Offensive stance obsolete? [Archive] - EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

View Full Version : Offensive stance obsolete?

Aull

05-04-2010, 12:26 AM

It currently seems that with the sf defensive stance aa at max the bruiser offensive stance is really useless. Not that I am complaining but it has occured to me when I am not tanking that the offensive stance really doesn't insure better dps. I just don't like the thought of now having another ability along side of lightning fists and sonic punch that really serves no purpose.Thoughts please.

Gungo

05-04-2010, 01:18 AM

Change the proc to 4.0ppm and make it an encounter proc and we would have a real reason to use this stance, Because it would be a second crane twirl proc. Next expansion give us an AA to increase its damage.And anyone who pays attention to parses knows cranetwirl on aoe encounters is our highest damage proc.

Aule

05-04-2010, 02:55 AM

It's not just highest damage proc, in any sort of instance it beats out all our other combat arts too, usually I see something like this in my zone summary: 49% crush 04% crane twirl 03% torrent (sometimes 04%, but still below crane twirl)Though I do use offensive stance for zoning with when it's a steamroll group / zone. Can't hate on the extra 8% crit bonus when nothing is striking through and you're already around 7k mit without being in defensive. Too bad Engulf is a crummy proc.

Aull

05-04-2010, 09:36 AM

Yeah engulf's states " Increases the bruiser's offensive melee skills and engulfs the bruiser's hands in flames, granting a chance to deal heat damage with every successful melee hit, at the cost of decreased defense skill. This is the bruiser's primary offensive stance" and "only the primary weapon can trigger this effect". Ok hands are plural and not single.My issue with this would be that hands are two not one yet the effect can only trigger from the primary weapon. If anything it should have a chance to proc off both primary and secondary weapons.

Couching

05-04-2010, 10:12 AM

In this xpac, there is no more cap for weapon skills, the more you have, the higher hit ratio you get.You get extra 66 weapon skills from offensive stance and it raises your hit ratio significantly on orange con mobs, especially on mobs without debuff in aoe encounters when you have crane flock up.Not to say, if you can access to red adornment, offensive stance has extra 8% crit bonus and it's also signifcant for dps boost.For dps wise, offensive stance is still far better than defensive stance for bruiser even with aa maxed out.

Lethe5683

05-04-2010, 10:22 PM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>It currently seems that with the sf defensive stance aa at max the bruiser offensive stance is really useless. Not that I am complaining but it has occured to me when I am not tanking that the offensive stance really doesn't insure better dps. I just don't like the thought of now having another ability along side of lightning fists and sonic punch that really serves no purpose.Thoughts please.</blockquote>Well I think it does insure better DPS than defensive but the difference is so marginal that it is practially worthless compared to the huge benefits of defensive stance. Even if you are only DPSing using defensive stance is still important for increasing the effectivness of our now huge 65% avoidance transfer. I think that the stances (other than defensive) really need to be updated, making the 22% deflection static among all stances would be a good start (defensive still has strikethrough immunity and mitigation).

Lethe5683

05-04-2010, 10:24 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>In this xpac, there is no more cap for weapon skills, the more you have, the higher hit ratio you get.You get extra 66 weapon skills from offensive stance and it raises your hit ratio significantly on orange con mobs, especially on mobs without debuff in aoe encounters when you have crane flock up.Not to say, if you can access to red adornment, offensive stance has extra 8% crit bonus and it's also signifcant for dps boost.For dps wise, offensive stance is still far better than defensive stance for bruiser even with aa maxed out.</blockquote>Do you have proof to back that up? I haven't heard of any skills becoming "cap-less", only stats. I'm not saying you're wrong, just asking where you got that info.

Couching

05-04-2010, 10:50 PM

<cite>timetravelling wrote:</cite><blockquote>Q & A:How does Aggression affect taunts?<ul><li>Aggression works like most other skills. For every 1% over the cap for your level (450 @ 90) it reduces the resistability of aggression-based skills by 1%. Check your spells though, there are many fighter spells that are not necessarily the core 'taunts' that use aggression!</li><li>Another question was that if other skills work like this, and yes, they do (Slash, Crush, Pierce, etc)</li><li>There is no 'hard' cap on these, however they obviously lose effectiveness once you reach 100% to hit/taunt/whatever</li></ul> <div><div><div><div><div><div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote>Quoted from dev.

Dechau

05-05-2010, 07:32 AM

That could change the fact that I have not left Defensive stance after putting points in it and removed the penalty <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />I guess in time with the right gear, we can tank some things in offensive like the other tanks <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Other than that, what happens when we as dps pull aggro and we are in Offensive - Splat in many occasions <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Aull

05-05-2010, 10:14 AM

<cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>It currently seems that with the sf defensive stance aa at max the bruiser offensive stance is really useless. Not that I am complaining but it has occured to me when I am not tanking that the offensive stance really doesn't insure better dps. I just don't like the thought of now having another ability along side of lightning fists and sonic punch that really serves no purpose.Thoughts please.</blockquote>Well I think it does insure better DPS than defensive but the difference is so marginal that it is practially worthless compared to the huge benefits of defensive stance. Even if you are only DPSing using defensive stance is still important for increasing the effectivness of our now huge 65% avoidance transfer. I think that the stances (other than defensive) really need to be updated, making the 22% deflection static among all stances would be a good start (defensive still has strikethrough immunity and mitigation).</blockquote>Lethe your statement is what I meant to post all along. The advantages to the defensive stance far out weigh any thing the offensive stance provides.While this is a good thing I still remember brusiers being described as more offensive than defensive when the game orginally launched. This link is old but this is where I made my mind up to roll a bruiser. <a href="http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/everquest-ii/guide/page_7.html">http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/everquest-...ide/page_7.html</a>.I feel bruisers are moving more away from their original intent.

Lethe5683

05-05-2010, 01:18 PM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>It currently seems that with the sf defensive stance aa at max the bruiser offensive stance is really useless. Not that I am complaining but it has occured to me when I am not tanking that the offensive stance really doesn't insure better dps. I just don't like the thought of now having another ability along side of lightning fists and sonic punch that really serves no purpose.Thoughts please.</blockquote>Well I think it does insure better DPS than defensive but the difference is so marginal that it is practially worthless compared to the huge benefits of defensive stance. Even if you are only DPSing using defensive stance is still important for increasing the effectivness of our now huge 65% avoidance transfer. I think that the stances (other than defensive) really need to be updated, making the 22% deflection static among all stances would be a good start (defensive still has strikethrough immunity and mitigation).</blockquote>Lethe your statement is what I meant to post all along. The advantages to the defensive stance far out weigh any thing the offensive stance provides.While this is a good thing I still remember brusiers being described as more offensive than defensive when the game orginally launched. This link is old but this is where I made my mind up to roll a bruiser. <a href="http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/everquest-ii/guide/page_7.html">http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/everquest-...ide/page_7.html</a>.I feel bruisers are moving more away from their original intent. </blockquote>The defensiveness gained from it is something that bruisers should have, it's just that offensive stance needs to be buffed up to be a viable alternative with at least almost as much advantages as defensive gives.

Mosha D'Khan

05-05-2010, 04:42 PM

i would love to see them make it where unstead of just def stance getting the 100% to reduction stuff make it both stances. that mean we would get back that little avoidance we lose in offensive stance. also with the strickthrough on the def stance it gives us a reason to still use it when tanking

Gungo

05-05-2010, 04:53 PM

I prefer to keep defensive stance defensive and offnsive stance offensive. If they want to make some mixed stance we alreayd have that.Make the offensive stance proc encounter wide and increase the proc rate to 4.0ppm and it would be a significant increase in dps. Next expansion add an add that increases the damage on the proc.

Aull

05-05-2010, 09:47 PM

I wouldn't mind if they made it a 4.0 ppm and single target only. Even if they let the proc remain at 2.0 ppm at least make it to where it will have a chance to proc off both primary and secondary weapons.

Aule

05-06-2010, 02:53 PM

Also needs to be on a spell or combat hit, since a few of our ca's are treated like spells and don't proc things that they seem like they should proc.

Aull

05-06-2010, 03:17 PM

If I remember correctly engulf years ago would have a chance to proc off successful combat art hits as well as fists.

Lethe5683

05-10-2010, 03:53 PM

<cite>Mosha DKhan wrote:</cite><blockquote>i would love to see them make it where unstead of just def stance getting the 100% to reduction stuff make it both stances. that mean we would get back that little avoidance we lose in offensive stance. also with the strickthrough on the def stance it gives us a reason to still use it when tanking</blockquote>The -defense isn't really even important. The real avoidance loss is loosing the 22% uncontested deflection from defensive stance.

Aule

05-11-2010, 05:19 AM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>If I remember correctly engulf years ago would have a chance to proc off successful combat art hits as well as fists.</blockquote>Oh it does, but wild beating for example, not a combat art, won't proc knockout combination or engulf (it's a spell). There's a few that are like this.

Aull

05-11-2010, 01:21 PM

<cite>Aule@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>If I remember correctly engulf years ago would have a chance to proc off successful combat art hits as well as fists.</blockquote>Oh it does, but wild beating for example, not a combat art, won't proc knockout combination or engulf (it's a spell). There's a few that are like this.</blockquote>To my knowledge engulf was changed years ago to no longer have a chance to proc from any successful melee attack (primary/secondary or combat art). It specifically states it will only proc from the primary hand.This is one of my biggest issues with engulf is that it states the bruisers "HANDS" not "hand" are engulfed in flames. If anything a bruiser should have a chance for engulf to proc from both primary and secondary weapons.

Aull

05-12-2010, 10:29 PM

Ok everyone I owe you all an apology. I just logged in my bruiser and examined the offensive stance description. It does state on the lvl 85 version "granting a chance to deal heat damage with "every" successful melee hit".My earlier description must be outdated and again by bad for misleading any of you.