Change needed for ALL Fighter Defensive stances... [Archive]

Bruener

03-10-2011, 05:52 PM

<cite>Megavolt@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Simple, really. All Fighter defensive stances need to be given the immune to strike-thru ability. The initial difference needed for not having this on other Fighter defensive stances is no longer a valid one and really it would push the Defensive stance into a much more useful stance for all Fighters to use while tanking.Furthermore, a lot of abilities that other classes have that have become extremely less effective due to being able to be struck thru. Dragoons, Furor, Stonewall, etc.Curious to see how others feel about this, and I recommend being careful the can of worms you open discussing though.</blockquote>Oh so they made the mitigation of leather the same as plate? +mit now is a base increaser instead of your current mit? Brawlers got hit the hardest by the +mit change, and further by the dropping of agi affecting avoidance. I'd have no problem with this as long as they put all plate tanks in leather.</blockquote>This statement is completely false, which is why I brought this up. There is definitely no clear mitigation boost for Plate fighters at the moment, especially considering the damage reduction given to non-Plates to compensate less mitigation (even though there is no gap).The strike-thru mechanic makes too many abilities very ineffective that were designed without strike-thru in mind.The mitigation gap is non-existent...the avoidance gap should definitely be a lot closer now.

Raviel

03-10-2011, 05:54 PM

i'd rather see strikethrough immunity added to those temp buffs themselves (i.e. add strikethrough immuntiy to dragoons, furor, stonewall) so that those abilities work as intended. permanent strikethrough immunity is asking for a bit much though.

Bruener

03-10-2011, 05:55 PM

<cite>Raviel@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote>i'd rather see strikethrough immunity added to those temp buffs themselves (i.e. add strikethrough immuntiy to dragoons, furor, stonewall) so that those abilities work as intended. permanent strikethrough immunity is asking for a bit much though.</blockquote>Please see my post above. There are already some tanks rocking exactly that.

circusgirl

03-10-2011, 07:15 PM

Uh....how about not. Immunity to strikethrough is the only thing that keeps our avoidance above plate tanks. As things currently stand you guys already have both more mit and more uncontested avoidance than brawlers when we compare things in offensive stance.

Ironcleaver

03-10-2011, 08:53 PM

Raw mitigation is worth the least of all the defences this pack - even THEN advoidance tanks are not all that far behind (and some have more) then most the plate tanks (outside guards). I personally dropped from 74.5% mit to about 65% mit, I have seen advoidance tanks with 65% and some with 70% mit running around. Not an issue really, but again plate advoidance numbers are half an advoidance tanks. The key to velious tanking is uncontested block and crit mit. Mitigation is on a super heavy curve, crit mit has no curve.Now we are seeing raid mobs with 100% strikethough which dose bypasses a lot of the "oh crap" buttons/saves for a lot of classes.I'm happy advoidance tanks are doing well, hell they seem to have all the toys, but that dosen't mean there still can't be some adjustments for the other tanks in the game.I'm all for the stances to accually mean something.

Gungo

03-11-2011, 04:23 PM

I rather see xelgad remove the immunity from strikethrough on brawler defensive stance and just make most avoidance buffs strikethrough immune, in example DODGE instead of parry/riposte/block. Instead xelgad should just give brawlers a 25% chance to resist strikethrough on defensive stance. Strikethrough is the ONLY way raid mobs can contest uncontested avoidance and giving every tank strikethrough immunity will make the game worse off in the long run. And yes i do think total strikethrough immunity will become overpowered eventually even for brawlers. When mobs were strikethroughing only 25% of the time it wasnt a major issue, now that raid mobs can strikethrough 50% or more it will become a problem.

Ryai

03-31-2011, 03:03 AM

Strikethrough immunity needs to remain brawler only. Every tank should never have been given a Tsunami effect to begin with. All of those effects should be rethought if they are to be applicable to hard content. Brawler strikethrough immunity is a class defining ability. It needs to remain only with them.This is the same logic that says every tank should be able to stoneskin, heal and aoe dps. They should not be able to do everything. They should all have times where they have their moments and all need their weakness or else you end up with massive imbalances and TSO/SF all over again.

Landiin

03-31-2011, 03:56 PM

Don't forget who the OP is, he is in his words the best SK world wide. He knows best no?

Jerma

03-31-2011, 09:04 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Uh....how about not. Immunity to strikethrough is the only thing that keeps our avoidance above plate tanks. As things currently stand you guys already have both more mit and more uncontested avoidance than brawlers when we compare things in offensive stance.</blockquote>Not sure who you are comparing to but you are mistaken. Take my guild for example when you compare myself an SK and our monk both similar lvl of raid gear, i have a whole 300 more mitigation then our monk. Yet, the monk has 40ish more avoidance then i do. How is that balanced?? Those stats are based off self buffed ungrouped

Ryai

04-01-2011, 03:41 AM

<cite>Nunya@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>Not sure who you are comparing to but you are mistaken. Take my guild for example when you compare myself an SK and our monk both similar lvl of raid gear, i have a whole 300 more mitigation then our monk. Yet, the monk has 40ish more avoidance then i do. How is that balanced?? Those stats are based off self buffed ungrouped</blockquote>I'm willing to bet you aren't spec'd at all for mitigation in items and adornments, but rather full dps/pot/cb gear. That's where the difference comes in. Monks have to purchase all those aa's to get them even close to the same levels of mitigation, aa's that you are free to increase other abilities with. But you are most likely choosing not to use those items so that you have a higher parse.

circusgirl

04-01-2011, 10:55 AM

<cite>Nunya@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Uh....how about not. Immunity to strikethrough is the only thing that keeps our avoidance above plate tanks. As things currently stand you guys already have both more mit and more uncontested avoidance than brawlers when we compare things in offensive stance.</blockquote>Not sure who you are comparing to but you are mistaken. Take my guild for example when you compare myself an SK and our monk both similar lvl of raid gear, i have a whole 300 more mitigation then our monk. Yet, the monk has 40ish more avoidance then i do. How is that balanced?? Those stats are based off self buffed ungrouped</blockquote>Note how I said "in offensive stance"? Against raid mobs, contested avoidance has very little (possibly no) defensive benefit. When you inspect your monk and see his avoidance value as being 90% while you have 50%, those numbers have absolutely no bearing on a raid fight. The only thing that matters against raid mobs is your uncontested avoidance, which for a brawler is entirely dependent on our defensive stance, while plate tanks get it from their shields. So if you are in offensive stance with a shield on while the monk is in offensive stance (even if defensively geared!), you will have a much, much higher avoidance against raid mobs than the monk--even if his avoidance is displaying at 90% when you inspect him while yours is only 50%. And, as someone else said, are you properly taking into account things like gear and spec choices? That brawler has probably chosen every defensive option available, and I'm guessing you haven't.

Jerma

04-01-2011, 01:30 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Nunya@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Uh....how about not. Immunity to strikethrough is the only thing that keeps our avoidance above plate tanks. As things currently stand you guys already have both more mit and more uncontested avoidance than brawlers when we compare things in offensive stance.</blockquote>Not sure who you are comparing to but you are mistaken. Take my guild for example when you compare myself an SK and our monk both similar lvl of raid gear, i have a whole 300 more mitigation then our monk. Yet, the monk has 40ish more avoidance then i do. How is that balanced?? Those stats are based off self buffed ungrouped</blockquote>Note how I said "in offensive stance"? Against raid mobs, contested avoidance has very little (possibly no) defensive benefit. When you inspect your monk and see his avoidance value as being 90% while you have 50%, those numbers have absolutely no bearing on a raid fight. The only thing that matters against raid mobs is your uncontested avoidance, which for a brawler is entirely dependent on our defensive stance, while plate tanks get it from their shields. So if you are in offensive stance with a shield on while the monk is in offensive stance (even if defensively geared!), you will have a much, much higher avoidance against raid mobs than the monk--even if his avoidance is displaying at 90% when you inspect him while yours is only 50%. And, as someone else said, are you properly taking into account things like gear and spec choices? That brawler has probably chosen every defensive option available, and I'm guessing you haven't.</blockquote>Again your incorrect. I am talking uncontested avoidance. If you look at both of us in full def stance and AA, then i sit around 50ish uncontested while the monk is usually around 93. In off stance if we want to have any uncontested avoidance then we have to have a shield equiped reguardless of wether the rest of our gear adds uncontested avoidance. It doesnt get applied unless the shield is equiped. If i have a 2 hander my uncontested is 0. I am willing to bet the brawler is a hell of a lot better than that with a 2 hander. My issue with the current system is with both the monk and myself in full defensive spec, the brawler can get very close to the same Mit and a hell of a lot more uncontested avoidance. Remember i can only speak for SKs other plate classes may be different. For example i know our guard can get much better uncontested avoidance. I am not saying they need to be equal at all because they shouldnt. But there deffinatly needs to be more balance, right now it's extremely lopsided. I gotta give it up to all the brawlers for finally getting some love from the devs, hell SKs whined enough and we finally got it a little while back followed by nerf after nerf. I dont doubt the brawler nerfs are on the way. Enjoy it while it lasts

Bruener

04-01-2011, 03:16 PM

<cite>Nunya@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Nunya@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Uh....how about not. Immunity to strikethrough is the only thing that keeps our avoidance above plate tanks. As things currently stand you guys already have both more mit and more uncontested avoidance than brawlers when we compare things in offensive stance.</blockquote>Not sure who you are comparing to but you are mistaken. Take my guild for example when you compare myself an SK and our monk both similar lvl of raid gear, i have a whole 300 more mitigation then our monk. Yet, the monk has 40ish more avoidance then i do. How is that balanced?? Those stats are based off self buffed ungrouped</blockquote>Note how I said "in offensive stance"? Against raid mobs, contested avoidance has very little (possibly no) defensive benefit. When you inspect your monk and see his avoidance value as being 90% while you have 50%, those numbers have absolutely no bearing on a raid fight. The only thing that matters against raid mobs is your uncontested avoidance, which for a brawler is entirely dependent on our defensive stance, while plate tanks get it from their shields. So if you are in offensive stance with a shield on while the monk is in offensive stance (even if defensively geared!), you will have a much, much higher avoidance against raid mobs than the monk--even if his avoidance is displaying at 90% when you inspect him while yours is only 50%. And, as someone else said, are you properly taking into account things like gear and spec choices? That brawler has probably chosen every defensive option available, and I'm guessing you haven't.</blockquote>Again your incorrect. I am talking uncontested avoidance. If you look at both of us in full def stance and AA, then i sit around 50ish uncontested while the monk is usually around 93. In off stance if we want to have any uncontested avoidance then we have to have a shield equiped reguardless of wether the rest of our gear adds uncontested avoidance. It doesnt get applied unless the shield is equiped. If i have a 2 hander my uncontested is 0. I am willing to bet the brawler is a hell of a lot better than that with a 2 hander. My issue with the current system is with both the monk and myself in full defensive spec, the brawler can get very close to the same Mit and a hell of a lot more uncontested avoidance. Remember i can only speak for SKs other plate classes may be different. For example i know our guard can get much better uncontested avoidance. I am not saying they need to be equal at all because they shouldnt. But there deffinatly needs to be more balance, right now it's extremely lopsided. I gotta give it up to all the brawlers for finally getting some love from the devs, hell SKs whined enough and we finally got it a little while back followed by nerf after nerf. I dont doubt the brawler nerfs are on the way. Enjoy it while it lasts</blockquote>Yes, the mitigation difference is very small now, while uncontested avoidance is a much larger gap. But that isn't even the problem.The real problem is strike-thru. It adds a huge amount more avoidance to 2 tanks, that yes get to take about the same amount of damage per hit. The strike-thru mechanic also makes abilities that were designed to avoid almost all damage incoming, excepting spells, into much more undependable abilities.Either add strike-thru immunity to all Fighters defensive stances, killing 2 birds with 1 stone ensuring that all Fighters tank in Defensive and bring all Fighters to the level of survivability they should be. Or remove the immunity mechanic period.

Corydonn

04-01-2011, 03:22 PM

I'm all for taking the uniqueness out of all the fighters! +1

Silzin

04-01-2011, 04:28 PM

<cite>Nunya@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Nunya@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Uh....how about not. Immunity to strikethrough is the only thing that keeps our avoidance above plate tanks. As things currently stand you guys already have both more mit and more uncontested avoidance than brawlers when we compare things in offensive stance.</blockquote>Not sure who you are comparing to but you are mistaken. Take my guild for example when you compare myself an SK and our monk both similar lvl of raid gear, i have a whole 300 more mitigation then our monk. Yet, the monk has 40ish more avoidance then i do. How is that balanced?? Those stats are based off self buffed ungrouped</blockquote>Note how I said "in offensive stance"? Against raid mobs, contested avoidance has very little (possibly no) defensive benefit. When you inspect your monk and see his avoidance value as being 90% while you have 50%, those numbers have absolutely no bearing on a raid fight. The only thing that matters against raid mobs is your uncontested avoidance, which for a brawler is entirely dependent on our defensive stance, while plate tanks get it from their shields. So if you are in offensive stance with a shield on while the monk is in offensive stance (even if defensively geared!), you will have a much, much higher avoidance against raid mobs than the monk--even if his avoidance is displaying at 90% when you inspect him while yours is only 50%. And, as someone else said, are you properly taking into account things like gear and spec choices? That brawler has probably chosen every defensive option available, and I'm guessing you haven't.</blockquote>Again your incorrect. I am talking uncontested avoidance. If you look at both of us in full def stance and AA, then i sit around 50ish uncontested while the monk is usually around 93. In off stance if we want to have any uncontested avoidance then we have to have a shield equiped reguardless of wether the rest of our gear adds uncontested avoidance. It doesnt get applied unless the shield is equiped. If i have a 2 hander my uncontested is 0. I am willing to bet the brawler is a hell of a lot better than that with a 2 hander. My issue with the current system is with both the monk and myself in full defensive spec, the brawler can get very close to the same Mit and a hell of a lot more uncontested avoidance. Remember i can only speak for SKs other plate classes may be different. For example i know our guard can get much better uncontested avoidance. I am not saying they need to be equal at all because they shouldnt. But there deffinatly needs to be more balance, right now it's extremely lopsided. I gotta give it up to all the brawlers for finally getting some love from the devs, hell SKs whined enough and we finally got it a little while back followed by nerf after nerf. I dont doubt the brawler nerfs are on the way. Enjoy it while it lasts</blockquote>I would Relay like to see any brawler that can reach 90% Uncontested Block, since that is the only Uncontested avoidance number that can be displaid. Last time i checked Uncontested Block was caped at 75% with all of the other avoidance with the exeption of bace avoidance it is made up of alot of other calcs.

Yimway

04-01-2011, 04:45 PM

<cite>Lcneed wrote:</cite><blockquote>How about + hate and crit mits to def stance?</blockquote>+hate mod, and really anything to compensate hate gain for the net loss in using the stance should be considered.

Bruener

04-01-2011, 05:36 PM

.

Dorieon

04-02-2011, 04:41 AM

<cite>Nunya@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Nunya@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Uh....how about not. Immunity to strikethrough is the only thing that keeps our avoidance above plate tanks. As things currently stand you guys already have both more mit and more uncontested avoidance than brawlers when we compare things in offensive stance.</blockquote>Not sure who you are comparing to but you are mistaken. Take my guild for example when you compare myself an SK and our monk both similar lvl of raid gear, i have a whole 300 more mitigation then our monk. Yet, the monk has 40ish more avoidance then i do. How is that balanced?? Those stats are based off self buffed ungrouped</blockquote>Note how I said "in offensive stance"? Against raid mobs, contested avoidance has very little (possibly no) defensive benefit. When you inspect your monk and see his avoidance value as being 90% while you have 50%, those numbers have absolutely no bearing on a raid fight. The only thing that matters against raid mobs is your uncontested avoidance, which for a brawler is entirely dependent on our defensive stance, while plate tanks get it from their shields. So if you are in offensive stance with a shield on while the monk is in offensive stance (even if defensively geared!), you will have a much, much higher avoidance against raid mobs than the monk--even if his avoidance is displaying at 90% when you inspect him while yours is only 50%. And, as someone else said, are you properly taking into account things like gear and spec choices? That brawler has probably chosen every defensive option available, and I'm guessing you haven't.</blockquote>Again your incorrect. I am talking uncontested avoidance. If you look at both of us in full def stance and AA, then i sit around 50ish uncontested while the monk is usually around 93. In off stance if we want to have any uncontested avoidance then we have to have a shield equiped reguardless of wether the rest of our gear adds uncontested avoidance. It doesnt get applied unless the shield is equiped. If i have a 2 hander my uncontested is 0. I am willing to bet the brawler is a hell of a lot better than that with a 2 hander. My issue with the current system is with both the monk and myself in full defensive spec, the brawler can get very close to the same Mit and a hell of a lot more uncontested avoidance. Remember i can only speak for SKs other plate classes may be different. For example i know our guard can get much better uncontested avoidance. I am not saying they need to be equal at all because they shouldnt. But there deffinatly needs to be more balance, right now it's extremely lopsided. I gotta give it up to all the brawlers for finally getting some love from the devs, hell SKs whined enough and we finally got it a little while back followed by nerf after nerf. I dont doubt the brawler nerfs are on the way. Enjoy it while it lasts</blockquote>No you are incorrect. There is absolutely no brawler out there with 93% uncontested avoidance. That is one of the more ridiculous claims I have seen on here in a while. Most likely your brawler is around 55-65% and you are looking at the wrong stuff.Lol maybe I'm wrong and Cory has found a way to have permanant 90%+ uncontested avoid and thats what has Bruener all up in arms.

Corydonn

04-02-2011, 05:10 AM

<cite>Dorieon@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote>Lol maybe I'm wrong and Cory has found a way to have permanant 90%+ uncontested avoid and thats what has Bruener all up in arms.</blockquote>Eye of the Tiger playing in the background usually does this. D'oh! I've outed myself on an exploit.

Bruener

04-02-2011, 02:28 PM

<cite>Corydonn wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Dorieon@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote>Lol maybe I'm wrong and Cory has found a way to have permanant 90%+ uncontested avoid and thats what has Bruener all up in arms.</blockquote>Eye of the Tiger playing in the background usually does this. D'oh! I've outed myself on an exploit.</blockquote>Duh...duh, duh duh. Duh duh duh. Duh...Duh...duh.Side note. This is not about a huge advantage in uncontested avoidance. It is about strike thru immunity for those that couldn't figure that out from the OP.Strike thru immunity is an imbalancing mechanic atm, and will only get worse. Its really not that hard to see that.

Jerma

04-02-2011, 05:40 PM

Ok i have been corrected! Our monk sits at 69% uncontested not 93 as i earlier posted. Even with that its such a huge disparity from what plate tanks sit at (which for most even decently geared is mid to high 30s), I'm inclined to agree with the OP about strikethrough immunity. Add it all together and defensivily it's still OP for brawlers. IMHO they need to either stay with the uniqueness of the classes and go back to where brawlers were entirely based off Avoidance and Plate tanks based off MIT. Or the direction it seems to be going is jsut call all the tanks fighters and have same skills (Which would be lame). I still dont get the point of wearing leather armor and getting within 1 or 2% fo the same MIT as a Plate wearer plus the higher avoidance AND strikethrough immunity. Again Nerfs comming Im sure.. And if not who cares really we probably just gonna make our Monk start MTing our raids!

Fanguru

04-02-2011, 11:57 PM

What's wrong with brawlers MT? DoV finally made all fighters viable tanks with different strengths and weaknesses.Shield ally and a brawler avoidance buff will give the same uncontested avoidance to any plate tank. Brawlers benefit much less from these. Strikethrough immunity is very nice indeed, but differences between fighters are important. We don't want to be all the same, and I certainly don't want to be a SK or nerfed to feed their ego and place them back on top of the food chain.My suggestion to avoid messing up with a delicate balance is to cap mobs strikethrough. It doesn't make sense to me that a mob can hit all the time.

BChizzle

04-04-2011, 11:43 AM

You guys are completely missing this issue here.The problem isn't that brawlers get strikethrough it is that devs have totally screwed up this game from an avoidance standpoint. Mobs avoid way too much thus overvaluing strikethrough, and mobs have way too high a strikethrough rate thus undervaluing avoidance. High strikethrough on a mob should have just been a rare 1-2 mobs an xpac type deal not the huge amounts we see on every mob, it is horrible and lazy encounter design.

Yimway

04-04-2011, 03:36 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>High strikethrough on a mob should have just been a rare 1-2 mobs an xpac type deal not the huge amounts we see on every mob, it is horrible and lazy encounter design.</blockquote>Its more lazy class and itemization design. That avoidances have become so high, mechanics had to be created to surpass them. Had avoidances been kept in check, the need to design encounters around them wouldn't have been needed.Giving brawlers strikethru immunity wasn't part of a long thought out design process, it was a stop gap fix cause without it at the time, they were getting dealt too crappy a hand.Today's game however, there are certain encounters that are undeniably easier to have a brawler tank. We put ours in MT with guard to share mit, hp, and stoneskins. I don't think on our Kraytoc EM kill our monks health bar even moved.How many avoidances are we suggesting we need to design to?

circusgirl

04-04-2011, 03:37 PM

<cite>Fanguru wrote:</cite><blockquote>What's wrong with brawlers MT? DoV finally made all fighters viable tanks with different strengths and weaknesses.</blockquote>QFE. In an ideal world, about 1/3 of raid guilds would be using brawler MTs, 1/3 using crusaders, and 1/3 using warriors. If your MT leaves, that role should go to whoever your most reliable tank is. I think we'll see more brawler MTs in the future, but that just means we're up to where we should be. When brawlers start making up more than a third of MT roles, then it'll be time to rebalance us. I think they've done a pretty good job of requiring multiple tanks this expansion. There are a lot of fights that because of various mechanics (ranging from sisters/sages type scripting to cooperative strike) require at least 3 fighters, so hopefully we should see the new paradigm being one of one crusader, one warrior, and one brawler. Who knows--maybe it'll be less about having a single MT than it will be about having whoever is best suited for a particular fight tanking! Certainly not all mobs have ridiculous strikethrough; it might be worth swapping the monk to the MT group for King Tormax if for some reason you can't keep the debuff on him reliably to get rid of his strikethrough buff. Look, brawlers have been so far behind for so long that its easy for a lot of people to see us having the ability to tank as somehow unbalanced. It's not. We're finally on par with other tanks, and that is very different from being totally overpowered. Give it a bit of time, and if you see the number of brawlers and the number of brawler MTs skyrocket way out of proportion to our numbers like what happened with SKs, then it will be time to nerf us.

BChizzle

04-04-2011, 06:18 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>High strikethrough on a mob should have just been a rare 1-2 mobs an xpac type deal not the huge amounts we see on every mob, it is horrible and lazy encounter design.</blockquote>Its more lazy class and itemization design. That avoidances have become so high, mechanics had to be created to surpass them. Had avoidances been kept in check, the need to design encounters around them wouldn't have been needed.Giving brawlers strikethru immunity wasn't part of a long thought out design process, it was a stop gap fix cause without it at the time, they were getting dealt too crappy a hand.Today's game however, there are certain encounters that are undeniably easier to have a brawler tank. We put ours in MT with guard to share mit, hp, and stoneskins. I don't think on our Kraytoc EM kill our monks health bar even moved.How many avoidances are we suggesting we need to design to?</blockquote>Wrong they have already made any type of non contested avoidance completely useless they don't need to have mobs running with huge strikethrough numbers.

Yimway

04-04-2011, 06:30 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>How many avoidances are we suggesting we need to design to?</blockquote>Wrong they have already made any type of non contested avoidance completely useless they don't need to have mobs running with huge strikethrough numbers.</blockquote>That was sort of my point, there are 3 fairly distinct avoidance checks in the game now, one nearly useless, the other now greatly demenished, and the 3rd only available to one archtype.The failure to make any one avoidance type scale reasonably is what causes them to add yet another. If we start handing out strikethru avoidance as the OP is suggesting, come next expansion they'll have to add yet another avoidance method and mechanic.

BChizzle

04-04-2011, 06:40 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>How many avoidances are we suggesting we need to design to?</blockquote>Wrong they have already made any type of non contested avoidance completely useless they don't need to have mobs running with huge strikethrough numbers.</blockquote>That was sort of my point, there are 3 fairly distinct avoidance checks in the game now, one nearly useless, the other now greatly demenished, and the 3rd only available to one archtype.The failure to make any one avoidance type scale reasonably is what causes them to add yet another. If we start handing out strikethru avoidance as the OP is suggesting, come next expansion they'll have to add yet another avoidance method and mechanic.</blockquote>Fact is an avoidance tank shouldn't be crippled by a lazy dev tactic called strikethrough. Plates would understand this if devs started creating mobs that completely ignored your mit. If tanks avoiding things too much is the issue then stop handing out so much avoidance increasing gear or nerf it like they did mit...problem solved.

Ryai

04-05-2011, 03:25 AM

So everyone seems to be unhappy about the other fighters ability to do stuff that they can't, but each seems have their own uses. Seems like we're actually getting closer to balanced tanks, which makes this kind of a silly discussion about wanting to reinstate tank imbalances.While you're at it, why not have every tank inherently have a random chance to proc a stoneskin, and 100% AOE autoattack. Oh, while you're at it, I think all of them could use a massive aoe damage/hate spell and a hate xfer spell.C'mon people, this thread is ridiculous.

aislynn00

04-05-2011, 08:04 AM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Fanguru wrote:</cite><blockquote>What's wrong with brawlers MT? DoV finally made all fighters viable tanks with different strengths and weaknesses.</blockquote>QFE. In an ideal world, about 1/3 of raid guilds would be using brawler MTs, 1/3 using crusaders, and 1/3 using warriors. If your MT leaves, that role should go to whoever your most reliable tank is. I think we'll see more brawler MTs in the future, but that just means we're up to where we should be.</blockquote>And here I thought the reason guardians had inferior DPS (AE and single-target alike), utility, hate generation, and no self-healing ability was because we were supposed to be the best raid main tanks. I guess I was mistaken. Now, out of curiosity, in your view, if every single fighter is supposed to be equivalent in the raid MT role, why don't guardians have parity in those other areas?Seriously, though, Xalgad has already stated that guardians are supposed to be the raid main tank with the greatest survivability, especially vs spike damage; that was the stated reason for the Adrenaline nerf, for instance. Hence, if you are saying that we are at a point where brawlers are able to MT tank just as well as guardians, or close to it, that is a class imbalance that has to be fixed.

aislynn00

04-05-2011, 08:10 AM

As for defensive stance needing improvement, I do concur. Adding Hate Gain would be an obvious fix.Regarding Strikethrough immunity on brawler defensive stances, I don't have any issue with that. What I do object to is the amount of Damage Reduction and Mitigation brawlers are able to achieve these days. Avoidance tanks should avoid, not absorb, hits. Overall, I think a brawler should take less auto-attack damage than a plate tank, but that said, avoidance tanks should go splat when their avoidance fails and they are hit multiple times in the same second by a raid boss. Brawlers ought to require less healing overall while being more prone to dying from damage spikes. Plate tanks should suffer less severe damage spikes but take more damage overall. That is what balance is all about.

BChizzle

04-05-2011, 09:54 AM

<cite>Karnos@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote>Brawlers ought to require less healing overall while being more prone to dying from damage spikes. Plate tanks should suffer less severe damage spikes but take more damage overall. That is what balance is all about.</blockquote>It is already like that.

Couching

04-05-2011, 12:42 PM

<cite>Karnos@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Fanguru wrote:</cite><blockquote>What's wrong with brawlers MT? DoV finally made all fighters viable tanks with different strengths and weaknesses.</blockquote>QFE. In an ideal world, about 1/3 of raid guilds would be using brawler MTs, 1/3 using crusaders, and 1/3 using warriors. If your MT leaves, that role should go to whoever your most reliable tank is. I think we'll see more brawler MTs in the future, but that just means we're up to where we should be.</blockquote>And here I thought the reason guardians had inferior DPS (AE and single-target alike), utility, hate generation, and no self-healing ability was because we were supposed to be the best raid main tanks. I guess I was mistaken. Now, out of curiosity, in your view, if every single fighter is supposed to be equivalent in the raid MT role, why don't guardians have parity in those other areas?Seriously, though, Xalgad has already stated that guardians are supposed to be the raid main tank with the greatest survivability, especially vs spike damage; that was the stated reason for the Adrenaline nerf, for instance. Hence, if you are saying that we are at a point where brawlers are able to MT tank just as well as guardians, or close to it, that is a class imbalance that has to be fixed.</blockquote>Survivability wise, guardian is of course the best over all other fighters.Xalgad said guardian is supposed to be the raid main tank with the great survivability, especially vs spike damage and it is exactly true.However, it didn't mean other fighters can't be MT in raids. It depends on what you want your MT is; best in survivability? or best in aggro control on single target? or best aggro control on multiple targets?Every class has its own strength and weakness.

aias

04-05-2011, 12:53 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Karnos@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Fanguru wrote:</cite><blockquote>What's wrong with brawlers MT? DoV finally made all fighters viable tanks with different strengths and weaknesses.</blockquote>QFE. In an ideal world, about 1/3 of raid guilds would be using brawler MTs, 1/3 using crusaders, and 1/3 using warriors. If your MT leaves, that role should go to whoever your most reliable tank is. I think we'll see more brawler MTs in the future, but that just means we're up to where we should be.</blockquote>And here I thought the reason guardians had inferior DPS (AE and single-target alike), utility, hate generation, and no self-healing ability was because we were supposed to be the best raid main tanks. I guess I was mistaken. Now, out of curiosity, in your view, if every single fighter is supposed to be equivalent in the raid MT role, why don't guardians have parity in those other areas?Seriously, though, Xalgad has already stated that guardians are supposed to be the raid main tank with the greatest survivability, especially vs spike damage; that was the stated reason for the Adrenaline nerf, for instance. Hence, if you are saying that we are at a point where brawlers are able to MT tank just as well as guardians, or close to it, that is a class imbalance that has to be fixed.</blockquote>Survivability wise, guardian is of course the best over all other fighters.Xalgad said guardian is supposed to be the raid main tank with the great survivability, especially vs spike damage and it is exactly true.However, it didn't mean other fighters can't be MT in raids. It depends on what you want your MT is; best in survivability? or best in aggro control on single target? or best aggro control on multiple targets?Every class has its own strength and weakness.</blockquote>If it were only that simple. <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Couching

04-05-2011, 01:10 PM

<cite>Pandarus@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Karnos@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Fanguru wrote:</cite><blockquote>What's wrong with brawlers MT? DoV finally made all fighters viable tanks with different strengths and weaknesses.</blockquote>QFE. In an ideal world, about 1/3 of raid guilds would be using brawler MTs, 1/3 using crusaders, and 1/3 using warriors. If your MT leaves, that role should go to whoever your most reliable tank is. I think we'll see more brawler MTs in the future, but that just means we're up to where we should be.</blockquote>And here I thought the reason guardians had inferior DPS (AE and single-target alike), utility, hate generation, and no self-healing ability was because we were supposed to be the best raid main tanks. I guess I was mistaken. Now, out of curiosity, in your view, if every single fighter is supposed to be equivalent in the raid MT role, why don't guardians have parity in those other areas?Seriously, though, Xalgad has already stated that guardians are supposed to be the raid main tank with the greatest survivability, especially vs spike damage; that was the stated reason for the Adrenaline nerf, for instance. Hence, if you are saying that we are at a point where brawlers are able to MT tank just as well as guardians, or close to it, that is a class imbalance that has to be fixed.</blockquote>Survivability wise, guardian is of course the best over all other fighters.Xalgad said guardian is supposed to be the raid main tank with the great survivability, especially vs spike damage and it is exactly true.However, it didn't mean other fighters can't be MT in raids. It depends on what you want your MT is; best in survivability? or best in aggro control on single target? or best aggro control on multiple targets?Every class has its own strength and weakness.</blockquote>If it were only that simple. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>It is that simple but some players will never be satisfied.

Bruener

04-05-2011, 01:53 PM

<cite>Karnos@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote>As for defensive stance needing improvement, I do concur. Adding Hate Gain would be an obvious fix.Regarding Strikethrough immunity on brawler defensive stances, I don't have any issue with that. What I do object to is the amount of Damage Reduction and Mitigation brawlers are able to achieve these days. Avoidance tanks should avoid, not absorb, hits. Overall, I think a brawler should take less auto-attack damage than a plate tank, but that said, avoidance tanks should go splat when their avoidance fails and they are hit multiple times in the same second by a raid boss. Brawlers ought to require less healing overall while being more prone to dying from damage spikes. Plate tanks should suffer less severe damage spikes but take more damage overall. That is what balance is all about.</blockquote>This is probably the real problem, but calling for nerfs just isn't fun.For some reason in a raid a Brawler will have close to equal mitigation. Combine that with their superior damage reduction the hits they take just aren't any bigger than what Plate tanks take. So the 20%+ less times they do get hit over a Plate tank...it does not do any more damage, or at least no significant amount of more damage.So, either the avoidance gap needs to be closed to close to the same level since the damage taken per hit is the same...or the damage taken per hit gap needs to increase.For some reason the best utility tank in the game got a ton more utility...and a jacked up amount of survivability at the same time.

aias

04-05-2011, 02:08 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Pandarus@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Karnos@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Fanguru wrote:</cite><blockquote>What's wrong with brawlers MT? DoV finally made all fighters viable tanks with different strengths and weaknesses.</blockquote>QFE. In an ideal world, about 1/3 of raid guilds would be using brawler MTs, 1/3 using crusaders, and 1/3 using warriors. If your MT leaves, that role should go to whoever your most reliable tank is. I think we'll see more brawler MTs in the future, but that just means we're up to where we should be.</blockquote>And here I thought the reason guardians had inferior DPS (AE and single-target alike), utility, hate generation, and no self-healing ability was because we were supposed to be the best raid main tanks. I guess I was mistaken. Now, out of curiosity, in your view, if every single fighter is supposed to be equivalent in the raid MT role, why don't guardians have parity in those other areas?Seriously, though, Xalgad has already stated that guardians are supposed to be the raid main tank with the greatest survivability, especially vs spike damage; that was the stated reason for the Adrenaline nerf, for instance. Hence, if you are saying that we are at a point where brawlers are able to MT tank just as well as guardians, or close to it, that is a class imbalance that has to be fixed.</blockquote>Survivability wise, guardian is of course the best over all other fighters.Xalgad said guardian is supposed to be the raid main tank with the great survivability, especially vs spike damage and it is exactly true.However, it didn't mean other fighters can't be MT in raids. It depends on what you want your MT is; best in survivability? or best in aggro control on single target? or best aggro control on multiple targets?Every class has its own strength and weakness.</blockquote>If it were only that simple. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>It is that simple but some players will never be satisfied.</blockquote>It is not. There are many issues at play. And to label in the simple way you do is disingenious and not based on any facts.

Couching

04-05-2011, 02:14 PM

<cite>Pandarus@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Pandarus@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Karnos@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Fanguru wrote:</cite><blockquote>What's wrong with brawlers MT? DoV finally made all fighters viable tanks with different strengths and weaknesses.</blockquote>QFE. In an ideal world, about 1/3 of raid guilds would be using brawler MTs, 1/3 using crusaders, and 1/3 using warriors. If your MT leaves, that role should go to whoever your most reliable tank is. I think we'll see more brawler MTs in the future, but that just means we're up to where we should be.</blockquote>And here I thought the reason guardians had inferior DPS (AE and single-target alike), utility, hate generation, and no self-healing ability was because we were supposed to be the best raid main tanks. I guess I was mistaken. Now, out of curiosity, in your view, if every single fighter is supposed to be equivalent in the raid MT role, why don't guardians have parity in those other areas?Seriously, though, Xalgad has already stated that guardians are supposed to be the raid main tank with the greatest survivability, especially vs spike damage; that was the stated reason for the Adrenaline nerf, for instance. Hence, if you are saying that we are at a point where brawlers are able to MT tank just as well as guardians, or close to it, that is a class imbalance that has to be fixed.</blockquote>Survivability wise, guardian is of course the best over all other fighters.Xalgad said guardian is supposed to be the raid main tank with the great survivability, especially vs spike damage and it is exactly true.However, it didn't mean other fighters can't be MT in raids. It depends on what you want your MT is; best in survivability? or best in aggro control on single target? or best aggro control on multiple targets?Every class has its own strength and weakness.</blockquote>If it were only that simple. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>It is that simple but some players will never be satisfied.</blockquote>It is not. There are many issues at play. And to label in the simple way you do is disingenious and not based on any facts.</blockquote>What is not the fact?Guardian has the best survivability over all other fighters is the fact and guardian has very strong single target aggro. It makes them the best raid tank in survivability is the fact.If you have different opinions, speak it out.

aias

04-05-2011, 02:23 PM

That is true for the current state of the game. Guardians above the rest per Xelgad. But the other fighters may not necessarily have strengths that are relevant or needed in raids. Other tanks can MT, but why? You can buff a rogue to MT too, but why? His vision is very narrow minded and inflexible.

BChizzle

04-05-2011, 03:14 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Karnos@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote>As for defensive stance needing improvement, I do concur. Adding Hate Gain would be an obvious fix.Regarding Strikethrough immunity on brawler defensive stances, I don't have any issue with that. What I do object to is the amount of Damage Reduction and Mitigation brawlers are able to achieve these days. Avoidance tanks should avoid, not absorb, hits. Overall, I think a brawler should take less auto-attack damage than a plate tank, but that said, avoidance tanks should go splat when their avoidance fails and they are hit multiple times in the same second by a raid boss. Brawlers ought to require less healing overall while being more prone to dying from damage spikes. Plate tanks should suffer less severe damage spikes but take more damage overall. That is what balance is all about.</blockquote>This is probably the real problem, but calling for nerfs just isn't fun.For some reason in a raid a Brawler will have close to equal mitigation. Combine that with their superior damage reduction the hits they take just aren't any bigger than what Plate tanks take. So the 20%+ less times they do get hit over a Plate tank...it does not do any more damage, or at least no significant amount of more damage.So, either the avoidance gap needs to be closed to close to the same level since the damage taken per hit is the same...or the damage taken per hit gap needs to increase.For some reason the best utility tank in the game got a ton more utility...and a jacked up amount of survivability at the same time.</blockquote>Completely untrue. A full on defensive brawler vs a full on defensive plate tank the plate tank will absolutely squash them in the ability to take damage. However, unlike brawlers plate tanks don't go full on defensive because they don't have to in order to survive while a brawler has to.

circusgirl

04-05-2011, 07:21 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Karnos@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote>Brawlers ought to require less healing overall while being more prone to dying from damage spikes. Plate tanks should suffer less severe damage spikes but take more damage overall. That is what balance is all about.</blockquote>It is already like that.</blockquote>Yup, thats pretty much the status quo.

Bruener

04-05-2011, 08:52 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Karnos@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote>As for defensive stance needing improvement, I do concur. Adding Hate Gain would be an obvious fix.Regarding Strikethrough immunity on brawler defensive stances, I don't have any issue with that. What I do object to is the amount of Damage Reduction and Mitigation brawlers are able to achieve these days. Avoidance tanks should avoid, not absorb, hits. Overall, I think a brawler should take less auto-attack damage than a plate tank, but that said, avoidance tanks should go splat when their avoidance fails and they are hit multiple times in the same second by a raid boss. Brawlers ought to require less healing overall while being more prone to dying from damage spikes. Plate tanks should suffer less severe damage spikes but take more damage overall. That is what balance is all about.</blockquote>This is probably the real problem, but calling for nerfs just isn't fun.For some reason in a raid a Brawler will have close to equal mitigation. Combine that with their superior damage reduction the hits they take just aren't any bigger than what Plate tanks take. So the 20%+ less times they do get hit over a Plate tank...it does not do any more damage, or at least no significant amount of more damage.So, either the avoidance gap needs to be closed to close to the same level since the damage taken per hit is the same...or the damage taken per hit gap needs to increase.For some reason the best utility tank in the game got a ton more utility...and a jacked up amount of survivability at the same time.</blockquote>Completely untrue. A full on defensive brawler vs a full on defensive plate tank the plate tank will absolutely squash them in the ability to take damage. However, unlike brawlers plate tanks don't go full on defensive because they don't have to in order to survive while a brawler has to.</blockquote>I am not sure how a Brawler with maybe 1-2% less mitigation with more damage reduction takes more damage. Actually its completely false.So Brawlers goes defensive to tank. Its not like Plate tanks aren't giving up a ton more to do the same thing. A Plate tank has to drop an entire weapon to just get within 10% less avoidance of a brawler. To get 11k mitigation in a raid I have to go defensive as a SK. Meanwhile go inspect that Brawler defensive in the same raid. 10.8k mitigation, a crap ton more uncontested avoidance, still DW'ing, significantly more damage reduction...oh and immune to strike thru.Tanks are not even closed to balanced atm and is probably why there are going to be some incoming changes made to Fighters. I would expect some positive changes and some negative.

BChizzle

04-05-2011, 09:25 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Karnos@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote>As for defensive stance needing improvement, I do concur. Adding Hate Gain would be an obvious fix.Regarding Strikethrough immunity on brawler defensive stances, I don't have any issue with that. What I do object to is the amount of Damage Reduction and Mitigation brawlers are able to achieve these days. Avoidance tanks should avoid, not absorb, hits. Overall, I think a brawler should take less auto-attack damage than a plate tank, but that said, avoidance tanks should go splat when their avoidance fails and they are hit multiple times in the same second by a raid boss. Brawlers ought to require less healing overall while being more prone to dying from damage spikes. Plate tanks should suffer less severe damage spikes but take more damage overall. That is what balance is all about.</blockquote>This is probably the real problem, but calling for nerfs just isn't fun.For some reason in a raid a Brawler will have close to equal mitigation. Combine that with their superior damage reduction the hits they take just aren't any bigger than what Plate tanks take. So the 20%+ less times they do get hit over a Plate tank...it does not do any more damage, or at least no significant amount of more damage.So, either the avoidance gap needs to be closed to close to the same level since the damage taken per hit is the same...or the damage taken per hit gap needs to increase.For some reason the best utility tank in the game got a ton more utility...and a jacked up amount of survivability at the same time.</blockquote>Completely untrue. A full on defensive brawler vs a full on defensive plate tank the plate tank will absolutely squash them in the ability to take damage. However, unlike brawlers plate tanks don't go full on defensive because they don't have to in order to survive while a brawler has to.</blockquote>I am not sure how a Brawler with maybe 1-2% less mitigation with more damage reduction takes more damage. Actually its completely false.So Brawlers goes defensive to tank. Its not like Plate tanks aren't giving up a ton more to do the same thing. A Plate tank has to drop an entire weapon to just get within 10% less avoidance of a brawler. To get 11k mitigation in a raid I have to go defensive as a SK. Meanwhile go inspect that Brawler defensive in the same raid. 10.8k mitigation, a crap ton more uncontested avoidance, still DW'ing, significantly more damage reduction...oh and immune to strike thru.Tanks are not even closed to balanced atm and is probably why there are going to be some incoming changes made to Fighters. I would expect some positive changes and some negative.</blockquote>LOL are you making up numbers now? I mean seriously, your brawler might be able to maybe reach 10.8k mit if everyone in his group buffed him for it but otherwise its not happening and if they are buffed for that (which they probably don't) if you were simply switched into the group and got the same buffs you would be over 13k or more mit. Please keep trying to manipulate the situation it is clear you don't spec nearly as defensive or have to be buffed nearly as defensive to make the same numbers as your brawler. Now as far as DW goes are you seriously complaining about having to go sword and board when you have one of the most OP abilities in this game when you are wearing a 1 hander?

Bruener

04-05-2011, 10:41 PM

BChizzle

04-05-2011, 10:45 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>LOL are you making up numbers now? I mean seriously, your brawler might be able to maybe reach 10.8k mit if everyone in his group buffed him for it but otherwise its not happening and if they are buffed for that (which they probably don't) if you were simply switched into the group and got the same buffs you would be over 13k or more mit. Please keep trying to manipulate the situation it is clear you don't spec nearly as defensive or have to be buffed nearly as defensive to make the same numbers as your brawler. Now as far as DW goes are you seriously complaining about having to go sword and board when you have one of the most OP abilities in this game when you are wearing a 1 hander?</blockquote>Still know nothing about this game I see.I mean its hard to argue with somebody that actually thought Brawlers were behind the curve in SF.And no, it is not made up numbers. They are fact and yes it is boggling to try and understand why the numbers are so extremely close. My honest guess....that +mit stat is still broke for Brawlers.</blockquote>Your brawler told me flat out he can't reach 10.8k in raid unless his dirge specs for mit which your dirges don't do. So keep trying with the personal attacks while I point out how out of touch you actually are.

Gungo

04-05-2011, 11:59 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Karnos@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote>As for defensive stance needing improvement, I do concur. Adding Hate Gain would be an obvious fix.Regarding Strikethrough immunity on brawler defensive stances, I don't have any issue with that. What I do object to is the amount of Damage Reduction and Mitigation brawlers are able to achieve these days. Avoidance tanks should avoid, not absorb, hits. Overall, I think a brawler should take less auto-attack damage than a plate tank, but that said, avoidance tanks should go splat when their avoidance fails and they are hit multiple times in the same second by a raid boss. Brawlers ought to require less healing overall while being more prone to dying from damage spikes. Plate tanks should suffer less severe damage spikes but take more damage overall. That is what balance is all about.</blockquote>This is probably the real problem, but calling for nerfs just isn't fun.For some reason in a raid a Brawler will have close to equal mitigation. Combine that with their superior damage reduction the hits they take just aren't any bigger than what Plate tanks take. So the 20%+ less times they do get hit over a Plate tank...it does not do any more damage, or at least no significant amount of more damage.So, either the avoidance gap needs to be closed to close to the same level since the damage taken per hit is the same...or the damage taken per hit gap needs to increase.For some reason the best utility tank in the game got a ton more utility...and a jacked up amount of survivability at the same time.</blockquote>Completely untrue. A full on defensive brawler vs a full on defensive plate tank the plate tank will absolutely squash them in the ability to take damage. However, unlike brawlers plate tanks don't go full on defensive because they don't have to in order to survive while a brawler has to.</blockquote>This^^^Brawlers have at MOST base 27% uncontested block. All other uncontested block increases come from block chance which is EXACTLY the same on gear and from AA's. A plate tank CURRENT fabled shield gives anywhere from 24-30% uncontested block. Uncontested block is virtually equal on all fighters MINUS block chance increases via AA. Brawlers do have the most acces to block chance via a significant amount of AA's and still is virtually similar to plate tanks.Mitigation isnt even remotely close a plate tank with the same mitigation % adornments and gear will have significantly highe rmitigation amount. on the persona screen this is usually represented by a 3-6% difference in mitigation % VERSUS a lvl 90 SOLO NPC. What the simpletons in this thread fail to realize that is NOT versus a much higher level epic npc which greatly reduces the amount. Do some actual testing next time Bruener and learn the brawler DOES get hit harder. The defensive plate tanks meant to take the most damage still in fact do. Paladins and guardians are still better tanks. Shadowknights and zerkers who think tanking in offensive stance and using dps adornments instead of putting a mitigation adornment on thier chest piece will obviously tank just as poorly as a brawler in full defensive stance and full defensive adorns as nearly EVERY raiding brawler does.

Gungo

04-06-2011, 12:12 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Karnos@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote>As for defensive stance needing improvement, I do concur. Adding Hate Gain would be an obvious fix.Regarding Strikethrough immunity on brawler defensive stances, I don't have any issue with that. What I do object to is the amount of Damage Reduction and Mitigation brawlers are able to achieve these days. Avoidance tanks should avoid, not absorb, hits. Overall, I think a brawler should take less auto-attack damage than a plate tank, but that said, avoidance tanks should go splat when their avoidance fails and they are hit multiple times in the same second by a raid boss. Brawlers ought to require less healing overall while being more prone to dying from damage spikes. Plate tanks should suffer less severe damage spikes but take more damage overall. That is what balance is all about.</blockquote>This is probably the real problem, but calling for nerfs just isn't fun.For some reason in a raid a Brawler will have close to equal mitigation. Combine that with their superior damage reduction the hits they take just aren't any bigger than what Plate tanks take. So the 20%+ less times they do get hit over a Plate tank...it does not do any more damage, or at least no significant amount of more damage.So, either the avoidance gap needs to be closed to close to the same level since the damage taken per hit is the same...or the damage taken per hit gap needs to increase.For some reason the best utility tank in the game got a ton more utility...and a jacked up amount of survivability at the same time.</blockquote>Completely untrue. A full on defensive brawler vs a full on defensive plate tank the plate tank will absolutely squash them in the ability to take damage. However, unlike brawlers plate tanks don't go full on defensive because they don't have to in order to survive while a brawler has to.</blockquote>I am not sure how a Brawler with maybe 1-2% less mitigation with more damage reduction takes more damage. Actually its completely false.So Brawlers goes defensive to tank. Its not like Plate tanks aren't giving up a ton more to do the same thing. A Plate tank has to drop an entire weapon to just get within 10% less avoidance of a brawler. To get 11k mitigation in a raid I have to go defensive as a SK. Meanwhile go inspect that Brawler defensive in the same raid. 10.8k mitigation, a crap ton more uncontested avoidance, still DW'ing, significantly more damage reduction...oh and immune to strike thru.Tanks are not even closed to balanced atm and is probably why there are going to be some incoming changes made to Fighters. I would expect some positive changes and some negative.</blockquote>Dual wielding gives a 33% delay penalty on BOTH weapons. As a crusader you also get an increase to the damage from a sword and board fighter. Autoatk on both classes is nearly equal look it up on a parse next time.Brawlers have a base 27% uncontested block with AA. (5% myth buff, 17% defensive stance, 5% aversion AA (5aa's))Plate tanks gain 24-30% base uncontested block with a high end fabled shield.Any difference with uncontested block comes from block CHANCE via adornments(same for all fighters), gear (same for all fighters) or AA's (higher for brawlers if taken)Mititgation on gear is significantly higher on plate tanks. If you have trouble breaking 11k mitigation as a plate tank then you obviously suck at gearing up. Use the mtitigation % adornments, use defensive stance, put on mitigation % items. I know both your brawlers already do this and from your posts it seems you care more about using dps adornments and gear then about putting on defensive gear. That is your problem for sucking at using the correct gear.Your brawlers have stated they are not reaching 10.8k mit. Which already proves your a liar.Finally I agree with you strikethrough as a total immunity should of never been given to ANY fighter. It is the ONLY means the devs have to combat increasing amounts of uncontested avoidance. No fighter should of been given permanant stirke through immunity. Brawlers should of been given 25-50% strikethrough immunity in defensive.

Dorieon

04-06-2011, 01:38 AM

Everyone else already corrected you on most stuff. But I just wanted to point out that 'brawlers' do not have damage reduction, bruisers get it on their myth buff but monks are stuck with the pathetic 288 (or whatever) in the shadow tree.But keep complaining because 'brawlers' are better at your job. Its obviously class imbalance and not that brawlers have had to be better players than plate tanks for years in order to earn a spot and now that things are evening out people notice the difference.

Ryai

04-06-2011, 03:12 AM

The day I see brawlers main tanking raids easily in offensive stance, I'll believe that brawlers are on par with plate tanks. Not before.

aislynn00

04-06-2011, 08:58 AM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>LOL are you making up numbers now? I mean seriously, your brawler might be able to maybe reach 10.8k mit if everyone in his group buffed him for it but otherwise its not happening and if they are buffed for that (which they probably don't) if you were simply switched into the group and got the same buffs you would be over 13k or more mit. Please keep trying to manipulate the situation it is clear you don't spec nearly as defensive or have to be buffed nearly as defensive to make the same numbers as your brawler. Now as far as DW goes are you seriously complaining about having to go sword and board when you have one of the most OP abilities in this game when you are wearing a 1 hander?</blockquote>Speaking as a guardian, if I go into defensive stance coupled with a survivability-focused AA spec (+4% Mitigation from one ability, +5% Mitigation from another) and equip full DoV tier 1 tank armor and jewelry, I'm still not at 13K Mitigation while buffed by a defiler and templar; it would take one of my temporary mitigation buffs to get me there. Hence, I'm confused as to how a shadowknight, who doesn't have any Mitigation-boosting AA's, is supposed to be at 13K+?And as for Knight's Stance, the ability you are alluding to, guardians don't get anything like that while wielding a shield--and we really do need the avoidance afforded by a shield against content that matters. Brawlers, meanwhile, continue to enjoy better avoidance without having to give up the DPS and hate generation advantages of dual-wielding. As long as brawlers remain capable of tanking those same boss mobs successfully, that isn't balanced: greater DPS and utility must come with a price tag; namely, significantly lower survivability.

aislynn00

04-06-2011, 09:12 AM

<cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>the brawler DOES get hit harder. The defensive plate tanks meant to take the most damage still in fact do. Paladins and guardians are still better tanks.</blockquote>If you are able to MT the same boss mobs with a brawler, then it really doesn't matter whether paladins and guardians have some manner of survivability advantage vs spike damage. Superior survivability only matters if it is required by content. If you have enough survivability to stand up consistently vs the content, then all that is of importance is utility, DPS, and hate generation, and brawlers have guardians beaten, hands down, in that regard. Paladins are another matter, of course, being overpowered as hell.

BChizzle

04-06-2011, 10:21 AM

<cite>Karnos@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote>Speaking as a guardian, if I go into defensive stance coupled with a survivability-focused AA spec (+4% Mitigation from one ability, +5% Mitigation from another) and equip full DoV tier 1 tank armor and jewelry, I'm still not at 13K Mitigation while buffed by a defiler and templar; it would take one of my temporary mitigation buffs to get me there. </blockquote>No brawler is at 10.8k mit in tier 1 gear again Duel is talking out of his posterier. But I would also like to point out you have more AA's than just the 2 you listed that can raise your mit and like most plate tanks you have choosen not to use them because you don't need it.

Ryai

04-06-2011, 11:34 AM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>No brawler is at 10.8k mit in tier 1 gear again Duel is talking out of his posterier. But I would also like to point out you have more AA's than just the 2 you listed that can raise your mit and like most plate tanks you have choosen not to use them because you don't need it.</blockquote>This is the reality. And until you actually roll a brawler and see just how much your dps drops when you have to fully spec for tanking you have no idea what you are talking about.Also, if you're going to call for nerfs like this, then why don't we kill off the most overpowered mechanic in the game right now, stoneskins. Maybe strikethrough should be a contested check on them too?

Ryai

04-06-2011, 11:38 AM

Fanguru

04-06-2011, 01:35 PM

<cite>Karnos@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>the brawler DOES get hit harder. The defensive plate tanks meant to take the most damage still in fact do. Paladins and guardians are still better tanks.</blockquote>If you are able to MT the same boss mobs with a brawler, then it really doesn't matter whether paladins and guardians have some manner of survivability advantage vs spike damage. Superior survivability only matters if it is required by content. If you have enough survivability to stand up consistently vs the content, then all that is of importance is utility, DPS, and hate generation, and brawlers have guardians beaten, hands down, in that regard. Paladins are another matter, of course, being overpowered as hell.</blockquote>When you say utility, are you talking about combat mastery or something else? Because CM only really affects 3 people in the raid: the brawler, his assassin and dirge. Apart from CM introduced with Velious, our utility has always been behind other tanks (I'm tempted to say inexistant). Our raidwide buff is useless, apart maybe from the 5% accuracy that benefits other tanks in the raid.I think monks have a small hate siphon, bruisers don't have any while guardians have 15%? Not sure here. Paladins are still above everyone else for aggro too. I've had to drop most dps adorns for hate modifiers and weaponry / strikethrough to be able to hold aggro from our top parsers, even sacrificing some crit mit.So yeah, we can tank the same stuff, getting hit by more spikey damage and with slightly better dps. I'm sorry if some egos got bruised (see what I did there?) by brawlers being able to replace them, but I'm glad we aren't just MTs avoidance buffbots anymore. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />My only concern for balance is that strikethrough is over the top and I would like to see it back to smaller values on mobs.

BChizzle

04-06-2011, 01:40 PM

<cite>Fanguru wrote:</cite><blockquote>My only concern for balance is that strikethrough is over the top and I would like to see it back to smaller values on mobs.</blockquote>This...

Bruener

04-06-2011, 02:27 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Fanguru wrote:</cite><blockquote>My only concern for balance is that strikethrough is over the top and I would like to see it back to smaller values on mobs.</blockquote>This...</blockquote>Which goes completely back to the point of the OP. It is not even close to that way now.So either a ton of mobs suddenly get nerfed in strike thru which completely throws off how they are balanced in damage output. Or Brawlers get strike-thru immunity removed which does exactly the same thing as the above suggestion...meaning output damage of mobs is balanced more for all Fighters. Or they give the immunity to all Fighters on their defensive stance.Out of those 3 ideas its not hard to see which one would be the most easy to implement and the most accepted option.

Gungo

04-06-2011, 02:52 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Fanguru wrote:</cite><blockquote>My only concern for balance is that strikethrough is over the top and I would like to see it back to smaller values on mobs.</blockquote>This...</blockquote>Which goes completely back to the point of the OP. It is not even close to that way now.So either a ton of mobs suddenly get nerfed in strike thru which completely throws off how they are balanced in damage output. Or Brawlers get strike-thru immunity removed which does exactly the same thing as the above suggestion...meaning output damage of mobs is balanced more for all Fighters. Or they give the immunity to all Fighters on their defensive stance.Out of those 3 ideas its not hard to see which one would be the most easy to implement and the most accepted option.</blockquote>Cry more about trying to make your shadowknigth overpowered, because what they are going to do is reduce strikethrough immunity on brawlers.It is not hard to see that strikethrough was put into the game to combat the growing amount of uncontested avoidance in this game that is trivilizing encounters. As it is currently the only means to keep consistent hitrates on raid mobs the devs have no intention of making every tank immune to strikethrough which would only further make plate tanks with higher mitigation and damage reduction abilities eve more overpowered.What i was told is going to happen is strikethrough immunity will be placed as temp buffs for brawlers instead of total immunity on defensive.

Silzin

04-06-2011, 03:00 PM

<cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>What i was told is going to happen is strikethrough immunity will be placed as temp buffs for brawlers instead of total immunity on defensive.</blockquote>Where did you hear this at Gungo?

Bruener

04-06-2011, 03:10 PM

<cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Fanguru wrote:</cite><blockquote>My only concern for balance is that strikethrough is over the top and I would like to see it back to smaller values on mobs.</blockquote>This...</blockquote>Which goes completely back to the point of the OP. It is not even close to that way now.So either a ton of mobs suddenly get nerfed in strike thru which completely throws off how they are balanced in damage output. Or Brawlers get strike-thru immunity removed which does exactly the same thing as the above suggestion...meaning output damage of mobs is balanced more for all Fighters. Or they give the immunity to all Fighters on their defensive stance.Out of those 3 ideas its not hard to see which one would be the most easy to implement and the most accepted option.</blockquote>Cry more about trying to make your shadowknigth overpowered, because what they are going to do is reduce strikethrough immunity on brawlers.It is not hard to see that strikethrough was put into the game to combat the growing amount of uncontested avoidance in this game that is trivilizing encounters. As it is currently the only means to keep consistent hitrates on raid mobs the devs have no intention of making every tank immune to strikethrough which would only further make plate tanks with higher mitigation and damage reduction abilities eve more overpowered.What i was told is going to happen is strikethrough immunity will be placed as temp buffs for brawlers instead of total immunity on defensive.</blockquote>Wow, so you admit why Strike-thru was implimented....and yet you don't see a huge problem with how 2 Fighters completely negate that need?Yes, temp immunity on abilities would make a lot of sense. Especially for ALL fighter abilities that use avoidance as a mechanic that is supposed to avoid all melee incoming.Also, people are completely in denial about Brawler survivability even outside of strike-thru immunity. Yes Brawlers hit just as high mitigation as my SK. Sorry that some of you slack brawlers can't seem to do it, but it is not hard to inspect a Brawler in a raid and see what their true mitigation value is. A 1-2% mitigation difference does not even come close to making up for a 20%+ avoidance difference...especially if those same classes have damage reducing abilities.

Controlor

04-06-2011, 03:16 PM

As this thread has somehow managed to be derailed, than found its tracks again, then derailed, etc etc.First off to the OP. No to having strikethrough immunity on all fighter defensive stances. However YES to having strikethrough immunity on some of the temp buffs. I am sure guardians / zerkers have a temp buff similar to paladins / SK's (Stonewall and Furor). Where those buffs state that you are supposed to avoid all melee damage (ONLY melee damage mind you). However they can be struck through (and always have been able to). All i want is that those type of TEMP BUFFS get the strike through immunity so that they can perform as they are intended. A temporary avoidance of all MELEE damage. The duration is only 8 seconds (which is fine), but since it is melee only it wont usually block spike damage. However it will help survivablity. I am fine having brawlers have 100% strikethrough immunity though. As pointed out you really dont see brawlers MTing full raids.As for the other stuff mentioned.Knights stance is not OP as many suggest and has been explained WHY it isnt OP in plenty of threads. Or you can send me a PM and i will gladly go over all the math on why your wrong.Amends and the Fighter hate transfer again in a RAID setting which is not OP. In heroic it is powerful but not OP. It would only be considered OP if your tank is WAY undergeared compared to your top DPS. This just allows lesser geared paladins tank heroic zones and that is it.

Yimway

04-06-2011, 04:05 PM

BChizzle

04-06-2011, 05:02 PM

If they remove strikethrough immunity without buffing brawler mit then they are just screwing 2 classes out of being viable tanks plain and simple, and having it on temps is simply not enough unless its up on every temp not just the avoidance temps then it would be ok.Simply fact if you have an avoidance tank then you make mobs ignore avoidance then you are screwing over that type of tank. It would be the exact same thing if the devs put mit-through on mobs.

Yimway

04-06-2011, 05:19 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Simply fact if you have an avoidance tank then you make mobs ignore avoidance then you are screwing over that type of tank. It would be the exact same thing if the devs put mit-through on mobs.</blockquote>There have been said mobs before.

Bruener

04-06-2011, 06:11 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>If they remove strikethrough immunity without buffing brawler mit then they are just screwing 2 classes out of being viable tanks plain and simple, and having it on temps is simply not enough unless its up on every temp not just the avoidance temps then it would be ok.Simply fact if you have an avoidance tank then you make mobs ignore avoidance then you are screwing over that type of tank. It would be the exact same thing if the devs put mit-through on mobs.</blockquote>And yet again, Brawler mit is already within 1-2% of Plate mit easily. Give them more mit and they will have MORE than Plates. I guess we could change it so that other tanks get to have only 1-2% less avoidance as Brawlers....And actually a lot of mobs debuff mitigation....in essence ingoring Mit. Not sure how many mobs debuff uncontested avoidance to uselessness.

Gungo

04-06-2011, 07:03 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Fanguru wrote:</cite><blockquote>My only concern for balance is that strikethrough is over the top and I would like to see it back to smaller values on mobs.</blockquote>This...</blockquote>Which goes completely back to the point of the OP. It is not even close to that way now.So either a ton of mobs suddenly get nerfed in strike thru which completely throws off how they are balanced in damage output. Or Brawlers get strike-thru immunity removed which does exactly the same thing as the above suggestion...meaning output damage of mobs is balanced more for all Fighters. Or they give the immunity to all Fighters on their defensive stance.Out of those 3 ideas its not hard to see which one would be the most easy to implement and the most accepted option.</blockquote>Cry more about trying to make your shadowknigth overpowered, because what they are going to do is reduce strikethrough immunity on brawlers.It is not hard to see that strikethrough was put into the game to combat the growing amount of uncontested avoidance in this game that is trivilizing encounters. As it is currently the only means to keep consistent hitrates on raid mobs the devs have no intention of making every tank immune to strikethrough which would only further make plate tanks with higher mitigation and damage reduction abilities eve more overpowered.What i was told is going to happen is strikethrough immunity will be placed as temp buffs for brawlers instead of total immunity on defensive.</blockquote>Wow, so you admit why Strike-thru was implimented....and yet you don't see a huge problem with how 2 Fighters completely negate that need?Yes, temp immunity on abilities would make a lot of sense. Especially for ALL fighter abilities that use avoidance as a mechanic that is supposed to avoid all melee incoming.Also, people are completely in denial about Brawler survivability even outside of strike-thru immunity. Yes Brawlers hit just as high mitigation as my SK. Sorry that some of you slack brawlers can't seem to do it, but it is not hard to inspect a Brawler in a raid and see what their true mitigation value is. A 1-2% mitigation difference does not even come close to making up for a 20%+ avoidance difference...especially if those same classes have damage reducing abilities.</blockquote>Are you completely stupid or are you just pretending to be? I said on the first page of this thread strikethrough immunity is overpowered with the way SOE is jacking up strikethrough % on raid npcs.The reason strikethrough immunity was given to brawlers was because plate tanks were getting just as much uncontested avodiance as brawlers while having higher mitigation. Brawlers = better avoidance and plate tanks = better mitigation. Stop trying to make shadowknights into the permanant FOTM.and no you are lying again your own brawlers in your guild have flat out said you are wrong about mitigation, Stop posting BS bruener you are a liar.

aias

04-06-2011, 07:13 PM

He may be a liar. But you've done a sizeable amount of lying yourself, especially in beta forums. Calm down and stop acting the forum bully.

Gungo

04-06-2011, 07:18 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>If they remove strikethrough immunity without buffing brawler mit then they are just screwing 2 classes out of being viable tanks plain and simple, and having it on temps is simply not enough unless its up on every temp not just the avoidance temps then it would be ok.Simply fact if you have an avoidance tank then you make mobs ignore avoidance then you are screwing over that type of tank. It would be the exact same thing if the devs put mit-through on mobs.</blockquote>And yet again, Brawler mit is already within 1-2% of Plate mit easily. Give them more mit and they will have MORE than Plates. I guess we could change it so that other tanks get to have only 1-2% less avoidance as Brawlers....And actually a lot of mobs debuff mitigation....in essence ingoring Mit. Not sure how many mobs debuff uncontested avoidance to uselessness.</blockquote>Post proof and less lies next time.Yoru own guild has called you out. So try again.

Fanguru

04-06-2011, 07:19 PM

Mitigation is on a curve (ie: not linear) and contested. As already explained in this thread, you only see the % of mitigation versus a lvl 90 solo mob. Can you tell me how you come up with a 1 or 2% difference between plate and leather tanks while tanking lvl 98 epic x4? No offense Bruener, but I think you are clinging to that gut feeling that brawlers are superheroes and ignoring actual game mechanics. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Gungo

04-06-2011, 07:21 PM

<cite>Pandarus@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote>He may be a liar. But you've done a sizeable amount of lying yourself, especially in beta forums. Calm down and stop acting the forum bully.</blockquote>I never lied in beta. You are still crying about adrenaline.

Gungo

04-06-2011, 07:24 PM

<cite>Fanguru wrote:</cite><blockquote>Mitigation is on a curve (ie: not linear) and contested. As already explained in this thread, you only see the % of mitigation versus a lvl 90 solo mob. Can you tell me how you come up with a 1 or 2% difference between plate and leather tanks while tanking lvl 98 epic x4? No offense Bruener, but I think you are clinging to that gut feeling that brawlers are superheroes and ignoring actual game mechanics. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>His numbers are bogus since his own brawlers said they dont hit the mitigation numbers he stated. He arbitrarily inflated thier numbers and deflates his own then claims how close the numbers are.The problem is his guild doesnt trust him to tank and uses a brawler over him. So as you guess he has some penial envy. The problem is not the class but cory is one of the best bruisers WW while bruener is a mediocre shadowknight at best.He might be better if he learned to gear correctly and use defensive adornments, stance, and gear (like both his brawlers do) instead of trying to max out his dps then cry about how they tank better.

Bruener

04-06-2011, 08:09 PM

<cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Fanguru wrote:</cite><blockquote>Mitigation is on a curve (ie: not linear) and contested. As already explained in this thread, you only see the % of mitigation versus a lvl 90 solo mob. Can you tell me how you come up with a 1 or 2% difference between plate and leather tanks while tanking lvl 98 epic x4? No offense Bruener, but I think you are clinging to that gut feeling that brawlers are superheroes and ignoring actual game mechanics. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>His numbers are bogus since his own brawlers said they dont hit the mitigation numbers he stated. He arbitrarily inflated thier numbers and deflates his own then claims how close the numbers are.The problem is his guild doesnt trust him to tank and uses a brawler over him. So as you guess he has some penial envy. The problem is not the class but cory is one of the best bruisers WW while bruener is a mediocre shadowknight at best.He might be better if he learned to gear correctly and use defensive adornments, stance, and gear (like both his brawlers do) instead of trying to max out his dps then cry about how they tank better.</blockquote>No, Blanka is an idiot and completely twists what anybody says for his own benefit. My guild Brawler did not say anything like what Blanka posts...and if you think he is a reliable source you have more problems than I thought.It is no secret that in the exact same group set up with the exact same toons he can have the same Mit.And go ahead and ask Cory and anybody else what kind of SK I am. Meanwhile anybody I know posting on here in souch a venemous defense are nobodies that amazingly couldn't make their Brawler work in SF when things were actually balanced. It is so much more refreshing playing with a Brawler that actually knows how to play....your guys' guildees should try it sometime.And for those that don't think there are some serious changes coming down the pipeline...you are in for a rude awakening.EDIT: I want to add that my OP and the intent of this thread is not to see Brawlers nerfed. It is to balance survivability/tanking mechanics that are out of whack because of the strike thru mechanic. Couple ways to level the playing field...one nerfs, one buffs.

BChizzle

04-06-2011, 08:46 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>No, Blanka is an idiot and completely twists what anybody says for his own benefit. My guild Brawler did not say anything like what Blanka posts...and if you think he is a reliable source you have more problems than I thought.It is no secret that in the exact same group set up with the exact same toons he can have the same Mit.</blockquote>Not sure why you are calling me names, it is Gungo calling you out for being a horrible player I haven't said anything like it and I don't think it. But here to refute your claim(1302049057)[Tue Apr 05 20:17:37 2011] You tell EQ2.Antonia_Bayle.Corydonn, "lol wut ur at 10.8k mit?"(130204913<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />[Tue Apr 05 20:18:58 2011] You tell EQ2.Antonia_Bayle.Corydonn, "is deul talking @%&*? Like is he saying you are 10.8k but you had to wear your cloak and $#!@?"(130204919<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />[Tue Apr 05 20:19:58 2011] aPC -1 EQ2.Antonia_Bayle.Corydonn:EQ2.Antonia_Bayle.Coryd onn/a tells you, "I'm 10.8k when my dirge specs for mit"(1302049219)[Tue Apr 05 20:20:19 2011] You tell EQ2.Antonia_Bayle.Corydonn, "lol let me guess he doesnt get a dirge"(1302049232)[Tue Apr 05 20:20:32 2011] aPC -1 EQ2.Antonia_Bayle.Corydonn:EQ2.Antonia_Bayle.Coryd onn/a tells you, "Sometimes aye heh"(1302049240)[Tue Apr 05 20:20:40 2011] aPC -1 EQ2.Antonia_Bayle.Corydonn:EQ2.Antonia_Bayle.Coryd onn/a tells you, "Most dirges don't spec for the mit either"There is no twist or no lie. You and I know Cory gears incredibly safe like all out crit mit and mit adorns at a huge cost to his dps and you don't do the same.As far as you calling for nerfs to brawlers yes you are quit back pedalling. I told you flat out last year unless you started being honest about your class since you seem to be the SK's representative mouthpiece your class was going to hurt bad this expansion and I was right. While you were crying about things you didn't need like more crit bonus and agro you should have been asking for more defensive stuff since that is really what your class needed. But you went on and on about how it was unfair you couldn't use a 2 hander with knights stance instead of paying attention to what your class really needed. I agree I think your class could use some buffing in survivability but not too much since you have the absolute top survivability buff in the game.

Landiin

04-06-2011, 09:13 PM

need some cream with that burn?

Bruener

04-06-2011, 09:15 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>No, Blanka is an idiot and completely twists what anybody says for his own benefit. My guild Brawler did not say anything like what Blanka posts...and if you think he is a reliable source you have more problems than I thought.It is no secret that in the exact same group set up with the exact same toons he can have the same Mit.</blockquote>Not sure why you are calling me names, it is Gungo calling you out for being a horrible player I haven't said anything like it and I don't think it. But here to refute your claim(1302049057)[Tue Apr 05 20:17:37 2011] You tell EQ2.Antonia_Bayle.Corydonn, "lol wut ur at 10.8k mit?"(130204913<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" />[Tue Apr 05 20:18:58 2011] You tell EQ2.Antonia_Bayle.Corydonn, "is deul talking @%&*? Like is he saying you are 10.8k but you had to wear your cloak and $#!@?"(130204919<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" />[Tue Apr 05 20:19:58 2011] aPC -1 EQ2.Antonia_Bayle.Corydonn:EQ2.Antonia_Bayle.Coryd onn/a tells you, "I'm 10.8k when my dirge specs for mit"(1302049219)[Tue Apr 05 20:20:19 2011] You tell EQ2.Antonia_Bayle.Corydonn, "lol let me guess he doesnt get a dirge"(1302049232)[Tue Apr 05 20:20:32 2011] aPC -1 EQ2.Antonia_Bayle.Corydonn:EQ2.Antonia_Bayle.Coryd onn/a tells you, "Sometimes aye heh"(1302049240)[Tue Apr 05 20:20:40 2011] aPC -1 EQ2.Antonia_Bayle.Corydonn:EQ2.Antonia_Bayle.Coryd onn/a tells you, "Most dirges don't spec for the mit either"There is no twist or no lie. You and I know Cory gears incredibly safe like all out crit mit and mit adorns at a huge cost to his dps and you don't do the same.As far as you calling for nerfs to brawlers yes you are quit back pedalling. I told you flat out last year unless you started being honest about your class since you seem to be the SK's representative mouthpiece your class was going to hurt bad this expansion and I was right. While you were crying about things you didn't need like more crit bonus and agro you should have been asking for more defensive stuff since that is really what your class needed. But you went on and on about how it was unfair you couldn't use a 2 hander with knights stance instead of paying attention to what your class really needed. I agree I think your class could use some buffing in survivability but not too much since you have the absolute top survivability buff in the game.</blockquote>Listen. You are literally the laughing stock of the raiding world. Nobody that is a respected player of this game believes anything you say, and find it almost laughable how incredibly lacking you seem to be in knowledge about this game.Everybody knew that SKs were going to take way too much of a nerf this xpac, yes we know that. Its because of, well, idiots that know nothing about how the game was actually working in SF posting gallore because they just couldn't figure out how to play their own class and became extremely jealous when they saw a SK that had been playing for a long time actually playing their class good.All you have to do to weed out people that really shouldn't be talking is finding out who thought SF wasn't extremely balanced for tanks (Guards needing a little loving). Those people are not good at their own class and when they saw better players doing things better than themselves on another class they thought that that meant they were OP'd. Because whiners whine a lot...SOE made the mistake of half listening to them and it was in SOE fashion a heavy handed change...both to buffing certain classes and nerfing others.This is why SOE has already acknowledged (and even yourself suprisingly - guess that 1% chance of being right on something finally paid off) changes are needed for certain classes. Expect changes for Crusaders and Zerks. Expect changes about the strike thru mechanic. Expect changes to 2h itemization. Wow, it hurts to be right..again.

BChizzle

04-06-2011, 09:53 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Listen. You are literally the laughing stock of the raiding world. Nobody that is a respected player of this game believes anything you say, and find it almost laughable how incredibly lacking you seem to be in knowledge about this game.Everybody knew that SKs were going to take way too much of a nerf this xpac, yes we know that. Its because of, well, idiots that know nothing about how the game was actually working in SF posting gallore because they just couldn't figure out how to play their own class and became extremely jealous when they saw a SK that had been playing for a long time actually playing their class good.All you have to do to weed out people that really shouldn't be talking is finding out who thought SF wasn't extremely balanced for tanks (Guards needing a little loving). Those people are not good at their own class and when they saw better players doing things better than themselves on another class they thought that that meant they were OP'd. Because whiners whine a lot...SOE made the mistake of half listening to them and it was in SOE fashion a heavy handed change...both to buffing certain classes and nerfing others.This is why SOE has already acknowledged (and even yourself suprisingly - guess that 1% chance of being right on something finally paid off) changes are needed for certain classes. Expect changes for Crusaders and Zerks. Expect changes about the strike thru mechanic. Expect changes to 2h itemization. Wow, it hurts to be right..again.</blockquote>Again with the personal stuff, that is all you can rely on after being called out yet again. I notice you completely ignored how I refuted your claims that I was lying and haven't even begun to address the facts that you don't gear defensively. You are now backpedalling and are making generalizations by saying "Something is going to change in the future" to try and remove the foot you put in your mouth. Classes change all the time but I doubt anything is happening with the strikethrough mechanic, if devs wanted brawlers to get hit more then could just have the mobs use a frontal ae which we don't avoid anyways.Oh and for the record I never ever said brawlers were ineffective in SF so stop trying to change the history here. There were some areas I felt we could be improved though and we were improved in those areas. In fact I get slack from the brawler community all the time especially in BETA's for giving feedback about things I feel are OP about my class, immunity to strikethrough is only OP if encounter designers give too much of it to raidmobs, but an avoidance tank should never be penalized for being an avoidance tank by getting struckthrough their main defensive mechanic.That said it doesn't hurt if mobs for example are better tanked by certain classes. Say for example a mob debuffed SK lifetaps or paly heals so a brawler or warrior might be a better choice, or if for example they did lots of small hits that would eat all a guards stoneskins so a crusader/brawler might be a better choice. Or maybe they have a bunch of crushing aes thus making brawler the worst choice etc. That doesn't hurt the game.

Bruener

04-06-2011, 10:10 PM

Yep, you are good. Once again sucking in a personal battle to completely derail a thread. Not sure why I let myself get into it with you since I know its like arguing with a block wall that changes his mind constantly.Yes, mitigation numbers are way closer than what you lead people to believe. Yes classes also have damage reduction as well. Oh and yes some classes already have a lot higher uncontested avoidance to cover the small gap in mitigation. Not to mention lots of stoneskins as well. The strike-thru is over the top and unbalanced because in todays game mobs strike thru a lot more. What it really comes down to is Brawlers don't operate at all like they used to. The damage they take is equal....AND they take it less often. There is no magical bad roll on a Brawler and he drops instantly. That type of game was a long time ago.Strike thru makes saves for Fighters that are supposed to be true saves spotty. That needs to change. Probably the best change that SOE can make is making it so that Fighters are immune to strike thru on the abilities that are supposed to be 100% avoidance abilities. That includes ALL fighters, and that should probably be the only time any Fighter is immune to an ability that is designed to lower avoidance since as others have pointed out avoidance was getting out of hand.As to a mechanic that counters the increase of mitigation in the same way. Actually its real easy. Make the mob hit harder. They do it every xpac and throughout progression. Mobs hit harder to negate the gains of mitigation. If they want a similar mechanic to negate avoidance than it should affect all tanks the same.

BChizzle

04-06-2011, 10:37 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yep, you are good. Once again sucking in a personal battle to completely derail a thread. Not sure why I let myself get into it with you since I know its like arguing with a block wall that changes his mind constantly.</blockquote>In your blind forum keyboard smashing rage I think you are mistakening me for Gungo, unlike him I haven't called you any names whatsoever and mearly opposed your extremely exaggerated and misinformed view of brawlers.

Bruener

04-06-2011, 11:12 PM

Fanguru

04-07-2011, 02:07 AM

Right, when you're done with the name-calling, could you please explain how you came up with the 1-2% mitigation gap between leather and plate as raid MT?edit: I would also like to know what makes us brawlers the best utility tanks.

Novusod

04-07-2011, 03:58 AM

This thread is pretty epic fail. With all the name calling going on it should be locked.There are few points that should be made here though:1. Brawler is the least popular raid MT and this is for a variety of reasons. Plate tanks can do everything a brawler can but better except avoid hits with Strikethrough immunity. It is the ONE thing brawlers have going for them in DoV. Avoidance tanking does not work without it.2. Strikethrough Immunity is not the I-WIN button. Brawler is the high risk, high reward fighter. If you think brawler is easymode then try MT'ing on a brawler sometime. I was MT brawler in SF so know what I am talking about here.3. Small differences in mit can mean the difference between a one shot and living. Plate tanks are still better at abosorbing spike damage than brawlers.

Fanguru

04-07-2011, 07:09 AM

Besides, plate tanks are vastly superior to brawlers when tanking Mikill, /nod. In fact, I don't see any point of having a brawler tank him really. [Removed for Content], I am sad and jealous now. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/c30b4198e0907b23b8246bdd52aa1c3c.gif" border="0" />

aias

04-07-2011, 02:28 PM

Alot of this bickering stems from limited raid slots. There is no way you can raid effectively with each of the 24 classes in raid. You will likely need a chanter for each group of which there are 2 classes, a bard for each group, again only 2 classes, and 8-9 healers, of 6 healing classes. The rest will be dps classes with the fewest slots allocated to fighters. So you have 6 fighter classes fighting for desirablity for a couple raid slots. It's extremely unfortunate. It would be nice if each fighter was unique yet equal in defensive and offensive capabilities, quite a challenge for devs. But in DoV some fighters are more equal than others. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" />

Gungo

04-07-2011, 09:02 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yep, you are good. Once again sucking in a personal battle to completely derail a thread. Not sure why I let myself get into it with you since I know its like arguing with a block wall that changes his mind constantly.</blockquote>In your blind forum keyboard smashing rage I think you are mistakening me for Gungo, unlike him I haven't called you any names whatsoever and mearly opposed your extremely exaggerated and misinformed view of brawlers.</blockquote>The only name calling i said was that he is a mediocre shadowknight playing with a great bruiser. He might consider that name calling but the fact is he is mediocre because he doesnt use defensive adornments and gear and routinely specs for offensive and then complains about how much of a disadvantage he is to other tanks defensively who are in full defensive mode.His numbers are also completely bogus as stated by his own guild members and the fact he provides not a single shred of proof other then his already tarnished opinion.Bruener needs to learn to gear to tank instead of crying about his own poor decision making. All bruener needs to do to prove us wrong is post a picture in raid with his inventory and raid buffs showing his actual mit and then post a screenshot of at least his adornment selections on his 7 armour pieces. This would easily show why people make fun of him.He will not do that because all bruener cares about is his PEW PEW instead of tanking ability, until other tanks who gear better out tank him. And then its all about how underpowered shadowknights are.

Gungo

04-07-2011, 09:13 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>No, Blanka is an idiot and completely twists what anybody says for his own benefit. My guild Brawler did not say anything like what Blanka posts...and if you think he is a reliable source you have more problems than I thought.It is no secret that in the exact same group set up with the exact same toons he can have the same Mit.</blockquote>Not sure why you are calling me names, it is Gungo calling you out for being a horrible player I haven't said anything like it and I don't think it. But here to refute your claim(1302049057)[Tue Apr 05 20:17:37 2011] You tell EQ2.Antonia_Bayle.Corydonn, "lol wut ur at 10.8k mit?"(130204913<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" />[Tue Apr 05 20:18:58 2011] You tell EQ2.Antonia_Bayle.Corydonn, "is deul talking @%&*? Like is he saying you are 10.8k but you had to wear your cloak and $#!@?"(130204919<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" />[Tue Apr 05 20:19:58 2011] aPC -1 EQ2.Antonia_Bayle.Corydonn:EQ2.Antonia_Bayle.Coryd onn/a tells you, "I'm 10.8k when my dirge specs for mit"(1302049219)[Tue Apr 05 20:20:19 2011] You tell EQ2.Antonia_Bayle.Corydonn, "lol let me guess he doesnt get a dirge"(1302049232)[Tue Apr 05 20:20:32 2011] aPC -1 EQ2.Antonia_Bayle.Corydonn:EQ2.Antonia_Bayle.Coryd onn/a tells you, "Sometimes aye heh"(1302049240)[Tue Apr 05 20:20:40 2011] aPC -1 EQ2.Antonia_Bayle.Corydonn:EQ2.Antonia_Bayle.Coryd onn/a tells you, "Most dirges don't spec for the mit either"There is no twist or no lie. You and I know Cory gears incredibly safe like all out crit mit and mit adorns at a huge cost to his dps and you don't do the same.As far as you calling for nerfs to brawlers yes you are quit back pedalling. I told you flat out last year unless you started being honest about your class since you seem to be the SK's representative mouthpiece your class was going to hurt bad this expansion and I was right. While you were crying about things you didn't need like more crit bonus and agro you should have been asking for more defensive stuff since that is really what your class needed. But you went on and on about how it was unfair you couldn't use a 2 hander with knights stance instead of paying attention to what your class really needed. I agree I think your class could use some buffing in survivability but not too much since you have the absolute top survivability buff in the game.</blockquote>Listen. You are literally the laughing stock of the raiding world. Nobody that is a respected player of this game believes anything you say, and find it almost laughable how incredibly lacking you seem to be in knowledge about this game.</blockquote>Are you talking about yourself?Because honestly it was only a year ago you were trying to convince everyone shadowknights were balanced in TSO.The raiding population has stopped listening to anything you have had to say since. You have no idea what class balance is unless it involves your shadwokngiht being overpowered.

Ryai

04-08-2011, 12:36 AM

<cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>This thread is pretty epic fail. With all the name calling going on it should be locked.There are few points that should be made here though:1. Brawler is the least popular raid MT and this is for a variety of reasons. Plate tanks can do everything a brawler can but better except avoid hits with Strikethrough immunity. It is the ONE thing brawlers have going for them in DoV. Avoidance tanking does not work without it.2. Strikethrough Immunity is not the I-WIN button. Brawler is the high risk, high reward fighter. If you think brawler is easymode then try MT'ing on a brawler sometime. I was MT brawler in SF so know what I am talking about here.3. Small differences in mit can mean the difference between a one shot and living. Plate tanks are still better at abosorbing spike damage than brawlers.</blockquote>This says it all. Pretty much LOL@Claiming strikethrough immunity=easy mode.I raid with a Shadowknight MT. The class is doing just fine for itself. Seems like Bruener's issues are strictly on the player side, not the class side.

Dorieon

04-08-2011, 03:56 AM

The issue is more with mob mechanics than class mechanics. If mobs didn't have so much strikethrough then it wouldn't be an issue. Leave some mobs with major strikethrough and reduce others. Easy fix. Make the others have some other skill to make them hard.But the answer isn't to give everyone strikethrough immunity. If so they will just have to add another mechanic to mobs.The answer is also NOT taking strikethrough immunity away from brawlers. It was given for a reason, and if the class dev happened to talk to the raid mechanic dev they could maybe work this out.If plate tanks get strikethrough avoidance I want a deathsave that stays up until it is used, I want a larger agro siphon, I want a permanat group buff that actually helps the group, I want a few of CA's to heal me,a nd I want alot of stoneskins.Bottom line is, Brawlers aren't the preffered MT for most guilds and we are all doing fine and killing new mobs without it so try another tactic to get SK's more OP'd.

Bruener

04-08-2011, 10:14 AM

LoL, at a bunch of people claiming to know how this game is working when in fact all they are doing is running group instances or killing the first EM named in a zone.Sounds like the same people that claimed Adrenaline wasn't OP'd back in SF beta. Guess it will take a whole xpac to realize it and than at that time fix it with an extremely heavy hand. It is always better to get the right fix early rather than an over the top fix later.Really I was done with this thread on page 1 because I stated exactly what needed to be said and why and the arguing that is going on is really just from people that don't have a clue. The mechanic is broken and needs to be fixed or as mobs get more and more strike thru the difference gets way too big like it is already showing in DoV. In SF with mobs not having nearly as much strike thru, and without coop on every mob with adds, it was fine. SOE gave mobs way too much strike thru to negate uncontested avoidance. They did this for a reason because Tanks were avoiding too much. Allowing the tanks that avoid a ton more already to not be affected by this breaks what they want to fix.And come on. Those that question my ability obviously have no idea who I am or how I play. Those trying to question how I am spec'd obviously have no idea on how an OT should be spec'ing. Survivability and DPS and Agro are a constant balance and the responsibility of the tank. Stop trying to turn this into a me trying to get SK's OP'd since this is a direct issue with ALL fighters. I am happy with my SK at the moment excepting a few minor tweaks that I am confident are coming. I am not happy with a broken mechanic that puts 2 utility/leather/DPS Fighters at the top of survivability because it excludes the 4 other Fighters.

aias

04-08-2011, 12:51 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>LoL, at a bunch of people claiming to know how this game is working when in fact all they are doing is running group instances or killing the first EM named in a zone.Sounds like the same people that claimed Adrenaline wasn't OP'd back in SF beta. Guess it will take a whole xpac to realize it and than at that time fix it with an extremely heavy hand. It is always better to get the right fix early rather than an over the top fix later.Really I was done with this thread on page 1 because I stated exactly what needed to be said and why and the arguing that is going on is really just from people that don't have a clue. The mechanic is broken and needs to be fixed or as mobs get more and more strike thru the difference gets way too big like it is already showing in DoV. In SF with mobs not having nearly as much strike thru, and without coop on every mob with adds, it was fine. SOE gave mobs way too much strike thru to negate uncontested avoidance. They did this for a reason because Tanks were avoiding too much. Allowing the tanks that avoid a ton more already to not be affected by this breaks what they want to fix.And come on. Those that question my ability obviously have no idea who I am or how I play. Those trying to question how I am spec'd obviously have no idea on how an OT should be spec'ing. Survivability and DPS and Agro are a constant balance and the responsibility of the tank. Stop trying to turn this into a me trying to get SK's OP'd since this is a direct issue with ALL fighters. I am happy with my SK at the moment excepting a few minor tweaks that I am confident are coming. I am not happy with a broken mechanic that puts 2 utility/leather/DPS Fighters at the top of survivability because it excludes the 4 other Fighters.</blockquote>BTW, Adrenaline was the same when it was introduced years ago before SF. Nothing about it changed and nor was it "OP". You most likely encountered it in PvP and raged that you had a hard time pew pewing when adrenaline was procing.

Landiin

04-08-2011, 03:04 PM

Looks like there are lots of raid tanks not having issues with this. Bruener has became use to being OP now that his class doesn't have such of an upper hand he is QQing because he can't proform I guess. L2P man, wasn't that your slogan for the last 2 exp?

Yimway

04-08-2011, 04:20 PM

Yimway

04-08-2011, 04:24 PM

<cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>2. Strikethrough Immunity is not the I-WIN button. Brawler is the high risk, high reward fighter. If you think brawler is easymode then try MT'ing on a brawler sometime. I was MT brawler in SF so know what I am talking about here.</blockquote>It doesn't appear hard at all, parse the best, get the best aggro, avoid the 'i win' button raid mobs with strikethru get, and MTing it as a brawler looks like cake.Our brawler MT's these mobs not cause it can't be done by our plate tanks, but cause it is just so much easier for a brawler to tank it. We pair them in a group with a guard alternating group stoneskin and group mit, the brawler honestly shines on that content.So long as that isn't a mechanic overused (a seperate discusion really) then there really isn't much of an issue.

Bruener

04-08-2011, 04:58 PM

<cite>Pandarus@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote>BTW, Adrenaline was the same when it was introduced years ago before SF. Nothing about it changed and nor was it "OP". You most likely encountered it in PvP and raged that you had a hard time pew pewing when adrenaline was procing.</blockquote>Well, they added an AA that reduced the recast by 30 seconds, making it so that Adrenaline could be up 50% of the time. Something that when pointed out in Beta as being way too often became a [Removed for Content]-fest from Zerkers. Now they get the new Adrenaline.Strike thru immunity mechanic is broken with how much mobs strike thru now and Coop strike, period. It will be fixed without a doubt. If you are in denial all you are doing is advocating broken mechanics. One fix would have forced ALL tanks into defensive stance while tanking and not missed a beat since it is how current Brawlers easily MT every mob in this game. Or the other way is removing it, or allowing it only on temps.

Bremer

04-08-2011, 05:02 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Well, they added an AA that reduced the recast by 30 seconds, making it so that Adrenaline could be up 50% of the time. Something that when pointed out in Beta as being way too often became a [Removed for Content]-fest from Zerkers. </blockquote>If you posts then wouldn't have been "I've heard that Adrenaline can do xy, I have never ever inspected the spell and I'm writing only based on hearsay and I don't even know the recast, but Berserkers must be cheating, because they can beat the recast cap and I want to get everybody except SKs nerfed in beta, because it won't get changed on Live", well, then maybe it wouldn't have been a "[Removed for Content]-fest" <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />

aias

04-08-2011, 05:08 PM

Bruener

04-08-2011, 05:09 PM

<cite>Bremer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Well, they added an AA that reduced the recast by 30 seconds, making it so that Adrenaline could be up 50% of the time. Something that when pointed out in Beta as being way too often became a [Removed for Content]-fest from Zerkers. </blockquote>If you posts then wouldn't have been "I've heard that Adrenaline can do xy, I have never ever inspected the spell and I'm writing only based on hearsay and I don't even know the recast, but Berserkers must be cheating, because they can beat the recast cap and I want to get everybody except SKs nerfed in beta, because it won't get changed on Live", well, then maybe it wouldn't have been a "[Removed for Content]-fest" <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>Yeah, because it wasn't obvious that Adrenaline was up for 30 seconds and was recastable with the low reuse every 1 min.That argument is completely over, because it was changed due to letting it go thru completely OP'd.Sorry that people can't swallow the nerfs to fix bad bad mechanics. As a SK I saw a huge nerf to my reflect. Saw a big nerf to DPS output in relation to other classes. Had a 3rd trigger of BL removed. Took a nerf to heal crits. And you know what I am fine with my class still. Out of all those the only thing I would like is allowing reflect to be modifiable by reuse so that it is actually a decent spec for defensive needs.But some people recognize poor mechanics and can live with the changes for the health of the game, some can't at all.

aias

04-08-2011, 05:16 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bremer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Well, they added an AA that reduced the recast by 30 seconds, making it so that Adrenaline could be up 50% of the time. Something that when pointed out in Beta as being way too often became a [Removed for Content]-fest from Zerkers. </blockquote>If you posts then wouldn't have been "I've heard that Adrenaline can do xy, I have never ever inspected the spell and I'm writing only based on hearsay and I don't even know the recast, but Berserkers must be cheating, because they can beat the recast cap and I want to get everybody except SKs nerfed in beta, because it won't get changed on Live", well, then maybe it wouldn't have been a "[Removed for Content]-fest" <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>Yeah, because it wasn't obvious that Adrenaline was up for 30 seconds and was recastable with the low reuse every 1 min.That argument is completely over, because it was changed due to letting it go thru completely OP'd.Sorry that people can't swallow the nerfs to fix bad bad mechanics. As a SK I saw a huge nerf to my reflect. Saw a big nerf to DPS output in relation to other classes. Had a 3rd trigger of BL removed. Took a nerf to heal crits. And you know what I am fine with my class still. Out of all those the only thing I would like is allowing reflect to be modifiable by reuse so that it is actually a decent spec for defensive needs.But some people recognize poor mechanics and can live with the changes for the health of the game, some can't at all.</blockquote>You're lieing. It was exasperating telling you in Beta that you were wrong. Now you dismiss it because it doesn't suit you. You know nothing about mechanics or other classes other than self-proclaiming that you do. You weird man!

Bruener

04-08-2011, 05:29 PM

<cite>Pandarus@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote>You're lieing. It was exasperating telling you in Beta that you were wrong. Now you dismiss it because it doesn't suit you. You know nothing about mechanics or other classes other than self-proclaiming that you do. You weird man!</blockquote>What?!? Yes, people were trying desperately to deny it, claiming false crap like oh you have to be Bezerk so it isn't a guarantee. As if a Bezerker isn't Bezerk 100% of the time in the game just about.The ball dropped, people that understand mechanics could see it coming a mile away.How about this. Why don't we see what happens throughout the xpac and than we can circle right back here. Lets see if it ends up exactly like the Adrenaline issue. Or maybe it will end up exactly like the Multi-Attack itemization issue for Fighters. I might even just /bump the thread for giggles when the changes come.

aias

04-08-2011, 05:37 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Pandarus@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote>You're lieing. It was exasperating telling you in Beta that you were wrong. Now you dismiss it because it doesn't suit you. You know nothing about mechanics or other classes other than self-proclaiming that you do. You weird man!</blockquote>What?!? Yes, people were trying desperately to deny it, claiming false crap like oh you have to be Bezerk so it isn't a guarantee. As if a Bezerker isn't Bezerk 100% of the time in the game just about.Yes, wrong again and lieing, again. LOLThe ball dropped, people that understand mechanics could see it coming a mile away.How about this. Why don't we see what happens throughout the xpac and than we can circle right back here. Lets see if it ends up exactly like the Adrenaline issue. Or maybe it will end up exactly like the Multi-Attack itemization issue for Fighters. I might even just /bump the thread for giggles when the changes come.</blockquote>I guess everyone is delusional disagreeing with you. You are the divine light of truth and wisdom harassed by the ignorance of the masses.

Dorieon

04-10-2011, 01:10 AM

I guess I am just at a loss for what mob you can't tank as an SK. If you could clarify maybe we would all understand better.

circusgirl

04-11-2011, 12:09 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Pandarus@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote>BTW, Adrenaline was the same when it was introduced years ago before SF. Nothing about it changed and nor was it "OP". You most likely encountered it in PvP and raged that you had a hard time pew pewing when adrenaline was procing.</blockquote>Well, they added an AA that reduced the recast by 30 seconds, making it so that Adrenaline could be up 50% of the time. Something that when pointed out in Beta as being way too often became a [Removed for Content]-fest from Zerkers. Now they get the new Adrenaline.Strike thru immunity mechanic is broken with how much mobs strike thru now and Coop strike, period. It will be fixed without a doubt. If you are in denial all you are doing is advocating broken mechanics. One fix would have forced ALL tanks into defensive stance while tanking and not missed a beat since it is how current Brawlers easily MT every mob in this game. Or the other way is removing it, or allowing it only on temps.</blockquote>If you're dying to cooperative strike you should probably recruit more tanks instead of complaining about strikethrough. Just saying.

Ryai

04-11-2011, 09:04 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>If you're dying to cooperative strike you should probably recruit more tanks instead of complaining about strikethrough. Just saying.</blockquote>This says it all. Coop-Strike mechanic, working as intended.As for atan's comment about brawlers+guards, yeah, not surprising. Stoneskin is an inherently unbalanced mechanic like spell double attack. Not suprising that an avoidance tank+stoneskin makes for a stupidly good combination. Doesn't mean stoneskin is broken, just like strikethrough immunity isn't a broken mechanic.Its obviously not a balance issue in raids considering lots of guilds are making good progression, making kills, and not annihilating content really easily. Strikthrough immunity is a neat trick, but there are other ways around everything else. Its not unbalancing or else you'd see a lot more brawlers running around.Also, Bruener, you claim you're correctly specced for offtanking. Did it ever occur to you that a brawler spec is an all the time full tank spec? Most aren't even close to a dps spec if they are in any kind of raid role, there simply isn't any way to maintain survivability without being completely specced into tanking.Mob mechanics are balanced against all the tools that might be at a tank's disposal, including the rest of their group's. Claiming that all tanks need strikethrough immunity or that brawlers are overpowered because of it is a weak argument at best without coherent reasoning taking into all factors. Such as which healers are in the group, number of mobs attempting to tank, aa spec, healer aa specs, healer runes, dirge buffs, etc, etc, etc.The fact that you were complaining about coop strike killing you, about says it all. Complain about mechanics that are working exactly as intended some more. Every tank can MT every mob in the game right now. Just because some encounters are easier for some tanks than others, doesn't imply there is anything wrong with the system. In fact, it shows that the system is actually becoming better. If you had told someone two years ago a brawler would be able to MT raid mobs, they would have laughed at you, now its actually happening.Advocating sweeping changes like this only shows dated your mentality is, and how things got entirely screwed up in the first place. Nerfs and blanket changes are not the way to go. Small incremental tweaks with feedback perhaps. But every complaint you've stated has everything to do with mob mechanics, so the changes need to be made there. Not on the class side, and nothing so drastic as anything you've advocated. Your style of thinking is exactly what had fighters so screwed up over the last couple years and why massive nerfs and sweeping changes occured. Its flawed.

Bruener

04-11-2011, 09:10 PM

<cite>Cyan@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>If you're dying to cooperative strike you should probably recruit more tanks instead of complaining about strikethrough. Just saying.</blockquote>This says it all. Coop-Strike mechanic, working as intended.As for atan's comment about brawlers+guards, yeah, not surprising. Stoneskin is an inherently unbalanced mechanic like spell double attack. Not suprising that an avoidance tank+stoneskin makes for a stupidly good combination. Doesn't mean stoneskin is broken, just like strikethrough immunity isn't a broken mechanic.Its obviously not a balance issue in raids considering lots of guilds are making good progression, making kills, and not annihilating content really easily. Strikthrough immunity is a neat trick, but there are other ways around everything else. Its not unbalancing or else you'd see a lot more brawlers running around.Also, Bruener, you claim you're correctly specced for offtanking. Did it ever occur to you that a brawler spec is an all the time full tank spec? Most aren't even close to a dps spec if they are in any kind of raid role, there simply isn't any way to maintain survivability without being completely specced into tanking.Mob mechanics are balanced against all the tools that might be at a tank's disposal, including the rest of their group's. Claiming that all tanks need strikethrough immunity or that brawlers are overpowered because of it is a weak argument at best without coherent reasoning taking into all factors. Such as which healers are in the group, number of mobs attempting to tank, aa spec, healer aa specs, healer runes, dirge buffs, etc, etc, etc.The fact that you were complaining about coop strike killing you, about says it all. Complain about mechanics that are working exactly as intended some more. Every tank can MT every mob in the game right now. Just because some encounters are easier for some tanks than others, doesn't imply there is anything wrong with the system. In fact, it shows that the system is actually becoming better. If you had told someone two years ago a brawler would be able to MT raid mobs, they would have laughed at you, now its actually happening.Advocating sweeping changes like this only shows dated your mentality is, and how things got entirely screwed up in the first place. Nerfs and blanket changes are not the way to go. Small incremental tweaks with feedback perhaps. But every complaint you've stated has everything to do with mob mechanics, so the changes need to be made there. Not on the class side, and nothing so drastic as anything you've advocated. Your style of thinking is exactly what had fighters so screwed up over the last couple years and why massive nerfs and sweeping changes occured. Its flawed.</blockquote>Hey look, its a couple baby Blanka's twisting words around like crazy. How cute.Yeah, the Coop-strike mechanic works for everybody EXCEPT Brawlers....I guess that is ok? Hey, Brawler pop Tsunami and who gives a crap if the adds pop and are on you the whole time. See the point you are talking about exactly is the point I made.I recommend starting to admit that the strike thru immunity mechanic is broken. It will make it a ton easier when it gets changed in the near future.

Gungo

04-12-2011, 01:03 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Cyan@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>If you're dying to cooperative strike you should probably recruit more tanks instead of complaining about strikethrough. Just saying.</blockquote>This says it all. Coop-Strike mechanic, working as intended.As for atan's comment about brawlers+guards, yeah, not surprising. Stoneskin is an inherently unbalanced mechanic like spell double attack. Not suprising that an avoidance tank+stoneskin makes for a stupidly good combination. Doesn't mean stoneskin is broken, just like strikethrough immunity isn't a broken mechanic.Its obviously not a balance issue in raids considering lots of guilds are making good progression, making kills, and not annihilating content really easily. Strikthrough immunity is a neat trick, but there are other ways around everything else. Its not unbalancing or else you'd see a lot more brawlers running around.Also, Bruener, you claim you're correctly specced for offtanking. Did it ever occur to you that a brawler spec is an all the time full tank spec? Most aren't even close to a dps spec if they are in any kind of raid role, there simply isn't any way to maintain survivability without being completely specced into tanking.Mob mechanics are balanced against all the tools that might be at a tank's disposal, including the rest of their group's. Claiming that all tanks need strikethrough immunity or that brawlers are overpowered because of it is a weak argument at best without coherent reasoning taking into all factors. Such as which healers are in the group, number of mobs attempting to tank, aa spec, healer aa specs, healer runes, dirge buffs, etc, etc, etc.The fact that you were complaining about coop strike killing you, about says it all. Complain about mechanics that are working exactly as intended some more. Every tank can MT every mob in the game right now. Just because some encounters are easier for some tanks than others, doesn't imply there is anything wrong with the system. In fact, it shows that the system is actually becoming better. If you had told someone two years ago a brawler would be able to MT raid mobs, they would have laughed at you, now its actually happening.Advocating sweeping changes like this only shows dated your mentality is, and how things got entirely screwed up in the first place. Nerfs and blanket changes are not the way to go. Small incremental tweaks with feedback perhaps. But every complaint you've stated has everything to do with mob mechanics, so the changes need to be made there. Not on the class side, and nothing so drastic as anything you've advocated. Your style of thinking is exactly what had fighters so screwed up over the last couple years and why massive nerfs and sweeping changes occured. Its flawed.</blockquote>Hey look, its a couple baby Blanka's twisting words around like crazy. How cute.Yeah, the Coop-strike mechanic works for everybody EXCEPT Brawlers....I guess that is ok? Hey, Brawler pop Tsunami and who gives a crap if the adds pop and are on you the whole time. See the point you are talking about exactly is the point I made.I recommend starting to admit that the strike thru immunity mechanic is broken. It will make it a ton easier when it gets changed in the near future.</blockquote>You do realize the devs already have a mechanic that goes past strikethrough immunity and all avoidance buffs such as tsunami. Brawlers were hit all the time last expansion and this expansion through our avoidance buffs in defensive stance with 100% hit rate CA's in raid. If they wanted those effects to go past strikethrough immunities they can already do that. Nothing needs to be changed about that strikethrough, especially something as idiotic as your suggestions of giving shadowknights even more abilites they do not need.Your crying is yet another thin veil of you trying to overpower your shadowknight on something that isnt needed. Fighters ARE balanced this expansion just like expansion. Except instead of guardians needing a few tweaks, bezerkers need them this expansion.Itsa funny how everyone in this thread is telling you how wrong you are even members of your own guild and yet you still dont get it.

Dorieon

04-12-2011, 03:26 AM

Still waiting for a list of mobs that make this change needed. And it will have to be a list that plate tanks aren't currently tanking. Otherwise the strikethrough avoidance is obviously not a game breaking issue.

Britty

04-12-2011, 10:24 AM

<cite>Nunya@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote></blockquote>I dont doubt the brawler nerfs are on the way. Enjoy it while it lasts</blockquote>The brawler nerfs are coming because through the crocodile tears here is the whining....again. But Brawler nerfs are NOT neededAs far as Im concerned Brawlers deserve this love, and I don't place any conditions on that statement.For a long long time they had no real place in the game. Generally they were not considered to be serious tanks above their plate counterparts which left them in that void between edge tank and edge DPS role. In SF they had situational roles based only on encounters which dictated a brawler of some kind needed to be involved. What a crutch.They finally get a *real* ability which distinguishes them as a their own tank class and you guys cry foul?Give me a break.Brawlers have my support. Plate tanks....suck it up. Buncha cry babies.

Landiin

04-12-2011, 12:41 PM

Hey don't group all of us plate tanks in with Duel. Notice most plate tanks aren't QQing about strike through. Just the ones that needed the OP of their class to shine. Now that the OP isn't there they are QQing.Duel uses these forums to push his agenda, you'll notice he don't post alot of the crap he spews here on flames. You know why? He'll get blown out of the water there, he can't hind behind the liberals that admin this board there.

aias

04-12-2011, 12:57 PM

<cite>Toranx@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Hey don't group all of us plate tanks in with Duel. Notice most plate tanks aren't QQing about strike through. Just the ones that needed the OP of their class to shine. Now that the OP isn't there they are QQing.Duel uses these forums to push his agenda, you'll notice he don't post alot of the crap he spews here on flames. You know why? He'll get blown out of the water there, he can't hind behind the liberals that admin this board there.</blockquote>lol, wut? The liberals at it again! haha

Ryai

04-13-2011, 04:29 AM

<cite>Pandarus@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote>lol, wut? The liberals at it again! haha</blockquote>There everywhere, gotta watch out.

Gungo

04-13-2011, 12:54 PM

The Coop strike mechanic has been nerfed, since most adds with it are MUCH easier now. The OP point is mostly moot at this point, since guilds are killing these strikethrough named such as kolskeggr HM w/o brawlers MTing.Odd how the top guild clearing content uses a guard tank and not a brawler.

aias

04-13-2011, 02:32 PM

<cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>The Coop strike mechanic has been nerfed, since most adds with it are MUCH easier now. The OP point is mostly moot at this point, since guilds are killing these strikethrough named such as kolskeggr HM w/o brawlers MTing.Odd how the top guild clearing content uses a guard tank and not a brawler.</blockquote>D'oh! You just gave him a new target!

Bruener

04-13-2011, 03:18 PM

So now the logic is because a Guard can tank it everything is just fine with Fighter class mechanics. Lets not even consider the fact that that position is supposed to be for Guards most of the time.I mean I could use that logic back in TSO and SF before the Guard changes since we had a Guard MT the entire xpac and were even 3rd in SF to clear it....Really, things are not balanced right now and from the sound of it it is going to be addressed before long.

BChizzle

04-13-2011, 05:55 PM

Bruener

04-13-2011, 06:12 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>So now the logic is because a Guard can tank it everything is just fine with Fighter class mechanics. Lets not even consider the fact that that position is supposed to be for Guards most of the time.I mean I could use that logic back in TSO and SF before the Guard changes since we had a Guard MT the entire xpac and were even 3rd in SF to clear it....Really, things are not balanced right now and from the sound of it it is going to be addressed before long.</blockquote>So when a guard was in the worst shape ever your guild still choose to have one tank over you even though your class was easily the most OP tank for the last two expansions? I think you should listen to everyone else here and learn to play your class more effectively and maybe you won't get passed over so much. Really it is about time for you to stop attacking others calling people names and look at yourself.</blockquote>Think we have been through this before. In fact my guildees get a huge kick out of anybody that suggests I lack skill at my class in this game....it makes it especially funny coming from the few here that are insinuating it.Couple things. Guards were fantastic MTs. People were just pretty bad at figuring out how to play them well. Our Guard figured it out and taking way less damage MT'ing makes a big difference.Second. I did MT for about a month in TSO while our Guard took a break. I enjoy OT'ing a ton more. So I have always chosen to OT instead of MT. OT'ing requires a ton more awareness and basically being able to do the same job in a pinch without as much support.Finally. I understand that this must be hard for you because you can't even figure it out when your class is out of balance due to a couple mechanics issues. Its not hard to notice it, and a lot of other people are picking up on it and its becoming more and more obvious. That is not intended and rather than call for nerfs I suggested bringing up some of the gaps that other Fighters have to level out the playing field. Its really quite sad that something that is really quite obvious you guys seem oblivious to.Really though posting here is a waste. Only the re-re's respond. Communicating with people that actually design the game and understand the shortfalls and that are working on fixes is the way to go. There is a reason most people don't post here, because they deal with people that operate on heresay, old beliefs, simply don't know better, or people that do know and pretend to be ignorant.

BChizzle

04-13-2011, 08:21 PM

Clearly since your total experience tanking is 1 month total in TSO yuo aren't really qualified to even comment on this topic. What would you know about tanking when it is pretty clear you don't do it?

BChizzle

04-13-2011, 08:49 PM

<cite>Dorieon@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote>I guess I am just at a loss for what mob you can't tank as an SK. If you could clarify maybe we would all understand better.</blockquote>Its not even a mob he can't tank as an SK he is upset he can't tank in DPS gear while buffed in a mage group with probably 1 healer. He should just roll a warlock.

Bruener

04-13-2011, 09:06 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Clearly since your total experience tanking is 1 month total in TSO yuo aren't really qualified to even comment on this topic. What would you know about tanking when it is pretty clear you don't do it?</blockquote>Read much? Or just rage and type all the time?

Bruener

04-13-2011, 09:07 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Dorieon@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote>I guess I am just at a loss for what mob you can't tank as an SK. If you could clarify maybe we would all understand better.</blockquote>Its not even a mob he can't tank as an SK he is upset he can't tank in DPS gear while buffed in a mage group with probably 1 healer. He should just roll a warlock.</blockquote>Blanka still clueless....CHECK. I mean its not hard to look at my profile man and see you just plain don't have any idea what you are talking about.Hey Brawlers tanked every mob in TSO, guess that means they were just peachy.

Medro

04-13-2011, 09:47 PM

I don't post much because there is a lot of dishonesty on these forums with people like Bruener who twist the facts to push their own agenda. But I feel the need to post now because an SK complaining about brawlers has to be the biggest whopper of a lie ever told on this forum. For more than two years the SK was the most stupidly over powered class in existance. It is laughable all these SK's claiming to have skill when all they did was ride a rising tide of a super over powered class. I got news for you: playing a flavor of the month class does not take skill. Tanking is very competitve right now with guards, zerkers, pallys, SKs, and brawlers all competing for the coveted MT/OT slot. Some people are up to the chalange while others are not and will cry about it. Bottom line is this is a player issue not a design issue.The game is pretty balanced right now with all tanks able to get their job done. Tank balance and design is actually really good in DoV. Guilds actually use brawlers now which is a good thing. Avoidance tanking actually works thanks to strikethrough immunity. I have to say this though the day the class developers start listening to no talent cry babies like Bruener is day I cancel my account. It is ridiculous that someone can just cry on the forum and break the game.

BChizzle

04-13-2011, 09:52 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Clearly since your total experience tanking is 1 month total in TSO yuo aren't really qualified to even comment on this topic. What would you know about tanking when it is pretty clear you don't do it?</blockquote>Read much? Or just rage and type all the time?</blockquote>The whole tanking community is laughing at you.

Bruener

04-13-2011, 10:37 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Clearly since your total experience tanking is 1 month total in TSO yuo aren't really qualified to even comment on this topic. What would you know about tanking when it is pretty clear you don't do it?</blockquote>Read much? Or just rage and type all the time?</blockquote>The whole tanking community is laughing at you.</blockquote>Yeah, those few Brawlers that couldn't even figure out their class in SF and the guy with 1 post!!!!

BChizzle

04-14-2011, 12:41 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Clearly since your total experience tanking is 1 month total in TSO yuo aren't really qualified to even comment on this topic. What would you know about tanking when it is pretty clear you don't do it?</blockquote>Read much? Or just rage and type all the time?</blockquote>The whole tanking community is laughing at you.</blockquote>Yeah, those few Brawlers that couldn't even figure out their class in SF and the guy with 1 post!!!!</blockquote>I MT'd and OT'd every single mob in SF (Actually I never OT'd Yael cause I MT'd it every time but w/e.) You as only an OT only just aren't at a level to be able to question my tanking experience. I mean thats old news anyways but I see you keep going back to it, guess what you still arent doing anything, you are the 3rd tank in your pecking order.

Dorieon

04-14-2011, 12:41 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Blanka still clueless....CHECK. I mean its not hard to look at my profile man and see you just plain don't have any idea what you are talking about.Hey Brawlers tanked every mob in TSO, guess that means they were just peachy.</blockquote>Yes, brawlers tanked everything in TSO. After we got more gear than plate tanks needed to tank the same mobs. Hell it was even possible to struggle through new content with a brawler tanking, but it was a lot riskier/harder on the healers. Back then we were told to suck it up you aren't supposed to be real tanks anyway.Now it sounds like you have having issues on just a few mobs in this expansion that will probably be easier for you once you gear up in the current tier armor. Easier because you can already tank it, its just currently harder on your healers. Sounds very familiar to me. And since it is only a few mobs and not every single mob, I don't really feel bad for you.Edit: For the record, I am ok with making current plate tank avoidance temp buffs strikethrough immune. Just not making them overall immune. Its a fair compromise if you ask me.

Ryai

04-14-2011, 02:53 AM

In the hopes that someone of consequence reads this, I hope one thing is clear about this thread. In sum, it boils down to this:-Bruener making claims and suggestions-Everyone else subsequently saying he's full of it.Theres a simple reason avoidance tanks have an advantage in any expansion like this early on, which they rapidly lose. HP pools. They don't take damage due to avoidance, so they have increased survivability in rougher encounters early on. Eventually, plate wins out those, once plate catches up gearwise with the content, and people learn the new mechanics.Personally, I think much easier fixes could be made, like upping higher tier raid plate's mitigation values, or any other minor change that would compensate for this much better without breaking the game. Plate tanks aren't supposed to need tons of avoidance. That's the entire point of wearing PLATE. Which is exactly why the approach of giving plate tanks more avoidance is exactly the wrong approach. Ultimately bruener, you're advocating for the eventual weakening of your class, rather than making it better in the long run.

Gungo

04-14-2011, 03:52 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>So now the logic is because a Guard can tank it everything is just fine with Fighter class mechanics. Lets not even consider the fact that that position is supposed to be for Guards most of the time.I mean I could use that logic back in TSO and SF before the Guard changes since we had a Guard MT the entire xpac and were even 3rd in SF to clear it....Really, things are not balanced right now and from the sound of it it is going to be addressed before long.</blockquote>No the logic is that the current top guild clearing content is using a guard and thus brawlers even w/o strikethrough immunity are still not the preferred tank for it.In fact very few guilds, except for yours use a brawler to regularly tank raids.So how again is it overpowered?Its not you are crying because you desire to be overpowered. You gear poorly. You tank in offensive stance and take dps adornments, gear, buffs over tanking equivilants then cry about how you tank worse the players who gear more defensively then you.These are the facts and your own guild calls you out on it.Here lets go over some more facts which your post lacks.The top 5 guilds currently clearing content and none of them use a brawler to maintank consistently. Balance is the fact that each of those guilds use a mix of tanks including paladins, guards, shadowknights, brawlers, zerkers. In fact one of those guilds doesnt even have an active brawler.1) Surreal2) Equilibrium3) Tao Dzen4) Strike 5) Tyranny

Britty

04-14-2011, 07:02 AM

.

Soul_Dreamer

04-14-2011, 07:30 AM

While I don't agree that as a Guardian I need or deserve strikethrough immunity, or that Brawlers should have it removed. I DO think the mechanic is overused now and too many named have too much of it, I also think that abilities which are meant to avoid Melee hits like Dragoons/Furor/Tsunami should have strike through immunity on the buff so they actually do what it says on the tin.

LardLord

04-14-2011, 12:44 PM

<cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Here lets go over some more facts which your post lacks.The top 5 guilds currently clearing content and none of them use a brawler to maintank consistently. Balance is the fact that each of those guilds use a mix of tanks including paladins, guards, shadowknights, brawlers, zerkers. In fact one of those guilds doesnt even have an active brawler.1) Surreal2) Equilibrium3) Tao Dzen4) Strike 5) Tyranny</blockquote>Surreal uses a Monk MT...not sure about the other four, but they're the top guild clearing content.EDIT: If you doubt that, just look at the Monk parse thread on Flames. Their Monk posted a bunch of parses, and he was MT for all of them.

Bruener

04-14-2011, 12:53 PM

<cite>Dorieon@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote>Edit: For the record, I am ok with making current plate tank avoidance temp buffs strikethrough immune. Just not making them overall immune. Its a fair compromise if you ask me.</blockquote>Really guys, ignoring all the other personal junk that people seem to be saying about me that is absolutely false. Blanka I also MT'd every single mob that you did, there were times the Guard wasn't there or just plain wanted a break for the night. MT'ing is easier than OT'ing as I pointed out simply because you have a lot more support as MT. For those that try to claim my lack of tank ability or knowledge really don't know me at all as any guildee or individual that has played with me will tell you teh complete opposite.I do agree this would be a fair compromise if as others have stated the mechanic wasn't so over-used. Too many mobs simply have too much strike thru. This is not just an issue for MT'ing since certain encounters require multiple tanks on the same mob or even more than 1 named tanked at the same time. This is also not a heroic issue where there is no issue at all.

Ryai

04-14-2011, 01:39 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite> </cite>I do agree this would be a fair compromise if as others have stated the mechanic wasn't so over-used. Too many mobs simply have too much strike thru. This is not just an issue for MT'ing since certain encounters require multiple tanks on the same mob or even more than 1 named tanked at the same time. This is also not a heroic issue where there is no issue at all.</blockquote>This I can support. Strikethrough immunity isn't the problem, the problem is possibly an overuse of strikethrough on the mob end or the flipside, not compensating on mitigation values post-mitigation nerf.I still think all the values are low for mitigation on plate tanks right now because they took a huge hit and there still has yet to be any rebalancing done to compensate for that. It was arguably way too high in SF because of a broken mechanic. Now that the mechanic is fixed, gear needs to be rebalanced to compensate for that.To draw an analogy, its like what happened to paladin heals once crit was removed. All the values were completely off because it was balanced against critting. All the current mitigation values are balanced against a previously broken system.

BChizzle

04-14-2011, 04:06 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>I do agree this would be a fair compromise if as others have stated the mechanic wasn't so over-used. Too many mobs simply have too much strike thru. This is not just an issue for MT'ing since certain encounters require multiple tanks on the same mob or even more than 1 named tanked at the same time. This is also not a heroic issue where there is no issue at all.</blockquote>Which is exactly what I said here before you started calling people idiots and claiming you are some tanking god. It is funny when you actually approach things with a rational view how things work out.<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>You guys are completely missing this issue here.The problem isn't that brawlers get strikethrough it is that devs have totally screwed up this game from an avoidance standpoint. Mobs avoid way too much thus overvaluing strikethrough, and mobs have way too high a strikethrough rate thus undervaluing avoidance. High strikethrough on a mob should have just been a rare 1-2 mobs an xpac type deal not the huge amounts we see on every mob, it is horrible and lazy encounter design.</blockquote>

BChizzle

04-14-2011, 04:08 PM

<cite>Quabi@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Here lets go over some more facts which your post lacks.The top 5 guilds currently clearing content and none of them use a brawler to maintank consistently. Balance is the fact that each of those guilds use a mix of tanks including paladins, guards, shadowknights, brawlers, zerkers. In fact one of those guilds doesnt even have an active brawler.1) Surreal2) Equilibrium3) Tao Dzen4) Strike 5) Tyranny</blockquote>Surreal uses a Monk MT...not sure about the other four, but they're the top guild clearing content.EDIT: If you doubt that, just look at the Monk parse thread on Flames. Their Monk posted a bunch of parses, and he was MT for all of them.</blockquote>Brawlers can tank all content, as can crusaders and warriors (maybe not zerks lol but ok 5/6 ain't bad).

LardLord

04-14-2011, 05:05 PM

I'm sure it can be done with whatever class, but Guardians and Brawlers are clearly the best choice for MT right now. I'm not saying that's a bad thing necessarily...more AE content would be nice for the non-MT classes, though.

Gungo

04-14-2011, 06:41 PM

<cite>Quabi@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Here lets go over some more facts which your post lacks.The top 5 guilds currently clearing content and none of them use a brawler to maintank consistently. Balance is the fact that each of those guilds use a mix of tanks including paladins, guards, shadowknights, brawlers, zerkers. In fact one of those guilds doesnt even have an active brawler.1) Surreal2) Equilibrium3) Tao Dzen4) Strike 5) Tyranny</blockquote>Surreal uses a Monk MT...not sure about the other four, but they're the top guild clearing content.EDIT: If you doubt that, just look at the Monk parse thread on Flames. Their Monk posted a bunch of parses, and he was MT for all of them.</blockquote>And equillibrium didnt even have an active brawler and up until recently they were neck an dneck with surreal. Between slippery (guard) and jeal (paladin) they have been mting most content.The point is guilds are using all 6 tank classes to clear content. (zerks of course need some tweaks which they are getting)Is stirkethrough this massive unbalancing factor bruener/Duele is claiming that makes brawlers better then any other tank. Nope....Regardless strikethrough immunity will be adjusted in gu60.

BChizzle

04-14-2011, 07:09 PM

<cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Regardless strikethrough immunity will be adjusted in gu60.</blockquote>I doubt it

LardLord

04-14-2011, 08:22 PM

<cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>And equillibrium didnt even have an active brawler and up until recently they were neck an dneck with surreal.</blockquote>They've had a Kerra Bruiser most the expansion. I guess he was AFG for a week or something, but yeah...Plus, they were the guild laughing about killing Kreegar HM with four Brawlers (three alts)...

Bruener

04-14-2011, 08:28 PM

<cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Is stirkethrough this massive unbalancing factor bruener/Duele is claiming that makes brawlers better then any other tank. Nope....</blockquote>No, actually the strikethru immunity is just 1 piece of the puzzle. I guess it is probably that combined with a large amount of temp abilities on short reuse timers along with taking no more actual damage than any other tank while already having at least a 10% avoidance advantage not including the immunity.Look at it like this. With their abilities Brawlers are on par with Guardians and their vast amount of stoneskins....while the other 3 tanks just aren't.So yea, with GU60 I would expect some of the issues addressed.

BChizzle

04-14-2011, 08:35 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote> I guess it is probably that combined with a large amount of temp abilities on short reuse timers along with taking no more actual damage than any other tank while already having at least a 10% avoidance advantage not including the immunity.Look at it like this. With their abilities Brawlers are on par with Guardians and their vast amount of stoneskins....while the other 3 tanks just aren't.So yea, with GU60 I would expect some of the issues addressed.</blockquote>Again you are guessing and guessing wrong. Brawlers still get hit for more and to come even remotely close to as powerful as you are claiming they have to full out gear defensively while plate tanks get the same power without having to do so.

Dorieon

04-15-2011, 02:44 AM

<cite>Quabi@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Here lets go over some more facts which your post lacks.The top 5 guilds currently clearing content and none of them use a brawler to maintank consistently. Balance is the fact that each of those guilds use a mix of tanks including paladins, guards, shadowknights, brawlers, zerkers. In fact one of those guilds doesnt even have an active brawler.1) Surreal2) Equilibrium3) Tao Dzen4) Strike 5) Tyranny</blockquote>Surreal uses a Monk MT...not sure about the other four, but they're the top guild clearing content.EDIT: If you doubt that, just look at the Monk parse thread on Flames. Their Monk posted a bunch of parses, and he was MT for all of them.</blockquote>Every decent raiding monk mt's sometimes. I mean occasionally plate tanks miss raids and sometimes brawlers are just better for certain mobs, or not as good for the trash, etc. If you are basing Surreal using a monk for mt off what he posted on flames instead of personal knowledge then you could be reading into it. All he said was that he was mt for the parses he posted.

Bruener

04-15-2011, 10:25 AM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Again you are guessing and guessing wrong. Brawlers still get hit for more and to come even remotely close to as powerful as you are claiming they have to full out gear defensively while plate tanks get the same power without having to do so.</blockquote>Yeah, really this argument holds no weight at all anymore. Its simply not how the game works now.Sorry.

Gungo

04-15-2011, 11:34 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Again you are guessing and guessing wrong. Brawlers still get hit for more and to come even remotely close to as powerful as you are claiming they have to full out gear defensively while plate tanks get the same power without having to do so.</blockquote>Yeah, really this argument holds no weight at all anymore. Its simply not how the game works now.Sorry.</blockquote>You are the one posting unfounded truths.ACT easily shows us the MIN and MAX hit a tank takes and EVERY single parse i have every seen a brawler takes SIGNIFICANTLY more damage on the max hit then a guard or any other plate tank.If what you were saying was true then the brawler would be taking similar max hits to plate tanks and that does NOT happen.You want to take less damage then your guilds brawlers then next time try tanking in defensive with defensive adornments and gear instead of trying to outparse the scouts.

BChizzle

04-15-2011, 04:55 PM

<cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>You are the one posting unfounded truths.ACT easily shows us the MIN and MAX hit a tank takes and EVERY single parse i have every seen a brawler takes SIGNIFICANTLY more damage on the max hit then a guard or any other plate tank.If what you were saying was true then the brawler would be taking similar max hits to plate tanks and that does NOT happen.You want to take less damage then your guilds brawlers then next time try tanking in defensive with defensive adornments and gear instead of trying to outparse the scouts.</blockquote>This.The fact brawlers take more damage from melee hits, unavoidable CA's and crushing AES balances out the fact we avoid more. Yes you can build a group that buffs a brawler mit up but the sacrifice on DPS to do it isn't worth it since you can just put a plate tank in there and be done with it.

Bruener

04-15-2011, 05:11 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>You are the one posting unfounded truths.ACT easily shows us the MIN and MAX hit a tank takes and EVERY single parse i have every seen a brawler takes SIGNIFICANTLY more damage on the max hit then a guard or any other plate tank.If what you were saying was true then the brawler would be taking similar max hits to plate tanks and that does NOT happen.You want to take less damage then your guilds brawlers then next time try tanking in defensive with defensive adornments and gear instead of trying to outparse the scouts.</blockquote>This.The fact brawlers take more damage from melee hits, unavoidable CA's and crushing AES balances out the fact we avoid more. Yes you can build a group that buffs a brawler mit up but the sacrifice on DPS to do it isn't worth it since you can just put a plate tank in there and be done with it.</blockquote>Sure, that would make sense...if that was the case.Its not the case.That was pre-DoV.

BChizzle

04-15-2011, 07:17 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>You are the one posting unfounded truths.ACT easily shows us the MIN and MAX hit a tank takes and EVERY single parse i have every seen a brawler takes SIGNIFICANTLY more damage on the max hit then a guard or any other plate tank.If what you were saying was true then the brawler would be taking similar max hits to plate tanks and that does NOT happen.You want to take less damage then your guilds brawlers then next time try tanking in defensive with defensive adornments and gear instead of trying to outparse the scouts.</blockquote>This.The fact brawlers take more damage from melee hits, unavoidable CA's and crushing AES balances out the fact we avoid more. Yes you can build a group that buffs a brawler mit up but the sacrifice on DPS to do it isn't worth it since you can just put a plate tank in there and be done with it.</blockquote>Sure, that would make sense...if that was the case.Its not the case.That was pre-DoV.</blockquote>Plate tank gear has 70% more mit than brawlers leather thats base before even increases come into play, if you can't see that the significant difference in those numbers means you get hit for less then you are living in denial. Brawlers get a whole whopping 780 mit (which effectively is just adding 110 mit to every armor slot) on their self buff to help compensate for you getting 300-400 more mit on every single defensive slot you have. Get a clue, in order to get even close to a plate tank I need to get at least 50% or more mit increase and thats not even taking into account that same plate tank with the same gear gets the same increases I get so I will never catch them. Only way it becomes close is if that plate tank is a complete idiot who doesn't spec defensively then complains about brawlers catching up to them in mit because they just don't have a clue about EQ2 mechanics. Sound like anyone you know?

Corydonn

04-15-2011, 08:16 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>You are the one posting unfounded truths.ACT easily shows us the MIN and MAX hit a tank takes and EVERY single parse i have every seen a brawler takes SIGNIFICANTLY more damage on the max hit then a guard or any other plate tank.If what you were saying was true then the brawler would be taking similar max hits to plate tanks and that does NOT happen.You want to take less damage then your guilds brawlers then next time try tanking in defensive with defensive adornments and gear instead of trying to outparse the scouts.</blockquote>This.The fact brawlers take more damage from melee hits, unavoidable CA's and crushing AES balances out the fact we avoid more. Yes you can build a group that buffs a brawler mit up but the sacrifice on DPS to do it isn't worth it since you can just put a plate tank in there and be done with it.</blockquote>Sure, that would make sense...if that was the case.Its not the case.That was pre-DoV.</blockquote>Plate tank gear has 70% more mit than brawlers leather thats base before even increases come into play, if you can't see that the significant difference in those numbers means you get hit for less then you are living in denial. Brawlers get a whole whopping 780 mit (which effectively is just adding 110 mit to every armor slot) on their self buff to help compensate for you getting 300-400 more mit on every single defensive slot you have. Get a clue, in order to get even close to a plate tank I need to get at least 50% or more mit increase and thats not even taking into account that same plate tank with the same gear gets the same increases I get so I will never catch them. Only way it becomes close is if that plate tank is a complete idiot who doesn't spec defensively then complains about brawlers catching up to them in mit because they just don't have a clue about EQ2 mechanics. Sound like anyone you know?</blockquote>Don't forget the + Mitigation stat effects brawlers way less than it does plate tanks. So it's pretty balanced that our block chance does a little bit more by being immune to strikethrough.

Bruener

04-15-2011, 09:21 PM

<cite>Corydonn wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Plate tank gear has 70% more mit than brawlers leather thats base before even increases come into play, if you can't see that the significant difference in those numbers means you get hit for less then you are living in denial. Brawlers get a whole whopping 780 mit (which effectively is just adding 110 mit to every armor slot) on their self buff to help compensate for you getting 300-400 more mit on every single defensive slot you have. Get a clue, in order to get even close to a plate tank I need to get at least 50% or more mit increase and thats not even taking into account that same plate tank with the same gear gets the same increases I get so I will never catch them. Only way it becomes close is if that plate tank is a complete idiot who doesn't spec defensively then complains about brawlers catching up to them in mit because they just don't have a clue about EQ2 mechanics. Sound like anyone you know?</blockquote>Don't forget the + Mitigation stat effects brawlers way less than it does plate tanks. So it's pretty balanced that our block chance does a little bit more by being immune to strikethrough.</blockquote>So by your estimate there Blanka I should easily have 2100-2800 more mit than a Brawler. I guess if that happened things would be good. But that is not the case at all. How much more mit do you think a Tank can actually spec for without giving up Crit Mit (which is much more important in case you haven't figured that out). I spec to have about 250-260 crit mit on gear atm...because that is what is needed. It leaves almost no room for adding mitigation or any type of avoidance. And there is no way I can stretch that extra mitigation that you supposedly think Plate tanks have.Maybe I am wrong and maybe this is just strickly a SK lacking mitigation issue. I guess Warriors have some good temp buffs increasing their mitigation.As it is now the mitigation gap is in no way where it should be. Take into account actual damage reduction abilities (which works on all types of damage) and it is easy to see why ALL fighters have the potential to take the same size hits. They made it so that Brawlers don't have the detriment of the bad roll and dropping instantly like in the past. They did it because it was not a viable way to tank. However, leveling up that playing field they forget about the huge avoidance advantage and with strike thru immunity on mobs that all seem to have a large amount of strike thru it really just throws off the balance.LOL, 300-400 mit per item more. Yeah right.

BChizzle

04-15-2011, 10:48 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>So by your estimate there Blanka I should easily have 2100-2800 more mit than a Brawler. I guess if that happened things would be good. But that is not the case at all. How much more mit do you think a Tank can actually spec for without giving up Crit Mit (which is much more important in case you haven't figured that out). I spec to have about 250-260 crit mit on gear atm...because that is what is needed. It leaves almost no room for adding mitigation or any type of avoidance. And there is no way I can stretch that extra mitigation that you supposedly think Plate tanks have.Maybe I am wrong and maybe this is just strickly a SK lacking mitigation issue. I guess Warriors have some good temp buffs increasing their mitigation.As it is now the mitigation gap is in no way where it should be. Take into account actual damage reduction abilities (which works on all types of damage) and it is easy to see why ALL fighters have the potential to take the same size hits. They made it so that Brawlers don't have the detriment of the bad roll and dropping instantly like in the past. They did it because it was not a viable way to tank. However, leveling up that playing field they forget about the huge avoidance advantage and with strike thru immunity on mobs that all seem to have a large amount of strike thru it really just throws off the balance.LOL, 300-400 mit per item more. Yeah right.</blockquote>I want you to try an exercise. It might be difficult for you since it would require you to take off your blinders for a few minutes. Go into game and look at your armor vs corys armor, just inspect it tell me when the mit difference is on it and come back and tell me again there isn't a 300-400 difference per slot.

Bruener

04-15-2011, 11:44 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>So by your estimate there Blanka I should easily have 2100-2800 more mit than a Brawler. I guess if that happened things would be good. But that is not the case at all. How much more mit do you think a Tank can actually spec for without giving up Crit Mit (which is much more important in case you haven't figured that out). I spec to have about 250-260 crit mit on gear atm...because that is what is needed. It leaves almost no room for adding mitigation or any type of avoidance. And there is no way I can stretch that extra mitigation that you supposedly think Plate tanks have.Maybe I am wrong and maybe this is just strickly a SK lacking mitigation issue. I guess Warriors have some good temp buffs increasing their mitigation.As it is now the mitigation gap is in no way where it should be. Take into account actual damage reduction abilities (which works on all types of damage) and it is easy to see why ALL fighters have the potential to take the same size hits. They made it so that Brawlers don't have the detriment of the bad roll and dropping instantly like in the past. They did it because it was not a viable way to tank. However, leveling up that playing field they forget about the huge avoidance advantage and with strike thru immunity on mobs that all seem to have a large amount of strike thru it really just throws off the balance.LOL, 300-400 mit per item more. Yeah right.</blockquote>I want you to try an exercise. It might be difficult for you since it would require you to take off your blinders for a few minutes. Go into game and look at your armor vs corys armor, just inspect it tell me when the mit difference is on it and come back and tell me again there isn't a 300-400 difference per slot.</blockquote>Sure, than you try an exercise and take a look at your actual mit in your gear in defensive compared to a Plate counterpart that is in their gear in defensive. Than please tell me where you see a close to 3k mit difference.

Ryai

04-15-2011, 11:57 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>I want you to try an exercise. It might be difficult for you since it would require you to take off your blinders for a few minutes. Go into game and look at your armor vs corys armor, just inspect it tell me when the mit difference is on it and come back and tell me again there isn't a 300-400 difference per slot.</blockquote>This doesn't work. He'll get skewed values since the game displays most mitigation values post modifiers. When you put a +mit increase buff on, it will display all pieces at their new higher mitigation.Same thing happens if you try to examine other gear. The only accurate way to judge a person's mitigation value is pretty much a screenshot. And during raid is a terrible time, since priests give all kinds of crazy phys mit buffs, which obviously help brawlers more, but also brings into play the fact that you can't base values on raid values. Any smart guild will be obviously be pairing tanks and healers to see the highest return with buffs. Point is, its not cut and dry like that and its hard to accurately compare.

BChizzle

04-16-2011, 12:07 AM

<cite>Cyan@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>I want you to try an exercise. It might be difficult for you since it would require you to take off your blinders for a few minutes. Go into game and look at your armor vs corys armor, just inspect it tell me when the mit difference is on it and come back and tell me again there isn't a 300-400 difference per slot.</blockquote>This doesn't work. He'll get skewed values since the game displays most mitigation values post modifiers. When you put a +mit increase buff on, it will display all pieces at their new higher mitigation.Same thing happens if you try to examine other gear. The only accurate way to judge a person's mitigation value is pretty much a screenshot. And during raid is a terrible time, since priests give all kinds of crazy phys mit buffs, which obviously help brawlers more, but also brings into play the fact that you can't base values on raid values. Any smart guild will be obviously be pairing tanks and healers to see the highest return with buffs. Point is, its not cut and dry like that and its hard to accurately compare.</blockquote>It won't matter since he will be looking at the gear with the same mit modifier on anyways.

Britty

04-16-2011, 04:16 AM

.

Bruener

04-16-2011, 02:00 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>It won't matter since he will be looking at the gear with the same mit modifier on anyways.</blockquote>Still waiting for an explanation on how having 300-400 more mit per item doesn't actually net the 2100-2800 mit gap that should be there than.

circusgirl

04-16-2011, 05:39 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Corydonn wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Plate tank gear has 70% more mit than brawlers leather thats base before even increases come into play, if you can't see that the significant difference in those numbers means you get hit for less then you are living in denial. Brawlers get a whole whopping 780 mit (which effectively is just adding 110 mit to every armor slot) on their self buff to help compensate for you getting 300-400 more mit on every single defensive slot you have. Get a clue, in order to get even close to a plate tank I need to get at least 50% or more mit increase and thats not even taking into account that same plate tank with the same gear gets the same increases I get so I will never catch them. Only way it becomes close is if that plate tank is a complete idiot who doesn't spec defensively then complains about brawlers catching up to them in mit because they just don't have a clue about EQ2 mechanics. Sound like anyone you know?</blockquote>Don't forget the + Mitigation stat effects brawlers way less than it does plate tanks. So it's pretty balanced that our block chance does a little bit more by being immune to strikethrough.</blockquote>So by your estimate there Blanka I should easily have 2100-2800 more mit than a Brawler. I guess if that happened things would be good. But that is not the case at all. How much more mit do you think a Tank can actually spec for without giving up Crit Mit (which is much more important in case you haven't figured that out). I spec to have about 250-260 crit mit on gear atm...because that is what is needed. It leaves almost no room for adding mitigation or any type of avoidance. And there is no way I can stretch that extra mitigation that you supposedly think Plate tanks have.Maybe I am wrong and maybe this is just strickly a SK lacking mitigation issue. I guess Warriors have some good temp buffs increasing their mitigation.As it is now the mitigation gap is in no way where it should be. Take into account actual damage reduction abilities (which works on all types of damage) and it is easy to see why ALL fighters have the potential to take the same size hits. They made it so that Brawlers don't have the detriment of the bad roll and dropping instantly like in the past. They did it because it was not a viable way to tank. However, leveling up that playing field they forget about the huge avoidance advantage and with strike thru immunity on mobs that all seem to have a large amount of strike thru it really just throws off the balance.LOL, 300-400 mit per item more. Yeah right.</blockquote>Bruener makes a really good point here: he's been able to focus his adornments onto crit mit, instead of mitigation. The result is that while he hasn't got anywhere near as much mit as he could have (on account of not speccing for it), he has a huge amount of crit mit. My guild is certainly not as far along as Bruener's, but I have nothing even remotely close to his critical mitigation. He's way, way above what I can manage...and its because he's specced for that. If he specced for mit instead of crit mit, he'd be beating me there instead.This game is about tradeoffs. Bruenor traded off mitigation for critical mitigation, while brawlers are trading off critical mitigation for regular mit.

BChizzle

04-16-2011, 05:47 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>It won't matter since he will be looking at the gear with the same mit modifier on anyways.</blockquote>Still waiting for an explanation on how having 300-400 more mit per item doesn't actually net the 2100-2800 mit gap that should be there than.</blockquote>I already explained it, we have to focus on raising our mit high enough so we arent one shotted all over the place while you are afforded to focus on damage increasing.

Bruener

04-16-2011, 06:55 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Corydonn wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Plate tank gear has 70% more mit than brawlers leather thats base before even increases come into play, if you can't see that the significant difference in those numbers means you get hit for less then you are living in denial. Brawlers get a whole whopping 780 mit (which effectively is just adding 110 mit to every armor slot) on their self buff to help compensate for you getting 300-400 more mit on every single defensive slot you have. Get a clue, in order to get even close to a plate tank I need to get at least 50% or more mit increase and thats not even taking into account that same plate tank with the same gear gets the same increases I get so I will never catch them. Only way it becomes close is if that plate tank is a complete idiot who doesn't spec defensively then complains about brawlers catching up to them in mit because they just don't have a clue about EQ2 mechanics. Sound like anyone you know?</blockquote>Don't forget the + Mitigation stat effects brawlers way less than it does plate tanks. So it's pretty balanced that our block chance does a little bit more by being immune to strikethrough.</blockquote>So by your estimate there Blanka I should easily have 2100-2800 more mit than a Brawler. I guess if that happened things would be good. But that is not the case at all. How much more mit do you think a Tank can actually spec for without giving up Crit Mit (which is much more important in case you haven't figured that out). I spec to have about 250-260 crit mit on gear atm...because that is what is needed. It leaves almost no room for adding mitigation or any type of avoidance. And there is no way I can stretch that extra mitigation that you supposedly think Plate tanks have.Maybe I am wrong and maybe this is just strickly a SK lacking mitigation issue. I guess Warriors have some good temp buffs increasing their mitigation.As it is now the mitigation gap is in no way where it should be. Take into account actual damage reduction abilities (which works on all types of damage) and it is easy to see why ALL fighters have the potential to take the same size hits. They made it so that Brawlers don't have the detriment of the bad roll and dropping instantly like in the past. They did it because it was not a viable way to tank. However, leveling up that playing field they forget about the huge avoidance advantage and with strike thru immunity on mobs that all seem to have a large amount of strike thru it really just throws off the balance.LOL, 300-400 mit per item more. Yeah right.</blockquote>Bruener makes a really good point here: he's been able to focus his adornments onto crit mit, instead of mitigation. The result is that while he hasn't got anywhere near as much mit as he could have (on account of not speccing for it), he has a huge amount of crit mit. My guild is certainly not as far along as Bruener's, but I have nothing even remotely close to his critical mitigation. He's way, way above what I can manage...and its because he's specced for that. If he specced for mit instead of crit mit, he'd be beating me there instead.This game is about tradeoffs. Bruenor traded off mitigation for critical mitigation, while brawlers are trading off critical mitigation for regular mit. </blockquote>Actually as you gear up into HM gear you get a ton of crit mit. Yes while my number seems extremely high to you, its really because you get items like HM legs that give 60 crit mit.Blanka, our Brawlers have to spec for crit mit as well...and in the cases where they aren't...or like Cory that is not MT'ing he is spec'ing a lot of MA. Despite that they are still easily only at 1/3 of the gap of mitigation that you seem to think should be happening, really its so close that the simple exchange of bard types more than makes up the difference. Why that is, well my guess is that the +mitigation mechanic is still broken for Brawlers, but really that is a guess. I am not sure how many AAs are designated to increasing mitigation also. A SK has 0.This thread is not about everything Brawlers have right now though. It is about the bad mechanic of strike thru and how it is unneeded to have Plate tanks hit that much more often than Brawlers in the current system.People always said that avoidance tanking wouldn't work...and really this is a prime example of the other end of why it doesn't. Avoidance tanking if the Brawlers actually takes significantly bigger hits they die way too easy and it works out like TSO and before. Make it so the actual damage taken is an insignificant difference and you get a tank that gets hit a lot less, but also easily takes the hits when they do come so they don't die. SOE closed up the amount of damage taken when hit a lot...if the intent is to keep it this way than there needs to be some give in what non-Brawlers can avoid. EDIT: As a side not it is amazing how high that procs from group members and other group members can raise mitigation into the curve quite a ways. However, there is no similar effect for raising avoidance in the same manner.

BChizzle

04-16-2011, 07:50 PM

Again Bruener you are once again completely ignoring a brawler has to gear and buff for mit to be competitive while you don't have to do it. If you were so worried about mit you could throw on your horasstus cloak and get a 900 mit increase something I am sure you don't do because you don't need it. My guess is knowing you, that you are comparing yourself in offensive stance to a full out brawler in defensive. All you would need to do is pop your defensive stance and get a 15% mit increase problem solved.

BChizzle

04-16-2011, 07:55 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote> EDIT: As a side not it is amazing how high that procs from group members and other group members can raise mitigation into the curve quite a ways. However, there is no similar effect for raising avoidance in the same manner.</blockquote>This is just another continuation of your ignorant crap. Do you not benefit from those same buffs? Do you not benefit more from other buffs like potency, cb or ability mod? I mean really you are constantly healing all the time thats your classes big defensive thing potency doesn't help? Hell you can be in offensive and still benefit from the huge amounts of block chance while guess what a brawler in offensive gets 0 from it, thanks for coming out.

Landiin

04-16-2011, 10:25 PM

Dude he is trolling you guys, no one can be that dumb.

circusgirl

04-17-2011, 01:45 AM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote> EDIT: As a side not it is amazing how high that procs from group members and other group members can raise mitigation into the curve quite a ways. However, there is no similar effect for raising avoidance in the same manner.</blockquote>This is just another continuation of your ignorant crap. Do you not benefit from those same buffs? Do you not benefit more from other buffs like potency, cb or ability mod? I mean really you are constantly healing all the time thats your classes big defensive thing potency doesn't help? Hell you can be in offensive and still benefit from the huge amounts of block chance while guess what a brawler in offensive gets 0 from it, thanks for coming out.</blockquote>Shield ally and a defiensive brawler's avoidance buff will literally double your avoidance--and I'm talking about the actual number of hits, uncontested and post-strikethrough. So yes, there is a similar mechanic for raising your avoidance by crazy-high amounts.

Gungo

04-17-2011, 10:42 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>You are the one posting unfounded truths.ACT easily shows us the MIN and MAX hit a tank takes and EVERY single parse i have every seen a brawler takes SIGNIFICANTLY more damage on the max hit then a guard or any other plate tank.If what you were saying was true then the brawler would be taking similar max hits to plate tanks and that does NOT happen.You want to take less damage then your guilds brawlers then next time try tanking in defensive with defensive adornments and gear instead of trying to outparse the scouts.</blockquote>This.The fact brawlers take more damage from melee hits, unavoidable CA's and crushing AES balances out the fact we avoid more. Yes you can build a group that buffs a brawler mit up but the sacrifice on DPS to do it isn't worth it since you can just put a plate tank in there and be done with it.</blockquote>Sure, that would make sense...if that was the case.Its not the case.That was pre-DoV.</blockquote>Actually you are lying again because you have NO idea what you are talking about.PRE DOV is was LESS.The change in DOV to the mitigation % stat REDUCED the amount of mit brawlers received. Pre dov plates were capped and brawlers were closer to plate levels.In DOV we lost a significant amount of mitigation reduction wereas plate tanks are closer to the cap still akthough no longer at the cap.Again bruener less bullcrap and more facts. You dont seem to have any facts. Borrom line is ACT shows what you blindly ignored this whole post. That the max physsical damage hit is significantly larger on brawlers in raids. (that number only increases if the plate tank knows how to gear up and play and uses mit/crit mit adorns/def stance and thier defensive abilities over offensive buffs.)post 1 parse where a brawler is taking less physical damage on the MAX hit in ACT then you would have a legitimate complaint but until you provide this fact you are still just trolling.

Talathion

04-17-2011, 05:04 PM

<a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/user/profile.m?user_id=99854">Bruener</a> says:I want AdrenalineI want Strikethrough ImmunityI want Guardian's StoneskinsI want Brawler Avoidance.Brawler's Are Overpowered.I want Shadowknights to be better then everyone at everything, because we are suppost to be.I agree with Brawlers being overpowered, to much mitigation for the amount of avoidance they have, especially in pvp, strikethrough immunity is REDICULOUS.

Bruener

04-17-2011, 05:16 PM

Would love to see where you came up with all that BS....please link threads.In case you didn't read the OP. This was not about just SKs at all (the list of tweaks that are needed for SKs are in the SK forum). This was about all Plate tanks and the fact that the strike thru mechanic has gotten to be a lot more and on every mob. 2 Fighters retain complete immunity to it which is a huge advantage. The idea is to balance things out by allowing other Fighters a similar mechanic on their defensive stance. The other option because the mechanic is obviously broken is to make sure no tanks have the strike thru immunity and make sure that the abilities that are supposed to avoid all melee hits get the immunity for their duration. Than tone the amount of strike thru mobs have down some.Really though, your list there is basically a Bruiser.

Ryai

04-17-2011, 06:17 PM

<cite>Zenanthir@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>I agree with Brawlers being overpowered, to much mitigation for the amount of avoidance they have, especially in pvp, strikethrough immunity is REDICULOUS.</blockquote>PvP is a seperate issue. This thread is about PVE. PVP should never be a balance point for PvE. Toughness needs to be coded differently/adjusted if mitigation is an issue there. Also, if strikethrough immunity is a huge problem in pvp, a simple not engaged in pvp flag fixes that.Also, you contributed nothing to this thread.Other fighters should NOT get a similar mechanic. It would hugely imbalance the game yet again. Other fighters DO deserve adjustments to their own mechanics IF this is actually an issue. Simply, as it stands right now, its a lot of unfounded claims with little fact to back it up. As stated, physical traumas do not check against avoidance and end up chewing through fighters.This entire thread is a lot of whining and trolling about class imbalances that don't really exist. When in reality IF anything its caused by mob mechanics. If you ask me though, there is a fantastic amount of variety in this expansion, which allows every fighter class to be better at different times, in different encounters(Except maybe zerks, but thats acknowledged already). Its really nice to not have an end-all solution, where one class is the cut and dry best all the time.Hopefully any dev reading this thread takes it for what it is and with a grain of salt. There aren't any blanket changes to fighters needed.

Talathion

04-17-2011, 06:53 PM

Or, they could just give us healing criticals back, that would fix everything.

Corydonn

04-17-2011, 08:35 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Would love to see where you came up with all that BS....please link threads.In case you didn't read the OP. This was not about just SKs at all (the list of tweaks that are needed for SKs are in the SK forum). This was about all Plate tanks and the fact that the strike thru mechanic has gotten to be a lot more and on every mob. 2 Fighters retain complete immunity to it which is a huge advantage. The idea is to balance things out by allowing other Fighters a similar mechanic on their defensive stance. The other option because the mechanic is obviously broken is to make sure no tanks have the strike thru immunity and make sure that the abilities that are supposed to avoid all melee hits get the immunity for their duration. Than tone the amount of strike thru mobs have down some.Really though, your list there is basically a Bruiser.</blockquote>I can't believe you dignified Talathion with a response... And I can't believe the forum moderators are slacking this much with banning him. No offense to you guys though.

Bruener

04-17-2011, 10:51 PM

<cite>Corydonn wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Would love to see where you came up with all that BS....please link threads.In case you didn't read the OP. This was not about just SKs at all (the list of tweaks that are needed for SKs are in the SK forum). This was about all Plate tanks and the fact that the strike thru mechanic has gotten to be a lot more and on every mob. 2 Fighters retain complete immunity to it which is a huge advantage. The idea is to balance things out by allowing other Fighters a similar mechanic on their defensive stance. The other option because the mechanic is obviously broken is to make sure no tanks have the strike thru immunity and make sure that the abilities that are supposed to avoid all melee hits get the immunity for their duration. Than tone the amount of strike thru mobs have down some.Really though, your list there is basically a Bruiser.</blockquote>I can't believe you dignified Talathion with a response... And I can't believe the forum moderators are slacking this much with banning him. No offense to you guys though.</blockquote>Is that who that was? Go figure.Good stuff.P.S. This is definitely not supposed to be in any way a nerf Brawler thread.

Talathion

04-18-2011, 02:50 PM

Brawlers need nerfed IMO <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

LardLord

04-18-2011, 07:07 PM

<cite>Dorieon@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Quabi@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Surreal uses a Monk MT...not sure about the other four, but they're the top guild clearing content.EDIT: If you doubt that, just look at the Monk parse thread on Flames. Their Monk posted a bunch of parses, and he was MT for all of them.</blockquote>Every decent raiding monk mt's sometimes. I mean occasionally plate tanks miss raids and sometimes brawlers are just better for certain mobs, or not as good for the trash, etc. If you are basing Surreal using a monk for mt off what he posted on flames instead of personal knowledge then you could be reading into it. All he said was that he was mt for the parses he posted.</blockquote>Surreal posted their entire raid setup on flames:<div>"MT group-Monk-Dirge-Coercer-Inquis-Mystic/Defiler-AssassinOT group-Guardian-Coercer-Dirge-Inquis-Mystic-Brigand3rd group-SK/Wizard-Illy-Troub-Inquis-Warlock/Shaman(when need to tank smth)-Wizard4th group-Wizard -Warlock-Illy-Troub-Wizard/furi/SK (depends on mob also)-InquisWe raid like this one. I don't believe in summoners though as soon as i have seen only one good for all the time..And dunno why all you guys put guardian in MT. Monks have really a lot more survivability for now."</div>

BChizzle

04-18-2011, 08:29 PM

<cite>Quabi@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><div>And dunno why all you guys put guardian in MT. Monks have really a lot more survivability for now."</div></blockquote>They use a monk because monks offer superior ST agro not for the survivability. You kind of have to use a monk with the amount of dps they have.

Bruener

04-18-2011, 08:38 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Quabi@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><div>And dunno why all you guys put guardian in MT. Monks have really a lot more survivability for now."</div></blockquote>They use a monk because monks offer superior ST agro not for the survivability. You kind of have to use a monk with the amount of dps they have.</blockquote>Did you have trouble reading that quote there?Let me put it in bold for ya....And dunno why all you guys put guardian in MT. Monks have really a lot more survivability for now."Also according to their set up not only is the MT out of character but also Guard as OT choice. Than supposed OT choices regulated down to a 3rd-4th Fighter spot. Really, things need to get back on track of MT-OT-Utility Tank Roles.

Talathion

04-18-2011, 09:11 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Quabi@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><div>And dunno why all you guys put guardian in MT. Monks have really a lot more survivability for now."</div></blockquote>They use a monk because monks offer superior ST agro not for the survivability. You kind of have to use a monk with the amount of dps they have.</blockquote>Did you have trouble reading that quote there?Let me put it in bold for ya....And dunno why all you guys put guardian in MT. Monks have really a lot more survivability for now."Also according to their set up not only is the MT out of character but also Guard as OT choice. Than supposed OT choices regulated down to a 3rd-4th Fighter spot. Really, things need to get back on track of MT-OT-Utility Tank Roles.</blockquote>Thats because Monks are better, IMO

BChizzle

04-18-2011, 10:03 PM

Corydonn

04-18-2011, 10:16 PM

BChizzle

04-18-2011, 10:48 PM

<cite>Corydonn wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Quabi@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><div>And dunno why all you guys put guardian in MT. Monks have really a lot more survivability for now."</div></blockquote>They use a monk because monks offer superior ST agro not for the survivability. You kind of have to use a monk with the amount of dps they have.</blockquote>They use a monk for the superior survivability. Don't kid yourself.</blockquote>Wrong as usual, if they were going for survivability bruiser would be the better choice, monks don't have a damage reduction like bruisers do

Corydonn

04-18-2011, 10:50 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Corydonn wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Quabi@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><div>And dunno why all you guys put guardian in MT. Monks have really a lot more survivability for now."</div></blockquote>They use a monk because monks offer superior ST agro not for the survivability. You kind of have to use a monk with the amount of dps they have.</blockquote>They use a monk for the superior survivability. Don't kid yourself.</blockquote>Wrong as usual, if they were going for survivability bruiser would be the better choice, monks don't have a damage reduction like bruisers do</blockquote>Monks have a faster AE blocker and a bonus 15% block chance, Not to mention Strikethrough to actually hold aggro while tanking HM mobs. I'll stand firm behind my stance that Monks are the better MT while Bruisers are the better OT/Support tank.

BChizzle

04-18-2011, 11:01 PM

<cite>Corydonn wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Corydonn wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Quabi@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><div>And dunno why all you guys put guardian in MT. Monks have really a lot more survivability for now."</div></blockquote>They use a monk because monks offer superior ST agro not for the survivability. You kind of have to use a monk with the amount of dps they have.</blockquote>They use a monk for the superior survivability. Don't kid yourself.</blockquote>Wrong as usual, if they were going for survivability bruiser would be the better choice, monks don't have a damage reduction like bruisers do</blockquote>Monks have a faster AE blocker and a bonus 15% block chance, Not to mention Strikethrough to actually hold aggro while tanking HM mobs. I'll stand firm behind my stance that Monks are the better MT while Bruisers are the better OT/Support tank.</blockquote>I agree with that but bruisers still survive better.

Bruener

04-18-2011, 11:08 PM

So recap...both Brawlers have better survivability, Bruisers slightly more, Monks better ST dps/agro while tanking.And you can't see why the strike thru immunity mechanic being exclusive is wrong?Talk about tanks given all the tools for one direction, than plenty more tools to make sure they can go the other directions.

BChizzle

04-18-2011, 11:28 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>So recap...both Brawlers have better survivability, Bruisers slightly more, Monks better ST dps/agro while tanking.And you can't see why the strike thru immunity mechanic being exclusive is wrong?Talk about tanks given all the tools for one direction, than plenty more tools to make sure they can go the other directions.</blockquote>ST fighter should be better at ST tanking, nobody said brawlers can't tank. As can guards as can SK's (Not you obviously) as can palys.

Bruener

04-18-2011, 11:35 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>So recap...both Brawlers have better survivability, Bruisers slightly more, Monks better ST dps/agro while tanking.And you can't see why the strike thru immunity mechanic being exclusive is wrong?Talk about tanks given all the tools for one direction, than plenty more tools to make sure they can go the other directions.</blockquote>ST fighter should be better at ST tanking, nobody said brawlers can't tank. As can guards as can SK's (Not you obviously) as can palys.</blockquote>Ok, ok....lets try again. So 1 Brawler ST, 1 AE...both more survivability than any other Fighters.And a whole bunch of agro/survivability tools on fast recast for when they were being designed to be support tanks. Combine that with a ton of mobs with a ton of strike thru.And that makes everything just fine?EDIT: Brawlers COULD tank in TSO too....so everything was fine than?

BChizzle

04-19-2011, 12:24 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>So recap...both Brawlers have better survivability, Bruisers slightly more, Monks better ST dps/agro while tanking.And you can't see why the strike thru immunity mechanic being exclusive is wrong?Talk about tanks given all the tools for one direction, than plenty more tools to make sure they can go the other directions.</blockquote>ST fighter should be better at ST tanking, nobody said brawlers can't tank. As can guards as can SK's (Not you obviously) as can palys.</blockquote>Ok, ok....lets try again. So 1 Brawler ST, 1 AE...both more survivability than any other Fighters.And a whole bunch of agro/survivability tools on fast recast for when they were being designed to be support tanks. Combine that with a ton of mobs with a ton of strike thru.And that makes everything just fine?EDIT: Brawlers COULD tank in TSO too....so everything was fine than?</blockquote>Why do you keep bringing up TSO what does that have to do with anything?

Bruener

04-19-2011, 12:46 AM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Why do you keep bringing up TSO what does that have to do with anything?</blockquote>As a comparison to your ignorance on the subject.You make a stupid statement like all the types of Fighters CAN tank. Well it has been like that since Launch. Stop making stupid comments.I also notice you dodged my last couple points where you and Cory seemed to come to an agreement that Brawlers have superior survivability, but the trade off between them is that Bruisers have more survivability while Monks have superior ST agro/dps.The clear advantage is in being strike through immune since there is a lot of it out there now.Easy fix, give all fighters some type of immunity to strike thru in defensive or lower the strike thru of mobs. Either way it nets less damage to non-Brawlers.

Corydonn

04-19-2011, 12:55 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Why do you keep bringing up TSO what does that have to do with anything?</blockquote>As a comparison to your ignorance on the subject.You make a stupid statement like all the types of Fighters CAN tank. Well it has been like that since Launch. Stop making stupid comments.I also notice you dodged my last couple points where you and Cory seemed to come to an agreement that Brawlers have superior survivability, but the trade off between them is that Bruisers have more survivability while Monks have superior ST agro/dps.The clear advantage is in being strike through immune since there is a lot of it out there now.Easy fix, give all fighters some type of immunity to strike thru in defensive or lower the strike thru of mobs. Either way it nets less damage to non-Brawlers.</blockquote>It's not the strikethrough immunity that makes brawlers overpowered. It's the temps on long duration with short cooldowns that are overpowered.

BChizzle

04-19-2011, 12:57 AM

<cite>Corydonn wrote:</cite><blockquote>It's not the strikethrough immunity that makes brawlers overpowered. It's the temps on long duration with short cooldowns that are overpowered.</blockquote>This is what allows brawlers to tank while you are busying dpsing with everything you have Deule brawlers are watching their defensive temps making sure they have them going as much as possible.

Bruener

04-19-2011, 01:00 AM

<cite>Corydonn wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Why do you keep bringing up TSO what does that have to do with anything?</blockquote>As a comparison to your ignorance on the subject.You make a stupid statement like all the types of Fighters CAN tank. Well it has been like that since Launch. Stop making stupid comments.I also notice you dodged my last couple points where you and Cory seemed to come to an agreement that Brawlers have superior survivability, but the trade off between them is that Bruisers have more survivability while Monks have superior ST agro/dps.The clear advantage is in being strike through immune since there is a lot of it out there now.Easy fix, give all fighters some type of immunity to strike thru in defensive or lower the strike thru of mobs. Either way it nets less damage to non-Brawlers.</blockquote>It's not the strikethrough immunity that makes brawlers overpowered. It's the temps on long duration with short cooldowns that are overpowered.</blockquote>But those temps are there for a good reason. Its supposed to make Brawlers superior Support tanks to tank in a pinch with very little support themselves for a short duration. By themselves they are not OP'd imo.Combine them with getting hit a lot less (and yes despite all some want to argue, not really getting hit for a significant amount more when they do get it) and it is leaving other tanks behind in survivability.I guess I could take it to the SK boards and ask all my survival abilities get their reuse timers cut in half to make up the difference.

Bruener

04-19-2011, 01:03 AM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Corydonn wrote:</cite><blockquote>It's not the strikethrough immunity that makes brawlers overpowered. It's the temps on long duration with short cooldowns that are overpowered.</blockquote>This is what allows brawlers to tank while you are busying dpsing with everything you have Deule brawlers are watching their defensive temps making sure they have them going as much as possible.</blockquote>Just constantly trying to prove to the world you are clueless?As we have talked about at least 20 times now, you have no idea how I play this game. You have no actual resource that you know that can tell you how I play this game.In fact, I will guarantee that if you ask anybody that currently plays with me, or that has played with me in the past how I am as a player and tank I know their response will be the exact opposite of what you keep trying to get everybody to buy.I guess you just aren't good enough to watch your defensive cool downs while DPS'ing like the good tanks. LOL, the old SKs can DPS argument is really out-dated now since any good Brawler can do the same DPS sitting in defensive, and if you are a monk you get the luxury of doing it even while MT'ing with an OP'd ability to make sure you hit the mob more than anybody else.

BChizzle

04-19-2011, 01:54 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Just constantly trying to prove to the world you are clueless?As we have talked about at least 20 times now, you have no idea how I play this game. You have no actual resource that you know that can tell you how I play this game.In fact, I will guarantee that if you ask anybody that currently plays with me, or that has played with me in the past how I am as a player and tank I know their response will be the exact opposite of what you keep trying to get everybody to buy.I guess you just aren't good enough to watch your defensive cool downs while DPS'ing like the good tanks. LOL, the old SKs can DPS argument is really out-dated now since any good Brawler can do the same DPS sitting in defensive, and if you are a monk you get the luxury of doing it even while MT'ing with an OP'd ability to make sure you hit the mob more than anybody else.</blockquote>Again you have the absolute most OP tanking ability there is in bloodletter so please don't talk about others OP'edness without looking at your own class.

Talathion

04-19-2011, 02:07 AM

Id rather have 60-75% Raid Avoidance Constantly instead of Bloodletter.

Controlor

04-19-2011, 02:37 AM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Just constantly trying to prove to the world you are clueless?As we have talked about at least 20 times now, you have no idea how I play this game. You have no actual resource that you know that can tell you how I play this game.In fact, I will guarantee that if you ask anybody that currently plays with me, or that has played with me in the past how I am as a player and tank I know their response will be the exact opposite of what you keep trying to get everybody to buy.I guess you just aren't good enough to watch your defensive cool downs while DPS'ing like the good tanks. LOL, the old SKs can DPS argument is really out-dated now since any good Brawler can do the same DPS sitting in defensive, and if you are a monk you get the luxury of doing it even while MT'ing with an OP'd ability to make sure you hit the mob more than anybody else.</blockquote>Again you have the absolute most OP tanking ability there is in bloodletter so please don't talk about others OP'edness without looking at your own class.</blockquote>I am sorry but if you think bloodletter is OP than that is jus laughable. I am not trying to say brawlers are better at tanking or anything like that as we raid with Guard Zerk Pally. However to think Bloodletter is OP is just WOW.

Talathion

04-19-2011, 02:38 AM

Strikethrough Immunity is awsome.. should be on the guard mythical instead of reposte immunity

circusgirl

04-19-2011, 02:39 AM

<cite>Corydonn wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Corydonn wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Quabi@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><div>And dunno why all you guys put guardian in MT. Monks have really a lot more survivability for now."</div></blockquote>They use a monk because monks offer superior ST agro not for the survivability. You kind of have to use a monk with the amount of dps they have.</blockquote>They use a monk for the superior survivability. Don't kid yourself.</blockquote>Wrong as usual, if they were going for survivability bruiser would be the better choice, monks don't have a damage reduction like bruisers do</blockquote>Monks have a faster AE blocker and a bonus 15% block chance, Not to mention Strikethrough to actually hold aggro while tanking HM mobs. I'll stand firm behind my stance that Monks are the better MT while Bruisers are the better OT/Support tank.</blockquote>15% block chance is the equivalent of 4.05% uncontested avoidance. Getting hit 4% less is a significantly smaller survivability benefit than taking 10% less damage on every hit. Strikethrough is great for holding aggro though.

Talathion

04-19-2011, 02:40 AM

Its having all that avoidance, BEING able to dualwield with it, and all the mit that makes you powerful, you have the mit of plate tanks, IMO.

BChizzle

04-19-2011, 03:32 AM

Brawler tanks avoid 60-70%, plate tanks avoid 50-60% enough with the making up of things strikethrough immunity doesn't make that huge of a difference in avoidance.

Talathion

04-19-2011, 01:18 PM

circusgirl

04-19-2011, 01:34 PM

<cite>Zenanthir@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Brawler tanks avoid 60-70%, plate tanks avoid 50-60% enough with the making up of things strikethrough immunity doesn't make that huge of a difference in avoidance.</blockquote>You mean 40-50%. ^</blockquote>If you have a cleric and brawler helping you out with avoidance buffs its more like 55-65%. Typically I give a plate tank about 25% actual avoidance using Tranquil Vision, while the paladin/sk/zerker equivalents each tend to give me about 10% avoidance. Clerics tend to give me 4-5% avoidance and our paladin 8-10% avoidance using shield ally.

Controlor

04-19-2011, 01:37 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Brawler tanks avoid 60-70%, plate tanks avoid 50-60% enough with the making up of things strikethrough immunity doesn't make that huge of a difference in avoidance.</blockquote>I am assuming you are talking about contested avoid there. Uncontested for plate tank is much less than that. Paladins probably have some of the highest uncontested avoid of the plate tanks and i am in raids stitting at 38.5% (with raid shield et all) If i speced a bit more for avoid i MAY be able to hit 40% uncontested. However Contested avoid i am in your 50 - 60 range which is meaningless. I dont know the uncontested of brawlers so i wont comment on that but your numbers are way inflated for uncontested (which is the only avoid that matters).

LardLord

04-19-2011, 02:51 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Quabi@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><div>And dunno why all you guys put guardian in MT. Monks have really a lot more survivability for now."</div></blockquote>They use a monk because monks offer superior ST agro not for the survivability. You kind of have to use a monk with the amount of dps they have.</blockquote>Just in case it wasn't clear, that entire post was a quote (except the first line). You can find it in the "Raid Setup" thread in the Combat Discussion forum on Flames. I wasn't commenting on Monk survivability - just relaying a quote.

circusgirl

04-19-2011, 04:29 PM

<cite>Controlor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Brawler tanks avoid 60-70%, plate tanks avoid 50-60% enough with the making up of things strikethrough immunity doesn't make that huge of a difference in avoidance.</blockquote>I am assuming you are talking about contested avoid there. Uncontested for plate tank is much less than that. Paladins probably have some of the highest uncontested avoid of the plate tanks and i am in raids stitting at 38.5% (with raid shield et all) If i speced a bit more for avoid i MAY be able to hit 40% uncontested. However Contested avoid i am in your 50 - 60 range which is meaningless. I dont know the uncontested of brawlers so i wont comment on that but your numbers are way inflated for uncontested (which is the only avoid that matters).</blockquote>You actually can end up having higher avoidance than you show in your persona window, because several classes (bards, clerics, and all 6 fighters) can avoid blows for you. your actual avoidance can be checked using ACT, and with the right buffs plate tanks can hit 60% easily and oftentimes can be as high as 70%.

Gungo

04-19-2011, 05:22 PM

While i am expecting strikethrough immunity tweaks in GU60.I do think ALL fighter avoid buffs should be strikethrough immune at least in defensive stance.That change alone would make all plate fighters overall avoidance higher.Those abilites should work as described.Funny how bruener is asking for is total immunity on his shadowkngiht though.

BChizzle

04-19-2011, 06:15 PM

<cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>While i am expecting strikethrough immunity tweaks in GU60.I do think ALL fighter avoid buffs should be strikethrough immune at least in defensive stance.That change alone would make all plate fighters overall avoidance higher.Those abilites should work as described.Funny how bruener is asking for is total immunity on his shadowkngiht though.</blockquote>I actually think avoidance temps even on plates shouldn't be struck through as well. But I really dont see strikethrough immunity tweaks coming at the end of the day there is like a 10% difference in avoid and a 10% difference in hits taken seems pretty equal to me. Only thing they could do is lower ST on some raid mobs.

Bruener

04-19-2011, 06:38 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>While i am expecting strikethrough immunity tweaks in GU60.I do think ALL fighter avoid buffs should be strikethrough immune at least in defensive stance.That change alone would make all plate fighters overall avoidance higher.Those abilites should work as described.Funny how bruener is asking for is total immunity on his shadowkngiht though.</blockquote>I actually think avoidance temps even on plates shouldn't be struck through as well. But I really dont see strikethrough immunity tweaks coming at the end of the day there is like a 10% difference in avoid and a 10% difference in hits taken seems pretty equal to me. Only thing they could do is lower ST on some raid mobs.</blockquote>Where you pulling this 10% number from?Maybe in SF there was a 10% difference as long as the plate tank was getting the Brawlers avoidance. In DoV where we have already established that there is a lot more strike through that 10% is a very low number.

BChizzle

04-19-2011, 07:24 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>While i am expecting strikethrough immunity tweaks in GU60.I do think ALL fighter avoid buffs should be strikethrough immune at least in defensive stance.That change alone would make all plate fighters overall avoidance higher.Those abilites should work as described.Funny how bruener is asking for is total immunity on his shadowkngiht though.</blockquote>I actually think avoidance temps even on plates shouldn't be struck through as well. But I really dont see strikethrough immunity tweaks coming at the end of the day there is like a 10% difference in avoid and a 10% difference in hits taken seems pretty equal to me. Only thing they could do is lower ST on some raid mobs.</blockquote>Where you pulling this 10% number from?Maybe in SF there was a 10% difference as long as the plate tank was getting the Brawlers avoidance. In DoV where we have already established that there is a lot more strike through that 10% is a very low number.</blockquote>Easy I look at what a brawler does tanking which is 60-70% avoid and I look at what a plate does tanking which is 50-60% avoid. Your your ACT for something besides dps and you will realize nothing you are talking about makes any factual sense.

Bruener

04-20-2011, 12:43 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>While i am expecting strikethrough immunity tweaks in GU60.I do think ALL fighter avoid buffs should be strikethrough immune at least in defensive stance.That change alone would make all plate fighters overall avoidance higher.Those abilites should work as described.Funny how bruener is asking for is total immunity on his shadowkngiht though.</blockquote>I actually think avoidance temps even on plates shouldn't be struck through as well. But I really dont see strikethrough immunity tweaks coming at the end of the day there is like a 10% difference in avoid and a 10% difference in hits taken seems pretty equal to me. Only thing they could do is lower ST on some raid mobs.</blockquote>Where you pulling this 10% number from?Maybe in SF there was a 10% difference as long as the plate tank was getting the Brawlers avoidance. In DoV where we have already established that there is a lot more strike through that 10% is a very low number.</blockquote>Easy I look at what a brawler does tanking which is 60-70% avoid and I look at what a plate does tanking which is 50-60% avoid. Your your ACT for something besides dps and you will realize nothing you are talking about makes any factual sense.</blockquote>Oh I see. So you mean the Plate tank that is usually closer to 50% WITH having superior Brawler avoidance on them...and most likely looking at the Brawler which is probably closer to 70% (maybe even higher). There is double the difference between 10% and 20%.Now run a test of Brawler avoidance on a Brawler.What exactly does 20% avoidance equate to on todays mobs in terms of damage?EDIT: Guards may be closer to the 10% mark due to a lot of stoneskins showing on the avoidance report. I have also seen avoidance reports of Brawlers closer to 90% due to cycling thru temp buffs that are fast recast.

Corydonn

04-20-2011, 03:18 PM

I could just be guessing but I think I probably have around the same avoidance as plate tanks now, except for that 10% strikethrough that mobs usually have. I'm at 40.4% uncontested block down from 49-51% in SF simply because there isn't the massive block chance on weapons anymore. If I tried to go back to the older weapons I lose 100% crit chance and everyone knows how effective that is for tanking!Edit: Corrected my block chance.

Talathion

04-20-2011, 04:03 PM

<cite>Corydonn wrote:</cite><blockquote>I could just be guessing but I think I probably have around the same avoidance as plate tanks now, except for that 10% strikethrough that mobs usually have. I'm at 40.4% uncontested block down from 49-51% in SF simply because there isn't the massive block chance on weapons anymore. If I tried to go back to the older weapons I lose 100% crit chance and everyone knows how effective that is for tanking!Edit: Corrected my block chance.</blockquote>Still can be uber in BGS<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

BChizzle

04-20-2011, 06:37 PM

Bruener

04-20-2011, 09:10 PM

Funny that other, better, Monks have figured out all that we have talked about here.But I suspect you have figured it out, you are just fighting to make sure that other Fighters don't encroach on your lead.

Gungo

04-20-2011, 10:24 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Funny that other, better, Monks have figured out all that we have talked about here.But I suspect you have figured it out, you are just fighting to make sure that other Fighters don't encroach on your lead.</blockquote>Funny how your own guild called you out again on lying.All I would like to see is 1 raid parse showing anything remotely from the BS you are claiming.I want to see a raid parse showing the max hit on ACT showing a brawler taking the same amount of damage as plate tanks.I want to see a raid parse showing this 20-30% avoidance over plate tanks you claim. That no one even your own guild says happens.I want to see this from two equally max defensively geared players and not from a mediocre player who wants to compete with rogue dps while tanking like a guardian.

Bruener

04-20-2011, 11:20 PM

<cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Funny that other, better, Monks have figured out all that we have talked about here.But I suspect you have figured it out, you are just fighting to make sure that other Fighters don't encroach on your lead.</blockquote>Funny how your own guild called you out again on lying.All I would like to see is 1 raid parse showing anything remotely from the BS you are claiming.I want to see a raid parse showing the max hit on ACT showing a brawler taking the same amount of damage as plate tanks.I want to see a raid parse showing this 20-30% avoidance over plate tanks you claim. That no one even your own guild says happens.I want to see this from two equally max defensively geared players and not from a mediocre player who wants to compete with rogue dps while tanking like a guardian.</blockquote>Quote from MT Monk of Top Guild WW...Monk>all. I can survive solo without healers (when they die for some reason), i can absorb/ward/deathsave and CURE (also in the air while falling)! absolutely all AOEs for myself without healers doing that - if they can't do that for some reason, i can survive not doing run away events while named is burned down on some mobs putting my 25%+15% absorb on, also i can DPS a lot while tanking mobs in defence spec and defence stuff - even more that all other tanks in raid (you could see parses in monk's thread). Even more - i can survive on any of mobs when class debuff isn't used from start - till it got killed. Even more - cooperative strike do not hit me anywhere due to 100% avoid granting abilities are used and strikethrough immunity. Even more - i got 75%+ avoid in any avoid report parse from hard modes - and all autotatack is usually warded. Only AOEs get through wards if i do not absorb them with my abilities.Try to do all that with any plate tank huh <img title="Smiley Wink" src="http://eq2flames.com/images/smilies/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" />That is exactly what is happening atm. As I said, some people figure it out a lot sooner than the masses. Notice the key on coop strike and the pointing out of the much higher avoidance.

BChizzle

04-21-2011, 01:39 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Funny that other, better, Monks have figured out all that we have talked about here.But I suspect you have figured it out, you are just fighting to make sure that other Fighters don't encroach on your lead.</blockquote>Funny how your own guild called you out again on lying.All I would like to see is 1 raid parse showing anything remotely from the BS you are claiming.I want to see a raid parse showing the max hit on ACT showing a brawler taking the same amount of damage as plate tanks.I want to see a raid parse showing this 20-30% avoidance over plate tanks you claim. That no one even your own guild says happens.I want to see this from two equally max defensively geared players and not from a mediocre player who wants to compete with rogue dps while tanking like a guardian.</blockquote>Quote from MT Monk of Top Guild WW...Monk>all. I can survive solo without healers (when they die for some reason), i can absorb/ward/deathsave and CURE (also in the air while falling)! absolutely all AOEs for myself without healers doing that - if they can't do that for some reason, i can survive not doing run away events while named is burned down on some mobs putting my 25%+15% absorb on, also i can DPS a lot while tanking mobs in defence spec and defence stuff - even more that all other tanks in raid (you could see parses in monk's thread). Even more - i can survive on any of mobs when class debuff isn't used from start - till it got killed. Even more - cooperative strike do not hit me anywhere due to 100% avoid granting abilities are used and strikethrough immunity. Even more - i got 75%+ avoid in any avoid report parse from hard modes - and all autotatack is usually warded. Only AOEs get through wards if i do not absorb them with my abilities.Try to do all that with any plate tank huh <img title="Smiley Wink" src="http://eq2flames.com/images/smilies/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" />That is exactly what is happening atm. As I said, some people figure it out a lot sooner than the masses. Notice the key on coop strike and the pointing out of the much higher avoidance.</blockquote>Let's do a check list...Can other tanks cure themselves - checkCan other tanks deathsave - checkCan other tanks kite stuff - checkAre other tanks parsing like him - checkHe is a former brigand happy to be playing a fun class he isn't doing anything unique.Nothing he points out except for coop strike can't be done by any other tank class and that only works for 20 secs and can hardly catch every add. But hey bruney you can get hit with coop strike twice and not die amirite?

Corydonn

04-21-2011, 01:43 AM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite> </cite>Nothing he points out except for coop strike can't be done by any other tank class and that only works for 20 secs and can hardly catch every add. But hey bruney you can get hit with coop strike twice and not die amirite?</blockquote>Have you even fought an encounter that does Co-op strike yet? Sounds like you are blowing it out your mouth there Blanka.

BChizzle

04-21-2011, 02:08 AM

<cite>Corydonn wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite> </cite>Nothing he points out except for coop strike can't be done by any other tank class and that only works for 20 secs and can hardly catch every add. But hey bruney you can get hit with coop strike twice and not die amirite?</blockquote>Have you even fought an encounter that does Co-op strike yet? Sounds like you are blowing it out your mouth there Blanka.</blockquote>of course I have.

Novusod

04-21-2011, 04:25 AM

Plate tanks are NOT struggling this expansion. Looking at the world wide progression thread every encounter has been beaten by multiple guilds using different types of tanks. Plate tanks have some competition now that brawlers are serious tanks. It is no longer a plate tank monopoly. That is called ballance Bruener something this game has not had very much of in the past. OMG one of the top guilds is not using a plate tank life is so unfair. Well suck it up because it is not changing any time soon. Brawler tanks are here to stay so better get used to it.

Talathion

04-21-2011, 04:46 AM

<cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>Plate tanks are NOT struggling this expansion. Looking at the world wide progression thread every encounter has been beaten by multiple guilds using different types of tanks. Plate tanks have some competition now that brawlers are serious tanks. It is no longer a plate tank monopoly. That is called ballance Bruener something this game has not had very much of in the past. OMG one of the top guilds is not using a plate tank life is so unfair. Well suck it up because it is not changing any time soon. Brawler tanks are here to stay so better get used to it.</blockquote>Yeah, lets look at Berserkers.No Temp buffs. (Adrenaline was nerfed to uselessness)No Health Buffs (Like brawlers 15% Health buff among others.)Worst Accuracy.Worst Second Worse Healing, right under guardians, who have none... (a 33% Chance to heal for 300, unmodifiable, and not effected by potency... need I say anymore... im getting hit for 30-44k sometimes.)No Stoneskins like our guardian brothersFourth Best DPS. (because we cannot hit anything, Even Guardians have a strikethrough buff we do not, and do not put this in with our 25 second strikethrough buff, it has a 5 minute recast, so it hardly matters, guardian's CA's also have 2x the hitrates and they also do 30% More Damage.)Worst Aggro.Nothing to Protect our group besides a .. avoidance spell.. that checks our avoidance... so its like giving someone 5% Avoidance... (This Should be Changed to Guardians: Sentinel Move.)Relies ONLY on Snaps to Hold Aggro, They get it right back if they are any good, snaps are all on 3 minute recasts, cannot use them but only once every so and so fights).Mostly Half of our Abilitys... DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.Its Pretty Nice to call Balance when your in the top spot, Isn't it?

Novusod

04-21-2011, 05:30 AM

<cite>Failathion@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yeah, lets look at Berserkers.No Temp buffs. (Adrenaline was nerfed to uselessness)No Health Buffs (Like brawlers 15% Health buff among others.)Worst Accuracy.Worst Second Worse Healing, right under guardians, who have none... (a 33% Chance to heal for 300, unmodifiable, and not effected by potency... need I say anymore... im getting hit for 30-44k sometimes.)No Stoneskins like our guardian brothersFourth Best DPS. (because we cannot hit anything, Even Guardians have a strikethrough buff we do not, and do not put this in with our 25 second strikethrough buff, it has a 5 minute recast, so it hardly matters, guardian's CA's also have 2x the hitrates and they also do 30% More Damage.)Worst Aggro.Nothing to Protect our group besides a .. avoidance spell.. that checks our avoidance... so its like giving someone 5% Avoidance... (This Should be Changed to Guardians: Sentinel Move.)Relies ONLY on Snaps to Hold Aggro, They get it right back if they are any good, snaps are all on 3 minute recasts, cannot use them but only once every so and so fights).Mostly Half of our Abilitys... DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.Its Pretty Nice to call Balance when your in the top spot, Isn't it?</blockquote>Berserkers seem like they are <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bWCfNtOFRw" target="_blank">doing fine to me</a>. Especially when they can still duel weild and tank. Whenever I have to look up strat videos I always see plate tanks NOT brawlers. Why is that?I am not buying this whole plate tanks crying poverty deal when youtube is full videos of plate tanks tearing things up in DoV.

Talathion

04-21-2011, 09:09 PM

<cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Failathion@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yeah, lets look at Berserkers.No Temp buffs. (Adrenaline was nerfed to uselessness)No Health Buffs (Like brawlers 15% Health buff among others.)Worst Accuracy.Worst Second Worse Healing, right under guardians, who have none... (a 33% Chance to heal for 300, unmodifiable, and not effected by potency... need I say anymore... im getting hit for 30-44k sometimes.)No Stoneskins like our guardian brothersFourth Best DPS. (because we cannot hit anything, Even Guardians have a strikethrough buff we do not, and do not put this in with our 25 second strikethrough buff, it has a 5 minute recast, so it hardly matters, guardian's CA's also have 2x the hitrates and they also do 30% More Damage.)Worst Aggro.Nothing to Protect our group besides a .. avoidance spell.. that checks our avoidance... so its like giving someone 5% Avoidance... (This Should be Changed to Guardians: Sentinel Move.)Relies ONLY on Snaps to Hold Aggro, They get it right back if they are any good, snaps are all on 3 minute recasts, cannot use them but only once every so and so fights).Mostly Half of our Abilitys... DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.Its Pretty Nice to call Balance when your in the top spot, Isn't it?</blockquote>Berserkers seem like they are <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bWCfNtOFRw" target="_blank">doing fine to me</a>. Especially when they can still duel weild and tank. Whenever I have to look up strat videos I always see plate tanks NOT brawlers. Why is that?I am not buying this whole plate tanks crying poverty deal when youtube is full videos of plate tanks tearing things up in DoV.</blockquote>

Talathion

04-21-2011, 09:12 PM

<cite>Failathion@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Failathion@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yeah, lets look at Berserkers.No Temp buffs. (Adrenaline was nerfed to uselessness)No Health Buffs (Like brawlers 15% Health buff among others.)Worst Accuracy.Worst Second Worse Healing, right under guardians, who have none... (a 33% Chance to heal for 300, unmodifiable, and not effected by potency... need I say anymore... im getting hit for 30-44k sometimes.)No Stoneskins like our guardian brothersFourth Best DPS. (because we cannot hit anything, Even Guardians have a strikethrough buff we do not, and do not put this in with our 25 second strikethrough buff, it has a 5 minute recast, so it hardly matters, guardian's CA's also have 2x the hitrates and they also do 30% More Damage.)Worst Aggro.Nothing to Protect our group besides a .. avoidance spell.. that checks our avoidance... so its like giving someone 5% Avoidance... (This Should be Changed to Guardians: Sentinel Move.)Relies ONLY on Snaps to Hold Aggro, They get it right back if they are any good, snaps are all on 3 minute recasts, cannot use them but only once every so and so fights).Mostly Half of our Abilitys... DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.Its Pretty Nice to call Balance when your in the top spot, Isn't it?</blockquote>Berserkers seem like they are <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bWCfNtOFRw" target="_blank">doing fine to me</a>. Especially when they can still duel weild and tank. Whenever I have to look up strat videos I always see plate tanks NOT brawlers. Why is that?I am not buying this whole plate tanks crying poverty deal when youtube is full videos of plate tanks tearing things up in DoV.</blockquote></blockquote>Thats a Guardian ..Not a berserker...also Monks and brawlers are tanking HM fights, you don't tape HM fights... <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Silzin

04-21-2011, 09:36 PM

I know the Dives know that Zerkers are having problems since Xelgad has posted such.... lets try not to may the argument that since Zerkers are having problems and brawlers are not having the same problems lets strip them of the things that have made then viable tank.

Bruener

04-21-2011, 09:44 PM

<cite>Silzin wrote:</cite><blockquote>I know the Dives know that Zerkers are having problems since Xelgad has posted such.... lets try not to may the argument that since Zerkers are having problems and brawlers are not having the same problems lets strip them of the things that have made then viable tank.</blockquote>Nobody is trying to get anything removed from Brawlers (although a couple Brawler players seem to keep trying to turn this discussion that way due to being very defensive about where they stand).Adding strike thru immunity to Plate tanks in some way does not take anything away from Brawlers.What quite a few people that happen to be Brawlers are afraid of is that instead of giving some adjustments to some of the Plate tanks to balance things out, they are afraid to admit any type of advantage at all to keep from getting nerfed. The problem is that people are really starting to notice the difference...especially the top guilds WW.Check out the ideal raid set up thread on Flames. MT - Monk, OT - Guard is starting to become a very common theme. Obviously that is a big sign that the OT-type classes are lagging in this xpac. It is also very noticeable that a Utility built tank is now the MT of choice. And people think things are balanced. LOL.

Talathion

04-21-2011, 09:46 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Silzin wrote:</cite><blockquote>I know the Dives know that Zerkers are having problems since Xelgad has posted such.... lets try not to may the argument that since Zerkers are having problems and brawlers are not having the same problems lets strip them of the things that have made then viable tank.</blockquote>Nobody is trying to get anything removed from Brawlers (although a couple Brawler players seem to keep trying to turn this discussion that way due to being very defensive about where they stand).Adding strike thru immunity to Plate tanks in some way does not take anything away from Brawlers.What quite a few people that happen to be Brawlers are afraid of is that instead of giving some adjustments to some of the Plate tanks to balance things out, they are afraid to admit any type of advantage at all to keep from getting nerfed. The problem is that people are really starting to notice the difference...especially the top guilds WW.Check out the ideal raid set up thread on Flames. MT - Monk, OT - Guard is starting to become a very common theme. Obviously that is a big sign that the OT-type classes are lagging in this xpac. It is also very noticeable that a Utility built tank is now the MT of choice. And people think things are balanced. LOL.</blockquote>Level the Playing Field And add Heal Criticals :/, nuff said.

BChizzle

04-21-2011, 09:53 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Silzin wrote:</cite><blockquote>I know the Dives know that Zerkers are having problems since Xelgad has posted such.... lets try not to may the argument that since Zerkers are having problems and brawlers are not having the same problems lets strip them of the things that have made then viable tank.</blockquote>Nobody is trying to get anything removed from Brawlers (although a couple Brawler players seem to keep trying to turn this discussion that way due to being very defensive about where they stand).Adding strike thru immunity to Plate tanks in some way does not take anything away from Brawlers.What quite a few people that happen to be Brawlers are afraid of is that instead of giving some adjustments to some of the Plate tanks to balance things out, they are afraid to admit any type of advantage at all to keep from getting nerfed. The problem is that people are really starting to notice the difference...especially the top guilds WW.Check out the ideal raid set up thread on Flames. MT - Monk, OT - Guard is starting to become a very common theme. Obviously that is a big sign that the OT-type classes are lagging in this xpac. It is also very noticeable that a Utility built tank is now the MT of choice. And people think things are balanced. LOL.</blockquote>There is nothing called a utility tank, tanks are tanks. Monk is an AVOIDANCE tank not a utility tank, there is no such thing. In fact since monks don't provide any group buff they are far from utility.

Talathion

04-21-2011, 10:17 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Silzin wrote:</cite><blockquote>I know the Dives know that Zerkers are having problems since Xelgad has posted such.... lets try not to may the argument that since Zerkers are having problems and brawlers are not having the same problems lets strip them of the things that have made then viable tank.</blockquote>Nobody is trying to get anything removed from Brawlers (although a couple Brawler players seem to keep trying to turn this discussion that way due to being very defensive about where they stand).Adding strike thru immunity to Plate tanks in some way does not take anything away from Brawlers.What quite a few people that happen to be Brawlers are afraid of is that instead of giving some adjustments to some of the Plate tanks to balance things out, they are afraid to admit any type of advantage at all to keep from getting nerfed. The problem is that people are really starting to notice the difference...especially the top guilds WW.Check out the ideal raid set up thread on Flames. MT - Monk, OT - Guard is starting to become a very common theme. Obviously that is a big sign that the OT-type classes are lagging in this xpac. It is also very noticeable that a Utility built tank is now the MT of choice. And people think things are balanced. LOL.</blockquote>There is nothing called a utility tank, tanks are tanks. Monk is an AVOIDANCE tank not a utility tank, there is no such thing. In fact since monks don't provide any group buff they are far from utility.</blockquote>Combat Mastery, Wrong, They get the BEST group buff.The Buff was so overpowered they had to nerf it from 18 to 12 seconds.Also... they get a Raid Wide 10% Potency buff don't they? or Combat Art Damage?

Gungo

04-21-2011, 10:40 PM

<cite>Failathion@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Silzin wrote:</cite><blockquote>I know the Dives know that Zerkers are having problems since Xelgad has posted such.... lets try not to may the argument that since Zerkers are having problems and brawlers are not having the same problems lets strip them of the things that have made then viable tank.</blockquote>Nobody is trying to get anything removed from Brawlers (although a couple Brawler players seem to keep trying to turn this discussion that way due to being very defensive about where they stand).Adding strike thru immunity to Plate tanks in some way does not take anything away from Brawlers.What quite a few people that happen to be Brawlers are afraid of is that instead of giving some adjustments to some of the Plate tanks to balance things out, they are afraid to admit any type of advantage at all to keep from getting nerfed. The problem is that people are really starting to notice the difference...especially the top guilds WW.Check out the ideal raid set up thread on Flames. MT - Monk, OT - Guard is starting to become a very common theme. Obviously that is a big sign that the OT-type classes are lagging in this xpac. It is also very noticeable that a Utility built tank is now the MT of choice. And people think things are balanced. LOL.</blockquote>There is nothing called a utility tank, tanks are tanks. Monk is an AVOIDANCE tank not a utility tank, there is no such thing. In fact since monks don't provide any group buff they are far from utility.</blockquote>Combat Mastery, Wrong, They get the BEST group buff.The Buff was so overpowered they had to nerf it from 18 to 12 seconds.Also... they get a Raid Wide 10% Potency buff don't they? or Combat Art Damage?</blockquote>bruisers get 5%CA damage, just like shadowknights get 5% spel damage, zerkers get 5% reuse and monks get 10% cast speed.No brawler get a 15% health buff, we can get 5% from AA and the tso general tree gives another 5%. While Combat mastery is a good buff, maybe people are to used to plate tank classes that give group wide ability mod, haste, dps, weapon skills, damage procs, control immunities, cast speed, reuse, potency, health, mitigation, resists, etc to realize while CM is good even at 12 sec duration 3min reuse that it is still the ONLY GROUP buff either brawler has in comparison to the huge list other fighter have above. 1 spell that effects melee only does not make brawlers a utility tank. try again

Gungo

04-21-2011, 10:46 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Funny that other, better, Monks have figured out all that we have talked about here.But I suspect you have figured it out, you are just fighting to make sure that other Fighters don't encroach on your lead.</blockquote>Funny how your own guild called you out again on lying.All I would like to see is 1 raid parse showing anything remotely from the BS you are claiming.I want to see a raid parse showing the max hit on ACT showing a brawler taking the same amount of damage as plate tanks.I want to see a raid parse showing this 20-30% avoidance over plate tanks you claim. That no one even your own guild says happens.I want to see this from two equally max defensively geared players and not from a mediocre player who wants to compete with rogue dps while tanking like a guardian.</blockquote>Quote from MT Monk of Top Guild WW...Monk>all. I can survive solo without healers (when they die for some reason), i can absorb/ward/deathsave and CURE (also in the air while falling)! absolutely all AOEs for myself without healers doing that - if they can't do that for some reason, i can survive not doing run away events while named is burned down on some mobs putting my 25%+15% absorb on, also i can DPS a lot while tanking mobs in defence spec and defence stuff - even more that all other tanks in raid (you could see parses in monk's thread). Even more - i can survive on any of mobs when class debuff isn't used from start - till it got killed. Even more - cooperative strike do not hit me anywhere due to 100% avoid granting abilities are used and strikethrough immunity. Even more - i got 75%+ avoid in any avoid report parse from hard modes - and all autotatack is usually warded. Only AOEs get through wards if i do not absorb them with my abilities.Try to do all that with any plate tank huh <img title="Smiley Wink" src="http://eq2flames.com/images/smilies/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" />That is exactly what is happening atm. As I said, some people figure it out a lot sooner than the masses. Notice the key on coop strike and the pointing out of the much higher avoidance.</blockquote>Where is that parse bruener I assume you have this proof since you keep making all these claims.Yet i dont see anything from you... oddkaragon is talking crap. You should know what that looks like you do it regularly.Fact is most guilds still use plate tanks and you still see paladins, guards and shadowknights tanking raids and doing fine. Zerkers are getting the fixes they needed this next GU as well.

Talathion

04-21-2011, 10:46 PM

<cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Failathion@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Silzin wrote:</cite><blockquote>I know the Dives know that Zerkers are having problems since Xelgad has posted such.... lets try not to may the argument that since Zerkers are having problems and brawlers are not having the same problems lets strip them of the things that have made then viable tank.</blockquote>Nobody is trying to get anything removed from Brawlers (although a couple Brawler players seem to keep trying to turn this discussion that way due to being very defensive about where they stand).Adding strike thru immunity to Plate tanks in some way does not take anything away from Brawlers.What quite a few people that happen to be Brawlers are afraid of is that instead of giving some adjustments to some of the Plate tanks to balance things out, they are afraid to admit any type of advantage at all to keep from getting nerfed. The problem is that people are really starting to notice the difference...especially the top guilds WW.Check out the ideal raid set up thread on Flames. MT - Monk, OT - Guard is starting to become a very common theme. Obviously that is a big sign that the OT-type classes are lagging in this xpac. It is also very noticeable that a Utility built tank is now the MT of choice. And people think things are balanced. LOL.</blockquote>There is nothing called a utility tank, tanks are tanks. Monk is an AVOIDANCE tank not a utility tank, there is no such thing. In fact since monks don't provide any group buff they are far from utility.</blockquote>Combat Mastery, Wrong, They get the BEST group buff.The Buff was so overpowered they had to nerf it from 18 to 12 seconds.Also... they get a Raid Wide 10% Potency buff don't they? or Combat Art Damage?</blockquote>bruisers get 5%CA damage, just like shadowknights get 5% spel damage, zerkers get 5% reuse and monks get 10% cast speed.No brawler get a 15% health buff, we can get 5% from AA and the tso general tree gives another 5%. While Combat mastery is a good buff, maybe people are to used to plate tank classes that give group wide ability mod, haste, dps, weapon skills, damage procs, control immunities, cast speed, reuse, potency, health, mitigation, resists, etc to realize while CM is good even at 12 sec duration 3min reuse that it is still the ONLY GROUP buff either brawler has in comparison to the huge list other fighter have above. 1 spell that effects melee only does not make brawlers a utility tank. try again</blockquote>I listed all the Useless Stuff <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />Combat Mastery is WAY better then all that other stuff Listed... Most of that Stuff has the same Recast too.All those Other group buffs run into Caps, and are useless when not Solo, hell, DPS/haste is even useless solo.

Gungo

04-21-2011, 10:54 PM

<cite>Failathion@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Failathion@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Silzin wrote:</cite><blockquote>I know the Dives know that Zerkers are having problems since Xelgad has posted such.... lets try not to may the argument that since Zerkers are having problems and brawlers are not having the same problems lets strip them of the things that have made then viable tank.</blockquote>Nobody is trying to get anything removed from Brawlers (although a couple Brawler players seem to keep trying to turn this discussion that way due to being very defensive about where they stand).Adding strike thru immunity to Plate tanks in some way does not take anything away from Brawlers.What quite a few people that happen to be Brawlers are afraid of is that instead of giving some adjustments to some of the Plate tanks to balance things out, they are afraid to admit any type of advantage at all to keep from getting nerfed. The problem is that people are really starting to notice the difference...especially the top guilds WW.Check out the ideal raid set up thread on Flames. MT - Monk, OT - Guard is starting to become a very common theme. Obviously that is a big sign that the OT-type classes are lagging in this xpac. It is also very noticeable that a Utility built tank is now the MT of choice. And people think things are balanced. LOL.</blockquote>There is nothing called a utility tank, tanks are tanks. Monk is an AVOIDANCE tank not a utility tank, there is no such thing. In fact since monks don't provide any group buff they are far from utility.</blockquote>Combat Mastery, Wrong, They get the BEST group buff.The Buff was so overpowered they had to nerf it from 18 to 12 seconds.Also... they get a Raid Wide 10% Potency buff don't they? or Combat Art Damage?</blockquote>bruisers get 5%CA damage, just like shadowknights get 5% spel damage, zerkers get 5% reuse and monks get 10% cast speed.No brawler get a 15% health buff, we can get 5% from AA and the tso general tree gives another 5%. While Combat mastery is a good buff, maybe people are to used to plate tank classes that give group wide ability mod, haste, dps, weapon skills, damage procs, control immunities, cast speed, reuse, potency, health, mitigation, resists, etc to realize while CM is good even at 12 sec duration 3min reuse that it is still the ONLY GROUP buff either brawler has in comparison to the huge list other fighter have above. 1 spell that effects melee only does not make brawlers a utility tank. try again</blockquote>I listed all the Useless Stuff <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />Combat Mastery is WAY better then all that other stuff Listed... Most of that Stuff has the same Recast too.All those Other group buffs run into Caps, and are useless when not Solo, hell, DPS/haste is even useless solo.</blockquote>If you think those items you highlighted are useless its no wonder you have no idea what you are talking about.I didnt even list everything other fighters give such as group wards and crit chance. Also you dont know what you are talking about the 3 biggest dps increasers for melee are crit chance, haste and dps. People talk alot of crap about caps and maybe its just because your a zerker and have multiple haste/dps procs. But as a bruiser unless I in a group stacked around me its near impossible to cap haste/dps and crit chance in DOV. If I am in a tank group w coercer, dirge etc I cant cap haste. If I am in a dps group w illusionist dirge mystic i cant cap dps. Give me a dirge, mystic, illus, inq and ya ill cap all those stats but so would anyone else since you just gave them a perfectly stacked dps setup.The fact you stated dps and haste are useless solo means you honestly shouldnt even be posting in this thread because you dont ave a clue.

Talathion

04-22-2011, 12:38 AM

Your a crappy meleer if your not capped on haste/dps, Im sitting at 300 haste/300 DPS grouped usually.Seeing that you only need about 150 and the rest does not really matter much at all, you can easily hit the cap no matter what class you are, melee or not.

Oneira

04-22-2011, 02:37 AM

<cite>Failathion@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>I listed all the Useless Stuff <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />Combat Mastery is WAY better then all that other stuff Listed... Most of that Stuff has the same Recast too.All those Other group buffs run into Caps, and are useless when not Solo, hell, DPS/haste is even useless solo.</blockquote>There are a number of group temp combat buffs out there that are every bit as good as CM if not better. I have a mystic and a bruiser. Stampede of the Herd is better than CM. If CM was 18 secs they might be on par but at 12 secs, no way.

Talathion

04-22-2011, 04:36 AM

<cite>Oneira wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Failathion@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>I listed all the Useless Stuff <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />Combat Mastery is WAY better then all that other stuff Listed... Most of that Stuff has the same Recast too.All those Other group buffs run into Caps, and are useless when not Solo, hell, DPS/haste is even useless solo.</blockquote>There are a number of group temp combat buffs out there that are every bit as good as CM if not better. I have a mystic and a bruiser. Stampede of the Herd is better than CM. If CM was 18 secs they might be on par but at 12 secs, no way.</blockquote>No, Stampede of the Herd is 6 Minute Recast...And it's effects are worse...

Bruener

04-22-2011, 10:10 AM

Utility Tank = Having a huge avoidance lend to use on other tanks raising their survivability more than any other class can. It also is about the ability to take a mob anytime you want and live easily without any healers for a good duration for any type of recovery on a raid, or picking up adds faster than anybody. I really am not suprised that most of you guys did not figure out how a Utility Tank works in SF. There is probably really only one Brawler out there that actually figured it out and it was amazing what he could bring to a raid because of it. Cory in SF was a huge asset and part of the reason that we were able to clear the xpac 3rd with half of the raid schedule.The stigma of Brawlers in SF was a big joke really. Now, with a mechanic that is over-used and with bumping up their survivability in relation to Plate tanks while also adding even more group utility its really no suprise why Brawlers are at the top of the pack.As usual some people think that they should be able to Tank everything equally as good as everybody else, and while they already had a huge amount of utility type tools for the raid they were given more to MT/OT just as well as everybody. Right now Guards really are in the same position, having all the hate tools they need to be a superior OT in DoV.Either SOE fixes the issues and comes out with the publishing of class roles and adjusts the classes back into their role, or they need to bring up the non-Guard Plate tanks to be on equal footing once again. Back to the Arms race.

Gungo

04-22-2011, 11:24 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>As usual some people think that they should be able to Tank everything equally as good as everybody else, and while they already had a huge amount of utility type tools for the raid they were given more to MT/OT just as well as everybody. Right now Guards really are in the same position, having all the hate tools they need to be a superior OT in DoV.</blockquote>Oddly enough you are the one screaming on the shadowknight forums complaining that shadowknights are the DPS tank and yet are here in the fighter forums complaining about how you should be able to have full strikethrough immunity so that you would be BETTER then brawlers and guards tanking. Also tanking is NOT utility.You are NOT a dps class bruener that is your first mistake. Learn to gear up correctly and use defensive stance and adornments and gear and maybe you would be able to tank content just as well as guardians and brawlers and other shadowknights who are tanking raid content currently. The fact is ALL tank classes are being used in high end raids currently and you still have failed to provide the parse or proof of the ridiculous claims you are making.

Gungo

04-22-2011, 11:30 AM

<cite>Failathion@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>Your a crappy meleer if your not capped on haste/dps, Im sitting at 300 haste/300 DPS grouped usually.Seeing that you only need about 150 and the rest does not really matter much at all, you can easily hit the cap no matter what class you are, melee or not.</blockquote>Try againAs i said before you are a zerker you have buffs that give you dps and haste.as a bruiser i get 35-45 haste and dps from items the rest come from groups unless I am in a stacked dps group I am not capping both dps and haste. Give me an inq, illus, mystic, and dirge and ill cap haste/dps but what you just provided is the ideal stacked dps group currently for any dps class.150 haste/dps is about 105 actual haste/dps the remaining 50 toward the cap grants an additional ~20%. Haste and dps (along with crit) are the largest dps increasers in the game for melee.

Talathion

04-22-2011, 12:39 PM

<cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Failathion@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>Your a crappy meleer if your not capped on haste/dps, Im sitting at 300 haste/300 DPS grouped usually.Seeing that you only need about 150 and the rest does not really matter much at all, you can easily hit the cap no matter what class you are, melee or not.</blockquote>Try againAs i said before you are a zerker you have buffs that give you dps and haste.as a bruiser i get 35-45 haste and dps from items the rest come from groups unless I am in a stacked dps group I am not capping both dps and haste. Give me an inq, illus, mystic, and dirge and ill cap haste/dps but what you just provided is the ideal stacked dps group currently for any dps class.150 haste/dps is about 105 actual haste/dps the remaining 50 toward the cap grants an additional ~20%. Haste and dps (along with crit) are the largest dps increasers in the game for melee.</blockquote>Whats a "Stacked" group?You mean a "GOOD" group? because ALL groups usual have 1 or 2 of those...YOU ONLY need 150 Haste/DPS to have pretty much all you need.A Inq can give you DPS.an Illy can give you hastea coercer can give you DPSa Mystic or Defiler can give you Haste.Dirge or Troub can give you haste/DPS?There is an entire ARSENAL of Items that give you both Haste/DPS...There are other classes that can give you more of such if you can find them, they are obviously playing hide and seek from you.And NO.THE BIGGEST Increaser to Melee is Flurry/Autoattack Modifier/MultiAttack/Critical Bonus/Haste/AE Autoattack Chance/DPS/Strength- Agility-Wisdom IN THAT ORDER.Please reroll to a Mage....

Gungo

04-22-2011, 08:42 PM

<cite>Failathion@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Failathion@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>Your a crappy meleer if your not capped on haste/dps, Im sitting at 300 haste/300 DPS grouped usually.Seeing that you only need about 150 and the rest does not really matter much at all, you can easily hit the cap no matter what class you are, melee or not.</blockquote>Try againAs i said before you are a zerker you have buffs that give you dps and haste.as a bruiser i get 35-45 haste and dps from items the rest come from groups unless I am in a stacked dps group I am not capping both dps and haste. Give me an inq, illus, mystic, and dirge and ill cap haste/dps but what you just provided is the ideal stacked dps group currently for any dps class.150 haste/dps is about 105 actual haste/dps the remaining 50 toward the cap grants an additional ~20%. Haste and dps (along with crit) are the largest dps increasers in the game for melee.</blockquote>Whats a "Stacked" group?You mean a "GOOD" group? because ALL groups usual have 1 or 2 of those...YOU ONLY need 150 Haste/DPS to have pretty much all you need.A Inq can give you DPS.an Illy can give you hastea coercer can give you DPSa Mystic or Defiler can give you Haste.Dirge or Troub can give you haste/DPS?There is an entire ARSENAL of Items that give you both Haste/DPS...There are other classes that can give you more of such if you can find them, they are obviously playing hide and seek from you.And NO.THE BIGGEST Increaser to Melee is Flurry/Autoattack Modifier/MultiAttack/Critical Bonus/Haste/AE Autoattack Chance/DPS/Strength- Agility-Wisdom IN THAT ORDER.Please reroll to a Mage....</blockquote>You are a bit slow.You just list every class i just stated and acted like you could have each of them in your group. I already went into group setups if you were to slow to catch on you should just admit logic is above your understanding. Also if you do not know why a dirge, mystic, inq, illus is the IDEAL dps setup in game currently its obvious you dont raid or understand why this group puts out the most dps for any dps class.Furthermore:100% double atk is 2x your normal auto atk damage, 100% actual dps is 2x your normal auto atk damage. Auto atk modifer does the exact same thing as dps w/o the curve.100% flurry is basically a triple atk (2-4 hits)Crit bonus is useless without crit chance.Want to try to reorder your list again because its obvious you dont have a clue. Please reroll on another game its obvious you cant grasp this one.Just because your name is FAILathion doesnt mean you have to act out your character in real life. Eq2 is not a LARP.

Talathion

04-22-2011, 09:26 PM

<cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Failathion@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Failathion@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>Your a crappy meleer if your not capped on haste/dps, Im sitting at 300 haste/300 DPS grouped usually.Seeing that you only need about 150 and the rest does not really matter much at all, you can easily hit the cap no matter what class you are, melee or not.</blockquote>Try againAs i said before you are a zerker you have buffs that give you dps and haste.as a bruiser i get 35-45 haste and dps from items the rest come from groups unless I am in a stacked dps group I am not capping both dps and haste. Give me an inq, illus, mystic, and dirge and ill cap haste/dps but what you just provided is the ideal stacked dps group currently for any dps class.150 haste/dps is about 105 actual haste/dps the remaining 50 toward the cap grants an additional ~20%. Haste and dps (along with crit) are the largest dps increasers in the game for melee.</blockquote>Whats a "Stacked" group?You mean a "GOOD" group? because ALL groups usual have 1 or 2 of those...YOU ONLY need 150 Haste/DPS to have pretty much all you need.A Inq can give you DPS.an Illy can give you hastea coercer can give you DPSa Mystic or Defiler can give you Haste.Dirge or Troub can give you haste/DPS?There is an entire ARSENAL of Items that give you both Haste/DPS...There are other classes that can give you more of such if you can find them, they are obviously playing hide and seek from you.And NO.THE BIGGEST Increaser to Melee is Flurry/Autoattack Modifier/MultiAttack/Critical Bonus/Haste/AE Autoattack Chance/DPS/Strength- Agility-Wisdom IN THAT ORDER.Please reroll to a Mage....</blockquote>You are a bit slow.You just list every class i just stated and acted like you could have each of them in your group. I already went into group setups if you were to slow to catch on you should just admit logic is above your understanding. Also if you do not know why a dirge, mystic, inq, illus is the IDEAL dps setup in game currently its obvious you dont raid or understand why this group puts out the most dps for any dps class.Furthermore:100% double atk is 2x your normal auto atk damage, 100% actual dps is 2x your normal auto atk damage. Auto atk modifer does the exact same thing as dps w/o the curve.100% flurry is basically a triple atk (2-4 hits)Crit bonus is useless without crit chance.Want to try to reorder your list again because its obvious you dont have a clue. Please reroll on another game its obvious you cant grasp this one.Just because your name is FAILathion doesnt mean you have to act out your character in real life. Eq2 is not a LARP.</blockquote>I Need not say anymore... roll a mage please <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

BChizzle

04-22-2011, 10:06 PM

<cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote> The fact is ALL tank classes are being used in high end raids currently and you still have failed to provide the parse or proof of the ridiculous claims you are making.</blockquote>This... /endthread

Bruener

04-22-2011, 11:01 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote> The fact is ALL tank classes are being used in high end raids currently and you still have failed to provide the parse or proof of the ridiculous claims you are making.</blockquote>This... /endthread</blockquote>Oh yes, 2 of the biggest jokes of the community, who also just happen to be Brawlers say everything is just fine.Meanwhile people keep posting here ----> <a href="http://www.eq2flames.com/combat-discussion/79645-raid-setup.html">http://www.eq2flames.com/combat-dis...raid-setup.html</a> about raid setups and how much superior Brawlers are at tanking. Keep in mind that these are WW top players talking about the set ups.HHHmmmm...the word of a couple jokes or the top players WW actually running the set-ups. Yeah, thats a hard one to decide who knows what they are talking about. Ironically its all the same stuff I said in this thread.Keep trying.

BChizzle

04-23-2011, 01:10 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote> The fact is ALL tank classes are being used in high end raids currently and you still have failed to provide the parse or proof of the ridiculous claims you are making.</blockquote>This... /endthread</blockquote>Oh yes, 2 of the biggest jokes of the community, who also just happen to be Brawlers say everything is just fine.Meanwhile people keep posting here ----> <a href="http://www.eq2flames.com/combat-discussion/79645-raid-setup.html">http://www.eq2flames.com/combat-dis...raid-setup.html</a> about raid setups and how much superior Brawlers are at tanking. Keep in mind that these are WW top players talking about the set ups.HHHmmmm...the word of a couple jokes or the top players WW actually running the set-ups. Yeah, thats a hard one to decide who knows what they are talking about. Ironically its all the same stuff I said in this thread.Keep trying.</blockquote>Most of the people on there have a plate MT nice try. As far as calling people jokes you have been a joke for years now and are in no position to call names.

Talathion

04-23-2011, 01:52 AM

Can we PLEASE get some parses here?

Dorieon

04-23-2011, 02:12 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Oh yes, 2 of the biggest jokes of the community, who also just happen to be Brawlers say everything is just fine.Meanwhile people keep posting here ----> <a href="http://www.eq2flames.com/combat-discussion/79645-raid-setup.html">http://www.eq2flames.com/combat-dis...raid-setup.html</a> about raid setups and how much superior Brawlers are at tanking. Keep in mind that these are WW top players talking about the set ups.HHHmmmm...the word of a couple jokes or the top players WW actually running the set-ups. Yeah, thats a hard one to decide who knows what they are talking about. Ironically its all the same stuff I said in this thread.Keep trying.</blockquote>There is nothing ironic here. You are quoting one monk that says we are the best thing since sliced bread (and he used to be a berserker/brig), but there are many other guilds in the running for top WW that are using plate tanks effectively.

Bruener

04-23-2011, 10:21 AM

<cite>Dorieon@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Oh yes, 2 of the biggest jokes of the community, who also just happen to be Brawlers say everything is just fine.Meanwhile people keep posting here ----> <a href="http://www.eq2flames.com/combat-discussion/79645-raid-setup.html">http://www.eq2flames.com/combat-dis...raid-setup.html</a> about raid setups and how much superior Brawlers are at tanking. Keep in mind that these are WW top players talking about the set ups.HHHmmmm...the word of a couple jokes or the top players WW actually running the set-ups. Yeah, thats a hard one to decide who knows what they are talking about. Ironically its all the same stuff I said in this thread.Keep trying.</blockquote>There is nothing ironic here. You are quoting one monk that says we are the best thing since sliced bread (and he used to be a berserker/brig), but there are many other guilds in the running for top WW that are using plate tanks effectively.</blockquote>Did you even read the thread? Multiple people that are in the WW top guilds easily rank Monk top MT in todays game. Reasoning are the exact reasons that I have said throughout this thread...that somehow a couple people constantly keep trying to refute. Avoidance is much greater. We are talking probably a 15-20% avoidance advantage due to not only just superior avoidance, but also due to being immune to strike thru, along with their actual 100% avoidance abilities being 100% avoidance. Surreals MT (that switched to Monk from Bezerker) put it best when he talked about a Plate tanks avoidance save being more like a 50-70% avoidance.This avoidance is seeing Brawlers hit very rarely, and when they do happen to get a hit through Wards are all there waiting and soak the damage easy. Because as pointed out the difference in the amount of damage actually taken by a physical hit is not even noticeable. If it was noticeable there would be a lot more Brawler deaths.Temp abilities. Having a lot of damage reducing, death save, 100% avoidance abilities that have a decent duration and faster recast than their Plate counterpart tanks means that they pretty much have something up all the time making it way easier to just keep them alive.Co-op strike. The risk of co-op strike on a Plate tank when adds pop is very high and will kill them a lot more often than on a Brawler because the Brawler is avoiding so much more.Now some may call this balanced if there was a lack of agro to balance it out like there used to be. However, especially as a Monk, they actually have the highest DPS while tanking due to actually hitting the mob a lot more than other tanks. Even taking that aside with how SOE has set up transfers and hate buffs in a tank group any tank easily can reach the agro they need because the other classes are supplying it to them.The strike-thru mechanic is broken and when combined with all of this has created a huge imbalance in tanks. It is definitely noticeable and showing in how top guilds would build their raids for the best success. The fact is the few here that claim to say there is no problem at all are just scared that they will lose their huge advantage they have in tanking. They are afraid of balance because when they were actually balanced in SF they couldn't get past the stigma of being a Brawler from the past.MT - Monk, OT- Guard, 3rd Tank - Brawler is not balanced.EDIT: Why provide parses when parses can all be manipulated to show junk numbers. I can show you parses of a Brawler avoiding 90% of damage while I avoid 50%. Is that going to be accepted? The fact is the time of the fight, how the fight goes, what the fight is, what the group set up is, what temp abilities were used, what temp abilities those lending avoidance were used all have to be taken into account which can totally tear apart a parse. The top players WW have figured it out just by constant parses and analyzing. Sorry you guys can't do the same.

Novusod

04-23-2011, 01:03 PM

Bruener you wouldn't know ballance if it hit you in the face.You are selectively reading things if not purposely misrepresenting them. That same WW monk that you keep quoting as if it is the gospel also said brawlers are not the best OT.<img src="http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e38/Novuso/EverQuest/NotOT.jpg" />Brawlers do have a weakness. It is called adds and AoE fights. If a brawler is not good OT then it is either MT or bust. That is the way the game is ballanced. No tank can do everything all the time now.

Bruener

04-23-2011, 01:44 PM

<cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>Bruener you wouldn't know ballance if it hit you in the face.You are selectively reading things if not purposely misrepresenting them. That same WW monk that you keep quoting as if it is the gospel also said brawlers are not the best OT.<img src="http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e38/Novuso/EverQuest/NotOT.jpg" />Brawlers do have a weakness. It is called adds and AoE fights. If a brawler is not good OT then it is either MT or bust. That is the way the game is ballanced. No tank can do everything all the time now.</blockquote>Odd since I see a Bruiser literally target lock large groups of adds any time they spawn. Notice he also listed what I said about Guard as the best OT.As I said MT- Monk, OT - Guard, 3rd Tank - Brawler. And that is balanced?For one the tank that is supposed to be the best tank for MT is not. But somehow he is the best tank for OT (was given lots of tools in SF that are shining in DoV for tanking AE encounters as well as ST).So, you think it is ok that the tanks that are actually supposed to be the OT of choice are shelved? Oh wait, you think that they are still good because they can AE tank in an xpac seriously lacking true AE content. Not to mention that large amounts of adds are just as easily tanked by a Rogue or Sorceror with a heavy burn. And as pointed out Brawlers are given just as many tools to handle large AE content for the short time there actually might be some to burn down fast (really that gets into a whole new subject though of how target locks should not work in raids at all).Should we post screen shots of everybody talking about multiple Brawlers in raids, or how many people say Monk in a raid versus any other tank?

Corydonn

04-23-2011, 01:50 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Odd since I see a Bruiser literally target lock large groups of adds any time they spawn.</blockquote>Odd how I hated picking up the Rumblers on Yael or the Blob adds on Waansu because frankly my tools for getting them suck and are highly resistable.

BChizzle

04-23-2011, 01:51 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>Bruener you wouldn't know ballance if it hit you in the face.You are selectively reading things if not purposely misrepresenting them. That same WW monk that you keep quoting as if it is the gospel also said brawlers are not the best OT.<img src="http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e38/Novuso/EverQuest/NotOT.jpg" />Brawlers do have a weakness. It is called adds and AoE fights. If a brawler is not good OT then it is either MT or bust. That is the way the game is ballanced. No tank can do everything all the time now.</blockquote>Odd since I see a Bruiser literally target lock large groups of adds any time they spawn. Notice he also listed what I said about Guard as the best OT.As I said MT- Monk, OT - Guard, 3rd Tank - Brawler. And that is balanced?For one the tank that is supposed to be the best tank for MT is not. But somehow he is the best tank for OT (was given lots of tools in SF that are shining in DoV for tanking AE encounters as well as ST).So, you think it is ok that the tanks that are actually supposed to be the OT of choice are shelved? Oh wait, you think that they are still good because they can AE tank in an xpac seriously lacking true AE content. Not to mention that large amounts of adds are just as easily tanked by a Rogue or Sorceror with a heavy burn. And as pointed out Brawlers are given just as many tools to handle large AE content for the short time there actually might be some to burn down fast (really that gets into a whole new subject though of how target locks should not work in raids at all).Should we post screen shots of everybody talking about multiple Brawlers in raids, or how many people say Monk in a raid versus any other tank?</blockquote>You really aren't coming with any facts Duele, lets see those parses. Fact is we roll with a MT brawler and guess what he dies and has agro problems, your brawler Cory is aways complaining about agro problems and go figure he also dies. Surreal was still a top guild when they didn't use a brawler MT, they could throw any MT in there and they would still clear things at the top of progression because they are super powered red machines.