a serious attempt at getting ideas from the community for fighter balance(aka threat) [Archive]

Nulgara

06-04-2010, 08:33 PM

ok so it seems everytime we try and talk about balance of fighters more specifically about survivabilty and threat, the thread gets moderated and locked. so im posting this to attempt to avoid that this time.Ideas and comments on those ideas. thats my goal for this thread. no need for flaming no need for talking down to anyone or belittling folks cause you may nto like their idea.so this is something i posted about in the last thread that got locked on us.Agro - AKA Threat per Second.there is a huge glaring imbalance between threat per second amongst the 6 tanks. we have a few that cna reach 50k+ threat per second even while tanking and then we have a few that when tanking are down in the 30k threat per second area.The Idea i posted previously is thusChanging defensive stances to allow tanks to ACTUALLY do their jobs. we are all aware what some tanks must do in sacrificing their ability to tank efficiently jsut to maintain agro in a raid environment.so the ideas i have for the defensive stances.ALL UNCONTESTED BLOCK should be housed inside the defensive stance. plate tank brawler shoudlnt matter to have uncontested avoidance you should HAVE to be in defensive stance. this change would bring survivabilty among the tanks back in line when coupled with the other changes im thinking about. no longer would the crusaders have uncontested block while in offensive with a shield when in a dps role in raid.part 2 of the change to defensive stances. Threat mods.when in defensive the fighter shoudl gain significant boosts to threat per second. the threat of taunts would triple when in defensive, using my previous example a 4k singel target taunt woudl become a 12k single target taunt.the second part of the threat mods change would be the following. all spells and CA's woudl produce threat at a much higher rate then in any other stance, im unsure wether we woudl want a 3 to 1 threat per dmg ratio or a 4 to 1 ratio. as an example a ca that deal 1000 dmg to the mob woudl produce 3000+ threat instead of jsut 1000.and an extension to my idea. we all have ca's that dont work fully vs epic mobs. things with dazes and stifles and knockdowns dont usually work on them. so my thoughts here is that when using a ca that has on of these effects vs an epic mob, there would be a 5% chance to proc a percent increase to your current total threat towards the target. so in essence lets use arctic talon as an example has a daze attached to it that doesnt work on epic mobs. so vs an epic mob while in defensive stance, arctic talon woudl have a 5% chance to increase your current total threat towards the target by 2.5-5%.we are tanks our JOB is to take the hits and keep teh attention of the mob focused on us. to do this some fighters need better tools. snap agro tools are nice and all but they dont do the job of maintaining your threat, threat per second maintains threat, positionals and snaps and such get you to the top of the list faster. every tank shoudl have both forms of agro control and maitanence available to them.the ideas i have for the defensive stance woudl allow some tanks to throw that shield back on and actually be a TANK when they are tanking, not jsut a mele dps with enough mit to not upset their healers.as far a survivabilty. i think its pretty balanced in that area, a tweak here and there down the road maybe to keep it so but nothing major needs to happen there imo.thats all i got for now. remember guys no flames, ideas and rebuttals lets try and keep it civil and get our ideas into a thread that doesnt get locked down tomorrow night.

Bruener

06-04-2010, 10:11 PM

What I would like to see is for SOE to completely remove the idea of stances. It can easily be seen that the classes that are forced to choose a stance to tank or another to DPS are not happy with having to make that choice. Meanwhile the tanks that don't have to make the choice nearly as much are much happier with the playstyle.First idea I would propose is removing stances all together and moving Brawler uncontested avoid to be innate. This would get rid of a ton of the discrepency about being forced to make a choice and would actually increase agro on Brawlers a ton while tanking. Replace the stances with some kind of offensive/defensive temp buffs or something.Second idea I would propose is increasing the mitigation cap a good amount so that classes that have temp mit buffs or are dependant on mitigation see more of a use for them. Also it actually makes +mit useful.Third idea is to increase Guard taunt crit bonus another 20%.Fourth idea give Guards a true blue AE agro grabber on a mediocre recast. Referring back to my idea for the change to Recapture to true blue AE a medium CA for damage, like 5k hate, lower hate positions of all current group members by 5.What I see happening if these ideas were implemented is all fighter classes becoming much more enjoyable to play. Brawlers love being offensive, let them have their avoid while doing it. Raising mit cap means since Brawlers are immune to strike-thru plates will absorb more damage on hit while Brawlers avoid more. Increasing Guard taunt crit bonus by 20% means Guards see a ton more raw threat and the change to Recapture ensures Guards can grab an AE group easily...and with current abilities once an AE group is on the Guard it is easy to maintain that agro.Forced choices in stances is a terrible idea and is why the Fighter Revamp was thrown out. Being a fighter doesn't have to mean real bad DPS to take damage. Instead it should be T2 DPS behind rogues while the utility the fighter brings is being able to help crowd control and be able to take the AEs and what not.

BChizzle

06-05-2010, 12:07 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>What I would like to see is for SOE to completely remove the idea of stances. It can easily be seen that the classes that are forced to choose a stance to tank or another to DPS are not happy with having to make that choice. Meanwhile the tanks that don't have to make the choice nearly as much are much happier with the playstyle.First idea I would propose is removing stances all together and moving Brawler uncontested avoid to be innate. This would get rid of a ton of the discrepency about being forced to make a choice and would actually increase agro on Brawlers a ton while tanking. Replace the stances with some kind of offensive/defensive temp buffs or something.Second idea I would propose is increasing the mitigation cap a good amount so that classes that have temp mit buffs or are dependant on mitigation see more of a use for them. Also it actually makes +mit useful.Third idea is to increase Guard taunt crit bonus another 20%.Fourth idea give Guards a true blue AE agro grabber on a mediocre recast. Referring back to my idea for the change to Recapture to true blue AE a medium CA for damage, like 5k hate, lower hate positions of all current group members by 5.What I see happening if these ideas were implemented is all fighter classes becoming much more enjoyable to play. Brawlers love being offensive, let them have their avoid while doing it. Raising mit cap means since Brawlers are immune to strike-thru plates will absorb more damage on hit while Brawlers avoid more. Increasing Guard taunt crit bonus by 20% means Guards see a ton more raw threat and the change to Recapture ensures Guards can grab an AE group easily...and with current abilities once an AE group is on the Guard it is easy to maintain that agro.Forced choices in stances is a terrible idea and is why the Fighter Revamp was thrown out. Being a fighter doesn't have to mean real bad DPS to take damage. Instead it should be T2 DPS behind rogues while the utility the fighter brings is being able to help crowd control and be able to take the AEs and what not.</blockquote>Raising the mit cap is just silly and wouldn't do anything, tanks already survive fine it would just make content more trivial. Giving guards a blue AE is also a joke, that blue AE isn't going to do anything to help them with their issue of being able to hold agro over a crusader. The whole dropping stances thing is just your lastest attempt to divert from the fact that your class can go full dps and still outtank everyone, you are simply trying to keep that dynamic for crusaders which is completely unbalanced and overpowered the proper fix would be to disable uncontested block in anything but the defensive stance with a shield.

Rahatmattata

06-05-2010, 12:16 AM

This thread is a waste of time because the game mechanics developer either doesn't care, or has more important things to do.

electron

06-05-2010, 01:30 AM

Honest question... Was "Defensive Stance" ever meant to be useful..?Whether or not it IS useful is up for debate (RE: Useless) ... But just [Removed for Content] was it meant to do... Did someone just say defensive stance?!?! Defensive stance is like mentoring to 30 when trying to tank a 90 level mob. Help tanks tank better? How is this accomplished?Frankly I see three ways, aggro control, damage mitigation, and maybe some deeps. However I'm so used to DPSing things to make them aggro toward my **butt** that aggro and mit go out the window, its all about deeps... Let's put scouts in plate and let them tank, no need for taunts.

Nulgara

06-05-2010, 02:12 AM

<cite>Megalith@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Honest question... Was "Defensive Stance" ever meant to be useful..?Whether or not it IS useful is up for debate (RE: Useless) ... But just [Removed for Content] was it meant to do... Did someone just say defensive stance?!?! Defensive stance is like mentoring to 30 when trying to tank a 90 level mob. Help tanks tank better? How is this accomplished?Frankly I see three ways, aggro control, damage mitigation, and maybe some deeps. However I'm so used to DPSing things to make them aggro toward my **butt** that aggro and mit go out the window, its all about deeps... Let's put scouts in plate and let them tank, no need for taunts.</blockquote>your abosultely right. in the current state of the game agro is all about dps and hate xfers. but it shoudlnt be. a tank should not be so nearly 100% dependant on dps and other classes hate to do their primary job. from an outside looking in perspective defensive stance shoudl be the only viable stance when standing in front of a mob that coudl pick up a house and smack you in the face with it. my own opinion on that is that it is ludicrous that a tank coudl be in an offensive stance and have no issues tanking those types of mobs. you should get destroyed by a raid mob in offensive stance, but currently its the other way around. dps is way out of control in this game. tanks have no business being top 5 on a parse. but really what can be done about that that woudlnt be viewed as a complete nerf of an archetype. soe made that bed, and im sure they are realizing dps for fighters was not the right choice for maintaining agro.in offensive raid buffed a fighter shoudl be able to parse right there with the bards and such. but if they have to tank the mob they shoudl not be able to do that kind of dmg but they should have the ability to maintain threat on the mob via other means.to really work right it would require a complete overhauil of the entire stances system. non stance dmg on ca's and spells and such for fighters woudl need to be normalized. then boosted via offensive stance in which SEVERE penalties to defense woudl occur. and then swing into raw threat using the defensive stance in which actual dmg to the mob suffers but threat goes through the roof.but i dont see that type fo overhaul occuring. they kinda tried it before and of course everyone is so over-focused on dps that its was like someone took everyones ball away and went home with all the crying that occured.the idea a year ago was solid. the approach was a disaster though, anyway moving on.back to your reply.defensive certainly doesnt mean much to anyone but a brawler right now and that is jsut wrong on many levels. which is why quite a few of us think that all uncon avoid shoudl only occur when in defensive, yes it forces you to use that stance as a raid tank, and rightfully so. we are not demigods running around on norrath we're mere mortals walking up to dragons and slapping them in the face. the guy taking the hit from that mythical beast should be focusing on defensing against the attacks and maintain his threat. dps shoudlnt be a factor for that 1 spot in the raid. the other fighters in the raid would then be in an offensive stance doing solid dmg to the mob not this insance over inflated dmg that is occuring in some instances. if the mt happens to die a switch of the stance and bam fighter 2 is in business and in threat/turtle mode. which is the essence of the term tank. it makes sense. you cant look at it from a how it is in game right now point of view. you have to look at it in a how it shoudl be point of view.not sure about you guys but i didnt make my tanks to be a dps'er i made them to be tanks. to stand there in front of super pwoered godly mob of awesomeness and smack him in the face and say bring it. taking the dmg he dishes out and [Removed for Content] him off more and more for nto being dead yet whiel the rest of the raid makes a puree out of his backside.soe doesnt really have too many options next time they look at tanks. in all likelihood nerfs to dps are going to occur, cause there are large variances in dmg potential between tanks but not so large variances in survivabilty and due to the dps differences there are also large agro differences. the two are directly related. im attmepting to come up with ways to UN-relate them. giving the cuirrently lower dps fighters the tools they need to out threat the dps of the other fighters on the raid when they are in defensive and tanking the mob.to Bruener. I appreciate the input, but moving brawler uncon avoid to innate will seriously overpower brawlers in non raid content and even in some raid content. it woudl be a quick fix to brawler raid agro capability that wouldnt even really be used by a tanking raid brawler, the mit boost from the defensive stance is jsut as important(if nto more) to a brawler as the uncontested block. and also ironically im actually quite happy that i have ot make a choice, its not liek eq1 where you mad ea tnak mashed your taunt and kick button and autoattacked the mob. you actually have to think when selecting a stnace to be in(as a brawler anyway) and the other 4 tanks shoudl have to make the same decisions. when dpsing offensive stance shoudl be your bread and butter, when tanking defensive stance shoudl be your go to tool. the game is easy enough as it is. removing the few choices we actually have to make woudl pretty much push me out of the game entirely. my own desires are that the choices we make on gear and casting orders and stances and buffs shoudl be even more important then they are now. it brings another level of gameplay to it when the choices you make have a large impact on your performance in your chosen role.

Dorieon

06-05-2010, 03:39 AM

I'd be fine with getting rid of stances and lowering fighter dps if I thought it would make any difference in fighter balance, but it won't. If anything it will lower brawler dps and we (monks especially) bring so little utility, a big reason we are accepted is that we can dps well when needed and tank decently when needed. We just don't have enough utility to nerf our dps when not tanking and still warrant a spot in raid. (also i would want my plat back for my monk stances red adorns lol)Stance dancing is part of playing a fighter (well brawler) well. Getting rid of that would ruin the class imo. Better to give other tanks reasons to actually have to use D stance than completely alter the game by getting rid of stances all together.

Prestissimo

06-05-2010, 08:19 AM

Offensive stance = A times more damage, 1/A threat. All uncontested avoidance for ALL tank types is switched to contested while in this stance, has additional chance to hit with melee attacks, increased accuracy, decreased mitigation.Defensive stance = A times more threat, 1/A damage. Some type of link to the major anti-spike damage abilities in addition to the uncontested avoidance only being available while in d-stance, increased taunting skills, increased health, defense, physical and magical mitigations.Then, all you need to do is tack on the same amount of threat as damage to each of the fighter's abilities and balance accordingly. There you go. Now a fighter can hold equally as much agro in offensive as defensive, but the main difference is how much the fighter needs to be able to take the hits. The stance becomes purely offensive or defensive; not you can keep agro stance or you can't stance.

Bruener

06-05-2010, 05:00 PM

I am having trouble trying to understand why you think a fighter doing T2 DPS while tanking or not tanking is a bad thing. I mean other classes bring a ton to the table while still being able to do that DPS. Look at the amount of raid utility rogues/chanters/bards bring AND they are doing good DPS.Fighters SHOULD be doing decent DPS while still doing their role of tanking. They should do the same good DPS while not tanking as well and the only difference would be when switching to DW or 2h for a lil more DPS. Its not like you are going to bring a fighter for any other reason than the possibility of tanking. Even with how good fighter DPS is now if it came to just worrying about DPS you would be dumb to not bring a T1 DPS class. Or making sure you bring another rogue for those great debuffs or an additional Bard for even more VC DPS.All Fighters should be parsing behind Rogues but ahead of Bards and ahead of Healers. This ensures the playability of the class and actually wanting to have more than 2 around in raids without just camping out to an alt like in previous xpacs for those few encounters that actually required 3 tanks. Unless they are going to design 90% of the content to require 4+ fighters simply for tanking ALL fighters have to do decent DPS to not be considered a burden.It shouldn't matter whether or not the fighter is tanking the mob or sitting behind like a scout class. All those other classes either bring A LOT more DPS (T1) or they bring a lot more in utility (rogue debuffs and Bard/Chanter buffs).

steelbadger

06-05-2010, 07:12 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>I am having trouble trying to understand why you think a fighter doing T2 DPS while tanking or not tanking is a bad thing. I mean other classes bring a ton to the table while still being able to do that DPS. Look at the amount of raid utility rogues/chanters/bards bring AND they are doing good DPS.Fighters SHOULD be doing decent DPS while still doing their role of tanking. They should do the same good DPS while not tanking as well and the only difference would be when switching to DW or 2h for a lil more DPS. Its not like you are going to bring a fighter for any other reason than the possibility of tanking. Even with how good fighter DPS is now if it came to just worrying about DPS you would be dumb to not bring a T1 DPS class. Or making sure you bring another rogue for those great debuffs or an additional Bard for even more VC DPS.All Fighters should be parsing behind Rogues but ahead of Bards and ahead of Healers. This ensures the playability of the class and actually wanting to have more than 2 around in raids without just camping out to an alt like in previous xpacs for those few encounters that actually required 3 tanks. Unless they are going to design 90% of the content to require 4+ fighters simply for tanking ALL fighters have to do decent DPS to not be considered a burden.It shouldn't matter whether or not the fighter is tanking the mob or sitting behind like a scout class. All those other classes either bring A LOT more DPS (T1) or they bring a lot more in utility (rogue debuffs and Bard/Chanter buffs).</blockquote>Sorry matey, but this makes no sense at all. Behind all that big ol' text you're not proposing any change at all, yet say that your 'idea' would make tanks viable raid members when not tanking. Despite already telling us at the beginning that tanks would not be desirable raid fillers if they do less dps than T2 DPS classes you then assert that a tank doing 'dps between a rogue and bard' would have a non tank place in a raid?At the end of the day, consider this:Would you bring a Healer if they could not heal?Would you bring a chanter if they used no buffs?Would you bring a Sorc if they did no DPS?If the answer to all those questions is 'No' or 'No, [unless/but]...' then the answer to the following question should be fairly self-evident:Would you bring a tank that will not tank anything?

Bruener

06-05-2010, 08:03 PM

<cite>steelbadger wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>I am having trouble trying to understand why you think a fighter doing T2 DPS while tanking or not tanking is a bad thing. I mean other classes bring a ton to the table while still being able to do that DPS. Look at the amount of raid utility rogues/chanters/bards bring AND they are doing good DPS.Fighters SHOULD be doing decent DPS while still doing their role of tanking. They should do the same good DPS while not tanking as well and the only difference would be when switching to DW or 2h for a lil more DPS. Its not like you are going to bring a fighter for any other reason than the possibility of tanking. Even with how good fighter DPS is now if it came to just worrying about DPS you would be dumb to not bring a T1 DPS class. Or making sure you bring another rogue for those great debuffs or an additional Bard for even more VC DPS.All Fighters should be parsing behind Rogues but ahead of Bards and ahead of Healers. This ensures the playability of the class and actually wanting to have more than 2 around in raids without just camping out to an alt like in previous xpacs for those few encounters that actually required 3 tanks. Unless they are going to design 90% of the content to require 4+ fighters simply for tanking ALL fighters have to do decent DPS to not be considered a burden.It shouldn't matter whether or not the fighter is tanking the mob or sitting behind like a scout class. All those other classes either bring A LOT more DPS (T1) or they bring a lot more in utility (rogue debuffs and Bard/Chanter buffs).</blockquote>Sorry matey, but this makes no sense at all. Behind all that big ol' text you're not proposing any change at all, yet say that your 'idea' would make tanks viable raid members when not tanking. Despite already telling us at the beginning that tanks would not be desirable raid fillers if they do less dps than T2 DPS classes you then assert that a tank doing 'dps between a rogue and bard' would have a non tank place in a raid?At the end of the day, consider this:Would you bring a Healer if they could not heal?Would you bring a chanter if they used no buffs?Would you bring a Sorc if they did no DPS?If the answer to all those questions is 'No' or 'No, [unless/but]...' then the answer to the following question should be fairly self-evident:Would you bring a tank that will not tank anything?</blockquote>Pretty sure you mis-read what I typed, or at least misunderstood. I said that Fighters should do T2 DPS all the time, period. You nerf fighter DPS lower than that like some suggest and it is very hard to justify bringing more than 2 fighter anytime...unless camping an alt in for the very few fights that are scripted to require 3.At the same time allowing ALL fighters to do roughly that T2 DPS even while tanking means less gap between some for agro. Most people, especially DPS, don't want to have to worry about agro.

Nulgara

06-05-2010, 10:11 PM

I see what your getting at here bruener. I'm not sure i completely agree though. I do however agree that a fighter should be capable of bringing some pain.i think a few of us are pretty much wanting the same end result. a more balanced picture between all 6 fighters. its jsut how to get there that we go back and forth on.in the current state of dps in the game I find it hard to say that getting there through dps is a good idea.now to append that statement. in offensive stances yes i think fighters shoudl be doing solid dps, but in no way at all shoudl they be capable of tanking raid content in that offensive stance. my opinion is all. i agree that we shoudl dps behind rogues when in a dps role, but im not sure if i can agree that we shoudl be ahead of bards, ive always thought we shoudl parse right there with bards not neccessarily ahead or behind them when in offensive.like i said earlier though, when tanking it shoudl be a different story. our dps shoudl drop off a little bit and be repalced with huge threat capability when using our defensive stance which would house our mit boost and raid avoidances along with that huge threat capability. i jsut cant justify a fighter doing huge numbers on dps when tanking a raid mob.we do also have to consider utility potential. i think that all 6 fighters should be brought up to the level of utility the shadowknight has right now. cause lets face it even if the SK lost half their dps they woudl still be a fighter of choice to bring to a raid because of the utility they can bring to the raid. re-use, potency, group ward, offensive skills boost, spell potency, etc. the class has a solid utility set, and all 6 tanks shoudl have the ability to bring a comparable amount of utility as the sk.for fighter dps to be placed firmly above a bards after any changes made we would have to lose utility for some fighters, something none of us want to occur, which is why i think right along with a bard shoudl be our goal and for all 6 to have a utility suite comparable to the sk(and to a lesser extent the pali even though the sk has the pali beat as well, although pali does have a killer temp buff so its debatable), the reason i say bard level dps is with sk type utility, the ability to swap right into defensive to turtle up, and the fact that all of our survivability temps woudl still work while in an offensive stance too much dps would unbalance the fighters vs everyone else. we need to think of it like this when we are in a dps role at teh raid, even with sacrificing defense through gear we as fighters can still snap the mob and swap stances through up some temps and live through it saving teh raid form a wipe while the mt is rezzed rebuffd in the event of a death. when your there as a dps/tertiary tank that is your job and for that specific role in a raid being able to do that counts toward huge utility if you look at it from an outside the box angle. now that doesnt mean you always get to excersize that ability but its there and its always there and needs to be counted even while in a dps role.

Herme

06-05-2010, 11:48 PM

I don't know specific numbers of the top of my head. I'm only posting this because I'm currently on my daughters' computer installing updates and bored, but...Brawlers' uncontested avoidance is tied into their defensive stance. So when they swap out of defensive (if they ever go in) most of their avoidance is now contested which is garbage in a raid setting. Not to mention that extra ~10% avoidance they get for strikethrough immunity.Warriors uncontested is tied into their shields. So when they drop their shield to duel wield and deal comparable DPS to crusaders, they lose all uncontested avoidance and only have their contested which is garbage in a raid setting. Crusaders uncontested avoidance is built into a shield. With knight's stance, their autoattack damage is increased. Procs may or may not do more dps than their autoattack, but autoattack is still around 30% of their overall damage. One of the single largest contributors to their total dps. So keeping offensive stance, and a shield, crusaders get to keep their uncontested avoidance and do maximum DPS, making them extremely viable to pick up the mob and get it back to the MT without having to swap stances or pop in a shield.IMO, uncontested avoidance should be tied into every fighter's defensive stance. Shield or no shield equipped. It would equalize uncontested across the board (minus gear and myth buffs). A shield, then, should be a damage reducer, comparable to it's rating. Once Sf came out I pretty much switched to my monk and then my pally (locked at 39) so not sure what current shield ratings are, but IIRC Savage Wall was around 1700, with fabled heroic being 1500. The buffs on the shields (shield effectiveness) +5-15% would add to damage reduction either .5% or 1% for every 5% shield effectiveness. That would bring crusader's survivability up a considerable bit still. It was just a thought, not fully formed or worked through, maybe some ideas or suggestions to go off, or heck, even some rebuttals would be nice. Next question, should the programming have gear do a buffs check? Such as "If class x is in stance x, then add x% increase to uncontested avoidance(defensive buff), else add x% accuracy (strikethrough/offensive buff chance). Or would that muddy the mechanics too much and make things more complicated than necessary (not necessarily a bad thing IMO)

Prestissimo

06-06-2010, 04:55 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite> </cite>Pretty sure you mis-read what I typed, or at least misunderstood. I said that Fighters should do T2 DPS all the time, period. You nerf fighter DPS lower than that like some suggest and it is very hard to justify bringing more than 2 fighter anytime...unless camping an alt in for the very few fights that are scripted to require 3.At the same time allowing ALL fighters to do roughly that T2 DPS even while tanking means less gap between some for agro. Most people, especially DPS, don't want to have to worry about agro.</blockquote>This is the reason that I proposed that while you're in offensive you're doing noticeably more dps, but not pushing more total hate and while in defensive you're doing noticeably less damage but an equivilantly increased threat. (This of course assumes that all fighters have equally as much overall capable threat as dps capabilities. Increasing 500 dps by 2 fold and decreasing 500 threat to 1/2 or the other way around both = 1k. In no stance where both are multiplied by 1 {no bonus} it will also equal 1k. All three methods of tanking; defensive, offensive, and non-stanced all equal the same hate generation. If you make fighter's damage and threat determined by the same stat/bonus, you all of a sudden don't have to worry about itemizing both threat and damage, and both modes become equally as viable gear wise.)If you're in defensive, you should be defensive and not able to bring on the large orange numbers nearly as much as you would be able to in offensive or even in No stance. If you're in offensive stance, you should see your life getting chopped at much easier, but you should be chopping the enemies life in respectively just as large of chunks.My proposal means agro stays pretty darn close to the same all the time, BUT the dps and survivability does not. That is what the tanking community has been asking to see in stances and where most of us are pretty much on the same boat. The other reason for the equal hate output is that it means that a tank can't just carelessly start spamming damage in offensive or they'll gank the hate, and it will make either method more active and engaging than the proposed scenario by some of "you hold hate and stonewall damage in this mode, you dps and eat mud if you pull the agg in this mode". It's not fun to just hammer all your buttons and not have to worry for a second if you're going to pull hate, you can stick tuna on your keyboard and let the cat do that for you while you play another game on a console.As long as there are minor differences between the stances in terms of survivability and the stances are not all equally as viable in hate, there will be no meaning behind stances and it's wasting a valuable balancing tool for the developers AND a valueable tool for players to utilize to make a noticeable change to their dps and survivability as needed (assuming that the stances will someday mean something again other than in terms of mit and avoidance and that threat and tank damage share the same or similar modifiers which imo is ideal.)------------------------------ On a side note:As for crusader dps, paladins and shadowknights do noticeably different amounts of damage. It's like saying both warriors can push equal dps. While paladins may be gifted with amends, it's no where near as useful as it once was, and even then, if the paladin's amends target dies, with all of our combat arts having base damages at lvl 90 of about 300-600 damage and our power guzzling habbits not to mention the loss of most of holy ground's purpose which now gives us effectively one of the lowest numbers of rescue abilities if not the lowest, what does that really leave the paladins with to pick up hate?Theres a very good reason paladins have evolved into the mold of pushing their auto attack damage as high as possible. As for the reason almost all crusaders sword and board, how many viable 2 handers do you see out there? Do they stack up to being anywhere as good as a sword AND a shield's bonuses? Not even close. Without dual wielding, it pretty much leaves crusaders the option of sword and board, or half gimped and for paladins that is on one of the last viable options of hate generation we have left which is even now being cried about. Seriously, the paladin really does not have much left to lose, and if anything they are a little bit behind now if you look at the entire picture objectively.

steelbadger

06-06-2010, 06:04 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Most people, especially DPS, don't want to have to worry about agro.</blockquote>I believe they should. I used to play a HC raid assassin and I have to say that without having to worry about aggro everything becomes a boring clickfest. I know it's an oft overused term but 'Easy Mode' comes to mind. Where is the skill if anyone with half a brain can hit the same buttons in the same order and get the same results? Skill has to come from Hate balancing.And on the origional point;A tank simply cannot compete with true DPS classes for raid slots and never should be able to. As soon as a class can do x DPS and something else if necessary then a class that just does x. T2 DPS from a tank is not enough to warrant brining them in the place of a real (T1 or T2) DPS class. The tank brings no Utility besides the ability to tank, while the T2 DPS brings Utility with that DPS and the T1 class doesn't bring Utility but brings 20% more DPS. It's a no-brainer. Pure DPS simply is not enough to secure raid spots for tanks outside of tank roles. To get tanks given DPS roles in raids would require T1 DPS equivalent, but then you'd just bring tanks as DPS because of their greater survivability.Of course, you're thinking about this as an SK; who does bring a little to a raid besides DPS and Tank (a nice raidwide). I'm a Guardian. Our 'utility' is completely worthless. Our raidwide buff does nothing in a raid thanks to raid mob accuracy buffs.I really don't want to see tanking become the snorefest that DPS is. I made a Guard because I knew their aggro generation was supposed to be poor and that holding aggro was meant to be a difficult job. And I would be completely fine with the current situation if other tanks were not encroaching on my specialized area of expertise: Survivability. As it is I'm fairly sure that the Pally myth buff makes them more survivable than a Guard, while also generating more aggro and bringing more to a raid when not tanking than almost any other tank.I want tanking to be an engaging experience, as it is I already AoE timers on raid mobs just to spice it up a bit, it's already a bit too simplistic for my liking.Maybe I'll go back to my healer, maybe there's still some vestige of skill involved in playing them.

Nulgara

06-06-2010, 12:22 PM

in nearly 99% of cases I would venture to bet that those dps'ers that go all out without a thought about agro spent ALL of TSO with an SK tanking for them. they are SPOILED. personalyl i think nearly every single one of them prolly doesnt ven remember how to manage their agro. I see it everyday. people assassinating on pull, fusion on pull, IC on pull.I mean seriously what is going through their mind when they do this?but now we as tanks need to deal with it. because these dps'ers out there cant and most often WONT control themselves and manage thier hate,(cause all they are doing is cycling their casting order and not even looking at the screen). now we need tanks with 6 snap tools 2 of which are burned nearly at the beginning of every pull. with few tanks that can actually get the hate right through those big hits without using snaps or special agro skills. this is something that requires changes.If I had my way the tank community as a whole woudl agree to let every singel one of them die for the next 30 days when they were stupid enough to use a big dmg skill in the first 5 seconds of a fight. maybe that woudl teach them to pay attention to more tehn their cooldowns. but thats kind of evil and ive already betrayed my sk to pali hehe. have to be good now i guess.so what do we do. well one option is what ive been talking about super powering tank threat per second. lets face it everytime these dps'ers get more gear they are getting more and more super powered dps. but what are the tanks getting most of the time? increases to mitigation/block and stuff that helps us live longer. so why shoudlnt we have SOMETHING that is jsut as superpowered as everyone else. i woudl jsut choose to have it as threat.it is a problem for some tanks. dps going all out from the first second of the fight without a single glance at their agro meter (IF they even have it up on screen) and here I thought the hate meter was gonna be like gods gift to tanks, but no its not, dps dont even bother to look at it. dps has the tools to never take hate form a tank but like a fruit cake given to you on the holidays thsoe tools sit on a shelf collecting dust.this all being said I still maintain that this additional threat I'ld liek to see shoudl absolutely not be in the form of DPS. RAW THREAT thats what we need. in defensive stance we should be capable of producing enough threat to out threat the dps of the t2 dps'ers. add in hate mods and xfers and blam tank is now beyond the t1 dps'ers capability of agro.and as a side not, jsut because people dont WANT to worry about agro. in no way means they shoudln't have to. they absolutely should be having to pay attention. but 90% of them all they wanna do is button mash huge dmg skills never once thining of what possible consequences it might incur, and then when they do rip agro off the tank and die all they want to do is complain and yell at the tank cause they coudlnt hold the agro. well let me tell you im sick to death of idiotic dps'ers doing whatever they want whenever they want and me having to take the heat for their ineptitude. so hence the thread and my ideas for threat. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Bruener

06-06-2010, 04:12 PM

<cite>Nulgara@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>in nearly 99% of cases I would venture to bet that those dps'ers that go all out without a thought about agro spent ALL of TSO with an SK tanking for them. they are SPOILED. personalyl i think nearly every single one of them prolly doesnt ven remember how to manage their agro. I see it everyday. people assassinating on pull, fusion on pull, IC on pull.I mean seriously what is going through their mind when they do this?but now we as tanks need to deal with it. because these dps'ers out there cant and most often WONT control themselves and manage thier hate,(cause all they are doing is cycling their casting order and not even looking at the screen). now we need tanks with 6 snap tools 2 of which are burned nearly at the beginning of every pull. with few tanks that can actually get the hate right through those big hits without using snaps or special agro skills. this is something that requires changes.If I had my way the tank community as a whole woudl agree to let every singel one of them die for the next 30 days when they were stupid enough to use a big dmg skill in the first 5 seconds of a fight. maybe that woudl teach them to pay attention to more tehn their cooldowns. but thats kind of evil and ive already betrayed my sk to pali hehe. have to be good now i guess.so what do we do. well one option is what ive been talking about super powering tank threat per second. lets face it everytime these dps'ers get more gear they are getting more and more super powered dps. but what are the tanks getting most of the time? increases to mitigation/block and stuff that helps us live longer. so why shoudlnt we have SOMETHING that is jsut as superpowered as everyone else. i woudl jsut choose to have it as threat.it is a problem for some tanks. dps going all out from the first second of the fight without a single glance at their agro meter (IF they even have it up on screen) and here I thought the hate meter was gonna be like gods gift to tanks, but no its not, dps dont even bother to look at it. dps has the tools to never take hate form a tank but like a fruit cake given to you on the holidays thsoe tools sit on a shelf collecting dust.this all being said I still maintain that this additional threat I'ld liek to see shoudl absolutely not be in the form of DPS. RAW THREAT thats what we need. in defensive stance we should be capable of producing enough threat to out threat the dps of the t2 dps'ers. add in hate mods and xfers and blam tank is now beyond the t1 dps'ers capability of agro.and as a side not, jsut because people dont WANT to worry about agro. in no way means they shoudln't have to. they absolutely should be having to pay attention. but 90% of them all they wanna do is button mash huge dmg skills never once thining of what possible consequences it might incur, and then when they do rip agro off the tank and die all they want to do is complain and yell at the tank cause they coudlnt hold the agro. well let me tell you im sick to death of idiotic dps'ers doing whatever they want whenever they want and me having to take the heat for their ineptitude. so hence the thread and my ideas for threat. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>I am curious to why you guys keep shelving yourselves into additional threat coming from raw threat and not DPS? There is no good reason to not have fighters do decent DPS while doing their role of tanking..meaning getting rid of the stances and making fighters do T2 DPS period. As somebody pointed out a couple of posts up the T2 DPS alone is not going to secure a raid spot for a fighter, but the additional utility of being able to pick up mobs or hold mobs and take a hit does with the T2 DPS. There is no good reason at all to switch to a stance that will [Removed for Content] you DPS wise period.Agro has become a snooze-fest a long time ago. DPS classes in EQ2 have never really had to try to throttle their agro because classes were designed to shed agro easily and to transfer it. Groups were made to build up agro so that DPS'ers didn't have to worry about it at all. They could easily just mash their buttons to maximize their DPS while leaving all the responsibility on the tank to snap it back quickly if he happened to lose it.Now if you guys really want to shelve fighters into less choice than DPS'ers, healers, and everybody else should be shelved back into that same role. Roll it back to old EQ1 style where as a wizard dropping one nuke could mean you pull agro and die wiping the raid. No more hate buffs, no more hate transfers. And than wind hate way back so that a lucky flurry attack will pull it off the best tank. Can any of you see this happening? Do you think all those people that play all those other classes want to back off entirely? Heck no. Its because SOE has made this game about not worrying about agro very much at all. Without having to worry about agro they can make encounters strategically much harder involving people in other ways. Imagine doing 3 rune RT where every couple seconds somebody is pulling agro. Or trying to burn all the mobs on Munzok with everybody going less than half bore because they are afraid of pulling. It won't happen which is why tanks really need to get out of trying to shelve themselves into that mentality of sit there and tank. Raids shouldn't have to feel [Removed for Content] by bringing a 3rd fighter because their DPS blows. And those ones that are tanking what is the point of having their DPS go thru the floor....less raid DPS?The fact is tanking is a utility that other than 1 class in raids or groups is rarely used. Even an OT for the majority of content is sitting there DPS'ing right along with the other classes. Now the T1 classes obviously should be way up on the parse. But than you get down to the T2 DPS classes and you see utility that is constantly being used through-out an entire zone along with their good DPS...and that utility comes at exactly the same time their DPS does, its not like they sacrifice DPS to do more utility.There really is no good reason to have fighter stances since they have always been a fail and the last thing the majority of the people want in this game is forced choices...which ultimately means less choice.EDIT: Oh I wanted to add that survivability should come more in the choice of gear rather than being reliant on stances because it adds much more choice to the game. BTW this seems to be the way that SOE is going in todays game.

Nulgara

06-06-2010, 05:18 PM

ill put it simply.. you wanna do rogue dps.. walk around a metal plated juggernaut.. by having capped mit and uncontested avoidance ALL THE TIME..umm tell me why whoudl you bring a rogue if all fighters where are that level? and if you say debuffs im gonna laugh at you cause the healers and mages can debuff plenty.you cant have the cake, eat it, request more, get it, eat more, and then ask for even more on top of that.your obviously completely unwilling to accept that fighter dps is out of control. you jsut happen to be playing 1 of the strongest ones right now so i dont actually expect you to change your position in that regard. but in the lines your pitching, rogues do indeed become COMPLETELY superfulous. at that point you woudl simply bring 6 fighters all doing 50k+ in top end gear all the while all 6 of them being fully capable of jsut ripping agro off each other and not caring.. umm no thanks. ive heard of a game that is that pathetically easy but i dare nto mention its name.your idea of acceptable dps for a fighter is completely unbalancing. and massively unfair to DPS classes. if you wanna do rogue dps (well you already do cause of the tank your playing but im willing to bet your not gonna stay that way) you shoudl have rolled a rogue.Bard level dps is where we shoudl be when specced for offense.and,, since you like to ask questions in your post.. heres one for youGive me ONE GOOD reason that a fighter should be doing rogue level dps and ill shut up?

Siatfallen

06-06-2010, 05:27 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Nulgara@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>in nearly 99% of cases I would venture to bet that those dps'ers that go all out without a thought about agro spent ALL of TSO with an SK tanking for them. they are SPOILED. personalyl i think nearly every single one of them prolly doesnt ven remember how to manage their agro. I see it everyday. people assassinating on pull, fusion on pull, IC on pull.I mean seriously what is going through their mind when they do this?but now we as tanks need to deal with it. because these dps'ers out there cant and most often WONT control themselves and manage thier hate,(cause all they are doing is cycling their casting order and not even looking at the screen). now we need tanks with 6 snap tools 2 of which are burned nearly at the beginning of every pull. with few tanks that can actually get the hate right through those big hits without using snaps or special agro skills. this is something that requires changes.If I had my way the tank community as a whole woudl agree to let every singel one of them die for the next 30 days when they were stupid enough to use a big dmg skill in the first 5 seconds of a fight. maybe that woudl teach them to pay attention to more tehn their cooldowns. but thats kind of evil and ive already betrayed my sk to pali hehe. have to be good now i guess.so what do we do. well one option is what ive been talking about super powering tank threat per second. lets face it everytime these dps'ers get more gear they are getting more and more super powered dps. but what are the tanks getting most of the time? increases to mitigation/block and stuff that helps us live longer. so why shoudlnt we have SOMETHING that is jsut as superpowered as everyone else. i woudl jsut choose to have it as threat.it is a problem for some tanks. dps going all out from the first second of the fight without a single glance at their agro meter (IF they even have it up on screen) and here I thought the hate meter was gonna be like gods gift to tanks, but no its not, dps dont even bother to look at it. dps has the tools to never take hate form a tank but like a fruit cake given to you on the holidays thsoe tools sit on a shelf collecting dust.this all being said I still maintain that this additional threat I'ld liek to see shoudl absolutely not be in the form of DPS. RAW THREAT thats what we need. in defensive stance we should be capable of producing enough threat to out threat the dps of the t2 dps'ers. add in hate mods and xfers and blam tank is now beyond the t1 dps'ers capability of agro.and as a side not, jsut because people dont WANT to worry about agro. in no way means they shoudln't have to. they absolutely should be having to pay attention. but 90% of them all they wanna do is button mash huge dmg skills never once thining of what possible consequences it might incur, and then when they do rip agro off the tank and die all they want to do is complain and yell at the tank cause they coudlnt hold the agro. well let me tell you im sick to death of idiotic dps'ers doing whatever they want whenever they want and me having to take the heat for their ineptitude. so hence the thread and my ideas for threat. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>I am curious to why you guys keep shelving yourselves into additional threat coming from raw threat and not DPS? There is no good reason to not have fighters do decent DPS while doing their role of tanking..meaning getting rid of the stances and making fighters do T2 DPS period. As somebody pointed out a couple of posts up the T2 DPS alone is not going to secure a raid spot for a fighter, but the additional utility of being able to pick up mobs or hold mobs and take a hit does with the T2 DPS. There is no good reason at all to switch to a stance that will [Removed for Content] you DPS wise period.Agro has become a snooze-fest a long time ago. DPS classes in EQ2 have never really had to try to throttle their agro because classes were designed to shed agro easily and to transfer it. Groups were made to build up agro so that DPS'ers didn't have to worry about it at all. They could easily just mash their buttons to maximize their DPS while leaving all the responsibility on the tank to snap it back quickly if he happened to lose it.Now if you guys really want to shelve fighters into less choice than DPS'ers, healers, and everybody else should be shelved back into that same role. Roll it back to old EQ1 style where as a wizard dropping one nuke could mean you pull agro and die wiping the raid. No more hate buffs, no more hate transfers. And than wind hate way back so that a lucky flurry attack will pull it off the best tank. Can any of you see this happening? Do you think all those people that play all those other classes want to back off entirely? Heck no. Its because SOE has made this game about not worrying about agro very much at all. Without having to worry about agro they can make encounters strategically much harder involving people in other ways. Imagine doing 3 rune RT where every couple seconds somebody is pulling agro. Or trying to burn all the mobs on Munzok with everybody going less than half bore because they are afraid of pulling. It won't happen which is why tanks really need to get out of trying to shelve themselves into that mentality of sit there and tank. Raids shouldn't have to feel [Removed for Content] by bringing a 3rd fighter because their DPS blows. And those ones that are tanking what is the point of having their DPS go thru the floor....less raid DPS?The fact is tanking is a utility that other than 1 class in raids or groups is rarely used. Even an OT for the majority of content is sitting there DPS'ing right along with the other classes. Now the T1 classes obviously should be way up on the parse. But than you get down to the T2 DPS classes and you see utility that is constantly being used through-out an entire zone along with their good DPS...and that utility comes at exactly the same time their DPS does, its not like they sacrifice DPS to do more utility.There really is no good reason to have fighter stances since they have always been a fail and the last thing the majority of the people want in this game is forced choices...which ultimately means less choice.EDIT: Oh I wanted to add that survivability should come more in the choice of gear rather than being reliant on stances because it adds much more choice to the game. BTW this seems to be the way that SOE is going in todays game.</blockquote>If I understand the argument correctly, it goes like this:While tanking, if we survive and hold aggro, DPS is a secondary concern at best. If all else is equal, then one tank being ahead here is a problem, but by and large, if a fighter is tanking, he'll be in the group for that, so there.While not tanking... Fighters should be able to change to offensive stance and push out decent DPS - but survivability should go down by a lot (so remove uncontested avoidance while in offensive, possibly provide even further detriments). It may be viable in some situations while tanking easy instances - but never in raid content while tanking. I have absolutely no problem with seeing tanks push swashbuckler or brigand levels of DPS if they run purely offensive gear and specs. They don't get the debuffs, so the rogue still wins out.So: The stances should matter. At the moment, you see this trend with brawlers.Why doesn't that work? Two reasons:1: Every other tank gets the best of both worlds in offensive with a shield. That should be changed.2: Threat generation goes down when changing to defensive stance - this should also be changed.This is just me trying to summarize what I remember of the arguments running back through tSO. I guess some are now looking at fighter stances making this kind of radical difference as a negative thing - but there's the argument.On a final note, if the aim here is to secure a third fighter spot in the raid, then I don't think the above will work too well. We can bicker endlessly about who's overpowered this expansion, but it won't solve the two-slots-for-six-classes issue.There's one kind of role we should aim to push out of a raid force in that case: The support classes (emchanters/bards). They take up far too many of the spots already. If bringing them was less of a no-brainer, then some semblance of class viability might be attainable.Obviously, though, that's going to require some major re-thinking of class mechanics, going well beyond the scope of this discussion; it's also something the mechanics team has, in the past, proven that they're simply not ready to do (afraid that they will scare away players with this kind of change, even at the launch of a new expansion). In spite of this, it has been officially acknowledged as a balance problem in the game.

Bruener

06-06-2010, 07:17 PM

<cite>Nulgara@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>ill put it simply.. you wanna do rogue dps.. walk around a metal plated juggernaut.. by having capped mit and uncontested avoidance ALL THE TIME..umm tell me why whoudl you bring a rogue if all fighters where are that level? and if you say debuffs im gonna laugh at you cause the healers and mages can debuff plenty.you cant have the cake, eat it, request more, get it, eat more, and then ask for even more on top of that.your obviously completely unwilling to accept that fighter dps is out of control. you jsut happen to be playing 1 of the strongest ones right now so i dont actually expect you to change your position in that regard. but in the lines your pitching, rogues do indeed become COMPLETELY superfulous. at that point you woudl simply bring 6 fighters all doing 50k+ in top end gear all the while all 6 of them being fully capable of jsut ripping agro off each other and not caring.. umm no thanks. ive heard of a game that is that pathetically easy but i dare nto mention its name.your idea of acceptable dps for a fighter is completely unbalancing. and massively unfair to DPS classes. if you wanna do rogue dps (well you already do cause of the tank your playing but im willing to bet your not gonna stay that way) you shoudl have rolled a rogue.Bard level dps is where we shoudl be when specced for offense.and,, since you like to ask questions in your post.. heres one for youGive me ONE GOOD reason that a fighter should be doing rogue level dps and ill shut up?</blockquote>You are extremely ignorant to pass by Rogue debuffs. No other class debuffs like them. Furthermore I said Fighter DPS should be right behind rogue DPS all the time....it shouldn't matter whether the fighter is tanking or not. There is usually only 1 person tanking.Whats funny is you guys keep putting out ideas that limit fighter DPS a lot while tanking but keeping DPS right where it is when not tanking. Do you honestly think that keeping DPS the same will change anything. I mean taking 4 spots up in a raid for Fighters seems that absurd to you guys?A raid will always want a Brig for their big DPS increase to the raid and the decent DPS they do. A raid will always want a Swash for their great damage debuffs to mobs along with the great DPS they do...not to mention the superior agro transfer to a tank.As for T1 DPS, the gap between T1 DPS now and T2 is pretty large and substantial enough to make sure you definitely want a few T1 DPS floating in the raid.Really the only thing you guys are doing is trying to limit play-style for fighters and in doing so limiting their usefulness as well. On the surface the idea I put forth does nothing but increase how fun a fighter is to play since as you guys put it in offensive they would do the same DPS they do now in offensive....and its not like you see raids taking more than 4 fighters ever. Get rid of the stupid stances and move uncontested avoid to built in for Brawlers. Bump Guard ST DPS up some to be equal to the other fighters and the game just got way more enjoyable for the other 3 fighter classes that seem to be craving it.

Rahatmattata

06-06-2010, 09:50 PM

Assume in this post when I talk of multiple players of the same archtype they are all different classes such as warrior/crusader/brawler, shaman/cleric/druid... not guardian/zerker/monk or something.In a perfect world, multiple fighters would work in harmony the same way multiple healers do. You can have 3 priests and they can all heal and contribute. Bringing a fighter to dps should be as silly as bringing a priest to dps. There should be some way where if you have multiple fighters, they can all contribute to tanking. You would still only have 1 fighter tanking most of the time, but the other 2 fighters should greatly increase everyone's survivability. It kinda already is that way because other fighters can off-tank, intercept damage, rip the mob if the MT needs a window to recover HP, etc. But there should be potential for it to be more involved than that, especially in raids.The only way I can think of to encourage fighters working together more is through encounter design more than anything. This isn't a new idea but things like extremely hard hitting mobs so you have to swap tanks... charms... fast striking, soft hitting, accurate mobs which would probably be best for a brawler to tank... I don't know just things like that.Of course for easy stuff there is no reason to bring multiple fighters the same way you don't need 3 healers in a heroic zone. For raiding, having 3 fighters should be the optimal setup, and they should all contribute in some way to tanking by making more varied encounters and possibly adjusting some fighter abilities. Just for an example pulled out of my butt: recapture could also increase other fighters' crit bonus significantly for 10 seconds... or 3 raid-wide stoneskins for mage/scout... or 2 raid-wide intercepts. Just something to help other fighters tank, and/or increase raid survivability. I know when I was raiding, on a lot of fights my paladin OT would just be doing damage and the occassional intercede. Fighters need to be involved with tanking, not some second-rate dps.

Nulgara

06-07-2010, 01:24 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Nulgara@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>ill put it simply.. you wanna do rogue dps.. walk around a metal plated juggernaut.. by having capped mit and uncontested avoidance ALL THE TIME..umm tell me why whoudl you bring a rogue if all fighters where are that level? and if you say debuffs im gonna laugh at you cause the healers and mages can debuff plenty.you cant have the cake, eat it, request more, get it, eat more, and then ask for even more on top of that.your obviously completely unwilling to accept that fighter dps is out of control. you jsut happen to be playing 1 of the strongest ones right now so i dont actually expect you to change your position in that regard. but in the lines your pitching, rogues do indeed become COMPLETELY superfulous. at that point you woudl simply bring 6 fighters all doing 50k+ in top end gear all the while all 6 of them being fully capable of jsut ripping agro off each other and not caring.. umm no thanks. ive heard of a game that is that pathetically easy but i dare nto mention its name.your idea of acceptable dps for a fighter is completely unbalancing. and massively unfair to DPS classes. if you wanna do rogue dps (well you already do cause of the tank your playing but im willing to bet your not gonna stay that way) you shoudl have rolled a rogue.Bard level dps is where we shoudl be when specced for offense.and,, since you like to ask questions in your post.. heres one for youGive me ONE GOOD reason that a fighter should be doing rogue level dps and ill shut up?</blockquote>You are extremely ignorant to pass by Rogue debuffs. No other class debuffs like them. Furthermore I said Fighter DPS should be right behind rogue DPS all the time....it shouldn't matter whether the fighter is tanking or not. There is usually only 1 person tanking.Whats funny is you guys keep putting out ideas that limit fighter DPS a lot while tanking but keeping DPS right where it is when not tanking. Do you honestly think that keeping DPS the same will change anything. I mean taking 4 spots up in a raid for Fighters seems that absurd to you guys?A raid will always want a Brig for their big DPS increase to the raid and the decent DPS they do. A raid will always want a Swash for their great damage debuffs to mobs along with the great DPS they do...not to mention the superior agro transfer to a tank.As for T1 DPS, the gap between T1 DPS now and T2 is pretty large and substantial enough to make sure you definitely want a few T1 DPS floating in the raid.Really the only thing you guys are doing is trying to limit play-style for fighters and in doing so limiting their usefulness as well. On the surface the idea I put forth does nothing but increase how fun a fighter is to play since as you guys put it in offensive they would do the same DPS they do now in offensive....and its not like you see raids taking more than 4 fighters ever. Get rid of the stupid stances and move uncontested avoid to built in for Brawlers. Bump Guard ST DPS up some to be equal to the other fighters and the game just got way more enjoyable for the other 3 fighter classes that seem to be craving it.</blockquote>yes no other singel class debuffs like a rogue. BUT you bring all 6 fighters doing rogue level dps, the combined debuffing power of the 6 differnet fighters plus all the other debuffers in the raid makes bring a rogue a want type thing not a neccessity. i coudl go through and list all those debuffs out in anice organized thing but theres no need most raiders knwo what classes have what. its jsut easier when its a rogue cause 1 person is doing a ton of debuff and you dont have to pay as much attention to keeping your debuffs up. but there is still a ton of debuff outside the rogue classes is my point. anyway we'll prolyl disagree on that one forever so moving on hehe.as far as limiting dps whiel tanking .. um yeah. and if folks coudl take their dang eyes of the extDPS column in act for 10 minutes and actualyl think about it, it does not make sense that a fighter coudl maintain their maximum dmg potential while tanking a mob. jsut cause we dont physically have to parry and block attacks through the interface doesnt change the fact that doing so shoudl be strenuous on our characters. we arent gods no matter hwo much we want to be. there shoudl be limitations, give and take, ying and yang however you wanna put it. you and some others view it as some sort of nerf to their ability to take that spot in the raid. 1 spot of 24 not doing stupid inflated dps isnt gonan effect the length of the fight by more then a few seconds. when we are tanking it shoudl be ALL about threat, not damage. agro goes up dmg output goes down. either way mob stay on the tank. its a never ending arguement either way, too many people jsut wanna see 10s of thousands in their dps column. well its not too hard really append your dps number to add in your threat per second and walla theres your pretty numbers if it means that much to yas hehe.anyway. regardless of this being a game, physics and such type things still apply. tell me if your going all out attackign the mob, when exactly did you take the time to block that 14k hit? tanking a raid mod shoudl be a defense and threat focused affair. thats my opinion and there are folks that feel the same way jsut liek there are folks that think nothing shoudl matter but dps.im many games you constantly hear devs talking about immersion and things like that. well the more realiztic type nature of being defensive when tanking a mob and relying on threat via stuburness cause the mob is so [Removed for Content] off you arent dead yet increases that immersion aspect because its something that is more relatable to actual experiences.meh anyway. how does it limit playstyle? liek i said earlier if you wanna do nothing but dps then why on earth did you roll a tank? if anything your suggestions limit playstyle massively further then anyhting else ive seen. your saying remove stances completely.. wow imagine that there goes stance dancing out the window which BTW is a huge part of playing a brawler. you want to have all your defenses active ALL the time so you dont ever have to worry about your agro when your not hte one tanking cause yould be able to take the hit, wow there goes agro management out the window.maybe for you doing not ever having to make a choice between what stance and buffs to run would be fun. nullifying any skill at all required to play a tank cause every singel one of us would pretty much be rogues in full plate, mashing dmg buttons and occasioanlly tapping a special. sorry bro but i stopped playing tanks on the nintendo after Dragon Warrior.

BChizzle

06-07-2010, 04:43 AM

Tanks should be able to dps decently so that they have a role when they aren't tanking. There has to be a balance where it just doesn't pay to swap them out for a dps class on fights where a 2nd/3rd tank isn't needed. However, tank dps isn't even balanced, ae tanks put out way more dps then single target tanks on AE fights (which is actually ok) and single target fights (which is dumb). Again this goes back to balance, an AE tank shouldn't be able to touch a single target tank on single target DPS and agro plain and simple much like a single target tank can't touch an ae tank on ae fights. Right now Bruener you have the best of both scenarios which is a complete imbalance. It comes down to brawler/guardian single target dps and agro needs to be upped well above ae tanks. That is why Bruener's so called solutions are an absolute joke, they don't address the problem and that problem is ANY and EVERY AE tank destroys single target tanks on dps/agro to the point that playing a single target tank becomes too much work and unfun because holding agro off those other tanks is impossible.

Aule

06-07-2010, 07:08 AM

You can't ever have a serious attempt at discussing fighter balance because Bruenor always rolls in with his agenda of keeping Sk's at the top of the hill and completely derails every thread.

FearDiadh

06-07-2010, 07:59 AM

Mage dps should slide back and forth across a scale of utility and dps depending on class. From medium dps high utility, to low utility high dps.Scout dps should do the same.Priest classes seem balanced to me currently, but to attempt to sum it up in one sentence: Priest dps should be fairly low to medium, and should come at the cost of hps when doing it.Fighter dps should be in the low-medium range along the lines of bards and chanters. They should never be doing more than half of what dps classes do. They should be in the same range as bards and chanters. Fighter's 'utility' is that they will not go splat when they get hit and they have tools to maintain agro. Those tools should not invlove dps.-------Tanks that can put out t2 dps are out of balance. Our wizard was out of the raid the other night so it made it more pronounced. I noticed that 3 of the top 4 parsers zw were fighters. OT, MT and brawler were 2, 4 and 3 on the ZW. What is the point of bringing squishies exactly? Tanks now get reactives that are strong enough in many cases that as long as they have lots of mobs beating on them they can heal themselves just fine. They dps in the range of rogues, and even higher in a lot of aoe fights. And they get platemail... right. We need to return to the original tiers of damage that was stated a long time ago and fighters need to be given the tools (not dps) to handle agro.

Nulgara

06-07-2010, 11:47 AM

Steve "Moorgard" Danuser: Without giving the precise DPS numbers we intend each class to have, I can list how the classes will relate to one another in damage output. There are basically five groupings that classes fall into, from highest amount of damage output to the lowest. First group:<ul><li>Wizard/Warlock</li><li>Assassin/Ranger</li></ul>Second group:<ul><li>Conjurer/Necromancer (using damage pet) </li><li>Brigand/Swashbuckler</li></ul>Third group:<ul><li>Coercer/Illusionist, Conjurer/Necromancer (using tank pet) </li><li>Troubador/Dirge </li><li>Bruiser/Monk </li></ul>Fourth group:<ul><li>Berserker/Shadowknight </li><li>Paladin/Guardian</li></ul>Fifth group:<ul><li>Fury/Warden </li><li>Defiler/Mystic </li><li>Inquisitor/Templar</li></ul>I think this here is the original dmg tiers thing your talking about Jack.as we can see.. umm its WAAAAYYYY off right now. so somewhere along the way this got thrown out the window.but some of it still exists.Tier 1 remains intact.tier 2 well brig and swash stayed there, summoners fell down a little but since sf have come back up but still not as clear cut with mage pet and properly buffed they are here, but with tank pet they drop to tier 4, little extreme difference if ya ask me. somehow crusaders and zerkers are up here now(now i coudl see on an ae fight them being here but on a single target they should be in tier 4 like in the original plan)tier 3 is close but not right either. brawlers are here most of the time with occasional spiking to tier 2 but nto often enough to put them up here but down in tier 4 when tanking, guards are here when dual wielding but in tier 4 when tanking. bards are here as well, chanters is a tough call dependant on spec some are here and some are in tier 4.tier 5 doesnt really exist unless the healer is only healing, if they are dpsing at all they are in tier 4.but i agree here Jack devs really shoudl take a look at this tree again. it was a solid looking tree when it was first written and it remains so after all these years.

Wasuna

06-07-2010, 11:55 AM

Having a player wear plate and being able to do T2 DPS is game breaking. Breuner can come in here and whine for it to stay that way but you CAN NOT be doing that amount of DPS and still be able to stand in front of the mob.It's not hard. Fighers (All Fighters) get tanking tools and abilities. You CAN NOT do high DPS is any kind of setup or buff mode that also allows you to take a hit better than a chain/cloth wearer.Nobody can reasonably argue that point. You cancome here and say 'But I like to out play all other class in total just becasue of the class I play.' but again, that is game breaking. EQ2 will die when that becomes even more than the reality that it is now.I have said many times before, and it has been said many times in this thread alone. The Shadowknight class has raised the expetations of the players of the game to not have to worry about anything. Go in and smash all the buttons you want to and who cares what the results of that are becasue the SK can deal with it. The current state of the SK is breaking the game.

Herme

06-07-2010, 12:32 PM

<cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote>Assume in this post when I talk of multiple players of the same archtype they are all different classes such as warrior/crusader/brawler, shaman/cleric/druid... not guardian/zerker/monk or something.In a perfect world, multiple fighters would work in harmony the same way multiple healers do. You can have 3 priests and they can all heal and contribute. Bringing a fighter to dps should be as silly as bringing a priest to dps. There should be some way where if you have multiple fighters, they can all contribute to tanking. You would still only have 1 fighter tanking most of the time, but the other 2 fighters should greatly increase everyone's survivability. It kinda already is that way because other fighters can off-tank, intercept damage, rip the mob if the MT needs a window to recover HP, etc. But there should be potential for it to be more involved than that, especially in raids.The only way I can think of to encourage fighters working together more is through encounter design more than anything. This isn't a new idea but things like extremely hard hitting mobs so you have to swap tanks... charms... fast striking, soft hitting, accurate mobs which would probably be best for a brawler to tank... I don't know just things like that.Of course for easy stuff there is no reason to bring multiple fighters the same way you don't need 3 healers in a heroic zone. For raiding, having 3 fighters should be the optimal setup, and they should all contribute in some way to tanking by making more varied encounters and possibly adjusting some fighter abilities. Just for an example pulled out of my butt: recapture could also increase other fighters' crit bonus significantly for 10 seconds... or 3 raid-wide stoneskins for mage/scout... or 2 raid-wide intercepts. Just something to help other fighters tank, and/or increase raid survivability. I know when I was raiding, on a lot of fights my paladin OT would just be doing damage and the occassional intercede. Fighters need to be involved with tanking, not some second-rate dps.</blockquote>Currently having a cleric, shaman and druid all have stacking buffs. But any of the same 2 archtype don't stack well. Perhaps this should be revisited with tanks. Warriors, crusaders and brawlers. Having all 3 in the raid would greatly increase each other's survivability/dps and utility potential through buffs or even a check that constantly checks. If warrior is alive increase mit/dmg reduction by such and such amount. If crusader is in group and alive, increase crit bonus/potency of all fighter's attacks by such and such amount, and if brawlers are in the raid and alive increase dps/haste/casting speed by such and such amount. Make these all passive buffs/auras that gain strength if 3/3 types are in raid/group rather than just 2/3 or 1/3. It will make all fighters more desireable in a raid setting as well as trying to get 2/3 fighters in a group in those cases where you do have that brawler who just likes to dps but doesn't do more dps than an assassin or wizard in a group setting.Every fighter's main stat is now str. Why not make uncontested avoidance a formula of that? Crit mit is already biased by agi, why not? Shields would still do something, not sure what, dmg reduction, mit, contested avoidance, semi-contested avoidance, random chance to proc a variable dmg reduction based on player's potency and shield rating. Something, I'm not sure, but ideas have to be out there.Personally I like the idea of the stances. Being a heroic tank, I have noticed when I swap to defensive mid-fight from offensive the healer's capability to heal me. It's one more tool for the trade, it may not be a huge benefit or any at all in a raid setting, but stance hopping and gear swapping by macro are just more ways for me to be able to temporarily take more dmg and get through some unexpected spike damage from a boss.

Bruener

06-07-2010, 01:30 PM

You guys fail miserably at trying to defend against my argument. First of all BChizzle to directly talk about what you are saying if Brawlers had their uncontested avoid inherit instead of tied to stances and stances were thrown out Brawlers are superior ST DPS and our Bruiser does great DPS on AE fights too. But again you are trying to divert this argument to the ST v AE which really isn't what this is about.For the one posting about 6 fighters being able to debuff as much as 1 rogue. Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds. So a rogue will do more DPS and can do the same job you would bring 6 other fighters to do? Not to mention that would actually be a legitimate number of an archetype, 1 of each class, where as bringing anything less than 7 healers is impossible?Also to Rat-boy. I actually agree with your ideals but you are talking about completely changing the way this game works. I was pushing for similar changes back in EoF and how tanks should work together in unity more...and the more tanks the better the survival of the raid. Had ideas about some tanks having more damage absorption abilities for their group, cross fighter buffs that increase the survivability of other fighters (like avoid lend), hate dumps like EQ1 SKs had to give to the MT, etc. Instead of having to bring 8 healers to an encounter, additional fighters should make the difference in survivability to take those extra healer spots. The problem is we are talking about completely changing how things work and realistically while buffing fighters to provide group/raid stability in survivability you would have to severly limit healers somehow...so that it actually made sense. Realistically because they wouldn't limit healers like that the fighters would either not be needed for the additional survivability or they would take DPS player slots which would over-all lower the DPS of raids. Once things are on farm status than it just goes back to making anything more than 1-2 fighters obscolete.As for the Moorgard DPS list that was scrapped a long long time ago and really a balanced look would be something like this...T1 DPS:Sorceror/Predators/Summoners (slightly less than Sorc and Pred but above everybody else)T2 DPS:RoguesFighters going fully OffensiveEnchanters/BardsT3 DPS:Fighters going fully defensive (gear based not stance based)/Offensive HealersDefensive HealersAnd IDK maybe that is what you are trying to do with stances as far as where you put them in the DPS spectrum but stances are such a limiting tool and tanks would be much better off if they were offensive/defensive temp buffs they could rotate thru.

Bruener

06-07-2010, 01:39 PM

<cite>Strayslayer@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote>Assume in this post when I talk of multiple players of the same archtype they are all different classes such as warrior/crusader/brawler, shaman/cleric/druid... not guardian/zerker/monk or something.In a perfect world, multiple fighters would work in harmony the same way multiple healers do. You can have 3 priests and they can all heal and contribute. Bringing a fighter to dps should be as silly as bringing a priest to dps. There should be some way where if you have multiple fighters, they can all contribute to tanking. You would still only have 1 fighter tanking most of the time, but the other 2 fighters should greatly increase everyone's survivability. It kinda already is that way because other fighters can off-tank, intercept damage, rip the mob if the MT needs a window to recover HP, etc. But there should be potential for it to be more involved than that, especially in raids.The only way I can think of to encourage fighters working together more is through encounter design more than anything. This isn't a new idea but things like extremely hard hitting mobs so you have to swap tanks... charms... fast striking, soft hitting, accurate mobs which would probably be best for a brawler to tank... I don't know just things like that.Of course for easy stuff there is no reason to bring multiple fighters the same way you don't need 3 healers in a heroic zone. For raiding, having 3 fighters should be the optimal setup, and they should all contribute in some way to tanking by making more varied encounters and possibly adjusting some fighter abilities. Just for an example pulled out of my butt: recapture could also increase other fighters' crit bonus significantly for 10 seconds... or 3 raid-wide stoneskins for mage/scout... or 2 raid-wide intercepts. Just something to help other fighters tank, and/or increase raid survivability. I know when I was raiding, on a lot of fights my paladin OT would just be doing damage and the occassional intercede. Fighters need to be involved with tanking, not some second-rate dps.</blockquote>Currently having a cleric, shaman and druid all have stacking buffs. But any of the same 2 archtype don't stack well. Perhaps this should be revisited with tanks. Warriors, crusaders and brawlers. Having all 3 in the raid would greatly increase each other's survivability/dps and utility potential through buffs or even a check that constantly checks. If warrior is alive increase mit/dmg reduction by such and such amount. If crusader is in group and alive, increase crit bonus/potency of all fighter's attacks by such and such amount, and if brawlers are in the raid and alive increase dps/haste/casting speed by such and such amount. Make these all passive buffs/auras that gain strength if 3/3 types are in raid/group rather than just 2/3 or 1/3. It will make all fighters more desireable in a raid setting as well as trying to get 2/3 fighters in a group in those cases where you do have that brawler who just likes to dps but doesn't do more dps than an assassin or wizard in a group setting.Every fighter's main stat is now str. Why not make uncontested avoidance a formula of that? Crit mit is already biased by agi, why not? Shields would still do something, not sure what, dmg reduction, mit, contested avoidance, semi-contested avoidance, random chance to proc a variable dmg reduction based on player's potency and shield rating. Something, I'm not sure, but ideas have to be out there.Personally I like the idea of the stances. Being a heroic tank, I have noticed when I swap to defensive mid-fight from offensive the healer's capability to heal me. It's one more tool for the trade, it may not be a huge benefit or any at all in a raid setting, but stance hopping and gear swapping by macro are just more ways for me to be able to temporarily take more dmg and get through some unexpected spike damage from a boss.</blockquote>The difference with healers is even though they don't stack well in a single group, you can stack all 3 up in every group to get the same advantage. Instead of limiting it to the 3, one of each Brawler/Crusader/Warrior it should be doubling up classes so if you take more than you still get an advantage by having 1 of each class but any double classes is just not beneficial. The real trick is making the difference of having additional fighters increase survivability of the raid enough to take healers spots since they are enjoying too many.The argument though I ran into from people when I was proposing ideas for fighters to work together in increasing survivability, and one that I agree with, is that you did roll a tank to tank not be a buff bot with crappy DPS. What is nice about allowing Fighters to do good DPS while still maintaining their ability to tank (no stances) is that a fighter actually contributes actively when not tanking and in those fast moments can tank or pick up mobs to actually keep other people from getting one shotted (increases raid survivability). That small utility is the actual utility a fighter brings to raids right now when not tanking...the ability to crowd control while DPS'ing good.

BChizzle

06-07-2010, 02:10 PM

Wasuna

06-07-2010, 02:25 PM

I guess Breuner is now trying to define what he wants the DPS tree to look like. And he lumps all fighters to gether. Without any consideration to the fact that SK's can currently do 50-100% more dps than a Guardian and still maintain extra survivability.Anybody can throw a table up of what they want and call it true. When you start looking at what is actually out there and proven in other threads, and adding in the inherant inbalancec contanted in those arguments it gets real hard.Scouts and mages do not have the option of being able to switch a few items/buffs and be able to tank a mob. They only have the option of being able to kill the mob as fast as they can. Fighters can not have the flexibility of EVER being classified in the same area as the DPS classes in any form and still being able to jump up front and tank a mob whenever they make the choice to do so. That's why you picked a figher. If you wanted to have soaring DPS then pick an Assassin and live with the limitations of that class. Don't find one that the Developers broke and that has little if any limitations and call it the measuring stick for all other classes because it's 'fun'.Just becasue SK's like their DPS and can call themselves a well round fun class to play in no way makes what they are capable of doing OK for the game or OK for fighter balance.

MurFalad

06-07-2010, 03:02 PM

<cite>steelbadger wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Most people, especially DPS, don't want to have to worry about agro.</blockquote>I believe they should. I used to play a HC raid assassin and I have to say that without having to worry about aggro everything becomes a boring clickfest. I know it's an oft overused term but 'Easy Mode' comes to mind. Where is the skill if anyone with half a brain can hit the same buttons in the same order and get the same results? Skill has to come from Hate balancing.</blockquote>Agreed here too, if tanks don't have to worry about generating aggro then they just become poor DPS, people have the tools to see their aggro, and like it or not aggro is always going to be a fundemental part of the game. Even that other MMO where they took the "we don't think aggro is fun" view of the game has aggro, now its just a largely broken mechanic there, and tanking is super dull.DPS should worry about aggro, and it adds interest to fights, for example if a DPS has to do something else for a bit and then come back they can take advantage of the hate lead a tank has built up so managing their DPS becomes another decision.But on the original topic, regarding threat, I'm purely viewing the problem from a dungeon running point of view on a guardan, but for me then the problem mainly becomes one of gameplay mechanics. While all the mobs are dumb and just run into melee range and beat away it will suit a class with aura style abilities, thats problem number one and the real fix is to vary the mobs intelligence (more ranged mobs that like to try to stay at range say moving every so often), rather then making everyone a crusader...Problem number two is there should be a balance between defence and offense, shadow knights are just doing too much damage for their defensive amount, maybe all tanks are, I don't raid so I cannot give the figures for other classes but I'm disturbed when my Guardian in crummy gear is out parsing mage classes in a fight, I should dish out high threat, but not high damage.

Aule

06-07-2010, 03:12 PM

<cite>Strayslayer@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote>Assume in this post when I talk of multiple players of the same archtype they are all different classes such as warrior/crusader/brawler, shaman/cleric/druid... not guardian/zerker/monk or something.In a perfect world, multiple fighters would work in harmony the same way multiple healers do. You can have 3 priests and they can all heal and contribute. Bringing a fighter to dps should be as silly as bringing a priest to dps. There should be some way where if you have multiple fighters, they can all contribute to tanking. You would still only have 1 fighter tanking most of the time, but the other 2 fighters should greatly increase everyone's survivability. It kinda already is that way because other fighters can off-tank, intercept damage, rip the mob if the MT needs a window to recover HP, etc. But there should be potential for it to be more involved than that, especially in raids.The only way I can think of to encourage fighters working together more is through encounter design more than anything. This isn't a new idea but things like extremely hard hitting mobs so you have to swap tanks... charms... fast striking, soft hitting, accurate mobs which would probably be best for a brawler to tank... I don't know just things like that.[snip]</blockquote>Currently having a cleric, shaman and druid all have stacking buffs. But any of the same 2 archtype don't stack well. Perhaps this should be revisited with tanks. Warriors, crusaders and brawlers. Having all 3 in the raid would greatly increase each other's survivability/dps and utility potential through buffs or even a check that constantly checks. If warrior is alive increase mit/dmg reduction by such and such amount. If crusader is in group and alive, increase crit bonus/potency of all fighter's attacks by such and such amount, and if brawlers are in the raid and alive increase dps/haste/casting speed by such and such amount. Make these all passive buffs/auras that gain strength if 3/3 types are in raid/group rather than just 2/3 or 1/3. It will make all fighters more desireable in a raid setting as well as trying to get 2/3 fighters in a group in those cases where you do have that brawler who just likes to dps but doesn't do more dps than an assassin or wizard in a group setting.Every fighter's main stat is now str. Why not make uncontested avoidance a formula of that? Crit mit is already biased by agi, why not? Shields would still do something, not sure what, dmg reduction, mit, contested avoidance, semi-contested avoidance, random chance to proc a variable dmg reduction based on player's potency and shield rating. Something, I'm not sure, but ideas have to be out there.Personally I like the idea of the stances. [snip]</blockquote>During SF beta (and before) during the discussion for fixing brawlers, I suggested several times that a change towards what is being talked about here would be healthy for the game. One of my suggestions was that the active taunt spells, being just the single target and group taunts for each fighter, should be significantly higher in value AND increase the threat of all fighters engaged on the mob, rather than just the fighter who hit the button. Without changing the relative position of each fighter against each other, having more fighters screaming at the mob would keep ALL of them higher on the hate list, especially worthwhile for multiple tanks vs. mem-wiping mob(s). Another suggestion was to put fighters more in charge of the group surviving physical trauma attacks. Expanding upon the guardian sphere, intercept, soak hit lines of defense. Change some useless abilities to do things like 20-30s duration, group wide temp buff to reduce damage of next physical hit by 25 or 50%, if greater than 10% of max health, if class is not a fighter. Rock skin for bruisers comes to mind, as well as the monk equivalent spell.I'd be happy to have a group-wide intercept I too that didn't have the take two hits if under 50% health (the I take 25%, target takes 75% one). That could solve the same benefit I referenced above, just delivers some damage to the fighter. Things like this could help keep the healer requirement to 6, if something happens to the solo healer group the fighter there could step in temporarily and block/reduce a lot of the damage while the healer was fixed up. Add a stacking benefit to the raidwides for fighters, each archetype can add to the bonus applied to the raid. Optimal benefit would then come from having 1 of each fighter archetype. Also to address Strayslayer, brawlers have an uncapped diminishing benefit to avoidance based on agility that applies to all 4 (base, block, parry, uncontested block), I don't know if plate tanks have any similar benefit.

Aule

06-07-2010, 03:23 PM

<cite>MurFalad wrote:</cite><blockquote>Problem number two is there should be a balance between defence and offense, shadow knights are just doing too much damage for their defensive amount, maybe all tanks are, I don't raid so I cannot give the figures for other classes but I'm disturbed when my Guardian in crummy gear is out parsing mage classes in a fight, I should dish out high threat, but not high damage.</blockquote>The real problem here is that instances are too darn easy. As a fighter you generally pull the mobs, so you already have a leg up on the dps classes. When the mobs die in 5-15s, the fighter's parse is going to be inflated compared to others who waited even just a moment to engage.Ask your local wizard buddy how long it takes to ramp up fully on a fight. 20-25s I'm guessing? How bout the assassin? Similar time? So your "real" dps classes, in a group instance setting, require that you be fighting a named mob for them to be able to shine. Warlocks can cast two spells and half the trash dies without devastation/apocalypse/whatever it's called now even finishing ticking. Trash instance stuff just plain doesn't live long enough to do any sort of valuation on dps by tier. The only valuation that you can do is how many mobs can you hit at a time. When it comes to aoe tanking you high value from sk's, berserkers, bruisers and real good paladins.Unfortunately, the underfoot raid zone is following this trend in regards to trash mobs. You can't evaluate anybody's dps effectively when it's a contest to see who can cast a second spell before the encounter ends. My guess is that the lead designer for the zone plays a warlock and likes to parse 150k+ by pushing plaguebringer once.

Nulgara

06-07-2010, 04:47 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>You guys fail miserably at trying to defend against my argument. First of all BChizzle to directly talk about what you are saying if Brawlers had their uncontested avoid inherit instead of tied to stances and stances were thrown out Brawlers are superior ST DPS and our Bruiser does great DPS on AE fights too. But again you are trying to divert this argument to the ST v AE which really isn't what this is about.Seriously? you still dont get that theres more tehn just uncon avoidance in the brawlers defensive stance.. and for the last time getting rid of stances is the worst idea i have heard in a long time.For the one posting about 6 fighters being able to debuff as much as 1 rogue. Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds. So a rogue will do more DPS and can do the same job you would bring 6 other fighters to do? Not to mention that would actually be a legitimate number of an archetype, 1 of each class, where as bringing anything less than 7 healers is impossible?where exactly did i say 6 fighters debuffed jsut as much as a rogue. go head and scroll up. what i said was why bring a rogue when you coudl have 6 fighters doing rogue level dps offering good debuffing ability that when combined with teh debuff ability of the rest of the raid makes the rogue an extra not a requirement. Also to Rat-boy. I actually agree with your ideals but you are talking about completely changing the way this game works. I was pushing for similar changes back in EoF and how tanks should work together in unity more...and the more tanks the better the survival of the raid. Had ideas about some tanks having more damage absorption abilities for their group, cross fighter buffs that increase the survivability of other fighters (like avoid lend), hate dumps like EQ1 SKs had to give to the MT, etc. Instead of having to bring 8 healers to an encounter, additional fighters should make the difference in survivability to take those extra healer spots. The problem is we are talking about completely changing how things work and realistically while buffing fighters to provide group/raid stability in survivability you would have to severly limit healers somehow...so that it actually made sense. Realistically because they wouldn't limit healers like that the fighters would either not be needed for the additional survivability or they would take DPS player slots which would over-all lower the DPS of raids. Once things are on farm status than it just goes back to making anything more than 1-2 fighters obscolete.As for the Moorgard DPS list that was scrapped a long long time ago and really a balanced look would be something like this...it wasnt scrapped dude. go back and read the last few years patch notes. after moorgard left they absolutely BUTCHERED the dps tiers because of one reason or another most because of whiners asking for more and more and more. T1 DPS:Sorceror/Predators/Summoners (slightly less than Sorc and Pred but above everybody else)no no no and no. summoners are nto and should not be T1 dps. they are t2 dps'ers side by side with rogues, summoners dont need more dps they need slight changes to pet ai thats it.T2 DPS:RoguesFighters going fully Offensive Still trying to keep your stupidly over inflated dps huh -NO move this to t3Enchanters/Bards - move to T3T3 DPS:Fighters going fully defensive (gear based not stance based)/Offensive Healers - no move to T4Defensive Healers - again T4And IDK maybe that is what you are trying to do with stances as far as where you put them in the DPS spectrum but stances are such a limiting tool and tanks would be much better off if they were offensive/defensive temp buffs they could rotate thru.wow welcome to the conversation. yes stances are a limiter. they are specifically designed for when you are doing specific things. removing them would not make sense at all. and i have enough temp buffs already.</blockquote>again all you want is for your class to stay the cream of the crop. it cant happen there are a couple classes that need to be toned down. look back at the original moorgard post cause those tiers are perfect with one exception guardian should parse right next to brawlers on a singel target. zerker sk and pali being t4 vs a single target is CORRECT. cause when you swap to an AE fight guess what .. wham they go to town and fly up to T2.5 BEHIND rogues. thats hwo it shoudl be and moorgard knew it years ago and since he left the current devs have butchered the structure this game used to have and should get back to.

Bruener

06-07-2010, 05:57 PM

<cite>Aule@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>MurFalad wrote:</cite><blockquote>Problem number two is there should be a balance between defence and offense, shadow knights are just doing too much damage for their defensive amount, maybe all tanks are, I don't raid so I cannot give the figures for other classes but I'm disturbed when my Guardian in crummy gear is out parsing mage classes in a fight, I should dish out high threat, but not high damage.</blockquote>The real problem here is that instances are too darn easy. As a fighter you generally pull the mobs, so you already have a leg up on the dps classes. When the mobs die in 5-15s, the fighter's parse is going to be inflated compared to others who waited even just a moment to engage.Ask your local wizard buddy how long it takes to ramp up fully on a fight. 20-25s I'm guessing? How bout the assassin? Similar time? So your "real" dps classes, in a group instance setting, require that you be fighting a named mob for them to be able to shine. Warlocks can cast two spells and half the trash dies without devastation/apocalypse/whatever it's called now even finishing ticking. Trash instance stuff just plain doesn't live long enough to do any sort of valuation on dps by tier. The only valuation that you can do is how many mobs can you hit at a time. When it comes to aoe tanking you high value from sk's, berserkers, bruisers and real good paladins.Unfortunately, the underfoot raid zone is following this trend in regards to trash mobs. You can't evaluate anybody's dps effectively when it's a contest to see who can cast a second spell before the encounter ends. My guess is that the lead designer for the zone plays a warlock and likes to parse 150k+ by pushing plaguebringer once.</blockquote>Yep, DPS is addicting. Unfortunately since launch it has been continuously leaning as the preferred play-style. I doubt you will ever be able to convince other classes that they have to completely change the way their classes play in order to change fighters. Early on it was extremely apparant that agro was not even close to an issue compared to EQ1.Its simple really, DPS as others have commented elsewhere, makes fights shorter which increases the success chance. Its why gimping a tank while tanking will do nothing but lower the raids DPS which means things just last longer and increases the chance of wiping. Having decent DPS even while tanking doesn't change the outcome of the amount of fighters in a raid...because it still takes 7+ healers, you still want 4 bards and 4 chanters, you still want a swash and a brig, and than you still want the rest of the spots past 3-4 fighters to be T1 DPS. What giving fighters T2 DPS even while tanking does (hence removing stances) is ensure that the play-style of all those people that want to burn on incoming get to keep their preferred style, which is subscriptions. It also means more people (anybody after the 1 person tanking) get to have more fun contributing to raids since the game is completely designed around almost always needing 1, maybe 2 tanks top tanking solidly.(Be prepared...inc rejects posting after this in direct response to me posting)

Bruener

06-07-2010, 06:24 PM

<cite>Nulgara@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>You guys fail miserably at trying to defend against my argument. First of all BChizzle to directly talk about what you are saying if Brawlers had their uncontested avoid inherit instead of tied to stances and stances were thrown out Brawlers are superior ST DPS and our Bruiser does great DPS on AE fights too. But again you are trying to divert this argument to the ST v AE which really isn't what this is about.Seriously? you still dont get that theres more tehn just uncon avoidance in the brawlers defensive stance.. and for the last time getting rid of stances is the worst idea i have heard in a long time.Having uncontested avoid not tied to a stance means they can tank in the pinch a lot easier without losing agro...its no different than how brawlers roll most of the times in raids now, only they have to swap to defensive to butcher the agro generation when they do it.For the one posting about 6 fighters being able to debuff as much as 1 rogue. Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds. So a rogue will do more DPS and can do the same job you would bring 6 other fighters to do? Not to mention that would actually be a legitimate number of an archetype, 1 of each class, where as bringing anything less than 7 healers is impossible?where exactly did i say 6 fighters debuffed jsut as much as a rogue. go head and scroll up. what i said was why bring a rogue when you coudl have 6 fighters doing rogue level dps offering good debuffing ability that when combined with teh debuff ability of the rest of the raid makes the rogue an extra not a requirement. Yep I read what you wrote again. You claim that 6 fighters + the raid can do the debuffs that a rogue can do. So again you are talking about 6 fighters for 1 rogue....seems like the rogue has a pretty good job here. Also, the rogue is much more focused debuffs and swipes and as with the Swash can add additional transfer utility. What is so wrong with actually wanting 6 fighters?Also to Rat-boy. I actually agree with your ideals but you are talking about completely changing the way this game works. I was pushing for similar changes back in EoF and how tanks should work together in unity more...and the more tanks the better the survival of the raid. Had ideas about some tanks having more damage absorption abilities for their group, cross fighter buffs that increase the survivability of other fighters (like avoid lend), hate dumps like EQ1 SKs had to give to the MT, etc. Instead of having to bring 8 healers to an encounter, additional fighters should make the difference in survivability to take those extra healer spots. The problem is we are talking about completely changing how things work and realistically while buffing fighters to provide group/raid stability in survivability you would have to severly limit healers somehow...so that it actually made sense. Realistically because they wouldn't limit healers like that the fighters would either not be needed for the additional survivability or they would take DPS player slots which would over-all lower the DPS of raids. Once things are on farm status than it just goes back to making anything more than 1-2 fighters obscolete.As for the Moorgard DPS list that was scrapped a long long time ago and really a balanced look would be something like this...it wasnt scrapped dude. go back and read the last few years patch notes. after moorgard left they absolutely BUTCHERED the dps tiers because of one reason or another most because of whiners asking for more and more and more. So you say it wasn't scrapped but than you claim it was butchered. So what was it? Moorgard is gone and that tier is no where close to correct and the game has moved way away from it. Think that says it all.T1 DPS:Sorceror/Predators/Summoners (slightly less than Sorc and Pred but above everybody else)no no no and no. summoners are nto and should not be T1 dps. they are t2 dps'ers side by side with rogues, summoners dont need more dps they need slight changes to pet ai thats it. Yes yes yes. Right now there is no good reason at all to bring a summoner. The fact is with their pet Summoners should be right in the heals of T1 DPS. A good rogue will out parse a good summoner and that is wrong because Summoners don't bring near the utility.T2 DPS:RoguesFighters going fully Offensive Still trying to keep your stupidly over inflated dps huh -NO move this to t3 Yes I am because what do you know it is FUN!!!! People PAY to play this game to have a good time. Notice that I specifically said Fighters going offensive...that means all fighters. This is balanced. There is a reason that Bezerkers and Crusaders are having a great time. Why not make sure all tanks can enjoy playing.Enchanters/Bards - move to T3LoL ok if it makes you happy you can label them at the top of T3, really the Top of T3 or the bottom of T2 doesn't make a difference. You know why all these Enchanters quit when SF came our? Or why it is so hard to find consistant Bards/Chanters. Just like everybody else they are addicted to DPS and even though they bring a ton of utility they are still scouts and mages.T3 DPS:Fighters going fully defensive (gear based not stance based)/Offensive Healers - no move to T4Just dumb because it accomplishes nothing but making fighters feel like they are taunt bots while tanking. They should be close to equivalent to top parsing Chanters/Bards when they go extremely defensive and are tanking. If you actually changed tanking to some type of active tank style (Conan which failed miserably) I could see trying to justify having crap DPS for tanks. But the fact is tanking is NOT an active play-style in this game. Its not brain science placing a mob and cycling through Taunts/Abilities while timing auto attacks (same thing other classes are doing). DPS = Agro, so all you do is lower agro...which as stated above the MAJORITY of the population does not want to have to worry about despite a couple here that would want to.Defensive Healers - again T4And IDK maybe that is what you are trying to do with stances as far as where you put them in the DPS spectrum but stances are such a limiting tool and tanks would be much better off if they were offensive/defensive temp buffs they could rotate thru.wow welcome to the conversation. yes stances are a limiter. they are specifically designed for when you are doing specific things. removing them would not make sense at all. and i have enough temp buffs already.</blockquote>again all you want is for your class to stay the cream of the crop. it cant happen there are a couple classes that need to be toned down. look back at the original moorgard post cause those tiers are perfect with one exception guardian should parse right next to brawlers on a singel target. zerker sk and pali being t4 vs a single target is CORRECT. cause when you swap to an AE fight guess what .. wham they go to town and fly up to T2.5 BEHIND rogues. thats hwo it shoudl be and moorgard knew it years ago and since he left the current devs have butchered the structure this game used to have and should get back to.</blockquote>Stances being a limiter is what is dumb. The difference in DPS should come simply from gear choice not stances, which is why stances are long over-due for a change...specifically the change of deleting and replacing with something more active tanking abilities for each class.

Wasuna

06-07-2010, 06:28 PM

Also since launch, the tanks ability to absorb damage has been increaing. For those that don't want an easy mode plate wearing warlock it's exhilirating to be able to tank. Doing your part to push the encouter in the direction that allows others to maximize their roles. That is what a tank does. If your not happy with being a tank then play a DPS class.Oh yeah, ever since The Shadowknight Oddsey you have been playing a DPS class.... that can tank... that has super survivability.... etc.I understand your desire to have the SK be what you define as fun. Unfortunatly all 24 classes have to basically mesh. Having a tank that can take the place of a real DPS class, can push the most defensive tank in the game out of a role, can run some of the easier Heroic instance without a healer... that's not meshing. That is overpowering.Every class in the game has to makes choice. Assassins are T1 DPS but they MUST have somebody holding the mob in front of them. Rouges have to jump all over the place to do DPS. Rangers have to bounce in and out of Bow range. Casters have to die when a mob looks at them funny. Guardians sacrafice DPS for their ability to survive... SK's sacrafice nothing and that is the problem. They do not mesh with the rest of the classes. they overpower all roles and blur all of the limitations everybody has. Is that fun? Yeah, being superman is fun. Is it balanced? Heck no.. not for fighters and not for the game either.Easy mode classes are fun until human nature kicks in and makes it boring. Easymode charachters will kill subscriptions faster in the long run than they will increase it in the short term.

BChizzle

06-07-2010, 07:18 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>(Be prepared...inc rejects posting after this in direct response to me posting)</blockquote>The fog of irony here is so thick you could cut it with a butterknife. You have the whole player base pointing out how absolutely horrible your ideas are, even players in your own class. Calling people rejects while you wear the dunce cap as your class helm while standing all alone in that corner you backed yourself into is pretty funny.I am so glad you are the actual reject here. I can't imagine how sad of shape this game would be in if devs didn't reject every idea you have ever come up with. I mean OMG SK's need more base crit mod right? Grave Sacrement didn't need to be nerfed right? Brawlers are at the mit cap right? The list just keeps growing. Getting rid of stances has to be the worst idea yet, what SOE should do is the opposite and make them actually viable. I think I am seeing a trend here, if Bruener says one thing the exact opposite is usually the correct answer.

Nulgara

06-07-2010, 08:43 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Nulgara@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>As for the Moorgard DPS list that was scrapped a long long time ago and really a balanced look would be something like this...it wasnt scrapped dude. go back and read the last few years patch notes. after moorgard left they absolutely BUTCHERED the dps tiers because of one reason or another most because of whiners asking for more and more and more. So you say it wasn't scrapped but than you claim it was butchered. So what was it? Moorgard is gone and that tier is no where close to correct and the game has moved way away from it. Think that says it all.T1 DPS:Sorceror/Predators/Summoners (slightly less than Sorc and Pred but above everybody else)no no no and no. summoners are nto and should not be T1 dps. they are t2 dps'ers side by side with rogues, summoners dont need more dps they need slight changes to pet ai thats it. Yes yes yes. Right now there is no good reason at all to bring a summoner. The fact is with their pet Summoners should be right in the heals of T1 DPS. A good rogue will out parse a good summoner and that is wrong because Summoners don't bring near the utility.I'll re-iterate. NO. a good rogue outparses a good summoner currnetly because of one reason.. PET AI. you give summoners the capability of setting a casting order for their pet and guess what happens. bam dead even top end summoner top end rogue. and your forgetting one of the best added utility spells in SF went to summoners. oh wait apparently your raid force doesnt use them cause you think they have no value. umm give it a shot grab a summoner worth a crap that has elemental toxicitiy and put him in a fast casting group and uh.. hehehe ill let you find out what it does yourself.<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />) there is ZERO need to increase summoners jsut fix pet ai. T2 DPS:RoguesFighters going fully Offensive Still trying to keep your stupidly over inflated dps huh -NO move this to t3 Yes I am because what do you know it is FUN!!!! People PAY to play this game to have a good time. Notice that I specifically said Fighters going offensive...that means all fighters. This is balanced. There is a reason that Bezerkers and Crusaders are having a great time. Why not make sure all tanks can enjoy playing.ok sure its fun being in the top 2 in every category across all 6 fighters.. if you say so. theres a reason i dont play my crusader in raids this expansion. can you guess what that reason is?Enchanters/Bards - move to T3LoL ok if it makes you happy you can label them at the top of T3, really the Top of T3 or the bottom of T2 doesn't make a difference. You know why all these Enchanters quit when SF came our? Or why it is so hard to find consistant Bards/Chanters. Just like everybody else they are addicted to DPS and even though they bring a ton of utility they are still scouts and mages.the good chanters didnt go anywhere dude. and i still see chanters wrecking parses here and there, did they go overboard with the dps nerf to chanters sure they did and yes i agree they shoudl be at the top of the t3 dps spectrum. T3 DPS:Fighters going fully defensive (gear based not stance based)/Offensive Healers - no move to T4Just dumb because it accomplishes nothing but making fighters feel like they are taunt bots while tanking. They should be close to equivalent to top parsing Chanters/Bards when they go extremely defensive and are tanking. If you actually changed tanking to some type of active tank style (Conan which failed miserably) I could see trying to justify having crap DPS for tanks. But the fact is tanking is NOT an active play-style in this game. Its not brain science placing a mob and cycling through Taunts/Abilities while timing auto attacks (same thing other classes are doing). DPS = Agro, so all you do is lower agro...which as stated above the MAJORITY of the population does not want to have to worry about despite a couple here that would want to.precisely my point everyone thinks DPS=Agro. but it shoudlnt be. is there a relation between the two yes there is. and ABSOLUTELY YES a fighter when tanking should be a huge THREAT Turtled up to take teh hits. accomplishing threat through shear force of will. I will say no to you every singel time you try and argue for the same dps when your tanking as when your dps'ing cause if thats teh case there woudl be NO distinction between the two woudl there? and perhaps you need to scroll back to the beginning and re-read the original post. cause there is a GAIN of agro when switching to defensive with my ideas not a loss. and i know the population doesnt want to have to worry about agro which is why there is so much threat involved in my thoughts on defensive stances. Defensive Healers - again T4</blockquote>again all you want is for your class to stay the cream of the crop. it cant happen there are a couple classes that need to be toned down. look back at the original moorgard post cause those tiers are perfect with one exception guardian should parse right next to brawlers on a singel target. zerker sk and pali being t4 vs a single target is CORRECT. cause when you swap to an AE fight guess what .. wham they go to town and fly up to T2.5 BEHIND rogues. thats hwo it shoudl be and moorgard knew it years ago and since he left the current devs have butchered the structure this game used to have and should get back to.</blockquote>Stances being a limiter is what is dumb. The difference in DPS should come simply from gear choice not stances, which is why stances are long over-due for a change...specifically the change of deleting and replacing with something more active tanking abilities for each class.</blockquote>again like we have tried to explain to you EVERY CLASS but YOURS makes sacrifices to do do one thing or another. and yes your ability to not have to make those sacrifices needs to be changed to make you have to think before you start mashing buttons to see pretty orange numbers.and again i see you still think brawler defensive is only uncon avoidance.. HELLO ... +25% mit to worn armor. that is a far greater reason for brawlers requiring the defensive stance to tank raid content. just cause you dont have anyhting but offensive stance on your hotbar doesnt mean there arent 5 other tanks that do. and my brawler has 3 stances on his hotbar and i dance my butt off through all 3 of them A LOT.to sum it up basically your saying you just wanna be a god among mere mortals and retain your insanely overpowered class, and you want to nueter other tanks ability to tank because you never need to switch stances to do so cause your aa is so overpowered its not even funny.the rest of us are saying - DUDE wake up. your so overpowered its not even funny and you dont even realize it.(or you do and are going to fight to the last breath to try and keep your god status) well guess what we will fight tooth and nail till its gone and things are actually balanced.

Bruener

06-07-2010, 10:55 PM

Lets see what do we have here...Brawler, Brawler, Guard, Guard, Guard throwing up the constant arguing. What don't we have Crusader or Zerker.You guys complain that you don't have as much fun as Crusaders or Zerkers and yet instead of the logical fix to bring things up to that level you would rather bring everybody down to not having fun. How in the heck does that make sense?Sorry you guys are completely in the wrong here in how you are going about this. Try to think as a business that is trying to make the game more fun for everybody to keep subscriptions. You can see it in everything they do now. The way classes DPS well, the different difficulty in raid/heroic encounters, etc. The only thing you guys are doing is putting ideas to make a class feel less useful instead of actually coming up with stuff to make the game more enjoyable.

Landiin

06-07-2010, 11:12 PM

Rahatmattata

06-08-2010, 02:38 AM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Getting rid of stances has to be the worst idea yet, what SOE should do is the opposite and make them actually viable. Yup.I think I am seeing a trend here, if Bruener says one thing the exact opposite is usually the correct answer.Yup.</blockquote>

BChizzle

06-08-2010, 03:47 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Lets see what do we have here...Brawler, Brawler, Guard, Guard, Guard throwing up the constant arguing. What don't we have Crusader or Zerker.You guys complain that you don't have as much fun as Crusaders or Zerkers and yet instead of the logical fix to bring things up to that level you would rather bring everybody down to not having fun. How in the heck does that make sense?Sorry you guys are completely in the wrong here in how you are going about this. Try to think as a business that is trying to make the game more fun for everybody to keep subscriptions. You can see it in everything they do now. The way classes DPS well, the different difficulty in raid/heroic encounters, etc. The only thing you guys are doing is putting ideas to make a class feel less useful instead of actually coming up with stuff to make the game more enjoyable.</blockquote>Bruener it is not like we can't see where you are coming from on this. You like the way you SK is, fine then leave the SK as they are, but when you then start arguing against tanks that need help getting help then you cross into not just enjoying your SK but now you are trying to mess with others gameplay.You have already admitted multiple times that guards and brawlers do need help, however, you aren't a guard or brawler you don't really understand what we are going through right now, the best thing I can tell you is rewind your mind 3 years and think about how your SK was compared to a guard back then.The very basic and simple fact that you choose to ignore is that guards and brawlers can't hold agro off of crusaders. That is the core defining problem right now, they can hold agro off the rest of the raid but you throw a crusader in there and staying 1 on hate becomes a serious pain in the rear.That is the reason why the top 2+ guards in this expansion now play SK and Zerk. That is the reason why there are so few MT brawlers and there is a reason why the amount of crusader MT's has risen astronomically.You say they should come up with stuff to make the game more enjoyable well there are classes outside of SK that need to be improved to make this game enjoyable, you arent the only class people play to have fun. What is ruining the fun for other tank classes right now is the fact that a crusader sneezes and agro gets ripped. We aren't talking about garbage players here top brawlers and guardians are having this problem right on down to intro to group instance level. There are 2 ways to fix that, up ST tanks or nerf AE target tanks, if one doesn't become a reality then they might as well delete ST classes.End of the day from a business perspective (since that is what you asked for), diversity is always the most important factor when trying to reach successfully across the spectrum of a broad dynamic wide ranging market, having 6 tanks that can step into the roles needed for tanks instead of just 1-2 is win for the bottom line.One last thing for you Bruener this isn't about nerfing SK's but really it is about balancing tanks. Even you agree there is an imbalance. Personally I hate nerfs even if its not my class but at the same time if you aren't going to buff everyone else to SK level then the only other way to balance is to nock the top dogs down a few rungs.

Nulgara

06-08-2010, 04:33 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Lets see what do we have here...Brawler, Brawler, Guard, Guard, Guard throwing up the constant arguing. What don't we have Crusader or Zerker.You guys complain that you don't have as much fun as Crusaders or Zerkers and yet instead of the logical fix to bring things up to that level you would rather bring everybody down to not having fun. How in the heck does that make sense?Sorry you guys are completely in the wrong here in how you are going about this. Try to think as a business that is trying to make the game more fun for everybody to keep subscriptions. You can see it in everything they do now. The way classes DPS well, the different difficulty in raid/heroic encounters, etc. The only thing you guys are doing is putting ideas to make a class feel less useful instead of actually coming up with stuff to make the game more enjoyable.</blockquote>sorry but speaking for myself here i have an absolute blast playing my monk. even with the difficulties incurred by having t go defensive when tanking i still have fun because it CHALLNEGES my skill as a monk. Do I win that challenge every time.. no I dont but that doesnt mean im not having fun. but again speaking for myself my "FUN" would increase if my ratio of winning that challenge was higher. but I absolutely dont need more dps to do it. I need more ways to produce threat when in defensive. I dont have some twisted requirement of being in the top 3 dps or higher on every parse, sure when im offensive specced i push it as far as i can go to see what i can do that day. but when im in defensive dps is the last thing on my mind. for this reason i made this particular thread. and yes changes to THREAT not dps would make my playing more enjoyable when im tanking.like has been said before just because you want to be a dps machine that can tank doesnt maek it right, doesnt mean there are others that want it too and doesnt mean the rest of tanks want to borrow your easy button either.I dont expect my ideas woudl be implemented in their entirety im not naive. but if anything was added to defensive stances to increase agro generation without jsut using the quick fix of adding more dps that devs liek to do I woudl be happy.couple posts above got it right for me at least. give me the agro generation i require to do my PRIMARY job (which is tanking btw not DPSing) and i'll be as happy as a tornado in a trailer park.

Xethren

06-08-2010, 10:36 AM

circusgirl

06-08-2010, 11:27 AM

<div><ol>Personally, I find my class extremely fun to play. Its loads of fun to be a brawler! Challenge is great! Versatility is awesome! I like being able to have a drastically different playstyle and capabilities depending on whether I'm in offensive stance with dps gear and a dps spec or in defensive gear and stance and spec. Figuring out how to min/max the different roles I fill is very cool and fun.What is not fun is seeing other classes able to do the same thing and have the same versatility as I do without having to make any sacrifices at all. That is not fun, that is frustrating. With that said, I think we have a few basic premises that we can all agree to:<li>It is important that all 6 fighters be able to tank raid mobs</li><li>It is important that a raid has useful slots for at least three fighters, ideally for one each of crusader/warrior/brawler</li><li>Given that not all fights will require 3 fighters, it is important that fighters be able to fill a dps/utility role when not tanking</li><li>Any class capable of doing T2 dps while simultaneously tanking is unbalanced and overpowered.</li></ol><div>Given these premises, it is obvious why the answer is to make stances more meaningful. Fighters have to be able to tank and yes, we have to be able to dps--otherwise it simply isn't practical to have enough of them on a raid given the 6 classes represented by the archetype. We cannot, however, do both at the same time. That is overpowered. This expansion has already started pushing fighters in the direction I've been talking about--we now have two distinct sets of gear at the raid level, one for dps and one for tanking. Brawlers already have been given very meaningful stances, all that is left is to give the same to plate tanks. Making shield avoidance only uncontested when in defensive stance forces plate tanks in raids to go defensive when tanking, but still presents a fair bit of flexibility to an offtank, since both shields and stances can be switched midfight. Best of all, it has relatively little bearing on heroic and solo play, since against mobs that are only a few levels higher than you your avoidance only takes a small hit instead of a massive one by being contested. In groups plate tanks would still be able to go offensive and take only a minor drop in survivability, while in raids they would have to go defensive. </div><div></div><div>Now, on to the issue of survivability--plate tanks can currently very easily make up for their weakness (avoidance) via the many, many avoidance lends that are available. 10 out of the 24 classes have avoidance lends available to them, and you can stack up to 3 avoidance lends at a time. It is not at all unusual to see a plate tank's avoidance more than doubled by avoidance lends. Mitigation is much harder to come by for a brawler. No single buff is capable of doubling my mitigation like tranquil vision or shakeoff can double a plate tank's avoidance. This needs to be remedied. Ideas have been tossed around for ways to make fighters stack better on raids, and this is what I would suggest:</div><div></div><div><ul><li>Leave brawler's avoidance lends as they are.</li><li>Remove the warrior's avoidance lend and instead give Warriors a mitigation lend which increases their target's mitigation by 30% of the warrior's mit. So if a warrior with 9k mit puts the lend on a brawler, the brawler gains +3k mitigation.</li><li>Remove the crusader's avoidance lend and instead give Crusaders a heal transfer which applies all of the self-healing done by that crusaders lifetaps/heals to their target in addition to the crusader. </li></ul><div></div></div><ol></ol></div>

BChizzle

06-08-2010, 11:41 AM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><div><ol>Personally, I find my class extremely fun to play. Its loads of fun to be a brawler! Challenge is great! Versatility is awesome! I like being able to have a drastically different playstyle and capabilities depending on whether I'm in offensive stance with dps gear and a dps spec or in defensive gear and stance and spec. Figuring out how to min/max the different roles I fill is very cool and fun.What is not fun is seeing other classes able to do the same thing and have the same versatility as I do without having to make any sacrifices at all. That is not fun, that is frustrating. With that said, I think we have a few basic premises that we can all agree to:<li>It is important that all 6 fighters be able to tank raid mobs</li><li>It is important that a raid has useful slots for at least three fighters, ideally for one each of crusader/warrior/brawler</li><li>Given that not all fights will require 3 fighters, it is important that fighters be able to fill a dps/utility role when not tanking</li><li>Any class capable of doing T2 dps while simultaneously tanking is unbalanced and overpowered.</li></ol><div>Given these premises, it is obvious why the answer is to make stances more meaningful. Fighters have to be able to tank and yes, we have to be able to dps--otherwise it simply isn't practical to have enough of them on a raid given the 6 classes represented by the archetype. We cannot, however, do both at the same time. That is overpowered. This expansion has already started pushing fighters in the direction I've been talking about--we now have two distinct sets of gear at the raid level, one for dps and one for tanking. Brawlers already have been given very meaningful stances, all that is left is to give the same to plate tanks. Making shield avoidance only uncontested when in defensive stance forces plate tanks in raids to go defensive when tanking, but still presents a fair bit of flexibility to an offtank, since both shields and stances can be switched midfight. Best of all, it has relatively little bearing on heroic and solo play, since against mobs that are only a few levels higher than you your avoidance only takes a small hit instead of a massive one by being contested. In groups plate tanks would still be able to go offensive and take only a minor drop in survivability, while in raids they would have to go defensive. </div><div></div><div>Now, on to the issue of survivability--plate tanks can currently very easily make up for their weakness (avoidance) via the many, many avoidance lends that are available. 10 out of the 24 classes have avoidance lends available to them, and you can stack up to 3 avoidance lends at a time. It is not at all unusual to see a plate tank's avoidance more than doubled by avoidance lends. Mitigation is much harder to come by for a brawler. No single buff is capable of doubling my mitigation like tranquil vision or shakeoff can double a plate tank's avoidance. This needs to be remedied. Ideas have been tossed around for ways to make fighters stack better on raids, and this is what I would suggest:</div><div></div><div><ul><li>Leave brawler's avoidance lends as they are.</li><li>Remove the warrior's avoidance lend and instead give Warriors a mitigation lend which increases their target's mitigation by 30% of the warrior's mit. So if a warrior with 9k mit puts the lend on a brawler, the brawler gains +3k mitigation.</li><li>Remove the crusader's avoidance lend and instead give Crusaders a heal transfer which applies all of the self-healing done by that crusaders lifetaps/heals to their target in addition to the crusader. </li></ul><div></div></div><ol></ol></div></blockquote>Are you having issues with survivability? I am not seeing it and a mit buff instead of an avoid from a plate would be like putting a bandaid on an ankle for a headwound. If devs should focus on one area for tanks it is hate generation and maybe utility. They are actually doing a great job with survivability.

JoarAddam

06-08-2010, 12:34 PM

<cite>Xethren@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Lets see what do we have here...Brawler, Brawler, Guard, Guard, Guard throwing up the constant arguing. What don't we have Crusader or Zerker.You guys complain that you don't have as much fun as Crusaders or Zerkers and yet instead of the logical fix to bring things up to that level you would rather bring everybody down to not having fun. How in the heck does that make sense?Sorry you guys are completely in the wrong here in how you are going about this. Try to think as a business that is trying to make the game more fun for everybody to keep subscriptions. You can see it in everything they do now. The way classes DPS well, the different difficulty in raid/heroic encounters, etc. The only thing you guys are doing is putting ideas to make a class feel less useful instead of actually coming up with stuff to make the game more enjoyable.</blockquote>Getting tired of seeing you troll forums Bruener. You obviously have never played a Guardian before. No one who has got one up to high level would be trying to get the class nerfed even more. There have been pages and pages of useful ideas on how to help with Guard's number one problem: hate.It is hard for a Guardian to hold aggro on anything given their lack of DPS compared to other tanks. Because DPS=hate in this game, which SHOULD NOT be this way. Why do you think Guards are one of the least played tanks? Why do you hardly ever see one at high end? Why run a dungeon with a guard when you can get a Berserker or better yet, a Crusader and do the dungeon in half the time or less.Most of the Guardian community has been asking for a Hate increase, which the class desperately needs, not a DPS incease. Most of us are not asking for SK's to be nerfed, but rather to have Guardians brought up in line with the other tanks so that we can compete. But SK's are sure quick to justify themselves as being the flavor of the month class for two expansions now by striking down any attempt to try to get our voices heard to have a weaker class brought up to par.</blockquote>No, totally, fix guards and any other class that really needs it. Rangers, Necros, Brawlers... FIX THE <edited> OUT OF THEM. I enjoy playing SK and I wish everyone else had my sense of enjoyment. You shouldn't have to suffer through 4 years of short bus like I did to get there, either.I've got no problem with you getting your class fixed. The only thing about this thread and the others is that some of you won't be happy till , and I quote, "SKs get nerfed into oblivion." or "SK's are gonna get nerfed so hard they won't be able to tank their way out of a wet paper bag" To those with that attitude, you're not contributing, you're trolling. To those that want their class improved, i applaud you.So long as you're not beating the "abuse SKs till they bleed" drum, I'm with you.

Wasuna

06-08-2010, 12:52 PM

I'm sorry but the current state of Crusaders, SK's inparticulae, is breaking the game. A bunch of classes need tweaks which is fine but crusaders are just overpowered. Any class that can solo SF instance and TSO level 90 instance is just unacceptable.Just last night I did Vigilant 2 with my Troubador. The tank was an SK. He had level 80/90 Legendary gear. He would run into each room and agro everything and just kill it at once. This is with one healer and no enchanter. No summoner for baby heals or anything. He would do that on named, trash, whatever was in the room. My Guardian would be WASTED IN A SECOND if he tried that and I have better gear than that SK. The SK has 21.5K HP buffed by a Defiler! He has 55% Avoidance and like 65% Mitigation. My Guardian would have had 72-73% Mitigation, 70-72% Avoidance and 26K HP and I would not have stood a chance in heck of doing what he did.I'm happy when people work hard, raid, do all the things they can to make themseleves the best they can possibly be but that was stupid. Class ability just wipes hard work and time in game away. Fun... yeah.

Aull

06-08-2010, 03:48 PM

I still think that all six fighters should have areas of strength and weakness. I think some should be more offensively inclined, some defensively inclined, others a mixture of both with utility. Having this so called all tanks being equal or balanced debate will go on forever. All six fighters sharing similar dps, survivability, utility is what is pigonholing them all. Each fighter sub class should be destinct in an area of play that the other lack and vise versa.

Landiin

06-08-2010, 03:53 PM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>I still think that all six fighters should have areas of strength and weakness. I think some should be more offensively inclined, some defensively inclined, others a mixture of both with utility. Having this so called all tanks being equal or balanced debate will go on forever. All six fighters sharing similar dps, survivability, utility is what is pigonholing them all. Each fighter sub class should be destinct in an area of play that the other lack and vise versa. </blockquote>I totally agree with you here Aull. However IMO all fighters should have equal ST/AOE hate. The strengths should be the Offensive or Defensive abilities. Hate shouldn't be a novelty afforded by only one branch of fighters.

Rast

06-08-2010, 04:00 PM

Nevermind, not worth continuing this debate since it is blantantly obvious that certain participants only want to see crusaders ground back into the KoS days.

Aull

06-08-2010, 04:14 PM

<cite>Toranx@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>I still think that all six fighters should have areas of strength and weakness. I think some should be more offensively inclined, some defensively inclined, others a mixture of both with utility. Having this so called all tanks being equal or balanced debate will go on forever. All six fighters sharing similar dps, survivability, utility is what is pigonholing them all. Each fighter sub class should be destinct in an area of play that the other lack and vise versa. </blockquote>I totally agree with you here Aull. However IMO all fighters should have equal ST/AOE hate. The strengths should be the Offensive or Defensive abilities. Hate shouldn't be a novelty afforded by only one branch of fighters.</blockquote>I agree with you as well. The entire st vs aoe is totally out of whack. A single target fighter should have better dps on single target coupled with sufficiant aoe non dps aggro/threat abilities. Aoe fighters already have the abilities to lock down single targets with their dps/threat abilities plus any aoe fights that are encountered.I know that some claim all fighters should be able to tank raid bosses, but for me all fighters should be able to do well in st/aoe content at any level of play.

Chu

06-08-2010, 04:55 PM

I think a fix that is not too bad is redo the AA's for tanks.Make a pure tanking AA setup and a DPS setup. So that tanks can fill either roll, but only one at a time. Then split the tanks into different types of tanks.Wariors = tanks that have top mitigation, middle avoidance, and lowest hpsCrusaders = tanks with top hps, lowest avoidence, middle mitBrawlers = tanks that have top avoidance, lowest mit, with middle hpsAll get AOE taunts.They each get a leach type for their top/bottom skills.Then you start making them into different damage types and you valid reasons to pick the right tank for specific fights. While they all might work, certain instances the different type of tank would be useful.If you let them have DPS when they are in DPS AA setup, then you still have a reason to bring them, there may be a piece of equipment that will help them tank their specific target types.This also leads into specific healers being better based on what tank type you have, lots of mitigation screams more HoT type heals, lots of hit points says bring me someone with big heals, and avoidance says put a ward on me so when I do get hit it won't hurt.Do not let stances be the difference between DPS and tanking. I know this sucks a little, but if you wanted to build an OT it should be fairly easy to mix the AA load out to be somewhere in the middle.I would go so far as to say almost double the possible choices for AA trees for tanks and would even say the same for healers that want to go DPS vs. MH vs. OH. Doing this you could allow for AOE tailored tanking by choosing the right tanking AAs, or taking ALL tanking AAs and totally sucking at DPS but being the best tank.

BChizzle

06-08-2010, 04:59 PM

Landiin

06-08-2010, 05:39 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Toranx@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>I still think that all six fighters should have areas of strength and weakness. I think some should be more offensively inclined, some defensively inclined, others a mixture of both with utility. Having this so called all tanks being equal or balanced debate will go on forever. All six fighters sharing similar dps, survivability, utility is what is pigonholing them all. Each fighter sub class should be destinct in an area of play that the other lack and vise versa. </blockquote>I totally agree with you here Aull. However IMO all fighters should have equal ST/AOE hate. The strengths should be the Offensive or Defensive abilities. Hate shouldn't be a novelty afforded by only one branch of fighters.</blockquote>I agree with you as well. The entire st vs aoe is totally out of whack. A single target fighter should have better dps on single target coupled with sufficiant aoe non dps aggro/threat abilities. Aoe fighters already have the abilities to lock down single targets with their dps/threat abilities plus any aoe fights that are encountered.I know that some claim all fighters should be able to tank raid bosses, but for me all fighters should be able to do well in st/aoe content at any level of play.</blockquote>That is just silly ae vs st is a huge component of this game:Swash vs brigWiz vs Warlocketc etc etcThe problem is when an AE class does better at single target, do you think wizzys would be happy if warlocks were out single targeting them?</blockquote>It is to an extent BC, when we are dealing with NONE DPS issues I thing the st vs ae is a bad consept. In your example yes st vs ae in a DPS role is viable but IMO not in a tanking role.

circusgirl

06-08-2010, 05:47 PM

If I'm setting myself up to tank then I don't have issues with survivability, no. But if I'm set up in a balanced set of raid gear, then I'm certainly well behind the plate tanks that are similarly equipped. What bothers me mostly is the fact that I can take a plate tank that is in significantly worse gear than I am, slap a single buff on him, and then suddenly have him have more survivability than I do. A brawler standing alone and a plate tank standing alone aren't too far off in terms of survivability, but once you factor in the buffs available to both the plate tank ends up the clear winner. Until that imbalance is addressed we'll never be equal to a plate tank in a raid setting. Tranquil Vision and Shakeoff are massively powerful buffs when placed on a plate tank, and there just isn't anything else that gives us that much of a survivability improvement. You're saying that this doesn't fix our problem: that the issue is that we lose too much aggro in gaining the survivability we need. But if there is an alternative way to cut the incoming damage in half, which is what Tranquil Vision or Shakeoff is capable of doing when placed on a plate tank, then we don't have to [Removed for Content] our dps and therefore our aggro as much by swapping out gear. This would go a long way towards increasing our survivability. It all comes down to the fact that when I put my avoidance on a plate tank I can give him 30% uncontested avoidance. When he puts his on me, I'm lucky if I get 2% avoidance out of it. We just can't reach the same survivability at the end of the day as plate tanks can.

BChizzle

06-08-2010, 05:48 PM

<cite>Toranx@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>It is to an extent BC, when we are dealing with NONE DPS issues I thing the st vs ae is a bad consept. In your example yes st vs ae in a DPS role is viable but IMO not in a tanking role.</blockquote>Of course it is viable in a tanking role same as it is for dps. Tank hate is actually not horrible vs any class other then another tank the hate problems people are seeing is when its a non crusader vs a crusader because crusaders agro is just so much more.

BChizzle

06-08-2010, 06:40 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>If I'm setting myself up to tank then I don't have issues with survivability, no. But if I'm set up in a balanced set of raid gear, then I'm certainly well behind the plate tanks that are similarly equipped. What bothers me mostly is the fact that I can take a plate tank that is in significantly worse gear than I am, slap a single buff on him, and then suddenly have him have more survivability than I do. A brawler standing alone and a plate tank standing alone aren't too far off in terms of survivability, but once you factor in the buffs available to both the plate tank ends up the clear winner. Until that imbalance is addressed we'll never be equal to a plate tank in a raid setting. Tranquil Vision and Shakeoff are massively powerful buffs when placed on a plate tank, and there just isn't anything else that gives us that much of a survivability improvement. You're saying that this doesn't fix our problem: that the issue is that we lose too much aggro in gaining the survivability we need. But if there is an alternative way to cut the incoming damage in half, which is what Tranquil Vision or Shakeoff is capable of doing when placed on a plate tank, then we don't have to [Removed for Content] our dps and therefore our aggro as much by swapping out gear. This would go a long way towards increasing our survivability. It all comes down to the fact that when I put my avoidance on a plate tank I can give him 30% uncontested avoidance. When he puts his on me, I'm lucky if I get 2% avoidance out of it. We just can't reach the same survivability at the end of the day as plate tanks can.</blockquote>Ill just address a few things here:There are more mit buffs in groups then there are avoidance ones so we benefit more then plate tanks from them.Plate tanks have just as much uncontested avoidance then a brawler and in a min maxing scenario they actually have more so saying a brawlers avoidance lend is better is really just not true (Except of course the aa'ed enhanced bruiser avoid but that is just he best regardless of class). We have a slight advantage in base avoidance but really thats just contested avoid which is pretty useless. We gain our avoidance advantage strictly through immune to strikethrough.Lastly, what you are suggesting is that you shift the core mechanics that allow a brawler to tank from a gear perspective to depending on buffs from another class. Plate tanks don't need our avoid on them plenty of raids do fine without a brawler in it why would it be good design to have us be dependant on their avoid buff? The changes don't need to happen at the 'gear and outside buff' level they need to happen at the class mechanic level. If we could produce more hate while defensive then this issue goes away.

Nulgara

06-08-2010, 07:50 PM

I'm having trouble figuring out where people are getting there conclusions form on some things. I see folks talking about people calling for nerfs and dps arguements and such.this whole thread its repeated over and over its all about balancing things. that in no way means every tank shoudl tank teh same and do everything the same. I cant even remotely figure out where anyone is getting that idea from.to some, umm right now in game tanks have strengths and weaknesses. brawlers relying on avoidance more then mit is a weakness which is why they have the highest hp pools btw. good dps on singel target, meh dps on aoeguardians tanking in aoe are at a disadvantage cause their stoneskins and absorbs dont work as well as verse a singel target cause there are multiple sources of dmg hitting for smaller amounts eating the stoneskins allowing bigger hits to get through more often. decent singel target dps when specced for it, craptastic dps on aoezerkers are vastly weaker vs 1 target then vs 10. the better of thier survival tools are designed around incoming dmg form multiple sources, basically the opposite of a guardian. solid singel target dps insane ae dpscrusaders are just completely outside the norm right now. the sk has killer spike dmg tools which work on ae and singel target, crazy ability to lifetap on ae encounters. huge dps on both types of encounters. palis are a bit more defensive then the sk less spike dmg tools but monsters in the right spec on any kind of encounter. both crusaders produce disgusting amounts of hate in any situation.so saying that i dont know where this stuff is coming from teh tanks dont have flavor. the problem right now is that are a few tanks that have blurred the lines. and we all knwo who im talking about. both of them also retain their raid avoidance while in dps specs and stances, which IS an imbalance and as far as i have seen one of the biggest things people are asking for in changes. if some consider it a nerf then they are delusional thinking they deserve keeping that sort of enormous advantage over other tanks. is crusader dps too high,, maybe. its up to the devs on that one. but what 90% of the folsk in this thread are asking for is changes to threat generation while in a defensive stance. which has abolsutely NOTHING to do with nerfing crusaders at all.I dont get where some of you are coming from.anyway. to Vinka. I see what you getting at here, but i agree with BChizzle on this one. the last thing i want is to become buff dependatn to be able to do my primary job. there are raids out there with no brawlers in them so plates really arent dependant on us for anything and if my monk was the only fighter in a raid I dont want to have to ask teh raid leader to grab a plate tank so they can buff me. tanks in general require enough buffs as it is i think.as to survivability differences. sure there is a difference between me tanking and out mt guard doing it. but its not that big in my opinion. im currently using a purely hybrid tank/dps spec for raiding these days. i lost a few thousand dps but gained a lot of defense. certainly not as strong as my pure tanking spec but its gonna enough in it to make me able to hop in and tank at a moments notice. the loss in dps sucks for sure but ild rathere that then getting instadeath as soon as i have to snap a mob off the raid.ok moving onfrom reading the thread theres a few things being said alot.adding threat to defensive seems to be going over well with most folksmoving uncontested avoidance for all tanks to defensive mostly accepted some strongly against for whatever reasonthere are thoughts on increasing offensive stance dps for fighters to be balanced (notice i said increase offensive dps nothing about nerfing anyone)some folks are proposing some pretty big change ideas not sure on those personally so wont comment yet.i think most of us agree that as a whole survivability is pretty good across all 6 fighters, the only thing that we think needs to change is moving raid avoidance in its entirety for all fighters to defensive stance only.the biggest issue for fighters right now is maintaining threat while in tank mode. its cake for some cause currently they dont have to go defensive at all. but for others its an excersize in futility when dealing with other tanks in a raid environment.keep em coming guys there are some solid thoughts in here.

Bruener

06-08-2010, 07:51 PM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Toranx@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>I still think that all six fighters should have areas of strength and weakness. I think some should be more offensively inclined, some defensively inclined, others a mixture of both with utility. Having this so called all tanks being equal or balanced debate will go on forever. All six fighters sharing similar dps, survivability, utility is what is pigonholing them all. Each fighter sub class should be destinct in an area of play that the other lack and vise versa. </blockquote>I totally agree with you here Aull. However IMO all fighters should have equal ST/AOE hate. The strengths should be the Offensive or Defensive abilities. Hate shouldn't be a novelty afforded by only one branch of fighters.</blockquote>I agree with you as well. The entire st vs aoe is totally out of whack. A single target fighter should have better dps on single target coupled with sufficiant aoe non dps aggro/threat abilities. Aoe fighters already have the abilities to lock down single targets with their dps/threat abilities plus any aoe fights that are encountered.I know that some claim all fighters should be able to tank raid bosses, but for me all fighters should be able to do well in st/aoe content at any level of play.</blockquote>The problem with the offensive v defensive idea is that it was tried in the past and it just didn't work out at all. What is the role you want for fighters in raids? To tank, period. Yes they bring as much DPS as possible when not tanking but the role is going to be tanking first, dps second. Now if you a defensive tank that takes less damage while doing what they are really being brought for, hence less wipes and more success, than why would you ever bring an offensive tank that takes more damage? Not to DPS, because there are DPS classes that can do that.Than we moved on to the ST v AE idea. Again a mechanic that doesn't work because for one thing content is consistently designed with needing 1 tank tanking 1 big mob over and over again, or more recently a couple, maybe 3 tanks, tanking 1 mob each. The actual AE is usually just found in trash that is burned down so fast by everybody AE'ing them that most of the time a tank is not even needed. So content has never been designed properly for ST v AE...and furthermore since tanks were still coming out of offensive versus defensive they still had to deal with offensive tanks being more AE centric and defensive tanks being more ST centric (minus Paladins that for some reason have always enjoyed the best of both worlds).The only real way you could balance is making it so each fighter is good enough at all the content to perform their role while making the difference in the type of abilities they use to do it (honestly this is how it seems to be heading) or seriously balance things. If you want to go offensive versus defensive than there has got to be a serious reason to consider offensive tanks....in other words defensive tanks should have such terrible agro that raids want to use offensive tanks at least half the time while using defenisve tanks the other. Or if they are going to go ST v AE than content needs to seriously be changed to make an AE tank the tank of choice 50% of the time and a ST tank the tank of choice the other 50% of the time....no ground in between (like right now even the tanks that seem to be more ST focused can hold AE agro in a raid off of anybody but AE fighters).Honestly SOE has been moving tanks to be able to perform in all aspects of the game (what the producer wrote when he took over). To do this they have given all fighters tools to handle both ST and AE agro and survivability. It definitely is not completely balanced yet but it is definitely heading that way and it is getting closer. The ST focused tanks from the past probably need a bump in agro to be equivalent to the other 3 fighters. The offensive/defensive effects still linger in the game so while agro should be equivalent on ST and AE the difference should be the more offensive classes doing it thru DPS while the more defensive ones doing it through taunts and other means.

BChizzle

06-08-2010, 09:33 PM

Bruener you are once again ignoring the fact that your whole arguement of how tanks should be goes against your own classes current overpoweredness.You say"Now if you a defensive tank that takes less damage while doing what they are really being brought for, hence less wipes and more success, than why would you ever bring an offensive tank that takes more damage? Not to DPS, because there are DPS classes that can do that." Well if this were actually true why are so many guilds using SK's as MT instead of guards I mean come on guard still have the best survivability right?"Than we moved on to the ST v AE idea. Again a mechanic that doesn't work because for one thing content is consistently designed with needing 1 tank tanking 1 big mob over and over again, or more recently a couple, maybe 3 tanks, tanking 1 mob each. The actual AE is usually just found in trash that is burned down so fast by everybody AE'ing them that most of the time a tank is not even needed. So content has never been designed properly for ST v AE...and furthermore since tanks were still coming out of offensive versus defensive they still had to deal with offensive tanks being more AE centric and defensive tanks being more ST centric (minus Paladins that for some reason have always enjoyed the best of both worlds)."If this were true then why are AE tanks the defacto choice right now to tank your supposedly all single target raids? I mean come on would it really hurt your spot in raids if guards and monks were able to produce more single target agro potential then you? What gives your class the right to be so freaking overpowered on agro in every situation? Where does it say that SK's should be the absolute kings of all agro? Your whole argument here ignores the fact that the situation you are arguing against already exists in game in favour of SK. It won't hurt that a monk or guard out single targets your SK on a single target like THEY ARE SUPPOSE TO because for one a monk can just turn off their taunt proc and not hit taunts if you are tanking and for two guardians can just not taunt as well. Whats an SK have to do not to pull agro when a single target tank is tanking, turn off auto attack and not hit anything that's what.To do this they have given all fighters tools to handle both ST and AE agro and survivability. It definitely is not completely balanced yet but it is definitely heading that way and it is getting closer.No you are wrong its not closer it is worse then it has EVER been there has never been such a huge shift towards 1 class type in the history of this game. Are you living in reality because the reality is there is no reason whatsoever to have any tanks besides paly/sk/zerker other then to have a brawler for sages. Guards have outright quit this game and brawlers do half the agro of a crusader when they tank.

Aull

06-08-2010, 10:14 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Toranx@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>I still think that all six fighters should have areas of strength and weakness. I think some should be more offensively inclined, some defensively inclined, others a mixture of both with utility. Having this so called all tanks being equal or balanced debate will go on forever. All six fighters sharing similar dps, survivability, utility is what is pigonholing them all. Each fighter sub class should be destinct in an area of play that the other lack and vise versa. </blockquote>I totally agree with you here Aull. However IMO all fighters should have equal ST/AOE hate. The strengths should be the Offensive or Defensive abilities. Hate shouldn't be a novelty afforded by only one branch of fighters.</blockquote>I agree with you as well. The entire st vs aoe is totally out of whack. A single target fighter should have better dps on single target coupled with sufficiant aoe non dps aggro/threat abilities. Aoe fighters already have the abilities to lock down single targets with their dps/threat abilities plus any aoe fights that are encountered.I know that some claim all fighters should be able to tank raid bosses, but for me all fighters should be able to do well in st/aoe content at any level of play.</blockquote>That is just silly ae vs st is a huge component of this game:Swash vs brigWiz vs Warlocketc etc etcThe problem is when an AE class does better at single target, do you think wizzys would be happy if warlocks were out single targeting them?</blockquote>Fighters only. Brigs/swash...wiz/lock are purely dps and by no means need aoe threat abilities. Any fighter that cannot or does not have aoe dps like the crusaders and zerker should have some other aoe aggro abilities to help assist them. I do not support making all fighters aoe dpsing machines, but giving fighters like the guardian and monk abilities to help in aoe threat should not be out of the question.Even swashbucklers do good dps on single target trash. Brigs should do better on a single target mob but most of the time a swash will equal or surpass a brig. That shouldn't happen. I was just trying to imply for fighters not other classes.

BChizzle

06-08-2010, 10:53 PM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>Fighters only. Brigs/swash...wiz/lock are purely dps and by no means need aoe threat abilities. Any fighter that cannot or does not have aoe dps like the crusaders and zerker should have some other aoe aggro abilities to help assist them. I do not support making all fighters aoe dpsing machines, but giving fighters like the guardian and monk abilities to help in aoe threat should not be out of the question.Even swashbucklers do good dps on single target trash. Brigs should do better on a single target mob but most of the time a swash will equal or surpass a brig. That shouldn't happen. I was just trying to imply for fighters not other classes.</blockquote>Monks have aoe threat its not better then AE tanks and it shouldn't be but it is enough to get the job done. Notice most people are talking about single target here, the problem is we can't hold a single target against a crusader. I have absolutely no problem not holding ae targets vs a crusader and that is the ST vs AE difference they have a slight advantage ae we have a slight advantage single target.

Aull

06-09-2010, 12:32 AM

Well said BChiz. I understand where you are speaking from.

BChizzle

06-09-2010, 12:44 AM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>Well said BChiz. I understand where you are speaking from.</blockquote>On ae fights except maybe guards all tanks are pretty good tbh.

Megavolt

06-09-2010, 01:34 AM

Honestly I would just like it all to go from total AE and total ST to AE damage vs ST damage and give all tanks ae agro. Turn the warrior and brawler hate procs into encounter based. Rebalance ST and AE tanks ca's that do damage (ST's ahead on single target, balanced at duel targets and ae's pulling ahead at 3+ targets).All tanks should be able to hold encounters equally as this is the primary function of a tank, the difference in aoe vs st should be in damage only. Dps vs surviveability should be balanced outside of this main job. I pushed back in beta to have the defensive and offensive stances lean further to the defensive and offensive, I still believe in that. I also think you shouldn't have to cancel and then cast a stance to change stances, but any time you click a stance it should go into effect, 0 cast time and automatically overwrites the other stance.Reduce the reuse of the main taunts to almost nothing and increase their effectiveness, making it to where taunts and not ca's are the preferred method of holding agro, so you give up pressing those damage dealing ca's when you want to hold agro vs doing damage. Why hit a 3k damage instead of a 6k taunt if yer job is to hold agro? Making it to where taunts are unresistable in defensive stance, and to where aggression gear raises numbers but only helps with resists in offensive stance would make defensive the go to agro management stance.Personally I think these would balance out what would be needed to help out the classes that are lacking without having to nerf another class in PvE, as far as PvP that's another story altogether that I don't even want to touch in this thread.

Megavolt

06-09-2010, 01:36 AM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>Well said BChiz. I understand where you are speaking from.</blockquote>On ae fights except maybe guards all tanks are pretty good tbh.</blockquote>Disagree, it shouldn't take 25 points in aa line to where brawlers have a hope of holding ae agro, as this line should be used for ae damage and not as a hate controller.

BChizzle

06-09-2010, 01:56 AM

<cite>Brickfist wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>Well said BChiz. I understand where you are speaking from.</blockquote>On ae fights except maybe guards all tanks are pretty good tbh.</blockquote>Disagree, it shouldn't take 25 points in aa line to where brawlers have a hope of holding ae agro, as this line should be used for ae damage and not as a hate controller.</blockquote>You don't need craneflock to hold ae agro.

Aull

06-09-2010, 10:04 AM

<cite>Brickfist wrote:</cite><blockquote>Honestly I would just like it all to go from total AE and total ST to AE damage vs ST damage and give all tanks ae agro. Turn the warrior and brawler hate procs into encounter based. Rebalance ST and AE tanks ca's that do damage (ST's ahead on single target, balanced at duel targets and ae's pulling ahead at 3+ targets).All tanks should be able to hold encounters equally as this is the primary function of a tank, the difference in aoe vs st should be in damage only. Dps vs surviveability should be balanced outside of this main job. I pushed back in beta to have the defensive and offensive stances lean further to the defensive and offensive, I still believe in that. I also think you shouldn't have to cancel and then cast a stance to change stances, but any time you click a stance it should go into effect, 0 cast time and automatically overwrites the other stance.Reduce the reuse of the main taunts to almost nothing and increase their effectiveness, making it to where taunts and not ca's are the preferred method of holding agro, so you give up pressing those damage dealing ca's when you want to hold agro vs doing damage. Why hit a 3k damage instead of a 6k taunt if yer job is to hold agro? Making it to where taunts are unresistable in defensive stance, and to where aggression gear raises numbers but only helps with resists in offensive stance would make defensive the go to agro management stance.Personally I think these would balance out what would be needed to help out the classes that are lacking without having to nerf another class in PvE, as far as PvP that's another story altogether that I don't even want to touch in this thread.</blockquote>I made a macro where when I press either offensive or defensive stance one time. Just double the stance in the macro ability command area. Still has the cast but no double clicking to activate.

Yimway

06-09-2010, 11:38 AM

I don't think I saw one idea in this thread that hasn't already been discussed adnausiem since the fighter revamp began in TSO beta.SOE has neither solicited nor desires this feedback, and in all honesty, my vote is to stop suggesting it.Xelgad lacks the class expertise to be able to 'fix' fighters even if he had the marbles to try, which I seriously doubt he does.The entire thread as a result is moot and just more raging over the same old touchpoints.

arksun

06-09-2010, 11:40 AM

You know its funny because the only replies I have read from him has been on items itself. Pretty sure Xelgad has nothing to do with class mechanics at all.Yes, they know what is broken, what needs to be fixed... furthering any more rants and personal 1 on 1's isn't going to change anything.

Nulgara

06-09-2010, 12:00 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>I don't think I saw one idea in this thread that hasn't already been discussed adnausiem since the fighter revamp began in TSO beta.SOE has neither solicited nor desires this feedback, and in all honesty, my vote is to stop suggesting it.Xelgad lacks the class expertise to be able to 'fix' fighters even if he had the marbles to try, which I seriously doubt he does.The entire thread as a result is moot and just more raging over the same old touchpoints.</blockquote>interesting since everytime you ever hear from soe they say talk all about their desire for our feedback. good thing your vote isnt the one that counts for getting any fighter changes.whether xelgad is teh class mechanics guy or not makes no difference. your faith or lack there of in him makes no difference either.i certainly will keep posting on the topics of balance for a few reasons. fighters need balance, stop posting and for all soe knows all is fine, and ironically enough they do desire our feedback regardless of whether or not we know they are reading it.

Yimway

06-09-2010, 12:50 PM

<cite>Nulgara@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote> good thing your vote isnt the one that counts for getting any fighter changes.</blockquote>It is interesting that you think your's does.Good luck raging in the void.

Rast

06-09-2010, 12:59 PM

People keep talking about nerfing knights stance saying it is unbalanced, it is less unbalanced than the innate crit bonus that a warrior gets. KS ONLY works on melee damage, which is at best 30% of the crusaders damage pool and then is only 25% increase on spending 5 AAs for it (plus everything else you have to spend to even open it up).With the math on a 30k parsing crusader, only about 1.8k of their dps comes from knight stance, a guard can easily make that up on the extra crit bonus they get for FREE. And guess what, they get that bonus with a shield on too, guess they don't have to sacrifice defense to get their dps boost either.Seriously, how long has it been since any fighter class save brawlers (who are probably only fighter class to keep things neat at 6 classes per archtype) had to really sacrifice survivablity for agro? How long has it been since any real raid tank has had to tank in defensive stance? There is no sacrifice, never has been. The only reason guards have been pushed to the wayside is because it is almost more fun to watch paint dry than to play one, that is a problem with the class, not other classes.

BChizzle

06-09-2010, 01:10 PM

Honestly I think Xelgad doesn't post here because a combination of being too busy and his answer wouldn't be something people would like anyways. They spent a hell of alot of time with the fighter revamp only to have it come to nothing. The problem with the fighter revamp wasn't the idea of it, I think the changes were good, the problem was they tried way too hard to stop stance dancing. End of the day if being in defensive stance will produce more agro and using offensive stance would be a way to parse more but agro would be lower overall and you'd actually have a risk of dying I think you would have a fix to stances while still being able to have fun and parse. Right now the opposite is the truth it is better to be in offensive stance when you are tanking for agro holding purposes, which really isn't the way things should be.

Yimway

06-09-2010, 01:14 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>The problem with the fighter revamp wasn't the idea of it, I think the changes were good, the problem was they tried way too hard to stop stance dancing. </blockquote>No the problem was the design of the revamp itself, it dumbed down the fighter game too much and the veteran players rejected it.But the real problem with the previous revamp is SoE did not dedicate the amount of resources it would actually take to get it done in a reasonable time frame, so they gave up.

BChizzle

06-09-2010, 01:16 PM

<cite>Jalathan@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>People keep talking about nerfing knights stance saying it is unbalanced, it is less unbalanced than the innate crit bonus that a warrior gets. KS ONLY works on melee damage, which is at best 30% of the crusaders damage pool and then is only 25% increase on spending 5 AAs for it (plus everything else you have to spend to even open it up).With the math on a 30k parsing crusader, only about 1.8k of their dps comes from knight stance, a guard can easily make that up on the extra crit bonus they get for FREE. And guess what, they get that bonus with a shield on too, guess they don't have to sacrifice defense to get their dps boost either.Seriously, how long has it been since any fighter class save brawlers (who are probably only fighter class to keep things neat at 6 classes per archtype) had to really sacrifice survivablity for agro? How long has it been since any real raid tank has had to tank in defensive stance? There is no sacrifice, never has been. The only reason guards have been pushed to the wayside is because it is almost more fun to watch paint dry than to play one, that is a problem with the class, not other classes.</blockquote>Knight stance really isn't the issue since crusaders taunts/spell/ca's are actually the problem. However, the crit bonus advantage that non crusaders have becomes less and less effective as we scale up while knght stance becomes more and more effective. The problem people have with knight stance was allowing SK's to use it while wearing a 2 hander which would effectively increase crusaders dps potential when they are already far and beyond the top parsing tanks.

Rast

06-09-2010, 02:54 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Jalathan@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>People keep talking about nerfing knights stance saying it is unbalanced, it is less unbalanced than the innate crit bonus that a warrior gets. KS ONLY works on melee damage, which is at best 30% of the crusaders damage pool and then is only 25% increase on spending 5 AAs for it (plus everything else you have to spend to even open it up).With the math on a 30k parsing crusader, only about 1.8k of their dps comes from knight stance, a guard can easily make that up on the extra crit bonus they get for FREE. And guess what, they get that bonus with a shield on too, guess they don't have to sacrifice defense to get their dps boost either.Seriously, how long has it been since any fighter class save brawlers (who are probably only fighter class to keep things neat at 6 classes per archtype) had to really sacrifice survivablity for agro? How long has it been since any real raid tank has had to tank in defensive stance? There is no sacrifice, never has been. The only reason guards have been pushed to the wayside is because it is almost more fun to watch paint dry than to play one, that is a problem with the class, not other classes.</blockquote>Knight stance really isn't the issue since crusaders taunts/spell/ca's are actually the problem. However, the crit bonus advantage that non crusaders have becomes less and less effective as we scale up while knght stance becomes more and more effective. The problem people have with knight stance was allowing SK's to use it while wearing a 2 hander which would effectively increase crusaders dps potential when they are already far and beyond the top parsing tanks.</blockquote>That is where I and the math disagree with you. As parsing continues to go up, the impact of a +.20 multiplier increase on crit damage is far more effective than a 25% increase on ONE damage type. The more raw damage the non crusader does, the more their crit multiplier differenial increases the results. Right now, a 20k dps guardian and a 30k dps crusader are getting approximately the same effect between the crit multiplier and Knights stance, or 1.8k dps.See, crusaders are only getting an increase of 7.5% (give or take) of their dps via Knights Stance, while guards get approximately (all subject to actual parses, abilities, etc) of about 10.2% with the crit modifier. It is obvious to see that as the dps parses get bigger, that the impact of the crit chance will get bigger because it is on ALL damage, not just melee damage.I will agree with you that give us this with 2 handers is down right stupid, I even told the pally that recommended that the same thing. But yet, the calls to nerf this ability kept coming and people down right ignored the other ability that actually provides on a similiar dps amount more damage.

circusgirl

06-09-2010, 03:29 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>If I'm setting myself up to tank then I don't have issues with survivability, no. But if I'm set up in a balanced set of raid gear, then I'm certainly well behind the plate tanks that are similarly equipped. What bothers me mostly is the fact that I can take a plate tank that is in significantly worse gear than I am, slap a single buff on him, and then suddenly have him have more survivability than I do. A brawler standing alone and a plate tank standing alone aren't too far off in terms of survivability, but once you factor in the buffs available to both the plate tank ends up the clear winner. Until that imbalance is addressed we'll never be equal to a plate tank in a raid setting. Tranquil Vision and Shakeoff are massively powerful buffs when placed on a plate tank, and there just isn't anything else that gives us that much of a survivability improvement. You're saying that this doesn't fix our problem: that the issue is that we lose too much aggro in gaining the survivability we need. But if there is an alternative way to cut the incoming damage in half, which is what Tranquil Vision or Shakeoff is capable of doing when placed on a plate tank, then we don't have to [Removed for Content] our dps and therefore our aggro as much by swapping out gear. This would go a long way towards increasing our survivability. It all comes down to the fact that when I put my avoidance on a plate tank I can give him 30% uncontested avoidance. When he puts his on me, I'm lucky if I get 2% avoidance out of it. We just can't reach the same survivability at the end of the day as plate tanks can.</blockquote>Ill just address a few things here:There are more mit buffs in groups then there are avoidance ones so we benefit more then plate tanks from them.Plate tanks have just as much uncontested avoidance then a brawler and in a min maxing scenario they actually have more so saying a brawlers avoidance lend is better is really just not true (Except of course the aa'ed enhanced bruiser avoid but that is just he best regardless of class). We have a slight advantage in base avoidance but really thats just contested avoid which is pretty useless. We gain our avoidance advantage strictly through immune to strikethrough.Lastly, what you are suggesting is that you shift the core mechanics that allow a brawler to tank from a gear perspective to depending on buffs from another class. Plate tanks don't need our avoid on them plenty of raids do fine without a brawler in it why would it be good design to have us be dependant on their avoid buff? The changes don't need to happen at the 'gear and outside buff' level they need to happen at the class mechanic level. If we could produce more hate while defensive then this issue goes away.</blockquote>Plate tanks don't need our avoidance on them, but it is a very, very powerful buff. It's enough of a jump in survivability to be equivalent to the heals provided by an extra healer (though obviously not the cures, buffs, & group heals). It's the difference between having a regular tank and an uber tank. Likewise, we should not need the buff I'm proposing to be effective, but it should be available nonetheless. Otherwise any time you are in a situation with a plate tank and a brawler you will always be better off having the plate tank tank since the brawler can make him so uber.

BChizzle

06-09-2010, 03:31 PM

<cite>Jalathan@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Jalathan@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>People keep talking about nerfing knights stance saying it is unbalanced, it is less unbalanced than the innate crit bonus that a warrior gets. KS ONLY works on melee damage, which is at best 30% of the crusaders damage pool and then is only 25% increase on spending 5 AAs for it (plus everything else you have to spend to even open it up).With the math on a 30k parsing crusader, only about 1.8k of their dps comes from knight stance, a guard can easily make that up on the extra crit bonus they get for FREE. And guess what, they get that bonus with a shield on too, guess they don't have to sacrifice defense to get their dps boost either.Seriously, how long has it been since any fighter class save brawlers (who are probably only fighter class to keep things neat at 6 classes per archtype) had to really sacrifice survivablity for agro? How long has it been since any real raid tank has had to tank in defensive stance? There is no sacrifice, never has been. The only reason guards have been pushed to the wayside is because it is almost more fun to watch paint dry than to play one, that is a problem with the class, not other classes.</blockquote>Knight stance really isn't the issue since crusaders taunts/spell/ca's are actually the problem. However, the crit bonus advantage that non crusaders have becomes less and less effective as we scale up while knght stance becomes more and more effective. The problem people have with knight stance was allowing SK's to use it while wearing a 2 hander which would effectively increase crusaders dps potential when they are already far and beyond the top parsing tanks.</blockquote>That is where I and the math disagree with you. As parsing continues to go up, the impact of a +.20 multiplier increase on crit damage is far more effective than a 25% increase on ONE damage type. The more raw damage the non crusader does, the more their crit multiplier differenial increases the results. Right now, a 20k dps guardian and a 30k dps crusader are getting approximately the same effect between the crit multiplier and Knights stance, or 1.8k dps.See, crusaders are only getting an increase of 7.5% (give or take) of their dps via Knights Stance, while guards get approximately (all subject to actual parses, abilities, etc) of about 10.2% with the crit modifier. It is obvious to see that as the dps parses get bigger, that the impact of the crit chance will get bigger because it is on ALL damage, not just melee damage.I will agree with you that give us this with 2 handers is down right stupid, I even told the pally that recommended that the same thing. But yet, the calls to nerf this ability kept coming and people down right ignored the other ability that actually provides on a similiar dps amount more damage.</blockquote>Sorry but your math is complete fail. a .20 advantage on the multiplier is only a 10% advantage at 200 crit bonus, it is only a 5% advantage at 400 crit bonus its is only a 2.5% advantage at 800 crit bonus and so on and son on until infinity, however the knight stance multiplier will always be a 25% advantage.

Rast

06-09-2010, 03:37 PM

I don't want that contrieved as me saying Guards aren't broken, they obviously are. I can't make specific comments on their abilities as my only guard is very low and I've never gotten one past lvl 25... That being said, I can make one statement, they are not real fun to play. I would rate it similiar to watching paint dry.One thing I can think of is. Paladins bring some buffs, some heals to a senario to do their job of protecting the group and/or raid, where is the utility for the guardian? He/she is supposed to be 'guarding' the group, protecting them, where is his/her ability to do that? I think that is really what the class is missing (beside a boost to their over all dps). Give them group wide intercepts, give them group wide second chances to block for someone (ie, they throw themselves in front of the mob, forcing it to contend with him) both of which could have agro responses involved. I think they could justify bringing up their dps some, make the class a little more fun to play (not top tier dps, but enough that at least it wouldn't be more fun to go paint the house and then watch the paint dry...)For Brawlers, they need their DPS upped, just a straight upping of offensive ability. Make their strike through immunity innate and get rid of their stances completely. Give them a temp buff for the mit increase and level out their tanking ability at about the same level as brigands/swashies. Give them some more utility to give them a real reason to be in a raid and drop the nonsense about them being real raid tanks, sorry guys, but with the way SoE has raid tanking it isn't gonna happen without blowing something else up. If they ever set up something other than a straight up, 12/24 people just beating the crap out of a mob mentality for raiding, I could see some options, but with the mentality of mobs just hitting harder with more hit points, avoidance tanking just isn't gonna cut it. There are just too many ways avoidance tanking fails it isn't funny <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Bruener

06-09-2010, 03:40 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Honestly I think Xelgad doesn't post here because a combination of being too busy and his answer wouldn't be something people would like anyways. They spent a hell of alot of time with the fighter revamp only to have it come to nothing. The problem with the fighter revamp wasn't the idea of it, I think the changes were good, the problem was they tried way too hard to stop stance dancing. End of the day if being in defensive stance will produce more agro and using offensive stance would be a way to parse more but agro would be lower overall and you'd actually have a risk of dying I think you would have a fix to stances while still being able to have fun and parse. Right now the opposite is the truth it is better to be in offensive stance when you are tanking for agro holding purposes, which really isn't the way things should be.</blockquote>The main reason I hated the fighter revamp is the removal of stance dancing that is for sure. Not only that but the sheer mass of hate that fighters could easily pump out by having a single taunt macro was huge and ridiculous, and since DPS went way way down while doing it there was no real reason to push anything other than that one button.Now if they did stick with stances than agro should be equal no matter which stance you are in. Even now defensive stance drops DPS a good chunk which drops agro...that agro should be made up through raw hate. That alone would make defensive stance much more useful because the 15% mit is nice to get.However, what is the point? Why not make survivability the single realm of gear (along with other players obviously). I mean there is plenty of +mit gear or gear with +block on it...gear that is already become used very little because you can simply drop down into defensive stance to make up the same amount that having a good tanking BP and shoulders would give you. Take away the option of getting 15% more mit from defensive stance and instead force tanks to wear more defensive gear for longer at least, gear which btw does cause the choice of less DPS. Most tanks I am sure are like me and get the tank gear early and than try and find every way to get out of it.

BChizzle

06-09-2010, 03:41 PM

<cite>Jalathan@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>For Brawlers, they need their DPS upped, just a straight upping of offensive ability. Make their strike through immunity innate and get rid of their stances completely. Give them a temp buff for the mit increase and level out their tanking ability at about the same level as brigands/swashies. Give them some more utility to give them a real reason to be in a raid and drop the nonsense about them being real raid tanks, sorry guys, but with the way SoE has raid tanking it isn't gonna happen without blowing something else up. If they ever set up something other than a straight up, 12/24 people just beating the crap out of a mob mentality for raiding, I could see some options, but with the mentality of mobs just hitting harder with more hit points, avoidance tanking just isn't gonna cut it. There are just too many ways avoidance tanking fails it isn't funny <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>Not only is your math horrible but so are your ideas. Brawlers are tanks, learn to live with it.

BChizzle

06-09-2010, 03:44 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>The main reason I hated the fighter revamp is the removal of stance dancing that is for sure. Not only that but the sheer mass of hate that fighters could easily pump out by having a single taunt macro was huge and ridiculous, and since DPS went way way down while doing it there was no real reason to push anything other than that one button.Now if they did stick with stances than agro should be equal no matter which stance you are in. Even now defensive stance drops DPS a good chunk which drops agro...that agro should be made up through raw hate. That alone would make defensive stance much more useful because the 15% mit is nice to get.However, what is the point? Why not make survivability the single realm of gear (along with other players obviously). I mean there is plenty of +mit gear or gear with +block on it...gear that is already become used very little because you can simply drop down into defensive stance to make up the same amount that having a good tanking BP and shoulders would give you. Take away the option of getting 15% more mit from defensive stance and instead force tanks to wear more defensive gear for longer at least, gear which btw does cause the choice of less DPS. Most tanks I am sure are like me and get the tank gear early and than try and find every way to get out of it.</blockquote>Making survivability based on gear is a horrible idea becaus eyou can't switch gear in combat. That is the whole point in stances, if you aren't in a tanking role say for example the OT on a single target mob or the 3rd tank in the raid, if the MT goes down you can pop a positional hit a temp then switch into defensive and tank the mob until the MT is back and ready then you can go back to dpsing, doing it by gear gets rid of tanks utility. You would know this if you actually had a class that was gear and stance dependant.

Rast

06-09-2010, 03:50 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Jalathan@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Jalathan@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>People keep talking about nerfing knights stance saying it is unbalanced, it is less unbalanced than the innate crit bonus that a warrior gets. KS ONLY works on melee damage, which is at best 30% of the crusaders damage pool and then is only 25% increase on spending 5 AAs for it (plus everything else you have to spend to even open it up).With the math on a 30k parsing crusader, only about 1.8k of their dps comes from knight stance, a guard can easily make that up on the extra crit bonus they get for FREE. And guess what, they get that bonus with a shield on too, guess they don't have to sacrifice defense to get their dps boost either.Seriously, how long has it been since any fighter class save brawlers (who are probably only fighter class to keep things neat at 6 classes per archtype) had to really sacrifice survivablity for agro? How long has it been since any real raid tank has had to tank in defensive stance? There is no sacrifice, never has been. The only reason guards have been pushed to the wayside is because it is almost more fun to watch paint dry than to play one, that is a problem with the class, not other classes.</blockquote>Knight stance really isn't the issue since crusaders taunts/spell/ca's are actually the problem. However, the crit bonus advantage that non crusaders have becomes less and less effective as we scale up while knght stance becomes more and more effective. The problem people have with knight stance was allowing SK's to use it while wearing a 2 hander which would effectively increase crusaders dps potential when they are already far and beyond the top parsing tanks.</blockquote>That is where I and the math disagree with you. As parsing continues to go up, the impact of a +.20 multiplier increase on crit damage is far more effective than a 25% increase on ONE damage type. The more raw damage the non crusader does, the more their crit multiplier differenial increases the results. Right now, a 20k dps guardian and a 30k dps crusader are getting approximately the same effect between the crit multiplier and Knights stance, or 1.8k dps.See, crusaders are only getting an increase of 7.5% (give or take) of their dps via Knights Stance, while guards get approximately (all subject to actual parses, abilities, etc) of about 10.2% with the crit modifier. It is obvious to see that as the dps parses get bigger, that the impact of the crit chance will get bigger because it is on ALL damage, not just melee damage.I will agree with you that give us this with 2 handers is down right stupid, I even told the pally that recommended that the same thing. But yet, the calls to nerf this ability kept coming and people down right ignored the other ability that actually provides on a similiar dps amount more damage.</blockquote>Sorry but your math is complete fail. a .20 advantage on the multiplier is only a 10% advantage at 200 crit bonus, it is only a 5% advantage at 400 crit bonus its is only a 2.5% advantage at 800 crit bonus and so on and son on until infinity, however the knight stance multiplier will always be a 25% advantage.</blockquote>ummm, wrong.a .20% advantage on the multipler is extremely powerful, especially since just about everyone in the universe, even in crap gear is at or above 100% crit chance. I would agree with you if crit chances were still down around the 50% range, as that bonus is highly dependent upon the crit chance being high to work.Let us take a 20k parsing guardian, of that at a 1.5 multiplier (their innate, prior to any other buffs they might have on gear) they would only need to put up only 13333 raw damage (at 100% crit rate). A crusader has to put up significantly more (in the same senario) of 15,385 raw damage to get the same end dps number (without KS, just pure crit bonus here). While for a crusader, Knight stance, even on the BEST parsing pallies will only be about 7.5% of their total dps (25% of 30%). now, on a 20k dpsing pally and a 20k dpsing guard. The crit bonus gives them a total of 2k dps, while KS gives the crusader 1.5k dps. That puts the non crusader at a 500dps advantage (at that point alone).At 30k, the guard above now only has to put up 20,000 raw damage to hit the 30k dps mark, while a crusader has to put up 23,076. Now we are upto a 3k difference. How much of that 30k crusader dps is from knights stance? 2,250. Wow, that difference is now 750dps. For every 10k in dps that is put out, you will see that 250dps increase (again, based on basic formulas that keep all outside factors the same, every fight is different and will parse differently, but in general, this is pretty close).Now, if a crusader can find a way to get their melee damage above 30% of their parse and still parse high, then that advantage begins to wane, but I've noticed my parses tend to put my melee at 20-25% of my parse and I've heard of others hitting the 30% mark. I've not personally heard of higher ones though.NOW, the issue comes down the fact that guards are well behind in the dps area. Does that make the dps that a crusader put out as wrong? Since when is the guardian the end all, be all of benchmarking for what other classes can be capable of? Personally, from what I've played of a guardian, there is hardly a more boring class save a shaman.

Rast

06-09-2010, 03:53 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Jalathan@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>For Brawlers, they need their DPS upped, just a straight upping of offensive ability. Make their strike through immunity innate and get rid of their stances completely. Give them a temp buff for the mit increase and level out their tanking ability at about the same level as brigands/swashies. Give them some more utility to give them a real reason to be in a raid and drop the nonsense about them being real raid tanks, sorry guys, but with the way SoE has raid tanking it isn't gonna happen without blowing something else up. If they ever set up something other than a straight up, 12/24 people just beating the crap out of a mob mentality for raiding, I could see some options, but with the mentality of mobs just hitting harder with more hit points, avoidance tanking just isn't gonna cut it. There are just too many ways avoidance tanking fails it isn't funny <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>Not only is your math horrible but so are your ideas. Brawlers are tanks, learn to live with it.</blockquote>Did I say they weren't? No. I said the mechanics don't suit them as tanks. But I do believe they never should of been tanks in the first place.

BChizzle

06-09-2010, 04:28 PM

<cite>Jalathan@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>a .20% advantage on the multipler is extremely powerful, especially since just about everyone in the universe, even in crap gear is at or above 100% crit chance. I would agree with you if crit chances were still down around the 50% range, as that bonus is highly dependent upon the crit chance being high to work.Let us take a 20k parsing guardian, of that at a 1.5 multiplier (their innate, prior to any other buffs they might have on gear) they would only need to put up only 13333 raw damage (at 100% crit rate). A crusader has to put up significantly more (in the same senario) of 15,385 raw damage to get the same end dps number (without KS, just pure crit bonus here). While for a crusader, Knight stance, even on the BEST parsing pallies will only be about 7.5% of their total dps (25% of 30%). now, on a 20k dpsing pally and a 20k dpsing guard. The crit bonus gives them a total of 2k dps, while KS gives the crusader 1.5k dps. That puts the non crusader at a 500dps advantage (at that point alone).At 30k, the guard above now only has to put up 20,000 raw damage to hit the 30k dps mark, while a crusader has to put up 23,076. Now we are upto a 3k difference. How much of that 30k crusader dps is from knights stance? 2,250. Wow, that difference is now 750dps. For every 10k in dps that is put out, you will see that 250dps increase (again, based on basic formulas that keep all outside factors the same, every fight is different and will parse differently, but in general, this is pretty close).Now, if a crusader can find a way to get their melee damage above 30% of their parse and still parse high, then that advantage begins to wane, but I've noticed my parses tend to put my melee at 20-25% of my parse and I've heard of others hitting the 30% mark. I've not personally heard of higher ones though.NOW, the issue comes down the fact that guards are well behind in the dps area. Does that make the dps that a crusader put out as wrong? Since when is the guardian the end all, be all of benchmarking for what other classes can be capable of? Personally, from what I've played of a guardian, there is hardly a more boring class save a shaman.</blockquote>Again your math fails. Let me see if I can better explain this very simple concept for you.At 200 crit bonus for a crusader the warrior/brawler would be at 220 crit bonus. That is a 10% difference. The Crusader would still keep the 25% auto attack bonus.At 400 crit bonus for a crusader the warrior/brawler would be at 420 crit bonus. That is a 5% difference. The Crusader would still keep the 25% auto attack bonus.At 800 crit bonus for a crusader the warrior/brawler would be at 820 crit bonus. That is a 2.5% difference. The Crusader would still keep the 25% auto attack bonus.Now if one were to assume that auto attack damage will maintain its spot at roughly 25-40% of total dps well you can see that the knight stance advantage will become absolutely huge over an extra .20 crit bonus as things progress. In fact we already see its advantage assuming 33% auto attack dps at 240 crit bonus because (This calculation might be a bit over your head)Crit bonus Advantage 8.3%*1=0.083 (The 8.3% is using crusaders at 240 crit mod vs 260 for warrior/brawler)Knight Stance 25%*1/3=0.083Of course these calculations completely ignore the DPS that doesn't crit into the equation (IE Procs) and the reality is auto attack damage is a much larger % of our total critable damage meaning the break even point is much much lower then the 240 crit mod I am pointing out here.

BChizzle

06-09-2010, 04:39 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Plate tanks don't need our avoidance on them, but it is a very, very powerful buff. It's enough of a jump in survivability to be equivalent to the heals provided by an extra healer (though obviously not the cures, buffs, & group heals). It's the difference between having a regular tank and an uber tank. Likewise, we should not need the buff I'm proposing to be effective, but it should be available nonetheless. Otherwise any time you are in a situation with a plate tank and a brawler you will always be better off having the plate tank tank since the brawler can make him so uber. </blockquote>The jump is not anything more then a plate tank putting their avoid on another plate tank.

BChizzle

06-09-2010, 05:00 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Again your math fails. Let me see if I can better explain this very simple concept for you.At 200 crit bonus for a crusader the warrior/brawler would be at 220 crit bonus. That is a 10% difference. The Crusader would still keep the 25% auto attack bonus.At 400 crit bonus for a crusader the warrior/brawler would be at 420 crit bonus. That is a 5% difference. The Crusader would still keep the 25% auto attack bonus.At 800 crit bonus for a crusader the warrior/brawler would be at 820 crit bonus. That is a 2.5% difference. The Crusader would still keep the 25% auto attack bonus.Now if one were to assume that auto attack damage will maintain its spot at roughly 25-40% of total dps well you can see that the knight stance advantage will become absolutely huge over an extra .20 crit bonus as things progress. In fact we already see its advantage assuming 33% auto attack dps at 240 crit bonus because (This calculation might be a bit over your head)Crit bonus Advantage 8.3%*1=0.083 (The 8.3% is using crusaders at 240 crit mod vs 260 for warrior/brawler)Knight Stance 25%*1/3=0.083Of course these calculations completely ignore the DPS that doesn't crit into the equation (IE Procs) and the reality is auto attack damage is a much larger % of our total critable damage meaning the break even point is much much lower then the 240 crit mod I am pointing out here.</blockquote>Sorry to quote myself...I'd like to just point out while this clearly displays that at some point knights stance will need to be changed I don't think it is an issue right now.If I was guessing SOE will eventually change it into something like "Adds 50% of your total strength to your melee hit damage." As proven many times in this game % modifiers end up being way OP over time.

Rast

06-09-2010, 05:13 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Jalathan@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>a .20% advantage on the multipler is extremely powerful, especially since just about everyone in the universe, even in crap gear is at or above 100% crit chance. I would agree with you if crit chances were still down around the 50% range, as that bonus is highly dependent upon the crit chance being high to work.Let us take a 20k parsing guardian, of that at a 1.5 multiplier (their innate, prior to any other buffs they might have on gear) they would only need to put up only 13333 raw damage (at 100% crit rate). A crusader has to put up significantly more (in the same senario) of 15,385 raw damage to get the same end dps number (without KS, just pure crit bonus here). While for a crusader, Knight stance, even on the BEST parsing pallies will only be about 7.5% of their total dps (25% of 30%). now, on a 20k dpsing pally and a 20k dpsing guard. The crit bonus gives them a total of 2k dps, while KS gives the crusader 1.5k dps. That puts the non crusader at a 500dps advantage (at that point alone).At 30k, the guard above now only has to put up 20,000 raw damage to hit the 30k dps mark, while a crusader has to put up 23,076. Now we are upto a 3k difference. How much of that 30k crusader dps is from knights stance? 2,250. Wow, that difference is now 750dps. For every 10k in dps that is put out, you will see that 250dps increase (again, based on basic formulas that keep all outside factors the same, every fight is different and will parse differently, but in general, this is pretty close).Now, if a crusader can find a way to get their melee damage above 30% of their parse and still parse high, then that advantage begins to wane, but I've noticed my parses tend to put my melee at 20-25% of my parse and I've heard of others hitting the 30% mark. I've not personally heard of higher ones though.NOW, the issue comes down the fact that guards are well behind in the dps area. Does that make the dps that a crusader put out as wrong? Since when is the guardian the end all, be all of benchmarking for what other classes can be capable of? Personally, from what I've played of a guardian, there is hardly a more boring class save a shaman.</blockquote>Again your math fails. Let me see if I can better explain this very simple concept for you.At 200 crit bonus for a crusader the warrior/brawler would be at 220 crit bonus. That is a 10% difference. The Crusader would still keep the 25% auto attack bonus.At 400 crit bonus for a crusader the warrior/brawler would be at 420 crit bonus. That is a 5% difference. The Crusader would still keep the 25% auto attack bonus.At 800 crit bonus for a crusader the warrior/brawler would be at 820 crit bonus. That is a 2.5% difference. The Crusader would still keep the 25% auto attack bonus.Now if one were to assume that auto attack damage will maintain its spot at roughly 25-40% of total dps well you can see that the knight stance advantage will become absolutely huge over an extra .20 crit bonus as things progress. In fact we already see its advantage assuming 33% auto attack dps at 240 crit bonus because (This calculation might be a bit over your head)Crit bonus Advantage 8.3%*1=0.083 (The 8.3% is using crusaders at 240 crit mod vs 260 for warrior/brawler)Knight Stance 25%*1/3=0.083Of course these calculations completely ignore the DPS that doesn't crit into the equation (IE Procs) and the reality is auto attack damage is a much larger % of our total critable damage meaning the break even point is much much lower then the 240 crit mod I am pointing out here.</blockquote>Ok, I can see the basic of what you are saying and I stand corrected on that amount, but even then it isn't a game breaking difference, even at the extremely high end. The problems go much deeper than KS vs Crit (which was my point)I don't approve of your condensending statements as to what is and isn't above my head, a simple correction of the formula would of been sufficient. It is easy to get to the wrong results when you have the wrong formula, I had been lead to believe that the crit multiplier was just taht, a multipler of damage (ie, instead of getting a crit of damage x1.3, others were getting a crit of damage x1.5). I must of missed the post where it was officially explained.The way I see it is we have two problems.1) Guardians are about as much fun to play as watching grass grow. This needs to be fixed. They need to have more to do, bring more to the table and even if they don't bring the same dps, bring the same level of usefuless to a raid (either more surviviablity, more group buffs (I still like the group intercept and group shielding buffs, I think those would help a great deal, not all they need, but it would make a nice part).2) Brawlers have the raid tanking ability of that above mentioned grass. Which, in my opinion, is where they should be, with more dps, some temp mit buffs and the ability to tank as well as a rogue. So, again, that is more a problem with the perception that SoE has built that brawlers are ever going to be able to tank in a system that every single tanking mechanic works against them. Right now, avoidance tanking in raids (and even some instances) simply is not an option, the mobs hit for too much and without the ability to mitigate it, you become one hit wonders. it isn't a disparagement of you as a player, it is the combat mechanics that cause you the problems. Only problem to that is, if they fix it so that you can tank as well, then so can just about every scout that can strap on a shield and get their avoidance through the roof.Honestly, the only real chance brawlers have a chance of being raid tanks is if SoE moves away from the tank/spank (with/without script) 24 man beat the crap out of a single mob (or small group of mobs) in the same room where the only difference that mob really has is how many hit points it has and how hard it hits. This is not a disparagement of you, vinka or anyone else's (inlcuding my wife who plays a monk) ability to play, but if you can't even admit that the cards are stacked against you so high you can't see the top, then you are even more delusional than you claim we crusaders are.

BChizzle

06-09-2010, 05:24 PM

<cite>Jalathan@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Ok, I can see the basic of what you are saying and I stand corrected on that amount, but even then it isn't a game breaking difference, even at the extremely high end. The problems go much deeper than KS vs Crit (which was my point)I don't approve of your condensending statements as to what is and isn't above my head, a simple correction of the formula would of been sufficient. It is easy to get to the wrong results when you have the wrong formula, I had been lead to believe that the crit multiplier was just taht, a multipler of damage (ie, instead of getting a crit of damage x1.3, others were getting a crit of damage x1.5). I must of missed the post where it was officially explained.The way I see it is we have two problems.1) Guardians are about as much fun to play as watching grass grow. This needs to be fixed. They need to have more to do, bring more to the table and even if they don't bring the same dps, bring the same level of usefuless to a raid (either more surviviablity, more group buffs (I still like the group intercept and group shielding buffs, I think those would help a great deal, not all they need, but it would make a nice part).2) Brawlers have the raid tanking ability of that above mentioned grass. Which, in my opinion, is where they should be, with more dps, some temp mit buffs and the ability to tank as well as a rogue. So, again, that is more a problem with the perception that SoE has built that brawlers are ever going to be able to tank in a system that every single tanking mechanic works against them. Right now, avoidance tanking in raids (and even some instances) simply is not an option, the mobs hit for too much and without the ability to mitigate it, you become one hit wonders. it isn't a disparagement of you as a player, it is the combat mechanics that cause you the problems. Only problem to that is, if they fix it so that you can tank as well, then so can just about every scout that can strap on a shield and get their avoidance through the roof.Honestly, the only real chance brawlers have a chance of being raid tanks is if SoE moves away from the tank/spank (with/without script) 24 man beat the crap out of a single mob (or small group of mobs) in the same room where the only difference that mob really has is how many hit points it has and how hard it hits. This is not a disparagement of you, vinka or anyone else's (inlcuding my wife who plays a monk) ability to play, but if you can't even admit that the cards are stacked against you so high you can't see the top, then you are even more delusional than you claim we crusaders are.</blockquote>1) I never said it was over your head I said it might be.2) Crit bonus is a multiplier, you are correct in your thinking that you get a 1.3 multiplier while non crusaders get 1.5 multiplier however the point your are still missing is that as that multiplier increases it does so in a linear way, the initial advantage isn't 20% it is 15% and it shrinks as crit bonus mod gets higher.3) You have no clue as to what brawlers are capable of. Brawlers can and are tanking raid encounters including hardmodes and can stand and take damage with plate tanks, they might not be the absolute best but every tank archetype can do the job of standing there and getting hit. Brawlers problem in this expansion is agro generation while tanking vs the AE tanks whos agro generation is just too much to handle for brawlers.

Rast

06-09-2010, 05:46 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Jalathan@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Ok, I can see the basic of what you are saying and I stand corrected on that amount, but even then it isn't a game breaking difference, even at the extremely high end. The problems go much deeper than KS vs Crit (which was my point)I don't approve of your condensending statements as to what is and isn't above my head, a simple correction of the formula would of been sufficient. It is easy to get to the wrong results when you have the wrong formula, I had been lead to believe that the crit multiplier was just taht, a multipler of damage (ie, instead of getting a crit of damage x1.3, others were getting a crit of damage x1.5). I must of missed the post where it was officially explained.The way I see it is we have two problems.1) Guardians are about as much fun to play as watching grass grow. This needs to be fixed. They need to have more to do, bring more to the table and even if they don't bring the same dps, bring the same level of usefuless to a raid (either more surviviablity, more group buffs (I still like the group intercept and group shielding buffs, I think those would help a great deal, not all they need, but it would make a nice part).2) Brawlers have the raid tanking ability of that above mentioned grass. Which, in my opinion, is where they should be, with more dps, some temp mit buffs and the ability to tank as well as a rogue. So, again, that is more a problem with the perception that SoE has built that brawlers are ever going to be able to tank in a system that every single tanking mechanic works against them. Right now, avoidance tanking in raids (and even some instances) simply is not an option, the mobs hit for too much and without the ability to mitigate it, you become one hit wonders. it isn't a disparagement of you as a player, it is the combat mechanics that cause you the problems. Only problem to that is, if they fix it so that you can tank as well, then so can just about every scout that can strap on a shield and get their avoidance through the roof.Honestly, the only real chance brawlers have a chance of being raid tanks is if SoE moves away from the tank/spank (with/without script) 24 man beat the crap out of a single mob (or small group of mobs) in the same room where the only difference that mob really has is how many hit points it has and how hard it hits. This is not a disparagement of you, vinka or anyone else's (inlcuding my wife who plays a monk) ability to play, but if you can't even admit that the cards are stacked against you so high you can't see the top, then you are even more delusional than you claim we crusaders are.</blockquote>1) I never said it was over your head I said it might be.2) Crit bonus is a multiplier, you are correct in your thinking that you get a 1.3 multiplier while non crusaders get 1.5 multiplier however the point your are still missing is that as that multiplier increases it does so in a linear way, the initial advantage isn't 20% it is 15% and it shrinks as crit bonus mod gets higher.3) You have no clue as to what brawlers are capable of. Brawlers can and are tanking raid encounters including hardmodes and can stand and take damage with plate tanks, they might not be the absolute best but every tank archetype can do the job of standing there and getting hit. Brawlers problem in this expansion is agro generation while tanking vs the AE tanks whos agro generation is just too much to handle for brawlers.</blockquote>1) you insunated it heavily2) and you seem to keep missing the point that Knights stance is only a percentage of a percentage of dps. All they have to do to reduce it, should they choose to, is to prevent the dps of weapons from going up as fast as the dps of abilities. Instantly, the amount of dps that is effected by the crit bonus goes up, while the dps benefit of KS goes down. It is a numbers game and regardless, it is overly immaterial even high up. At best, KS will be 10% of a crusaders damage and that is if their auto attack is 40% of there overall dps. The lower that auto attack % is, the lower the benefit of KS and there are a ton of ways they can alter that aspect.3) Again, I don't think I ever said you COULDN'T do it, just that you couldn't do it efficiently, I also believe that I stated that you shouldn't be able to do it as well, but again, that isn't COULDN'T do it either. I remember about 3 years ago, before TSO, Paladins could tank every raid in the game, but they were always the 3rd choice for MT and often laughed at because even though they could do it, Guards and Zerkers were always better at it. So I understand where you are, in that regard. But likewise, when raids only need 2, sometimes 3 tanks, the logic of having 6 tank classes is down right stupid. I'd rather have a way that I can get a brawler into a raid and have them being effective, productive and useful than forcing them into a role they are neither designed for, nor the game is designed for them to be in. Not when there are 4 better choices already.Will there be brawlers who are exceptions to the rule? sure, just as there were pallies back in the Guard/Zerker days who were exceptions and did what others said they couldn't do (I was one of those back then tanking what others said I couldn't), but we were held back because I wasn't a guard and I knew it and I know it now. That is just the way it is.

Rast

06-09-2010, 06:02 PM

I think in the end, we all want the same basic thing. 24 classes that all have a role in the scheme of things. Who all bring things to a group and/or raid to make them desirable.But we all have to face reality here, there are only so many slots to go to fighters, period. 2 and sometimes 3. There is NO way we will ever have a reason for 6 desired tanks in that senario. That is all we are alloted, 2/3 slots.Even in a fighter heavy raid,there will be more scouts (4 bards, 3 rogues, 2 preditors)More mages (4 enchanters, 2 Sorcerers and a conjurer)More healers (3 clerics, 2 shamans)2 tanks... that is all that there is left room for, to take the third (which is unnecessary for most fights) you have to kick someone else out, someone who will not be as able to fill in the role that is being kicked out as well as the one getting kicked out.If you want to attack what is wrong with this game, look at that. You need 4 bards and 4 enchanters and 2 tanks... Typically you want 3 dirges and only 2 tanks... 3 of one class, yet you only want 2 from a whole archtype.There is no way you can make 6 fighter classes desirous in that senario, EVER. Unless at least 2 of them become non fighter classes and can fill in one of the other roles and provide some utility that the other can't.

BChizzle

06-09-2010, 06:07 PM

<cite>Jalathan@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>1) you insunated it heavily2) and you seem to keep missing the point that Knights stance is only a percentage of a percentage of dps. All they have to do to reduce it, should they choose to, is to prevent the dps of weapons from going up as fast as the dps of abilities. Instantly, the amount of dps that is effected by the crit bonus goes up, while the dps benefit of KS goes down. It is a numbers game and regardless, it is overly immaterial even high up. At best, KS will be 10% of a crusaders damage and that is if their auto attack is 40% of there overall dps. The lower that auto attack % is, the lower the benefit of KS and there are a ton of ways they can alter that aspect.3) Again, I don't think I ever said you COULDN'T do it, just that you couldn't do it efficiently, I also believe that I stated that you shouldn't be able to do it as well, but again, that isn't COULDN'T do it either. I remember about 3 years ago, before TSO, Paladins could tank every raid in the game, but they were always the 3rd choice for MT and often laughed at because even though they could do it, Guards and Zerkers were always better at it. So I understand where you are, in that regard. But likewise, when raids only need 2, sometimes 3 tanks, the logic of having 6 tank classes is down right stupid. I'd rather have a way that I can get a brawler into a raid and have them being effective, productive and useful than forcing them into a role they are neither designed for, nor the game is designed for them to be in. Not when there are 4 better choices already.Will there be brawlers who are exceptions to the rule? sure, just as there were pallies back in the Guard/Zerker days who were exceptions and did what others said they couldn't do (I was one of those back then tanking what others said I couldn't), but we were held back because I wasn't a guard and I knew it and I know it now. That is just the way it is.</blockquote>2) Knight stance is a straight % multiplier it will always be 25% if you know anything about how things work you would understand why it will become a problem in the future and will be changed, every ability like this has seen the same nerfs eventually. I am not calling for a nerf on it I am just mearly pointing out to you that it will happen.3) On a monk I have tanked more things then any tank on your server plates included. Your idea of what a brawler can and cannot do is based upon ignorance.Ammmusingly a quick search of your character turns up a toon in legendary who cleary does not raid. I don't really care that you aren't a raider and this isn't some sort of elitist remark, but you really aren't in raids so you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to brawler tanks. I'd suggest since you are on AB you group with Vinka or even ask her friends in Bloodthorn whether a brawler can tank effectively or not.

Megavolt

06-09-2010, 08:24 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Jalathan@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>1) you insunated it heavily2) and you seem to keep missing the point that Knights stance is only a percentage of a percentage of dps. All they have to do to reduce it, should they choose to, is to prevent the dps of weapons from going up as fast as the dps of abilities. Instantly, the amount of dps that is effected by the crit bonus goes up, while the dps benefit of KS goes down. It is a numbers game and regardless, it is overly immaterial even high up. At best, KS will be 10% of a crusaders damage and that is if their auto attack is 40% of there overall dps. The lower that auto attack % is, the lower the benefit of KS and there are a ton of ways they can alter that aspect.3) Again, I don't think I ever said you COULDN'T do it, just that you couldn't do it efficiently, I also believe that I stated that you shouldn't be able to do it as well, but again, that isn't COULDN'T do it either. I remember about 3 years ago, before TSO, Paladins could tank every raid in the game, but they were always the 3rd choice for MT and often laughed at because even though they could do it, Guards and Zerkers were always better at it. So I understand where you are, in that regard. But likewise, when raids only need 2, sometimes 3 tanks, the logic of having 6 tank classes is down right stupid. I'd rather have a way that I can get a brawler into a raid and have them being effective, productive and useful than forcing them into a role they are neither designed for, nor the game is designed for them to be in. Not when there are 4 better choices already.Will there be brawlers who are exceptions to the rule? sure, just as there were pallies back in the Guard/Zerker days who were exceptions and did what others said they couldn't do (I was one of those back then tanking what others said I couldn't), but we were held back because I wasn't a guard and I knew it and I know it now. That is just the way it is.</blockquote>2) Knight stance is a straight % multiplier it will always be 25% if you know anything about how things work you would understand why it will become a problem in the future and will be changed, every ability like this has seen the same nerfs eventually. I am not calling for a nerf on it I am just mearly pointing out to you that it will happen.3) On a monk I have tanked more things then any tank on your server plates included. Your idea of what a brawler can and cannot do is based upon ignorance.Ammmusingly a quick search of your character turns up a toon in legendary who cleary does not raid. I don't really care that you aren't a raider and this isn't some sort of elitist remark, but you really aren't in raids so you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to brawler tanks. I'd suggest since you are on AB you group with Vinka or even ask her friends in Bloodthorn whether a brawler can tank effectively or not.</blockquote>He just suffers from the same ignorance that 95% of the player base does that brawlers don't have surviveability. What we have is severe lack of agro management versus other tank classes, and an offensive stance that is the equivalent of just having an illusionist in the group, and about as effective when there is an illusionist in the group as a large pile of poo. They should have removed the haste cap when they removed the potency cap and it would have fixed our offensive stance, either that or remove the innate dual wield delay penalty when in offensive, either of which would have made an effect that is at least useful in offensive without a stance focus adorn.

Megavolt

06-09-2010, 08:25 PM

Rast

06-09-2010, 10:35 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Jalathan@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>1) you insunated it heavily2) and you seem to keep missing the point that Knights stance is only a percentage of a percentage of dps. All they have to do to reduce it, should they choose to, is to prevent the dps of weapons from going up as fast as the dps of abilities. Instantly, the amount of dps that is effected by the crit bonus goes up, while the dps benefit of KS goes down. It is a numbers game and regardless, it is overly immaterial even high up. At best, KS will be 10% of a crusaders damage and that is if their auto attack is 40% of there overall dps. The lower that auto attack % is, the lower the benefit of KS and there are a ton of ways they can alter that aspect.3) Again, I don't think I ever said you COULDN'T do it, just that you couldn't do it efficiently, I also believe that I stated that you shouldn't be able to do it as well, but again, that isn't COULDN'T do it either. I remember about 3 years ago, before TSO, Paladins could tank every raid in the game, but they were always the 3rd choice for MT and often laughed at because even though they could do it, Guards and Zerkers were always better at it. So I understand where you are, in that regard. But likewise, when raids only need 2, sometimes 3 tanks, the logic of having 6 tank classes is down right stupid. I'd rather have a way that I can get a brawler into a raid and have them being effective, productive and useful than forcing them into a role they are neither designed for, nor the game is designed for them to be in. Not when there are 4 better choices already.Will there be brawlers who are exceptions to the rule? sure, just as there were pallies back in the Guard/Zerker days who were exceptions and did what others said they couldn't do (I was one of those back then tanking what others said I couldn't), but we were held back because I wasn't a guard and I knew it and I know it now. That is just the way it is.</blockquote>2) Knight stance is a straight % multiplier it will always be 25% if you know anything about how things work you would understand why it will become a problem in the future and will be changed, every ability like this has seen the same nerfs eventually. I am not calling for a nerf on it I am just mearly pointing out to you that it will happen.3) On a monk I have tanked more things then any tank on your server plates included. Your idea of what a brawler can and cannot do is based upon ignorance.Ammmusingly a quick search of your character turns up a toon in legendary who cleary does not raid. I don't really care that you aren't a raider and this isn't some sort of elitist remark, but you really aren't in raids so you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to brawler tanks. I'd suggest since you are on AB you group with Vinka or even ask her friends in Bloodthorn whether a brawler can tank effectively or not.</blockquote>You are actually incorrect, I do raid. More pick up than anything at this point, I don't have the time to be a 'serious' raider these days. I was out of raiding since shortly after RoK came out until here recently, so I'm having to go back and pick up gear to go foward as I was completely out of the game for TSO. Between that and an extremely bad RNG run, I've not gotten the pieces I need to get my TSO t3 set to move up into better stuff and being a tank, it is extremely hard to get instance runs without the better gear due to survivablity issues. It is hard to get the gear to tank when you need the gear to tank type of thing, so your options tend to be to step backwards and get the higher gear of a tier earlier, which is what I'm doing.It may suprise you to know that I'm glad you can tank that stuff. I may not think you should be able to, but since SoE says you are a tank, it is good to know that they have at least made it possible for you to do so. It doesn't seem to jive with all the posts I see on Brawlers and since my guild has no brawlers (that raid) and I raid with no brawlers from outside the guild, the only thing I do have to go on is what I see in these threads and all I ever see is brawlers complaining about their lack of ability to raid tank... So, forgive me for not knowing that and I'm happy to be corrected. At least now I know to give no credit to those posts complaining that brawlers can't tank.

BChizzle

06-09-2010, 11:48 PM

<cite>Jalathan@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>You are actually incorrect, I do raid. More pick up than anything at this point, I don't have the time to be a 'serious' raider these days. I was out of raiding since shortly after RoK came out until here recently, so I'm having to go back and pick up gear to go foward as I was completely out of the game for TSO. Between that and an extremely bad RNG run, I've not gotten the pieces I need to get my TSO t3 set to move up into better stuff and being a tank, it is extremely hard to get instance runs without the better gear due to survivablity issues. It is hard to get the gear to tank when you need the gear to tank type of thing, so your options tend to be to step backwards and get the higher gear of a tier earlier, which is what I'm doing.It may suprise you to know that I'm glad you can tank that stuff. I may not think you should be able to, but since SoE says you are a tank, it is good to know that they have at least made it possible for you to do so. It doesn't seem to jive with all the posts I see on Brawlers and since my guild has no brawlers (that raid) and I raid with no brawlers from outside the guild, the only thing I do have to go on is what I see in these threads and all I ever see is brawlers complaining about their lack of ability to raid tank... So, forgive me for not knowing that and I'm happy to be corrected. At least now I know to give no credit to those posts complaining that brawlers can't tank.</blockquote>Please point out examples of brawlers saying they can't raid tank during this expansion. The only issue brawlers have less agro and less utility then plates. Survivability is the same across all tank classes.

circusgirl

06-10-2010, 12:17 AM

We certainly can tank quite adequately. We just have to sacrifice much more to do it than other tanks do, and are more or less balanced pretty much exclusively through itemization right now instead of through innate class abilities, which is obnoxious. You are right with one thing you said though, which was that there are a great many little biases against brawler tanks. It is worth noticing, however, that the developers seem to be aware of them and are taking care of them as best they can--we complained about ward items that procced when we were hit being worse for us, and they gave us stonewill which procs both on hits and when hit. We complained about block chance not being half as good as mitigation increase, and they gave us some mit increase on the higher end armor. Kander alone has done wonders for the brawler community via itemization, which is why we're capable of all the things we are right now. Right now, I feel totally secure in my value to my raidforce. Granted, we run like a bajillion tanks so I think that if it came down to cuts one of our umpteen million crusaders would be the one to drop, but still, a slot is a slot and I think that most raid forces find it valuable to keep a brawler around. The next step is becoming as viable a choice for MT as a paladin, a shadowknight, a zerker, or a guardian. In an ideal world you'd see raids running all sorts of different classes as MT, based on whoever they've had around the longest or whoever has the best skill/gear. When that happens we'll be able to say that tanks are balanced.

Rast

06-10-2010, 10:37 AM

Bchizzle,This whole thread seems to be a case of brawlers complaining that they can't tank. A great deal of it is comparison to crusaders, but there are quite a few complaints about not being able to deal with spike damage or if they build up to handle spike damage, they can't hold agro or complaining about this or that mechanic that is biased against you. Either way, it appears from the outside, that you all are complaining that you can't tank raids.<a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?start=45&topic_id=479243">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=479243</a>Honestly, this thread is the first time where I've actually seen one of you actually say you COULD, so it is easy to see how 95% of the people out there don't think you can. When every other post is about how broken the class is, that is exactly what people are going to think. To be honest, I shouldn't have given all of that as much credit as I did as I used to be on the other side of that (as a paladin) a few years back and for that, I do appologize.My goal isn't to get anyone nerfed (shadowknights included), I just want to see a way for every class in the game to have a real shot at getting into a raid without being a "Oh, yah sure, we have a slot open you can come" type of decision.

Wasuna

06-10-2010, 11:24 AM

As Vinka said, the brawlers ability to tank is basedf on itemization, not class abilities so not all brawlers will be able to tank. They don't have the gear to do it.Vinka did put Guardians in her list of chosen raid tanks and that is just carryover from earlier expansions. Raid forces that switch to SK's no longer consider a Guardian an acceptable choice.

Nulgara

06-10-2010, 12:59 PM

<cite>Jalathan@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Bchizzle,This whole thread seems to be a case of brawlers complaining that they can't tank. A great deal of it is comparison to crusaders, but there are quite a few complaints about not being able to deal with spike damage or if they build up to handle spike damage, they can't hold agro or complaining about this or that mechanic that is biased against you. Either way, it appears from the outside, that you all are complaining that you can't tank raids.<a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?start=45&topic_id=479243">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=479243</a>Honestly, this thread is the first time where I've actually seen one of you actually say you COULD, so it is easy to see how 95% of the people out there don't think you can. When every other post is about how broken the class is, that is exactly what people are going to think. To be honest, I shouldn't have given all of that as much credit as I did as I used to be on the other side of that (as a paladin) a few years back and for that, I do appologize.My goal isn't to get anyone nerfed (shadowknights included), I just want to see a way for every class in the game to have a real shot at getting into a raid without being a "Oh, yah sure, we have a slot open you can come" type of decision.</blockquote>I cant figure out what youve been reading bro. every thread mentioning brawlers and tanking this expansion has been entirely about our lack of hate when tanking. I cant recall a singel radi brawler saying they couldnt tank a mob, all I remember seeing is saying that most often we dont do it because of how much dps we lose therefore agro lost and not being capable of maintaining enough threat off the other tanks in the raid making it a seriosu struggle for a brawler to do it. I know in my case thats teh issue. every mob my raid force has killed i have also tanked at one point or another. most often (yeah we are old school) we use our guard to mt and our sk to OT. more often then not I'm in a tertiary tank role. a tank dies I snap swap stance pop tsunami mt gets rezzed rebuffed and takes it back. currently i'm not the tank of choice solely because of agro problems while defensively specced, which is why i have an incredibly idiotic hybrid spec right now that offers me literally jsut enough hate procducing ability in defensive to keep the mob for about a minute if neccessary. but even with my half and half offense defense spec i can still tank the mob if neccessary. ive nerfed my own uncontested avoidance down to 42% to maintain enough offense to do what i do for our raid force. for right now it works well enough for the role im taking. the biggest problem i have when being called to tank is agro. when our mt or ot are not in raid for some reason or another and im tapped to tank i have to jack my spec up even more jsut to keep agro. so again i dont see where you are coming from with this brawlers saying they cant tank thing. its ALL about agro. which is also what this thread is ALL about.

Thor

06-10-2010, 03:01 PM

The topic is so off topic.The balance is not about threat only.As the game are today, people want to clear the instances fast and in easymode. A crusader can pull the whole floor in an instance and the dps can go all out. Would think a zerker can do the same with some good healing.My main is a guardian. I'm mt in our guild and have no problem getting groups with guildies so I have gear from both the raid- and heroic instances in sf. And there's a lot of gear that helps with aggro. BUT, the majority of the guardians never get a chance to see anything about it. They don't get into raids and they have hard times getting groups for the heroic content.As I said, people want it fast and easy. When I want to play my alt, a swashy, I look for a crusader tank. There's always someone available becuase the servers are swamped with them. It's fast pace which means more instances and loot in shorter time.I hate to call for a nerf of a class but I don't think it was soe's intention to boost the crusaders and especially sk's to what they are today. And stop compare the tanks as raid mt only. We are just a small part of the community. It the those who don't raid, who just want to log in to play and having fun who suffer from this fiasco.

Silzin

06-11-2010, 02:35 PM

The way I would like to see this is in a way based on the differences between wizards and warlocks. They seem to be fairly well balanced between each other, and are vary focused on ST and AOE respectfully. A wiz has sufficient AOEs to be very effective when needed but a warlock will leave a wiz in the dust on a good AOE fight. The same is true on a ST fight, the Wiz should smock the Warlock. The problem with trying to do this with the tanks is that there are more factors then with the 2 soec’s. 1 of the biggest factors is agro generation in its many forms. Balancing the ST and AOE DPS, with the TPS and snaps between the 6 fighters is I think what this thread was trying to talk about and should come back to.

Aull

06-11-2010, 06:23 PM

<cite>Silzin wrote:</cite><blockquote>The way I would like to see this is in a way based on the differences between wizards and warlocks. They seem to be fairly well balanced between each other, and are vary focused on ST and AOE respectfully. A wiz has sufficient AOEs to be very effective when needed but a warlock will leave a wiz in the dust on a good AOE fight. The same is true on a ST fight, the Wiz should smock the Warlock.The problem with trying to do this with the tanks is that there are more factors then with the 2 soec’s. 1 of the biggest factors is agro generation in its many forms. Balancing the ST and AOE DPS, with the TPS and snaps between the 6 fighters is I think what this thread was trying to talk about and should come back to.</blockquote>It should be this way for every class. However with fighters it seems that most of the players that are playing fighter classes want what every other fighter has. The grass is always greener on the other side mentality. A good example was brawlers asking for a death save because other fighters have them.It is more than just having differences between warriors, crusaders, and brawlers. It should be looked at from a sub-class standpoint. There should be definate distinctions between them and specialties that each should have that makes them unique.

Xanrn

06-11-2010, 06:40 PM

Whats wrong with Brawlers wanting a death save, we are the only 2 classes that really need one.We also didn't even get one we got a rubbish with a 45 second duration and a 4 minute recast.You want a better real example, Tsunami.

Aule

06-11-2010, 06:48 PM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote> A good example was brawlers asking for a death save because other fighters have them.</blockquote>I find this to be a fairly poor example actually. Brawlers have long been considered to have less survivability than plate tanks, and then on top of that all the plate tanks have death prevents. How was that even close to balanced? It's not like brawlers had other separate but equal abilities that made up for the lack of a death prevent.Unless your goal is for the distinction for brawlers that makes them unique is that they don't live as long as plate tanks then I'm apparently missing the intention behind your statement.

Landiin

06-11-2010, 07:19 PM

<cite>Aule@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote> A good example was brawlers asking for a death save because other fighters have them.</blockquote>I find this to be a fairly poor example actually. Brawlers have long been considered to have less survivability than plate tanks, and then on top of that all the plate tanks have death prevents. How was that even close to balanced? It's not like brawlers had other separate but equal abilities that made up for the lack of a death prevent.Unless your goal is for the distinction for brawlers that makes them unique is that they don't live as long as plate tanks then I'm apparently missing the intention behind your statement.</blockquote>Brawlers have FD! One of the best DS in the game if you ask me. Ok it could fail witch makes it less useful then BL. But then again Brawlers where not designed to be doing the main tanking. Yea they 'can' do it but are not designed to do most of the time.48 41 48 41 20 54 68 69 73 20 77 69 6c 6c 20 67 65 74 20 74 68 65 20 62 72 61 77 6c 65 72 73 20 66 69 67 68 74 65 6e 20 6d 61 64 21 21 21

BChizzle

06-11-2010, 07:20 PM

<cite>Toranx@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aule@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote> A good example was brawlers asking for a death save because other fighters have them.</blockquote>I find this to be a fairly poor example actually. Brawlers have long been considered to have less survivability than plate tanks, and then on top of that all the plate tanks have death prevents. How was that even close to balanced? It's not like brawlers had other separate but equal abilities that made up for the lack of a death prevent.Unless your goal is for the distinction for brawlers that makes them unique is that they don't live as long as plate tanks then I'm apparently missing the intention behind your statement.</blockquote>Brawlers have FD! One of the best DS in the game if you ask me. Ok it could fail witch makes it less useful then BL. But then again Brawlers where not designed to be doing the main tanking. Yea they 'can' do it but are not designed to do most of the time.00 02 18 01 58 02 18 01 00 55 53 45 52 50 52 4f 46 49 4c 45 3d 43 3a 5c 44 6f 63 75 6d 65 6e 74 73 20 61 6e 64 20 53 65 74 74 69 6e 67 73 5c</blockquote>Every class can FD it isn't brawler only.

Landiin

06-11-2010, 07:23 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Toranx@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aule@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote> A good example was brawlers asking for a death save because other fighters have them.</blockquote>I find this to be a fairly poor example actually. Brawlers have long been considered to have less survivability than plate tanks, and then on top of that all the plate tanks have death prevents. How was that even close to balanced? It's not like brawlers had other separate but equal abilities that made up for the lack of a death prevent.Unless your goal is for the distinction for brawlers that makes them unique is that they don't live as long as plate tanks then I'm apparently missing the intention behind your statement.</blockquote>Brawlers have FD! One of the best DS in the game if you ask me. Ok it could fail witch makes it less useful then BL. But then again Brawlers where not designed to be doing the main tanking. Yea they 'can' do it but are not designed to do most of the time.00 02 18 01 58 02 18 01 00 55 53 45 52 50 52 4f 46 49 4c 45 3d 43 3a 5c 44 6f 63 75 6d 65 6e 74 73 20 61 6e 64 20 53 65 74 74 69 6e 67 73 5c</blockquote>Every class can FD it isn't brawler only.</blockquote>But your the only ones that can do it on such a fast refresh timer. So don't try to play it off like brawlers FD isn't such a great thing any longer.48 41 48 41 20 54 68 69 73 20 77 69 6c 6c 20 67 65 74 20 74 68 65 20 62 72 61 77 6c 65 72 73 20 66 69 67 68 74 65 6e 20 6d 61 64 21 21 21

Aull

06-11-2010, 07:26 PM

<cite>Ummudien@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote>Whats wrong with Brawlers wanting a death save, we are the only 2 classes that really need one.We also didn't even get one we got a rubbish with a 45 second duration and a 4 minute recast.You want a better real example, Tsunami.</blockquote>Nothing wrong with it at all. There was nothing wrong with other fighters wanting a tsunami ability back when it was a monk exclusive either. But now where is that special for the monk in todays game when everyother fighter has a tsunami spin off.I have preached and preached on how monks got borked over with the tsunami issue of other fighters getting similar abilities. In my eyes it was totally wrong and should have never happened.I just don't think because class A has something special means or entitles classes B, C, D, E, and F to similar abilities. Not a need for six fighters if the have the same abilities under different names.Also fd was and still is a great ds.

Nulgara

06-12-2010, 03:17 AM

so your saying that because brawlers can fd and fd again so quickly that they didnt warrant getting a deathsave?seriously??yeah cause whats fd gonna do when your the one tanking a raid mob.. umm let me think.. frontal the raid and kill 18 peopleyeah thats great. thanks soe for giving bralwers such and aweome way to keep themselves alive by killing the rest of the raid./sarcasm offbrawlers not having a deathsave was unbalanced. anyway thats off topic. but i felt the need ot be sarcastic.I do agree though that tanks are losing thier flavor. things liek tsunami were class deinfing at some point but not anymore. ild love to get back to that type of thing but not sure if its possible, solely because of the grass is always greener syndrome.but thats something for antoher topic.threat per second and agro management is something all tanks actually SHOULD share and shoudl in no way be limited to only a couple tanks. im sure we all agree that every raid out there brings at least 2 fighters some bring more. and we all agree that 99% of the time 1 of those 2 fighters is a crusader. crusader agro is where all tanks agro shoudl be. but if that crusader isnt in the tanking role they end up being in it anyway because fo the imbalances in threat. thats what ild liek to fix and as we can all see there are quite a few others that feel the same. hopefully we get those fixes, ultimately its up to the devs on how its done. and im hoping they dont jsut add more dps cause i dont think thats the right way to do it. sure more dps while tanking woudl be nice but that doesnt make it the right way to do it. my goal also isnt to make threat easy mode either. but a defensively specced fighter should have the means to hold agro off anyone(other fighters included) if they play well.

Aull

06-12-2010, 02:37 PM

Hehe your right that fd will get the raid smoked if used in that setting. I personally would have liked to see something other than a death save for brawlers. Something more unique to brawlers only. Anyway what is done has been done.I agree with you in that threat should be just as you explained.

Landiin

06-12-2010, 06:12 PM

Brawlers are not real tanks any ways so a death save is pointless. Who is gonna have one tanking other then for fun or because its forced on them. Lets get real here. 48 41 48 41 20 54 68 69 73 20 77 69 6c 6c 20 67 65 74 20 74 68 65 20 62 72 61 77 6c 65 72 73 20 66 69 67 68 74 65 6e 20 6d 61 64 21 21 21

BChizzle

06-12-2010, 06:38 PM

<cite>Toranx@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Brawlers are not real tanks any ways so a death save is pointless. Who is gonna have one tanking other then for fun or because its forced on them. Lets get real here. 48 41 48 41 20 54 68 69 73 20 77 69 6c 6c 20 67 65 74 20 74 68 65 20 62 72 61 77 6c 65 72 73 20 66 69 67 68 74 65 6e 20 6d 61 64 21 21 21</blockquote>Troll harder, its not working for you right now.

Landiin

06-13-2010, 12:09 AM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Toranx@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Brawlers are not real tanks any ways so a death save is pointless. Who is gonna have one tanking other then for fun or because its forced on them. Lets get real here. 48 41 48 41 20 54 68 69 73 20 77 69 6c 6c 20 67 65 74 20 74 68 65 20 62 72 61 77 6c 65 72 73 20 66 69 67 68 74 65 6e 20 6d 61 64 21 21 21</blockquote>Troll harder, its not working for you right now.</blockquote>ROFL, yea, just messing with you guys.. Dang you BC calling me out on it, I could of had fun with this...

BChizzle

06-13-2010, 02:04 AM

<cite>Toranx@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Toranx@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Brawlers are not real tanks any ways so a death save is pointless. Who is gonna have one tanking other then for fun or because its forced on them. Lets get real here. 48 41 48 41 20 54 68 69 73 20 77 69 6c 6c 20 67 65 74 20 74 68 65 20 62 72 61 77 6c 65 72 73 20 66 69 67 68 74 65 6e 20 6d 61 64 21 21 21</blockquote>Troll harder, its not working for you right now.</blockquote>ROFL, yea, just messing with you guys.. Dang you BC calling me out on it, I could of had fun with this...</blockquote>Was funny TBH.

circusgirl

06-13-2010, 12:53 PM

Why doesn't anyone love the brawlers? /emo

Wasuna

06-15-2010, 03:03 PM

I like brawlers! I regularly had one tanking WoE at level 80 when I ran it on an alt.In general, the problem is we have Six (6) fighters where we only need 2-4 of them. I'm not saying which we need and which we don't, it's just that one spot in a group of 6 is all you can give a tank. There being six of them gives flavor to the game but in the end, people go with what works, and don't worry about what tastes good.My understanding of how things were was at EQ2 launch, the Warriors and Crusaders were the tanks and the Brawlers were hybrids. This is not what SoE promised the player base and a bunch of people were upset. Through the years SoE has been trying to correct that and provide us with 6 tanks.We have to many tank classes.

Aule

06-15-2010, 03:14 PM

With how much aoe dps non-guardian tanks are doing these days I get through instances much faster on the occasions when we take two tanks. Really lets you steamroll through the trash a lot faster when tank A goes left, tank B goes right, and they meet on the other side with all the mobs they can get that won't leash by the time they get there.

Aull

06-16-2010, 01:56 AM

<cite>Wasuna wrote:</cite><blockquote>I like brawlers! I regularly had one tanking WoE at level 80 when I ran it on an alt.In general, the problem is we have Six (6) fighters where we only need 2-4 of them. I'm not saying which we need and which we don't, it's just that one spot in a group of 6 is all you can give a tank. There being six of them gives flavor to the game but in the end, people go with what works, and don't worry about what tastes good.My understanding of how things were was at EQ2 launch, the Warriors and Crusaders were the tanks and the Brawlers were hybrids. This is not what SoE promised the player base and a bunch of people were upset. Through the years SoE has been trying to correct that and provide us with 6 tanks.We have to many tank classes.</blockquote>I read many forums years ago about the fighter classes in eq2. I would say that orginially it was designed around warriors being guard defensive and zerker offensive, crusaders paladin defensive and sk offensive, brawlers monk defensive and bruiser offensive. As time went along the orginal designers/developers that created or had the vision for the fighters left leaving other new developers coming in and changing what the game was orginally designed to be.In todays game namely two fighters zerk and sk that were again designed to be offensive have been given defensive tools that rivial their defensive counterparts. Bruisers did get some decent defensive abilities but for the most part they are not mind boggling but their offense didn't gain anything either. In the mean time the zerker and sk really gained big time defensively yet didn't loose anything offensively.I truely believe the orginal vision for how each fighter was known is lost forever. Now all fighters are being pushed into a bottle neck and pressed then into a mold that in a short time will make each one basically the same loosing any individuality they once had.My reasoning is that fighters that were offensively inclined wanted what the defensive fighters had and they for the most part got it. Defensive fighters wanted what the offensive fighters have yet are still waiting to receive it.Had it been left alone leaving offensive fighters as is/were and defensive fighters as is there would be no question(s) as for what to expect from each one. Then players could decide from there which style fit how they would like to play.I think from here on out Soe needs to once again return to how these fighters were orginially designed to operate and stick to that.

Dorieon

06-16-2010, 02:57 AM

<cite>Wasuna wrote</cite><blockquote>My understanding of how things were was at EQ2 launch, the Warriors and Crusaders were the tanks and the Brawlers were hybrids. This is not what SoE promised the player base and a bunch of people were upset. Through the years SoE has been trying to correct that and provide us with 6 tanks.</blockquote>Not really true. At launch brawlers (monks at least) were as good or better than some plate tanks (sk, zerk). We also did more dps than rogues when not tanking iirc so maybe we were hybrid in that aspect. Then there was the bug that let brawlers basically never get hit and we got nerfed hard. Alot of brawlers went the dps route after that and the general population lost all respect for brawlers as tanks (except for a few on each server). We have been trying to recover ever since and have finally gotten there but its not class skills that did it, its itemization. Thats how I remember it anyway, maybe I'm remembering it wrong though.

circusgirl

06-16-2010, 04:29 AM

Brawlers were incredibly strong tanks at launch. Honestly, I could solo green epic x 2 encounters in mastercrafted gear with adept 1 CAs back when I was like level 20 or so (and this was before the current era of extremely easy low-level mobs and overpowered mentoring when that was quite an accomplishment) before LU16, which nerfed us to hell and back. Back then we all started out as fighters too instead of as our individual class, so that anyone who played a monk or bruiser was someone who had rolled a tank.

Wasuna

06-16-2010, 01:15 PM

The big issue with brawlers pre-50 was that they could basically not get hit by a blue/green mob. The problem was that they damage spiked to hard on the even-con and higher stuff to be a viable tank. I remmember the huge long rants from Gage (a monk) over that. Healers hated it. They liked the nice even damage fights where they could get into a grove with a heal casting rotation and not have to focus 100% on the tank and catch the huge spikes out of nowhere.Threat is DPS. All fighters have equal survivability so give all fighters equal DPS. It's not hard to understand. I don't really want that for my class but by God I want something and if your not going to give Survivability then give me DPS. All of this utility, stances and extra abilities is just horse crap that a few other fighter classes are throwing out to avoid others having their well rounded and fun class also. They have survivability, DPS and TPS. Give me the same [Removed for Content] thing.

Terron

06-21-2010, 10:38 AM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Brawlers were incredibly strong tanks at launch. Honestly, I could solo green epic x 2 encounters in mastercrafted gear with adept 1 CAs back when I was like level 20 or so (and this was before the current era of extremely easy low-level mobs and overpowered mentoring when that was quite an accomplishment) before LU16, which nerfed us to hell and back. Back then we all started out as fighters too instead of as our individual class, so that anyone who played a monk or bruiser was someone who had rolled a tank. </blockquote>Wow.I didn't start to LU13 with my guard. By the time I was 30 I had learned that blue no arrow solo mobs were too strong for me to solo. My gear was poor - since I could only kill green mobs and those slowly. I also could not harvest hard metal rares - I found one blackened iron and was using a chest piece made from that until I was 40. At 40 I was able to buy a full set of handcrafted armour. I was lucky to get 2 cobalts on my first trip to SS (from 4 nodes) - that made a big difference.My weapons were better thanks to HQs and I had more luck finding other rares so I had a fair number of adept IIIs.

Prestissimo

06-22-2010, 05:06 AM

I appologize in advance for the wall of text.The problem with taking more than 1 tank is that agro becomes an issue and you're not killing things as fast as if that second tank was a pure dps. That is purely and simply the only problem.I honestly think that the way to fix this is to shed the idea that tanks are supposed to hold hate purely through damage. It is an incredibly flawed thinking unless you're talking about a tank that generates all their hate by the act of dpsing due to multipliers or hate procs or something other than the raw amount of damage they're putting out because 1:1 hate from damage means a dpsing tank would be doing more damage than the others that pull hate including pure dps classes (which is pretty much where things have gotten). Sure, a pure dps class can still win on the parse, but a zerker on aoe fights is beyond rediculous how much dps they do.As long as fighters don't have a way to reduce their hate, more than one fighter will conflict with grouping functionality. As long as damage generates equally as much hate as threat does for a fighter, damage will be the method of choice.I have no issues with a tank being able to bring the hurt, I just have an issue with tanks being able to bring the hurt, take the shots, keep the same hate, and compete with pure dps classes. If it were up to me, defensive stance would have a massive bump up in threat generation and equally as big of a decrease in damage while offensive would have a massive bump up in damage and equally as big of a decrease in threat. The other thing I would do is make threat vs damage generate hate at a 2:1 rate. The pure and simple reason for this is that if you bring a fighter to tank, their main goal should be hate; not damage, but since damage = hate, damage is the goal of fighters trying to hold hate. If you have a second fighter, their goal is to contribute towards killing the mob faster while not taking hate from the fighter holding the hate. Logically, dpsing should not be the best form of hate generation because threat doesn't kill faster.I'd propose having all abilities generate equally as much threat as they do damage, and in the respective stance, the tool tied to the stance gains 3 fold the output and the other is reduced to 1/3 the output. This would end up being that a defensive fighter would push for example 30k threat and 10k damage, while an offensive fighter would push 30k damage and 10k threat. Due to the threat being 2 times the hate, the defensive fighter would be holding 70k worth of hate, and the offensive would be holding 50k worth of hate. Definately not a huge disparity, but when it comes to keeping the most hate off the squishies, it would be obvious which to take.The final adjustment would be to add buffs or debuffs in the form that the damage type of choice for that fighter is what they buff/debuff. Not just a trivial amount of an increase either. If you wanted a lore application for it, the fighter needs to be a master of their particular damage method, so they could expose greater weaknesses to that type of punishment while also leading by example their allies that utilize the same fighting type. Think the paladin/sk damage proc, but a debuff and larger proc in one, and more than 1 debuff in their arsenal. If each tank had that, and then keeps their unique group/raid effect buff and a little bit of small adjusting, you'd have each fighter viable, multiple fighters much more viable, and you'd reduce the agro management nightmare we know as multiple tanks in a group.

Wasuna

06-22-2010, 11:34 AM

That is kind of what things are now for Guardians. Guardians get several reactive hate generators. The mobs have to be attacking us and either hit us, we block then, or we proc a reversal on a couple different scenerios. Our DPS is crap in defensive and when we try to go for DPS for more agro we have to go offensive with DW so we are now marshmellows. Also, my reversal hate procs only work when I have a shiled up so in essance my hate is to a small percent based on my defensive posture.This is 'kind' of what your asking for. Nothing to the degree that you say but in that general direction.Shadowknights are basically the exact opposite. Their hate comes from massive DPS. They get AA's that actually increase their DPS while wearing actually wearing a shield. Several of their big damage spells and AoE's have taunt components attached to them. In essance, they are designed to 100% generate massive amounts of hate through DPS totally contrary to what your discussing.It's very clear that the Guardian design, while it works, is far inferior to the Shadowknight model of tanking in the current game. As Breuner says, his SK class is well balanced and fun to play. Guardians are not balanced and not fun to play. That is why there is currently almost a 3:1 population ratio between SK's and Guardians.

Draylore

06-22-2010, 12:13 PM

<cite>Wasuna wrote:</cite><blockquote>That is kind of what things are now for Guardians. Guardians get several reactive hate generators. The mobs have to be attacking us and either hit us, we block then, or we proc a reversal on a couple different scenerios. Our DPS is crap in defensive and when we try to go for DPS for more agro we have to go offensive with DW so we are now marshmellows. Also, my reversal hate procs only work when I have a shiled up so in essance my hate is to a small percent based on my defensive posture.This is 'kind' of what your asking for. Nothing to the degree that you say but in that general direction.Shadowknights are basically the exact opposite. Their hate comes from massive DPS. They get AA's that actually increase their DPS while wearing actually wearing a shield. Several of their big damage spells and AoE's have taunt components attached to them. In essance, they are designed to 100% generate massive amounts of hate through DPS totally contrary to what your discussing.It's very clear that the Guardian design, while it works, is far inferior to the Shadowknight model of tanking in the current game. As Breuner says, his SK class is well balanced and fun to play. Guardians are not balanced and not fun to play. That is why there is currently almost a 3:1 population ratio between SK's and Guardians.</blockquote>I think this pretty much describes what the overall problem is with tanks in EQ2 today. The game has evolved and changed(both from a game design and player expectation perspective) to a point where certain classes....or more specifically certain class mechanics no longer fit. There is nothing in the game that plays to the strengths of a class like Guardian. Of the 3 aspects that define a tank.....DPS, Aggro and Survivability Guardian only has one(and only by a fraction)....and that one over time has taken a smaller and smaller role over the other 2. The tanks that have all 3 in spades are kings because the game has changed to favor and in many cases require them.Instances and to a certain degree even Raids are now about speed and parses.....neither of which are associated with Guardian.If SOE ever gets around to addressing this ......I think we all know what their solution will be........to morph Guardian into some bastardized version of SK/Zerker. Not really a solution I look forward too.

steelbadger

06-22-2010, 01:04 PM

<cite>Wasuna wrote:</cite><blockquote>It's very clear that the Guardian design, while it works, is far inferior to the Shadowknight model of tanking in the current game. As Breuner says, his SK class is well balanced and fun to play. Guardians are not balanced and not fun to play. That is why there is currently almost a 3:1 population ratio between SK's and Guardians.</blockquote>I quite enjoy playing my Guard; certainly when i compare to it in TSO. I never really experienced the hayday of Guardians. While my Guard was created in KoS (to prove to myself and others that the whiny tanks complaining about aggro and how hard it was to lead a group and pull mobs flawlessly for hours on end were just that, whiny tanks) it never really got any play time until after I came back in late RoK (after having taken an extended leave of absense with RoK release). It didn't get it's myth until just before TSO release (or maybe just after). Because I didn't experience the uberdays of Guardians I can't say I miss them; I just enjoy my tank now as better than he was in TSO.I enjoy my tank as one of the last bastions of the non-easy-mode game. Please don't get Squitch turned into some horrible Paladin/Zerker hybrid.

Wasuna

06-22-2010, 01:48 PM

I can only comment about myself but I like the Guardian concept. I'm frustrated that the game has morphed to a point where it excludes the Guardian as a class with an acceptable identity. Most of the Guardians that come here are pushing for a game that restabilishes an identiy for Guardians that meets what we want it to be while at the same time doesn't create another overpowered class.The arguments come into play when the SK's come here and claim they are just a well balanced class and Guardians should have a foot on our throat as punichment for the initial state of the SK class.

juggalo0385

06-22-2010, 03:48 PM

Wasuna you are a hater you want every other tank class nerfed and the guardians buffed beyond belief so that YOU can be better than everyone. There is nothing wrong with crusaders or warriors. and btw when you are in defensive stance YOU ARE NOT supposed to have high DPS. Thats how it works on my pally. if you are having DPS issues get better gear and have a dirge roll with ya that will solve that problem. how many threads are you going to come and complain about crusaders? seriously dude I just solved your problem for you with out the help of SOE. its common sense Defensive = low DPS...Offensive = High DPS

Draylore

06-22-2010, 04:00 PM

<cite>juggalo0385 wrote:</cite><blockquote>its common sense Defensive = low DPS...Offensive = High DPS</blockquote>Thats how it "should be" but the problem is that currently in EQ2 DPS is AGGRO pure and simple. All the defense in the world is meaningless if you don't have aggro.I think most Guards and least ones that understand the class accept that it should be bottom of the DPS chart but they expect to be able to still perform their basic and only function which is to "tank" the mob....the first step in tanking is maintaining aggro.IMO Defensive stance should be the preferred stance for a Defensive tank.Besides ive seen Crusaders put out stupid high DPS even in D stance.

juggalo0385

06-22-2010, 04:12 PM

they were prolly given the apprpriate buffs to do so. Thats why I always run with a bard to increase my DPS while in defensive stance

Aull

06-22-2010, 05:23 PM

<cite>juggalo0385 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Wasuna you are a hater you want every other tank class nerfed and the guardians buffed beyond belief so that YOU can be better than everyone. There is nothing wrong with crusaders or warriors. and btw when you are in defensive stance YOU ARE NOT supposed to have high DPS. Thats how it works on my pally. if you are having DPS issues get better gear and have a dirge roll with ya that will solve that problem. how many threads are you going to come and complain about crusaders? seriously dude I just solved your problem for you with out the help of SOE. its common sense Defensive = low DPS...Offensive = High DPS</blockquote>That would help some, but the issues are that crusaders do not need a dirge in the first place. So basically it is mandatory for warriors and brawlers to have a dirge with them just to be able to compete with crusaders.Yes defensive stance will make dps go down but even a crusader will still have better aggro and dps in this stance.Without a doubt defensive stance should make any fighters dps suffer but it should provide twice if not more threat than what any fighter's offensive dps could ever do.Like it was said before "the first step in tanking is maintaining aggro." Currently warriors and brawlers must stay in offensive stance just to be able to maintain aggro.

Wasuna

06-22-2010, 06:01 PM

<cite>juggalo0385 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Wasuna you are a hater you want every other tank class nerfed and the guardians buffed beyond belief so that YOU can be better than everyone. There is nothing wrong with crusaders or warriors. and btw when you are in defensive stance YOU ARE NOT supposed to have high DPS. Thats how it works on my pally. if you are having DPS issues get better gear and have a dirge roll with ya that will solve that problem. how many threads are you going to come and complain about crusaders? seriously dude I just solved your problem for you with out the help of SOE. its common sense Defensive = low DPS...Offensive = High DPS</blockquote>Sorry you think this. I have been pretty straight forward in everything I have said. I want balance. Currently things aren't balanced. It hasn't been balanced since TSO came out. There is a reason TSO was called The Shadowknight Oddysey.Unfortunatly I just don't see a way to balance the game with the state Crusaders are at. Crusaders out DPS, Out TPS, Out Survive and Out Utility Guardians. Not much else I can say to that.

juggalo0385

06-22-2010, 07:09 PM

either learn to play you guard right or play a crusader problem solved

Prestissimo

06-22-2010, 07:14 PM

Paladins are pretty much just right as they are. They shine when they are given the group setup they work best with, amends only really counts if there isn't already enough transfers in group, they can bring the hurt when they need to but it will be mostly in burst if they're going for max dps, and have a very nice utility spell that is useable for 10 seconds every 3 minutes. The heals mean something, but can drain your power right fast if you're using them for more than just a spot heal once in a while, and we have adequate damage prevention in a short durration prevent all physical damage, and the kos tree endline that heals based on how much inc damage we get over a short durration.Thats how it should be; shine when you're doing what you were designed to do best, and be nothing special when you're not doing what you're designed to be good at but still be able to function enough that it isn't an unreasonable lost cause. I don't want an I win button, I want to be good at what I do, and have people say "those paladins in this scenario are beast. otherwise though, they'll still be alright, just not outstanding, if the player knows how to not suck."Does that mean it's how I'd like it to be? No. I'd like to see defensive stance take the dps way down and pump the threat output to be a viable means of holding agro and offensive stance bring the pain but not be the best means to hold agro and that is very much not the case. Guards are behind, but they're not so glaringly far behind that they can't function at all. It's just several key adjustments that need to be made and it should either be to bring them to a point where they can dps on par with the other tanks to hold hate (which would pretty much ruin guards lore/description wise and many have expressed their dislike for such a scenario), or have their treat output ramped up so that it competes with the damage other tanks are putting out.

Obadiah

06-22-2010, 07:53 PM

<cite>juggalo0385 wrote:</cite><blockquote>either learn to play you guard right or play a crusader problem solved</blockquote>Another reason they should allow "betrayal" to anything in the archetype, if not anything at all.

Terron

06-23-2010, 08:31 AM

I have a Guard and a SK. The guard is my original character so I know the class better. At the end of TSO he had better gear and a lot more AA. He is specced as far as possible for AE. Despite that it was easier and faster to tank instances on my SK than on my Guard. With my guard I would need a dirge or something similar and would still have to use my snap aggro tools a lot. I did enjoy that. With my SK I would much rarely need to use his snap aggro tools, could taken on multiple groups and hold aggro without having to work as hard as with my guard. That is also fun in a different way.The SK always had greater solo survivability (life-taps, evac, FD, power tap) and in TSO had better survivabilty in groups thanks to bloodletter. SF has brough the guard back up to at least parity in that area through the unyielding way AAs, maybe even having a slight edge when using a shield, but nothing like what it used to be.So my SK was good for when I was in the mood for easymode tanking, and my guard for when I wanted something morre challenging. Except that the guard placed restrictions on what other classes could be in the group, and meant I needed more patient players in the group who didn't mind taking longer.

RAYVEN2

06-23-2010, 10:46 AM

<cite>Terron@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have a Guard and a SK. The guard is my original character so I know the class better. At the end of TSO he had better gear and a lot more AA. He is specced as far as possible for AE. Despite that it was easier and faster to tank instances on my SK than on my Guard. With my guard I would need a dirge or something similar and would still have to use my snap aggro tools a lot. I did enjoy that. With my SK I would much rarely need to use his snap aggro tools, could taken on multiple groups and hold aggro without having to work as hard as with my guard. That is also fun in a different way.The SK always had greater solo survivability (life-taps, evac, FD, power tap) and in TSO had better survivabilty in groups thanks to bloodletter. SF has brough the guard back up to at least parity in that area through the unyielding way AAs, maybe even having a slight edge when using a shield, but nothing like what it used to be.So my SK was good for when I was in the mood for easymode tanking, and my guard for when I wanted something morre challenging. Except that the guard placed restrictions on what other classes could be in the group, and meant I needed more patient players in the group who didn't mind taking longer</blockquote>By saying at the end of TSO your SK had "better gear and more AA" tells me that both of your toons were not maxed on AA and in possession of T4 gear at the end of TSO. In the high end all the tanks seem well balanced. I am in one of the better raid guilds on AB and we still use a Guardian as our MT. Infact most raid guilds still do because guardians are fine in the high end. Its so annoying to see you guys talk smack about crusaders based on performance in instances... You tell me why raid guilds that are all about max/min would use guardians to MT if they are not fine in the high end... Go roll up a crusader if you sweat them so much. As for DPS our guardian does 20k while tanking a raid mob which aint to bad in my opinion... learn how to play your class and get geared out and you'll see how silly your complaints are.

Wasuna

06-23-2010, 11:21 AM

As said many times before. The fighetrs approach balance at the high end in terms of survivability. If the SK was in your MT role though he would out DPS, Out TPS and have equal survivability to you. Your raid would perform a bit better if you have DPS that had to use dehates and such. Your Guardian is the MT due to carryover. The highest teir raid guilds on my server use SK's. Funny enough, they did in KoS and all through TSO also.Also, I'm sick of the 1/24th of the raid population which is the raid tank coming here and telling the other 99% of the fighetrs in the game that everything is fine because at their level they see it to be fine. As soon as you step down one teir in terms of gear the the Crusaders blow us all away and that is a fact.SoE worked hard to balance raid tanking and screwed the rest of us.

juggalo0385

06-23-2010, 01:22 PM

<cite>Wasuna wrote:</cite><blockquote>As said many times before. The fighetrs approach balance at the high end in terms of survivability. If the SK was in your MT role though he would out DPS, Out TPS and have equal survivability to you. Your raid would perform a bit better if you have DPS that had to use dehates and such. Your Guardian is the MT due to carryover. The highest teir raid guilds on my server use SK's. Funny enough, they did in KoS and all through TSO also.Also, I'm sick of the 1/24th of the raid population which is the raid tank coming here and telling the other 99% of the fighetrs in the game that everything is fine because at their level they see it to be fine. As soon as you step down one teir in terms of gear the the Crusaders blow us all away and that is a fact.SoE worked hard to balance raid tanking and screwed the rest of us.</blockquote>so Wasuna since you know everything how do you know ravens MT Guard is carryover. See I look at it like this. You went to go raid and wanted to be main tank but since you only have T1 shard gear and 100 AA they didnt pick you they picked some one who was in T4 gear and had 200AA. thats why your complaints are not valid you are just QQ cause you fail at your class

Landiin

06-23-2010, 02:32 PM

<cite>juggalo0385 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Wasuna wrote:</cite><blockquote>As said many times before. The fighetrs approach balance at the high end in terms of survivability. If the SK was in your MT role though he would out DPS, Out TPS and have equal survivability to you. Your raid would perform a bit better if you have DPS that had to use dehates and such. Your Guardian is the MT due to carryover. The highest teir raid guilds on my server use SK's. Funny enough, they did in KoS and all through TSO also.Also, I'm sick of the 1/24th of the raid population which is the raid tank coming here and telling the other 99% of the fighetrs in the game that everything is fine because at their level they see it to be fine. As soon as you step down one teir in terms of gear the the Crusaders blow us all away and that is a fact.SoE worked hard to balance raid tanking and screwed the rest of us.</blockquote>so Wasuna since you know everything how do you know ravens MT Guard is carryover. See I look at it like this. You went to go raid and wanted to be main tank but since you only have T1 shard gear and 100 AA they didnt pick you they picked some one who was in T4 gear and had 200AA. thats why your complaints are not valid you are just QQ cause you fail at your class</blockquote>Yea thats why High end guards are rolling zerkers/Pallys or betraying. No one has ever said guards can't do the job. What people are saying there is NO reason to use a guard when a guild would be better off using a one of the other plate tanks. It is happening all over the place man. The few guilds that still use a guard as MT is because they are an established MT. IF they lost that MT they would be better off picking a crusader as MT instead of going after another guard and I bet you 1 to 10 thats is what would happen.

Draylore

06-23-2010, 03:01 PM

Assuming equal gear level and skill....there are no raid fights where a Guard offers any advantage over a Zerker or Crusader. Sure the Guard can do the job but so can the others ....just as well or in the majority of cases easier, better and faster.While it gets worse and worse the further down you go in the tiers of gameplay its still the same story.....Guards can tank instances yep....but they are the absolute worst choice for it.....the class offers zero advantage over the others that offer plate loads of advantages. At the Heroic level a Guardian as the groups MT just means the group could not find another tank and they are willing to accept a slow run and having to play smart.While some believe that "being able to do it" means balance most of us do not.As for which tank guilds use.....loyalty and history are the only reason Guards are still holding MT spots.How many serious raid guilds out there even consider recruiting Guards anymore? They either have an "established" one or its been replaced by another fighter type.Of those established Guards how many even bother logging in except for a few raid targets?

Wasuna

06-23-2010, 03:11 PM

<cite>juggalo0385 wrote:</cite><blockquote>so Wasuna since you know everything how do you know ravens MT Guard is carryover. See I look at it like this. You went to go raid and wanted to be main tank but since you only have T1 shard gear and 100 AA they didnt pick you they picked some one who was in T4 gear and had 200AA. thats why your complaints are not valid you are just QQ cause you fail at your class</blockquote>Wow.You do realize that your not helping your community don't you? Shooting spit balls at somebody that says stuff you don't like just gets you detention. It doesn't fix/solve/correct anything at all.As for my experiance. I don't raid much. Most of my perspective is in the Heroic game which is where the geartest disparity is. For a non-raid geared Guardian I'm geared very well. I'm level 90, 250 AA's and my basic solo stats roughly are: 21K HP, 68% Mit, 70% Avoidance, 100% Crit/100DA/100%DPS/100% Haste. I think a couple of those stats are in the low 90% or so but it's close. My crit bonus and potency are pretty poor but that's due to itemization in the heroic game.In the future you might want to keep the personal attacks to a minimum. Things like that get reported.

juggalo0385

06-23-2010, 06:47 PM

<cite>Wasuna wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>juggalo0385 wrote:</cite><blockquote>so Wasuna since you know everything how do you know ravens MT Guard is carryover. See I look at it like this. You went to go raid and wanted to be main tank but since you only have T1 shard gear and 100 AA they didnt pick you they picked some one who was in T4 gear and had 200AA. thats why your complaints are not valid you are just QQ cause you fail at your class</blockquote>Wow.You do realize that your not helping your community don't you? Shooting spit balls at somebody that says stuff you don't like just gets you detention. It doesn't fix/solve/correct anything at all.As for my experiance. I don't raid much. Most of my perspective is in the Heroic game which is where the geartest disparity is. For a non-raid geared Guardian I'm geared very well. I'm level 90, 250 AA's and my basic solo stats roughly are: 21K HP, 68% Mit, 70% Avoidance, 100% Crit/100DA/100%DPS/100% Haste. I think a couple of those stats are in the low 90% or so but it's close. My crit bonus and potency are pretty poor but that's due to itemization in the heroic game.In the future you might want to keep the personal attacks to a minimum. Things like that get reported.</blockquote>so then it comes down to you not knowing how to play your class if you are that "well geared" as you say you are. Maybe try changing your AA's I did that with my pally and it helped out with tanking a lot. so quit with your QQs and either roll a different tank or play a different class completely

BChizzle

06-23-2010, 07:26 PM

<cite>Wasuna wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>juggalo0385 wrote:</cite><blockquote>so Wasuna since you know everything how do you know ravens MT Guard is carryover. See I look at it like this. You went to go raid and wanted to be main tank but since you only have T1 shard gear and 100 AA they didnt pick you they picked some one who was in T4 gear and had 200AA. thats why your complaints are not valid you are just QQ cause you fail at your class</blockquote>Wow.You do realize that your not helping your community don't you? Shooting spit balls at somebody that says stuff you don't like just gets you detention. It doesn't fix/solve/correct anything at all.As for my experiance. I don't raid much. Most of my perspective is in the Heroic game which is where the geartest disparity is. For a non-raid geared Guardian I'm geared very well. I'm level 90, 250 AA's and my basic solo stats roughly are: 21K HP, 68% Mit, 70% Avoidance, 100% Crit/100DA/100%DPS/100% Haste. I think a couple of those stats are in the low 90% or so but it's close. My crit bonus and potency are pretty poor but that's due to itemization in the heroic game.In the future you might want to keep the personal attacks to a minimum. Things like that get reported.</blockquote>Don't let him bait you, he is a below average tank still wearing his level 80 gear that was garbage an expansion ago. It is his same old troll move where talks like he's some great tank when all you have to do is pull up eq2players and see he really doesn't know what he's talking about.

juggalo0385

06-23-2010, 11:13 PM

ok I never said I was the best geared pally out there. But I can garantee I can tank better than any guard or zerk

Landiin

06-24-2010, 12:56 AM

<cite>juggalo0385 wrote:</cite><blockquote>ok I never said I was the best geared pally out there. But I can garantee I can tank better than any guard or zerk</blockquote>I doubt it. The only reason you can tank better then any guard or zerk if you can is because of your class not your skill that is plane to see.EDIT:Ok I got baited I think... No one can actually think that right?

Nulgara

06-24-2010, 04:57 AM

<cite>juggalo0385 wrote:</cite><blockquote>ok I never said I was the best geared pally out there. But I can garantee I can tank better than any guard or zerk</blockquote>I can garauntee that I know prolly 10 zerkers that coudl smoke you on dps, agro, survivability, and look cooler doing it. and at a minimum 3 guards that ild put plat on that coudl do the same..but none of that means a thing, cause even a lvl 82 mastercrafted tank of any of the 6 tanks coudl do the same considering what your wearing,you illusions of your "awesome" tanking ability come from your mythical btw so in the junk you have on that sword alone is making you think you have over 70% mit and that your actually doing that 400 hps at teh same time.you wanna test how awesome of a pali you are turn off amends and swap in a nathsar shortsword and tell me if you still think you could out tank a paper bag.

Thor

06-24-2010, 09:03 AM

<cite>juggalo0385 wrote:</cite><blockquote>ok I never said I was the best geared pally out there. But I can garantee I can tank better than any guard or zerk</blockquote>During my 5.5 years of playing EQ2, I have met a lot of pallies, zerkers and sk's. Sk's has always had it hard in the game until TSO. The life for zerkers and pallies have been up and down.Some of them I met has been great tanks, they have sticked to their class and learned what they can and what they can't do.They are still good tanks.Then we have all those mediocre "tanks" that couldn't even take a group through the easier heroic instances.Now with TSO and SF they got such boost so it makes everything easy for them. They don't even have to know anything about the instance or encounter they are facing. You get picked by a high dps group, the mage tell you who to amend and then they just point in the direction you have to go. Don't even have to know what you are doing.I don't call these kind of players tanks, I call them tankbots. And it's usually these players who defend their classes to any cost. They don't want any competition and they usually use the famous "learn to play" to people who play classes that struggle.Ps Please define what you mean with tank better.

Aull

06-24-2010, 09:18 AM

Being a good tank has nothing to do with "knowing" any thing about an instance or encounter.Being a good tank is knowing your class good enough to push through and be successful without any prior knowledge of an instance or encounter. Even a crap tank can run an instance a few times and learn what to expect and still be a crap tank.

Wasuna

06-24-2010, 11:22 AM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>Being a good tank has nothing to do with "knowing" any thing about an instance or encounter.Being a good tank is knowing your class good enough to push through and be successful without any prior knowledge of an instance or encounter. Even a crap tank can run an instance a few times and learn what to expect and still be a crap tank.</blockquote>DPS beats most encounter scripts. Only real go/nogo programming scripts can't be beaten by DPS. Crusaders provide more DPS to a group and can hold agro off high DPS classes better and therefore can usually field a higher dps group. That means Crusaders, in terms of percentage of population, are better tanks?I see it all the time with my Troubador. I get a PUG with a Crusader tank and they just tell the group to ignore everything and kill stuff. It's usually a super high DPS group also. That's a super easy run for my Troubador but just makes me sick for my Guardian.The ability to just blow stuff away is kind of the defination of a good tank. Hold agro, stay alive... etc. Doesn't mean it's OK or balanced.

Aull

06-24-2010, 01:10 PM

Your are absolutely correct Wasuna.Extremely high dps has really taken away the need for survivability and team work to get through an instance. The faster things are blown up = you must be awesome type of mentality. This type of mentality should only really be applying to sorcerers and predators..err well assassins. Rangers really need help.This is not the player base's fault but until it is addressed the only option for fighters are to go full out dps just to have a chance at holding aggro. At least it is that way for the warriors and brawlers. Taunts did see improvement but still not enough to come remotely close to what damage can do.

Draylore

06-24-2010, 01:28 PM

I only play 2 toons seriously. Guardian and Assassin so sorta get to experience both ends of the spectrum.Yes DPS overall has gotten out of control and has become the only real measure of any skill regardless of class.If your someone that rolled a Guardian because you wanted to be a tank you find yourself feeling less than capable in todays game because you are not judged by your ability to soak the DMG, pull zones smartly. but rather by how fast which is counter to what the class is desiged for.When you find yourself picking gear and AA so max your DPS sacrificing all else as a Guardian you eventually start asking why? if I am gonna be forced to be a DPS tank why not just roll a real one.The moment when DPS replaced hate/threat as the only thing require to maintain aggro is the moment tanks like Guardian became obsolete.

Landiin

06-24-2010, 03:32 PM

<cite>Draylore wrote:</cite><blockquote>The moment when DPS replaced hate/threat as the only thing require to maintain aggro is the moment tanks like Guardian became obsolete.</blockquote>IMO it already has and they already are but that just my opinion.

Draylore

06-24-2010, 04:01 PM

<cite>Toranx@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Draylore wrote:</cite><blockquote>The moment when DPS replaced hate/threat as the only thing require to maintain aggro is the moment tanks like Guardian became obsolete.</blockquote>IMO it already has and they already are but that just my opinion.</blockquote>Yeah its already happened.SOE has no intention of changing things because this "fast and easy" or as others call it "balanced and fun" is what people want and expect.

Landiin

06-24-2010, 06:21 PM

<cite>Draylore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Toranx@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Draylore wrote:</cite><blockquote>The moment when DPS replaced hate/threat as the only thing require to maintain aggro is the moment tanks like Guardian became obsolete.</blockquote>IMO it already has and they already are but that just my opinion.</blockquote>Yeah its already happened.SOE has no intention of changing things because this "fast and easy" or as others call it "balanced and fun" is what people want and expect.</blockquote>Yea the interview with the producer at E3 basically said the classes that are lacking "not fun" will be made to be fun like the current "fun" ones. My take on that was we will all be Zerk Knights.

Bruener

06-24-2010, 07:01 PM

<cite>Toranx@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Draylore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Toranx@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Draylore wrote:</cite><blockquote>The moment when DPS replaced hate/threat as the only thing require to maintain aggro is the moment tanks like Guardian became obsolete.</blockquote>IMO it already has and they already are but that just my opinion.</blockquote>Yeah its already happened.SOE has no intention of changing things because this "fast and easy" or as others call it "balanced and fun" is what people want and expect.</blockquote>Yea the interview with the producer at E3 basically said the classes that are lacking "not fun" will be made to be fun like the current "fun" ones. My take on that was we will all be Zerk Knights. </blockquote>Isn't that what you have been campaigning for for so long?I mean you the few of you posting continuously complain about Guards compared to Zerk/Crusaders, complain about less DPS and TPS and yet you are suprised now when they are going to basically bump those areas to make the class more enjoyable?You wanted to be like the other tanks I guess you get it.Don't worry I am sure that you will just find something else to QQ about to keep you going. Believe it or not this is good news and is exactly what you guys have wanted.

Landiin

06-24-2010, 07:40 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Toranx@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Draylore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Toranx@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Draylore wrote:</cite><blockquote>The moment when DPS replaced hate/threat as the only thing require to maintain aggro is the moment tanks like Guardian became obsolete.</blockquote>IMO it already has and they already are but that just my opinion.</blockquote>Yeah its already happened.SOE has no intention of changing things because this "fast and easy" or as others call it "balanced and fun" is what people want and expect.</blockquote>Yea the interview with the producer at E3 basically said the classes that are lacking "not fun" will be made to be fun like the current "fun" ones. My take on that was we will all be Zerk Knights. </blockquote>Isn't that what you have been campaigning for for so long?I mean you the few of you posting continuously complain about Guards compared to Zerk/Crusaders, complain about less DPS and TPS and yet you are suprised now when they are going to basically bump those areas to make the class more enjoyable?You wanted to be like the other tanks I guess you get it.Don't worry I am sure that you will just find something else to QQ about to keep you going. Believe it or not this is good news and is exactly what you guys have wanted.</blockquote>If I wanted to be a zerker I would of rolled one also if I wanted to be Sk I would of rolled one. No I rolled a guard, I guess its hard for a kid to comprehend that.Tanks should not being dps like that are with the survivability they have. When we are tanking something our dps should be the same as a healers.Crusaders are broke not the other classes, It won't be long until all that is in the game is SK because really why would you play any thing else because they can do what the other 23 classes can just about.Good SK are almost at the top of the T2 DPS range, yes you my not can but good ones can. Good SK are soloing the easier instances in SF, yes you can't but good ones can. This is not and should not be able to be done. Crusaders, SK more so are broken and need to be fixed. Other classes do not need to be brought in line with them, they(crusaders) need to be brought in line with the others.No class in the history of EQ2 has been allowed to dominate content like crusaders have. Every class that has came even close has been nerfed not that any class has came as close as crusaders are now.. You always yell ROK guards where king, well in ROK no guard could solo entire instances like crusaders/SK can but yet we got nerfed into oblivion. So IMO crusaders are the one that is broke and needs to be fixed not the others.

Bruener

06-24-2010, 10:04 PM

<cite>Toranx@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Toranx@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Draylore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Toranx@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Draylore wrote:</cite><blockquote>The moment when DPS replaced hate/threat as the only thing require to maintain aggro is the moment tanks like Guardian became obsolete.</blockquote>IMO it already has and they already are but that just my opinion.</blockquote>Yeah its already happened.SOE has no intention of changing things because this "fast and easy" or as others call it "balanced and fun" is what people want and expect.</blockquote>Yea the interview with the producer at E3 basically said the classes that are lacking "not fun" will be made to be fun like the current "fun" ones. My take on that was we will all be Zerk Knights. </blockquote>Isn't that what you have been campaigning for for so long?I mean you the few of you posting continuously complain about Guards compared to Zerk/Crusaders, complain about less DPS and TPS and yet you are suprised now when they are going to basically bump those areas to make the class more enjoyable?You wanted to be like the other tanks I guess you get it.Don't worry I am sure that you will just find something else to QQ about to keep you going. Believe it or not this is good news and is exactly what you guys have wanted.</blockquote>If I wanted to be a zerker I would of rolled one also if I wanted to be Sk I would of rolled one. No I rolled a guard, I guess its hard for a kid to comprehend that.Tanks should not being dps like that are with the survivability they have. When we are tanking something our dps should be the same as a healers.Crusaders are broke not the other classes, It won't be long until all that is in the game is SK because really why would you play any thing else because they can do what the other 23 classes can just about.Good SK are almost at the top of the T2 DPS range, yes you my not can but good ones can. Good SK are soloing the easier instances in SF, yes you can't but good ones can. This is not and should not be able to be done. Crusaders, SK more so are broken and need to be fixed. Other classes do not need to be brought in line with them, they(crusaders) need to be brought in line with the others.No class in the history of EQ2 has been allowed to dominate content like crusaders have. Every class that has came even close has been nerfed not that any class has came as close as crusaders are now.. You always yell ROK guards where king, well in ROK no guard could solo entire instances like crusaders/SK can but yet we got nerfed into oblivion. So IMO crusaders are the one that is broke and needs to be fixed not the others.</blockquote>LoL at your over-exaggerations. It just shows how little you really know. SKs are at best in the middle of T2 DPS...at best. I don't know a SK better than me on AB and what you are saying is just more garbage that is inaccurate. There might be 1 or 2 zones that I can solo my way thru some of the content and I am way over-geared for it. Those same zones btw can be solo'd by probably a dozen other classes....including a Guard that geared right for it.Your posts show nothing but to prove that no matter what you will always find something to QQ about. The attention is being turned to the Guard classed and was even announced as such...and yet all you can do is complain more. Please just quit playing the game since you are obviously never going to be happy and all you ever will be able to do is shine a bad light on a class that many many more people will be enjoying to play when the changes come in.Its the same old story, the negative people will always push to bring things down to less enjoyable for everybody.....in doing so they never amount to anything.

Rahatmattata

06-24-2010, 11:28 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>I don't know a SK better than me on AB</blockquote>Wow you play on my server? That sucks. Would be quite funny if you are one of my in game friends. The best shadowknight on AB is Evilswank, and he was beast in EoF when SKs sucked horribly. There's a billion shadowknights on AB, and half a billion paladins. It's ridiculous.

Prestissimo

06-25-2010, 04:15 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>LoL at your over-exaggerations. It just shows how little you really know. SKs are at best in the middle of T2 DPS...at best. I don't know a SK better than me on AB and what you are saying is just more garbage that is inaccurate. There might be 1 or 2 zones that I can solo my way thru some of the content and I am way over-geared for it. Those same zones btw can be solo'd by probably a dozen other classes....including a Guard that geared right for it.Your posts show nothing but to prove that no matter what you will always find something to QQ about. The attention is being turned to the Guard classed and was even announced as such...and yet all you can do is complain more. Please just quit playing the game since you are obviously never going to be happy and all you ever will be able to do is shine a bad light on a class that many many more people will be enjoying to play when the changes come in.Its the same old story, the negative people will always push to bring things down to less enjoyable for everybody.....in doing so they never amount to anything.</blockquote>I know 7 tanks personally and quite well just off the top of my head that I could name right now that can solo the easiest heroic instances without other group members and without a problem. They solo then entirety of the hole without a healer. Two of them are stacked in pretty much if not the best gear that you can get out of anything below hard mode raid encounters, and the others are somewhere between the middle of easy mode raid mobs and the middle of medium mode raid encounters. Two are paladins, two are zerkers, two are Sks, and 1 is a bruiser. The SKs and the zerkers have the easiest time of the 6 (or at least they cruised through it the fastest, with the most dps, and did so with lesser amounts of finite tuning on their gear and without as many "close calls" when they hit red at any point in the fight).Considering that I can name that many tanks off the top of my head that can do these feats, and I don't claim or even pretend to think that I know the best tanks on my server or that I belong in that category, and here you're self proclaiming to be one of the better sks on AB and you can barely do some of these said feats? And people think butcherblock is a semi-slack mode server... just sayin.On a side thought, it's ironic you're attacking those being negative like you're so much better with such a direct defamatory flame like that.

Landiin

06-25-2010, 09:55 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>I don't know a SK better than me on AB</blockquote>Good lord, poor poor AB...

Bruener

06-25-2010, 10:24 AM

<cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>I don't know a SK better than me on AB</blockquote>Wow you play on my server? That sucks. Would be quite funny if you are one of my in game friends. The best shadowknight on AB is Evilswank, and he was beast in EoF when SKs sucked horribly. There's a billion shadowknights on AB, and half a billion paladins. It's ridiculous.</blockquote>Swank was a good SK but I didn't get to play on AB with him much since he quit shortly after I came to AB from Befallen. However I have yet to meet or play with a SK that is better than me anywhere, even though that sounds cocky it is just the truth, probably has something to do with a lot of peeps rolling SKs up and just not knowing how to play them...where as I am a SK since launch. Its possible I am one of your in-game friends since I get along with everybody that I play with...however I really do not play much outside of the few nights we raid because heroic content gets boring fast for me and I have an extremely busy RL. Not hard to find though, name is Duele.Reverend I realize that people can solo a couple easy zones. They are people geared way past the content and on a whole server you can think of 7? There was also a Paladin in TSO that was solo'in Tarinax. I can duo PR with a decent healer. Does it really matter because at that point what you are talking about is people geared extremely far past the content they are playing in....in other words there is no real point in doing it except for the challenge of doing it solo and maybe a lil plat that you could make more farming solo mobs for the same amount of time. Also my point is that if those over geared people can do it that means at least a dozen other over-geared classes can do it. All mages can probably do it. Most healers can probably do it if not all. Scouts that gear right can do it. Guards would def have a harder time than the other fighters at doing it but with the right ward proc'ing gear I am sure they can do it over-geared too.

Rahatmattata

06-25-2010, 11:35 AM

I don't know you then. I have a couple of SK friends, but tbh I don't get to group with other fighters much.

Raahl

06-25-2010, 11:52 AM

There is two possible ways to balance threat for fighters.1. Make every fighter class do the same DPS and have similar taunt/hate capabilities.2. Remove hate from DPS for fighters and give each fighter similar and more potent taunt/hate capabilities.With DPS being king in regards to hate, I just don't see any other ways to balance threat.

Wasuna

06-25-2010, 02:57 PM

<cite>Toranx@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>No class in the history of EQ2 has been allowed to dominate content like crusaders have. Every class that has came even close has been nerfed not that any class has came as close as crusaders are now.. You always yell ROK guards where king, well in ROK no guard could solo entire instances like crusaders/SK can but yet we got nerfed into oblivion. So IMO crusaders are the one that is broke and needs to be fixed not the others.</blockquote>I think Breuner should actuallty read this. Pretty much sums up where we are. Of course Crusaders are well balanced and fun to play. They outshine every single class at any point in the history of EQ2. Heck, if I was Superman I'd think it was well balanced and fun also. Well, I probably couldn't stomach the total lie that it's well balanced but it sure would be fun.I'd say: 'I'm Superman! It sure is fun and I'm sorry my exsitance is screwing all of the rest of you... but.. ya know.. it's fun!'

Prestissimo

06-25-2010, 05:01 PM

I still find it funny that I see zerkers doing the same exact feats as crusaders, and I've seen bruisers do very close to the same thing (not to mention the key mob change PURELY because of brawlers), but I don't see crys to nerf them crosseyed like there are to nerf both crusaders. Seriously, the paladins weren't nearly as OP as sks were in TSO, but everyone acts like they were and attacked them equally the same. Now they're more balanced than they've ever been and their abilities actually MEAN something now which is a breathe of fresh air and now crys that they're super OP when they're doing what half the other tanks are doing in the same quality of gear? No, I cannot accept that as fair or unbiased, anymore than anything Bruener says.Why is it that a class on a whole needs to be nerfed if it's only the high end gear thats making them overpowered? As I've said god only knows how many times, the majority of the problems are from the gear, not the classes inherrent abilities and as I've said equally as many times, strip the class down, and parse it, then tell me it's OP against the others. The only reason I even supported seeing shadowknights get nerfed durring tso is because they could perform the exact same as other tanks in a full quality of gear above them.

Rahatmattata

06-25-2010, 05:28 PM

<cite>ReverendPaqo wrote:</cite><blockquote>I still find it funny that I see zerkers doing the same exact feats as crusaders, and I've seen bruisers do very close to the same thing (not to mention the key mob change PURELY because of brawlers), but I don't see crys to nerf them crosseyed like there are to nerf both crusaders. Seriously, the paladins weren't nearly as OP as sks were in TSO, but everyone acts like they were and attacked them equally the same. Now they're more balanced than they've ever been and their abilities actually MEAN something now which is a breathe of fresh air and now crys that they're super OP when they're doing what half the other tanks are doing in the same quality of gear? No, I cannot accept that as fair or unbiased, anymore than anything Bruener says.Why is it that a class on a whole needs to be nerfed if it's only the high end gear thats making them overpowered? As I've said god only knows how many times, the majority of the problems are from the gear, not the classes inherrent abilities and as I've said equally as many times, strip the class down, and parse it, then tell me it's OP against the others. The only reason I even supported seeing shadowknights get nerfed durring tso is because they could perform the exact same as other tanks in a full quality of gear above them.</blockquote>Gratz on understanding nothing about fighter balance. I could explain how and why crusaders are OP... or you could just read the many, many, many threads in the passed couple of years and see the arguments for yourself. FYI just because you play a paladin and have a capable toon doesn't mean fighters are more balanced than ever before. No, fighters are just as unbalanced as ever. Balance has shifted over the years, but it hasn't by any means gotten better.

BChizzle

06-25-2010, 06:05 PM

<cite>ReverendPaqo wrote:</cite><blockquote>I've seen bruisers do very close to the same thing (not to mention the key mob change PURELY because of brawlers)</blockquote>Don't you get it, brawlers could do something nobody else could do and things were rightfully changed.

Prestissimo

06-25-2010, 07:54 PM

<cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote>Gratz on understanding nothing about fighter balance. I could explain how and why crusaders are OP... or you could just read the many, many, many threads in the passed couple of years and see the arguments for yourself. FYI just because you play a paladin and have a capable toon doesn't mean fighters are more balanced than ever before. No, fighters are just as unbalanced as ever. Balance has shifted over the years, but it hasn't by any means gotten better.</blockquote>I meant paladins are more balanced, not everyone. I've been flamed at by yourself and others (recall the threads with noaani back in the day) for repeating my exact statements before, so I wrote it short and forgot to be extremely nitpicky about labeling exactly what I meant every step of the way and figured context combined with my past posts in this thread right <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?start=135&topic_id=480265#5352039" target="_blank">here</a> would have been sufficient. I guess I could go read the many many many posts in the past couple years, but seeing as many that include paladins are little more than QQ sessions, I see no real value in the majority of them. About 2 years ago, paladins were being laughed at because they were paper tanks. Does that 2 years ago count as being within the past "couple years" or are we talking SF when stonewall no longer sucks, they have an aa granted ability that makes having a paladin in raid worthwhile, and the paladin doesn't need to have a buttload of all the stats to function?Currently, paladins are equally as OP as zerkers, sks, and bruisers are. In my opinion, since the developers have made it quite clear that this is the type of "balance" we are going to have among fighters, I define "more balanced than ever" as being capable of doing my job, having both things I can do better than other tanks as well as things I cannot do better than other tanks, a utility spell that is very nice for everyone every 3 minutes and absolutely nothing more despite how hard anyone QQs over how OP HD's 10 second durration is, and the heals actually now do something noticeable AND will drain the paladin's power like no ones business if relied upon which is how it should be. I have said this more than once as well, one example of which is <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?start=160&topic_id=468575�" target="_blank">here</a> where I point out many of my points of why I consider the paladin to be more balanced than they have been before.I have also said many times before that what we have now is not the type of balance I would like to see; I would like to see threat be the main mode of holding hate and if you happened to look up this very post <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?start=135&topic_id=480265#5352039" target="_blank">here</a> within this very thread you would see that I said just that and again if you look at this post <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?start=120&topic_id=480265#5351510" target="_blank">here</a> which is ALSO in this thread, I explained it.Now look, you made me start reverting into wall of texting again because you didn't believe I had valid reasoning to back my statement and didn't read my past posts within the same thread.

Prestissimo

06-25-2010, 07:58 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>ReverendPaqo wrote:</cite><blockquote>I've seen bruisers do very close to the same thing (not to mention the key mob change PURELY because of brawlers)</blockquote>Don't you get it, brawlers could do something nobody else could do and things were rightfully changed.</blockquote>I think thats why I said "not to mention the key mob change PURELY because of brawlers" which to me would indicate a meaning of "because brawlers were doing something no one else could and that no one should be capable of doing, it got changed purely due to their actions".What did you interpret my statement as meaning?

BChizzle

06-25-2010, 08:16 PM

<cite>ReverendPaqo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>ReverendPaqo wrote:</cite><blockquote>I've seen bruisers do very close to the same thing (not to mention the key mob change PURELY because of brawlers)</blockquote>Don't you get it, brawlers could do something nobody else could do and things were rightfully changed.</blockquote>I think thats why I said "not to mention the key mob change PURELY because of brawlers" which to me would indicate a meaning of "because brawlers were doing something no one else could and that no one should be capable of doing, it got changed purely due to their actions".What did you interpret my statement as meaning?</blockquote>The point is you say you dont see crys for nerfing when they were in fact nerfed and their were cries for it.

Rahatmattata

06-25-2010, 09:49 PM

<cite>ReverendPaqo wrote:</cite><blockquote>Now look, you made me start reverting into wall of texting again because you didn't believe I had valid reasoning to back my statement and didn't read my past posts within the same thread.</blockquote>Tbh I didn't read the whole thing or click your links, but paladins have always been pretty decent, in TSO they were beast with the threat control of a shadowknight and the defense of a guardian, but they stayed under the radar because the ridiculousness of shadowknights hid them.

Nulgara

06-25-2010, 10:07 PM

i dont wanna get into a back and forth type thing about pali and sk. buti betrayed my sk to pali when a month or two ago. my hope was that by doing so i woudl be less op. I was wrong. having played on both sides and this is form a heroic content stnadpoint cause i dont raid my crusader. Ild have to say hands down the pali owns the shadowknight in instances. the only thing i miss form my sk is the mana tap. hate is even easier on my pali. survival hehe dont make me laugh the pali owns all tanks on survival. seriosuly and i know folsk will try to say guards are better.. no not anymore. the mythical palis have is frikin insane combined with stonewalls super fast recast, ward heals, i can honestly say outside of max dps potential which the shadowknight does do better at there is nothing outside of bloodletter that an sk has over a pali. i used ot be meh about palis but since betrayal and now having tanked all the heroic instances in sf with the pali and the sk, not only was it easier with the pali by far but with the pali i coudl care less if my healer is afk even on most named, the dmg a pali can take and laugh about would cause problems for an sk in my opinion.now that being said do i think there shoudl be nerfs.. hopefully not. for the health of the game that may need ot happen but i dont want anyone to be nerfed. bringing the other tanks up to that level coudl happen but in turn every mob in the game woudl have to be rebalanced because of it i think.. tough call either way.

Prestissimo

06-26-2010, 01:31 AM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>The point is you say you dont see crys for nerfing when they were in fact nerfed and their were cries for it.</blockquote>Ok, I will give you that, but it wasn't a cry for nerfing of the brawlers outright capabilities (well, other than the regular QQers that cry nerf no matter the source of the foul), it was a cry for an easily exploitable system to be fixed so that it wasn't so exploitable by classes with FD. If the brawlers were directly and specifically nerfed as a direct result of this exploitation of the key mob, then you win this one. If it was only the mob getting changed to not be solo able by one person, then I don't call that a brawler nerf but rather a correctly implemented change to prevent trivialized shard chest looting.<cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>ReverendPaqo wrote:</cite><blockquote>Now look, you made me start reverting into wall of texting again because you didn't believe I had valid reasoning to back my statement and didn't read my past posts within the same thread.</blockquote>Tbh I didn't read the whole thing or click your links, but paladins have always been pretty decent, in TSO they were beast with the threat control of a shadowknight and the defense of a guardian, but they stayed under the radar because the ridiculousness of shadowknights hid them.</blockquote>Define decent. I recall in RoK that paladin agro was awesome and that was pretty much it, but post amends nerf it was pretty bleak all around for paladins due to being "paper tanks". TSO wasn't much better when it came to preventing damage from those beast mode heavy hitters or high damage zones until acquiring the TSO pieces with the mitigation bonuses, then it was for the most part "nothing special to see here, but at least doesn't completely suck beyond help".Paladin's ability to pick up mem-wipers or adds quickly (aka Holy Ground) was pretty much the entirety of what was the paladin's unique "utility" and desireability in TSO, and fear immunity was shared by sks and paladins so nothing you couldn't get with that new flavor of the expansion tank every raid force had picked up. Feel free to correct me if there is something I missed. (If you're going to say amends, I will preemptively redirect you to <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?start=160&topic_id=468575�" target="_blank">here</a>, second paragraph.)