The "I Quit Playing A Guard" Thread [Archive]

Rahatmattata

05-28-2010, 01:48 AM

It's been coming for a while, and the BG nerf (even if it's only a small nerf) was the final straw. A few months ago I tried leveling up a shadowknight and got to level 45ish before realizing crusaders just aren't my thing (I have no desire to try a paladin). I don't know why exactly, but I didn't find it as much fun as my guard once was. Brawlers aren't really my cup of tea, and neither is playing a dps/utility/healer class. So, I'm playing a zerker now, and it is quite refreshing to have a capable class at my finger tips again. I mean... I can get the job done as a guard but... why?I'm just kind of wondering how many people once played a guard as their mains, but are now dusty alts.

Yggs

05-28-2010, 02:55 AM

Yes, collecting dust since TSO.

BChizzle

05-28-2010, 05:20 AM

I quit playing my guard and rolled a necro so I could be more useful and hold agro better, true story.

Aull

05-28-2010, 12:26 PM

Well currently I have about four friends that have basically retired their guards. One has an sk, zerker, and a guardian and he will level his guard but only for the bonus xp that it will provide for other alts.Its a sad state for the guards anymore.

Couching

05-28-2010, 01:13 PM

Currently, crusaders are the best in solo, heroic and raid content.They can deal incredible dps and keep survivability at the same time.Oh wait, brawlers have more snap tools and guardian has so called better survivability. But in the mean time, crusaders have no problem to hold targets that mem wipe and be able to tank any raid targets and do 1.5-2 times dps than brawlers/guardian in tanking with similar survivability.What's the niche of brawlers and guardian in this game? Oh, I know the answer; snap tools for brawlers and better survivability for guardian.

arksun

05-28-2010, 01:30 PM

My Guardian is picked up and will probably be a long time before playing it again. Everyone knows how powerfull crusaders are, even the people who come here to say "stop whining" and the others who just start 1 vs 1 arguements to derail threads.The dev's know how powerfull crusaders are in comparison to other tanks, it will just take till next xpac for them to balance anything, maybe hire/fire another dev, who knows.

Landiin

05-28-2010, 02:18 PM

The only reason my Toran isn't packed up is; I have ZERO desire to level another char in this game, even with it being crazy easy. I just set in G4 with what ever is left over and and pick up left over loot. Maybe pick up a add that has somehow wondered into the raid and pull it back to the crusaders.

Rast

05-28-2010, 03:56 PM

I've actually rolled up a guard to see what all the commotion is about. I've been a paladin since day one in this game (though both the good and horrid times) and figured, maybe I can come up with some ideas that might help both classes be able to do what they need to be able to do.I will not deny that Pallies have long been the top of the heap for heroic content with our agro abilities, but it wasn't all that long ago that crusaders were so disliked that we were laughed to even ask for that g4 slot to pick up left over gear.I'll be honest, I'm not seeing all this supposed survivablity we have. I'm poorly geared mind you (5 pieces TSO t1, 2 pieces TSO t3, assorted jewelery and my epic/decent shield out of shard of hate). Maybe this changes with the t3/t4 fully geared or TSF fabled, but so far I'm not seeing it...For a number of years, Pallies had to be so dang good to even get a fill in spot, we often had to learn to play our classes so well that maybe that has carried over that now they've given us some tools we are able to do that much more with it. I know the one ability that has everyone ticked about pallies and that is the defensive stance damage bonus. I can understand the calls to nerf it, but when you break it down, it isn't that much of our over all dps, it is only 25% of our MELEE damage, not CA, not spells, just what we do with the sword. Even on some of these astronomical pally parses (30k parses) that is maybe 7.5k damage and only 1500dps is coming from that ability. Is that really the make or break of tanking? 1500dps? Even when we start lower on our crit multiplier? The difference is probably not all that much over all with you in s/b and us. Even conservately we are talking maybe 1000 dps at the end of the day from this vs your crit multiplier.This one ability didn't take you all from being the kings of the hill to the bottom and Holy ground now isn't what it once was for memwipe mobs. Yah, we still have amends is there really a difference there when you have a solid MT group, 50% hate is still 50% hate when it comes from the same player? And we are capped at 50% hate transfer like anyone else.With as hard as you all have fallen (and I'm not so blind to see that you have) there is more at play here than what we are seeing and we need to find out what it is so that we can all enjoy this game the way we want. We all rolled tanks for a reason, didn't we? I'm sure none of us rolled them to be in G4 getting the cast off gear, we rolled them to be MTs and OTs, to tank, not dps.Nothing saying we can't work together to find solutions that allow us ALL to play in that senario.

Rasttan

05-28-2010, 04:07 PM

Yes currently crusaders dominate, due to being the top 1-2 in almost everything you need a tank to do. This is blatantly obvious to everyone. I'll assume the devs know also, but have to ride it out before they can make changes until the next xpac. People state the old and tired lines blah, blah but any tank class can do the Job, sure thats true but [Removed for Content] take the class thats 3-6th in almost every tanking tool when you could use the ones that are 1-2.Which as a brawler whos been in the tanking sewers for a while I can live with. What I cant live with is the people who spill out the crap about how its not true, just man up admit it and play your class while you have the Iron Man suit on.My Guard is still lvl 80 and will remain lvl 80. I have no desrie for another tank ranked 4-6th most useful at level 90.

Rast

05-28-2010, 04:22 PM

Rasttan,I was told the same thing many times through out KoS and EoF and most of RoK as well. Yah, any tank can do it, but why take a paladin when a Guard and Zerk could do it better? I was a MT during those days for a casual guild and we used to pick up people to fill in slots and we'd have people leave when they learned a pally was the MT...Not saying that is justification for what is happening now, but showing, I can understand the disgruntlement that Guards and Zerkers are going through right now and that brawlers have for as long as I can remember.I'm not sure there really is a real solution for brawlers short of making them true DPS/Utility (with numbers and abilities to match) because avoidance tanking is so broken it isn't funny and the whole game is geared around tanks getting hit.One thing I can say is, what healers I have make a HUGE difference in my survivablity. I've tanked the same mob several times and depending on what healers I have will determine if I have any chance to survive it. Nothing has changed about my abilities at all. I still have the same skills, same gear, save agro, but the result is far different.Maybe Guards just need a boost to dps, maybe they need something else, I don't know yet. But I'm willing to find out.

Yimway

05-28-2010, 04:40 PM

I really want to retire mine, guild still wont let me.I personally feel that having a skilled player at a healer and letting a crusader tank would have us kill things faster, but they wont hear of it.

circusgirl

05-28-2010, 06:02 PM

Eh, Avoidance tanking could be made significantly more viable. It's not ideal now, but its less broken than it was previously. The main thing I take issue with is that it is super easy for a plate tank in raid situations to hit 80% actual avoidance or so. They'll frequently be avoiding maybe 30% of blows on their own, get 10% more from stoneskins, 10% from their cleric, and another 30% from a brawler's avoidance buff. In comparison, a brawler is probably avoiding 60-70% on their own with 5% from a cleric (it procs less on account of us being hit less often so we see a smaller return from shield ally) and 5% from a plate tank. At the end of the day, the brawler and the plate tank hit the same amount of avoidance.What we need is for some way for plate tanks to give large amounts of mitigation to brawlers in the raid without hurting their own stats. The crusader spell pledge of armament would do if it was about 3x as big a mitigation lend and didn't hurt the crusader's mit when they cast it. Crusaders don't need much more utility though, so I'd suggest giving warriors a huge mitigation lend that is capable of adding as much to a brawler's defensive capabilities as our avoidance lend adds to theirs. Given that I'm capable of halving the number of hits that a plate tank takes, we would need them to have a pretty massive lend to balance things out: something on the order of 30% of a plate tank's mit being given to the target of the spell.

Wastura

05-28-2010, 07:49 PM

I have retired my guardian.Screw any other reason about SK's, survivability and what not. Truth is, the guardian just isn't fun anymore. And not getting groups isn't fun.My new SK is already outdps'ing my guardian, out TPS'ing and I can take on mobs harder than my guardian could..... survivability what?

Rahatmattata

05-28-2010, 10:25 PM

<cite>Amilia@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>My new SK is already outdps'ing my guardian, out TPS'ing and I can take on mobs harder than my guardian could..... survivability what?</blockquote>One major thing that has changed for me is instead of gauging how many mobs I can pull and hold aggro, I just have to worry about how many mobs I can pull and live. Hell, a lot of times on my guard when I got a ton of mobs I died when I shouldn't have because I was pushing buttons to hold aggro instead of using saves.

Darkonx

05-29-2010, 01:21 AM

<cite>Githil@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Eh, Avoidance tanking could be made significantly more viable. It's not ideal now, but its less broken than it was previously. The main thing I take issue with is that it is super easy for a plate tank in raid situations to hit 80% actual avoidance or so. They'll frequently be avoiding maybe 30% of blows on their own, get 10% more from stoneskins, 10% from their cleric, and another 30% from a brawler's avoidance buff. In comparison, a brawler is probably avoiding 60-70% on their own with 5% from a cleric (it procs less on account of us being hit less often so we see a smaller return from shield ally) and 5% from a plate tank. At the end of the day, the brawler and the plate tank hit the same amount of avoidance.What we need is for some way for plate tanks to give large amounts of mitigation to brawlers in the raid without hurting their own stats. The crusader spell pledge of armament would do if it was about 3x as big a mitigation lend and didn't hurt the crusader's mit when they cast it. Crusaders don't need much more utility though, so I'd suggest giving warriors a huge mitigation lend that is capable of adding as much to a brawler's defensive capabilities as our avoidance lend adds to theirs. Given that I'm capable of halving the number of hits that a plate tank takes, we would need them to have a pretty massive lend to balance things out: something on the order of 30% of a plate tank's mit being given to the target of the spell.</blockquote>Brawlers are already the best single target defensive tank.</blockquote>Didn't we go over this already and it ended with you getting laughed off the boards?</blockquote>Nope. Brawlers have more avoidance, and near equal mitigation to plate tanks, on top of being immune to strike through. Any guild that doesn't have one on it's roster is just hurting themselves at this point in the game.</blockquote>How many times do you need people to correct you that plate tanks got dmg reduction from their epic buff except sk. Moreover, there are some plate tanks only gear with dmg reduction. Not to say, plate tanks can hit lv98 mit cap instead of lv90 mit cap that brawler can hit.The fact is, if brawler was best single target defensive tank, the majority of raid MT should be brawlers instead of plate tanks.</blockquote>Oh you mean that little proc buff guards get instead of the static one on other tanks?</blockquote>Berserkers get 5%, Guardians get 5% on a proc, Paladins get 10%, Shadowknights get none.

BChizzle

05-29-2010, 01:55 AM

<cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote>Berserkers get 5%, Guardians get 5% on a proc, Paladins get 10%, Shadowknights get none.</blockquote>You also get it on plate gear.

Macross_JR

05-29-2010, 02:06 AM

<cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Githil@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Eh, Avoidance tanking could be made significantly more viable. It's not ideal now, but its less broken than it was previously. The main thing I take issue with is that it is super easy for a plate tank in raid situations to hit 80% actual avoidance or so. They'll frequently be avoiding maybe 30% of blows on their own, get 10% more from stoneskins, 10% from their cleric, and another 30% from a brawler's avoidance buff. In comparison, a brawler is probably avoiding 60-70% on their own with 5% from a cleric (it procs less on account of us being hit less often so we see a smaller return from shield ally) and 5% from a plate tank. At the end of the day, the brawler and the plate tank hit the same amount of avoidance.What we need is for some way for plate tanks to give large amounts of mitigation to brawlers in the raid without hurting their own stats. The crusader spell pledge of armament would do if it was about 3x as big a mitigation lend and didn't hurt the crusader's mit when they cast it. Crusaders don't need much more utility though, so I'd suggest giving warriors a huge mitigation lend that is capable of adding as much to a brawler's defensive capabilities as our avoidance lend adds to theirs. Given that I'm capable of halving the number of hits that a plate tank takes, we would need them to have a pretty massive lend to balance things out: something on the order of 30% of a plate tank's mit being given to the target of the spell.</blockquote>Brawlers are already the best single target defensive tank.</blockquote>Didn't we go over this already and it ended with you getting laughed off the boards?</blockquote>Nope. Brawlers have more avoidance, and near equal mitigation to plate tanks, on top of being immune to strike through. Any guild that doesn't have one on it's roster is just hurting themselves at this point in the game.</blockquote>How many times do you need people to correct you that plate tanks got dmg reduction from their epic buff except sk. Moreover, there are some plate tanks only gear with dmg reduction. Not to say, plate tanks can hit lv98 mit cap instead of lv90 mit cap that brawler can hit.The fact is, if brawler was best single target defensive tank, the majority of raid MT should be brawlers instead of plate tanks.</blockquote>Oh you mean that little proc buff guards get instead of the static one on other tanks?</blockquote>Berserkers get 5%, Guardians get 5% on a proc, Paladins get 10%, Shadowknights get none.</blockquote>And how much faster can you kill stuff over a Guardian? I don't know when people's mindset got changed to think balance is between agro and survivability, but right with what you said, it sounds balanced(well besides the Paladin). You kill stuff faster there for do not need the survivability of a tank who kills things slower. That right there sounds balanced aye? Oh, but wait, you get to keep a shield on and do more dps then either fighter can while using a shield. How is that balanced? You get to keep your survivability while both warriors need to lose the shield and go DW to come close to crusader dps. Yeah, that's balanced...lol

BChizzle

05-29-2010, 02:36 AM

<cite>Githil@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>And how much faster can you kill stuff over a Guardian? I don't know when people's mindset got changed to think balance is between agro and survivability, but right with what you said, it sounds balanced(well besides the Paladin). You kill stuff faster there for do not need the survivability of a tank who kills things slower. That right there sounds balanced aye? Oh, but wait, you get to keep a shield on and do more dps then either fighter can while using a shield. How is that balanced? You get to keep your survivability while both warriors need to lose the shield and go DW to come close to crusader dps. Yeah, that's balanced...lol</blockquote>Kill stuff faster = take less hits

circusgirl

05-30-2010, 11:42 AM

<cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Eh, Avoidance tanking could be made significantly more viable. It's not ideal now, but its less broken than it was previously. The main thing I take issue with is that it is super easy for a plate tank in raid situations to hit 80% actual avoidance or so. They'll frequently be avoiding maybe 30% of blows on their own, get 10% more from stoneskins, 10% from their cleric, and another 30% from a brawler's avoidance buff. In comparison, a brawler is probably avoiding 60-70% on their own with 5% from a cleric (it procs less on account of us being hit less often so we see a smaller return from shield ally) and 5% from a plate tank. At the end of the day, the brawler and the plate tank hit the same amount of avoidance.What we need is for some way for plate tanks to give large amounts of mitigation to brawlers in the raid without hurting their own stats. The crusader spell pledge of armament would do if it was about 3x as big a mitigation lend and didn't hurt the crusader's mit when they cast it. Crusaders don't need much more utility though, so I'd suggest giving warriors a huge mitigation lend that is capable of adding as much to a brawler's defensive capabilities as our avoidance lend adds to theirs. Given that I'm capable of halving the number of hits that a plate tank takes, we would need them to have a pretty massive lend to balance things out: something on the order of 30% of a plate tank's mit being given to the target of the spell.</blockquote>Brawlers are already the best single target defensive tank.</blockquote>Didn't we go over this already and it ended with you getting laughed off the boards?</blockquote>Nope. Brawlers have more avoidance, and near equal mitigation to plate tanks, on top of being immune to strike through. Any guild that doesn't have one on it's roster is just hurting themselves at this point in the game.</blockquote>A brawler alone has more avoidance than a plate tank, yes. But a plate tank with a brawler and cleric behind them has avoidance that is pretty much equal to a brawler with equal support. When I put my avoidance on a plate tank, I can avoid 20-30% of incoming blows for them. When a plate tank puts their avoidance on me, I avoid an extra 2-3% of incoming blows. Basically, it is extremely easy for a plate tank to pump up their avoidance using just a couple of readily available buffs, and very hard for a brawler to do the equivalent. I think the warrior's avoidance lend should be turned into a buff that increases the target's mitigation by 30% of their mitigation.

Bruener

05-30-2010, 06:24 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darkonx wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Eh, Avoidance tanking could be made significantly more viable. It's not ideal now, but its less broken than it was previously. The main thing I take issue with is that it is super easy for a plate tank in raid situations to hit 80% actual avoidance or so. They'll frequently be avoiding maybe 30% of blows on their own, get 10% more from stoneskins, 10% from their cleric, and another 30% from a brawler's avoidance buff. In comparison, a brawler is probably avoiding 60-70% on their own with 5% from a cleric (it procs less on account of us being hit less often so we see a smaller return from shield ally) and 5% from a plate tank. At the end of the day, the brawler and the plate tank hit the same amount of avoidance.What we need is for some way for plate tanks to give large amounts of mitigation to brawlers in the raid without hurting their own stats. The crusader spell pledge of armament would do if it was about 3x as big a mitigation lend and didn't hurt the crusader's mit when they cast it. Crusaders don't need much more utility though, so I'd suggest giving warriors a huge mitigation lend that is capable of adding as much to a brawler's defensive capabilities as our avoidance lend adds to theirs. Given that I'm capable of halving the number of hits that a plate tank takes, we would need them to have a pretty massive lend to balance things out: something on the order of 30% of a plate tank's mit being given to the target of the spell.</blockquote>Brawlers are already the best single target defensive tank.</blockquote>Didn't we go over this already and it ended with you getting laughed off the boards?</blockquote>Nope. Brawlers have more avoidance, and near equal mitigation to plate tanks, on top of being immune to strike through. Any guild that doesn't have one on it's roster is just hurting themselves at this point in the game.</blockquote>A brawler alone has more avoidance than a plate tank, yes. But a plate tank with a brawler and cleric behind them has avoidance that is pretty much equal to a brawler with equal support. When I put my avoidance on a plate tank, I can avoid 20-30% of incoming blows for them. When a plate tank puts their avoidance on me, I avoid an extra 2-3% of incoming blows. Basically, it is extremely easy for a plate tank to pump up their avoidance using just a couple of readily available buffs, and very hard for a brawler to do the equivalent. I think the warrior's avoidance lend should be turned into a buff that increases the target's mitigation by 30% of their mitigation. </blockquote>What about when a Brawler puts avoid lend on a Brawler? And how about that strike-thru immunity?

Nulgara

05-31-2010, 12:57 PM

sure it could happen bruener but how often do you see 2 brawlers in the same raid? sure you see 2 warriors and 2 crusaders quite a bit but its frikin rare to have two brawlers.as an aside the crusader still has the advantage. the brawler has to be in defensive for their avoidance lend to function at maximum efficiency. the other 4 tanks can jsut chuck on a shield and stay in offensive stance. my uncontested avoidance in offensive stance is 8.6% in defensive gear, 5.7 in offense gear. in def gear split stance 27.6 but no strikethrough immunity, 22.8 in split with O gear. and 52.6% in def gear def stance def aa spec. im only t1 geared so there are folks out there that can go higher. but the point is that when we arent tanking and know we arent tanking we are in an offesive aa spec with no block aa's and in gear that offers little to no block as well. making our avoidance lend to a tank nearly pointless.so sure you might find a raid force with 2 brawlers. but the crusaders avoidance on the brawler thats tanking is gonna do more than the other brawler thats in o stance and o gear.the above here is something hardly anyone ever talks about. but i can tell you from looking at my logs when im in dps mode i might .. MIGHT.. block 10 attacks total on a zone wide for the tank.its not all gravy for brawlers liek you folks think. brawlers and warriors (mostly guardians) have ot make actual substantial sacrifices to keep that raid spot when we arent tanking (and in guards case even when they are).guards need love no doubt. sure more dps would help to fix it. but theres more to it then that.edit: forgot to address the mit thing. but like has already bene stated a brawler can stack up mit to the the cap vs a level 90 mob. the highest i can get my mit to is right around 9500 currently. ive seen plate tanks over 15k. and to get that 9500 i had to take off a lot fo procing jewelery and such to get there. which results in a huse loss of agro producing effects which for me = why be standing in front of the mob cause im not gonna hold it without those procs. so its a moot point. if i am tanking something and i work my gear to the limit of my agro ability, i sit around 67.4% mit and 52% uncon avoidance. with absolutely horrid crit bonus, potency and ability mod when i do it.

circusgirl

05-31-2010, 01:47 PM

Even if you did have a brawler with another brawler's avoidance lend on them you'll still see a smaller return than you would if that same buff were given to a plate tank. The avoidance lend can only function when a mob gets past your avoidance--as that happens less for an avoidance tank, there are fewer chances for it to proc and it therefore procs less. A brawler with another brawler's avoidance lend will of course have higher avoidance than a plate tank with a brawler's avoidance lend, but not by much, and the plate tank still has a huge advantage.In my opinion we should strive to reach a balanced point where each raid force regularly uses one warrior, one crusader, and one brawler. Brawler's can do a lot to help plate tanks...the plate tanks should be able to do a lot to help us.

Bruener

05-31-2010, 06:42 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>In my opinion we should strive to reach a balanced point where each raid force regularly uses one warrior, one crusader, and one brawler. Brawler's can do a lot to help plate tanks...the plate tanks should be able to do a lot to help us.</blockquote>A lot of people recognize that this is already true....with maybe the exception of Guards needing some small tweaks. But a raid is silly not to want a Brawler. As has been pointed out hands down have the best avoidance lend. Can tank anything in the game. Even though some fail to recognize it, they have the best pick-up abilities for loose mobs. And on the regular flow of trash have good DPS.Warriors. Guards are still the best MT, although its tough to argue the ability of Paladins right now. Zerks are fantastic tanks and under-utilized atm mostly because there are hardly any long standing Zerk tanks out there....many betrayed in RoK or rerolled in TSO.The only area I see a real problem is the very good OT tools Paladins are given if they are supposed to be a major contender for the MT spot. Something I believe was discussed in the fighter revamp that was tossed out...but the idea of making Paladins and Guards the defensive/ST type tanks for MT'ing. Making Zerk/SK the offensive tank with great OT'ing tools. And Brawlers being a more utility tank.The problem with a plate tank lending a Brawler a large amount of mit why would you not use that Brawler than to be the MT....I mean they already cap mit when they want...add on mit from another tank and they don't even have to spec as much mit gear. In the mean-time with the much higher uncontested avoid they can get along with strike-thru immunity no plate tank can even come close to touching that.No, despite how much people have a skewed vision of reality really there are only a couple tweaks that need to happen to the MT-type of tanks to get things really in line.

BChizzle

05-31-2010, 08:09 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>In my opinion we should strive to reach a balanced point where each raid force regularly uses one warrior, one crusader, and one brawler. Brawler's can do a lot to help plate tanks...the plate tanks should be able to do a lot to help us.</blockquote>A lot of people recognize that this is already true....with maybe the exception of Guards needing some small tweaks. But a raid is silly not to want a Brawler. As has been pointed out hands down have the best avoidance lend. Can tank anything in the game. Even though some fail to recognize it, they have the best pick-up abilities for loose mobs. And on the regular flow of trash have good DPS.Warriors. Guards are still the best MT, although its tough to argue the ability of Paladins right now. Zerks are fantastic tanks and under-utilized atm mostly because there are hardly any long standing Zerk tanks out there....many betrayed in RoK or rerolled in TSO.The only area I see a real problem is the very good OT tools Paladins are given if they are supposed to be a major contender for the MT spot. Something I believe was discussed in the fighter revamp that was tossed out...but the idea of making Paladins and Guards the defensive/ST type tanks for MT'ing. Making Zerk/SK the offensive tank with great OT'ing tools. And Brawlers being a more utility tank.The problem with a plate tank lending a Brawler a large amount of mit why would you not use that Brawler than to be the MT....I mean they already cap mit when they want...add on mit from another tank and they don't even have to spec as much mit gear. In the mean-time with the much higher uncontested avoid they can get along with strike-thru immunity no plate tank can even come close to touching that.No, despite how much people have a skewed vision of reality really there are only a couple tweaks that need to happen to the MT-type of tanks to get things really in line.</blockquote>You are delusional.

circusgirl

05-31-2010, 08:17 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>In my opinion we should strive to reach a balanced point where each raid force regularly uses one warrior, one crusader, and one brawler. Brawler's can do a lot to help plate tanks...the plate tanks should be able to do a lot to help us.</blockquote>A lot of people recognize that this is already true....with maybe the exception of Guards needing some small tweaks. But a raid is silly not to want a Brawler. As has been pointed out hands down have the best avoidance lend. Can tank anything in the game. Even though some fail to recognize it, they have the best pick-up abilities for loose mobs. And on the regular flow of trash have good DPS.Warriors. Guards are still the best MT, although its tough to argue the ability of Paladins right now. Zerks are fantastic tanks and under-utilized atm mostly because there are hardly any long standing Zerk tanks out there....many betrayed in RoK or rerolled in TSO.The only area I see a real problem is the very good OT tools Paladins are given if they are supposed to be a major contender for the MT spot. Something I believe was discussed in the fighter revamp that was tossed out...but the idea of making Paladins and Guards the defensive/ST type tanks for MT'ing. Making Zerk/SK the offensive tank with great OT'ing tools. And Brawlers being a more utility tank.The problem with a plate tank lending a Brawler a large amount of mit why would you not use that Brawler than to be the MT....I mean they already cap mit when they want...add on mit from another tank and they don't even have to spec as much mit gear. In the mean-time with the much higher uncontested avoid they can get along with strike-thru immunity no plate tank can even come close to touching that.No, despite how much people have a skewed vision of reality really there are only a couple tweaks that need to happen to the MT-type of tanks to get things really in line.</blockquote>Guardians are a viable (though not great) choice for MT. Zerkers make great MTs. Shadowknights are fantastic MTs. Paladins are great MTs....why shouldn't brawlers be a solid choice as well? Is there any real decent reason why they shouldn't be an option? Any tank should be able to take up that role if they are given proper support to do so, so why should brawlers be any different?And this whole thing about brawlers being able to cap mit needs to be qualified better--we can cap mit when we sacrifice half our dps AND are getting all the right buffs AND have temporary mit buffs up. Its hardly like its up 100% of the time. And, as I've said before--plate tanks are capable of receiving numbers that are almost as high as a brawler's when it comes to avoidance, so there's really no good reason for us to be far behind them on mit.

Couching

05-31-2010, 09:28 PM

Don't forget the limitation of itemization.In this xpac, most gear has either mitigation increase or block chance. Only very few gear has both of them.If plate tanks focus on block chance vs brawlers focus on mitigation increase, plate tanks are going to have similar or even more uncontested avoidance than brawlers.And plate tanks still mitigate damage better because they have extra dmg reduction from epic buff and plate tanks only gear.The best case should be a plate tank focuses on dps/aggro with the avoidance buff from a brawler focusing on avoidance. So the MT has capped mit, 70%+ avoidance and max dps/aggro.This is why in most raiding guild, MT is still a plate tank instead of a brawler.Any other combo is worse than the case above.

Bruener

05-31-2010, 10:30 PM

Neither SK nor Zerker makes nearly as good of a MT as Paladins and Guards. Yes they can do it...just like any Brawler can easily MT this whole xpac. Guards and Paladins are just much better choices.As for your comment Couching, if a Plate tank focuses on +block they get really crappy mit. So it is the very same choice for plate tanks. The difference is Brawlers can get a lot of uncontested Block while defensive and cap their mit......the big difference is the immune to strike-thru.I know our raid is Warrior/Crusader/Brawler and it works extremely good.And as a SK I am trying to figure out these extra damage reductions i get....

Couching

05-31-2010, 10:57 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>As for your comment Couching, if a Plate tank focuses on +block they get really crappy mit. So it is the very same choice for plate tanks. The difference is Brawlers can get a lot of uncontested Block while defensive and cap their mit......the big difference is the immune to strike-thru.I know our raid is Warrior/Crusader/Brawler and it works extremely good.And as a SK I am trying to figure out these extra damage reductions i get....</blockquote>It is definitely not true.It's so easy to hit mit cap for plate tanks with T2 pants, bp and shoulder: 18.9 mit increase.On the contrary, brawlers have to get T3 pants and BP so that we may have a chance to hit mit cap with all the mit increase jewelries.(and no body got T3 bp yet)So please, stop spreading incorrect info.

BChizzle

05-31-2010, 11:01 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Neither SK nor Zerker makes nearly as good of a MT as Paladins and Guards. Yes they can do it...just like any Brawler can easily MT this whole xpac. Guards and Paladins are just much better choices.As for your comment Couching, if a Plate tank focuses on +block they get really crappy mit. So it is the very same choice for plate tanks. The difference is Brawlers can get a lot of uncontested Block while defensive and cap their mit......the big difference is the immune to strike-thru.I know our raid is Warrior/Crusader/Brawler and it works extremely good.And as a SK I am trying to figure out these extra damage reductions i get....</blockquote>Plate tanks get more mit, more uncontested block and more damage reduction then leather tanks. Basically they are better at every single stat on top of that they can go full dps and still maintain their avoidance through their shields. It is easier to cap block on a plate tank then a brawler it is easier to cap mit on a plate tank then a brawler. On top of that plate tanks proc more reactive damage and heals as well as having more options in regards to high delay weapons for better procs per swing. Brawlers get immunity to strikethrough which basically makes them avoid 10% more and they have to be in defensive for it to work. On top of that brawlers can't hold agro off any plate tank in this game while in a defensive set up that comes close but not as good as a plate tank and their DPS goes to crap. Also unlike plate tanks brawlers don't have a group buff so quit with the utility garbage.

Bruener

05-31-2010, 11:29 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>As for your comment Couching, if a Plate tank focuses on +block they get really crappy mit. So it is the very same choice for plate tanks. The difference is Brawlers can get a lot of uncontested Block while defensive and cap their mit......the big difference is the immune to strike-thru.I know our raid is Warrior/Crusader/Brawler and it works extremely good.And as a SK I am trying to figure out these extra damage reductions i get....</blockquote>It is definitely not true.It's so easy to hit mit cap for plate tanks with T2 pants, bp and shoulder: 18.9 mit increase.On the contrary, brawlers have to get T3 pants and BP so that we may have a chance to hit mit cap with all the mit increase jewelries.(and no body got T3 bp yet)So please, stop spreading incorrect info.</blockquote>Odd because in a raid I have to put on tanking T3 pants, shoulders, helm, boots, wearing Munzok cloak, have the Cella charm, drop into defensive stance and will barely hit mit cap. In the meantime I am not seeing a ton of +block on ANY of that. So where is this more "damage reduction" I get too? I mean I have the Miragul charm that every fighter can get.Yes I maintain my uncontested avoid through a shield, but my uncontested avoid is not even close to as good as a Brawlers in defensive. Immunity to strike thru gives 10% more and than in defensive our Bruiser gave me a number that was about 10% higher than me for uncontested avoid. That is sounding something like 20% more avoid. Its not like I can drop into defensive and put on a ton of block gear to get 20% more avoid. To even get into the realm of a 10% gap it takes having a Brawlers avoid lend on a plate tank.

BChizzle

05-31-2010, 11:34 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote> Its not like I can drop into defensive and put on a ton of block gear to get 20% more avoid.</blockquote>Yes you can, you just choose not to.

Couching

05-31-2010, 11:45 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>As for your comment Couching, if a Plate tank focuses on +block they get really crappy mit. So it is the very same choice for plate tanks. The difference is Brawlers can get a lot of uncontested Block while defensive and cap their mit......the big difference is the immune to strike-thru.I know our raid is Warrior/Crusader/Brawler and it works extremely good.And as a SK I am trying to figure out these extra damage reductions i get....</blockquote>It is definitely not true.It's so easy to hit mit cap for plate tanks with T2 pants, bp and shoulder: 18.9 mit increase.On the contrary, brawlers have to get T3 pants and BP so that we may have a chance to hit mit cap with all the mit increase jewelries.(and no body got T3 bp yet)So please, stop spreading incorrect info.</blockquote>Odd because in a raid I have to put on tanking T3 pants, shoulders, helm, boots, wearing Munzok cloak, have the Cella charm, drop into defensive stance and will barely hit mit cap. In the meantime I am not seeing a ton of +block on ANY of that. So where is this more "damage reduction" I get too? I mean I have the Miragul charm that every fighter can get.Yes I maintain my uncontested avoid through a shield, but my uncontested avoid is not even close to as good as a Brawlers in defensive. Immunity to strike thru gives 10% more and than in defensive our Bruiser gave me a number that was about 10% higher than me for uncontested avoid. That is sounding something like 20% more avoid. Its not like I can drop into defensive and put on a ton of block gear to get 20% more avoid. To even get into the realm of a 10% gap it takes having a Brawlers avoid lend on a plate tank.</blockquote>See, in your post, you said you will barely hit mit cap with over +20 mit increase. Also, plate armor is about 60% more than leather armor.How could a leather tank hit mit cap then?For dmg reduction, every plate tank has dmg reduction from epic buff except sk.For every plate tank, when you can hit mit cap without TSF T2 or T3 bp, TSO T4 plate bp has 5% dmg reduction. There are more gear for plate tanks only with dmg reduction or tsunami that were no longer drop. If you are not a new comer of this game, you have chances of getting those loots.

circusgirl

05-31-2010, 11:46 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Neither SK nor Zerker makes nearly as good of a MT as Paladins and Guards. Yes they can do it...just like any Brawler can easily MT this whole xpac. Guards and Paladins are just much better choices.As for your comment Couching, if a Plate tank focuses on +block they get really crappy mit. So it is the very same choice for plate tanks. The difference is Brawlers can get a lot of uncontested Block while defensive and cap their mit......the big difference is the immune to strike-thru.I know our raid is Warrior/Crusader/Brawler and it works extremely good.And as a SK I am trying to figure out these extra damage reductions i get....</blockquote>SKs make fantastic MTs. We had an SK MT in RoK (back when yall supposedly were terrible), an SK MT in TSO, and we still have an SK MT now. And she's fantastic, and holds that role despite us having excellent paladins, warriors, and brawlers. I know of a great many other guilds that are progressing rapidly who use SK MTs...but not one guild that is at the top of their server's progression uses a brawler as a MT as far as I know. Claiming that brawlers are anywhere even remotely close to where SKs are in terms of tanking raid mobs is just bull.

Landiin

05-31-2010, 11:48 PM

This thread is about guard quiting damnit! Brawlers never was meant to MT, thats the domain for plate tanks. With that being said; with the way plate tanks are parsing brawlers should be be given the ability to MT. This game has entered the twilit zone and nothing makes since any longer. I firmly believe no one at SOE knows what class is suppose to do what any more or how to fix it. So many classes blur the line between other classes it is just dumb. They just need to grow some balls and do what needs to be done. But the way I see things is, you need to just roll the FOTM class for what ever arch you like to play. That way when the tides changes your ready for it.

circusgirl

06-01-2010, 12:09 AM

Why exactly should MT only be the provence of plate tanks, exactly? I imagine any argument you give for why only plate tanks should MT I could use to argue that only Guardians should MT. All fighters are tanks. We should all have the tools we need to tank when that is what is needed, and to support our raids in other ways--be it dps, utility, or making other tanks stronger-- when we are not tanking.

Kota

06-01-2010, 01:29 AM

block chance for plate tanks is over rated imo. adding an item with 1% block chance makes your shield block % go up by like 1/4%. so yeah you would need an insane amount to get it to brawler lvls. block chance for plate tanks adds the % to the block value of your shield. so it's like 1% of 25.

BChizzle

06-01-2010, 02:11 AM

<cite>Tenka@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>block chance for plate tanks is over rated imo. adding an item with 1% block chance makes your shield block % go up by like 1/4%. so yeah you would need an insane amount to get it to brawler lvls. block chance for plate tanks adds the % to the block value of your shield. so it's like 1% of 25.</blockquote>A brawler gets 16% block from their defensive stance, with AA's you can raise it to 22%. The mythical buff also give 5% so 27% total block chance, there are shields that block for more then brawlers in defensive stance and you aren't limited to only having block while defensive. If block is overratted for plates then it is even more overrated for brawlers, basically THE ONLY THING making brawlers avoid more then plate tanks is immunity to strikethrough.

Nulgara

06-01-2010, 02:32 AM

<cite>Tenka@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>block chance for plate tanks is over rated imo. adding an item with 1% block chance makes your shield block % go up by like 1/4%. so yeah you would need an insane amount to get it to brawler lvls. block chance for plate tanks adds the % to the block value of your shield. so it's like 1% of 25.</blockquote>it works exactly the same way for brawlers so what exactly is your point? our base uncontested avoidance is 27% with myth and aa's. it takes 160% of block chance mods for a brawler to cap uncontested avoidance. it takes less for a plate tank. strikethrough immunity is our only advantage in raid avoidance.and the biggest think alot of you plate tanks are missing is that we absolutely cant have the super high avoidance and mitigation at the same time.. plate tanks can get jsut a few pieces of +mit gear and put the rest on block. brawelrs dont get that luxury. we need EVERY piece with high block and high + mit to get there. the differences in the sacrifice made to do so is MASSIVE.

Nulgara

06-01-2010, 12:34 PM

<cite>Toranx@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>This thread is about guard quiting damnit! Brawlers never was meant to MT, thats the domain for plate tanks. With that being said; with the way plate tanks are parsing brawlers should be be given the ability to MT. This game has entered the twilit zone and nothing makes since any longer. I firmly believe no one at SOE knows what class is suppose to do what any more or how to fix it. So many classes blur the line between other classes it is just dumb. They just need to grow some balls and do what needs to be done. But the way I see things is, you need to just roll the FOTM class for what ever arch you like to play. That way when the tides changes your ready for it.</blockquote>bolded partumm what? so your telling me you never saw a brawler tanking raid mobs in original release of the game. let me tell ya on unrest where i started originally there where 3 of us tanking raids in original release and we didnt stop tanking them until we got royally shafted with the first combat revamp. i certainly never once read anything anywhere that said brawlers woudlnt be mt's. ALL fighters should be able to tank all mobs with varying degrees of success. we're pretty much there right now, a few tweaks here and there coudlnt hurt though. but most folks recognize survivability isnt the issue its being able to do your job as a tank thats the issue. guards are having difficulty in raids and so are brawlers, guards having to duel wield and losing the block from their shield jsut to have a prayer of holding agro and lets nto get into instances for guards, brawlers having to lose more then half their dps to go into survival mode lose a huge portion of thier agro producing ability as well, though in instances brawlers are fine. so tell me if some fighters werent designed to mt why exactly woudl they all have these nifty survival tools we all keep getting? but theres more to mt'ing these days then jsut surviving the hits. you gotta be bringing the pain as well and for a few tanks its extremely difficult to do by nature of design. brawler being unable to use offensive stance while tanking in raid due to our avoidance being attached to defensive and guards being so low on the dps totem pole that they have no choice but to ditch the shield to try and keep up. gone are the days where people actually watched their agro, these days everyone thinks it is entirely the tanks fault if he loses agro, if thats going to be the case and remain the case then a whole bunch of changes need to occur that will allow all 6 fighters to be able to mainatin agro no matter how much dps they themselves are doing. my personal thoughts are that defensive stances for all 6 fighters shoudl have some pretty significant threat addons to all ca's while stance is active all uncontested avoidance should also be tied into the defensive stance for all 6 fighters, like i said when in defensive stances survivability isnt the issue between teh 6 tanks its maintaining the agro, some fighters having to lower their survivability jsut to do thier primary job of taking the hits is counter intuitive to the point of the class. making the def stance the be all end all for tanking raid content should and would get rid of the agro issues. when in o stances all block should be contested jsut liek brawlers works right now. these types of changes fix the survivabilty imbalances and the agro issues all in one shot. as a more indepth on the threat increase thought. def stances coudl do the followingwhen stance is active all singel target and encounter taunts triple in effectiveness, basicaly turns a 4 k single targt taunt into a 12k taunt.all ca's woudl do thier dmg at triple threat per dmg point as well. (this is jsut a guess but i think triple woudl do the trick but it might even need to be higher)and the + aggression on the def stances shoudl be increased possibly doubled.and all this is before hate mod is calculated. offensive stances shoudl function liek brawlers do now with no uncontested avoidance.meh anyway im rambling now.but back on point. not once have i ever seen a blurb that any of the 6 tanks shoudlnt be able to mt any mob in the game. not once. we all bring something a little different to the table and that shoudl remain that way. but when any tank drops into defensive the mob should be frikin scared.

circusgirl

06-01-2010, 01:04 PM

I think they should just force everyone to go defensive when MTing by making shields only offer uncontested avoidance when the bearer is in defensive stance. The rest of the time block for a plate tank would work just like it does for a brawler in offensive.

Landiin

06-01-2010, 02:40 PM

Did I ever say they couldn't? No I did not...

Aule

06-01-2010, 03:05 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>I think they should just force everyone to go defensive when MTing by making shields only offer uncontested avoidance when the bearer is in defensive stance. The rest of the time block for a plate tank would work just like it does for a brawler in offensive.</blockquote>But people would threaten to cancel accounts if that happened! That's a really good suggestion though.

Yimway

06-01-2010, 03:20 PM

Holy De-Rail Batman!Seems every thread started in fighter discussion is just going to resolve to the same dead arguements that no one at SoE is going to read or take anything of value from.We should just ask that General Fighter Discussion get renamed to Fighter QQ Bucket.

Nulgara

06-01-2010, 03:31 PM

meh its not that much of a de-rail really. cause alot fo things pertain to guards jsut as much as teh other 5 fighters.as far as people repeating the same things over and over.. well sure im one of those hehe. but after awhile you'ld think the devs woudl see that folks are saying the same things over and over and over again and might actually read the ideas being brought forth.ive seen quite a few solid ideas on how to take tanks to the next level of better balance between all 6. and yeah on these boards you pretty much have to repeat everything you say 500 times before anyone bothers to start understanding it. hehmy thoughts form previous though pertain quite a bit to guards and why they are frustrated. fixing some things into the defensive stance can bring some of those frustrations down. i disagree that increasing any fighters dps is a vaild way to fix it cause then scouts and mages are just gonna be complaining wanting more dps for themselves. dps is out of control.we need to get back to basics. agro/threat, survival, utility. and a few relatively simple fixes compared to dps changes coudl bring some of the fun back to guards and some others.im sure we all agree losing agro becasue your built to be a rock solid tank sucks. having to nerf your own survivability as a tank just to keep the agro is not fun. having to spec your aa in cookie cutter ways is not fun. getting asked to sit out on a raid cause you do half the dps of the crusaders and tank with less then a 1% survivability difference is not fun.it is the FUN that people want right? sure dps is fun. but shoudlnt be the be all end all of fighter agro. which is why i put forth my suggestions for the defensive stances. that alleviates the constant worry that 3 other fighters at the raid are doubling your dps parse and theres a 99% chance that your gonna lose the mob multiple times per fight because you cant keep up your hate when tanking the mob. an issue that affects more then jsut the guardian

Rast

06-01-2010, 04:07 PM

I liked someones idea, just get rid of the stances and replace them with a buff of some type.I agree with the poster above, just upping dps isn't going to solve anything, they need to make the tank mean more than a dps number on the parse. But yet, they need a way that we can level without having to have a group (like other classes) or you will see a significant drop off in the number of tanks.But how do you do that without absolutely destroying Brawlers as tanks? You can't just increase how hard the mobs hit because while that helps the plate tanks, it does nothing for the brawlers. Avoidance tanking is broken and even if it were fixed to allow brawlers to tank, it would still push the tanks (all tanks) away for swashy's and brigands who would become the defacto group tanks...So the how do you fix this without completely neutering tanks for anything but group and up content?

Silzin

06-01-2010, 04:07 PM

As I understand agro generation there are 3 mane sources for fights. 1. Self DPS (modified with +hate mob) 2. Raw Threat (from taunts and some reactive) 3. Transferred agro I think that the fact for all fighters most of hour agro comes from DPS and not threat is backwards and needs to be looked into. If the tables that are used to calculate agro are tweaked so dps have a lower ratio and threat has a higher ratio we can start getting somewhere. The fact the +hate mob dosnt affects the Threat but only the hate generated from dps is backwards. Defensive stances need to be more defensive and agro oriented for all fighters, so when a tank can slack off and just dps for agro in a group they are fine to go offensive but when they are needing more agro and/or to take a hit better they should HAVE to go to Defensive stance. This would tho require taking a long hard look at all of the stances of all of the fighter classes and consolidating some abilities into the stances so fighters are more dependent on using one over a nether in a situation. To do it would also need changing the base amount of all threat tools, like taunts.

Bruener

06-01-2010, 05:44 PM

SOE has purposely added DPS to be a major factor for most fighters specifically because they know that that is what people enjoy doing (just like Rogues, Bards, Chanters, Healers, etc all can do now). Allowing people to do pretty good DPS while being able to peform their main role, or more importantly being able to DPS well while being just another DPS'er (trash, ST mobs, etc) is really what people want to do. Its the reason that raids will actually consider taking 3-4 fighters in a raid instead of 1-2 now too. Reverting back to the dumb fighter revamp will just decline the want of fighters along with making the class much less enjoyable to play to most people.Yes Guards need something to make them more fun to play. There are plenty of ways to do this while staying within the idea of Guards and not simply copy/pasting other fighter abilities.Get rid of the stupid stances, they are useless and if they forced a choice more people would just be upset with having to play a boring class in defensive. I mean Brawlers obviously don't like the forced choice and it upsets them....and yet people want to force more tanks to do that? Remove stances, give Brawlers their uncontested block built in shield, up agro capabilities of Guards and things are lookin real good.

BChizzle

06-01-2010, 07:40 PM

Basically crusaders produce too much agro and other tanks need to be buffed up to that agro (Which imo is too much) or inc nerfs to crusader agro (which is the right solution). On top of that dps among tanks needs to be better balanced, SOE didn't do enough by giving non crusaders some extra base crit mod because as was said in BETA a million times the stat consolidation favored hybrid dps classes because now they are able to get full benefit of spells and melee.

Bruener

06-01-2010, 07:49 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Basically crusaders produce too much agro and other tanks need to be buffed up to that agro (Which imo is too much) or inc nerfs to crusader agro (which is the right solution). On top of that dps among tanks needs to be better balanced, SOE didn't do enough by giving non crusaders some extra base crit mod because as was said in BETA a million times the stat consolidation favored hybrid dps classes because now they are able to get full benefit of spells and melee.</blockquote>So your bitter because another class is more fun to play...so instead of making sure your class is as fun to play you would rather see more people have less fun while playing.....got it!SOE made agro obsolete. DPS doesn't want to have to worry about agro so SOE made sure they wouldn't have to. Any fighter class can easily hold agro, even AE encounters. The only other classes another fighter has problems sustaining agro against is another fighter.Just like the argument that what is really the benefit of additional survivability when it really isn't required what exactly is the advantage of extra agro, besides having to throttle it while playing with another fighter, when it is way more than is needed.Seriously on a hate meter ask your DPS classes where they are. It doesn't matter which fighter is tanking they will probably be less than 30 on the hate meter.If Brawlers are unhappy with having to be forced into stances...than they should push for the removal of stances, which really is a dumb concept because nobody likes to [Removed for Content] one area to up another. Push for changes to make it more enjoyable to play instead of trying to [Removed for Content] other classes.

BChizzle

06-01-2010, 07:59 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Basically crusaders produce too much agro and other tanks need to be buffed up to that agro (Which imo is too much) or inc nerfs to crusader agro (which is the right solution). On top of that dps among tanks needs to be better balanced, SOE didn't do enough by giving non crusaders some extra base crit mod because as was said in BETA a million times the stat consolidation favored hybrid dps classes because now they are able to get full benefit of spells and melee.</blockquote>So your bitter because another class is more fun to play...so instead of making sure your class is as fun to play you would rather see more people have less fun while playing.....got it!SOE made agro obsolete. DPS doesn't want to have to worry about agro so SOE made sure they wouldn't have to. Any fighter class can easily hold agro, even AE encounters. The only other classes another fighter has problems sustaining agro against is another fighter.Just like the argument that what is really the benefit of additional survivability when it really isn't required what exactly is the advantage of extra agro, besides having to throttle it while playing with another fighter, when it is way more than is needed.Seriously on a hate meter ask your DPS classes where they are. It doesn't matter which fighter is tanking they will probably be less than 30 on the hate meter.If Brawlers are unhappy with having to be forced into stances...than they should push for the removal of stances, which really is a dumb concept because nobody likes to [Removed for Content] one area to up another. Push for changes to make it more enjoyable to play instead of trying to [Removed for Content] other classes.</blockquote>Fun to play has nothing to do with it. Classes in this game are supposed to be balanced and currently they are not. People like you Bruener seem to forget the spot your class was in 3 years ago way too easily now that you are on the top of the tanking ladder, but the fact remains you have too much agro and either nerfing your agro or buffing other tanks agro will have little to no effect on your gameplay whatsoever yet you QQ all day and night about how other classes don't need fixes when the truth is you need every advantage you can get because you are a garbage player.

Nulgara

06-01-2010, 08:38 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>SOE has purposely added DPS to be a major factor for most fighters specifically because they know that that is what people enjoy doing (just like Rogues, Bards, Chanters, Healers, etc all can do now). Allowing people to do pretty good DPS while being able to peform their main role, or more importantly being able to DPS well while being just another DPS'er (trash, ST mobs, etc) is really what people want to do. Its the reason that raids will actually consider taking 3-4 fighters in a raid instead of 1-2 now too. Reverting back to the dumb fighter revamp will just decline the want of fighters along with making the class much less enjoyable to play to most people.Yes Guards need something to make them more fun to play. There are plenty of ways to do this while staying within the idea of Guards and not simply copy/pasting other fighter abilities.Get rid of the stupid stances, they are useless and if they forced a choice more people would just be upset with having to play a boring class in defensive. I mean Brawlers obviously don't like the forced choice and it upsets them....and yet people want to force more tanks to do that? Remove stances, give Brawlers their uncontested block built in shield, up agro capabilities of Guards and things are lookin real good.</blockquote>i cant speak for you guys but i didnt roll my two tanks to be dps'ers. piling on dps to fighters was one of the biggest mistakes soe made. we are tanks i rolled my tanks to TANK. if i wanted to melee dps i woudl have rolled a rogue or a predator.whats done is done though. im on the fence when it comes to nerfing anyones dps. it may indeed need to happen but i wont comment on it. im not saying we shoudl go back to the previously proposed fighter revamp, but again that might be something that needs to happen. there was good and bad in that. but 90% of people only care about one number and thats there extDPS in ACT. with so many people focused on that number its a wonder anything can ever be done.so what happens. do they boost the under performing fighters to be on par dps with teh rest. do they nerf the top dps fighters down to the middle and bring the low to the middle ground (prolly the better option if they fool with dps at all). or do they take a different route altogether, a combination of changes (prolly best option)where crusaders are right now agro wise is where all tanks shoudl be agro wise. that in no way means it has to be achieved through dps but it does HAVE to be achieved somehow. wether that be through increased threat on taunts, by adding threat components to all ca's while in defensive, by uncapping hate mod, by some other means i cant think of right now. the point is it NEEDS to happen somehow.a lto of people want to think in terms of jsut dps but there are other options. if the devs dont want brawlers or guardians doing zerker/crusader level dmg then they need to use those other options to make sure that agro capability is comparable across all 6 fighters regardless of teh dps being done. it all comes down to threat per second really.disregard hate mod entirely. if a top end fighter of one class is capable of doing 45k dps and 5k tps. and a top end fighter of another type maxes out at 25k dps then his tps needs to be 20-25k tps to be comparable. thats the biggest disparity we see right now. we do have 50k total threat per second tanks out there. and we do have 30k threat per second tanks as well. those 30ks need to be reaching 50k as well, and not neccessarily through dps. a tank shoudl not require a multitude of outside buffs just to have a prayer of holding agro vs tanks that are on the pointy of the stick right now.as far as brawlers not liking that our avoidance is attached to our defensive stance. i actually have no issues with it whatsoever. it makes sense that i shoudl be defensive when tanking big mobs. that problem most of us have with it is that for us to tank we have to lose almsot half of our dps to do so which makes holding agro extremely difficult vs those 50k tps tanks. liek i was saying earlier as a monk i'ld be perfectly content with threat mods being added to my defensive stance allowing me to reach 50k threat per second in a way other then purely dpsing.i cant speak for guards but i dont imagine there would be as much of an outcry as you think if threat per second was balanced. sure enough though yeah the top dpsing tanks will still be the favorites for heroic stuff and for the extra spots in raid so something does need to occur there as well to allow all 6 fighters to vie for the positions, but i dont presume to know what that shoudl be.

Bruener

06-01-2010, 09:31 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Basically crusaders produce too much agro and other tanks need to be buffed up to that agro (Which imo is too much) or inc nerfs to crusader agro (which is the right solution). On top of that dps among tanks needs to be better balanced, SOE didn't do enough by giving non crusaders some extra base crit mod because as was said in BETA a million times the stat consolidation favored hybrid dps classes because now they are able to get full benefit of spells and melee.</blockquote>So your bitter because another class is more fun to play...so instead of making sure your class is as fun to play you would rather see more people have less fun while playing.....got it!SOE made agro obsolete. DPS doesn't want to have to worry about agro so SOE made sure they wouldn't have to. Any fighter class can easily hold agro, even AE encounters. The only other classes another fighter has problems sustaining agro against is another fighter.Just like the argument that what is really the benefit of additional survivability when it really isn't required what exactly is the advantage of extra agro, besides having to throttle it while playing with another fighter, when it is way more than is needed.Seriously on a hate meter ask your DPS classes where they are. It doesn't matter which fighter is tanking they will probably be less than 30 on the hate meter.If Brawlers are unhappy with having to be forced into stances...than they should push for the removal of stances, which really is a dumb concept because nobody likes to [Removed for Content] one area to up another. Push for changes to make it more enjoyable to play instead of trying to [Removed for Content] other classes.</blockquote>Fun to play has nothing to do with it. Classes in this game are supposed to be balanced and currently they are not. People like you Bruener seem to forget the spot your class was in 3 years ago way too easily now that you are on the top of the tanking ladder, but the fact remains you have too much agro and either nerfing your agro or buffing other tanks agro will have little to no effect on your gameplay whatsoever yet you QQ all day and night about how other classes don't need fixes when the truth is you need every advantage you can get because you are a garbage player.</blockquote>LOL, we have been down this road before. You have no clue the type of player I am. The fact is you can ask anybody, and I mean anybody that has played with me what kind of player I am and they will tell you top notch....well basically since launch. I have not forgotten where my class was 3 years ago which is exactly why I don't want to be there again. For some reason you really fail to read because what I said was increase player agro. I am the one pushing things up, making suggestions to help Guards are throwing out the idea that Brawlers shouldn't be forced into a stance to get their uncontested avoidance. All you can do is come onto these forums and spew a bunch of junk that most of the time comes from jealousy of playing with better tanks.You are a complete hypocrit which has been shown by your complete change in being on one side of the fence or another. And you are the worst kind of troll because you can't even come up with a decent idea to help another class unless it is the idea of nerfing other classes to make yours look better.A sad piece of work indeed....

BChizzle

06-01-2010, 10:00 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Basically crusaders produce too much agro and other tanks need to be buffed up to that agro (Which imo is too much) or inc nerfs to crusader agro (which is the right solution). On top of that dps among tanks needs to be better balanced, SOE didn't do enough by giving non crusaders some extra base crit mod because as was said in BETA a million times the stat consolidation favored hybrid dps classes because now they are able to get full benefit of spells and melee.</blockquote>So your bitter because another class is more fun to play...so instead of making sure your class is as fun to play you would rather see more people have less fun while playing.....got it!SOE made agro obsolete. DPS doesn't want to have to worry about agro so SOE made sure they wouldn't have to. Any fighter class can easily hold agro, even AE encounters. The only other classes another fighter has problems sustaining agro against is another fighter.Just like the argument that what is really the benefit of additional survivability when it really isn't required what exactly is the advantage of extra agro, besides having to throttle it while playing with another fighter, when it is way more than is needed.Seriously on a hate meter ask your DPS classes where they are. It doesn't matter which fighter is tanking they will probably be less than 30 on the hate meter.If Brawlers are unhappy with having to be forced into stances...than they should push for the removal of stances, which really is a dumb concept because nobody likes to [Removed for Content] one area to up another. Push for changes to make it more enjoyable to play instead of trying to [Removed for Content] other classes.</blockquote>Fun to play has nothing to do with it. Classes in this game are supposed to be balanced and currently they are not. People like you Bruener seem to forget the spot your class was in 3 years ago way too easily now that you are on the top of the tanking ladder, but the fact remains you have too much agro and either nerfing your agro or buffing other tanks agro will have little to no effect on your gameplay whatsoever yet you QQ all day and night about how other classes don't need fixes when the truth is you need every advantage you can get because you are a garbage player.</blockquote>LOL, we have been down this road before. You have no clue the type of player I am. The fact is you can ask anybody, and I mean anybody that has played with me what kind of player I am and they will tell you top notch....well basically since launch. I have not forgotten where my class was 3 years ago which is exactly why I don't want to be there again. For some reason you really fail to read because what I said was increase player agro. I am the one pushing things up, making suggestions to help Guards are throwing out the idea that Brawlers shouldn't be forced into a stance to get their uncontested avoidance. All you can do is come onto these forums and spew a bunch of junk that most of the time comes from jealousy of playing with better tanks.You are a complete hypocrit which has been shown by your complete change in being on one side of the fence or another. And you are the worst kind of troll because you can't even come up with a decent idea to help another class unless it is the idea of nerfing other classes to make yours look better.A sad piece of work indeed....</blockquote>You are a complete joke who continues to exhibit delusional behaviour. You are completely oblivious to anything but buffing your own class and are incapable of any thoughts that don't involve keeping other tanks down .

Bruener

06-01-2010, 10:58 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>You are a complete joke who continues to exhibit delusional behaviour. You are completely oblivious to anything but buffing your own class and are incapable of any thoughts that don't involve keeping other tanks down .</blockquote>Yeah you caught me. Its why I come up with ideas to help other fighter classes. Its why I purposefully started a thread to get ideas on how to improve one said fighter class because people are not enjoying them. Its why I keep coming up with ideas on how to make all fighters more enjoyable.Meanwhile you are just the wealth of knowledge. Trying to remember if I have ever seen a post from you that has had any useful info or any ideas at all to make things better.Its alright, leave the thinking to the big boys.

BChizzle

06-01-2010, 11:28 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>You are a complete joke who continues to exhibit delusional behaviour. You are completely oblivious to anything but buffing your own class and are incapable of any thoughts that don't involve keeping other tanks down .</blockquote>Yeah you caught me. Its why I come up with ideas to help other fighter classes. Its why I purposefully started a thread to get ideas on how to improve one said fighter class because people are not enjoying them. Its why I keep coming up with ideas on how to make all fighters more enjoyable.Meanwhile you are just the wealth of knowledge. Trying to remember if I have ever seen a post from you that has had any useful info or any ideas at all to make things better.Its alright, leave the thinking to the big boys.</blockquote>Your iodeas for other classes are nothing but making the classes worse. For example your change on guardian wouldn't do a [Removed for Content] thing how would changing a long recast ability recapture even remotely help a guardian that has hate issues not just every minute but all the time. And your brawler fix rofl ya make brawler have uncontested in offensive stance that they wouldn't even use in raids because they need the mit from defensive all it would do is make the grouping/soloing brawler extremely OP and not fix the endgame issue which is where the problem is.

circusgirl

06-02-2010, 01:05 AM

Boys, lets try to get back on topic! I think we can all agree at this point that Bchiz is an egomaniac and that Bruener is delusional, so lets try to move on, hmm?And some new info to add to the mix: According to Xelgad here (<a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?start=0&topic_id=479852�">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...479852�</a>) resists are contested just like avoidance is. This means that plate tanks are not at the cap, and the gap between how much damage brawlers and plates take is very much intact.

BChizzle

06-02-2010, 01:42 AM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Boys, lets try to get back on topic! I think we can all agree at this point that Bchiz is an egomaniac and that Bruener is delusional, so lets try to move on, hmm?And some new info to add to the mix: According to Xelgad here (<a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?start=0&topic_id=479852�">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...479852�</a>) resists are contested just like avoidance is. This means that plate tanks are not at the cap, and the gap between how much damage brawlers and plates take is very much intact.</blockquote>That isn't news it has been explained many times before the cap is only the cap vs a level 90.

Shareana

06-02-2010, 08:21 AM

I intended to clean this thread up, but there was just too much, so it is closed now. Please keep threads on topic and personal bickering is not needed.