Fix Crusaders [Archive] - EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

Tyrus Dracofire

04-25-2010, 11:45 AM

NO NERF!they are not overpowered, thier armor is lower than Guardians and Bezerkers, and got more hate factors. they were meant to save and pull mobs from healers and mages for short time until main tank can regain the arggo holds.they are not even high on DPS list, thier skill tree helpsmy paladin cant even fight toe to toe heroic on even level soloing at 90 lvl, and thier threshold is 75 lvl greyed named heroics, and i even saw SK at 88 lvl did solo a named 92 lvl in the hole, that something wrong there.gaurdians and bezerkers are crybabies when they cant heal but you can do massive damages if you had skill tree correctly made to handle tough heroics.usaully, paladins were "last one" standing in the raids since DPS is lower than scouts and mages.paladins were hit very hard by Update 13 and Update 24 to the point they can no longer able to solo a green-conned heroics, but greyed out give them nothing and they lost so much, i didnt like T7 relic armor, it is so "Bananna"!

Darkonx

04-25-2010, 01:04 PM

<cite>Brynhild wrote:</cite><blockquote>Sounds good to me, but only if crusaders get 50% base crit bonus for melee. </blockquote>Are you asking for Crusaders to GAIN 50%, or lose 50%? I'm a little confused. This line really needs to be changed so that Crusaders can't do their maximum DPS, while also being max defensive. It's just not right. It is imbalancing.

steelbadger

04-25-2010, 01:19 PM

<cite>Darkonx@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Brynhild wrote:</cite><blockquote>Sounds good to me, but only if crusaders get 50% base crit bonus for melee. </blockquote>Are you asking for Crusaders to GAIN 50%, or lose 50%? I'm a little confused. This line really needs to be changed so that Crusaders can't do their maximum DPS, while also being max defensive. It's just not right. It is imbalancing.</blockquote>I couldn't agree more, there should always be a trade-off. But it would be a lot of work for SOE to do this, 2H itemization would actually have to exist. It doesn't.

Darkonx

04-25-2010, 03:17 PM

<cite>steelbadger wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Brynhild wrote:</cite><blockquote>Sounds good to me, but only if crusaders get 50% base crit bonus for melee. </blockquote>Are you asking for Crusaders to GAIN 50%, or lose 50%? I'm a little confused. This line really needs to be changed so that Crusaders can't do their maximum DPS, while also being max defensive. It's just not right. It is imbalancing.</blockquote>I couldn't agree more, there should always be a trade-off. But it would be a lot of work for SOE to do this, 2H itemization would actually have to exist. It doesn't.</blockquote>They are being itemized. The end-game mobs have 2 handers. There is one from the x2 (that I have yet to see, despite clearing the zone every lockout). There is a pretty good one from the shard merchant. There ARE two handers, and there will be more, I am sure. There HAS to be a trade off, or it becomes GROSSLY OP allowing a class to do maximum DPS while at the same time maintain their uncontested avoidance. Change Knight's Stance to work with two handers instead of with a shield, in 2010!EDIT: There is also the Maul of Darkest Aversion off of Cogg in the hole. There is also the hammer from the first mobs in Toxx's lair.

Ambrin

04-25-2010, 03:35 PM

There are also a pretty nice pair of two-handers off of Roehn Theer (which brawlers can't use <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> ). There are a decent amount of two-handers out there, people usually just seem to ignore them when they drop.

Darkonx

04-25-2010, 04:14 PM

<cite>Ambrin@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>There are also a pretty nice pair of two-handers off of Roehn Theer (which brawlers can't use <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" /> ). There are a decent amount of two-handers out there, people usually just seem to ignore them when they drop.</blockquote>Yes, there are. PLEASE change this AA so Crusaders can't maintain maximum survivabilty while doing maximum DPS. It's just unfair to the other tanks. Now, because they can't DW, making them hit harder with 2H weapons would be LOGICAL. Just change Knights Stance in the TSO tree from 'Must have shield equipped' to 'Must have two handed weapon equipped' and you're set!

Gungo

04-25-2010, 04:50 PM

This change will actually increase crusader dps overall (with a 2 Hander).Honestly the should remove the ability for warriors to dual wield and then create a bunch of good 2 handers.This way when a plate fighters wants to DPS they put on a 2 hander. And when they want to tank they put on a sword and board. I am for this change if they limit it to 2 handers, and they remove potency and crit from effecting % based spells. In raids this might be balancing but in BG/pvp and most heroic content this will make crusaders even more powerful. Honestly they may have to nerf the Auto atk damage amount if they do this.

Kinless

04-25-2010, 05:01 PM

I agree (and my QFE was half asleep and not fully thinking ) Crusaders shouldnt be doing max DPS in defensive. However 25% damage increase on 2 handers would be disgustingly over powered. Think tanks topping T1 DPS.

Orthureon

04-25-2010, 05:54 PM

Lol that will hardly fix Crusaders...SKs need these abilities nerfed and/or adjustments made.<ul><li>The Shadow AA ability that affects the damage on one-handed weapons should be changed to two-handed weapons only.</li><li>Shadowknights Furor - Changed to a 15s parry, no riposte, no 20% increase to spell damage, no taunts and no immunity to interrupts. Just an ability to avoid damage.</li><li>Intelligence Line - One point in the Healing amount/resist passive ability automatically caps Reaver at 4% healing per spell in PVE and 2.6% healing in PVP. This needs to be fixed.</li><li>Lower the healing amount on these abilities in PVP: Tap Veins, Devour Vitae and Unholy Blessing.</li><li>Spells casting times should be slightly increased by 0.25s per spell. Spells went from 1s or longer cast times to 0.5 nearly across the board.</li><li>Lower their base crit multiplier to 1.25/1.25 spell/cas. They are a hybrid after all.</li></ul>I think that would pretty much fix them. As for Paladins I am not sure, but their healing capabilities are far too high I know that much.

Rainmare

04-25-2010, 07:50 PM

let me get this right. I do half the damage of a gaurd dual wileding with my sword adn board in defesive mode. a guard dual wielding in defensive mode STILL outdoes my damage and STILL has greater survivability based on sheer numbers.are thier two handers out there? yes. 2 of them are from the hardest mob in the game. 1 of them is from a x2 that's as nasty to guilds as Kurns was in the previous tier.that's it.the other 2handers like from the shard merchant, are junk. rubbish. even if I lost dps there's no way I'd give up the stats from wearing a shield and a sword even for dps numbers from auto attack. honestly the only reason I am even remotely interested in teh aforemention yuri from the x2 is the rumor that it auto attacks for 20k. and it would have to for me to give up the extra stats/bonuses/procs I can get wearing a shield.our guardian MT doesn't even wear a shield RAIDING except for like 2 of the fights we're killing. that's how good his defense is already.You people already got the paladin Holy Ground nerfed into near uselessness, taking away our 'niche' in aggro management now that I only have Rescue again and 2 taunts. now you want to complain becuase I can keep my defense and do my max damage, which is something like half a dual wielding guardians, adn doesn't even touch a dual wielding beserker?thanks but no thanks.

Darkonx

04-25-2010, 08:51 PM

<cite>Orthureon wrote:</cite><blockquote>Lol that will hardly fix Crusaders...SKs need these abilities nerfed and/or adjustments made.<ul><li>The Shadow AA ability that affects the damage on one-handed weapons should be changed to two-handed weapons only.</li><li>Shadowknights Furor - Changed to a 15s parry, no riposte, no 20% increase to spell damage, no taunts and no immunity to interrupts. Just an ability to avoid damage.</li><li>Intelligence Line - One point in the Healing amount/resist passive ability automatically caps Reaver at 4% healing per spell in PVE and 2.6% healing in PVP. This needs to be fixed.</li><li>Lower the healing amount on these abilities in PVP: Tap Veins, Devour Vitae and Unholy Blessing.</li><li>Spells casting times should be slightly increased by 0.25s per spell. Spells went from 1s or longer cast times to 0.5 nearly across the board.</li><li>Lower their base crit multiplier to 1.25/1.25 spell/cas. They are a hybrid after all.</li></ul>I think that would pretty much fix them. As for Paladins I am not sure, but their healing capabilities are far too high I know that much.</blockquote>The shadow AA needs to be changed to two handers. One change at a time please. That is what this thread was created to focus on, and I'd really like to keep it on track please. I don't want it to get derailed by numerous other complaints. The TSO AA Knight's Stance was designed to increase crusader DPS, at a point where only the mythical was viable. Now that there are two handers in the game, it would be GREAT if you could change this AA.

Darkonx

04-25-2010, 08:51 PM

Double post

Bruener

04-25-2010, 11:20 PM

.

Gungo

04-26-2010, 01:45 AM

<cite>Darkonx@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Orthureon wrote:</cite><blockquote>Lol that will hardly fix Crusaders...SKs need these abilities nerfed and/or adjustments made.<ul><li>The Shadow AA ability that affects the damage on one-handed weapons should be changed to two-handed weapons only.</li><li>Shadowknights Furor - Changed to a 15s parry, no riposte, no 20% increase to spell damage, no taunts and no immunity to interrupts. Just an ability to avoid damage.</li><li>Intelligence Line - One point in the Healing amount/resist passive ability automatically caps Reaver at 4% healing per spell in PVE and 2.6% healing in PVP. This needs to be fixed.</li><li>Lower the healing amount on these abilities in PVP: Tap Veins, Devour Vitae and Unholy Blessing.</li><li>Spells casting times should be slightly increased by 0.25s per spell. Spells went from 1s or longer cast times to 0.5 nearly across the board.</li><li>Lower their base crit multiplier to 1.25/1.25 spell/cas. They are a hybrid after all.</li></ul>I think that would pretty much fix them. As for Paladins I am not sure, but their healing capabilities are far too high I know that much.</blockquote>The shadow AA needs to be changed to two handers. One change at a time please. That is what this thread was created to focus on, and I'd really like to keep it on track please. I don't want it to get derailed by numerous other complaints. The TSO AA Knight's Stance was designed to increase crusader DPS, at a point where only the mythical was viable. Now that there are two handers in the game, it would be GREAT if you could change this AA.</blockquote>I am all for making it 2 hander only but honestly 2 handers like the yuri or the theer weapons w 25% base auto atk damage will be grossly overpowered in pvp/bg mostly. In raids it would be interesting to say the least to see the damage a crusader would put out w that as well. If they do this it would likely need to be lowered as well. There was a reason why base auto atk damage was pulled from bards in TSO. It is a VERY powerful buff.

yadlajoi

04-26-2010, 09:45 AM

knight stance should just be 5% accuracy not 25% weapon dmg increase (weither it is with sword and board or 2hander) Crusadder would just be tanking raid content with 2hander the same way guardian are forced to dualwield in raid while becoming even more insanely overpower. This isnt a nerf being asked by an SK it s a buff disguised as a nerf request.

Brynhild

04-26-2010, 11:38 AM

I don't think they should change knights stance.Most of paladin's DPS comes from auto attacks, while SK a larger chunk of it is from spells. if you think crusaders can dps , try playing a zerker and doing 2x the dps of any crusader especially in the pvp situation, PVE the SK can do pretty good dps.Do you have any idea how EASY is it to outheal a crusader in pvp compared to any other fighter class besides a guardian?Why can't paladins have 50% melee base crit bonus, and SK have 50% spell ? that would make more sense to me anyway.

Darkonx

04-26-2010, 11:48 AM

<cite>yadlajoi wrote:</cite><blockquote>knight stance should just be 5% accuracy not 25% weapon dmg increase (weither it is with sword and board or 2hander) Crusadder would just be tanking raid content with 2hander the same way guardian are forced to dualwield in raid while becoming even more insanely overpower. This isnt a nerf being asked by an SK it s a buff disguised as a nerf request.</blockquote>Accuracy is useless. That would be a ridiculously huge nerf, one that is way out of proportion to what the class needs. The AA just needs to be changed to function with two handers, and it'll be in line with it's original intent.

Darkonx

04-26-2010, 11:55 AM

<cite>Brynhild wrote:</cite><blockquote>I don't think they should change knights stance.Most of paladin's DPS comes from auto attacks, while SK a larger chunk of it is from spells. if you think crusaders can dps , try playing a zerker and doing 2x the dps of any crusader especially in the pvp situation, PVE the SK can do pretty good dps.Do you have any idea how EASY is it to outheal a crusader in pvp compared to any other fighter class besides a guardian?Why can't paladins have 50% melee base crit bonus, and SK have 50% spell ? that would make more sense to me anyway.</blockquote>Warriors/Brawlers have 150 crit bonus, Crusaders have 130. We are already at a 20 pt disadvantage. This wouldn't really be 'overpowering' to change it to work with 2h's vs 1h/shield. It would force crusaders to use a 2h weapon to DPS, instead of how it is now, where they can use 1h/shield and still achieve maximum DPS.

Undorett

04-26-2010, 12:04 PM

<cite>Brynhild wrote:</cite><blockquote>if you think crusaders can dps , try playing a zerker and doing 2x the dps of any crusader</blockquote>If zerkers are doing over 100k dps on aoe targets in SF raids, I am betraying tonight.

yadlajoi

04-26-2010, 12:15 PM

<cite>Darkonx@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>yadlajoi wrote:</cite><blockquote>knight stance should just be 5% accuracy not 25% weapon dmg increase (weither it is with sword and board or 2hander) Crusadder would just be tanking raid content with 2hander the same way guardian are forced to dualwield in raid while becoming even more insanely overpower. This isnt a nerf being asked by an SK it s a buff disguised as a nerf request.</blockquote>Accuracy is useless. That would be a ridiculously huge nerf, one that is way out of proportion to what the class needs. The AA just needs to be changed to function with two handers, and it'll be in line with it's original intent.</blockquote>It would just keep your autoattack in check while allowing you to keep all your percs, spell and such.On the SK parse thread from flame i ll be taking heelo parse (it s the last page and first i found) the result would only be a drop in auto attack extdps from 5321 to 3990 wich could be increase by a few hundred due to accuracy and melee CA accuracy.I dont think it was you but an SK had 9k ext dps from auto attack. with a 2hander having 25% increase dmg it would put his DPS from auto attack over 15k...

Darkonx

04-26-2010, 02:21 PM

<cite>yadlajoi wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>yadlajoi wrote:</cite><blockquote>knight stance should just be 5% accuracy not 25% weapon dmg increase (weither it is with sword and board or 2hander) Crusadder would just be tanking raid content with 2hander the same way guardian are forced to dualwield in raid while becoming even more insanely overpower. This isnt a nerf being asked by an SK it s a buff disguised as a nerf request.</blockquote>Accuracy is useless. That would be a ridiculously huge nerf, one that is way out of proportion to what the class needs. The AA just needs to be changed to function with two handers, and it'll be in line with it's original intent.</blockquote>It would just keep your autoattack in check while allowing you to keep all your percs, spell and such.On the SK parse thread from flame i ll be taking heelo parse (it s the last page and first i found) the result would only be a drop in auto attack extdps from 5321 to 3990 wich could be increase by a few hundred due to accuracy and melee CA accuracy.I dont think it was you but an SK had 9k ext dps from auto attack. with a 2hander having 25% increase dmg it would put his DPS from auto attack over 15k...</blockquote>Spells do the same damage as CA's but they can't be cast while moving. They are actually not a perk. 9k is close to double the next highest, no idea how that happened, as you saw in the thread, if you cared to read it. It wouldn't 'keep our auto attack in check' it would 'nerf our auto attack into nothingness'. It should be changed due to the base crit bonus differences, if you want to keep tanks in line.

Jonaroth

04-26-2010, 02:29 PM

Paladins don't need nerfing. Maybe SKs need fixing...

yadlajoi

04-26-2010, 03:06 PM

<cite>Darkonx@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>yadlajoi wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>yadlajoi wrote:</cite><blockquote>knight stance should just be 5% accuracy not 25% weapon dmg increase (weither it is with sword and board or 2hander) Crusadder would just be tanking raid content with 2hander the same way guardian are forced to dualwield in raid while becoming even more insanely overpower. This isnt a nerf being asked by an SK it s a buff disguised as a nerf request.</blockquote>Accuracy is useless. That would be a ridiculously huge nerf, one that is way out of proportion to what the class needs. The AA just needs to be changed to function with two handers, and it'll be in line with it's original intent.</blockquote>It would just keep your autoattack in check while allowing you to keep all your percs, spell and such.On the SK parse thread from flame i ll be taking heelo parse (it s the last page and first i found) the result would only be a drop in auto attack extdps from 5321 to 3990 wich could be increase by a few hundred due to accuracy and melee CA accuracy.I dont think it was you but an SK had 9k ext dps from auto attack. with a 2hander having 25% increase dmg it would put his DPS from auto attack over 15k...</blockquote>Spells do the same damage as CA's but they can't be cast while moving. They are actually not a perk. 9k is close to double the next highest, no idea how that happened, as you saw in the thread, if you cared to read it. It wouldn't 'keep our auto attack in check' it would 'nerf our auto attack into nothingness'. It should be changed due to the base crit bonus differences, if you want to keep tanks in line.</blockquote>I m sorry i forgot to add that heelo would have lost about 1.1k dps from his 36.5k so it s definatly not a big loss. And yes i ve read the thread and that 9k was a one time occurance wich i why i picked another parse. i m not like those conjuror taking utopi parse and then saying that EB is totally fine i took a good SK as reference not the ultimate. hell i ve see parse of TrakanoM (his name not our RoK hourglass friend) and he was averaging 40+k zonewide with auto attack above 6k :/.As for the spells sure they cant be casted while moving but well they have much much higher hitrate than CA/auto attack.Anyway you have your opinion i have mine, i play a berserker and i have an SK 78 since i learned that now both Zoltaroth and Xelgad have an SK so that class is definatly going to stay overpowered. I still think that Knight stance shouldnt be that powerfull wether it s for sword&board or 2hander.Seriously Rivulatus was tanking gynok and adds with fiery axe of war and was perfectly stable (Akissa and Lalita are kickasz healers but still) so imagine what it would give if knight stance would affect 2hander. It would just make crusader just beastly.Jonaroth, yes pally really need a nerf aswell.

Darkonx

04-26-2010, 04:01 PM

Crusaders have 20 less crit bonus, INNATE, than all warriors. That means that we hit for 20% less damage, on our criticals, which endgame are 100%. Changing this AA to 2h would enable us to keep up with warriors DWing endgame weapons. It would nerf our DPS while in defensive, as it should be, and it would boost us when we go offensive, as it should. There is no reason to leave this AA 1h/shield instead of 2h.

Kiara

04-26-2010, 04:20 PM

First off, this is not where this should have lived. This belongs in the fighter forums.Secondly, we don't post threads asking for nerfs to classes. Any classes. Be they our own or those of others. If you feel something is unbalanced and want to see a change, suggest a way to bring others up to the same level, rather than calling for a nerf. Nerfs make people sad pandas.Thank you!Unlocking for the time being, as it has been pointed out that I may have misunderstood the original intent of this post. That having been said, please keep it polite and on topic <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Darkonx

04-26-2010, 06:13 PM

The original point was that I believe it's rather unfair for Crusaders to be able to do max dps, and maintain max survivability at the same time. This change would mean a loss of survivability, for a gain in DPS. There should be a trade-off, just like there is for Warriors entering DW mode vs 1h/shield mode. Warriors get 20% crit bonus to everything, Crusaders hitting 25% harder with a 2h wouldn't be imbalanced. That means that on critical attacks, Crusaders would hit 5% harder using the same weapon. I can't see a way that this would be imbalanced, or at all skewed.

Rainmare

04-26-2010, 07:01 PM

again, I tell you, my defense with sword and board in defensive stance, is still not as good as a dual wielding guardian or zerker. they do more dps then me, they stll have more survival then me, and you want my 'survial' nerfed in favor that I use a two hander to dps. not to mention there are NO TWO HANDERS IN THE GAME worth using but THREE. 2 of which only the top guild on the server will probably ever see.the other coming from a x2 that frankly is pretty [Removed for Content] difficult to do...considering the second mob is almost built the same way Nexona/Drus were built in VP, as a 'gatekeeper'Now maybe the superpowered SKs make it look like crusaders need this nerf, but they don't. SKs in general are overpowered...but paladins have been beaten already enough with the nerf stick from Holy Ground, the fact our LoH costs power, none of our heals scale worth a [Removed for Content]...the last thing we need is to get our damage while tanking nerfed too.

Darkonx

04-26-2010, 07:12 PM

<cite>Rainmare@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>again, I tell you, my defense with sword and board in defensive stance, is still not as good as a dual wielding guardian or zerker. they do more dps then me, they stll have more survival then me, and you want my 'survial' nerfed in favor that I use a two hander to dps. not to mention there are NO TWO HANDERS IN THE GAME worth using but THREE. 2 of which only the top guild on the server will probably ever see.the other coming from a x2 that frankly is pretty [Removed for Content] difficult to do...considering the second mob is almost built the same way Nexona/Drus were built in VP, as a 'gatekeeper'Now maybe the superpowered SKs make it look like crusaders need this nerf, but they don't. SKs in general are overpowered...but paladins have been beaten already enough with the nerf stick from Holy Ground, the fact our LoH costs power, none of our heals scale worth a [Removed for Content]...the last thing we need is to get our damage while tanking nerfed too.</blockquote>Your sword+board is more defensive than a DW warrior. (I can break down the why for you if you'd like, but for my own sake I wont unless you really need me to) If you're both using 1h/shield, you WILL do more DPS, but you shouldn't, it should be equal, or you having just a slight edge, as opposed to what you have now. If they go DW, they should do more DPS than you. However, you are doing your maximum DPS while maintaining the avoidance of your shield, they have to drop it in favor of DW. I'm not asking for a nerf, I'm asking for a change. Right now we have one step for defense, and the same setup for defense, that being 1h/shield. Let's say right now you do 5k DPS. If this were changed, you would only do 4k with 1h/shield, but you'd have the option to do 7k if you put on a 2h instead of your 1h/shield. This would grant Crusaders greater versatility, while putting them back on a level playing field with Warriors when it comes to 'turtling up' as a tank. Right now, Crusaders even max defensive, still have huge offensive perks, if this is changed, they wouldn't. Please, for the sake of balance, change this.Or, hell. Now this MAY sound OP, but, take off the 'If a shield is equipped' restriction all together. Leave it so it works with both a 1h, and a 2h. That way you aren't 'nerfing' Crusaders, you are just giving a good incentive to NOT use that 1h/shield combo. That way nothing major changes except for the fact that Crusaders will hit as hard as warriors when using a 2h weapon. (It'll balance out due to the innate crit bonus differences) Crusaders will drop their 1h/shield to use 2h's, and thereby, nerf their own survivability to do DPS, just like warriors have to do by dropping their shield for another weapon when going DW.

Tommara

04-26-2010, 07:29 PM

Well, I don't completely understand all the arguments and ramifications of the suggested fixes, but I'm a big fan of 2H weapons (I like big honking swords!!), so I'm in favor of making 2H viable for my paladin. I use to joke around about "shields are for wimps!!". As it is now, despite my bias in favor of 2H weapons, using a 2H just doesn't make any sense, so I'm stuck with this dumb shield *sigh*. So I'm guessing that's what the OP's point is, if only as a consequence of the current mechanics.However, I'm unlikely to ever be in a raid (read my first paragraph for clues why <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />) and despite having an interest in locating a viable 2H, I haven't been able to find any. So if they make a change as the OP suggests, there would have to be some 2H itemization for non-raiders, or it would be a serious nerf for us.

Darkonx

04-26-2010, 07:39 PM

<cite>Tommara wrote:</cite><blockquote>Well, I don't completely understand all the arguments and ramifications of the suggested fixes, but I'm a big fan of 2H weapons (I like big honking swords!!), so I'm in favor of making 2H viable for my paladin. I use to joke around about "shields are for wimps!!". As it is now, despite my bias in favor of 2H weapons, using a 2H just doesn't make any sense, so I'm stuck with this dumb shield *sigh*. So I'm guessing that's what the OP's point is, if only as a consequence of the current mechanics.However, I'm unlikely to ever be in a raid (read my first paragraph for clues why <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" />) and despite having an interest in locating a viable 2H, I haven't been able to find any. So if they make a change as the OP suggests, there would have to be some 2H itemization for non-raiders, or it would be a serious nerf for us.</blockquote>There is one that you can buy with Marks of Maanar I believe. Bedrock Bonesnapper is it's name. If I'm not supposed to be asking for a nerf, then how about you just enable it with two handed weapons as well. Literally, just delete the 'If Shield is equipped'. That way we maintain what we can do with a 1h/shield, but, it makes 2h weapons VIABLE, at least. Right now going through a third expansion where no 2h weapon is going to provide a significant increase to DPS is rather saddening. Enabling our Knight's Stance to work with 2h's wouldn't 'overpower' us, due to the fact that Warriors/Brawlers already have an innate 20 Crit Bonus enhancement, due to the way thing were reworked in SF. I'm a huge fan of 2h weapons, and I'd really like to see them as an option. If they do change this, then they will have a reason to itemize two handers once again!

Smirk

04-26-2010, 07:40 PM

<cite>Darkonx@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>We are overpowered, because we can do our maximum amount of DPS using a 1h/shield. We can do this because the Knight's Stance AA is based on having a shield equipped. Warriors have to take their shield off to be able to do their max DPS, we should have to as well. The Knight's Stance AA needs to be changed to work with two handers, instead of with a shield, for this to be at all balanced going forwards. Warriors/Brawlers start with an innate 20% crit bonus on Crusaders as it is, so it wouldn't be overpowering in the least. We NEED this nerf. Please, please change it to 25% with a two handed weapon, instead of with a shield. Make Crusaders, just like Warriors, take off their sword/board to do their maximum DPS. This AA was made the way it was during TSO where the only viable option was to use the mythical. Now that that has been changed, please change this AA to help balance things.Edit: Nerf was the wrong word. 'Change' would have been much better. What I am asking for is a change, because the combination of DPS and survivability is OP. We should have to make a choice, just like warriors. The way to have this work, as I said, is to change Knight's Stance to work when a 2h is equipped, instead of when a shield is equipped.</blockquote>QFE

steelbadger

04-26-2010, 07:46 PM

<cite>Darkonx@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>The original point was that I believe it's rather unfair for Crusaders to be able to do max dps, and maintain max survivability at the same time. This change would mean a loss of survivability, for a gain in DPS. There should be a trade-off, just like there is for Warriors entering DW mode vs 1h/shield mode. Warriors get 20% crit bonus to everything, Crusaders hitting 25% harder with a 2h wouldn't be imbalanced. That means that on critical attacks, Crusaders would hit 5% harder using the same weapon. I can't see a way that this would be imbalanced, or at all skewed.</blockquote>I figure it would need to be decreased, at least a little as your maths is a little off...Consider Aetok or Enoxus. 159-903 dmg (They have a high ratio of 1:5.63).For a Crusader with 0 crit bonus and no KS the threshold between normal crit and increased crit (a crit bumped up to max +1) is at 694. Any crits which roll base dmg below this will instead hit for max+1 rather than baseroll*1.3. Rolls above this value will be classic roll*1.3 crits.If we do the maths we find that a crusader will be hitting for an average of 934 dmgA warrior, however, will have the threshold at 602. And the average dmg of the weapon will be averaging 979 dmgIf we give the Crusader Knights Stance, however... the weapon dmg goes to 199-1129. And the average hit will be 1168 dmg.That's a 19% increase over the warrior. And the more crit bonus you get the bigger the difference gets (as it makes the comparative bonus of the 1.5 base crit bonus that warriors have smaller compared to total Bonus). The only thing that would stop the gain of the crusader with the increase of crit bonus would be the essential "cap" for crit bonus. Which is the ratio of the weapon (if you had 563% crit bonus it would be impossible for Aetok/Enoxus to crit for a value less than max dmg). But by this point a crusader would have a 22% damage advantage over an identically geared warrior.Quite some distance off your 5% value. The way that crits get scaled up to max+1 really skews your results.If you're interested, to yield your 5% dps increase over warriors using the same weapon Knights Stance would have to be ~ 10% Base mod.Would this be acceptable to you? Reduce Knights Stance to 10% and make it Two-Hander only. This would yield the numbers you're quoting so I see no reason why not.

Darkonx

04-26-2010, 08:27 PM

<cite>steelbadger wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>The original point was that I believe it's rather unfair for Crusaders to be able to do max dps, and maintain max survivability at the same time. This change would mean a loss of survivability, for a gain in DPS. There should be a trade-off, just like there is for Warriors entering DW mode vs 1h/shield mode. Warriors get 20% crit bonus to everything, Crusaders hitting 25% harder with a 2h wouldn't be imbalanced. That means that on critical attacks, Crusaders would hit 5% harder using the same weapon. I can't see a way that this would be imbalanced, or at all skewed.</blockquote>I figure it would need to be decreased, at least a little as your maths is a little off...Consider Aetok or Enoxus. 159-903 dmg (They have a high ratio of 1:5.63).For a Crusader with 0 crit bonus and no KS the threshold between normal crit and increased crit (a crit bumped up to max +1) is at 694. Any crits which roll base dmg below this will instead hit for max+1 rather than baseroll*1.3. Rolls above this value will be classic roll*1.3 crits.If we do the maths we find that a crusader will be hitting for an average of 934 dmgA warrior, however, will have the threshold at 602. And the average dmg of the weapon will be averaging 979 dmgIf we give the Crusader Knights Stance, however... the weapon dmg goes to 199-1129. And the average hit will be 1168 dmg.That's a 19% increase over the warrior. And the more crit bonus you get the bigger the difference gets (as it makes the comparative bonus of the 1.5 base crit bonus that warriors have smaller compared to total Bonus). The only thing that would stop the gain of the crusader with the increase of crit bonus would be the essential "cap" for crit bonus. Which is the ratio of the weapon (if you had 563% crit bonus it would be impossible for Aetok/Enoxus to crit for a value less than max dmg). But by this point a crusader would have a 22% damage advantage over an identically geared warrior.Quite some distance off your 5% value. The way that crits get scaled up to max+1 really skews your results.If you're interested, to yield your 5% dps increase over warriors using the same weapon Knights Stance would have to be ~ 10% Base mod.Would this be acceptable to you? Reduce Knights Stance to 10% and make it Two-Hander only. This would yield the numbers you're quoting so I see no reason why not.</blockquote>903x1.5=1354.5vs903x1.3=1173.5(currently)903x1.25( KS)x1.3=1467.3751467.375-1354.5=112.875 difference - Resulting in an ~8% difference.But let's just say it's as high as 20%. Crusaders DPS is ~15% from auto attack, 85% from other things. 15%x1.2(that's saying it's 20% higher) net's only 18% total DPS gain. That means that we will gain approx 3% DPS from auto attack.In comparison, that boost of a Warrior/Brawlers crit bonus effects ALL combat arts, in addition to auto attack. They gain 20 CB on everything, not just auto attack. It wouldn't be OP in the least for Crusaders to gain 3% additional auto attack DPS, but it would make 2h's viable.EDIT: My numbers show that it's pretty close leaving it as it is. Reducing it to 10% would be a DRASTIC blow, I wouldn't really be ok with that, no.

Bruener

04-26-2010, 08:58 PM

This post is ridiculous because really all the OP is trying to do is get using a 2h beefed way up for Crusaders. If they made the change the OP is suggesting than it would just look like Crusaders are OP'd because the damage done from a 2h would be huge. The OP obviously is in love with 2h weapons and is so hoping that damage with 2h be beefed up so he hides it in a switch-a-roo type of thread asking for "nerfs". This should not be changed. Yes Crusaders get to DPS more with 1h+shield and than the increase to a 2h isn't nearly as great as when a Warriors goes 1h+board to DW'ing. But at the same time a Warrior can jump into a nice 2h weapon and see even more increase, especially Bezerkers. 100% AE auto attack with Yuri is very nice, along with the 20% crit bonus in addition that they receive. Oh, and have you seen a warrior DW'ing 6.0 weps yet? Yeah.Dark get serious, as soon as you posted this thread I could see thru it. People already are still under the perception that Crusaders are OP'd because of the wrap from TSO. A lot has changed since than and all you are doing is feeding fuel to a fire that should have been put out a long time ago.

Darkonx

04-26-2010, 09:09 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>This post is ridiculous because really all the OP is trying to do is get using a 2h beefed way up for Crusaders. If they made the change the OP is suggesting than it would just look like Crusaders are OP'd because the damage done from a 2h would be huge. The OP obviously is in love with 2h weapons and is so hoping that damage with 2h be beefed up so he hides it in a switch-a-roo type of thread asking for "nerfs". This should not be changed. Yes Crusaders get to DPS more with 1h+shield and than the increase to a 2h isn't nearly as great as when a Warriors goes 1h+board to DW'ing. But at the same time a Warrior can jump into a nice 2h weapon and see even more increase, especially Bezerkers. 100% AE auto attack with Yuri is very nice, along with the 20% crit bonus in addition that they receive. Oh, and have you seen a warrior DW'ing 6.0 weps yet? Yeah.Dark get serious, as soon as you posted this thread I could see thru it. People already are still under the perception that Crusaders are OP'd because of the wrap from TSO. A lot has changed since than and all you are doing is feeding fuel to a fire that should have been put out a long time ago.</blockquote>Warriors do way more DPS than Crusaders with 2h weapons, and I'm trying to get it evened out.

steelbadger

04-26-2010, 09:11 PM

<cite>Darkonx@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>903x1.5=1354.5vs903x1.3=1173.5(currently)903x1.25( KS)x1.3=1467.3751467.375-1354.5=112.875 difference - Resulting in an ~8% difference.But let's just say it's as high as 20%. Crusaders DPS is ~15% from auto attack, 85% from other things. 15%x1.2(that's saying it's 20% higher) net's only 18% total DPS gain. That means that we will gain approx 3% DPS from auto attack.In comparison, that boost of a Warrior/Brawlers crit bonus effects ALL combat arts, in addition to auto attack. They gain 20 CB on everything, not just auto attack. It wouldn't be OP in the least for Crusaders to gain 3% additional auto attack DPS, but it would make 2h's viable.</blockquote>Flawed logic.I assumed you understood how crits worked but it seems you don't.Take our 159-903 weapon. The way the game works is to apply your base dmg bonus, the bonus from strength then the bonus from DPS mod to find a new min and max (this is what is displayed by /weaponstats and in the persona window).For simplicity's sake we'll assume that Strength and DPS mod are 0. They have a linear effect and will benefit Warriors and Crusaders equally.So, a Warrior has a weapon that can swing for a non crit swing from 159-903.A Crusader has a weapon that can swing for 199-1129.The game then rolls for this base dmg. It then rolls for a crit (100% crits, so we're guaranteed to crit) and multiplies all crits by your total Crit Bonus. Total crit bonus is base bonus (130% for Crusaders, 150% for Warriors) + any crit bonus you have picked up in gear or AAs. This is the damage you do, with one large and important exception:Say it rolled 159 for the warriors attack. It then multiplies this by 1.5 to get 238 dmg. This is less than most non crit damage. So, built into the crit mechanics is a system whereby crit hits which happen to be for less than the maximum damage are actually bumped up to be hits of 1+max dmg. So a roll of 159 on the warriors swing actually yields a crit of 904. This means that a certain proportion on crits crit for a value completely unrelated to the characters crit bonus.The number that I previously called the threshold is the point at which an artificially increased crit stops being generated. Above this point all crits act in the way you would expect; roll*critbonus. Below, however, it acts as a straight max+1 hit.So, for a warrior holding Aetok the point where crit mechanics change is at 903/1.5=602. So if the game rolls a hit of 159-602 the crit will hit for 904 dmg. If the game rolls a hit from 603-903 then it hits for roll x crit bonus.So, the way to work out the damage of the weapon is to consider it as two seperate possibilities.The chance of a roll between 159-602 is 59%. The chance of rolling between 603 and 903 is 41%.The average dmg of those 159-602 rolls as crits will be 904 because all of them will hit for 904. The average dmg of a roll between 603 and 903 will be the average possible roll x crit bonus. So for a warrior it would be 1130 dmg.So the weapon will hit for 904 59% of the time and for an average of 1130 41% of the time. This would give up a mean damage of 996. (I should apologise, my initial calcs were quick and dirty and I realise I got my probabilities wrong).Do all the same with the crusader numbers:The point where crit mechanics change is at 1129/1.3=868. So if the game rolls a hit of 199-868 the crit will hit for 1130 dmg. If the game rolls a hit from 869-1129 then it hits for roll x crit bonus.So, the way to work out the damage of the weapon is to consider it as two seperate possibilities.The chance of a roll between 199-868 is 72%. The chance of rolling between 869 and 1129 is 28%.The average dmg of those 199-868 rolls as crits will be 1130 because all of them will hit for 1130. The average dmg of a roll between 869 and 1129 will be the average possible roll x crit bonus. So for a crusader it would be 1299 dmg.So the weapon will hit for 1130 72% of the time and for an average of 1299 28% of the time. This would give up a mean damage of1177.1177-996=181181=18% difference over warriorAdmittedly I was off by 1% because I made a mistake on the probabilities of crit bumping but as my more accurate calcs attest the bonus you'd have is far greater than you believe.What proportion of your total DPS your auto-attack is currently is not really important, and it would not simply be a 25% increase over current auto-attack dps numbers. It would be more. Possibly a lot more. You are comparing 1H with shield to probably 2H with KS. Aetok or Enoxus would already provide a Crusader a 15% or more bonus to AA DPS without KS being transferred to it. If KS were to be made a 2H effect it could give Crusaders as much as a 50% increase to their current normal auto-attack dps.That is somewhat overlarge, you have to agree. Reduce KS to 10% bonus and apply it to 2H and it becomes closer to the tradeoff you've been expounding.

Darkonx

04-26-2010, 09:39 PM

<cite>steelbadger wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>903x1.5=1354.5vs903x1.3=1173.5(currently)903x1.25( KS)x1.3=1467.3751467.375-1354.5=112.875 difference - Resulting in an ~8% difference.But let's just say it's as high as 20%. Crusaders DPS is ~15% from auto attack, 85% from other things. 15%x1.2(that's saying it's 20% higher) net's only 18% total DPS gain. That means that we will gain approx 3% DPS from auto attack.In comparison, that boost of a Warrior/Brawlers crit bonus effects ALL combat arts, in addition to auto attack. They gain 20 CB on everything, not just auto attack. It wouldn't be OP in the least for Crusaders to gain 3% additional auto attack DPS, but it would make 2h's viable.</blockquote>Flawed logic.I assumed you understood how crits worked but it seems you don't.Take our 159-903 weapon. The way the game works is to apply your base dmg bonus, the bonus from strength then the bonus from DPS mod to find a new min and max (this is what is displayed by /weaponstats and in the persona window).For simplicity's sake we'll assume that Strength and DPS mod are 0. They have a linear effect and will benefit Warriors and Crusaders equally.So, a Warrior has a weapon that can swing for a non crit swing from 159-903.A Crusader has a weapon that can swing for 199-1129.The game then rolls for this base dmg. It then rolls for a crit (100% crits, so we're guaranteed to crit) and multiplies all crits by your total Crit Bonus. Total crit bonus is base bonus (130% for Crusaders, 150% for Warriors) + any crit bonus you have picked up in gear or AAs. This is the damage you do, with one large and important exception:Say it rolled 159 for the warriors attack. It then multiplies this by 1.5 to get 238 dmg. This is less than most non crit damage. So, built into the crit mechanics is a system whereby crit hits which happen to be for less than the maximum damage are actually bumped up to be hits of 1+max dmg. So a roll of 159 on the warriors swing actually yields a crit of 904. This means that a certain proportion on crits crit for a value completely unrelated to the characters crit bonus.The number that I previously called the threshold is the point at which an artificially increased crit stops being generated. Above this point all crits act in the way you would expect; roll*critbonus. Below, however, it acts as a straight max+1 hit.So, for a warrior holding Aetok the point where crit mechanics change is at 903/1.5=602. So if the game rolls a hit of 159-602 the crit will hit for 904 dmg. If the game rolls a hit from 603-903 then it hits for roll x crit bonus.So, the way to work out the damage of the weapon is to consider it as two seperate possibilities.The chance of a roll between 159-602 is 59%. The chance of rolling between 603 and 903 is 41%.The average dmg of those 159-602 rolls as crits will be 904 because all of them will hit for 904. The average dmg of a roll between 603 and 903 will be the average possible roll x crit bonus. So for a warrior it would be 1130 dmg.So the weapon will hit for 904 59% of the time and for an average of 1130 41% of the time. This would give up a mean damage of 996. (I should apologise, my initial calcs were quick and dirty and I realise I got my probabilities wrong).Do all the same with the crusader numbers:The point where crit mechanics change is at 1129/1.3=868. So if the game rolls a hit of 199-868 the crit will hit for 1130 dmg. If the game rolls a hit from 869-1129 then it hits for roll x crit bonus.So, the way to work out the damage of the weapon is to consider it as two seperate possibilities.The chance of a roll between 199-868 is 72%. The chance of rolling between 869 and 1129 is 28%.The average dmg of those 199-868 rolls as crits will be 1130 because all of them will hit for 1130. The average dmg of a roll between 869 and 1129 will be the average possible roll x crit bonus. So for a warrior it would be 1299 dmg.So the weapon will hit for 1130 72% of the time and for an average of 1299 28% of the time. This would give up a mean damage of1177.1177-996=181181=18% difference over warriorAdmittedly I was off by 1% because I made a mistake on the probabilities of crit bumping but as my more accurate calcs attest the bonus you'd have is far greater than you believe.What proportion of your total DPS your auto-attack is currently is not really important, and it would not simply be a 25% increase over current auto-attack dps numbers. It would be more. Possibly a lot more. You are comparing 1H with shield to probably 2H with KS. Aetok or Enoxus would already provide a Crusader a 15% or more bonus to AA DPS without KS being transferred to it. If KS were to be made a 2H effect it could give Crusaders as much as a 50% increase to their current normal auto-attack dps.That is somewhat overlarge, you have to agree. Reduce KS to 10% bonus and apply it to 2H and it becomes closer to the tradeoff you've been expounding.</blockquote>Ty for breaking down the numbers. I'd make KS give us a 10% boost, vs 5%, in terms of actual damage gain. I'd be happy with that, yes. That'd mean nerfing it down to what, 15? 20? Something around that would be fine.

Bruener

04-26-2010, 11:08 PM

<cite>Darkonx@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>This post is ridiculous because really all the OP is trying to do is get using a 2h beefed way up for Crusaders. If they made the change the OP is suggesting than it would just look like Crusaders are OP'd because the damage done from a 2h would be huge. The OP obviously is in love with 2h weapons and is so hoping that damage with 2h be beefed up so he hides it in a switch-a-roo type of thread asking for "nerfs". This should not be changed. Yes Crusaders get to DPS more with 1h+shield and than the increase to a 2h isn't nearly as great as when a Warriors goes 1h+board to DW'ing. But at the same time a Warrior can jump into a nice 2h weapon and see even more increase, especially Bezerkers. 100% AE auto attack with Yuri is very nice, along with the 20% crit bonus in addition that they receive. Oh, and have you seen a warrior DW'ing 6.0 weps yet? Yeah.Dark get serious, as soon as you posted this thread I could see thru it. People already are still under the perception that Crusaders are OP'd because of the wrap from TSO. A lot has changed since than and all you are doing is feeding fuel to a fire that should have been put out a long time ago.</blockquote>Warriors do way more DPS than Crusaders with 2h weapons, and I'm trying to get it evened out.</blockquote>And we do way more DPS with sword+board. Seems fair to me.

Darkonx

04-26-2010, 11:19 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>This post is ridiculous because really all the OP is trying to do is get using a 2h beefed way up for Crusaders. If they made the change the OP is suggesting than it would just look like Crusaders are OP'd because the damage done from a 2h would be huge. The OP obviously is in love with 2h weapons and is so hoping that damage with 2h be beefed up so he hides it in a switch-a-roo type of thread asking for "nerfs". This should not be changed. Yes Crusaders get to DPS more with 1h+shield and than the increase to a 2h isn't nearly as great as when a Warriors goes 1h+board to DW'ing. But at the same time a Warrior can jump into a nice 2h weapon and see even more increase, especially Bezerkers. 100% AE auto attack with Yuri is very nice, along with the 20% crit bonus in addition that they receive. Oh, and have you seen a warrior DW'ing 6.0 weps yet? Yeah.Dark get serious, as soon as you posted this thread I could see thru it. People already are still under the perception that Crusaders are OP'd because of the wrap from TSO. A lot has changed since than and all you are doing is feeding fuel to a fire that should have been put out a long time ago.</blockquote>Warriors do way more DPS than Crusaders with 2h weapons, and I'm trying to get it evened out.</blockquote>And we do way more DPS with sword+board. Seems fair to me.</blockquote>They can do more DPS with 2h. They can also DW, which we can't. This change would be fair, and would even things out a lot. I'd say reduce Knight's Stance to 20%, and make it apply to all weapons, 1h or 2h, that the Crusader equips.

Odys

04-26-2010, 11:27 PM

The other day a SK was parsing at 25K in a 6 man Protector, he came since we had issues with a 82 gardian (he would die during the fear and the dudes refused my proposition to go and fetch potions or signet). I think he was close to solo the zone.Most encounters are only 3 targets, and quickly 1.I did almost all the 6 man instances, tank dps is usually 5-9k, well geared t1 dps may go up to 15. So it seems that the way dps scale according to your equipment is very insane.

Darkonx

04-26-2010, 11:58 PM

<cite>Odys@Storms wrote:</cite><blockquote>The other day a SK was parsing at 25K in a 6 man Protector, he came since we had issues with a 82 gardian (he would die during the fear and the dudes refused my proposition to go and fetch potions or signet). I think he was close to solo the zone.Most encounters are only 3 targets, and quickly 1.I did almost all the 6 man instances, tank dps is usually 5-9k, well geared t1 dps may go up to 15. So it seems that the way dps scale according to your equipment is very insane.</blockquote>This post has nothing to do with what the thread is about. A 90 tank has much more survivability than an 82 tank, yes. Let's try to keep the thread on topic though. The topic is Knight's Stance being changed to work with 2h as well as 1h weapons. A 5% reduction to compensate would be more than viable.

BChizzle

04-27-2010, 05:15 AM

They should just change all crusader spells to combat arts adjust the damage to balance with other fighters and drop the whole knight stance crap it is clearly overpowered and it would be funny to hear from the crusaders who are already the best class in eq2 cry about the changes and the loss of hit rates. Once crusaders CA's are properly balanced they can up their melee crit bonus to be with the other tanks...problem solved.

Erlandor

04-27-2010, 05:45 AM

Erhm... sorry if i got something wrong....maybe i don't understand anything as i'm an not yet very much expirienced player...My Main is a Lvl 90 Paladin on Valor, Created some days before last Christmas...Granted, i'm not that good equipped, but against some SF Mobs i have a _quite_ Hard time.Don't judge "crusaders" by the Abilities of SKs.We (Paladins) have 20% less crit, we do not have the survivability of a Guardian... our Heals are a laughter compared to the DMG output of some heroic mobs (not even counting the epics)...Guardians can take more hits, regenerate faster...So whats the point on Crusaders anyways? Why on Hell would anyone out there want a Crusader as tank when there are Guardians and Zerkers....?We stikk have some nice niches... for example i love "fearless morale" AA-Ability that guves us (Both crusaders) Immunity to fear effects. Cool. So in some cases with heavily fearing mobs we finally have an advantage and may be a viable Option as Tanks...But Hell... Considering all aforementioned disadvanages...perhaps its sort of good balance that we at least can be max. defensive while have good DPS. That makes crusaders perfect OTs. DPSing to helb burn the mob down and still be able to do our Job as OT.I normally never use a two-hander unless i have a wery balanced group with a more than capable MT who does not need my tanking help anyways.... in the latter case i can go in offstance and do some DPS, but butting my shield away means a quite huge Hit on survivability...nothing that i would want to do as OT.SKs might be single-man armies (never palyed one...just noticing nearly everyone has a SK twink for soloing)But please don't take this as granted for all "Crusaders". Paladins are Far from being overpowered IMHO and a the end most of all seems to be a Matter of having the right equipment...A well equipped crusader should be able to be a good tank...why not?But if you take away some of our little nice advantages (at least from a paladins perspective) whats the point of those classes anyways?A Fully defensive MT simply isn't meant to be top in the DPS-Parse... thats not our business....So if a well equipped and skilled crusader can do more dmg than a Guard.. ok... but the guard still can take hits better, and this is his job as an MT. Taking hits... not doing max. DPS.The Crusader OT then plays a good role in helping group-DPS to burn down mobs and being able to survive as an OT when he has his shield up...so whats the point?Do Guardians on the raid like it to see the whole RAID wipe if they fall because Crusader-OT with two-hander sacrificed half of his defensive capabilities and goes down after taking 2 hits?Or is it simply a matter of "i can't stand my OT doing more damage than me, while doing damage should not really be my business..."?I simply don't get the point... <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/0a4d7238daa496a758252d0a2b1a1384.gif" border="0" />Greetings,me

yadlajoi

04-27-2010, 05:59 AM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>They should just change all crusader spells to combat arts adjust the damage to balance with other fighters and drop the whole knight stance crap it is clearly overpowered and it would be funny to hear from the crusaders who are already the best class in eq2 cry about the changes and the loss of hit rates. Once crusaders CA's are properly balanced they can up their melee crit bonus to be with the other tanks...problem solved.</blockquote>i d love to see this happen and see the outcry of bandwagon jumper. Unfortunatly Xelgad is part of that bandwagon...

Nakash

04-27-2010, 07:46 AM

I know that you like the new 2Handers Darkonx. I do too.Changing a mechanism the works for many to empower a few is not the way to go.(Knight Stance 1H Shield style / 2H style with High end 2H.)High End SKs,(wich i am also btw) would get the main benefit.I see no chance getting away with this. SryNext point is that i will see no way to get acceptance for this proposal in the fightercommunity. More then the half still cry nerf havoc on Crusaders, cause they dont know orunderstand the mechanics but they just see that crusaders do more dps then them.All fighter classes are able to do high dps under the right circumstances.The circumstances may differ,but with the right Setup,Gear,and Skill all are able to do this.Instead of crying nerf havoc on a other class it would be the better way for all classes to makesuggestions to their own class, and if they are not out of the line a reasonable proposal stillhas a chance to getting heared.Finaly, Crusaders needs no nerfes, other classes need fixes if at all.

Erlandor

04-27-2010, 08:02 AM

Sometimes it might also be a Matter of Choice where to put your AA points to.I currently only have somehting over 170 AA points, mostly spent on the Crusader and Paladin-Trees, Shadows-Tree is in the works as soon as i can get heretics destruction....There are quite many spots where you have to decide to go with survivability or DPS.I never tried it, but I'm quite sure crusaders can do quite decent DPS, you only have to cofus on the AGI line, put some AAs on int (for spell crits) and STR to get the casting/reuse time.But does this help your Tank role?I never played an Guardian, zerker or anything in EQ2 but i can imagine that those have to make similar decisions either.Perhaps some High-End-Crusader should do this gag and re-spec fully to DPS just to geht some more ppl. whine...In the mean time those who concentrate on their role as Tank to absorb damage and protect their group/raid from being Lunch of some big, nasty mob without worrying about who is on to of the parse-List may have quite good times in SF... <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

steelbadger

04-27-2010, 08:15 AM

<cite>Darkonx@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Odys@Storms wrote:</cite><blockquote>The other day a SK was parsing at 25K in a 6 man Protector, he came since we had issues with a 82 gardian (he would die during the fear and the dudes refused my proposition to go and fetch potions or signet). I think he was close to solo the zone.Most encounters are only 3 targets, and quickly 1.I did almost all the 6 man instances, tank dps is usually 5-9k, well geared t1 dps may go up to 15. So it seems that the way dps scale according to your equipment is very insane.</blockquote>This post has nothing to do with what the thread is about. A 90 tank has much more survivability than an 82 tank, yes. Let's try to keep the thread on topic though. The topic is Knight's Stance being changed to work with 2h as well as 1h weapons. A 5% reduction to compensate would be more than viable.</blockquote>I don't believe making Knights Stance work with both would help the situation much. The problem of Crusaders being able to produce Warrior Dualwielding DPS while using a 1-Hander and shield would be unchanged. Reducing Knights Stances effectiveness to just 20% would make be a negligible change to Crusader DPS (a loss of 225 DPS in 30k) while wielding a 1 hander and shield.Such a change would simply be a buff to Crusaders, as their high survivability dps woul be unchanged while their DPS topline goes even higher. And it would still be going a lot higherIn a raid situation Aetok with a 20% base modifier would hit for 15-17k or so with each swing. Average. Consider DA and the possibility of Flurry in there too and numbers quickly escalate. With Flurry that would still allow a Crusader to deal 12k+ DPS purely on auto-attack, while not losing anything of note off their bottom end (a couple of hundred dps, maximum).Remember, a 2H weapon gains twice the benefit from Flurry and AoE auto-attack that Dual-Wield gains (Because only the primary weapon in DW can proc these things, the 2H essentially allows both weapons to proc flurry, as it is two weapons in 1)Lose Knights Stance completely on 1H+Shield. You'll lose 3.75% from your shield toting DPS. Not a massive loss, really, Crusaders would still be generating considerably more threat than a similarly survivable warrior.Make Knights Stance 10% and make it 2H only. This would increase your current 2H DPS by 10%, obviously, and allow you to outparse a warrior bearing the same weapon by 5% (Auto-attack only, the Crusader would obviously be out dpsing the warrior in total thanks to the current distribution of spell to AA dmg crusaders have).I feel the bonus needs to be removed from 1H to really encourage crusaders to make the tradeoff in survivability. If they can maintain their current DPS numbers using a 1H many will not see the point of bothering with a 2H. This is very different from warriors who must give up their shield to compete on the DPS/aggro parse.In my example the gain in DPS for a Crusader, going from 1H+Shield to 2Hander would be a 50% increase in their Auto-attack dps. Now that is an encouragement to switch. This is exactly the same proportional DPS benefit a warrior gets from going 1H+Shield to DW, if you're interested.

steelbadger

04-27-2010, 08:30 AM

<cite>Erlandor wrote:</cite><blockquote>Sometimes it might also be a Matter of Choice where to put your AA points to.I currently only have somehting over 170 AA points, mostly spent on the Crusader and Paladin-Trees, Shadows-Tree is in the works as soon as i can get heretics destruction....There are quite many spots where you have to decide to go with survivability or DPS.I never tried it, but I'm quite sure crusaders can do quite decent DPS, you only have to cofus on the AGI line, put some AAs on int (for spell crits) and STR to get the casting/reuse time.But does this help your Tank role?I never played an Guardian, zerker or anything in EQ2 but i can imagine that those have to make similar decisions either.Perhaps some High-End-Crusader should do this gag and re-spec fully to DPS just to geht some more ppl. whine...In the mean time those who concentrate on their role as Tank to absorb damage and protect their group/raid from being Lunch of some big, nasty mob without worrying about who is on to of the parse-List may have quite good times in SF... <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>Except that Warriors, Guardians in particular, have to give up on apparently tanky AAs. Being a solid iron tank is no good if the mobs are hitting someone else because you don't have the aggro to keep the mob on you.Aggro concerns such as this are basically non issues for Paladins, thanks to Amends and SKs, thanks to big ol' dps.<cite>Azzaroth@Valor wrote:</cite><blockquote>I know that you like the new 2Handers Darkonx. I do too.Changing a mechanism the works for many to empower a few is not the way to go.(Knight Stance 1H Shield style / 2H style with High end 2H.)High End SKs,(wich i am also btw) would get the main benefit.I see no chance getting away with this. SryNext point is that i will see no way to get acceptance for this proposal in the fightercommunity. More then the half still cry nerf havoc on Crusaders, cause they dont know orunderstand the mechanics but they just see that crusaders do more dps then them.All fighter classes are able to do high dps under the right circumstances.The circumstances may differ,but with the right Setup,Gear,and Skill all are able to do this.Instead of crying nerf havoc on a other class it would be the better way for all classes to makesuggestions to their own class, and if they are not out of the line a reasonable proposal stillhas a chance to getting heared.Finaly, Crusaders needs no nerfes, other classes need fixes if at all.</blockquote>This is why I stated at the start that there needs to be 2H itemization. 4 Items an itemization system does not make. If done correctly a change like this would be good for everyone. Crusaders would have to get used to the notion of giving up survivability for aggro/DPS as every other tank class must and they'd also be far more flexible. If a zone really is that easy they can throw in a 2H and have at it.And please don't buff me to the level of Crusaders. I'd probably switch to my healer if tanking became that easy.All I ask for is a trade-off. I just want to see Crusaders angsting over whether they should go 2H or 1H, is the survivability needed, is the DPS needed? Which is needed more? I know you can switch armour and jewellery around, but everyone else does that too, and has to decide if they want to DW or go with Shield.

Raahl

04-27-2010, 09:56 AM

So let me get this straight.Crusaders using sword and board are out damaging dual wielding/2h warriors? That seems a bit odd.Are they out damaging brawlers?To me a tank in defensive mode should never out damage another tank in DPS mode. No matter what the class.

Nakash

04-27-2010, 09:59 AM

<cite>steelbadger wrote:</cite><blockquote>This is why I stated at the start that there needs to be 2H itemization. 4 Items an itemization system does not make. If done correctly a change like this would be good for everyone. Crusaders would have to get used to the notion of giving up survivability for aggro/DPS as every other tank class must and they'd also be far more flexible. If a zone really is that easy they can throw in a 2H and have at it.And please don't buff me to the level of Crusaders. I'd probably switch to my healer if tanking became that easy.All I ask for is a trade-off. I just want to see Crusaders angsting over whether they should go 2H or 1H, is the survivability needed, is the DPS needed? Which is needed more? I know you can switch armour and jewellery around, but everyone else does that too, and has to decide if they want to DW or go with Shield.</blockquote>If you have no problem then dont cry for nerfs of othersIf you find things to easy go and find the challenging raid encounters.They are there. If you haven't seen them don't post a judgement.

steelbadger

04-27-2010, 10:28 AM

<cite>Azzaroth@Valor wrote:</cite><blockquote>If you have no problem then dont cry for nerfs of othersIf you find things to easy go and find the challenging raid encounters.They are there. If you haven't seen them don't post a judgement.</blockquote>So we're back to the idea that Guardians are "Ok" because they're the preferable tank to use on your first attempt to kill any one of about 10 mobs in the game? Guardians being deficient in any area which does not require maximum survivability is completely ok because it is of use on those 10 mobs?The fact remains, that for most raid content and all heroic content a Crusader will do more dps/threat with more survivability than a similarly geared warrior. And for those few mobs where guardian survivability is an advantage it certainly is not so much of an advantage that Crusaders have real difficulty filling in for a Guardian.I have no problem with Crusaders being able to do more dps/threat than me, none at all. What really gets my goat is that they can do it whilest also being more survivable than me.Oh, and I wasn't calling for a nerf, I was opting to give you even more DPS than you currently have with the downside that you'd have to drop your shield to get it. Like other plate tanks.

Mavrin

04-27-2010, 10:40 AM

I typically try to stay out of of board squalls but this one is so ridiculously slanted I felt the need to jump in.A. If someone wants to use 2 handers on a pally or sk more power to you but thats not how our class was designed to operate. People like you are what keep people like me from getting nerfed.B. There's a very logical reason why our DPS is as high as it is, its about hate management nothing more if a conjuror can do 30k dps and some assassins are pushing 60k knocking me down below 10k is just going to guarentee they die everytime and then we're stuck with guardians that can't hold ae agro and monks(but at least they'll be geared).I don't want to hear about amends, amends is a crutch its not the end all be all which so many many think it is. Amends was put in the game because our ca's heals are longer to cast then anyone elses and it gives us a way to generate hate while casting nothing more.The new Holy Ground is very nice if you have a clue how to use it but its also not going to help if your not hitting the mob in the head with a brick everytime you use it.(for the its broke crowd come over to Najena and I'll show you how to use it.)Instead of coming here calling for nerfs because you think something is over powered or because you want to play your play style and drag the rest of us with you maybe come here and call for the real things that need fixed.Rangers are slipping steadily this expansion compared to other scouts most dirges are well over 15k parses now an arrow flurry ability would probably go a way to getting them back to where they need to be.Illusionists need all the love they can get cuz they really got the bat this expansion. Power regen dps they got owied in everything.Guardians still need ae agro love. A 12% version of amends would probably fix all thier issues but I'm not a developer.Pushing one's own agenda is fine but what your talking about will screw up alot of raiding pallies sks hate management in ways I don't want to have nightmares about. I remember post LU13 when my templar became my main because noone took crusaders on raids because we couldnt do anything really well. We're probably the best at managing hate in the game now the trade off guards are more survivable a good raid leader knows right tank for right mob and nowhere do I foresee them(myself included) slotting pallies or sks as dps over a dps class so take your two hander and go play somewhere with it.The bottom line. Probably 10% pallies and sks are completely over powered(myself included), A. Because we have a clue, B. Because we have the gear, C. We have the masters, D. We have 250 aa's in the absolute correct places to have them for what we do.As for the rest. 80% A. Kinda know whats going on, B. have a hodgepodge of gear legendary- fabled C. some masters mostly experts D. under 200 aa's and some clue where they need to be. 10% A. Have no idea [Removed for Content]. B. Have treasured or mastercrafted gear and tinkered shears in charm slots C. Use app 1 or adept ca's/spells. D. Put thier AA points in heals.So when you scream nerf your shafting the 90% the 10% will figure out how to adjust and survive like we always have.If your still confused drop by najena I'm generally free after we're done raiding at 8 pst and I'll be happy to discuss the finer points of hate management and its relation to DPS.Have a nice day <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

ShinGoku

04-27-2010, 10:42 AM

I have said it before and I will say it again, instead of people crying for SK nerfs, why don't they ask for buffs for their own classes? SK should be the standard other tanks match, not the exception!

Raahl

04-27-2010, 11:00 AM

Good post Mavrin.I agree especially with the part about holding aggro. DPS is all about holding aggro for a Tank. And currently aggro is the #1 issue for warriors, especially Guardians.They can increase the Warrior tanking DPS to increase aggro, but I suspect that a number of people would complain as it would be stepping on their toes. Increasing the power of a warriors taunts is another possible solution.But my original comment still stands. A tank using sword and board should never outdamage another tank in DPS mode. Now whether that means that the DPS mode needs some loving vs. reducing sword and board DPS, that's up to the developers.

Mavrin

04-27-2010, 12:00 PM

I think what we're looking at here is more a perception problem then anything else. And perceptions can start all kinds of bad news just ask coercers and illies after the massive nerf to thier dps because the wizzies were throwing fits. 100% of them suffer because 10% were really really good at dpsing.If you take a guardian in dual wield with T2(T<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> armor and put him next to me with my sword and board I'm going to own him period.If you take a Guardian comparably geared aa'd mastered etc and supported(dirge coercer shammy temp) vs single mob and we're gonna be [Removed for Content] close in dps and ping ponging mobs left and right at least till I hit holy ground.Take the same guard and make it ae mobs and I win but thats what my class and sks do we ae everything. Now ya take a zerker and its ping pong city again.Our tertiary tank is a guard on the sara fight he's our OT so our SK can run around like a lunatic grabbing the bushes and we have no problems killing that encounter and swapping back and forth unless we miss the message due to lag.Most of the guardian problems are blown completely out of proportion. The bulk want it like they had it in T5 T6 T7 and they can't hence the biatching. I thoroughly support a small amends like critter to help them with ae agro beyond that single target any decent geared guard can rip off me at will and if they can't its the player, the gear, the aa's, the masters not the class. The calls for nerfs are getting very very old.And as an after thought and this won't change but Taunts shouldnt be resistable period like EQ1 but thats not gonna change cuz if it was LU13 is where it would of happened..

Darkonx

04-27-2010, 12:26 PM

<cite>steelbadger wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Azzaroth@Valor wrote:</cite><blockquote>If you have no problem then dont cry for nerfs of othersIf you find things to easy go and find the challenging raid encounters.They are there. If you haven't seen them don't post a judgement.</blockquote>So we're back to the idea that Guardians are "Ok" because they're the preferable tank to use on your first attempt to kill any one of about 10 mobs in the game? Guardians being deficient in any area which does not require maximum survivability is completely ok because it is of use on those 10 mobs?The fact remains, that for most raid content and all heroic content a Crusader will do more dps/threat with more survivability than a similarly geared warrior. And for those few mobs where guardian survivability is an advantage it certainly is not so much of an advantage that Crusaders have real difficulty filling in for a Guardian.I have no problem with Crusaders being able to do more dps/threat than me, none at all. What really gets my goat is that they can do it whilest also being more survivable than me.Oh, and I wasn't calling for a nerf, I was opting to give you even more DPS than you currently have with the downside that you'd have to drop your shield to get it. Like other plate tanks.</blockquote>15% on KS would grant us 10% harder auto attacks. I think that would be the most fair. At that point, you can either switch it to 2h only to maximize the incentive to switch, or you can maintain it as functioning with a shield. The numbers seem fair.I'd really like to keep the thread on topic if possible. Only discussing the possible change to KS. I don't want to get bogged down with over all threat mechanics etc etc. Let's just say that it wouldn't hurt us overly in terms of threat/second.EDIT: This would be a GREAT way to balance defensive (1h/shield) DPS among tanks while at the same time not making people feel bad with a 'nerf'.

Mavrin

04-27-2010, 01:10 PM

Maybe someone needs a history lesson.Before the introduction of Knights Stance pallies and sks were lucky if some raid would pity them enough to take them along.The change you propose would dramatically alter what if anything has become the basis for all things hate and dps related. Translated we became the kick *ss classes we are because of it. Show me all the math you want but I looked at your numbers and thier nowhere what I do in game for dps which means to me your (and I'm not really an elitist) dps sucks.The whole 2 hander argument, let me be succint if you want to be a dps class roll an pokey or wizzie. Without a Fiery Avenger like blocking mechanism your a detriment to any semi capable raid force if you try to swing that way or think its even a good idea.With defense broken as it is I could see someone getting a bright idea but if you read the patch notes its fixed on test right now or at least the fix is being tested.What makes pallies and sks such survivable tanks is our shields and our ability to do some interesting things to mobs my SK OT and I can bounce at will if our healers have issues.Through T5 T6 T7 and early T8 Guards had life by the shorties and crusaders had to suck it up well the wheel came around and Guards really arent [Removed for Content] comparatively they just need to do what crusaders have been doing for years get creative in how they do what they do.As for staying on topic DPS is all about threat mechanics and if you don't understand that you really need to be playing a non dangerous class like provisioner because your going to either be dead alot or killing alot of folks around you.The reason you picked Knights Stance is I suspect you understand how much of a corner stone that ability truly is. Nerf that and the Crusaders as viable raid/group tanks goes away again.

arksun

04-27-2010, 01:27 PM

<cite>Mavrin wrote:</cite><blockquote>Maybe someone needs a history lesson.Before the introduction of Knights Stance pallies and sks were lucky if some raid would pity them enough to take them along.The change you propose would dramatically alter what if anything has become the basis for all things hate and dps related. Translated we became the kick *ss classes we are because of it. Show me all the math you want but I looked at your numbers and thier nowhere what I do in game for dps which means to me your (and I'm not really an elitist) dps sucks.The whole 2 hander argument, let me be succint if you want to be a dps class roll an pokey or wizzie. Without a Fiery Avenger like blocking mechanism your a detriment to any semi capable raid force if you try to swing that way or think its even a good idea.With defense broken as it is I could see someone getting a bright idea but if you read the patch notes its fixed on test right now or at least the fix is being tested.What makes pallies and sks such survivable tanks is our shields and our ability to do some interesting things to mobs my SK OT and I can bounce at will if our healers have issues.Through T5 T6 T7 and early T8 Guards had life by the shorties and crusaders had to suck it up well the wheel came around and Guards really arent [Removed for Content] comparatively they just need to do what crusaders have been doing for years get creative in how they do what they do.As for staying on topic DPS is all about threat mechanics and if you don't understand that you really need to be playing a non dangerous class like provisioner because your going to either be dead alot or killing alot of folks around you.The reason you picked Knights Stance is I suspect you understand how much of a corner stone that ability truly is. Nerf that and the Crusaders as viable raid/group tanks goes away again.</blockquote>You should not be able to maximize dps and survivability while wearing a shield. No other plate tank can do that.... and if you are saying that dps / hate is the major mechanic, then both warriors should be brought up to the same token as Knights Stance, allowing them to maximize dps while wearing a shield.For a warrior to do comparable dps as a crusader in sword and board we have to DW and we lose are defensive abilities, why should crusaders be able to do the total opposite.Think about it for a minute they nick named the last xpac the shadowknight odyysey.... this is not just a play on words, everyone here wether you play a crusader or not knows how OP that ability is and I can pull 2 months worth of logs to prove my point.1. Bring other tanks up to speed as the crusaders are.2. Crusaders want to dps and generate hate, there needs to be a negative effect to that. That is why the option for the 2hander as opposed to a shield is being brought up on the table.Although even with a 2h weapon there would still need to be some adjustments, and if any of you has actually gone to test and noticed the DR ratings of weapons you will see how good some of these 2h actually are.Calling another tank out and saying you suck leave us the way we are is not going to win discussion and make the devs believe all is well. Ask anyone of the devs about how this mechanic works and I promise you they know there is a problem.Don't think anyone is asking for a nerf, but it needs to be adjusted...wether it be bringing other tanks up to par which would require man hours they probably don't have or adjust a mechanic they now has been op for over an xpac.

Darkonx

04-27-2010, 01:46 PM

<cite>Mavrin wrote:</cite><blockquote>Maybe someone needs a history lesson.Before the introduction of Knights Stance pallies and sks were lucky if some raid would pity them enough to take them along.The change you propose would dramatically alter what if anything has become the basis for all things hate and dps related. Translated we became the kick *ss classes we are because of it. Show me all the math you want but I looked at your numbers and thier nowhere what I do in game for dps which means to me your (and I'm not really an elitist) dps sucks.The whole 2 hander argument, let me be succint if you want to be a dps class roll an pokey or wizzie. Without a Fiery Avenger like blocking mechanism your a detriment to any semi capable raid force if you try to swing that way or think its even a good idea.With defense broken as it is I could see someone getting a bright idea but if you read the patch notes its fixed on test right now or at least the fix is being tested.What makes pallies and sks such survivable tanks is our shields and our ability to do some interesting things to mobs my SK OT and I can bounce at will if our healers have issues.Through T5 T6 T7 and early T8 Guards had life by the shorties and crusaders had to suck it up well the wheel came around and Guards really arent [Removed for Content] comparatively they just need to do what crusaders have been doing for years get creative in how they do what they do.As for staying on topic DPS is all about threat mechanics and if you don't understand that you really need to be playing a non dangerous class like provisioner because your going to either be dead alot or killing alot of folks around you.The reason you picked Knights Stance is I suspect you understand how much of a corner stone that ability truly is. Nerf that and the Crusaders as viable raid/group tanks goes away again.</blockquote>You began personal attacks. I'm not sure why, but, I wont reply in kind. I'll stray far enough off topic to say that I'm sure you may have your opinons of my DPS sucks. I'm not honestly sure where you got these opinions, because I've never posted a parse here, but, it's your opinion. You are incorrect, but, I'll leave it at that. I understand how threat mechanics work.Nothing in your post stands out as a reason for this change to not be made. KS should be changed to be 15% with 1h and 2h weapons, IMO. Although, I'd be willing to drop the 1h bonuses all together if it's really needed to maintain balance, however, I think simply allowing it to apply to 2h's would be enough incentive to drop the 1h/shield on a lot of fights.

Mavrin

04-27-2010, 03:09 PM

Flawed logic.I assumed you understood how crits worked but it seems you don't.Take our 159-903 weapon. The way the game works is to apply your base dmg bonus, the bonus from strength then the bonus from DPS mod to find a new min and max (this is what is displayed by /weaponstats and in the persona window).For simplicity's sake we'll assume that Strength and DPS mod are 0. They have a linear effect and will benefit Warriors and Crusaders equally.So, a Warrior has a weapon that can swing for a non crit swing from 159-903.A Crusader has a weapon that can swing for 199-1129.The game then rolls for this base dmg. It then rolls for a crit (100% crits, so we're guaranteed to crit) and multiplies all crits by your total Crit Bonus. Total crit bonus is base bonus (130% for Crusaders, 150% for Warriors) + any crit bonus you have picked up in gear or AAs. This is the damage you do, with one large and important exception:Say it rolled 159 for the warriors attack. It then multiplies this by 1.5 to get 238 dmg. This is less than most non crit damage. So, built into the crit mechanics is a system whereby crit hits which happen to be for less than the maximum damage are actually bumped up to be hits of 1+max dmg. So a roll of 159 on the warriors swing actually yields a crit of 904. This means that a certain proportion on crits crit for a value completely unrelated to the characters crit bonus.The number that I previously called the threshold is the point at which an artificially increased crit stops being generated. Above this point all crits act in the way you would expect; roll*critbonus. Below, however, it acts as a straight max+1 hit.So, for a warrior holding Aetok the point where crit mechanics change is at 903/1.5=602. So if the game rolls a hit of 159-602 the crit will hit for 904 dmg. If the game rolls a hit from 603-903 then it hits for roll x crit bonus.So, the way to work out the damage of the weapon is to consider it as two seperate possibilities.The chance of a roll between 159-602 is 59%. The chance of rolling between 603 and 903 is 41%.The average dmg of those 159-602 rolls as crits will be 904 because all of them will hit for 904. The average dmg of a roll between 603 and 903 will be the average possible roll x crit bonus. So for a warrior it would be 1130 dmg.So the weapon will hit for 904 59% of the time and for an average of 1130 41% of the time. This would give up a mean damage of 996. (I should apologise, my initial calcs were quick and dirty and I realise I got my probabilities wrong).Do all the same with the crusader numbers:The point where crit mechanics change is at 1129/1.3=868. So if the game rolls a hit of 199-868 the crit will hit for 1130 dmg. If the game rolls a hit from 869-1129 then it hits for roll x crit bonus.So, the way to work out the damage of the weapon is to consider it as two seperate possibilities.The chance of a roll between 199-868 is 72%. The chance of rolling between 869 and 1129 is 28%.The average dmg of those 199-868 rolls as crits will be 1130 because all of them will hit for 1130. The average dmg of a roll between 869 and 1129 will be the average possible roll x crit bonus. So for a warrior it would be 1299 dmg.So the weapon will hit for 1130 72% of the time and for an average of 1299 28% of the time. This would give up a mean damage of1177.1177-996=181181=18% difference over warriorAdmittedly I was off by 1% because I made a mistake on the probabilities of crit bumping but as my more accurate calcs attest the bonus you'd have is far greater than you believe.What proportion of your total DPS your auto-attack is currently is not really important, and it would not simply be a 25% increase over current auto-attack dps numbers. It would be more. Possibly a lot more. You are comparing 1H with shield to probably 2H with KS. Aetok or Enoxus would already provide a Crusader a 15% or more bonus to AA DPS without KS being transferred to it. If KS were to be made a 2H effect it could give Crusaders as much as a 50% increase to their current normal auto-attack dps.That is somewhat overlarge, you have to agree. Reduce KS to 10% bonus and apply it to 2H and it becomes closer to the tradeoff you've been expounding.Ty for breaking down the numbers. I'd make KS give us a 10% boost, vs 5%, in terms of actual damage gain. I'd be happy with that, yes. That'd mean nerfing it down to what, 15? 20? Something around that would be fine.I was reffering to these thrown out numbers oh and just a small point,Revitalized Vel Arek64str 42 sta 46 agi 24 wis 300 health 250 power 8 slash 10 defense 5% block 8% crit blade mastery shielding of vel"arek 54-308 120.9 damage rating delay 3 secs(1.5 at haste cap)The envenerated truth of marr52str 42 sta 24 agi 32 wis 24 int 295 health 275 power 10 slash 6 crit 100 ability modifier 109-617 12.9 damage rating 6.0 delay (3 secs haste cap)So basic mathmatics 1.5 delay vs 3 sec delay = 2 swings by guard for every one swing pally 54x2 = 108 308 x2 =616 translated pallies can do 1 damage more and this of course completely unbalances the classes. Now truth be told while equipped in offensive stance my myth does 680-3851 so if your numbers are below that its not the crusaders fault its your gear your aa spec and all the other lil bells and whistles that go along with it because given your weapon fires off 2 to one on auto attacks(which should be your primary damage) theres absolutely no reason you cant at least get close.And if you look at the Primary raid guilds you'll find most still use a guard as main tank and I don't see those guys over here whining for nerfs and I know for a fact soe is watching who's killing what and how very closely or hasn't anyone else been reading patch messages and changes to raid mobs lately.

Landiin

04-27-2010, 03:56 PM

It all boils down to you SHOULD NOT be able to DPS like a DW warrior when you are using a sword and board. There is nothing balanced about that. No matter the numbers any one puts out that is simply not balanced.

Darkonx

04-27-2010, 04:03 PM

Mavrin, this is not a 'nerf'. This is a change to grant Crusaders more versatility. It is a change, not a nerf.

Darkonx

04-27-2010, 04:05 PM

<cite>Toranx@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>It all boils down to you SHOULD NOT be able to DPS like a DW warrior when you are using a sword and board. There is nothing balanced about that. No matter the numbers any one puts out that is simply not balanced.</blockquote>I agree. We should do more DPS with a 2h than we do now though. As I said, change Knight's Stance (KS) to 15-20% when using a 2h, and 10% when using a 1h, and we will do less DPS than a DW warrior with a 1h/shield, and about the same as a DW warrior with a 2h.

RafaelSmith

04-27-2010, 04:11 PM

Wow, as much as I think SKs need some "tuning" with regards to having too much DPS and Survivability at the same time.........what is being discussed here is not it........in fact its a BUFF not a nerf..........anyone that doesnt see that is being fooled by the OP and his/her fixation on 2handers.

Darkonx

04-27-2010, 04:22 PM

<cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>Wow, as much as I think SKs need some "tuning" with regards to having too much DPS and Survivability at the same time.........what is being discussed here is not it........in fact its a BUFF not a nerf..........anyone that doesnt see that is being fooled by the OP and his/her fixation on 2handers.</blockquote>Not at all. Reducing the damage gained via Knight's Stance when using 1h weapons is a nerf to DPS+Survivability combination. What we would gain, is an incentive to DPS with a 2h weapon, further decreasing our survivability. It's a good fix, it really is. Yes, I like 2h weapons, because I like min/maxing for DPS. I can't do that ATM due to the way the game is set up, if I min/max for DPS, I'm also wearing a shield. This needs to be changed, to grant incentives to use 2h weapons.

Mavrin

04-27-2010, 04:37 PM

1. Shadow knight odyssey berry funny and there I thought it had to do with Anashti Sul and all her lil void buddies.2. So basically it was alright for Guards T1 - T7 to out tank(to this day a basic gear guard beats a well geared pally/sk in parry defense by 100s) and out dps crusaders by thousands but now that theres parity its not ok.3. When Guards were out dpsing wizards DW in T6 and 7 while tanking every single raid mob in game that was ok but now OMG crusaders can parse and the mobs hit hard whine whine cry cry.4. I'm a heavy dpsing(yes I can keep up with the wizzies in defensive or offensive) because I took the time to learn my class get my gear get my aa's my masters but for every person like me there are 100s of casual sk/pally players who struggle to survive much less dps and its them your proposed change would do the most damage to and its really not warranted because guards aren't broken and this is the closest tanks have ever been in balance.The jealous snipes of crusaders shouldn't be able to out dps dual wielding guards OM*G now thats just plain old p envy if I've ever heard it. What makes you so special that you should be able to out dps a holy/unholy warrior in the first place I have the powers of my god at my command you have a keg of ale and an attitude at yours I should be the nastier tank, and yet you have more hps more avoidance, more snap agros, more mitigation, more defensive toys sheesh if you want only one kind of tank in a game just say it instead of spreading fertilizer all over the place. I'm kinda amazed no monks bruisers haven't jumped in on this cuz they do still need some work and probably have the only valid complaints atm.The only reason I'm bothering with this for too long the whiners here and other places whine whine moan moan till SOE changes stuff to shut them up LU13 direct result of major whining and how many accounts got cancelled over it, as part of the silent majority of players who truly enjoy the game I think its time we all come over here and actually throw our 2 cents in particularly the raiding community who know whats actually broke and what needs tweeked and whats just plain old okie dokies.Now if you'll excuse me I still have conservatory and library to finish 2 boxing. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Darkonx

04-27-2010, 04:58 PM

<cite>Mavrin wrote:</cite><blockquote>1. Shadow knight odyssey berry funny and there I thought it had to do with Anashti Sul and all her lil void buddies.2. So basically it was alright for Guards T1 - T7 to out tank(to this day a basic gear guard beats a well geared pally/sk in parry defense by 100s) and out dps crusaders by thousands but now that theres parity its not ok.3. When Guards were out dpsing wizards DW in T6 and 7 while tanking every single raid mob in game that was ok but now OMG crusaders can parse and the mobs hit hard whine whine cry cry.4. I'm a heavy dpsing(yes I can keep up with the wizzies in defensive or offensive) because I took the time to learn my class get my gear get my aa's my masters but for every person like me there are 100s of casual sk/pally players who struggle to survive much less dps and its them your proposed change would do the most damage to and its really not warranted because guards aren't broken and this is the closest tanks have ever been in balance.The jealous snipes of crusaders shouldn't be able to out dps dual wielding guards OM*G now thats just plain old p envy if I've ever heard it. What makes you so special that you should be able to out dps a holy/unholy warrior in the first place I have the powers of my god at my command you have a keg of ale and an attitude at yours I should be the nastier tank, and yet you have more hps more avoidance, more snap agros, more mitigation, more defensive toys sheesh if you want only one kind of tank in a game just say it instead of spreading fertilizer all over the place. I'm kinda amazed no monks bruisers haven't jumped in on this cuz they do still need some work and probably have the only valid complaints atm.The only reason I'm bothering with this for too long the whiners here and other places whine whine moan moan till SOE changes stuff to shut them up LU13 direct result of major whining and how many accounts got cancelled over it, as part of the silent majority of players who truly enjoy the game I think its time we all come over here and actually throw our 2 cents in particularly the raiding community who know whats actually broke and what needs tweeked and whats just plain old okie dokies.Now if you'll excuse me I still have conservatory and library to finish 2 boxing. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>Look. I'm not jealously sniping Crusaders. I promise. You apparently don't know who I am, and that's fine. You clearly aren't in the top end community. No worries, really.Having this changed to 10-15% WBD (weapon bonus damage) while using a 1h, and 15-20% WBD while using a 2h, would be much more balanced than it is now. It'd allow us greater versatility, and much more choice in terms of itemization. Why wouldn't you want to have more choices rather than be forced to build your character a certain way? More choices=more fun, IMO. Most of what you say is good and all, but really, if this is changed, Crusaders/Warriors will be much more evenly balanced, and in the end, everyone will be much happier. Crusader DPS using 1h/shield will go down, but they will have the ability to completely sacrafice defensive for offense by getting a 2h weapon. It's a change for the better, truly. All it does is grant Paladins and Shadowknights slightly improved damage with a 2h, in exchange for reduced DPS when geared defensively. This is how the AA should have worked all along, but due to mythicals it couldn't be done.EDIT: I promise, I'm not someone who wants to see Crusaders nerfed. Really, I'm not.

Phelon_Skellhound

04-27-2010, 06:17 PM

I skimmed a bit thru this mess and tangle and I think most warriors, non raiding crusaders and perhaps a few of the new new raid ones are forgetting the past... "Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it" if i got the quote right...Crusaders were basicly unwanted up to RoK, forget raiding we were paper tanks... Until the myth we did 2h and timered our swings to "DPS" It was not impossible just really hard and dare I say it? It took skill... Skill to keep agro when dps equaled aggroThen the myth happened and if you didnt have it, 2h was it or you over time... paid for the updates... only option when Myth'd was to sword and board and we did better.. but no 2h could come close to the myth dps cept avatar loot lets remember also that our 1h weapons are 6 second delay no ifs and or buts here.... If you remember longer the delay the harder we hit.. it gives us the time we need to cast our ca/spells while being able to auto attack.. dont forget that most instances were single target then and we did badly and until we got the gear then we did so soTSO came along and OMG got to a point where you couldnt swing a dead kerran without hitting an sk hehe... sword and board aa helped us to solidify our survivablity and DPS to maintain aggro in defensive... once we got raid geared then offensive cept for hard named... granted a bit overpowered but we got a bit toned down in SF, not much but a bit... almost every weapon is 1h 4sec delay... I just cant accept that cuz now we have to change the way we cast.. its why we use the myth over the lvl 90 one handers (i have hairsplitter btw)So given that, why would I even want to consider 2h weapons when the lvl 90 ones are not worth my time? Why force crusaders to 2h when we are MT or OT raiding? Yeah a couple clicks and we sword and board but why make us change our playstyle we been doing for a couple of years...Granted that 2h weapons have been given the shaft, tanks are tanks and should not be 2h in my opinion.. Instance wise, i don't see a viable application to 2h... Raid wise we could MT so 2h is out the window there or more than likely we OT and its possible to 2h, but why when ya need to stand ready... takes us an extra click to sword and board while warriors just need just the one.. ya there is a way to macro but I'm too lazy to do it... And if the crusader is third string ok 2h is fine, but how often is that really?Part of what i am saying is... when and how often is 2h really gonna be viable?i didnt read the whole thread so i may have miss read the intention but hope i stayed on track for ya folks

yadlajoi

04-27-2010, 06:20 PM

<cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote>Mavrin, this is not a 'nerf'. This is a change to grant Crusaders more versatility. It is a change, not a nerf.</blockquote>Translation for people who didnt understood what he said.BUFF MY ALREADY WAY OVERPOWERED CLASS EVEN MORE. MAYBE IF I PRESENT IT AS A NERF REQUEST NO ONE WILL REALISE I M ASKING FOR A HUGE BUFFAGE!!!!!

arksun

04-27-2010, 06:21 PM

<cite>Khatiru@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote>I skimmed a bit thru this mess and tangle and I think most warriors, non raiding crusaders and perhaps a few of the new new raid ones are forgetting the past... "Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it" if i got the quote right...Crusaders were basicly unwanted up to RoK, forget raiding we were paper tanks... Until the myth we did 2h and timered our swings to "DPS" It was not impossible just really hard and dare I say it? It took skill... Skill to keep agro when dps equaled aggroThen the myth happened and if you didnt have it, 2h was it or you over time... paid for the updates... only option when Myth'd was to sword and board and we did better.. but no 2h could come close to the myth dps cept avatar loot lets remember also that our 1h weapons are 6 second delay no ifs and or buts here.... If you remember longer the delay the harder we hit.. it gives us the time we need to cast our ca/spells while being able to auto attack.. dont forget that most instances were single target then and we did badly and until we got the gear then we did so soTSO came along and OMG got to a point where you couldnt swing a dead kerran without hitting an sk hehe... sword and board aa helped us to solidify our survivablity and DPS to maintain aggro in defensive... once we got raid geared then offensive cept for hard named... granted a bit overpowered but we got a bit toned down in SF, not much but a bit... almost every weapon is 1h 4sec delay... I just cant accept that cuz now we have to change the way we cast.. its why we use the myth over the lvl 90 one handers (i have hairsplitter btw)So given that, why would I even want to consider 2h weapons when the lvl 90 ones are not worth my time? Why force crusaders to 2h when we are MT or OT raiding? Yeah a couple clicks and we sword and board but why make us change our playstyle we been doing for a couple of years...Granted that 2h weapons have been given the shaft but Instance wise... tanks are tanks and should not be 2h in my opinion.. Raid wise we could MT so 2h is out the window there or more than likely we OT and its possible to 2h, but why when ya need to stand ready... takes us an extra click to sword and board while warriors just need just the one.. ya there is a way to macro but I'm too lazy to do it... And if the crusader is third string ok 2h is fine, but how often is that really?Part of what i am saying is... when and how often is 2h really gonna be viable?i didnt read the whole thread so i may have miss read the intention but hope i stayed on track for ya folks</blockquote>I use 2 weapons for DW dps tanking and I have to macro in a different weapon and shield, so what is the problem here? Have you not seen the 2h weapons on test?

yadlajoi

04-27-2010, 06:27 PM

Frog, what happened to 2handers on test?

BChizzle

04-27-2010, 06:28 PM

Here is why this is laughable, the OP wants more auto attack dps from a 2 hander while at the same time knowing that even if shield and board is nerfed most dps for a crusader comes from their spells and ca's so they would barely be affected and will still be more dps then every other tank while defensive now he also wants more dps then every other tank while wearing a 2 hander. Let's be real here SK's don't need any more buffing. If you want all this stuff you are asking for then your whole class abilities need to be nerfed down to acceptable levels.SK's and Palys don't need anymore buffing so please quit with this laughable crusade.

Gungo

04-27-2010, 07:59 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Here is why this is laughable, the OP wants more auto attack dps from a 2 hander while at the same time knowing that even if shield and board is nerfed most dps for a crusader comes from their spells and ca's so they would barely be affected and will still be more dps then every other tank while defensive now he also wants more dps then every other tank while wearing a 2 hander. Let's be real here SK's don't need any more buffing. If you want all this stuff you are asking for then your whole class abilities need to be nerfed down to acceptable levels.SK's and Palys don't need anymore buffing so please quit with this laughable crusade.</blockquote>I saw the same thing as well and the only way I see this working out is if knights stance is reduced to 10% auto atk damage increase to any weapon. Which would honestly still increase thier maxmum dps potential.2 hander + 10% auto atk damage > 1 hander w 25% auto atk damageAnd if the OP was seriously about the fact he thinks shadowknights are overpowered in defensive with 25% increase in auto atk damage he really should not see an issue with this change. But most people realized he didnt wants nerf crusaders dps potential while tanking he wanted to increase crusaders dps potential.

Darkonx

04-27-2010, 08:58 PM

<cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Here is why this is laughable, the OP wants more auto attack dps from a 2 hander while at the same time knowing that even if shield and board is nerfed most dps for a crusader comes from their spells and ca's so they would barely be affected and will still be more dps then every other tank while defensive now he also wants more dps then every other tank while wearing a 2 hander. Let's be real here SK's don't need any more buffing. If you want all this stuff you are asking for then your whole class abilities need to be nerfed down to acceptable levels.SK's and Palys don't need anymore buffing so please quit with this laughable crusade.</blockquote>I saw the same thing as well and the only way I see this working out is if knights stance is reduced to 10% auto atk damage increase to any weapon. Which would honestly still increase thier maxmum dps potential.2 hander + 10% auto atk damage > 1 hander w 25% auto atk damageAnd if the OP was seriously about the fact he thinks shadowknights are overpowered in defensive with 25% increase in auto atk damage he really should not see an issue with this change. But most people realized he didnt wants nerf crusaders dps potential while tanking he wanted to increase crusaders dps potential.</blockquote>I'd say nerf it to 15% with 2h's, and 10% with 1h's. There are quite a few new ones that are viable ATM. I'd say even 15% on 1h's is kinda OP, we should really have to sacrafice offensive potential to go defensive. 10% is a good 1h number, for 2h's though, I'd keep it at 15%, due to the lost stats on 2h's in comparison to DW weapons, and the lost adornment slot.

Couching

04-27-2010, 10:41 PM

At the moment, defensive stance is meanlingless for most plate tanks especially raiders. They can hit mit cap without the extra mitigation boost from defensive and the contested avoidance hooked on defensive stance is useless in raid.I have said it before and I will say it again.Make block uncontested only when plate tanks are in defensive stance. (similar as brawler, we have to be in mid or defensive to get uncontested block)With this change, crusaders and warrior have to stay in defensive stance to enjoy uncontested block for extra survivability in raids. For heroic content, they can switch to offensive stance for better dps and still make use of contested avoidance from shield.With this change, any fighter has to sacrifice uncontested avoidance for maximizing his dps potential.For OP's suggestion, I said no. It's simple that sk already did too much dps in the current form. With the changed suggested by OP to boost 2h dps by KS, crusaders can deal even better dps in offensive mode. Are you out of your mind? SK's dps is already OP and need a nerf, not a boost in any situation.

Darkonx

04-28-2010, 12:24 AM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>At the moment, defensive stance is meanlingless for most plate tanks especially raiders. They can hit mit cap without the extra mitigation boost from defensive and the contested avoidance hooked on defensive stance is useless in raid.I have said it before and I will say it again.Make block uncontested only when plate tanks are in defensive stance. (similar as brawler, we have to be in mid or defensive to get uncontested block)With this change, crusaders and warrior have to stay in defensive stance to enjoy uncontested block for extra survivability in raids. For heroic content, they can switch to offensive stance for better dps and still make use of contested avoidance from shield.With this change, any fighter has to sacrifice uncontested avoidance for maximizing his dps potential.For OP's suggestion, I said no. It's simple that sk already did too much dps in the current form. With the changed suggested by OP to boost 2h dps by KS, crusaders can deal even better dps in offensive mode. Are you out of your mind? SK's dps is already OP and need a nerf, not a boost in any situation.</blockquote>Again, please, try to stay on topic.Crusaders are doing more DPS now while tanking, than they would if this change went in. Crusaders would LOSE DPS while using a shield, and only gain DPS over their current form, when using a 2h weapon. It's a nerf to DPS while tanking/defensive, and a gain in DPS while only DPSing in a raid situation. It would encourage broadening of gear choices, instead of continuance of the niche that 1h/shield has become for crusaders.

BChizzle

04-28-2010, 12:55 AM

<cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>At the moment, defensive stance is meanlingless for most plate tanks especially raiders. They can hit mit cap without the extra mitigation boost from defensive and the contested avoidance hooked on defensive stance is useless in raid.I have said it before and I will say it again.Make block uncontested only when plate tanks are in defensive stance. (similar as brawler, we have to be in mid or defensive to get uncontested block)With this change, crusaders and warrior have to stay in defensive stance to enjoy uncontested block for extra survivability in raids. For heroic content, they can switch to offensive stance for better dps and still make use of contested avoidance from shield.With this change, any fighter has to sacrifice uncontested avoidance for maximizing his dps potential.For OP's suggestion, I said no. It's simple that sk already did too much dps in the current form. With the changed suggested by OP to boost 2h dps by KS, crusaders can deal even better dps in offensive mode. Are you out of your mind? SK's dps is already OP and need a nerf, not a boost in any situation.</blockquote>Again, please, try to stay on topic.Crusaders are doing more DPS now while tanking, than they would if this change went in. Crusaders would LOSE DPS while using a shield, and only gain DPS over their current form, when using a 2h weapon. It's a nerf to DPS while tanking/defensive, and a gain in DPS while only DPSing in a raid situation. It would encourage broadening of gear choices, instead of continuance of the niche that 1h/shield has become for crusaders.</blockquote>You are correct in one thing Crusaders should have their tanking dps nerfed drastically however their non tanking dps seems to be at a good spot, it doesn't need buffing though.

Couching

04-28-2010, 01:00 AM

<cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>At the moment, defensive stance is meanlingless for most plate tanks especially raiders. They can hit mit cap without the extra mitigation boost from defensive and the contested avoidance hooked on defensive stance is useless in raid.I have said it before and I will say it again.Make block uncontested only when plate tanks are in defensive stance. (similar as brawler, we have to be in mid or defensive to get uncontested block)With this change, crusaders and warrior have to stay in defensive stance to enjoy uncontested block for extra survivability in raids. For heroic content, they can switch to offensive stance for better dps and still make use of contested avoidance from shield.With this change, any fighter has to sacrifice uncontested avoidance for maximizing his dps potential.For OP's suggestion, I said no. It's simple that sk already did too much dps in the current form. With the changed suggested by OP to boost 2h dps by KS, crusaders can deal even better dps in offensive mode. Are you out of your mind? SK's dps is already OP and need a nerf, not a boost in any situation.</blockquote>Again, please, try to stay on topic.Crusaders are doing more DPS now while tanking, than they would if this change went in. Crusaders would LOSE DPS while using a shield, and only gain DPS over their current form, when using a 2h weapon. It's a nerf to DPS while tanking/defensive, and a gain in DPS while only DPSing in a raid situation. It would encourage broadening of gear choices, instead of continuance of the niche that 1h/shield has become for crusaders.</blockquote>Of course it's on topic.I said no body should be able to deal max dps with max defense (get uncontested block from shield) at the same time. It's exactly as what you said.The only difference is that your suggestion is not a nerf nor fix, it's a BOOST to SK's dps in most cases except few hardest encounters in this game that you may want to use a shield.Crusaders and warrior should get ZERO uncontested block from shield unless they are in defensive. It's the real and fair fix.And no, crusader shouldn't get 20% dps boost on 2h because it makes their dps even higher than current OP form.

Darkonx

04-28-2010, 01:28 AM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>At the moment, defensive stance is meanlingless for most plate tanks especially raiders. They can hit mit cap without the extra mitigation boost from defensive and the contested avoidance hooked on defensive stance is useless in raid.I have said it before and I will say it again.Make block uncontested only when plate tanks are in defensive stance. (similar as brawler, we have to be in mid or defensive to get uncontested block)With this change, crusaders and warrior have to stay in defensive stance to enjoy uncontested block for extra survivability in raids. For heroic content, they can switch to offensive stance for better dps and still make use of contested avoidance from shield.With this change, any fighter has to sacrifice uncontested avoidance for maximizing his dps potential.For OP's suggestion, I said no. It's simple that sk already did too much dps in the current form. With the changed suggested by OP to boost 2h dps by KS, crusaders can deal even better dps in offensive mode. Are you out of your mind? SK's dps is already OP and need a nerf, not a boost in any situation.</blockquote>Again, please, try to stay on topic.Crusaders are doing more DPS now while tanking, than they would if this change went in. Crusaders would LOSE DPS while using a shield, and only gain DPS over their current form, when using a 2h weapon. It's a nerf to DPS while tanking/defensive, and a gain in DPS while only DPSing in a raid situation. It would encourage broadening of gear choices, instead of continuance of the niche that 1h/shield has become for crusaders.</blockquote>Of course it's on topic.I said no body should be able to deal max dps with max defense (get uncontested block from shield) at the same time. It's exactly as what you said.The only difference is that your suggestion is not a nerf nor fix, it's a BOOST to SK's dps in most cases except few hardest encounters in this game that you may want to use a shield.Crusaders and warrior should get ZERO uncontested block from shield unless they are in defensive. It's the real and fair fix.And no, crusader shouldn't get 20% dps boost on 2h because it makes their dps even higher than current OP form.</blockquote>I agree, a 20% boost is way too much. Uncontested block is fine. You still avoid far more attacks, and you can reach nearly the same amount of mit. If you really want to make an incentive to tank in DStance, give plate tanks Strikethrough immunity. That would be the best incentive of all IMO, and then give certain mobs ~80% Strikethrough, essentially REQUIRING DStance.Anyways, back on the topic of KS. An ~8% boost by giving Crusaders 15% WBD on KS while using a 2h would not be OP, but it would give the Crusaders an incentive to drop their shield, especially if the WBD for 1h's was lowered to 10%.

Couching

04-28-2010, 02:22 AM

<cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote>I agree, a 20% boost is way too much. Uncontested block is fine. You still avoid far more attacks, and you can reach nearly the same amount of mit. If you really want to make an incentive to tank in DStance, give plate tanks Strikethrough immunity. That would be the best incentive of all IMO, and then give certain mobs ~80% Strikethrough, essentially REQUIRING DStance.Anyways, back on the topic of KS. An ~8% boost by giving Crusaders 15% WBD on KS while using a 2h would not be OP, but it would give the Crusaders an incentive to drop their shield, especially if the WBD for 1h's was lowered to 10%.</blockquote>Why shouldn't plate tanks in Dstance while tanking? why should you, a sk, need strikethrough immunity (SI) when you have most OP survivability skill, 3 bloodletters, and 30k self ward? Why should other plate tanks need SI when they all have their own live saving tools?Keeping uncontestd block while dealing max dps is not fine at all. That's not the case for warriors and brawlers. Current problem of crusaders is that they did too much DPS in all situations no matter they are tanking or not and this is the TOPIC of this thread. What majoirty disagreed with your opinion is that crsuaders are OP enough and didn't need any boost of their dps in any situation.

Darkonx

04-28-2010, 02:37 AM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote>I agree, a 20% boost is way too much. Uncontested block is fine. You still avoid far more attacks, and you can reach nearly the same amount of mit. If you really want to make an incentive to tank in DStance, give plate tanks Strikethrough immunity. That would be the best incentive of all IMO, and then give certain mobs ~80% Strikethrough, essentially REQUIRING DStance.Anyways, back on the topic of KS. An ~8% boost by giving Crusaders 15% WBD on KS while using a 2h would not be OP, but it would give the Crusaders an incentive to drop their shield, especially if the WBD for 1h's was lowered to 10%.</blockquote>Why shouldn't plate tanks in Dstance while tanking? why should you, a sk, need strikethrough immunity (SI) when you have most OP survivability skill, 3 bloodletters, and 30k self ward? Why should other plate tanks need SI when they all have their own live saving tools?Keeping uncontestd block while dealing max dps is not fine at all. That's not the case for warriors and brawlers. Current problem of crusaders is that they did too much DPS in all situations no matter they are tanking or not and this is the TOPIC of this thread. What majoirty disagreed with your opinion is that crsuaders are OP enough and didn't need any boost of their dps in any situation.</blockquote>The bit in red isn't english, if you could re-phrase it, it would be great, because as of right now I have no idea what you're trying to say. Lowering the benefits of KS when defensive would decrease DPS while tanking. Allowing it to also function with 2h weapons would encourage Crusaders to take off their shield. There was a majority consensus that 25% is far too much WBD for Crusaders, I agree with this. That it's OP all together, is just you.

Couching

04-28-2010, 02:56 AM

<cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote>I agree, a 20% boost is way too much. Uncontested block is fine. You still avoid far more attacks, and you can reach nearly the same amount of mit. If you really want to make an incentive to tank in DStance, give plate tanks Strikethrough immunity. That would be the best incentive of all IMO, and then give certain mobs ~80% Strikethrough, essentially REQUIRING DStance.Anyways, back on the topic of KS. An ~8% boost by giving Crusaders 15% WBD on KS while using a 2h would not be OP, but it would give the Crusaders an incentive to drop their shield, especially if the WBD for 1h's was lowered to 10%.</blockquote>Why shouldn't plate tanks in Dstance while tanking? why should you, a sk, need strikethrough immunity (SI) when you have most OP survivability skill, 3 bloodletters, and 30k self ward? Why should other plate tanks need SI when they all have their own live saving tools?Keeping uncontestd block while dealing max dps is not fine at all. That's not the case for warriors and brawlers. Current problem of crusaders is that they did too much DPS in all situations no matter they are tanking or not and this is the TOPIC of this thread. What majoirty disagreed with your opinion is that crsuaders are OP enough and didn't need any boost of their dps in any situation.</blockquote>The bit in red isn't english, if you could re-phrase it, it would be great, because as of right now I have no idea what you're trying to say. Lowering the benefits of KS when defensive would decrease DPS while tanking. Allowing it to also function with 2h weapons would encourage Crusaders to take off their shield. There was a majority consensus that 25% is far too much WBD for Crusaders, I agree with this. That it's OP all together, is just you.</blockquote>Most people including yourself agreed that crusaders shouldn't deal max dps with shield and keep uncontestd block at the same time. And at the moment, crusaders dps is not behind any fighter. In fact, it's ahead of most fighters in most situations.To fix the problem of crusader dps in tanking, making block uncontested only when plate tanks are in defensive stance is a much better way than your suggestion.With your suggestion, crusaders will deal more dps (2h) than current (1h+shield). Most people in this thread said NO to your suggestion.

Darkonx

04-28-2010, 03:23 AM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote>I agree, a 20% boost is way too much. Uncontested block is fine. You still avoid far more attacks, and you can reach nearly the same amount of mit. If you really want to make an incentive to tank in DStance, give plate tanks Strikethrough immunity. That would be the best incentive of all IMO, and then give certain mobs ~80% Strikethrough, essentially REQUIRING DStance.Anyways, back on the topic of KS. An ~8% boost by giving Crusaders 15% WBD on KS while using a 2h would not be OP, but it would give the Crusaders an incentive to drop their shield, especially if the WBD for 1h's was lowered to 10%.</blockquote>Why shouldn't plate tanks in Dstance while tanking? why should you, a sk, need strikethrough immunity (SI) when you have most OP survivability skill, 3 bloodletters, and 30k self ward? Why should other plate tanks need SI when they all have their own live saving tools?Keeping uncontestd block while dealing max dps is not fine at all. That's not the case for warriors and brawlers. Current problem of crusaders is that they did too much DPS in all situations no matter they are tanking or not and this is the TOPIC of this thread. What majoirty disagreed with your opinion is that crsuaders are OP enough and didn't need any boost of their dps in any situation.</blockquote>The bit in red isn't english, if you could re-phrase it, it would be great, because as of right now I have no idea what you're trying to say. Lowering the benefits of KS when defensive would decrease DPS while tanking. Allowing it to also function with 2h weapons would encourage Crusaders to take off their shield. There was a majority consensus that 25% is far too much WBD for Crusaders, I agree with this. That it's OP all together, is just you.</blockquote>Most people including yourself agreed that crusaders shouldn't deal max dps with shield and keep uncontestd block at the same time. And at the moment, crusaders dps is not behind any fighter. In fact, it's ahead of most fighters in most situations.To fix the problem of crusader dps in tanking, making block uncontested only when plate tanks are in defensive stance is a much better way than your suggestion.With your suggestion, crusaders will deal more dps (2h) than current (1h+shield). Most people in this thread said NO to your suggestion.</blockquote>Most of the people said no because they think of it as a Crusader nerf, actually. Read Mavrin's posts, etc. They don't really understand what this would change. Changing block would be a nerf, 100%. Asking for class(es) to be nerfed isn't a good thing to do, for various reasons. This being called a nerf originally got this thread locked. Please, stop. This change would make Crusaders VOLUNTARILY take off their shields, thereby losing the uncontested block. Allowing a player to do something is a much better plan than forcing them to do something. My idea actually grants INCENTIVES rather than punishments, and therefore, is infinitely more viable in terms of implementation.

Couching

04-28-2010, 03:35 AM

<cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote>Most of the people said no because they think of it as a Crusader nerf, actually. Read Mavrin's posts, etc. They don't really understand what this would change. Changing block would be a nerf, 100%. Asking for class(es) to be nerfed isn't a good thing to do, for various reasons. This being called a nerf originally got this thread locked. Please, stop. This change would make Crusaders VOLUNTARILY take off their shields, thereby losing the uncontested block. Allowing a player to do something is a much better plan than forcing them to do something. My idea actually grants INCENTIVES rather than punishments, and therefore, is infinitely more viable in terms of implementation.</blockquote>Currently, crusaders dps is better than warrior and brawlers in most content, tanking or not tanking.For crusaders who didn't understand that your suggestion is making crusaders more OP, I feel sorry for them.For any other fighters posted in this thread, they all said NO to your suggestion. Why?Because Crusaders didn't need any dps boost. What they need is a dps nerf in tanking.

Darkonx

04-28-2010, 04:00 AM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote>Most of the people said no because they think of it as a Crusader nerf, actually. Read Mavrin's posts, etc. They don't really understand what this would change. Changing block would be a nerf, 100%. Asking for class(es) to be nerfed isn't a good thing to do, for various reasons. This being called a nerf originally got this thread locked. Please, stop. This change would make Crusaders VOLUNTARILY take off their shields, thereby losing the uncontested block. Allowing a player to do something is a much better plan than forcing them to do something. My idea actually grants INCENTIVES rather than punishments, and therefore, is infinitely more viable in terms of implementation.</blockquote>Currently, crusaders dps is better than warrior and brawlers in most content, tanking or not tanking.For crusaders who didn't understand that your suggestion is making crusaders more OP, I feel sorry for them.For any other fighters posted in this thread, they all said NO to your suggestion. Why?Because Crusaders didn't need any dps boost. What they need is a dps nerf in tanking.</blockquote>Again, for the umpteenth time, this will reduce Crusader DPS while tanking. However, with 2h weapons right now, Warriors/Brawlers hit SIGNIFICANTLY harder, as well as having all of their abilitys hit harder, due to base CB differences. Having this AA apply to 2h's would even out the disparity between auto attack damage that the tanks are experiencing, both ways. It would lower Crusader 1h/shield DPS, while allowing them to compete using a 2h. I don't see how you're really against this. It would lower our tanking DPS, and allow us to sacrafice ALL survivability to go pure DPS.EDIT: Also, re-reading the posts, Gungo is for it, provided certain things are looked at. So is Steelbadger. There are a couple people who are against it just because it'd allow something nice for Crusaders, but in general people are FOR the change. Not sure where you are getting that they 'all said NO', but it seems like you're just claiming this hoping that people don't read the thread itself. Please, again, stop calling for a nerf, and think of ways to ADD things that will at the same time balance the game. My suggestion will do that, it will lower tanking DPS, while giving us a route to be useful as DPS/OT on raids when we aren't having to tank anything significant.

yadlajoi

04-28-2010, 04:04 AM

now that OP stealth buffage of the crusader has been defused i still want to know what happened to 2handers on test !!!

Couching

04-28-2010, 04:07 AM

<cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote>Most of the people said no because they think of it as a Crusader nerf, actually. Read Mavrin's posts, etc. They don't really understand what this would change. Changing block would be a nerf, 100%. Asking for class(es) to be nerfed isn't a good thing to do, for various reasons. This being called a nerf originally got this thread locked. Please, stop. This change would make Crusaders VOLUNTARILY take off their shields, thereby losing the uncontested block. Allowing a player to do something is a much better plan than forcing them to do something. My idea actually grants INCENTIVES rather than punishments, and therefore, is infinitely more viable in terms of implementation.</blockquote>Currently, crusaders dps is better than warrior and brawlers in most content, tanking or not tanking.For crusaders who didn't understand that your suggestion is making crusaders more OP, I feel sorry for them.For any other fighters posted in this thread, they all said NO to your suggestion. Why?Because Crusaders didn't need any dps boost. What they need is a dps nerf in tanking.</blockquote>Again, for the umpteenth time, this will reduce Crusader DPS while tanking. However, with 2h weapons right now, Warriors/Brawlers hit SIGNIFICANTLY harder, as well as having all of their abilitys hit harder, due to base CB differences. Having this AA apply to 2h's would even out the disparity between auto attack damage that the tanks are experiencing, both ways. It would lower Crusader 1h/shield DPS, while allowing them to compete using a 2h. I don't see how you're really against this. It would lower our tanking DPS, and allow us to sacrafice ALL survivability to go pure DPS.</blockquote>Who cares about how hard your melee attack can be. The more important is the total dps you can deal.Currently, cruasders total dps > warrior and brawlers in most content, tanking or not tanking. Sorry man, there is zero reason to beef up crusaders dps. Though, most people agreed with you that crusader dps in tanking needs a nerf.

Darkonx

04-28-2010, 04:29 AM

Base stat differences make true balancing a pain. A point was just brought up to me that even applied, as is, KS wouldn't be THAT OP considering Zerkers get 100% hurricane, which on AE fights is much better than 100% WBD. What I'm suggesting isn't really 'gaining' much, it's more of a loss than anything, considering if a Crusader is in a raid, the majority of the time they are defensive anyways.

BChizzle

04-28-2010, 04:49 AM

<cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote>Base stat differences make true balancing a pain. A point was just brought up to me that even applied, as is, KS wouldn't be THAT OP considering Zerkers get 100% hurricane, which on AE fights is much better than 100% WBD. What I'm suggesting isn't really 'gaining' much, it's more of a loss than anything, considering if a Crusader is in a raid, the majority of the time they are defensive anyways.</blockquote>Making crusaders cast spells instead of CA's creates a million times more balancing problems then base stats differences I don't get how you guys can't understand you don't have the base crit bonus because you are hybrid and also that as crit bonus gets higher as it is a multiplier the difference actually becomes less and less important.

Erlandor

04-28-2010, 09:35 AM

erhm...Sorry if go into this again... but after reading a bit more it seems the problems are the following:Guardians need to sacrifice survivability (through dualwielding) in order to do enough dps to hold aggro.while crusaders can do the same (or more) damage while being fully defensive and thus have higher survivability.That way an Guard has choice between two evils... a) to go defensive, taking advantage of his superior survivabiliy, but not being able to hold aggro or b) going offensive whie sacrificing their survivability (which generally seems a bed idea for a tank) but at least being able to keep enough dps out to hold aggro...did i get that right?this situation seems to me as if either:a) Gurads / warriors should be able to do more dmg in defensive mode to keep upb) Dualwielding warriors should get some bonus on parrying which would be comparable to a shield blockc) Threat mechanics should be changed not to have DPS as main requirement to hold aggro.After all it makes no sense that classes which are not designed to be DPSers need exactly this, to do their job? - so in logic terms, either Damage generates too much hate, or every single taunt is underpowerred...What the OP describes would be a non issue if Warriors would not need DPS for holding aggro.After all, the choice if you go offensive or defensive should be a tradeoff between survivability vs getting the mob down fast... (which can also be a strategic decision...who dies first...!? )Not the whole point of if tanks can do their job of holding aggro on them or if they can not.after all it seems without changing anything on existing features, some passive "i generate hate with every hit on the mob" - ability for Warriors would to the trick at all.Warriors would not need to think about their DPS any more to do their jobAnd crusaders without that ability, still could do the tank-Job merely through their DPS also defensive stance.Saying that, i never played a guardian... but it seems logical to me...If the whole "problem" of guardians here is, that they need to be offensive just do hold aggro of a defensive crusader, then they are simply generating less hate than they should.That whole discussion about DPS (Which are not a tanks business entirely, if they would not be required to hold aggro) is misleading... the whole point is in aggro management....so if they just add some decent hate generationg capabilities to guardians, no one would need to be "nerfed" in anyones opinion. just a little bonus for good ol Guardans....

Aull

04-28-2010, 10:24 AM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Who cares about how hard your melee attack can be. The more important is the total dps you can deal.Currently, cruasders total dps > warrior and brawlers in most content, tanking or not tanking. Sorry man, there is zero reason to beef up crusaders dps. Though, most people agreed with you that crusader dps in tanking needs a nerf.</blockquote>I agree. The thing with crusaders is there are hardly any limitations in what all they can do. Aggro, st dps, aoe dps, ect.... Its all good for them. Other fighters have areas where they excel yet suffer in other areas. This is not so with crusaders. Over all crusaders own.

arksun

04-28-2010, 11:59 AM

<cite>yadlajoi wrote:</cite><blockquote>now that OP stealth buffage of the crusader has been defused i still want to know what happened to 2handers on test !!!</blockquote>In general the DR spread on raid weapons.

Bruener

04-28-2010, 12:29 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote>I agree, a 20% boost is way too much. Uncontested block is fine. You still avoid far more attacks, and you can reach nearly the same amount of mit. If you really want to make an incentive to tank in DStance, give plate tanks Strikethrough immunity. That would be the best incentive of all IMO, and then give certain mobs ~80% Strikethrough, essentially REQUIRING DStance.Anyways, back on the topic of KS. An ~8% boost by giving Crusaders 15% WBD on KS while using a 2h would not be OP, but it would give the Crusaders an incentive to drop their shield, especially if the WBD for 1h's was lowered to 10%.</blockquote>Why shouldn't plate tanks in Dstance while tanking? why should you, a sk, need strikethrough immunity (SI) when you have most OP survivability skill, 3 bloodletters, and 30k self ward? Why should other plate tanks need SI when they all have their own live saving tools?Keeping uncontestd block while dealing max dps is not fine at all. That's not the case for warriors and brawlers. Current problem of crusaders is that they did too much DPS in all situations no matter they are tanking or not and this is the TOPIC of this thread. What majoirty disagreed with your opinion is that crsuaders are OP enough and didn't need any boost of their dps in any situation.</blockquote>That would not work at all because unlike Brawlers to get uncontested block as a Crusader or Warrior we HAVE to wear a shield. If you want to make the change to moving uncontested block to defensive stance than they should give Crusaders and Warriors that same uncontested block whether they are DW'ing or using a 2h.....see it just doesn't work.Back to the topic. Nothing needs to be changed to Knights Stance. Yes it allows Crusaders to do more auto attack DPS with sword+board than Warriors but the flip side is they do less DPS from 2h than Brawlers and Warriors.If anything SOE should look at what people really want with 2h weapons and that is to make them viable, even when tanking. You know like some of the other games have been rolling out with, classes designed to use a 2h all the time including tanking. Knights Stance should be changed to 15% damage reduction while using a 2h weapon. Than SOE also needs to add in a small amount of protection on 2h weapons so that all +block works with it. Make tanking with 2h weapons in between DW'ing and 1h+board for survivability.

Rageincarnate

04-28-2010, 12:58 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote>I agree, a 20% boost is way too much. Uncontested block is fine. You still avoid far more attacks, and you can reach nearly the same amount of mit. If you really want to make an incentive to tank in DStance, give plate tanks Strikethrough immunity. That would be the best incentive of all IMO, and then give certain mobs ~80% Strikethrough, essentially REQUIRING DStance.Anyways, back on the topic of KS. An ~8% boost by giving Crusaders 15% WBD on KS while using a 2h would not be OP, but it would give the Crusaders an incentive to drop their shield, especially if the WBD for 1h's was lowered to 10%.</blockquote>Why shouldn't plate tanks in Dstance while tanking? why should you, a sk, need strikethrough immunity (SI) when you have most OP survivability skill, 3 bloodletters, and 30k self ward? Why should other plate tanks need SI when they all have their own live saving tools?Keeping uncontestd block while dealing max dps is not fine at all. That's not the case for warriors and brawlers. Current problem of crusaders is that they did too much DPS in all situations no matter they are tanking or not and this is the TOPIC of this thread. What majoirty disagreed with your opinion is that crsuaders are OP enough and didn't need any boost of their dps in any situation.</blockquote>That would not work at all because unlike Brawlers to get uncontested block as a Crusader or Warrior we HAVE to wear a shield. If you want to make the change to moving uncontested block to defensive stance than they should give Crusaders and Warriors that same uncontested block whether they are DW'ing or using a 2h.....see it just doesn't work.Back to the topic. Nothing needs to be changed to Knights Stance. Yes it allows Crusaders to do more auto attack DPS with sword+board than Warriors but the flip side is they do less DPS from 2h than Brawlers and Warriors.If anything SOE should look at what people really want with 2h weapons and that is to make them viable, even when tanking. You know like some of the other games have been rolling out with, classes designed to use a 2h all the time including tanking. Knights Stance should be changed to 15% damage reduction while using a 2h weapon. Than SOE also needs to add in a small amount of protection on 2h weapons so that all +block works with it. Make tanking with 2h weapons in between DW'ing and 1h+board for survivability.</blockquote>This makes sense. 15% flat might be a bit much.. i would say something to curb spike damage.. say like 15% damage reduction on a hit more then 50% of your health or something of that effect.. only a few k hp saved yet were still 'squishy"

Darkonx

04-28-2010, 01:22 PM

<cite>bluedego wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote>I agree, a 20% boost is way too much. Uncontested block is fine. You still avoid far more attacks, and you can reach nearly the same amount of mit. If you really want to make an incentive to tank in DStance, give plate tanks Strikethrough immunity. That would be the best incentive of all IMO, and then give certain mobs ~80% Strikethrough, essentially REQUIRING DStance.Anyways, back on the topic of KS. An ~8% boost by giving Crusaders 15% WBD on KS while using a 2h would not be OP, but it would give the Crusaders an incentive to drop their shield, especially if the WBD for 1h's was lowered to 10%.</blockquote>Why shouldn't plate tanks in Dstance while tanking? why should you, a sk, need strikethrough immunity (SI) when you have most OP survivability skill, 3 bloodletters, and 30k self ward? Why should other plate tanks need SI when they all have their own live saving tools?Keeping uncontestd block while dealing max dps is not fine at all. That's not the case for warriors and brawlers. Current problem of crusaders is that they did too much DPS in all situations no matter they are tanking or not and this is the TOPIC of this thread. What majoirty disagreed with your opinion is that crsuaders are OP enough and didn't need any boost of their dps in any situation.</blockquote>That would not work at all because unlike Brawlers to get uncontested block as a Crusader or Warrior we HAVE to wear a shield. If you want to make the change to moving uncontested block to defensive stance than they should give Crusaders and Warriors that same uncontested block whether they are DW'ing or using a 2h.....see it just doesn't work.Back to the topic. Nothing needs to be changed to Knights Stance. Yes it allows Crusaders to do more auto attack DPS with sword+board than Warriors but the flip side is they do less DPS from 2h than Brawlers and Warriors.If anything SOE should look at what people really want with 2h weapons and that is to make them viable, even when tanking. You know like some of the other games have been rolling out with, classes designed to use a 2h all the time including tanking. Knights Stance should be changed to 15% damage reduction while using a 2h weapon. Than SOE also needs to add in a small amount of protection on 2h weapons so that all +block works with it. Make tanking with 2h weapons in between DW'ing and 1h+board for survivability.</blockquote>This makes sense. 15% flat might be a bit much.. i would say something to curb spike damage.. say like 15% damage reduction on a hit more then 50% of your health or something of that effect.. only a few k hp saved yet were still 'squishy"</blockquote>Now, I see THAT as being disgustingly OP. It's what Brawlers already do, they tank with a 2h weapon on. They never have to sacrafice DPS for survivability, so maybe it wouldn't be as godly as it seems to be on paper.The main problem is that KS makes 2h's seem unappealing, because it adds SO much to 1h, and nothing to 2h, that even equipping most 2h weapons would be a net loss. They need to change KS to in some way increase 2h weapons for them to be viable for a Crusader. I wouldn't think something defensive to be appropriate, I'd give it an OFFENSIVE boost. I do like the idea of protection on 2h weapons, but I don't particularly like having two defensive setups 1/shield, AND 2h, I'd prefer to have 2h just be pure DPS with all survivability sacraficed.

Boli32

04-28-2010, 01:32 PM

I've actually read through this entire post (yay me!) and I'm going to boil it down mainly for myself to the main argumentsOffensive / Defensive stanceI'm not going to get into this suffice to say there is little difference between the two for warriors or crusaders and quite frankly if a guardian is NOT using off stance he's already nerfing himself when it comes to pure hate (dps).Knight's Stance Vs 20% crit bonus from warriors / brawlersIt *does* balance out, for whilst the maths is flawless crusaders gain a 17-18% increase in the amount of damage our AUTOATTACK does, this does not include spells / CAS / Damage shields; autoattack damage is often 20-30% of a crusaders total damage when they are tanking, The loss of the 20% crit bonus.This discrepancy is lost of many warriors and brawlers as they are used to autoattack being their primary source of agro; however since TSO damage procs are a significant portion of a crusader's DPS and we've had experiance of making sure we get the best of them for a long while.Trading damage for DefenceWhat knight's stance does allow and what everyone is so worked up about is we do not need to change out our shield to maintain high DPS. Everyone is so concentrating on reductions and nerfs (such an ugly word) they fail to grasp that fixes and tweaks are a far more effective way of balancing the tanks.* AA in warrior/brawler tree that gives a flat riposite chance (uncontested avoidance) when dual weilding* Increasing Twohanded weapons to such a degree that they become the primary weapon when *any* tank wishes to go full offensive.If twohanded weapons were increased (I think they are being currently) that any tank wishing maximum DPS will be equipping one; then warriors, brawlers and crusaders will all be using one and loosing all their defensive benefits.Warriors and brawlers will do more damage with this method due to higher crit bonuses. but on the flip side crusader can do more damage when they have their shield equipedbang.. everyone wins.... it all comes down to improving 2handers.

RafaelSmith

04-28-2010, 01:36 PM

The problem I see with Crusaders atm is yes they can put out alot of DPS while maintaining disproportionate level of survivability. I dont think the fix is to somehow lower their DPS while tanking....they should be the DPS/Offensive tank.....what I think needs to be toned down is their surviveability with relation to their DPS output. Given the amount of DPS they can put on on their own (really should not take into consideration other class buffs when talking about balancing the fighters) they should be a whole lot harder to heal and keep up than they currently are. IMO they were given too much survivability without having to sacrifice any of their offensive capability.A group picking an SK over a Guard should benefit from the increased DPS and overall kill rate but have to work much harder at making sure that tank is kept up. Thats just how I see it but I also feel that overall too many classes are doing too much DPS.

Couching

04-28-2010, 01:45 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>That would not work at all because unlike Brawlers to get uncontested block as a Crusader or Warrior we HAVE to wear a shield. If you want to make the change to moving uncontested block to defensive stance than they should give Crusaders and Warriors that same uncontested block whether they are DW'ing or using a 2h.....see it just doesn't work.</blockquote>Incorrect.Brawlers got innate avoidance and it's contested unless we are in mid or def stance. What plate tanks got is extra mitigation no matter what stance they are in.There is zero reason to give plate tanks same uncontested block whether they are DW or using a 2h. If you want extra contested avoidance, get a shield. If you want uncontested avoidance, stay in D-stance with a shield.In this case, crusaders dps in tanking will be balanced with survivability.

Couching

04-28-2010, 01:54 PM

<cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote>Now, I see THAT as being disgustingly OP. It's what Brawlers already do, they tank with a 2h weapon on. They never have to sacrafice DPS for survivability, so maybe it wouldn't be as godly as it seems to be on paper.The main problem is that KS makes 2h's seem unappealing, because it adds SO much to 1h, and nothing to 2h, that even equipping most 2h weapons would be a net loss. They need to change KS to in some way increase 2h weapons for them to be viable for a Crusader. I wouldn't think something defensive to be appropriate, I'd give it an OFFENSIVE boost. I do like the idea of protection on 2h weapons, but I don't particularly like having two defensive setups 1/shield, AND 2h, I'd prefer to have 2h just be pure DPS with all survivability sacraficed.</blockquote>Incorrect again.We have to be in mid or D stance to get uncontested avoidance and it is the trade off between dps and survivability.Currently, crusaders are the classes that don't have to sacrafice dps for survivability and it needs a fix.

Darkonx

04-28-2010, 02:10 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote>Now, I see THAT as being disgustingly OP. It's what Brawlers already do, they tank with a 2h weapon on. They never have to sacrafice DPS for survivability, so maybe it wouldn't be as godly as it seems to be on paper.The main problem is that KS makes 2h's seem unappealing, because it adds SO much to 1h, and nothing to 2h, that even equipping most 2h weapons would be a net loss. They need to change KS to in some way increase 2h weapons for them to be viable for a Crusader. I wouldn't think something defensive to be appropriate, I'd give it an OFFENSIVE boost. I do like the idea of protection on 2h weapons, but I don't particularly like having two defensive setups 1/shield, AND 2h, I'd prefer to have 2h just be pure DPS with all survivability sacraficed.</blockquote>Incorrect again.We have to be in mid or D stance to get uncontested avoidance and it is the trade off between dps and survivability.Currently, crusaders are the classes that don't have to sacrafice dps for survivability and it needs a fix.</blockquote>Do, not, ask, for, nerfs. Ask for changes. Making shield block uncontested only in DStance would be a nerf. I don't think anyone is arguing that it would be. Asking for nerfs=bad.I think that there HAS to be a 2h component to Knight's Stance in order to balance out 1h vs 2h DPS for Crusaders. I'd make it offensive, because when you are using a 2h, you shouldn't really care about defensive capabilitys. How much should the offensive boost be, well, I'm not exactly sure. I'd say 15 would be fair, considering the 20 CB base differences between Crusaders and Warriors/Brawlers. You haven't seen how truly gimped a Crusader is with a 2h in comparison to a Brawler/Warrior. We don't have any WBD unlike when we use a shield, and our CB is lower. Yes, Crusaders do too much while tanking, but too little while using a 2h weapon. My one proposed change would fix both of them. Lower KS to 15%, and remove the restrictions.

Couching

04-28-2010, 02:18 PM

<cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote>Now, I see THAT as being disgustingly OP. It's what Brawlers already do, they tank with a 2h weapon on. They never have to sacrafice DPS for survivability, so maybe it wouldn't be as godly as it seems to be on paper.The main problem is that KS makes 2h's seem unappealing, because it adds SO much to 1h, and nothing to 2h, that even equipping most 2h weapons would be a net loss. They need to change KS to in some way increase 2h weapons for them to be viable for a Crusader. I wouldn't think something defensive to be appropriate, I'd give it an OFFENSIVE boost. I do like the idea of protection on 2h weapons, but I don't particularly like having two defensive setups 1/shield, AND 2h, I'd prefer to have 2h just be pure DPS with all survivability sacraficed.</blockquote>Incorrect again.We have to be in mid or D stance to get uncontested avoidance and it is the trade off between dps and survivability.Currently, crusaders are the classes that don't have to sacrafice dps for survivability and it needs a fix.</blockquote>Do, not, ask, for, nerfs. Ask for changes. Making shield block uncontested only in DStance would be a nerf. I don't think anyone is arguing that it would be. Asking for nerfs=bad.I think that there HAS to be a 2h component to Knight's Stance in order to balance out 1h vs 2h DPS for Crusaders. I'd make it offensive, because when you are using a 2h, you shouldn't really care about defensive capabilitys. How much should the offensive boost be, well, I'm not exactly sure. I'd say 15 would be fair, considering the 20 CB base differences between Crusaders and Warriors/Brawlers. You haven't seen how truly gimped a Crusader is with a 2h in comparison to a Brawler/Warrior. We don't have any WBD unlike when we use a shield, and our CB is lower. Yes, Crusaders do too much while tanking, but too little while using a 2h weapon. My one proposed change would fix both of them. Lower KS to 15%, and remove the restrictions.</blockquote>It's not a nerf. It's a fix. Otherwise, make brawler deflection uncontested no matter in any stance to balance out with crusaders and warriors.Again, the current issue of crusaders is that they don't need to sacrafice survivability for dps and it needs a fix. If you don't want to fix it, make every fighter the same way; max dps potential without losing survivability.

arksun

04-28-2010, 02:20 PM

Like someone said earlier in this thread, there is no reason why a crusader can "maximize" dps and "survivability" while using 1h and a shield, its not balanced no matter how many numbers you throw at it.There has to be a negative effect for dps, currently warriors sacrifice defensive abilities to do comparable dps to match a crusdar all while crusaders use a sword and a shield to maximize both.1. Bring warriors and brawlers up to the same level.2. Give crusaders a negative effect for dpsing and trying to tank.Considering 2 would be the easiest fix, and devs already know about this and are working on a fix, I doubt you will see brawlers and warriors brought up to speed.... If every crusader here thinks it will stay the same I would suggest trying to compromise and help come up with a reasonable fix so that later no one is hurt by a change that will be made.Everyone is not understanding this to its fullest, warriors can do comparable dps to a crusader while DW'ing..... NOT using a sword and shield, how anyone thinks thats just and right is just afraid of letting go of their OP. I don't fault anyone for that, but you want balance so bad, yet turn a blind eye to everyone else and try to justifiy it by saying things like .... Remember T5 and T6, etc.... Yeah guess what those days have come and gone, and personally I played a zerker from start and only have switched over to a guardian in middle RoK because my guild wanted a Guardian.You can't PAY me to play my guardian outside of raiding or helping a guildy if they need it, this is why I have a 90 zerker because the Guardian class is by far the worst one to play in heroic / solo content, and now to be pushed aside by crusaders who can do our job and create some of the best dps in game minus T1 dps ... lets get real for a minute.Balance would mean bringing fighter dps / survivability in the same ballpark as each other. Right now crusaders destroy AoE tanking, which also translates into single target, and yet holds the survivablity with a shield at the same time.Even after posting this I know the usual suspects will jump in and quote me and tell me 1,000,000 reasons why I am wrong ... but all it really does is confirm the truth. I don't want my class to be the easy class, not by far. If this thread would actually get serious and discuss ways of an actual fix and not implode dps numbers even more, I think it would make for a more quality community, but like all things this thread will devolve into name calling and personal attacks.

Wasuna

04-28-2010, 02:32 PM

1. As stated many times previously, the Crusaders ability to maximize DPS while still wearing a shield is 100% unacceptable. Ever since the The Shadownight Odssey came out this has been an issue and debated/argued/screamed about this whole time. SK's (Breuner mostly) have screamed over and over that Guardians have more survivability which offsets the SK's (Crusader really) DPS. I'm glad to see where people finally accept that SK's have more survivability and multiple times more DPS.2. Adding the ability for Crusaders maximize DPS in full offensive mode without a shiled will mean that are now a viable DPS class. This can't happen for a fighter unless the choices that make this possible totally cripple the player for anything else they want to do (see Assassin and Wizard). That being said, there are people that will have the ability to get 2 complete sets of gear and a simple AA mirror and that is OK I guess. I personally feel that if you even have the option of wearing plate and can take a hit better than a Wizard/Assassin then you need to be in the bottom half of the DPS list. No class should have all the choices. Other than the fact that it would personally tick me off to no end, it would also bring all the mages and scouts here to yell at the Crusaders also.I'm continually amazed at the type of personalliy that chooses an SK as their prefered class, and then comes here over and over to protect their over powered status, and to even suggest things that while at first glance looks OK, would just make the whole situation even worse for the game and expand the problem 10 fold. I'm a Guardian. All I want to do is tank. I don't even have to be the best at it but I want what I have to offer to be roughly equal to what others offer. People argue and complain that this is unreasonable. It's not unreasonable at all for something I'm paying for as entertainoment in my life.

RafaelSmith

04-28-2010, 02:34 PM

<cite>Digg@Permafrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>Like someone said earlier in this thread, there is no reason why a crusader can "maximize" dps and "survivability" while using 1h and a shield, its not balanced no matter how many numbers you throw at it.There has to be a negative effect for dps, currently warriors sacrifice defensive abilities to do comparable dps to match a crusdar all while crusaders use a sword and a shield to maximize both.1. Bring warriors and brawlers up to the same level.2. Give crusaders a negative effect for dpsing and trying to tank.Considering 2 would be the easiest fix, and devs already know about this and are working on a fix, I doubt you will see brawlers and warriors brought up to speed.... If every crusader here thinks it will stay the same I would suggest trying to compromise and help come up with a reasonable fix so that later no one is hurt by a change that will be made.</blockquote>#2 is not only the easiest its also the best and most fair IMO. They went overboard with Crusaders/SKs in bluring the line between DPS/Survivability.....doing the same for Warriors and Brawlers is not the solution.

knightofround

04-28-2010, 02:56 PM

I think Darkonx has a good point, Knights Stance could use some changes. I just think they should be different ones.Here's a /weaponstats comparison with knights stance. Hairsplitter from easy Maalus, which is arguably the 2nd best crusader 1handed weapon ingame, versus the Yuri from the x2, which is arguably the best crusader 2handed weapon. (Not counting the rohen theer 2H that haven't dropped yet and likely most people will never see)2H: 908-51461H: 854-4838Now consider the fact that you can get a 2% crit bonus adorn on a shield and that pretty much negates the difference right there. And the blue stats+proc on the Yuri = the stats on the hairsplitter plus pretty much any shield out there. Pretty weaksauce imo.But something to keep in mind during this debate is that I would like to point out that all non-support scouts, mages, and warriors and brawlers do get an innate 20% crit bonus whereas crusaders did not. That is worth as much as, if not more than, knight's stance. It was an appropiate way to balance crusader/support dps in the aftermath of TSO...but future balancing decisions need to take that into accountI don't think that crusaders should do any more dps or any less dps than they do right now. However I do think there should be more mobility for players to go with a different playstyle should they so choose.I would prefer that the AA be changed as such, much like the bonuses that improve warrior/brawler stances:1. When a shield is equiped, increases weapon damage bonus by 15 (this is a reduction from the current 25)2. When a two handed weapon equipped, provides protection value of 300 per rank at lvl 90, for a maximum of 1500 at 5 ranks. (this would need to be affected by % block chance as well)I would also find the following change acceptable, but not preferable to the one listed above:1. When any weapon is equipped, increases the weapon damage bonus by 15 (this is a reduction from the current 25)I am NOT a huge fan of turning Knights Stance from 25% bonus with 1H into a 25% bonus with 2H for a couple reasons:1. 2H weapon itemization has been terrible for the past 4 expansions. Damage on 2H weapons need to be increased by 10% across the board relative to 1H in order for them to be truly equivilent to dual wield. No fighter in the right mind has ever used a 2H since KoS/EoF unless it was avatar quality....for a good reason2. Every zone will need to start dropping fighter 2H, currently the only zone that I know drops a fighter 2H is the vig x2.3. Such a change would mean that crusaders will do even better dps than they are doing right now. We already do quite well without an "max dps/minimize survivability" mode like warriors can achieve with dual wield, and brawlers can achieve with their stances. I wouldn't mind such a change, but I can foresee a lot of people calling nerf when OT crusaders start equalling T1 dps when they don't need to tank stuff...and when we do, we can just spam an equip macro to get 30%+ block chance within a single second.

Silzin

04-28-2010, 02:56 PM

<cite>Kiara wrote:</cite><blockquote>First off, this is not where this should have lived. This belongs in the fighter forums.Secondly, we don't post threads asking for nerfs to classes. Any classes. Be they our own or those of others. If you feel something is unbalanced and want to see a change, suggest a way to bring others up to the same level, rather than calling for a nerf. Nerfs make people sad pandas.Thank you!Unlocking for the time being, as it has been pointed out that I may have misunderstood the original intent of this post. That having been said, please keep it polite and on topic <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>QFE, this seems to be there profered stance so the divs would be more likly to bring Warriors and Brawlers up to the Crusaderspower then the other way around. since it would make less people sad.

arksun

04-28-2010, 03:14 PM

<cite>knightofround wrote:</cite><blockquote>I think Darkonx has a good point, Knights Stance could use some changes. I just think they should be different ones.Here's a /weaponstats comparison with knights stance. Hairsplitter from easy Maalus, which is arguably the 2nd best crusader 1handed weapon ingame, versus the Yuri from the x2, which is arguably the best crusader 2handed weapon. (Not counting the rohen theer 2H that haven't dropped yet and likely most people will never see)2H: 908-51461H: 854-4838Now consider the fact that you can get a 2% crit bonus adorn on a shield and that pretty much negates the difference right there. And the blue stats+proc on the Yuri = the stats on the hairsplitter plus pretty much any shield out there. Pretty weaksauce imo.But something to keep in mind during this debate is that I would like to point out that all non-support scouts, mages, and warriors and brawlers do get an innate 20% crit bonus whereas crusaders did not. That is worth as much as, if not more than, knight's stance. It was an appropiate way to balance crusader/support dps in the aftermath of TSO...but future balancing decisions need to take that into accountI don't think that crusaders should do any more dps or any less dps than they do right now. However I do think there should be more mobility for players to go with a different playstyle should they so choose.I would prefer that the AA be changed as such, much like the bonuses that improve warrior/brawler stances:1. When a shield is equiped, increases weapon damage bonus by 15 (this is a reduction from the current 25)2. When a two handed weapon equipped, provides protection value of 300 per rank at lvl 90, for a maximum of 1500 at 5 ranks. (this would need to be affected by % block chance as well)I would also find the following change acceptable, but not preferable to the one listed above:1. When any weapon is equipped, increases the weapon damage bonus by 15 (this is a reduction from the current 25)I am NOT a huge fan of turning Knights Stance from 25% bonus with 1H into a 25% bonus with 2H for a couple reasons:1. 2H weapon itemization has been terrible for the past 4 expansions. Damage on 2H weapons need to be increased by 10% across the board relative to 1H in order for them to be truly equivilent to dual wield. No fighter in the right mind has ever used a 2H since KoS/EoF unless it was avatar quality....for a good reason2. Every zone will need to start dropping fighter 2H, currently the only zone that I know drops a fighter 2H is the vig x2.3. Such a change would mean that crusaders will do even better dps than they are doing right now. We already do quite well without an "max dps/minimize survivability" mode like warriors can achieve with dual wield, and brawlers can achieve with their stances. I wouldn't mind such a change, but I can foresee a lot of people calling nerf when OT crusaders start equalling T1 dps when they don't need to tank stuff.</blockquote>Warriors get no bonus though from stance such as 25% .... this is where it gets out of hand. Guardian for specific's gets + to skill in offensive stance and some STR (yeah that good). We have buckler reversal, but in defensive stance with sword and board it makes no difference to a full offensive (defensive at that) SK with sword and board. The 25% bonus is part of the problem....

Darkonx

04-28-2010, 03:21 PM

<cite>knightofround wrote:</cite><blockquote>I think Darkonx has a good point, Knights Stance could use some changes. I just think they should be different ones.Here's a /weaponstats comparison with knights stance. Hairsplitter from easy Maalus, which is arguably the 2nd best crusader 1handed weapon ingame, versus the Yuri from the x2, which is arguably the best crusader 2handed weapon. (Not counting the rohen theer 2H that haven't dropped yet and likely most people will never see)2H: 908-51461H: 854-4838Now consider the fact that you can get a 2% crit bonus adorn on a shield and that pretty much negates the difference right there. And the blue stats+proc on the Yuri = the stats on the hairsplitter plus pretty much any shield out there. Pretty weaksauce imo.But something to keep in mind during this debate is that I would like to point out that all non-support scouts, mages, and warriors and brawlers do get an innate 20% crit bonus whereas crusaders did not. That is worth as much as, if not more than, knight's stance. It was an appropiate way to balance crusader/support dps in the aftermath of TSO...but future balancing decisions need to take that into accountI don't think that crusaders should do any more dps or any less dps than they do right now. However I do think there should be more mobility for players to go with a different playstyle should they so choose.I would prefer that the AA be changed as such, much like the bonuses that improve warrior/brawler stances:1. When a shield is equiped, increases weapon damage bonus by 15 (this is a reduction from the current 25)2. When a two handed weapon equipped, provides protection value of 300 per rank at lvl 90, for a maximum of 1500 at 5 ranks. (this would need to be affected by % block chance as well)I would also find the following change acceptable, but not preferable to the one listed above:1. When any weapon is equipped, increases the weapon damage bonus by 15 (this is a reduction from the current 25)I am NOT a huge fan of turning Knights Stance from 25% bonus with 1H into a 25% bonus with 2H for a couple reasons:1. 2H weapon itemization has been terrible for the past 4 expansions. Damage on 2H weapons need to be increased by 10% across the board relative to 1H in order for them to be truly equivilent to dual wield. No fighter in the right mind has ever used a 2H since KoS/EoF unless it was avatar quality....for a good reason2. Every zone will need to start dropping fighter 2H, currently the only zone that I know drops a fighter 2H is the vig x2.3. Such a change would mean that crusaders will do even better dps than they are doing right now. We already do quite well without an "max dps/minimize survivability" mode like warriors can achieve with dual wield, and brawlers can achieve with their stances. I wouldn't mind such a change, but I can foresee a lot of people calling nerf when OT crusaders start equalling T1 dps when they don't need to tank stuff.</blockquote>25% on a 2h would be insanely OP. It shouldn't be that much. 15% for both 1h and 2h, would be the most balanced way to implement this. The numbers were broken down earlier on how much 15% gain would actually be, it's about 8% on auto attack DPS over Warriors/Brawlers, in exchange for 20 CB on all CA's, which make up a larger percent than auto attack.

knightofround

04-28-2010, 03:21 PM

<cite>Digg@Permafrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>knightofround wrote:</cite><blockquote>I think Darkonx has a good point, Knights Stance could use some changes. I just think they should be different ones.Here's a /weaponstats comparison with knights stance. Hairsplitter from easy Maalus, which is arguably the 2nd best crusader 1handed weapon ingame, versus the Yuri from the x2, which is arguably the best crusader 2handed weapon. (Not counting the rohen theer 2H that haven't dropped yet and likely most people will never see)2H: 908-51461H: 854-4838Now consider the fact that you can get a 2% crit bonus adorn on a shield and that pretty much negates the difference right there. And the blue stats+proc on the Yuri = the stats on the hairsplitter plus pretty much any shield out there. Pretty weaksauce imo.But something to keep in mind during this debate is that I would like to point out that all non-support scouts, mages, and warriors and brawlers do get an innate 20% crit bonus whereas crusaders did not. That is worth as much as, if not more than, knight's stance. It was an appropiate way to balance crusader/support dps in the aftermath of TSO...but future balancing decisions need to take that into accountI don't think that crusaders should do any more dps or any less dps than they do right now. However I do think there should be more mobility for players to go with a different playstyle should they so choose.I would prefer that the AA be changed as such, much like the bonuses that improve warrior/brawler stances:1. When a shield is equiped, increases weapon damage bonus by 15 (this is a reduction from the current 25)2. When a two handed weapon equipped, provides protection value of 300 per rank at lvl 90, for a maximum of 1500 at 5 ranks. (this would need to be affected by % block chance as well)I would also find the following change acceptable, but not preferable to the one listed above:1. When any weapon is equipped, increases the weapon damage bonus by 15 (this is a reduction from the current 25)I am NOT a huge fan of turning Knights Stance from 25% bonus with 1H into a 25% bonus with 2H for a couple reasons:1. 2H weapon itemization has been terrible for the past 4 expansions. Damage on 2H weapons need to be increased by 10% across the board relative to 1H in order for them to be truly equivilent to dual wield. No fighter in the right mind has ever used a 2H since KoS/EoF unless it was avatar quality....for a good reason2. Every zone will need to start dropping fighter 2H, currently the only zone that I know drops a fighter 2H is the vig x2.3. Such a change would mean that crusaders will do even better dps than they are doing right now. We already do quite well without an "max dps/minimize survivability" mode like warriors can achieve with dual wield, and brawlers can achieve with their stances. I wouldn't mind such a change, but I can foresee a lot of people calling nerf when OT crusaders start equalling T1 dps when they don't need to tank stuff.</blockquote>Warriors get no bonus though from stance such as 25% .... this is where it gets out of hand. Guardian for specific's gets + to skill in offensive stance and some STR (yeah that good). We have buckler reversal, but in defensive stance with sword and board it makes no difference to a full offensive (defensive at that) SK with sword and board. The 25% bonus is part of the problem....</blockquote>False. Warriors get an extra innate 20% crit bonus that crusaders do not. You can see it by mousing over the "crit bonus" portion of your persona window. It applies to all autoattacks, CAs, and melee procs. On the other hand, the Crusader Knights Stance AA only provides 25% extra autoattack damage. It costs AA points, instead of being free like the innate 20% warriors get, and it only applies to autoattack...not CAs/spells/procs like the warrior bonus does.If you reread my post you will see that is in there.

arksun

04-28-2010, 03:40 PM

<cite>knightofround wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Digg@Permafrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>knightofround wrote:</cite><blockquote>I think Darkonx has a good point, Knights Stance could use some changes. I just think they should be different ones.Here's a /weaponstats comparison with knights stance. Hairsplitter from easy Maalus, which is arguably the 2nd best crusader 1handed weapon ingame, versus the Yuri from the x2, which is arguably the best crusader 2handed weapon. (Not counting the rohen theer 2H that haven't dropped yet and likely most people will never see)2H: 908-51461H: 854-4838Now consider the fact that you can get a 2% crit bonus adorn on a shield and that pretty much negates the difference right there. And the blue stats+proc on the Yuri = the stats on the hairsplitter plus pretty much any shield out there. Pretty weaksauce imo.But something to keep in mind during this debate is that I would like to point out that all non-support scouts, mages, and warriors and brawlers do get an innate 20% crit bonus whereas crusaders did not. That is worth as much as, if not more than, knight's stance. It was an appropiate way to balance crusader/support dps in the aftermath of TSO...but future balancing decisions need to take that into accountI don't think that crusaders should do any more dps or any less dps than they do right now. However I do think there should be more mobility for players to go with a different playstyle should they so choose.I would prefer that the AA be changed as such, much like the bonuses that improve warrior/brawler stances:1. When a shield is equiped, increases weapon damage bonus by 15 (this is a reduction from the current 25)2. When a two handed weapon equipped, provides protection value of 300 per rank at lvl 90, for a maximum of 1500 at 5 ranks. (this would need to be affected by % block chance as well)I would also find the following change acceptable, but not preferable to the one listed above:1. When any weapon is equipped, increases the weapon damage bonus by 15 (this is a reduction from the current 25)I am NOT a huge fan of turning Knights Stance from 25% bonus with 1H into a 25% bonus with 2H for a couple reasons:1. 2H weapon itemization has been terrible for the past 4 expansions. Damage on 2H weapons need to be increased by 10% across the board relative to 1H in order for them to be truly equivilent to dual wield. No fighter in the right mind has ever used a 2H since KoS/EoF unless it was avatar quality....for a good reason2. Every zone will need to start dropping fighter 2H, currently the only zone that I know drops a fighter 2H is the vig x2.3. Such a change would mean that crusaders will do even better dps than they are doing right now. We already do quite well without an "max dps/minimize survivability" mode like warriors can achieve with dual wield, and brawlers can achieve with their stances. I wouldn't mind such a change, but I can foresee a lot of people calling nerf when OT crusaders start equalling T1 dps when they don't need to tank stuff.</blockquote>Warriors get no bonus though from stance such as 25% .... this is where it gets out of hand. Guardian for specific's gets + to skill in offensive stance and some STR (yeah that good). We have buckler reversal, but in defensive stance with sword and board it makes no difference to a full offensive (defensive at that) SK with sword and board. The 25% bonus is part of the problem....</blockquote>False. Warriors get an extra innate 20% crit bonus that crusaders do not. You can see it by mousing over the "crit bonus" portion of your persona window. It applies to all autoattacks, CAs, and melee procs. On the other hand, the Crusader Knights Stance AA only provides 25% extra autoattack damage. It costs AA points, instead of being free like the innate 20% warriors get, and it only applies to autoattack...not CAs/spells/procs like the warrior bonus does.If you reread my post you will see that is in there.</blockquote>I dont have to read your post I know about that bonus, but everyone knows that crusaders are spell / melee based and show me parses in a raid situation where a crusader has less than 95% hit rates on spells, it WONT happen. I have 3 months worth of logs to prove my point, but on the other hand warriors for example hold 75%~ hit rates on mobs in defensive stance. That makes up for it, its gets so old hearing about the inate bonus we have over the hybrid class, but not ONE crusader will admit the differences in hit rates even when logs are shoved in their face to prove otherwise.You are gonig to have to do better than that, sorry.

Azurro

04-28-2010, 04:13 PM

<cite>Digg@Permafrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>knightofround wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Digg@Permafrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>knightofround wrote:</cite><blockquote>I think Darkonx has a good point, Knights Stance could use some changes. I just think they should be different ones.Here's a /weaponstats comparison with knights stance. Hairsplitter from easy Maalus, which is arguably the 2nd best crusader 1handed weapon ingame, versus the Yuri from the x2, which is arguably the best crusader 2handed weapon. (Not counting the rohen theer 2H that haven't dropped yet and likely most people will never see)2H: 908-51461H: 854-4838Now consider the fact that you can get a 2% crit bonus adorn on a shield and that pretty much negates the difference right there. And the blue stats+proc on the Yuri = the stats on the hairsplitter plus pretty much any shield out there. Pretty weaksauce imo.But something to keep in mind during this debate is that I would like to point out that all non-support scouts, mages, and warriors and brawlers do get an innate 20% crit bonus whereas crusaders did not. That is worth as much as, if not more than, knight's stance. It was an appropiate way to balance crusader/support dps in the aftermath of TSO...but future balancing decisions need to take that into accountI don't think that crusaders should do any more dps or any less dps than they do right now. However I do think there should be more mobility for players to go with a different playstyle should they so choose.I would prefer that the AA be changed as such, much like the bonuses that improve warrior/brawler stances:1. When a shield is equiped, increases weapon damage bonus by 15 (this is a reduction from the current 25)2. When a two handed weapon equipped, provides protection value of 300 per rank at lvl 90, for a maximum of 1500 at 5 ranks. (this would need to be affected by % block chance as well)I would also find the following change acceptable, but not preferable to the one listed above:1. When any weapon is equipped, increases the weapon damage bonus by 15 (this is a reduction from the current 25)I am NOT a huge fan of turning Knights Stance from 25% bonus with 1H into a 25% bonus with 2H for a couple reasons:1. 2H weapon itemization has been terrible for the past 4 expansions. Damage on 2H weapons need to be increased by 10% across the board relative to 1H in order for them to be truly equivilent to dual wield. No fighter in the right mind has ever used a 2H since KoS/EoF unless it was avatar quality....for a good reason2. Every zone will need to start dropping fighter 2H, currently the only zone that I know drops a fighter 2H is the vig x2.3. Such a change would mean that crusaders will do even better dps than they are doing right now. We already do quite well without an "max dps/minimize survivability" mode like warriors can achieve with dual wield, and brawlers can achieve with their stances. I wouldn't mind such a change, but I can foresee a lot of people calling nerf when OT crusaders start equalling T1 dps when they don't need to tank stuff.</blockquote>Warriors get no bonus though from stance such as 25% .... this is where it gets out of hand. Guardian for specific's gets + to skill in offensive stance and some STR (yeah that good). We have buckler reversal, but in defensive stance with sword and board it makes no difference to a full offensive (defensive at that) SK with sword and board. The 25% bonus is part of the problem....</blockquote>False. Warriors get an extra innate 20% crit bonus that crusaders do not. You can see it by mousing over the "crit bonus" portion of your persona window. It applies to all autoattacks, CAs, and melee procs. On the other hand, the Crusader Knights Stance AA only provides 25% extra autoattack damage. It costs AA points, instead of being free like the innate 20% warriors get, and it only applies to autoattack...not CAs/spells/procs like the warrior bonus does.If you reread my post you will see that is in there.</blockquote>I dont have to read your post I know about that bonus, but everyone knows that crusaders are spell / melee based and show me parses in a raid situation where a crusader has less than 95% hit rates on spells, it WONT happen. I have 3 months worth of logs to prove my point, but on the other hand warriors for example hold 75%~ hit rates on mobs in defensive stance. That makes up for it, its gets so old hearing about the inate bonus we have over the hybrid class, but not ONE crusader will admit the differences in hit rates even when logs are shoved in their face to prove otherwise.You are gonig to have to do better than that, sorry.</blockquote>And your ignoring the mobs immunity and resists when you say that as well as the fact that Crusaders still get the bulk of their DPS from Combat Arts not Spell damage especially when dealing with single targets. If SOE wants to make KS only work for 2 handers and give us that 20% crit bonus on CA’s that warriors have then that would be fine with me but that’s not what most warriors want. They want Crusaders nerfed back to the point where they are non competitive against warriors like it has been for so many years. In my opinion most warriors and specifically Guardians have gotten lazy and complacent . Old school crusaders have grown up fighting tooth and nail against a system stacked against us to earn our tank spots both in instances and raids. So now a bunch of Guardians that can’t be bothered to upgrade their gear or spells are complaining that they don’t have the threat or DPS to compete against people that are actually out there getting the gear and aa’s. I’m not saying every Guardian is like that but a lot are and the ones that are gearing up are not having issues tanking instances or raids.

RafaelSmith

04-28-2010, 04:28 PM

No matter how you slice it the stuff being proposed here with regards to KS, etc is about giving Crusaders the ability to generate even more DPS than they can now........doesnt matter if its while tanking or not they currently generate more DPS than any fighter should....even a so called "DPS fighter". The last thing we need is for Crusaders to be able to generate even more DPS than they currently do.

Darkonx

04-28-2010, 04:31 PM

<cite>Azurro wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Digg@Permafrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>knightofround wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Digg@Permafrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>knightofround wrote:</cite><blockquote>I think Darkonx has a good point, Knights Stance could use some changes. I just think they should be different ones.Here's a /weaponstats comparison with knights stance. Hairsplitter from easy Maalus, which is arguably the 2nd best crusader 1handed weapon ingame, versus the Yuri from the x2, which is arguably the best crusader 2handed weapon. (Not counting the rohen theer 2H that haven't dropped yet and likely most people will never see)2H: 908-51461H: 854-4838Now consider the fact that you can get a 2% crit bonus adorn on a shield and that pretty much negates the difference right there. And the blue stats+proc on the Yuri = the stats on the hairsplitter plus pretty much any shield out there. Pretty weaksauce imo.But something to keep in mind during this debate is that I would like to point out that all non-support scouts, mages, and warriors and brawlers do get an innate 20% crit bonus whereas crusaders did not. That is worth as much as, if not more than, knight's stance. It was an appropiate way to balance crusader/support dps in the aftermath of TSO...but future balancing decisions need to take that into accountI don't think that crusaders should do any more dps or any less dps than they do right now. However I do think there should be more mobility for players to go with a different playstyle should they so choose.I would prefer that the AA be changed as such, much like the bonuses that improve warrior/brawler stances:1. When a shield is equiped, increases weapon damage bonus by 15 (this is a reduction from the current 25)2. When a two handed weapon equipped, provides protection value of 300 per rank at lvl 90, for a maximum of 1500 at 5 ranks. (this would need to be affected by % block chance as well)I would also find the following change acceptable, but not preferable to the one listed above:1. When any weapon is equipped, increases the weapon damage bonus by 15 (this is a reduction from the current 25)I am NOT a huge fan of turning Knights Stance from 25% bonus with 1H into a 25% bonus with 2H for a couple reasons:1. 2H weapon itemization has been terrible for the past 4 expansions. Damage on 2H weapons need to be increased by 10% across the board relative to 1H in order for them to be truly equivilent to dual wield. No fighter in the right mind has ever used a 2H since KoS/EoF unless it was avatar quality....for a good reason2. Every zone will need to start dropping fighter 2H, currently the only zone that I know drops a fighter 2H is the vig x2.3. Such a change would mean that crusaders will do even better dps than they are doing right now. We already do quite well without an "max dps/minimize survivability" mode like warriors can achieve with dual wield, and brawlers can achieve with their stances. I wouldn't mind such a change, but I can foresee a lot of people calling nerf when OT crusaders start equalling T1 dps when they don't need to tank stuff.</blockquote>Warriors get no bonus though from stance such as 25% .... this is where it gets out of hand. Guardian for specific's gets + to skill in offensive stance and some STR (yeah that good). We have buckler reversal, but in defensive stance with sword and board it makes no difference to a full offensive (defensive at that) SK with sword and board. The 25% bonus is part of the problem....</blockquote>False. Warriors get an extra innate 20% crit bonus that crusaders do not. You can see it by mousing over the "crit bonus" portion of your persona window. It applies to all autoattacks, CAs, and melee procs. On the other hand, the Crusader Knights Stance AA only provides 25% extra autoattack damage. It costs AA points, instead of being free like the innate 20% warriors get, and it only applies to autoattack...not CAs/spells/procs like the warrior bonus does.If you reread my post you will see that is in there.</blockquote>I dont have to read your post I know about that bonus, but everyone knows that crusaders are spell / melee based and show me parses in a raid situation where a crusader has less than 95% hit rates on spells, it WONT happen. I have 3 months worth of logs to prove my point, but on the other hand warriors for example hold 75%~ hit rates on mobs in defensive stance. That makes up for it, its gets so old hearing about the inate bonus we have over the hybrid class, but not ONE crusader will admit the differences in hit rates even when logs are shoved in their face to prove otherwise.You are gonig to have to do better than that, sorry.</blockquote>And your ignoring the mobs immunity and resists when you say that as well as the fact that Crusaders still get the bulk of their DPS from Combat Arts not Spell damage especially when dealing with single targets. If SOE wants to make KS only work for 2 handers and give us that 20% crit bonus on CA’s that warriors have then that would be fine with me but that’s not what most warriors want. They want Crusaders nerfed back to the point where they are non competitive against warriors like it has been for so many years. In my opinion most warriors and specifically Guardians have gotten lazy and complacent . Old school crusaders have grown up fighting tooth and nail against a system stacked against us to earn our tank spots both in instances and raids. So now a bunch of Guardians that can’t be bothered to upgrade their gear or spells are complaining that they don’t have the threat or DPS to compete against people that are actually out there getting the gear and aa’s. I’m not saying every Guardian is like that but a lot are and the ones that are gearing up are not having issues tanking instances or raids.</blockquote>KS should work for both 1h, and 2h, but only 15%, instead of 25% it is now.

arksun

04-28-2010, 04:32 PM

<cite>Azurro wrote:</cite><blockquote> If SOE wants to make KS only work for 2 handers and give us that 20% crit bonus on CA’s that warriors have then that would be fine with me but that’s not what most warriors want. They want Crusaders nerfed back to the point where they are non competitive against warriors like it has been for so many years. In my opinion most warriors and specifically Guardians have gotten lazy and complacent . Old school crusaders have grown up fighting tooth and nail against a system stacked against us to earn our tank spots both in instances and raids. So now a bunch of Guardians that can’t be bothered to upgrade their gear or spells are complaining that they don’t have the threat or DPS to compete against people that are actually out there getting the gear and aa’s. I’m not saying every Guardian is like that but a lot are and the ones that are gearing up are not having issues tanking instances or raids.</blockquote>So you want 150 on ca's and spells and KS to just work on 2 handers, and that is not OP how? Once again it went straight to personal attacks, this is the type of answer I expected from a crusader who cannot admit how op they actually are.Yes .... every guardian runs around not trying with app1 spells, but just so happens every SK in game fights "tooth and nail" for their raid spot. Come on you really don't believe that do you? What will you do if they revert your ability into something you really don't want but the only thing you could do is make personal attacks on SoE boards, rather than give usefull suggestions that are actually sane?Just saying .... if it gets changed to something you hate because you are trying to hold on to something that you know is op, the only person to blame would be yourself.

Landiin

04-28-2010, 04:49 PM

<cite>Azurro wrote:</cite><blockquote>Old school crusaders have grown up fighting tooth and nail against a system stacked against us to earn our tank spots both in instances and raids. </blockquote>First off no SK earned their tanks spot after TSO was released, it was giving to you by SOE. Much like the MT roll is for the guardian but now after the encounter are learned it is more productive to us a crusader if not in the 1st place.

Azurro

04-28-2010, 05:09 PM

<cite>Digg@Permafrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Azurro wrote:</cite><blockquote> If SOE wants to make KS only work for 2 handers and give us that 20% crit bonus on CA’s that warriors have then that would be fine with me but that’s not what most warriors want. They want Crusaders nerfed back to the point where they are non competitive against warriors like it has been for so many years. In my opinion most warriors and specifically Guardians have gotten lazy and complacent . Old school crusaders have grown up fighting tooth and nail against a system stacked against us to earn our tank spots both in instances and raids. So now a bunch of Guardians that can’t be bothered to upgrade their gear or spells are complaining that they don’t have the threat or DPS to compete against people that are actually out there getting the gear and aa’s. I’m not saying every Guardian is like that but a lot are and the ones that are gearing up are not having issues tanking instances or raids.</blockquote>So you want 150 on ca's and spells and KS to just work on 2 handers, and that is not OP how? Once again it went straight to personal attacks, this is the type of answer I expected from a crusader who cannot admit how op they actually are.Yes .... every guardian runs around not trying with app1 spells, but just so happens every SK in game fights "tooth and nail" for their raid spot. Come on you really don't believe that do you? What will you do if they revert your ability into something you really don't want but the only thing you could do is make personal attacks on SoE boards, rather than give usefull suggestions that are actually sane?Just saying .... if it gets changed to something you hate because you are trying to hold on to something that you know is op, the only person to blame would be yourself.</blockquote>I didn’t mention setting spells to 150% only CA’s like warriors. Or do you think we already have 150% spell crit bonus? We don’t. The fact is that everything a Warrior does has a base crit bonus of 150% while the only thing Crusaders have with 150% bonus is our taunts. CA’s, spells, and heals all have a base crit bonus of 130%. How is that fair really? Having a AA that requires 130 points to even get to is kind of a lame way to balance that out if you ask me and it still doesn’t even cover heals which is supposed to be what offsets the warriors increased survivability but it’s what we have. Now that I think about it Crusaders do need some love to bring our crit bonuses comparable to warriors. It’s totally unfair that warriors get a 150% crit bonus to all their abilities where Crusaders only get it on ¼ of theirs.

Darkonx

04-28-2010, 05:14 PM

<cite>Digg@Permafrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Azurro wrote:</cite><blockquote> If SOE wants to make KS only work for 2 handers and give us that 20% crit bonus on CA’s that warriors have then that would be fine with me but that’s not what most warriors want. They want Crusaders nerfed back to the point where they are non competitive against warriors like it has been for so many years. In my opinion most warriors and specifically Guardians have gotten lazy and complacent . Old school crusaders have grown up fighting tooth and nail against a system stacked against us to earn our tank spots both in instances and raids. So now a bunch of Guardians that can’t be bothered to upgrade their gear or spells are complaining that they don’t have the threat or DPS to compete against people that are actually out there getting the gear and aa’s. I’m not saying every Guardian is like that but a lot are and the ones that are gearing up are not having issues tanking instances or raids.</blockquote>So you want 150 on ca's and spells and KS to just work on 2 handers, and that is not OP how? Once again it went straight to personal attacks, this is the type of answer I expected from a crusader who cannot admit how op they actually are.Yes .... every guardian runs around not trying with app1 spells, but just so happens every SK in game fights "tooth and nail" for their raid spot. Come on you really don't believe that do you? What will you do if they revert your ability into something you really don't want but the only thing you could do is make personal attacks on SoE boards, rather than give usefull suggestions that are actually sane?Just saying .... if it gets changed to something you hate because you are trying to hold on to something that you know is op, the only person to blame would be yourself.</blockquote>This is why I am trying to avoid. I've talked to several people, none of them Crusaders, and didn't get any real objections to 15% across the board, with both 1h, and 2h, on KS. The AA as it stands is too powerful for 1h/shield DPS, and does absolutely nothing for 2h DPS. This change going through would fix both of these issues.

Darkonx

04-28-2010, 05:16 PM

BChizzle

04-28-2010, 05:54 PM

I am all for crusaders having better dps with a 2 hander provided that it is only because their dps with sword and board is nerfed significantly and their 2 hander dps stays right where it is right now.

Nulgara

04-28-2010, 09:35 PM

<cite>Azurro wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Digg@Permafrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Azurro wrote:</cite><blockquote> If SOE wants to make KS only work for 2 handers and give us that 20% crit bonus on CA’s that warriors have then that would be fine with me but that’s not what most warriors want. They want Crusaders nerfed back to the point where they are non competitive against warriors like it has been for so many years. In my opinion most warriors and specifically Guardians have gotten lazy and complacent . Old school crusaders have grown up fighting tooth and nail against a system stacked against us to earn our tank spots both in instances and raids. So now a bunch of Guardians that can’t be bothered to upgrade their gear or spells are complaining that they don’t have the threat or DPS to compete against people that are actually out there getting the gear and aa’s. I’m not saying every Guardian is like that but a lot are and the ones that are gearing up are not having issues tanking instances or raids.</blockquote>So you want 150 on ca's and spells and KS to just work on 2 handers, and that is not OP how? Once again it went straight to personal attacks, this is the type of answer I expected from a crusader who cannot admit how op they actually are.Yes .... every guardian runs around not trying with app1 spells, but just so happens every SK in game fights "tooth and nail" for their raid spot. Come on you really don't believe that do you? What will you do if they revert your ability into something you really don't want but the only thing you could do is make personal attacks on SoE boards, rather than give usefull suggestions that are actually sane?Just saying .... if it gets changed to something you hate because you are trying to hold on to something that you know is op, the only person to blame would be yourself.</blockquote>I didn’t mention setting spells to 150% only CA’s like warriors. Or do you think we already have 150% spell crit bonus? We don’t. The fact is that everything a Warrior does has a base crit bonus of 150% while the only thing Crusaders have with 150% bonus is our taunts. CA’s, spells, and heals all have a base crit bonus of 130%. How is that fair really? Having a AA that requires 130 points to even get to is kind of a lame way to balance that out if you ask me and it still doesn’t even cover heals which is supposed to be what offsets the warriors increased survivability but it’s what we have. Now that I think about it Crusaders do need some love to bring our crit bonuses comparable to warriors. It’s totally unfair that warriors get a 150% crit bonus to all their abilities where Crusaders only get it on ¼ of theirs. </blockquote>how exactly is it totally unfair? heal crit bonus is identical last i checked so there goes some of your arguement. taunt bonus is the same too. warriors dont have spells at all so moot point. crusaders have both. and the spells portion of the crusader hits a whole hell of a lot harder then any ca a warrior is gonna push. whens the last time you saw a warrior hit a mob for 30K+ with a spell? or better yet whens the last time you saw a warrior crit 8 mobs at once for 7500+ per mob with one cast? crit bonus bases are balanced between the 2 and every point either archetype adds has the same effect so the curve remains constant.i also find it funny that you mention old school crusaders.. umm look around its the old school crusaders are the ones saying things need to be fixed. believe me i was a raid sk back in rok trying to compete with teh at teh time superpowered guardians. yeah back then we fought tooth and nail for every scrap of power we had.. now a days.. its a joke how easy it is, so please dont go there.there is a balance issue between dps capability and survability. do i think the ideas in this thread woudl do anything but make it worse.. no i dont. you leave any kind of bast weapon dmg affecting a 1h weapon and then add 2h weapon to it.. nothing changes cept the sk can now throw up a 2hander and do even more dps when they are feelin frisky when they dont need to tank anything and witht eh ideas here they will still have the dps+survivability at the same time advantage no matter how many mobs are standing in front of them..but lets face facts this entrie crusaders are op thing all comes down to dps. the survivability word gets thrown in there to make things sound more legit. the only way to balance down crusader(specifically sk) dps on single targets is to add # of mob requirements to teh aoe's.. yeah horrible way to try and do it but good luck thiniing of another way that woudl actually work.there is no fix really. in order to repair the problem a nerf is the only option. and i agree with what bchizzle said. move KS entirely to 2h , imo thats a start. it shoudl not effect sword and board at all if this is the route the community is willing to take to get a better balance.a little at a time would be preferable. too much too fast is never good and trend analysis shows that it is never successful either. I used to love playing my sk and i hope one day they are back in balance and maybe ill play him outside of pvp again.

knightofround

04-28-2010, 10:13 PM

<cite>Azurro wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Digg@Permafrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>knightofround wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Digg@Permafrost wrote:</cite><blockquote></blockquote>False. Warriors get an extra innate 20% crit bonus that crusaders do not. You can see it by mousing over the "crit bonus" portion of your persona window. It applies to all autoattacks, CAs, and melee procs. On the other hand, the Crusader Knights Stance AA only provides 25% extra autoattack damage. It costs AA points, instead of being free like the innate 20% warriors get, and it only applies to autoattack...not CAs/spells/procs like the warrior bonus does.If you reread my post you will see that is in there.</blockquote>I dont have to read your post I know about that bonus, but everyone knows that crusaders are spell / melee based and show me parses in a raid situation where a crusader has less than 95% hit rates on spells, it WONT happen. I have 3 months worth of logs to prove my point, but on the other hand warriors for example hold 75%~ hit rates on mobs in defensive stance. That makes up for it, its gets so old hearing about the inate bonus we have over the hybrid class, but not ONE crusader will admit the differences in hit rates even when logs are shoved in their face to prove otherwise.You are gonig to have to do better than that, sorry.</blockquote>And your ignoring the mobs immunity and resists when you say that as well as the fact that Crusaders still get the bulk of their DPS from Combat Arts not Spell damage especially when dealing with single targets. If SOE wants to make KS only work for 2 handers and give us that 20% crit bonus on CA’s that warriors have then that would be fine with me but that’s not what most warriors want. They want Crusaders nerfed back to the point where they are non competitive against warriors like it has been for so many years. In my opinion most warriors and specifically Guardians have gotten lazy and complacent . Old school crusaders have grown up fighting tooth and nail against a system stacked against us to earn our tank spots both in instances and raids. So now a bunch of Guardians that can’t be bothered to upgrade their gear or spells are complaining that they don’t have the threat or DPS to compete against people that are actually out there getting the gear and aa’s. I’m not saying every Guardian is like that but a lot are and the ones that are gearing up are not having issues tanking instances or raids.</blockquote>I don't understand your argument. It seems like you're saying that the extra crit bonus that warriors get is useless because hit rates are lower on melee than in spells. But again, I would point out that Knight's Stance affects *autoattack damage only*. And crusader hit rates on autoattack are just as bad as they are for any other melee class.And honestly, I don't think the hit rates are a big deal for zerkers, they still parse very competitively with crusaders. Sure, guardian dps cannot compare to crusader...but again, those are guardians, their dps should be terrible in exchange for solid aggro/survivability. I would agree that guardians need some love right now...but that is not what this thread is about. This thread is about fixing knight's stance.

Rast

04-29-2010, 12:28 AM

Sorry, I disagee. KS is fine the way it is. Anyone saying otherwise is most likely a guardian/warrior who is ticked because we actually are able to compete for the MT slot now.Yah, we get a slight boost to our weapon damage, woopie crap. It isn't like everyone in the game who is worth anything doesn't tank in offensive anyways. DPS is the name of the game in agro management. If YOU don't like it, don't take the AA and ask for one that helps you out with two handers, but this Paladin doesn't give two woops about YOUR playstyle, I'm a tank, not a dpser and I don't want to be good with a stupid two hander.I'm sick of people always calling to have something nerfed. If this is specifically a PvP issue, fine, fix if for PvP, but otherwise leave us alone so we can do OUR job and tank, if you are treatened by our abilites, good, it is about bloody time you are.

Darkonx

04-29-2010, 12:51 AM

<cite>Jalathan@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Sorry, I disagee. KS is fine the way it is. Anyone saying otherwise is most likely a guardian/warrior who is ticked because we actually are able to compete for the MT slot now.Yah, we get a slight boost to our weapon damage, woopie crap. It isn't like everyone in the game who is worth anything doesn't tank in offensive anyways. DPS is the name of the game in agro management. If YOU don't like it, don't take the AA and ask for one that helps you out with two handers, but this Paladin doesn't give two woops about YOUR playstyle, I'm a tank, not a dpser and I don't want to be good with a stupid two hander.I'm sick of people always calling to have something nerfed. If this is specifically a PvP issue, fine, fix if for PvP, but otherwise leave us alone so we can do OUR job and tank, if you are treatened by our abilites, good, it is about bloody time you are.</blockquote>You DO understand that this ability will likely be changed soon. You DO understand that this might be your ONLY chance to CONTROL the effects of said change. The ability is the single easiest change they can make to reduce 1h/shield DPS for Crusaders, which should happen. If they change it how I suggested though, lower it to 15% and allow it to apply to both 1h, and 2h weapons, at least we would still have the ability to regain the lost DPS, if we are willing to completely sacrafice survivability.P.S. I don't like being nerfed either, and if you go with this, it wont be a nerf, it will be a change.

yadlajoi

04-29-2010, 02:48 AM

Just make it 2.5accuracy in offencive stance and 2.5 mit increace in def just like what warrior have with tactical wisdom. The more i see crusader asking for a buff to their own class the more i think i was way too generous offering 5accuracy in any stance. Crusader need to be hugely nerfed. not the 4 other tank brought to their lvl or the game will become even easier than it already is.

Mavrin

04-29-2010, 11:50 AM

1. 2 handers probably haven't worked as intended since T5. Messing with KS isn't going to be the way to fix them an entirely new AA aimed at them is probably the most effective way to get any results out of them and lets the sword and board crowd have thier way and the 2 hander wanna be's have thiers. Because a new aa would let people choose where to put the 5 points and where to take them away from.2. Guards really need to go back and READ thier AA's our raid guard just respec'd didnt do squat to his dps and is ripping mobs left and right now which is a good thing I actually got server discovery on the amends red adornment to counteract his new spec.3. Saying KS is definately getting changed is a load of manure whats your source show me the developer quote please.4. Pinging nerf is very impolite Guards might be better suggesting tweeks to thier own class instead of whining about others. Several classes are OP over other classes right now but I don't see a lynch mob of rangers chasing the dirges around.5. Guards may want to take a look at thier slash numbers depending on your favored weapon of course increase the number, hit more = do more dps. 6. There's new leadership at SOE give the poor guy some time I'm sure class balance is on the agenda but I'd rather wait 6 months then have sweeping undesireable changes done off the hip. You know the saying watch what ya wish for you might just get it.

arksun

04-29-2010, 12:05 PM

<cite>Mavrin wrote:</cite><blockquote>2. Guards really need to go back and READ thier AA's our raid guard just respec'd didnt do squat to his dps and is ripping mobs left and right now which is a good thing I actually got server discovery on the amends red adornment to counteract his new spec.Your Guardian figured out how to combat the difference between warrior and crusader with one change of his AA's last night... thats truley amazing. There is "NO" sweeping change in your AA's that will make you "rip left and right" from not being able to hold agro? Sounds more or less like a problem with your guild Guardian, rather than a whole community. 3. Saying KS is definately getting changed is a load of manure whats your source show me the developer quote please.O ye, of little faith. </blockquote>

RafaelSmith

04-29-2010, 02:39 PM

<cite>Mavrin wrote:</cite><blockquote>ave thiers. Because a new aa would let people choose where to put the 5 points and where to take them away from.2. Guards really need to go back and READ thier AA's our raid guard just respec'd didnt do squat to his dps and is ripping mobs left and right now which is a good thing I actually got server discovery on the amends red adornment to counteract his new spec.</blockquote>Only if the duration of "left and right" is 18sec. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Raahl

04-29-2010, 03:03 PM

One other thought, to make Crusaders more survivable their class has the ability to heal themselves. So as a crusader approaches the mitigations levels of a warrior class, their survivability actually can be better than the warriors because of their self heals.So a crusader can DPS, Heal and Tank. And through the added DPS hold aggro with little to no issue.

Darkonx

04-29-2010, 04:44 PM

<cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote>One other thought, to make Crusaders more survivable their class has the ability to heal themselves. So as a crusader approaches the mitigations levels of a warrior class, their survivability actually can be better than the warriors because of their self heals.So a crusader can DPS, Heal and Tank. And through the added DPS hold aggro with little to no issue.</blockquote>This statement is incorrect, due to the fact that Warriors gain damage reduction/stoneskin/block abilitys which will always function better than a Crusaders heals, in a raid situation.KS as it is right now allows for too much DPS while using a 1h/shield. If it's changed to 15% 1h/shield and 15% 2h, it'd be fairly balanced when compared to Brawler/Warriors innate 20 CB. I'm asking for a reduction to defensive DPS, and in return, I'm asking for 2h weapons to be viable. Brawlers/Warriors screaming for nerfs after TSO will add nothing constructive to this thread. Please, if you don't think 15% is fair, then give a realistic option of what can be done, without it being seen as 'NERF NERF NERF'. This is a change, that would reduce us in the area that bothers people the most, our DPS while wearing defensive gear (1h/shield).

Rast

04-29-2010, 05:07 PM

<cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Jalathan@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Sorry, I disagee. KS is fine the way it is. Anyone saying otherwise is most likely a guardian/warrior who is ticked because we actually are able to compete for the MT slot now.Yah, we get a slight boost to our weapon damage, woopie crap. It isn't like everyone in the game who is worth anything doesn't tank in offensive anyways. DPS is the name of the game in agro management. If YOU don't like it, don't take the AA and ask for one that helps you out with two handers, but this Paladin doesn't give two woops about YOUR playstyle, I'm a tank, not a dpser and I don't want to be good with a stupid two hander.I'm sick of people always calling to have something nerfed. If this is specifically a PvP issue, fine, fix if for PvP, but otherwise leave us alone so we can do OUR job and tank, if you are treatened by our abilites, good, it is about bloody time you are.</blockquote>You DO understand that this ability will likely be changed soon. You DO understand that this might be your ONLY chance to CONTROL the effects of said change. The ability is the single easiest change they can make to reduce 1h/shield DPS for Crusaders, which should happen. If they change it how I suggested though, lower it to 15% and allow it to apply to both 1h, and 2h weapons, at least we would still have the ability to regain the lost DPS, if we are willing to completely sacrafice survivability.P.S. I don't like being nerfed either, and if you go with this, it wont be a nerf, it will be a change.</blockquote>No, it will be a nerf, it will be a nerf to the way "I" play. I don't want to be DPS, I want to tank. If you want to dps, play a real DPS class and leave us tanks alone.Personally, all I see in you Dark is a bitter man who since he can't play like he wants to, wants to destroy the class so it is worthless again. It took us nearly 5 years to be taken seriously as Main Tanks and now you want to throw it all way because you can't use a bloody 2 hander? It isn't KS's fault that you can't use a 2 hander, it is the bloody 2nd hander itemiztion that messes that up. If you want to use a 2 hander, look at them, they haven't been worth a darn since KoS and were weak even then.Paladins are tanks, tanking means DPS to hold agro and survivablity to stay standing. If you don't want to tank, fine but don't go screwing the rest of us who do.

Raahl

04-29-2010, 05:17 PM

<cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote>One other thought, to make Crusaders more survivable their class has the ability to heal themselves. So as a crusader approaches the mitigations levels of a warrior class, their survivability actually can be better than the warriors because of their self heals.So a crusader can DPS, Heal and Tank. And through the added DPS hold aggro with little to no issue.</blockquote>This statement is incorrect, due to the fact that Warriors gain damage reduction/stoneskin/block abilitys which will always function better than a Crusaders heals, in a raid situation.KS as it is right now allows for too much DPS while using a 1h/shield. If it's changed to 15% 1h/shield and 15% 2h, it'd be fairly balanced when compared to Brawler/Warriors innate 20 CB. I'm asking for a reduction to defensive DPS, and in return, I'm asking for 2h weapons to be viable. Brawlers/Warriors screaming for nerfs after TSO will add nothing constructive to this thread. Please, if you don't think 15% is fair, then give a realistic option of what can be done, without it being seen as 'NERF NERF NERF'. This is a change, that would reduce us in the area that bothers people the most, our DPS while wearing defensive gear (1h/shield).</blockquote>Good point, however a once a Guardian goes into DPS mode we lose some of this because of the lack of a shield. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is not so for a Crusaders heals.So when a Guardian goes into DPS mode (Dual/2H wield) we lose even more survivability because of the loss of the abilities that need a shield. Plus we still do less damage than a crusader going sword and board.DPS is king when it comes to aggro generation, SK's don't have to give up survivability to do high damage. Guardians do.

RootXArtemis

04-29-2010, 05:18 PM

Fighters have been the most balanced they have ever been. Only Berserkers and Monks need a slight tweak to be more defensive, apart from that fighters are great the way they are right now.This change is a terrible idea.

Raahl

04-29-2010, 05:26 PM

<cite>RootXArtemis wrote:</cite><blockquote>Fighters have been the most balanced they have ever been. Only Berserkers and Monks need a slight tweak to be more defensive, apart from that fighters are great the way they are right now.This change is a terrible idea.</blockquote>I disagree that things are balanced..Crusaders have superior DPS vs. most other Fighter classes. A Bruiser/Monk may be able to beat them on occation.Crusaders have near equal survivability vs. other Fighters. Self heals, Quick Kills and good Mitigation.Crusaders have superior aggro control. DPS is king when it comes to Aggro generation.Crusaders can do all of this while using Shield and Sword. DPS only increases more when they Dual/2H wield.

Azurro

04-29-2010, 06:05 PM

<cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote>One other thought, to make Crusaders more survivable their class has the ability to heal themselves. So as a crusader approaches the mitigations levels of a warrior class, their survivability actually can be better than the warriors because of their self heals.So a crusader can DPS, Heal and Tank. And through the added DPS hold aggro with little to no issue.</blockquote>This statement is incorrect, due to the fact that Warriors gain damage reduction/stoneskin/block abilitys which will always function better than a Crusaders heals, in a raid situation.KS as it is right now allows for too much DPS while using a 1h/shield. If it's changed to 15% 1h/shield and 15% 2h, it'd be fairly balanced when compared to Brawler/Warriors innate 20 CB. I'm asking for a reduction to defensive DPS, and in return, I'm asking for 2h weapons to be viable. Brawlers/Warriors screaming for nerfs after TSO will add nothing constructive to this thread. Please, if you don't think 15% is fair, then give a realistic option of what can be done, without it being seen as 'NERF NERF NERF'. This is a change, that would reduce us in the area that bothers people the most, our DPS while wearing defensive gear (1h/shield).</blockquote>The idea that you would consider DPS balanced if a Warrior with 0 AA’s is the same as a Crusader with 135 is just ridiculous.

RafaelSmith

04-29-2010, 06:19 PM

<cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote>One other thought, to make Crusaders more survivable their class has the ability to heal themselves. So as a crusader approaches the mitigations levels of a warrior class, their survivability actually can be better than the warriors because of their self heals.So a crusader can DPS, Heal and Tank. And through the added DPS hold aggro with little to no issue.</blockquote>This statement is incorrect, due to the fact that Warriors gain damage reduction/stoneskin/block abilitys which will always function better than a Crusaders heals, in a raid situation.KS as it is right now allows for too much DPS while using a 1h/shield. If it's changed to 15% 1h/shield and 15% 2h, it'd be fairly balanced when compared to Brawler/Warriors innate 20 CB. I'm asking for a reduction to defensive DPS, and in return, I'm asking for 2h weapons to be viable. Brawlers/Warriors screaming for nerfs after TSO will add nothing constructive to this thread. Please, if you don't think 15% is fair, then give a realistic option of what can be done, without it being seen as 'NERF NERF NERF'. This is a change, that would reduce us in the area that bothers people the most, our DPS while wearing defensive gear (1h/shield).</blockquote>The DPS you put out while tanking is not what bothers me....its the high surviveability that you have as well while DSP/Tanking. You should DPS alot to tank........you are a DPS/Offensive tank.....however you should suffer alot more in terms of DMG taken than you currently do. With a MT as their tank, a healer should have to work harder than with the other fighters knowing that if they can the group will mow thru the instance quicker than with the other fighter.To be a DPS/AE/Offensive tank there needs to be a big penalty in surviveability.....at least on par with the penalty a Guard suffers DPS wise to be able to a Defensive tank. While mathematically that may be the case at the extrem upper end its not for the other 95% of the games content and it needs to be.

Rast

04-29-2010, 06:20 PM

I would also like to note how utterly stupid this whole conversation is.How long has it been since defense really mattered? When was the last time anyone even tanked in defensive stance? How long has it been since ANY of us has given up on any offense to gain survivablity? DPS is the name of the game people, if you dont' have it, you don't tank. period.There is only 1 reason to make this change, someone is scared over our ability to tank, after 5 years of having guarenteed raid slots and not really having to work for it, they are scared those of us that have had to fight and scrape for so long and squeak every [Removed for Content] bit we could out of our toons to even get a shot might actually take your precious raid slot.I can't count the number of nights I was told no on raids because I was a paladin or only added because they had a slot that they couldn't fill with anyone else, heck there was one raid I only got a slot (when they had 4 open) because they needed a friend of mine as a healer (and I was later told that it was quite the arugment at that)! I can't count the number of times I was put into a group with no buffs because I wasn't worth them. And now that we can finally get some respect, we have idiots like this trying to pull us back down. Now that I can finally say I'm a raid MT and not have people falling over in laughter, people are jealous of what I can do.Its sad really, never once did I ever ask for guards to be nerfed. never one in the 5 years I spent being a laughing stock of a tank did I ask for a single nerf on ANY tank class, only to have what was broken on my class fixed. And now that it is, those I defended all those years saying their classes were fine, only the crusaders are broken and need a couple fixes are coming out in droves to scream nerf.

Azurro

04-29-2010, 06:33 PM

<cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>RootXArtemis wrote:</cite><blockquote>Fighters have been the most balanced they have ever been. Only Berserkers and Monks need a slight tweak to be more defensive, apart from that fighters are great the way they are right now.This change is a terrible idea.</blockquote>I disagree that things are balanced..Crusaders have superior DPS vs. most other Fighter classes. A Bruiser/Monk may be able to beat them on occation.Crusaders have near equal survivability vs. other Fighters. Self heals, Quick Kills and good Mitigation.Crusaders have superior aggro control. DPS is king when it comes to Aggro generation.Crusaders can do all of this while using Shield and Sword. DPS only increases more when they Dual/2H wield.</blockquote>And I disagree with your assessment. Crusaders have more dps then Guardians but less survivability. That seems like a fair balance to me. “Near Equal” being the key phase there. A crusader who specs to get even close to the survivability of a Guardian isn’t doing the kind of dps people are up in arms about. I’m specced as a defensive Pally right now and I sure don’t outparse our Guardian by enough to worry about. He has a few more survival tricks and I have a bit more dps. Seems like a fair trade off to me. DPS is not king when it comes to Agro generation. It’s one way to do the job but by no means the only way. I depend a lot more on threat transfer and procs then I do DPS right now (that is a change to how I tanked in TSO). I might be able to beat a Gaurdian in raw threat on a parse but there is no way I can beat their positional increases. Guardians have 4-5 times the number of positional jumps over crusaders on a average fight when they are not even working hard at it. The best I can do going all out is bounce agro back and forth with the guardian because his positional increases will allow him to catch back up regardless of how much threat I am generating. Positional increases are much more powerful on raids then raw threat. Crusaders can’t dual wield and 2 hander’s have been worthless for as long as I can remember. I have dps alts, if I wanted to DPS I would play my swashy not my tank. I play a tank because I like to be the one that soaks up the damage from mobs not top the parse.

Kota

04-29-2010, 07:01 PM

maybe they should have went thru with that fighter revamp and made us taunt bots. i think it's dumb that dps as a tank is so important tbh.

Raahl

04-29-2010, 09:35 PM

<cite>Tenka@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>maybe they should have went thru with that fighter revamp and made us taunt bots. i think it's dumb that dps as a tank is so important tbh.</blockquote>I agree!But unfortunately that's how Sony has it.

Raahl

04-29-2010, 09:43 PM

<cite>Azurro wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>RootXArtemis wrote:</cite><blockquote>Fighters have been the most balanced they have ever been. Only Berserkers and Monks need a slight tweak to be more defensive, apart from that fighters are great the way they are right now.This change is a terrible idea.</blockquote>I disagree that things are balanced..Crusaders have superior DPS vs. most other Fighter classes. A Bruiser/Monk may be able to beat them on occation.Crusaders have near equal survivability vs. other Fighters. Self heals, Quick Kills and good Mitigation.Crusaders have superior aggro control. DPS is king when it comes to Aggro generation.Crusaders can do all of this while using Shield and Sword. DPS only increases more when they Dual/2H wield.</blockquote>And I disagree with your assessment. Crusaders have more dps then Guardians but less survivability. That seems like a fair balance to me. “Near Equal” being the key phase there. A crusader who specs to get even close to the survivability of a Guardian isn’t doing the kind of dps people are up in arms about. I’m specced as a defensive Pally right now and I sure don’t outparse our Guardian by enough to worry about. He has a few more survival tricks and I have a bit more dps. Seems like a fair trade off to me. DPS is not king when it comes to Agro generation. It’s one way to do the job but by no means the only way. I depend a lot more on threat transfer and procs then I do DPS right now (that is a change to how I tanked in TSO). I might be able to beat a Gaurdian in raw threat on a parse but there is no way I can beat their positional increases. Guardians have 4-5 times the number of positional jumps over crusaders on a average fight when they are not even working hard at it. The best I can do going all out is bounce agro back and forth with the guardian because his positional increases will allow him to catch back up regardless of how much threat I am generating. Positional increases are much more powerful on raids then raw threat. Crusaders can’t dual wield and 2 hander’s have been worthless for as long as I can remember. I have dps alts, if I wanted to DPS I would play my swashy not my tank. I play a tank because I like to be the one that soaks up the damage from mobs not top the parse. </blockquote>The Difference between Crusaders and warriors survivability is slight.The difference between them for DPS isn't.

Gungo

04-30-2010, 12:05 AM

<cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Digg@Permafrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Azurro wrote:</cite><blockquote> If SOE wants to make KS only work for 2 handers and give us that 20% crit bonus on CA’s that warriors have then that would be fine with me but that’s not what most warriors want. They want Crusaders nerfed back to the point where they are non competitive against warriors like it has been for so many years. In my opinion most warriors and specifically Guardians have gotten lazy and complacent . Old school crusaders have grown up fighting tooth and nail against a system stacked against us to earn our tank spots both in instances and raids. So now a bunch of Guardians that can’t be bothered to upgrade their gear or spells are complaining that they don’t have the threat or DPS to compete against people that are actually out there getting the gear and aa’s. I’m not saying every Guardian is like that but a lot are and the ones that are gearing up are not having issues tanking instances or raids.</blockquote>So you want 150 on ca's and spells and KS to just work on 2 handers, and that is not OP how? Once again it went straight to personal attacks, this is the type of answer I expected from a crusader who cannot admit how op they actually are.Yes .... every guardian runs around not trying with app1 spells, but just so happens every SK in game fights "tooth and nail" for their raid spot. Come on you really don't believe that do you? What will you do if they revert your ability into something you really don't want but the only thing you could do is make personal attacks on SoE boards, rather than give usefull suggestions that are actually sane?Just saying .... if it gets changed to something you hate because you are trying to hold on to something that you know is op, the only person to blame would be yourself.</blockquote>This is why I am trying to avoid. I've talked to several people, none of them Crusaders, and didn't get any real objections to 15% across the board, with both 1h, and 2h, on KS. The AA as it stands is too powerful for 1h/shield DPS, and does absolutely nothing for 2h DPS. This change going through would fix both of these issues.</blockquote>To be fair as i said before 15% may be to much, 10% across the board would likely not be overpowered. Even with 10% a crusaders MAXIMUM dps would go up slightly simply because 10%2hander> 25%1 hander. Of course this means crusaders dps while tanking would go down slightly while tanking w a loss of 15% w a 1 hander.But the entire point of this thread was that dps while tanking was entirely to high. Which this change would ultimately fix.

BChizzle

04-30-2010, 02:33 AM

Plate tanks should experience what its like to be a brawler in full dps mode when they are dpsing. We are 1-2 shot squishies and news flash our dps is garbage in defensive build, it is a case of either or from brawlers why do the other tanks not have it the same way? People make the case of dps vs survivability well in that case my dps mode brawler has less survivability then an assassin maybe I should be parsing better then them?

Vulkan_NTooki

04-30-2010, 05:39 AM

<cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Azurro wrote:</cite><blockquote></blockquote>The Difference between Crusaders and warriors survivability is slight.The difference between them for DPS isn't.</blockquote>Could u please show some numbers on this statement? I'd like to see 2 equally geared/skilled warrior/Crusader with same amount off aa, spec how they feel is the best spec for their MT spot and then see how surviveability/dps is compared.Shouldnt be too hard.. find two skilled ones with equal gear and check how much dmg they took, and how much dmg they did, and maybe other factors u think is viable.. Make sure the fight is vs something where your surviveability actually matters tho, so they have to use any surviveability oh sh*t abilities atleast once or twice..Untill I see numbers that prove there is a huge disparity, I will continue to believe the classes are as balanced as they ever were..PS: Show brawlers some love in 2010..

knightofround

04-30-2010, 07:17 AM

<cite>Jalathan@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Jalathan@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Sorry, I disagee. KS is fine the way it is. Anyone saying otherwise is most likely a guardian/warrior who is ticked because we actually are able to compete for the MT slot now.Yah, we get a slight boost to our weapon damage, woopie crap. It isn't like everyone in the game who is worth anything doesn't tank in offensive anyways. DPS is the name of the game in agro management. If YOU don't like it, don't take the AA and ask for one that helps you out with two handers, but this Paladin doesn't give two woops about YOUR playstyle, I'm a tank, not a dpser and I don't want to be good with a stupid two hander.I'm sick of people always calling to have something nerfed. If this is specifically a PvP issue, fine, fix if for PvP, but otherwise leave us alone so we can do OUR job and tank, if you are treatened by our abilites, good, it is about bloody time you are.</blockquote>You DO understand that this ability will likely be changed soon. You DO understand that this might be your ONLY chance to CONTROL the effects of said change. The ability is the single easiest change they can make to reduce 1h/shield DPS for Crusaders, which should happen. If they change it how I suggested though, lower it to 15% and allow it to apply to both 1h, and 2h weapons, at least we would still have the ability to regain the lost DPS, if we are willing to completely sacrafice survivability.P.S. I don't like being nerfed either, and if you go with this, it wont be a nerf, it will be a change.</blockquote>No, it will be a nerf, it will be a nerf to the way "I" play. I don't want to be DPS, I want to tank. If you want to dps, play a real DPS class and leave us tanks alone.Personally, all I see in you Dark is a bitter man who since he can't play like he wants to, wants to destroy the class so it is worthless again. It took us nearly 5 years to be taken seriously as Main Tanks and now you want to throw it all way because you can't use a bloody 2 hander? It isn't KS's fault that you can't use a 2 hander, it is the bloody 2nd hander itemiztion that messes that up. If you want to use a 2 hander, look at them, they haven't been worth a darn since KoS and were weak even then.Paladins are tanks, tanking means DPS to hold agro and survivablity to stay standing. If you don't want to tank, fine but don't go screwing the rest of us who do.</blockquote>I like to tank. But I also like the appearance and playstyle of being a two handed weapon plate tank. Most MMOs out there have it as a viable option for crusaders. In EQ1, crusaders were first and foremost 2H weapon classes and only secondarily sword+board. The fact that 2H is *not* a viable option for crusaders is a real downer. Heck, its viability is still doubtful even for zerkers who can 100% AE autoattack, just because block is so much stronger than any survivability stat out there.I don't think there's any crusaders in this thread that are requesting that we become a more powerful class...either when it comes to tanking or DPSing. All we want is a viable alternative playstyle...like how warriors/brawlers can dual wield, healers can dps, and dps can tank. Its true that crusaders do a little bit of everything, but we need some variety too.

circusgirl

04-30-2010, 11:34 AM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Plate tanks should experience what its like to be a brawler in full dps mode when they are dpsing. We are 1-2 shot squishies and news flash our dps is garbage in defensive build, it is a case of either or from brawlers why do the other tanks not have it the same way? People make the case of dps vs survivability well in that case my dps mode brawler has less survivability then an assassin maybe I should be parsing better then them?</blockquote>QFE.Yes, brawlers are much better off this expansion in the last, but it's either/or. Avoidance is entirely broken in anything but our defensive stance due to strikethrough. Even our best defensive pieces invariably have massive dps penalties associated with them. For example, if I want to have the mitigation from my shoulders, I have to give up a boatload of potency. Brawlers more than any other class have to choose if we want to survive or dps, and we cannot put out anywhere near a crusader's numbers while set up to effectively tank.

Bruener

04-30-2010, 02:41 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Plate tanks should experience what its like to be a brawler in full dps mode when they are dpsing. We are 1-2 shot squishies and news flash our dps is garbage in defensive build, it is a case of either or from brawlers why do the other tanks not have it the same way? People make the case of dps vs survivability well in that case my dps mode brawler has less survivability then an assassin maybe I should be parsing better then them?</blockquote>QFE.Yes, brawlers are much better off this expansion in the last, but it's either/or. Avoidance is entirely broken in anything but our defensive stance due to strikethrough. Even our best defensive pieces invariably have massive dps penalties associated with them. For example, if I want to have the mitigation from my shoulders, I have to give up a boatload of potency. Brawlers more than any other class have to choose if we want to survive or dps, and we cannot put out anywhere near a crusader's numbers while set up to effectively tank.</blockquote>Save it. Brawlers are very ok right now. In fact some of us with the ability to see things coming can already tell how powerful Brawlers are going to be next xpac. They can easily reach plate tank mitigation and superior avoidance...oh and yes their DPS is very good. Not to mention they are the positional kings now when it comes to controlling mob agro. The old "save Brawlers" argument isn't going to work anymore, people just need to start realizing their potential is the problem.

Couching

04-30-2010, 03:06 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Plate tanks should experience what its like to be a brawler in full dps mode when they are dpsing. We are 1-2 shot squishies and news flash our dps is garbage in defensive build, it is a case of either or from brawlers why do the other tanks not have it the same way? People make the case of dps vs survivability well in that case my dps mode brawler has less survivability then an assassin maybe I should be parsing better then them?</blockquote>QFE.Yes, brawlers are much better off this expansion in the last, but it's either/or. Avoidance is entirely broken in anything but our defensive stance due to strikethrough. Even our best defensive pieces invariably have massive dps penalties associated with them. For example, if I want to have the mitigation from my shoulders, I have to give up a boatload of potency. Brawlers more than any other class have to choose if we want to survive or dps, and we cannot put out anywhere near a crusader's numbers while set up to effectively tank.</blockquote>Save it. Brawlers are very ok right now. In fact some of us with the ability to see things coming can already tell how powerful Brawlers are going to be next xpac. They can easily reach plate tank mitigation and superior avoidance...oh and yes their DPS is very good. Not to mention they are the positional kings now when it comes to controlling mob agro. The old "save Brawlers" argument isn't going to work anymore, people just need to start realizing their potential is the problem.</blockquote>They didn't say save brawlers.What they said is we can't be in good dps mode and good survivability at the same time. We can be either good dps, with very bad survivability, or tank mode, with low dps.This is the current issue of crusaders; max dps potential with very good survivability at the same time. They should be low dps if they want high survivability.However, the suggestion from OP is not a solution because crusaders dps is already high enough no matter in any condition, tank or dps mode. It didn't make any sense to further boost their dps in dps mode even if they were going to sacrifice survivability. Their dps in dps mode is already ahead most fighters in most game content.

BChizzle

04-30-2010, 03:59 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Plate tanks should experience what its like to be a brawler in full dps mode when they are dpsing. We are 1-2 shot squishies and news flash our dps is garbage in defensive build, it is a case of either or from brawlers why do the other tanks not have it the same way? People make the case of dps vs survivability well in that case my dps mode brawler has less survivability then an assassin maybe I should be parsing better then them?</blockquote>QFE.Yes, brawlers are much better off this expansion in the last, but it's either/or. Avoidance is entirely broken in anything but our defensive stance due to strikethrough. Even our best defensive pieces invariably have massive dps penalties associated with them. For example, if I want to have the mitigation from my shoulders, I have to give up a boatload of potency. Brawlers more than any other class have to choose if we want to survive or dps, and we cannot put out anywhere near a crusader's numbers while set up to effectively tank.</blockquote>Save it. Brawlers are very ok right now. In fact some of us with the ability to see things coming can already tell how powerful Brawlers are going to be next xpac. They can easily reach plate tank mitigation and superior avoidance...oh and yes their DPS is very good. Not to mention they are the positional kings now when it comes to controlling mob agro. The old "save Brawlers" argument isn't going to work anymore, people just need to start realizing their potential is the problem.</blockquote>Fail at reading much? The point was if a brawler wants to tank they have to go all out defensive and their dps is garbage or if they want to dps they have to go all out dps and drop like a mage. Why is it plate tanks can parse just as good or better then a full out squishy dpsmode brawler and not have the same issues with survivability? And all your talk about brawlers being 'OP' in the future is absolute nonsense nobody in their right minds would take a defensively geared brawler who can survive great but will parse like crap tanking a mob over a SK doing double their parse with the same survivability. Quit with the whole brawlers are OP bull already nobody is buying that koolaid. Brawlers are so underpowered compared to every plate tank it is not even funny. Just because we can FINALLY effectively tank raid mobs after 4 years of crap doesn't change the fact that the same core mechanics around avoidance tanking are still messed up.What is the point of being an avoidance tank when the best tanking procs in this game proc off being hit? What good is wardbane or any damage shield on an avoidance tank that doesn't even proc it? The imbalance is still there and if you seriously hope to take the heat off crusaders complete and utter dominance in the tanking area I suggest you find a better direction to point your finger.

Kota

04-30-2010, 04:37 PM

i played a monk from launch until early rok when i hit lvl 80. at which point i gave up on monks ever being a real dps or a real tank class. avoidance tanking is just a bad idea tbh. been saying it since launch. even if you have a true 80% avoidance it's still possible to get hit 3 times in a row. my question is: do you even need to be an avoidance tank now ? with the mit aa's, the myth buff, and the +mit gear ?

BChizzle

04-30-2010, 04:47 PM

<cite>Tenka@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>i played a monk from launch until early rok when i hit lvl 80. at which point i gave up on monks ever being a real dps or a real tank class. avoidance tanking is just a bad idea tbh. been saying it since launch. even if you have a true 80% avoidance it's still possible to get hit 3 times in a row. my question is: do you even need to be an avoidance tank now ? with the mit aa's, the myth buff, and the +mit gear ?</blockquote>A full on defensive mit based brawler would be around 11k mit raid buffed and around 90% avoidance which would probably work out to around 60-65% actual avoid. It of course is nowhere near plate tanks with their 15k+ mit pushing 80% avoidance and 55%+ actual avoid especially when you take procs into the calculations.

juggalo0385

04-30-2010, 05:12 PM

How can you compare 2 different types of tanks. plate tanks are supposed to take a lot of damage and deal a lot of damage. Brawlers are supposed to be able to dish out a lot of quick damage and avoid getting hit. if you think about it if brawlers wore plate armor they couldnt do their fancy moves. did you ever see bruce lee ever wear a full set of plate armor no you didn't

Landiin

04-30-2010, 05:15 PM

<cite>juggalo0385 wrote:</cite><blockquote>How can you compare 2 different types of tanks. plate tanks are supposed to take a lot of damage and deal a lot of damage. Brawlers are supposed to be able to dish out a lot of quick damage and avoid getting hit. if you think about it if brawlers wore plate armor they couldnt do their fancy moves. did you ever see bruce lee ever wear a full set of plate armor no you didn't</blockquote>If that is the case then Brawlers should be doing a crap load more DPS then plate tanks.

juggalo0385

04-30-2010, 05:56 PM

all the brawlers I have grouped with have out dpsed me they were well geared and had a good AA setup. your point is invalid

Kota

04-30-2010, 06:54 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Tenka@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>i played a monk from launch until early rok when i hit lvl 80. at which point i gave up on monks ever being a real dps or a real tank class. avoidance tanking is just a bad idea tbh. been saying it since launch. even if you have a true 80% avoidance it's still possible to get hit 3 times in a row. my question is: do you even need to be an avoidance tank now ? with the mit aa's, the myth buff, and the +mit gear ?</blockquote>A full on defensive mit based brawler would be around 11k mit raid buffed and around 90% avoidance which would probably work out to around 60-65% actual avoid. It of course is nowhere near plate tanks with their 15k+ mit pushing 80% avoidance and 55%+ actual avoid especially when you take procs into the calculations.</blockquote>mit caps at 75% tho. i can't remember what the number was but it's like 12.5k iirc. i dunno i can't get my temps to land me that close to 75% exactly. 11624 is like 72.8% mit. i just threw my raid gear on and i typically tank at like 8300 mit (just me, no buffs/temps). about 66%. i can cap mit but i use a lot of o stance for aggro. diff being about 5% between stances. add buffs and i'm close to 71% in o stance. but yeah, if you're tanking at 11k mit, and 60-65 actual avoidance, i'd say you're winning.

Kota

04-30-2010, 07:04 PM

<cite>juggalo0385 wrote:</cite><blockquote>How can you compare 2 different types of tanks. plate tanks are supposed to take a lot of damage and deal a lot of damage. Brawlers are supposed to be able to dish out a lot of quick damage and avoid getting hit. if you think about it if brawlers wore plate armor they couldnt do their fancy moves. did you ever see bruce lee ever wear a full set of plate armor no you didn't</blockquote>avoidance tanking is and always was a dumb idea. a low mit tank that avoids 6 out of 10 hits. what happens when he gets hit 4 times in a row. yeah. there you go. enter the monk myth buff, the mit aa, and all the +mit gear for monks/bruisers.

BChizzle

04-30-2010, 07:23 PM

<cite>Tenka@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>mit caps at 75% tho. i can't remember what the number was but it's like 12.5k iirc. i dunno i can't get my temps to land me that close to 75% exactly. 11624 is like 72.8% mit. i just threw my raid gear on and i typically tank at like 8300 mit (just me, no buffs/temps). about 66%. i can cap mit but i use a lot of o stance for aggro. diff being about 5% between stances. add buffs and i'm close to 71% in o stance. but yeah, if you're tanking at 11k mit, and 60-65 actual avoidance, i'd say you're winning.</blockquote>That is vs a lvl 90 mob, most raid mobs are 95+

Kota

04-30-2010, 07:30 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Tenka@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>mit caps at 75% tho. i can't remember what the number was but it's like 12.5k iirc. i dunno i can't get my temps to land me that close to 75% exactly. 11624 is like 72.8% mit. i just threw my raid gear on and i typically tank at like 8300 mit (just me, no buffs/temps). about 66%. i can cap mit but i use a lot of o stance for aggro. diff being about 5% between stances. add buffs and i'm close to 71% in o stance. but yeah, if you're tanking at 11k mit, and 60-65 actual avoidance, i'd say you're winning.</blockquote>That is vs a lvl 90 mob, most raid mobs are 95+</blockquote>i was understanding the 75% to be a hard cap. no matter how high i get my mit number, the % never goes over 75. can you point me to a dev post or something that verifies my error ?

Darkonx

04-30-2010, 07:34 PM

This thread is getting really off-topic. It's come down to a plate tank vs leather tank argument. Brawlers may need more help, I honestly don't think so. Strikethrough Immunity + near equal mitigation + 20% more avoidance is pretty ridiculously good. That's not the point of this thread though, and I'd really like to keep on topic.The only real way to make Crusaders lose the survivability a shield grants is to make 2h weapons viable. As of right now, they're not, and therefore, Crusaders are getting max DPS from 1h/shield. 2h weapons can not be boosted up to the point where they surpass 1h+25%WBD or they'd be INSANELY OP, even moreso for warriors/brawlers, because of the base 20 CB difference between them and Crusaders. Changing this AA to 15% with either 1h or 2h would effectively reduce defensive DPS, while giving Crusaders in general a reason to use a 2h weapon again.Even this will be seen as a nerf, but it's a good start, and not nearly as overboard as some of the ideas to lower Crusaders defensive DPS have been.

BChizzle

04-30-2010, 07:52 PM

<cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote>This thread is getting really off-topic. It's come down to a plate tank vs leather tank argument. Brawlers may need more help, I honestly don't think so. Strikethrough Immunity + near equal mitigation + 20% more avoidance is pretty ridiculously good. That's not the point of this thread though, and I'd really like to keep on topic.The only real way to make Crusaders lose the survivability a shield grants is to make 2h weapons viable. As of right now, they're not, and therefore, Crusaders are getting max DPS from 1h/shield. 2h weapons can not be boosted up to the point where they surpass 1h+25%WBD or they'd be INSANELY OP, even moreso for warriors/brawlers, because of the base 20 CB difference between them and Crusaders. Changing this AA to 15% with either 1h or 2h would effectively reduce defensive DPS, while giving Crusaders in general a reason to use a 2h weapon again.Even this will be seen as a nerf, but it's a good start, and not nearly as overboard as some of the ideas to lower Crusaders defensive DPS have been.</blockquote>The solution would be to nerf crusader 1 hander damage in half and keep 2 handed dps where it is currently. 2 handed you already outparse everyone.

Darkonx

04-30-2010, 08:01 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote>This thread is getting really off-topic. It's come down to a plate tank vs leather tank argument. Brawlers may need more help, I honestly don't think so. Strikethrough Immunity + near equal mitigation + 20% more avoidance is pretty ridiculously good. That's not the point of this thread though, and I'd really like to keep on topic.The only real way to make Crusaders lose the survivability a shield grants is to make 2h weapons viable. As of right now, they're not, and therefore, Crusaders are getting max DPS from 1h/shield. 2h weapons can not be boosted up to the point where they surpass 1h+25%WBD or they'd be INSANELY OP, even moreso for warriors/brawlers, because of the base 20 CB difference between them and Crusaders. Changing this AA to 15% with either 1h or 2h would effectively reduce defensive DPS, while giving Crusaders in general a reason to use a 2h weapon again.Even this will be seen as a nerf, but it's a good start, and not nearly as overboard as some of the ideas to lower Crusaders defensive DPS have been.</blockquote>The solution would be to nerf crusader 1 hander damage in half and keep 2 handed dps where it is currently. 2 handed you already outparse everyone.</blockquote>Again, calling for nerfs is BAD. Asking for a change is viable, simply asking for a nerf is not. So would you STOP already. What you proposed is not a solution.

BChizzle

04-30-2010, 08:05 PM

<cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote>This thread is getting really off-topic. It's come down to a plate tank vs leather tank argument. Brawlers may need more help, I honestly don't think so. Strikethrough Immunity + near equal mitigation + 20% more avoidance is pretty ridiculously good. That's not the point of this thread though, and I'd really like to keep on topic.The only real way to make Crusaders lose the survivability a shield grants is to make 2h weapons viable. As of right now, they're not, and therefore, Crusaders are getting max DPS from 1h/shield. 2h weapons can not be boosted up to the point where they surpass 1h+25%WBD or they'd be INSANELY OP, even moreso for warriors/brawlers, because of the base 20 CB difference between them and Crusaders. Changing this AA to 15% with either 1h or 2h would effectively reduce defensive DPS, while giving Crusaders in general a reason to use a 2h weapon again.Even this will be seen as a nerf, but it's a good start, and not nearly as overboard as some of the ideas to lower Crusaders defensive DPS have been.</blockquote>The solution would be to nerf crusader 1 hander damage in half and keep 2 handed dps where it is currently. 2 handed you already outparse everyone.</blockquote>Again, calling for nerfs is BAD. Asking for a change is viable, simply asking for a nerf is not. So would you STOP already. What you proposed is not a solution.</blockquote>My solution is what you are going to get, but I agree lets not call it a nerf lets call it a rebalance.

Phelon_Skellhound

04-30-2010, 08:14 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>The solution would be to nerf crusader 1 hander damage in half and keep 2 handed dps where it is currently. 2 handed you already outparse everyone.</blockquote>That's not a full solution for you cant change 1 thing without breaking something else.... nerf er... parden me... rebalance 1 thing and you gotta fix something else to make up for a loss... as a brawler I know u guys know that there cant be balance with out counter balance... If you were to cut DPS since everyone is so focused on DPS (i dont know why), why wouldnt you suggest an increase to threat generation at the same time?After all the skill everyone is so up in arms is based on just that... Increase to sword damage while holding a shield that gives us protection to do our job (tanking of course) while keeping the party alive... A Crusader's job is no different than any tank... Take damage, hold aggro... SOE's vision as offensive tanks dictates SK's and Zerkers do it with DPS... Pally's and Guards role as defensive tanks have their tools with less DPS... Change the vision of the roles and perhaps ears will perk...

Bruener

04-30-2010, 11:37 PM

BChizzle

04-30-2010, 11:51 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote>This thread is getting really off-topic. It's come down to a plate tank vs leather tank argument. Brawlers may need more help, I honestly don't think so. Strikethrough Immunity + near equal mitigation + 20% more avoidance is pretty ridiculously good. That's not the point of this thread though, and I'd really like to keep on topic.The only real way to make Crusaders lose the survivability a shield grants is to make 2h weapons viable. As of right now, they're not, and therefore, Crusaders are getting max DPS from 1h/shield. 2h weapons can not be boosted up to the point where they surpass 1h+25%WBD or they'd be INSANELY OP, even moreso for warriors/brawlers, because of the base 20 CB difference between them and Crusaders. Changing this AA to 15% with either 1h or 2h would effectively reduce defensive DPS, while giving Crusaders in general a reason to use a 2h weapon again.Even this will be seen as a nerf, but it's a good start, and not nearly as overboard as some of the ideas to lower Crusaders defensive DPS have been.</blockquote>The solution would be to nerf crusader 1 hander damage in half and keep 2 handed dps where it is currently. 2 handed you already outparse everyone.</blockquote>Again, calling for nerfs is BAD. Asking for a change is viable, simply asking for a nerf is not. So would you STOP already. What you proposed is not a solution.</blockquote>My solution is what you are going to get, but I agree lets not call it a nerf lets call it a rebalance.</blockquote>Sweet, can we get Brawler mit back to where it should be than after?</blockquote>Brawler mit is where it has always been, we are about 2/3'rds of a plate tank.

Gungo

05-02-2010, 02:10 AM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote>This thread is getting really off-topic. It's come down to a plate tank vs leather tank argument. Brawlers may need more help, I honestly don't think so. Strikethrough Immunity + near equal mitigation + 20% more avoidance is pretty ridiculously good. That's not the point of this thread though, and I'd really like to keep on topic.The only real way to make Crusaders lose the survivability a shield grants is to make 2h weapons viable. As of right now, they're not, and therefore, Crusaders are getting max DPS from 1h/shield. 2h weapons can not be boosted up to the point where they surpass 1h+25%WBD or they'd be INSANELY OP, even moreso for warriors/brawlers, because of the base 20 CB difference between them and Crusaders. Changing this AA to 15% with either 1h or 2h would effectively reduce defensive DPS, while giving Crusaders in general a reason to use a 2h weapon again.Even this will be seen as a nerf, but it's a good start, and not nearly as overboard as some of the ideas to lower Crusaders defensive DPS have been.</blockquote>The solution would be to nerf crusader 1 hander damage in half and keep 2 handed dps where it is currently. 2 handed you already outparse everyone.</blockquote>Again, calling for nerfs is BAD. Asking for a change is viable, simply asking for a nerf is not. So would you STOP already. What you proposed is not a solution.</blockquote>My solution is what you are going to get, but I agree lets not call it a nerf lets call it a rebalance.</blockquote>Honestly if knights stance was changed into 10% auto atk increase to all weapons then it would be alot more balanced then it is now. Currently crusaders have 1 handed 6.0 delay weapons with 25% base auto atk damage increase. This surpasses any available 2 hander. If they change the AA to increase damage to any weapons but cap it at 10% then a crusader with a 2 hander will do equivialant dps to what they do now in defensive w a shield but instead they would have 0 uncontested avoidance. And then if they fight with a sheild and 1 handed weapon they would do 15% less auto atk damage then they currently do on live.Its a decent idea to fix crusaders. That and preventing ALL % based heals from benefiting from potency or crit bonus or ability mod if any benefits from it. With uncapped potency and crit bonus this is going to be completely broken.

BChizzle

05-02-2010, 02:30 AM

<cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote>This thread is getting really off-topic. It's come down to a plate tank vs leather tank argument. Brawlers may need more help, I honestly don't think so. Strikethrough Immunity + near equal mitigation + 20% more avoidance is pretty ridiculously good. That's not the point of this thread though, and I'd really like to keep on topic.The only real way to make Crusaders lose the survivability a shield grants is to make 2h weapons viable. As of right now, they're not, and therefore, Crusaders are getting max DPS from 1h/shield. 2h weapons can not be boosted up to the point where they surpass 1h+25%WBD or they'd be INSANELY OP, even moreso for warriors/brawlers, because of the base 20 CB difference between them and Crusaders. Changing this AA to 15% with either 1h or 2h would effectively reduce defensive DPS, while giving Crusaders in general a reason to use a 2h weapon again.Even this will be seen as a nerf, but it's a good start, and not nearly as overboard as some of the ideas to lower Crusaders defensive DPS have been.</blockquote>The solution would be to nerf crusader 1 hander damage in half and keep 2 handed dps where it is currently. 2 handed you already outparse everyone.</blockquote>Again, calling for nerfs is BAD. Asking for a change is viable, simply asking for a nerf is not. So would you STOP already. What you proposed is not a solution.</blockquote>My solution is what you are going to get, but I agree lets not call it a nerf lets call it a rebalance.</blockquote>Honestly if knights stance was changed into 10% auto atk increase to all weapons then it would be alot more balanced then it is now. Currently crusaders have 1 handed 6.0 delay weapons with 25% base auto atk damage increase. This surpasses any available 2 hander. If they change the AA to increase damage to any weapons but cap it at 10% then a crusader with a 2 hander will do equivialant dps to what they do now in defensive w a shield but instead they would have 0 uncontested avoidance. And then if they fight with a sheild and 1 handed weapon they would do 15% less auto atk damage then they currently do on live.Its a decent idea to fix crusaders. That and preventing ALL % based heals from benefiting from potency or crit bonus or ability mod if any benefits from it. With uncapped potency and crit bonus this is going to be completely broken. </blockquote>Incorrect, crusader auto attack damage really isn't anything special even with the 25% base auto, it is everything else about a crusader that is the problem. On a 50k parse the crusaders auto attack is like maybe 8-9k. The reason why this guys idea is bad is because it will increase a crusaders DPS and they absolutely don't need a dps increase under any circumstances as they already do too much dps. Fact is the other tanks need to be brought up even higher and crusader can stay where they are or nerf crusader down to us.

Bruener

05-02-2010, 01:27 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote>This thread is getting really off-topic. It's come down to a plate tank vs leather tank argument. Brawlers may need more help, I honestly don't think so. Strikethrough Immunity + near equal mitigation + 20% more avoidance is pretty ridiculously good. That's not the point of this thread though, and I'd really like to keep on topic.The only real way to make Crusaders lose the survivability a shield grants is to make 2h weapons viable. As of right now, they're not, and therefore, Crusaders are getting max DPS from 1h/shield. 2h weapons can not be boosted up to the point where they surpass 1h+25%WBD or they'd be INSANELY OP, even moreso for warriors/brawlers, because of the base 20 CB difference between them and Crusaders. Changing this AA to 15% with either 1h or 2h would effectively reduce defensive DPS, while giving Crusaders in general a reason to use a 2h weapon again.Even this will be seen as a nerf, but it's a good start, and not nearly as overboard as some of the ideas to lower Crusaders defensive DPS have been.</blockquote>The solution would be to nerf crusader 1 hander damage in half and keep 2 handed dps where it is currently. 2 handed you already outparse everyone.</blockquote>Again, calling for nerfs is BAD. Asking for a change is viable, simply asking for a nerf is not. So would you STOP already. What you proposed is not a solution.</blockquote>My solution is what you are going to get, but I agree lets not call it a nerf lets call it a rebalance.</blockquote>Honestly if knights stance was changed into 10% auto atk increase to all weapons then it would be alot more balanced then it is now. Currently crusaders have 1 handed 6.0 delay weapons with 25% base auto atk damage increase. This surpasses any available 2 hander. If they change the AA to increase damage to any weapons but cap it at 10% then a crusader with a 2 hander will do equivialant dps to what they do now in defensive w a shield but instead they would have 0 uncontested avoidance. And then if they fight with a sheild and 1 handed weapon they would do 15% less auto atk damage then they currently do on live.Its a decent idea to fix crusaders. That and preventing ALL % based heals from benefiting from potency or crit bonus or ability mod if any benefits from it. With uncapped potency and crit bonus this is going to be completely broken. </blockquote>Incorrect, crusader auto attack damage really isn't anything special even with the 25% base auto, it is everything else about a crusader that is the problem. On a 50k parse the crusaders auto attack is like maybe 8-9k. The reason why this guys idea is bad is because it will increase a crusaders DPS and they absolutely don't need a dps increase under any circumstances as they already do too much dps. Fact is the other tanks need to be brought up even higher and crusader can stay where they are or nerf crusader down to us.</blockquote>Or realistically since it was stated in other threads things need to be left as is....since yes every fighter class can DPS about the same. Bringing Brawlers and Warrior DPS up even more means that Brawlers and Warriors will be putting out a lot more DPS than Crusaders....so again how is that balanced?The way KS is right now yes Crusaders get a boost to 1h+shield, really not that much though since auto attack isn't as much as you think in a Crusaders parse. The other classes get more from DW'ing and from 2h when they use them. The mobs that Crusaders are parsing high on a Warrior and Brawler can tank DW'ing in full offensive as well.....they are the cake mobs.

BChizzle

05-02-2010, 02:34 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote>This thread is getting really off-topic. It's come down to a plate tank vs leather tank argument. Brawlers may need more help, I honestly don't think so. Strikethrough Immunity + near equal mitigation + 20% more avoidance is pretty ridiculously good. That's not the point of this thread though, and I'd really like to keep on topic.The only real way to make Crusaders lose the survivability a shield grants is to make 2h weapons viable. As of right now, they're not, and therefore, Crusaders are getting max DPS from 1h/shield. 2h weapons can not be boosted up to the point where they surpass 1h+25%WBD or they'd be INSANELY OP, even moreso for warriors/brawlers, because of the base 20 CB difference between them and Crusaders. Changing this AA to 15% with either 1h or 2h would effectively reduce defensive DPS, while giving Crusaders in general a reason to use a 2h weapon again.Even this will be seen as a nerf, but it's a good start, and not nearly as overboard as some of the ideas to lower Crusaders defensive DPS have been.</blockquote>The solution would be to nerf crusader 1 hander damage in half and keep 2 handed dps where it is currently. 2 handed you already outparse everyone.</blockquote>Again, calling for nerfs is BAD. Asking for a change is viable, simply asking for a nerf is not. So would you STOP already. What you proposed is not a solution.</blockquote>My solution is what you are going to get, but I agree lets not call it a nerf lets call it a rebalance.</blockquote>Honestly if knights stance was changed into 10% auto atk increase to all weapons then it would be alot more balanced then it is now. Currently crusaders have 1 handed 6.0 delay weapons with 25% base auto atk damage increase. This surpasses any available 2 hander. If they change the AA to increase damage to any weapons but cap it at 10% then a crusader with a 2 hander will do equivialant dps to what they do now in defensive w a shield but instead they would have 0 uncontested avoidance. And then if they fight with a sheild and 1 handed weapon they would do 15% less auto atk damage then they currently do on live.Its a decent idea to fix crusaders. That and preventing ALL % based heals from benefiting from potency or crit bonus or ability mod if any benefits from it. With uncapped potency and crit bonus this is going to be completely broken. </blockquote>Incorrect, crusader auto attack damage really isn't anything special even with the 25% base auto, it is everything else about a crusader that is the problem. On a 50k parse the crusaders auto attack is like maybe 8-9k. The reason why this guys idea is bad is because it will increase a crusaders DPS and they absolutely don't need a dps increase under any circumstances as they already do too much dps. Fact is the other tanks need to be brought up even higher and crusader can stay where they are or nerf crusader down to us.</blockquote>Or realistically since it was stated in other threads things need to be left as is....since yes every fighter class can DPS about the same. Bringing Brawlers and Warrior DPS up even more means that Brawlers and Warriors will be putting out a lot more DPS than Crusaders....so again how is that balanced?The way KS is right now yes Crusaders get a boost to 1h+shield, really not that much though since auto attack isn't as much as you think in a Crusaders parse. The other classes get more from DW'ing and from 2h when they use them. The mobs that Crusaders are parsing high on a Warrior and Brawler can tank DW'ing in full offensive as well.....they are the cake mobs.</blockquote>I call BS, crusaders parse WAY higher on ae targets then guards and monks yet have the same and MORE survivability and also parse the same on single targets that sir is an imbalance. Sorry you can't get that in your skull. Also there are NO raid mobs a brawler should be tanking in offensive please stop making completely rediculous statements you have no backing on do you realize a brawler in offensive has about 6k mit and no uncontested avoidance thats like saying you should let mages tank just because you might be able to power heal through it.

Bruener

05-02-2010, 04:36 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>I call BS, crusaders parse WAY higher on ae targets then guards and monks yet have the same and MORE survivability and also parse the same on single targets that sir is an imbalance. Sorry you can't get that in your skull. Also there are NO raid mobs a brawler should be tanking in offensive please stop making completely rediculous statements you have no backing on do you realize a brawler in offensive has about 6k mit and no uncontested avoidance thats like saying you should let mages tank just because you might be able to power heal through it.</blockquote>Yeah sure. Keep down-playing Brawler ability.

BChizzle

05-02-2010, 04:42 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>I call BS, crusaders parse WAY higher on ae targets then guards and monks yet have the same and MORE survivability and also parse the same on single targets that sir is an imbalance. Sorry you can't get that in your skull. Also there are NO raid mobs a brawler should be tanking in offensive please stop making completely rediculous statements you have no backing on do you realize a brawler in offensive has about 6k mit and no uncontested avoidance thats like saying you should let mages tank just because you might be able to power heal through it.</blockquote>Yeah sure. Keep down-playing Brawler ability.</blockquote>Keep talking about things you have no clue about.

Nulgara

05-02-2010, 05:09 PM

man bruener you really dont have a single clue about how brawlers work do you?let me spell it out for you..Even in a full on DEFENSE spec with 90+avoidance and around 55+ uncontested avoidance.. the SECOND a brawler drops to offensive ALL of the AVOIDANCE is GONE.. and thats pointless anyway cause a brawler in full def spec switching to offensive isnt gaining anything anyway. we literally HAVE to SPEC OFFENSE to do the same dps you do in your raid tanking spec. still with me?guardians get screwed in this as well when they go duel wield cause they lose their shield. ANY CRUSADER can maintain Offense level DPS while holding a shield. wanna knwo why a guard can still tank a raid mob in DW,, MITIGATION, they lose very little mit wise when switching stances.wanna knwo the mitigation difference between my offense spec and my defense spec cause yeah a brawler that raids actually does REQUIRE owning a mirror. full on offense spec im at 51% mit. full on defense spec im at 64% currently. thats a 13% difference.. and dont try and BS me i have an SK and when he switches stances or specs the difference in his mit is less then 1%.heres a plat next time buy a clue form a brawler before you try and make assumptions because you have seen PLATE tanks do something. brawlers function nearly entirely different then the other 4 tanks. how bout you research a little bit before spewing innacurate crap in the forums.

yadlajoi

05-02-2010, 05:31 PM

let s talk about that parse with 10k ext dps auto attack on maalus imbued and think about OP request again.<img src="http://www.eq2flames.com/imagehosting/10454bd908683efad.png" width="1024" height="615" />

Rahatmattata

05-02-2010, 05:34 PM

It's funny Brownie likes to say "guards were OP in RoK and now they want to be OP again" every chance he gets. So, he didn't like when guards were able to use a tower shield and keep their auto-attack boost (dbl attk from sta line with guard myth), but he has np with his shadowknight getting the exact same thing (except instead of dbl attk it's a different "stat" that essentially does the same thing... boosts auto-attack damage).I guess auto-attack increase while using a tower shield is OP for warriors, but perfectly balanced for shadowknights in brownie-muffin's little world.He also seems to enjoy repeatedly referencing a post that doesn't support his point at all in the sk's... thread which is pretty lulzy.

Bruener

05-02-2010, 09:51 PM

<cite>yadlajoi wrote:</cite><blockquote>let s talk about that parse with 10k ext dps auto attack on maalus imbued and think about OP request again.<img src="http://www.eq2flames.com/imagehosting/10454bd908683efad.png" width="1024" height="615" /></blockquote>Obviously you don't know how the fight works. I guess I can give you the gist. A lot of that slashing DPS is from AE auto attacking other raid members. Go take a Zerker in there and really see the auto attack DPS soar.And yes Rat-boy it was extremely OP'd for Guards in RoK. They had way way more survivability than the other fighters AND they had the highest fighter DPS. The buckler line from the start was so OP'd it wasn't even funny...must have been nice to easily cap DA from KoS while most classes couldn't start doing that until TSO....the downside was supposed to be the very slight loss of survivability going to a Buckler but SOE in their infinate wisdom decided to let Guards get around that completely.Crusaders now are in no way a comparison to Guards in RoK....if that was true you would not see Guard MTs at all.But hey, go ahead and nerf that DPS some, just make sure I get the added survivability to make up for it. You know being able to sit there and stoneskin over half of what is thrown at you continuously. I mean if you guys really want it to be equal DPS than lets go ahead and talk about really making it equal survivability. I can already imagine the /whine that would happen because of that.

BChizzle

05-02-2010, 10:02 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Obviously you don't know how the fight works. I guess I can give you the gist. A lot of that slashing DPS is from AE auto attacking other raid members. Go take a Zerker in there and really see the auto attack DPS soar.And yes Rat-boy it was extremely OP'd for Guards in RoK. They had way way more survivability than the other fighters AND they had the highest fighter DPS. The buckler line from the start was so OP'd it wasn't even funny...must have been nice to easily cap DA from KoS while most classes couldn't start doing that until TSO....the downside was supposed to be the very slight loss of survivability going to a Buckler but SOE in their infinate wisdom decided to let Guards get around that completely.Crusaders now are in no way a comparison to Guards in RoK....if that was true you would not see Guard MTs at all.But hey, go ahead and nerf that DPS some, just make sure I get the added survivability to make up for it. You know being able to sit there and stoneskin over half of what is thrown at you continuously. I mean if you guys really want it to be equal DPS than lets go ahead and talk about really making it equal survivability. I can already imagine the /whine that would happen because of that.</blockquote>So you now agree SK dps is out of control, good you are learning.

Bruener

05-02-2010, 10:35 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Obviously you don't know how the fight works. I guess I can give you the gist. A lot of that slashing DPS is from AE auto attacking other raid members. Go take a Zerker in there and really see the auto attack DPS soar.And yes Rat-boy it was extremely OP'd for Guards in RoK. They had way way more survivability than the other fighters AND they had the highest fighter DPS. The buckler line from the start was so OP'd it wasn't even funny...must have been nice to easily cap DA from KoS while most classes couldn't start doing that until TSO....the downside was supposed to be the very slight loss of survivability going to a Buckler but SOE in their infinate wisdom decided to let Guards get around that completely.Crusaders now are in no way a comparison to Guards in RoK....if that was true you would not see Guard MTs at all.But hey, go ahead and nerf that DPS some, just make sure I get the added survivability to make up for it. You know being able to sit there and stoneskin over half of what is thrown at you continuously. I mean if you guys really want it to be equal DPS than lets go ahead and talk about really making it equal survivability. I can already imagine the /whine that would happen because of that.</blockquote>So you now agree SK dps is out of control, good you are learning.</blockquote>BChizzle gets better at putting words in others' mouth (505).Good job. If SK DPS is out of control so is every other fighters....since they can do exactly the same thing on that fight.

BChizzle

05-02-2010, 10:53 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Obviously you don't know how the fight works. I guess I can give you the gist. A lot of that slashing DPS is from AE auto attacking other raid members. Go take a Zerker in there and really see the auto attack DPS soar.And yes Rat-boy it was extremely OP'd for Guards in RoK. They had way way more survivability than the other fighters AND they had the highest fighter DPS. The buckler line from the start was so OP'd it wasn't even funny...must have been nice to easily cap DA from KoS while most classes couldn't start doing that until TSO....the downside was supposed to be the very slight loss of survivability going to a Buckler but SOE in their infinate wisdom decided to let Guards get around that completely.Crusaders now are in no way a comparison to Guards in RoK....if that was true you would not see Guard MTs at all.But hey, go ahead and nerf that DPS some, just make sure I get the added survivability to make up for it. You know being able to sit there and stoneskin over half of what is thrown at you continuously. I mean if you guys really want it to be equal DPS than lets go ahead and talk about really making it equal survivability. I can already imagine the /whine that would happen because of that.</blockquote>So you now agree SK dps is out of control, good you are learning.</blockquote>BChizzle gets better at putting words in others' mouth (505).Good job. If SK DPS is out of control so is every other fighters....since they can do exactly the same thing on that fight.</blockquote>Not a single monk can do that on that fight.

Rahatmattata

05-03-2010, 12:37 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>yadlajoi wrote:</cite><blockquote>let s talk about that parse with 10k ext dps auto attack on maalus imbued and think about OP request again.</blockquote>Obviously you don't know how the fight works. I guess I can give you the gist. A lot of that slashing DPS is from AE auto attacking other raid members. Go take a Zerker in there and really see the auto attack DPS soar.And yes Rat-boy it was extremely OP'd for Guards in RoK. They had way way more survivability than the other fighters AND they had the highest fighter DPS. The buckler line from the start was so OP'd it wasn't even funny...must have been nice to easily cap DA from KoS while most classes couldn't start doing that until TSO....the downside was supposed to be the very slight loss of survivability going to a Buckler but SOE in their infinate wisdom decided to let Guards get around that completely.Crusaders now are in no way a comparison to Guards in RoK....if that was true you would not see Guard MTs at all.But hey, go ahead and nerf that DPS some, just make sure I get the added survivability to make up for it. You know being able to sit there and stoneskin over half of what is thrown at you continuously. I mean if you guys really want it to be equal DPS than lets go ahead and talk about really making it equal survivability. I can already imagine the /whine that would happen because of that.</blockquote>Guards were only pro in RoK because it was the expansion of single target encounters. IMO SOE should nerf survivability (a little) and give you NOTHING in return. I really have np with crusader dps. I have a problem with crusader dps + high survivability. It's like they gave a gimpy warlock plate, a tower shield, 15 seconds of invincibility, and death saves.And you really are a tool if you think guardians stoneskin anywhere near half incoming damage, or that they have the most survivability of all tanks vs anything other than a single target hard hitting PVE mob. Most stone skins come from templars and dirges.

Bruener

05-03-2010, 01:13 PM

<cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>yadlajoi wrote:</cite><blockquote>let s talk about that parse with 10k ext dps auto attack on maalus imbued and think about OP request again.</blockquote>Obviously you don't know how the fight works. I guess I can give you the gist. A lot of that slashing DPS is from AE auto attacking other raid members. Go take a Zerker in there and really see the auto attack DPS soar.And yes Rat-boy it was extremely OP'd for Guards in RoK. They had way way more survivability than the other fighters AND they had the highest fighter DPS. The buckler line from the start was so OP'd it wasn't even funny...must have been nice to easily cap DA from KoS while most classes couldn't start doing that until TSO....the downside was supposed to be the very slight loss of survivability going to a Buckler but SOE in their infinate wisdom decided to let Guards get around that completely.Crusaders now are in no way a comparison to Guards in RoK....if that was true you would not see Guard MTs at all.But hey, go ahead and nerf that DPS some, just make sure I get the added survivability to make up for it. You know being able to sit there and stoneskin over half of what is thrown at you continuously. I mean if you guys really want it to be equal DPS than lets go ahead and talk about really making it equal survivability. I can already imagine the /whine that would happen because of that.</blockquote>Guards were only pro in RoK because it was the expansion of single target encounters. IMO SOE should nerf survivability (a little) and give you NOTHING in return. I really have np with crusader dps. I have a problem with crusader dps + high survivability. It's like they gave a gimpy warlock plate, a tower shield, 15 seconds of invincibility, and death saves.And you really are a tool if you think guardians stoneskin anywhere near half incoming damage, or that they have the most survivability of all tanks vs anything other than a single target hard hitting PVE mob. Most stone skins come from templars and dirges.</blockquote>Oh so you must just mean everything raid.....think about the amount of STs in raids, yeah amazing isn't it? You mention survivability and really all you can talk about is using a shield. SK abilities unlike other fighter abilities are on LONG recasts. Its not like a SK can riposte all MELEE attacks for 15 secounds every minute...instead it is like every 3-4 minutes...oh and that does not cover strike-thru. Hhhhmmm other than that what are we talking about? All you can point at is the uncontested avoidance while using a shield...how much of a value is that? There is a reason that Warriors can easily DW tank mobs....they have abilities that all around lower the incoming damage. Should a Guards stoneskins only work while shields are equipped instead of being able to swap in fast and out? Should Bezerker Adrenaline only work when using a Shield? How about Tsunami only works when in defensive?People have such a skewed vision on how things are right now. I mean there is a reason a Guard can DW all the trash and easy named in this game...and yet because SKs can parse well on those mobs too things are wrong? If they are going to strip things away are they going to shorten my reuse on the few survivability tools I do have so I can use them more often with a 2h? Lets cut Furor recast in half. Also lets lower the recast on Bloodletter than make it castable In-combat too.

BChizzle

05-03-2010, 02:40 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Oh so you must just mean everything raid.....think about the amount of STs in raids, yeah amazing isn't it? You mention survivability and really all you can talk about is using a shield. SK abilities unlike other fighter abilities are on LONG recasts. Its not like a SK can riposte all MELEE attacks for 15 secounds every minute...instead it is like every 3-4 minutes...oh and that does not cover strike-thru. Hhhhmmm other than that what are we talking about? All you can point at is the uncontested avoidance while using a shield...how much of a value is that? There is a reason that Warriors can easily DW tank mobs....they have abilities that all around lower the incoming damage. Should a Guards stoneskins only work while shields are equipped instead of being able to swap in fast and out? Should Bezerker Adrenaline only work when using a Shield? How about Tsunami only works when in defensive?People have such a skewed vision on how things are right now. I mean there is a reason a Guard can DW all the trash and easy named in this game...and yet because SKs can parse well on those mobs too things are wrong? If they are going to strip things away are they going to shorten my reuse on the few survivability tools I do have so I can use them more often with a 2h? Lets cut Furor recast in half. Also lets lower the recast on Bloodletter than make it castable In-combat too.</blockquote>1. Tsunami only works in defensive because being struckthrough on a raid mob as a brawler in offensive results in death.2. A guardian DW going full out offensive can parse near an SK but the SK still parses higher with mountains more survivability. If you think guardian saves > wearing a shield then you are just simply proving the point that you don't know what you are talking about.

Rahatmattata

05-03-2010, 02:43 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Oh so you must just mean everything raid.....think about the amount of STs in raids, yeah amazing isn't it? You mention survivability and really all you can talk about is using a shield. SK abilities unlike other fighter abilities are on LONG recasts. Its not like a SK can riposte all MELEE attacks for 15 secounds every minute...instead it is like every 3-4 minutes...oh and that does not cover strike-thru. Hhhhmmm other than that what are we talking about? All you can point at is the uncontested avoidance while using a shield...how much of a value is that? There is a reason that Warriors can easily DW tank mobs....they have abilities that all around lower the incoming damage. Should a Guards stoneskins only work while shields are equipped instead of being able to swap in fast and out? Should Bezerker Adrenaline only work when using a Shield? How about Tsunami only works when in defensive?People have such a skewed vision on how things are right now. I mean there is a reason a Guard can DW all the trash and easy named in this game...and yet because SKs can parse well on those mobs too things are wrong? If they are going to strip things away are they going to shorten my reuse on the few survivability tools I do have so I can use them more often with a 2h? Lets cut Furor recast in half. Also lets lower the recast on Bloodletter than make it castable In-combat too.</blockquote>You must not have played RoK or you would know almost all the heroic and solo content consist of single target encounters. Only in Runnyeye 2 did this start to change.They could make you wear chain mail, use a buckler, and give you nothing in return, and things would be more balanced. Nerf survivability or dps IMO.

yadlajoi

05-03-2010, 03:30 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>yadlajoi wrote:</cite><blockquote>let s talk about that parse with 10k ext dps auto attack on maalus imbued and think about OP request again.<img src="http://www.eq2flames.com/imagehosting/10454bd908683efad.png" width="1024" height="615" /></blockquote>Obviously you don't know how the fight works. I guess I can give you the gist. A lot of that slashing DPS is from AE auto attacking other raid members. Go take a Zerker in there and really see the auto attack DPS soar.stuff trying to spin around stuff in order to make SK appear as a victim since i live in a world where the extistence of the parse up there is denied.</blockquote>good think maalus imbued is used as the benchmark on flames by the SK parse thread.

Bruener

05-03-2010, 05:46 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Oh so you must just mean everything raid.....think about the amount of STs in raids, yeah amazing isn't it? You mention survivability and really all you can talk about is using a shield. SK abilities unlike other fighter abilities are on LONG recasts. Its not like a SK can riposte all MELEE attacks for 15 secounds every minute...instead it is like every 3-4 minutes...oh and that does not cover strike-thru. Hhhhmmm other than that what are we talking about? All you can point at is the uncontested avoidance while using a shield...how much of a value is that? There is a reason that Warriors can easily DW tank mobs....they have abilities that all around lower the incoming damage. Should a Guards stoneskins only work while shields are equipped instead of being able to swap in fast and out? Should Bezerker Adrenaline only work when using a Shield? How about Tsunami only works when in defensive?People have such a skewed vision on how things are right now. I mean there is a reason a Guard can DW all the trash and easy named in this game...and yet because SKs can parse well on those mobs too things are wrong? If they are going to strip things away are they going to shorten my reuse on the few survivability tools I do have so I can use them more often with a 2h? Lets cut Furor recast in half. Also lets lower the recast on Bloodletter than make it castable In-combat too.</blockquote>1. Tsunami only works in defensive because being struckthrough on a raid mob as a brawler in offensive results in death.2. A guardian DW going full out offensive can parse near an SK but the SK still parses higher with mountains more survivability. If you think guardian saves > wearing a shield then you are just simply proving the point that you don't know what you are talking about.</blockquote>Well what do you know...Furor has the same problem as Tsunami..oh except I can't drop down into defensive to be immune to those strike-thrus.My point is that a Guard can easily DW all this stuff that SKs parse very well on and parse just as high...just like you said. They don't need a shield to do it...they are given abilities to make it do-able with DW right now. Who cares if I can wear a shield on something that other classes can easily survive without a shield?Ok so what we see now in the game of EQ2. Every fighter easily able to perform their role throughout any type of game-play...solo, heroic, raid. We see 3-4 fighters regularly on raids instead of the staple 2 in the past. As a fighter community it was pretty much agreed on that what we would like to see on raids is at least one of each archetype...Warrior, Crusader, Brawler. Wow, imagine that for the most part it is exactly Warrior, Crusader, Brawler with some mobility but the best set ups are rolling that way now. The DPS difference when all tanks are pushing DPS is very small. The flip side of that defensive abilities the more defensive tanks can reach much further into taking less damage.So what exactly are people trying to accomplish? Nerfing a class so that things don't seem to work so well? Jealousy even though their classes have gotten some great benefits this xpac and every fighter is well utilized with nobody sitting on the side-lines? It really makes no sense and hopefully SOE is much more observant to how things really are instead of listening to the same few people in these forums that just can't live with how their class plays.

Rahatmattata

05-03-2010, 06:35 PM

You have to be the most clueless player to post on these forums in the passed year. It's obvious balance is a word you just don't understand the meaning of. I have no idea how many players have tried to explain to you why crusaders are OP, but you just don't get it and never will. Most of your supporting arguments are made up "facts" you fabricate from no basis in reality, and are just completely wrong. You say the same things over and over and over like a broken record even if your argument has been proven wrong time and time again. I've never talked to someone with such a thick skull surrounding a tiny little brain before. You are hopeless and it's no longer funny... it's just sad.Thanks for the new sig btw.

Darkonx

05-03-2010, 07:52 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Oh so you must just mean everything raid.....think about the amount of STs in raids, yeah amazing isn't it? You mention survivability and really all you can talk about is using a shield. SK abilities unlike other fighter abilities are on LONG recasts. Its not like a SK can riposte all MELEE attacks for 15 secounds every minute...instead it is like every 3-4 minutes...oh and that does not cover strike-thru. Hhhhmmm other than that what are we talking about? All you can point at is the uncontested avoidance while using a shield...how much of a value is that? There is a reason that Warriors can easily DW tank mobs....they have abilities that all around lower the incoming damage. Should a Guards stoneskins only work while shields are equipped instead of being able to swap in fast and out? Should Bezerker Adrenaline only work when using a Shield? How about Tsunami only works when in defensive?People have such a skewed vision on how things are right now. I mean there is a reason a Guard can DW all the trash and easy named in this game...and yet because SKs can parse well on those mobs too things are wrong? If they are going to strip things away are they going to shorten my reuse on the few survivability tools I do have so I can use them more often with a 2h? Lets cut Furor recast in half. Also lets lower the recast on Bloodletter than make it castable In-combat too.</blockquote>1. Tsunami only works in defensive because being struckthrough on a raid mob as a brawler in offensive results in death.2. A guardian DW going full out offensive can parse near an SK but the SK still parses higher with mountains more survivability. If you think guardian saves > wearing a shield then you are just simply proving the point that you don't know what you are talking about.</blockquote>Well what do you know...Furor has the same problem as Tsunami..oh except I can't drop down into defensive to be immune to those strike-thrus.My point is that a Guard can easily DW all this stuff that SKs parse very well on and parse just as high...just like you said. They don't need a shield to do it...they are given abilities to make it do-able with DW right now. Who cares if I can wear a shield on something that other classes can easily survive without a shield?Ok so what we see now in the game of EQ2. Every fighter easily able to perform their role throughout any type of game-play...solo, heroic, raid. We see 3-4 fighters regularly on raids instead of the staple 2 in the past. As a fighter community it was pretty much agreed on that what we would like to see on raids is at least one of each archetype...Warrior, Crusader, Brawler. Wow, imagine that for the most part it is exactly Warrior, Crusader, Brawler with some mobility but the best set ups are rolling that way now. The DPS difference when all tanks are pushing DPS is very small. The flip side of that defensive abilities the more defensive tanks can reach much further into taking less damage.So what exactly are people trying to accomplish? Nerfing a class so that things don't seem to work so well? Jealousy even though their classes have gotten some great benefits this xpac and every fighter is well utilized with nobody sitting on the side-lines? It really makes no sense and hopefully SOE is much more observant to how things really are instead of listening to the same few people in these forums that just can't live with how their class plays.</blockquote>See, this post, is something that I agree with completely. I don't see SK's replacing Guardians in top end raid forces, unless there are extenuating circumstances. Sure, SK's CAN tank the tougher hitting mobs, but it's much easier to keep a Guardian alive through them.The change that I suggested about half way through this post, changing KS to 10-15% with both 1h and 2h, would be a tweak that would lower tanking DPS slightly, while enabling Crusaders to use 2h weapons. 15% would be ideal, but even 10% would be fair, IMO.

Gungo

05-03-2010, 08:20 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote>Honestly if knights stance was changed into 10% auto atk increase to all weapons then it would be alot more balanced then it is now. Currently crusaders have 1 handed 6.0 delay weapons with 25% base auto atk damage increase. This surpasses any available 2 hander. If they change the AA to increase damage to any weapons but cap it at 10% then a crusader with a 2 hander will do equivialant dps to what they do now in defensive w a shield but instead they would have 0 uncontested avoidance. And then if they fight with a sheild and 1 handed weapon they would do 15% less auto atk damage then they currently do on live.Its a decent idea to fix crusaders. That and preventing ALL % based heals from benefiting from potency or crit bonus or ability mod if any benefits from it. With uncapped potency and crit bonus this is going to be completely broken. </blockquote>Incorrect, crusader auto attack damage really isn't anything special even with the 25% base auto, it is everything else about a crusader that is the problem. On a 50k parse the crusaders auto attack is like maybe 8-9k. The reason why this guys idea is bad is because it will increase a crusaders DPS and they absolutely don't need a dps increase under any circumstances as they already do too much dps. Fact is the other tanks need to be brought up even higher and crusader can stay where they are or nerf crusader down to us.</blockquote>You are 100% wrong MOST parses even the ones posted here show that auto atk is at least 25-30% of a crusaders parse. Even the maalus imbued parse linked here shows a 10K+ auto atk dps on a 38k+ parse.Making KS a 10% flat bonus would Nerf a crusaders parse while tanking.And then offer them NO increase in dps while offensive SINCE currently 2 handers are LESS DPS for crusaders. Increasing a 8.0 delay 2 hander by 10% would only close the gap that currently crusaders get from thier 6.0 delay 1 handers with 25% base.A 10% base auto atk mod would NERF tankign dps for crusaders with a 1 hander and make a 2 hander equal to the current dps of 1 handers. Thus fixing the problem of crusaders having thier currnet dps potential while tanking and forcing crusaders who want to maximize dps to tank with a 2 hander w/o any uncontested shield avoidance.Make no doubt about it this is still a nerf but it would not neuter the crusader class such as you are advocating.

BChizzle

05-03-2010, 09:25 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Well what do you know...Furor has the same problem as Tsunami..oh except I can't drop down into defensive to be immune to those strike-thrus.</blockquote>Completely ignore part about monks getting 1 shotted through tsunami and compare it to furor where its struck through and you still have 25% more mit to absorb the strikethrough and barely even notice the hit. I mean come on can you reach any further?

BChizzle

05-03-2010, 09:31 PM

<cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote>Honestly if knights stance was changed into 10% auto atk increase to all weapons then it would be alot more balanced then it is now. Currently crusaders have 1 handed 6.0 delay weapons with 25% base auto atk damage increase. This surpasses any available 2 hander. If they change the AA to increase damage to any weapons but cap it at 10% then a crusader with a 2 hander will do equivialant dps to what they do now in defensive w a shield but instead they would have 0 uncontested avoidance. And then if they fight with a sheild and 1 handed weapon they would do 15% less auto atk damage then they currently do on live.Its a decent idea to fix crusaders. That and preventing ALL % based heals from benefiting from potency or crit bonus or ability mod if any benefits from it. With uncapped potency and crit bonus this is going to be completely broken. </blockquote>Incorrect, crusader auto attack damage really isn't anything special even with the 25% base auto, it is everything else about a crusader that is the problem. On a 50k parse the crusaders auto attack is like maybe 8-9k. The reason why this guys idea is bad is because it will increase a crusaders DPS and they absolutely don't need a dps increase under any circumstances as they already do too much dps. Fact is the other tanks need to be brought up even higher and crusader can stay where they are or nerf crusader down to us.</blockquote>You are 100% wrong MOST parses even the ones posted here show that auto atk is at least 25-30% of a crusaders parse. Even the maalus imbued parse linked here shows a 10K+ auto atk dps on a 38k+ parse.Making KS a 10% flat bonus would Nerf a crusaders parse while tanking.And then offer them NO increase in dps while offensive SINCE currently 2 handers are LESS DPS for crusaders. Increasing a 8.0 delay 2 hander by 10% would only close the gap that currently crusaders get from thier 6.0 delay 1 handers with 25% base.A 10% base auto atk mod would NERF tankign dps for crusaders with a 1 hander and make a 2 hander equal to the current dps of 1 handers. Thus fixing the problem of crusaders having thier currnet dps potential while tanking and forcing crusaders who want to maximize dps to tank with a 2 hander w/o any uncontested shield avoidance.Make no doubt about it this is still a nerf but it would not neuter the crusader class such as you are advocating.</blockquote>lol? 25%-30% isn't a high % of auto attack compared to dps it never has been. Why don't you use real numbers lets say he lost 25% off of that 10k he'd end up with 7500 auto attack dps which would be a loss of 2500 dps and would still have his parse over 35k on maluus hardly in any way 'nuetering' a class. Sucks he lost 2500 dps but he's still 10k more then any guard is going to parse on the encounter.

Gungo

05-03-2010, 09:56 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote>Honestly if knights stance was changed into 10% auto atk increase to all weapons then it would be alot more balanced then it is now. Currently crusaders have 1 handed 6.0 delay weapons with 25% base auto atk damage increase. This surpasses any available 2 hander. If they change the AA to increase damage to any weapons but cap it at 10% then a crusader with a 2 hander will do equivialant dps to what they do now in defensive w a shield but instead they would have 0 uncontested avoidance. And then if they fight with a sheild and 1 handed weapon they would do 15% less auto atk damage then they currently do on live.Its a decent idea to fix crusaders. That and preventing ALL % based heals from benefiting from potency or crit bonus or ability mod if any benefits from it. With uncapped potency and crit bonus this is going to be completely broken. </blockquote>Incorrect, crusader auto attack damage really isn't anything special even with the 25% base auto, it is everything else about a crusader that is the problem. On a 50k parse the crusaders auto attack is like maybe 8-9k. The reason why this guys idea is bad is because it will increase a crusaders DPS and they absolutely don't need a dps increase under any circumstances as they already do too much dps. Fact is the other tanks need to be brought up even higher and crusader can stay where they are or nerf crusader down to us.</blockquote>You are 100% wrong MOST parses even the ones posted here show that auto atk is at least 25-30% of a crusaders parse. Even the maalus imbued parse linked here shows a 10K+ auto atk dps on a 38k+ parse.Making KS a 10% flat bonus would Nerf a crusaders parse while tanking.And then offer them NO increase in dps while offensive SINCE currently 2 handers are LESS DPS for crusaders. Increasing a 8.0 delay 2 hander by 10% would only close the gap that currently crusaders get from thier 6.0 delay 1 handers with 25% base.A 10% base auto atk mod would NERF tankign dps for crusaders with a 1 hander and make a 2 hander equal to the current dps of 1 handers. Thus fixing the problem of crusaders having thier currnet dps potential while tanking and forcing crusaders who want to maximize dps to tank with a 2 hander w/o any uncontested shield avoidance.Make no doubt about it this is still a nerf but it would not neuter the crusader class such as you are advocating.</blockquote>lol? 25%-30% isn't a high % of auto attack compared to dps it never has been. Why don't you use real numbers lets say he lost 25% off of that 10k he'd end up with 7500 auto attack dps which would be a loss of 2500 dps and would still have his parse over 35k on maluus hardly in any way 'nuetering' a class. Sucks he lost 2500 dps but he's still 10k more then any guard is going to parse on the encounter.</blockquote>You are presuming the fact crusaders should not have higher dps potential then guards. Which in all honest they should. Guards ARE better defensively.The object here is not to neuter crusaders OR reduce thier Maximum dps potential.The goal of this thread is to seperate the max dps potential from a crusaders max tanking potential w/o reducing a crusaders desirability.This change accomplishes that by theoretically kepping crusaders at the same dps potential but ONLY with a 2hander. All the while NERFING thier dps potential while in defensive w a sheild.In all honesty fighters a fairly balanced right now there really is no need for heavy handed nerfs to ANY fighter.

BChizzle

05-03-2010, 11:04 PM

<cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote>Honestly if knights stance was changed into 10% auto atk increase to all weapons then it would be alot more balanced then it is now. Currently crusaders have 1 handed 6.0 delay weapons with 25% base auto atk damage increase. This surpasses any available 2 hander. If they change the AA to increase damage to any weapons but cap it at 10% then a crusader with a 2 hander will do equivialant dps to what they do now in defensive w a shield but instead they would have 0 uncontested avoidance. And then if they fight with a sheild and 1 handed weapon they would do 15% less auto atk damage then they currently do on live.Its a decent idea to fix crusaders. That and preventing ALL % based heals from benefiting from potency or crit bonus or ability mod if any benefits from it. With uncapped potency and crit bonus this is going to be completely broken. </blockquote>Incorrect, crusader auto attack damage really isn't anything special even with the 25% base auto, it is everything else about a crusader that is the problem. On a 50k parse the crusaders auto attack is like maybe 8-9k. The reason why this guys idea is bad is because it will increase a crusaders DPS and they absolutely don't need a dps increase under any circumstances as they already do too much dps. Fact is the other tanks need to be brought up even higher and crusader can stay where they are or nerf crusader down to us.</blockquote>You are 100% wrong MOST parses even the ones posted here show that auto atk is at least 25-30% of a crusaders parse. Even the maalus imbued parse linked here shows a 10K+ auto atk dps on a 38k+ parse.Making KS a 10% flat bonus would Nerf a crusaders parse while tanking.And then offer them NO increase in dps while offensive SINCE currently 2 handers are LESS DPS for crusaders. Increasing a 8.0 delay 2 hander by 10% would only close the gap that currently crusaders get from thier 6.0 delay 1 handers with 25% base.A 10% base auto atk mod would NERF tankign dps for crusaders with a 1 hander and make a 2 hander equal to the current dps of 1 handers. Thus fixing the problem of crusaders having thier currnet dps potential while tanking and forcing crusaders who want to maximize dps to tank with a 2 hander w/o any uncontested shield avoidance.Make no doubt about it this is still a nerf but it would not neuter the crusader class such as you are advocating.</blockquote>lol? 25%-30% isn't a high % of auto attack compared to dps it never has been. Why don't you use real numbers lets say he lost 25% off of that 10k he'd end up with 7500 auto attack dps which would be a loss of 2500 dps and would still have his parse over 35k on maluus hardly in any way 'nuetering' a class. Sucks he lost 2500 dps but he's still 10k more then any guard is going to parse on the encounter.</blockquote>You are presuming the fact crusaders should not have higher dps potential then guards. Which in all honest they should. Guards ARE better defensively.The object here is not to neuter crusaders OR reduce thier Maximum dps potential.The goal of this thread is to seperate the max dps potential from a crusaders max tanking potential w/o reducing a crusaders desirability.This change accomplishes that by theoretically kepping crusaders at the same dps potential but ONLY with a 2hander. All the while NERFING thier dps potential while in defensive w a sheild.In all honesty fighters a fairly balanced right now there really is no need for heavy handed nerfs to ANY fighter.</blockquote>They should outparse a guard by 10k? By 50%? Their dps is in fact out of control and I agree I have no problems with what they do currently with a 2 hander currently as their max dps post nerf but sword and board they do too much dps while maintaining excellent survivability.

Gungo

05-04-2010, 02:54 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote>Honestly if knights stance was changed into 10% auto atk increase to all weapons then it would be alot more balanced then it is now. Currently crusaders have 1 handed 6.0 delay weapons with 25% base auto atk damage increase. This surpasses any available 2 hander. If they change the AA to increase damage to any weapons but cap it at 10% then a crusader with a 2 hander will do equivialant dps to what they do now in defensive w a shield but instead they would have 0 uncontested avoidance. And then if they fight with a sheild and 1 handed weapon they would do 15% less auto atk damage then they currently do on live.Its a decent idea to fix crusaders. That and preventing ALL % based heals from benefiting from potency or crit bonus or ability mod if any benefits from it. With uncapped potency and crit bonus this is going to be completely broken. </blockquote>Incorrect, crusader auto attack damage really isn't anything special even with the 25% base auto, it is everything else about a crusader that is the problem. On a 50k parse the crusaders auto attack is like maybe 8-9k. The reason why this guys idea is bad is because it will increase a crusaders DPS and they absolutely don't need a dps increase under any circumstances as they already do too much dps. Fact is the other tanks need to be brought up even higher and crusader can stay where they are or nerf crusader down to us.</blockquote>You are 100% wrong MOST parses even the ones posted here show that auto atk is at least 25-30% of a crusaders parse. Even the maalus imbued parse linked here shows a 10K+ auto atk dps on a 38k+ parse.Making KS a 10% flat bonus would Nerf a crusaders parse while tanking.And then offer them NO increase in dps while offensive SINCE currently 2 handers are LESS DPS for crusaders. Increasing a 8.0 delay 2 hander by 10% would only close the gap that currently crusaders get from thier 6.0 delay 1 handers with 25% base.A 10% base auto atk mod would NERF tankign dps for crusaders with a 1 hander and make a 2 hander equal to the current dps of 1 handers. Thus fixing the problem of crusaders having thier currnet dps potential while tanking and forcing crusaders who want to maximize dps to tank with a 2 hander w/o any uncontested shield avoidance.Make no doubt about it this is still a nerf but it would not neuter the crusader class such as you are advocating.</blockquote>lol? 25%-30% isn't a high % of auto attack compared to dps it never has been. Why don't you use real numbers lets say he lost 25% off of that 10k he'd end up with 7500 auto attack dps which would be a loss of 2500 dps and would still have his parse over 35k on maluus hardly in any way 'nuetering' a class. Sucks he lost 2500 dps but he's still 10k more then any guard is going to parse on the encounter.</blockquote>You are presuming the fact crusaders should not have higher dps potential then guards. Which in all honest they should. Guards ARE better defensively.The object here is not to neuter crusaders OR reduce thier Maximum dps potential.The goal of this thread is to seperate the max dps potential from a crusaders max tanking potential w/o reducing a crusaders desirability.This change accomplishes that by theoretically kepping crusaders at the same dps potential but ONLY with a 2hander. All the while NERFING thier dps potential while in defensive w a sheild.In all honesty fighters a fairly balanced right now there really is no need for heavy handed nerfs to ANY fighter.</blockquote>They should outparse a guard by 10k? By 50%? Their dps is in fact out of control and I agree I have no problems with what they do currently with a 2 hander currently as their max dps post nerf but sword and board they do too much dps while maintaining excellent survivability.</blockquote>You need to get a better guard then, because NO crusader out dps ANY guard by 50%. The 20k was your absurd number like everyone of your previous qoutes. The numbers you have been misleading in this thread are completely fabricated such as 50k dps shadowknights w 8-9 k auto atk. Numbers that simply dont exist except for in your own head.Look at any parse posted in flames and you will NEVER see a shadowknight outdpsing a MT guard by 50%. Once again fighters are fairly balance now. The ONLY intent of this thread is to separate a crusaders max dps potential from their defensive potential w/o nerfing the class. Its been fairly obvious from everyone of your posts you want to nerf crusaders dps by some obnoxious amount.

Tanna

05-04-2010, 03:47 PM

Are you guys even comparing people of equivilent gear levels to eachother? I've seen shadowknights, paladins, and guardians from the top guild on my server hit 40-50k dps. Maybe these guards you guys are saying have such suck dps are in improperly setup groups and don't have the proper buffs on them. I've never seen a guard get left in the dust on a single target mob.If we are comparing AoE dps between a guard and a crusader, then you're [Removed for Content] right the guard better be much farther behind. Also do these guards have a dps set and a tank set of gear, cause I know as a paladin that's how I roll, and my dps set has many more procs and dps specific stats on them, and can raise my dps about 2-3k alone. I don't think you can call to nerf anyone without having a guardian, a berserker, a shadowknight, and a paladin in the same exact gear, and have the crusaders doing a ridiculous amount more dps than the warriors.As far as making 2 handers useful, I am all for this, have been waiting for 2 handers to be useful since Claymore. However they better put in a lot more 2 handers and actually make them good before they even think about doing this, or I'm going to be screaming to nerf your DW damage, because the only decent 2 handers in the game right now come from better raid mobs than most people are capable of killing.

Landiin

05-04-2010, 05:10 PM

Unless warriors DW and lose the advantage of having a shield yes warriors can keep up. Once warriors put on a shield like our crusader counter part then NO warriors can not keep up single target or multi target. That is the ENTIRE issue at hand!

Tanna

05-04-2010, 05:59 PM

Guardian According to the original game manual, guardians were not intended to DPS, so I'm not sure what the problem is, you guys fit that original discription pretty [Removed for Content] well.Those who seek up-close combat will find the melee-driven style of the Guardian to be to their liking. The Guardian is the front-line force in a party. Combining the power of armored protection and physical prowess, the Guardian can take large amounts of physical damage from enemies and remain standing. This style of combat requires the Guardian to be in close range with his target at all times. The Guardian’s role allows the less resilient members of his party to perform their roles more effectively. The Guardian can wear all forms of armor and may choose from all forms of weaponry.BerserkerThose who seek to devastate their foes through an expertise in martial weaponry will find the Berserker to be an exciting profession. The Berserker’s skills in melee combat consume the entirety of his role and abilities. The Berserker is the personification of unbridled rage and fury, making him a powerful combatant. The Berserker serves his party on the frontlines of battle where he can best vent his rage upon his enemies in melee combat. The Berserker shows neither mercy nor apprehension in combat. The Berserker can wear all forms of armor and may choose from all forms of weaponry.PaladinThose who desire to fulfill a role of nobility, honor, and virtue will find the Paladin profession to be ideal. The Paladin excels in martial combat and possesses divine magical abilities to enhance their skills in combat. As a true martial combatant, the Paladin is most efficient on the frontlines where they are able to engage the enemy in close combat. By invoking their protective magic, the Paladin may temporarily augment their martial skills, increasing their capabilities for both defense and healing during a fight. The Paladin can wear plate armor and may use most one- and twohanded weapons.Shadowknight Not gonna post brawlers, cause well they're not really part of this discussion, should be though as they can break better dps than all of the above and have better avoidance and can get good mitigation.Just don't think it's fair to start screaming for nerfs cause you found someone of another class that plays better or has better gear than you. There are guards on my server who have better gear and can parse around 20k on a normal basis, where I only parse 12-15k on a normal basis, but i don't complain, usually inspect and drool over their gear.Tanks mitigate damage differently and have different abilities, I guarantee you going DW is about the same as me switching to offensive as far as taking damage and dealing damage.The Shadowknight profession is ideal for those who seek personal power through physical force and live to spread fear, hate, and despair. The Shadowknight is trained in martial skills and has the ability to conjure dark magic to enhance his abilities in combat. This combination of offensive and defensive capabilities makes the Shadowknight a very effective frontline combatant. The Shadowknight can wear plate armor and use most one- and two-handed weapons.

BChizzle

05-04-2010, 06:17 PM

<cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote>Honestly if knights stance was changed into 10% auto atk increase to all weapons then it would be alot more balanced then it is now. Currently crusaders have 1 handed 6.0 delay weapons with 25% base auto atk damage increase. This surpasses any available 2 hander. If they change the AA to increase damage to any weapons but cap it at 10% then a crusader with a 2 hander will do equivialant dps to what they do now in defensive w a shield but instead they would have 0 uncontested avoidance. And then if they fight with a sheild and 1 handed weapon they would do 15% less auto atk damage then they currently do on live.Its a decent idea to fix crusaders. That and preventing ALL % based heals from benefiting from potency or crit bonus or ability mod if any benefits from it. With uncapped potency and crit bonus this is going to be completely broken. </blockquote>Incorrect, crusader auto attack damage really isn't anything special even with the 25% base auto, it is everything else about a crusader that is the problem. On a 50k parse the crusaders auto attack is like maybe 8-9k. The reason why this guys idea is bad is because it will increase a crusaders DPS and they absolutely don't need a dps increase under any circumstances as they already do too much dps. Fact is the other tanks need to be brought up even higher and crusader can stay where they are or nerf crusader down to us.</blockquote>You are 100% wrong MOST parses even the ones posted here show that auto atk is at least 25-30% of a crusaders parse. Even the maalus imbued parse linked here shows a 10K+ auto atk dps on a 38k+ parse.Making KS a 10% flat bonus would Nerf a crusaders parse while tanking.And then offer them NO increase in dps while offensive SINCE currently 2 handers are LESS DPS for crusaders. Increasing a 8.0 delay 2 hander by 10% would only close the gap that currently crusaders get from thier 6.0 delay 1 handers with 25% base.A 10% base auto atk mod would NERF tankign dps for crusaders with a 1 hander and make a 2 hander equal to the current dps of 1 handers. Thus fixing the problem of crusaders having thier currnet dps potential while tanking and forcing crusaders who want to maximize dps to tank with a 2 hander w/o any uncontested shield avoidance.Make no doubt about it this is still a nerf but it would not neuter the crusader class such as you are advocating.</blockquote>lol? 25%-30% isn't a high % of auto attack compared to dps it never has been. Why don't you use real numbers lets say he lost 25% off of that 10k he'd end up with 7500 auto attack dps which would be a loss of 2500 dps and would still have his parse over 35k on maluus hardly in any way 'nuetering' a class. Sucks he lost 2500 dps but he's still 10k more then any guard is going to parse on the encounter.</blockquote>You are presuming the fact crusaders should not have higher dps potential then guards. Which in all honest they should. Guards ARE better defensively.The object here is not to neuter crusaders OR reduce thier Maximum dps potential.The goal of this thread is to seperate the max dps potential from a crusaders max tanking potential w/o reducing a crusaders desirability.This change accomplishes that by theoretically kepping crusaders at the same dps potential but ONLY with a 2hander. All the while NERFING thier dps potential while in defensive w a sheild.In all honesty fighters a fairly balanced right now there really is no need for heavy handed nerfs to ANY fighter.</blockquote>They should outparse a guard by 10k? By 50%? Their dps is in fact out of control and I agree I have no problems with what they do currently with a 2 hander currently as their max dps post nerf but sword and board they do too much dps while maintaining excellent survivability.</blockquote>You need to get a better guard then, because NO crusader out dps ANY guard by 50%. The 20k was your absurd number like everyone of your previous qoutes. The numbers you have been misleading in this thread are completely fabricated such as 50k dps shadowknights w 8-9 k auto atk. Numbers that simply dont exist except for in your own head.Look at any parse posted in flames and you will NEVER see a shadowknight outdpsing a MT guard by 50%. Once again fighters are fairly balance now. The ONLY intent of this thread is to separate a crusaders max dps potential from their defensive potential w/o nerfing the class. Its been fairly obvious from everyone of your posts you want to nerf crusaders dps by some obnoxious amount. </blockquote>OK please find us a guardian maluus fight where they are not out dps'ed by that 38k sk parse by at least 50%. By 50% I am talking about a good guardian parsing 25k'ish on that fight 25k*1.5=37.5k exactly what that SK is doing. Good luck with that though.

Landiin

05-04-2010, 06:57 PM

<cite>Tannayr@Permafrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>Guardian According to the original game manual, guardians were not intended to DPS, so I'm not sure what the problem is, you guys fit that original discription pretty [Removed for Content] well.Those who seek up-close combat will find the melee-driven style of the Guardian to be to their liking. The Guardian is the front-line force in a party. Combining the power of armored protection and physical prowess, the Guardian can take large amounts of physical damage from enemies and remain standing. This style of combat requires the Guardian to be in close range with his target at all times. The Guardian’s role allows the less resilient members of his party to perform their roles more effectively. The Guardian can wear all forms of armor and may choose from all forms of weaponry.BerserkerThose who seek to devastate their foes through an expertise in martial weaponry will find the Berserker to be an exciting profession. The Berserker’s skills in melee combat consume the entirety of his role and abilities. The Berserker is the personification of unbridled rage and fury, making him a powerful combatant. The Berserker serves his party on the frontlines of battle where he can best vent his rage upon his enemies in melee combat. The Berserker shows neither mercy nor apprehension in combat. The Berserker can wear all forms of armor and may choose from all forms of weaponry.PaladinThose who desire to fulfill a role of nobility, honor, and virtue will find the Paladin profession to be ideal. The Paladin excels in martial combat and possesses divine magical abilities to enhance their skills in combat. As a true martial combatant, the Paladin is most efficient on the frontlines where they are able to engage the enemy in close combat. By invoking their protective magic, the Paladin may temporarily augment their martial skills, increasing their capabilities for both defense and healing during a fight. The Paladin can wear plate armor and may use most one- and twohanded weapons.Shadowknight Not gonna post brawlers, cause well they're not really part of this discussion, should be though as they can break better dps than all of the above and have better avoidance and can get good mitigation.Just don't think it's fair to start screaming for nerfs cause you found someone of another class that plays better or has better gear than you. There are guards on my server who have better gear and can parse around 20k on a normal basis, where I only parse 12-15k on a normal basis, but i don't complain, usually inspect and drool over their gear.Tanks mitigate damage differently and have different abilities, I guarantee you going DW is about the same as me switching to offensive as far as taking damage and dealing damage.The Shadowknight profession is ideal for those who seek personal power through physical force and live to spread fear, hate, and despair. The Shadowknight is trained in martial skills and has the ability to conjure dark magic to enhance his abilities in combat. This combination of offensive and defensive capabilities makes the Shadowknight a very effective frontline combatant. The Shadowknight can wear plate armor and use most one- and two-handed weapons.</blockquote>Get better at copy and paste, thx

RafaelSmith

05-04-2010, 07:25 PM

steelbadger

05-04-2010, 07:31 PM

<cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>While there are many things in the class descriptions for all 24 classes that no longer have merit in the game today....the part in red is not accurate and where I think things have gone wrong with regards to Guard. All other classes....be them DPS, Util or Healer have to work much harder and be more careful when partied with a Guard -vs- a Crusader. I know when I am playing my Assassin I am my least "effective" when grouped with a Guard than with just about any other tank class....especially SKs. Not sure what is meant by "less resilient" but I assume its reference to the "squishies"....I dont think I know a single squishy that is more effective with a Guard as their MT. There is not a single heroic instance group out there...no matter the class makeup that feels "safer" grouped with a Guardian than with a SK.</blockquote>If we're honest I think it's a reference to Sentry Watch, Sentinel and maybe Guardian Sphere. Not that they're particularly noticed as a great help, though Sentry Watch can still make a difference.

Netty

05-04-2010, 08:56 PM

Is everyone forgetting why the guard myth got nerfed to crap here? How long did we have it befor it got nerfed in a rain of crying. This is about the same thing. Being able to stay defensiv and still max out dps. Its only fair to trade it to 2handers as the OP said imo. Sure crusaders will gain dps that way but who cares? Boost guardian singel target hate by adding more taunt AB.s or something...You can cry all you want about warriors having more CB when the fact still stands that a crusader still out parse a DWing.

Rahatmattata

05-05-2010, 01:00 AM

Rocc

05-05-2010, 01:04 AM

You think this is bad? Wait till you see the new autoattack changes with BG proc gear and adornments that do damage. Tanks are dpsing right next to assassins and warlocks on test. Wait, you've never heard of a nerf fest like your about to see.

Rahatmattata

05-05-2010, 01:16 AM

I know a lot of people hate when PvP effects PvE, but PvP really does bring out glaring imbalances and forces the devs to respond.

Landiin

05-05-2010, 11:20 AM

<cite>Rocc@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>You think this is bad? Wait till you see the new autoattack changes with BG proc gear and adornments that do damage. Tanks are dpsing right next to assassins and warlocks on test. Wait, you've never heard of a nerf fest like your about to see.</blockquote>I know right. I like many of the devs we have now don't get me wrong, but sometimes I don't think they think things through from all angles before they code stuff.

Darkonx

05-05-2010, 06:15 PM

<cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote>Is everyone forgetting why the guard myth got nerfed to crap here? How long did we have it befor it got nerfed in a rain of crying. This is about the same thing. Being able to stay defensiv and still max out dps. Its only fair to trade it to 2handers as the OP said imo. Sure crusaders will gain dps that way but who cares? Boost guardian singel target hate by adding more taunt AB.s or something...You can cry all you want about warriors having more CB when the fact still stands that a crusader still out parse a DWing.</blockquote>The CB is negated by Knight's Stance when using 1h weapons. IMO the change to KS would allow greater balance in the future, but if it's left unchanged, 2h's will never be viable for a Crusader. Change it to 10-15% with 1h and 2h.

Netty

05-05-2010, 07:09 PM

<cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote>Is everyone forgetting why the guard myth got nerfed to crap here? How long did we have it befor it got nerfed in a rain of crying. This is about the same thing. Being able to stay defensiv and still max out dps. Its only fair to trade it to 2handers as the OP said imo. Sure crusaders will gain dps that way but who cares? Boost guardian singel target hate by adding more taunt AB.s or something...You can cry all you want about warriors having more CB when the fact still stands that a crusader still out parse a DWing.</blockquote>The CB is negated by Knight's Stance when using 1h weapons. IMO the change to KS would allow greater balance in the future, but if it's left unchanged, 2h's will never be viable for a Crusader. Change it to 10-15% with 1h and 2h.</blockquote>As i said dont bring in the crit bonus with this. both crusaders have more UT. + ALOT better hit rates. Not to talk about the joy of dubbel bard. The only way i would agree on letting it stick as one handed weapon aswell was if the shield was changed to buckler. Imo the 2hand change would be fair. But keeping it as it is... is only a spit in the face to all guards that dident get to keep the myth effect.

Gungo

05-05-2010, 07:22 PM

<cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote>Is everyone forgetting why the guard myth got nerfed to crap here? How long did we have it befor it got nerfed in a rain of crying. This is about the same thing. Being able to stay defensiv and still max out dps. Its only fair to trade it to 2handers as the OP said imo. Sure crusaders will gain dps that way but who cares? Boost guardian singel target hate by adding more taunt AB.s or something...You can cry all you want about warriors having more CB when the fact still stands that a crusader still out parse a DWing.</blockquote>The CB is negated by Knight's Stance when using 1h weapons. IMO the change to KS would allow greater balance in the future, but if it's left unchanged, 2h's will never be viable for a Crusader. Change it to 10-15% with 1h and 2h.</blockquote>As i said dont bring in the crit bonus with this. both crusaders have more UT. + ALOT better hit rates. Not to talk about the joy of dubbel bard. The only way i would agree on letting it stick as one handed weapon aswell was if the shield was changed to buckler. Imo the 2hand change would be fair. But keeping it as it is... is only a spit in the face to all guards that dident get to keep the myth effect.</blockquote>Less sour grapes about the past.The fact is tanks are more balanced now then they have ever been. All 3 archtypes and every fighter class is now useful and usable in raids. (although only 3, 1 of each archtype is ideal) In the past 5 years playing this game i have never seen a single expansion where all 6 tanks were viable.Now that is not to say that things cant be tweaked. I along with alot of players feel shadowknights still do to much dps while tanking. This is not a call to nerf any fighter.The change to allow knights stance to reduce autoatk dps from a 25% bonus to 10% bonus but work on any weapons would in effect LOWER a crusaders dps while tanking and keep a crusaders dps the same while using a 2 hander.

Bruener

05-05-2010, 07:22 PM

<cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote>Is everyone forgetting why the guard myth got nerfed to crap here? How long did we have it befor it got nerfed in a rain of crying. This is about the same thing. Being able to stay defensiv and still max out dps. Its only fair to trade it to 2handers as the OP said imo. Sure crusaders will gain dps that way but who cares? Boost guardian singel target hate by adding more taunt AB.s or something...You can cry all you want about warriors having more CB when the fact still stands that a crusader still out parse a DWing.</blockquote>The CB is negated by Knight's Stance when using 1h weapons. IMO the change to KS would allow greater balance in the future, but if it's left unchanged, 2h's will never be viable for a Crusader. Change it to 10-15% with 1h and 2h.</blockquote>As i said dont bring in the crit bonus with this. both crusaders have more UT. + ALOT better hit rates. Not to talk about the joy of dubbel bard. The only way i would agree on letting it stick as one handed weapon aswell was if the shield was changed to buckler. Imo the 2hand change would be fair. But keeping it as it is... is only a spit in the face to all guards that dident get to keep the myth effect.</blockquote>Except everybody knows the myth effect for Guards was insanely OP'd at the time. I think as a SK I maybe had like 20% DA.....maybe. And this was how it was with classes....except for Warriors who could still easily hit cap for DA. Zerkers had to use a Buckler to do it but Guards got the luxury of using a tower shield....not to mention the large amount of additional uncontested avoidance they got from the line. HHhhmmm 25% to auto attack or basically a 100% increase to auto attack damage....doesn't even seem close to the same to me.

Netty

05-05-2010, 07:43 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote>Is everyone forgetting why the guard myth got nerfed to crap here? How long did we have it befor it got nerfed in a rain of crying. This is about the same thing. Being able to stay defensiv and still max out dps. Its only fair to trade it to 2handers as the OP said imo. Sure crusaders will gain dps that way but who cares? Boost guardian singel target hate by adding more taunt AB.s or something...You can cry all you want about warriors having more CB when the fact still stands that a crusader still out parse a DWing.</blockquote>The CB is negated by Knight's Stance when using 1h weapons. IMO the change to KS would allow greater balance in the future, but if it's left unchanged, 2h's will never be viable for a Crusader. Change it to 10-15% with 1h and 2h.</blockquote>As i said dont bring in the crit bonus with this. both crusaders have more UT. + ALOT better hit rates. Not to talk about the joy of dubbel bard. The only way i would agree on letting it stick as one handed weapon aswell was if the shield was changed to buckler. Imo the 2hand change would be fair. But keeping it as it is... is only a spit in the face to all guards that dident get to keep the myth effect.</blockquote>Except everybody knows the myth effect for Guards was insanely OP'd at the time. I think as a SK I maybe had like 20% DA.....maybe. And this was how it was with classes....except for Warriors who could still easily hit cap for DA. Zerkers had to use a Buckler to do it but Guards got the luxury of using a tower shield....not to mention the large amount of additional uncontested avoidance they got from the line. HHhhmmm 25% to auto attack or basically a 100% increase to auto attack damage....doesn't even seem close to the same to me.</blockquote>100% ? where do you get those numbers from? the Sta line was at 80% DA around the kos time but got nerfed around eof if i remeber right to be 60% DA. I have never said the guard myth wasent OP befor. It was. But saying that the knight stance isent OP is a strait up lie.It is the same thing... crusaders get to max out dps and still keep a shield like guards could max dps and still stay defensiv. The nerf to the guard myth was something that couldent be avoided and shouldent have been. Its the same thing with this. And making this buff be used on 2handers would be a great fix that would boost crusader dps some but you would lose def for it like any of the other plate tank have to atm... balanced? aye i would say so.

Rahatmattata

05-05-2010, 07:55 PM

<cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Except everybody knows the myth effect for Guards was insanely OP'd at the time. I think as a SK I maybe had like 20% DA.....maybe. And this was how it was with classes....except for Warriors who could still easily hit cap for DA. Zerkers had to use a Buckler to do it but Guards got the luxury of using a tower shield....not to mention the large amount of additional uncontested avoidance they got from the line. HHhhmmm 25% to auto attack or basically a 100% increase to auto attack damage....doesn't even seem close to the same to me.</blockquote>100% ? where do you get those numbers from? the Sta line was at 80% DA around the kos time but got nerfed around eof if i remeber right to be 60% DA. I have never said the guard myth wasent OP befor. It was. But saying that the knight stance isent OP is a strait up lie.It is the same thing... crusaders get to max out dps and still keep a shield like guards could max dps and still stay defensiv. The nerf to the guard myth was something that couldent be avoided and shouldent have been. Its the same thing with this. And making this buff be used on 2handers would be a great fix that would boost crusader dps some but you would lose def for it like any of the other plate tank have to atm... balanced? aye i would say so.</blockquote>Once again Brownie fails to see the whole picture. 25% base auto attack damage is weaker than 60% double attack yes. But it is possible for any fighter to get 100% DA and crit. So warriors can DA and crit every time they swing. Brawlers can DA and crit every time they swing. Crusaders can DA and crit and get 25% base auto attack damage every time they swing while holding a tower shield. And paladins have [Removed for Content] near the same survivability as guardians in a raid IMO.Long story short, Brownie waffle <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/c30b4198e0907b23b8246bdd52aa1c3c.gif" border="0" /> about guardians having 60% double attack with a tower shield (which any decently buffed/geared tank can get, including crusaders), but defends having an additional 25% auto attack damage with a tower shield (which only crusaders can get), which gives him more bang for his buck every time he crits and double attacks. Thus, he is a tool.

Bruener

05-05-2010, 09:06 PM

<cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Except everybody knows the myth effect for Guards was insanely OP'd at the time. I think as a SK I maybe had like 20% DA.....maybe. And this was how it was with classes....except for Warriors who could still easily hit cap for DA. Zerkers had to use a Buckler to do it but Guards got the luxury of using a tower shield....not to mention the large amount of additional uncontested avoidance they got from the line. HHhhmmm 25% to auto attack or basically a 100% increase to auto attack damage....doesn't even seem close to the same to me.</blockquote>100% ? where do you get those numbers from? the Sta line was at 80% DA around the kos time but got nerfed around eof if i remeber right to be 60% DA. I have never said the guard myth wasent OP befor. It was. But saying that the knight stance isent OP is a strait up lie.It is the same thing... crusaders get to max out dps and still keep a shield like guards could max dps and still stay defensiv. The nerf to the guard myth was something that couldent be avoided and shouldent have been. Its the same thing with this. And making this buff be used on 2handers would be a great fix that would boost crusader dps some but you would lose def for it like any of the other plate tank have to atm... balanced? aye i would say so.</blockquote>Once again Brownie fails to see the whole picture. 25% base auto attack damage is weaker than 60% double attack yes. But it is possible for any fighter to get 100% DA and crit. So warriors can DA and crit every time they swing. Brawlers can DA and crit every time they swing. Crusaders can DA and crit and get 25% base auto attack damage every time they swing while holding a tower shield. And paladins have [Removed for Content] near the same survivability as guardians in a raid IMO.Long story short, Brownie waffle <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/c30b4198e0907b23b8246bdd52aa1c3c.gif" border="0" /> about guardians having 60% double attack with a tower shield (which any decently buffed/geared tank can get, including crusaders), but defends having an additional 25% auto attack damage with a tower shield (which only crusaders can get), which gives him more bang for his buck every time he crits and double attacks. Thus, he is a tool.</blockquote>And once again Rat-boy completely takes what is said out of context. The 100% derives from the fact that Guards could easily cap DA. Hitting twice with the same weapon is in fact a 100% increase to auto attack DPS. Not to mention the extra what 8% uncontested avoidance that came form the same line? We are also talking about a time when other classes had extremely low access to DA. It was obvious why the myth nerf happened. Now it wouldn't matter as much since DA is much easier to cap. The Guard nerfs to DA literally just lowered DA the amount it would need to be to still hit cap every xpac...its not like it really mattered after the fact as usual.So yeah.....the tank that got to have 100% more auto attack DPS along with 8% more uncontested avoidance not to mention having way more oh crap abilities and snap abilities was grossly OP'd and every other tank knew it. There was a reason everybody want a Guard to tank...oh and for that matter to OT too.I guess when we see all guilds using SKs as MT and at the same time only using SKs as OTs we can talk about them being OP'd like Guards were.

BChizzle

05-05-2010, 11:42 PM

<cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote>Is everyone forgetting why the guard myth got nerfed to crap here? How long did we have it befor it got nerfed in a rain of crying. This is about the same thing. Being able to stay defensiv and still max out dps. Its only fair to trade it to 2handers as the OP said imo. Sure crusaders will gain dps that way but who cares? Boost guardian singel target hate by adding more taunt AB.s or something...You can cry all you want about warriors having more CB when the fact still stands that a crusader still out parse a DWing.</blockquote>The CB is negated by Knight's Stance when using 1h weapons. IMO the change to KS would allow greater balance in the future, but if it's left unchanged, 2h's will never be viable for a Crusader. Change it to 10-15% with 1h and 2h.</blockquote>As i said dont bring in the crit bonus with this. both crusaders have more UT. + ALOT better hit rates. Not to talk about the joy of dubbel bard. The only way i would agree on letting it stick as one handed weapon aswell was if the shield was changed to buckler. Imo the 2hand change would be fair. But keeping it as it is... is only a spit in the face to all guards that dident get to keep the myth effect.</blockquote>Less sour grapes about the past.The fact is tanks are more balanced now then they have ever been. All 3 archtypes and every fighter class is now useful and usable in raids. (although only 3, 1 of each archtype is ideal) In the past 5 years playing this game i have never seen a single expansion where all 6 tanks were viable.Now that is not to say that things cant be tweaked. I along with alot of players feel shadowknights still do to much dps while tanking. This is not a call to nerf any fighter.The change to allow knights stance to reduce autoatk dps from a 25% bonus to 10% bonus but work on any weapons would in effect LOWER a crusaders dps while tanking and keep a crusaders dps the same while using a 2 hander.</blockquote>Aww you came back to the thread. Still waiting on your guard that parses more then 25k on Maluus explaination, how much time do you need to work on it, next expansion maybe?

Rahatmattata

05-06-2010, 12:33 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>And once again Rat-boy completely takes what is said out of context.</blockquote>I guess if looking at the whole picture is taking things out of context... then guilty. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" /> Let me break it down for you Muffins.In RoK DA was a new stat on gear and hard for crusaders and brawlers to cap. Warriors naturally had high DA, and a small fraction of guards that had killed all raid content up to Phara'Dar were able to have that DA with a tower shield. The guards and zerkers tanking Overking, Venril, etc. with a buckler had much lower uncontested avoid, which sorta balanced it out. Personally, I had to use a tower shield quite often while progressing though RoK raids and didn't even have all that DA.Anyway.. mythed guards had access to a stat (or an amount of a stat in this case) that no other tanks could get while using a tower shield.Fast forward to TSO and crusaders had access to a stat that no other tanks could get while using a tower shield. See the similarity? No? ...oh well f* it.

Gungo

05-06-2010, 01:20 AM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Aww you came back to the thread. Still waiting on your guard that parses more then 25k on Maluus explaination, how much time do you need to work on it, next expansion maybe?</blockquote>Sorry fatass I was busy, I dont happen to have a malus imbue parse nor does the guardian boards have any listed but I do happen to have a tuluun fight of 45k+. And since you claim shadowknights can parse 50% more then guardians i am sure you can post a 68k+ parse for us, right? Take your time.<img src="http://www.djdig.com/EQ2/Tuluun_6.jpg" />

BChizzle

05-06-2010, 01:24 AM

<cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Aww you came back to the thread. Still waiting on your guard that parses more then 25k on Maluus explaination, how much time do you need to work on it, next expansion maybe?</blockquote>Sorry fatass I was busy, I dont happen to have a malus imbue parse but I do happen to have a tuluun fight of 45k+. And since you claim shadowknights can parse 50% more then guardians i am sure you can post a 68k+ parse for us, right? Take your time.<img src="http://www.djdig.com/EQ2/Tuluun_6.jpg" /></blockquote>Funny part is I have already posted 70k fights from an SK, keep on trying maybe you will get lucky and be right for once, I doubt it though.

Gungo

05-06-2010, 01:36 AM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Aww you came back to the thread. Still waiting on your guard that parses more then 25k on Maluus explaination, how much time do you need to work on it, next expansion maybe?</blockquote>Sorry fatass I was busy, I dont happen to have a malus imbue parse but I do happen to have a tuluun fight of 45k+. And since you claim shadowknights can parse 50% more then guardians i am sure you can post a 68k+ parse for us, right? Take your time.Funny part is I have already posted 70k fights from an SK, keep on trying maybe you will get lucky and be right for once, I doubt it though.</blockquote></blockquote>Considering people have said you are wrong nearly everytime we posted. Good luck with that. You wanted specific fights then post up a 68k tuluun fight. What is that? Nothing? I thought so. Maybe one of these days fatty someone will respect you for more then the joke you are.

BChizzle

05-06-2010, 02:19 AM

<cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Aww you came back to the thread. Still waiting on your guard that parses more then 25k on Maluus explaination, how much time do you need to work on it, next expansion maybe?</blockquote>Sorry fatass I was busy, I dont happen to have a malus imbue parse but I do happen to have a tuluun fight of 45k+. And since you claim shadowknights can parse 50% more then guardians i am sure you can post a 68k+ parse for us, right? Take your time.Funny part is I have already posted 70k fights from an SK, keep on trying maybe you will get lucky and be right for once, I doubt it though.</blockquote></blockquote>Considering people have said you are wrong nearly everytime we posted. Good luck with that. You wanted specific fights then post up a 68k tuluun fight. What is that? Nothing? I thought so. Maybe one of these days fatty someone will respect you for more then the joke you are. </blockquote>It is funny when you revert to name calling every time you are wrong. It is also funny you said my guilds guard must suck then posted a parse from my guilds guard. Again, I am still waiting on your Maluus guard parse of 25k+ I doubt we will ever see one from you since it is just you making stuff up as usual but maybe you will do something for once beside spout garbage. You can bring up the top parse on any raid encounter and I'll have a SK parse that will beat it by 50% unless you have a 60k+ parse from a guard to deal with the 90k sitting right here in my ACT. SK's are pulling 90k in raids the top parse from what is probably the top parsing guard I have seen was 49k.

Darkonx

05-06-2010, 03:59 AM

<cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote>Is everyone forgetting why the guard myth got nerfed to crap here? How long did we have it befor it got nerfed in a rain of crying. This is about the same thing. Being able to stay defensiv and still max out dps. Its only fair to trade it to 2handers as the OP said imo. Sure crusaders will gain dps that way but who cares? Boost guardian singel target hate by adding more taunt AB.s or something...You can cry all you want about warriors having more CB when the fact still stands that a crusader still out parse a DWing.</blockquote>The CB is negated by Knight's Stance when using 1h weapons. IMO the change to KS would allow greater balance in the future, but if it's left unchanged, 2h's will never be viable for a Crusader. Change it to 10-15% with 1h and 2h.</blockquote>As i said dont bring in the crit bonus with this. both crusaders have more UT. + ALOT better hit rates. Not to talk about the joy of dubbel bard. The only way i would agree on letting it stick as one handed weapon aswell was if the shield was changed to buckler. Imo the 2hand change would be fair. But keeping it as it is... is only a spit in the face to all guards that dident get to keep the myth effect.</blockquote>You can't ignore base mechanics. Hit rates are basically the same, warriors get a HUGE (75%) strikethrough buff temp now, which is ridiculous for aggro on inc. Hit rates are way high this expansion, for whatever reason. What we should NOT bring into this is group setups, a double bard (dubbel?) group is nice, but by no means should be used as any basis for comparison. Changing it to 2h weapons, and making them the realm of Crusaders would be the way to go, and allowing it to remain affecting 1h weapons enough so that the CB differences are negated would be fair imo.

arksun

05-06-2010, 09:26 AM

The best I have ever done on malus imbued is about 18 - 20k .... so a 38k parse from an SK trumps that I would say by 50%.If I did 45k on tuluun, the sk did at least that if not more wearing a SHIELD. Put all the BS in this thread to rest, a crusader should not be able to create that much dps while wearing a shield to do it. There has to be a negative effect for dps vs. survivability.If I have to wear offensive gear, DW, and cut my survivability to match and SK who doesn't then whats the point of playing a Guardian again? Because there AoE agro translates into Single target. This thread and all the other ones are a joke, the main point just keeps getting skated around and more SK's with their SK buddies come into each thread and say "ZOMG I don't see any of this" One big huge smoke screen, but like I said however many post ago... if stuff gets changed and you out right hate it, but are going to stick to your guns.... you will be the only ones to blame.SK wearing a shield and one hander vs warrior DW'ing wearing offensive gear = balance... but don't mind me keep talking trash about whiny guards, nothings wrong, remember RoK, that was TsO, etc.... let the excuses flow. No one here is going to convince me at the bare minimum minus any other ability a crusader and a warrior have that wearing a shield and sword vs someone dwing wearing offensive gear is balance.Do we really need to make screenshots to prove what avoidance/mit is losed from a warrior that has to DW/off gear vs a SK with sword and board?

arksun

05-06-2010, 09:29 AM

double post.

Raahl

05-06-2010, 10:09 AM

For Gungo. Here's a 70k SK parse. Heck it's even missing the Victorious Concerto (sp) Dirge buff<img src="http://i644.photobucket.com/albums/uu163/Jabbamagnus/SKParse.png" width="1023" height="614" />

Tanna

05-06-2010, 10:54 AM

<cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote>For Gungo. Here's a 70k SK parse. Heck it's even missing the Victorious Concerto (sp) Dirge buff<img src="http://i644.photobucket.com/albums/uu163/Jabbamagnus/SKParse.png" width="1023" height="614" /></blockquote>That isn't really a good parse for comparison, as slashing was only 10% of the dps, and came from that raid force killing her in 1 minute. If you compare that to the guard parse, then it just looks like the crusader needs an auto attack boost.

AziBam

05-06-2010, 11:04 AM

In fairness, Gungo was asking for a Tuluun comparison. Not Sara. That aside, HOLY SH** SPELL REFLECT! 44K!

Raahl

05-06-2010, 11:07 AM

<cite>Tannayr@Permafrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>That isn't really a good parse for comparison, as slashing was only 10% of the dps, and came from that raid force killing her in 1 minute. If you compare that to the guard parse, then it just looks like the crusader needs an auto attack boost.</blockquote>Gungo's example was 1 minute also, unless I'm reading it wrong.Plus I see no way that a 70K parse would ever mean a boost to anything related to DPS for a tank.

Raahl

05-06-2010, 11:14 AM

<cite>Azian@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>In fairness, Gungo was asking for a Tuluun comparison. Not Sara. That aside, HOLY SH** SPELL REFLECT! 44K!</blockquote>Yes that was one hell of a spell reflect.Gungo picked the biggest parse he could find for a guardian that's dual wielding to gain DPS. His purpose was to try and make it look like the DPS imbalance was not so bad.The parse above was done with Sword and board, maximum DPS/Maximum Defense. The Guardian's sacraficed defense for DPS.

Raahl

05-06-2010, 11:27 AM

In order to truely set this up we need two level 90 characters with near identical gear, identical group setup and Expert/Master skills.. Battle the same mob multiple times to get a good average for DPS and damage taken by the tank.Untill there are two players that are willing to honestly do this, we will only be throwing parses at each other.My point of posting the SK Parse was to show I could find the largest parse also.

Gungo

05-06-2010, 11:44 AM

<cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Azian@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>In fairness, Gungo was asking for a Tuluun comparison. Not Sara. That aside, HOLY SH** SPELL REFLECT! 44K!</blockquote>Yes that was one hell of a spell reflect.Gungo picked the biggest parse he could find for a guardian that's dual wielding to gain DPS. His purpose was to try and make it look like the DPS imbalance was not so bad.The parse above was done with Sword and board, maximum DPS/Maximum Defense. The Guardian's sacraficed defense for DPS.</blockquote>Actually I only picked the last most recent parse posted in the guard forums. I could of taken a parse from 2 months ago but that wouldnt have been very accurate now would it. And I have YET to see that 68k+ tuluun parse. Lots of blah, blah blah, but still no parse.

Gungo

05-06-2010, 11:46 AM

Gungo

05-06-2010, 11:51 AM

<cite>Digg@Permafrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>The best I have ever done on malus imbued is about 18 - 20k .... so a 38k parse from an SK trumps that I would say by 50%.If I did 45k on tuluun, the sk did at least that if not more wearing a SHIELD. Put all the BS in this thread to rest, a crusader should not be able to create that much dps while wearing a shield to do it. There has to be a negative effect for dps vs. survivability.If I have to wear offensive gear, DW, and cut my survivability to match and SK who doesn't then whats the point of playing a Guardian again? Because there AoE agro translates into Single target. This thread and all the other ones are a joke, the main point just keeps getting skated around and more SK's with their SK buddies come into each thread and say "ZOMG I don't see any of this" One big huge smoke screen, but like I said however many post ago... if stuff gets changed and you out right hate it, but are going to stick to your guns.... you will be the only ones to blame.SK wearing a shield and one hander vs warrior DW'ing wearing offensive gear = balance... but don't mind me keep talking trash about whiny guards, nothings wrong, remember RoK, that was TsO, etc.... let the excuses flow. No one here is going to convince me at the bare minimum minus any other ability a crusader and a warrior have that wearing a shield and sword vs someone dwing wearing offensive gear is balance.Do we really need to make screenshots to prove what avoidance/mit is losed from a warrior that has to DW/off gear vs a SK with sword and board?</blockquote>The entire point of this thread is separating a crusaders dps potential from his max tanking potential. The suggestion is to set KS to 10% across the board so that a shadowknight would loose 15% AA damage while tanking and gain 10% 2handed damage so that his dps with a 2 hander would equal the dps he has now in defensive w shield.

Raahl

05-06-2010, 11:52 AM

18% of the Guardian's parse was from a defiler buff, Deadly Bane Warding.7% of the Guardian's parse was from a Dirge buff, Victorious Concerto.That's 25% of the Guardian's entire parse.The biggest DPS item in the SK parse that was non-SK was Peace of Mind (Coercer) at 2%.

Gungo

05-06-2010, 11:55 AM

Raahl

05-06-2010, 12:01 PM

Raahl

05-06-2010, 12:05 PM

<cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote>18% of the Guardian's parse was from a defiler buff, Deadly Bane Warding.7% of the Guardian's parse was from a Dirge buff, Victorious Concerto.That's 25% of the Guardian's entire parse.The biggest DPS item in the SK parse that was non-SK was Peace of Mind (Coercer) at 2%.</blockquote>except 60%+ of the sk parse was from spell reflects</blockquote>Which correct me if I'm wrong were because of a SK ability? Are you suggesting they nerf the SK's spell reflect ability?

Bruener

05-06-2010, 01:56 PM

<cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote>18% of the Guardian's parse was from a defiler buff, Deadly Bane Warding.7% of the Guardian's parse was from a Dirge buff, Victorious Concerto.That's 25% of the Guardian's entire parse.The biggest DPS item in the SK parse that was non-SK was Peace of Mind (Coercer) at 2%.</blockquote>except 60%+ of the sk parse was from spell reflects</blockquote>Which correct me if I'm wrong were because of a SK ability? Are you suggesting they nerf the SK's spell reflect ability?</blockquote>Which is a complete fluke on a joke fight. I mean should we pull up the 1 million parse from the Pally boards to and use that?As to the Maalus imbued fight again people totally miss the fact that the huge amount of AE dps from the SK there is from hitting their fellow charmed raid members. Do Guards spec AE auto attack to parse better in that fight? No, because what a waste of time to spec AE auto attack. I am sure Guards could easily hit those numbers, or close to, on that fight if they actually spec'd for it. But I guess DPS'ing fellow raid members that can't die in the encounter is so AWESOME!!!!

Raahl

05-06-2010, 02:12 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote>18% of the Guardian's parse was from a defiler buff, Deadly Bane Warding.7% of the Guardian's parse was from a Dirge buff, Victorious Concerto.That's 25% of the Guardian's entire parse.The biggest DPS item in the SK parse that was non-SK was Peace of Mind (Coercer) at 2%.</blockquote>except 60%+ of the sk parse was from spell reflects</blockquote>Which correct me if I'm wrong were because of a SK ability? Are you suggesting they nerf the SK's spell reflect ability?</blockquote>Which is a complete fluke on a joke fight. I mean should we pull up the 1 million parse from the Pally boards to and use that?As to the Maalus imbued fight again people totally miss the fact that the huge amount of AE dps from the SK there is from hitting their fellow charmed raid members. Do Guards spec AE auto attack to parse better in that fight? No, because what a waste of time to spec AE auto attack. I am sure Guards could easily hit those numbers, or close to, on that fight if they actually spec'd for it. But I guess DPS'ing fellow raid members that can't die in the encounter is so AWESOME!!!!</blockquote>Oh I will agree that the parse I posted is not a SK's average parse. But parses like that are possible in the right situation. Guardian's do not even have the chance of a fluke happening and getting that parse.Most Guardians do spec AoE Auto Attack. Not sure on the parses, but this helps a little on AoE Aggro.I'm sure Guards cannot easily hit those number, if even at all.

Darkonx

05-06-2010, 02:47 PM

<cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote>18% of the Guardian's parse was from a defiler buff, Deadly Bane Warding.7% of the Guardian's parse was from a Dirge buff, Victorious Concerto.That's 25% of the Guardian's entire parse.The biggest DPS item in the SK parse that was non-SK was Peace of Mind (Coercer) at 2%.</blockquote>You do realize that effect was obtained because the fight was so short? Look at the parse, factoring out spell reflect. That's like posting my 4 million DPS parse and saying 'omg look'. Or posting our templars 35k parse and saying 'NERF' because divine light was huge. It's not a valid comparison, not even remotely valid. This entire thread is about removing maximum DPS+Survivability in the same bundle. Change KS to 10-15% with both 1h and 2h, and it'd lower defensive DPS while making 2h weapons viable.

Raahl

05-06-2010, 03:15 PM

<cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote>18% of the Guardian's parse was from a defiler buff, Deadly Bane Warding.7% of the Guardian's parse was from a Dirge buff, Victorious Concerto.That's 25% of the Guardian's entire parse.The biggest DPS item in the SK parse that was non-SK was Peace of Mind (Coercer) at 2%.</blockquote>You do realize that effect was obtained because the fight was so short? Look at the parse, factoring out spell reflect. That's like posting my 4 million DPS parse and saying 'omg look'. Or posting our templars 35k parse and saying 'NERF' because divine light was huge. It's not a valid comparison, not even remotely valid. This entire thread is about removing maximum DPS+Survivability in the same bundle. Change KS to 10-15% with both 1h and 2h, and it'd lower defensive DPS while making 2h weapons viable.</blockquote>You do realize that Gungo's post with the guardian parse was around the same length of time within a few seconds? Apples to Apples.No changing KS in the suggested manner is not the answer. By my calculations a SK's in defense mode does around 15-30% more DPS than a Guardian does while in DPS mode. The gap gets even larger, 25-45% more, if the guardian goes into defense mode.Changing KS as suggested would only bring the numbers down to 5-20% and 15-30% respectively while buffing the SK's DPS mode substantially. Really the answer to this entire problem is to bring the Defensive mode aggro generation of a guardian more in line with that of the SK's.

Darkonx

05-06-2010, 03:27 PM

<cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote>18% of the Guardian's parse was from a defiler buff, Deadly Bane Warding.7% of the Guardian's parse was from a Dirge buff, Victorious Concerto.That's 25% of the Guardian's entire parse.The biggest DPS item in the SK parse that was non-SK was Peace of Mind (Coercer) at 2%.</blockquote>You do realize that effect was obtained because the fight was so short? Look at the parse, factoring out spell reflect. That's like posting my 4 million DPS parse and saying 'omg look'. Or posting our templars 35k parse and saying 'NERF' because divine light was huge. It's not a valid comparison, not even remotely valid. This entire thread is about removing maximum DPS+Survivability in the same bundle. Change KS to 10-15% with both 1h and 2h, and it'd lower defensive DPS while making 2h weapons viable.</blockquote>You do realize that Gungo's post with the guardian parse was around the same length of time within a few seconds? Apples to Apples.No changing KS in the suggested manner is not the answer. By my calculations a SK's in defense mode does around 15-30% more DPS than a Guardian does while in DPS mode. The gap gets even larger, 25-45% more, if the guardian goes into defense mode.Changing KS as suggested would only bring the numbers down to 5-20% and 15-30% respectively while buffing the SK's DPS mode substantially. Really the answer to this entire problem is to bring the Defensive mode aggro generation of a guardian more in line with that of the SK's.</blockquote>No. Guardians do not have a reflect buff. On very very short fights that include failure conditions, this one buff does a considerable amount of damage (The only fight that meets these conditions is Sara Greenhart). It's apples to cats in terms of comparison. Show a Wyvernlord Tuluun parse, and let's talk.It wouldn't be a 'substantial' DPS boost. It'd give Crusaders ~10% on 15% of their DPS. A total of a 1.5% gain. Guardians do not need more hate while tanking raids. When we use a Guardian, he never has aggro problems, even while wearing maximum defensive gear. Why would a Guardian want MORE hate, when they never have issues with it as the MT, as is?

Raahl

05-06-2010, 03:35 PM

<cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote>18% of the Guardian's parse was from a defiler buff, Deadly Bane Warding.7% of the Guardian's parse was from a Dirge buff, Victorious Concerto.That's 25% of the Guardian's entire parse.The biggest DPS item in the SK parse that was non-SK was Peace of Mind (Coercer) at 2%.</blockquote>You do realize that effect was obtained because the fight was so short? Look at the parse, factoring out spell reflect. That's like posting my 4 million DPS parse and saying 'omg look'. Or posting our templars 35k parse and saying 'NERF' because divine light was huge. It's not a valid comparison, not even remotely valid. This entire thread is about removing maximum DPS+Survivability in the same bundle. Change KS to 10-15% with both 1h and 2h, and it'd lower defensive DPS while making 2h weapons viable.</blockquote>You do realize that Gungo's post with the guardian parse was around the same length of time within a few seconds? Apples to Apples.No changing KS in the suggested manner is not the answer. By my calculations a SK's in defense mode does around 15-30% more DPS than a Guardian does while in DPS mode. The gap gets even larger, 25-45% more, if the guardian goes into defense mode.Changing KS as suggested would only bring the numbers down to 5-20% and 15-30% respectively while buffing the SK's DPS mode substantially. Really the answer to this entire problem is to bring the Defensive mode aggro generation of a guardian more in line with that of the SK's.</blockquote>No. Guardians do not have a reflect buff. On very very short fights that include failure conditions, this one buff does a considerable amount of damage (The only fight that meets these conditions is Sara Greenhart). It's apples to cats in terms of comparison. Show a Wyvernlord Tuluun parse, and let's talk.It wouldn't be a 'substantial' DPS boost. It'd give Crusaders ~10% on 15% of their DPS. A total of a 1.5% gain. Guardians do not need more hate while tanking raids. When we use a Guardian, he never has aggro problems, even while wearing maximum defensive gear. Why would a Guardian want MORE hate, when they never have issues with it as the MT, as is?</blockquote>Well Duh! Here's I thought I had a reflective buff. /sarcasm off.Both fights were around 1 minute. The SK had the reflect go off and the mob died in 1 minute. The guardian did not have a reflect, can never get one, and the mob in question died in 1 minute. Comparing the DPS of a 1 minute fight to another 1 minute fight. Yea there are always varying things that affect the different fights. Their aa damage would increase substantially.

Darkonx

05-06-2010, 03:46 PM

<cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote>18% of the Guardian's parse was from a defiler buff, Deadly Bane Warding.7% of the Guardian's parse was from a Dirge buff, Victorious Concerto.That's 25% of the Guardian's entire parse.The biggest DPS item in the SK parse that was non-SK was Peace of Mind (Coercer) at 2%.</blockquote>You do realize that effect was obtained because the fight was so short? Look at the parse, factoring out spell reflect. That's like posting my 4 million DPS parse and saying 'omg look'. Or posting our templars 35k parse and saying 'NERF' because divine light was huge. It's not a valid comparison, not even remotely valid. This entire thread is about removing maximum DPS+Survivability in the same bundle. Change KS to 10-15% with both 1h and 2h, and it'd lower defensive DPS while making 2h weapons viable.</blockquote>You do realize that Gungo's post with the guardian parse was around the same length of time within a few seconds? Apples to Apples.No changing KS in the suggested manner is not the answer. By my calculations a SK's in defense mode does around 15-30% more DPS than a Guardian does while in DPS mode. The gap gets even larger, 25-45% more, if the guardian goes into defense mode.Changing KS as suggested would only bring the numbers down to 5-20% and 15-30% respectively while buffing the SK's DPS mode substantially. Really the answer to this entire problem is to bring the Defensive mode aggro generation of a guardian more in line with that of the SK's.</blockquote>No. Guardians do not have a reflect buff. On very very short fights that include failure conditions, this one buff does a considerable amount of damage (The only fight that meets these conditions is Sara Greenhart). It's apples to cats in terms of comparison. Show a Wyvernlord Tuluun parse, and let's talk.It wouldn't be a 'substantial' DPS boost. It'd give Crusaders ~10% on 15% of their DPS. A total of a 1.5% gain. Guardians do not need more hate while tanking raids. When we use a Guardian, he never has aggro problems, even while wearing maximum defensive gear. Why would a Guardian want MORE hate, when they never have issues with it as the MT, as is?</blockquote>Well Duh! Here's I thought I had a reflective buff. /sarcasm off.Both fights were around 1 minute. The SK had the reflect go off and the mob died in 1 minute. The guardian did not have a reflect, can never get one, and the mob in question died in 1 minute. Comparing the DPS of a 1 minute fight to another 1 minute fight. Yea there are always varying things that affect the different fights. Their aa damage would increase substantially.</blockquote>That's like posting a fight where the monk dev fisted a solo add that had 5 million HP, and saying 'OMG LOOK, THEY'RE BROKEN!'. That parse was a joke on the thread that you pulled it off of. It's just a ridiculous parse to post, and I have no idea why you would use this to try to prove your point. Find a Wyvernlord Tuluun parse from an SK. I do about 32k on that fight. SK's have the ability to spike for a ton of damage on Sara Greenhart. Find another fight that doesn't meet those EXACT conditions. A repetative fail condition under circumstances where it can be toggled off at any time(by having another tank grab it), and where the fight only lasts ~60s. Only under those EXACT circumstances can a Crusader approach the numbers you are claiming as standard.

Raahl

05-06-2010, 03:59 PM

<cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote>18% of the Guardian's parse was from a defiler buff, Deadly Bane Warding.7% of the Guardian's parse was from a Dirge buff, Victorious Concerto.That's 25% of the Guardian's entire parse.The biggest DPS item in the SK parse that was non-SK was Peace of Mind (Coercer) at 2%.</blockquote>You do realize that effect was obtained because the fight was so short? Look at the parse, factoring out spell reflect. That's like posting my 4 million DPS parse and saying 'omg look'. Or posting our templars 35k parse and saying 'NERF' because divine light was huge. It's not a valid comparison, not even remotely valid. This entire thread is about removing maximum DPS+Survivability in the same bundle. Change KS to 10-15% with both 1h and 2h, and it'd lower defensive DPS while making 2h weapons viable.</blockquote>You do realize that Gungo's post with the guardian parse was around the same length of time within a few seconds? Apples to Apples.No changing KS in the suggested manner is not the answer. By my calculations a SK's in defense mode does around 15-30% more DPS than a Guardian does while in DPS mode. The gap gets even larger, 25-45% more, if the guardian goes into defense mode.Changing KS as suggested would only bring the numbers down to 5-20% and 15-30% respectively while buffing the SK's DPS mode substantially. Really the answer to this entire problem is to bring the Defensive mode aggro generation of a guardian more in line with that of the SK's.</blockquote>No. Guardians do not have a reflect buff. On very very short fights that include failure conditions, this one buff does a considerable amount of damage (The only fight that meets these conditions is Sara Greenhart). It's apples to cats in terms of comparison. Show a Wyvernlord Tuluun parse, and let's talk.It wouldn't be a 'substantial' DPS boost. It'd give Crusaders ~10% on 15% of their DPS. A total of a 1.5% gain. Guardians do not need more hate while tanking raids. When we use a Guardian, he never has aggro problems, even while wearing maximum defensive gear. Why would a Guardian want MORE hate, when they never have issues with it as the MT, as is?</blockquote>Well Duh! Here's I thought I had a reflective buff. /sarcasm off.Both fights were around 1 minute. The SK had the reflect go off and the mob died in 1 minute. The guardian did not have a reflect, can never get one, and the mob in question died in 1 minute. Comparing the DPS of a 1 minute fight to another 1 minute fight. Yea there are always varying things that affect the different fights. Their aa damage would increase substantially.</blockquote>That's like posting a fight where the monk dev fisted a solo add that had 5 million HP, and saying 'OMG LOOK, THEY'RE BROKEN!'. That parse was a joke on the thread that you pulled it off of. It's just a ridiculous parse to post, and I have no idea why you would use this to try to prove your point. Find a Wyvernlord Tuluun parse from an SK. I do about 32k on that fight. SK's have the ability to spike for a ton of damage on Sara Greenhart. Find another fight that doesn't meet those EXACT conditions. A repetative fail condition under circumstances where it can be toggled off at any time(by having another tank grab it), and where the fight only lasts ~60s. Only under those EXACT circumstances can a Crusader approach the numbers you are claiming as standard.</blockquote>Lets take out the highest parse from both a Guardian and a SK. The SK's second highest parse is around 54948 where the guardian's is 37842. that's a 17106 difference or 31% more DPS for the SK.Unless that one was a fluke also. Oh that's right you'll blame it on the Dirge buff being a fluke.

Darkonx

05-06-2010, 04:04 PM

<cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote>18% of the Guardian's parse was from a defiler buff, Deadly Bane Warding.7% of the Guardian's parse was from a Dirge buff, Victorious Concerto.That's 25% of the Guardian's entire parse.The biggest DPS item in the SK parse that was non-SK was Peace of Mind (Coercer) at 2%.</blockquote>You do realize that effect was obtained because the fight was so short? Look at the parse, factoring out spell reflect. That's like posting my 4 million DPS parse and saying 'omg look'. Or posting our templars 35k parse and saying 'NERF' because divine light was huge. It's not a valid comparison, not even remotely valid. This entire thread is about removing maximum DPS+Survivability in the same bundle. Change KS to 10-15% with both 1h and 2h, and it'd lower defensive DPS while making 2h weapons viable.</blockquote>You do realize that Gungo's post with the guardian parse was around the same length of time within a few seconds? Apples to Apples.No changing KS in the suggested manner is not the answer. By my calculations a SK's in defense mode does around 15-30% more DPS than a Guardian does while in DPS mode. The gap gets even larger, 25-45% more, if the guardian goes into defense mode.Changing KS as suggested would only bring the numbers down to 5-20% and 15-30% respectively while buffing the SK's DPS mode substantially. Really the answer to this entire problem is to bring the Defensive mode aggro generation of a guardian more in line with that of the SK's.</blockquote>No. Guardians do not have a reflect buff. On very very short fights that include failure conditions, this one buff does a considerable amount of damage (The only fight that meets these conditions is Sara Greenhart). It's apples to cats in terms of comparison. Show a Wyvernlord Tuluun parse, and let's talk.It wouldn't be a 'substantial' DPS boost. It'd give Crusaders ~10% on 15% of their DPS. A total of a 1.5% gain. Guardians do not need more hate while tanking raids. When we use a Guardian, he never has aggro problems, even while wearing maximum defensive gear. Why would a Guardian want MORE hate, when they never have issues with it as the MT, as is?</blockquote>Well Duh! Here's I thought I had a reflective buff. /sarcasm off.Both fights were around 1 minute. The SK had the reflect go off and the mob died in 1 minute. The guardian did not have a reflect, can never get one, and the mob in question died in 1 minute. Comparing the DPS of a 1 minute fight to another 1 minute fight. Yea there are always varying things that affect the different fights. Their aa damage would increase substantially.</blockquote>That's like posting a fight where the monk dev fisted a solo add that had 5 million HP, and saying 'OMG LOOK, THEY'RE BROKEN!'. That parse was a joke on the thread that you pulled it off of. It's just a ridiculous parse to post, and I have no idea why you would use this to try to prove your point. Find a Wyvernlord Tuluun parse from an SK. I do about 32k on that fight. SK's have the ability to spike for a ton of damage on Sara Greenhart. Find another fight that doesn't meet those EXACT conditions. A repetative fail condition under circumstances where it can be toggled off at any time(by having another tank grab it), and where the fight only lasts ~60s. Only under those EXACT circumstances can a Crusader approach the numbers you are claiming as standard.</blockquote>Lets take out the highest parse from both a Guardian and a SK. The SK's second highest parse is around 54948 where the guardian's is 37842. that's a 17106 difference or 31% more DPS for the SK.Unless that one was a fluke also. Oh that's right you'll blame it on the Dirge buff being a fluke.</blockquote>I'd just like to compare DPS on a single encounter, say, Wyvernlord Tuluun or Ernax Heridian. Sara Greenhart parses from Crusaders are always going to be inflated. SK's SHOULD do more DPS than Guardians. Not 30% more, but, they don't DO 30% more with the same gear/buffs, against the same mobs.

Raahl

05-06-2010, 04:12 PM

<cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote>18% of the Guardian's parse was from a defiler buff, Deadly Bane Warding.7% of the Guardian's parse was from a Dirge buff, Victorious Concerto.That's 25% of the Guardian's entire parse.The biggest DPS item in the SK parse that was non-SK was Peace of Mind (Coercer) at 2%.</blockquote>You do realize that effect was obtained because the fight was so short? Look at the parse, factoring out spell reflect. That's like posting my 4 million DPS parse and saying 'omg look'. Or posting our templars 35k parse and saying 'NERF' because divine light was huge. It's not a valid comparison, not even remotely valid. This entire thread is about removing maximum DPS+Survivability in the same bundle. Change KS to 10-15% with both 1h and 2h, and it'd lower defensive DPS while making 2h weapons viable.</blockquote>You do realize that Gungo's post with the guardian parse was around the same length of time within a few seconds? Apples to Apples.No changing KS in the suggested manner is not the answer. By my calculations a SK's in defense mode does around 15-30% more DPS than a Guardian does while in DPS mode. The gap gets even larger, 25-45% more, if the guardian goes into defense mode.Changing KS as suggested would only bring the numbers down to 5-20% and 15-30% respectively while buffing the SK's DPS mode substantially. Really the answer to this entire problem is to bring the Defensive mode aggro generation of a guardian more in line with that of the SK's.</blockquote>No. Guardians do not have a reflect buff. On very very short fights that include failure conditions, this one buff does a considerable amount of damage (The only fight that meets these conditions is Sara Greenhart). It's apples to cats in terms of comparison. Show a Wyvernlord Tuluun parse, and let's talk.It wouldn't be a 'substantial' DPS boost. It'd give Crusaders ~10% on 15% of their DPS. A total of a 1.5% gain. Guardians do not need more hate while tanking raids. When we use a Guardian, he never has aggro problems, even while wearing maximum defensive gear. Why would a Guardian want MORE hate, when they never have issues with it as the MT, as is?</blockquote>Well Duh! Here's I thought I had a reflective buff. /sarcasm off.Both fights were around 1 minute. The SK had the reflect go off and the mob died in 1 minute. The guardian did not have a reflect, can never get one, and the mob in question died in 1 minute. Comparing the DPS of a 1 minute fight to another 1 minute fight. Yea there are always varying things that affect the different fights. Their aa damage would increase substantially.</blockquote>That's like posting a fight where the monk dev fisted a solo add that had 5 million HP, and saying 'OMG LOOK, THEY'RE BROKEN!'. That parse was a joke on the thread that you pulled it off of. It's just a ridiculous parse to post, and I have no idea why you would use this to try to prove your point. Find a Wyvernlord Tuluun parse from an SK. I do about 32k on that fight. SK's have the ability to spike for a ton of damage on Sara Greenhart. Find another fight that doesn't meet those EXACT conditions. A repetative fail condition under circumstances where it can be toggled off at any time(by having another tank grab it), and where the fight only lasts ~60s. Only under those EXACT circumstances can a Crusader approach the numbers you are claiming as standard.</blockquote>Lets take out the highest parse from both a Guardian and a SK. The SK's second highest parse is around 54948 where the guardian's is 37842. that's a 17106 difference or 31% more DPS for the SK.Unless that one was a fluke also. Oh that's right you'll blame it on the Dirge buff being a fluke.</blockquote>I'd just like to compare DPS on a single encounter, say, Wyvernlord Tuluun or Ernax Heridian. Sara Greenhart parses from Crusaders are always going to be inflated. SK's SHOULD do more DPS than Guardians. Not 30% more, but, they don't DO 30% more with the same gear/buffs, against the same mobs.</blockquote>Can you provide the parses to show that? I couldn't find them. All that I can go off of is what's out there. So I will continue to compare the parses that I find, for what their worth.There are far too many things that can affect a parse. Ideally it would be best to have the same mob with equal group makeup and virtually equal equipment.

Raahl

05-06-2010, 04:30 PM

<cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote>We are overpowered, because we can do our maximum amount of DPS using a 1h/shield. We can do this because the Knight's Stance AA is based on having a shield equipped. Warriors have to take their shield off to be able to do their max DPS, we should have to as well. The Knight's Stance AA needs to be changed to work with two handers, instead of with a shield, for this to be at all balanced going forwards. Warriors/Brawlers start with an innate 20% crit bonus on Crusaders as it is, so it wouldn't be overpowering in the least. We NEED this nerf. Please, please change it to 25% with a two handed weapon, instead of with a shield. Make Crusaders, just like Warriors, take off their sword/board to do their maximum DPS. This AA was made the way it was during TSO where the only viable option was to use the mythical. Now that that has been changed, please change this AA to help balance things.Edit: Nerf was the wrong word. 'Change' would have been much better. What I am asking for is a change, because the combination of DPS and survivability is OP. We should have to make a choice, just like warriors. The way to have this work, as I said, is to change Knight's Stance to work when a 2h is equipped, instead of when a shield is equipped.</blockquote>I guess to get this back on topic for the OP. <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Darkonx, you admit that SK's are overpowered because of their DPS amount using 1h/shield.I purpose that they fix that aspect and then visit any issues that there may be with the 2h damage. I.E. Do not change them at the same time. This will give a better idea if the changes to 1h/shield DPS are sufficent enough to bring SK DPS into line without possibly allowing the SK to remain overpowered with 1h/shield and now be overpowered with 2h.

Bruener

05-06-2010, 06:16 PM

<cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote>We are overpowered, because we can do our maximum amount of DPS using a 1h/shield. We can do this because the Knight's Stance AA is based on having a shield equipped. Warriors have to take their shield off to be able to do their max DPS, we should have to as well. The Knight's Stance AA needs to be changed to work with two handers, instead of with a shield, for this to be at all balanced going forwards. Warriors/Brawlers start with an innate 20% crit bonus on Crusaders as it is, so it wouldn't be overpowering in the least. We NEED this nerf. Please, please change it to 25% with a two handed weapon, instead of with a shield. Make Crusaders, just like Warriors, take off their sword/board to do their maximum DPS. This AA was made the way it was during TSO where the only viable option was to use the mythical. Now that that has been changed, please change this AA to help balance things.Edit: Nerf was the wrong word. 'Change' would have been much better. What I am asking for is a change, because the combination of DPS and survivability is OP. We should have to make a choice, just like warriors. The way to have this work, as I said, is to change Knight's Stance to work when a 2h is equipped, instead of when a shield is equipped.</blockquote>I guess to get this back on topic for the OP. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" />Darkonx, you admit that SK's are overpowered because of their DPS amount using 1h/shield.I purpose that they fix that aspect and then visit any issues that there may be with the 2h damage. I.E. Do not change them at the same time. This will give a better idea if the changes to 1h/shield DPS are sufficent enough to bring SK DPS into line without possibly allowing the SK to remain overpowered with 1h/shield and now be overpowered with 2h.</blockquote>I propose that whiners go learn to play their class better and enjoy being able to work extremely well with other fighters instead of constantly trying to nerf other fighters to make them the be all end all tank again.What a SK does damage wise with 1h+board or with 2h should not matter at all to the Guard that is rolling with them because the Guards job is to MT and make sure they are taking the brunt of everything. SOE has given them all the tools they need to do this better than any other fighter. What Brawlers do in raids is amazing now with their positionals and good DPS along with much better survivability. There is a reason raids are starting to lean towards Warrior/Crusader/Brawler make up for raids now. We finally reach what we have been saying should be acceptable for fighters in SF and now people just want to change it? Seems pretty daft.

BChizzle

05-06-2010, 06:27 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>I propose that whiners go learn to play their class better and enjoy being able to work extremely well with other fighters instead of constantly trying to nerf other fighters to make them the be all end all tank again.What a SK does damage wise with 1h+board or with 2h should not matter at all to the Guard that is rolling with them because the Guards job is to MT and make sure they are taking the brunt of everything. SOE has given them all the tools they need to do this better than any other fighter. What Brawlers do in raids is amazing now with their positionals and good DPS along with much better survivability. There is a reason raids are starting to lean towards Warrior/Crusader/Brawler make up for raids now. We finally reach what we have been saying should be acceptable for fighters in SF and now people just want to change it? Seems pretty daft.</blockquote>OK, so nerf SK's ability to MT then since SK's seem to be taking more and more jobs from guards. Seriously SK's want to be the highest DPS fine then drop their survivability to below a brawler in offensive stance gets we will see how long you guys last as fotm then. And you keep talking about brawler positionals that has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard, what is the difference between a positional and an SK jumping positions with their OP dps the answer is NOTHING. fact is I don't really care if SK's are nerfed or not but if you guys are going to outright lie about your overpoweredness in an attempt to derail other classes being brought to the same level and to buff your class further then you have what is coming to you.