Current Level 90 Figher Population - 12/1/2010 [Archive]

Bruener

12-03-2010, 01:05 PM

<cite>Wasuna wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Enoe wrote:</cite><blockquote>it only shows many many many ppl made sk alts for fun/farming/oo curiositypopulation of GOOD tanks in each class is much more equal and i would not be suprised if guards would still win it.</blockquote>Do you people even think before you post?You just said that SK's are fun, good at farming and soloing and that they have a roughly equal population of GOOD tanks as the rest of the fighters.So, if you want to have fun, have many options on what you can do with your time in game and if you work at it be a GOOD tank then pick SK!</blockquote>What is your point exactly? Most of that SK list blow at their class, and the only reason they rolled them is because they actually saw a few good players and decided to give it a shot.Yeah SKs are way more fun to play than Guards. Its easy to get that from description alone. You completely fail to recognize that SK-Death Knight-Evil Knight is usually one of the most played classes in RPG history.But I guess you think they should balance cool factor with actual tank ability.

Wasuna

12-03-2010, 06:46 PM

This is a 6 year old game. The FACT that there is an almost 2:1 population ratio between SK and any other fighter class is UNACCEPTABLE.Your claim that it's a historically popular class would account for some variances but not what is displayed and certinally not after the game has been out for 6 years and the abilities of each class have been under a microscope for so long.Unless, of course, your claiming that the high ratio of SK's, to a large extent, is based on new players just starting the game? That I would have to just laugh right in your face if you come back and make that claim.I believe your argment is at the very extreme of ignorance and is well into the 'blind eye' area based on the fact that your just fine with how things are. I'm not and I'll see how the Rift beta is this evening.

Bruener

12-03-2010, 06:55 PM

<cite>Wasuna wrote:</cite><blockquote>Blah blah blah.</blockquote>No, my claim is that the SK type class in ALL of RPG history has been a more popular class to play....a lot longer than just 6 years.Even when the class was in the toilet and considered one of the most useless classes in the game it had close to equal numbers as the other fighters.Numbers can mean anything you want and really you keep posting these like they are supposed to mean something. People that play know for a fact that Paladins and Zerkers play almost exactly the same as the SK class for heroic/solo/PvP/raid play....and yet amazingly their numbers aren't as high.So, we are supposed to take your word that the number of SK in population is due to the class somehow being OP'd, instead of the complete track record of RPG in general where the class is one of the most played classes in history....yeah sure.

Grumpy_Warrior_01

12-04-2010, 10:41 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote>Blah blah blah.</blockquote></blockquote>WoW Wrath of the Lich King: released November 13, 2008The Shadowknight Odyssey: released November 17, 2008Shadowknights were tuned up (translated: turned into easymode) to match the WoW Deathknight, a pre-leveled, pre-geared hybrid fighter (translated: easymode) both designed to hold onto the subscriptions of bored players. 6,868 level 90 SK's means 6,868 active subs. Mission accomplished. Every time a SK finishes an instance, every time a SK finishes a raid, ask yourself why they succeeded: was it leet talent or was it the easymode experiment the class was turned into? The rest of us know the answer. When I succeed as a guardian, I know for a fact I didn't get any extra help from anywhere other than my group/raid party which is pure win for the cooperative gameplay model. Frankly, anybody that groups with a SK should question how much of their talent is actually being brought to the table to complete the content. I guess we all have to decide which way we want to play.Edit: woops got the dates backwards

Rahatmattata

12-05-2010, 01:39 PM

We all know SKs are OP (except Brownie Noodle). What do you expect to happen? More debates with scrubz on the forums for another 2 years? Cuz that's probably all that's going to happen. Face the fact in EQ2 if you like tanking there's no reason to play anything other than a shadowknight, zerker, or paladin. If you rolled something else for tanking, you're probably hating life right now. Just roll one and quit hoping a dev might maybe someday try to balance tanks and not fail at doing so.

Wasuna

12-06-2010, 01:09 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Wasuna wrote:</cite><blockquote>Blah blah blah.</blockquote>No, my claim is that the SK type class in ALL of RPG history has been a more popular class to play....a lot longer than just 6 years.Even when the class was in the toilet and considered one of the most useless classes in the game it had close to equal numbers as the other fighters.Numbers can mean anything you want and really you keep posting these like they are supposed to mean something. People that play know for a fact that Paladins and Zerkers play almost exactly the same as the SK class for heroic/solo/PvP/raid play....and yet amazingly their numbers aren't as high.So, we are supposed to take your word that the number of SK in population is due to the class somehow being OP'd, instead of the complete track record of RPG in general where the class is one of the most played classes in history....yeah sure.</blockquote>Your arguments are the same as always. Deflect the attention to others. Protect the current state of SK's at all costs.There is NO ACCEPTABLE REASON why there is one fighter class that has a 2:1 ratio with ALL the other fighter classes. NONE!Argue that if you want.

Wurm

12-07-2010, 04:08 AM

Have not = waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh!Have = waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh!At least both classes are equal in that regard. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" /><-- Level 90 Paladin 10 days away from my "7 year reward" and the constant infighting and bickering between the fighter classes helps no one. In fact I'm more than willing to say its done quite a bit of harm over the years since release.

Jaremai

12-07-2010, 09:33 AM

<cite>Wasuna wrote:</cite><blockquote>There is NO ACCEPTABLE REASON why there is one fighter class that has a 2:1 ratio with ALL the other fighter classes. NONE!Argue that if you want.</blockquote>Freedom of choice is a wonderful thing. Are you asking for mandated population caps on classes?"You cannot make a Shadowknight at this time due to overpopulation. To maintain balance, we suggest you create a Monk. Would you like to do this now? [Yes] [No] [File Not Found]"

Kordran

12-07-2010, 10:04 AM

<cite>Jaremai@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote>Freedom of choice is a wonderful thing. Are you asking for mandated population caps on classes?</blockquote>No, he wants SKs nerfed. Directly or indirectly, that's what these threads always devolve into. What those population numbers can't tell us is how many of those fighters are actually being played as actual tanks, and how many of them are played as powerleveling tools or strictly as soloing/farming toons. It would also be useful to distinguish between mains and alts; what I'd personally really like to see is the population of each fighter class where it is actively played as a main character that actually tanks instances/raids on a regular basis. You'd find the numbers to be a lot smaller (of course) and somewhat more balanced. I think SKs would still hold the lead, but not by the wide margins you see here.

Wurm

12-07-2010, 11:47 AM

<cite>Arandar@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Jaremai@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote>Freedom of choice is a wonderful thing. Are you asking for mandated population caps on classes?</blockquote>No, he wants SKs nerfed. Directly or indirectly, that's what these threads always devolve into. What those population numbers can't tell us is how many of those fighters are actually being played as actual tanks, and how many of them are played as powerleveling tools or strictly as soloing/farming toons. It would also be useful to distinguish between mains and alts; what I'd personally really like to see is the population of each fighter class where it is actively played as a main character that actually tanks instances/raids on a regular basis. You'd find the numbers to be a lot smaller (of course) and somewhat more balanced. I think SKs would still hold the lead, but not by the wide margins you see here.</blockquote>I'd also like to know how many of his level 90 SKs are betrayed Paladins.

Wasuna

12-07-2010, 12:02 PM

Freedom of choice is exactly what I am counting on with these numbers. People are free to choose what they want to play. After 6 years, it's 100% clear what classes are the haves and what classes are the have not's. Choose away. I'll just post the numbers of what choices people have made here on the forums for discussion.For all the crusaders that are afraid of a nerf, I'm really sorry. I don't really want nerfs, I want balance. SoE descides how things are balanced and readjusted so I can't help what happens.The numbers show a HUGE inbalance. I request the balance be fixed.This is now a business decision. Would you nerf 31% of the fighter players to appease 11% when there is a real possibility that you'd actually lose player base? I don't expect any real changes ever in this game due to that very reason but it doesn't mean I have to quit hoping until Rift or SW comes out.

Soul_Dreamer

12-07-2010, 01:37 PM

I really don't understand some of the Arguments here:1. 2000 of those SK's are alts, they didn't choose the SK as an alt for a challenge, they chose it because it's fun to play, can destroy solo and heroic content fast and is wanted in raids.2. 1000 of them are betrayed Paladins... then they betrayed for a reason, the SK is BETTER than the Paladin.3. 1000 are Boxing/leveling toons.. See 1..ANYWAY you cut it the answer is the same, SK's are better all round chars than the other fighters so they are chosen more as characters. End of, that really is the only reason the numbers are so substantially higher.There are 1000's more SK's than other fighters for RP reasons.. really Bruener, that's the best you could come up with? Even for you that's weak.Balance the fighter classes and these numbers would be more even.

Wasuna

12-07-2010, 01:41 PM

Exactly! I'm continually amazed at the logic people use. What part of.. people choose SK's becasue they are better in some way... is confusing to people?

Costa

12-07-2010, 02:18 PM

I'd like to know how big that gap grown since BG's were introduced? SK's were a very popular PvP tank long before TSO came out and now that every server (except the Russian ones) have access to BG's i'm sure it didn't take long for people to find a class that was very solid to play in these instances too.When you look at the tools SK's have they make for a very fun and easy to pick up and play class. Life taps attached to spells to heal you in combat, power tap to reduce the burden of managing power in solo and heroic content, FD for the 'Oh Crap' moments when soloing or if a dps gets a little carried away and then of course the evac to save the group from potential wipe situations. Their aa's compliment them very well and allow people to build a relatively solid tank that maintains the evil Knight that siphon the life of his foes whilst inflicting large amounts of damage.Do i care about any of these figures being posted up? No as it makes no difference to me in playing my toons and it dosn't make me think '[Removed for Content] SK's are so OP i must change my Pally back'. I went SK - Pally in TSO as i actually got bored of them and found Pally more fun to play. When i feel like it i'll probably lvl my zerk the last 5 levels to 90 just so i can add another 90 fighter thats not a guard to make the guard numbers look even worst <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Kordran

12-07-2010, 03:42 PM

<cite>Wasuna wrote:</cite><blockquote>For all the crusaders that are afraid of a nerf, I'm really sorry. I don't really want nerfs, I want balance. SoE descides how things are balanced and readjusted so I can't help what happens.</blockquote>As a Paladin, I'm not really concerned about nerfs so much; changes to Shadowknights don't automatically imply broad sweeping changes to Crusaders as a base class, and in fact they've admitted that the fighter heal nerf disproportionately affected Paladins negatively and are considering ways to address that down the road. I just mention this to point out that I'm not disagreeing out of some sense of self-interest. I just think that broad-based nerfs aren't the way to go, and they're unlikely.There's also a practical side to all of this. They know that the core base of players for this game are at endgame, and that grouping is a central part to all of this; anything they do to erode that is going to have a negative impact, and I think one of the reasons that they changed the SK the way they did was to encourage more casual players to actually try playing a tank character. If that was their goal, and I suspect it was at least in part, then they were successful and met that objective.Personally, I think the solution for Guardians to be more fun to play with solo/heroic content is simply an AA line that would turn more of their single-target CAs into blue/green AEs and give them a DPS boost if they use a sword/shield, similar to what Crusaders get. Yes, to some extent it's further homogenizing the plate tanks, but I don't know that would be a terrible thing. If the difference between Guardians and Berserkers is one of inches rather than miles, so be it.

Bruener

12-07-2010, 05:15 PM

Edit: Deleted because it is just a circular argument and like talking to block walls as usual.

Gungo

12-07-2010, 06:13 PM

<cite>Wasuna wrote:</cite><blockquote>Exactly! I'm continually amazed at the logic people use. What part of.. people choose SK's becasue they are better in some way... is confusing to people?</blockquote>Ironically for 5 years bruisers were the least played fighter class and for those 5 years when guardians were one of the MOST played fighter classes you in particular downplayed those numbers.Tables have turned and guardians are now the least played fighter class and all of a sudden those numbers are meaningful? Way to many hypocrits on this board.I think shadowknights are fine currently. I do however think guardians can still use some slight fies but nothing drastic is needed other then fixing a few abilites and a small amount of single target dps.

Wasuna

12-07-2010, 07:02 PM

I'm afraid you must have me confused with somebody else. I have supported Guardian nerfs in the past in the name of balance. Also, if your class has a issue then do somehting about it. Other than listing all the fighters to show the current population I could care less about any other fighter class. I want mine balanced. Idiots that want their OP'ed toys boosted even more I will argue with all day long.I will say that I think that SoE's decision 6 years ago that all six fighters should be able to raid tank is a misguided concept that has brought us to where we are today. Sure I play a Guardian but I very rarely raid tank so you can't claim I want all your raid spots. I just think that trying to balance 6 fighters for one spot in a raid is never going to happen. You have 6-8 healers, 4 bards, 4 enchanters.. no room for all six fighters and that is that.

Grumpy_Warrior_01

12-07-2010, 09:01 PM

<cite>Wasuna wrote:</cite><blockquote>I will say that I think that SoE's decision 6 years ago that all six fighters should be able to raid tank is a misguided concept that has brought us to where we are today. Sure I play a Guardian but I very rarely raid tank so you can't claim I want all your raid spots. I just think that trying to balance 6 fighters for one spot in a raid is never going to happen. You have 6-8 healers, 4 bards, 4 enchanters.. no room for all six fighters and that is that.</blockquote>/Agree. It makes zero sense for 6 out of 24 classes to be shoe-horned into some quirky version of "equality" by virtue of archetype. Do all scouts have "equal" melee DPS? Ask the bards about that. How is a conjuror even remotely like an illusionist? Yet both are mages. Archetype should not dictate the roles for fighters, either. Or you'll end up with what we have here.I'll go you one better, Wasuna. I say the bigger mistake was made earlier than 6 years ago. It should have been:PLATE Fighters: Guardian, Paladin. Superior defensive, lesser DPS, poor solo. --> RAID advantage.CHAIN Fighters: Berserker, Shadowknight. Reasonable offensive, moderate defensive, moderate solo. --> GROUP advantage.LEATHER Fighters: Bruiser, Monk. Superior dps, lesser defense, best utility. --> SOLO advantage.

Aull

12-07-2010, 09:45 PM

<cite>Grumpy_Warrior_01 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Wasuna wrote:</cite><blockquote>I will say that I think that SoE's decision 6 years ago that all six fighters should be able to raid tank is a misguided concept that has brought us to where we are today. Sure I play a Guardian but I very rarely raid tank so you can't claim I want all your raid spots. I just think that trying to balance 6 fighters for one spot in a raid is never going to happen. You have 6-8 healers, 4 bards, 4 enchanters.. no room for all six fighters and that is that.</blockquote>/Agree. It makes zero sense for 6 out of 24 classes to be shoe-horned into some quirky version of "equality" by virtue of archetype. Do all scouts have "equal" melee DPS? Ask the bards about that. How is a conjuror even remotely like an illusionist? Yet both are mages. Archetype should not dictate the roles for fighters, either. Or you'll end up with what we have here.I'll go you one better, Wasuna. I say the bigger mistake was made earlier than 6 years ago. It should have been:PLATE Fighters: Guardian, Paladin. Superior defensive, lesser DPS, poor solo. --> RAID advantage.CHAIN Fighters: Berserker, Shadowknight. Reasonable offensive, moderate defensive, moderate solo. --> GROUP advantage.LEATHER Fighters: Bruiser, Monk. Superior dps, lesser defense, best utility. --> SOLO advantage.</blockquote>Great posts by both here. Designing all six fighters to be equals just for the sake of being able to raid tank is what is killing any individuality of having six fighters in the first place.

Kordran

12-08-2010, 02:03 AM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>Great posts by both here. Designing all six fighters to be equals just for the sake of being able to raid tank is what is killing any individuality of having six fighters in the first place.</blockquote>But it's what fighters demanded, and driving off big chunks of the tank population impacts the broader game in ways not just limited to balancing them. The risk v. benefits of a tank revamp just aren't there. I think they're continue to make small adjustments and improvements to classes, but I wouldn't hold my breath for another "Art of War" type update.

BChizzle

12-08-2010, 06:13 AM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Grumpy_Warrior_01 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Wasuna wrote:</cite><blockquote>I will say that I think that SoE's decision 6 years ago that all six fighters should be able to raid tank is a misguided concept that has brought us to where we are today. Sure I play a Guardian but I very rarely raid tank so you can't claim I want all your raid spots. I just think that trying to balance 6 fighters for one spot in a raid is never going to happen. You have 6-8 healers, 4 bards, 4 enchanters.. no room for all six fighters and that is that.</blockquote>/Agree. It makes zero sense for 6 out of 24 classes to be shoe-horned into some quirky version of "equality" by virtue of archetype. Do all scouts have "equal" melee DPS? Ask the bards about that. How is a conjuror even remotely like an illusionist? Yet both are mages. Archetype should not dictate the roles for fighters, either. Or you'll end up with what we have here.I'll go you one better, Wasuna. I say the bigger mistake was made earlier than 6 years ago. It should have been:PLATE Fighters: Guardian, Paladin. Superior defensive, lesser DPS, poor solo. --> RAID advantage.CHAIN Fighters: Berserker, Shadowknight. Reasonable offensive, moderate defensive, moderate solo. --> GROUP advantage.LEATHER Fighters: Bruiser, Monk. Superior dps, lesser defense, best utility. --> SOLO advantage.</blockquote>Great posts by both here. Designing all six fighters to be equals just for the sake of being able to raid tank is what is killing any individuality of having six fighters in the first place.</blockquote>That is just silly, if a fighter cannot tank content then you might as well put any other class in that spot. The way this guy is suggesting is that all people who want to raid should just roll a paly or a guardian. That is a joke.

Jeal

12-08-2010, 06:23 AM

but you want to be the best solo tank right?!

Soul_Dreamer

12-08-2010, 07:13 AM

I don't agree there, you can't just discount whole classes from section of play because of their class. If you look at the healers/mages/scouts they all have their roles in a raid, some stronger than others but the majority have their niches to fill. The problem is this doesn't exist with fighters, there is only 1 role and that's "Tank", be it MT/OT whatever. In 90% of content you don't even need 2 tanks, just the 1 MT. It's a massive design flaw and has stemmed from poor encounter design and the community itself.People saw Guardians where the most defensive so they whinged for defensive tools, now all tanks are defensive enough for all content. Guardians now have less DPS and agro than other tanks but others have their defense so Guardians want more DPS. Once this is given (and it more than likely will be balanced this next expansion), what happens then?Tanks look at the SK Bloodletter with 3 full heals and say they don't have any and want equal utility. Is this then given as well? There may as well be just 1 tank class for all the difference there is now.All fighters need enough survivability to be able to tank all heroic content, and they need enough DPS to solo effectively. Outside of that their utility should have specified unique roles in a raid not just mashed them all together to compete for what boils down to 1 role. The DPS = Hate really needs to go, DPS is a utility in and of itself (you kill things faster) having DPS = Hate just gives those tanks with high DPS higher hate than others when ALL fighters need the basic ability to hold hate.Something like (just an example)Guardian/Paladin - MT - The most defensive tank, builds hate slowly but once a mob is on them it won't really leave. 1 long reuse snap agro tool and their utility is their defense and keeping their group alive. Zerker/SK - OT - More of an AOE tank to cope with adds, again builds hate slowly but once has mobs they won't leave unless they memwipe like the Guard/Pally. Has abilities that actively reduce the inc damage the MT is taking and buffs for increasing DPS. Doesn't have the personal damage absorption of the MT fighters OR the "Ohh sh*t abilities".Bruiser/Monk - Utility Tank - Manages the hate of all other fighters, through transfers and active abilities, if a mob memwipes this tanks job is to get it back where it should be, be it adds memwiping or the named. Has the highest DPS of all the fighters and some utility to be able to hold mobs for short durations but can't take the damage for long periods that named can put out.This goes back to the pre KoS eara really, when it seems like this was more or less the plan for the tanks. Fighters then have "Roles" outside of just tanking, it takes all 3 of them to manage the different mechanics, rather than just giving all fighters the tools to handle all of them. The fighters would obviously have some huge changes, eg, Reinforcemt/Recapture/Grave Sac/Holy Ground/Gybe etc would need to be removed from the Plate tanks, leave them with a 5 min reuse rescue for the MT tanks and a 5 min AOE "Rescue" for the OT's then the brawler handles the memwiping and agro management of the encounters. I don't really care which is the MT/OT/Utility classes, the above was just an example of how to better utilise the classes in a raid situation and give them roles which people then know and can aspire to and roll the right class for the role they want to perform. This is then the same way as is currently the case for other classes:You don't roll a Dirge to top the parses, you roll an Assassin.You don't roll a Defiler to be a DPS group healer, you roll a fury/Inquisitor.You don't roll a Warlock to buff the mages, you roll an Illusionist.You don't roll an Inquisitor to get a MT healer spot, you roll a Templar.You don't WOULDN'T roll a SK for the MT spot, you'd roll a Paladin.It's obviously way to late for any changes like this, so we're stuck with the current system of all tanks being "equal in different ways" and the constant bickering and calls for balance that it causes.

MurFalad

12-08-2010, 09:38 AM

Well those numbers do tell a story where SK's are overwhelmingly popular. It also shows that strongest three AOE tanks are the favourite choice, the solution of course here is to copy what WoW did with the WotLK expansion and buff everyone elses AOE.We can then copy WoW's latest expansion again with Velious pt 2 and nerf AOE across the board so its more of a situational ability, not the one tool to solve all problems.If that is the approach then we'll copy WoW's WotLK subscription numbers too which declined in the US and EU regions (where it counts, the 6c an hour players in the fareast "gaming rooms" don't count).I'd like to see all six of the tank classes remain distinctive, but I'd also like to see them (and all the classes in the game) get a overhaul of abilities. A snap aggro ability on my Guardian was very nice, 6 expansions later I now have about 6 of them I can chain.Some panic abilities are nice, 6 expansions later I have so many that the first are coming off cooldown by the time I've clicked the last one.So I think ALL classes need a good rethink/reduction in the abilities department to bring them back to where they should be. We needed those two to four abilities added in each expansion to give us something fresh to do gameplay wise. But while I still crave something fresh and new to play with in the gameplay department I do also feel some intelligent pruning should be done (which should be done in a way that adds depth of gameplay).

Costa

12-08-2010, 11:19 AM

Sadly i don't think there ever will be a balance between all 6 tanks. No matter how people look at it there is just no need to take 6 tanks on a raid when you compare the benefits of other classes being there. There is also the problem that no matter what the devs do people see an ability another fighter has and wants that for their own class rather than looking at the strengths of their own class.When you break it down all 6 fighters need to have the tools and abilities to lock down a single target mob, lock down an encounter and if their not tanking bring utility to their group or raid which would make them viable in the place of or alongside other utility classes. Along with holding agro all 6 fighters would also need the tools to survive the incoming spike damage but i don't believe dps is the key for any fighter to hold agro and hate through taunts needs to be every tanks primary threat generation.IMO aoe's should not hit as hard as single target abilities so that a tank in aoe stance would have the ability to hit and hold multiple mobs but at the same time they should not be able to rip agro off of a tank in single target stance. As it stands right now AE tanks can hold encounters as easy as they hold single target as there is no difference in the abilities.I know this idea will probably get flamed like many other idea's about balancing fighters but personally i don't feel that any tank should be one of the top 6 dps in a raid to hold agro. One way the devs could look to changing things, which would involve a lot of work, would be to introduce 3 stances for all fighters.1.Defensive stance is every fighters single target lock down stance. All single target CA's carry some form of single target taunt, their defensive tools are adjusted in a way that allows for them to effectively manage spike damage from a single target mob and all rescue type abilities are single target only.2. Offensive stance would become every fighters ae stance. All single target CA's change to either inflict encounter or ae damage plus some form of encounter or ae taunt component. The damage would be reduced so that they have the capacity to keep agro but not suddenly become an ae dps machine and also in this stance they would struggle to hold agro on a single target for a long period as the hate generation would not be sufficient. All rescue type abilities become either ae or encounter based so that they have tools to keep multiple mobs on them. All defensive tools would change to enable them to tank multiple mobs but not make them as effective when on a single target mob. Something like divine aura on Crusaders is great when fighting multiple mobs doing lots of small hits but rubbish when it comes to blocking very large spike hits. 3. A new Utility stance would be added which would enable all fighters to bolster their group/raid which would match their description. This could also act as a solo content stance although tbh any of the 3 would work. For example a guardian in utility roll would do more dps single target than they could in either of the other 2 stances, have some form of de-agro attached to their taunts and bolster their parties defensive attributes. That could be through the addition of debuffs to their CA's to make the mob hit less often or hit as hard as well as making their defensive abilities run group or raid wide. Like wise a beserker would raise the offensive attributes of the group or raid party, reduce the defensive attributes of it's enemies and be able to inflict more ae damage than they can in either of the other 2 stances. This again would require their taunts to become forms of de-agros and change their defensive abilities to be raid wide.Every fighter have their unique abilities and it is perfectly feasable to adjust those unique abilities into utility functions that would enable them to buff their party as well as debuff their enemies. Due to the last 2 expansions to have multiple encounters in instances all fighters need the ability to tank encounters and multiple mobs as well as effectively tank single target mobs and solo content.

Aull

12-08-2010, 02:47 PM

<cite>Costa@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>Sadly i don't think there ever will be a balance between all 6 tanks. No matter how people look at it there is just no need to take 6 tanks on a raid when you compare the benefits of other classes being there. There is also the problem that no matter what the devs do people see an ability another fighter has and wants that for their own class rather than looking at the strengths of their own class.</blockquote>Exactly. It all basically comes down to jealousy of what others have. In doing so it has removed all the individuality of the six fighters making them as clones.No need for six tanks.

crazyeyes321

12-08-2010, 03:40 PM

Personally feel the problem is raid design. Why are all raids sending all 24 people down the same hall at the same time? Why aren't more raids set up where 2 groups go down this path, 2 down another and meet up at end for beastly confrontation? Hell, even in the beginning, send each of the four groups a different path, halfway through they merge into two groups, and at the end they combine into a full x4 in one locale.

Soul_Dreamer

12-08-2010, 03:54 PM

<cite>crazyeyes321 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Personally feel the problem is raid design. Why are all raids sending all 24 people down the same hall at the same time? Why aren't more raids set up where 2 groups go down this path, 2 down another and meet up at end for beastly confrontation? Hell, even in the beginning, send each of the four groups a different path, halfway through they merge into two groups, and at the end they combine into a full x4 in one locale.</blockquote>4 groups..8 healers, 4 tanks, there is half your raid taken up. 4 Enchanters, 4 Bards. Now you have 4 spaces for DPS. When the raid does reform into the x4, lots of those people will log off the alts they where using for the group/x2 section and onto their mains. The whole point of this Gimmicky zone was what? A larger version of the sisters/sages fight that force you to have a set number of tanks/raid setup, once the gimmick is over people go back to the optimal raid setups.Encounter design plays a part, encounter design like this will harm more than cure. If you want good encounter design that utilises multiple tanks look at the RT 3/4 rune encounter, large adds, swarm adds, large hard hitting named things to react to going on around you instead of CC lockdowns effecting chars to add difficulty. More RT style fights would be a VERY good thing for the game.Get 3 tanks in a raid and you're doing well, then reduce the number of chanters/bards in an optimal raid and you free up more slots. Min/Max HC guilds will still fill those spaces with optimal DPS characters but for most guilds it will open up more spaces for the 4th fighter/2nd summoner etc. Then encounters can be designed more often to utilise those 4 tanks so instead of being gimmicky fights where you use alts they are useful permenant additions to your raid force.

LardLord

12-08-2010, 04:15 PM

<cite>crazyeyes321 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Personally feel the problem is raid design. Why are all raids sending all 24 people down the same hall at the same time? Why aren't more raids set up where 2 groups go down this path, 2 down another and meet up at end for beastly confrontation? Hell, even in the beginning, send each of the four groups a different path, halfway through they merge into two groups, and at the end they combine into a full x4 in one locale.</blockquote>There are a bunch of fights this expansion that are easier with three and even four tanks, including the boss of Underfoot Depths.Anyway, fighters are pretty well balanced in raid settings. If you're looking to content to find the problem, it's simply that heroic and solo play put more emphasis on DPS and AE fights than raids do (relative to survivability and ST fights), so the classes that are designed to excel in those areas are obviously going to thrive in those styles of play.EDIT: Another significant difference between raid content and solo/heroic content is that solo/heroic content obviously emphasizes a high amount of smaller hits while raid content is usually a low amount of larger hits. Basically, if solo/heroic content did a better job of mimicking raid content, we'd hardly have any problem at all with "fighter balance." Their current methodology for balancing fighters (more offensive vs. more defensive, more stoneskins vs. more heals, more AE oriented vs. more ST oriented, ect) can work fine for raid content, but, unfortunately, it completely falls apart when you consider solo/heroic content.

Yimway

12-08-2010, 07:28 PM

<cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote>Balance the fighter classes and these numbers would be more even.</blockquote>They can not / will not do that.They are like a politician, they stay employed by pandering to their base. In this case, its easymode classes.To actualy do as you suggest would upset far more people than it would please, and that is not a winning decision financially.Unless of course you're suggesting that all tanks be just as easy, cause that is really the only sollution I believe they can afford.

Wasuna

12-10-2010, 01:36 PM

Yep. This is a business decision. But, that does not mean we have to stop making it a very public and obvious decision that has a very negative impact on a long time population of the game.Early next week SK's will break 7,000 and Guardians will be the only fighter class to be below 3,000 in terms of level 90 all server population.

Kordran

12-10-2010, 03:54 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>They are like a politician, they stay employed by pandering to their base. In this case, its easymode classes.</blockquote>What's interesting is that while SKs, Paladins and Berskers are broadly considered "easymode" tanks, there seems to be no shortage of players complaining about the vast number of terrible players of these classes behind the keyboard. I obviously don't have any hard numbers to back this up, but I really do think that a good percentage of those SKs (in particular) aren't actively played tanks that are running heroic instances and/or raiding. They're played as little more than powerleveling bots and solo farming toons and really have no impact on anything in terms of the overall game (in other words, if you're a Guardian, that SK that someone rolled up to PL their alts isn't taking a group slot from you).Like I wrote earlier, rather than just raw population numbers like that, I think detailed class demographics would be far more useful to a discussion like this. Of course, the only real way to get that would be some kind of survey (and not a self-selecting one such as a forum poll), and I don't see any realistic way of making that happen.

Wasuna

12-10-2010, 04:17 PM

<cite>Arandar@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>Like I wrote earlier, rather than just raw population numbers like that, I think detailed class demographics would be far more useful to a discussion like this. Of course, the only real way to get that would be some kind of survey (and not a self-selecting one such as a forum poll), and I don't see any realistic way of making that happen.</blockquote>It would actually be MUCH better if we had a full historical write up and opinion poll for all 23,000 level 90 fighters in the game to have exact data to look at. Unfortunatly that along with your class demographics isn't gonna happen. SoE would never let that information out even if they have it. Actually, it would probably be illegal to let that out if they did have it.That being said, the population numbers tell exactly what they tell. It says that everybody in the game that ever thought of making a fighter knows that SK's are WAY overpowered. It also says that Berserkers and Paladins are a distant second and thrid but are starting to pull away from the Brawlers and Guardians. It also says that Guardians have alsmot NO advantage inthis game and WAY behind all other fighters.You can ask for more information all you want. In the end, the information available tells what it tells and you can't ignore that becasue it doesn't tell what you wanted it to. That's Breuners job, to deflect and supress information to ensure that one opinion is all that is ever expressed.

Kordran

12-10-2010, 05:10 PM

<cite>Wasuna wrote:</cite><blockquote>You can ask for more information all you want. In the end, the information available tells what it tells and you can't ignore that becasue it doesn't tell what you wanted it to. That's Breuners job, to deflect and supress information to ensure that one opinion is all that is ever expressed.</blockquote>But it's information without context, which (in my opinion anyway) makes it less than useful. The most important aspect of that being "does the player with that character actually tank?" In other words, do they actively play that character as a tank for groups and/or raids on a regular basis? If they don't, then I don't see them as being pertinent to this particular disucssion.And, frankly, without context this information isn't telling us something that we all don't already know. SOE turned what was arguably the weakest plate tank in the game into the strongest, while also shifting the overall balance of heroic content to be more AE oriented. Players don't jokingly refer to the TSO expansion as "The Shadowknight Odyssey" for nothing. But it's also seems to be clear that it's a decision and design philosophy that they're sticking with. We'll see if perhaps Velious doesn't quite have the mass of AE content, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that. The majority of non-tank players I know love those bit AE fights with those big parses, which is something I'm sure the SOE devs are well aware of.

LardLord

12-10-2010, 05:21 PM

Those arguments about politics coming into play are silly. They already nerfed Sacrament and heal crits...if they could balance the tanks better for heroic and solo content, their actions (such as those nerfs) lead me to believe that they would. However, they're clearly focused more on balancing for raid content first and then trying to make everything else work around that, which is just always going to fail as long as raid content is so different from solo and heroic content.

Gungo

12-10-2010, 06:08 PM

<cite>Jeal@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>but you want to be the best solo tank right?!</blockquote>This post makes absolutely no sense since in effect everyone soloing is thier own tank. So are illusionists the best solo tank since they take the least amount of damage?And if you are considering just fighters it isnt even true if you are comparing results and videos paladins are the best soloing tank.There is NO archtype in this game designed specifically around group content, solo content, and raid content to begin with fighters is beyond special ed.

Gungo

12-10-2010, 06:26 PM

Even if there was only 4 fighter tanks we still would be having this discussion though and currently there are 6 fighter classes now. Imho no one tank should be the Main tank. Its a hard concept for MMo to get beyond.Warriors should of been the main target but required a brawler to avoid epics and required a crusader to mitigate hits. Each fighter class should actively tank the epic named in conjunction with the main tank sharing the role. A single fighter should get rolled over as maintank regardless of class. Doing a raid with 1 fighter would be like doing a raid with 1 healer and shouldnt even be considered an option. But that is not the way the game is set up and currently it is possible to do most raids in this game with 1 to 2 fighters at most.Anyway back to the topic on hand shadowknights are no longer grossly overpowered as they were in late tso early SF. They are slightly better overall but are a bit squishier defensively compared to other plate tanks as they should be. Guardians can use a few more slight changes but nothing drastic is needed especially considering after velious the mitigation % fix is going in and will greatly impact the tankability of all fighters.

Bruener

12-10-2010, 07:15 PM

<cite>Wasuna wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Arandar@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>Like I wrote earlier, rather than just raw population numbers like that, I think detailed class demographics would be far more useful to a discussion like this. Of course, the only real way to get that would be some kind of survey (and not a self-selecting one such as a forum poll), and I don't see any realistic way of making that happen.</blockquote>It would actually be MUCH better if we had a full historical write up and opinion poll for all 23,000 level 90 fighters in the game to have exact data to look at. Unfortunatly that along with your class demographics isn't gonna happen. SoE would never let that information out even if they have it. Actually, it would probably be illegal to let that out if they did have it.That being said, the population numbers tell exactly what they tell. It says that everybody in the game that ever thought of making a fighter knows that SK's are WAY overpowered. It also says that Berserkers and Paladins are a distant second and thrid but are starting to pull away from the Brawlers and Guardians. It also says that Guardians have alsmot NO advantage inthis game and WAY behind all other fighters.Thats funny, because no where do I see numbers saying that. You make a statement like that and it really makes it sound like you have no idea what you are talking about. All those numbers really can tell you, as others have pointed out, is that there are that many level 90 of each class at the time that was taken. It does not tell you why people rolled a certain class. It does not tell you how active those classes are. It does not tell you in what type of play-styel those classes are playing. In fact the information gathered from that data is is so narrow and useless it is pathetic that you keep posting them expectint them to tell some grand story about this game. All I have to do is point easily to one of the least played classes, Troub, and based off of you "theorizing" Troubadors are then one of the least powerful classes in this game across all types of play style. A statement that is obviously false when shown how powerful an Ally Troubadors are in groups/raids.You can ask for more information all you want. In the end, the information available tells what it tells and you can't ignore that becasue it doesn't tell what you wanted it to. That's Breuners job, to deflect and supress information to ensure that one opinion is all that is ever expressed.[Removed for Content] are you talking about. You are the one that is completely narrow minded and somehow miraculously jump to your specific goals based off of numbers that really tell nothing. At least someone in this thread actually broke down some number comparisons that make sense to show trends in how the numbers are behaving. I mean based on his % increase of classes there are multiple classes with trends greater than SKs. Specifically growth trends, % base increase. Not that we can expect you to actually think outside of your tunnel vision.</blockquote>

Landiin

12-10-2010, 07:49 PM

We all know the SK numbers are like that because they are popular lore class. It has nothing to do with if the class is OP or not.

Kordran

12-10-2010, 09:01 PM

<cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote>Guardians can use a few more slight changes but nothing drastic is needed especially considering after velious the mitigation % fix is going in and will greatly impact the tankability of all fighters.</blockquote>Somewhat off-topic, but I keep seeing some tanks stating (over and over) about what a big deal the change (nerf, whatever) to +mit% is going to be. For those of us who are raiding tanks, I just don't see how this is going to be the case when most of the time, we're tanking in ostance with dps gear that has very little of those bonuses at all. The practical impact there is going to be marginal, since that's all they're changing; they're not changing any mitigation buffs the fighter can give himself, nor those given by other classes. It's entirely gear related, for gear that we don't typically wear very much of. So I'm not sure how this benefits Guardians in any way, directly or indirectly; they'll have slightly more mitigation that's not really needed to begin with? That's going to be a big help to them?

Gilasil

12-11-2010, 02:40 AM

I"m running one of those new shadowknights.After years of getting the short end playing a bruiser I decided that if I couldn't beat them I'd join them. To round things out I bought a Gi wearable by all classes and stuck it in my appearance slot so it sort of looks like I'm still playing a brawler (ok, witha sword but ignore that). Sort of the best of both worlds.It was my original plan to betray to paladin. After playing awhile I thought to myself I'd be crazy to betray. So I didn't. Paladins are certainly more favored by the devs then brawlers but turning an SK into a PAL seems rather stupid nowadays. Right now my SK has absolutely crap gear and spells -- and I certainly can't call myself an expert in playing one -- nevertheless it's doing extremely well.SK population did NOT always beat all other fighters by a 2:1 margin. Not even close. At one time they were a bit in the minority. Their popularity now is obviously due to the fact that SoE has no freaking clue about balance. Many people playing SKs will try to say that black is white and there's nothing obviously messed up. SoE is so stupid about balance they might even buy it. The fact of the matter for me is that after so many years being on the bottom, it's nice being on the top for a change.There is a segment of players in all MMOs who seem to have the idea that if they can't make their character uber through their own efforts, maybe they can con the devs into doing it for them. It often works.Anyway, I think I'm going to continue playing my SK for awhile. If SoE insists on messing up their balance so badly and refusing to fix it -- why shouldn't I take advantage of their stupidity?

Soul_Dreamer

12-11-2010, 02:37 PM

<cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote>Even if there was only 4 fighter tanks we still would be having this discussion though and currently there are 6 fighter classes now. Imho no one tank should be the Main tank. Its a hard concept for MMo to get beyond.Warriors should of been the main target but required a brawler to avoid epics and required a crusader to mitigate hits. Each fighter class should actively tank the epic named in conjunction with the main tank sharing the role. A single fighter should get rolled over as maintank regardless of class. Doing a raid with 1 fighter would be like doing a raid with 1 healer and shouldnt even be considered an option. But that is not the way the game is set up and currently it is possible to do most raids in this game with 1 to 2 fighters at most.Anyway back to the topic on hand shadowknights are no longer grossly overpowered as they were in late tso early SF. They are slightly better overall but are a bit squishier defensively compared to other plate tanks as they should be. Guardians can use a few more slight changes but nothing drastic is needed especially considering after velious the mitigation % fix is going in and will greatly impact the tankability of all fighters.</blockquote>I agree here, and always liked the idea of the classical "Shield Wall" with fighters working together against enemies. It can be implemented any number of ways but I've yet to really see it happen in an MMO.I'm unsure about the mitigation fix because I seriously doubt it will even go ahead. A lot of the larger changes promised each expansion are side lined and not dealt with. SF alone there was the fighter revamp and bard/enchanter buff changes, this is no different.As for the whole number difference between the fighters, while the data can't be used in detail because there are only very basic stats to go on (the counts) and no counts of the number of fighters in different roles. You can very easily surmise from the data that people are using SK's more than other fighters be it because they are using them to power level chars, using them to MT raids, or as "Fun" alts. People are rolling SK's because they are Better suited at roles than the other fighters and they are so well suited to a range of roles that lots of people use them for whichever section of play they are actually playing in.

Aull

12-11-2010, 03:52 PM

No matter what role is being played there is no doubt in my mind that the reason the sk population is higher than the other fighters by a wide margin is because sk's excell in other area's besides just being a meat shield.They are fun because they work in every scenario/role they are used in. They are great for the soloer, mt/ot tank positions, and power levler and have all the tools to function in those environments with ease. For those blessed enough with gear the sk is a great power leveler and will outshine the other fighters hands down. The only other fighters that comes close would be the paladin then a zerker.Its a no brainer. Players that have been around long enough have seen with their own eyes as to how an sk rolls in this game. Sks are popular because they work.

Gungo

12-15-2010, 04:03 PM

<cite>Arandar@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote>Guardians can use a few more slight changes but nothing drastic is needed especially considering after velious the mitigation % fix is going in and will greatly impact the tankability of all fighters.</blockquote>Somewhat off-topic, but I keep seeing some tanks stating (over and over) about what a big deal the change (nerf, whatever) to +mit% is going to be. For those of us who are raiding tanks, I just don't see how this is going to be the case when most of the time, we're tanking in ostance with dps gear that has very little of those bonuses at all. The practical impact there is going to be marginal, since that's all they're changing; they're not changing any mitigation buffs the fighter can give himself, nor those given by other classes. It's entirely gear related, for gear that we don't typically wear very much of. So I'm not sure how this benefits Guardians in any way, directly or indirectly; they'll have slightly more mitigation that's not really needed to begin with? That's going to be a big help to them?</blockquote>The reason people say this is because Xelgad posted mit % was screwed up and capped nearly every fighter on mitigation absorbtion %. This is not how that effect is suppose to work but instead bhave more like our defensive stance and add a MUCH smaller portion of mtigation based on worn armour.In fact this change was so drastic when they put it up on test ALL fighters were getting rolled on test. They couldnt survive the hits(mainly frontal physical aoes) from epics at all. It was so bad that Xelgad said they would hold off on fixing this effect until velious. But he did say it WILL not behave the same way and that people WILL see a reduction in mitigation. He said Leather fighters especially would be hit and that crusaders will be hit hard as well. This will lower the % physical absorbtion of ALL tanks regardless of how drastic the change is. No fighter should be able to cap mitigation in offensive stance w offensive gear. And since guardians have the most mit gear and most mit buffs they should be able to mitigate better then all other tanks.Like several other posters here i think they will reduce mitigation overall BUT I expect alot of stuff messed up because of this change including many raids and some broken fighter classes.

BChizzle

12-15-2010, 07:51 PM

<cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Arandar@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote>Guardians can use a few more slight changes but nothing drastic is needed especially considering after velious the mitigation % fix is going in and will greatly impact the tankability of all fighters.</blockquote>Somewhat off-topic, but I keep seeing some tanks stating (over and over) about what a big deal the change (nerf, whatever) to +mit% is going to be. For those of us who are raiding tanks, I just don't see how this is going to be the case when most of the time, we're tanking in ostance with dps gear that has very little of those bonuses at all. The practical impact there is going to be marginal, since that's all they're changing; they're not changing any mitigation buffs the fighter can give himself, nor those given by other classes. It's entirely gear related, for gear that we don't typically wear very much of. So I'm not sure how this benefits Guardians in any way, directly or indirectly; they'll have slightly more mitigation that's not really needed to begin with? That's going to be a big help to them?</blockquote>The reason people say this is because Xelgad posted mit % was screwed up and capped nearly every fighter on mitigation absorbtion %. This is not how that effect is suppose to work but instead bhave more like our defensive stance and add a MUCH smaller portion of mtigation based on worn armour.In fact this change was so drastic when they put it up on test ALL fighters were getting rolled on test. They couldnt survive the hits(mainly frontal physical aoes) from epics at all. It was so bad that Xelgad said they would hold off on fixing this effect until velious. But he did say it WILL not behave the same way and that people WILL see a reduction in mitigation. He said Leather fighters especially would be hit and that crusaders will be hit hard as well. This will lower the % physical absorbtion of ALL tanks regardless of how drastic the change is. No fighter should be able to cap mitigation in offensive stance w offensive gear. And since guardians have the most mit gear and most mit buffs they should be able to mitigate better then all other tanks.Like several other posters here i think they will reduce mitigation overall BUT I expect alot of stuff messed up because of this change including many raids and some broken fighter classes.</blockquote>The nerf wasn't even that bad when it was on test, the problem was the changes imbalanced more than just gear.