Its time to look over fighters for next expansion. [Archive]

Soul_Dreamer

10-21-2011, 06:36 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>SF was a great xpac for ALL fighters once the Guard changes went in. Mind you I think that Adrenaline had to get an adjustment just because of the potential it had to trivialize content a lot, same with LC for Crusaders which had too much DPS potential on these big DoV type AEs.The only problem with SF was player perception that carried over from TSO. People didn't learn how powerful Brawlers were and Guard changes coming late people didn't realize how great their abilities were. SOE could have rolled into DoV like this but instead they gave even more to Brawlers and Guards and over-nerfed Crusaders and Zerks along with not giving them useful new abilities and you end up with the big imbalance we have in todays game.Hopefully SOE doesn't over-nerf Brawlers/Guards now while giving Zerks/Crusaders what they need. Fix strikethrough immunity, give Paladins a reliable stoneskin type ability they can use on big AEs, and give SKs/Zerks the self agro generation they should have, while distinguishing a little more the difference in damage taken between Plate tanks and leather tanks per hit.</blockquote>I'm sorry, what exactly did Guardians get going into DoV? The only things we got Zerks got exactly the same through the heroic tree, nothing else was added. The handful of changes in SF helped but nothing there was over powered, to be perfectly honest guardians themselves are in no way over powered, we're what a defensive tank should be and should be what the other tanks are balanced against defensively.Guardians have the most defensive abilities but we pay for it by being the least offensive tank, and when we do want to DPS we loose some of those abilities because they're shield dependant and we loose all our uncontested avoidance.Glad to see you've added Guardians into your calls for nerfs along with the brawlers, as long as it's not "Overnerfed" though right.... Lets hear it then, what exactly do you think needs nerfing on the Guardian class?Strike through needs adding to all tank temp defensive abilities.Strike trhough needs removing from Brawler defensive stance, or added to all tanks defensive stances.Pallies need a decent stonskin and snap.Zerks need their easily capped abilities changing/uncapping and a defensive ability.SK's need some sort of minor damage reduction and another snap/recast reduction in graves.That's it, do the above changes and see were things lie, large sweeping changes will just OP another tank.SK's agro is fine, SK's only miss a snap for the often memwipeing mobs because their tools are on a long recast. They don't need more DPS, everytime you post Bruener you're basically asking for the TSO Shadowknight back because you want to compete with the T2 and T1 DPS and still tank.. @your last post.. you'd need to compare the interupt to a class that can aoe avoid the RAID, or deathsave the RAID, or stoneskin the RAID...... you stop the AOE, you stop it for everyone, and that's right, no class can do those things. Troub can reduce the damage of an AOE by 50%, but that's on a 9min recast, you want to stop the AOE completely on a 3 min recast.... yeah, not over powered at all, but keep asking for these abilities for Crusaders, I'm sure it will happen.

Novusod

10-21-2011, 10:41 AM

All the Tanks are fairly well ballanced but there are some adjustments I would recommend.1: Give all Tanks the same DPS potential. Some tanks are Single target forcused while others are AE focused.2: Give Plate tanks 360 degree block chance. Plate tanks have no avoidance from behind and that is their biggest weekness. If you look at the zones like Challenge mode EoW it is not strikethough but adds coming from all directions that make this difficult on the plate tanks. Strikethrough immunity should remain brawler only as plate armor is Crusader/Warrior only. This ballances out well if mob strikethrough is kept at reasonable levels.3: Uncap hate gain for all tanks. Keeping hate has become exponentially harder since all the dps stats got uncapped in the previous update.

Netty

10-21-2011, 10:57 AM

<cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>SF was a great xpac for ALL fighters once the Guard changes went in. Mind you I think that Adrenaline had to get an adjustment just because of the potential it had to trivialize content a lot, same with LC for Crusaders which had too much DPS potential on these big DoV type AEs.The only problem with SF was player perception that carried over from TSO. People didn't learn how powerful Brawlers were and Guard changes coming late people didn't realize how great their abilities were. SOE could have rolled into DoV like this but instead they gave even more to Brawlers and Guards and over-nerfed Crusaders and Zerks along with not giving them useful new abilities and you end up with the big imbalance we have in todays game.Hopefully SOE doesn't over-nerf Brawlers/Guards now while giving Zerks/Crusaders what they need. Fix strikethrough immunity, give Paladins a reliable stoneskin type ability they can use on big AEs, and give SKs/Zerks the self agro generation they should have, while distinguishing a little more the difference in damage taken between Plate tanks and leather tanks per hit.</blockquote>I'm sorry, what exactly did Guardians get going into DoV? The only things we got Zerks got exactly the same through the heroic tree, nothing else was added. The handful of changes in SF helped but nothing there was over powered, to be perfectly honest guardians themselves are in no way over powered, we're what a defensive tank should be and should be what the other tanks are balanced against defensively.Guardians have the most defensive abilities but we pay for it by being the least offensive tank, and when we do want to DPS we loose some of those abilities because they're shield dependant and we loose all our uncontested avoidance.Glad to see you've added Guardians into your calls for nerfs along with the brawlers, as long as it's not "Overnerfed" though right.... Lets hear it then, what exactly do you think needs nerfing on the Guardian class?Strike through needs adding to all tank temp defensive abilities.Strike trhough needs removing from Brawler defensive stance, or added to all tanks defensive stances.Pallies need a decent stonskin and snap.Zerks need their easily capped abilities changing/uncapping and a defensive ability.SK's need some sort of minor damage reduction and another snap/recast reduction in graves.That's it, do the above changes and see were things lie, large sweeping changes will just OP another tank.SK's agro is fine, SK's only miss a snap for the often memwipeing mobs because their tools are on a long recast. They don't need more DPS, everytime you post Bruener you're basically asking for the TSO Shadowknight back because you want to compete with the T2 and T1 DPS and still tank.. @your last post.. you'd need to compare the interupt to a class that can aoe avoid the RAID, or deathsave the RAID, or stoneskin the RAID...... you stop the AOE, you stop it for everyone, and that's right, no class can do those things. Troub can reduce the damage of an AOE by 50%, but that's on a 9min recast, you want to stop the AOE completely on a 3 min recast.... yeah, not over powered at all, but keep asking for these abilities for Crusaders, I'm sure it will happen.</blockquote>I agree 100% that guardians work fine now. Imo its the only tank class atm that work 100% as it should do. The fixes he is talking about is the guardian rewamp. And that did do wonders for the class. Since in SF we had huge problems with it. Thats why i played my zerk in sf. I wouldent say it was balanced in sf but it was as close as it ever have been. with only the guardian class lacking. Untill they fixed it with the rewamp. However they nerfed the other fighters aswell and that was abit over the top since they dident add anything to make up for it. AD 50% damage half the time was over the top. But it was the only way zerks had to work as a raid tank. make it 25% in this expansion wont change much since co-op strikes huge aoes and dt still would kill you. It would still let the zerk class shine abit more tanking more than one mob. And give it abit easier time for the healers.Small changes need to be done to brawlers nothing huge. And a few small fixes to crusaders and zerks and it would be balanced again. If they dont want to give pallys stone skin what about a short duration ward off all inc damage for a short time. That would work the same only be aply in another way.

Soul_Dreamer

10-21-2011, 11:45 AM

<cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>All the Tanks are fairly well ballanced but there are some adjustments I would recommend.1: Give all Tanks the same DPS potential. Some tanks are Single target forcused while others are AE focused.2: Give Plate tanks 360 degree block chance. Plate tanks have no avoidance from behind and that is their biggest weekness. If you look at the zones like Challenge mode EoW it is not strikethough but adds coming from all directions that make this difficult on the plate tanks. Strikethrough immunity should remain brawler only as plate armor is Crusader/Warrior only. This ballances out well if mob strikethrough is kept at reasonable levels.3: Uncap hate gain for all tanks. Keeping hate has become exponentially harder since all the dps stats got uncapped in the previous update.</blockquote>Specifically the red text? Seriously......Our monk has a weapon with ~30% block chance, he can duel wield this weapon with another that has ~10% block chance (another with 30%+ Block chance when we kill the mob). His uncontested avoid is CURRENTLY just under 55%, Mine as a Gaurdian is about 43%, the difference in mitigation is about 5% in stats window, more than likely about 10% when facing a 98 named.This higher avoidance makes up for plate armour, not strike through. With strike though on a mob you're reducing all plate tanks avoidance by whatever the mob has. Take a block chance of 40%, which is pretty standard really for high end shields and the self buffing block chance some plate tanks get.A mob with 50% strike through reduces that block chance to 20%.. so the monk now has 35% more avoidance than the plat tank.. This really seems fair and "Balanced" to you, given the mitigation difference is ~10%. Get real, you like being OP and are trying to stay OP.But fine.. keep strike though as long as "Mitigation Strike through" is added for plate tanks only. Mobs will have a buff which gives them a % chance to strike through 50% of a brawlers "Leather" armour. Yeah, f**kin stupid idea isn't it, so is strike though, especially when 2 of the 6 classes are immune to it.

Soul_Dreamer

10-21-2011, 11:51 AM

<cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote>I agree 100% that guardians work fine now. Imo its the only tank class atm that work 100% as it should do. The fixes he is talking about is the guardian rewamp. And that did do wonders for the class. Since in SF we had huge problems with it. Thats why i played my zerk in sf. I wouldent say it was balanced in sf but it was as close as it ever have been. with only the guardian class lacking. Untill they fixed it with the rewamp. However they nerfed the other fighters aswell and that was abit over the top since they dident add anything to make up for it. AD 50% damage half the time was over the top. But it was the only way zerks had to work as a raid tank. make it 25% in this expansion wont change much since co-op strikes huge aoes and dt still would kill you. It would still let the zerk class shine abit more tanking more than one mob. And give it abit easier time for the healers.Small changes need to be done to brawlers nothing huge. And a few small fixes to crusaders and zerks and it would be balanced again. If they dont want to give pallys stone skin what about a short duration ward off all inc damage for a short time. That would work the same only be aply in another way.</blockquote>The Guardian changes came in during SF, Bruener is claiming we got buffed up with DOV release as well, which just isn't true. The only changes with DoV release that directly effected the Guardian were the new AA's and we share those with Zerks and they are hardly brilliant or over powered.I'm not saying that Pally/Zerk/SK don't need buffs in certain areas, they do, and I've said it in a lot of threads, most tanks agree they do. Watching Bruener claim things which just aren't true, to justify buffing the crap out of SK's again (which is what he wants) annoys me.

Netty

10-21-2011, 12:28 PM

<cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote>I agree 100% that guardians work fine now. Imo its the only tank class atm that work 100% as it should do. The fixes he is talking about is the guardian rewamp. And that did do wonders for the class. Since in SF we had huge problems with it. Thats why i played my zerk in sf. I wouldent say it was balanced in sf but it was as close as it ever have been. with only the guardian class lacking. Untill they fixed it with the rewamp. However they nerfed the other fighters aswell and that was abit over the top since they dident add anything to make up for it. AD 50% damage half the time was over the top. But it was the only way zerks had to work as a raid tank. make it 25% in this expansion wont change much since co-op strikes huge aoes and dt still would kill you. It would still let the zerk class shine abit more tanking more than one mob. And give it abit easier time for the healers.Small changes need to be done to brawlers nothing huge. And a few small fixes to crusaders and zerks and it would be balanced again. If they dont want to give pallys stone skin what about a short duration ward off all inc damage for a short time. That would work the same only be aply in another way.</blockquote>The Guardian changes came in during SF, Bruener is claiming we got buffed up with DOV release as well, which just isn't true. The only changes with DoV release that directly effected the Guardian were the new AA's and we share those with Zerks and they are hardly brilliant or over powered.I'm not saying that Pally/Zerk/SK don't need buffs in certain areas, they do, and I've said it in a lot of threads, most tanks agree they do. Watching Bruener claim things which just aren't true, to justify buffing the crap out of SK's again (which is what he wants) annoys me.</blockquote>They did come in the end of sf. So kinda much all guardians dident have any love that expansion. And no we dont want another Tso. I did quit in tso since there was kinda much nothing a guard could shine on in that expack... Came back in SF and started raiding on my zerk. My guardian was a zerk up to eof. Then i betrayed him to guard since you couldent really do wonders on zerks at the time. This is the problem with sonys way of doing things. They dont make the tanks balanced... they take turns in boosting them up and nerfing others. I have always loved both warriors.Brawlers do mitigate more damage well monks. If you count in other stuff aswell. Like the mini vertion of Adrenaline that monks have. 30% damage reduction on a mulitattack in the heroic tree and so on. Thats the porblem atm. Thats why all tank classes should have strikethough on temp buffs and mit need to be nerfed somewhat for the brawlers or boosted up for all plate tanks.

Talathion

10-21-2011, 01:26 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>SF was a great xpac for ALL fighters once the Guard changes went in. Mind you I think that Adrenaline had to get an adjustment just because of the potential it had to trivialize content a lot, same with LC for Crusaders which had too much DPS potential on these big DoV type AEs.The only problem with SF was player perception that carried over from TSO. People didn't learn how powerful Brawlers were and Guard changes coming late people didn't realize how great their abilities were. SOE could have rolled into DoV like this but instead they gave even more to Brawlers and Guards and over-nerfed Crusaders and Zerks along with not giving them useful new abilities and you end up with the big imbalance we have in todays game.Hopefully SOE doesn't over-nerf Brawlers/Guards now while giving Zerks/Crusaders what they need. Fix strikethrough immunity, give Paladins a reliable stoneskin type ability they can use on big AEs, and give SKs/Zerks the self agro generation they should have, while distinguishing a little more the difference in damage taken between Plate tanks and leather tanks per hit.</blockquote>Instead of a new stupid ability they don't need, how about making there current paladin wards critical so they are useful?You know, so a paladin is actually like a paladin and not a guy with stoneskins.</blockquote>Because even stacking all their wards for a one shot AE is not as good as 1 single stoneskin. Lets be honest, stoneskins are extremely powerful and will scale forever. They will absorb an unlimited single hit no matter the size.But yeah, I agree stoneskins are boring, but it should be something just as powerful as stoneskins. A single interrupt that works on epic mobs on like a 3 min recast. Seems a little powerful on paper, but really is it really much more powerful than being able to group death save, or group stoneskin, or group AE avoid?</blockquote>Yes they are.Using a ward before an AOE (An actual critting ward) could bring you enough health to survive a possibly fatal AOE, just enough time for your healers to get your health back up.WARDS prevent damage, adding 8-11k to your already high max health as a paladin would help dramaticly.

Talathion

10-21-2011, 01:34 PM

<cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>All the Tanks are fairly well ballanced but there are some adjustments I would recommend.1: Give all Tanks the same DPS potential. Some tanks are Single target forcused while others are AE focused.2: Give Plate tanks 360 degree block chance. Plate tanks have no avoidance from behind and that is their biggest weekness. If you look at the zones like Challenge mode EoW it is not strikethough but adds coming from all directions that make this difficult on the plate tanks. Strikethrough immunity should remain brawler only as plate armor is Crusader/Warrior only. This ballances out well if mob strikethrough is kept at reasonable levels.3: Uncap hate gain for all tanks. Keeping hate has become exponentially harder since all the dps stats got uncapped in the previous update.</blockquote>Specifically the red text? Seriously......Our monk has a weapon with ~30% block chance, he can duel wield this weapon with another that has ~10% block chance (another with 30%+ Block chance when we kill the mob). His uncontested avoid is CURRENTLY just under 55%, Mine as a Gaurdian is about 43%, the difference in mitigation is about 5% in stats window, more than likely about 10% when facing a 98 named.This higher avoidance makes up for plate armour, not strike through. With strike though on a mob you're reducing all plate tanks avoidance by whatever the mob has. Take a block chance of 40%, which is pretty standard really for high end shields and the self buffing block chance some plate tanks get.A mob with 50% strike through reduces that block chance to 20%.. so the monk now has 35% more avoidance than the plat tank.. This really seems fair and "Balanced" to you, given the mitigation difference is ~10%. Get real, you like being OP and are trying to stay OP.But fine.. keep strike though as long as "Mitigation Strike through" is added for plate tanks only. Mobs will have a buff which gives them a % chance to strike through 50% of a brawlers "Leather" armour. Yeah, f**kin stupid idea isn't it, so is strike though, especially when 2 of the 6 classes are immune to it.</blockquote>They reduce the damage of Multi-Attacks/flurrys dealt damage to them and have a 10% base damage reduction from mythical, so add that to they're mitigation thats only 3-5% (not 10%) Apart.And the sacrifice to DPS they have to have to gain this?Nothing, they can do this all while dualweilding and maximizing their DPS since all their DPS abilitys are not tied to their stances, and the fact they don't even need to use a shield while gaining this.No other tank gains innate protection while not using a shield, I don't think brawlers should either, I think they should have to sacrifice a slot to gain protection just like plate tanks and all the other classes do (or some classes should have this innate avoidance as well while not using a shield.)

Bruener

10-21-2011, 02:15 PM

<cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote>I agree 100% that guardians work fine now. Imo its the only tank class atm that work 100% as it should do. The fixes he is talking about is the guardian rewamp. And that did do wonders for the class. Since in SF we had huge problems with it. Thats why i played my zerk in sf. I wouldent say it was balanced in sf but it was as close as it ever have been. with only the guardian class lacking. Untill they fixed it with the rewamp. However they nerfed the other fighters aswell and that was abit over the top since they dident add anything to make up for it. AD 50% damage half the time was over the top. But it was the only way zerks had to work as a raid tank. make it 25% in this expansion wont change much since co-op strikes huge aoes and dt still would kill you. It would still let the zerk class shine abit more tanking more than one mob. And give it abit easier time for the healers.Small changes need to be done to brawlers nothing huge. And a few small fixes to crusaders and zerks and it would be balanced again. If they dont want to give pallys stone skin what about a short duration ward off all inc damage for a short time. That would work the same only be aply in another way.</blockquote>The Guardian changes came in during SF, Bruener is claiming we got buffed up with DOV release as well, which just isn't true. The only changes with DoV release that directly effected the Guardian were the new AA's and we share those with Zerks and they are hardly brilliant or over powered.I'm not saying that Pally/Zerk/SK don't need buffs in certain areas, they do, and I've said it in a lot of threads, most tanks agree they do. Watching Bruener claim things which just aren't true, to justify buffing the crap out of SK's again (which is what he wants) annoys me.</blockquote>Took me a while to reply back. I think Guards are fine where they are at, that doesn't mean that they won't get jack on the next go around since them along with Brawlers are the ones perceived as ruling this xpac. It comes down to perception which is why Crusaders got jack in DoV along with nerfs with Bezerkers, while the other 3 tanks did not get nerfed and in the case of Brawlers got even more ways to deal with damage. What SOE sees and hears is that DoV is dominated by Brawlers and Guards while Crusaders and Zerkers are lacking. There are nerfs, and than there is buffing everybody else...net result is the same.As to the claim that Guards did not get anything in DoV, how about an entire expansion built completely around their strengths of handling one shots?Personally I would be fine with where SK survivability is right now if there was some advantage in other areas. Fighter DPS is junk, no raid cares about it and honestly even if SKs were top Fighter dps (which they aren't that goes to Brawlers) nobody cares because its like bringing the king of the midgets. 10% more DPS on low DPS is nothing compared to the 100% more DPS you can get by having a more survivable tank and needing less tanks/healers. This carries over into the area that SKs should shine lacking the survivability, agro. SKs depend on DPS for agro more than other Fighters, having less taunts/reactive hate/ and no built in siphon. Having less survivability should mean some type of serious advantage somewhere. Something that a raid says hey even with less survivability this class is a great option because it gives us better ___________ in return. With hate mechanics now and allowing classes to transfer/buff tanks any Fighter can step into the right set up and hold hate no problem. That is what should change.

Yimway

10-21-2011, 04:13 PM

<cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote>Strike through needs adding to all tank temp defensive abilities.Strike trhough needs removing from Brawler defensive stance, or added to all tanks defensive stances.Pallies need a decent stonskin and snap.Zerks need their easily capped abilities changing/uncapping and a defensive ability.SK's need some sort of minor damage reduction and another snap/recast reduction in graves.</blockquote>Thats pretty much what I've been echoing in the testing forums for a while. I've provided several examples of what to do for Pallies, zerks and sk's to achieve that.As far as Strikethru, it should just go away, and or NO tank should get an immunity. The reasons for that immunity no longer exist. When the mitigation values between plate and leather were far greater than their uncontested avoidance potential, something like strikethru was needed to level the field.The field has changed, the need for strikethru is gone. If you want to keep it as a challenge mechanic, fine, but it needs to affect everyone the same.I still think it should be replaced with a debuff to uncontested avoidance. Since this is basically what it normalizes to.I still strongly feel the majority of the problems are content and mechanics, not sweeping class changes.

Gungo

10-21-2011, 04:22 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote>Strike through needs adding to all tank temp defensive abilities.Strike trhough needs removing from Brawler defensive stance, or added to all tanks defensive stances.Pallies need a decent stonskin and snap.Zerks need their easily capped abilities changing/uncapping and a defensive ability.SK's need some sort of minor damage reduction and another snap/recast reduction in graves.</blockquote> If you want to keep it(strikethrough) as a challenge mechanic, fine, but it needs to affect everyone the same.I still think it should be replaced with a debuff to uncontested avoidance. Since this is basically what it normalizes to.I still strongly feel the majority of the problems are content and mechanics, not sweeping class changes.</blockquote>This except i think strike through should stay as a challenge mechanic and our temp avoid buffs should be strikethrough immune. I also think like atan they need to passively reduce uncontested avoidance through some other means such as changing acccuracy to reduce uncontested avoidance.i also beleive ALL death saves need to be reduced to no more then 45 sec durations and have an UNMODIFIABLE (unless by direct means) recast of 3 minutes in combat. Death prevent or die mechanics are ruining the game.Those above changes would balance tanks and has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with giving fighters tier 2 dps and reducing tier 1 dps so that fighters have a chance to top the parse. Which would only unbalance the game again.

Yimway

10-21-2011, 04:39 PM

<cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>i also beleive ALL death saves need to be reduced to no more then 45 sec durations and have an UNMODIFIABLE (unless by direct means) recast of 3 minutes in combat. Death prevent or die mechanics are ruining the game.</blockquote>I hadn't thought about this. That is an interesting proposal. At face value I like where you are going with that, certainly going to mull on that one some more.

Controlor

10-21-2011, 04:39 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yes they are.Using a ward before an AOE (An actual critting ward) could bring you enough health to survive a possibly fatal AOE, just enough time for your healers to get your health back up.WARDS prevent damage, adding 8-11k to your already high max health as a paladin would help dramaticly.</blockquote>I am sorry but you are completely ignorant to what the heck a ward can do vs a 1 shot. First off currently can self ward in raid for max of like 12k usually 10 - 11k already without critting. And it does NOTHING to stop 1 shots. I still have to rely on my other abilities WITH the ward running to live through it (or have death save from priest). Fighter heals do NOT need to crit again get off that boat. SK heals need to be increased I will give you that because their heals have not scaled. However that is all that would be needed in the heal department. As soon as heals would crit again then paladins would be way OP in heroic content and the heals would STILL be nearly useless in raid department. So seriously stop with the heal critting would solve all the worlds problems.

Yimway

10-21-2011, 04:55 PM

<cite>Controlor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yes they are.Using a ward before an AOE (An actual critting ward) could bring you enough health to survive a possibly fatal AOE, just enough time for your healers to get your health back up.</blockquote>I am sorry but you are completely ignorant to what the heck a ward can do vs a 1 shot. First off currently can self ward in raid for max of like 12k usually 10 - 11k already without critting. And it does NOTHING to stop 1 shots. I still have to rely on my other abilities WITH the ward running to live through it (or have death save from priest). Fighter heals do NOT need to crit again get off that boat. SK heals need to be increased I will give you that because their heals have not scaled. However that is all that would be needed in the heal department. As soon as heals would crit again then paladins would be way OP in heroic content and the heals would STILL be nearly useless in raid department. So seriously stop with the heal critting would solve all the worlds problems.</blockquote>No, tala thinks you should be able to cast a 150k self ward to survive the one shot damage, cause that will bring balance to the game...

Controlor

10-21-2011, 04:56 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Controlor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yes they are.Using a ward before an AOE (An actual critting ward) could bring you enough health to survive a possibly fatal AOE, just enough time for your healers to get your health back up.</blockquote>I am sorry but you are completely ignorant to what the heck a ward can do vs a 1 shot. First off currently can self ward in raid for max of like 12k usually 10 - 11k already without critting. And it does NOTHING to stop 1 shots. I still have to rely on my other abilities WITH the ward running to live through it (or have death save from priest). Fighter heals do NOT need to crit again get off that boat. SK heals need to be increased I will give you that because their heals have not scaled. However that is all that would be needed in the heal department. As soon as heals would crit again then paladins would be way OP in heroic content and the heals would STILL be nearly useless in raid department. So seriously stop with the heal critting would solve all the worlds problems.</blockquote>No, tala thinks you should be able to cast a 150k self ward to survive the one shot damage, cause that will bring balance to the game...</blockquote>classes can already do that .... its called a stoneskin ..... and thats what we been asking for *shifty eyes*

Talathion

10-21-2011, 05:01 PM

Bruener

10-21-2011, 05:24 PM

<cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Those above changes would balance tanks and has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with giving fighters tier 2 dps and reducing tier 1 dps so that fighters have a chance to top the parse. Which would only unbalance the game again.</blockquote>Nobody is asking for that to happen. T1 DPS actually working at it should be top DPS period....it just shouldn't be by 100-150% more than everybody else.Maybe if you actually looked outside of your little box of just balancing Fighters against each other and started thinking bigger about how to balance Fighters against everybody for overall usefullness and need you could see what having better Fighter DPS would do.

Yimway

10-21-2011, 06:02 PM

<cite>Controlor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>No, tala thinks you should be able to cast a 150k self ward to survive the one shot damage, cause that will bring balance to the game...</blockquote>classes can already do that .... its called a stoneskin ..... and thats what we been asking for *shifty eyes*</blockquote>Yeap, paladins for sure need a 2 tick stoneskin on a rougly 120 second timer.Giving them raid tools (stoneskins) to be more raid viable is the right answer. Giving them OP wards that trivialize other content to allow them to survive predictable otherwise one-shot damage is someone's poorly thought out pipe-dream.

Yimway

10-21-2011, 06:05 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Maybe if you actually looked outside of your little box of just balancing Fighters against each other and started thinking bigger about how to balance Fighters against everybody for overall usefullness and need you could see what having better Fighter DPS would do.</blockquote>Bruener, I understand where you are going for raid dps and asking for fighters to be raised. I completely get it, and empathize with where you are trying to go.It will never happen.The problem is the perceived impact of those changes to heroic parsing. Where fights are so short, the extra hits the fighter makes inflates their parse and people get buthurt about fighter parses as a result. I don't see them allowing fighters parse the same again for these reasons.

Silzin

10-21-2011, 06:43 PM

I think the Aggression skill needs to a complete over hall, so that tanks have the ability to produce around the same amount of threat thro Aggression based abilities as Dmg. this should go a long way to help tank agro while not just giving us an EZ button for agro. also Gungo's idea for the death save change is nice, but it would probably be seen as a huge nurft to the Paly and SK? also it would mean that a lot of current content that is designed to kill the tank every X sec's would need to be redesigned.

Soul_Dreamer

10-21-2011, 06:57 PM

<cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote>Strike through needs adding to all tank temp defensive abilities.Strike trhough needs removing from Brawler defensive stance, or added to all tanks defensive stances.Pallies need a decent stonskin and snap.Zerks need their easily capped abilities changing/uncapping and a defensive ability.SK's need some sort of minor damage reduction and another snap/recast reduction in graves.</blockquote> If you want to keep it(strikethrough) as a challenge mechanic, fine, but it needs to affect everyone the same.I still think it should be replaced with a debuff to uncontested avoidance. Since this is basically what it normalizes to.I still strongly feel the majority of the problems are content and mechanics, not sweeping class changes.</blockquote>This except i think strike through should stay as a challenge mechanic and our temp avoid buffs should be strikethrough immune. I also think like atan they need to passively reduce uncontested avoidance through some other means such as changing acccuracy to reduce uncontested avoidance.i also beleive ALL death saves need to be reduced to no more then 45 sec durations and have an UNMODIFIABLE (unless by direct means) recast of 3 minutes in combat. Death prevent or die mechanics are ruining the game.Those above changes would balance tanks and has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with giving fighters tier 2 dps and reducing tier 1 dps so that fighters have a chance to top the parse. Which would only unbalance the game again.</blockquote>Why add another Mechanic to contest uncontested avoidance though when you can just lower uncontested avoidance across the board, both result in the same thing.Scenario A - Mob has an ability that contests 10% of your uncontested avoidance = Tank gets hit 10% more on average.Scenario B - Mob has no ability to contest uncontested avoidance but all tanks have 10% less = Tank gets hit 10% more on average.There's no difference, we don't need complex mechanics introduced to compensate for character power when the devs let it get out of control. Either is a nerf, one is directly, the other indirectly, just take the hit on your block chance and get it over with.

Bruener

10-21-2011, 09:31 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Maybe if you actually looked outside of your little box of just balancing Fighters against each other and started thinking bigger about how to balance Fighters against everybody for overall usefullness and need you could see what having better Fighter DPS would do.</blockquote>Bruener, I understand where you are going for raid dps and asking for fighters to be raised. I completely get it, and empathize with where you are trying to go.It will never happen.The problem is the perceived impact of those changes to heroic parsing. Where fights are so short, the extra hits the fighter makes inflates their parse and people get buthurt about fighter parses as a result. I don't see them allowing fighters parse the same again for these reasons.</blockquote>So yes, once again player perception is dumb. This is what kills the game. People's perception pushing SOE to make certain changes that just end up making the game worse.Fighter DPS is much worse than what people even believe. Strip away the reactive DPS buffs that tanks get while being hit and you can see really how pathetic it is.

Novusod

10-21-2011, 09:53 PM

<cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>2: Give Plate tanks 360 degree block chance. Plate tanks have no avoidance from behind and that is their biggest weekness. If you look at the zones like Challenge mode EoW it is not strikethough but adds coming from all directions that make this difficult on the plate tanks. Strikethrough immunity should remain brawler only as plate armor is Crusader/Warrior only. This ballances out well if mob strikethrough is kept at reasonable levels.</blockquote>Specifically the red text? Seriously......Our monk has a weapon with ~30% block chance, he can duel wield this weapon with another that has ~10% block chance (another with 30%+ Block chance when we kill the mob). His uncontested avoid is CURRENTLY just under 55%, Mine as a Gaurdian is about 43%, the difference in mitigation is about 5% in stats window, more than likely about 10% when facing a 98 named.This higher avoidance makes up for plate armour, not strike through. With strike though on a mob you're reducing all plate tanks avoidance by whatever the mob has. Take a block chance of 40%, which is pretty standard really for high end shields and the self buffing block chance some plate tanks get.A mob with 50% strike through reduces that block chance to 20%.. so the monk now has 35% more avoidance than the plat tank.. This really seems fair and "Balanced" to you, given the mitigation difference is ~10%. Get real, you like being OP and are trying to stay OP.</blockquote>See the second line in red: This ballances out well if mob strikethrough is kept at reasonable levels.A mob with 50% strike through is NOT a reasonable level. Don't confuse a content issue with a class issue. A 10% to 20% strikethrough rate ballances nicely. With no strikethrough plate tanks can reach almost brawler like avoidance which isn't right. The reason strikethrough was put into the game in the first place was because plate tanks had too much avoidance.

Bruener

10-21-2011, 10:11 PM

<cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>2: Give Plate tanks 360 degree block chance. Plate tanks have no avoidance from behind and that is their biggest weekness. If you look at the zones like Challenge mode EoW it is not strikethough but adds coming from all directions that make this difficult on the plate tanks. Strikethrough immunity should remain brawler only as plate armor is Crusader/Warrior only. This ballances out well if mob strikethrough is kept at reasonable levels.</blockquote>Specifically the red text? Seriously......Our monk has a weapon with ~30% block chance, he can duel wield this weapon with another that has ~10% block chance (another with 30%+ Block chance when we kill the mob). His uncontested avoid is CURRENTLY just under 55%, Mine as a Gaurdian is about 43%, the difference in mitigation is about 5% in stats window, more than likely about 10% when facing a 98 named.This higher avoidance makes up for plate armour, not strike through. With strike though on a mob you're reducing all plate tanks avoidance by whatever the mob has. Take a block chance of 40%, which is pretty standard really for high end shields and the self buffing block chance some plate tanks get.A mob with 50% strike through reduces that block chance to 20%.. so the monk now has 35% more avoidance than the plat tank.. This really seems fair and "Balanced" to you, given the mitigation difference is ~10%. Get real, you like being OP and are trying to stay OP.</blockquote>See the second line in red: This ballances out well if mob strikethrough is kept at reasonable levels.A mob with 50% strike through is NOT a reasonable level. Don't confuse a content issue with a class issue. A 10% to 20% strikethrough rate ballances nicely. With no strikethrough plate tanks can reach almost brawler like avoidance which isn't right. The reason strikethrough was put into the game in the first place was because plate tanks had too much avoidance.</blockquote>Plate tank actual avoidance isn't even close. Its real easy to see a Brawler in the same level of gear have 10% more uncontested block. Strike through just widens that gap even further depending on how much the mob has.The strike through mechanic isn't a bad one...its the fact that 1/3 of the Fighters is immune to it that is asinine.

Novusod

10-21-2011, 11:38 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>anks had too much avoidance.Plate tank actual avoidance isn't even close. Its real easy to see a Brawler in the same level of gear have 10% more uncontested block. Strike through just widens that gap even further depending on how much the mob has.The strike through mechanic isn't a bad one...its the fact that 1/3 of the Fighters is immune to it that is asinine.</blockquote>The strike through mechanic with brawlers being immune to it is prefectly fine. Strike through was put in the game for a very good reason and brawlers were made immune to it a very good reason. It was to break up the asinine plate tank monopoly. I remember back in RoK when Plate tanks in offensive stance had more avoidance than brawlers. Immagine if brawlers had more mitigation than AND more avoidance in offensive stance than you. That would be flat out broken. But that is exactly what brawlers had to put up with for years in terms of super over powered plate tanks. Strikethrough and brawler immunity exist for a reason.We would be right back there again if the suggestions you asked for were actually implemented. What we have now is ballance. Plate tanks have mitigation and brawlers have their avoidance and strikethough makes sure plate avoidance doesn't get too high. You just want to break that ballance and get the monopoly back. Not going to happen. Xalgad did a very good job at ballancing the fighters.

Soul_Dreamer

10-22-2011, 12:04 AM

<cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>anks had too much avoidance.Plate tank actual avoidance isn't even close. Its real easy to see a Brawler in the same level of gear have 10% more uncontested block. Strike through just widens that gap even further depending on how much the mob has.The strike through mechanic isn't a bad one...its the fact that 1/3 of the Fighters is immune to it that is asinine.</blockquote>The strike through mechanic with brawlers being immune to it is prefectly fine. Strike through was put in the game for a very good reason and brawlers were made immune to it a very good reason. It was to break up the asinine plate tank monopoly. I remember back in RoK when Plate tanks in offensive stance had more avoidance than brawlers. Immagine if brawlers had more mitigation than AND more avoidance in offensive stance than you. That would be flat out broken. But that is exactly what brawlers had to put up with for years in terms of super over powered plate tanks. Strikethrough and brawler immunity exist for a reason.We would be right back there again if the suggestions you asked for were actually implemented. What we have now is ballance. Plate tanks have mitigation and brawlers have their avoidance and strikethough makes sure plate avoidance doesn't get too high. You just want to break that ballance and get the monopoly back. Not going to happen. Xalgad did a very good job at ballancing the fighters.</blockquote>So the fact you now have a 4% mitigation difference means nothing, to "Balance" you also need up to 40% more avoidance? I'm not making these numbers up, I'm a MT Guardian with 45%+ Block chance and mostly HM gear. My personal block chance on Finnrdag is 27%, our monk has 55% block chance, all of which will work. Thats a difference of close to 30% while our mitigation difference is less than 5%, this will go up with mob level but up to 30%? I think not.Strike through immunity is not fine, defend it however you wish, the numbers simply don't add up. With a 4% mitigation difference the avoidance difference needs to be 4%, it's very, very simple maths!Quote old expansion numbers and examples all you like, claim it's ok if Strike through is low numbers, non of this matters because it's not now, and mobs don't have these low numbers.

Novusod

10-22-2011, 12:55 AM

<cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote>So the fact you now have a 4% mitigation difference means nothing, to "Balance" you also need up to 40% more avoidance? I'm not making these numbers up, I'm a MT Guardian with 45%+ Block chance and mostly HM gear. My personal block chance on Finnrdag is 27%, our monk has 55% block chance, all of which will work. Thats a difference of close to 30% while our mitigation difference is less than 5%, this will go up with mob level but up to 30%? I think not.Strike through immunity is not fine, defend it however you wish, the numbers simply don't add up. With a 4% mitigation difference the avoidance difference needs to be 4%, it's very, very simple maths!Quote old expansion numbers and examples all you like, claim it's ok if Strike through is low numbers, non of this matters because it's not now, and mobs don't have these low numbers.</blockquote>Yeah and dispite all your made up numbers you are still the MT because there is no real advanage of using a monk over a guardian. It is not just the raw mitigation that matters. Your class has crazy amounts of stoneskins and it doesn't even matter if you get struckthrough or not because a stoneskin is still a stoneskin. The funny thing is you think you can fool everyone to get unneeded buffs for your class.

Soul_Dreamer

10-22-2011, 01:25 AM

<cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote>So the fact you now have a 4% mitigation difference means nothing, to "Balance" you also need up to 40% more avoidance? I'm not making these numbers up, I'm a MT Guardian with 45%+ Block chance and mostly HM gear. My personal block chance on Finnrdag is 27%, our monk has 55% block chance, all of which will work. Thats a difference of close to 30% while our mitigation difference is less than 5%, this will go up with mob level but up to 30%? I think not.Strike through immunity is not fine, defend it however you wish, the numbers simply don't add up. With a 4% mitigation difference the avoidance difference needs to be 4%, it's very, very simple maths!Quote old expansion numbers and examples all you like, claim it's ok if Strike through is low numbers, non of this matters because it's not now, and mobs don't have these low numbers.</blockquote>Yeah and dispite all your made up numbers you are still the MT because there is no real advanage of using a monk over a guardian. It is not just the raw mitigation that matters. Your class has crazy amounts of stoneskins and it doesn't even matter if you get struckthrough or not because a stoneskin is still a stoneskin. The funny thing is you think you can fool everyone to get unneeded buffs for your class.</blockquote>I don't remember asking for a single buff for "My class" since SF.... as for Made up numbers, I can happily post a lot of parses for you, here's one just below! Please continue to make crap up and claim how it's all fine and balanced now and that I'm the one making up numbers. I'll get you a screenshot of both mine and my monks persona avoidance page as well if you like.I'm MT, because I'm raid leader, and guild leader, and have been for over 5 years, one of our OT's is my brother and has been our OT for 5 years (SK). Guardians have never made a bad MT choice, there have been better choices in the past during some expansions but Guardians have always managed fine in the role. The same cannot be said for other tank classes. At present SK/Zerk/Paladin are unable to tank a lot of hard mode content... I don't mean it's hard for them, it's next to impossible for them to stay alive through the effects some mobs have. Strike through immunity being given to Brawlers only is a very large part of this imbalance.Like I said, argue it how you like, it's a fact that it's a stupid mechanic and it's causing major problems for tank balance.<img src="http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a77/veevers/avoidance2.png" width="494" height="541" />As said previously, my total block is over 45%, I had 5% of avoidance from Dodge food running, both of these are pretty much halved just from Strike through. The blacked out lines are other character avoidances which are available to all classes. Our monks avoidance is substantially higher, and yet his inc damage per hit is pretty much the same, I'll dig out a parse of that as well later on. Stoneskin damage between our monk and myself is very similar due to group buffs and classes abilities.I'll just keep repeating it... strike through immunity needs to be REMOVED from all classes and only added to temp avoidance buffs so they do what they say on the tin.

Novusod

10-22-2011, 02:09 AM

You know I am so glad you posted that because it proves you only see what you want to see and you opinion is not to be taken seriously. Did I not say STONESKINS need to be factored in as well and what did you convienently leave out? I will fix that for you.<img src="http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e38/Novuso/EverQuest/avoidanceStoneskill.png" />Dude you are not fooling anyone. Your class is fine because you stoneskin as much damage as lose you out to strikethrough. Clearly you can not see that because of your own personal bias and you just want everything.As for other classes there was thread a few months back about Crusader Wards not scaling with incoming damage. The thread got trolled with crusaders asking for everything including game breaking suggestions. Because those involved weren't being reasonable their suggestions weren't taken seriously and as a result they didn't get anything out of it. If you want this thread to have a different outcome then you start being reasonable yourself.Until you start being honest about how your class mitigates and reduces damage there is no point in continueing to talk to you about how other classes reduce their damage.

Soul_Dreamer

10-22-2011, 07:19 AM

<cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>You know I am so glad you posted that because it proves you only see what you want to see and you opinion is not to be taken seriously. Did I not say STONESKINS need to be factored in as well and what did you convienently leave out? I will fix that for you.Dude you are not fooling anyone. Your class is fine because you stoneskin as much damage as lose you out to strikethrough. Clearly you can not see that because of your own personal bias and you just want everything.As for other classes there was thread a few months back about Crusader Wards not scaling with incoming damage. The thread got trolled with crusaders asking for everything including game breaking suggestions. Because those involved weren't being reasonable their suggestions weren't taken seriously and as a result they didn't get anything out of it. If you want this thread to have a different outcome then you start being reasonable yourself.Until you start being honest about how your class mitigates and reduces damage there is no point in continueing to talk to you about how other classes reduce their damage.</blockquote>As a monk you have just as many blocks and stoneskins as I do as a Guardian so get off your high horse on that one. Just by being in a group with a Templar and Dirge you'll have 15-20%. I conveniently left it out because between Monk and Guardian the number of abilities are similar. I play both, I know.....You really think that my ability that says "Caster will parry 100% of incomming attacks" (Dragoons) shouldn't do exactly that and that in some cases it should be as low as 50%?The stoneskin numbers will be about the same on a monk, the other avoidance numbers will be a lot higher than mine. My own monk, who is an alt has 64% Mitigation, my Guardian has 70%, when raid buffed my crappy monk is even closer. If monks aren't that much better than other classes, why is it a substantial number of HC guilds are now using them as MT's? Strike through immunity combined with the large amount of strike through mobs have is severly imbalancing tanking. Again it's simple maths, if the mitigation difference is now 10%, the avoidance difference needs to be 10%, not the 30% it currently is.Have you even tanked these HM mobs and know what you're talking about because in heroic content strike through doesn't mean much, but when you get to HM named that have 40%+ it's a very big deal.As to your last comment.. good, get out of this thread then because I'm not going to stop posting here.

Novusod

10-22-2011, 09:05 AM

You can keep posting all you want but the fact remains that you have been discredited enough that no Red name will take you seriously. Keep downplaying stoneskins like it is nothing and see how much credibility you earn.Up until half way thorugh SF the hard core guilds used plate MTs almost exclusively and it wasn't until the Devs pumped up the strikethrough on top bosses like 4RT and UFD that a few guilds started letting brawlers MT. Complaining that brawlers are finialy getting a peice of that MT pie only shows how biased you are. It is clear as day that you don't want brawlers in competition with plate tanks for MT. It was the plate tank monopoly that was out of ballance. Strikethrough and brawler strikethrough immunity corrected that imballance and broke up the plate tank monopoly. Brawler main tanks replacing some plate tanks in hard core raiding is: "WORKING AS INTENDED."This is what ballance looks like. If you don't beleive it you are just in denial. Ideally it should by one third brawlers not 100% plate tank like it was back in the day. Your monopoly is never coming back so deal with it. Any suggestions aimed at restoring the monopoly WILL be ignored.

Netty

10-22-2011, 10:54 AM

BChizzle

10-22-2011, 01:15 PM

<cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>You can keep posting all you want but the fact remains that you have been discredited enough that no Red name will take you seriously. Keep downplaying stoneskins like it is nothing and see how much credibility you earn.Up until half way thorugh SF the hard core guilds used plate MTs almost exclusively and it wasn't until the Devs pumped up the strikethrough on top bosses like 4RT and UFD that a few guilds started letting brawlers MT. Complaining that brawlers are finialy getting a peice of that MT pie only shows how biased you are. It is clear as day that you don't want brawlers in competition with plate tanks for MT. It was the plate tank monopoly that was out of ballance. Strikethrough and brawler strikethrough immunity corrected that imballance and broke up the plate tank monopoly. Brawler main tanks replacing some plate tanks in hard core raiding is: "WORKING AS INTENDED."This is what ballance looks like. If you don't beleive it you are just in denial. Ideally it should by one third brawlers not 100% plate tank like it was back in the day. Your monopoly is never coming back so deal with it. Any suggestions aimed at restoring the monopoly WILL be ignored.</blockquote>This thread is about what the other fighters need. And not a defend brawler thread. So pls keep inline with what the thread is about. Everyone but you know that brawlers take the lesser damage than any of the tanks atm so just stop it.Again keep to the topic.</blockquote>Actually you said fighters in your thread title and brawlers are fighters. Fortunately for most of us just because you started a thread doesn't mean you own the discussion that happens, deal with it.

Soul_Dreamer

10-22-2011, 02:35 PM

<cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>You can keep posting all you want but the fact remains that you have been discredited enough that no Red name will take you seriously. Keep downplaying stoneskins like it is nothing and see how much credibility you earn.Up until half way thorugh SF the hard core guilds used plate MTs almost exclusively and it wasn't until the Devs pumped up the strikethrough on top bosses like 4RT and UFD that a few guilds started letting brawlers MT. Complaining that brawlers are finialy getting a peice of that MT pie only shows how biased you are. It is clear as day that you don't want brawlers in competition with plate tanks for MT. It was the plate tank monopoly that was out of ballance. Strikethrough and brawler strikethrough immunity corrected that imballance and broke up the plate tank monopoly. Brawler main tanks replacing some plate tanks in hard core raiding is: "WORKING AS INTENDED."This is what ballance looks like. If you don't beleive it you are just in denial. Ideally it should by one third brawlers not 100% plate tank like it was back in the day. Your monopoly is never coming back so deal with it. Any suggestions aimed at restoring the monopoly WILL be ignored.</blockquote>Where have I been discredited, by you? LOL.... And when did I downplay Guardian Stone skins? Sorry, but you're talking straight out of your as***le here. I posted my Avoidance numbers to show the reduction in avoidance from Strike through which you claim is only a small amount, I don't consider 30%-50% to be a small amount. You then bring stoneskins into it.. Below are the monk avoidances, while not all of them outright block the damage like a stoneskin does they allow you to block or reduce almost every single AOE that hits a monk. Monks will also gain the same % Stoneskin chance that Guardians or any other tanks gain from being in the MT group, that is the 17% Stoneskin you're seeing on the auto attack, seriously, why even include it when all tanks have it?As I've said, I play both Monk and Guardian, and there is a noticable difference in incomming damage between the two. What we have now is not "Balance", there are 3 tanks out of 6 making possible MT's for hard mode content, the other 3 don't even get a look in.Please read this and get it through that thick skull of yours... I'm NOT asking for an increase in anything to my Guardian directly, I don't want more stone skins, I don't want more DPS, I don't want more utility.. I'm happy as my Guardian is, I can still MT and I do it very well. However, ALL tanks need to be able to MT and it's simply not possible for 3 out of the 6 at the moment. 3 of the fighters need help in some areas and all tanks need to be balanced with strike through immunity. The immunity needs to be added to all temp abilities that are designed to avoid 100% of damage for a short duration, AND Brawlers need this immunity removed from their defensive stance. Really, it's not "a few" guilds using brawlers to MT hard content now, it's the MAJORITY of guilds using them, as you said, plate tanks had it all to themselves for a while and that wasn't ok, why is it suddenly ok that Brawlers have the same situation?Also please answer the question I posed earlier on, have you even MT'd any of this content you're talking about? I looked at your guild "Redemption" and could find no kills either on Flames or on guild progress. EQ2 players is very shoddy though so this may not even be your guild <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />I'm sorry but if you're not tanking these mobs or you don't know much about them you simply can't comment very well. For example with the EM And HM brawler weapons from Drunder a Brawler can duel weild 2 weapons, both of these weapons have ~30% block chance, there are brawlers running around with 60% uncontested avoidance. All the while on the same mobs the plate tanks barely scratch 30% with the best gear they can get due to high strike through amounts. And remember at the same time the mitigation difference is in the region of 10%.....<img src="http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a77/veevers/eq2/Monkavoids.png" width="500" height="478" />

circusgirl

10-22-2011, 02:38 PM

<cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>You know I am so glad you posted that because it proves you only see what you want to see and you opinion is not to be taken seriously. Did I not say STONESKINS need to be factored in as well and what did you convienently leave out? I will fix that for you.Dude you are not fooling anyone. Your class is fine because you stoneskin as much damage as lose you out to strikethrough. Clearly you can not see that because of your own personal bias and you just want everything.As for other classes there was thread a few months back about Crusader Wards not scaling with incoming damage. The thread got trolled with crusaders asking for everything including game breaking suggestions. Because those involved weren't being reasonable their suggestions weren't taken seriously and as a result they didn't get anything out of it. If you want this thread to have a different outcome then you start being reasonable yourself.Until you start being honest about how your class mitigates and reduces damage there is no point in continueing to talk to you about how other classes reduce their damage.</blockquote>As a monk you have just as many blocks and stoneskins as I do as a Guardian so get off your high horse on that one. Just by being in a group with a Templar and Dirge you'll have 15-20%. I conveniently left it out because between Monk and Guardian the number of abilities are similar. I play both, I know.....You really think that my ability that says "Caster will parry 100% of incomming attacks" (Dragoons) shouldn't do exactly that and that in some cases it should be as low as 50%?The stoneskin numbers will be about the same on a monk, the other avoidance numbers will be a lot higher than mine. My own monk, who is an alt has 64% Mitigation, my Guardian has 70%, when raid buffed my crappy monk is even closer. If monks aren't that much better than other classes, why is it a substantial number of HC guilds are now using them as MT's? Strike through immunity combined with the large amount of strike through mobs have is severly imbalancing tanking. Again it's simple maths, if the mitigation difference is now 10%, the avoidance difference needs to be 10%, not the 30% it currently is.Have you even tanked these HM mobs and know what you're talking about because in heroic content strike through doesn't mean much, but when you get to HM named that have 40%+ it's a very big deal.As to your last comment.. good, get out of this thread then because I'm not going to stop posting here. </blockquote>Actually, most brawlers are okay with plate tank's temporary avoidance abilities getting strikethrough immunity. I think your "Dragoons" ability should indeed give you 100% avoidance, like it says. Where we have a problem is when plate tanks want to either a)remove brawler strikethrough immunity and send us back to the horribly unbalanced days of TSO, or b)get strikethrough immunity themselves for not just temp buffs but 100% of the time. That's problematic to us because the avoidance gap between plate tanks and leather tanks was very, very small before they gave brawlers strikethrough immunity, leaving us heinously underpowered. But yes, your temp buffs should get strikethrough immunity. I'm 100% behind that, and I think most brawlers are okay with that idea.

Soul_Dreamer

10-22-2011, 02:53 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote></blockquote>Actually, most brawlers are okay with plate tank's temporary avoidance abilities getting strikethrough immunity. I think your "Dragoons" ability should indeed give you 100% avoidance, like it says. Where we have a problem is when plate tanks want to either a)remove brawler strikethrough immunity and send us back to the horribly unbalanced days of TSO, or b)get strikethrough immunity themselves for not just temp buffs but 100% of the time. That's problematic to us because the avoidance gap between plate tanks and leather tanks was very, very small before they gave brawlers strikethrough immunity, leaving us heinously underpowered. But yes, your temp buffs should get strikethrough immunity. I'm 100% behind that, and I think most brawlers are okay with that idea.</blockquote>Bloody quoting gone haywire...Previously yes I would have agreed with you, Strike through was a good balancing mechanic, but when you parse some mobs they have up to 50% strike through, this is too much and throws the balance in the opposite direction. Also Brawler mitigation is a lot closer to plate tanks now than it ever was, add in AA's like Unrivaled Focus (30% Damage reducton for 3 seconds after taking a hit) and the gap grows even smaller, this AA alone reduces most of the damage the brawler actually takes due to such high avoidance numbers now.If strike through is controlled I'll be happy, heep the immunity on the defensive stance, but a 30-40% difference in avoidance is in no way equal to a 10% difference in mitigation, and the numbers are this high now due to the high amounts of strike through on HM named mobs.

BChizzle

10-22-2011, 04:18 PM

<cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote></blockquote>Actually, most brawlers are okay with plate tank's temporary avoidance abilities getting strikethrough immunity. I think your "Dragoons" ability should indeed give you 100% avoidance, like it says. Where we have a problem is when plate tanks want to either a)remove brawler strikethrough immunity and send us back to the horribly unbalanced days of TSO, or b)get strikethrough immunity themselves for not just temp buffs but 100% of the time. That's problematic to us because the avoidance gap between plate tanks and leather tanks was very, very small before they gave brawlers strikethrough immunity, leaving us heinously underpowered. But yes, your temp buffs should get strikethrough immunity. I'm 100% behind that, and I think most brawlers are okay with that idea.</blockquote>Bloody quoting gone haywire...Previously yes I would have agreed with you, Strike through was a good balancing mechanic, but when you parse some mobs they have up to 50% strike through, this is too much and throws the balance in the opposite direction. Also Brawler mitigation is a lot closer to plate tanks now than it ever was, add in AA's like Unrivaled Focus (30% Damage reducton for 3 seconds after taking a hit) and the gap grows even smaller, this AA alone reduces most of the damage the brawler actually takes due to such high avoidance numbers now.If strike through is controlled I'll be happy, heep the immunity on the defensive stance, but a 30-40% difference in avoidance is in no way equal to a 10% difference in mitigation, and the numbers are this high now due to the high amounts of strike through on HM named mobs.</blockquote>First off there is absolutely no evidence any high end raid mobs have 50% strikethrough mechanics, in fact there is no way to even parse it. At best you can compare a high end raid mobs hit rate vs a plate and brawler but what you will end up seeing is only a 10% or so difference in avoidance.

Talathion

10-22-2011, 04:37 PM

Provoking Stance needs nerfed, 25% Damage Reduction is too powerful, it needs to be 25% hit regen on hit instead like Adrenaline.It also needs to cost 6% mana every 3 seconds for 30 seconds after it ends.I'm kidding, but you atleast know how I feel.

Soul_Dreamer

10-22-2011, 04:43 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote></blockquote>Actually, most brawlers are okay with plate tank's temporary avoidance abilities getting strikethrough immunity. I think your "Dragoons" ability should indeed give you 100% avoidance, like it says. Where we have a problem is when plate tanks want to either a)remove brawler strikethrough immunity and send us back to the horribly unbalanced days of TSO, or b)get strikethrough immunity themselves for not just temp buffs but 100% of the time. That's problematic to us because the avoidance gap between plate tanks and leather tanks was very, very small before they gave brawlers strikethrough immunity, leaving us heinously underpowered. But yes, your temp buffs should get strikethrough immunity. I'm 100% behind that, and I think most brawlers are okay with that idea.</blockquote>Bloody quoting gone haywire...Previously yes I would have agreed with you, Strike through was a good balancing mechanic, but when you parse some mobs they have up to 50% strike through, this is too much and throws the balance in the opposite direction. Also Brawler mitigation is a lot closer to plate tanks now than it ever was, add in AA's like Unrivaled Focus (30% Damage reducton for 3 seconds after taking a hit) and the gap grows even smaller, this AA alone reduces most of the damage the brawler actually takes due to such high avoidance numbers now.If strike through is controlled I'll be happy, heep the immunity on the defensive stance, but a 30-40% difference in avoidance is in no way equal to a 10% difference in mitigation, and the numbers are this high now due to the high amounts of strike through on HM named mobs.</blockquote>First off there is absolutely no evidence any high end raid mobs have 50% strikethrough mechanics, in fact there is no way to even parse it. At best you can compare a high end raid mobs hit rate vs a plate and brawler but what you will end up seeing is only a 10% or so difference in avoidance.</blockquote>My uncontested avoidance is 45% or there about when raid buffed, out of 395 auto attacks which is a fair sized group, my actualy block chance was 30%, this is a reduction of 33%.After merging 3 fights on Finnrdag together, I have over 900 hits, 2 of these were failed pulls, one a little while after he gained the crier buff. My uncontested block on this combined parse is 32%, again, a reduction of near 33%. It would be safe to assume, this mob has a strike through chance in the region of 30% on average, more than likely higher when he gains the crier buff and lower at the start. There is a way to parse it, I've also seen parses of other HM fights where the Guardian MT's avoidance is as low as 25%, considering this was Drunder, and the tanks involved, their avoidance would be higher than mine, this is a reduction of ~40% from 45% base uncontested.My avoidance on HM Kraytok, is just over 42%, which is where you'd expect it to be. Considering level and strike through are the only things that effect uncontested block chance, the only thing that will lower this block chance from 42% on Kraytok to 30% on Finnrdag is a strike through buff of approximately 28%....There is a way to parse it, just not directly.The next time we do Foundation, I'll get the Monk to tank him and parse his avoidance. I'm very sure his block avoidance will be up in the 50% which is where his actual block numbers are.*Edit*Been hunting through parses, I chose halls HM since we've been clearing that for longest. Kolskeggr - 20.81% Block chance, 1264 auto attack swings.Modrfrost - 27% Block chance, 1006 auto attack swings.Gunnr - 36% Block chance, 1198 auto attack swings.Since these mobs are the same level, the ONLY thing that can be effecting these block chances over these large samples is strike through since none of the 3 mobs disarm.People haven't even got to some of the HM named in Drunder yet and you can infer that Strike through of at least 30% already exists, you really think it won't get higher on end mobs in Vallons/Tallons?As I said, strike though is fine, it is a bit of a stupid mechanic but ahh well, it's when it gets into large numbers it's causing an imbalance.Fighter class counts...NPU - Zerker, Bruiser, Monk, SKEquilibrium* - (Members) - Paladin, Monk, Monk, GuardianRevelations* - SK, Monk, Bruiser, Guardian, BerzerkerValidus - Bruiser, Monk, Pally, SKAzure Skies* - Monk, Berzerker, Paladin, Guardian, SK, BruiserOnyx - SK, Monk, Paladin, GuardianTyranny - SK, Paladin, Monk, BruiserShoukin* - SK, Guardian, BruiserStrike - SK, Guardian, Bruiser Dread Army - Russian, no info avail.So I'll take the top 9...Total - 37Guardian - 6 - (16%)Zerker - 3 - (8%)SK - 8 - (22%)Paladin - 5 - (13%)Monk - 8 - (22%)Bruiser - 7 - (19%)Monk/Bruiser - 41%The rest - 59%.These numbers could be slighly out so I'm not going to put too much weight on them, but these basic counts are showing the number of Brawlers in the top 9 guilds WW is only 3 spots off being equal to the total number of plate tanks in those guilds. Of the above guilds the majority of the MT's will be the Guardians and the Monks. I'm sorry, but this isn't balance.... Pallies and Zerks need help especially, I'd guess a lot of SK's have held onto their OT roles from previous expansions.* These guilds have a lot of members so I didn't add fighters of rank "Alt" and the like to the counts.

circusgirl

10-22-2011, 05:27 PM

<cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote>My uncontested avoidance is 45% or there about when raid buffed, out of 395 auto attacks which is a fair sized group, my actualy block chance was 30%, this is a reduction of 33%.</blockquote>When you say your "block chance" is 30%, you do realize that this number is not your uncontested block, it's a modifier which affects your block?So for example, as a brawler, I have 27% base block chance, 22% from my defensive stance and 5% from AAs. For a plate tank this base value would be determined by your shield quality. If I have 30% block chance this would mean that my actual uncontested bock is 27*1.30=35.1% chance. I think you might be seeing smaller numbers than you are expecting because you're looking at the wrong stat. You might have 30% block chance modifying a base block value that' fairly low (for example 20%), which would give you a smaller uncontested block amount than your block chance.20*1.30=26% actual block chance, as an example.Edit:Also, you should be aware that different uncontested avoidance stats are not additive. If your uncontested block is 40% and your uncontested parry is 5%, you do not have 45% uncontested avoidance. You actually would have 43% net avoidance, because only 60% of a mob's attacks would fail the block check and have a chance to roll against the parry check, so you only get 60% of the benefit of that 5% parry, which works out to 3%, not the full 5%.This is all explained in much greater detail in the stickied avoidance mechanics thread, you should read through it thorougly to make sure you're calculating your avoidance correctly.

Soul_Dreamer

10-22-2011, 05:40 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote>My uncontested avoidance is 45% or there about when raid buffed, out of 395 auto attacks which is a fair sized group, my actualy block chance was 30%, this is a reduction of 33%.</blockquote>When you say your "block chance" is 30%, you do realize that this number is not your uncontested block, it's a modifier which affects your block?So for example, as a brawler, I have 27% base block chance, 22% from my defensive stance and 5% from AAs. For a plate tank this base value would be determined by your shield quality. If I have 30% block chance this would mean that my actual uncontested bock is 27*1.30=35.1% chance. I think you might be seeing smaller numbers than you are expecting because you're looking at the wrong stat. You might have 30% block chance modifying a base block value that' fairly low (for example 20%), which would give you a smaller uncontested block amount than your block chance.20*1.30=26% actual block chance, as an example.Edit:Also, you should be aware that different uncontested avoidance stats are not additive. If your uncontested block is 40% and your uncontested parry is 5%, you do not have 45% uncontested avoidance. You actually would have 43% net avoidance, because only 60% of a mob's attacks would fail the block check and have a chance to roll against the parry check, so you only get 60% of the benefit of that 5% parry, which works out to 3%, not the full 5%.This is all explained in much greater detail in the stickied avoidance mechanics thread, you should read through it thorougly to make sure you're calculating your avoidance correctly. </blockquote>Yes I know this, sorry I should have been clearer when saying "30% block chance", these are the values I'm seeing in actual avoidance reports for my number of blocks. BAck in previous expansion the number I'd see in ACT would be very similat to the number in the persona window. The numbers I'm seeing now can be much, much lower.Sorry, just thought I'd add, I'm using the HM shield from Kraytoks, and have 87% shield mod from AA and other sources. This makes my solo uncontested block to be 40.9%. These are all from kill parses, 3 for Kol/Mord and 5 kills for Gunnr.Kolskeggr - 20.81% Block chance, 1264 auto attack swings.Modrfrost - 27% Block chance, 1006 auto attack swings.Gunnr - 36% Block chance, 1198 auto attack swings.These mobs are the same level, the only thing that can be effecting these block chances over these large samples is strike through since none of the 3 mobs disarm, no changes in AA's between kills, I've had the same HM setup for months.

Silzin

10-22-2011, 06:23 PM

Based on the original reasoning around given for the Zerker Adrenaline nurff I very much doubt that Zerkers and SKs are going to get tools to rival the Guards ability to MT a Boss mob. Bursars are not as good at MTing as monks and that is as designed (I think). Which leaves the Pally for the 3rd MT raid spot and they as stated MANY MANY time they do need some help against one-shotting and a few other problems. Zerkers and SKs need to be looked at for their designed rolls and balanced accordingly. As for Strickthrow and Immunity to it... the game designers need to be more sparing in its use and NEVER get above ~25% and that would only be on a few select named. One thing to remember is that even back in TSO when brawler tanks where a joke. when we did tank our overall damage taken was still less than a equally geared plate tank but we just couldn't tank the content because of the random on- shottes . (I know some did but that where the exception to the roll)

Soul_Dreamer

10-22-2011, 07:35 PM

<cite>Silzin@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Based on the original reasoning around given for the Zerker Adrenaline nurff I very much doubt that Zerkers and SKs are going to get tools to rival the Guards ability to MT a Boss mob. Bursars are not as good at MTing as monks and that is as designed (I think). Which leaves the Pally for the 3rd MT raid spot and they as stated MANY MANY time they do need some help against one-shotting and a few other problems. Zerkers and SKs need to be looked at for their designed rolls and balanced accordingly. As for Strickthrow and Immunity to it... the game designers need to be more sparing in its use and NEVER get above ~25% and that would only be on a few select named. One thing to remember is that even back in TSO when brawler tanks where a joke. when we did tank our overall damage taken was still less than a equally geared plate tank but we just couldn't tank the content because of the random on- shottes . (I know some did but that where the exception to the roll) </blockquote>Agreed on pretty much all of it, but I don't think SK's and Zerks are asking for this, most are just asking for small tweaks to some abilities, or an addition of 1 or 2 things.Paladins should be up there with Guardians and Monks though, or at least a lot closer than they are currently.With regards to strikethrough, and I maybe wrong here, I don't mind being wrong, what I mind is outright denial of the facts my parses are showing me with nothing to back it up or even reasonable debate about it.The only 2 mechanics in game that contest uncontested avoidance are.1. Mob level.2. Strikethrough.The only thing that explains a 20%/30%/40%/50% drop in my block chance (uncontested avoidance) is a strikethrough buff of that amount or near it. Each of the above parses are of decent sample sizes 1000+ and against mobs of the same level, the only thing that explains the wildly varying block chances is strikethrough.......

Novusod

10-22-2011, 08:34 PM

<cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote>Where have I been discredited, by you? LOL.... And when did I downplay Guardian Stone skins? Sorry, but you're talking straight out of your as***le here. I posted my Avoidance numbers to show the reduction in avoidance from Strike through which you claim is only a small amount, I don't consider 30%-50% to be a small amount. You then bring stoneskins into it.. Below are the monk avoidances, while not all of them outright block the damage like a stoneskin does they allow you to block or reduce almost every single AOE that hits a monk. Monks will also gain the same % Stoneskin chance that Guardians or any other tanks gain from being in the MT group, that is the 17% Stoneskin you're seeing on the auto attack, seriously, why even include it when all tanks have it?As I've said, I play both Monk and Guardian, and there is a noticable difference in incomming damage between the two. What we have now is not "Balance", there are 3 tanks out of 6 making possible MT's for hard mode content, the other 3 don't even get a look in.Please read this and get it through that thick skull of yours... I'm NOT asking for an increase in anything to my Guardian directly, I don't want more stone skins, I don't want more DPS, I don't want more utility.. I'm happy as my Guardian is, I can still MT and I do it very well. However, ALL tanks need to be able to MT and it's simply not possible for 3 out of the 6 at the moment. 3 of the fighters need help in some areas and all tanks need to be balanced with strike through immunity. The immunity needs to be added to all temp abilities that are designed to avoid 100% of damage for a short duration, AND Brawlers need this immunity removed from their defensive stance. Really, it's not "a few" guilds using brawlers to MT hard content now, it's the MAJORITY of guilds using them, as you said, plate tanks had it all to themselves for a while and that wasn't ok, why is it suddenly ok that Brawlers have the same situation?Also please answer the question I posed earlier on, have you even MT'd any of this content you're talking about? I looked at your guild "Redemption" and could find no kills either on Flames or on guild progress. EQ2 players is very shoddy though so this may not even be your guild <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />I'm sorry but if you're not tanking these mobs or you don't know much about them you simply can't comment very well. For example with the EM And HM brawler weapons from Drunder a Brawler can duel weild 2 weapons, both of these weapons have ~30% block chance, there are brawlers running around with 60% uncontested avoidance. All the while on the same mobs the plate tanks barely scratch 30% with the best gear they can get due to high strike through amounts. And remember at the same time the mitigation difference is in the region of 10%.....</blockquote>You have been discredited because you refuse to bring Stoneskins into the equation of total damage reduction and you actually think it is serious arguement. It is not just avoidance that needs looking into when considering it is total damage reduction that matters. Mobs can't strikethrough a stoneskin so in a way you have your own version of strikethrough immunity. It is just not called strikethrough immunity but either way you are not taking any damage.Tank Ballance works as follows:Brawlers = High Avoidance + Strikethrough ImmunityWarriors = High Mitigation + StoneskinsCrusaders = High Mitigation + Wards/LifetapsBTW I am a Bruiser not a Monk. All my stoneskins require that I take a huge amount of damage before they trigger. These types of stoneskins only trigger if I am half dead already. Most of the time incoming damage that is strong enough to trigger the stoneskin usually just ends up killing me. Stone Deaf is my good stoneskin but it only absorbes magic damageOnce again your ingenuinity is showing. You say guards don't need any buffs yet you want to Nerf bralwers even though you have no probem keeping up with them. That is just another way of saying you want the monopoly back.Let look at the other 3 tanks though and why they are they in the state they are in now.Zerkers - I don't agree with the way their old adrenaline was nerfed. I blame the mindset of certain zerkers being more concerned with other tanks had. First it was SK envy and then it was brawler envy combined with over the top suggestions.Crusaders - Another class of players that got distracted and lost sight of what they were supposed to be. Not sure what happened to the thread maybe it was deleted. The premise was crusader wards not scaling because of the fighter crit heal nerf. Crusaders should have got their crit heals back but the thread turned into another rant about bralwers and Strikethough immunity.When are you going to get it though your think head that Brawler strikethough immunity is "Working as Intended" and will not be changed anytime soon. Talking about it only distracts from real issues. Legitimate issues such as your "Dragoons" reflexes being hit with Strikethrough should be changed I agree. I also feel Warriors should be able to use CAs and not have "Dragoons" drop off like currently does. But that is not going happen if you keep raging on Brawler strikethough immunity. This class envy you keep spouting is not going to get you anywhere.To answer your other question Redemption is NOT my guild. I play on Eq2X and the guild's name is <a href="http://eq2.guildprogress.com/Freeport/Empire" target="_blank">Empire</a>. It is at the same point in progression as your guild. The only mob I have not tanked is Kraytok Hardmode but I have killed <a href="http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e38/Novuso/EverQuest/VallenDead.jpg" target="_blank">Vallon</a> which is something you have not according to Guildprogress. I have videos of me tanking <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hx1AGesxXg" target="_blank">HM Kolskeggr</a> and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDNVeugMS5M" target="_blank">HM Modrfrost</a>. We are both pretty much at the same spot so I don't get what you are trying to prove here.Guilds are using all varieties of tanks regardless of progression. There is no brawler monopoly. That is a fiction coming from your own bias view points. The state of tank ballance is where it needs to be.

Controlor

10-22-2011, 08:57 PM

<cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>Tank Ballance works as follows:Brawlers = High Avoidance + Strikethrough ImmunityWarriors = High Mitigation + StoneskinsCrusaders = High Mitigation + Wards/LifetapsCrusaders - Another class of players that got distracted and lost sight of what they were supposed to be. Not sure what happened to the thread maybe it was deleted. The premise was crusader wards not scaling because of the fighter crit heal nerf. Crusaders should have got their crit heals back but the thread turned into another rant about bralwers and Strikethough immunity.Guilds are using all varieties of tanks regardless of progression. There is no brawler monopoly. That is a fiction coming from your own bias view points. The state of tank ballance is where it needs to be.</blockquote>Ignoring most of the other post because it is concerning guards and brawlers. Just want to make a few points on your crusader notions. First off in a raiding environment heals and wards do not scale up as stoneskin and strikethrough immunity does. Not to mention brawlers get stoneskins and death saves as well so its not just strikethrough immunity.To your comment about "crusaders" wanting heal crit back you are mistaken. It is not crusaders, but just a select few shadowknights. When the heal crit happened in SF both crusader heals were crippled and paladins were asking for improvements knowing that we would be living without heal crits. If you go to that thread we were not asking for heal crits back. However even though paladin heals have been improved (there are still some issues with it but that is primarily an aa issue and our group heal). SK's heals are still SF levels and they have NOT scaled at all... and they need adjusting (mainly just increasing the heal ammount really). Any thread that started as a heal crit again for "fighters" and then turned into a strikethrough immunity thread i can guarantee was not crusaders as a whole but just select sk's or zerkers (2 i am thinking in particular) calling for it. So kindly not lump all crusaders in with them.

Talathion

10-22-2011, 09:08 PM

Healing Criticals and a mechanic that increases healing when facing a raid mob would be a great step to balancing tanks.

Soul_Dreamer

10-22-2011, 09:14 PM

<cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote>Where have I been discredited, by you? LOL.... And when did I downplay Guardian Stone skins? Sorry, but you're talking straight out of your as***le here. I posted my Avoidance numbers to show the reduction in avoidance from Strike through which you claim is only a small amount, I don't consider 30%-50% to be a small amount. You then bring stoneskins into it.. Below are the monk avoidances, while not all of them outright block the damage like a stoneskin does they allow you to block or reduce almost every single AOE that hits a monk. Monks will also gain the same % Stoneskin chance that Guardians or any other tanks gain from being in the MT group, that is the 17% Stoneskin you're seeing on the auto attack, seriously, why even include it when all tanks have it?As I've said, I play both Monk and Guardian, and there is a noticable difference in incomming damage between the two. What we have now is not "Balance", there are 3 tanks out of 6 making possible MT's for hard mode content, the other 3 don't even get a look in.Please read this and get it through that thick skull of yours... I'm NOT asking for an increase in anything to my Guardian directly, I don't want more stone skins, I don't want more DPS, I don't want more utility.. I'm happy as my Guardian is, I can still MT and I do it very well. However, ALL tanks need to be able to MT and it's simply not possible for 3 out of the 6 at the moment. 3 of the fighters need help in some areas and all tanks need to be balanced with strike through immunity. The immunity needs to be added to all temp abilities that are designed to avoid 100% of damage for a short duration, AND Brawlers need this immunity removed from their defensive stance. Really, it's not "a few" guilds using brawlers to MT hard content now, it's the MAJORITY of guilds using them, as you said, plate tanks had it all to themselves for a while and that wasn't ok, why is it suddenly ok that Brawlers have the same situation?Also please answer the question I posed earlier on, have you even MT'd any of this content you're talking about? I looked at your guild "Redemption" and could find no kills either on Flames or on guild progress. EQ2 players is very shoddy though so this may not even be your guild <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />I'm sorry but if you're not tanking these mobs or you don't know much about them you simply can't comment very well. For example with the EM And HM brawler weapons from Drunder a Brawler can duel weild 2 weapons, both of these weapons have ~30% block chance, there are brawlers running around with 60% uncontested avoidance. All the while on the same mobs the plate tanks barely scratch 30% with the best gear they can get due to high strike through amounts. And remember at the same time the mitigation difference is in the region of 10%.....</blockquote>You have been discredited because you refuse to bring Stoneskins into the equation of total damage reduction and you actually think it is serious arguement. It is not just avoidance that needs looking into when considering it is total damage reduction that matters. Mobs can't strikethrough a stoneskin so in a way you have your own version of strikethrough immunity. It is just not called strikethrough immunity but either way you are not taking any damage.I'm not ignoring them... The 15% stoneskin you're seeing in the auto attack avoidance is from group buffs, which any fighter in the MT group with a dirge/Templar will get. All tanks in the MT group will have a stoneskin percentage against auto attack of around 10-15%. I don't use my stone skins just for auto attacks, in the same way you don't use similar abilities just whenever. The stoneskins are use to block AOE's and handle spikes, in exactly the same way you are using your abilities. I'm not bringing a lot of attention to them because all 3 classes, Guardian, Monk and Bruiser have enough of these abilities to do the job. Guardian and monk especially have a similar number which perform similar fucntions. Tank Ballance works as follows:Brawlers = High Avoidance + Strikethrough ImmunityWarriors = High Mitigation + StoneskinsCrusaders = High Mitigation + Wards/LifetapsBTW I am a Bruiser not a Monk. All my stoneskins require that I take a huge amount of damage before they trigger. These types of stoneskins only trigger if I am half dead already. Most of the time incoming damage that is strong enough to trigger the stoneskin usually just ends up killing me. Stone Deaf is my good stoneskin but it only absorbes magic damageOnce again your ingenuinity is showing. You say guards don't need any buffs yet you want to Nerf bralwers even though you have no probem keeping up with them. That is just another way of saying you want the monopoly back.I don't care if Brawlers keep it as I've stated, just the amount on some encounters now is huge. When it's at 10-20% things are balanced, when it starts getting higher it's not.Let look at the other 3 tanks though and why they are they in the state they are in now.Zerkers - I don't agree with the way their old adrenaline was nerfed. I blame the mindset of certain zerkers being more concerned with other tanks had. First it was SK envy and then it was brawler envy combined with over the top suggestions.Crusaders - Another class of players that got distracted and lost sight of what they were supposed to be. Not sure what happened to the thread maybe it was deleted. The premise was crusader wards not scaling because of the fighter crit heal nerf. Crusaders should have got their crit heals back but the thread turned into another rant about bralwers and Strikethough immunity.When are you going to get it though your think head that Brawler strikethough immunity is "Working as Intended" and will not be changed anytime soon. Talking about it only distracts from real issues. Legitimate issues such as your "Dragoons" reflexes being hit with Strikethrough should be changed I agree. I also feel Warriors should be able to use CAs and not have "Dragoons" drop off like currently does. But that is not going happen if you keep raging on Brawler strikethough immunity. This class envy you keep spouting is not going to get you anywhere.I don't have a problem with strike through immunity if it's kept at reasonable levels, I have parses though where my avoidance is as low as 20%, this is my block chance. This can only be due to strike through and being at a pretty high level. The further we get into HM progression the lower I've seen this value going, but at the same time, non of the other abilities you keep bringing up, stoneskins etc are increasing. So the damage I'm taking is getting progressively higher. Something needs to be done or a cap needs to be put on strike through because while this is happening with the plate tanks it's not with Brawlers because you're immune to it. Like I said, some mobs are reducing my block chance down to 20% at present ( it also reduces the effectiveness of avoidance food and adorns for plate tanks), what happens in 6 months time when yet more raid zones come out. More than likely these mobs will have even higher strikethrough, at which point my avoidance will drop even further, while yours will still stay the same.Sorry, but I don't understand how you can't see a problem here. Strike through being used to balance the tanks isn't a problem if it's kept at levels that create balance, when it keeps going up it's throwing balance out.To answer your other question Redemption is NOT my guild. I play on Eq2X and the guild's name is <a href="http://eq2.guildprogress.com/Freeport/Empire" target="_blank">Empire</a>. It is at the same point in progression as your guild. The only mob I have not tanked is Kraytok Hardmode but I have killed <a href="http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e38/Novuso/EverQuest/VallenDead.jpg" target="_blank">Vallon</a> which is something you have not according to Guildprogress. I have videos of me tanking <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hx1AGesxXg" target="_blank">HM Kolskeggr</a> and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDNVeugMS5M" target="_blank">HM Modrfrost</a>. We are both pretty much at the same spot so I don't get what you are trying to prove here.Because I had asked a couple of times and gotten no answer so I was starting to assume you were just trolling. We've not killed Vallon because we're working on other targets and spending time on him and his army of rangers to net 1 BP per kill doesn't have the same pay off as working on DoV HM named. Guilds are using all varieties of tanks regardless of progression. There is no brawler monopoly. That is a fiction coming from your own bias view points. The state of tank ballance is where it needs to be.Tanks aren't fine where they are currently, 3 of them have some pretty large issues.</blockquote>I don't like posting in the quote, but please read above.

The_Cheeseman

10-23-2011, 12:19 AM

I'm going to have to come out and say that fighter balance is simply not possible with the current mechanics. No matter what is changed, somebody will be left out to dry. Here is what needs to happen:*Uncontested avoidance needs to go away. All avoidance needs to be contested, and raid-tier MOBs need to have their hit rates scaled properly against the expected defensive attributes of characters they are intended to challenge. This restores the ability for content designers to actually have some control over MOB hit rates while also allowing players a way to adapt to such accuracy variances via itemization.*Strikethrough needs to go away. It is a bad mechanic that was only added as a band-aid on the gushing wound that is current avoidance mechanics.*The mitigation curve needs to be adjusted so that there is a greater difference in actual damage reduction between plate and leather tanks, and so that higher-end armor has a greater benefit in damage reduction against the most challenging content. It seems pretty obvious to me from reading many of these debates that hardmode MOBs are simply hitting too hard in general and therefore putting too much emphasis on stoneskins, deathsaves, and avoidance temps.*Deathsaves need to be scaled-back significantly, and instant-kill mechanics removed except as fail conditions.*Crusader heals/lifetaps need to scale properly with content and itemization, which seems to me to mean that they need to crit. Personally, I'd prefer to see the entire critical hit mechanic done away with, but that would require a huge amout of work on the part of the devs, so I don't see that happening. However, I can't see crusaders ever being balanced when one of the core facets of their class (self-healing) totally ignores a significant aspect of the game's itemization strategy.Some additional thoughts that I feel warrant mention:Comparing avoidance to mitigation is a lot more complicated than people seem to think. Avoidance% vs. mitigation% cannot be a strict, linear comparison because the actual effectiveness of avoidance is a lot more curved than mitigation. Avoidance cannot be viewed through the lens of total damage prevented over time, because avoidance is very streaky and the longer the encounter, the more likely you are to have a catastrophic failure. 45% mitigation is always a 45% increase in survivability, regardless of how long the fight lasts. However, as the duration of the fight increases, the chance of getting an unlucky streak on the RNG and dying just continues to rise.In other words, avoidance is inherently less reliable in terms of actual, practical survivability when compared with damage reduction. Also, avoidance is a lot tougher to balance, since it relies heavily on being perfectly within the "sweet spot." Too much avoidance quickly trivializes and encounter, but even just slightly too little can make it impossible to survive for the duration of the fight without getting randomly killed.I believe this is very important for people to understand. I have played a monk since launch day, and I have felt the effects of various changes to avoidance mechanics in this game first-hand. Brawlers are a very complex class to balance properly, and a lot of that complexity is not obvious without significant experience with the class. Brawlers were broken for a very long time, and it's great that we're finally in a position where we can be considered among the most effective tanks in the game. Rather than risk putting brawlers back in the dog house, I'd much rather see berserkers and crusaders raised to the same level. Especially since it's obvious that nobody is trivializing the content at this point.

Novusod

10-23-2011, 05:18 AM

<cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote>I'm not ignoring them... The 15% stoneskin you're seeing in the auto attack avoidance is from group buffs, which any fighter in the MT group with a dirge/Templar will get. All tanks in the MT group will have a stoneskin percentage against auto attack of around 10-15%. I don't use my stone skins just for auto attacks, in the same way you don't use similar abilities just whenever. The stoneskins are use to block AOE's and handle spikes, in exactly the same way you are using your abilities. I'm not bringing a lot of attention to them because all 3 classes, Guardian, Monk and Bruiser have enough of these abilities to do the job. Guardian and monk especially have a similar number which perform similar fucntions. <>I don't care if Brawlers keep it as I've stated, just the amount on some encounters now is huge. When it's at 10-20% things are balanced, when it starts getting higher it's not.<>I don't have a problem with strike through immunity if it's kept at reasonable levels, I have parses though where my avoidance is as low as 20%, this is my block chance. This can only be due to strike through and being at a pretty high level. The further we get into HM progression the lower I've seen this value going, but at the same time, non of the other abilities you keep bringing up, stoneskins etc are increasing. So the damage I'm taking is getting progressively higher. Something needs to be done or a cap needs to be put on strike through because while this is happening with the plate tanks it's not with Brawlers because you're immune to it. Like I said, some mobs are reducing my block chance down to 20% at present ( it also reduces the effectiveness of avoidance food and adorns for plate tanks), what happens in 6 months time when yet more raid zones come out. More than likely these mobs will have even higher strikethrough, at which point my avoidance will drop even further, while yours will still stay the same.Sorry, but I don't understand how you can't see a problem here. Strike through being used to balance the tanks isn't a problem if it's kept at levels that create balance, when it keeps going up it's throwing balance out.<>Because I had asked a couple of times and gotten no answer so I was starting to assume you were just trolling. We've not killed Vallon because we're working on other targets and spending time on him and his army of rangers to net 1 BP per kill doesn't have the same pay off as working on DoV HM named. Tanks aren't fine where they are currently, 3 of them have some pretty large issues.</blockquote>I think you are missing a couple of points here as this is a multi fassetted issue:1. Total Damage reduction is the only thing that matters in end. This is acheived through a combination of Mitigation, Avoidance, Strikethrough Imunities, Stoneskins, Wards, self heals, percentage based damage reduction, life taps, death prevents, and various temp abilities such Dragoon's reflexes, Divine aura, Tsunami, Inpenatrable will, etc.Brawlers are Avoidance tanks and they were given strikethrough immunity because Avoidance tanking doesn't work at all if the brawler is getting hit constantly because of strikethrough. A plate tank can fall back on their mitigation and stoneskins if their avoidance gets struckthrough while a brawler cannot. You may say the differnece in mitigation is only 10% but that is for only one attack. What happens when a brawler gets multi attacked and flurried by five or six hits in under a second. Suddenly the brawler took a chain of 10% more damage than the plate tank while the diffence in damage became greater than my entire HP pool. If some of those hits don't get parried the brawler is going to die. Even with Strikethrough immunity I have to watch my health bar constantly with my mouse over the parry temps if the RNG streaks on me.2. Brawlers were given the tools they have because they needed them. They were added over a long period of time over the course of several expansions and were very well thought out to not be over powered. Brawler Strikethrough immunity will not be removed because it is working as intended part of the avoidance tanking mechanic. There are some tanks that do need a little bit of adjusting but talking about the removal of brawler strikethrough immunity will NOT get them the help they need and I am glad you decided to back peddel on this issue. I am all for helping these classes get what they need to be successful raid tanks as long it is reasonable and doesn't involve throwing brawlers under the bus or restoring the the old monopoly.The adjustments I talked about earlier in this thread and previous ballance threads:All plate tanks should have 360 degree avoid so no more getting destroyed from behindWarriors: Dragoon's Reflexes becomes strikethrough Immune and can be used while casting other CAsZerkers: Get their old adrenaline back as it didn't need to be nerfed in the first placeCrusaders: Divine Aura becomes more reliable in surviving large attacksPally: Larger heals and wardsSK: Improved life taps3. Mobs with excessive strikethrough is a Content issue not a class issue. As stated earlier I agree 50% strikethrough is way to much even for hardmodes to have. It has been an ongoing issue that the buff packages on DoV raid mobs clearly need adjusting. Strikethrough should be capped in the 10% to 20% ranage where the ballance is. If they want to make raid bosses harder they need to use something that increases difficulty for all tank class and not just makes it harder on plate tanks. This is a reasonable change that will happen if both brawlers and plate tanks are asking for it in the name of objective fairness. But first we have to recognise that this is a content issue not a class issue.

Controlor

10-23-2011, 12:17 PM

<cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>The adjustments I talked about earlier in this thread and previous ballance threads:All plate tanks should have 360 degree avoid so no more getting destroyed from behindWarriors: Dragoon's Reflexes becomes strikethrough Immune and can be used while casting other CAsZerkers: Get their old adrenaline back as it didn't need to be nerfed in the first placeCrusaders: Divine Aura becomes more reliable in surviving large attacksPally: Larger heals and wardsSK: Improved life taps3. Mobs with excessive strikethrough is a Content issue not a class issue. As stated earlier I agree 50% strikethrough is way to much even for hardmodes to have. It has been an ongoing issue that the buff packages on DoV raid mobs clearly need adjusting. Strikethrough should be capped in the 10% to 20% ranage where the ballance is. If they want to make raid bosses harder they need to use something that increases difficulty for all tank class and not just makes it harder on plate tanks. This is a reasonable change that will happen if both brawlers and plate tanks are asking for it in the name of objective fairness. But first we have to recognise that this is a content issue not a class issue.</blockquote>I agree for the most part except the bolded part. Paladins are not asking for larger heals / wards because in doing so it than trivializes non raid content. If anything we would be asking for an adjustment in what our heals would do such as instead of our primary heal being a direct heal to be a reactive heal. As well as asking for a few more aa adjustments to heals. Even with Divine aura more reliable paladins still need a better stoneskin than that and one more snap. Everything else pretty much yes (with the inclusion that ALL fighter temp avoids be strikethrough immune).

Bruener

10-23-2011, 05:42 PM

Bruener

10-23-2011, 05:59 PM

<cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>I think you are missing a couple of points here as this is a multi fassetted issue:1. Total Damage reduction is the only thing that matters in end. This is acheived through a combination of Mitigation, Avoidance, Strikethrough Imunities, Stoneskins, Wards, self heals, percentage based damage reduction, life taps, death prevents, and various temp abilities such Dragoon's reflexes, Divine aura, Tsunami, Inpenatrable will, etc.Brawlers are Avoidance tanks and they were given strikethrough immunity because Avoidance tanking doesn't work at all if the brawler is getting hit constantly because of strikethrough. A plate tank can fall back on their mitigation and stoneskins if their avoidance gets struckthrough while a brawler cannot. You may say the differnece in mitigation is only 10% but that is for only one attack. What happens when a brawler gets multi attacked and flurried by five or six hits in under a second. Suddenly the brawler took a chain of 10% more damage than the plate tank while the diffence in damage became greater than my entire HP pool. If some of those hits don't get parried the brawler is going to die. Even with Strikethrough immunity I have to watch my health bar constantly with my mouse over the parry temps if the RNG streaks on me.Thanks for bringing up this point and the fact that IF said happens Brawlers will actually take 30% less damage due to their heroic AA. Any time a Brawler is hit they proc a 30% damage reduction which parses out to Brawlers taking much less damage on MAs/Flurries/Procs. Further more, assuming that there is this magic 10% difference in mitigation based on high level mobs....you are forgetting other tools that especially monks have closing that gap a lot with damage reduction. The difference in physical hits is close to non-existent, maybe a couple % at best when as you put in the above paragraph you really need to look at the whole picture.2. Brawlers were given the tools they have because they needed them. They were added over a long period of time over the course of several expansions and were very well thought out to not be over powered. Brawler Strikethrough immunity will not be removed because it is working as intended part of the avoidance tanking mechanic. There are some tanks that do need a little bit of adjusting but talking about the removal of brawler strikethrough immunity will NOT get them the help they need and I am glad you decided to back peddel on this issue. I am all for helping these classes get what they need to be successful raid tanks as long it is reasonable and doesn't involve throwing brawlers under the bus or restoring the the old monopoly.Brawlers were given a lot of tools because they needed them to perform their role of an emergency tank that would be almost invincible for a short time while the raid recoveried, or while the Brawler was doing some CC. They added the strike through mechanic first and realized this would not work well for Brawlers that could not have certain abilities struck through while they were doing their CC job. They gave Brawlers strike through immunity to make sure they could keep doing what they were designed to do. Than people got this idea that they needed to move out of this role, out of the 3rd tank role, and into the MT/OT role to compete. SOE closed the gap in damage taken with much buffs and abilities added. SOE gave the best Death Save in the game on top of it while itemizing them with near equal mitigation. SOE gave and gave and gave and even near the end of SF when guilds were really starting to figure out how powerful Brawlers were...they gave more. Now while taking close to the same damage on physical hits, they take less damage on non-physical hits while having a large avoidance advantage due to how their uncontested block is calculated....and than throw the fact that strike through is still out there.The fact is, strike through was invented to lower all Fighter avoidance, the strike through immunity was a band aide fix that is no longer needed. The mechanic of strike through is good because it gives SOE a way to keep uncontested avoidance in check....having that check only work on 2/3 of the Fighters makes it look broken.The adjustments I talked about earlier in this thread and previous ballance threads:All plate tanks should have 360 degree avoid so no more getting destroyed from behindWarriors: Dragoon's Reflexes becomes strikethrough Immune and can be used while casting other CAsZerkers: Get their old adrenaline back as it didn't need to be nerfed in the first placeCrusaders: Divine Aura becomes more reliable in surviving large attacksPally: Larger heals and wardsSK: Improved life tapsI would add to this list that along with removing strike through immunity from Brawlers that ANY fighter avoidance survivability ability like Dragoons, Stonewall, Furor should have strike through immunity. As for the Crusaders you are way off base there. Yeah I think Fighters should have heal crit back because it just means that heals/lifetaps will never ever scale if they don't. Lifetaps though for a SK even when they did crit were a joke because EQ2 is all about damage prevention before it happens instead. Hence why avoidance is king, wards are king, reactives are king, stoneskins are king, damage reduction is king. Heals are like a last resort the healers failed type of thing.Besides a few minor tweaks to Crusaders and Zerks all that really needs to be done is balancing Brawlers.3. Mobs with excessive strikethrough is a Content issue not a class issue. As stated earlier I agree 50% strikethrough is way to much even for hardmodes to have. It has been an ongoing issue that the buff packages on DoV raid mobs clearly need adjusting. Strikethrough should be capped in the 10% to 20% ranage where the ballance is. If they want to make raid bosses harder they need to use something that increases difficulty for all tank class and not just makes it harder on plate tanks. This is a reasonable change that will happen if both brawlers and plate tanks are asking for it in the name of objective fairness. But first we have to recognise that this is a content issue not a class issue.Why do you fight for it so hard if you think it is a content issue instead of a class issue. As I stated above having Brawlers immune to it is what is broken...its not the strike through itself. Putting all the Fighters on an even level to have their uncontested avoidance kept in check would allow SOE to put the content where they can easily see are good levels. Brawlers still maintain a significant avoidance advantage while as stated by the other abiliites they maintain having a pretty minimal difference in damage taken per hit. How can you keep going on in this thread about how keeping strike through immunity on Brawlers full time is ok? It breaks the entire mechanic and on content that other Fighters are getting destroyed on it allows Brawlers to push through with offensive healers calling for a save once every 5 minutes or so. You can ask any progression raiding healer that has healed different Fighters what it feels like to heal Brawlers versus others. They get bored from the lack of activity.</blockquote>

Talathion

10-23-2011, 06:03 PM

Crusaders/Berserkers need...Bigger Wards/Heals/Lifetaps to Critical.

Controlor

10-23-2011, 06:39 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Crusaders/Berserkers need...Bigger Wards/Heals/Lifetaps to Critical.</blockquote>NO THEY DONT.... Please stop with this. It will not happen and should not happen. Berzerkers were not meant to heal themselves anyways. SK's need a tweek to their life tap in the way of increasing the heal amount due to the crit nerf. Crusader aa's regarding healing needs to be changed a bit (namely in crusader tree the ones that affect heal amount do not affect life taps. Other than that very few things need to change to fighter heals. CRITTING IS NOT ONE OF THEM.

Talathion

10-23-2011, 07:23 PM

<cite>Controlor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Crusaders/Berserkers need...Bigger Wards/Heals/Lifetaps to Critical.</blockquote>NO THEY DONT.... Please stop with this. It will not happen and should not happen. Berzerkers were not meant to heal themselves anyways. SK's need a tweek to their life tap in the way of increasing the heal amount due to the crit nerf. Crusader aa's regarding healing needs to be changed a bit (namely in crusader tree the ones that affect heal amount do not affect life taps. Other than that very few things need to change to fighter heals. CRITTING IS NOT ONE OF THEM.</blockquote>I'm entitled to my opinions, and its only a matter of time...

The_Cheeseman

10-23-2011, 09:44 PM

There goes Bruener again with this imaginary, "emergency tank" role. "Emergency tank" is not an intended class role, it's just a tank that isn't good enough to tank full-time. Maybe that's all brawlers used to be able to handle, back when we were broken, but that was never our class's actual focus. Brawlers, just like every other fighter, are meant to be able to tank for the entire duration of an encounter, not just for 30 seconds while the "real" tank get's rezzed. Brawlers do have a lot of powerful temporary immunity buffs and death saves, but this is due to the fact that avoidance is streaky and we need them to stay alive when the RNG decides it likes to roll 1's.Again, I'd like to reiterate here that if the problem is indeed that crusaders and berserkers are not capable of tanking the most challenging MOBs in the game right now--while brawlers and guardians are--the solution is to improve crusaders and berserkers to match brawlers and guardians, not nerf brawlers and/or guardians. All the latter would accomplish is ensuring that nobody can tank.

Novusod

10-23-2011, 10:38 PM

<cite>B</cite><cite>ruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>1. Total Damage reduction is the only thing that matters in end.Thanks for bringing up this point and the fact that IF said happens Brawlers will actually take 30% less damage due to their heroic AA. Any time a Brawler is hit they proc a 30% damage reduction which parses out to Brawlers taking much less damage on MAs/Flurries/Procs. Further more, assuming that there is this magic 10% difference in mitigation based on high level mobs....you are forgetting other tools that especially monks have closing that gap a lot with damage reduction. The difference in physical hits is close to non-existent, maybe a couple % at best when as you put in the above paragraph you really need to look at the whole picture.2. Brawlers were given the tools they have because they needed them.Brawlers were given a lot of tools because they needed them to perform their role of an emergency tank that would be almost invincible for a short time while the raid recoveried, or while the Brawler was doing some CC. They added the strike through mechanic first and realized this would not work well for Brawlers that could not have certain abilities struck through while they were doing their CC job. They gave Brawlers strike through immunity to make sure they could keep doing what they were designed to do. Than people got this idea that they needed to move out of this role, out of the 3rd tank role, and into the MT/OT role to compete. SOE closed the gap in damage taken with much buffs and abilities added. SOE gave the best Death Save in the game on top of it while itemizing them with near equal mitigation. SOE gave and gave and gave and even near the end of SF when guilds were really starting to figure out how powerful Brawlers were...they gave more. Now while taking close to the same damage on physical hits, they take less damage on non-physical hits while having a large avoidance advantage due to how their uncontested block is calculated....and than throw the fact that strike through is still out there.The fact is, strike through was invented to lower all Fighter avoidance, the strike through immunity was a band aide fix that is no longer needed. The mechanic of strike through is good because it gives SOE a way to keep uncontested avoidance in check....having that check only work on 2/3 of the Fighters makes it look broken.I would add to this list that along with removing strike through immunity from Brawlers that ANY fighter avoidance survivability ability like Dragoons, Stonewall, Furor should have strike through immunity. As for the Crusaders you are way off base there. Yeah I think Fighters should have heal crit back because it just means that heals/lifetaps will never ever scale if they don't. Lifetaps though for a SK even when they did crit were a joke because EQ2 is all about damage prevention before it happens instead. Hence why avoidance is king, wards are king, reactives are king, stoneskins are king, damage reduction is king. Heals are like a last resort the healers failed type of thing.Besides a few minor tweaks to Crusaders and Zerks all that really needs to be done is balancing Brawlers.3. Mobs with excessive strikethrough is a Content issue not a class issue.Why do you fight for it so hard if you think it is a content issue instead of a class issue. As I stated above having Brawlers immune to it is what is broken...its not the strike through itself. Putting all the Fighters on an even level to have their uncontested avoidance kept in check would allow SOE to put the content where they can easily see are good levels. Brawlers still maintain a significant avoidance advantage while as stated by the other abiliites they maintain having a pretty minimal difference in damage taken per hit. How can you keep going on in this thread about how keeping strike through immunity on Brawlers full time is ok? It breaks the entire mechanic and on content that other Fighters are getting destroyed on it allows Brawlers to push through with offensive healers calling for a save once every 5 minutes or so. You can ask any progression raiding healer that has healed different Fighters what it feels like to heal Brawlers versus others. They get bored from the lack of activity.</blockquote>1. Looking at total damage reduction from unrivialed focus is only about 1-2% over a ten second period. Firstly it doesn't work the way you say it does. I actually have to take a hit to trigger it and then it only reduces the next hit by 30%. If I don't get in the next 3 seconds the trigger got wasted and it won't trigger again for 10 more seconds. In a ten second period I might be hit by 20 to 30 swings and just one of those swings will be reduced by 30%. It is a mediocre ability and I am not even fully specced into it. Put a few AA into it just to get it but certainly isn't worth maxing out. If you think it is so good then be sure to ask for as similar ability for crusaders.2. Brawlers were moved into MT / OT position because it was a high level developer decision to break up the plate tank Monopoly and get brawlers involved in serious tanking. There is no such thing as an Emergency tank and never was. It just wasn't viable and shouldn't be part of this discussion. Emergency tanking is just part of the OT's larger responsibility. When there are scripts in DoV that take out the MT for a full minute a tank designed to only live for 20 seconds just does work. Brawlers were given all those buffs because they needed them to rival the considerable power of the plate tanks.The second part here is plate tanks are by no means really broken. What they need is constructive adjustments. While brawlers were getting these defensive buffs the plates got stuff that had nothing to do with tanking. I look at the Warrior and Crusader heroic endlines and all I see is offensive crap. Instead of blameing brawlers for your difficulties you should look to getting you house in order first. As mentioned previously there were all kinds of changes that could have been made but because these threads always turn into rants on brawler strikethrough immunity the changes don't happen.3. I continue to fight here because avoidance tanking is the brawler's class defining ability. Strikethrough immunity is the only thing that keeps avoidance tanking viable. The devs are smart enough to know what would happen if they took it away. I have been tanking on bruiser long enough to know what it was like to tank in the pre strikethrough immune era. Plate tanks in offensive stance had more uncontested avoidance than my fully defensive specced bruiser tank. It was completely broken. Strikethrough and brawler strikethrough immunity corrected that inballance. It was why it was put into the game and the devs know this. The arrogance of your post is you think you know more than the devs. They have not listened to you in the past and they are not going to listen to you now.Bruener you have been consistantly one of the most unreasonable posters on these boards going back the last two beta cycles. We have had this very same debate many times before I have not forgotten who you are. You are asking to effectively delete brawlers from the raiding game and you go to obtuse lengths to present it as a serious arguement. You have no credibility all when you ask to remove a working as intended mechanic or criple another class.

Elskidor

10-23-2011, 11:56 PM

Raise the zerker and crusaders a tad, then bump up the guardian or nerf the brawler. Ban Talathion, Novusod and Bruener from posting, and then give all fighters a significant xp penalty to lower their obnoxious population.

Silzin

10-24-2011, 12:06 AM

In the long run i think The_Cheeseman's idea is the best. but i fear the time and effort it would take to implement properly, and i dont think the Div team is willing to do it right atm.

Elskidor

10-24-2011, 12:44 AM

If every tank, or any other class, wants to be capable of doing the same exact thing then there really isnt a reason to have 6 classes. Tank merge! Bruisers and Monk are the same thing...they are just in denial, and Zerkers have never been anything more than a Guardian on steroids that forgot how to hold damage. Not sure how one could merge the SK and Pally though...maybe just give the Warlock and Inq some better tanking armor or AA shielding and a few taunts. Hell, just merge nearly all the classes. There has always been too many classes for SOE to keep balanced.

Talathion

10-24-2011, 01:07 AM

Soul_Dreamer

10-24-2011, 06:37 AM

<cite>Elzeenor@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>If every tank, or any other class, wants to be capable of doing the same exact thing then there really isnt a reason to have 6 classes. Tank merge! Bruisers and Monk are the same thing...they are just in denial, and Zerkers have never been anything more than a Guardian on steroids that forgot how to hold damage. Not sure how one could merge the SK and Pally though...maybe just give the Warlock and Inq some better tanking armor or AA shielding and a few taunts. Hell, just merge nearly all the classes. There has always been too many classes for SOE to keep balanced.</blockquote>There have always been classes that could have done with merging really, the differences could then have been put in via AA, my list would have been...Warlock/Wizard > Sorcerer.Illusionist/Coercer > Enchanter.NecromancerCongurorBerzerker/Guardian > WarriorMonk/Bruiser > BrawlerShadowknightPaladinSwashbuckler/Brigand > RogueTroubador/Dirge > BardAssassinRangerDefiler/Mystic > ShamanFury/Warden > DruidInquisitorTemplar.The only one I'm not relaly sure on is the Priests, there isn't really a pair thats distict for roleplay reasons or other any reasons. 16 classes instead of 24, which would have been easier to balance, this needed to happen at LU13 or in Original beta though really, it's way to late to do it now. The amount of rework it would take would be huge due to all the AA/Gear/Quests etc and EQ2 devs don't have the resource to pull it off smoothly.With regard to fighters and strike through though... If strikethrough was removed tomorrow, it just didn't exist anymore, then the Brawler tanks wouldn't even notice, they wouldn't suddenly start getting 1 shotted randomly, they wouldn't suddenly become poor tank choices. What would happen?? Plate tanks would take up to 20% less damage on some encounters due to their block chance actually working. Brawlers wouldn't suddenly be replaced by other tank classes because they would still be just as powerful tanks as they are now, and the Zerk/Paladin/SK still wouldn't have the tools to stay alive to the Large killer AOE's consistently. You simply can't argue this because you're immune to it so it wouldn't directly effect you, you would stay EXACTLY the same as you are now!SOE has the data for fighter avoidances, if after this plate tanks are taking substantially less sustained damage than the leather thanks, say 10%.. Just nerf shield protection values by 10% across the board. Job done, there is no need for this mechanic to be in game when SOE have control over everything anyway. The only reason this mechanic should be in game is on a select few encounters that you want to make harder and even then it should effect all fighters evenly.As it is more likely it is going to stay in game then the values mobs have needs to be lowered substantially and never exceed around 10-20%. Then ALL fighter temp abilities need immunity to it, on my Guardian these are.1. Dragoons Reflexes.2. Defensive Minded.For those that don't think high numbers of strike through already exist in game.. Strike through is the % to hit through an avoidance check. So if a mob has 5% strike though then my avoidance has a 95% chance of still working as intended, over a large sample size this will result in my avoidance being 5% lower.uncontested Avoidance chance X (1- mobs strike through chance) = Actual uncontested avoidance.If my uncontested block chance is 45%, this is the number I should see against the named when it has 0 strikethrough over a large sample size, just because of the nature of uncontested avoidance nothing but strike through will reduce it.(10%) - 45% x 0.9 = 40.5%(20%) - 45% x 0.8 = 36%(30%) - 45% x 0.7 = 31.5%(40%) - 45% x 0.6 = 27%(50%) - 45% x 0.5 = 22.5%I'm parsing avoidance numbers as low as 20%, so high number DO exist in game and you CAN parse it! As previously said, strikethrough is NOT "working as intended", it is NOT "balanced" because the values in game are getting too high. Strikethrough needs a little work, either immunties changing or a reduction in the amount in game.Paladins need a decent 2 shot stoneskin or similar on about a 2 min reuse. Maybe another snap also.SK's need a reduction in inc damage and another snap.Zerks need 100% AOE uncapping and some buffs changing from DPS/Haste to more modern stats such as flurry/MA.@NovusodIn an edit you've changed your text color so it's unreadable without highlighting it. Not sure if this was deliberate is all.

SOE-MOD-02

10-24-2011, 11:32 AM

This post has moved: <a href="/eq2/posts/preList.m?topic_id=499962&post_id=5648487" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">/eq2/posts/preList.m?topic_id=49996...post_id=5648487</a> Let's keep the personal bickering out of this discussion. Thank you!

Talathion

10-24-2011, 12:56 PM

I'm tired of people going against and taking away exactly what makes classes Unique.Paladins need bigger wards to prevent these AOEs, NOT stoneskins.Shadowknights need MUCH BIGGER lifetaps and maybe a "Blood Ward" that whatever lifetap overheals them turns that much into a ward. (So if your at 100% and you use a lifetap, it turns it into a ward and stacks up to 4000.)Berserkers need Adrenaline back to DR and our heals to be ALOT stronger.This is what makes classes unique, you remove that and you might as well remove all 6 fighters.

Netty

10-24-2011, 01:18 PM

giving fights the tools they need to survive and be able to tank everything is not the same things as all classes being the same. It still can be done with small changes so aoe tanks can still tank only you will find it alot easier on a st tank. Kinda much the same as it goes for aoes. ST are able to only easier on a aoe tank. How is that the same?Zerks dident have heals back in the days. And a heal wont help you from getting one shooted. And thats the problem the aoe tanks have atm. Yes zerks have a few stoneskin as some say but its physical only and wont do anything vs some of the deathtouch and so on. So you still would pref a guardian to tank stuff. When it comes to tank more than one mob however brawlers take less damage atm since they have so high avoidance. 360 aswell... Fixing adrenaline again would fix that.Im not sure why my post got removed but i hope you did read it tallon. Since i stand for every word i said in it.

Talathion

10-24-2011, 01:23 PM

<cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote>giving fights the tools they need to survive and be able to tank everything is not the same things as all classes being the same. It still can be done with small changes so aoe tanks can still tank only you will find it alot easier on a st tank. Kinda much the same as it goes for aoes. ST are able to only easier on a aoe tank. How is that the same?Zerks dident have heals back in the days. And a heal wont help you from getting one shooted. And thats the problem the aoe tanks have atm. Yes zerks have a few stoneskin as some say but its physical only and wont do anything vs some of the deathtouch and so on. So you still would pref a guardian to tank stuff. When it comes to tank more than one mob however brawlers take less damage atm since they have so high avoidance. 360 aswell... Fixing adrenaline again would fix that.Im not sure why my post got removed but i hope you did read it tallon. Since i stand for every word i said in it.</blockquote>We had in-combat regeneration, which was really nice along time ago, but when fighters/players started getting more health, it didn't scale properly at all. (And was pretty useless.).Then it got changed to a heal, which crit, and was very balanced and awesome, until SF released and everything became AOE content... which is our strength.Anyways... 2 posts above me is my point.

Netty

10-24-2011, 01:30 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote>giving fights the tools they need to survive and be able to tank everything is not the same things as all classes being the same. It still can be done with small changes so aoe tanks can still tank only you will find it alot easier on a st tank. Kinda much the same as it goes for aoes. ST are able to only easier on a aoe tank. How is that the same?Zerks dident have heals back in the days. And a heal wont help you from getting one shooted. And thats the problem the aoe tanks have atm. Yes zerks have a few stoneskin as some say but its physical only and wont do anything vs some of the deathtouch and so on. So you still would pref a guardian to tank stuff. When it comes to tank more than one mob however brawlers take less damage atm since they have so high avoidance. 360 aswell... Fixing adrenaline again would fix that.Im not sure why my post got removed but i hope you did read it tallon. Since i stand for every word i said in it.</blockquote>We had in-combat regeneration, which was really nice along time ago, but when fighters/players started getting more health, it didn't scale properly at all. (And was pretty useless.).Then it got changed to a heal, which crit, and was very balanced and awesome, until SF released and everything became AOE content... which is our strength.</blockquote>Let me tell you something in-combat health regn was not nice a long time ago. It works if you solo thats it. If they dident nerf the heal crit i bet you even a zerk in Rygorr gear would be able to get of heals from bloodrage for around 4kish if not more. You would then be able to solo all heroic instances once you got the gear. And even if you could. You wouldent still be able to survive a death touch or a huge none physical aoe on raids. How is that balaced for you ???? This really show how much you know about anything. It had nothing to do with SF being aoe content. And was it really? Tear well yeah that one had some nice adds to it. but again most was ST. apart from UD. So where is this aoe content you are talking about?

Bruener

10-24-2011, 01:35 PM

<cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>1. Looking at total damage reduction from unrivialed focus is only about 1-2% over a ten second period. Firstly it doesn't work the way you say it does. I actually have to take a hit to trigger it and then it only reduces the next hit by 30%. If I don't get in the next 3 seconds the trigger got wasted and it won't trigger again for 10 more seconds. In a ten second period I might be hit by 20 to 30 swings and just one of those swings will be reduced by 30%. It is a mediocre ability and I am not even fully specced into it. Put a few AA into it just to get it but certainly isn't worth maxing out. If you think it is so good then be sure to ask for as similar ability for crusaders.There is no way you are seeing that many hits in a 10 sec period. For one, you are probably only seeing 20-25% of hits ACTUALLY land due to avoidance. You are hit few and far between in other words and so when you are hit you immediately proc a 30% damage reduction for 3 seconds. So a combo of being hit less and when hit having damage reduction up up to significantly lower MAs/Flurries/Procs and the rare rare situation the mob might actually get a lucky roll against you and follow up with another Auto Attack. The more mobs you are tanking the more often you can ensure that the damage reduction is up and working on lots of hits. Tank a large group of mobs like the trash in Drunder zones and it basically means 30% of the time you have 30% damage reduction. Starts to look like Adrenaline that was reducing 50% of the damage basically 50% of the time.....and nerfed because of it. Why should I ask for that for Crusaders? Having OP'd Fighters just makes it hard to balance content for all of them. Despite what a bunch of you chumps here believe, my goal is not to OP Crusaders....the goal is to ACTUALLY balance Fighters, something that DoV totally messed up.2. Brawlers were moved into MT / OT position because it was a high level developer decision to break up the plate tank Monopoly and get brawlers involved in serious tanking. There is no such thing as an Emergency tank and never was. It just wasn't viable and shouldn't be part of this discussion. Emergency tanking is just part of the OT's larger responsibility. When there are scripts in DoV that take out the MT for a full minute a tank designed to only live for 20 seconds just does work. Brawlers were given all those buffs because they needed them to rival the considerable power of the plate tanks. I didn't say that the move wasn't intentional. SOE decided for whatever reason to make that move. That is not how it was and that is not how Brawlers were designed for a long time around. The problem is having the class designed around being invincible short term tanks for CC/Recovery and than giving them equal sustained survivability as well. You get 2 classes with a ton of abilities that raises their survivability far above other fighters still for periods of time, while in between they take the same. Its OP'd.The second part here is plate tanks are by no means really broken. What they need is constructive adjustments. While brawlers were getting these defensive buffs the plates got stuff that had nothing to do with tanking. I look at the Warrior and Crusader heroic endlines and all I see is offensive crap. Instead of blameing brawlers for your difficulties you should look to getting you house in order first. As mentioned previously there were all kinds of changes that could have been made but because these threads always turn into rants on brawler strikethrough immunity the changes don't happen.Crusaders got jack for abilities in DoV because of whiners complaining from TSO still that they were OP'd. You don't think there was a whole herd of us in Beta talking about how junky Manawall is, or how junky the AE is, or how junky Soulclaim is for anything other than Power Leveling? You don't think both Crusaders were in there talking about the lack of tools they had all of a sudden especially after a big nerf to LC that basically made it an ability to not spec for? You don't think that I have had personal conversations with devs, in person, about Crusaders and despite the fact they are in agreement there is too much of a rush to get Beastlords out so even though they know about the issues it is on the back burner? You don't think those same devs don't laugh when talking about how OP'd Brawlers are? The problem is all this stuff was pointed out in DoV beta even, and just ignored. The fact is strike through immunity is a bad mechanic to have when the whole purpose of strike through is to keep uncontested avoidance in check. In fact I started a thread very eary about this issue and at that time pointed out that all Fighters should have the immunity on defensive or none. Its just not a good mechanic as is.3. I continue to fight here because avoidance tanking is the brawler's class defining ability. Strikethrough immunity is the only thing that keeps avoidance tanking viable. The devs are smart enough to know what would happen if they took it away. I have been tanking on bruiser long enough to know what it was like to tank in the pre strikethrough immune era. Plate tanks in offensive stance had more uncontested avoidance than my fully defensive specced bruiser tank. It was completely broken. Strikethrough and brawler strikethrough immunity corrected that inballance. It was why it was put into the game and the devs know this. The arrogance of your post is you think you know more than the devs. They have not listened to you in the past and they are not going to listen to you now.Avoidance tanking is all Fighters tanking. Avoidance is the single greatest survivability tool that ALL Fighters have. The fact is if they took away strike through immunity Brawlers would be more on a level playing field with other Fighters in the amount of sustained damage they take. They already have the tool to avoid 1 shots from bad rolls as we have discussed above. Now if they took away that tool AND removed the immunity AND put the damage taken to the levels they were before than you would be hurting. Really though we are way off on a tangent. The strike through isn't even the reason that Brawlers are such superior tanks right now. Its the ability to have a lot of abilities to avoid the one shot AEs on fast reuse.Bruener you have been consistantly one of the most unreasonable posters on these boards going back the last two beta cycles. We have had this very same debate many times before I have not forgotten who you are. You are asking to effectively delete brawlers from the raiding game and you go to obtuse lengths to present it as a serious arguement. You have no credibility all when you ask to remove a working as intended mechanic or criple another class.I say things you don't want to hear. What I have said in the last couple beta cycles miraculously have become issues that I foresaw. It didn't take a lot of brains to see how messed up DoV was going to be for both Fighter balance and balance against non-Fighters right from beta. I would not delete Brawlers, I enjoy Brawlers and any raid worth their salt recognized the advantage of Brawlers before DoV. They bring the largest survivability buff to another tank anybody can give, they could CC great and need very little support for the duration of doing it, they could save a raid countless times. SOE already took measures to make sure Brawlers really don't take any more damage and yet they still avoid a lot more. How do you expect them to balance encounters when 2 of the Fighters hardly get hit and are completely self reliant on saves to stay alive through mechanics that other Fighters die in?</blockquote>Yes. Its time to look over fighters for next expansion. Its time to balance.

Talathion

10-24-2011, 01:36 PM

Netty

10-24-2011, 01:43 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote>giving fights the tools they need to survive and be able to tank everything is not the same things as all classes being the same. It still can be done with small changes so aoe tanks can still tank only you will find it alot easier on a st tank. Kinda much the same as it goes for aoes. ST are able to only easier on a aoe tank. How is that the same?Zerks dident have heals back in the days. And a heal wont help you from getting one shooted. And thats the problem the aoe tanks have atm. Yes zerks have a few stoneskin as some say but its physical only and wont do anything vs some of the deathtouch and so on. So you still would pref a guardian to tank stuff. When it comes to tank more than one mob however brawlers take less damage atm since they have so high avoidance. 360 aswell... Fixing adrenaline again would fix that.Im not sure why my post got removed but i hope you did read it tallon. Since i stand for every word i said in it.</blockquote>We had in-combat regeneration, which was really nice along time ago, but when fighters/players started getting more health, it didn't scale properly at all. (And was pretty useless.).Then it got changed to a heal, which crit, and was very balanced and awesome, until SF released and everything became AOE content... which is our strength.</blockquote>Let me tell you something in-combat health regn was not nice a long time ago. It works if you solo thats it. If they dident nerf the heal crit i bet you even a zerk in Rygorr gear would be able to get of heals from bloodrage for around 4kish if not more. You would then be able to solo all heroic instances once you got the gear. And even if you could. You wouldent still be able to survive a death touch or a huge none physical aoe on raids. How is that balaced for you ???? This really show how much you know about anything. It had nothing to do with SF being aoe content. And was it really? Tear well yeah that one had some nice adds to it. but again most was ST. apart from UD. So where is this aoe content you are talking about?</blockquote>It would not be 4k, it would be more like, Mobs hit for 11-13k in this expansion, and EVEN in the easiest DoV heroics you need to cure atleast 3-4 times a fight or you lose. (yes, even in Ascent/TOFS1)So you have a 1 in 3 chance to heal for 3-4k every 13k swing (yes, even in Ascent/TOFS1), the easiest and pretty much joke zones this expansion), with every encounter needing to cure repeatedly or you die.Did you purposely blow everything out of porportion?</blockquote>11-13k in the first heroic instance? Do you tank nude or something? on raids those heals wouldent be able to keep you up with out healer but i mean was that what i said? Heals would be to much if they still could crit. And i did say in Rygorr armour. Sorry i forgot that you cant read. The easiest stuff can be soloed as it is now. With no crit nerf it would only be worse. I take it you have never used pots aswell to cure when you solo? And from looking at that video you posted on flames im not really sure what im trying to prove here. Since everyone know what you dont know what you are talking about anyways.

Talathion

10-24-2011, 01:54 PM

<cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote>giving fights the tools they need to survive and be able to tank everything is not the same things as all classes being the same. It still can be done with small changes so aoe tanks can still tank only you will find it alot easier on a st tank. Kinda much the same as it goes for aoes. ST are able to only easier on a aoe tank. How is that the same?Zerks dident have heals back in the days. And a heal wont help you from getting one shooted. And thats the problem the aoe tanks have atm. Yes zerks have a few stoneskin as some say but its physical only and wont do anything vs some of the deathtouch and so on. So you still would pref a guardian to tank stuff. When it comes to tank more than one mob however brawlers take less damage atm since they have so high avoidance. 360 aswell... Fixing adrenaline again would fix that.Im not sure why my post got removed but i hope you did read it tallon. Since i stand for every word i said in it.</blockquote>We had in-combat regeneration, which was really nice along time ago, but when fighters/players started getting more health, it didn't scale properly at all. (And was pretty useless.).Then it got changed to a heal, which crit, and was very balanced and awesome, until SF released and everything became AOE content... which is our strength.</blockquote>Let me tell you something in-combat health regn was not nice a long time ago. It works if you solo thats it. If they dident nerf the heal crit i bet you even a zerk in Rygorr gear would be able to get of heals from bloodrage for around 4kish if not more. You would then be able to solo all heroic instances once you got the gear. And even if you could. You wouldent still be able to survive a death touch or a huge none physical aoe on raids. How is that balaced for you ???? This really show how much you know about anything. It had nothing to do with SF being aoe content. And was it really? Tear well yeah that one had some nice adds to it. but again most was ST. apart from UD. So where is this aoe content you are talking about?</blockquote>It would not be 4k, it would be more like, Mobs hit for 11-13k in this expansion, and EVEN in the easiest DoV heroics you need to cure atleast 3-4 times a fight or you lose. (yes, even in Ascent/TOFS1)So you have a 1 in 3 chance to heal for 3-4k every 13k swing (yes, even in Ascent/TOFS1), the easiest and pretty much joke zones this expansion), with every encounter needing to cure repeatedly or you die.Did you purposely blow everything out of porportion?</blockquote>11-13k in the first heroic instance? Do you tank nude or something? on raids those heals wouldent be able to keep you up with out healer but i mean was that what i said? Heals would be to much if they still could crit. And i did say in Rygorr armour. Sorry i forgot that you cant read. The easiest stuff can be soloed as it is now. With no crit nerf it would only be worse. I take it you have never used pots aswell to cure when you solo? And from looking at that video you posted on flames im not really sure what im trying to prove here. Since everyone know what you dont know what you are talking about anyways.</blockquote>So in the end, it wouldn't make a difference if they did anyways, thanks for proving my point, because it would just balance out the fighters in higher end content, anyone with the gear to solo those zones can, and guess what, healers do it ALOT better then fighters even could dream to.I didn't exactly say those dungeons, I used them as an example, if your in Rygorr and still doing TOFS1/Ascent your doing it wrong.It would not be 4k, it would be more like, Mobs hit for 11-13k+ (I didn't specify TOFS/Ascent.) in this expansion, and EVEN in the easiest DoV heroics you need to cure atleast 3-4 times a fight or you lose. (yes, even in Ascent/TOFS1, and a cure pot can't always save you, enless your way overgeared for the instance anyways, in this case, you are.) So you have a 1 in 3 chance to heal for 3-4k every 13k swing (yes, even in Ascent/TOFS1) (again, I didn't specify it, I used it as an example, because before you get the gear they CAN hit you like that, because they would be critting you.), (actually, i'm wrong, because I forgot they DON'T crit you anymore.) the easiest and pretty much joke zones this expansion), with every encounter needing to cure repeatedly or you die. Did you purposely blow everything out of porportion? If you actually do the math its 1.2k out of 13kish-50k Hits. My Defiler's Single Target Ward/Group Ward Stack up to about 15k+30k, Which I can use every 3-4 Seconds, also they're are heals added to these wards which makes me heal up to 30k as well as ward for 45k. What i'm saying is this, healing for 1.2k every hit in this expansion is an absolute joke comparingly to that, less then 7-12%. I actually play a semi-raid geared Tank and a semi-raid geared Healer, so I can actually compare my numbers to my tanks, even if my heals critical, they would not even be near touching what my defiler can heal. (as I said above, he would heal for about 7-12% of what I can heal for.) To be honest, I was never too worried about AOEs, we have Vision of Madness which pretty much is a short recast and helps us survive the ones that get through and actually kill us, and Berserkers werent really meant for the main tank roll anyways, all our abilitys compliment offtanking and I would rather have a Crusader/Guardian or Brawler tank while I offtank. Blowing everything out of porportion is bad.

Netty

10-24-2011, 02:09 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote>giving fights the tools they need to survive and be able to tank everything is not the same things as all classes being the same. It still can be done with small changes so aoe tanks can still tank only you will find it alot easier on a st tank. Kinda much the same as it goes for aoes. ST are able to only easier on a aoe tank. How is that the same?Zerks dident have heals back in the days. And a heal wont help you from getting one shooted. And thats the problem the aoe tanks have atm. Yes zerks have a few stoneskin as some say but its physical only and wont do anything vs some of the deathtouch and so on. So you still would pref a guardian to tank stuff. When it comes to tank more than one mob however brawlers take less damage atm since they have so high avoidance. 360 aswell... Fixing adrenaline again would fix that.Im not sure why my post got removed but i hope you did read it tallon. Since i stand for every word i said in it.</blockquote>We had in-combat regeneration, which was really nice along time ago, but when fighters/players started getting more health, it didn't scale properly at all. (And was pretty useless.).Then it got changed to a heal, which crit, and was very balanced and awesome, until SF released and everything became AOE content... which is our strength.</blockquote>Let me tell you something in-combat health regn was not nice a long time ago. It works if you solo thats it. If they dident nerf the heal crit i bet you even a zerk in Rygorr gear would be able to get of heals from bloodrage for around 4kish if not more. You would then be able to solo all heroic instances once you got the gear. And even if you could. You wouldent still be able to survive a death touch or a huge none physical aoe on raids. How is that balaced for you ???? This really show how much you know about anything. It had nothing to do with SF being aoe content. And was it really? Tear well yeah that one had some nice adds to it. but again most was ST. apart from UD. So where is this aoe content you are talking about?</blockquote>It would not be 4k, it would be more like, Mobs hit for 11-13k in this expansion, and EVEN in the easiest DoV heroics you need to cure atleast 3-4 times a fight or you lose. (yes, even in Ascent/TOFS1)So you have a 1 in 3 chance to heal for 3-4k every 13k swing (yes, even in Ascent/TOFS1), the easiest and pretty much joke zones this expansion), with every encounter needing to cure repeatedly or you die.Did you purposely blow everything out of porportion?</blockquote>11-13k in the first heroic instance? Do you tank nude or something? on raids those heals wouldent be able to keep you up with out healer but i mean was that what i said? Heals would be to much if they still could crit. And i did say in Rygorr armour. Sorry i forgot that you cant read. The easiest stuff can be soloed as it is now. With no crit nerf it would only be worse. I take it you have never used pots aswell to cure when you solo? And from looking at that video you posted on flames im not really sure what im trying to prove here. Since everyone know what you dont know what you are talking about anyways.</blockquote>So in the end, it wouldn't make a difference if they did anyways, thanks for proving my point.I didn't exactly say those dungeons, I used them as an example, if your in Rygorr and still doing TOFS1/Ascent your doing it wrong.It would not be 4k, it would be more like, Mobs hit for 11-13k+ (I didn't specify TOFS/Ascent.) in this expansion, and EVEN in the easiest DoV heroics you need to cure atleast 3-4 times a fight or you lose. (yes, even in Ascent/TOFS1, and a cure pot can't always save you, enless your way overgeared for the instance anyways, in this case, you are.) So you have a 1 in 3 chance to heal for 3-4k every 13k swing (yes, even in Ascent/TOFS1) (again, I didn't specify it, I used it as an example, because before you get the gear they CAN hit you like that, because they would be critting you.), the easiest and pretty much joke zones this expansion), with every encounter needing to cure repeatedly or you die. Did you purposely blow everything out of porportion? If you actually do the math its 1.2k out of 13kish-50k Hits. My Defiler's Single Target Ward/Group Ward Stack up to about 15k+30k, Which I can use every 3-4 Seconds, also they're are heals added to these wards which makes me heal up to 30k as well as ward for 45k. What i'm saying is this, healing for 1.2k every hit in this expansion is an absolute joke comparingly to that, less then 7-12%. I actually play a semi-raid geared Tank and a semi-raid geared Healer, so I can actually compare my numbers to my tanks, even if my heals critical, they would not even be near touching what my defiler can heal. (as I said above, he would heal for about 7-12% of what I can heal for.) To be honest, I was never too worried about AOEs, we have Vision of Madness which pretty much is a short recast and helps us survive the ones that get through and actually kill us, and Berserkers werent really meant for the main tank roll anyways, all our abilitys compliment offtanking and I would rather have a Crusader/Guardian or Brawler tank while I offtank.</blockquote>I play raid gear tanks. You start to p*ss me off big time now. Do you really want to compare one of the healers that can put out so much heals to a tank class??? My toons are raid geared. And i know you dont raid. I mean what guild would take you in? If you are in one i feel sorry for them. Try and remove the nerf go and pull a room in a heroic instance and see who wins the heal parse btw. I won the heal parse many times in SF in zone like cella palace and more. I never said i run ascend and tofs:sc. As i said My guard is half EM and Half HM gear and zerk since nearly fully EM geared with a few HM slots. Where have anyone talked about wanting to take the MT job from anyone? ppl are talking about tank should be able to tank in this expack.Your last comment really show how much you do know about balance. All you care about is how you want to play your toon.*Discussion of moderation is not permitted per the forum guidelines*

Talathion

10-24-2011, 02:21 PM

<cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote>giving fights the tools they need to survive and be able to tank everything is not the same things as all classes being the same. It still can be done with small changes so aoe tanks can still tank only you will find it alot easier on a st tank. Kinda much the same as it goes for aoes. ST are able to only easier on a aoe tank. How is that the same?Zerks dident have heals back in the days. And a heal wont help you from getting one shooted. And thats the problem the aoe tanks have atm. Yes zerks have a few stoneskin as some say but its physical only and wont do anything vs some of the deathtouch and so on. So you still would pref a guardian to tank stuff. When it comes to tank more than one mob however brawlers take less damage atm since they have so high avoidance. 360 aswell... Fixing adrenaline again would fix that.Im not sure why my post got removed but i hope you did read it tallon. Since i stand for every word i said in it.</blockquote>We had in-combat regeneration, which was really nice along time ago, but when fighters/players started getting more health, it didn't scale properly at all. (And was pretty useless.).Then it got changed to a heal, which crit, and was very balanced and awesome, until SF released and everything became AOE content... which is our strength.</blockquote>Let me tell you something in-combat health regn was not nice a long time ago. It works if you solo thats it. If they dident nerf the heal crit i bet you even a zerk in Rygorr gear would be able to get of heals from bloodrage for around 4kish if not more. You would then be able to solo all heroic instances once you got the gear. And even if you could. You wouldent still be able to survive a death touch or a huge none physical aoe on raids. How is that balaced for you ???? This really show how much you know about anything. It had nothing to do with SF being aoe content. And was it really? Tear well yeah that one had some nice adds to it. but again most was ST. apart from UD. So where is this aoe content you are talking about?</blockquote>It would not be 4k, it would be more like, Mobs hit for 11-13k in this expansion, and EVEN in the easiest DoV heroics you need to cure atleast 3-4 times a fight or you lose. (yes, even in Ascent/TOFS1)So you have a 1 in 3 chance to heal for 3-4k every 13k swing (yes, even in Ascent/TOFS1), the easiest and pretty much joke zones this expansion), with every encounter needing to cure repeatedly or you die.Did you purposely blow everything out of porportion?</blockquote>11-13k in the first heroic instance? Do you tank nude or something? on raids those heals wouldent be able to keep you up with out healer but i mean was that what i said? Heals would be to much if they still could crit. And i did say in Rygorr armour. Sorry i forgot that you cant read. The easiest stuff can be soloed as it is now. With no crit nerf it would only be worse. I take it you have never used pots aswell to cure when you solo? And from looking at that video you posted on flames im not really sure what im trying to prove here. Since everyone know what you dont know what you are talking about anyways.</blockquote>So in the end, it wouldn't make a difference if they did anyways, thanks for proving my point.I didn't exactly say those dungeons, I used them as an example, if your in Rygorr and still doing TOFS1/Ascent your doing it wrong.It would not be 4k, it would be more like, Mobs hit for 11-13k+ (I didn't specify TOFS/Ascent.) in this expansion, and EVEN in the easiest DoV heroics you need to cure atleast 3-4 times a fight or you lose. (yes, even in Ascent/TOFS1, and a cure pot can't always save you, enless your way overgeared for the instance anyways, in this case, you are.) So you have a 1 in 3 chance to heal for 3-4k every 13k swing (yes, even in Ascent/TOFS1) (again, I didn't specify it, I used it as an example, because before you get the gear they CAN hit you like that, because they would be critting you.), the easiest and pretty much joke zones this expansion), with every encounter needing to cure repeatedly or you die. Did you purposely blow everything out of porportion? If you actually do the math its 1.2k out of 13kish-50k Hits. My Defiler's Single Target Ward/Group Ward Stack up to about 15k+30k, Which I can use every 3-4 Seconds, also they're are heals added to these wards which makes me heal up to 30k as well as ward for 45k. What i'm saying is this, healing for 1.2k every hit in this expansion is an absolute joke comparingly to that, less then 7-12%. I actually play a semi-raid geared Tank and a semi-raid geared Healer, so I can actually compare my numbers to my tanks, even if my heals critical, they would not even be near touching what my defiler can heal. (as I said above, he would heal for about 7-12% of what I can heal for.) To be honest, I was never too worried about AOEs, we have Vision of Madness which pretty much is a short recast and helps us survive the ones that get through and actually kill us, and Berserkers werent really meant for the main tank roll anyways, all our abilitys compliment offtanking and I would rather have a Crusader/Guardian or Brawler tank while I offtank.</blockquote>I play raid gear tanks. You start to p*ss me off big time now. Do you really want to compare one of the healers that can put out so much heals to a tank class??? My toons are raid geared. And i know you dont raid. I mean what guild would take you in? If you are in one i feel sorry for them. Try and remove the nerf go and pull a room in a heroic instance and see who wins the heal parse btw. I won the heal parse many times in SF in zone like cella palace and more. I never said i run ascend and tofs:sc. As i said My guard is half EM and Half HM gear and zerk since nearly fully EM geared with a few HM slots. Where have anyone talked about wanting to take the MT job from anyone? ppl are talking about tank should be able to tank in this expack.Your last comment really show how much you do know about balance. All you care about is how you want to play your toon.SONY IF YOU CAN REMOVE MY POSTS LOCK THIS GUY FROM POSTING IN THIS ONE BEFOR IT GETS OUT OF HANDS EVEN MORE PLS.</blockquote>Since your having trouble Mr Raid Tank, let me try and help you understand.Battle Frenzy heals you for a high % of your max health each time your hit.in Cella, the dragon gave you a 150k max health buff.In the final boss fight, you took lots of "FLURRY damage (being hit multiple times)" from 5 Mobs.Lets DO some math... I'm being hit alot... (about (5x5=Single target hit+flurry=25) times, for low amounts.) I have 150k HP, So I'm Also being Healed for way more then they are hitting me for... Lets check the heal parse. Oh Gee, I won, I wonder why? COULD IT POSSIBLY BE THAT I HAVE 150k HEALTH AND everytime I'm Hit I'm healed for a High percent of that 150k Health?! Nah.. couldn't be.

Netty

10-24-2011, 02:26 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote>giving fights the tools they need to survive and be able to tank everything is not the same things as all classes being the same. It still can be done with small changes so aoe tanks can still tank only you will find it alot easier on a st tank. Kinda much the same as it goes for aoes. ST are able to only easier on a aoe tank. How is that the same?Zerks dident have heals back in the days. And a heal wont help you from getting one shooted. And thats the problem the aoe tanks have atm. Yes zerks have a few stoneskin as some say but its physical only and wont do anything vs some of the deathtouch and so on. So you still would pref a guardian to tank stuff. When it comes to tank more than one mob however brawlers take less damage atm since they have so high avoidance. 360 aswell... Fixing adrenaline again would fix that.Im not sure why my post got removed but i hope you did read it tallon. Since i stand for every word i said in it.</blockquote>We had in-combat regeneration, which was really nice along time ago, but when fighters/players started getting more health, it didn't scale properly at all. (And was pretty useless.).Then it got changed to a heal, which crit, and was very balanced and awesome, until SF released and everything became AOE content... which is our strength.</blockquote>Let me tell you something in-combat health regn was not nice a long time ago. It works if you solo thats it. If they dident nerf the heal crit i bet you even a zerk in Rygorr gear would be able to get of heals from bloodrage for around 4kish if not more. You would then be able to solo all heroic instances once you got the gear. And even if you could. You wouldent still be able to survive a death touch or a huge none physical aoe on raids. How is that balaced for you ???? This really show how much you know about anything. It had nothing to do with SF being aoe content. And was it really? Tear well yeah that one had some nice adds to it. but again most was ST. apart from UD. So where is this aoe content you are talking about?</blockquote>It would not be 4k, it would be more like, Mobs hit for 11-13k in this expansion, and EVEN in the easiest DoV heroics you need to cure atleast 3-4 times a fight or you lose. (yes, even in Ascent/TOFS1)So you have a 1 in 3 chance to heal for 3-4k every 13k swing (yes, even in Ascent/TOFS1), the easiest and pretty much joke zones this expansion), with every encounter needing to cure repeatedly or you die.Did you purposely blow everything out of porportion?</blockquote>11-13k in the first heroic instance? Do you tank nude or something? on raids those heals wouldent be able to keep you up with out healer but i mean was that what i said? Heals would be to much if they still could crit. And i did say in Rygorr armour. Sorry i forgot that you cant read. The easiest stuff can be soloed as it is now. With no crit nerf it would only be worse. I take it you have never used pots aswell to cure when you solo? And from looking at that video you posted on flames im not really sure what im trying to prove here. Since everyone know what you dont know what you are talking about anyways.</blockquote>So in the end, it wouldn't make a difference if they did anyways, thanks for proving my point.I didn't exactly say those dungeons, I used them as an example, if your in Rygorr and still doing TOFS1/Ascent your doing it wrong.It would not be 4k, it would be more like, Mobs hit for 11-13k+ (I didn't specify TOFS/Ascent.) in this expansion, and EVEN in the easiest DoV heroics you need to cure atleast 3-4 times a fight or you lose. (yes, even in Ascent/TOFS1, and a cure pot can't always save you, enless your way overgeared for the instance anyways, in this case, you are.) So you have a 1 in 3 chance to heal for 3-4k every 13k swing (yes, even in Ascent/TOFS1) (again, I didn't specify it, I used it as an example, because before you get the gear they CAN hit you like that, because they would be critting you.), the easiest and pretty much joke zones this expansion), with every encounter needing to cure repeatedly or you die. Did you purposely blow everything out of porportion? If you actually do the math its 1.2k out of 13kish-50k Hits. My Defiler's Single Target Ward/Group Ward Stack up to about 15k+30k, Which I can use every 3-4 Seconds, also they're are heals added to these wards which makes me heal up to 30k as well as ward for 45k. What i'm saying is this, healing for 1.2k every hit in this expansion is an absolute joke comparingly to that, less then 7-12%. I actually play a semi-raid geared Tank and a semi-raid geared Healer, so I can actually compare my numbers to my tanks, even if my heals critical, they would not even be near touching what my defiler can heal. (as I said above, he would heal for about 7-12% of what I can heal for.) To be honest, I was never too worried about AOEs, we have Vision of Madness which pretty much is a short recast and helps us survive the ones that get through and actually kill us, and Berserkers werent really meant for the main tank roll anyways, all our abilitys compliment offtanking and I would rather have a Crusader/Guardian or Brawler tank while I offtank.</blockquote>I play raid gear tanks. You start to p*ss me off big time now. Do you really want to compare one of the healers that can put out so much heals to a tank class??? My toons are raid geared. And i know you dont raid. I mean what guild would take you in? If you are in one i feel sorry for them. Try and remove the nerf go and pull a room in a heroic instance and see who wins the heal parse btw. I won the heal parse many times in SF in zone like cella palace and more. I never said i run ascend and tofs:sc. As i said My guard is half EM and Half HM gear and zerk since nearly fully EM geared with a few HM slots. Where have anyone talked about wanting to take the MT job from anyone? ppl are talking about tank should be able to tank in this expack.Your last comment really show how much you do know about balance. All you care about is how you want to play your toon.SONY IF YOU CAN REMOVE MY POSTS LOCK THIS GUY FROM POSTING IN THIS ONE BEFOR IT GETS OUT OF HANDS EVEN MORE PLS.</blockquote>Since your having trouble Mr Raid Tank, let me try and help you understand.Battle Frenzy heals you for a high % of your max health each time your hit.in Cella, the dragon gave you a 150k max health buff.In the final boss fight, you took lots of "FLURRY damage (being hit multiple times)" from 5 Mobs.Lets DO some math... I'm being hit alot... (about (5x5=Single target hit+flurry=25) times, for low amounts.) I have 150k HP, So I'm Also being Healed for way more then they are hitting me for... Lets check the heal parse. Oh Gee, I won, I wonder why? COULD IT POSSIBLY BE THAT I HAVE 150k HEALTH AND everytime I'm Hit I'm healed for a High percent of that 150k Health?! Nah.. couldn't be.</blockquote>Im talking about the first 2 mobs in there. Even up to the last one. What about palace then? how do you talk yourslef out of that one? Heals would be to much if they crited today. end of story.

Talathion

10-24-2011, 02:28 PM

<cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote>giving fights the tools they need to survive and be able to tank everything is not the same things as all classes being the same. It still can be done with small changes so aoe tanks can still tank only you will find it alot easier on a st tank. Kinda much the same as it goes for aoes. ST are able to only easier on a aoe tank. How is that the same?Zerks dident have heals back in the days. And a heal wont help you from getting one shooted. And thats the problem the aoe tanks have atm. Yes zerks have a few stoneskin as some say but its physical only and wont do anything vs some of the deathtouch and so on. So you still would pref a guardian to tank stuff. When it comes to tank more than one mob however brawlers take less damage atm since they have so high avoidance. 360 aswell... Fixing adrenaline again would fix that.Im not sure why my post got removed but i hope you did read it tallon. Since i stand for every word i said in it.</blockquote>We had in-combat regeneration, which was really nice along time ago, but when fighters/players started getting more health, it didn't scale properly at all. (And was pretty useless.).Then it got changed to a heal, which crit, and was very balanced and awesome, until SF released and everything became AOE content... which is our strength.</blockquote>Let me tell you something in-combat health regn was not nice a long time ago. It works if you solo thats it. If they dident nerf the heal crit i bet you even a zerk in Rygorr gear would be able to get of heals from bloodrage for around 4kish if not more. You would then be able to solo all heroic instances once you got the gear. And even if you could. You wouldent still be able to survive a death touch or a huge none physical aoe on raids. How is that balaced for you ???? This really show how much you know about anything. It had nothing to do with SF being aoe content. And was it really? Tear well yeah that one had some nice adds to it. but again most was ST. apart from UD. So where is this aoe content you are talking about?</blockquote>It would not be 4k, it would be more like, Mobs hit for 11-13k in this expansion, and EVEN in the easiest DoV heroics you need to cure atleast 3-4 times a fight or you lose. (yes, even in Ascent/TOFS1)So you have a 1 in 3 chance to heal for 3-4k every 13k swing (yes, even in Ascent/TOFS1), the easiest and pretty much joke zones this expansion), with every encounter needing to cure repeatedly or you die.Did you purposely blow everything out of porportion?</blockquote>11-13k in the first heroic instance? Do you tank nude or something? on raids those heals wouldent be able to keep you up with out healer but i mean was that what i said? Heals would be to much if they still could crit. And i did say in Rygorr armour. Sorry i forgot that you cant read. The easiest stuff can be soloed as it is now. With no crit nerf it would only be worse. I take it you have never used pots aswell to cure when you solo? And from looking at that video you posted on flames im not really sure what im trying to prove here. Since everyone know what you dont know what you are talking about anyways.</blockquote>So in the end, it wouldn't make a difference if they did anyways, thanks for proving my point.I didn't exactly say those dungeons, I used them as an example, if your in Rygorr and still doing TOFS1/Ascent your doing it wrong.It would not be 4k, it would be more like, Mobs hit for 11-13k+ (I didn't specify TOFS/Ascent.) in this expansion, and EVEN in the easiest DoV heroics you need to cure atleast 3-4 times a fight or you lose. (yes, even in Ascent/TOFS1, and a cure pot can't always save you, enless your way overgeared for the instance anyways, in this case, you are.) So you have a 1 in 3 chance to heal for 3-4k every 13k swing (yes, even in Ascent/TOFS1) (again, I didn't specify it, I used it as an example, because before you get the gear they CAN hit you like that, because they would be critting you.), the easiest and pretty much joke zones this expansion), with every encounter needing to cure repeatedly or you die. Did you purposely blow everything out of porportion? If you actually do the math its 1.2k out of 13kish-50k Hits. My Defiler's Single Target Ward/Group Ward Stack up to about 15k+30k, Which I can use every 3-4 Seconds, also they're are heals added to these wards which makes me heal up to 30k as well as ward for 45k. What i'm saying is this, healing for 1.2k every hit in this expansion is an absolute joke comparingly to that, less then 7-12%. I actually play a semi-raid geared Tank and a semi-raid geared Healer, so I can actually compare my numbers to my tanks, even if my heals critical, they would not even be near touching what my defiler can heal. (as I said above, he would heal for about 7-12% of what I can heal for.) To be honest, I was never too worried about AOEs, we have Vision of Madness which pretty much is a short recast and helps us survive the ones that get through and actually kill us, and Berserkers werent really meant for the main tank roll anyways, all our abilitys compliment offtanking and I would rather have a Crusader/Guardian or Brawler tank while I offtank.</blockquote>I play raid gear tanks. You start to p*ss me off big time now. Do you really want to compare one of the healers that can put out so much heals to a tank class??? My toons are raid geared. And i know you dont raid. I mean what guild would take you in? If you are in one i feel sorry for them. Try and remove the nerf go and pull a room in a heroic instance and see who wins the heal parse btw. I won the heal parse many times in SF in zone like cella palace and more. I never said i run ascend and tofs:sc. As i said My guard is half EM and Half HM gear and zerk since nearly fully EM geared with a few HM slots. Where have anyone talked about wanting to take the MT job from anyone? ppl are talking about tank should be able to tank in this expack.Your last comment really show how much you do know about balance. All you care about is how you want to play your toon.SONY IF YOU CAN REMOVE MY POSTS LOCK THIS GUY FROM POSTING IN THIS ONE BEFOR IT GETS OUT OF HANDS EVEN MORE PLS.</blockquote>Since your having trouble Mr Raid Tank, let me try and help you understand.Battle Frenzy heals you for a high % of your max health each time your hit.in Cella, the dragon gave you a 150k max health buff.In the final boss fight, you took lots of "FLURRY damage (being hit multiple times)" from 5 Mobs.Lets DO some math... I'm being hit alot... (about (5x5=Single target hit+flurry=25) times, for low amounts.) I have 150k HP, So I'm Also being Healed for way more then they are hitting me for... Lets check the heal parse. Oh Gee, I won, I wonder why? COULD IT POSSIBLY BE THAT I HAVE 150k HEALTH AND everytime I'm Hit I'm healed for a High percent of that 150k Health?! Nah.. couldn't be.</blockquote>Im talking about the first 2 mobs in there. Even up to the last one. What about palace then? how do you talk yourslef out of that one? Heals would be to much if they crited today. end of story.</blockquote>I was talking about other things too, but you just changed my conversation to the most potent to give you an advantage in the argument, we're more like eachother then you think, Netty.Can we stop arguing and get things fixed now?

Netty

10-24-2011, 02:36 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote>giving fights the tools they need to survive and be able to tank everything is not the same things as all classes being the same. It still can be done with small changes so aoe tanks can still tank only you will find it alot easier on a st tank. Kinda much the same as it goes for aoes. ST are able to only easier on a aoe tank. How is that the same?Zerks dident have heals back in the days. And a heal wont help you from getting one shooted. And thats the problem the aoe tanks have atm. Yes zerks have a few stoneskin as some say but its physical only and wont do anything vs some of the deathtouch and so on. So you still would pref a guardian to tank stuff. When it comes to tank more than one mob however brawlers take less damage atm since they have so high avoidance. 360 aswell... Fixing adrenaline again would fix that.Im not sure why my post got removed but i hope you did read it tallon. Since i stand for every word i said in it.</blockquote>We had in-combat regeneration, which was really nice along time ago, but when fighters/players started getting more health, it didn't scale properly at all. (And was pretty useless.).Then it got changed to a heal, which crit, and was very balanced and awesome, until SF released and everything became AOE content... which is our strength.</blockquote>Let me tell you something in-combat health regn was not nice a long time ago. It works if you solo thats it. If they dident nerf the heal crit i bet you even a zerk in Rygorr gear would be able to get of heals from bloodrage for around 4kish if not more. You would then be able to solo all heroic instances once you got the gear. And even if you could. You wouldent still be able to survive a death touch or a huge none physical aoe on raids. How is that balaced for you ???? This really show how much you know about anything. It had nothing to do with SF being aoe content. And was it really? Tear well yeah that one had some nice adds to it. but again most was ST. apart from UD. So where is this aoe content you are talking about?</blockquote>It would not be 4k, it would be more like, Mobs hit for 11-13k in this expansion, and EVEN in the easiest DoV heroics you need to cure atleast 3-4 times a fight or you lose. (yes, even in Ascent/TOFS1)So you have a 1 in 3 chance to heal for 3-4k every 13k swing (yes, even in Ascent/TOFS1), the easiest and pretty much joke zones this expansion), with every encounter needing to cure repeatedly or you die.Did you purposely blow everything out of porportion?</blockquote>11-13k in the first heroic instance? Do you tank nude or something? on raids those heals wouldent be able to keep you up with out healer but i mean was that what i said? Heals would be to much if they still could crit. And i did say in Rygorr armour. Sorry i forgot that you cant read. The easiest stuff can be soloed as it is now. With no crit nerf it would only be worse. I take it you have never used pots aswell to cure when you solo? And from looking at that video you posted on flames im not really sure what im trying to prove here. Since everyone know what you dont know what you are talking about anyways.</blockquote>So in the end, it wouldn't make a difference if they did anyways, thanks for proving my point.I didn't exactly say those dungeons, I used them as an example, if your in Rygorr and still doing TOFS1/Ascent your doing it wrong.It would not be 4k, it would be more like, Mobs hit for 11-13k+ (I didn't specify TOFS/Ascent.) in this expansion, and EVEN in the easiest DoV heroics you need to cure atleast 3-4 times a fight or you lose. (yes, even in Ascent/TOFS1, and a cure pot can't always save you, enless your way overgeared for the instance anyways, in this case, you are.) So you have a 1 in 3 chance to heal for 3-4k every 13k swing (yes, even in Ascent/TOFS1) (again, I didn't specify it, I used it as an example, because before you get the gear they CAN hit you like that, because they would be critting you.), the easiest and pretty much joke zones this expansion), with every encounter needing to cure repeatedly or you die. Did you purposely blow everything out of porportion? If you actually do the math its 1.2k out of 13kish-50k Hits. My Defiler's Single Target Ward/Group Ward Stack up to about 15k+30k, Which I can use every 3-4 Seconds, also they're are heals added to these wards which makes me heal up to 30k as well as ward for 45k. What i'm saying is this, healing for 1.2k every hit in this expansion is an absolute joke comparingly to that, less then 7-12%. I actually play a semi-raid geared Tank and a semi-raid geared Healer, so I can actually compare my numbers to my tanks, even if my heals critical, they would not even be near touching what my defiler can heal. (as I said above, he would heal for about 7-12% of what I can heal for.) To be honest, I was never too worried about AOEs, we have Vision of Madness which pretty much is a short recast and helps us survive the ones that get through and actually kill us, and Berserkers werent really meant for the main tank roll anyways, all our abilitys compliment offtanking and I would rather have a Crusader/Guardian or Brawler tank while I offtank.</blockquote>I play raid gear tanks. You start to p*ss me off big time now. Do you really want to compare one of the healers that can put out so much heals to a tank class??? My toons are raid geared. And i know you dont raid. I mean what guild would take you in? If you are in one i feel sorry for them. Try and remove the nerf go and pull a room in a heroic instance and see who wins the heal parse btw. I won the heal parse many times in SF in zone like cella palace and more. I never said i run ascend and tofs:sc. As i said My guard is half EM and Half HM gear and zerk since nearly fully EM geared with a few HM slots. Where have anyone talked about wanting to take the MT job from anyone? ppl are talking about tank should be able to tank in this expack.Your last comment really show how much you do know about balance. All you care about is how you want to play your toon.SONY IF YOU CAN REMOVE MY POSTS LOCK THIS GUY FROM POSTING IN THIS ONE BEFOR IT GETS OUT OF HANDS EVEN MORE PLS.</blockquote>Since your having trouble Mr Raid Tank, let me try and help you understand.Battle Frenzy heals you for a high % of your max health each time your hit.in Cella, the dragon gave you a 150k max health buff.In the final boss fight, you took lots of "FLURRY damage (being hit multiple times)" from 5 Mobs.Lets DO some math... I'm being hit alot... (about (5x5=Single target hit+flurry=25) times, for low amounts.) I have 150k HP, So I'm Also being Healed for way more then they are hitting me for... Lets check the heal parse. Oh Gee, I won, I wonder why? COULD IT POSSIBLY BE THAT I HAVE 150k HEALTH AND everytime I'm Hit I'm healed for a High percent of that 150k Health?! Nah.. couldn't be.</blockquote>Im talking about the first 2 mobs in there. Even up to the last one. What about palace then? how do you talk yourslef out of that one? Heals would be to much if they crited today. end of story.</blockquote>I was talking about other things too, but you just changed my conversation to the most potent to give you an advantage in the argument, we're more like eachother then you think, Netty.Can we stop arguing and get things fixed now?</blockquote>I havent change one thing. If things changed its you that have changed it. I know what im talking about and you dont. I will never agree with you and we are no where alike and think the same about anything. Maybe a dev can check some logs or anything to prove that i dont change what you do write. Im not gona stop untill you stop posting in this thread. So its that or nothing.

Gungo

10-24-2011, 05:06 PM

The devs already have the tools to fix bezerkers. Paladins mythical has an effect that returns 10% of the damage they receive as health.I know its not exactly what they want because that kinda of effect scales to high end content, but in a low % of 5-10% it wouldnt Op zerkers at all.

Yimway

10-24-2011, 05:21 PM

<cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote>As I've said, I play both Monk and Guardian, and there is a noticable difference in incomming damage between the two. What we have now is not "Balance", there are 3 tanks out of 6 making possible MT's for hard mode content, the other 3 don't even get a look in.</blockquote>What people are failing to acknowledge is we're running groups like this:MonkDirgeCoercerTemplarDefilerGuardianHaving the Monk MT, and along with the strikethru immunity, they're also picking up a metric ton of stoneskins from templar, dirge, AND guardian (not to mention their own). Making them defacto the most survivable tank in game by a long run.The changes to guardian sphere were the wrong changes and should be further restricted. I personally recommend that it be changed in the following way:1) Stoneskin procs last for 20 seconds.2) No longer affects fighters (including guard)The original intent of the buff was to shield the group from damage, the way it was changed didn't achieve its original design. The procs are largely worthless accept for the person that is the direct target of the raid mob. When that target is a strikethru immune brawler, the damage reduction is a bit out of control.

Yimway

10-24-2011, 05:22 PM

<cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite><blockquote>There goes Bruener again with this imaginary, "emergency tank" role. "Emergency tank" is not an intended class role, i</blockquote>That was my idea, and it was called a 'recovery tank'. And for the record, the idea was founded upon how to build a role for more than 2 fighters in a raid. IMO to have 3 fighter subclasses, we needed to have more than 2 potential roles for a fighter to execute in a raid. Recovery tanking was my best solution, and it also involved making sure no one tank had all the tools to survive everything. It has its flaws, but if we can't find 3 roles for tanks, then we need to either acknowledge not all 6 tanks are intended to raid and/or raids don't really need many fighters.I have no idea what Xelgads viewpoint on any of that is, and how he sees fighter roles in the game. It would be wonderful if this level of vision was actually communicated.

Yimway

10-24-2011, 05:24 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Paladins need bigger wards to prevent these AOEs, NOT stoneskins.</blockquote>You can keep repeat posting this as much as you like, but its never going to be the right answer. Almost any fool understands how that imbalances other aspects of gameplay, one day you may also understand.

The_Cheeseman

10-24-2011, 10:47 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>That was my idea, and it was called a 'recovery tank'. And for the record, the idea was founded upon how to build a role for more than 2 fighters in a raid. IMO to have 3 fighter subclasses, we needed to have more than 2 potential roles for a fighter to execute in a raid. Recovery tanking was my best solution, and it also involved making sure no one tank had all the tools to survive everything. It has its flaws, but if we can't find 3 roles for tanks, then we need to either acknowledge not all 6 tanks are intended to raid and/or raids don't really need many fighters.I have no idea what Xelgads viewpoint on any of that is, and how he sees fighter roles in the game. It would be wonderful if this level of vision was actually communicated.</blockquote>While I do appreciate that you were trying to find a way to expand the role of fighters in a raid, I don't think this is the way to go about it. The standard roles of "tank", "healer", "DPS" and "Support" were born out of the way people play the game, and each of the classes in EQ2 were designed to fit in one of those roles in order to have a purpose. Trying to create new roles to fit the given classes is putting the proverbial cart before the horse--it just doesn't work that way. If a carpenter has been building for years with a hammer, a saw, and a screwdriver, you wouldn't want to suddenly tell him that you've replaced all his slot screws with a combination of square, hex, and cross screws just so he can make use of all the other screwdrivers you happen to have laying about.Not to mention the fact that, as I mentioned above, brawlers were the only class that were relegated to "emergency tank" duty, since the class was basically broken for a long time and was simply not capable of fulfilling its intended role. The entire concept of an "emergency tank" is rather patronizing, because it implies that the emergency tank is not good enough to be the tank full-time. I understand that your intent was that no single class could really do so, but again, I don't feel that would be a wise solution.Every fighter needs to be able to main tank all content effectively with sufficient and appropriate support, that should be the overall goal of fighter balance. Not every fighter class needs to be equally effective in every situation, but with a properly built raid force, every fighter should be able to succeed.

Novusod

10-25-2011, 03:01 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>1. Looking at total damage reduction from unrivialed focus is only about 1-2% over a ten second period. Firstly it doesn't work the way you say it does. I actually have to take a hit to trigger it and then it only reduces the next hit by 30%. If I don't get in the next 3 seconds the trigger got wasted and it won't trigger again for 10 more seconds. In a ten second period I might be hit by 20 to 30 swings and just one of those swings will be reduced by 30%. It is a mediocre ability and I am not even fully specced into it. Put a few AA into it just to get it but certainly isn't worth maxing out. If you think it is so good then be sure to ask for as similar ability for crusaders.There is no way you are seeing that many hits in a 10 sec period. For one, you are probably only seeing 20-25% of hits ACTUALLY land due to avoidance. You are hit few and far between in other words and so when you are hit you immediately proc a 30% damage reduction for 3 seconds. So a combo of being hit less and when hit having damage reduction up up to significantly lower MAs/Flurries/Procs and the rare rare situation the mob might actually get a lucky roll against you and follow up with another Auto Attack. The more mobs you are tanking the more often you can ensure that the damage reduction is up and working on lots of hits. Tank a large group of mobs like the trash in Drunder zones and it basically means 30% of the time you have 30% damage reduction. Starts to look like Adrenaline that was reducing 50% of the damage basically 50% of the time.....and nerfed because of it. Why should I ask for that for Crusaders? Having OP'd Fighters just makes it hard to balance content for all of them. Despite what a bunch of you chumps here believe, my goal is not to OP Crusaders....the goal is to ACTUALLY balance Fighters, something that DoV totally messed up.2. Brawlers were moved into MT / OT position because it was a high level developer decision to break up the plate tank Monopoly and get brawlers involved in serious tanking. There is no such thing as an Emergency tank and never was. It just wasn't viable and shouldn't be part of this discussion. Emergency tanking is just part of the OT's larger responsibility. When there are scripts in DoV that take out the MT for a full minute a tank designed to only live for 20 seconds just does work. Brawlers were given all those buffs because they needed them to rival the considerable power of the plate tanks. I didn't say that the move wasn't intentional. SOE decided for whatever reason to make that move. That is not how it was and that is not how Brawlers were designed for a long time around. The problem is having the class designed around being invincible short term tanks for CC/Recovery and than giving them equal sustained survivability as well. You get 2 classes with a ton of abilities that raises their survivability far above other fighters still for periods of time, while in between they take the same. Its OP'd.The second part here is plate tanks are by no means really broken. What they need is constructive adjustments. While brawlers were getting these defensive buffs the plates got stuff that had nothing to do with tanking. I look at the Warrior and Crusader heroic endlines and all I see is offensive crap. Instead of blameing brawlers for your difficulties you should look to getting you house in order first. As mentioned previously there were all kinds of changes that could have been made but because these threads always turn into rants on brawler strikethrough immunity the changes don't happen.Crusaders got jack for abilities in DoV because of whiners complaining from TSO still that they were OP'd. You don't think there was a whole herd of us in Beta talking about how junky Manawall is, or how junky the AE is, or how junky Soulclaim is for anything other than Power Leveling? You don't think both Crusaders were in there talking about the lack of tools they had all of a sudden especially after a big nerf to LC that basically made it an ability to not spec for? You don't think that I have had personal conversations with devs, in person, about Crusaders and despite the fact they are in agreement there is too much of a rush to get Beastlords out so even though they know about the issues it is on the back burner? You don't think those same devs don't laugh when talking about how OP'd Brawlers are? The problem is all this stuff was pointed out in DoV beta even, and just ignored. The fact is strike through immunity is a bad mechanic to have when the whole purpose of strike through is to keep uncontested avoidance in check. In fact I started a thread very eary about this issue and at that time pointed out that all Fighters should have the immunity on defensive or none. Its just not a good mechanic as is.3. I continue to fight here because avoidance tanking is the brawler's class defining ability. Strikethrough immunity is the only thing that keeps avoidance tanking viable. The devs are smart enough to know what would happen if they took it away. I have been tanking on bruiser long enough to know what it was like to tank in the pre strikethrough immune era. Plate tanks in offensive stance had more uncontested avoidance than my fully defensive specced bruiser tank. It was completely broken. Strikethrough and brawler strikethrough immunity corrected that inballance. It was why it was put into the game and the devs know this. The arrogance of your post is you think you know more than the devs. They have not listened to you in the past and they are not going to listen to you now.Avoidance tanking is all Fighters tanking. Avoidance is the single greatest survivability tool that ALL Fighters have. The fact is if they took away strike through immunity Brawlers would be more on a level playing field with other Fighters in the amount of sustained damage they take. They already have the tool to avoid 1 shots from bad rolls as we have discussed above. Now if they took away that tool AND removed the immunity AND put the damage taken to the levels they were before than you would be hurting. Really though we are way off on a tangent. The strike through isn't even the reason that Brawlers are such superior tanks right now. Its the ability to have a lot of abilities to avoid the one shot AEs on fast reuse.Bruener you have been consistantly one of the most unreasonable posters on these boards going back the last two beta cycles. We have had this very same debate many times before I have not forgotten who you are. You are asking to effectively delete brawlers from the raiding game and you go to obtuse lengths to present it as a serious arguement. You have no credibility all when you ask to remove a working as intended mechanic or criple another class.I say things you don't want to hear. What I have said in the last couple beta cycles miraculously have become issues that I foresaw. It didn't take a lot of brains to see how messed up DoV was going to be for both Fighter balance and balance against non-Fighters right from beta. I would not delete Brawlers, I enjoy Brawlers and any raid worth their salt recognized the advantage of Brawlers before DoV. They bring the largest survivability buff to another tank anybody can give, they could CC great and need very little support for the duration of doing it, they could save a raid countless times. SOE already took measures to make sure Brawlers really don't take any more damage and yet they still avoid a lot more. How do you expect them to balance encounters when 2 of the Fighters hardly get hit and are completely self reliant on saves to stay alive through mechanics that other Fighters die in?</blockquote>Yes. Its time to look over fighters for next expansion. Its time to balance.</blockquote>If there was any doubt that you don't have a clue about what you are talking about this post clinched it.1. How can you even begin to talk about ballance when you don't even know how these abilities work. Comparing Unrivaled Focus to Adrenaline just shows that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. It clearly says Unrivaled focus "Can only trigger once every 10 seconds." Even basic reading comperhension seems to escape you here. That means only one attack gets reduced by 30% that is it. This is while mobs can swing 3 or 4 times in under a second and often times swing 20 to 30 times in 10 seconds. More attacks does not mean more triggers. In a ten second period the amount of damage this ability reduces is a joke. If a brawler's avoidance fails for whatever reason the brawler has nothing else to fall back on. It is Avoidance or bust for brawlers and that is why they gave them strikethrough immunity. A brawler's avoidance cannot be allowed to fail under any circumstances. Tanking doesn't work if the tank goes Splat a few seconds into the fight. Plate tanks will never know what it was like to have that problem.2. When you talk to the devs about OP brawlers they are not laughing with you. They are laughing at you because it is clear you don't understand basic mechanics of how this game works. They know you are the person who thinks SK's in TSO were perfectly ballanced when everyone and their mother's dog knew the SK was seriously OP flavor of the month. Clearly the devs and the data they have did not agree with you when they nerfed them. The game to this day is still flooded with SK's from the Shadow Knight Odyssey. Few abandoned their SK tanks because the class is by no means broken. SKs are fairly ballanced except for a few tweeks which they would get if people like you weren't constantly asking for the moon or to break other classes.You have been whining about OP bralwers for a year now but they have not listened to you because you have completely skewed idea for what ballance is. There is no flood of brawlers like there were SKs in TSO because the class is not an OP flavor of the month. There is only a slow trickle of brawlers getting into MT/OT raiding as the stigma of brawlers being the bad tank no one wanted has worn off. Brawlers are in good ballance now with the other tanks and that is the reality of the situation.3. I hate to be the bearer of bad new for you but brawlers and plate tanks are fine the way they are. Just because a brawler can now tank as good as any plate tank does not mean they need a nerf. Your position that brawlers should be emergency CC tanks shows you have a poor grasp of how class design is put together in this game. Brawlers are not buff bots, we are not chanters, we are not bards. Brawlers are tanks and good tanks at that. Every tank class has temp defensive abilities as well as long term survivability. Brawlers need all that stuff to be viable. It is just sour grapes on your part that SK dominance is gone along with the plate tank monopoly. It is good that plate tanks have to compete with brawlers for MT/OT slots.

Soul_Dreamer

10-25-2011, 07:52 AM

<cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>If there was any doubt that you don't have a clue about what you are talking about this post clinched it.1. How can you even begin to talk about ballance when you don't even know how these abilities work. Comparing Unrivaled Focus to Adrenaline just shows that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. It clearly says Unrivaled focus "Can only trigger once every 10 seconds." Even basic reading comperhension seems to escape you here. That means only one attack gets reduced by 30% that is it. This is while mobs can swing 3 or 4 times in under a second and often times swing 20 to 30 times in 10 seconds. More attacks does not mean more triggers. In a ten second period the amount of damage this ability reduces is a joke. If a brawler's avoidance fails for whatever reason the brawler has nothing else to fall back on. It is Avoidance or bust for brawlers and that is why they gave them strikethrough immunity. A brawler's avoidance cannot be allowed to fail under any circumstances. Tanking doesn't work if the tank goes Splat a few seconds into the fight. Plate tanks will never know what it was like to have that problem.2. When you talk to the devs about OP brawlers they are not laughing with you. They are laughing at you because it is clear you don't understand basic mechanics of how this game works. They know you are the person who thinks SK's in TSO were perfectly ballanced when everyone and their mother's dog knew the SK was seriously OP flavor of the month. Clearly the devs and the data they have did not agree with you when they nerfed them. The game to this day is still flooded with SK's from the Shadow Knight Odyssey. Few abandoned their SK tanks because the class is by no means broken. SKs are fairly ballanced except for a few tweeks which they would get if people like you weren't constantly asking for the moon or to break other classes.You have been whining about OP bralwers for a year now but they have not listened to you because you have completely skewed idea for what ballance is. There is no flood of brawlers like there were SKs in TSO because the class is not an OP flavor of the month. There is only a slow trickle of brawlers getting into MT/OT raiding as the stigma of brawlers being the bad tank no one wanted has worn off. Brawlers are in good ballance now with the other tanks and that is the reality of the situation.3. I hate to be the bearer of bad new for you but brawlers and plate tanks are fine the way they are. Just because a brawler can now tank as good as any plate tank does not mean they need a nerf. Your position that brawlers should be emergency CC tanks shows you have a poor grasp of how class design is put together in this game. Brawlers are not buff bots, we are not chanters, we are not bards. Brawlers are tanks and good tanks at that. Every tank class has temp defensive abilities as well as long term survivability. Brawlers need all that stuff to be viable. It is just sour grapes on your part that SK dominance is gone along with the plate tank monopoly. It is good that plate tanks have to compete with brawlers for MT/OT slots.</blockquote>1. This isn't how Unrivaled Focus works nor how it's worded.When a brawler gets hit they gain 30% damage reduction for 3 seconds, so any hit that hits in that next 3 seconds is reduced by 30%. This effect can only be procced once every 10 seconds so the potential is there to have 30% damage reduction 30% of the time. Most brawlers I've met and have spoken to have this maxxed...It also does effect Multiattacks, when you get hit it will proc, the multi attack (if the mob does) that follows that attack will be reduced by 30%.Brawlers avoidance must fail, you've either worded that comment badly or you actually believe brawlers should be unkillable.. 2/3. I really don't care about the past, or any plate tank dominance you feel may have occured back then. It's as bad as the old SK excuse of "we where underpowered for so long we deserve to be OP now". Not once have I stated that Monks and Bruisers shouldn't be viable tanks, they should be, however.Currently though plate tanks take a huge penalty to their avoidance via the strike through mechanic, I don't mind a small difference to balance content, but when you get a reduction of 50% of your avoidance for no reason it's isn't balance. You also claim it's about other avoidances etc, these simply won't pick up the loss, stoneskins proc before anything else, while our avoidance goes down plate tanks don't magically gain more stoneskins or any other types of avoidance. The only thing that will pick up some slack is the avoidance buff from the MT cleric and whichever tank has their buff on the plate tank, even then these are only a % chance to use their avoidance so it won't catch 50% of more.If these large strike through numbers are going to be in game then no tank can be immune to all of it. Brawlers should be taking some hit to their numbers as well. It really is simple maths.Monks and Guardians have similar numbers of avoidances/stoneskin effects and Monks also have their 2 shot death save to fall back on. With all these abilities and MT group buffs, for arguments sake say Monks and Guardians take and can survive similar damage from a mob who has 20% strikethrough. This means that 20% is the balance, if it's lower it favours the Guardian, if it's higher it favours the Monk. This then means that any mob in game which has higher than 20% strike through will favour a monk tank over a Guardian tank, this happens to be almost all HM content...Taking the above into consideration and thinking about it some more, probably the best solution would be for brawlers to have ~20% Strikethrough immunity. Any mob with below ~20% strikethrough will effect the plate tanks but not brawlers, if it goes above, 25% say, then brawlers also take an avoidance hit of ~5%. This then balances out the very hard content and SOE can adjust it as needed. It will also mean that we can gear for it if any gear comes out with strikethrough avoidance/immunity. Just an idea but it's probably better and more controlable than anything else thats been put forwards.It could also mean that plate tanks gain 5% on their defensive stance, bruisers 20% on their defensive and 10% on the middle stance. ALL temp abilities must be changed to have 100% strike through avoidance on them though.

Novusod

10-25-2011, 10:12 AM

<cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote>1. This isn't how Unrivaled Focus works nor how it's worded.When a brawler gets hit they gain 30% damage reduction for 3 seconds, so any hit that hits in that next 3 seconds is reduced by 30%. This effect can only be procced once every 10 seconds so the potential is there to have 30% damage reduction 30% of the time. Most brawlers I've met and have spoken to have this maxxed...It also does effect Multiattacks, when you get hit it will proc, the multi attack (if the mob does) that follows that attack will be reduced by 30%.Brawlers avoidance must fail, you've either worded that comment badly or you actually believe brawlers should be unkillable.. 2/3. I really don't care about the past, or any plate tank dominance you feel may have occured back then. It's as bad as the old SK excuse of "we where underpowered for so long we deserve to be OP now". Not once have I stated that Monks and Bruisers shouldn't be viable tanks, they should be, however.Currently though plate tanks take a huge penalty to their avoidance via the strike through mechanic, I don't mind a small difference to balance content, but when you get a reduction of 50% of your avoidance for no reason it's isn't balance. You also claim it's about other avoidances etc, these simply won't pick up the loss, stoneskins proc before anything else, while our avoidance goes down plate tanks don't magically gain more stoneskins or any other types of avoidance. The only thing that will pick up some slack is the avoidance buff from the MT cleric and whichever tank has their buff on the plate tank, even then these are only a % chance to use their avoidance so it won't catch 50% of more.If these large strike through numbers are going to be in game then no tank can be immune to all of it. Brawlers should be taking some hit to their numbers as well. It really is simple maths.Monks and Guardians have similar numbers of avoidances/stoneskin effects and Monks also have their 2 shot death save to fall back on. With all these abilities and MT group buffs, for arguments sake say Monks and Guardians take and can survive similar damage from a mob who has 20% strikethrough. This means that 20% is the balance, if it's lower it favours the Guardian, if it's higher it favours the Monk. This then means that any mob in game which has higher than 20% strike through will favour a monk tank over a Guardian tank, this happens to be almost all HM content...Taking the above into consideration and thinking about it some more, probably the best solution would be for brawlers to have ~20% Strikethrough immunity. Any mob with below ~20% strikethrough will effect the plate tanks but not brawlers, if it goes above, 25% say, then brawlers also take an avoidance hit of ~5%. This then balances out the very hard content and SOE can adjust it as needed. It will also mean that we can gear for it if any gear comes out with strikethrough avoidance/immunity. Just an idea but it's probably better and more controlable than anything else thats been put forwards.It could also mean that plate tanks gain 5% on their defensive stance, bruisers 20% on their defensive and 10% on the middle stance. ALL temp abilities must be changed to have 100% strike through avoidance on them though.</blockquote>1. Yes, I do beleive the avoidance statement was phrased wrong. You must understand that avoidance is both a binary and percentage based mechanic. If brawler avoidance falls below a certain point it just doesn't work anymore as when it fails it fails completely. If a brawler gets hit too many times they just die. In unlucky RNG rolls where the avoidance fail occures in a streak it would even eat through death prevents. Unlucky RNG streaks often look like this: first few hits knock out the wards and reactives, next hit depletes HP pool and triggers death prevent, next hit kills. That is what I mean when I say avoidance can't be allowed to fail. Letting mobs Strikethrough on a brawler is fail by design instead of just bad luck.As for unrivaled focus 30% of 30% is 9% for the 10 second period. It is still an over rated ability that isn't worth maxing because it is nothing for 7 seconds. If it was usable on command like adrenaline it might be more usefull as I could hit to reduce the damage of an incoming streak. This ability has zero use in dealing with the streaky RNG rolls. If they removed it from the game I probably would not even notice.2/3. The thing is I do not beleive brawlers are genuninely OP right now. You seem to be going out of your way to devise ways that will just simply break brawlers. If you reduce brawler avoidance to a certain point they just don't work anymore as a tank class (See point 1).The point about mobs having 50% strikethrough is a content issue not a class issue. This can be solved by adjusting the buff packages on the mobs so they have less strikethrough. This would correct the whole issue without Nerfing brawlers' class defining avoidance. Half this thread wouldn't even exist if mobs were capped at no more than 20% strikethrough.

Soul_Dreamer

10-25-2011, 10:34 AM

<cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>1. Yes, I do beleive the avoidance statement was phrased wrong. You must understand that avoidance is both a binary and percentage based mechanic. If brawler avoidance falls below a certain point it just doesn't work anymore as when it fails it fails completely. If a brawler gets hit too many times they just die. In unlucky RNG rolls where the avoidance fail occures in a streak it would even eat through death prevents. Unlucky RNG streaks often look like this: first few hits knock out the wards and reactives, next hit depletes HP pool and triggers death prevent, next hit kills. That is what I mean when I say avoidance can't be allowed to fail. Letting mobs Strikethrough on a brawler is fail by design instead of just bad luck.As for unrivaled focus 30% of 30% is 9% for the 10 second period. It is still an over rated ability that isn't worth maxing because it is nothing for 7 seconds. If it was usable on command like adrenaline it might be more usefull as I could hit to reduce the damage of an incoming streak. This ability has zero use in dealing with the streaky RNG rolls. If they removed it from the game I probably would not even notice.2/3. The thing is I do not beleive brawlers are genuninely OP right now. You seem to be going out of your way to devise ways that will just simply break brawlers. If you reduce brawler avoidance to a certain point they just don't work anymore as a tank class (See point 1).The point about mobs having 50% strikethrough is a content issue not a class issue. This can be solved by adjusting the buff packages on the mobs so they have less strikethrough. This would correct the whole issue without Nerfing brawlers' class defining avoidance. Half this thread wouldn't even exist if mobs were capped at no more than 20% strikethrough.</blockquote>In bold, the problem is if this is the case for Brawlers the same applies to Plate tanks, just the cut off point is higher due to our higher mitigation. We can't take every hit like you seem to think we can, so when a mob is hitting for X damage, if we don't avoid some of the hits at some point the healers can't keep up. The 2 are as close as they have ever been due to Brawler mitigation being closer to plate tanks that it has ever been. Strikethrough as a mechanic may have been introduced to balance, but now it's on some mobs to make content harder, I'm confused why you think it's "Balanced" that Brawlers are completely 100% excempt from this mechanic. You even agreed that it's fine if strikethrough was 20% on all mobs, so you obviously agree there is a problem, the difference is, you don't want the fix to this problem to effect you in any way.Lower almost all mobs to 20% strikethrough, then like I said, just have it work like crit mit, but Brawlers get 20% innate and Plate tanks either none or 5%, then if a mob has above this amount both tank types are effected. If 20% is the balance point as you and a lot of other brawlers say then this keeps the balance because brawlers will always be struck through 20% less than other fighters.10% strikethrough = 10% strikethrough on plate, 0% on brawlers.20% strikethrough = 20% strikethrough on plate, 0% on brawlers.30% strikethrough = 30% strikethrough on plate, 10% on brawlers.40% strikethrough = 40% strikethrough on plate, 20% on brawlers.50% strikethrough = 50% strikethrough on plate, 30% on brawlers.I'm not going out of my way to destroy Brawlers, you yourself have stated that 20% is the balance, if it is, then it needs to stay at 20%. As I've said, I have no problem with balance, but what we have currently isn't. You youself as a Bruiser are comparing yourself with Guardians and claiming balance because you're as survivable as they are. Guardians, Monks and Bruisers are the only choice for MT really not on most content because the other 3 don't have the abilities we do. Sorry, but having 2 of the defensive tanks and one of the offensive tanks able to be viable end game MT's isn't balance no matter how often you claim it is.You keep going on about it being a content issue, it doesn't matter what the issue is, it's IS effecting the balance of the fighter classes. The only issue is if the classes need to change with the mechanic or if the mobs need the amounts reducing to stay in the same mechanics.

Yimway

10-25-2011, 01:50 PM

<cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>That was my idea, and it was called a 'recovery tank'. And for the record, the idea was founded upon how to build a role for more than 2 fighters in a raid. IMO to have 3 fighter subclasses, we needed to have more than 2 potential roles for a fighter to execute in a raid. </blockquote>While I do appreciate that you were trying to find a way to expand the role of fighters in a raid, I don't think this is the way to go about it. The standard roles of "tank", "healer", "DPS" and "Support" were born out of the way people play the game, and each of the classes in EQ2 were designed to fit in one of those roles in order to have a purpose. Trying to create new roles to fit the given classes is putting the proverbial cart before the horse--</blockquote>Aye, the idea was not without its challenges, it was meant as a discussion point to try to get the community thinking on how / what a 3rd role might be. I myself, am still not 100% sold on my own idea here. But I haven't seen a whole lot of alternatives thrown around other than we don't want more than 2 fighter roles on a raid. On paper, I prefer the idea of a 3rd role vs trying to balance 6 classes to 2 roles. Looking at the 6 classes to 2 roles issue, I strongly feel we just have too many fighter classes. But these are fairly large game design issues that are likely too significant to try to address this late into a game, so its just an academic discussion at this point.

The_Cheeseman

10-25-2011, 06:25 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>That was my idea, and it was called a 'recovery tank'. And for the record, the idea was founded upon how to build a role for more than 2 fighters in a raid. IMO to have 3 fighter subclasses, we needed to have more than 2 potential roles for a fighter to execute in a raid. </blockquote>While I do appreciate that you were trying to find a way to expand the role of fighters in a raid, I don't think this is the way to go about it. The standard roles of "tank", "healer", "DPS" and "Support" were born out of the way people play the game, and each of the classes in EQ2 were designed to fit in one of those roles in order to have a purpose. Trying to create new roles to fit the given classes is putting the proverbial cart before the horse--</blockquote>Aye, the idea was not without its challenges, it was meant as a discussion point to try to get the community thinking on how / what a 3rd role might be. I myself, am still not 100% sold on my own idea here. But I haven't seen a whole lot of alternatives thrown around other than we don't want more than 2 fighter roles on a raid. On paper, I prefer the idea of a 3rd role vs trying to balance 6 classes to 2 roles. Looking at the 6 classes to 2 roles issue, I strongly feel we just have too many fighter classes. But these are fairly large game design issues that are likely too significant to try to address this late into a game, so its just an academic discussion at this point.</blockquote>I definitely agree with you here. 6 distinct classes is just too many options for the small number of tank slots a raid generally requires. I also agree that this doesn't seem to be a problem that can be fixed without making massive changes--like merging subclasses--that I do not think would have a positive outcome on the game as a whole at this point, and would upset far too many players to be a viable option.This is one of the reasons I push for the ability for every fighter to have the ability to tank all content. Since there are so few raid slots for tanks and so many classes to fill them, it's important that each one be interchangeable with the others. This ensures that whichever tank classes your guild chooses to build the raid around, you can be successful. I personally hate having to bench my favorite character to play an alt just to adapt to encounter requirements, and I am sure I am not alone.As I have said previously, I don't believe tank balance is possible until uncontested avoidance and strikethrough are both abolished. However, my question for those who maintain the "remove brawler strikethrough immunity" camp is this: How does this make crusaders and berserkers more viable tanks? You'd just be making brawlers worse, not making anyone better. I totally support lowering the amount of strikethrough on MOB buff packages, this helps all the plate tanks and would not have any effect on brawlers, which seems to be a decent solution. Guardians would become more powerful than they currently are, but I don't see a significant problem with that as long as every tank is viable.

Soul_Dreamer

10-25-2011, 06:57 PM

<cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>That was my idea, and it was called a 'recovery tank'. And for the record, the idea was founded upon how to build a role for more than 2 fighters in a raid. IMO to have 3 fighter subclasses, we needed to have more than 2 potential roles for a fighter to execute in a raid. </blockquote>While I do appreciate that you were trying to find a way to expand the role of fighters in a raid, I don't think this is the way to go about it. The standard roles of "tank", "healer", "DPS" and "Support" were born out of the way people play the game, and each of the classes in EQ2 were designed to fit in one of those roles in order to have a purpose. Trying to create new roles to fit the given classes is putting the proverbial cart before the horse--</blockquote>Aye, the idea was not without its challenges, it was meant as a discussion point to try to get the community thinking on how / what a 3rd role might be. I myself, am still not 100% sold on my own idea here. But I haven't seen a whole lot of alternatives thrown around other than we don't want more than 2 fighter roles on a raid. On paper, I prefer the idea of a 3rd role vs trying to balance 6 classes to 2 roles. Looking at the 6 classes to 2 roles issue, I strongly feel we just have too many fighter classes. But these are fairly large game design issues that are likely too significant to try to address this late into a game, so its just an academic discussion at this point.</blockquote>I definitely agree with you here. 6 distinct classes is just too many options for the small number of tank slots a raid generally requires. I also agree that this doesn't seem to be a problem that can be fixed without making massive changes--like merging subclasses--that I do not think would have a positive outcome on the game as a whole at this point, and would upset far too many players to be a viable option.This is one of the reasons I push for the ability for every fighter to have the ability to tank all content. Since there are so few raid slots for tanks and so many classes to fill them, it's important that each one be interchangeable with the others. This ensures that whichever tank classes your guild chooses to build the raid around, you can be successful. I personally hate having to bench my favorite character to play an alt just to adapt to encounter requirements, and I am sure I am not alone.As I have said previously, I don't believe tank balance is possible until uncontested avoidance and strikethrough are both abolished. However, my question for those who maintain the "remove brawler strikethrough immunity" camp is this: How does this make crusaders and berserkers more viable tanks? You'd just be making brawlers worse, not making anyone better. I totally support lowering the amount of strikethrough on MOB buff packages, this helps all the plate tanks and would not have any effect on brawlers, which seems to be a decent solution. Guardians would become more powerful than they currently are, but I don't see a significant problem with that as long as every tank is viable.</blockquote>Really the one big problem is givig tanks the tools to keep themselves up. It would be ideal if Guardians DIDN'T have stoneskins, and monks didn't have their abilities, same goes for every other fighter class. Maybe 1 or so for heroic content but not the number we have now, if instead they had abilitiers that effected the other tanks it would be better. Then you'd want to bring the most defensive tanks as MT, and the other tanks would support him, if the MT went down, the other tanks would still be able to support whichever tank picked up he just would take a little more constant damage but the other tanks would be the ones saving him from AOE's/Spikes. Say you have a Paladin, Guardian, Bruiser and SK, the Guardian/Paladin would MT because they take the least consistent damage and the other 3 would use their stoneskins/avoidances/damage reducers on him when needed. If an AOE tank is needed the the Zerker can tank and the other 3 use their abilities on him. If the Guardian goes down then the Pally picks up and the other 2 tanks keep him temp avoided till it's stable again or the Guadian can pick up. It really would have been more easy to balance this way and you'd want the extra tanks in raid more often.Just my 2CP, but I think the game would have been better had it been designed this way for tanking.Like I've said, if strike through was kept at reasonable levels it wouldn't be a problem, but loosing large amounts of avoidance while 2 of the classes (the ones with the most avoidance) are immute to it just isn't balanced. As my above posts really, change it to be how crit mit/crit is now, you gain x amount of strikethrough immunity, when it goes above the value you have all tanks are effected. If 20% is the balance point for Brawler/Plate tanks, then make it this amount. This really is the fairest solution and means it can be asjusted more easily than just removing it, or adding it to all...

Yimway

10-25-2011, 07:02 PM

<cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite><blockquote>As I have said previously, I don't believe tank balance is possible until uncontested avoidance and strikethrough are both abolished. However, my question for those who maintain the "remove brawler strikethrough immunity" camp is this: How does this make crusaders and berserkers more viable tanks?</blockquote>It doesn't, but it still needs to be done. The reasoning here is as mob damage / buff packages go up, the prevelance of strikethru only further widens the gap between brawlers and everyone else.When you balance anything, you typically have to scrape some from the top and add some from the bottom. Strikethru immunity was added to compensate brawlers for the gap in mitigation between them and plate tanks. The prevelance of strikethru combined with the amount of mitigation gains now possible by brawler has caused that mechanic to far exceed the mitigation gap as it exists in game today. But yes, that doesn't directly help zerkers, but it does narrow the incoming damage differential between them (perhaps the least defensive tank today) and brawlers (the most defensive tank today).Certainly more than fixing strikethru needs to be done, but it simply can't be left on the table as it is for reasons I've detailed in other posts.

Yimway

10-25-2011, 07:11 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>What people are failing to acknowledge is we're running groups like this:Monk/BruiserDirgeCoercerTemplarDefilerGuardianHaving the Monk MT, and along with the strikethru immunity, they're also picking up a metric ton of stoneskins from templar, dirge, AND guardian (not to mention their own). Making them defacto the most survivable tank in game by a long run.The changes to guardian sphere were the wrong changes and should be further restricted. I personally recommend that it be changed in the following way:1) Stoneskin procs last for 20 seconds.2) No longer affects fighters (including guard)The original intent of the buff was to shield the group from damage, the way it was changed didn't achieve its original design. The procs are largely worthless accept for the person that is the direct target of the raid mob. When that target is a strikethru immune brawler, the damage reduction is a bit out of control.</blockquote>I'm really surprised no one has had any comment to what I posted above.If for example you put a bruiser in that group spec'd for stoneskins. If you look at comparitive parses of the bruiser tanking a mob with 50% strikethru vs the guard tanking the same mob, the incoming damage profile is radically different.The key points are the bruiser will parse within 10% of the stoneskin procs as the guard will, the bruiser will get struck remarkably less, and in the end have a smoother incoming damage profile (less spikey) and take net less damage.It is difficult for me to believe that was the incoming damage profile intended or desired for that class in comparison to a plate tank. In fact the net results are almost exactly the opposite of what I thought the intended design was.

The_Cheeseman

10-25-2011, 11:29 PM

The primary reason I am against removing strikethrough immunity for brawlers is that until we were made immune to strikethrough, the mechanic rendered us unable to perform our role adequately. I think a lot of people who don't play brawlers as their main characters tend to oversimplify brawler balance and do not see how tenuous it really is. Brawlers are a very different animal than plate tanks and are a lot more fragile, balance-wise. This is obvious if you note how many years we've spent essentially broken--it took the devs this long to finally get the class to the point where it functions properly.Nobody can really say what the full effect of removing strikethrough immunity for brawlers would be. You can make claims about mitigation values giving brawlers more damage reduction and closing the gap between them and plate tanks, but I have not seen any actual data posted that can support that claim. And I don't mean one guy posting a parse from some random epic encounter, I mean statistically-significant data sets that can give an accurate picture of incoming damage between the various fighter classes. All I have seen so far are appeals to the majority and anecdotal evidence based on the gut feeling of people who don't play brawlers.Basically what I am saying is this: brawlers were broken for about 5 years and we have just now finally managed to earn our place as not only viable, but preferable raid tanks. Now people are asking to have one of the very fixes that made us viable removed for no reason other than uniformity. Well, brawlers are not like plate tanks, we don't work the same way, and I'd prefer that there be better reason behind a change that could possible break our class again.We don't know what threshold of tank survivability is actually meant to be the baseline. If brawlers actually are above that line, then I wouldn't have any significant issue with reducing our survivability a bit, but it must be done carefully due to how fragile brawler balance is. Personally, I'd rather see changes to the mitigation curve and other damage reduction abilities, because the effects of damage reduction are more linear and less likely to have unintended results. If, on the other hand, brawlers and guardians are right on the line, then I'd much rather see the other classes improved to bring them up to our level.The point is, we don't know. Nobody has shown enough actual data to prove anything one way or the other. Until somebody does manage to collect such data, I'd much prefer that the classes that are currently functioning adequately not be altered just for the sake of homogeneity.

The_Cheeseman

10-25-2011, 11:39 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>What people are failing to acknowledge is we're running groups like this:Monk/BruiserDirgeCoercerTemplarDefilerGuardianHaving the Monk MT, and along with the strikethru immunity, they're also picking up a metric ton of stoneskins from templar, dirge, AND guardian (not to mention their own). Making them defacto the most survivable tank in game by a long run.The changes to guardian sphere were the wrong changes and should be further restricted. I personally recommend that it be changed in the following way:1) Stoneskin procs last for 20 seconds.2) No longer affects fighters (including guard)The original intent of the buff was to shield the group from damage, the way it was changed didn't achieve its original design. The procs are largely worthless accept for the person that is the direct target of the raid mob. When that target is a strikethru immune brawler, the damage reduction is a bit out of control.</blockquote>I'm really surprised no one has had any comment to what I posted above.If for example you put a bruiser in that group spec'd for stoneskins. If you look at comparitive parses of the bruiser tanking a mob with 50% strikethru vs the guard tanking the same mob, the incoming damage profile is radically different.The key points are the bruiser will parse within 10% of the stoneskin procs as the guard will, the bruiser will get struck remarkably less, and in the end have a smoother incoming damage profile (less spikey) and take net less damage.It is difficult for me to believe that was the incoming damage profile intended or desired for that class in comparison to a plate tank. In fact the net results are almost exactly the opposite of what I thought the intended design was.</blockquote>I don't find anything surprising about this. Stoneskins, as a mechanic, are always going to favor avoidance tanks, that's just how stoneskins function. Stoneskins remain active until a hit penetrates avoidance, and then fully mitigates the damage. This obviously works better when the target of the stoneskin is getting hit less often but for more damage, as opposed to wasting the stoneskins on more frequent, less damaging hits.This is just another example of how complex balance can be in the case of avoidance mechanics. Even small changes can have major repercussions on the game because so many mechanics favor different aspects of combat in ways that may not always be immediately apparent.

The_Cheeseman

10-26-2011, 12:08 AM

<cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote>Like I've said, if strike through was kept at reasonable levels it wouldn't be a problem, but loosing large amounts of avoidance while 2 of the classes (the ones with the most avoidance) are immute to it just isn't balanced. As my above posts really, change it to be how crit mit/crit is now, you gain x amount of strikethrough immunity, when it goes above the value you have all tanks are effected. If 20% is the balance point for Brawler/Plate tanks, then make it this amount. This really is the fairest solution and means it can be asjusted more easily than just removing it, or adding it to all...</blockquote>I don't think you're really understanding the function of Strikethrough in its current incarnation. Strikethrough exists as a means to overcome uncontested avoidance. Essentially, Strikethrough is an uncontested chance for an attack to avoid being avoided by the target's uncontested avoidance. Because the only form of avoidance that works at all in a raid setting is uncontested avoidance, Strikethrough is the only way the devs really have to improve a raid MOB's hit rates.However, brawlers rely much more on their avoidance than plate tanks do, and the actual uncontested avoidance values between a shield-wearing plate tank and a brawler really aren't that far apart (depending on how aggressively the devs itemize +block chance gear). Because of this, strikethrough unfairly penalizes brawlers because of how much more reliant they are on maintaining high avoidance.In other words, Strikethough is only fair BECAUSE brawlers are immune to it. In the current game, brawler uncontested avoidance is the static value that sets the lower limit of a raid MOB's expected accuracy, and then Strikethough is added until an acceptable difference between plate tank and brawler avoidance rates is found.To summarize, the effect of Strikethrough is to create a gap between brawler and plate tank avoidance rates. Brawlers are designed to avoid more than plate tanks, and this mechanic ensures that they do.You're suggestion to add "Strikethrough Resistance" is essentially adding yet another layer of needless complexity. The effect of which would be to add an uncontested chance for your uncontested avoidance to avoid being avoided by the MOB's uncontested chance to avoid your uncontested avoidance.If you think none of that makes any sense, then I agree with you. This is exactly why I claim that both strikethrough and uncontested avoidance just need to be scrapped.

Controlor

10-26-2011, 03:00 AM

<cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote>Like I've said, if strike through was kept at reasonable levels it wouldn't be a problem, but loosing large amounts of avoidance while 2 of the classes (the ones with the most avoidance) are immute to it just isn't balanced. As my above posts really, change it to be how crit mit/crit is now, you gain x amount of strikethrough immunity, when it goes above the value you have all tanks are effected. If 20% is the balance point for Brawler/Plate tanks, then make it this amount. This really is the fairest solution and means it can be asjusted more easily than just removing it, or adding it to all...</blockquote>I don't think you're really understanding the function of Strikethrough in its current incarnation. Strikethrough exists as a means to overcome uncontested avoidance. Essentially, Strikethrough is an uncontested chance for an attack to avoid being avoided by the target's uncontested avoidance. Because the only form of avoidance that works at all in a raid setting is uncontested avoidance, Strikethrough is the only way the devs really have to improve a raid MOB's hit rates.However, brawlers rely much more on their avoidance than plate tanks do, and the actual uncontested avoidance values between a shield-wearing plate tank and a brawler really aren't that far apart (depending on how aggressively the devs itemize +block chance gear). Because of this, strikethrough unfairly penalizes brawlers because of how much more reliant they are on maintaining high avoidance.In other words, Strikethough is only fair BECAUSE brawlers are immune to it. In the current game, brawler uncontested avoidance is the static value that sets the lower limit of a raid MOB's expected accuracy, and then Strikethough is added until an acceptable difference between plate tank and brawler avoidance rates is found.To summarize, the effect of Strikethrough is to create a gap between brawler and plate tank avoidance rates. Brawlers are designed to avoid more than plate tanks, and this mechanic ensures that they do.You're suggestion to add "Strikethrough Resistance" is essentially adding yet another layer of needless complexity. The effect of which would be to add an uncontested chance for your uncontested avoidance to avoid being avoided by the MOB's uncontested chance to avoid your uncontested avoidance.If you think none of that makes any sense, then I agree with you. This is exactly why I claim that both strikethrough and uncontested avoidance just need to be scrapped.</blockquote>I believe this is the entire point that they are making. Strikethrough is meant to seperate the widen the gap between brawler and plate avoidance. That is all well and good IF that widening of the gap is within a reasonable level. The higher level raid mobs have a strikethrough that widens the avoidance gap TOO much which becomes unreasonable and broken. So there have been 3 "solutions" to this.1) get rid of strike through all together (pretty well opposed by brawlers)2) Turn brawler strike through immunity into a % chance for strikethrough avoidance. This would make it so that higher strikethrough rates on mobs do not unfairly favor brawlers and instead have a reasonable gap between avoidance from plate to brawler, at the same time increasing hit rates for mobs against ALL fighters. The argument is that brawler damage reduction and mitigation values are within a range of the plate tanks that in doing so if a melee swing does not 1 shot a plate tank that it will probably not one shot a brawler.3) Cap the strikethrough package on mobs at a reasonable level (it is being posed by some 20% or there abouts). This would ensure a reasonable gap between brawlers and plate tanks avoidance against a mob. However this would hinder any harder contents hit rates which the devs equate a bit to difficulty.IMO Option 2 is the best. Do not have it 100% strike through immunity but a lower% base than that. This allows there to be an avoidance gap between brawlers and plate tanks and with higher strikethorugh packages on mobs it is balanced more in terms of hit rates between plates and brawlers. Regardless something needs to be done.

The_Cheeseman

10-26-2011, 05:46 AM

I don't agree that anything regarding brawler strikethrough immunity needs to be changed. If the problem is that brawlers are taking too little damage, then lower our mitigation and damage reduction abilities rather than reducing our avoidance. However, I still don't see any reason to change brawlers at all when we could be improving crusaders and berserkers to compensate. Brawlers and guardians are functioning adequately, I see no reason to alter them.Last I checked, much of the end-game content has yet to be completed. In this situation, I cannot condone nerfing anybody, because that would only make the end-game even more impossible. We should be focusing on how to make crusaders and berserkers more viable tanks in those encounters, so that they are on equal footing with brawlers and guardians. Once every tank is viable, then we can start focusing on fine-tuning the balance.Honestly, the main issue I am hearing is that Velious MOBs hit too hard and therefore mitigation is less effective while avoidance is more effective. Notice that the 3 best tanks currently are also the ones with the most avoidance (when you consider stoneskins as avoidance). I think the solution would be to modify the mitigation curve so that the gap between leather and plate armor is wider and so that plate-wearers get more benefit from having a higher mitigation score. The result would be that plate tanks would take less damage per hit than they do now, while brawlers would stay about where they are. This would restore the balance somewhat between the value of mitigation vs. avoidance in terms of overall tank survivability.

Soul_Dreamer

10-26-2011, 08:22 AM

<cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite><blockquote>I don't agree that anything regarding brawler strikethrough immunity needs to be changed. If the problem is that brawlers are taking too little damage, then lower our mitigation and damage reduction abilities rather than reducing our avoidance. However, I still don't see any reason to change brawlers at all when we could be improving crusaders and berserkers to compensate. Brawlers and guardians are functioning adequately, I see no reason to alter them.Last I checked, much of the end-game content has yet to be completed. In this situation, I cannot condone nerfing anybody, because that would only make the end-game even more impossible. We should be focusing on how to make crusaders and berserkers more viable tanks in those encounters, so that they are on equal footing with brawlers and guardians. Once every tank is viable, then we can start focusing on fine-tuning the balance.Honestly, the main issue I am hearing is that Velious MOBs hit too hard and therefore mitigation is less effective while avoidance is more effective. Notice that the 3 best tanks currently are also the ones with the most avoidance (when you consider stoneskins as avoidance). I think the solution would be to modify the mitigation curve so that the gap between leather and plate armor is wider and so that plate-wearers get more benefit from having a higher mitigation score. The result would be that plate tanks would take less damage per hit than they do now, while brawlers would stay about where they are. This would restore the balance somewhat between the value of mitigation vs. avoidance in terms of overall tank survivability.</blockquote>The problem with the highlighted bold section is as I've already stated. EVERY tank will have similar stoneskin numbers from the MT group through out a fight from Dirge and Templar, Guardians have 4 abilities that stoneskin, these abilities are meant to deal with spikes and with AOE's NOT just used whenever.Tower of Stone, Last man standing, Perfect counter (Shared with Zerks), Guardian Sphere (25% proc chance for 20 seconds).As our avoidance goes down because of strike through I'm having to use these abilities more and more during normal fighting to stop dying, because I'm spiking more. This means they aren't up for the AOE's which is what they have traditionally been used for and these AOE's can one shot.Brawlers don't have this problem because their avoidance isn't effected and so all their abilities are up for the times when they actually need them. This isn't even counting the Pally/SK/Zerk who don't even have these tools to begin with, and that is the reason why Guardians are still a somewhat viable MT choice, because they do have them, but as stated, as the strike through numbers go up even Guardians are getting less and less effective . This is the reason why strike through is effecting balance so much and it effects it more and more the higher you go in content.Then take into account Dragoons reflexes - 100% Parry - More like 50% on some mobs.Defensive Minded - 20% Dodge - Now down to 10% on some mobs.And you guys think this is fine and Balanced, and that all tanks are fine as they are?From what I've read on here in replies, Brawlers said 20% was a fine balance point. But as soon as it's suggested your effected by strike through that is above 20% (the balance point you claim) it's not Balanced? Really? Lower ALL mobs down to a max of 20% strike through and give brawlers 20% immunity. Then on select mobs if it goes higher both tanks will be effected somewhat but it means Brawlers still have their innate advantage in avoidance. As for arguing about a nerf to brawlers from this.. where is the Nerf, you'll still be immune because mobs have been lowered below 20%, it just means on a select few mobs it can be controlled in a more balanced way because it will effect both tank types equally.

Boli32

10-26-2011, 09:17 AM

<cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite><blockquote>You can make claims about mitigation values giving brawlers more damage reduction and closing the gap between them and plate tanks, but I have not seen any actual data posted that can support that claim. And I don't mean one guy posting a parse from some random epic encounter, I mean statistically-significant data sets that can give an accurate picture of incoming damage between the various fighter classes. All I have seen so far are appeals to the majority and anecdotal evidence based on the gut feeling of people who don't play brawlers.</blockquote>I (Paladin) was once in a raid where I had Defiler/Templar; and the Monk had Inquisitor/Mystic and we were doing Eireen HM. The Monk had more standing mitigation than I did; even when I toggled on defensive stance. How?A few reasons actually* My healers had not taken then +mitigation boast to their group buff; his had.* The flaw in the maths of mitigation.The flaw is pretty simple; that additions and percentage based systems do not really mesh well together.In a random example:Leather: 3000 MitigationPlate: 6000 MitigationDifference: Leather 50% as much6000 * 15% bonus = 69003000 * 25% bonus = 3750Difference: Leather 54% as muchHealer buffs: +16006000 * 15% bonus +1600 = 8500 3000 * 25% bonus +1600 = 5350Difference: Leather 62% as muchEnhanced Healer Buffs: +24006000 * 15% bonus +2400 = 9300 3000 * 25% bonus +2400 = 6150 Difference: Leather 66% as much AA Character Choices: +10006000 * 15% bonus +2400 = 10300 3000 * 25% bonus +2400 = 7150 Difference: Leather 69% as much Notice that when you simply *add* mitigation and equally across both the mitigation difference is reduced; these numbers are made up - but are pretty close to what you see once raid buffed.Then you have to remember that Brawlers have TWO Static Mitigation buffs; a short term one which can be maintained 50% of the time; and a longer recast one which vastly increases their Static mitigation.Since they are both Additive and not percentage based it favours the brawler closing the gap between the armour types even further. Lets take Sigil vs Body Like a Mountain) Both enhance Mitigation - but one is percentage based and the other additive and both can be up 20 or 30s every 60s.Sigil of Heroism 15% of 6000 = 900Body Like a Mountain = 1046.4 (M1 +50% Bonus from AA)BUT; both brawlers have AA/myth buffs which increase their mitigation so "something approaching chain" so lets call that 3000, 4200 and run the numbers again.4200 * 25% bonus + 2400 + 1000 = 86506000 * 15% bonus + 2400 + 1000 = 10300Difference: Leather 83% as muchAdd in Sigil / Body Like a Mountain Running:4200 * 25% bonus + 2400 + 1000 + 1046.4 = 9696.4 6000 * 30% bonus + 2400 + 1000 = 11200Difference: Leather 87% as muchAt this stage it all becomes imaterial to theorise more but the maths behind the mitigation are flawed as you are adding sometimes and adding in a percentage modifer other times. At BEST a brawler will take 5-10% more damage than a plate tank as far as individual hits are concerned.To claim that brawlers are wearing "paper armour" and having leather armour is a disadvantage to plate is a misnomer; when you run the numbers just on pure stats alone you'll see the brawler mitigation invariablly is a lot closer to plate tanks than people claim and realise.Time and time again brawler players cite having trouble with damage spikes and the inherant flaw in avoidance tanking is if they take multiple hits that pass through their avoidance - I assure you this kills plate tanks just as much.Currently the only difference between avoidance tanking and mitigation tanking... is the avoidance tanking method you can avoid more of the hits but you'll mitigate the hits just as much as the plate tank; where you do not notice the damage spikes as they are simpy splking all of the time.When you first see the Mitigation values on leather vs plate (4937 vs 2921 for a full set of HM Armour) it is very easy to assume that brawlers as a class will get hit harder than plate tanks. But SoE has designed buffs and effects to help to increase a brawlers mitigation. Factor these in as well as deminishing returns and you have a system where brawlers mitigate damage similar to that of plate; whilst still keeping their (now vastly) superior avoidance.In KoS (and previous) Mitigation was king, you simply stacked up enough +mitigation items to reach the cap and it allowed you to reduce the damage by 80%.Now with deminishing returns (introduced in EoF); you need much more mitigation and the differences between plate and leather has been reduced significantly.The +Mitigation% stat in TSO/TSF was a godsend for plate tanks; it allowed them to approach the cap once again so going into defensive stance gave a much higher increase in mitigation and was for some rough fights worth it. Brawlers tended to get avoidance stat on their armour and plate +mitigation% but now every tank gets the same stats the playing field has leveled again.The issue is not with brawlers being able to mitigate damage well... but plate tanks not being able to mitigate the hits they take enough. Like most of this game the current mechanics fail and have been patched up so many times the balance between the differences is completly off.

The_Cheeseman

10-26-2011, 06:27 PM

<cite>Boli@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>The issue is not with brawlers being able to mitigate damage well... but plate tanks not being able to mitigate the hits they take enough. Like most of this game the current mechanics fail and have been patched up so many times the balance between the differences is completly off.</blockquote>I agree with this, which is why I suggested that the optimal solution is to adjust the mitigation curve so that plate tanks get more benefit from mitigation. I can't vouch for the accuracy of your calculations, but I definitely feel that increasing the overall damage reduction abilities of plate tanks would be the best way to handle the current fighter imbalances without accidentally breaking anything.Obviously, I still strongly believe that uncontested avoidance and strikethrough need to go, but that's a major overhaul and we should take things one step at a time (knowing SOE's tendency to drive nails with a sledgehammer).

Talathion

10-26-2011, 08:58 PM

I think avoiding an attack that was meant to hit you should take a stoneskin trigger regardless if it hit you or not:Your stoneskin absorbed 0 damage because you avoided the attack.

Controlor

10-26-2011, 09:53 PM

<cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Boli@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>The issue is not with brawlers being able to mitigate damage well... but plate tanks not being able to mitigate the hits they take enough. Like most of this game the current mechanics fail and have been patched up so many times the balance between the differences is completly off.</blockquote>I agree with this, which is why I suggested that the optimal solution is to adjust the mitigation curve so that plate tanks get more benefit from mitigation. I can't vouch for the accuracy of your calculations, but I definitely feel that increasing the overall damage reduction abilities of plate tanks would be the best way to handle the current fighter imbalances without accidentally breaking anything.Obviously, I still strongly believe that uncontested avoidance and strikethrough need to go, but that's a major overhaul and we should take things one step at a time (knowing SOE's tendency to drive nails with a sledgehammer).</blockquote>The issue with widening the mit gap is that you will either do 1 of 2 things. 1 plate tanks will hit the cap again (which happened in SF and guards and lesser extent zerkers were complaining about this). 2 The gap may be widened to much in which case the brawlers will once more get one shotted consistantly if they fail an avoidance (which the brawlers will obviously complain about). The gaps between mit and avoid should be there but NEITHER one of them should be greater than say 15-20% of each other. So brawlers should have at most 15-20% less mit value vs plate tank, while having at most 15-20% more uncontested avoid vs plate tank. This avoid range would include strike through, so even if mob had 50% strike through the avoid difference between plate and brawler should be no more than 20%.

Bruener

10-26-2011, 10:45 PM

<cite>Controlor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Boli@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>The issue is not with brawlers being able to mitigate damage well... but plate tanks not being able to mitigate the hits they take enough. Like most of this game the current mechanics fail and have been patched up so many times the balance between the differences is completly off.</blockquote>I agree with this, which is why I suggested that the optimal solution is to adjust the mitigation curve so that plate tanks get more benefit from mitigation. I can't vouch for the accuracy of your calculations, but I definitely feel that increasing the overall damage reduction abilities of plate tanks would be the best way to handle the current fighter imbalances without accidentally breaking anything.Obviously, I still strongly believe that uncontested avoidance and strikethrough need to go, but that's a major overhaul and we should take things one step at a time (knowing SOE's tendency to drive nails with a sledgehammer).</blockquote>The issue with widening the mit gap is that you will either do 1 of 2 things. 1 plate tanks will hit the cap again (which happened in SF and guards and lesser extent zerkers were complaining about this). 2 The gap may be widened to much in which case the brawlers will once more get one shotted consistantly if they fail an avoidance (which the brawlers will obviously complain about). The gaps between mit and avoid should be there but NEITHER one of them should be greater than say 15-20% of each other. So brawlers should have at most 15-20% less mit value vs plate tank, while having at most 15-20% more uncontested avoid vs plate tank. This avoid range would include strike through, so even if mob had 50% strike through the avoid difference between plate and brawler should be no more than 20%.</blockquote>The problem is that you are making it an avoid v mit issue when it should be avoid v total damage taken. Mitigation is not the only stat to reduce damage taken.So SOE makes it so that Brawlers take similar damage on hits as Plates to avoid random one shots while not only keeping their avoidance superior, but also making them immune to a mechanic that is supposed to contest that avoidance. SOE can't widen the gap on damage taken because they know it will make things streaky. So since they can't do that than the avoidance gap needs to be much smaller as well to balance.

The_Cheeseman

10-26-2011, 11:11 PM

My suggestion is to widen the gap upwards, meaning that brawlers would not be affected, but plate tanks would mitigate more damage than they do now. This wouldn't make brawler tanking any more streaky than it is currently, but it would make the plate tanks' superior damage reduction relevant again. I am not terribly worried about reaching the mitigation cap against level 96+ epic MOBs.The concern about increasing strikethrough levels on MOBs in the future is not a class balance issue, it is a content design issue. Classes should not be altered because of poorly-designed content, instead the content should be altered to make it an appropriate challenge without invalidating class abilities. If MOBs have too much strikethough, then we need to get SOE to either lower the strikethrough values--as they have in the past--or produce future content that does not rely so heavily on unbalanced mechanics.

The_Cheeseman

10-26-2011, 11:15 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>The problem is that you are making it an avoid v mit issue when it should be avoid v total damage taken. Mitigation is not the only stat to reduce damage taken.So SOE makes it so that Brawlers take similar damage on hits as Plates to avoid random one shots while not only keeping their avoidance superior, but also making them immune to a mechanic that is supposed to contest that avoidance. SOE can't widen the gap on damage taken because they know it will make things streaky. So since they can't do that than the avoidance gap needs to be much smaller as well to balance.</blockquote>So you want brawlers to take the same amount of damage per hit as plate tanks, while also avoiding the same number of attacks as plate tanks? You're confusing balance with homogeneity. If I wanted my brawler to play like a plate tank, I would have rolled a plate tank. Removing individuality from the classes defeats the purpose of even having multiple classes at all. This makes balance irrelevant.My suggestion is to keep brawlers unique by maintaining their intended strengths and restoring their intended weaknesses.

Bruener

10-26-2011, 11:32 PM

<cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>The problem is that you are making it an avoid v mit issue when it should be avoid v total damage taken. Mitigation is not the only stat to reduce damage taken.So SOE makes it so that Brawlers take similar damage on hits as Plates to avoid random one shots while not only keeping their avoidance superior, but also making them immune to a mechanic that is supposed to contest that avoidance. SOE can't widen the gap on damage taken because they know it will make things streaky. So since they can't do that than the avoidance gap needs to be much smaller as well to balance.</blockquote>So you want brawlers to take the same amount of damage per hit as plate tanks, while also avoiding the same number of attacks as plate tanks? You're confusing balance with homogeneity. If I wanted my brawler to play like a plate tank, I would have rolled a plate tank. Removing individuality from the classes defeats the purpose of even having multiple classes at all. This makes balance irrelevant.My suggestion is to keep brawlers unique by maintaining their intended strengths and restoring their intended weaknesses.</blockquote>And in the mean time create even more reason to not need defensive healers right?The answer isn't always buffing and buffing fighters in survivability.And no, what I am saying is that avoidance needs to be at least as close damage taken is now. Strike through immunity is unneeded in todays game and really all that Brawlers would do is handle the same thing Plate tanks do now.Brawler identity was the great short term survivability tools they were given, they blended that when they made them the best long term tanks in the game as well.

Bruener

10-26-2011, 11:43 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Maybe if you actually looked outside of your little box of just balancing Fighters against each other and started thinking bigger about how to balance Fighters against everybody for overall usefullness and need you could see what having better Fighter DPS would do.</blockquote>Bruener, I understand where you are going for raid dps and asking for fighters to be raised. I completely get it, and empathize with where you are trying to go.It will never happen.The problem is the perceived impact of those changes to heroic parsing. Where fights are so short, the extra hits the fighter makes inflates their parse and people get buthurt about fighter parses as a result. I don't see them allowing fighters parse the same again for these reasons.</blockquote>Wanted to point out for those that can't seem to understand this concept...in SWTOR all classes are DPS. Its really not hard to understand how beneficial it is and how much more enjoyable it makes a game.The game has evolved far beyond having Fighters have junky dps.

Soul_Dreamer

10-27-2011, 09:15 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Maybe if you actually looked outside of your little box of just balancing Fighters against each other and started thinking bigger about how to balance Fighters against everybody for overall usefullness and need you could see what having better Fighter DPS would do.</blockquote>Bruener, I understand where you are going for raid dps and asking for fighters to be raised. I completely get it, and empathize with where you are trying to go.It will never happen.The problem is the perceived impact of those changes to heroic parsing. Where fights are so short, the extra hits the fighter makes inflates their parse and people get buthurt about fighter parses as a result. I don't see them allowing fighters parse the same again for these reasons.</blockquote>Wanted to point out for those that can't seem to understand this concept...in SWTOR all classes are DPS. Its really not hard to understand how beneficial it is and how much more enjoyable it makes a game.The game has evolved far beyond having Fighters have junky dps.</blockquote>It may well be, but descisions like this need to be introduced during the design phase of a game and then other parts of the game built around it.

Bruener

10-27-2011, 12:57 PM

<cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Maybe if you actually looked outside of your little box of just balancing Fighters against each other and started thinking bigger about how to balance Fighters against everybody for overall usefullness and need you could see what having better Fighter DPS would do.</blockquote>Bruener, I understand where you are going for raid dps and asking for fighters to be raised. I completely get it, and empathize with where you are trying to go.It will never happen.The problem is the perceived impact of those changes to heroic parsing. Where fights are so short, the extra hits the fighter makes inflates their parse and people get buthurt about fighter parses as a result. I don't see them allowing fighters parse the same again for these reasons.</blockquote>Wanted to point out for those that can't seem to understand this concept...in SWTOR all classes are DPS. Its really not hard to understand how beneficial it is and how much more enjoyable it makes a game.The game has evolved far beyond having Fighters have junky dps.</blockquote>It may well be, but descisions like this need to be introduced during the design phase of a game and then other parts of the game built around it.</blockquote>That really is a lame excuse, and I don't buy it.Fighter DPS was fine in SF, and T1 DPS was at the level it should be. The point of it is that you don't detriment the raid by bringing extra Fighters. The raid needs so many utility, so many Healers, and so many Fighters for doing their other purposes. By creating this huge gap you just put huge limitations on raid composition.Other games are figuring it out. More flexibility is always better. This rigid caste system does not work.

Nulgara

10-27-2011, 02:01 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Maybe if you actually looked outside of your little box of just balancing Fighters against each other and started thinking bigger about how to balance Fighters against everybody for overall usefullness and need you could see what having better Fighter DPS would do.</blockquote>Bruener, I understand where you are going for raid dps and asking for fighters to be raised. I completely get it, and empathize with where you are trying to go.It will never happen.The problem is the perceived impact of those changes to heroic parsing. Where fights are so short, the extra hits the fighter makes inflates their parse and people get buthurt about fighter parses as a result. I don't see them allowing fighters parse the same again for these reasons.</blockquote>Wanted to point out for those that can't seem to understand this concept...in SWTOR all classes are DPS. Its really not hard to understand how beneficial it is and how much more enjoyable it makes a game.The game has evolved far beyond having Fighters have junky dps.</blockquote>It may well be, but descisions like this need to be introduced during the design phase of a game and then other parts of the game built around it.</blockquote>That really is a lame excuse, and I don't buy it.Fighter DPS was fine in SF, and T1 DPS was at the level it should be. The point of it is that you don't detriment the raid by bringing extra Fighters. The raid needs so many utility, so many Healers, and so many Fighters for doing their other purposes. By creating this huge gap you just put huge limitations on raid composition.Other games are figuring it out. More flexibility is always better. This rigid caste system does not work.</blockquote>Perhaps its just me but everything you jsut said makes no sense at all. First you think all classes should jsut be dps in one post then turn around and revert that SF dps across the board was fine the way it was.. sorry no it wasnt. then you go on to say you need ot have so many of each type of utility and healers and such. then turn right around and say we dont need rigid class systems.Do YOU even know what you jsut said?Anyway just read the whole thread (someone shoot me please cause that was like 150 posts saying the same thing back and forth). Some good ideas in here and of course some of the same old prattle from folks who have less then no clue.lot of brawler hate going on these days. I'll agree it SEEMS brawlers are overpowered, it only seems that way cause there are some plate tanks that ARE underpowered at teh moment. fix the underpowered.make all temp immunity buffs such as Furor and Stonewall and such strikethrough immune. - pretty sure everyone agrees on that.increase plate tank self mitigation values, this alone fixes the avoid v mit issues. yes my brawler can hit 10k+mit with ALL his temps running. its not an all the time thing, its for when the RNG decides to dislike him. but lets take that number 10k mit. (hypthetical numbers being used for display) so lets take that 10k number say for instance that made bralwers have 70% mit vs a 98 (it doesnt but bear with me) in my opinion this particular thing makes sense. temp buffs running brawler reduces physical dmg to a point the healers can maintain the tanks health. now personally i think a plate tank shoudl be at 75%+ vs a lvl 98 raid mob when raid buffed. (yes we all know its cake for a plate tank to hit 70%+ vs a lvl 90 mob but we also all know you arent even close to that vs a lvl 9<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> .. Mitigation is what needs to be fixed/improved for plate tanks, leave the brawler alone ENTIRELY it took YEARS for them to get where they are. so lets fix what needs fixing.Leave Strikethrough alone. you fix mit, avoidance doesnt need ot be touched.. it took SOE 6 years to figure out how to make avoidance actually work .. leave it ALONE.some other changes i would make (doesnt mean im right jsut my thoughts)change adrenaline back to what it was, but drop it 5% from what it used to be.(or leave it depends on how it tests out)SK change blood siphon to a maintained buff that parses your lifetaps and when receiving a killing blow you are automatically healed for how much life you tapped since the start of the fight- after trigger 20-30 sec reuse recastable in combat or it stays maintained and regenerates a trigger after use in about 30 seconds. (to make this work lifetap effects will need to be boosted to make it worth a crap, again refined through testing - shouldnt be a full heal but enough so that the next attack doesnt finish you of before healers get a chance to heal you) essentially a different approach to having a stoneskin that instead of blocking a full hit takes the hit and heals you if your health pool fails and this would trigger before bloodletter, essentially this kinda gives us our third bloodletter trigger, but will porc before bloodletter because lets face it bloodletter always seems to proc on the auto-attack immediately following a nasty ae and then we just kill people.SK - increase lifetap amountsSK - reduce recast on Touch of Death to 2 minutes basepali - change the self target big heal (not LoH the other one) to a self 2 trigger stoneskin on a 20-30 sec recast.pali - get rid of amends, change it to a force target rescue on a 2 minute recastcrusader heroic tree endlines - get rid of them all and give us almsot anything else.but make them defensive minded or at least 2 defensive choices and 1 offensive in the latter choice you can keep the smite and ditch the other 2 ,, i think we can all agree that Manawall is the stupidest thing ive seen in a long time.warrior heroic endlines - same as crusadersomeone else will have to come up with any more specific stuff for warriors. i dont play one.all fighters - make intercept useful. aka when targetting a non-fighter it works liek it does now, when you cast it on another fighter it stays up indefinately until that tank dies and on death transfers that fighters hate position to the fighter that cast it on them. can not be overwritten by another tank, will allow OT's some cool tools. for isntance on my raid force we roll with 3 tanks one of each archetype. (specifically monk, guard, sk) if guard is mt monk can cast intercept on guard and immediately gain agro in teh event of a death touch or kill shot, leaving the sk free to intercept people that the mob memwipes to. and if guard goes down monk gets agro sk immediately casts intercept on monk, and when guard is back in action sk removes theirs allowing guard to use theirs on monk and second ot goes back to doing their thing for memwipes and such.and no fighter heals dont need to crit.. their base healing needs to be increased to compensate for the increase in player health.and again dont change brawlers at all. if necessary make them the target point of where the rest of the tanks need to be surviability wise. but change mitigation on the other tanks to get there.. mit changes plus the above for crusaders i think is a good start and possibly all that might be needed.

Bruener

10-27-2011, 04:39 PM

<cite>Nulgara@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Maybe if you actually looked outside of your little box of just balancing Fighters against each other and started thinking bigger about how to balance Fighters against everybody for overall usefullness and need you could see what having better Fighter DPS would do.</blockquote>Bruener, I understand where you are going for raid dps and asking for fighters to be raised. I completely get it, and empathize with where you are trying to go.It will never happen.The problem is the perceived impact of those changes to heroic parsing. Where fights are so short, the extra hits the fighter makes inflates their parse and people get buthurt about fighter parses as a result. I don't see them allowing fighters parse the same again for these reasons.</blockquote>Wanted to point out for those that can't seem to understand this concept...in SWTOR all classes are DPS. Its really not hard to understand how beneficial it is and how much more enjoyable it makes a game.The game has evolved far beyond having Fighters have junky dps.</blockquote>It may well be, but descisions like this need to be introduced during the design phase of a game and then other parts of the game built around it.</blockquote>That really is a lame excuse, and I don't buy it.Fighter DPS was fine in SF, and T1 DPS was at the level it should be. The point of it is that you don't detriment the raid by bringing extra Fighters. The raid needs so many utility, so many Healers, and so many Fighters for doing their other purposes. By creating this huge gap you just put huge limitations on raid composition.Other games are figuring it out. More flexibility is always better. This rigid caste system does not work.</blockquote>Perhaps its just me but everything you jsut said makes no sense at all. First you think all classes should jsut be dps in one post then turn around and revert that SF dps across the board was fine the way it was.. sorry no it wasnt. then you go on to say you need ot have so many of each type of utility and healers and such. then turn right around and say we dont need rigid class systems.</blockquote>Its simple really. In SF Fighter DPS was good. In SF the difference in DPS for T1 DPS and everybody else was a lot smaller...it was easy for a very well played other class to out DPS a T1 DPS that was not well played.So if everybody could parse similar DPS numbers, with T1 DPS just 20% higher the game becomes a lot less completely DPS focused and allows a lot more flexibility on raid composition. The best players can do both at the same time (whether its heals and DPS, or utility and DPS, or tanking and DPS), the best DPS players would still bring a little more DPS (20%, not 150%), and its not like they are completely void on utility.So the above is about what should happen in general for the health of this game. People using the lame excuse that this should have been done from the get go and it is too late, that really is no excuse. This game is a completely different game than it is from launch and at any time they can make changes like this for the better. Look at the massive difference between SF and DoV. Huge DPS gaps, completely different itemization and stat consolidation. Its really a vastly different game than it was even a year ago.As for the rest of your ideas, yes things need to be done to balance Fighters against each other. Increasing all Fighters is not the answer, and really there is already an issue with a lack of need for Defensive healers. Making the Fighters more and more self reliant like Brawlers are means less and less need of those type of healers.

Nulgara

10-27-2011, 05:03 PM

I can understand the desire to parse higher and have a tighter grouping on dps but it is not necessary.its a pathetically simple fix really, if its the additional hate gained through dps that your after..its easy, change every taunt in the game to taunt harder. taunts are pathetic always have been. snap agro is king when it comes to regaining lost agro and what not.so lets analyze, so my hardest hitting taunt, grave sac. base taunt with my stats i think is 17.5k or so and it crits for over 30k or so .. is a very nice taunt but doesnt do squat after a memwipe drops you to 0.being my best taunt that thing shoudl be hitting well over 100k pure agro. plus the dmg it does.not sure about you guys everyone wants different things, but i have 0 need to be in the top 10 on the parse as a tank. i'ld be perfectly happy being last on the dps parse if my taunts were actually worth a crap.in my opinion you shoudlnt nbeed 3 trransfers and every dps buff in the world to do your primary job as a tank.. dps classes dont require having every possible buff under the sun to do their job tanks shouldn't need it either.so lets say fighter fully aa'd and with a conservative 18-22% self hate mod. with one transfer boom 50% or so hate increase.change all taunts to hit hard enough ot equal t1 dps in an equally geared circumstance. so basically if your t1's are doing 300k+ then your taunts + your dmg are gonan get dang close to equalling that 300k, but the kicker is it wasnt achieved through dmg it was achieved through your class doing your primary job which is staying alive and holding agro.. dps doesnt have to be the only way that is achieved. and the only valid reason any of you coudl come up with for a tanking needing more dps is precisely for maintaining agro. any reasons outside of that are simply selfish desires.if your that hell bent on dps increases play a dps class. it does not have to be dps that gets increased for fighters.edit: on the other side, if your entire basis for wanting more dps is because all your raid members want to see is huge dps numbers well, thats a different issue and doesnt have a dang thing to do with balance. but im sure i dont have to tell anyone here thats its not all about the dps parse right?

Talathion

10-27-2011, 05:19 PM

<cite>Nulgara@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>I can understand the desire to parse higher and have a tighter grouping on dps but it is not necessary.its a pathetically simple fix really, if its the additional hate gained through dps that your after..its easy, change every taunt in the game to taunt harder. taunts are pathetic always have been. snap agro is king when it comes to regaining lost agro and what not.so lets analyze, so my hardest hitting taunt, grave sac. base taunt with my stats i think is 17.5k or so and it crits for over 30k or so .. is a very nice taunt but doesnt do squat after a memwipe drops you to 0.being my best taunt that thing shoudl be hitting well over 100k pure agro. plus the dmg it does.not sure about you guys everyone wants different things, but i have 0 need to be in the top 10 on the parse as a tank. i'ld be perfectly happy being last on the dps parse if my taunts were actually worth a crap.in my opinion you shoudlnt nbeed 3 trransfers and every dps buff in the world to do your primary job as a tank.. dps classes dont require having every possible buff under the sun to do their job tanks shouldn't need it either.so lets say fighter fully aa'd and with a conservative 18-22% self hate mod. with one transfer boom 50% or so hate increase.change all taunts to hit hard enough ot equal t1 dps in an equally geared circumstance. so basically if your t1's are doing 300k+ then your taunts + your dmg are gonan get dang close to equalling that 300k, but the kicker is it wasnt achieved through dmg it was achieved through your class doing your primary job which is staying alive and holding agro.. dps doesnt have to be the only way that is achieved. and the only valid reason any of you coudl come up with for a tanking needing more dps is precisely for maintaining agro. any reasons outside of that are simply selfish desires.if your that hell bent on dps increases play a dps class. it does not have to be dps that gets increased for fighters.edit: on the other side, if your entire basis for wanting more dps is because all your raid members want to see is huge dps numbers well, thats a different issue and doesnt have a dang thing to do with balance. but im sure i dont have to tell anyone here thats its not all about the dps parse right?</blockquote>err... and how does this help with survivability...Since this entire post is about survivability?And Also, Improving taunts sounds like a bad idea.Heres what needs done:Fighter Heal Crits, but leave percent based healing not able to crit.Improved Defensive Stances - Add Stamina and Damage Reduction to Crusader/Warrior Defensive Stances.Remove Mitigation increase and make it damage reduction instead, so it actually does something.

Nulgara

10-27-2011, 05:29 PM

perhaps you shoudl go back and re-read the title of the post,survivability is only part of the equation, and in my previous post i put forth a few ideas for that.and by all means go head and post one valid reason why fighter heals need to crit in a raid environment where our self healing abilities dont account for much.our heals criting will unbalance group level tanking AGAIN. they dont need ot crit base values need ot be increased to compensate for increased player health and that is all.im absolutely certain that you cant come up with a single viable advantageous reason for fighter heals to crit in a raid setting.and by all means please tell me why you think increasing the power of taunts is a bad thing?and yes i do agree with you that the defensive stances need some changes especially the zerker one, ill give ya that for sure.

Talathion

10-27-2011, 05:48 PM

<cite>Nulgara@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>perhaps you shoudl go back and re-read the title of the post,survivability is only part of the equation, and in my previous post i put forth a few ideas for that.and by all means go head and post one valid reason why fighter heals need to crit in a raid environment where our self healing abilities dont account for much.our heals criting will unbalance group level tanking AGAIN. they dont need ot crit base values need ot be increased to compensate for increased player health and that is all.im absolutely certain that you cant come up with a single viable advantageous reason for fighter heals to crit in a raid setting.and by all means please tell me why you think increasing the power of taunts is a bad thing?and yes i do agree with you that the defensive stances need some changes especially the zerker one, ill give ya that for sure.</blockquote>Group Level tanking is already unbalanced, because Monks/Bruisers are way better at tanking in every way.Of course you play a 90 Monk so its understandable you don't want people near your level, and the heal critical nerf did nothing to stop your powerful "percent" based healing abilitys. Makes alot of sense that Monks Outheal Paladins.

Bruener

10-27-2011, 06:07 PM

Really you just don't get it. It is not simply a hate issue. It is a flexibility issue. Threat does not kill mobs, DPS kills mobs.I mean is it really that hard to understand why games are currently aiming to make DPS more level across all classes and than allowing them to specialize in the other areas? Save the "if you want to DPS than play a DPS class" argument....this is 2011 not 1999 and we are playing an MMO in a vast market of online gaming that has come a huge distance from that mentality in EQ1. If this game can't adapt it will just be even more subs leaving at the end of the year. By making it a level DPS field the game doesn't become so overly DPS-centric and people can enjoy the specialization more. Every encounter, and I mean every single encounter in this game...only gets easier the more DPS you have. Making such a huge gap just means limiting a ton on certain roles since it is all about bringing more DPS.

Netty

10-27-2011, 06:26 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Nulgara@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>perhaps you shoudl go back and re-read the title of the post,survivability is only part of the equation, and in my previous post i put forth a few ideas for that.and by all means go head and post one valid reason why fighter heals need to crit in a raid environment where our self healing abilities dont account for much.our heals criting will unbalance group level tanking AGAIN. they dont need ot crit base values need ot be increased to compensate for increased player health and that is all.im absolutely certain that you cant come up with a single viable advantageous reason for fighter heals to crit in a raid setting.and by all means please tell me why you think increasing the power of taunts is a bad thing?and yes i do agree with you that the defensive stances need some changes especially the zerker one, ill give ya that for sure.</blockquote>Group Level tanking is already unbalanced, because Monks/Bruisers are way better at tanking in every way.Of course you play a 90 Monk so its understandable you don't want people near your level, and the heal critical nerf did nothing to stop your powerful "percent" based healing abilitys. Makes alot of sense that Monks Outheal Paladins.</blockquote>Really just stop it. I cant take anymore of your bs atm. HEAL CRIT NERF WAS A GOOD AND NEEDED NERF. And zerks and crusaders dont need more heals to keep up. Maybe fix crusader heals some but the issue is not that. I dont think anyone cares about what you are saying since you only make ppl frustrated and pist. You are yet again pushing threads out of focus with your bs. And pls show me some parses where a monk is out healing a paladin. You just make things up all the time. Cant you pls stop stand in the way for things to get fixed/looked at for once? I know you wont so i dont know why i am even trying... And if you are claiming that zerks arnt a awsome group tank you should really stop playing one. Since i bet you a zerk/crusader can do things 100% easier than a brawler can. Even guards can tank heroic well now. Its not as fun as on a aoe tank but they still can do it.And no this thread is not only about surviveability its about what is needed to make things balanced. And yes you have posted a 100 times in alot of threads that you think fighter heals should crit so you have made your point. So just stop posting now and let the ppl that know what they are talking about get some ideas out.

Nulgara

10-27-2011, 06:35 PM

just an fyi my monk is sitting on a shelf for the exact reason that ild rather play my sk because he has a tougher time of it. but i woudlnt expect any of you to understand that.as for the dps arguement,, your an idiot. it doesnt have a dang thing to do with felxibilty its because you want more dps. dps does not kill mobs either ya know.. people alive to do the dps does, and fyi its the tank having THREAT that keeps them alive to do the dps. so lets bypass threat all together and what do you have 24 dead people because they are all bouncing threat back and forth and no one can hold the mob, but yeah go head and keep pushing for that.please by all means tell me where the specialization si going ot be if everyone has equal dps. dps being high or low is a trade-off to GET the other specialties in this game.. you dont like it .. buh-bye.or are you under the impression that if they gave you more dps you'ld also get to keep all the armor your wearing and all your taunts and what not.and like i said before if your raid force members have tunnel vision and its all about dps then they too are a bunch of morons.ill say it again its not all about dps. and im not going to bother listing all the other factors involved in killing a mob.you coudl have all the dps in the world and guess what you arent gonna kill a dang thing without a tank having threat a healer being able to heal and a whole host of other things going on all at the same time.but sorry i forgot we are focusing jsut on you and your dps numbers.

Corydonn

10-27-2011, 07:01 PM

<cite>Nulgara@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>dps does not kill mobs they too are a bunch of morons.</blockquote>Hahahahahaha.

Yimway

10-27-2011, 07:03 PM

Nulgara

10-27-2011, 07:06 PM

<cite>Corydonn wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Nulgara@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>dps does not kill mobs they too are a bunch of morons.</blockquote>Hahahahahaha.</blockquote>if your gonna quote, quote the whole sentance. a phrase out of context doesnt really mean much btw

Bruener

10-27-2011, 08:37 PM

<cite>Nulgara@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>just an fyi my monk is sitting on a shelf for the exact reason that ild rather play my sk because he has a tougher time of it. but i woudlnt expect any of you to understand that.as for the dps arguement,, your an idiot. it doesnt have a dang thing to do with felxibilty its because you want more dps. dps does not kill mobs either ya know.. people alive to do the dps does, and fyi its the tank having THREAT that keeps them alive to do the dps. so lets bypass threat all together and what do you have 24 dead people because they are all bouncing threat back and forth and no one can hold the mob, but yeah go head and keep pushing for that.please by all means tell me where the specialization si going ot be if everyone has equal dps. dps being high or low is a trade-off to GET the other specialties in this game.. you dont like it .. buh-bye.or are you under the impression that if they gave you more dps you'ld also get to keep all the armor your wearing and all your taunts and what not.and like i said before if your raid force members have tunnel vision and its all about dps then they too are a bunch of morons.ill say it again its not all about dps. and im not going to bother listing all the other factors involved in killing a mob.you coudl have all the dps in the world and guess what you arent gonna kill a dang thing without a tank having threat a healer being able to heal and a whole host of other things going on all at the same time.but sorry i forgot we are focusing jsut on you and your dps numbers.</blockquote>Yep, can't explain sense to somebody that obviously is lacking.As an example pretend that every single class starts at an even DPS, period. Doesn't matter if you are a bard/chanter/healer/tank/rogue/summoner/ranger/assassin...whatever. All equal. Than you have focuses in certain areas. Healers can heal. Fighters tank. Rogues debuff. Utility adds utility. Than you have the T1 class that by design specialize in DPS and because they do they push out 20% more DPS.Its really not that hard to grasp how with that kind of set up the game completely moves away from being absolutely DPS focused....since that is what everybody does. Instead it is about the other areas and how a class excels. It really becomes about the players skill instead of about the fact that hey we need a buff bot bard, or hey lets just try and take 2 Fighters, 4 bards, 4 chanters, 5 healers, and the rest T1 DPS since they destroy everybody else.I am sorry that you are so limited in your vision that you can't see how this caste system of DPS is probably the biggest issue with EQ2 today.And Cory laughed because you stating that DPS is not what kills mobs is really quite funny because that is exactly what kills mobs. And there is a reason that every single encounter in this game gets extremely easier the more DPS you can do.To the point about its the tank holding threat that kills mobs....you do realize that probably the majority of the Tanks "threat" doesn't come from the tank right? I mean when an Assassin is pumping out 300k DPS with a 24% transfer they are feeding 72k threat per second. Throw in the Coercer transferring. Throw in siphons some tanks have. Throw in reactive procs from other classes. So yeah, its mostly the DPS from others once again doing all the work.

Nulgara

10-27-2011, 09:07 PM

your proposed system doesnt change anything dude. you will end up with exactly the same raid set up you have now, why you might ask cause you only need so many of each class you talked about and the rest will still be all top end dps'ers 100% focused on dps. so guess what they arent gonan have transfers and the like in a system like that.anyway you shoudl go back and read the post i made about threat. it clearly states that with changes to threat generation for TANKS, you woudl not require the multitude of hate ppush form other classes jsut to do your PRIMARY job.and I know why Cory laughed, but go head and spend some time ot think it over.. sure the damage is what kills the mob. BUT if you dont have someone AKA a TANK holding threat, all the dps in the world isnt going ot kill that mob cause all your dps is eating floor.my point on the post about threat is getting away form the MT's dependancy on every hate buff and dps buff in the world having to be on them jsut to be able ot do their job. a lot of those buffs coudl and woudl be better served elsewhere.I must have worded it badly or something, but do you see where I am coming form now? my point in all this is tanking isnt jsut about surviving the hits. theres more to it than that,, you know that. and I for the life of me cant figure out why all these tanks are so resistant to the idea that they should be 100% self sufficient on holding agro. after all we absolutely require healing to do our job already, dont you all agree there shoudl be some facet of tanking that we can cover all on our own.. after all dps doesnt need anyhting but their weapons to do their thing, they can absolutely dps without buffs, healers can heal themselves as well if not better then they can heal us. doesnt it stand to reason that at a minimum we shoudl absolutely be able to hold our own on agro. and im suggesting a way for that to happen without super-inflating our dps to do so.I'm all for reducing the gap between dps tiers. it is out of control we all know that. but a redesign in the magnitude your talking about is a much bigger undertaking then i think your aware of. that is a ton of dev work and isnt absolutely necessary although woudl be nice.

Soul_Dreamer

10-27-2011, 09:17 PM

increase plate tank self mitigation values, this alone fixes the avoid v mit issues. yes my brawler can hit 10k+mit with ALL his temps running. its not an all the time thing, its for when the RNG decides to dislike him. but lets take that number 10k mit. (hypthetical numbers being used for display) so lets take that 10k number say for instance that made bralwers have 70% mit vs a 98 (it doesnt but bear with me) in my opinion this particular thing makes sense. temp buffs running brawler reduces physical dmg to a point the healers can maintain the tanks health. now personally i think a plate tank shoudl be at 75%+ vs a lvl 98 raid mob when raid buffed. (yes we all know its cake for a plate tank to hit 70%+ vs a lvl 90 mob but we also all know you arent even close to that vs a lvl 9 .. Mitigation is what needs to be fixed/improved for plate tanks, leave the brawler alone ENTIRELY it took YEARS for them to get where they are. so lets fix what needs fixing.Sorry if I'm reading this wrong, but you think a fine and dandy fix will be if Brawlers have 70% Mit and Plate tanks have 75%? That 5% gap in mitigation with the huge gap in avoidance is exactly were we are now, how has this balanced anything?IF mitigation is to change, then it's the curve that will need to be changed and I'm sorry but Brawlers will need to be substantially further away from plate tanks than they currently are.Back in TSO and early SF Brawlers actually took less damage over all than plate tanks and the above was the case.... BUT, and this is the big BUT, spikes would kill them. Changing the mitigation curve to bring brawlers so they're just above this point will be hard, because it will need to be done across all content, more than likely changing the curve will take Brawlers back to being killed if the RNG hates on them, or that Brawlers need top end gear to tank any content due to the higher mit (as it was previously), this is a really crappy idea.The mitigation can't change much because brawler NEED to live through content as well, the only other way this can swing is to allow plate tanks to mitigate up to 80%/85% damage, and then what happens when SOE want to make content harder? They make mobs hit harder, then the above, where Brawlers are dying to hits just happens again anyway because you've essentially just duplicated the scenario.The only viable, long term solution is to ensure that plate tanks and brawlers use similar survival mechanics, "Avoidance" tanking just doesn't work, it's a very very fine balance that needs to be reached and this balace can be broken or swayed very easily. Mitigation values are currently in or around the 10% mark, keep Avoidance around that area as well or at least in an amount that is balanced and it's fine, it really is. Strike through DOES acheive this, but the amount of strikethrough in game has grown too large and shifted the balance towards the Brawler tanks.I don't believe mitigation changes will effect anything positively long term. Which leaves 2 solutions.1. Strikethrough is strictly limited to up to ~15/20%.2. Strikethrough is strictly limited to up to ~15/20% except a few of the hardest encounters AND Strikethrough is changed to be similar to Crit mit, where brawler tanks have 20% innate, and plate tanks have none. This way as content gets harder it at least effects both tanks. Realistically since then it's all but a select few mobs with strikethrough higher than 20% brawlers aren't even loosing anything.....Block chance/Strikethrough amount/new block chance.Plate45%/5%/42.75%45%/10%/40.5%45%/15%/38.25%45%/20%/36%45%/25%/33.75%45%/30%/31.5%45%/35%/29.25%45%/40%/27%45%/45%/24.75%45%/50%/22.5%45%/55%/20.25%45%/60%/18%Brawler55%/5%(0)/55%55%/10%(0)/55%55%/15%(0)/55%55%/20%(0)/55%55%/25%(5)/52.25%55%/30%(10)/49.5%55%/35%(15)/46.75%55%/40%(20)/44%55%/45%(25)/41.25%55%/50%(30)/38.5%55%/55%(35)/35.75%55%/60%(40)/33%

Nulgara

10-27-2011, 09:34 PM

<cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote>increase plate tank self mitigation values, this alone fixes the avoid v mit issues. yes my brawler can hit 10k+mit with ALL his temps running. its not an all the time thing, its for when the RNG decides to dislike him. but lets take that number 10k mit. (hypthetical numbers being used for display) so lets take that 10k number say for instance that made bralwers have 70% mit vs a 98 (it doesnt but bear with me) in my opinion this particular thing makes sense. temp buffs running brawler reduces physical dmg to a point the healers can maintain the tanks health. now personally i think a plate tank shoudl be at 75%+ vs a lvl 98 raid mob when raid buffed. (yes we all know its cake for a plate tank to hit 70%+ vs a lvl 90 mob but we also all know you arent even close to that vs a lvl 9 .. Mitigation is what needs to be fixed/improved for plate tanks, leave the brawler alone ENTIRELY it took YEARS for them to get where they are. so lets fix what needs fixing.Sorry if I'm reading this wrong, but you think a fine and dandy fix will be if Brawlers have 70% Mit and Plate tanks have 75%? That 5% gap in mitigation with the huge gap in avoidance is exactly were we are now, how has this balanced anything?IF mitigation is to change, then it's the curve that will need to be changed and I'm sorry but Brawlers will need to be substantially further away from plate tanks than they currently are.Back in TSO and early SF Brawlers actually took less damage over all than plate tanks and the above was the case.... BUT, and this is the big BUT, spikes would kill them. Changing the mitigation curve to bring brawlers so they're just above this point will be hard, because it will need to be done across all content, more than likely changing the curve will take Brawlers back to being killed if the RNG hates on them, or that Brawlers need top end gear to tank any content due to the higher mit (as it was previously), this is a really crappy idea.The mitigation can't change much because brawler NEED to live through content as well, the only other way this can swing is to allow plate tanks to mitigate up to 80%/85% damage, and then what happens when SOE want to make content harder? They make mobs hit harder, then the above, where Brawlers are dying to hits just happens again anyway because you've essentially just duplicated the scenario.The only viable, long term solution is to ensure that plate tanks and brawlers use similar survival mechanics, "Avoidance" tanking just doesn't work, it's a very very fine balance that needs to be reached and this balace can be broken or swayed very easily. Mitigation values are currently in or around the 10% mark, keep Avoidance around that area as well or at least in an amount that is balanced and it's fine, it really is. Strike through DOES acheive this, but the amount of strikethrough in game has grown too large and shifted the balance towards the Brawler tanks.I don't believe mitigation changes will effect anything positively long term. Which leaves 2 solutions.1. Strikethrough is strictly limited to up to ~15/20%.2. Strikethrough is strictly limited to up to ~15/20% except a few of the hardest encounters AND Strikethrough is changed to be similar to Crit mit, where brawler tanks have 20% innate, and plate tanks have none. This way as content gets harder it at least effects both tanks. Realistically since then it's all but a select few mobs with strikethrough higher than 20% brawlers aren't even loosing anything.....Block chance/Strikethrough amount/new block chance.Plate45%/5%/42.75%45%/10%/40.5%45%/15%/38.25%45%/20%/36%45%/25%/33.75%45%/30%/31.5%45%/35%/29.25%45%/40%/27%45%/45%/24.75%45%/50%/22.5%45%/55%/20.25%45%/60%/18%Brawler55%/5%(0)/55%55%/10%(0)/55%55%/15%(0)/55%55%/20%(0)/55%55%/25%(5)/52.25%55%/30%(10)/49.5%55%/35%(15)/46.75%55%/40%(20)/44%55%/45%(25)/41.25%55%/50%(30)/38.5%55%/55%(35)/35.75%55%/60%(40)/33%</blockquote>the 70 and 75 were hypothetical numbers. sadly i do not know the exact curve on mitigation for a lvl 90 vs a lvl 98 mob. but i doubt either tank is near 75% right now due to the diminishing returns issues. my own thoughts a raid geared lvl 90 tank pretty much all of us shoudl be at 75% vs a lvl 90. but as you go up to tank a lvl 98 i have a feeling it slides down considerably. again i dont have the math for that value so cant support my hypothesis. but if and this is also hypothetical. if a 90 monk with 10K+ mit is at 70% vs a 98 then that number shoudl be adjsuted down a smidge. but if my feeling is correct and it puts them somewhere in the 60-65% mit vs a 98 range then yes increasing mit to put plate tanks raid geared out at 75% mit vs that same mob could be a step in teh right direction to get surivabilty closer to where it shoudl be across all tanks..I do however like your thoughts on strikethrough and I would be willing to try it out, but it woudl absolutely need heavy and seriosu testing before ever getting pushed ot the live game. as has been said in this thread awhile back brawler tanking balance is a very sensitive thing. not to downplay plate balance but superior mitigation values are superior to avoidance. that being said i also agree the curve on both sides shoudl be evenly fair.. that doesnt necessarily mean 20% avoid = 20% mit but im sure with some data mining we coudl find the equivalent. the streak factor of avoidance also needs ot be accounted for when compared to the static value of mitigation.either way there will be a numerical sweet spot with both ideas. finding it is the hard part cause of our limited ability to see what our mitigation value really is vs that lvl 98 mob. perhaps we can beg some devs to actually give us that info. which woudl make it massively easier to figure out the sweet spot. regardless i am quite interested to see exactly what the mit values of tanks are vs those lvl 98 mobs. without that information its all conjecture.but yes i do like your idea on the matter and after some really good testing i do believe it coudl work rather well to normalize survivability amongst all tank types.

Netty

10-27-2011, 09:58 PM

Really thats all fine and good. But as some did say. Will this make the tanks more balanced? No. Guards and brawlers will still be up there with them.Zerks need Adrenaline fixed. Guardian stone skin will still be better on the heavy hits. Zerks also need more UT to bring something els than just OTing. A small damage proc on Berserk would fix that. Hate siphon instead of the Combat skill Raid focus will help with the aggro problem. Striketough buff need to be added somewhere to help with the low hit rates.Pally Need a stone skin buff of some sort. Add stone skin triggers to one of the heals or what ever they need something. They also need a snap aggro tool with abit of range on it.Manawall need to have its power drain lower to absorb a few attacks attacks.Sk sk need a damage reduction effect on the mythbuff. And replace the taunt resist stuff that you add on DM and replace it with a hate siphon. Replace the small heal siphons with %ish heals.All fighters temp buffs need to do what they say they do 100% should be 100% so strikethough immunety need to be placed on these.I also would like them to change it so Crusaders can move when casting their spells. Makes no sens to me that they cant.I like your idea with the over all mit but your strikethough idea isent something i would like them to do. Plate tanks need to mitigate damage more than brawlers as they need to be able to avoid more as they do atm. I would say leave the avoidance alone as it is now and only add immunety on the temp buffs on the plates. Fix or nerf the brawler mit some not sure how it will work best would be to boost up plate tanks mit over all. And have more mit bonus on the Dstance or something like that.

Gungo

10-28-2011, 01:42 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Wanted to point out for those that can't seem to understand this concept...in SWTOR all classes are DPS. Its really not hard to understand how beneficial it is and how much more enjoyable it makes a game.The game has evolved far beyond having Fighters have junky dps.</blockquote>And in SWTOR all classes can heal and all classes can tank and if you focus on dps you cant tank or heal.All classes have roles in SWTOR if you decide to be a trooper vanguard shield specialist your dps DOES IN FACT BLOW compared to a trooper commando gunner. Your obviously talking about a game you have NO IDEA about. There is no class in SWTOR that can TANK end game content and DPS anywhere near the top dps classes. Which is where you are crying about claiming all tanks should be able to tank raids while crying that your should be doing rogue level of dps and nerfing tier 1 dps so your shadowknight can have a chance to outparse them as well. What you want is completely broken and overpowered and even in SWTOR DOESNT ALLOW.The only thing you pointed out are lies and exaggerations.

Novusod

10-28-2011, 06:06 AM

<cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote>increase plate tank self mitigation values, this alone fixes the avoid v mit issues. yes my brawler can hit 10k+mit with ALL his temps running. its not an all the time thing, its for when the RNG decides to dislike him. but lets take that number 10k mit. (hypthetical numbers being used for display) so lets take that 10k number say for instance that made bralwers have 70% mit vs a 98 (it doesnt but bear with me) in my opinion this particular thing makes sense. temp buffs running brawler reduces physical dmg to a point the healers can maintain the tanks health. now personally i think a plate tank shoudl be at 75%+ vs a lvl 98 raid mob when raid buffed. (yes we all know its cake for a plate tank to hit 70%+ vs a lvl 90 mob but we also all know you arent even close to that vs a lvl 9 .. Mitigation is what needs to be fixed/improved for plate tanks, leave the brawler alone ENTIRELY it took YEARS for them to get where they are. so lets fix what needs fixing.Sorry if I'm reading this wrong, but you think a fine and dandy fix will be if Brawlers have 70% Mit and Plate tanks have 75%? That 5% gap in mitigation with the huge gap in avoidance is exactly were we are now, how has this balanced anything?IF mitigation is to change, then it's the curve that will need to be changed and I'm sorry but Brawlers will need to be substantially further away from plate tanks than they currently are.Back in TSO and early SF Brawlers actually took less damage over all than plate tanks and the above was the case.... BUT, and this is the big BUT, spikes would kill them. Changing the mitigation curve to bring brawlers so they're just above this point will be hard, because it will need to be done across all content, more than likely changing the curve will take Brawlers back to being killed if the RNG hates on them, or that Brawlers need top end gear to tank any content due to the higher mit (as it was previously), this is a really crappy idea.The mitigation can't change much because brawler NEED to live through content as well, the only other way this can swing is to allow plate tanks to mitigate up to 80%/85% damage, and then what happens when SOE want to make content harder? They make mobs hit harder, then the above, where Brawlers are dying to hits just happens again anyway because you've essentially just duplicated the scenario.The only viable, long term solution is to ensure that plate tanks and brawlers use similar survival mechanics, "Avoidance" tanking just doesn't work, it's a very very fine balance that needs to be reached and this balace can be broken or swayed very easily. Mitigation values are currently in or around the 10% mark, keep Avoidance around that area as well or at least in an amount that is balanced and it's fine, it really is. Strike through DOES acheive this, but the amount of strikethrough in game has grown too large and shifted the balance towards the Brawler tanks.I don't believe mitigation changes will effect anything positively long term. Which leaves 2 solutions.1. Strikethrough is strictly limited to up to ~15/20%.2. Strikethrough is strictly limited to up to ~15/20% except a few of the hardest encounters AND Strikethrough is changed to be similar to Crit mit, where brawler tanks have 20% innate, and plate tanks have none. This way as content gets harder it at least effects both tanks. Realistically since then it's all but a select few mobs with strikethrough higher than 20% brawlers aren't even loosing anything.....Block chance/Strikethrough amount/new block chance.Plate45%/5%/42.75%45%/10%/40.5%45%/15%/38.25%45%/20%/36%45%/25%/33.75%45%/30%/31.5%45%/35%/29.25%45%/40%/27%45%/45%/24.75%45%/50%/22.5%45%/55%/20.25%45%/60%/18%Brawler55%/5%(0)/55%55%/10%(0)/55%55%/15%(0)/55%55%/20%(0)/55%55%/25%(5)/52.25%55%/30%(10)/49.5%55%/35%(15)/46.75%55%/40%(20)/44%55%/45%(25)/41.25%55%/50%(30)/38.5%55%/55%(35)/35.75%55%/60%(40)/33%</blockquote>I am really skeptical of these numbers. Even with a EM Drunder blocking weapon my uncontested block is only hitting 50% with raid buffs. From what I have seen only hard mode drunder geared brawlers are able hit 55% block chance. So you are comparing Apples to Oranges when you use Vanella HM plate tank with a Drunder HM Brawlers.When you are doing these comparisons you have you have to look at similar geared players and not try to skew the numbers with gear differential. You and me are very similar geared and our uncontested avoidance when fighting mobs with 0% strikethrough is as I originally said plate tanks have almost brawler like avoidance. Plate tank with 45% uncontested block VS Brawler with 50% uncontested block. Brawlers with higher block have better gear and are not really comparible to either of us.If you look at mobs we can both tank and kill like HM Finnrdag your avoidance drops but you are still killing the mob. There is not a huge survivability gap here just because you lost some avoidance to strikethrough. You get damage spikes but so do I. Even with current strikethrough immune I still get spiked down on that mob and even die accasionally. Being a brawler in pretty much the same gear as you does not make this mob magically easier to tank. I doubt HM Finnrdag would still be killable with a brawler tank if the brawlers lost 1/3rd of their avoidance to strikethrough. Asking to have the mechanics changed so I can no longer kill a mob I have on farm status is simple unnacceptable.What you don't see or care to acknowledge is that there is ballance in the current system. Plate tanks were never supposed to have 45% uncontested block in the first place. It is over kill on any mob that doesn't have crazy strikethrough. You are perfectly able to tank the mob with 25% avoidance while a brawler cannot.I am sorry but the current system is perfectly ballanced in terms of Strikethrough Avoidance mechanics. What is not ballanced and should be changed is all the plate tanks should be brought up to guardian level. Give them some saves, snaps, damage reducers or whatever it takes but stop trying to get my class Nerfed.

Soul_Dreamer

10-28-2011, 07:39 AM

The numbers I posted (45% and 55%) are from my Guardian and my guilds Monk, I am comparing like for like, just because your uncontested avoid isn't 55% doesn't mean his isn't. Solo mine is 40.9 and his is just over 50 when using the EM Drunder weapon, in a raid setting they are both pretty much at the numbers I've given. A Bruiser friend has 52%, I know this because he told me it was what the Drunder weapon took his avoidance up to when my guild sold the weapon to him, his guild is killing very few HM named.....Exactly what nerf are you seeing, sorry but I think you're being deliberatly obtuse or you are actually this stupid.Lower mobs down to 20% Strike through, give brawlers 20% strike through immunity, what part of that is hard for you to understand, there is no bloody nerf, brawlers STILL have 100% strikethrough immunity on all this content. The only thing it allows is for the occasional hard mob to effect both plate tanks and leather tanks if developers want it to. This doesn't mean mobs need to have 50% Strikethrough, I was just showing how the numbers will decrease as it goes up.As an example, lower all to 20%, then MAYBE give Statue 22%, maybe Sullon/Vallon/Tallon 25%, these would be miniscule changes to Brawlers, a reduction in avoidance you more than likely won't even notice. However it means plate tanks aren't being hit by 50%+ reductions in their avoidance, the avoidnace gap will still be there, but at a balanced level.You're also still directly comparing your offensive Bruiser tank to a Guardian and saying since you have the same survivability you're balanced, if this is the case can I have some of your offensive tools and DPS please? This isn't even taking into consideration that the defensive Brawler (Monk) has even more tools to stop dying than you as a Bruiser do, but I suppose that's also still balanced?Making all fighter classes have the same survivability isn't balance at all considering the offensive tools some of them have. Honestly though, I really can't be bothered to continue on this same arguement, it's basically the same one fighters have been having for years, just another bloody chapter of it.Like I said, I have a Monk/Paladin/Guardian, I've already made the descision to just MT on whichever class is the most OP each expansion from now on. As soon as my Monk has a couple more pieces of HM gear, I'll be switching to playing him, asking for balance is futile, I'll just play whichever is the best for my guild. Obviously though all is fine and balanced, the fact I'm swapping from a Guardian MT to a Monk MT means nothing <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" />

Novusod

10-28-2011, 09:10 AM

The nerf I am seeing is in YOUR number charts that you made up. The fact that you scaled up the strikethrough on the chart just shows how badly it scales. Even if you cap Vanella hard modes at 20% strikethough and then increase the mob strikethough 2% with each successively harder mob it is pretty easy to see where this is going. A few raid zones later and we would be back at where we are now because how do you make the next harder mob after a 25% strikethrough boss unless it is being upped to 27% and then 30% and so on. Eventually we would have mobs with 50% strikethrough again only my class would be broken while your class would not. Pretty cleaver ploy but I am not letting this whopper sail by unchallenged. All you have to do is apply the end of that chart to current mobs to see how rediculous it would scale. I would be losing 1/3rd of my avoid checks to strikethrough and these mobs would be unkillable with brawler tanks.Here is a better compromise. Just cap mob strikethrough at 20% and never scale it any higher because it doesn't scale correctly. The devs already have ways to make harder mobs with infinately scalable Crit Bonus and Potency. There is no need to include extra strikethrough in the buff packages or make wacky charts that don't work anyway. If the devs want to make a mob that kill the tank they already have the tools for that in the form of single target death touches, curses on the tank, and single target magic based attacks that hurt brawlers and plate equally. Give the tanks that are lacking a few extra emergency saves, a snap or two and we would pretty much have perfect ballance for all 6 tank classes.On a final note why are you bringing dps into this arguement? Are you conceeding to me that you are wrong on the strikethrough arguement and that guards and brawlers are pretty equal in survivability regardless. You want DPS? You can have it. It won't make a difference as long as all the tanks have the same DPS potential. If you look back half a dozen pages you can see it was the very first thing I mentioned.<cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>1: Give all Tanks the same DPS potential. Some tanks are Single target forcused while others are AE focused.</blockquote>All tanks in the end get equal survivability and they can all DPS to a point./end thread

Soul_Dreamer

10-28-2011, 10:24 AM

<cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>The nerf I am seeing is in YOUR number charts that you made up. The fact that you scaled up the strikethrough on the chart just shows how badly it scales. Even if you cap Vanella hard modes at 20% strikethough and then increase the mob strikethough 2% with each successively harder mob it is pretty easy to see where this is going. A few raid zones later and we would be back at where we are now because how do you make the next harder mob after a 25% strikethrough boss unless it is being upped to 27% and then 30% and so on. Eventually we would have mobs with 50% strikethrough again only my class would be broken while your class would not. Pretty cleaver ploy but I am not letting this whopper sail by unchallenged. All you have to do is apply the end of that chart to current mobs to see how rediculous it would scale. I would be losing 1/3rd of my avoid checks to strikethrough and these mobs would be unkillable with brawler tanks.Here is a better compromise. Just cap mob strikethrough at 20% and never scale it any higher because it doesn't scale correctly. The devs already have ways to make harder mobs with infinately scalable Crit Bonus and Potency. There is no need to include extra strikethrough in the buff packages or make wacky charts that don't work anyway. If the devs want to make a mob that kill the tank they already have the tools for that in the form of single target death touches, curses on the tank, and single target magic based attacks that hurt brawlers and plate equally. Give the tanks that are lacking a few extra emergency saves, a snap or two and we would pretty much have perfect ballance for all 6 tank classes.On a final note why are you bringing dps into this arguement? Are you conceeding to me that you are wrong on the strikethrough arguement and that guards and brawlers are pretty equal in survivability regardless. You want DPS? You can have it. It won't make a difference as long as all the tanks have the same DPS potential. If you look back half a dozen pages you can see it was the very first thing I mentioned.<cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>1: Give all Tanks the same DPS potential. Some tanks are Single target forcused while others are AE focused.</blockquote>All tanks in the end get equal survivability and they can all DPS to a point./end thread</blockquote>How am I making these numbers up, the Plate fighter strike through values are EXACTLY what is in game right now ffs. At high values BOTH classes will be broken, you just don't get that your mitigation is very close to that of plate tanks, Plate tanks can no more take every hit in the same way you can't. And as I've said, if you change the curve to make the gap between mitigation larger one of the large risks will be trashing Brawlers again.The only reason I mentioned having it like crit mit is so it can be changed and tweaked easier, values of strike through still need to stay low in game. Honestly, if it's broken for Brawlers being high, it's broken for plate tanks being high, WHICH IT ALREADY IS and you're argueing that it's fine currently! I don't care if it's only limited to 20% as long as it f**king stays there and doesn't creep higher again.And frankly, no, I think both Brawlers currently make better MT choices on a lot of hard mode content, monks especially so, feel free to try and put more words into my mouth though. You may not believe that Monks are a better MT choice than Guardians, or even that Bruisers are, the fact of the matter is though that they are. You are the one that is argueing that this is perfectly fine for an offensive tank. What SOE have said.Monk/Guardian/Paladin - The defensive tanks, they should all have abilities to cope with MTing, currently Paladins don't and Monks are superior in a lot of ways to both Guardian and Paladin.Bruiser/SK/Zerker - The Offensive tanks, they need enough defensive utility to cope with MTing but shouldn't be the primary choice over the Defensive tanks. They need enough snaps and other abilities to handle adds and off tanking.RealityMonk/Bruiser/Guardian - The only viable MT choices, Guardian is only viable up to a certain point due to strikethrough.Paladin/Zerker/SK - Very hard to impossible for any of these 3 tanks to MT end game HM content due to mechanics and their limitied spike prevention abilities.All tanks in the end get equal survivability and they can all DPS to a point.DPS to a point? Sorry again, NOT BALANCED. If all tanks have equal survivability they need equal DPS, not some tanks can DPS and others can't, really, why should some tanks only DPS "To a point" while all having the same survivability.

Netty

10-28-2011, 10:54 AM

Where has it been stated that pallys should be up there with guardians and monks? All i have heard about that is back in the days when they tryed to change pallys into a defensiv tank and that would mean droping alot of the aoe and stuff. But that got voted down by the paladins themself.Making paladins as defensiv as the rest of the two would only mean one thing. The other two not being used. Since when you have a tank that can hold aggro so good both on ST and on aoe. There is no need to use any other tank class. They still needed fixes from what they are now atm tho. If you look at Aoe vs ST both hate and dps atm its kinda much where it should be with the 2 brawlers up where the guardian are.aoe hate: pally-sk-zerk-bruiser-monk-guard.Aoe dps: Sk/zerk-pally-bruiser-monk-guard.Pallys should how ever be the more Defensiv crusader and need more tools than the SK have to stay alive. And with the changes i posted befor i think that would happen and things would be kinda much balanced with the tanks.

Soul_Dreamer

10-28-2011, 11:07 AM

<cite>Netty wrote:</cite><blockquote>Where has it been stated that pallys should be up there with guardians and monks? All i have heard about that is back in the days when they tryed to change pallys into a defensiv tank and that would mean droping alot of the aoe and stuff. But that got voted down by the paladins themself.Making paladins as defensiv as the rest of the two would only mean one thing. The other two not being used. Since when you have a tank that can hold aggro so good both on ST and on aoe. There is no need to use any other tank class. They still needed fixes from what they are now atm tho. If you look at Aoe vs ST both hate and dps atm its kinda much where it should be with the 2 brawlers up where the guardian are.aoe hate: pally-sk-zerk-bruiser-monk-guard.Aoe dps: Sk/zerk-pally-bruiser-monk-guard.Pallys should how ever be the more Defensiv crusader and need more tools than the SK have to stay alive. And with the changes i posted befor i think that would happen and things would be kinda much balanced with the tanks.</blockquote>Paladins have always been the defensive Crusader in the same way Monks and Guardians have always been the defensive Brawler and Warrior. It was in a post by Xelgad, not sure but it could have been a beta post, I'll have a quick hunt around.All Paladins need is a decent stoneskin and another snap, they'll cope very well then as a MT. I'm don't know the Pally as well as I do my monk and Guardian though, TBH, Boli or Meargoth are the 2 people who will know best, they've both tanked at very high levels and know where the class is left wanting.

Soul_Dreamer

10-28-2011, 11:19 AM

Nope, can't find it, but I can only find 7 of the 43 posts started by Xelgad, I remember Paladins complaining about it at the time because it put Guardians above them in their survivability utility. If I remember right it was a discussion about how he saw the fighters and his aims for them. It was also part of his reasoning for the Zerker Adrenalin nerf I seem to recall.I'm relatively sure it was Xelgad and that it wasn't during the scrapped fighter revamp although I could be wrong, with any luck someone else who remembers this thread can chime in. Either way, those 3 tank classes have always been the defensive tanks of their sub classes, while they don't all have to be 100% equal, they should all be able to MT HM content. As I've said, I don't think strikethrough as a mechanic is a bad thing, it's just how much of it there is now on so many mobs. Every mob with large amounts of strikethrough automatically means a Brawler is a superior tank to any of the Plate tanks, if there existed mobs with Zero strikethrough but hit f**king hard to balance this out it wouldn't matter so much because those mobs you may well want a Plate tank for their extra 10% Mit or so. These mobs just don't exist though, everything has strikethrough and it's being raised to stupid levels now.

Bruener

10-28-2011, 11:38 AM

Your chart really is skewed, especially when you take into account transfers, and more importantly snaps.Reality is that every Fighter can generate more than enough agro on AE to hold hate off a raid easily with the group set ups that are basically required anyway for transfers. Also, a Bruiser spec'd right on AE can really out DPS any other Fighter class and generate the highest AE agro imo (and maintain the much superior survivability).The fail is in snaps specifically. According to you both Crusaders, Zerks and Bruisers should be AE oriented tanks, and hence be much better at over-all handling AE content...but with multiple mob encounters mem-wiping a ton that just isn't the case. It is way faster to use snaps to climb back to the top of the hate list on AE encounters than it is to simply generate more agro, so abilities like Reinforcement and Mantis Leap become superior for this. Also abilities like D&C and the Guard AE target lock are much more usefull as well.In the end if they are going to give superior tools to the supposedly non-AE tanks for handling AE content what exactly is the point?

Netty

10-28-2011, 11:59 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Your chart really is skewed, especially when you take into account transfers, and more importantly snaps.Reality is that every Fighter can generate more than enough agro on AE to hold hate off a raid easily with the group set ups that are basically required anyway for transfers. Also, a Bruiser spec'd right on AE can really out DPS any other Fighter class and generate the highest AE agro imo (and maintain the much superior survivability).The fail is in snaps specifically. According to you both Crusaders, Zerks and Bruisers should be AE oriented tanks, and hence be much better at over-all handling AE content...but with multiple mob encounters mem-wiping a ton that just isn't the case. It is way faster to use snaps to climb back to the top of the hate list on AE encounters than it is to simply generate more agro, so abilities like Reinforcement and Mantis Leap become superior for this. Also abilities like D&C and the Guard AE target lock are much more usefull as well.In the end if they are going to give superior tools to the supposedly non-AE tanks for handling AE content what exactly is the point?</blockquote>You fail to see that Reinforcemnt could be as good as you say for aoe fights. But guards have 2 aoes. one frontal and one pure aoe. both low damage. And the one from the heroic tree that no guard MT with some brains would be specing. Trash pulling with my guard and i rarly keep aggro on aoe from our monk and pally. Guardian aoe target lock? Are you claiming that a 2 sec target lock with like 2k hate on it will make guards a good aoe tank? Not to forget that many Adds are immune to target lock. I can handle aoe 1000% better on my zerk than my guard. And if you cant do that well im not sure its a class thing really. I dont know much about bruiser but i would be you that they dont do more aoe dps or hate than zerks or crusaders. Im not gona talk about mantis leap since that one is on the bruiser aswell that have more aoe controll than the guard. But i still be you that zerks and crusaders can make it easier.

Soul_Dreamer

10-28-2011, 12:00 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Your chart really is skewed, especially when you take into account transfers, and more importantly snaps.Reality is that every Fighter can generate more than enough agro on AE to hold hate off a raid easily with the group set ups that are basically required anyway for transfers. Also, a Bruiser spec'd right on AE can really out DPS any other Fighter class and generate the highest AE agro imo (and maintain the much superior survivability).The fail is in snaps specifically. According to you both Crusaders, Zerks and Bruisers should be AE oriented tanks, and hence be much better at over-all handling AE content...but with multiple mob encounters mem-wiping a ton that just isn't the case. It is way faster to use snaps to climb back to the top of the hate list on AE encounters than it is to simply generate more agro, so abilities like Reinforcement and Mantis Leap become superior for this. Also abilities like D&C and the Guard AE target lock are much more usefull as well.In the end if they are going to give superior tools to the supposedly non-AE tanks for handling AE content what exactly is the point?</blockquote>The only "Chart" I've posted at all was how Uncontested avoidance degrades with strikethrough on a plate tank, and how it would if Brawlers had 20% Immunity to it, so I'm not sure what you're on about.As for the rest of it, this is why in a lot of posts I've made previously I've said that SK's need another snap or a decent recast reduction in graves, drop it to 1min 30 from 3min and with recast reductions it will be down near 45 seconds, this is then the same as Holy Ground and you can use it to pick up adds every add set. If not maxxed on recast, then just manage buffs so it is for these AOE fights, get the troub to Jcap every add set and you're golden.Zerks not so much because they have quite a lot anyway (4-5 spans I seem to recall) but Zerks need quite a bit of help in other areas <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />And FYI, I've not found a single HM add that "Plant" (the Guardian AOE lock) works on, due to them being immune to it. Eireen, Valdemar, Kraytok, Kolskeggr, Modrfrost none of them, I'm not sure about Drunder but I'm sure this pattern follows.