruener

02-10-2010, 07:10 PM

<cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>VikingGamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote>I personally don't mind other fighters having way better threat control and dps if we have better survivability.</blockquote>I think this is exactly the problem. I haven't been in EQ2 for but a few weeks so I can't speak to tanking in this game but I see this as a recurring problem in a number of other games. The dps based tank classes always seem to have significantly better threat than the survivablity tank. It is like they are getting two for the price of one or that the devs simply forgot that damage also causes threat when balancing time came around. Gladiators vs Templars had this problem in Aion and Warrior vs. Deathknights in WoW are two glaring examples outside of eq2.The problem with letting this stand is that groups would rather be able to pump up their dps if they can so they will take the tank that has the best threat output while still maintaining the minumum necessary survivablity. As long as the healer can keep the tank up, extra survivability means nothing. Getting though the instance faster means everything. In Aion the Templar was the explicit main tank, glads were explicitly an off tank and temps would still sit out of a timed dark poeta run to a well geared glad because the glad could bring more dps and threat, had enough survivablity and could get the instance done faster for better loot.Threat is not optional for tanking. You can play around with balancing survivablity vs dps vs other utilities but if you are going to tank you must have the threat generation or you will get passed over. Every tank, if they are going to bother calling them a tank, needs to have the full deal threat package or they will be sitting out of things that their threat package is not designed for.</blockquote>In my experience across a few different MMOs the problem is always the same.........the people playing the "hybrid","DPS tanks", "utility tanks", whatever term you choose always seem to feel entitled to having out of balance surviveability. Its the reason we have the problem we do now with SKs. Its actually the fault of the devs......when it comes to tanks and high end content all that matters in EQ2 is surviveability, the onyl reason to bring a fighter to a raid is to tank.,, so with adequate surviveability I can see why those fighter classes feel they get shafted.IMO a high DPS tank or utility tank should be an absolute nightmare to keep alive....that the price they should pay for being able to do high DPS or offer groups/raids something else besides meatshield. I have no issue with a SK pumping out close to mage/scout DPS as long as they take DMG like said mage/scout. But being able to pump out that sorta DMG while also taking DMG better or even close to a Guard is what makes things unbalanced.I still think that without threat nothing else that a tank has matters so threat should be equal for all fighters........DPS and how we take DMG is where the scales of balance should be applied. Balance is a give and take........atm that give/take ratio for Crusaders....SKs especially is way out of balance.</blockquote>Whew. All the non-Guard tanks out there are so glad that SOE doesn't listen to your ideas. I mean with what you said basically there would be only 1 tank, while everybody else would be doing other roles besides tanking.Balance is based on Survivability v Agro. Now, when SF rolls out to Live there is going to be no question on which class has the top survivability. The down-side for their top survivability is the lowest AE agro (I say AE because Guards keeping Reinforcement means they actually have the best ST control out of plates). I know the next complaint will be but we don't DPS as much, well thats because you have locked down a guaranteed raid spot. And SOE did give a boost to Guard DPS by giving them 1.5 base crit mod (Crusaders have 1.3) and by being able to drop the epic weapon now Guards will be using 4.0 delay weapon which will actually raise their DPS.The give for being a Guardian is taking less damage than any other tank period. The take is having the lowest agro, balanced because ST there is no gap.

Yimway

02-10-2010, 07:27 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Whew. All the non-Guard tanks out there are so glad that SOE doesn't listen to your ideas. I mean with what you said basically there would be only 1 tank, while everybody else would be doing other roles besides tanking.Balance is based on Survivability v Agro. Now, when SF rolls out to Live there is going to be no question on which class has the top survivability. The down-side for their top survivability is the lowest AE agro (I say AE because Guards keeping Reinforcement means they actually have the best ST control out of plates). I know the next complaint will be but we don't DPS as much, well thats because you have locked down a guaranteed raid spot. And SOE did give a boost to Guard DPS by giving them 1.5 base crit mod (Crusaders have 1.3) and by being able to drop the epic weapon now Guards will be using 4.0 delay weapon which will actually raise their DPS.The give for being a Guardian is taking less damage than any other tank period. The take is having the lowest agro, balanced because ST there is no gap.</blockquote>Hello Stawman arguements.A tank that can't hold aggro for the content in front of them is not a tank. The most basic role of tanking is keeping things pointed at the tank and away from everyone else.There are numerous ways of fixing guardian ae aggro in heroic content that has NO IMPACT to raiding and slots for other tanks in raiding. Of course you know that, cause we've all been over that backwards and forwards in beta.Guards have the lowest dps, particularly in ae content than any other plate tank, as they should. They should however be afforded ae hate tools that are effective in heroic content that don't overpower the class in raid content. And again, numerous plausible modifications to class abilities have been put forward that accomplish this. As far as more dps via the crit modifier, actually parse the class live vs beta, and you'll find their % of groupwide dps actually goes down in SF.Lastly, guardian is actually not taking less net damage in AE content than other classes. Its fairly easy to demonstrate by pulling 20+ mobs and parsing net damage/heals. 4 procs of stoneskin is not effective vs 20 mobs hitting for many,many small hits, as our survivability bonuses are designed to be effective vs large hits comming from single target mobs. Guardian survivability in ae content is not as effective as say ae lifetaps or 50% base damage reduction that are afforded other classes.Even if the guard was given equal ae threat, it will still be harder to keep alive against ae content than the true ae classes. Not to mention the ae tanks will parse exponentially higher dps at the same time. I argue there is balance in there, such that the ae threat abilities provided the class are ineffective in raid content.Plausible suggestions for abilities that afford ae hate tools without impacting raid content:1) Adjust recapture to provide group wide thread reduction of 2-3 hate positions. This would allow the ability that currently has no function in heroic content to work as an ae snap tool for the class. Ideally it will provide enough hits on the guard to trigger HTL procs to build aggro. It is expected it wont effectively ae lock aggro like true ae tank tools, but it will gather up enough mobs that we can then work on the ones that peel with our single target abilities.2) Add signigicant threat/taunt to our intercept abilities. In this way Sentry Watch, Guadian's Sphere, Interceed and other abilities would trigger significant taunts for ae content when we don't have aggro. Triggering Guardian's Spehere would help snap aggro off group mates as they get hit from adds. Again, this would not build any significant ae hate in raid scenarios as epic content hitting non-tanks will simply kill them and provide no effective ae threat lock down for the guard.3) Adjust plant to an ae stiffle that has a threat over time component that ONLY applies to mobs that are stiffled. Given the epic stun/stiffle/mez immunity afforded to epic targets, this would be an innefective raid ae threat tool, but could be effective solely in heroic content. All of which could be done to fix the ae threat issues of the class without infringing on anyone else's raid slot.

Bruener

02-10-2010, 07:36 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Whew. All the non-Guard tanks out there are so glad that SOE doesn't listen to your ideas. I mean with what you said basically there would be only 1 tank, while everybody else would be doing other roles besides tanking.Balance is based on Survivability v Agro. Now, when SF rolls out to Live there is going to be no question on which class has the top survivability. The down-side for their top survivability is the lowest AE agro (I say AE because Guards keeping Reinforcement means they actually have the best ST control out of plates). I know the next complaint will be but we don't DPS as much, well thats because you have locked down a guaranteed raid spot. And SOE did give a boost to Guard DPS by giving them 1.5 base crit mod (Crusaders have 1.3) and by being able to drop the epic weapon now Guards will be using 4.0 delay weapon which will actually raise their DPS.The give for being a Guardian is taking less damage than any other tank period. The take is having the lowest agro, balanced because ST there is no gap.</blockquote>Hello Stawman arguements.A tank that can't hold aggro for the content in front of them is not a tank. The most basic role of tanking is keeping things pointed at the tank and away from everyone else.There are numerous ways of fixing guardian ae aggro in heroic content that has NO IMPACT to raiding and slots for other tanks in raiding. Of course you know that, cause we've all been over that backwards and forwards in beta.Guards have the lowest dps, particularly in ae content than any other plate tank, as they should. They should however be afforded ae hate tools that are effective in heroic content that don't overpower the class in raid content. And again, numerous plausible modifications to class abilities have been put forward that accomplish this. As far as more dps via the crit modifier, actually parse the class live vs beta, and you'll find their % of groupwide dps actually goes down in SF.Lastly, guardian is actually not taking less net damage in AE content than other classes. Its fairly easy to demonstrate by pulling 20+ mobs and parsing net damage/heals. 4 procs of stoneskin is not effective vs 20 mobs hitting for many,many small hits, as our survivability bonuses are designed to be effective vs large hits comming from single target mobs. Guardian survivability in ae content is not as effective as say ae lifetaps or 50% base damage reduction that are afforded other classes.Even if the guard was given equal ae threat, it will still be harder to keep alive against ae content than the true ae classes. Not to mention the ae tanks will parse exponentially higher dps at the same time. I argue there is balance in there, such that the ae threat abilities provided the class are ineffective in raid content.Plausible suggestions for abilities that afford ae hate tools without impacting raid content:1) Adjust recapture to provide group wide thread reduction of 2-3 hate positions. This would allow the ability that currently has no function in heroic content to work as an ae snap tool for the class. Ideally it will provide enough hits on the guard to trigger HTL procs to build aggro. It is expected it wont effectively ae lock aggro like true ae tank tools, but it will gather up enough mobs that we can then work on the ones that peel with our single target abilities.2) Add signigicant threat/taunt to our intercept abilities. In this way Sentry Watch, Guadian's Sphere, Interceed and other abilities would trigger significant taunts for ae content when we don't have aggro. Triggering Guardian's Spehere would help snap aggro off group mates as they get hit from adds. Again, this would not build any significant ae hate in raid scenarios as epic content hitting non-tanks will simply kill them and provide no effective ae threat lock down for the guard.3) Adjust plant to an ae stiffle that has a threat over time component that ONLY applies to mobs that are stiffled. Given the epic stun/stiffle/mez immunity afforded to epic targets, this would be an innefective raid ae threat tool, but could be effective solely in heroic content. All of which could be done to fix the ae threat issues of the class without infringing on anyone else's raid slot.</blockquote>There is a huge difference between asking for equal threat and asking for more tools for the heroic level. And man, I should really take out a patent on that Recapture idea.If it is specifically for the heroic level other tanks are not going to care if Guards are able to do an equal job. At that level of course the survivability doesn't matter nearly as much, and really either does the agro since most of the time a good healer can keep up an entire group on a burn run through since things die extremely fast.I do like your list and those sound like some great ideas to implement to help things out at the heroic level. But start giving equal control across all levels of game-play and you easily start putting other tanks out of a job. 15 sec of Furor on a 4 min recast isn't going to take less damage than what tons of blocks can do on fast recasts.

Yimway

02-10-2010, 07:43 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>I do like your list and those sound like some great ideas to implement to help things out at the heroic level. But start giving equal control across all levels of game-play and you easily start putting other tanks out of a job. 15 sec of Furor on a 4 min recast isn't going to take less damage than what tons of blocks can do on fast recasts.</blockquote>When your getting hit 10/s for 100-500 damage, blocks are not particularly effective. Even if I can recast them a little faster in SF.However ae lifetaping 20 mobs, or a base damage reduction save for 15-30s, yeah that'll actually be effective for a healer to catch up, much less complete heals from bloodletter.I've posted my plausible list on beta as well for comments and perchance Xelgad will read.

Landiin

02-10-2010, 08:47 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>VikingGamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote>I personally don't mind other fighters having way better threat control and dps if we have better survivability.</blockquote>I think this is exactly the problem. I haven't been in EQ2 for but a few weeks so I can't speak to tanking in this game but I see this as a recurring problem in a number of other games. The dps based tank classes always seem to have significantly better threat than the survivablity tank. It is like they are getting two for the price of one or that the devs simply forgot that damage also causes threat when balancing time came around. Gladiators vs Templars had this problem in Aion and Warrior vs. Deathknights in WoW are two glaring examples outside of eq2.The problem with letting this stand is that groups would rather be able to pump up their dps if they can so they will take the tank that has the best threat output while still maintaining the minumum necessary survivablity. As long as the healer can keep the tank up, extra survivability means nothing. Getting though the instance faster means everything. In Aion the Templar was the explicit main tank, glads were explicitly an off tank and temps would still sit out of a timed dark poeta run to a well geared glad because the glad could bring more dps and threat, had enough survivablity and could get the instance done faster for better loot.Threat is not optional for tanking. You can play around with balancing survivablity vs dps vs other utilities but if you are going to tank you must have the threat generation or you will get passed over. Every tank, if they are going to bother calling them a tank, needs to have the full deal threat package or they will be sitting out of things that their threat package is not designed for.</blockquote>In my experience across a few different MMOs the problem is always the same.........the people playing the "hybrid","DPS tanks", "utility tanks", whatever term you choose always seem to feel entitled to having out of balance surviveability. Its the reason we have the problem we do now with SKs. Its actually the fault of the devs......when it comes to tanks and high end content all that matters in EQ2 is surviveability, the onyl reason to bring a fighter to a raid is to tank.,, so with adequate surviveability I can see why those fighter classes feel they get shafted.IMO a high DPS tank or utility tank should be an absolute nightmare to keep alive....that the price they should pay for being able to do high DPS or offer groups/raids something else besides meatshield. I have no issue with a SK pumping out close to mage/scout DPS as long as they take DMG like said mage/scout. But being able to pump out that sorta DMG while also taking DMG better or even close to a Guard is what makes things unbalanced.I still think that without threat nothing else that a tank has matters so threat should be equal for all fighters........DPS and how we take DMG is where the scales of balance should be applied. Balance is a give and take........atm that give/take ratio for Crusaders....SKs especially is way out of balance.</blockquote>Whew. All the non-Guard tanks out there are so glad that SOE doesn't listen to your ideas. I mean with what you said basically there would be only 1 tank, while everybody else would be doing other roles besides tanking.Balance is based on Survivability v Agro. Now, when SF rolls out to Live there is going to be no question on which class has the top survivability. The down-side for their top survivability is the lowest AE agro (I say AE because Guards keeping Reinforcement means they actually have the best ST control out of plates). I know the next complaint will be but we don't DPS as much, well thats because you have locked down a guaranteed raid spot. And SOE did give a boost to Guard DPS by giving them 1.5 base crit mod (Crusaders have 1.3) and by being able to drop the epic weapon now Guards will be using 4.0 delay weapon which will actually raise their DPS.The give for being a Guardian is taking less damage than any other tank period. The take is having the lowest agro, balanced because ST there is no gap.</blockquote>Oh look the OP class troller has arived here now.

Aull

02-10-2010, 09:25 PM

I still believe that if a fighter is able to dump out loads of dps either st or aoe should not have survival of a fighter that cannot dump out equivalent dps.It was mentioned while back that just because the arch-type is listed as scout doesn't insure that all scouts should be parsing the same. Some scouts as we know are utility 1st and every thing else second. Some are purely dps and nothing else. Some are a good but not top scout dps, debuffs, and minor utility. None exactly the same but are able to stack within a group or raid.I think a similar approach should apply for fighters. Warriors higher survival and everything else second. Crusaders good mixture of group utility, off tank survival, and decent dps. Brawlers more dps oriented with minor utility and least survival.

RafaelSmith

02-10-2010, 09:30 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>VikingGamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote>I personally don't mind other fighters having way better threat control and dps if we have better survivability.</blockquote>I think this is exactly the problem. I haven't been in EQ2 for but a few weeks so I can't speak to tanking in this game but I see this as a recurring problem in a number of other games. The dps based tank classes always seem to have significantly better threat than the survivablity tank. It is like they are getting two for the price of one or that the devs simply forgot that damage also causes threat when balancing time came around. Gladiators vs Templars had this problem in Aion and Warrior vs. Deathknights in WoW are two glaring examples outside of eq2.The problem with letting this stand is that groups would rather be able to pump up their dps if they can so they will take the tank that has the best threat output while still maintaining the minumum necessary survivablity. As long as the healer can keep the tank up, extra survivability means nothing. Getting though the instance faster means everything. In Aion the Templar was the explicit main tank, glads were explicitly an off tank and temps would still sit out of a timed dark poeta run to a well geared glad because the glad could bring more dps and threat, had enough survivablity and could get the instance done faster for better loot.Threat is not optional for tanking. You can play around with balancing survivablity vs dps vs other utilities but if you are going to tank you must have the threat generation or you will get passed over. Every tank, if they are going to bother calling them a tank, needs to have the full deal threat package or they will be sitting out of things that their threat package is not designed for.</blockquote>In my experience across a few different MMOs the problem is always the same.........the people playing the "hybrid","DPS tanks", "utility tanks", whatever term you choose always seem to feel entitled to having out of balance surviveability. Its the reason we have the problem we do now with SKs. Its actually the fault of the devs......when it comes to tanks and high end content all that matters in EQ2 is surviveability, the onyl reason to bring a fighter to a raid is to tank.,, so with adequate surviveability I can see why those fighter classes feel they get shafted.IMO a high DPS tank or utility tank should be an absolute nightmare to keep alive....that the price they should pay for being able to do high DPS or offer groups/raids something else besides meatshield. I have no issue with a SK pumping out close to mage/scout DPS as long as they take DMG like said mage/scout. But being able to pump out that sorta DMG while also taking DMG better or even close to a Guard is what makes things unbalanced.I still think that without threat nothing else that a tank has matters so threat should be equal for all fighters........DPS and how we take DMG is where the scales of balance should be applied. Balance is a give and take........atm that give/take ratio for Crusaders....SKs especially is way out of balance.</blockquote>Whew. All the non-Guard tanks out there are so glad that SOE doesn't listen to your ideas. I mean with what you said basically there would be only 1 tank, while everybody else would be doing other roles besides tanking.Balance is based on Survivability v Agro. Now, when SF rolls out to Live there is going to be no question on which class has the top survivability. The down-side for their top survivability is the lowest AE agro (I say AE because Guards keeping Reinforcement means they actually have the best ST control out of plates). I know the next complaint will be but we don't DPS as much, well thats because you have locked down a guaranteed raid spot. And SOE did give a boost to Guard DPS by giving them 1.5 base crit mod (Crusaders have 1.3) and by being able to drop the epic weapon now Guards will be using 4.0 delay weapon which will actually raise their DPS.The give for being a Guardian is taking less damage than any other tank period. The take is having the lowest agro, balanced because ST there is no gap.</blockquote>And the SK 'take' for having crazy DPS, crazy aggro both AE and ST and high surviveability is?I seriously have never met anyone more selfish and close minded in any game ive played than you sir.If it were not for the fact that I have friends that play SKs......that admit that too much power was given to them with very little if any downside I would rejoice at smacking your class into uselessness simply because of players like you.

Bruener

02-10-2010, 09:37 PM

.

Rahatmattata

02-10-2010, 10:38 PM

<cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>And the SK 'take' for having crazy DPS, crazy aggro both AE and ST and high surviveability is?</blockquote>Having to compete with 16 billion other shadowknights for raid spots/masters, and trying to distinguish yourself from the quivering mass of mediocre FotM so-called "tanks". <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" />

Yimway

02-11-2010, 01:16 PM

I think it says something that it is impossible to have a discussion on a class specific issue in a class specific forum without SK trolls comming in and starting the same flame arguements YET AGAIN.No one is attacking your class here, no one is discussing your class here, kindly STHU and move along.

MaCloud1032

02-11-2010, 06:20 PM

I have both a guard and a SK. That said in SK's current form we are OP as hell. In terms of the games history is is only a small time in relation to the other tanks that we could be considered a high end tank. T5-T8 was warrior time. I can remember being out right told by other guards on my server that I was not a raid tank. That only some pallys, most zerkers, and guards could progress thru EoF. RoK came aroud and guards were gods. TSO made my underpowered sk a near god and took my overpowered guard and turned him into garbage. Nope not fair to either one. I think the guardian this expansin got some good tools. Iam a bit torn on the sk stuff as of yet. I know the ward is good but the other stuff is mhe. And all tanks need to get off this eletist attitude. SK's need to admit we are OP and guards need to accecpt that we held that guarinteed spot with no chalangers for a long time.

Yimway

02-11-2010, 07:00 PM

<cite>Darksavanna@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote>And all tanks need to get off this eletist attitude. SK's need to admit we are OP and guards need to accecpt that we held that guarinteed spot with no chalangers for a long time.</blockquote>Honestly? I could care less about the slot.I'll earn a raid slot on any of my 15 toons and I'll play it better than 99% of the poeple in the class doing it. Whatever the guild wants me to play, and what ever role they need me to play on a raid, I'm right there.What I don't enjoy is having toons that just have no appeal to pugs, as I spend as much time puging as I do raiding, and I would prefer that whatever toon is my raid main is also successful at getting pugs.Every other person in my 24 man raid has a high desirability in heroic content, with exception of the guard, so I really see no justification in this arguement a guaranteed raid slot is the trade-off for having the least effective heroic content tools.

VikingGamer

02-11-2010, 07:26 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>A tank that can't hold aggro for the content in front of them is not a tank. </blockquote>QFTSo true, in fact, that it hurts and universal to all MMOs.And this is exactly why you cannot balance threat vs another factor, even survivablity. If you cannot hold the aggro, your survivablity is not going to be a factor, the survivablity of the warlock becomes a factor.I don't think I have ever seen any game even claim to balance aggro vs survivablity. The class descriptions always refer to trading survivablity for damage dealing or the opposite.The other huge factor playing in this is that survivability can, by design be impacted by getting better gear. Gear has almost no impact on aggro unless your aggro is based on dps which is exactly why dps tanks any any game usually tend to out aggro the survivablity tank before the end of an expansion, while closing the survivablity gap at the same time.Finally the utility of survivablity has an inherent cap to it. You don't need more survivablity than you need for the given encournter depending on the capablity of your healers. But more aggro is usually welcome as it gives the dps more room to let loose which they always love doing because that is what they came for. The guard's survivablity becomes useless overkill but the SK's aggro is always welcome so long as he has enough gear to survive the encounter.

Gonzo550

02-11-2010, 11:05 PM

the guardian beta forums are full of good suggestions and issues that need addressing. So far SOE has yet to impliment ONE change to the class directly. (they have nerfed the warrior line in general)

Blxckheart

02-12-2010, 05:46 AM

<cite>VikingGamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>A tank that can't hold aggro for the content in front of them is not a tank. </blockquote>QFTSo true, in fact, that it hurts and universal to all MMOs.And this is exactly why you cannot balance threat vs another factor, even survivablity. If you cannot hold the aggro, your survivablity is not going to be a factor, the survivablity of the warlock becomes a factor.I don't think I have ever seen any game even claim to balance aggro vs survivablity. The class descriptions always refer to trading survivablity for damage dealing or the opposite.The other huge factor playing in this is that survivability can, by design be impacted by getting better gear. Gear has almost no impact on aggro unless your aggro is based on dps which is exactly why dps tanks any any game usually tend to out aggro the survivablity tank before the end of an expansion, while closing the survivablity gap at the same time.Finally the utility of survivablity has an inherent cap to it. You don't need more survivablity than you need for the given encournter depending on the capablity of your healers. But more aggro is usually welcome as it gives the dps more room to let loose which they always love doing because that is what they came for. The guard's survivablity becomes useless overkill but the SK's aggro is always welcome so long as he has enough gear to survive the encounter.</blockquote>Bruener, Aka Duele, just uses this arguement to keep SK OP and everyone else behind. He honestly wants his class to remain on top, and If SK is going to be on top for two expansions, I will be cancelling my account, and never reccomend EQ2 to anyone else for it's outrageous class balancing problems, and this is a team problem, so Im not going to point fingers individually... SK Is NOT supposed to be main tank. If you rolled your SK to main tank, you're doing it wrong, and I will NOT suffer another expansion where any of the tanks cannot dominate threat. There's too many better choices of MMOs for people who want to tank, and NO OTHER GAME has something as stupid and ridiculous as issues holding aggro for any of the tank classes. Its poor design, and poor development, and SF will be the last straw. Thanks to poor design and development in TSO, SK has now set the standard for DPS to go absolutely insane on every mob, and they and Paladin are the only tanks that can perform in this way. Even more outrageous and very lulzy is the fact that one half of the community cannot group with the other.. You got raiders and casual, and if they mix, you get animosity from raiders toward the casuals giving them crap for not being up to par because they cant hold hate. Im just going to say this.. It's downright unfair that you revamp ONE fighter's abilities to make them extremely viable for an expansion, and leave the other tanks in poor condition, and not do the same for them, especially when the only SK that sucked before the revamp were the ones that couldnt play the class. I do recall SK that played just fine in their previous state.. I'd even go as far as to say they didnt need any changes in a lot of ways. TSO has set the standard for DPS to go buckwild on mobs.. what are you intending to do about it to make threat managable after ANOTHER level cap increase with taunts not scaling properly, soe? If nothing, then spare me from paying for the expansion.

steelbadger

02-12-2010, 06:27 AM

I'm not entirely sure I agree on the whole aggro thing...1) Aggro should never be a given. It is the primary active thing we as tanks can do (Survivability being primarily passive, with a few temp buffs) and as such should be (and currently IS, for guardians at least) a challenge to get right. I'll readily admit that our aggro in heroic content and heroic gear is poor and behind the curve, requiring a LOT more skill/gear to generate comparable aggro to that generated by a well played, well geared DPS class. But to suggest that we should just be able to hold aggro irregardless of the situation stinks of easy mode to me. If we can "just hold aggro" then the only active thing left to us is DPS which is currently important because it is aggro, if people are suggesting that aggro for tanks should be a given then DPS becomes like a pointless hobby.2) Aggro should never be the sole domain of tanks. I don't care what short sighted DPS classes say (my first raiding character was an assassin in T7, my view is unchanged from then); being a good DPS player means controlling your aggro. In all honesty I found my assassin fairly boring and formulaic when aggro wasn't an issue, which ultimately lead to my switching to a tank. If you generate aggro then it is your job to control it. Tanks have to maximise it and DPS players have to play a finely tuned balancing act between reducing aggro and doing dps. I would like to see DPS classes given more tools for self aggro reduction to make it a more active part of their role. Currently one of the most effective ways of reducing aggro is to do nothing (often the only option due to the limited number of deaggro abilities) and I can completely understand why DPS classes don't like that idea.The old tank changes seemed to move in the direction of tanks "just being able to hold aggro" and I was dead set against them only because I like to think that I have a say in how well my tank works in combat, changes that make aggro a given for tanks take that away; no longer is it my judgement on where to place my character on the Aggro---Survivability curves that decides success or failure.Skill in an MMO is hard to fathom because hitting buttons in the right order does not a great player make. I believe skill in normal circumstances comes from the ability to balance, a light touch on one side of the scales or the other. For tanks one side of the scales is Survivability and the other side is Aggro. You cannot have one without sacrificing the other. If aggro is a given even when prioritising Survivability then that skill aspect is gone.For DPS classes the scales are DPS and Aggro (well, if we stick to the scales analogy it would be DPS and Safety from Gaining Aggro).Sorry, I seem to have waffled a bit.

Bruener

02-12-2010, 11:37 AM

<cite>Blxckheart wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>VikingGamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>A tank that can't hold aggro for the content in front of them is not a tank. </blockquote>QFTSo true, in fact, that it hurts and universal to all MMOs.And this is exactly why you cannot balance threat vs another factor, even survivablity. If you cannot hold the aggro, your survivablity is not going to be a factor, the survivablity of the warlock becomes a factor.I don't think I have ever seen any game even claim to balance aggro vs survivablity. The class descriptions always refer to trading survivablity for damage dealing or the opposite.The other huge factor playing in this is that survivability can, by design be impacted by getting better gear. Gear has almost no impact on aggro unless your aggro is based on dps which is exactly why dps tanks any any game usually tend to out aggro the survivablity tank before the end of an expansion, while closing the survivablity gap at the same time.Finally the utility of survivablity has an inherent cap to it. You don't need more survivablity than you need for the given encournter depending on the capablity of your healers. But more aggro is usually welcome as it gives the dps more room to let loose which they always love doing because that is what they came for. The guard's survivablity becomes useless overkill but the SK's aggro is always welcome so long as he has enough gear to survive the encounter.</blockquote>Bruener, Aka Duele, just uses this arguement to keep SK OP and everyone else behind. He honestly wants his class to remain on top, and If SK is going to be on top for two expansions, I will be cancelling my account, and never reccomend EQ2 to anyone else for it's outrageous class balancing problems, and this is a team problem, so Im not going to point fingers individually... SK Is NOT supposed to be main tank. If you rolled your SK to main tank, you're doing it wrong, and I will NOT suffer another expansion where any of the tanks cannot dominate threat. There's too many better choices of MMOs for people who want to tank, and NO OTHER GAME has something as stupid and ridiculous as issues holding aggro for any of the tank classes. Its poor design, and poor development, and SF will be the last straw. Thanks to poor design and development in TSO, SK has now set the standard for DPS to go absolutely insane on every mob, and they and Paladin are the only tanks that can perform in this way. Even more outrageous and very lulzy is the fact that one half of the community cannot group with the other.. You got raiders and casual, and if they mix, you get animosity from raiders toward the casuals giving them crap for not being up to par because they cant hold hate. Im just going to say this.. It's downright unfair that you revamp ONE fighter's abilities to make them extremely viable for an expansion, and leave the other tanks in poor condition, and not do the same for them, especially when the only SK that sucked before the revamp were the ones that couldnt play the class. I do recall SK that played just fine in their previous state.. I'd even go as far as to say they didnt need any changes in a lot of ways. TSO has set the standard for DPS to go buckwild on mobs.. what are you intending to do about it to make threat managable after ANOTHER level cap increase with taunts not scaling properly, soe? If nothing, then spare me from paying for the expansion.</blockquote>Stop turning this into a Guard v SK issue. Its not. Its a Guard v "All other fighters".Its simple reasoning and it is exactly why Guards do not have equal AE agro control. If they did, whether it is raw threat or DPS, will mean that Guards will be BEST MT by a long shot and be arguably the best OT. There are already 3 plate fighter classes competing for the 1 OT slot. And than a 3rd Fighter spot on raid for a secondary OT slot, most likely a Brawler.Have you even played beta? Guards have NO PROBLEM on ST agro. In fact they are probably the best plate tank for it with Reinforcement being extended in duration and it having a low recast. All taunts are affected by mods now. It means they crit, go up with +base%, crit harder with crit bonus, etc. Taunts are doing what they should have been doing a long time and that alone has brought them back into place as useful.The issue is a couple of you are trying to put the other tanks out of a job in raiding. Atan has a great list elsewhere on stuff that could be bumped to help Guards in HEROIC CONTENT. The other tanks could care less if they get boosts to help them in that content, but as soon as they start crossing the line into what makes other tanks useful on raids than it is just being ignorant.Sorry if you can't understand balance.

steveatk

02-12-2010, 12:09 PM

Have to agree with Breuner hereGuards are absolutely spot on in raiding situations now, they don't need anything else. The only thing we need is a way to grab/hold attention a bit more in Heroic content to let Hold the Line (which could use a buff) and similar tools do their job. Any solution to heroic AOE threat generation that let's a Guardian become a usable OT is the wrong solution.

Landiin

02-12-2010, 04:06 PM

IF a guard did have the very best AoE aggro [Removed for Content] would you make it an OT? I mean Zerks/SK can out DPS them and they have way more tools to be OT then a guard. A guard has zero tools to mitigate spike dmg from multiple mobs like the others do. Really and RL putting a guard as OT that had other choices would be fail imho just from the DPS stand point alone.But really no guard is asking to have the best AoE aggro in the game. OTing isn't our job and we don't want it. What we are asking for is to be able to hold aggro with out having to drag hate transfers around with us. The other tanks don't need it we shouldn't need it.

Wasuna

02-12-2010, 04:17 PM

<cite>Aerin@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>Have to agree with Breuner hereGuards are absolutely spot on in raiding situations now, they don't need anything else. The only thing we need is a way to grab/hold attention a bit more in Heroic content to let Hold the Line (which could use a buff) and similar tools do their job. Any solution to heroic AOE threat generation that let's a Guardian become a usable OT is the wrong solution.</blockquote>So, you say your agreeing with Breyner and then saying what 90% of the people on thso thread are saying? Guardians need AOE agro. If we don't get AoE agro then make all zones have a selection before you go in. AoE or ST groups only. In full offensive/DW with a Dirge and Assassin I can absolutly guarantee you I lose agro all the time on groups.Even this survivability discussion is crap. SK's tank in offensive all the time knowing that bloodletter will save them from spikes. They proceed to top the DPS parse, hit the middle of the heal parse and take hits better than anybody else in the rgroup even in offensive. I don't care what numbers you throw out or what spells/combat arts you want to disciss. THAT'S JUST WRONG.As far as I'm concerned, all the Guardians here are trying to be nice about getting a boost to our abilities while you SK's whine about meaningless item. "This spell is 2% better than ours so screw you" kind of stuff. In the end, it's the whole effect of how the SK class has single handedly changed the expectations of all the people in the entire game.

Bruener

02-12-2010, 06:40 PM

<cite>Wasuna wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aerin@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>Have to agree with Breuner hereGuards are absolutely spot on in raiding situations now, they don't need anything else. The only thing we need is a way to grab/hold attention a bit more in Heroic content to let Hold the Line (which could use a buff) and similar tools do their job. Any solution to heroic AOE threat generation that let's a Guardian become a usable OT is the wrong solution.</blockquote>So, you say your agreeing with Breyner and then saying what 90% of the people on thso thread are saying? Guardians need AOE agro. If we don't get AoE agro then make all zones have a selection before you go in. AoE or ST groups only. In full offensive/DW with a Dirge and Assassin I can absolutly guarantee you I lose agro all the time on groups.Even this survivability discussion is crap. SK's tank in offensive all the time knowing that bloodletter will save them from spikes. They proceed to top the DPS parse, hit the middle of the heal parse and take hits better than anybody else in the rgroup even in offensive. I don't care what numbers you throw out or what spells/combat arts you want to disciss. THAT'S JUST WRONG.As far as I'm concerned, all the Guardians here are trying to be nice about getting a boost to our abilities while you SK's whine about meaningless item. "This spell is 2% better than ours so screw you" kind of stuff. In the end, it's the whole effect of how the SK class has single handedly changed the expectations of all the people in the entire game.</blockquote>Did you even read anything besides what is on page 3?And more importantly have you even checked out how things are on beta? Guards will be blocking tons of attacks, and a lot of those blocks will be on fast recast. Hands down Guards will be far ahead of other tanks in taking damage. Nice little perspective on Guards being so meek, you obviously haven't been reading anything on the boards either.Guards can get all the boost they want to heroic content and the other tanks would probably give a rats, because it doesn't take content at the heroic level to get to the point where a mage could tank most of the stuff in a group. The issue is asking in stuff that will start giving more and more AE tools to Guards at the raid level. AE/OT'ing is the realm of the other fighters, and since Guards lock down one position already they should not be in the running for the other 2 fighter spots on a raid.

Wasuna

02-13-2010, 07:54 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Blah Blah Blah</blockquote>I don't care what you say. Nothing will ever make it OK for the tank to top the DPS parse, be in the middle of the heal parse and actually be able to take a hit. NOTHING.Say whatever you want. It can NEVER be considered OK.

Blxckheart

02-13-2010, 07:56 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Wasuna wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aerin@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>Have to agree with Breuner hereGuards are absolutely spot on in raiding situations now, they don't need anything else. The only thing we need is a way to grab/hold attention a bit more in Heroic content to let Hold the Line (which could use a buff) and similar tools do their job. Any solution to heroic AOE threat generation that let's a Guardian become a usable OT is the wrong solution.</blockquote>So, you say your agreeing with Breyner and then saying what 90% of the people on thso thread are saying? Guardians need AOE agro. If we don't get AoE agro then make all zones have a selection before you go in. AoE or ST groups only. In full offensive/DW with a Dirge and Assassin I can absolutly guarantee you I lose agro all the time on groups.Even this survivability discussion is crap. SK's tank in offensive all the time knowing that bloodletter will save them from spikes. They proceed to top the DPS parse, hit the middle of the heal parse and take hits better than anybody else in the rgroup even in offensive. I don't care what numbers you throw out or what spells/combat arts you want to disciss. THAT'S JUST WRONG.As far as I'm concerned, all the Guardians here are trying to be nice about getting a boost to our abilities while you SK's whine about meaningless item. "This spell is 2% better than ours so screw you" kind of stuff. In the end, it's the whole effect of how the SK class has single handedly changed the expectations of all the people in the entire game.</blockquote>Did you even read anything besides what is on page 3?And more importantly have you even checked out how things are on beta? Guards will be blocking tons of attacks, and a lot of those blocks will be on fast recast. Hands down Guards will be far ahead of other tanks in taking damage. Nice little perspective on Guards being so meek, you obviously haven't been reading anything on the boards either.Guards can get all the boost they want to heroic content and the other tanks would probably give a rats, because it doesn't take content at the heroic level to get to the point where a mage could tank most of the stuff in a group. The issue is asking in stuff that will start giving more and more AE tools to Guards at the raid level. AE/OT'ing is the realm of the other fighters, and since Guards lock down one position already they should not be in the running for the other 2 fighter spots on a raid.</blockquote>All tanks should be able to tank all content. Its a video game, and It is supposed to be functional. The difference, as stated a dozen times, should be DPS vs Survivability. It's always been that way, but after 30 levels worth of cap increases, threat hasnt scaled properly, and DPS tanks are number 1 for everything presently. Hopefully crit taunts will change this, but here's to hoping when it comes to SoE.. As far as Guard having aoe threat.. It should be viable, but a lot of the problem these days is people want 1 tank to tank everything in raids, when it should be envisioned like this:Crusader have the best threat. Have them MAIN ASSIST/MAIN TANK the trash up to the named encounters, because then the DPS can go crazy. However, when It comes to the boss, have your Guard, or heaviest plate tank switch up to the main tank group, and have him tank the boss, with the offtank assist him with adds or pick it up if the other tank dies.

Bruener

02-13-2010, 10:02 PM

<cite>Wasuna wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Blah Blah Blah</blockquote>I don't care what you say. Nothing will ever make it OK for the tank to top the DPS parse, be in the middle of the heal parse and actually be able to take a hit. NOTHING.Say whatever you want. It can NEVER be considered OK.</blockquote>You play with very poor DPS'ers than. Just based on what you are saying here it is apparent that you are talking from a place you have no clue about. That is all.

Bruener

02-13-2010, 10:05 PM

<cite>Blxckheart wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Wasuna wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aerin@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>Have to agree with Breuner hereGuards are absolutely spot on in raiding situations now, they don't need anything else. The only thing we need is a way to grab/hold attention a bit more in Heroic content to let Hold the Line (which could use a buff) and similar tools do their job. Any solution to heroic AOE threat generation that let's a Guardian become a usable OT is the wrong solution.</blockquote>So, you say your agreeing with Breyner and then saying what 90% of the people on thso thread are saying? Guardians need AOE agro. If we don't get AoE agro then make all zones have a selection before you go in. AoE or ST groups only. In full offensive/DW with a Dirge and Assassin I can absolutly guarantee you I lose agro all the time on groups.Even this survivability discussion is crap. SK's tank in offensive all the time knowing that bloodletter will save them from spikes. They proceed to top the DPS parse, hit the middle of the heal parse and take hits better than anybody else in the rgroup even in offensive. I don't care what numbers you throw out or what spells/combat arts you want to disciss. THAT'S JUST WRONG.As far as I'm concerned, all the Guardians here are trying to be nice about getting a boost to our abilities while you SK's whine about meaningless item. "This spell is 2% better than ours so screw you" kind of stuff. In the end, it's the whole effect of how the SK class has single handedly changed the expectations of all the people in the entire game.</blockquote>Did you even read anything besides what is on page 3?And more importantly have you even checked out how things are on beta? Guards will be blocking tons of attacks, and a lot of those blocks will be on fast recast. Hands down Guards will be far ahead of other tanks in taking damage. Nice little perspective on Guards being so meek, you obviously haven't been reading anything on the boards either.Guards can get all the boost they want to heroic content and the other tanks would probably give a rats, because it doesn't take content at the heroic level to get to the point where a mage could tank most of the stuff in a group. The issue is asking in stuff that will start giving more and more AE tools to Guards at the raid level. AE/OT'ing is the realm of the other fighters, and since Guards lock down one position already they should not be in the running for the other 2 fighter spots on a raid.</blockquote>All tanks should be able to tank all content. Its a video game, and It is supposed to be functional. The difference, as stated a dozen times, should be DPS vs Survivability. It's always been that way, but after 30 levels worth of cap increases, threat hasnt scaled properly, and DPS tanks are number 1 for everything presently. Hopefully crit taunts will change this, but here's to hoping when it comes to SoE.. As far as Guard having aoe threat.. It should be viable, but a lot of the problem these days is people want 1 tank to tank everything in raids, when it should be envisioned like this:Crusader have the best threat. Have them MAIN ASSIST/MAIN TANK the trash up to the named encounters, because then the DPS can go crazy. However, when It comes to the boss, have your Guard, or heaviest plate tank switch up to the main tank group, and have him tank the boss, with the offtank assist him with adds or pick it up if the other tank dies.</blockquote>Your whole post is making no sense. At one point you are talking about it being DPS v Survivability but than you change your whole schematic to be about some fighter classes having better agro. What is really off about what you posted is that your last statement is pretty much how it is, minus the part of there is no need at all to swap out tanks for tanking trash since a Guard set up in a raid group has more than enough agro to handle all the trash unless it is a huge AE encounter like the traps in Palace.So what is it, you claim it should be DPS v Survivabilty and than your exact statement at the end describes Agro v Survivability. Amazing that the way you envision it to be balanced is actually the way it is and the way I stated above....Agro v. Survivability.

Blxckheart

02-14-2010, 08:53 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Blxckheart wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Wasuna wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aerin@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>Have to agree with Breuner hereGuards are absolutely spot on in raiding situations now, they don't need anything else. The only thing we need is a way to grab/hold attention a bit more in Heroic content to let Hold the Line (which could use a buff) and similar tools do their job. Any solution to heroic AOE threat generation that let's a Guardian become a usable OT is the wrong solution.</blockquote>So, you say your agreeing with Breyner and then saying what 90% of the people on thso thread are saying? Guardians need AOE agro. If we don't get AoE agro then make all zones have a selection before you go in. AoE or ST groups only. In full offensive/DW with a Dirge and Assassin I can absolutly guarantee you I lose agro all the time on groups.Even this survivability discussion is crap. SK's tank in offensive all the time knowing that bloodletter will save them from spikes. They proceed to top the DPS parse, hit the middle of the heal parse and take hits better than anybody else in the rgroup even in offensive. I don't care what numbers you throw out or what spells/combat arts you want to disciss. THAT'S JUST WRONG.As far as I'm concerned, all the Guardians here are trying to be nice about getting a boost to our abilities while you SK's whine about meaningless item. "This spell is 2% better than ours so screw you" kind of stuff. In the end, it's the whole effect of how the SK class has single handedly changed the expectations of all the people in the entire game.</blockquote>Did you even read anything besides what is on page 3?And more importantly have you even checked out how things are on beta? Guards will be blocking tons of attacks, and a lot of those blocks will be on fast recast. Hands down Guards will be far ahead of other tanks in taking damage. Nice little perspective on Guards being so meek, you obviously haven't been reading anything on the boards either.Guards can get all the boost they want to heroic content and the other tanks would probably give a rats, because it doesn't take content at the heroic level to get to the point where a mage could tank most of the stuff in a group. The issue is asking in stuff that will start giving more and more AE tools to Guards at the raid level. AE/OT'ing is the realm of the other fighters, and since Guards lock down one position already they should not be in the running for the other 2 fighter spots on a raid.</blockquote>All tanks should be able to tank all content. Its a video game, and It is supposed to be functional. The difference, as stated a dozen times, should be DPS vs Survivability. It's always been that way, but after 30 levels worth of cap increases, threat hasnt scaled properly, and DPS tanks are number 1 for everything presently. Hopefully crit taunts will change this, but here's to hoping when it comes to SoE.. As far as Guard having aoe threat.. It should be viable, but a lot of the problem these days is people want 1 tank to tank everything in raids, when it should be envisioned like this:Crusader have the best threat. Have them MAIN ASSIST/MAIN TANK the trash up to the named encounters, because then the DPS can go crazy. However, when It comes to the boss, have your Guard, or heaviest plate tank switch up to the main tank group, and have him tank the boss, with the offtank assist him with adds or pick it up if the other tank dies.</blockquote>Your whole post is making no sense. At one point you are talking about it being DPS v Survivability but than you change your whole schematic to be about some fighter classes having better agro. What is really off about what you posted is that your last statement is pretty much how it is, minus the part of there is no need at all to swap out tanks for tanking trash since a Guard set up in a raid group has more than enough agro to handle all the trash unless it is a huge AE encounter like the traps in Palace.So what is it, you claim it should be DPS v Survivabilty and than your exact statement at the end describes Agro v Survivability. Amazing that the way you envision it to be balanced is actually the way it is and the way I stated above....Agro v. Survivability.</blockquote>I read the first sentance and stopped myself from reading further. Just figured I'd tell you, since judging from the first sentance and seeing It wasnt in agreeance with logic, you are an illogical person. Good day.

Rahatmattata

02-14-2010, 04:11 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote> The issue is asking in stuff that will start giving more and more AE tools to Guards at the raid level. AE/OT'ing is the realm of the other fighters, and since Guards lock down one position already they should not be in the running for the other 2 fighter spots on a raid.</blockquote>Guards should be able to OT as effectively and easily as shadowknights can MT.

Bruener

02-14-2010, 05:30 PM

<cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote> The issue is asking in stuff that will start giving more and more AE tools to Guards at the raid level. AE/OT'ing is the realm of the other fighters, and since Guards lock down one position already they should not be in the running for the other 2 fighter spots on a raid.</blockquote>Guards should be able to OT as effectively and easily as shadowknights can MT.</blockquote>Do you think it is that far from that in SF? The mass amount of blocking that Guards can do put them far ahead of any other tank for the MT job. So vice versa, Guards as OT are at the bottom.You will never see me arguing that SKs should be equal MTs. That is a position that should be dedicated to a Guard most of the time. The time a SK can jump in to MT something is when it is farm status for a guild and really any fighter could MT it. Guards are MTs, with every other fighter competing for the other 1-2 fighter spots in a raid. The side effect of that unfortunately has carried down to the heroic level where it may be more difficult with AE agro...hence the ideas to help Guards at the heroic level without affecting them at the raid level.If you make Guards another viable choice for OT as well than it is simple math to take the tank that is going to take the least amount of damage and give the raid the most success. Those abilities that make Guards great MTs would also make them the best OT if they had equal agro control.

Rahatmattata

02-14-2010, 10:43 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote> The issue is asking in stuff that will start giving more and more AE tools to Guards at the raid level. AE/OT'ing is the realm of the other fighters, and since Guards lock down one position already they should not be in the running for the other 2 fighter spots on a raid.</blockquote>Guards should be able to OT as effectively and easily as shadowknights can MT.</blockquote>Do you think it is that far from that in SF? The mass amount of blocking that Guards can do put them far ahead of any other tank for the MT job. So vice versa, Guards as OT are at the bottom.You will never see me arguing that SKs should be equal MTs.If you make Guards another viable choice for OT as well than it is simple math to take the tank that is going to take the least amount of damage and give the raid the most success. Those abilities that make Guards great MTs would also make them the best OT if they had equal agro control.</blockquote>I don't know about SF because it is not live yet and I don't have psychic abilities IRL. Not that it matters anyway, guards should be able to OT as well as a shadowknight can MT. Doesn't matter what expansion. Notice I didn't say guards should be able to OT as well as a shadowknight can OT, so no need to ball up your panties in distress kk thx.BTW, will you be my valentine? <3

MurFalad

02-15-2010, 08:24 AM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>And how do you propose building hate to multiple encounters beating on your group spread out over 20 meters?Lets say 3 groups of 4 mobs. How you going to build any hate for that +30 modifier to multiply?I agree, if you can build a group of 6 people that are content with waiting for you to pull single encounters, we can hold aggro on them.I challenge you to form a pug of 6 random eq2 players content with this in todays game.</blockquote>I've not found it a problem to form a group of people prepared to single group pull for most things, and when I've been the *ahem* Guardian DPS fill in because a guildy Paladin who is much better geared (T3 ish) was doing the run the pulls have generally been done one group at a time.I'm guessing you must have much much better gear, for me I generally stop at two groups of mobs, anymore then that and sure I cannot hold aggro (and two groups is frantic enough). When it gets to the stage that players are just rounding up herds of mobs and burning them down with AoE I think the games trivialised to pointlessness, I guess that high level raiders face this (I had one group where a Gnome was running around pulling group after group with me desperately trying to hold on, but the healer was so uber he could heal anyone through it).My point is that instead of "fixing" this problem by allowing Guardians to mindlessly AoE tank, why not fix the content so that people always have respect for large groups instead. My suggestion here would be to give a few mobs a few abilities they can use occasionally that do hard % health damage. More health still helps then for the majority of hits, but at the same time you cannot ever get enough health/mitigation to totally trivialise content, people will then start thinking about pulls pretty quickly there!

Yimway

02-15-2010, 02:39 PM

<cite>MurFalad wrote:</cite><blockquote>My point is that instead of "fixing" this problem by allowing Guardians to mindlessly AoE tank, why not fix the content so that people always have respect for large groups instead. My suggestion here would be to give a few mobs a few abilities they can use occasionally that do hard % health damage. </blockquote>% health damage is crap.By example, my guard grouping with a newbie healer, if I get hit with an 80% health hit, that healer isn't going to get me green anytime soon. Any mechanic that rewards me by putting on crappy gear isn't a good mechanic.The real problem is, if you made the content hard enough that the top 20% of players couldn't survive ae'ing the content 4+ encounters at a time, then the bottom 50% of players wouldn't survive a single encounter.The game has already shifted to ae content burns, classes that have no function in that playstyle are having less and less success at finding groups to play in.By example, I know many, many players that wont join a group for PoF not capable of finishing the zone in 30 minutes. They'd rather just not group and do something else than do a zone slowly.

Landiin

02-15-2010, 03:55 PM

The thing is we have ZERO AoE threat increaser abbilities. The so called AoE tanks do have single target threat increaser. So there is no reason why we can not have at least one blue AoE taunt.

Gonzo550

02-15-2010, 05:35 PM

we've been screaming for AE help in the beta forums for months. Result: a red adorn that adds threat to Assault. BTW, red adorns only go on the high end raid gear. Good luck getting that.

Blxckheart

02-15-2010, 05:46 PM

Yimway

02-15-2010, 06:26 PM

<cite>Armus@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>we've been screaming for AE help in the beta forums for months. Result: a red adorn that adds threat to Assault. BTW, red adorns only go on the high end raid gear. Good luck getting that.</blockquote>Yes, the red adornments only help the players who didn't need help.Its also fixing a class issue with itemization, which is something SoE refuses to learn from as a mistake.

steveatk

02-15-2010, 08:05 PM

<cite>Wasuna wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aerin@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>Have to agree with Breuner hereGuards are absolutely spot on in raiding situations now, they don't need anything else. The only thing we need is a way to grab/hold attention a bit more in Heroic content to let Hold the Line (which could use a buff) and similar tools do their job. Any solution to heroic AOE threat generation that let's a Guardian become a usable OT is the wrong solution.</blockquote>So, you say your agreeing with Breyner and then saying what 90% of the people on thso thread are saying? Guardians need AOE agro. If we don't get AoE agro then make all zones have a selection before you go in. AoE or ST groups only. In full offensive/DW with a Dirge and Assassin I can absolutly guarantee you I lose agro all the time on groups.Even this survivability discussion is crap. SK's tank in offensive all the time knowing that bloodletter will save them from spikes. They proceed to top the DPS parse, hit the middle of the heal parse and take hits better than anybody else in the rgroup even in offensive. I don't care what numbers you throw out or what spells/combat arts you want to disciss. THAT'S JUST WRONG.As far as I'm concerned, all the Guardians here are trying to be nice about getting a boost to our abilities while you SK's whine about meaningless item. "This spell is 2% better than ours so screw you" kind of stuff. In the end, it's the whole effect of how the SK class has single handedly changed the expectations of all the people in the entire game.</blockquote>Dude I was one of the loudest voices in beta screaming for AOE threat generation but we shouldn't be able to room pull. What we need to be able to do is confidently hold the group we pulled and have a [Removed for Content] good chance at holding the group that adds.Our survivability is the best when versus a hard hitting single target but we don't have the tools to survive a room pull even if we could hold agro and that's how it should be. Tower of Stone, Block and Last Man Standing would all be useless in a room pull scenario, that's not what we are built for but we [Removed for Content] well should be able to get through an instance full of AOE encounters without wanting to log out in disgust half way through and even worse - knowing that the rest of the group wishes they had never come because you just cannot keep the mobs on you and the whole thing is taking far too long.All we need is to be able to get through heroic content (instances) at a reasonable speed without it being frustrating to us or our group members because of ping pong agro games and repair bills that result from us having zero AOE generation tools. There have been multiple suggestions that could give heroic guards a boost and not affect the raid game at all.

MurFalad

02-16-2010, 06:10 AM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>MurFalad wrote:</cite><blockquote>My point is that instead of "fixing" this problem by allowing Guardians to mindlessly AoE tank, why not fix the content so that people always have respect for large groups instead. My suggestion here would be to give a few mobs a few abilities they can use occasionally that do hard % health damage. </blockquote>% health damage is crap.By example, my guard grouping with a newbie healer, if I get hit with an 80% health hit, that healer isn't going to get me green anytime soon. Any mechanic that rewards me by putting on crappy gear isn't a good mechanic.</blockquote>Taken to extremes if all the mobs only did hard % hits that would be true. But if only a occassional use ability from a mob was a hard percentage then tanks still get a big survival advantage from wearing better armour. If 1 in 6 hits from a mob on average was a special ability that did 2% hard damage + 300 fixed that wouldn't make much of a difference pulling a group of 5, but it would be dangerous trying to clear a room of 20.As for the healer not being able to get the tank back up to health I really doubt that, most healers can overheal today just fine, the point when a weak healer will struggle with this implemented will probably be when they are trying to pull a room.....<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>The real problem is, if you made the content hard enough that the top 20% of players couldn't survive ae'ing the content 4+ encounters at a time, then the bottom 50% of players wouldn't survive a single encounter.</blockquote>That's true with the current model, with my idea of sprinkling in a few hard % hits it just tones down the ability to room pull and therefore the desire for an AoE only tank. With the current model the dungeons are trivialised by raid gear and there are no dungeons requiring T4 + Myth, and its not worth dev time to make such dedicated dungeons.<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite> <blockquote>The game has already shifted to ae content burns, classes that have no function in that playstyle are having less and less success at finding groups to play in.</blockquote> That's not a new thing in MMO history, its actually exactly what has happened to WoW, I used to play a protection warrior there which was the equivalent of a guardian so basically very meagre AoE abilities and I relied on tab targetting and working hard to hold onto several mobs (at least before they trivialised aggro). In the game too was the paladin who had great AoE abilities.Through the TBC expansion (which actually had some challenging dungeons, at least by WoW's standards) Paladins eventually became the preferred tank to just lol run through these places when you overgeared it, prot warriors complained with exactly the same arguments as above.The result was devs made the other two tank classes have great AoE abilites just below the paladin, the next expansion WotLK had nothing but AoE pull after AoE pull and became very tedious fast (I was losing interest, this nailed the coffin down). Even the devs realise that its bad as they have made noises recently on the forums about how they want to move away from just AoE pulls (although they've made things so easy now I cannot imagine it ever containing a challenge).<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite> <blockquote>By example, I know many, many players that wont join a group for PoF not capable of finishing the zone in 30 minutes. They'd rather just not group and do something else than do a zone slowly.</blockquote> Again that's not new, its exactly the feel I got that time in WoW, the arguments in this forum are all for giving us more AoE abilities and eventually the devs will and we'll get exactly the same result. Classes more homogenous, grindy dungeons because one mob is the same as another when AoE'd, and the desire for nothing but speed runs. WoW's got three of them already in a quite polished state if that's what I wanted to do.Taking more then 30 minutes to do PoF isn't slowly, its not being able to have a trivial run, making things hard so players have to work for it is something any computer game should have. MMO's too rely on a design where time=reward too, if what is at the end of PoF is worth it then people will run it if it takes 1 hour. If that's too long then make a short instance, don't dumb down what's there.Edit : I'm pretty passionate about it, but its nothing personal just arguing about ideas here as I fear that we could end up going in the direction of AoE>all, if they do that they might as well implement fighter 2.0 as the dungeons then will be as trivial for T1-T2 players as it appears to be for T4 players (at least according to people's descriptions, I'm a long way from T4 geared here to know myself).

Vlahkmaak

02-16-2010, 06:33 AM

<cite>Armus@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>we've been screaming for AE help in the beta forums for months. Result: a red adorn that adds threat to Assault. BTW, red adorns only go on the high end raid gear. Good luck getting that.</blockquote>And thusly useless as a raid MT becuase this adornment would really only be useful in AGI spec for TSO mass aoe zones like Guk3 and Befallen: Caverns of the Afflicted or Nuroga. Alos the easier zones where oyu could pull more than 1 encounter at a time too but seriously - no reason for this adorn at the raid level for a guardian.

Yimway

02-16-2010, 12:53 PM

<cite>MurFalad wrote:</cite><blockquote>Taking more then 30 minutes to do PoF isn't slowly, its not being able to have a trivial run, making things hard so players have to work for it is something any computer game should have. MMO's too rely on a design where time=reward too, if what is at the end of PoF is worth it then people will run it if it takes 1 hour. If that's too long then make a short instance, don't dumb down what's there.Edit : I'm pretty passionate about it, but its nothing personal just arguing about ideas here as I fear that we could end up going in the direction of AoE>all, if they do that they might as well implement fighter 2.0 as the dungeons then will be as trivial for T1-T2 players as it appears to be for T4 players (at least according to people's descriptions, I'm a long way from T4 geared here to know myself).</blockquote>You make some good points, and this could be an interesting discussion, but I don't want to derail this thread that far <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />The issue is so long as some classes allow for things to be burned faster, the playerbase will just migrate to those classes.You can make content harder, but over time players progress and it becomes trivialized. Certainly at TSO launch no one was doing PoF in 30 minute runs or expected them to be run as such. But 9 months into it, it was trivialized and that was the player expectation.Is it rewarding to play a class who's role is for breaking into the hardest content? Maybe 3 months of each expansion at best is it rewarding or valued. Spending the next 12 months of the expansion as under desired and viewed as not useful isn't terribly rewarding, and its not hard to see how your not going to retain players playing that class.I still contend % hits are a really bad idea. An 80% hit on me sitting at 20k hp vs another tank at 12k hp isn't particularly fair for my healers. I should never be rewarded for not casting hp buffs or wearing lesser gear. We already take enough % hits from things like the JoA in order to increase aggro potential.

Rahatmattata

02-17-2010, 01:41 AM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>I still contend % hits are a really bad idea. An 80% hit on me sitting at 20k hp vs another tank at 12k hp isn't particularly fair for my healers. I should never be rewarded for not casting hp buffs or wearing lesser gear. We already take enough % hits from things like the JoA in order to increase aggro potential.</blockquote>I'm not for or against the idea, but the 12k hp tank is going to take more overall damage, and have a smaller HP pool for the healers to work with on the thousands of other "regular" hits.

Shorcon

05-08-2010, 09:17 PM

Shorcon

05-13-2010, 02:25 PM

<cite>Aerin@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Wasuna wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aerin@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>Have to agree with Breuner hereGuards are absolutely spot on in raiding situations now, they don't need anything else. The only thing we need is a way to grab/hold attention a bit more in Heroic content to let Hold the Line (which could use a buff) and similar tools do their job. Any solution to heroic AOE threat generation that let's a Guardian become a usable OT is the wrong solution.</blockquote>So, you say your agreeing with Breyner and then saying what 90% of the people on thso thread are saying? Guardians need AOE agro. If we don't get AoE agro then make all zones have a selection before you go in. AoE or ST groups only. In full offensive/DW with a Dirge and Assassin I can absolutly guarantee you I lose agro all the time on groups.Even this survivability discussion is crap. SK's tank in offensive all the time knowing that bloodletter will save them from spikes. They proceed to top the DPS parse, hit the middle of the heal parse and take hits better than anybody else in the rgroup even in offensive. I don't care what numbers you throw out or what spells/combat arts you want to disciss. THAT'S JUST WRONG.As far as I'm concerned, all the Guardians here are trying to be nice about getting a boost to our abilities while you SK's whine about meaningless item. "This spell is 2% better than ours so screw you" kind of stuff. In the end, it's the whole effect of how the SK class has single handedly changed the expectations of all the people in the entire game.</blockquote>Dude I was one of the loudest voices in beta screaming for AOE threat generation but we shouldn't be able to room pull. What we need to be able to do is confidently hold the group we pulled and have a [Removed for Content] good chance at holding the group that adds.Our survivability is the best when versus a hard hitting single target but we don't have the tools to survive a room pull even if we could hold agro and that's how it should be. Tower of Stone, Block and Last Man Standing would all be useless in a room pull scenario, that's not what we are built for but we [Removed for Content] well should be able to get through an instance full of AOE encounters without wanting to log out in disgust half way through and even worse - knowing that the rest of the group wishes they had never come because you just cannot keep the mobs on you and the whole thing is taking far too long.All we need is to be able to get through heroic content (instances) at a reasonable speed without it being frustrating to us or our group members because of ping pong agro games and repair bills that result from us having zero AOE generation tools. There have been multiple suggestions that could give heroic guards a boost and not affect the raid game at all.</blockquote>While I can respect your willingness to exept less than what is deserved, I totaly disagree. We need much more than heroic survivability and agro ability. We need the ability to stand just as strong as hybrids. They weren't designed as you said to pull rooms full and tank em. They were designed to tank in a pinch. They were designed to compensate through the gammit. Tanks so so, heal so so, dps well. They weren't designed to pull rooms of heroics and tank them without blinking. Therein lies the tilt in the scales that isn't easily fixed. I bet Atan would have some good input to a solid fix to the gaurdian or atleast put us in the right direction. Atan write up a good post that gives some insight to the exact problems and a good solid fix man. You seem to be the best informed on all the 4 tank classes that are being heavily effected by this crap.