There can be only one?

[Tommara]

<p>I've played a lot of MMORPGs, starting with the original EQ.  It seems really peculiar that in EQ2 groups (I'm talking about groups here, not raids), no more than one tank or healer is desired.  In the original EQ, the feigned death pull required at least two tanks.  Multiple healers?  Cool!  Some could be allowed to dps, and we discussed in tells who would do what.  I haven't played WoW in years, but my vague recollection was that class didn't matter, except that nobody wanted hunters.  I've played Asheron's Call, Earth and Beyond, City of Heroes, Horizon, Final Fantasy, Anarchy Online, Dark Ages of Camelot, Lord of the Rings, etc.</p><p>EQ2 seems peculiar in that there is a "There can be only one!" requirement for general grouping, except for dps, so I'm wondering why that is.  Tanks are the most harmed by it, which is why I ask the question here.</p>

[Wasuna]

<p>All fighters are tanks. Fighters DO NOT get deagro abilities like almost all DPS do. Group Moderate and the Troubador Group deagro buff do not effect fighters. Most tanks, that want to tank, get agro increasing adorments and such. Basically, 2 fighters in one group means agro problems for somebody in most cases. I'm a Guardian so it's ALWAYS me that has agro problems. Also, the intent of the fighters was that they would basically do less DPS that the real dps classes. This meant if you had 2 fighters in group you were slowing yourself down killing stuff.</p><p>Years ago you would have 2 healers in just about every group. Every Expansion gear gets better and better compared to the monsters there are to kill. After an expanion or two and the fighters got better gear, having 2 healers meant you had a real badly geared tank or a real bad healer. And again, the healers were suppose to be doing less DPS that the dps classes so having more healers meant you were again slowing yourself down.</p><p>Now everything is all screwed up. Healers out DPSing wizards, tanks out dpsing warlocks.. it's just stupid. People call it well rounded and fun. I call it a total loss of class distinction and a dumbing down of the game to the point that you have no idea what your going to get when you invite people to a group. Enchanters that do nice DPS but can't keep the groups power up. Healers that do nice DPS and let people die left and right except for the tank. Heck, that cure on the mage would decrease their dps!</p><p>Figherts tank, healers heal, dps, dps's and utility utilties is how it's suppose to be. If people get fixated on the parse then take your buffs of them as a utility. If people get focused on the DPS then don't heal the dps classes and see what happens to their dps when they are dead.</p><p>Once on my Troubador I was asked why I was only doing 10K DPS. I was all stoked I was doing 10K but told them I'm all buff speced as a bard should be. I took all my buffs down and after a couple of fights of them wondering what was up with the parse and why their power was coming back so slow I put them back and told them I was actually doing about 35K DPS and if that was enough for them? I think 35k for a non-raid geared Troubador is pretty good. It's not all about the individual parse. It's about your place in the game based on what class you choose.</p>

[Landiin]

<p><cite>Wasuna wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>All fighters are tanks. Fighters DO NOT get deagro abilities like almost all DPS do. Group Moderate and the Troubador Group deagro buff do not effect fighters. Most tanks, that want to tank, get agro increasing adorments and such. Basically, 2 fighters in one group means agro problems for somebody in most cases. I'm a Guardian so it's ALWAYS me that has agro problems. Also, the intent of the fighters was that they would basically do less DPS that the real dps classes. This meant if you had 2 fighters in group you were slowing yourself down killing stuff.</p><p>Years ago you would have 2 healers in just about every group. Every Expansion gear gets better and better compared to the monsters there are to kill. After an expanion or two and the fighters got better gear, having 2 healers meant you had a real badly geared tank or a real bad healer. And again, the healers were suppose to be doing less DPS that the dps classes so having more healers meant you were again slowing yourself down.</p><p>Now everything is all screwed up. Healers out DPSing wizards, tanks out dpsing warlocks.. it's just stupid. People call it well rounded and fun. I call it a total loss of class distinction and a dumbing down of the game to the point that you have no idea what your going to get when you invite people to a group. Enchanters that do nice DPS but can't keep the groups power up. Healers that do nice DPS and let people die left and right except for the tank. Heck, that cure on the mage would decrease their dps!</p><p>Figherts tank, healers heal, dps, dps's and utility utilties is how it's suppose to be. If people get fixated on the parse then take your buffs of them as a utility. If people get focused on the DPS then don't heal the dps classes and see what happens to their dps when they are dead.</p><p>Once on my Troubador I was asked why I was only doing 10K DPS. I was all stoked I was doing 10K but told them I'm all buff speced as a bard should be. I took all my buffs down and after a couple of fights of them wondering what was up with the parse and why their power was coming back so slow I put them back and told them I was actually doing about 35K DPS and if that was enough for them? I think 35k for a non-raid geared Troubador is pretty good. It's not all about the individual parse. It's about your place in the game based on what class you choose.</p></blockquote><p>Well said my friend well said!</p>

[Aull]

<p><cite>Wasuna wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>All fighters are tanks. Fighters DO NOT get deagro abilities like almost all DPS do. Group Moderate and the Troubador Group deagro buff do not effect fighters. Most tanks, that want to tank, get agro increasing adorments and such. Basically, 2 fighters in one group means agro problems for somebody in most cases. I'm a Guardian so it's ALWAYS me that has agro problems. Also, the intent of the fighters was that they would basically do less DPS that the real dps classes. This meant if you had 2 fighters in group you were slowing yourself down killing stuff.</p><p>Years ago you would have 2 healers in just about every group. Every Expansion gear gets better and better compared to the monsters there are to kill. After an expanion or two and the fighters got better gear, having 2 healers meant you had a real badly geared tank or a real bad healer. And again, the healers were suppose to be doing less DPS that the dps classes so having more healers meant you were again slowing yourself down.</p><p>Now everything is all screwed up. Healers out DPSing wizards, tanks out dpsing warlocks.. it's just stupid. People call it well rounded and fun. I call it a total loss of class distinction and a dumbing down of the game to the point that you have no idea what your going to get when you invite people to a group. Enchanters that do nice DPS but can't keep the groups power up. Healers that do nice DPS and let people die left and right except for the tank. Heck, that cure on the mage would decrease their dps!</p><p>Figherts tank, healers heal, dps, dps's and utility utilties is how it's suppose to be. If people get fixated on the parse then take your buffs of them as a utility. If people get focused on the DPS then don't heal the dps classes and see what happens to their dps when they are dead.</p><p>Once on my Troubador I was asked why I was only doing 10K DPS. I was all stoked I was doing 10K but told them I'm all buff speced as a bard should be. I took all my buffs down and after a couple of fights of them wondering what was up with the parse and why their power was coming back so slow I put them back and told them I was actually doing about 35K DPS and if that was enough for them? I think 35k for a non-raid geared Troubador is pretty good. It's not all about the individual parse. It's about your place in the game based on what class you choose.</p></blockquote><p>Absolutely brilliant.</p><p>Honestly today's game sucks just for the reason of "a total loss of class distinction". Each class or sub-class should have an indentity that is know distinctly for them alone. I understand that healers can dps but that dps even at the highest level of play should by no means be in the vicinity of a t1 or t2 dps.</p><p>Back years ago groups running with two fighters was rather common but in todays game it isn't as previlent as it once was. However a group with two zerkers or even two crusaders is very entertaining to say the least.</p>

[Zorastiz]

<p>Agreed, well said.</p><p>In EQ1 we put groups of whatever together, 6 of any class, it didn't matter. < That was fun.</p>

[AziBam]

<p><cite>Zorastiz@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Agreed, well said.</p><p>In EQ1 we put groups of whatever together, 6 of any class, it didn't matter. < That was fun.</p></blockquote><p>I didn't play EQ1. </p><p>The thing is, it still works now too.  Only the hardest instances or the few that have specific class needs (chanter) really require a "perfect" group. Most can be done as long as the group contains at least one tank and one healer and 4 of whatever else happens to be available.  People just get too wrapped up in the hype. Those slightly less than ideal groups can end up being a ton of fun.</p>

[Aull]

<p>Parsing is what every player wants to do. This is cool and all but it should be limited to the true dps classes and not across the board.</p><p>All classes can dps but not all should be capable of making the top 10 in a raid or top 3 in a group.</p><p>"Figherts tank, healers heal, dps, dps's and utility utilties is how it's suppose to be". I agree. The game need to get back to this.</p>

[Gilasil]

<p><cite>Tommara wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I've played a lot of MMORPGs, starting with the original EQ.  It seems really peculiar that in EQ2 groups (I'm talking about groups here, not raids), no more than one tank or healer is desired.  In the original EQ, the feigned death pull required at least two tanks.  Multiple healers?  Cool!  Some could be allowed to dps, and we discussed in tells who would do what.  I haven't played WoW in years, but my vague recollection was that class didn't matter, except that nobody wanted hunters.  I've played Asheron's Call, Earth and Beyond, City of Heroes, Horizon, Final Fantasy, Anarchy Online, Dark Ages of Camelot, Lord of the Rings, etc.</p><p>EQ2 seems peculiar in that there is a "There can be only one!" requirement for general grouping, except for dps, so I'm wondering why that is.  Tanks are the most harmed by it, which is why I ask the question here.</p></blockquote><p>Actually, I think the point of the op was that there's too much distinction.  You can only have one fighter in a group; you can only have one healer.  Which is kind of limiting in many cases.  If one aspect of the game is to be a bunch of friends getting together to play, then only one of those friends better want to play a fighter or someone will have to play a class which is not their first choice.  I think that's a sad situation for a game which is supposed to be about having fun working together.</p><p>When this game first opened it wasn't like that.  I recall many groups rolling with a guardian and a pally because our group of friends happened to include a guardian and a pally.  We did fine.</p><p>I also liked the EQ approach of having a seperate feign puller.  It they'd had that here they wouldn't need to shoehorn brawlers into either being fighters or DPS.</p>

[circusgirl]

<p>Eh, I take "imperfect" groups all the time.  Maybe I'm not going to take a group with a monk, two bruisers, and a guard (with the monk tanking) to Palace, but I'll take it to labs or research halls or someplace easy.</p>

[Obadiah]

<p><cite>Wasuna wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Figherts tank, healers heal, dps, dps's and utility utilties is how it's suppose to be. If people get fixated on the parse then take your buffs of them as a utility. If people get focused on the DPS then don't heal the dps classes and see what happens to their dps when they are dead.</p><p>Once on my Troubador I was asked why I was only doing 10K DPS. I was all stoked I was doing 10K but told them I'm all buff speced as a bard should be. I took all my buffs down and after a couple of fights of them wondering what was up with the parse and why their power was coming back so slow I put them back and told them I was actually doing about 35K DPS and if that was enough for them? I think 35k for a non-raid geared Troubador is pretty good. It's not all about the individual parse. It's about your place in the game based on what class you choose.</p></blockquote><p>That's awesome btw. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" /> I never understand when people get so fixated on the number without acknowledging how much or how little of it honestly has nothing to do with them, but comes from procs and buffs and reactives put on them by someone else.</p><p><cite>Gilasil wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Actually, I think the point of the op was that there's too much distinction.  You can only have one fighter in a group; you can only have one healer.  Which is kind of limiting in many cases.  If one aspect of the game is to be a bunch of friends getting together to play, then only one of those friends better want to play a fighter or someone will have to play a class which is not their first choice.  I think that's a sad situation for a game which is supposed to be about having fun working together.</p><p>When this game first opened it wasn't like that.  I recall many groups rolling with a guardian and a pally because our group of friends happened to include a guardian and a pally.  We did fine.</p><p>I also liked the EQ approach of having a seperate feign puller.  It they'd had that here they wouldn't need to shoehorn brawlers into either being fighters or DPS.</p></blockquote><p>I think the point of subsequent posts is that this is not the case.</p><p>There is absolutely no reason whatsoever not to have more than one fighter in a group. There is absolutely no reason not to have more than one healer in a group. It's all in the heads of the people that think that way, none of whom I would want to group with.</p><p>Some of the most efficient groups I was a member of during TSO and SF had two fighters. I'd guess 75% of the groups I've been in during SF have had 2 healers. I never understand people who insist on filling out groups for the most mundane instances with specific classes. "LF Chanter for Library group" ... Come on ... Really?</p>

[circusgirl]

<p>I always laugh when I see groups holding out for a bard AND a chanter for the conservatory.  If I can solo a zone, I'm pretty sure you don't need two utility there.</p>

[Blaidd]

<p>Fully agree.</p><p>Its annoying to see groups spamming channels for ages holding out for a bard or chanter when they could of cleared the zone in less time than the spamming takes by taking another class along. The most fun I have in groups are strange setups and seeing groups crying for the perfect group for Library when you can 3 man that easily is a waste.</p>

[Wasuna]

<p>Most of my comments were from the perspective of a Guardian. I CAN NOT keep agro off any other fighter. Just doesn't happen. Also, my Guardian is speced to be a tank. I'm not a marshmellow at all so two healers is not required for anything but the last fight in Vig 3 where it just makes it easier, or Palace where I can't hold agro on the stupid books anyway.</p><p>I have two guild mates that have healers and when they choose to play them they both go offensive and help out with DPS more than usual. Then I have heal agro trouble. They get DPS agro and Heal agro and that's just as bad as another fighter in the group.</p>

[Aull]

<p><cite>Ysbryd@Runnyeye wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Fully agree.</p><p>Its annoying to see groups spamming channels for ages holding out for a bard or chanter when they could of cleared the zone in less time than the spamming takes by taking another class along. The most fun I have in groups are strange setups and seeing groups crying for the perfect group for Library when you can 3 man that easily is a waste.</p></blockquote><p>I wish that more players could be you guys. Its great to see players like you and also Vinka that will save time and take what is available.</p><p>LOL you are so right. I seen numerous times a group trying to fill that chanter spot for over 40 mins for library. That is just insain.</p>

[Aull]

<p><cite>Wasuna wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Most of my comments were from the perspective of a Guardian. I CAN NOT keep agro off any other fighter. Just doesn't happen. Also, my Guardian is speced to be a tank. I'm not a marshmellow at all so two healers is not required for anything but the last fight in Vig 3 where it just makes it easier, or Palace where I can't hold agro on the stupid books anyway.</p><p>I have two guild mates that have healers and when they choose to play them they both go offensive and help out with DPS more than usual. Then I have heal agro trouble. They get DPS agro and Heal agro and that's just as bad as another fighter in the group.</p></blockquote><p>This needs to be addressed. When players spec their tanks to be exactly what a tank is suppose to be strong and durable yet cannot hold aggro is a slap in the face. Its like giving a marine a best machine gun and expecting them to defeat the enemy but with no ammunition!! Its all about the tools for the job.</p><p>In all honesty any fighter when geared and speced for the best possible defense should without question have just as great a chance at holding aggro than a fighter who is geared and speced for the best possible offense. </p><p>Sure defensive should hinder a fighters dps but it should in no means cripple their aggro. </p>

[Landiin]

<p><cite>Aull wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Wasuna wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Most of my comments were from the perspective of a Guardian. I CAN NOT keep agro off any other fighter. Just doesn't happen. Also, my Guardian is speced to be a tank. I'm not a marshmellow at all so two healers is not required for anything but the last fight in Vig 3 where it just makes it easier, or Palace where I can't hold agro on the stupid books anyway.</p><p>I have two guild mates that have healers and when they choose to play them they both go offensive and help out with DPS more than usual. Then I have heal agro trouble. They get DPS agro and Heal agro and that's just as bad as another fighter in the group.</p></blockquote><p>This needs to be addressed. When players spec their tanks to be exactly what a tank is suppose to be strong and durable yet cannot hold aggro is a slap in the face. Its like giving a marine a best machine gun and expecting them to defeat the enemy but with no ammunition!! Its all about the tools for the job.</p><p>In all honesty any fighter when geared and speced for the best possible defense should without question have just as great a chance at holding aggro than a fighter who is geared and speced for the best possible offense. </p><p>Sure defensive should hinder a fighters dps but it should in no means cripple their aggro. </p></blockquote><p>Good luck getting our DEV team to understand that concept. </p>

[Draylore]

<p>SOE has gone out of their way to make having "extra" fighters (i.e more than needed) ....both for herioc and raids.....difficult, inefficient and just plain annoying.</p><p>I don't see that paradigm changing anytime soon....in fact I see it getting even worse and worse as my fear is their solution to fighter balance will be just making all fighters pump out crazy easy-mode uncontrollable aggro without even trying.</p><p>All I know is that on both my Guard and my Assassin I refuse to be in groups with more than 1 tank.....its just stupid and annoying.  Just recently I was bored and joined a PuG that had a Bruiser.........was short one person but we had a tank, healer, util and DPS so I was ready to go............guess what........the Bruiser of all people didnt want  to tank and said we need to fill that extra slot with a tank.  [Removed for Content]?   /disband.</p>

[Obadiah]

<p><cite>Draylore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>SOE has gone out of their way to make having "extra" fighters (i.e more than needed) ....both for herioc and raids.....difficult, inefficient and just plain annoying.</p><p>I don't see that paradigm changing anytime soon....in fact I see it getting even worse and worse as my fear is their solution to fighter balance will be just making all fighters pump out crazy easy-mode uncontrollable aggro without even trying.</p><p>All I know is that on both my Guard and my Assassin I refuse to be in groups with more than 1 tank.....its just stupid and annoying.  Just recently I was bored and joined a PuG that had a Bruiser.........was short one person but we had a tank, healer, util and DPS so I was ready to go............guess what........the Bruiser of all people didnt want  to tank and said we need to fill that extra slot with a tank.  [Removed for Content]?   /disband.</p></blockquote><p>Heh. That's been an ongoing thing with Brawlers forever, it seems.</p><p>I think it will always be annoying to some no matter what mechanics changes they make, but there's nothing in the game or mechanics that make it so. Just like some people are going to hold out for that Dirge and Chanter before running Conservatory even though they could have run it with their group of 4 in the time it took to FIND the Dirge. I don't find anything annoying or inefficient about it, but like anything that depends on the players themselves. I'd rather have a good Monk along than a crappy Necro with their tank pet out.</p><p>Most fighters can put out decent enough DPS if they know what they're doing and have decent gear. An additional fighter in heroic content improves the chances of recovering if the MT drops, or if you get unexpected adds. It improves the avoidance of the MT, and even hate, or mitigation, etc. depending on classes. It's also another not-so-squishy toon if there are AoEs. Secondary fighters also work well for pulling additional mobs over to the fray to keep chain pulling without risking loss of squishies.</p><p>If there's a transfer in the group or a Hate mod ... that only goes on 1 Fighter ... that goes a long way helping with any potential aggro issues ... assuming you even care about them. Even if there's no transfer or hate mod and aggro bounces a few times ... it doesn't really slow anything down. </p>

[Eritius]

<p><cite>Zorastiz@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Agreed, well said.</p><p>In EQ1 we put groups of whatever together, 6 of any class, it didn't matter. < That was fun.</p></blockquote><p>Correction, once you had a Warrior, Cleric and Enchanter/Shaman, then you could throw any other classes in.</p><p>It would be nice to have classes perform more then one role incase you get multiples. Even if there was a DPS spec for the Fighters and Priests to use would do wonders. In WoW they had those and depending on gear could even fill in rolls not spec'd for in simple groups.</p>

[Draylore]

<p><cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Draylore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>SOE has gone out of their way to make having "extra" fighters (i.e more than needed) ....both for herioc and raids.....difficult, inefficient and just plain annoying.</p><p>I don't see that paradigm changing anytime soon....in fact I see it getting even worse and worse as my fear is their solution to fighter balance will be just making all fighters pump out crazy easy-mode uncontrollable aggro without even trying.</p><p>All I know is that on both my Guard and my Assassin I refuse to be in groups with more than 1 tank.....its just stupid and annoying. Just recently I was bored and joined a PuG that had a Bruiser.........was short one person but we had a tank, healer, util and DPS so I was ready to go............guess what........the Bruiser of all people didnt want to tank and said we need to fill that extra slot with a tank. [Removed for Content]? /disband.</p></blockquote><p>Heh. That's been an ongoing thing with Brawlers forever, it seems.</p><p>I think it will always be annoying to some no matter what mechanics changes they make, but there's nothing in the game or mechanics that make it so. Just like some people are going to hold out for that Dirge and Chanter before running Conservatory even though they could have run it with their group of 4 in the time it took to FIND the Dirge. I don't find anything annoying or inefficient about it, but like anything that depends on the players themselves. I'd rather have a good Monk along than a crappy Necro with their tank pet out.</p><p>Most fighters can put out decent enough DPS if they know what they're doing and have decent gear. An additional fighter in heroic content improves the chances of recovering if the MT drops, or if you get unexpected adds. It improves the avoidance of the MT, and even hate, or mitigation, etc. depending on classes. It's also another not-so-squishy toon if there are AoEs. Secondary fighters also work well for pulling additional mobs over to the fray to keep chain pulling without risking loss of squishies.</p><p>If there's a transfer in the group or a Hate mod ... that only goes on 1 Fighter ... that goes a long way helping with any potential aggro issues ... assuming you even care about them. Even if there's no transfer or hate mod and aggro bounces a few times ... it doesn't really slow anything down.</p></blockquote><p>I have always held the belief that the one thing that makes a good Tank player over a bad one is attitude.....moreso than gear or class.  I know I despise being anything but the MT when I bring my Guard to a group or raid.....and I seriously question any fighter that is content with joining a group as a tag-along.  Its most noticable with Brawlers cause its almost a 50/50 crap shoot if your gonna get one that wants to tank and one that doesnt.   Crusaders cannot serve as DPS and also not be the  tank ....just not possible....so if you have a Crusader in group you really cant have another fighter cause he will just be useless. </p><p>Sorry but fighters are tanks.........anyone that rolls a fighter to do anything but tank is an idiot.   Groups and raids are most effective when they have the absolute minimum # of  tanks.  For a group that # is ONE.</p><p>That is just not gonna change anytime soon.</p>

[Aule]

I can join a group as a bruiser and hold aggro off an SK who's trying, and I can also shed aggro and not pull off of all but the suckiest of other tanks. You're right about the attitude thing though, there's a mentality that goes with being a good tank, along with having good situational awareness. You either have this or you don't.

[Draylore]

<p>Sure multiple fighters in groups can work but replace that 2nd fighter with any other class and the group will almost always run better and quicker.  Assumming of course all the people in the group are of similar skill and gear level.</p>

[Aull]

<p>I would agree that having more than one tank in a group can at times hinder a smooth run. In todays game bruisers are actually a nice addition for any other tank since bruisers got some help with their avoidance buff and soak hit. Not to mention brutal inspiration is nice if the group is stunned or feared then the bruiser can inspire the healer and provides 30 secs of immunity to control effects helping to keep the tank or memeber alive.</p><p>As long as the bruiser has the aa's to provide these benefits they are a nice second tank option. I don't think many players have caught on to this yet but if a last spot is needing to be filled do not rule out a bruiser. Again as long as the bruiser has those aa's to provide these benefits.</p>

[Obadiah]

<p>It's all a matter of preference. I prefer to take a decent enough class that's available and spend an extra 2 minutes in the isntance because of slightly diminished DPS rather than hold out for class X. I don't think anyone has opined that it's MORE efficient to have 2 fighters, it just doesn't make a significant difference. The size of the improved efficiency depends on the zone, the specific classes, etc.  Maybe the reason some players are so uptight about it now is that in TSO there were some instances you could fail in if your group wasn't either very well geared or put together perfectly as far as classes go.</p><p>Used to run TSO zones in all-healer groups ... ran Befallen: Caverns in an all Fighter group once. I would NEVER suggest that they were the most efficient. The 3-Berserker group I ran OOA with early in TSO wasn't either, but it could have been had their gear not been so meh.</p><p>The point of the OP though was that EQ2 was peculiar in that - unlike other games - there could be only one fighter and healer in a group... and most particularly fighter. That's patently untrue. I haven't played ALL of the games the OP mentioned, but the same that is true here is true in the ones that I have played. That is, sure, you CAN group with more than 1 tank/fighter, but if you are making the ideal, perfect, uberestest, most fully awesome group ... it isn't going to include 2.</p>

[Shiirr]

<p>I think the biggest problem lies with the fact that there's someone named Kurgan posting in a thread titled "There can be only one" and not one single reference to Highlander has been made yet.  Disgraceful. </p>

[Aull]

<p>LOL.</p>

[Damager]

<p>I think only one person hit the nail on the head. 99% of the time if two fighters are in group the aggro problem stems from un equal gear or player ability. I play a monk and run both dps and tank rolls, brawlers are setup to perform both. I have a 50% chance to proc a 1000 deagro every autoattack and a 5% hate transfer to the tank in my avoidance buff, if the tank isnt holding me off there is a huge difference in DPS.</p><p>I run crazzy PuG setups all the time and the fastest library run I have been on was 4 equally geared players consisting of 2 SKs, monk, and a healer thats it. 8 minutes start to finish no problems or complaints from anyone and we all had fun.</p><p>If your a tank and cant hold my aggro Ill be more then happy to tank it, cause 90% of the time if I didnt grab the aggro the caster would have.</p><p>    </p>

[Terron]

<p>I went to the hole for the first time on my 86 guard last week. There was already a bruiser in the group who wanted to tank. There were only 4 of us in total. I was fine with that I just wanted to have a look at the zone, and it gave me a chance to use the level 80 ability that boosts other fighters' hate. Not pulling aggro was easy to do.</p><p>There was one ocasion where he pulled several groups and a named and the healer went LD. Then I grabbed aggro, equipped a shield, went defensive. We were all under 5% health at one stage, but I have the AA in the death save ability, which enabled me to survive long enough for us to kill every thing, though I was red again at the end. That was fun, but not somethign you could arrange.</p><p>I did not choose my guard to be a tank. He was my first MMO toon and I chose him based on the manual description of having the greatest survivability (which he does not have when solo).</p><p>That was not the only time I was mislead. My third toon is an illusionist who I created for hs control abilities.</p>

[Aull]

<p>Years ago not as many players ever came here to view or read these posts. I will say that has changed. As I have said before when the game was young I was in many groups where there was a plate tank as mt and a monk as secondary. I didn't see many bruisers back then and I am not sure why but anyway we all had fun and times where great.</p><p>Then come TSO the boards were filled with how bad brawlers are and it seemed over night that brawlers were not welcome as an option for any group or raid.</p><p>Its a microwave world anymore and people and players alike want to rush through everything. However getting the best group set up can take hours waiting for that bard/enchanter to fill that last spot. Its ashame that more players do not run with with more than one tank for trivial everyday runs.</p>

[AziBam]

<p><cite>Draylore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Sure multiple fighters in groups can work but replace that 2nd fighter with any other class and the group will almost always run better and quicker.  Assumming of course all the people in the group are of similar skill and gear level.</p></blockquote><p>I don't disagree with your sentiment here.  The point some of us are making though is that in most cases you could instead take the 2nd fighter and finish the zone in the same time it took you to spam chat looking to build the perfect group.</p><p>As long as the 2nd fighter isn't a total idiot trying to yank aggro from the designated MT every chance they get it should work out fine.</p>

[Draylore]

<p>Any decent Tank player should be leading/forming and tanking their own groups not tagging along/leaching in another group.</p><p>Besides in my experience the ones that are content being tag-alongs are usually the crappy ones that think its fun to muck with aggro.</p><p>Personally, unless its a player I am friends with I would rather go with empty slot than bring along a extra fighter.</p>

[Obadiah]

<p>Does that mean you wouldn't join a group if a Healer was the group leader? I mean, the tank should be leading/forming the group right?</p><p>I don't think Monks that offer hate gain and avoidance and DPS really feel like they're "tag alongs" when they're not tanking. Personally I was never ashamed to take my Monk as an OT/DPS, nor was I ever afraid to tank with it because I never bought into the "Brawlers can't tank" hype. I also try to avoid making judgements about people based on whether or not they're content to act as secondary tanks on their fighters. It's still all a matter of preference.</p>

[Draylore]

<p><cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Does that mean you wouldn't join a group if a Healer was the group leader? I mean, the tank should be leading/forming the group right?</p><p>I don't think Monks that offer hate gain and avoidance and DPS really feel like they're "tag alongs" when they're not tanking. Personally I was never ashamed to take my Monk as an OT/DPS, nor was I ever afraid to tank with it because I never bought into the "Brawlers can't tank" hype. I also try to avoid making judgements about people based on whether or not they're content to act as secondary tanks on their fighters. It's still all a matter of preference.</p></blockquote><p>Yep its a matter of preference.  For me multi-fighter groups are an extreme last resort.  I even prefer bringing along a extra healer,mage or scout over a 2nd tank.  There are very few fighters that when asked to fill in as "DPS" and not tank can do so without yanking aggro.</p><p>And yeah I  used wrong terms with the whole leading/forming.....I was really trying to mean "their own group"....its rare that a PuG is not formed/lead by either the tank or the healer in my experience.  Then again I don't pug all that much.</p>

[Aule]

The majority of the zones are such a let down this expansion, in my opinion due to the stupidly overpowered dps that SF gave us, that it's not like you need more than 3 or 4 chars to complete all but a tiny number of the zones. When I'm actively looking to zone I snag one person who I'm confident about, a chanter or a healer, and then go with whoever feels like going. If they just completely suck and aren't even trying then they don't get to keep going.

[Aull]

<p><a href="http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/everquest-ii/guide/page_7.html">http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/everquest-...ide/page_7.html</a>. Again this is back when the game came out. This was the vision at the time and I feel it should have remained this way. Even the in the description the bruiser is to "off tank". Interesting!!</p><p>What I don't like about have two fighters in a group is that usually the one who doesn't want to tank is the one who usually ends up tanking it anyway because they are constantly and <strong>intentionally</strong> ripping aggro.</p><p>It all comes down to the player knowing what they need to be doing as dps or tank. Everyone does have a responsibility but many do not give it a second thought. Mindless gamers if you will.</p><p>This is why I never have supported the every fighter needs to be able to tank and survive the same mentality. It pigeon holes them leaving nothing other than soley tanking and we all know tanking will not stack like dps and utility. Some fighters should be the ones needed for taking the hits or tanking while the other fighters could be their for off tanking and some utility.</p>

[Obadiah]

<p>lol. From that article:</p><p><em>2. While every group needs a tank, most groups only need one.</em></p><p>So there you go.</p><p>That's one thing that would have been good about the debacle of a Fighter Revamp. No Fighter in DPS mode would have never had aggro problems. Ever, ever, ever.</p><p>TBH, I think I'd enjoy having a 2nd fighter DPSing and even trying to gain aggro. Sounds like a challenge. It's effortless as it is, unless you are a Guardian. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" /> On the other hand, if there's another Fighter in the group, I also don't really care if they pull aggro for a moment or two, or if half the mobs are on me and half on him/her. I'm not going to use snaps or anything to be sure. There's absolutely no reason we should die or be slowed down in any way as a result unless they happen to be an idiot. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/47941865eb7bbc2a777305b46cc059a2.gif" border="0" /></p>

[Aull]

<p><cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>lol. From that article:</p><p><em>2. While every group needs a tank, most groups only need one.</em></p><p>So there you go.</p><p>That's one thing that would have been good about the debacle of a Fighter Revamp. No Fighter in DPS mode would have never had aggro problems. Ever, ever, ever.</p><p>TBH, I think I'd enjoy having a 2nd fighter DPSing and even trying to gain aggro. Sounds like a challenge. It's effortless as it is, unless you are a Guardian. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" /> On the other hand, if there's another Fighter in the group, I also don't really care if they pull aggro for a moment or two, or if half the mobs are on me and half on him/her. I'm not going to use snaps or anything to be sure. There's absolutely no reason we should die or be slowed down in any way as a result unless they happen to be an idiot. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/47941865eb7bbc2a777305b46cc059a2.gif" border="0" /></p></blockquote><p>Yes sir.</p><p><strong>Why a Bruiser? </strong></p><p>1. To "off tank."</p><p><strong><em>Group</em></strong></p><p>"Typically the group role of a Bruiser is DPS and to keep aggro off those who shouldn't have it. " The role of a Bruiser is clearly to bruise, <strong>and not too much else</strong>. At bruising, they are exceptional."</p><p>If it would have remained this way there would be no question what a bruiser would be used for in any group setting. There would have been no need for a fighter revamp if the vision would have been adhered to in the first place. Each fighter had a purpose. Some where meant as tanking only while others were a combination of tanking/utility/dps, some tanking/dps/utility, and like the bruiser dps/tanking.</p><p>For time sake I didn't post up any monk stuff but they can read it for what it is/was.</p><p>Again this was back when the game first came out and this was an exceptional write up for new players.</p>

[Siatfallen]

<p>I like a few of the points under brawlers - because it goes to show that this socalled vision we have nowadays is a far cry from the original intent of the classes. A few of the more absurd ones:</p><p>"Brawlers get many area-of-effect (AoE) attacks, thus making them more able to hold aggro of many monsters."</p><p>"Brawlers are the most combat-oriented of the three Fighter classes. You have a lot of kicks and most of your combat arts in general are more about doing damage than being defensive."</p><p>Already mentioned, but: Why a Bruiser? " To "off tank." "</p><p>"Monks get more offensive skills then most of the other fighter types, and while the Brawler outdoes them in damage, they outdo the Brawler in defense. If you want a good mix of offense and defense and the ability to tank for a group, Monk is a good way to go."</p><p>All in all, 'tis was a very different game back then - and let's not even get started on what happened with various live updates since then. I really hope brawlers have seen change most often among the subclasses - because if anyone else has been changed more, they must be really confused as to their role nowadays!</p><p>Brawlers will be healers in the next expansion. I called it.</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I like a few of the points under brawlers - because it goes to show that this socalled vision we have nowadays is a far cry from the original intent of the classes. A few of the more absurd ones:</p><p>"Brawlers get many area-of-effect (AoE) attacks, thus making them more able to hold aggro of many monsters."</p><p>"Brawlers are the most combat-oriented of the three Fighter classes. You have a lot of kicks and most of your combat arts in general are more about doing damage than being defensive."</p><p>Already mentioned, but: Why a Bruiser? " To "off tank." "</p><p>"Monks get more offensive skills then most of the other fighter types, and while the Brawler outdoes them in damage, they outdo the Brawler in defense. If you want a good mix of offense and defense and the ability to tank for a group, Monk is a good way to go."</p><p>All in all, 'tis was a very different game back then - and let's not even get started on what happened with various live updates since then. I really hope brawlers have seen change most often among the subclasses - because if anyone else has been changed more, they must be really confused as to their role nowadays!</p><p>Brawlers will be healers in the next expansion. I called it.</p></blockquote><p>I find it funny you guys are quoting a player made guide from 2004 like its the eq2 bible.</p>

[Aull]

<p>I would hope it was from a player of the classes and not some one who doesn't. Anyway it doesn't matter any more cause the majority of the fighter players will never be satified with what ever is to come either.</p>

[Prestissimo]

<p>Ideally, a fighter's defensive stance should allow them to build up lots of threat at the cost of almost all their dps while a fighter's offensive stance should allow them to do alot more dps at the loss of threat.</p><p>If I were doing the balances, I'd make all fighter's abilities do equal amounts of threat and damage. In offensive stance, the damage would be multiplied and the thread divided by the same amounts. In defensive stance, the threat would be multiplied and the damage divided by the same amount. The other part would be an inherrent setting that threat generated twice the hate that damage did for fighters. They could still tank by dpsing in offensive, but they'd have to dps twice the amount to hold the same hate as a fighter in defensive would. After that, it'd be a matter of some balancing and adjustments. It would be really simple to see which tanks were to infatuated with the parse and orange numbers at the cost of holding back the really strong dpsers and which tanks wanted to let the squishies unload every nuke they have. The other side to that is that if you had more than 1 tank, the dpsing fighter wouldn't be getting in the way of the main tank due to the reduced amount of hate they would be generating. But thats just how I'd personally like to see fighters...</p>

[Siatfallen]

<p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I find it funny you guys are quoting a player made guide from 2004 like its the eq2 bible.</p></blockquote><p>Yep, it is pretty funny - it's just that arguments nowadays often go in the direction of "well the original vision of the game, which we're closer than ever to achieving now, was..." - Which is rubbish.</p><p>Pardon the bad sense of humour, I guess. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>