Current Level 90 Fighter Population 1/20/11 [Archive]

Costa

01-20-2011, 12:49 PM

What i find most interesting is that all the fighter classes have seen an increase in lvl 90 numbers since you started these posts back on 1/12/10.Shadowknight's +1737Beserkers +1087Paladins +938Monk +763Brusier +762Guardian +627The fact SK's have more than any other class and have grown the most in the last 7 weeks probably has more to do with people having them as alts that they created in TSO and have now leveled them to 90 ready for the new expansion. It's too late now for the devs to make any sweeping changes to fighter balance if they have not done so for DoV. If they have it will be interesting to see how these numbers look 3 months after the expansion.

Sleap

01-20-2011, 12:55 PM

So fighter balance to you is the population number of each fighter class? /scratches head

DMIstar

01-20-2011, 01:11 PM

Actaully to him, The Fighter population consists of random duplications and Missing Profiles. People do your own research, go into EQ2players, put **** in name field and you can search the server populations with the merge servers and will see the blatent issues that come up with it.Again these numbers are a joke lol.

DMIstar

01-20-2011, 01:35 PM

So Last Post was Permafrost and Mistmoore and its roughly 150,000 Profile Screw ups according to EQ2players database, Lets do Kithkor / Butcherblock here just for fun <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" />EQ2 Players Kithicor Current: 139,149EQ2 Players Butcherblock current after merge: 159,383Last Years Standing with these servers: BB: 158,228 / Kith: 149,483<a rel="nofollow" href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=465030" target="_blank">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=465030</a>Cause we are roughly seeing about 139,149 In Missing Profiles or just straight out glitched ... Is there duplications .. Well yes there is <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" />Example: Guild A.Kithicor Guild: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://everquest2.com/Guild/2712106/" target="_blank">http://everquest2.com/Guild/2712106/</a>Now in Buthcerblock: http://everquest2.com/Guild/5844108/Gee I wonder if EQ2players is broken ? But I am supposed to be desperate according to the OP <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" />I guess your not supposed to see the screw ups, you just have to believe in the numbers posted ~

Controlor

01-20-2011, 04:07 PM

One side is claiming that EQ2 players is "the best data available" while the other is claiming "the data is grossly innacurate". Well going off "the best data available" can cause serious problems (Look at Iraq and "the data says they have WMD")....SK's may need a bit of toning down sure but unfortunatly the only way to do that would be to completely change the class to NOT be a SK. You know why they are so versatile? The reason is their life taps and reaver, and to a lesser extent some of their buffs. These act as passive healing spells that shine while soloing and grouping. Go watch a SK pre heal crit nerf and be at 10% hp with 10+ mobs on em and hit tap veins and be at 100%. The same sort of can be said for paladins with their heals though they dont scale for raids. However SK's take by far the most amount of damage out of the plate tanks. They dont have really any defensive spells. However the healing in this game is so out of proportion that healing is a non issue except for spike damage in raids. Seriously in heroic zones i have grouped with healers who dont even cast a heal and just let all their procs heal me. And besides dps sk's have no other agro management. (well they have grave sacrament i guess but still not much).Again there is no real way to really alter a SK without changing the core of their class entirely. For solo / group content the class that can heal themselves has it easier than a class that cant (this is why guards SUCK at soloing). For raids the better MT's are those that can handle spike damage and deagro the best. Guess what that is NOT sk's. Guards still better in that department and next expac they should become even better for that. Though most of the population are not raiding any hard content. SO you see the fighters that can heal themselves the best with the higher pop. SK's first Zerkers second and Paladins third. (if you look at heal parses SK's will out heal all other fighters, and zerkers out heal paladins).*edit* made it a bit easier to read stead of one long block paragraph.

Wasuna

01-20-2011, 04:21 PM

Istar claims that since players were in essance duped when the servers were merged makes the EQ2 players numbers invalid. My point is that all players on those servers were duped and therefore the diaparity is a valid comparision.Just becasue he's a SK and doesn't like the numbers doesn't in any way make the impact of those numbers invalid.And yes, a 275% disparity between the top and botton is evidance of imbalance. Let alone the abundance of evidance posted in this forums that only 2-3 people dispute. As stated in the previous thread, the people that dispute the numbers and it's importants are ..... SK's.On a side note, the SK population is the highest single populated class in EQ2 (all classes, not just fighters) by something like 35%. Meaning the second highest class count in in the 6000's.

Wasuna

01-20-2011, 04:25 PM

<cite>Controlor wrote:</cite><blockquote> For raids the better MT's are those that can handle spike damage and deagro the best. Guess what that is NOT sk's.</blockquote>So, why do all of the high end raid guilds that posted parses on Hardmode and UD raids at the request of the developers on this forum ALL use either a SK, Paladin or Berserker as MT? Also, I believe only one raid had a Guardian in it and that was not the MT. I'd have to dig that thread up again but it was something like 80% SK, 15% Paladin and a Berserker ot two.Again, my perception is based on evidence presented on this forum. Your claim is invalid based on the player provided information.

DMIstar

01-20-2011, 04:36 PM

<cite>Wasuna wrote:</cite><blockquote>Istar claims that since players were in essance duped when the servers were merged makes the EQ2 players numbers invalid. My point is that all players on those servers were duped and therefore the diaparity is a valid comparision.Just becasue he's a SK and doesn't like the numbers doesn't in any way make the impact of those numbers invalid.And yes, a 275% disparity between the top and botton is evidance of imbalance. Let alone the abundance of evidance posted in this forums that only 2-3 people dispute. As stated in the previous thread, the people that dispute the numbers and it's importants are ..... SK's.On a side note, the SK population is the highest single populated class in EQ2 (all classes, not just fighters) by something like 35%. Meaning the second highest class count in in the 6000's.</blockquote>Your trying to make people gullable into believing numbers that directly include offline servers, such as mistmoore, kithicor and the rest of the ones brought down. You Fail at finding accurate information and your numbers are a joke.and another EQ2players bug tidbit, It will duplicate names given a close proximity of the character being online to the merge date, however lvl 90 players and any lvl players that have been inactive for 100 days may not duplicate and thier profile remains on just the offline servers <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> so even more confusion to numbers from EQ2players..

DMIstar

01-20-2011, 04:39 PM

Landiin

01-20-2011, 04:46 PM

<cite>Istar@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Wasuna wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Controlor wrote:</cite><blockquote> For raids the better MT's are those that can handle spike damage and deagro the best. Guess what that is NOT sk's.</blockquote>So, why do all of the high end raid guilds that posted parses on Hardmode and UD raids at the request of the developers on this forum ALL use either a SK, Paladin or Berserker as MT? Also, I believe only one raid had a Guardian in it and that was not the MT. I'd have to dig that thread up again but it was something like 80% SK, 15% Paladin and a Berserker ot two.Again, my perception is based on evidence presented on this forum. Your claim is invalid based on the player provided information.</blockquote>any real links to back this claim or is it your imagination ? <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>I think they removed that thread but it was there, you know it was there. Don't act like you didn't know about it. Every one seen it, unless you been under a rock.

DMIstar

01-20-2011, 04:51 PM

<cite>Toranx@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Istar@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Wasuna wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Controlor wrote:</cite><blockquote> For raids the better MT's are those that can handle spike damage and deagro the best. Guess what that is NOT sk's.</blockquote>So, why do all of the high end raid guilds that posted parses on Hardmode and UD raids at the request of the developers on this forum ALL use either a SK, Paladin or Berserker as MT? Also, I believe only one raid had a Guardian in it and that was not the MT. I'd have to dig that thread up again but it was something like 80% SK, 15% Paladin and a Berserker ot two.Again, my perception is based on evidence presented on this forum. Your claim is invalid based on the player provided information.</blockquote>any real links to back this claim or is it your imagination ? <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>I think they removed that thread but it was there, you know it was there. Don't act like you didn't know about it. Every one seen it, unless you been under a rock.</blockquote>Well considering that the op is adding in dead servers to artificially inflate the numbers as shown, and is quite obvious... and the fact that most High end guilds are not going to pay attention to one solitary thread. there needs to be more credibility to this then just stateing trash <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Corydonn

01-20-2011, 05:04 PM

Hah! One more monk was made than a bruiser! Eat it monks!

Landiin

01-20-2011, 05:08 PM

<cite>Istar@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Toranx@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Istar@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Wasuna wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Controlor wrote:</cite><blockquote> For raids the better MT's are those that can handle spike damage and deagro the best. Guess what that is NOT sk's.</blockquote>So, why do all of the high end raid guilds that posted parses on Hardmode and UD raids at the request of the developers on this forum ALL use either a SK, Paladin or Berserker as MT? Also, I believe only one raid had a Guardian in it and that was not the MT. I'd have to dig that thread up again but it was something like 80% SK, 15% Paladin and a Berserker ot two.Again, my perception is based on evidence presented on this forum. Your claim is invalid based on the player provided information.</blockquote>any real links to back this claim or is it your imagination ? <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>I think they removed that thread but it was there, you know it was there. Don't act like you didn't know about it. Every one seen it, unless you been under a rock.</blockquote>Well considering that the op is adding in dead servers to artificially inflate the numbers as shown, and is quite obvious... and the fact that most High end guilds are not going to pay attention to one solitary thread. there needs to be more credibility to this then just stateing trash <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>Most every high end raid posted in that thread as it was started by the class dev. His numbers about that thread are correct IIRC and I am sure i do.

Epehjr

01-20-2011, 05:24 PM

<cite>Istar@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>Well considering that the op is adding in dead servers to artificially inflate the numbers as shown, and is quite obvious... and the fact that most High end guilds are not going to pay attention to one solitary thread. there needs to be more credibility to this then just stateing trash <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>Credibility.. This coming from the person that supported the notion that /who was the accurate way to determine the population of a class on a specific server. You just need to give up.

DMIstar

01-20-2011, 05:27 PM

<cite>Epehjr@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Istar@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>Well considering that the op is adding in dead servers to artificially inflate the numbers as shown, and is quite obvious... and the fact that most High end guilds are not going to pay attention to one solitary thread. there needs to be more credibility to this then just stateing trash <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>Credibility.. This coming from the person that supported the notion that /who was the accurate way to determine the population of a class on a specific server. You just need to give up.</blockquote>Its the only accurate one that we have to even tell what is going on in game, rather then a screwed up database that has countless known flaws.A /who all can be proven and counted a fact, EQ2players database can't even be regarded as accurate information.

Tenka

01-20-2011, 06:31 PM

the same margin of error would be applied to all classes counted tho.

DMIstar

01-20-2011, 07:03 PM

Thats what can be assumed, However thats why i Posted the information on the merged server numbers. For that is not actually happening.I can only track to either that the new duplications crossovers are either being at the time of character login or account login. Not sure which, However I do know many profiles that are months from being active are not duplicated to their new parent server.In anycase this leaves the duplications being relative to the account use and this statistic would be completley random and untrackable. So there would be no comparison in the cases by case errors per class with this factor.again i encourage people to do thier own research and can goto eq2players and use "****" in the Name string which is how these numbers are being brought to you for these threads. You can see whats going on with it, with minor research to it.

Wasuna

01-20-2011, 07:32 PM

<cite>Istar@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>Thats what can be assumed, However thats why i Posted the information on the merged server numbers. For that is not actually happening.I can only track to either that the new duplications crossovers are either being at the time of character login or account login. Not sure which, However I do know many profiles that are months from being active are not duplicated to their new parent server.In anycase this leaves the duplications being relative to the account use and this statistic would be completley random and untrackable. So there would be no comparison in the cases by case errors per class with this factor.again i encourage people to do thier own research and can goto eq2players and use "****" in the Name string which is how these numbers are being brought to you for these threads. You can see whats going on with it, with minor research to it.</blockquote>So your saying that EQ2players isn't counting charachters from accounts that haven't been logged in in a long time... That's perfect. My numbers are level 90 only in an attempt to only show current active players.Thank you for further validating the numbers from EQ2players. I agree there are errors in any numbers that are available but the percentage is there to review, 275% variance from top to bottom. The only way this isn't a valid number, based on your comments above, is if SOE inflated the popultaion numbers just to screw with me.. which I seriouly doubt.

DMIstar

01-20-2011, 07:54 PM

<cite>Wasuna wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Istar@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>Thats what can be assumed, However thats why i Posted the information on the merged server numbers. For that is not actually happening.I can only track to either that the new duplications crossovers are either being at the time of character login or account login. Not sure which, However I do know many profiles that are months from being active are not duplicated to their new parent server.In anycase this leaves the duplications being relative to the account use and this statistic would be completley random and untrackable. So there would be no comparison in the cases by case errors per class with this factor.again i encourage people to do thier own research and can goto eq2players and use "****" in the Name string which is how these numbers are being brought to you for these threads. You can see whats going on with it, with minor research to it.</blockquote>So your saying that EQ2players isn't counting charachters from accounts that haven't been logged in in a long time... That's perfect. My numbers are level 90 only in an attempt to only show current active players.Thank you for further validating the numbers from EQ2players. I agree there are errors in any numbers that are available but the percentage is there to review, 275% variance from top to bottom. The only way this isn't a valid number, based on your comments above, is if SOE inflated the popultaion numbers just to screw with me.. which I seriouly doubt.</blockquote>Umm no, its duplicateing only the names that have logged in recently and not the names that havent, and only duplicates those from the dead servers that merged over and is why the numbers are off drastically as they are and includeing other instances that further pull them off base.

Landiin

01-20-2011, 08:27 PM

Wasuna

01-21-2011, 12:01 PM

<cite>Istar@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>Umm no, its duplicateing only the names that have logged in recently and not the names that havent, and only duplicates those from the dead servers that merged over and is why the numbers are off drastically as they are and includeing other instances that further pull them off base.</blockquote>Good. As you can see from the name of this topic. It's 'CURRENT" level 90 population. If you haven't logged in recently then you don't count. I'm hoping for a count that only includes actively played charachters. You should be happy. All of those level 90 SK's that people only leveled up to see how green the grass is were not counted. Imagine if they were counted... those numbers would have been unbelieveably bad for your prefered class. The current numebrs are just terribly bad.

AziBam

01-21-2011, 01:27 PM

/yawn Wasuna, I'll give you this, you are nothing if not persistent. I'd have to say that nobody, and nothing, has done more to explode the SK population than you have. Well, a few honorable mentions to Toranx, Gaylon, etc. I applaud you, Sir!The data clearly shows that there are more SKs than other fighters. Fortunately, I don't care enough to worry about whether it's accurate. It "feels" accurate to me. Course, that is all that it shows. Literally, that there are more SKs than the others. Anything else is just how we want to put our own personal spin on it. I've had an SK since shortly after launch so I suppose you could just say I'm biased and therefore I could go with the "more fun" or "roleplaying" or "the numbers aren't accurate themes you've already heard". I lived throughout the awful years where SKs literally couldn't do our basic job. More accurately, we had no job.The thing is, which tank is incapable of doing their job now? I don't mean last expansion, 3 years ago, launch, I mean now. Is it easier for an SK, paladin, or zerk to tank multiple mobs? Sure. Does the guard have tools to at least get the job done? Yes. I'm not claiming things are perfect. However, I'd argue that they are closer than they have ever been in terms of ability to get a tank job done. Just pointing at these numbers and then making the leap to them as the end all and be all of balance is not accurate. I know that nothing I've said is anything you haven't heard from others. Good news for me is that I'm kind of getting tired of the game in general so if they did make some kind of dramatic change (creating a big imbalance) it will make it all that much easier for me to just walk away altogether. Unfortunately for what you want, that might be true for many others as well. SOE is probably aware of that too.

Wasuna

01-21-2011, 02:14 PM

/yawn .. Another SK that talks about how they had to walk up hill both ways through the snow during summer to get to school.SK's were never broken. The other fighters just did the job better. Sounds kind of familar doesn't it?I've played my Guardian in beta and recreated him the day of relaease. I grouped with a SK for years from release and we swapped out the tanking job. He did just fine, I just did it better in the early years due to my class abilities. The healers didn't care which of us tanked. SK's were never broken, they just weren't the best and got left behind by most people.

Controlor

01-21-2011, 02:20 PM

<cite>Wasuna wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Controlor wrote:</cite><blockquote> For raids the better MT's are those that can handle spike damage and deagro the best. Guess what that is NOT sk's.</blockquote>So, why do all of the high end raid guilds that posted parses on Hardmode and UD raids at the request of the developers on this forum ALL use either a SK, Paladin or Berserker as MT? Also, I believe only one raid had a Guardian in it and that was not the MT. I'd have to dig that thread up again but it was something like 80% SK, 15% Paladin and a Berserker ot two.Again, my perception is based on evidence presented on this forum. Your claim is invalid based on the player provided information.</blockquote>I have gone though that thread yes. A lot of the parses were posted pre heal nerf where paladins were generally the MT because of their defensive capability being mitigated by their healing (namely their group heal for spike damage or their wards). Most of which used a Pally as the MT and a SK or Zerker as the OT. However i have seen also many threads where said high end guilds now use a guard (or have the guard) as the MT. The thing about raiding though is that guards just are not built for anything OTHER than MT vs the other 3 are more versatile. However that again is only a SMALL population. There are not 5k+ guilds out their doing HM content that EACH would be using a SK as a MT. No again my point is and was in the post that the reason you see those top numbers for those 3 is primarily due to healing. Healing = Survival in solo content. Healing = easier time in group content. Yes having "better" aoe agro in group content makes things faster which guards are hurting in. However you DONT need to room pull everything as a guard to still run through an instance fast. The vast majority of the population are casuals NOT guilds doing HM. And the ability to solo in treasured or legendary gear is a thing that SK / Zerker / Pally all do better then guards... BECAUSE they can heal. However again if you were to completely remove or change this mechanic than you would just get cookie cutter classes which are blah.*edit*And as to go back to a previous post on one of your other "hey lets nerf SK's fighter population" the ability to survive soloing or room pulling in groups = fun. Thus people play that class. If it is not the casuals than its alts. Hell I have seen an influx in my own guild of people leveling up SK's to 90 as alts because they are fun to solo with. And to change that part of them (their lifetaps) would basically change the class all together into a guard <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

DMIstar

01-21-2011, 02:34 PM

<cite>Toranx@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Istar@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>Umm no, its duplicateing only the names that have logged in recently and not the names that havent, and only duplicates those from the dead servers that merged over and is why the numbers are off drastically as they are and includeing other instances that further pull them off base.</blockquote>Where is your proof of this? I am pretty sure it queries a database. That database isn't populated by people logging in.</blockquote>First page goes over server population issues and not reflecting the correct numbers of what the server merge would have been. Last page of previous thread points out names that are not duplicated from the merge and that is just one page.... Very easy research~

AziBam

01-21-2011, 02:36 PM

<cite>Wasuna wrote:</cite><blockquote>/yawn .. Another SK that talks about how they had to walk up hill both ways through the snow during summer to get to school.</blockquote>Hrm, interesting that this is all you see. Oh well, w/e. Best of luck with your agenda.

Gilasil

01-22-2011, 01:41 AM

I love these threads and the way some people try to say black is white. Their talents are wasted here -- they ought to be lawyers. Even if there are large errors, unless someone can prove that they're SYSTEMATIC errors (i.e. boost ONLY SK pop) it looks pretty obvious to me.In a way though, these threads are pointless (other then for entertainment value and for that they're priceless). Whether you argue for or against it doesn't really matter. SoE most certainly has the exact population numbers. They don't need us telling them what the populations are.If SoE looks at their own accurate numbers and is able to delude themselves that they don't mean anything then no amount of fancy footwork on the part of posters is going to change their minds.So what it comes down to is -- will SoE set things right in SoV? Whether they will or whether they won't, the decision is made. At this point they're probably just chasing down the odd bugs and aren't about to do a major balancing revamp. What will be will be, at least for the next year.So even if nothing said on this thread is going to have an effect, I still love the contortions some people are going through as they think they're arguing to prevent a nerf on their class. They aren't but they're still quite entertaining.

Landiin

01-22-2011, 02:01 AM

As far as these population threads. They are fun simply because people try to use the fact that the numbers are not 100% correct. I agree, they are no where near 100% correct but they are the closes thing any one can get besides them with access to the char databases . Yes that is including /who all. The last plan I heard Smokejumper say, at least I think it was him that said it. Was that once DoV was out and going stable then they where going to work on class roles. He didn't say what kind of weight the project had or a time from just that it would be after DoV. So I really don't see any major changes on the class level coming with DoV. Yea tweeks here and there but nothing major.

Rahatmattata

01-22-2011, 01:03 PM

<cite>Costa@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>What i find most interesting is that all the fighter classes have seen an increase in lvl 90 numbers since you started these posts back on 1/12/10.Shadowknight's +1737Beserkers +1087Paladins +938Monk +763Brusier +762Guardian +627</blockquote>How is that interesting? That's normal and to be expected. People are hitting level 90 every day. Interesting would be if classes were shrinking which would mean more people are deleting their characters or betraying than hitting level 90....

Rahatmattata

01-22-2011, 01:07 PM

<cite>Primitive@Befallen wrote:</cite><blockquote>So fighter balance to you is the population number of each fighter class? /scratches head</blockquote>Gratz on being the first one in this thread.Gross population variances is one of many indicators of balance.

Rahatmattata

01-22-2011, 01:15 PM

<cite>Azian@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>I lived throughout the awful years where SKs literally couldn't do our basic job.</blockquote>Are you implying that shadowknights couldn't tank before TSO? I mean, if you wanna play that card that's cool and all, but you could literally swap the word shadowknight with the word guardian and apply this comment to TSO and beyond.Regardless of massive population differences, does anyone in this thread seriously think fighters are anywhere close to balanced? I guess if you play a shadowknight or you ignore solo/pvp/grouping/off-tanking/MT pharm status content because none of that sht matters, then you could say fighters are more balanced than they have ever been. But you have to discredit a lot of content and roles to legitimatley say that.

Controlor

01-22-2011, 04:11 PM

<cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Azian@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>I lived throughout the awful years where SKs literally couldn't do our basic job.</blockquote>Are you implying that shadowknights couldn't tank before TSO? I mean, if you wanna play that card that's cool and all, but you could literally swap the word shadowknight with the word guardian and apply this comment to TSO and beyond.Regardless of massive population differences, does anyone in this thread seriously think fighters are anywhere close to balanced? I guess if you play a shadowknight or you ignore solo/pvp/grouping/off-tanking/MT pharm status content because none of that sht matters, then you could say fighters are more balanced than they have ever been. But you have to discredit a lot of content and roles to legitimatley say that.</blockquote>Solo:No not "balanced". Again this has to do with the 3 plate tanks that are at the top have the ability to heal themselves (well for zerkers its also 50% dmg reduc), while having lots of aoe stuff. This is the mechanics of the classes as it stands and to change that would be basically making every class a cookie cutter.Group: Yesish. Any tank can hold agro just fine in group content. Almost all tanks can room pull (dont know how well monks or bruisers room pull. Guards can do it just fine if you cant as a guard then ask better guards how to play because i have seen it plenty of times and not in "uber gear" either. The issue of imbalance is when the fighters are all wearing treasured gear with only splotches of legendary. At this the ability for the fighters to help their healers heal themselves you then notice a difference again brawlers getting the worst of it because mit > avoid.PVP:No idea dont play it cant say anything on it.OT:Any tank can off tank any raid content. ANY TANK. This does not mean that they are all suited for it sure. Guards abilities dont really lead themselves to the OT roll. Brawlers are also more of a 3rd tank though i think its bruisers who can add snaps to a crap load of their CA's can make a good OT.MT:Any tank can MT any easy mode mobs. For HM mobs guards are better suited for dealing with the snap agro and spike damage over the other tanks. Though any tank can MT HM mobs (though it takes a REALLLLY geared out brawler to do it). Here it is pretty balanced.Basically it is like this.... Lower end there is an imbalance (Soloing and to a lesser extent Grouping) again this has to do with the fact that the 3 "most populated" ranks can keep themselves healed with solo and heroic mobs not hitting that hard. If a Guard or Brawler loads up on Stonewill gear though then it is relatively comparable. Still a bit skewed in the other 3's favor. Since the majority of people are casual's that would explain the influs in those 3 classes. However if you balance for the lower part of the game then the upper part gets all Fed up. And you go back to how it was pre RoK. You just cant balance for both Raid and Group / Solo. Not to mention if you were to change it it would mean to remove all life taps from SK's and Heals from paladins and that heal stuff from zerkers. This would change the classes around entirly and they would no longer be what they were intended to be.

Tenka

01-22-2011, 11:23 PM

there's no downside to being an aoe type tank. your single target numbers still hold up to or exceed single target type tanks on single target encounters.

Sir Darrack

01-23-2011, 05:41 PM

I really dont see what the point of this thread is.Are you trying to say that because there are more SKs created/played that makes them better than other fighters?Maybe people roll one and realise that its actually one hell of a fun class to play, add to that the fact lots of people dont join guilds/ groups and probebly chose a class that can solo very well.... again a SK.Then i suppose there are some Muppets that roll a SK just because thay are deemed 'OP' atm and flavor of the month, good luck on your next charactor when another class gets some love.And yes i played when SKs were useless too, didnt see anyone jumping on the band wagon then.Anyway i can see the nurse coming back with the needle again..........Be safe

Rahatmattata

01-24-2011, 01:06 AM

Wow, the general public really are dumb lemmings. I mean, this is nothing new... it's just sad to see it confirmed every day.

Raahl

01-25-2011, 12:09 PM

<cite>Wasuna wrote:</cite><blockquote>Level 90 Only, All servers, 1/20/11SK - 8,605Berserker - 4,930Paladin - 4,766Monk - 3,716Brusier - 3,656Guardian - 3,137I hope the expansion is trying to fix the Cluster-F they have made of fighter balance. Still a 275% variance from top to bottom.</blockquote>Keep up the good fight Wasuna! I'll be adding my Guardian to the level 90 list within the next week. When I get there, he will be shelved. Not only because of the imbalance, but because there is no real reason to have him as an OT in raids as there are far better classes to fill the non-MT slots and OT slot.Guess the only bonus to getting to 90 is the additional 10% bonus exp for my alts.

Tyrion

01-25-2011, 08:00 PM

<cite>Raahl wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Wasuna wrote:</cite><blockquote>Level 90 Only, All servers, 1/20/11SK - 8,605Berserker - 4,930Paladin - 4,766Monk - 3,716Brusier - 3,656Guardian - 3,137I hope the expansion is trying to fix the Cluster-F they have made of fighter balance. Still a 275% variance from top to bottom.</blockquote>Keep up the good fight Wasuna! I'll be adding my Guardian to the level 90 list within the next week. When I get there, he will be shelved. Not only because of the imbalance, but because there is no real reason to have him as an OT in raids as there are far better classes to fill the non-MT slots and OT slot.Guess the only bonus to getting to 90 is the additional 10% bonus exp for my alts.</blockquote>Yeah, I've played and raided on a Guardian rather consistently since the game came out, but I've finally retired him for good. Guardians are such a joke class compared to other fighters, and especially Crusaders/Berserkers. My new Pally is closing in on 80, and the difference in power is astounding. Self-cures, self CC breaks, a billion AoEs, e-z mode aggro. The list goes on, and I can only imagine what SKs are capable of.If these population numbers are even remotely accurate, it paints a telling picture of just how powerful Crusaders/Berserkers are relative to the other fighter classes. Even if exaggerated by rumors and stories, personal experience is now revealing to me just how huge a gap there is between "the most defensive tank in the game" and other tanks.

Trueblade

01-26-2011, 03:37 PM

dont see why haveing pop at berk for when pally better mt then Berk , if Berserker role is to OT & dps then he loses out to sk that useing shield over Berserker having to dw in dps stance lose not only to sk on dps we lost out on are def to as for population fighter is wrong just how many guard befor got there update reroll as Berserker ?same for pally beting 2k them now sk to All this guard QQ going on got ask your self when roll your toon was it for mting hard name ie raid alway been this way you cant say berserker dps that much better then guard can you , just not much in it & then it only when come to aoe mobs then we not best aoe class sk pally are only fix needed is Crusader runing around out dps both tank useing shield & weapon yet guard or zerk need be in dps stance dw it not close to same as sk if they get around to remaking sk stance that would go long way in fixing population sk around now you guys not asking for any class to be fix your asking for full out right nerf to all but own class you rolled class that was made to be best raid tank , it went down hill because we all lost are class armour now all tank are around same mit hp it all wrong you need be asking sony about [Removed for Content] poor tank armour around now days that my rant over back to rift <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Trueblade

01-26-2011, 03:47 PM

oh and why did not get your guard on quest become zerk if class op say is it noobs <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> then he go off level up pally lol right with you now .... have fun

Tenka

01-26-2011, 11:32 PM

lolwut ?

Rahatmattata

01-27-2011, 07:16 PM

<cite>Trueblade@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>oh and why did not get your guard on quest become zerk if class op say is it noobs <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>A lot of people have noob, that's one of the reasons guardian is the least played class in the game. Personally I betrayed to a zerker and then gave up entirely and rolled a shadowknight.

Gungo

01-28-2011, 07:36 PM

<cite>Tenka@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>there's no downside to being an aoe type tank. your single target numbers still hold up to or exceed single target type tanks on single target encounters.</blockquote>This is not trueGuardians parse higher single target dps then zerkersGuardians combat arts are HIGHER damage.As many have said before this thread is pointless. They show nothing of class balance.

Rahatmattata

01-28-2011, 10:12 PM

<cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Tenka@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>there's no downside to being an aoe type tank. your single target numbers still hold up to or exceed single target type tanks on single target encounters.</blockquote>This is not trueGuardians parse higher single target dps then zerkersGuardians combat arts are HIGHER damage.As many have said before this thread is pointless. They show nothing of class balance.</blockquote>And half of guardian's abilities are temp buffs, aggro tools, and defensive abilities.As many have said before your posts are pointless. They show nothing of even a sliver of intelligence.

Tenka

01-30-2011, 12:42 AM

<cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Tenka@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>there's no downside to being an aoe type tank. your single target numbers still hold up to or exceed single target type tanks on single target encounters.</blockquote>This is not trueGuardians parse higher single target dps then zerkersGuardians combat arts are HIGHER damage.As many have said before this thread is pointless. They show nothing of class balance.</blockquote>i'm a zerk looking to switch to guard, and i'm gonna tell you, that guard ca's don't do more damage than zerk ca's. they just don't. numbers don't lie. they just don't. guard can easily equal zerk on single target tho. but, if you put 2 eq maniacs on eq, 1 zerk and 1 guard, the zerk would parse higher by smidge single target.

JoarAddam

01-31-2011, 12:50 PM

there's 1 million people that play the swashbuckler class. They need a nerf... take out at least half of their dps... I'd tell you to see links below, but I decided not to post them. It's good enough to tell you that I SAW THEM and therefore it must be true.Anyone having fun with their class shouldn't be allowed to play. If this game isn't work, your resignation from the game is required immediately.

Gungo

01-31-2011, 09:14 PM

<cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Tenka@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>there's no downside to being an aoe type tank. your single target numbers still hold up to or exceed single target type tanks on single target encounters.</blockquote>This is not trueGuardians parse higher single target dps then zerkersGuardians combat arts are HIGHER damage.As many have said before this thread is pointless. They show nothing of class balance.</blockquote>And half of guardian's abilities are temp buffs, aggro tools, and defensive abilities.As many have said before your posts are pointless. They show nothing of even a sliver of intelligence.</blockquote>Do you honestly think you make any sense with your ramblings? Guardians share most of thier buffs with zerkers. Thier combat arts DO in fact have a higher max hit. The post i quoted isnt even remotely correct. I honestly didnt expect a half wit as yourself to understand an intelligent conversation in the first place.

The_Cheeseman

02-01-2011, 12:46 AM

What makes me so happy is to see that in this thread about fighter balance, most people either don't know enough about brawlers to make a comment, or just seem to not consider brawlers tanks at all. People get heated when defending Guardians, but it almost seems like Monks and Bruisers have been written off entirely, and don't even warrant a response. Ahh, feel the love.

Tenka

02-01-2011, 02:42 AM

<cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Tenka@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>there's no downside to being an aoe type tank. your single target numbers still hold up to or exceed single target type tanks on single target encounters.</blockquote>This is not trueGuardians parse higher single target dps then zerkersGuardians combat arts are HIGHER damage.As many have said before this thread is pointless. They show nothing of class balance.</blockquote>And half of guardian's abilities are temp buffs, aggro tools, and defensive abilities.As many have said before your posts are pointless. They show nothing of even a sliver of intelligence.</blockquote>Do you honestly think you make any sense with your ramblings? Guardians share most of thier buffs with zerkers. Thier combat arts DO in fact have a higher max hit. The post i quoted isnt even remotely correct. I honestly didnt expect a half wit as yourself to understand an intelligent conversation in the first place.</blockquote>i'm zerk atm, and i'm looking at guard masters trying to figure out how much money i need to switch over. i don't see why guard spells would display wrong for me, and they are trended to lower damage than my current zerk spells. i think decimate was the only guard spell that caught my eye for just being better.

Rahatmattata

02-01-2011, 11:22 AM

<cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Tenka@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>there's no downside to being an aoe type tank. your single target numbers still hold up to or exceed single target type tanks on single target encounters.</blockquote>This is not trueGuardians parse higher single target dps then zerkersGuardians combat arts are HIGHER damage.As many have said before this thread is pointless. They show nothing of class balance.</blockquote>And half of guardian's abilities are temp buffs, aggro tools, and defensive abilities.As many have said before your posts are pointless. They show nothing of even a sliver of intelligence.</blockquote>Do you honestly think you make any sense with your ramblings? Guardians share most of thier buffs with zerkers. Thier combat arts DO in fact have a higher max hit. The post i quoted isnt even remotely correct. I honestly didnt expect a half wit as yourself to understand an intelligent conversation in the first place.</blockquote>Zerkers have 14 abilities that do no damage or don't increase personal dps, guardians have 22.13 if you want to count their group wide strength buff as something that increases personal damage (I did not).Nice fail there champ.

Aull

02-01-2011, 11:22 PM

<cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite><blockquote>What makes me so happy is to see that in this thread about fighter balance, most people either don't know enough about brawlers to make a comment, or just seem to not consider brawlers tanks at all. People get heated when defending Guardians, but it almost seems like Monks and Bruisers have been written off entirely, and don't even warrant a response. Ahh, feel the love.</blockquote>It is hard enough to try and achieve this so called balance with just four plate tanks. Throwing in another two fighters such as brawlers into that mix has made it all the more tougher. This has been the bane for fighters in eq2 cause six of them are to many.One thing that comes to mind for many players are that plate tanks can tank most content in offensive stance where a brawler must use defensive stance just to be as successful as the plates.Brawlers sacrifice to much just to be tanks where plates for the most part don't have a down side. Well unless your are a guardian.

Wasuna

02-03-2011, 01:23 PM

<cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite><blockquote>What makes me so happy is to see that in this thread about fighter balance, most people either don't know enough about brawlers to make a comment, or just seem to not consider brawlers tanks at all. People get heated when defending Guardians, but it almost seems like Monks and Bruisers have been written off entirely, and don't even warrant a response. Ahh, feel the love.</blockquote>When Brawlers hit the bottom of the list then your can complain about being at the bottom. If your class has issues then don't let me stand in your way of trying to get it fixed.The difference here is that I haven't given up and have weathered the idiot storms... Everybody here knows the posted numbers are not 100% accurate but that they are representative of what is present in the game. Those that argue that the numbers are not accurate are actually SK's... .funny how you can look people up on EQ2Players and get real information.

Gungo

02-03-2011, 09:19 PM

<cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Tenka@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>there's no downside to being an aoe type tank. your single target numbers still hold up to or exceed single target type tanks on single target encounters.</blockquote>This is not trueGuardians parse higher single target dps then zerkersGuardians combat arts are HIGHER damage.As many have said before this thread is pointless. They show nothing of class balance.</blockquote>And half of guardian's abilities are temp buffs, aggro tools, and defensive abilities.As many have said before your posts are pointless. They show nothing of even a sliver of intelligence.</blockquote>Do you honestly think you make any sense with your ramblings? Guardians share most of thier buffs with zerkers. Thier combat arts DO in fact have a higher max hit. The post i quoted isnt even remotely correct. I honestly didnt expect a half wit as yourself to understand an intelligent conversation in the first place.</blockquote>Zerkers have 14 abilities that do no damage or don't increase personal dps, guardians have 22.13 if you want to count their group wide strength buff as something that increases personal damage (I did not).Nice fail there champ.</blockquote>Chump, your post would make sense if it referred to my post. Again Guardian abilities HIT HARDER. SO they have a higher ability mod cap and a slew of several other reasons why mechanically they have a higher single target dps then zerkers.Try again special ed.

Tenka

02-04-2011, 01:29 AM

no dude. they don't hit harder. unless 2 or more ppl come in here and tell me that a zerk inspecting guardian masters isn't getting accurate numbers, then just no. i checked the broker just now. and no. it's kind of as moot point tho. warriors don't parse with ca's. that's el oh el. auto-atk > procs > couple ca's > more procs > the rest of your ca's

Tenka

02-04-2011, 01:33 AM

p.s. what separates a zerk from a guard mechanically as far as dps ? they both use essentially the exact same gear/weapons. so afaik it's just auto atk and procs versus auto atk and procs, and there is no aa to make a guard better at auto atks than a zerk. afaik.

Rahatmattata

02-04-2011, 04:26 AM

<cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Chump, your post would make sense if it referred to my post. Again Guardian abilities HIT HARDER. SO they have a higher ability mod cap and a slew of several other reasons why mechanically they have a higher single target dps then zerkers.Try again special ed.</blockquote>Normally I would lol at such stupidity, but this is just /facepalm. Just stop posting before you further embarrass yourself kiddo.

Raahl

02-07-2011, 10:40 AM

One more level 90 Guardian on the shelf.On to my Ranger.

Wasuna

02-07-2011, 01:14 PM

Berserkers will do a bit more DPS single target, on average, than a Guardian and will do large amounts more DPS on multiple targets over a Guardian due to their 100% AoE autoattack.Gungo coming here and saying that Guardian CA's hit harder and using that as a fact to define that Guardians have higher single target DPS is wrong. Do Guardian CA's hit harder? No clue and it really means nothing. Cast time, refresh time, to hit modifier and hit amount all have to be factored in.Parses have proven that Berserkers have a slight advantage over Guardians in single target DPS. That is based on provided evidence, not my own warped view of what should define DPS.

Oneira

02-08-2011, 08:31 AM

<cite>Wasuna wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite><blockquote>What makes me so happy is to see that in this thread about fighter balance, most people either don't know enough about brawlers to make a comment, or just seem to not consider brawlers tanks at all. People get heated when defending Guardians, but it almost seems like Monks and Bruisers have been written off entirely, and don't even warrant a response. Ahh, feel the love.</blockquote>When Brawlers hit the bottom of the list then your can complain about being at the bottom. If your class has issues then don't let me stand in your way of trying to get it fixed.The difference here is that I haven't given up and have weathered the idiot storms... Everybody here knows the posted numbers are not 100% accurate but that they are representative of what is present in the game. Those that argue that the numbers are not accurate are actually SK's... .funny how you can look people up on EQ2Players and get real information.</blockquote>Actually when it comes to tanking both brawlers ARE at the bottom of the list. Who in their right mind is going to take a monk or bruiser over a guardian or any of the other 3 tanks?And what's more, brawlers used to be top dps fighter class, given their less than stellar tanking role, which made for some kind of balance, but that's been long gone as well. Zerkers and SKs do waayyy more damage than brawlers.So yes, Guards have their place at the bottom of the list, but you're there along with us brawlers.

Aull

02-08-2011, 10:21 AM

<cite>Oneira wrote:</cite><blockquote>Actually when it comes to tanking both brawlers ARE at the bottom of the list. Who in their right mind is going to take a monk or bruiser over a guardian or any of the other 3 tanks?And what's more, brawlers used to be top dps fighter class, given their less than stellar tanking role, which made for some kind of balance, but that's been long gone as well. Zerkers and SKs do waayyy more damage than brawlers.So yes, Guards have their place at the bottom of the list, but you're there along with us brawlers.</blockquote>I agree. While brawlers have made leaps and bounds as far as tanking goes they are still at the bottom. I do also agree that years ago brawler dps was greater than the sk or zerkers dps. It was a so called trade off. Since the brawler cannot survive as well they in turn did more damage.Brawler defensive stances outshine their offensive stance is a big portion of the problem. I had my bruiser tanking the other night and dps increase going fully offensive was very minor. Ten percent at the highest. However when I remained fully defensive in gear and stance my damage was almost as good as my offense but my survival was hands and fists higher.Defensively brawlers have made up some good ground its just their offensive has lacked attention where fighters such as the sk and zerker has seen increases in both departments in the last two expansions.

Tenka

02-08-2011, 09:55 PM

not like it's really even possible to balance an avoidance tank. avoidance tank. ha. on the list of bad ideas, that one is way up there. 70% mit and 30% avoid on a plate tank vs 70% avoid and 30% mit on an avoidance tank sounds spiffy on paper but inherently won't work when the avoidance tank gets hit 3 times in a row. that's why they are just dialing up the mit on brawlers. avoidance is staying the same tho. brawlers will never be balanced as tanks. they will either be OP or [Removed for Content] side.

gatrm

02-11-2011, 07:57 PM

I'm not going to argue the population numbers. Even though it's known that the data found in EQ2players is flawed.....It's flawed for everyone equally, so it probably isn't affecting the percentages or the curve if the data were graphed.That being said, the numbers are meaningless. They do not prove that any class is overpowered or underpowered. Simply overpopulated or underpopulated.Wasuna and the other guards posting argue that since the SK population is so much higher, then they are vastly overpowered. By that reasoning, we should all be playing WoW because clearly it is the better game right? I mean if something has a higher population, then it MUST be better. But, EQ2 is a better game. It's more fun, even with all the dumbing down SOE has committed. Guardians are kinda bleh. They are your standard run of the mill classical warrior that takes a beating well, a stalwart barrier of sorts. They don't do anything fun or flashy. Give them something special they can do that some how makes them shine, and you may see the population shifting. SK's have more lore going for them. People like to RP that evil life-stealing dark knight. It's romantic. It's fun and flashy. Even back when SK's were somewhat underpowered, they were well populated. It has never been an underpopulated class because it is romantic and sparks the imagination. And yes, pre-TSO sk's were underpowered. They had to choose between holding aggro and taking a hit. Only brawlers among the other tank classes have to make that choice. Like brawlers, the good sk's were able to tank well enough pre-tso. There are any number of reasons people may roll an SK instead of a guardian. It would be far more telling if you gave us a list of those who play SK as main vs those who play Guardian as main. People are much more likely to roll that fun, romantic, cool class as an alt rather than the boring, staunch, clean cut class as an alt. I am quite certain that there are many people who have started an SK because they believed all the threads about them being overpowered. They get to 90, realize they can't magically push an "I win" button, and even if they manage to get into a group, they are looking for another tank to handle the tanking duties in a group. I have seen in level chat the popular "lf tank for..." and I do a /who on the person saying it and it's an SK. So yeah, just cause someone manages to get the sk to 90 doesn't mean he's any good at playing the class, and it doesn't mean the class is overpowered- just more popular.For those of you discounting any content other than the HM raid content, be aware that a very small portion of the player base actually plays against and has success against that HM content. The vast majority plays against the content you believe does not matter.Bottom line is that among the plate tanks, there is not one who cannot do the job of MT or OT. It's not the class balance that needs to be looked into, but the FUN balance.

Rahatmattata

02-11-2011, 09:34 PM

GG playin the RP card.

Lark42

02-11-2011, 09:37 PM

@gatrmI'm curious -- Why do you think the Shadowknight population exploded and continued to grow exponentially since the big changes which made them supposedly "overpowered"?And by the way...I'm not hearing anyone say that the population size and growth rate of Shadowknights are definitive evidence of them being overpowered, merely, that it may serve as an indicator for class imbalance.Demographics can be an EXCELLENT indicator of trends and used to help understand why there are differences in distribution. We cannot ignore the possibility that the trend we are seeing is due to class imbalance. It's entirely possible.On PvP Servers, class imbalance was extremely apparent early on. The sheer number of Rogues and Predators on the server was immensely ridiculous. If you took a look at the PvP scorings at the time, you had to go through pages upon pages of Brigands, Assassins, and Rangers who topped the titles/kills/KvD charts. And no, it wasn't simply because there were more represented in the population =P. There was a flat out MAJOR imbalance in the classes for sometime (anyone remember when Furies gained the ability to run at 80% runspeed in combat and all the low lvl furies there ended up being during the Faydwer era?). Given the highly competitive nature of PvP servers, class imbalances are readily jumped upon by the community and exploited for all they are worth.Practically everyone on PvP servers at the moment recognize Shadowoknights as a /faceroll class, meaning, to be successful at that class, all you have to do is roll your face against the keyboard. This isn't to say there aren't experienced Shadowknight players (I know several). Just that there appears to be a hefty imbalance in favor of SKs.

Rahatmattata

02-11-2011, 09:39 PM

Overpopulation doesn't necessarily indicate a class is overpowered.... but the opposite is true as well: overpowered classes tend to be overpopulated.

Aull

02-12-2011, 03:44 PM

Sk's are "THE" dominate fighter class and have been since TSO. Guardians that were able to achieve their mythical back in ROK were awesome but that was only the guardians that were in guilds that had the capability to get it. So not every guardian in ROK was awesome. Just the guards who had their myths. Yet they still got nerfed anyway.Since TSO sk's as an entire fighter class became what a limited number of mythed guardians in were ROK. Now sks no matter what stage of play is being considered are in fact level for level, gear for gear, and aa for aa are better than the other fighters hands down. No other fighter has the combination of survival, utility, dps, and soloability that shadow knights provide. I guess it was wrong for guardians to be powerful and for some reason it is justifiable for sk's to become and reamin that way. That is why shadow knights are the most popular.Just because a limited number of guardians were blessed with an awesome mythical ability should have never constituted for the entire guardian class to suffer while sk's become blessed far beyond just a mythical ability and continue to be so powerful.Sure sk numbers have never been that low but I do support the belief that sk populations soared above all the other fighters since TSO.

Gilasil

02-13-2011, 08:27 PM

As I recall, during RoK guardians were considered op whereas SKs and brawlers were considered pretty much worthless on these boards, at least for tanking. I remember once mentioning that, when our regular guardian couldn't make it, we let an SK tank Hate and and was met with a lot of ridicule that a wizard could tank Hate.Looks to me like the devs overcompensated when they set out to fix SKs.

Aull

02-13-2011, 09:26 PM

The only guardians that were op in ROK were again those few that were in guilds capable of getting the mythical. Not all guardians had the mythical of that time. The guardian as the class itself was not overpowering but it was what the mythical made them.Sk's were buffed from the abilities standpoint and buffed well. I play an sk and yes sk's did at the time need some buffage but not in the magnitude they received.Since sk's have not been toned down I do think SOE owes the guardians a hugh apology.

gatrm

02-14-2011, 07:09 PM

Lark-Everyone talked about them being strong. A lot of people rolled simply because it was the "in thing". They then couldn't hold their own, and often still can't. I rolled a coercer during RoK after seeing what a guildy was able to do with it. I was amazed and impressed at what he could solo. I wasn't very good with the coercer and couldn't kill the same stuff he could- I wasn't patient enough. I think a lot of people rolled SK after tso changes for a similar reason. Even though my coercer is now 90, i rarely play him. How many people have SKs at 90 that they have shelved for the same reasons? We don't know because the numbers don't show that information.I don't know about pvp, can't comment on it other to say that it's not for me. I play to unwind and relieve stress not to get stressed.I am not adverse to guardians being buffed up. They do seem to be the red headed stepchild at the moment, much like SK pre tso. The other three plate tanks are better balanced with one another then they have ever been. I realize that at the very top end of gear, guardians defensive stats are so far into diminishing returns that their defensive buffs do not provide benefit to them. Change those buffs to be more like the WoE chestplate- I.E. reduce x% of incoming damage. That way Guards will always have the edge in survivability, regardless of gear available to all plate tanks. Guards already have something that can prevent dmg to a group mate, but maybe give them an ae buff with a 5 min reuse that lasts for 20s that serves as a group stoneskin causing all damage prevented to be converted to hate for the guard. My primary annoyance with Wasuna and a few others is that they incessantly complain about imbalance and cry about the population differences rather than make suggestions for improving the class that they play.

Lark42

02-14-2011, 08:24 PM

@gatrmFirst off, thanks for the reply =) I like hearing everybody's ideas on the SK population thing. It's definitely an issue widely recognized by the player database, however very few people can seem to entirely agree on any particular point (although there is general agreement that SKs are OP'd atm).As far as your SK and Coercer comparison, I'd wager that the degree of focus and proficiency required to play a powerful Coercer is higher than that of your basic Shadowknight. As I've mentioned on other posts, on PvP servers the Shadowknight class is considered so easy to PvP with that all you need to do to win is "faceroll", or roll your face across the keyboard. Coercers are recognized as VERY powerful on PvP servers, however, they require meticulously planned strategy to win a fight as the Coercer can be quickly dispatched if the enemy breaks out of your control effects before you have a chance to "prep them for the kill". Shadowknights are recognized as having no particular weakness in PvP yet possessing numerous strengths (except Track). In fact, the most common class I encounter in PvP while soloing are by far Shadowknights. And you want to know the most common duo I seem to find when soloing? Two Shadowknights (I'm not exagerrating here!).On the Guardian issue, they need no help in PvP. They are one of the most frustrating classes to deal with in PvP, especially when they have full toughness and are groupped. They are nigh-unkillable and can keep entire groups of people locked on them for long periods of time . If you want to even have a chance of targetting another person, you will need to stop attacking to avoid their passive taunt proc and pray to Marr that the Guardian doesn't taunt you with their active taunts before you get a chance to attack someone else. Even then, you will probably have your target cleared/changed the second you beat on a group member of the Guardian since they can place de-taunt/taunt procs on other members. While I think the ability of Guardians to "lock-down" other players in PvP combat is a totally awesome characteristic of the class, the power of their passive taunts/de-taunts is completely absurd (PvP against one and you will see exactly what I mean).Aggro and Guardians in PvE is a whole other story. I've beat this topic to death in <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=494247" target="_blank">this thread</a> already. Join in on the conversation because this topic applies to all Fighters.

DMIstar

02-14-2011, 10:28 PM

<cite>Gilasil wrote:</cite><blockquote>As I recall, during RoK guardians were considered op whereas SKs and brawlers were considered pretty much worthless on these boards, at least for tanking. I remember once mentioning that, when our regular guardian couldn't make it, we let an SK tank Hate and and was met with a lot of ridicule that a wizard could tank Hate.Looks to me like the devs overcompensated when they set out to fix SKs. </blockquote>This pretty much summed the path of the crusaders where in anything pre TSO, The entire itemization track was never properly upkept, Gear failed on many levels other then the Highest Tier, Which in RoK was VP gear ~ Demongaurd and below was a complete joke. TSO was nothing more then a patch fix at the time to include specific stated gear for the crusaders on the shard merchants, since the warriors scaleing was rediculous in ROK.

Rahatmattata

02-15-2011, 03:21 PM

circusgirl

02-15-2011, 09:40 PM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Oneira wrote:</cite><blockquote>Actually when it comes to tanking both brawlers ARE at the bottom of the list. Who in their right mind is going to take a monk or bruiser over a guardian or any of the other 3 tanks?And what's more, brawlers used to be top dps fighter class, given their less than stellar tanking role, which made for some kind of balance, but that's been long gone as well. Zerkers and SKs do waayyy more damage than brawlers.So yes, Guards have their place at the bottom of the list, but you're there along with us brawlers.</blockquote>I agree. While brawlers have made leaps and bounds as far as tanking goes they are still at the bottom. I do also agree that years ago brawler dps was greater than the sk or zerkers dps. It was a so called trade off. Since the brawler cannot survive as well they in turn did more damage.Brawler defensive stances outshine their offensive stance is a big portion of the problem. I had my bruiser tanking the other night and dps increase going fully offensive was very minor. Ten percent at the highest. However when I remained fully defensive in gear and stance my damage was almost as good as my offense but my survival was hands and fists higher.Defensively brawlers have made up some good ground its just their offensive has lacked attention where fighters such as the sk and zerker has seen increases in both departments in the last two expansions.</blockquote>Honestly, when I go full defensive I feel pretty confident holding my own as a monk against any equally geared plate tank out there defensively. The place where I feel frustrated is the imbalance between my defensive and offensive stances--The fact that all of my uncontested avoidance is attached to my defensive stance means that I can either tank, or I can dps. I can't really take an intermediate path. I can take damage as well as a plate tank if I focus all of my effort there, but I can't do high-level dps and tank simultaneously, like zerks and SKs can.

Aull

02-15-2011, 10:17 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Honestly, when I go full defensive I feel pretty confident holding my own as a monk against any equally geared plate tank out there defensively. The place where I feel frustrated is the imbalance between my defensive and offensive stances--The fact that all of my uncontested avoidance is attached to my defensive stance means that I can either tank, or I can dps. I can't really take an intermediate path. I can take damage as well as a plate tank if I focus all of my effort there, but I can't do high-level dps and tank simultaneously, like zerks and SKs can.</blockquote>I couldn't agree more. Defensively I am more than pleased with what has become of my bruiser and my monk. I really couldn't ask for more defensively.It is the imbalance that I am frustrated with as well. Doing about the same damage offensively as a zerker or sk but with far lesser survival to me should constitute for a monk or bruiser to do more damage than a plate tank that can dish out just as much damage and still have a survival edge.

Lark42

02-15-2011, 10:31 PM

I've noticed this same contrast while tanking with my Monk. It appears the tanking ability of Brawlers is entirely tied to their Defensive stance, unlike the Plate tanks. This difference clearly interferes with the ability of Brawlers to blend their offensive and defensive traits together. This is an especially sad state when one considers that many people conceptualize Brawlers as the tanks which can pummel the enemy (dealing solid amounts of damage) while also possessing the ability to tank (albeit, they would give up some defense to achieve this combination of traits). It is ironic that, of the tank classes, Brawlers are the LEAST capable of achieving this blend (Yes, I know Brawlers have a mixed stance, but it lacks Strikethrough immunity and provides much lower uncontested avoidance. Brawlers are inviable as tanks in a high end raid situation unless they are D-stance).So, how do we fix this? Here's my idea...I believe Brawlers should have a considerable amount of uncontested avoidance that is is not associated with any stance. With the bulk of their uncontested avoidance being independent of their stance, the stances could then add differential amounts of uncontested avoidance on top of that, achieving roughly the same uncontested avoidance as before in defensive and mixed stance while retaining an appreciable amount of uncontested in offensive stance.This change would also make the transition between our stances seamless, as we wouldn't be transitioning between a completely defenseless stance to a massively defended stance. As it stands, transitioning between offensive to defensive stance can get you killed quickly if you are not super-fast to change your stance when you suddenly have to snap aggro off of someone. I feel such an improvement would help smooth out some tanking issues for Brawlers. If you do too, let everyone know and together we can petition the Developers to consider making this change.<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Honestly, when I go full defensive I feel pretty confident holding my own as a monk against any equally geared plate tank out there defensively. The place where I feel frustrated is the imbalance between my defensive and offensive stances--The fact that all of my uncontested avoidance is attached to my defensive stance means that I can either tank, or I can dps. I can't really take an intermediate path. I can take damage as well as a plate tank if I focus all of my effort there, but I can't do high-level dps and tank simultaneously, like zerks and SKs can.</blockquote>

AziBam

02-16-2011, 01:02 PM

<cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>gatrm wrote:</cite><blockquote>My primary annoyance with Wasuna and a few others is that they incessantly complain about imbalance and cry about the population differences rather than make suggestions for improving the class that they play. </blockquote>Hi, you must be new to the fighter boards. Wasuna and "the others" have made hundreds of posts regarding suggestions, tank balance, fixes, nerfs, etc, over the past couple years.My primary annoyance with you and a few others is even though you actually agree fighters are not balanced, you want to sit here and argue about it anyway.</blockquote>Heya gatrm. /wave I recognize that name. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Rahat, the thing is, that's not really accurate. If you actually glance over the last couple years posts you'll see about a 50 to 1 ratio of nerf SK posts to "hey, we should do this to help guardians." (At least) Hence the point gatrm was making. To make it worse, in many of the threads that actually ARE intended to benefit guardians, it's something along the lines of "FIX US NOW!!!!!!"How about this, I think it would be a great idea for guardians to have access to something similar to the Crusader endline AA Cavalier's Shout. <a href="http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/Cavalier%27s_Shout " target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/Cavalier%27s_Shout </a> It's a sustained aggro type ability. It can generate very solid amounts of threat to the tank for the encounter. I'll admit, when I first saw it I kind of thought, really? We got this instead of guardians? (Seriously thought that.) Or, find a way to put that type of ability into a more general fighter line, rather than just crusaders.Maybe I'm way off base with that type of suggestion. For all I know, you guys (guardians) don't even really want more encounter aggro. Maybe your concern is something completely different. What you need seems to get washed out in the SK venom from so many posts and threads. Btw, I can't say that is exclusive to guardians. All of the fighter classes are a pretty contentious, argumentative, territory-hording, poo-flinging bunch. That is the result of poor game design with too many tank classes and too few spots for them.Course, this all may be a moot point with a new xpac coming. I've heard some rumblings but don't know the big picture of how fighters will look soon. We might all suck soon. I didn't participate in beta and haven't spent any time looking for the brand new lifted NDA info.

Wasuna

02-16-2011, 03:13 PM

<cite>gatrm wrote:</cite><blockquote>My primary annoyance with Wasuna and a few others is that they incessantly complain about imbalance and cry about the population differences rather than make suggestions for improving the class that they play. </blockquote>Thank you for the generally polite response. As said above, suggestions, data, wishes, wants, needs and imbalances have been posted for a couple of years now. Spend a bit of time to go research those if you feel you need to, but please quit blaming me for there actually being an issue and claming that I'm suppose to be a good solider and only voice compliants when I have a solution. Those have been posted a dozen times by people that have done much more work evaluating the situation that I ever have and it has all been ignored. All I'm doing is trying to not let it get swept under the rug as it has multiple times when people gave up and left the game over the last 2 years.