Most Brawlers have caught up to plate tanks in Mitigation. [Archive] - Page 2

Damager

03-01-2012, 03:38 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Damager wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>I can't hold aggro less I tank in offensive, and the defensive stance's gains offers almost nothing to me.Unlike your Defensive Stance which is a huge buff, mine is pretty much mediocre.</blockquote>Difference from monk in offensive and defensive is hugedifference in defensive is minus 8CB, Minus 52.8 haste, minus 94.4 crushing. We gain 800 mitigation, 26 aggression, 6 riposte and 2.4 base avoid lol, why do we run it -> strikethrough immunity</blockquote>I wish my defensive stance was that powerful, 800 mitigation to you is like 8% damage reduction, on top of that you get 6% riposte, 2.4% Base Avoidance, AND on top of ALL that you get strikethrough immunity.</blockquote>My appologies on me its a 1200 mitigation increase from offensive to defensive (Im at 7300 mitigation in offensive), totalling 3.2% damage reduction.

Talathion

03-01-2012, 03:44 PM

<cite>Damager wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Damager wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>I can't hold aggro less I tank in offensive, and the defensive stance's gains offers almost nothing to me.Unlike your Defensive Stance which is a huge buff, mine is pretty much mediocre.</blockquote>Difference from monk in offensive and defensive is hugedifference in defensive is minus 8CB, Minus 52.8 haste, minus 94.4 crushing. We gain 800 mitigation, 26 aggression, 6 riposte and 2.4 base avoid lol, why do we run it -> strikethrough immunity</blockquote>I wish my defensive stance was that powerful, 800 mitigation to you is like 8% damage reduction, on top of that you get 6% riposte, 2.4% Base Avoidance, AND on top of ALL that you get strikethrough immunity.</blockquote>My appologies on me its a 1200 mitigation increase from offensive to defensive (Im at 7300 mitigation in offensive), totalling 3.2% damage reduction.</blockquote>Eh, its different for every brawler, its alot bigger to brawlers with lesser geared i'd imagine.Wanna know whats hilarious?Theres almost no difference between my Level 4 Defensive Stance... AND my level 82 one! <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Damager

03-01-2012, 03:56 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Damager wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Damager wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>I can't hold aggro less I tank in offensive, and the defensive stance's gains offers almost nothing to me.Unlike your Defensive Stance which is a huge buff, mine is pretty much mediocre.</blockquote>Difference from monk in offensive and defensive is hugedifference in defensive is minus 8CB, Minus 52.8 haste, minus 94.4 crushing. We gain 800 mitigation, 26 aggression, 6 riposte and 2.4 base avoid lol, why do we run it -> strikethrough immunity</blockquote>I wish my defensive stance was that powerful, 800 mitigation to you is like 8% damage reduction, on top of that you get 6% riposte, 2.4% Base Avoidance, AND on top of ALL that you get strikethrough immunity.</blockquote>My appologies on me its a 1200 mitigation increase from offensive to defensive (Im at 7300 mitigation in offensive), totalling 3.2% damage reduction.</blockquote>Eh, its different for every brawler, its alot bigger to brawlers with lesser geared i'd imagine.Wanna know whats hilarious?Theres almost no difference between my Level 4 Defensive Stance... AND my level 82 one! <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>Its purportional though, A legendary geared brawler isnt going to be fighting in HM Sullons (Or not at least very long rofl).I would be pushing no kidding as a realistic start 30-40% strikethrough immunity on your defensive stance. Im a firm believer all fighter should be in defensive when tanking and there has to be a real reason to do so. This would also do a balancing act on strikethrough and allow it to work as intended.

Silzin

03-01-2012, 04:03 PM

<cite>Damager wrote:</cite><blockquote>I would be pushing no kidding as a realistic start 30-40% strikethrough immunity on your defensive stance. Im a firm believer all fighter should be in defensive when tanking and there has to be a real reason to do so. This would also do a balancing act on strikethrough and allow it to work as intended.</blockquote>Do you meen reduses the mobs strikethroughby 30-40% or make the player strikethrough immunity 30-40% of the time? how would the 2nd work?

Talathion

03-01-2012, 05:06 PM

We don't really want strikethrough immunity, we want something as powerful as it added to our defensive stance, and we want something besides more mitigation.We also want critical healing back... you forget alot of our abilities to work require us getting hit.

Damager

03-01-2012, 05:30 PM

<cite>Silzin@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Damager wrote:</cite><blockquote>I would be pushing no kidding as a realistic start 30-40% strikethrough immunity on your defensive stance. Im a firm believer all fighter should be in defensive when tanking and there has to be a real reason to do so. This would also do a balancing act on strikethrough and allow it to work as intended.</blockquote>Do you meen reduses the mobs strikethroughby 30-40% or make the player strikethrough immunity 30-40% of the time? how would the 2nd work?</blockquote>The second part.It would be a seperate avoidance check seperate from base avoidance so its not a true 30-40% increase in avoidance rather IF strikethrough is its own mechanic (I havent seen the code) it could trigger a seperate 30% chance of that strikethrough being avoided so you only gain 30-40% chance of avoiding a succesful strikethrough. (This makes it so easy to balance strikethrough)If you only reduced the mobs strikethrough you only bennifit plates and over power them back to where they where, this is why strikethrough now by itself cant be balanced, however the second part allows strikethrough to work as intended and can be tweaked easily to bring both plates and brawlers to a small gap in damage takin.The benifits to this would be extremely useful for balancing the fighters without changing mobs mechanics. The problem with removing strikethrough or having it by itself is it bennifits plates or avoidance tanks from one extreme to the other. Being able to put in a % base in only defensive stance would resolve the balancing issue to bring all fighters inline and easily tweaked without breaking the brawlers. It would also make all fighters use defensive stance when in harder content eliminating any jelousy there, as well bring stances into a useful ability.

Bruener

03-01-2012, 05:36 PM

There really are 2 issues going on here.The argument about strike through immunity as a mechanic and whether it should be removed or not. And the fighter balance argument.As I have posted many times the strike through immunity removal argument I have posted is not for balance reasons, there are other things that would need to be done still to actually balance. The fixing of the strike through mechanic is so that SOE has a tool to control these ridiculous avoidance numbers that happen now. It is nothing to see a Brawler with 80-90% avoidance consistently. With a Warden/Templar/Guard in the group with a Monk having Bruiser avoidance I have seen ridiculous numbers like 95% avoidance on HM raid mobs. Those are just plain ridiculous numbers and than if the ones that have the capability to actually hit those numbers also completely ignore the mechanic that SOE introduced to help keep avoidance from getting so high it makes a broken system. Those Fighters that originally got the band aide fix of immunity no longer have the large difference in mitigation and have a TON more tools for overall mitigating damage.Now outside of fixing the broken mechanic there are certain tweaks that Crusaders and Zerkers need to help at least focus them into being competitive in their respective type of role instead of healers having to pull their hair out.

Damager

03-01-2012, 05:47 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>There really are 2 issues going on here.The argument about strike through immunity as a mechanic and whether it should be removed or not. And the fighter balance argument.As I have posted many times the strike through immunity removal argument I have posted is not for balance reasons, there are other things that would need to be done still to actually balance. The fixing of the strike through mechanic is so that SOE has a tool to control these ridiculous avoidance numbers that happen now. It is nothing to see a Brawler with 80-90% avoidance consistently. With a Warden/Templar/Guard in the group with a Monk having Bruiser avoidance I have seen ridiculous numbers like 95% avoidance on HM raid mobs. Those are just plain ridiculous numbers and than if the ones that have the capability to actually hit those numbers also completely ignore the mechanic that SOE introduced to help keep avoidance from getting so high it makes a broken system. Those Fighters that originally got the band aide fix of immunity no longer have the large difference in mitigation and have a TON more tools for overall mitigating damage.Now outside of fixing the broken mechanic there are certain tweaks that Crusaders and Zerkers need to help at least focus them into being competitive in their respective type of role instead of healers having to pull their hair out.</blockquote>Guardian tanking HM sullons (Hragdold) shows a 70.26% avoidance on incoming autoattacks ROFL I would completely expect a brawler to be higher. This is without my avoid on him btw since Im doin adds and out of its range.Brawlers avoidance also is not consistant, It extremely fluxuates by their temps. Keep in mind removal of strikethru immunity will also break some of the monks temps as well.

Bruener

03-01-2012, 06:24 PM

<cite>Damager wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>There really are 2 issues going on here.The argument about strike through immunity as a mechanic and whether it should be removed or not. And the fighter balance argument.As I have posted many times the strike through immunity removal argument I have posted is not for balance reasons, there are other things that would need to be done still to actually balance. The fixing of the strike through mechanic is so that SOE has a tool to control these ridiculous avoidance numbers that happen now. It is nothing to see a Brawler with 80-90% avoidance consistently. With a Warden/Templar/Guard in the group with a Monk having Bruiser avoidance I have seen ridiculous numbers like 95% avoidance on HM raid mobs. Those are just plain ridiculous numbers and than if the ones that have the capability to actually hit those numbers also completely ignore the mechanic that SOE introduced to help keep avoidance from getting so high it makes a broken system. Those Fighters that originally got the band aide fix of immunity no longer have the large difference in mitigation and have a TON more tools for overall mitigating damage.Now outside of fixing the broken mechanic there are certain tweaks that Crusaders and Zerkers need to help at least focus them into being competitive in their respective type of role instead of healers having to pull their hair out.</blockquote>Guardian tanking HM sullons (Hragdold) shows a 70.26% avoidance on incoming autoattacks ROFL I would completely expect a brawler to be higher. This is without my avoid on him btw since Im doin adds and out of its range.Brawlers avoidance also is not consistant, It extremely fluxuates by their temps.</blockquote>When I can look at multiple parses of multiple different encounters and multiple different pull lengths that all give the around 80% avoidance without anybody elses avoidance lends and high 80's-90% with avoidance lends that is pretty consistent.Your Guards probably has 30-40% avoidance coming from the Brawler alone which is strike through immune avoidance. Self buffed the Guard is closer to 50% while the Brawlers are closer to 80%. More like a 30% avoidance gap.Do you have any idea on how much damage in todays mechancs of mobs hitting hard, MA'ing, Flurrying, procs on hit equals?Don't you think it seems a little ridiculous that a mob sits there and only hits the Brawler 1 out of 10 times?

Damager

03-01-2012, 06:33 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Damager wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>There really are 2 issues going on here.The argument about strike through immunity as a mechanic and whether it should be removed or not. And the fighter balance argument.As I have posted many times the strike through immunity removal argument I have posted is not for balance reasons, there are other things that would need to be done still to actually balance. The fixing of the strike through mechanic is so that SOE has a tool to control these ridiculous avoidance numbers that happen now. It is nothing to see a Brawler with 80-90% avoidance consistently. With a Warden/Templar/Guard in the group with a Monk having Bruiser avoidance I have seen ridiculous numbers like 95% avoidance on HM raid mobs. Those are just plain ridiculous numbers and than if the ones that have the capability to actually hit those numbers also completely ignore the mechanic that SOE introduced to help keep avoidance from getting so high it makes a broken system. Those Fighters that originally got the band aide fix of immunity no longer have the large difference in mitigation and have a TON more tools for overall mitigating damage.Now outside of fixing the broken mechanic there are certain tweaks that Crusaders and Zerkers need to help at least focus them into being competitive in their respective type of role instead of healers having to pull their hair out.</blockquote>Guardian tanking HM sullons (Hragdold) shows a 70.26% avoidance on incoming autoattacks ROFL I would completely expect a brawler to be higher. This is without my avoid on him btw since Im doin adds and out of its range.Brawlers avoidance also is not consistant, It extremely fluxuates by their temps.</blockquote>When I can look at multiple parses of multiple different encounters and multiple different pull lengths that all give the around 80% avoidance without anybody elses avoidance lends and high 80's-90% with avoidance lends that is pretty consistent.Your Guards probably has 30-40% avoidance coming from the Brawler alone which is strike through immune avoidance. Self buffed the Guard is closer to 50% while the Brawlers are closer to 80%. More like a 30% avoidance gap.Do you have any idea on how much damage in todays mechancs of mobs hitting hard, MA'ing, Flurrying, procs on hit equals?Don't you think it seems a little ridiculous that a mob sits there and only hits the Brawler 1 out of 10 times?</blockquote>I am the brawler, I didnt put it on him because he is out of range he woulda been higher rofl. Stoneskin avoids 20.1% not bad i must say, I love how you think Guards have no other abilities.. No, lol i have no idea I just watch the Guard MT and Pally OT while I do my third tank crap rofl, then pull up ACT stats on both Pally and Guard succesfully tanking HM content.Your version of consistent is a final tally, Mine is during the fight, temps bring the final tally way up.

Talathion

03-01-2012, 06:49 PM

This is the problem with brawlers really:<img src="http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/65/rarelol.jpg" />Check out how Powerful there defensive stance is... Lol.It makes plate tanks defensive stances look like complete JOKES...

Damager

03-01-2012, 06:53 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>This is the problem with brawlers really:<img src="http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/65/rarelol.jpg" />Check out how Powerful there defensive stance is... Lol.It makes plate tanks defensive stances look like complete JOKES...</blockquote>That is a bruiser who AA spec'd to not loose abilities in Defensive. Monk cant do that =(Oh when u post the monks, do yours as well.

Talathion

03-01-2012, 06:56 PM

Defensive Stances: Shadowknights/Paladins should look like:Makes Caster able to critical heal. (offset to strikethrough immunity.)Increases Caster's base heal amounts by 22.0%.10% of all damage the caster recieve's is prevented. Guardian/Berserker should look like:Makes the Caster able to critical heal. (Berserker only.) (offset to strikethrough immunity.)Increases the Caster's Base heal amount by 22.0% (Berserker only.)Reduces physical damage done to the caster by 5% (Guardian only.) (offset to strikethrough immunity.)Increases Block Chance of Caster by 22.0% (Guardian only.)10% of all damage the caster recieve's is prevented.((Tactical Wisdom Talent-AA adds physical damage reduction.))((Veteran's Shielding Talent-AA Increases the damage prevented.))

Damager

03-01-2012, 07:08 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Defensive Stances: Shadowknights/Paladins should look like:Makes Caster able to critical heal. (offset to strikethrough immunity.)Increases Caster's base heal amounts by 22.0%.10% of all damage the caster recieve's is prevented. Guardian/Berserker should look like:Makes the Caster able to critical heal. (Berserker only.) (offset to strikethrough immunity.)Increases the Caster's Base heal amount by 22.0% (Berserker only.)Reduces physical damage done to the caster by 5% (Guardian only.) (offset to strikethrough immunity.)Increases Block Chance of Caster by 22.0% (Guardian only.)10% of all damage the caster recieve's is prevented.((Tactical Wisdom Talent-AA adds physical damage reduction.))((Veteran's Shielding Talent-AA Increases the damage prevented.))</blockquote>Hold on a minute you would take my mitigation increase of 3.2% damage reduction over a static 10% damage reduction? I mean seriously if we both have 8500 mit you take an additional 10% less damage?I am baffled so your complaining that with monk in full defensive he is still a little less mitigation than an SK and the SK gets an additional 10% damage reduction over the monk that he could not possibly get?

Talathion

03-01-2012, 07:10 PM

<cite>Damager wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Defensive Stances: Shadowknights/Paladins should look like:Makes Caster able to critical heal. (offset to strikethrough immunity.)Increases Caster's base heal amounts by 22.0%.10% of all damage the caster recieve's is prevented. Guardian/Berserker should look like:Makes the Caster able to critical heal. (Berserker only.) (offset to strikethrough immunity.)Increases the Caster's Base heal amount by 22.0% (Berserker only.)Reduces physical damage done to the caster by 5% (Guardian only.) (offset to strikethrough immunity.)Increases Block Chance of Caster by 22.0% (Guardian only.)10% of all damage the caster recieve's is prevented.((Tactical Wisdom Talent-AA adds physical damage reduction.))((Veteran's Shielding Talent-AA Increases the damage prevented.))</blockquote>Hold on a minute you would take my mitigation increase of 3.2% damage reduction over a static 10% damage reduction?</blockquote>You have Strikethrough Immunity, and all those other goodies, my goal is to make our stances just as powerful.

Damager

03-01-2012, 07:26 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Damager wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Defensive Stances: Shadowknights/Paladins should look like:Makes Caster able to critical heal. (offset to strikethrough immunity.)Increases Caster's base heal amounts by 22.0%.10% of all damage the caster recieve's is prevented. Guardian/Berserker should look like:Makes the Caster able to critical heal. (Berserker only.) (offset to strikethrough immunity.)Increases the Caster's Base heal amount by 22.0% (Berserker only.)Reduces physical damage done to the caster by 5% (Guardian only.) (offset to strikethrough immunity.)Increases Block Chance of Caster by 22.0% (Guardian only.)10% of all damage the caster recieve's is prevented.((Tactical Wisdom Talent-AA adds physical damage reduction.))((Veteran's Shielding Talent-AA Increases the damage prevented.))</blockquote>Hold on a minute you would take my mitigation increase of 3.2% damage reduction over a static 10% damage reduction?</blockquote>You have Strikethrough Immunity, and all those other goodies, my goal is to make our stances just as powerful.</blockquote>Think the SK one has some things you left outApplies Lucan's Pact VII when Activated.<ul><li>Increase Defense of caster by 41.6</li><li>Increase Aggression of caster by 41.6</li><li>Increase sta of caster by 218.24</li><li>Decrease Slashing of caster by 19.35</li><li>Decrease Piercing of caster by 19.35</li><li>Decrease Crushing of caster by 19.35</li><li>Increase physical of caster by 15</li><li>Increase noxious of caster by 2713.6</li><li>Increase baseavoidancebonus of caster by 4.96</li></ul>

Talathion

03-01-2012, 07:31 PM

Well I wanted to remove the +health/+spell damage protection/+base avoidance they all got to make it easier to write up, make the penaltys a little more severe offensively.-5% Spell and Combat Art Damage instead of -slashing/piercing/crushing.-10% Auto-attack Damage.+35% Threat Generated to all damaging abilities instead of aggression.(this is for all stances.)So it should look like this.Defensive Stances:Shadowknights/Paladins/Berserker should look like:Makes Caster able to critical heal.-10% Auto-attack Damage. (Greatly Penalizing Auto-Attack Damage.)-5% Spell and Combat Art Damage. (Penalizing Spell/CA Damage.)Increases Caster's base heal amounts by 22.0%.10% of all damage the caster recieve's is prevented.+35% Threat Generated to all damaging abilities.Guardian should look like:-10% Auto-attack Damage. (Greatly Penalizing Auto-Attack Damage.)-5% Spell and Combat Art Damage. (Penalizing Spell/CA Damage.)Reduces physical damage done to the caster by 5%.Increases Block Chance of Caster by 22.0%10% of all damage the caster recieve's is prevented.+35% Threat Generated to all damaging abilities.Therefore I upped the penaltys, since I upped the defenses quite a bit.

Damager

03-01-2012, 07:49 PM

So what your saying is a Guard has 1200 more mit than an SK, Stoneskins and takes 5% less physical damage (15% less than a brawler)? And a brawler has to parse 35% more to equal your threat from damaging abilities?Sorry but Im gonna have to stay with my original thought that Guard, monk, bruiser are fine as is. SK, Pally and Zerk should look at the Guard for Guidance not the Brawler.

BChizzle

03-01-2012, 07:49 PM

Its completely dumb to remove strikethrough immunity if strikethrough is such a balance problem then just adjusting strikethrough on raid mobs should fix it. Honestly I think you guys are really on crack though mob strikethrough isn't as high as you make it out to be.

Talathion

03-01-2012, 08:02 PM

<cite>Damager wrote:</cite><blockquote>So what your saying is a Guard has 1200 more mit than an SK, Stoneskins and takes 5% less physical damage (15% less than a brawler)? And a brawler has to parse 35% more to equal your threat from damaging abilities?Sorry but Im gonna have to stay with my original thought that Guard, monk, bruiser are fine as is. SK, Pally and Zerk should look at the Guard for Guidance not the Brawler.</blockquote>Guards are fine, but they are not up to power with Brawlers yet.I put so much work on those stances and just bumped the thread.. /sigh.

Bruener

03-01-2012, 09:12 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Its completely dumb to remove strikethrough immunity if strikethrough is such a balance problem then just adjusting strikethrough on raid mobs should fix it. Honestly I think you guys are really on crack though mob strikethrough isn't as high as you make it out to be.</blockquote>So we are reading this and at first you say that removing strikethrough immunity is dumb and that they should just adjust it on the mobs if it is a balance issue.But than you say that strikethrough really isn't that high.So what is the problem with removing the immunity than? If anything this is just more of an argument to remove it so that SOE can implement it better in the future.And than make sure immunity is on all temp avoidance saves.

BChizzle

03-01-2012, 09:15 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Its completely dumb to remove strikethrough immunity if strikethrough is such a balance problem then just adjusting strikethrough on raid mobs should fix it. Honestly I think you guys are really on crack though mob strikethrough isn't as high as you make it out to be.</blockquote>So we are reading this and at first you say that removing strikethrough immunity is dumb and that they should just adjust it on the mobs if it is a balance issue.But than you say that strikethrough really isn't that high.So what is the problem with removing the immunity than? If anything this is just more of an argument to remove it so that SOE can implement it better in the future.And than make sure immunity is on all temp avoidance saves.</blockquote>Because silly brawlers are avoidance tanks and should negate damage by avoiding hits. If you are getting struckthrough on too much then they should lower mobs strikethrough not break a whole subclass.

Talathion

03-01-2012, 09:18 PM

Bruener what do you think of this:Defensive Stances:Shadowknights/Paladins/Berserker should look like:Makes Caster able to critical heal.(-5%)-(-10%) Auto-attack Damage. (Greatly Penalizing Auto-Attack Damage.)-5% Spell and Combat Art Damage. (Penalizing Spell/CA Damage.)Increases Caster's base heal amounts by 22.0%.10% of all damage the caster recieve's is prevented.+35% Threat Generated to all damaging abilities. Guardian should look like:(-5%)-(10%) Auto-attack Damage. (Greatly Penalizing Auto-Attack Damage.)-5% Spell and Combat Art Damage. (Penalizing Spell/CA Damage.)Increases Block Chance of Caster by 22.0%10% of all damage the caster recieve's is prevented.+35% Threat Generated to all damaging abilities.

BChizzle

03-01-2012, 09:30 PM

You guys have no semblance of balance you try and compare a monks avoidance to say a crusaders straight up and cry about it. For example you competely ignore not only the mit advantage but also like for example a paly that heals 10% of every hit plus has 10% physical damage absorbtion. You don't consider any of those things and just want to compare a plate tanks avoidance straight up with an avoidance tank. Next you cry about strikethrough but none of you have even the remotest clue outside of the few 100% strikethrough mobs what mobs are actually striking through. Even if a mob has 20% strikethrough and you are avoiding 80% thats only really 16% less avoidance putting you at 64% You dont think 10% damage absorbtion and 10% healed damage don't even things out at that point? No you just want to cry instead of looking at things rationally.

Soul_Dreamer

03-01-2012, 09:47 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>You guys have no semblance of balance you try and compare a monks avoidance to say a crusaders straight up and cry about it. For example you competely ignore not only the mit advantage but also like for example a paly that heals 10% of every hit plus has 10% physical damage absorbtion. You don't consider any of those things and just want to compare a plate tanks avoidance straight up with an avoidance tank. Next you cry about strikethrough but none of you have even the remotest clue outside of the few 100% strikethrough mobs what mobs are actually striking through. Even if a mob has 20% strikethrough and you are avoiding 80% thats only really 16% less avoidance putting you at 64% You dont think 10% damage absorbtion and 10% healed damage don't even things out at that point? No you just want to cry instead of looking at things rationally.</blockquote>Sorry, it may have done at one point but it doesn't anymore, not when you consider some of the very large On hit procs out there now.Also the second you bring into account class abilities like that you need to bring in the Brawler ones, how about Stoneskin on riposte, 15% Heal when you take over 40% damage, 30% damage reduction for 3 seconds every 10 seconds, 3 hit Deathsave on a 3 min recast (After 50% reuse, which is common taken into account), to name but a few.Are Brawlers, especially Monks OP compared to other tanks? YesDoes 100% Strike through immunity contribute to this, while not even the plate tanks avoids has any on them? Yes Does the mitigated damage gap now warrant such a large avoidance gap? Nope Do SOE give even the smallest amount of f**k about this? Nope.Are SOE going to do anything about it? Nope.Honestly, roll with the most OP class as they arrise, even if SOE wanted to fix anything they don't have any competant resource left to do so.Obviously the viable alternative is to Keep beating this dead old horse and act like anyone bar you few gives a sh*t.

BChizzle

03-01-2012, 10:00 PM

<cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>You guys have no semblance of balance you try and compare a monks avoidance to say a crusaders straight up and cry about it. For example you competely ignore not only the mit advantage but also like for example a paly that heals 10% of every hit plus has 10% physical damage absorbtion. You don't consider any of those things and just want to compare a plate tanks avoidance straight up with an avoidance tank. Next you cry about strikethrough but none of you have even the remotest clue outside of the few 100% strikethrough mobs what mobs are actually striking through. Even if a mob has 20% strikethrough and you are avoiding 80% thats only really 16% less avoidance putting you at 64% You dont think 10% damage absorbtion and 10% healed damage don't even things out at that point? No you just want to cry instead of looking at things rationally.</blockquote>Sorry, it may have done at one point but it doesn't anymore, not when you consider some of the very large On hit procs out there now.Also the second you bring into account class abilities like that you need to bring in the Brawler ones, how about Stoneskin on riposte, 15% Heal when you take over 40% damage, 30% damage reduction for 3 seconds every 10 seconds, 3 hit Deathsave on a 3 min recast (After 50% reuse, which is common taken into account), to name but a few.Are Brawlers, especially Monks OP compared to other tanks? YesDoes 100% Strike through immunity contribute to this, while not even the plate tanks avoids has any on them? Yes Does the mitigated damage gap now warrant such a large avoidance gap? Nope Do SOE give even the smallest amount of f**k about this? Nope.Are SOE going to do anything about it? Nope.Honestly, roll with the most OP class as they arrise, even if SOE wanted to fix anything they don't have any competant resource left to do so.Obviously the viable alternative is to Keep beating this dead old horse and act like anyone bar you few gives a sh*t.</blockquote>Again you lump all brawler abilities together there are two brawler classes. But keep on trying.

Damager

03-01-2012, 10:12 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>You guys have no semblance of balance you try and compare a monks avoidance to say a crusaders straight up and cry about it. For example you competely ignore not only the mit advantage but also like for example a paly that heals 10% of every hit plus has 10% physical damage absorbtion. You don't consider any of those things and just want to compare a plate tanks avoidance straight up with an avoidance tank. Next you cry about strikethrough but none of you have even the remotest clue outside of the few 100% strikethrough mobs what mobs are actually striking through. Even if a mob has 20% strikethrough and you are avoiding 80% thats only really 16% less avoidance putting you at 64% You dont think 10% damage absorbtion and 10% healed damage don't even things out at that point? No you just want to cry instead of looking at things rationally.</blockquote>Sorry, it may have done at one point but it doesn't anymore, not when you consider some of the very large On hit procs out there now.Also the second you bring into account class abilities like that you need to bring in the Brawler ones, how about Stoneskin on riposte, 15% Heal when you take over 40% damage, 30% damage reduction for 3 seconds every 10 seconds, 3 hit Deathsave on a 3 min recast (After 50% reuse, which is common taken into account), to name but a few.Are Brawlers, especially Monks OP compared to other tanks? YesDoes 100% Strike through immunity contribute to this, while not even the plate tanks avoids has any on them? Yes Does the mitigated damage gap now warrant such a large avoidance gap? Nope Do SOE give even the smallest amount of f**k about this? Nope.Are SOE going to do anything about it? Nope.Honestly, roll with the most OP class as they arrise, even if SOE wanted to fix anything they don't have any competant resource left to do so.Obviously the viable alternative is to Keep beating this dead old horse and act like anyone bar you few gives a sh*t.</blockquote>Again you lump all brawler abilities together there are two brawler classes. But keep on trying.</blockquote>Dude he made super Brawler I want one ROFL, Brumonk FTW!Ok Im done here I just argue for somethin to do, Have fun all!

Soul_Dreamer

03-01-2012, 10:23 PM

I gave a selection of Brawler abilties because the main discussion has once again turned into Brawler Strikethrough immunity. And because you mentioned "Crusader" then picked Paladin abilities. If you're going to mention any class specific abiltities you need to consider the Monk/Bruiser whichever you're trying to compare as well.I could log my Monk, Paladin and Guardian in and do a like for like comparision across all 3 even though the Monk and Pally are a bit light in the gear stakes compared to my Guardian but:1. I really don't care enough anymore to do so.2. I know the Monk wins hands down in defensive abilities compared to the Pally and also beats the Guard by a decent margin.I Play Guardian now because it's the class of the 3 I enjoy the most and it doesn't effect my guild much for me to do so. Life would be a little easier on my monk but I can do the same things on the Guard and I bring some unique situational raid utility, I just have to try a little harder and pay a little more attention. I wouldn't even attempt to MT any of the HM content we're progressing onto with the Paladin though.At the end of the day we've been beating this "Fighter Balance" drum for years and I just can't be bothered anymore. It's far easier to just roll all 3 becuase SOE will or won't do whatever they like, I'll just be agile enough to keep up to ensure my guild can still raid and has fun.

Novusod

03-01-2012, 10:40 PM

<cite>Damager wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rageincarnate@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>i'd be interested to see actual numbers instead of nuh uhh's.I feel like i'm reading the monty python skit where there were debating whether or not disagreeing counted as an arguement.</blockquote>Atan did run without strikethrough immunity, He is researching it further. He did say 100% removal of strikethrough immunity would not be feasible or in his words "VERY Rough" for a brawler to MT progression, Keep in mind he hasnt hit HM sullons at all yet and came to this conclusion..</blockquote>This experiment has been done a few times before both by players and by the devs. I still think it is really funny how you called all the posters bluffs here with this because they were ignorant of how much thought had been put into giving brawlers strikethrough immunity. This is why these threads never get anywhere because it so easy to reproduce. Remove strikethrough immunity and then the brawler gets pretty much instantly destroyed. This arguement seems to go through this cycle where players whine on the forums about strikethrough immunity. The devs entertain the idea for a bit, test it out and then reject it because their tests showed the brawlers got destroyed without strikethrough immunity. This cycle will keep on repeating as long as people like the OP keep making these troll threads instead of focusing on what will actually fix their class issues.

Talathion

03-01-2012, 10:45 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Bruener what do you think of this:Defensive Stances:Shadowknights/Paladins/Berserker should look like:Makes Caster able to critical heal.(-5%)-(-10%) Auto-attack Damage. (Greatly Penalizing Auto-Attack Damage.)-5% Spell and Combat Art Damage. (Penalizing Spell/CA Damage.)Increases Caster's base heal amounts by 22.0%.10% of all damage the caster recieve's is prevented.+35% Threat Generated to all damaging abilities. Guardian should look like:(-5%)-(10%) Auto-attack Damage. (Greatly Penalizing Auto-Attack Damage.)-5% Spell and Combat Art Damage. (Penalizing Spell/CA Damage.)Increases Block Chance of Caster by 22.0%10% of all damage the caster recieve's is prevented.+35% Threat Generated to all damaging abilities.</blockquote>and thats why I made this post.

Bruener

03-01-2012, 10:55 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>You guys have no semblance of balance you try and compare a monks avoidance to say a crusaders straight up and cry about it. For example you competely ignore not only the mit advantage but also like for example a paly that heals 10% of every hit plus has 10% physical damage absorbtion. You don't consider any of those things and just want to compare a plate tanks avoidance straight up with an avoidance tank. Next you cry about strikethrough but none of you have even the remotest clue outside of the few 100% strikethrough mobs what mobs are actually striking through. Even if a mob has 20% strikethrough and you are avoiding 80% thats only really 16% less avoidance putting you at 64% You dont think 10% damage absorbtion and 10% healed damage don't even things out at that point? No you just want to cry instead of looking at things rationally.</blockquote>Sorry, it may have done at one point but it doesn't anymore, not when you consider some of the very large On hit procs out there now.Also the second you bring into account class abilities like that you need to bring in the Brawler ones, how about Stoneskin on riposte, 15% Heal when you take over 40% damage, 30% damage reduction for 3 seconds every 10 seconds, 3 hit Deathsave on a 3 min recast (After 50% reuse, which is common taken into account), to name but a few.Are Brawlers, especially Monks OP compared to other tanks? YesDoes 100% Strike through immunity contribute to this, while not even the plate tanks avoids has any on them? Yes Does the mitigated damage gap now warrant such a large avoidance gap? Nope Do SOE give even the smallest amount of f**k about this? Nope.Are SOE going to do anything about it? Nope.Honestly, roll with the most OP class as they arrise, even if SOE wanted to fix anything they don't have any competant resource left to do so.Obviously the viable alternative is to Keep beating this dead old horse and act like anyone bar you few gives a sh*t.</blockquote>Again you lump all brawler abilities together there are two brawler classes. But keep on trying.</blockquote>One ability in there was a Bruiser? And yet you compare Crusaders with the Paladin's 10% heal.His post is spot on and is exactly where things are. Yes you Brawlers are OP'd, you have been for longer than anybody else in the game, and due to timing and dev resources its probably not going to change for a while.Enjoy playing the most OP'd Fighter classes for the longest time in the game while it lasts. Eventually it will change....in the mean time it makes me feel good pointing out the obvious disparity and gives me great satisfaction watching all the dumb people that post here claiming otherwise.

BChizzle

03-01-2012, 11:15 PM

Duele Atan just tested it for you and said straight up brawlers wouldn't be viable MT's if strikethrough immunity was removed what more would you like?

Novusod

03-02-2012, 03:34 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>One ability in there was a Bruiser? And yet you compare Crusaders with the Paladin's 10% heal.His post is spot on and is exactly where things are. Yes you Brawlers are OP'd, you have been for longer than anybody else in the game, and due to timing and dev resources its probably not going to change for a while.Enjoy playing the most OP'd Fighter classes for the longest time in the game while it lasts. Eventually it will change....in the mean time it makes me feel good pointing out the obvious disparity and gives me great satisfaction watching all the dumb people that post here claiming otherwise.</blockquote>Give it a rest already you are only hurting yourself now more than you are hurting me. If you put as much effort into focusing on your own class issues as you did trying to get brawlers nerfed then then you probably could have gotten something fixed with your class. Now that you created this giant multi page whine thread it probably will get looked into which is something that is not going to work out very well for you because don't have your ducks lines up in a row here. The first thing they are going to is do the same test they did 6 months ago that showed brawlers get destroyed when they removethrough immunity. So the whole strikethrough immunity removal is never going to happen.Secondly they will look at overall class ballance only to find out the classes aren't nearly as bad as you say they are. For one the guardian can go toe to toe with either brawler. The SK isn't really that bad off either. I am in a top raid guild and we don't used three brawlers but have guard and SK along with a bruiser. I see both these classes everyday keep up with me. Lots of other guilds still use plate tanks for various reasons. The tanks are ballanced pretty well at the high end. I am not saying other plate tanks don't have issues. The zerker especially has a lot of issues and the crusaders could use some help. The thing is whole whine attitude that brawlers are the problem distracts from the issues.All that is going to happen is the devs will investigate, reconfirm what I told you and then ignore you guys for the next six months. In that time real issues that should be getting working on nothing will change.

Soul_Dreamer

03-02-2012, 07:53 AM

If the removal of 100% throws things the other way then obviously it's going too far, the balance point is not 100% to Brawlers and Nothing to Plates though.My view is still the same as it always was, Strikethrough immunity should work as Crit mit currently does and all temp buffs should get immunity to it completely.Pate tanks could get 5% Strike through immunity so would be 100% Immune to mobs with strikethrough of 5% or lower.Brawlers could get 50% Strike through immunity so would be 100% Immune to mobs with strikethrough of 50% or lower.eg a mob with 10% will have 5% Strikethrough vs A plate, 0% vs a Brawler.eg a mob with 55% strikethrough will have 45% vs a Plate and 5% vs a Brawler.There is still a large difference but it means it can be adjusted more easily and there is the possibility to gear/aa for it.As much as you Brawlers claim the removal will unbalance things, the fact plate tanks have no defense against it at all even on temp buffs is just as great an imbalance especially now when we're seeing all these proc on hit abilties combined with larger strikethrough numbers.I find this whole concept a little silly though since they added strikethrough immunity to contest uncontestable avoidance, now we're discussing ways to contest this uncontestable stat <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />At the end of the day there was no need to add it when they themselves have complete control over Gear and Encounters, if plate tank avoidance was too hight it would have been just as easy to knock off 10% Block chance accross the board on all shields.

Talathion

03-02-2012, 12:20 PM

Right now we are grasping straws, but I would rather get my class fixed then fight the brawlers. :/A huge step to fixing whats broken right now would just be to add healing criticals back.The second step would be to give snap aggro to paladins.Diminishing Returns for offensive/defensive abilitys need fixed/changed to straight bonuses.The third step would be to improve the fighter's defensive stances to actually prevent damage instead of give mitigation. (what most of us are way into diminishing returns on.) We're not avoidance tanks therefore we don't have 360 avoidance and an ability to make our avoidance uncontested, therefore we need damage prevention to make up for that.

Soul_Dreamer

03-02-2012, 01:48 PM

Fighters critical healing will do nothing to help survivability against HM raid mobs.A Trend that is seen though is as they're making mobs harder they're doing 3 things.1. Mobs hit harder.2. Mobs are starting to be given "Will proc X on a hit" more often.3. Mobs have more strikethrough.3. Is directly effecting the amount of damage 1 and 2 do to plate tanks, however it doesn't effect brawlers at all. Having "Strikethrough Avoidance" work like crit mit rather than just a boolean true or false as it is currently means mobs can be more easily balanced against both fighter types and gear/aa can be added as well to combat the mechanic.No mob that I've bothered to parse properly seems to have more than 30-40% Strikethrough (Although I've not tanked HM Tallons/Vallons yet), so having Brawlers with 50% innate isn't any change at all, so no nerf in current content terms.However giving plate a small amount of it and making ALL temp avoidances completely immune to strikethough will help plate tanks survive this mechanic. If I have no stoneskins up as a Guardian I will often use Dragoons around an AOE to stop Auto attack eating wards so the AOE is absorbed, there have been a few times were this has worked only to be killed by an Auto attack with dragoons up and running, THIS SHOULD NOT HAPPEN.

Damager

03-02-2012, 02:28 PM

<cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote>Fighters critical healing will do nothing to help survivability against HM raid mobs.A Trend that is seen though is as they're making mobs harder they're doing 3 things.1. Mobs hit harder.2. Mobs are starting to be given "Will proc X on a hit" more often.3. Mobs have more strikethrough.3. Is directly effecting the amount of damage 1 and 2 do to plate tanks, however it doesn't effect brawlers at all. Having "Strikethrough Avoidance" work like crit mit rather than just a boolean true or false as it is currently means mobs can be more easily balanced against both fighter types and gear/aa can be added as well to combat the mechanic.No mob that I've bothered to parse properly seems to have more than 30-40% Strikethrough (Although I've not tanked HM Tallons/Vallons yet), so having Brawlers with 50% innate isn't any change at all, so no nerf in current content terms.However giving plate a small amount of it and making ALL temp avoidances completely immune to strikethough will help plate tanks survive this mechanic. If I have no stoneskins up as a Guardian I will often use Dragoons around an AOE to stop Auto attack eating wards so the AOE is absorbed, there have been a few times were this has worked only to be killed by an Auto attack with dragoons up and running, THIS SHOULD NOT HAPPEN.</blockquote> Since your bored also, I have Guard in ACT at 80.65% avoidance on HM Mrogr, Gimme the exact % you would need to drop a monks strikethrough immunity to exacly equal the Guards damage takin who also takes 15% less physical damage then the monk, and has 1200 more mitigation than the monk. PS.. Show your work sir, Thanks

Soul_Dreamer

03-02-2012, 02:49 PM

At work and really bloody bored TBH <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Is this you? <a href="http://u.eq2wire.com/soe/character_detail/450971994349">http://u.eq2wire.com/soe/character_...il/450971994349</a>How much of that Guards avoid is from a lend from another fighter? A good excercise to get an approiximation could be to run up a rough simulation. I could knock the basics up in a matter of hours, were we could adjust min/max mob hit, mob attackspeed, player avoidance, mitigation % and mob strike through. This would give us a very rough idea of where the balance point would be.I do think Brawlers should have more strikethrough immunity than plate tanks, but at the very least plate temp buffs should have immunity on them and Mob strikethrough should NEVER exceed 15% or so.

Silzin

03-02-2012, 03:13 PM

<cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote>At work and really bloody bored TBH <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />Is this you? <a href="http://u.eq2wire.com/soe/character_detail/450971994349">http://u.eq2wire.com/soe/character_...il/450971994349</a>How much of that Guards avoid is from a lend from another fighter? A good excercise to get an approiximation could be to run up a rough simulation. I could knock the basics up in a matter of hours, were we could adjust min/max mob hit, mob attackspeed, player avoidance, mitigation % and mob strike through. This would give us a very rough idea of where the balance point would be.I do think Brawlers should have more strikethrough immunity than plate tanks, but at the very least plate temp buffs should have immunity on them and Mob strikethrough should NEVER exceed 15% or so.</blockquote>there are 2 things i think must happon asap.1. all 100% avoid buffs need to have strikethrough immunity.2. Mobs should only have a % of strikethroughthe dev's want to redise the plat tanks avoidence compared to the brawlers avoidence... and 10-20% is a lot at that point. After that there are a few tanks that need a few more things but I dont think i have hurd any one say those to things dont need to be don and need to be dont as sown as posible.

Damager

03-02-2012, 03:38 PM

<cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote>At work and really bloody bored TBH <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />How much of that Guards avoid is from a lend from another fighter? A good excercise to get an approiximation could be to run up a rough simulation. I could knock the basics up in a matter of hours, were we could adjust min/max mob hit, mob attackspeed, player avoidance, mitigation % and mob strike through. This would give us a very rough idea of where the balance point would be. I do think Brawlers should have more strikethrough immunity than plate tanks, but at the very least plate temp buffs should have immunity on them and Mob strikethrough should NEVER exceed 15% or so.</blockquote>How much lend does not matter, NO ONE here solos HM sullons. Balance is obtained from real world scenarios not from a piece of paper. Our guard has 80% in raid use your monks % in raid.You stated percentages on dropping a monks strikethrough immunity to balance them with plates use the monks avoidance compared to my guards avoidance that you used to come to your original conclusion of percentages.No offense but this forum is riddled with opinions, they dont interest me.

Soul_Dreamer

03-02-2012, 04:11 PM

<cite>Damager wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote>At work and really bloody bored TBH <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />How much of that Guards avoid is from a lend from another fighter? A good excercise to get an approiximation could be to run up a rough simulation. I could knock the basics up in a matter of hours, were we could adjust min/max mob hit, mob attackspeed, player avoidance, mitigation % and mob strike through. This would give us a very rough idea of where the balance point would be. I do think Brawlers should have more strikethrough immunity than plate tanks, but at the very least plate temp buffs should have immunity on them and Mob strikethrough should NEVER exceed 15% or so.</blockquote>How much lend does not matter, NO ONE here solos HM sullons. Balance is obtained from real world scenarios not from a piece of paper. Our guard has 80% in raid use your monks % in raid.You stated percentages on dropping a monks strikethrough immunity to balance them with plates use the monks avoidance compared to my guards avoidance that you used to come to your original conclusion of percentages.No offense but this forum is riddled with opinions, they dont interest me. </blockquote>Sorry that doesn't work at all, the Guardians avoidance is skewed by the monk having the lend on them in the first place since the monk is Strikethrough immune. You maybe interested in "Real work scenarios" but you're not taking into account the mechanics behind those scenarios.What I have so far is:Mitigation % - 50-80.Avoidance - 30 - 80.Strikethrough Immunity - 0-100.Stonekin % - 0 - 30%.Lend 1 - Avoidance - 10-80.Lend 2 - Avoidance - 10-80.Lend 1 Strikethroughimmunity - 0-100.Lend 2 Strikethoughimmunity - 0-100.Mob Min hit - 10000-150000Mob Max hit - 10000-150000Mob Strikethrough - 0-100.Mob Attack Speed - 1 - 10.I'll then set the Values up so the "Guardian" is avoiding 80%, but I need to know what class the lenders are, Inq and Monk I'm assuming? I also need to know what % Avoidances are creating that totoal avoidance, which you'll see on the ACT avoidance report.I'll then save it as a "Guardian with monk Lend" preset, and as I raise the mobs strikethrough I'll be able to see the avoidance go down and by how much. I can then do the same think for a Monk with a Plate Lend, Monk with a Monk lend, Guard with a Guardian lend and adjust ONLY the strikethrough values to see how each scenario is effected <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />As long as the order of the functions are correct this should give us a relatively good measure of how tanking will be effected without a crap load of in game testing.So... as you see, the Lend does matter, but I'm off home, I'll pick up this little project again tonight if the wife doesn't have any jobs for me.

Talathion

03-02-2012, 04:21 PM

<cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote>Fighters critical healing will do nothing to help survivability against HM raid mobs.A Trend that is seen though is as they're making mobs harder they're doing 3 things.1. Mobs hit harder.2. Mobs are starting to be given "Will proc X on a hit" more often.3. Mobs have more strikethrough.3. Is directly effecting the amount of damage 1 and 2 do to plate tanks, however it doesn't effect brawlers at all. Having "Strikethrough Avoidance" work like crit mit rather than just a boolean true or false as it is currently means mobs can be more easily balanced against both fighter types and gear/aa can be added as well to combat the mechanic.No mob that I've bothered to parse properly seems to have more than 30-40% Strikethrough (Although I've not tanked HM Tallons/Vallons yet), so having Brawlers with 50% innate isn't any change at all, so no nerf in current content terms.However giving plate a small amount of it and making ALL temp avoidances completely immune to strikethough will help plate tanks survive this mechanic. If I have no stoneskins up as a Guardian I will often use Dragoons around an AOE to stop Auto attack eating wards so the AOE is absorbed, there have been a few times were this has worked only to be killed by an Auto attack with dragoons up and running, THIS SHOULD NOT HAPPEN.</blockquote>Paladin's Wards critting again would help them alot with survivability, so no your kind of wrong.This isn't just about HMs, its pretty much an issue with all hard hitting content.What if you were an SK and interceded and needed to heal up as fast as possible?But your right, its not enough, which is why I listed the fact defensive stance needs reworked for plate tanks to prevent damage.

Damager

03-02-2012, 04:56 PM

<cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Damager wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote>At work and really bloody bored TBH <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />How much of that Guards avoid is from a lend from another fighter? A good excercise to get an approiximation could be to run up a rough simulation. I could knock the basics up in a matter of hours, were we could adjust min/max mob hit, mob attackspeed, player avoidance, mitigation % and mob strike through. This would give us a very rough idea of where the balance point would be. I do think Brawlers should have more strikethrough immunity than plate tanks, but at the very least plate temp buffs should have immunity on them and Mob strikethrough should NEVER exceed 15% or so.</blockquote>How much lend does not matter, NO ONE here solos HM sullons. Balance is obtained from real world scenarios not from a piece of paper. Our guard has 80% in raid use your monks % in raid.You stated percentages on dropping a monks strikethrough immunity to balance them with plates use the monks avoidance compared to my guards avoidance that you used to come to your original conclusion of percentages.No offense but this forum is riddled with opinions, they dont interest me. </blockquote>Sorry that doesn't work at all, the Guardians avoidance is skewed by the monk having the lend on them in the first place since the monk is Strikethrough immune. You maybe interested in "Real work scenarios" but you're not taking into account the mechanics behind those scenarios.What I have so far is:Mitigation % - 50-80.Avoidance - 30 - 80.Strikethrough Immunity - 0-100.Stonekin % - 0 - 30%.Lend 1 - Avoidance - 10-80.Lend 2 - Avoidance - 10-80.Lend 1 Strikethroughimmunity - 0-100.Lend 2 Strikethoughimmunity - 0-100.Mob Min hit - 10000-150000Mob Max hit - 10000-150000Mob Strikethrough - 0-100.Mob Attack Speed - 1 - 10.I'll then set the Values up so the "Guardian" is avoiding 80%, but I need to know what class the lenders are, Inq and Monk I'm assuming? I also need to know what % Avoidances are creating that totoal avoidance, which you'll see on the ACT avoidance report.I'll then save it as a "Guardian with monk Lend" preset, and as I raise the mobs strikethrough I'll be able to see the avoidance go down and by how much. I can then do the same think for a Monk with a Plate Lend, Monk with a Monk lend, Guard with a Guardian lend and adjust ONLY the strikethrough values to see how each scenario is effected <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />As long as the order of the functions are correct this should give us a relatively good measure of how tanking will be effected without a crap load of in game testing.So... as you see, the Lend does matter, but I'm off home, I'll pick up this little project again tonight if the wife doesn't have any jobs for me.</blockquote>Heh, Interesting train of thought.However, the focus of this is plate vs Brawler survivability in raid. Lets say a Guard avoids 80% with lends in raid a Monk avoids 80% with lends in raid did they not both avoid the same amount? Your explanation dictates they didnt from a skew in a monks immune lend but the final outcome clearly states they did.Curiousity wants to know why would you think the guards avoid is skewed because of a lend that has strikethru immunity in it? Did he not avoid the exact same mount in the end? Would it also not dictate by your explanation that IF you dropped the brawlers immunity 50% then the guard at raid time would actually look something more like Guard 78% and the brawler 70% clearly defining the Guard as the best avoidance tank correctly buffed in raid?Your avoidance numbers are you trying to say guard has 30% and monk has 80% natively in raid? Please say no so I can still play this game.

Yimway

03-02-2012, 05:06 PM

Personally I think most of this discussion is absurd.In order to give other tanks something as significant as 100% strikethru for brawlers is for end game encounters, you'd have to go with something like:Warrior Defensive stance - Grants 40% reduction in damage from all physical hitsCrusader Defensive stance - Grants 70% reduction in damage from all non-physical hits; Increases Block chance by 30%Again, I've not crunched the math yet, but playing all 3 tanks, and healing all 3 tanks, thats what the magnitude feels like.

Damager

03-02-2012, 05:09 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Personally I think most of this discussion is absurd.In order to give other tanks something as significant as 100% strikethru for brawlers is for end game encounters, you'd have to go with something like:Warrior Defensive stance - Grants 40% reduction in damage from all physical hitsCrusader Defensive stance - Grants 70% reduction in damage from all non-physical hits; Increases Block chance by 30%Again, I've not crunched the math yet, but playing all 3 tanks, and healing all 3 tanks, thats what the magnitude feels like.</blockquote>ROFL of course this discussion is absurd, Its packed full of half truths and full lies and well me just twisting it to occupy my time. =)There isnt a single person posting here qualified to give a real synopsys, just opinions and some half math problems that are meaningless /sigh

Talathion

03-02-2012, 05:34 PM

Defensive Stances:Shadowknights/Paladins/Berserker should look like:Allows Caster to critical heal.-15% Auto-attack Damage. (Greatly Penalizing Auto-Attack Damage.)-10% Spell and Combat Art Damage. (Penalizing Spell/CA Damage.)Increases Caster's base heal amounts by 22.0%.10% of all damage the caster recieve's is outright prevented.Threat Generated from all damage and healing abilities that increase threat has had its threat increased by 35%. Guardian should look like:-15% Auto-attack Damage. (Greatly Penalizing Auto-Attack Damage.)-10% Spell and Combat Art Damage. (Penalizing Spell/CA Damage.)Increases Block Chance of Caster by 22.0%Decreases Physical Damage done to caster by 5%.10% of all damage the caster recieve's is outright prevented.Threat Generated from all damage and healing abilities that increase threat has had its threat increased by 35%. This would be a hell of a start. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />Also, change aa's to go with these changes.Warrior:Tactical Wisdom adds 4% more Damage Prevention.Veteran's Shielding adds 5% more Physical Damage Reduction.These changes would all realisticly solve in some way the survivability problem, but it doesn't stop there.Paladins would still need a snap aggro somewhere, Shadowknights need a way for there healing to overheal/become a Ward via some kind of talent or AA, of course I don't play SK/Paladin so I will not say anything for them.Of course this can also be fun by making offensive stances too!Offensive Stances:Shadowknights/Paladins should look like:+15% Auto-attack Damage.+5% Extra Autoattack Damage to Two-Handed Weapons.+10% Spell and Combat Art Damage.Increases caster's spell double cast chance by 10%Decrease's Caster's base heal amounts by 22.0%. (only when directly targeted.)Increases all damage done to the caster by 10%.Decreases Hate Gain of Caster by 35%.Target is no longer considered a fighter, benefits that only assist non-fighters will now work on this fighter.Guardian/Berserker should look like:+15% Auto-attack Damage.+10% Spell and Combat Art Damage.+10% Flurry ChanceIncreases Physical Damage done to caster by 5%. (only when directly targeted.)Increases all damage done to the caster by 10%.Decreases Hate Gain of Caster by 35%.Target is no longer considered a fighter, benefits that only assist non-fighters will now work on this fighter.

Damager

03-02-2012, 06:23 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Personally I think most of this discussion is absurd.In order to give other tanks something as significant as 100% strikethru for brawlers is for end game encounters, you'd have to go with something like:Warrior Defensive stance - Grants 40% reduction in damage from all physical hitsCrusader Defensive stance - Grants 70% reduction in damage from all non-physical hits; Increases Block chance by 30%Again, I've not crunched the math yet, but playing all 3 tanks, and healing all 3 tanks, thats what the magnitude feels like.</blockquote>Ok correct my math..........100 swings -55% (Monks uncontested avoid) = 45 hits / .15 (Asumming 15% strikethrough) = 6.75 hits (Amount strikthru immune blocked) is equal to 70% damage reduction and 30% blaock on crusader?

Rageincarnate

03-02-2012, 06:37 PM

<cite>Damager wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Personally I think most of this discussion is absurd.In order to give other tanks something as significant as 100% strikethru for brawlers is for end game encounters, you'd have to go with something like:Warrior Defensive stance - Grants 40% reduction in damage from all physical hitsCrusader Defensive stance - Grants 70% reduction in damage from all non-physical hits; Increases Block chance by 30%Again, I've not crunched the math yet, but playing all 3 tanks, and healing all 3 tanks, thats what the magnitude feels like.</blockquote>Ok correct my math..........100 swings -55% (Monks uncontested avoid) = 45 hits / .15 (Asumming 15% strikethrough) = 6.75 hits (Amount strikthru immune blocked) is equal to 70% damage reduction and 30% blaock on crusader?</blockquote>he said .. non physical man. as in ae's...I don't believe strikethrough honors uncontested avoid. Please correct me if i'm wrong.uncontested only comes into play during the initial roll to determine a hit correct?strikethrough is a seperate check after wards. (Please don't let me spread wrong info .. but this is how i understand it)I do have a question now.. So it is 1 avoidance check per flurry and per ma correct?so 1 succesfull strikethrough.. could essentially be 5 hits. And is that 15% chance to strikethrough from somewhere or did you make that up? Not ripping .. just trying to understand.I'm basing my opinion on strikethrough not honoring uncontested avoid from parsing mob hit rates on my sk and having as high as 92% hit rates on me (melee) in defensive.. before the blanket strikethrough nerf.

LardLord

03-02-2012, 06:58 PM

<cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote>As long as the order of the functions are correct this should give us a relatively good measure of how tanking will be effected without a crap load of in game testing.</blockquote>Avoidance lends take effect in some nonsensical order. A swing does not have to fail all of the tank's avoidance checks before some of the lends are checked. Aditu looked at the data closely years ago with regard to Shield Ally (Cleric), but I'm not sure if she ever took the time to figure out the exact order or post it any where.

Damager

03-02-2012, 07:10 PM

Soul_Dreamer

03-02-2012, 07:10 PM

<cite>Quabi@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote>As long as the order of the functions are correct this should give us a relatively good measure of how tanking will be effected without a crap load of in game testing.</blockquote>Avoidance lends take effect in some nonsensical order. A swing does not have to fail all of the tank's avoidance checks before some of the lends are checked. Aditu looked at the data closely years ago with regard to Shield Ally (Cleric), but I'm not sure if she ever took the time to figure out the exact order or post it any where. </blockquote>The order doesn't matter as much as the end result, the resulting avoidance will be the same no matter which avoid is checked first. They're multipliers so :a x b x c x d x e x f = c x a x f x e x b x d@Damager, so taking it to the extreme, if the monk lend is providing 55% of the avoidance and the Guardian is only actually providing 25%, both combined will add up to 80 no matter which is tanking but this would be fine? What happens in this situation if the monk goes down, leaves raid etc, why should the plate tank have to always rely on the Monk for his avoidance, surely this situation would be better with a Monk tank and a Monk lend, why even bring the plate tank?

Yimway

03-02-2012, 07:25 PM

<cite>Rageincarnate@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Damager wrote:</cite><blockquote>100 swings -55% (Monks uncontested avoid) = 45 hits / .15 (Asumming 15% strikethrough) = 6.75 hits (Amount strikthru immune blocked) is equal to 70% damage reduction and 30% blaock on crusader?</blockquote>so 1 succesfull strikethrough.. could essentially be 5 hits. And is that 15% chance to strikethrough from somewhere or did you make that up? Not ripping .. just trying to understand.I'm basing my opinion on strikethrough not honoring uncontested avoid from parsing mob hit rates on my sk and having as high as 92% hit rates on me (melee) in defensive.. before the blanket strikethrough nerf.</blockquote>15% is just pulled out of the air, different encounters have a different strikethru chance.Yes, strikethru ignores all avoidance checks contested, or uncontested.

LardLord

03-02-2012, 07:37 PM

Hennyo

03-02-2012, 07:53 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rageincarnate@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Damager wrote:</cite><blockquote>100 swings -55% (Monks uncontested avoid) = 45 hits / .15 (Asumming 15% strikethrough) = 6.75 hits (Amount strikthru immune blocked) is equal to 70% damage reduction and 30% blaock on crusader?</blockquote>so 1 succesfull strikethrough.. could essentially be 5 hits. And is that 15% chance to strikethrough from somewhere or did you make that up? Not ripping .. just trying to understand.I'm basing my opinion on strikethrough not honoring uncontested avoid from parsing mob hit rates on my sk and having as high as 92% hit rates on me (melee) in defensive.. before the blanket strikethrough nerf.</blockquote>15% is just pulled out of the air, different encounters have a different strikethru chance.Yes, strikethru ignores all avoidance checks contested, or uncontested.</blockquote>Umm I am pretty sure that is incorrect, I was pretty sure that strike through doesn't effect dodge avoid, but it did everything else.

Talathion

03-02-2012, 08:36 PM

<cite>Hennyo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rageincarnate@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Damager wrote:</cite><blockquote>100 swings -55% (Monks uncontested avoid) = 45 hits / .15 (Asumming 15% strikethrough) = 6.75 hits (Amount strikthru immune blocked) is equal to 70% damage reduction and 30% blaock on crusader?</blockquote>so 1 succesfull strikethrough.. could essentially be 5 hits. And is that 15% chance to strikethrough from somewhere or did you make that up? Not ripping .. just trying to understand.I'm basing my opinion on strikethrough not honoring uncontested avoid from parsing mob hit rates on my sk and having as high as 92% hit rates on me (melee) in defensive.. before the blanket strikethrough nerf.</blockquote>15% is just pulled out of the air, different encounters have a different strikethru chance.Yes, strikethru ignores all avoidance checks contested, or uncontested.</blockquote>Umm I am pretty sure that is incorrect, I was pretty sure that strike through doesn't effect dodge avoid, but it did everything else.</blockquote>Strikethrough Immunity makes ALL uncontested/contested avoidance completely uncontested.

Damager

03-02-2012, 09:53 PM

<cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Quabi@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote>As long as the order of the functions are correct this should give us a relatively good measure of how tanking will be effected without a crap load of in game testing.</blockquote>Avoidance lends take effect in some nonsensical order. A swing does not have to fail all of the tank's avoidance checks before some of the lends are checked. Aditu looked at the data closely years ago with regard to Shield Ally (Cleric), but I'm not sure if she ever took the time to figure out the exact order or post it any where. </blockquote>The order doesn't matter as much as the end result, the resulting avoidance will be the same no matter which avoid is checked first. They're multipliers so :a x b x c x d x e x f = c x a x f x e x b x d@Damager, so taking it to the extreme, if the monk lend is providing 55% of the avoidance and the Guardian is only actually providing 25%, both combined will add up to 80 no matter which is tanking but this would be fine? What happens in this situation if the monk goes down, leaves raid etc, why should the plate tank have to always rely on the Monk for his avoidance, surely this situation would be better with a Monk tank and a Monk lend, why even bring the plate tank?</blockquote>Exactly the end result is all that matters, so it doesnt matter what class is lending etc etc the fact remains he will still have 80% avoidance.I dont know how to answer the second part other than saying he will do the same as if a healer went down or left the raid, Why in the world do we need to rely on a healer, really? ROFL!!!!!!!! You took it to an unrealistic number sir and I still had a realistic response.Im gonna wait on more of the math problem responses, they make me 0.0

Novusod

03-03-2012, 12:18 AM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>15% is just pulled out of the air, different encounters have a different strikethru chance.Yes, strikethru ignores all avoidance checks contested, or uncontested.</blockquote>That is not true. Not all avoidance checks are equal and not all avoidance checks are can be struckthrough. For instance it is immpossible to strikethrough a dodge. You will never see anything in your avoidance reports along the lines of Mobs swings and misses but strikes through the miss. Avoidance checks works in chains a dodge breaks the chain so it can't be struck through. So really plate tanks DO have small ammount of strikethrough immunity because all their uncontested dodge is strikethrough immune. The mechanic already exists to give plate tanks trikethrough immunity and you did not even know it.This means the whole problem can be solved quite easily then. Just petition for a percentage of uncontested dodge be placed on plate tank defensive stances. Give each class a different amount depending on greatest need. Guardians wouldn't need much since they are already strong while the Berserker would probably need the most. Crusaders would be between those two.

Rageincarnate

03-03-2012, 01:01 AM

you mean.. avoidance food/drink? /facepalm

Silzin

03-03-2012, 01:12 AM

Also anything with Extra Repost chance.

Novusod

03-03-2012, 01:21 AM

<cite>Rageincarnate@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>you mean.. avoidance food/drink? /facepalm</blockquote>Yes you can get uncontested dodge which is strikethrough immune from the colossal reactant food and drink and a few other old items. I am talking about using uncontested dodge as tank class ballancing mechanic.

Talathion

03-03-2012, 02:25 AM

Its not a very balanced mechanic if it pretty much puts brawlers ontop of the world.

Damager

03-03-2012, 06:21 AM

<cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rageincarnate@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>you mean.. avoidance food/drink? /facepalm</blockquote>Yes you can get uncontested dodge which is strikethrough immune from the colossal reactant food and drink and a few other old items. I am talking about using uncontested dodge as tank class ballancing mechanic.</blockquote>This is why I love this argument and pop up in it. I mean really people throwing theoretical numbers and opinions on something they dont understand in the first place. What kills me is how adement they are about it. Absurd discusion of course it is.as I posted earlier...100 swings -55% (Monks uncontested avoid) = 45 hits / .15 (Asumming 15% strikethrough) = 6.75 hitsI mean really some poeple rolled over laughing at this, others that are complaining are like wow thats all it does rofl. That whole formula is jacked up...for one thing strikethru only effect avoided attacks how in the world did no one call me on it working on the attacks that hit rofl......................Bard I posted a link in your guild forums on how avoidance works last year, comon man.........

Soul_Dreamer

03-03-2012, 08:19 AM

<cite>Damager wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Having both a monk and guard in basically the same gear, I can say the incoming damage profile is much easier on the monk.There are few places / fights that I think the guard is a tad easier to run with, but in general the overall reduction of damage from auto attacks on the monk makes it significantly easier to survive.And yes, I'll agree aoe is a tad easier on guard than monk.But all us plate MT's didn't swap to brawlers cause it made instancing more fun, it made raid progression easier.</blockquote>Correct the Guard is significantly better equiped for anything other than physical damage, depending on the mob it sways as to which is easier to heal. This is called balance.I keep up with Monks on the server, That is what their oppinion was after swapping to Monk as their main for some time, When all said and done their Oppinion became there is some things easier on the Guard and other Things easier on the Monk, all said they just enjoyed the class better once they got use to it.I can say nothing so far in your progression would be impacted either way by a monk or guard or Pally MT.</blockquote>If you think Paladin is on the same level as Guard and Monk you're delusional.*Edit* was sure I quoted this from this thread, no idea were it is now.

Talathion

03-03-2012, 01:29 PM

Most people in the thread have already rerolled monks/bruisers along time ago :/

Damager

03-03-2012, 05:20 PM

<cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Damager wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Having both a monk and guard in basically the same gear, I can say the incoming damage profile is much easier on the monk.There are few places / fights that I think the guard is a tad easier to run with, but in general the overall reduction of damage from auto attacks on the monk makes it significantly easier to survive.And yes, I'll agree aoe is a tad easier on guard than monk.But all us plate MT's didn't swap to brawlers cause it made instancing more fun, it made raid progression easier.</blockquote>Correct the Guard is significantly better equiped for anything other than physical damage, depending on the mob it sways as to which is easier to heal. This is called balance.I keep up with Monks on the server, That is what their oppinion was after swapping to Monk as their main for some time, When all said and done their Oppinion became there is some things easier on the Guard and other Things easier on the Monk, all said they just enjoyed the class better once they got use to it.I can say nothing so far in your progression would be impacted either way by a monk or guard or Pally MT.</blockquote>If you think Paladin is on the same level as Guard and Monk you're delusional.*Edit* was sure I quoted this from this thread, no idea were it is now.</blockquote>I didnt say Paladin was on same level, What I did say is there is nothing his guild has killed in their progression so far that I have not watched a Pally MT with ease.You can argue your math all day, the PROVEN fact remains they MT up to HM sullons just fine. Cleared all 3 Drunder EM zones with Pally MT and Monk OT in a couple hours.

Talathion

03-03-2012, 11:37 PM

Probably a paladin with monk avoidance...I sure wish dev's read these forums and were thinking of class balance instead of the next SC item and dungeon maker that nobody uses.

Soul_Dreamer

03-04-2012, 09:52 AM

<cite>Damager wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Damager wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Having both a monk and guard in basically the same gear, I can say the incoming damage profile is much easier on the monk.There are few places / fights that I think the guard is a tad easier to run with, but in general the overall reduction of damage from auto attacks on the monk makes it significantly easier to survive.And yes, I'll agree aoe is a tad easier on guard than monk.But all us plate MT's didn't swap to brawlers cause it made instancing more fun, it made raid progression easier.</blockquote>Correct the Guard is significantly better equiped for anything other than physical damage, depending on the mob it sways as to which is easier to heal. This is called balance.I keep up with Monks on the server, That is what their oppinion was after swapping to Monk as their main for some time, When all said and done their Oppinion became there is some things easier on the Guard and other Things easier on the Monk, all said they just enjoyed the class better once they got use to it.I can say nothing so far in your progression would be impacted either way by a monk or guard or Pally MT.</blockquote>If you think Paladin is on the same level as Guard and Monk you're delusional.*Edit* was sure I quoted this from this thread, no idea were it is now.</blockquote>I didnt say Paladin was on same level, What I did say is there is nothing his guild has killed in their progression so far that I have not watched a Pally MT with ease.You can argue your math all day, the PROVEN fact remains they MT up to HM sullons just fine. Cleared all 3 Drunder EM zones with Pally MT and Monk OT in a couple hours.</blockquote>This is the difference, you seem to think that because any tank can tank easy mode zones there is balance.Paladins don't have the abilities to block the hard hitting AOE's, or to protect themselves from Melee around the time it's due to allow wards to Absorb them,our abilities can be STRUCKTHROUGH!. Monks/Guards/Brawlers can, this is whats making them so successful and the primary choice.

Damager

03-04-2012, 06:04 PM

<cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Damager wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Damager wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Having both a monk and guard in basically the same gear, I can say the incoming damage profile is much easier on the monk.There are few places / fights that I think the guard is a tad easier to run with, but in general the overall reduction of damage from auto attacks on the monk makes it significantly easier to survive.And yes, I'll agree aoe is a tad easier on guard than monk.But all us plate MT's didn't swap to brawlers cause it made instancing more fun, it made raid progression easier.</blockquote>Correct the Guard is significantly better equiped for anything other than physical damage, depending on the mob it sways as to which is easier to heal. This is called balance.I keep up with Monks on the server, That is what their oppinion was after swapping to Monk as their main for some time, When all said and done their Oppinion became there is some things easier on the Guard and other Things easier on the Monk, all said they just enjoyed the class better once they got use to it.I can say nothing so far in your progression would be impacted either way by a monk or guard or Pally MT.</blockquote>If you think Paladin is on the same level as Guard and Monk you're delusional.*Edit* was sure I quoted this from this thread, no idea were it is now.</blockquote>I didnt say Paladin was on same level, What I did say is there is nothing his guild has killed in their progression so far that I have not watched a Pally MT with ease.You can argue your math all day, the PROVEN fact remains they MT up to HM sullons just fine. Cleared all 3 Drunder EM zones with Pally MT and Monk OT in a couple hours.</blockquote>This is the difference, you seem to think that because any tank can tank easy mode zones there is balance.Paladins don't have the abilities to block the hard hitting AOE's, or to protect themselves from Melee around the time it's due to allow wards to Absorb them,our abilities can be STRUCKTHROUGH!. Monks/Guards/Brawlers can, this is whats making them so successful and the primary choice.</blockquote>Im not big on hear say so only reference what I have personaly seen, They are not my opinions either rather fact they have done it without issue. My appologies if that came accross as saying they can only tank EM as Pally can and has tanked all of HM Kraytocs, and all of the HM Foundations and HOL mobs my old guild has done as well. So what I was trying to say is they can and have tanked no problem all content (EM/HM) up to HM Sullons. I have not personally seen a Pally even try HM Sullons so that is as far as I can comment on. I am by no means saying they can or cant, I personaly have not seen one even try.

Boli32

03-05-2012, 10:55 AM

<cite>Damager wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Damager wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Damager wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Having both a monk and guard in basically the same gear, I can say the incoming damage profile is much easier on the monk.There are few places / fights that I think the guard is a tad easier to run with, but in general the overall reduction of damage from auto attacks on the monk makes it significantly easier to survive.And yes, I'll agree aoe is a tad easier on guard than monk.But all us plate MT's didn't swap to brawlers cause it made instancing more fun, it made raid progression easier.</blockquote>Correct the Guard is significantly better equiped for anything other than physical damage, depending on the mob it sways as to which is easier to heal. This is called balance.I keep up with Monks on the server, That is what their oppinion was after swapping to Monk as their main for some time, When all said and done their Oppinion became there is some things easier on the Guard and other Things easier on the Monk, all said they just enjoyed the class better once they got use to it.I can say nothing so far in your progression would be impacted either way by a monk or guard or Pally MT.</blockquote>If you think Paladin is on the same level as Guard and Monk you're delusional.*Edit* was sure I quoted this from this thread, no idea were it is now.</blockquote>I didnt say Paladin was on same level, What I did say is there is nothing his guild has killed in their progression so far that I have not watched a Pally MT with ease.You can argue your math all day, the PROVEN fact remains they MT up to HM sullons just fine. Cleared all 3 Drunder EM zones with Pally MT and Monk OT in a couple hours.</blockquote>This is the difference, you seem to think that because any tank can tank easy mode zones there is balance.Paladins don't have the abilities to block the hard hitting AOE's, or to protect themselves from Melee around the time it's due to allow wards to Absorb them,our abilities can be STRUCKTHROUGH!. Monks/Guards/Brawlers can, this is whats making them so successful and the primary choice.</blockquote>Im not big on hear say so only reference what I have personaly seen, They are not my opinions either rather fact they have done it without issue. My appologies if that came accross as saying they can only tank EM as Pally can and has tanked all of HM Kraytocs, and all of the HM Foundations and HOL mobs my old guild has done as well. So what I was trying to say is they can and have tanked no problem all content (EM/HM) up to HM Sullons. I have not personally seen a Pally even try HM Sullons so that is as far as I can comment on. I am by no means saying they can or cant, I personaly have not seen one even try.</blockquote>I tanked all EM with ease; and most of HM with ease as well... struggled on the Pant d00d; but with Warden in the group worked like a charm; a brawler finds that mob *far* easier. Only reason I tanked it over the brawler at the time is I had more MTing experiance. Started on HM Drunder and HM King T but never killed them as it became *painfully* obvious to everyone that my survibility was so low it was actually harming my guild for me to be involved in any sort of tanking role.Even fully defensively speced, defensive stance everything a pally can die when tanking a HM mob in Drunder *with* a "save" up. Work it out and a pally only gets one reliable save every 2m30s and that is from dieing... every other save has a condition which more often than not means the save is useless. Even Legionaries conviction is not immune... as it is only 40% Magical DR, 60% of the attack still gets through and clears out your wards meaning the next autoattack hits you full on; which often happened instantly due to the way autoattack works.Even a zerker and an SK have more defensive tools to deal with HM Drunder and that's saying something.EM and Instance tanks are level pegging but get into Hm and three tanks leave the others so far behind any guild will be stupid to use anything other than a guard/monk/bruiser combination - and sometimes just a brawler/brawler.

Rageincarnate

03-05-2012, 12:17 PM

my head hurts... good bye thread. /waves

Damager

03-05-2012, 02:36 PM

<cite>Boli@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Damager wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Damager wrote:</cite><blockquote>I didnt say Paladin was on same level, What I did say is there is nothing his guild has killed in their progression so far that I have not watched a Pally MT with ease.You can argue your math all day, the PROVEN fact remains they MT up to HM sullons just fine. Cleared all 3 Drunder EM zones with Pally MT and Monk OT in a couple hours.</blockquote>This is the difference, you seem to think that because any tank can tank easy mode zones there is balance.Paladins don't have the abilities to block the hard hitting AOE's, or to protect themselves from Melee around the time it's due to allow wards to Absorb them,our abilities can be STRUCKTHROUGH!. Monks/Guards/Brawlers can, this is whats making them so successful and the primary choice.</blockquote>Im not big on hear say so only reference what I have personaly seen, They are not my opinions either rather fact they have done it without issue. My appologies if that came accross as saying they can only tank EM as Pally can and has tanked all of HM Kraytocs, and all of the HM Foundations and HOL mobs my old guild has done as well. So what I was trying to say is they can and have tanked no problem all content (EM/HM) up to HM Sullons. I have not personally seen a Pally even try HM Sullons so that is as far as I can comment on. I am by no means saying they can or cant, I personaly have not seen one even try.</blockquote>I tanked all EM with ease; and most of HM with ease as well... struggled on the Pant d00d; but with Warden in the group worked like a charm; a brawler finds that mob *far* easier. Only reason I tanked it over the brawler at the time is I had more MTing experiance. Started on HM Drunder and HM King T but never killed them as it became *painfully* obvious to everyone that my survibility was so low it was actually harming my guild for me to be involved in any sort of tanking role.Even fully defensively speced, defensive stance everything a pally can die when tanking a HM mob in Drunder *with* a "save" up. Work it out and a pally only gets one reliable save every 2m30s and that is from dieing... every other save has a condition which more often than not means the save is useless. Even Legionaries conviction is not immune... as it is only 40% Magical DR, 60% of the attack still gets through and clears out your wards meaning the next autoattack hits you full on; which often happened instantly due to the way autoattack works.Even a zerker and an SK have more defensive tools to deal with HM Drunder and that's saying something.EM and Instance tanks are level pegging but get into Hm and three tanks leave the others so far behind any guild will be stupid to use anything other than a guard/monk/bruiser combination - and sometimes just a brawler/brawler.</blockquote>You seem pretty level headed on this and seeing pretty much the same as I am. HM Pants dude really is just execution, Guard tank with skilled raid force made this fight look like easiest in zone /shrug, they didnt even tell me their strat before pull I get the hey just follow your group around lol as they werent even worried about this fight.HM King T, Yeah Pally this is where you can see the Pally having some issues as well on First HM named in Sullons. Pally can OT dragon or adds.Not knowing Pally at all what would you realisticly say would help at this point in progression on the Pally?Guard at most minor tweaks IMHO. SK, Pally, and especially zerk need some love.

Soul_Dreamer

03-05-2012, 04:44 PM

<cite>Damager wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Boli@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Damager wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Soul_Dreamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Damager wrote:</cite><blockquote>I didnt say Paladin was on same level, What I did say is there is nothing his guild has killed in their progression so far that I have not watched a Pally MT with ease.You can argue your math all day, the PROVEN fact remains they MT up to HM sullons just fine. Cleared all 3 Drunder EM zones with Pally MT and Monk OT in a couple hours.</blockquote>This is the difference, you seem to think that because any tank can tank easy mode zones there is balance.Paladins don't have the abilities to block the hard hitting AOE's, or to protect themselves from Melee around the time it's due to allow wards to Absorb them,our abilities can be STRUCKTHROUGH!. Monks/Guards/Brawlers can, this is whats making them so successful and the primary choice.</blockquote>Im not big on hear say so only reference what I have personaly seen, They are not my opinions either rather fact they have done it without issue. My appologies if that came accross as saying they can only tank EM as Pally can and has tanked all of HM Kraytocs, and all of the HM Foundations and HOL mobs my old guild has done as well. So what I was trying to say is they can and have tanked no problem all content (EM/HM) up to HM Sullons. I have not personally seen a Pally even try HM Sullons so that is as far as I can comment on. I am by no means saying they can or cant, I personaly have not seen one even try.</blockquote>I tanked all EM with ease; and most of HM with ease as well... struggled on the Pant d00d; but with Warden in the group worked like a charm; a brawler finds that mob *far* easier. Only reason I tanked it over the brawler at the time is I had more MTing experiance. Started on HM Drunder and HM King T but never killed them as it became *painfully* obvious to everyone that my survibility was so low it was actually harming my guild for me to be involved in any sort of tanking role.Even fully defensively speced, defensive stance everything a pally can die when tanking a HM mob in Drunder *with* a "save" up. Work it out and a pally only gets one reliable save every 2m30s and that is from dieing... every other save has a condition which more often than not means the save is useless. Even Legionaries conviction is not immune... as it is only 40% Magical DR, 60% of the attack still gets through and clears out your wards meaning the next autoattack hits you full on; which often happened instantly due to the way autoattack works.Even a zerker and an SK have more defensive tools to deal with HM Drunder and that's saying something.EM and Instance tanks are level pegging but get into Hm and three tanks leave the others so far behind any guild will be stupid to use anything other than a guard/monk/bruiser combination - and sometimes just a brawler/brawler.</blockquote>You seem pretty level headed on this and seeing pretty much the same as I am. HM Pants dude really is just execution, Guard tank with skilled raid force made this fight look like easiest in zone /shrug, they didnt even tell me their strat before pull I get the hey just follow your group around lol as they werent even worried about this fight.HM King T, Yeah Pally this is where you can see the Pally having some issues as well on First HM named in Sullons. Pally can OT dragon or adds.Not knowing Pally at all what would you realisticly say would help at this point in progression on the Pally?Guard at most minor tweaks IMHO. SK, Pally, and especially zerk need some love.</blockquote>A decent stoneskin like ability on a ~2min base timer, Holy ground changed to be 1 hate position per spell not the 4k-10k hate it has. Maybe the re-use of HG taken up to 2min from 1min 30 to compensate for the change. Other than those 2 simple things, strikethrough immunity added to all their temp blocks. The latter should be the minimum for all plate tanks.

Boli32

03-06-2012, 11:58 AM

I have always been in favour of moving away from the AA trees as the only method to get "saves" Since we share our tree with SKs any bonus we get they will as well. Since SKs actually have 3 additional "saves" we do not get (where furor is approximatly equal to stonewall).Pallys have too many direct heals which should be altered to provide a better solution to absorbing damage other than "but you can heal" as that argument left a long time ago.Including a magical stoneskin trigger on our ward (with slightly increased recast time ofc) and changing our main direct heal (Holy Aid) into a single shot reactive > 30% health would go down great to increasing the survivability of the class without compromising the flavour.FYI - pallys have 5 Direct heals; 7 other ways to "proc" health and 2 wards.... most healers do not have that many! but the thing with heals... is you have to geat hit first and a dead pally cannot heal.But this is not the thread for that and it has been brought up *many* times in the paladin section and subsequently ignored. So for this thread all I can say is: Yup... Pallys are broken endgame to such an extent that guilds who choose to use a Paladin tank in HM encounters are purposefully gimping themselves

Controlor

03-06-2012, 02:22 PM

<cite>Boli@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have always been in favour of moving away from the AA trees as the only method to get "saves" Since we share our tree with SKs any bonus we get they will as well. Since SKs actually have 3 additional "saves" we do not get (where furor is approximatly equal to stonewall).Pallys have too many direct heals which should be altered to provide a better solution to absorbing damage other than "but you can heal" as that argument left a long time ago.Including a magical stoneskin trigger on our ward (with slightly increased recast time ofc) and changing our main direct heal (Holy Aid) into a single shot reactive > 30% health would go down great to increasing the survivability of the class without compromising the flavour.FYI - pallys have 5 Direct heals; 7 other ways to "proc" health and 2 wards.... most healers do not have that many! but the thing with heals... is you have to geat hit first and a dead pally cannot heal.But this is not the thread for that and it has been brought up *many* times in the paladin section and subsequently ignored. So for this thread all I can say is: Yup... Pallys are broken endgame to such an extent that guilds who choose to use a Paladin tank in HM encounters are purposefully gimping themselves</blockquote>To address what boli said, in short yes. The fact that SK's are more defensive than paladins is just disturbing tbh. And our heals being direct are insufficient. The only one that is reliable is our stoneskin and it only recieves 1/3 of our potency buff. THIS INCLUDES AN AA THAT INCREASES WARD AMOUNT BY 20% it only actually increases it by 6.7% which is utter bull. As stated our primary heal needs to be a reactive, the amount of direct heals we have is apaling, even with heal crits added to paladins again the only one that would be reliable is still the stone skin. The direct heals critting would mean nothing as more often than not if i cast it a healers heal goes off before mine so i just top mysefl off from 95% to 100% (wooooooooooooo). Paladins need either 1 more stap (3 positions+) or change HG to have 1 hate position each time it hits a mob. As it is now HG is more of a dps tool or as an initial aoe snap nothing more really. Paladins need to have stoneskins that are NOT shared with SK's. As it is now EVERY stoneskin a paladin has (as well as LC) a SK can get as well. We have none outside of that. I am in favor of turning either Arch Healing (Useless AA heal that heals for less than our main heal) or Devout Sacrament (another self direct heal) into a stoneskin on a reasonable reuse (90 - 120 seconds base).Looking at this thread it was mentioned and a pic was linked earlier of one of the brawler classes getting a ward on a 45 sec reuse (capped) that as well angers me. The reason being is their ward is 22k+ on a 45 sec reuse cap. Where as paladin is 13k on a 30 sec reuse cap. So they get nearly 2X the ward amount for only 1.5X the recast. I have tanked the first named in HM sullons and working on 2nd as my paladin. The first named i have to time every temp i have (full defensive speced manawall / LC) perfectly, and still have to call out for a healers death save, and STILL die due to random stuff. On the second named in HM sullons it was me on adds as i am typically better at the aoe hate than our SK (amends a lock and timing HG holds agro well). However the adds will still beat the S outa me and i die. As of last raid (and possibly more in the future) our illy has a geared bruiser and i have a semi geared illy. They may be instead switching our positionins because of my paladins lack of survivability in progression.

lostsandman

03-06-2012, 02:41 PM

Rageincarnate

03-06-2012, 06:07 PM

most of this thread has been like the above.. just guessing.. not sure..I heard this guy say this about this class.... Protection value on shields (plate tanks avoidance) needs itemized correctly so there is an actual upgrade path and not stinking dps stats. For all plate tanks.both crusaders need their aes to be able to cast and run (rounding up adds.. it only makes sense.. they can actually... "chase down adds")both crusaders could use reliable snap agros.. heaven forbid a target lock (that works)Pally needs to be able to break the hate transfer capand both crusaders need a pet.. a brawler pet .. that can cast avoidance on the crusader.. !! /wave damager.

Talathion

03-06-2012, 07:21 PM

<cite>Rageincarnate@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>most of this thread has been like the above.. just guessing.. not sure..I heard this guy say this about this class.... Protection value on shields (plate tanks avoidance) needs itemized correctly so there is an actual upgrade path and not stinking dps stats. For all plate tanks.both crusaders need their aes to be able to cast and run (rounding up adds.. it only makes sense.. they can actually... "chase down adds")both crusaders could use reliable snap agros.. heaven forbid a target lock (that works)Pally needs to be able to break the hate transfer capand both crusaders need a pet.. a brawler pet .. that can cast avoidance on the crusader.. !! /wave damager.</blockquote>Critical Heals need to come back.

Yimway

03-06-2012, 07:36 PM

<cite>Rageincarnate@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Pally needs to be able to break the hate transfer cap</blockquote>No.

Boli32

03-07-2012, 06:22 AM

<cite>Drona@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Boli@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have always been in favour of moving away from the AA trees as the only method to get "saves" Since we share our tree with SKs any bonus we get they will as well. Since SKs actually have 3 additional "saves" we do not get (where furor is approximatly equal to stonewall).Pallys have too many direct heals which should be altered to provide a better solution to absorbing damage other than "but you can heal" as that argument left a long time ago.Including a magical stoneskin trigger on our ward (with slightly increased recast time ofc) and changing our main direct heal (Holy Aid) into a single shot reactive > 30% health would go down great to increasing the survivability of the class without compromising the flavour.FYI - pallys have 5 Direct heals; 7 other ways to "proc" health and 2 wards.... most healers do not have that many! but the thing with heals... is you have to geat hit first and a dead pally cannot heal.But this is not the thread for that and it has been brought up *many* times in the paladin section and subsequently ignored. So for this thread all I can say is: Yup... Pallys are broken endgame to such an extent that guilds who choose to use a Paladin tank in HM encounters are purposefully gimping themselves</blockquote>What are these additional saves SK have please? Do you mean Hateful Respite, Blood Siphon and ?</blockquote>Myth Clicky... I'm not saying those saves are "awesome"... but you get them in addition to the shared saves. Pallys on the other hand do not get any more than are shared between crusaders (if we say that Stonewall == Furor and Divine Favor == SK Death prevent)And pallys already sort of break the agro transfer cap using Sigil; but then no tank has issues with sustained hate anymore its the snaps some tanks have in abundance and others do not.

lostsandman

03-07-2012, 08:10 AM

<cite>Boli@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Drona@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Boli@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have always been in favour of moving away from the AA trees as the only method to get "saves" Since we share our tree with SKs any bonus we get they will as well. Since SKs actually have 3 additional "saves" we do not get (where furor is approximatly equal to stonewall).Pallys have too many direct heals which should be altered to provide a better solution to absorbing damage other than "but you can heal" as that argument left a long time ago.Including a magical stoneskin trigger on our ward (with slightly increased recast time ofc) and changing our main direct heal (Holy Aid) into a single shot reactive > 30% health would go down great to increasing the survivability of the class without compromising the flavour.FYI - pallys have 5 Direct heals; 7 other ways to "proc" health and 2 wards.... most healers do not have that many! but the thing with heals... is you have to geat hit first and a dead pally cannot heal.But this is not the thread for that and it has been brought up *many* times in the paladin section and subsequently ignored. So for this thread all I can say is: Yup... Pallys are broken endgame to such an extent that guilds who choose to use a Paladin tank in HM encounters are purposefully gimping themselves</blockquote>What are these additional saves SK have please? Do you mean Hateful Respite, Blood Siphon and ?</blockquote>Myth Clicky... I'm not saying those saves are "awesome"... but you get them in addition to the shared saves. Pallys on the other hand do not get any more than are shared between crusaders (if we say that Stonewall == Furor and Divine Favor == SK Death prevent)And pallys already sort of break the agro transfer cap using Sigil; but then no tank has issues with sustained hate anymore its the snaps some tanks have in abundance and others do not.</blockquote>For some reason I though Paladins get similar spell on their mystical too. Sorry my bad. They can still give Paladins additional "saves" via AA by putting them on the Paladin tree so that SK can't get them. However I think it's better to make your current "useless" spells better than giving more buttons to press.

Boli32

03-07-2012, 10:09 AM

<cite>Drona@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>For some reason I though Paladins get similar spell on their mystical too. Sorry my bad. </blockquote>Paladin's Mythical Clicky is a temp pet.Cast it at a target and it attacks for around 200 damage per swing (none crit) and casts "vengence" every couple of seconds which is an AoE... for every mob it hits it deals like 200 damage and it heals you (and perhap the group?) for like 200 as well. (also none crit on both).When soloing a *massive* number of adds this is actually kind of cool as the vengence AoE does not have a max target set and it can actually help you stay alive.BUT: when the mob it is attacking dies it is dispelled; and it only has 1000 health so dies from ripostes and damage shields; there has not been a single raid fight where this little guy has survived getting into combat - you just see him runnign out (on a long casting time no less - think 5s) and dieing before he reaches your target.So its it totally overpowered and it should be nerfed <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Talathion

03-08-2012, 04:31 PM

I don't even know whats going on anymore, gonna wait till another game comes out I guess...I love eq2 though, but all good things must come to an end some time.

meidang

07-01-2012, 01:56 AM

As i have been playing a monk for 6years and for roughly 3 of those years brawlers were the redheaded bassstard step children of eq2, mostly due to the EoF uncontested avoid nerf back then, During RoK i watched plate tanks rolling with 65% to 70% avoid self buffed and in raid it could go higher,, didnt see anyone whining then,, but lets get to today,,Plate tanks got shields, some got 3+min death saves, this that an the other, Brawlers wear leather but have closer to chain miti, how do you expect us to be a viable tank when all you do is scream OP an demand nerfs, To me then all tanks will be gimped, whos going to be your MT then, the Inq? but instead of being men and just asking/tellin SoE to fix yall , yall just whine like lil girls how the redhead step children are so OP now, why not ask for ST immunity for all tanks defense stance.. seriously ST immune for all tanks an boost all Plate tanks Miti by 5% base and boost dps for plate tanks by 5-10% base, and boost Pally Heals and SK lifetaps X% and leave the redheaded step children alone,Also i can say the monks play style has changed some what in the last 3years so the player had to adapt, if youre still playing you plate tanks like you did 4 years ago maybe it's not the class but the player,, also remember plate tank is a miti tank an brawler is avoidance tank, ( yes SoE sorta killed that during EoF/ RoK) but if you keep in mind the uncontested avoid nerf that made us suck for years is still in effect and one of the things that is making us not suck is we do have more Miti now along with some cool temp buffs, drop our miti an dang near instantly were back to being the redhead step child of the game, unless you give us back our uncontested (base) number we had before,, Also comparing the top 200 Brawlers WW to 10000 semi geared plate tanks is rubbish anyhow ( not saying thats the only comparing going on, ) On Guk server i see alot of semi geared Plate tanks whining about a better geared brawler being better, well gear up fool,,, yes i do understand Pally an SK have less avoid then Guard/ Zerker and thats because Pally/SK have heals/lifetaps,, but in the end it would serve all of us better if brawlers were left as is an plate tanks were boosted to our level or slightly above ours,, i wouldnt whine at all, i would actually welcome it, but on the same note its about freakin time brawlers had the spot light, Guard pim p'd it during RoK, SKs pim p'd it during SF.. every Xpac some class of tanks is pim-ping, but now the brawlers have it after 5years, the F'in sky is falling, grow up or go play WoW

Beko

07-01-2012, 12:07 PM

<cite>meidang wrote:</cite><blockquote>As i have been playing a monk for 6years and for roughly 3 of those years brawlers were the redheaded bassstard step children of eq2, mostly due to the EoF uncontested avoid nerf back then, During RoK i watched plate tanks rolling with 65% to 70% avoid self buffed and in raid it could go higher,, didnt see anyone whining then,, but lets get to today,,Plate tanks got shields, some got 3+min death saves, this that an the other, Brawlers wear leather but have closer to chain miti, how do you expect us to be a viable tank when all you do is scream OP an demand nerfs, To me then all tanks will be gimped, whos going to be your MT then, the Inq? but instead of being men and just asking/tellin SoE to fix yall , yall just whine like lil girls how the redhead step children are so OP now, why not ask for ST immunity for all tanks defense stance.. seriously ST immune for all tanks an boost all Plate tanks Miti by 5% base and boost dps for plate tanks by 5-10% base, and boost Pally Heals and SK lifetaps X% and leave the redheaded step children alone,Also i can say the monks play style has changed some what in the last 3years so the player had to adapt, if youre still playing you plate tanks like you did 4 years ago maybe it's not the class but the player,, also remember plate tank is a miti tank an brawler is avoidance tank, ( yes SoE sorta killed that during EoF/ RoK) but if you keep in mind the uncontested avoid nerf that made us suck for years is still in effect and one of the things that is making us not suck is we do have more Miti now along with some cool temp buffs, drop our miti an dang near instantly were back to being the redhead step child of the game, unless you give us back our uncontested (base) number we had before,, Also comparing the top 200 Brawlers WW to 10000 semi geared plate tanks is rubbish anyhow ( not saying thats the only comparing going on, ) On Guk server i see alot of semi geared Plate tanks whining about a better geared brawler being better, well gear up fool,,, yes i do understand Pally an SK have less avoid then Guard/ Zerker and thats because Pally/SK have heals/lifetaps,, but in the end it would serve all of us better if brawlers were left as is an plate tanks were boosted to our level or slightly above ours,, i wouldnt whine at all, i would actually welcome it, but on the same note its about freakin time brawlers had the spot light, Guard pim p'd it during RoK, SKs pim p'd it during SF.. every Xpac some class of tanks is pim-ping, but now the brawlers have it after 5years, the F'in sky is falling, grow up or go play WoW</blockquote>Its hard to gear up when they are a much better class which gets more spots in groups/raids.Welcome to Balance, have a seat by the paladin and shadowknight over there, they have alot to talk about.

Rasttan

07-01-2012, 04:32 PM

<cite>Beko@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>meidang wrote:</cite><blockquote>As i have been playing a monk for 6years and for roughly 3 of those years brawlers were the redheaded bassstard step children of eq2, mostly due to the EoF uncontested avoid nerf back then, During RoK i watched plate tanks rolling with 65% to 70% avoid self buffed and in raid it could go higher,, didnt see anyone whining then,, but lets get to today,,Plate tanks got shields, some got 3+min death saves, this that an the other, Brawlers wear leather but have closer to chain miti, how do you expect us to be a viable tank when all you do is scream OP an demand nerfs, To me then all tanks will be gimped, whos going to be your MT then, the Inq? but instead of being men and just asking/tellin SoE to fix yall , yall just whine like lil girls how the redhead step children are so OP now, why not ask for ST immunity for all tanks defense stance.. seriously ST immune for all tanks an boost all Plate tanks Miti by 5% base and boost dps for plate tanks by 5-10% base, and boost Pally Heals and SK lifetaps X% and leave the redheaded step children alone,Also i can say the monks play style has changed some what in the last 3years so the player had to adapt, if youre still playing you plate tanks like you did 4 years ago maybe it's not the class but the player,, also remember plate tank is a miti tank an brawler is avoidance tank, ( yes SoE sorta killed that during EoF/ RoK) but if you keep in mind the uncontested avoid nerf that made us suck for years is still in effect and one of the things that is making us not suck is we do have more Miti now along with some cool temp buffs, drop our miti an dang near instantly were back to being the redhead step child of the game, unless you give us back our uncontested (base) number we had before,, Also comparing the top 200 Brawlers WW to 10000 semi geared plate tanks is rubbish anyhow ( not saying thats the only comparing going on, ) On Guk server i see alot of semi geared Plate tanks whining about a better geared brawler being better, well gear up fool,,, yes i do understand Pally an SK have less avoid then Guard/ Zerker and thats because Pally/SK have heals/lifetaps,, but in the end it would serve all of us better if brawlers were left as is an plate tanks were boosted to our level or slightly above ours,, i wouldnt whine at all, i would actually welcome it, but on the same note its about freakin time brawlers had the spot light, Guard pim p'd it during RoK, SKs pim p'd it during SF.. every Xpac some class of tanks is pim-ping, but now the brawlers have it after 5years, the F'in sky is falling, grow up or go play WoW</blockquote>Its hard to gear up when they are a much better class which gets more spots in groups/raids.Welcome to Balance, have a seat by the paladin and shadowknight over there, they have alot to talk about.You mean those Shadow Knights and Pallies that were OP last expansion who never said a word back then, I watched a Pally MT world first kills all that expansion and watched our SK top some dps parses. Brawlers spent alot more years than any class sitting outside of raids and groups except the very few of us who excelled at our class, maybe thats the direction you should have taken excelling and not complaining.</blockquote>

Beko

07-01-2012, 07:23 PM

<cite>Rasttan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Beko@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>meidang wrote:</cite><blockquote>As i have been playing a monk for 6years and for roughly 3 of those years brawlers were the redheaded bassstard step children of eq2, mostly due to the EoF uncontested avoid nerf back then, During RoK i watched plate tanks rolling with 65% to 70% avoid self buffed and in raid it could go higher,, didnt see anyone whining then,, but lets get to today,,Plate tanks got shields, some got 3+min death saves, this that an the other, Brawlers wear leather but have closer to chain miti, how do you expect us to be a viable tank when all you do is scream OP an demand nerfs, To me then all tanks will be gimped, whos going to be your MT then, the Inq? but instead of being men and just asking/tellin SoE to fix yall , yall just whine like lil girls how the redhead step children are so OP now, why not ask for ST immunity for all tanks defense stance.. seriously ST immune for all tanks an boost all Plate tanks Miti by 5% base and boost dps for plate tanks by 5-10% base, and boost Pally Heals and SK lifetaps X% and leave the redheaded step children alone,Also i can say the monks play style has changed some what in the last 3years so the player had to adapt, if youre still playing you plate tanks like you did 4 years ago maybe it's not the class but the player,, also remember plate tank is a miti tank an brawler is avoidance tank, ( yes SoE sorta killed that during EoF/ RoK) but if you keep in mind the uncontested avoid nerf that made us suck for years is still in effect and one of the things that is making us not suck is we do have more Miti now along with some cool temp buffs, drop our miti an dang near instantly were back to being the redhead step child of the game, unless you give us back our uncontested (base) number we had before,, Also comparing the top 200 Brawlers WW to 10000 semi geared plate tanks is rubbish anyhow ( not saying thats the only comparing going on, ) On Guk server i see alot of semi geared Plate tanks whining about a better geared brawler being better, well gear up fool,,, yes i do understand Pally an SK have less avoid then Guard/ Zerker and thats because Pally/SK have heals/lifetaps,, but in the end it would serve all of us better if brawlers were left as is an plate tanks were boosted to our level or slightly above ours,, i wouldnt whine at all, i would actually welcome it, but on the same note its about freakin time brawlers had the spot light, Guard pim p'd it during RoK, SKs pim p'd it during SF.. every Xpac some class of tanks is pim-ping, but now the brawlers have it after 5years, the F'in sky is falling, grow up or go play WoW</blockquote>Its hard to gear up when they are a much better class which gets more spots in groups/raids.Welcome to Balance, have a seat by the paladin and shadowknight over there, they have alot to talk about.You mean those Shadow Knights and Pallies that were OP last expansion who never said a word back then, I watched a Pally MT world first kills all that expansion and watched our SK top some dps parses. Brawlers spent alot more years than any class sitting outside of raids and groups except the very few of us who excelled at our class, maybe thats the direction you should have taken excelling and not complaining.</blockquote></blockquote>Um... in DOV Brawlers were OP, and in SF Brawlers were the first class to beat Roehn Theer.You don't know what your talking about.

Rasttan

07-02-2012, 03:35 AM

<cite>Beko@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rasttan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Beko@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>meidang wrote:</cite><blockquote>As i have been playing a monk for 6years and for roughly 3 of those years brawlers were the redheaded bassstard step children of eq2, mostly due to the EoF uncontested avoid nerf back then, During RoK i watched plate tanks rolling with 65% to 70% avoid self buffed and in raid it could go higher,, didnt see anyone whining then,, but lets get to today,,Plate tanks got shields, some got 3+min death saves, this that an the other, Brawlers wear leather but have closer to chain miti, how do you expect us to be a viable tank when all you do is scream OP an demand nerfs, To me then all tanks will be gimped, whos going to be your MT then, the Inq? but instead of being men and just asking/tellin SoE to fix yall , yall just whine like lil girls how the redhead step children are so OP now, why not ask for ST immunity for all tanks defense stance.. seriously ST immune for all tanks an boost all Plate tanks Miti by 5% base and boost dps for plate tanks by 5-10% base, and boost Pally Heals and SK lifetaps X% and leave the redheaded step children alone,Also i can say the monks play style has changed some what in the last 3years so the player had to adapt, if youre still playing you plate tanks like you did 4 years ago maybe it's not the class but the player,, also remember plate tank is a miti tank an brawler is avoidance tank, ( yes SoE sorta killed that during EoF/ RoK) but if you keep in mind the uncontested avoid nerf that made us suck for years is still in effect and one of the things that is making us not suck is we do have more Miti now along with some cool temp buffs, drop our miti an dang near instantly were back to being the redhead step child of the game, unless you give us back our uncontested (base) number we had before,, Also comparing the top 200 Brawlers WW to 10000 semi geared plate tanks is rubbish anyhow ( not saying thats the only comparing going on, ) On Guk server i see alot of semi geared Plate tanks whining about a better geared brawler being better, well gear up fool,,, yes i do understand Pally an SK have less avoid then Guard/ Zerker and thats because Pally/SK have heals/lifetaps,, but in the end it would serve all of us better if brawlers were left as is an plate tanks were boosted to our level or slightly above ours,, i wouldnt whine at all, i would actually welcome it, but on the same note its about freakin time brawlers had the spot light, Guard pim p'd it during RoK, SKs pim p'd it during SF.. every Xpac some class of tanks is pim-ping, but now the brawlers have it after 5years, the F'in sky is falling, grow up or go play WoW</blockquote>Its hard to gear up when they are a much better class which gets more spots in groups/raids.Welcome to Balance, have a seat by the paladin and shadowknight over there, they have alot to talk about.You mean those Shadow Knights and Pallies that were OP last expansion who never said a word back then, I watched a Pally MT world first kills all that expansion and watched our SK top some dps parses. Brawlers spent alot more years than any class sitting outside of raids and groups except the very few of us who excelled at our class, maybe thats the direction you should have taken excelling and not complaining.</blockquote></blockquote>Um... in DOV Brawlers were OP, and in SF Brawlers were the first class to beat Roehn Theer.You don't know what your talking about.</blockquote>Really funny we WW1sted most of UD3 with a Pally, SK and Bralwer and the Pally was our MT the entire expansion, what did you kill? I watched them tank with zero problem and DPS close to T1 like every other tank, Dov is a different story sure but not last expansion theres no argument we killed it before anyone else with those classes and those classes tore through every zone out there like brawlers do in DoV.This is still DoV BTW are you in some new expansion?

Novusod

07-02-2012, 09:47 AM

For Years there was a Plate Tank monopoly going. In EoF, Rok, and TSO nobody used a brawler as the MT and very few were even used as OT. The Plate tanks had full spectrum domination monopoly of raid tanking. At no point in either SF or DoV was there ever a Brawler monopoly. Some of the the top raid guilds temporarily used a brawler MT to tank some very specific mobs. As soon as those mobs were on farm status those same guilds went back to using there plate tanks again. In the middle and lower teir raid guilds a variety of brawlers and plate tanks were used through out the so called DoV brawler era. That is the definition of ballance though.DoV was not a time of brawler domination but a time of ballance when the plate tank monopoly breifly disappeared so that not every single guild used plate tanks to steamroll all the raids in the entire game. They had to say hey maybe that brawler we have had sidelined for the last 4 years might be of some use.Since then there have been enough crocodile tears on this forum to fill the ocean. If a brawler tanks a mob before a plate tank does than suddenly the sky IS Falling. Oh the horror of a brawler tanking something. How dare those uppity brawlers tank a raid, don't they know we plate tanks have a monopoly. What a bunch of babies those who came to the forums to whine about brawlers have been. They could not stand even the slightest competition. Not one of them would have lasted 5 minutes as brawler playing in RoK.Really I guess they get their wish though. The Plate tank Monopoly is returning in GU64.

Bruener

07-02-2012, 12:55 PM

<cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>For Years there was a Plate Tank monopoly going. In EoF, Rok, and TSO nobody used a brawler as the MT and very few were even used as OT. The Plate tanks had full spectrum domination monopoly of raid tanking. At no point in either SF or DoV was there ever a Brawler monopoly. Some of the the top raid guilds temporarily used a brawler MT to tank some very specific mobs. As soon as those mobs were on farm status those same guilds went back to using there plate tanks again. In the middle and lower teir raid guilds a variety of brawlers and plate tanks were used through out the so called DoV brawler era. That is the definition of ballance though.DoV was not a time of brawler domination but a time of ballance when the plate tank monopoly breifly disappeared so that not every single guild used plate tanks to steamroll all the raids in the entire game. They had to say hey maybe that brawler we have had sidelined for the last 4 years might be of some use.Since then there have been enough crocodile tears on this forum to fill the ocean. If a brawler tanks a mob before a plate tank does than suddenly the sky IS Falling. Oh the horror of a brawler tanking something. How dare those uppity brawlers tank a raid, don't they know we plate tanks have a monopoly. What a bunch of babies those who came to the forums to whine about brawlers have been. They could not stand even the slightest competition. Not one of them would have lasted 5 minutes as brawler playing in RoK.Really I guess they get their wish though. The Plate tank Monopoly is returning in GU64.</blockquote>You have probably the worst perception on how DoV has actually been working.There is a reason progression guilds are using 1-2 Brawlers for everything. If things were balanced like you say than guilds would not have switched their rosters at all from SF. Balance would have meant utilizing the same tanks and no need to change. As soon as DoV hit it was blatantly obvious that if you wanted to progress as fast as possible as a guild you had to switch to using Brawler tanks. This has not changed at all since DoV launch and as Buffrat said in another thread it probably won't change at all going forward because despite what Brawlers lose, they are still ahead.Basically it finally hit a peak when Developers specifically asked Testers for Skyshrine not to use Brawlers on the content at all because of how OP'd they are. It was impossible to put out balanced content when 2 of the tanks just make everything way easier.The changes coming in 64 are much needed changes and I am glad to see that SOE did not overdue it since there are a few GOOD brawlers out there that will still be GOOD, but its just enough to clear out the handful of raiders that obviously are playing a class that is grossly OP'd making up for a shortfall in skill.

Beko

07-02-2012, 12:56 PM

Just because your brawler couldn't MT, doesn't mean others couldn't.Also, look above.

Rasttan

07-02-2012, 02:40 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>For Years there was a Plate Tank monopoly going. In EoF, Rok, and TSO nobody used a brawler as the MT and very few were even used as OT. The Plate tanks had full spectrum domination monopoly of raid tanking. At no point in either SF or DoV was there ever a Brawler monopoly. Some of the the top raid guilds temporarily used a brawler MT to tank some very specific mobs. As soon as those mobs were on farm status those same guilds went back to using there plate tanks again. In the middle and lower teir raid guilds a variety of brawlers and plate tanks were used through out the so called DoV brawler era. That is the definition of ballance though.DoV was not a time of brawler domination but a time of ballance when the plate tank monopoly breifly disappeared so that not every single guild used plate tanks to steamroll all the raids in the entire game. They had to say hey maybe that brawler we have had sidelined for the last 4 years might be of some use.Since then there have been enough crocodile tears on this forum to fill the ocean. If a brawler tanks a mob before a plate tank does than suddenly the sky IS Falling. Oh the horror of a brawler tanking something. How dare those uppity brawlers tank a raid, don't they know we plate tanks have a monopoly. What a bunch of babies those who came to the forums to whine about brawlers have been. They could not stand even the slightest competition. Not one of them would have lasted 5 minutes as brawler playing in RoK.Really I guess they get their wish though. The Plate tank Monopoly is returning in GU64.</blockquote>You have probably the worst perception on how DoV has actually been working.There is a reason progression guilds are using 1-2 Brawlers for everything. If things were balanced like you say than guilds would not have switched their rosters at all from SF. Balance would have meant utilizing the same tanks and no need to change. As soon as DoV hit it was blatantly obvious that if you wanted to progress as fast as possible as a guild you had to switch to using Brawler tanks. This has not changed at all since DoV launch and as Buffrat said in another thread it probably won't change at all going forward because despite what Brawlers lose, they are still ahead.Basically it finally hit a peak when Developers specifically asked Testers for Skyshrine not to use Brawlers on the content at all because of how OP'd they are. It was impossible to put out balanced content when 2 of the tanks just make everything way easier.The changes coming in 64 are much needed changes and I am glad to see that SOE did not overdue it since there are a few GOOD brawlers out there that will still be GOOD, but its just enough to clear out the handful of raiders that obviously are playing a class that is grossly OP'd making up for a shortfall in skill.</blockquote>I never agree with Bruener but I guess theres allways 1 time, what he says here is exactly correct everyone knows brawlers had it easy in DoV, and the smart ones know we wont be broke after these changes.

Rasttan

07-02-2012, 02:46 PM

<cite>Beko@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Just because your brawler couldn't MT, doesn't mean others couldn't.Also, look above.</blockquote>Pretty sure I tanked everything there was for several years, what did you tank?

BChizzle

07-02-2012, 06:23 PM

<cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>For Years there was a Plate Tank monopoly going. In EoF, Rok, and TSO nobody used a brawler as the MT and very few were even used as OT. The Plate tanks had full spectrum domination monopoly of raid tanking. At no point in either SF or DoV was there ever a Brawler monopoly. Some of the the top raid guilds temporarily used a brawler MT to tank some very specific mobs. As soon as those mobs were on farm status those same guilds went back to using there plate tanks again. In the middle and lower teir raid guilds a variety of brawlers and plate tanks were used through out the so called DoV brawler era. That is the definition of ballance though.DoV was not a time of brawler domination but a time of ballance when the plate tank monopoly breifly disappeared so that not every single guild used plate tanks to steamroll all the raids in the entire game. They had to say hey maybe that brawler we have had sidelined for the last 4 years might be of some use.Since then there have been enough crocodile tears on this forum to fill the ocean. If a brawler tanks a mob before a plate tank does than suddenly the sky IS Falling. Oh the horror of a brawler tanking something. How dare those uppity brawlers tank a raid, don't they know we plate tanks have a monopoly. What a bunch of babies those who came to the forums to whine about brawlers have been. They could not stand even the slightest competition. Not one of them would have lasted 5 minutes as brawler playing in RoK.Really I guess they get their wish though. The Plate tank Monopoly is returning in GU64.</blockquote>Pretty sure I MT'ed all the content as a brawler during those expansions you listed and also parsed at the top of the tanking world. It is funny how people change and make up history based on their own bias. TSO and RoK strikethrough hurt brawler tanks until they could get their mit levels high enough then they were fine, it was a gear issue not a tank mechanics issue. Back then the major issue for brawlers wasn't survivability it was that we had to turtle so bad agro was an issue (primarily ae agro). Plate tanks were balling in offensive back then getting full benefit from avoidance and dpsing while we were tied to our defensive stance. Brawlers were more OP in SF than they were in DoV the world just hadn't caught on yet once they nerfed the mit increase bug things leveled out some (I was running around with 20k mit and 80%+ avoid in SF and basically unkillable.)

Novusod

07-02-2012, 08:12 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>You have probably the worst perception on how DoV has actually been working.There is a reason progression guilds are using 1-2 Brawlers for everything. If things were balanced like you say than guilds would not have switched their rosters at all from SF. Balance would have meant utilizing the same tanks and no need to change. As soon as DoV hit it was blatantly obvious that if you wanted to progress as fast as possible as a guild you had to switch to using Brawler tanks. This has not changed at all since DoV launch and as Buffrat said in another thread it probably won't change at all going forward because despite what Brawlers lose, they are still ahead.Basically it finally hit a peak when Developers specifically asked Testers for Skyshrine not to use Brawlers on the content at all because of how OP'd they are. It was impossible to put out balanced content when 2 of the tanks just make everything way easier.The changes coming in 64 are much needed changes and I am glad to see that SOE did not overdue it since there are a few GOOD brawlers out there that will still be GOOD, but its just enough to clear out the handful of raiders that obviously are playing a class that is grossly OP'd making up for a shortfall in skill.</blockquote>So what you are saying is guilds that were using zero brawlers in SF got upset they finially had to recruit one in DoV. Your bias is so thick you don't even know what you are saying. Content was ballanced arround having at least one brawler in the raid the same way content is ballanced arround have bards and enchanters in the raid or a certain number of healers. Take away the key classes and those fights quickly become impossible. It is that way by design.The testing methodology of class exclusion is so assine I don't even know where to begin. What if the devs said test the content without using without Crusaders. Where would you be now if they decided nerf your class into oblivion because a pick up raid of testers could not defeat content that was designed arround having a crusader in the raid. It is clear you do not understand any type of scientific testing methodology.

meidang

07-02-2012, 08:35 PM

Hey Bchizzle TSO was strikethough Not RoK but your right it wasnt really a tanking issue, it was a total failure on SoE's part by giving Plate gear away like free candy that boosted plate tanks avoid to 60+% self buffed and they could get this gear in just about any RoK zone, 95% of any good brawler gear was tucked away in a raid zone, not a instance like the plate tank gear was, so that meant a plate tank could just run a few instances and get some loving, brawlers had to have a guild or raid willing to drag their butt to a raid zone an hope something drops the 1st 3 or 4 raids to help them out, no guilds going to drag gimpness to 20+ raids , point is plate tanks had alot more options on instance gear then brawlers, yes we had loot in the instances but it wasnt good enough to do anything in a raid but die.Bet ya , you ran a different toon, ( didnt you have a healer then?) and got some gear for ya brawler that way, or your guild just dealt with your gimpness till you got better raid gear, , AS for other Xpacs, SF to current, yeah Brawlers had some love in SF, our gear dropped way more often ( plates freaked) but what they missed out on is their gear did the same thing for years and now they get to see an feel what we did back then. and the cried like lil girls about it, God man more brawler gear, well us brawlers said the same thing for years about plate tanks. One of the biggest difference in this game is about who you hang out with, you hang out with peeps that will help you do the hardest content you will be rewarded with better loots then say hanging with peeps that never raid an never hit the hardest instances,, Most of the best Brawlers WW got where they are for 2 reasons 1 they applied themselves, 2 they were a part of guild/team that kicked butt, no scrub guilds,, that alone can make or break the quality of you toon, . for me i have been on Both sides of that example( hardcore an casual), not many of the best brawlers can say that, they were always teamed up with hardcore players and who your team is does matter, and like i said before if it anit broke dont fix it, now plates do need some help , but nerfing us to help them is total fail,. just boost them up a bit an call in a day,,

Bruener

07-02-2012, 08:40 PM

<cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>You have probably the worst perception on how DoV has actually been working.There is a reason progression guilds are using 1-2 Brawlers for everything. If things were balanced like you say than guilds would not have switched their rosters at all from SF. Balance would have meant utilizing the same tanks and no need to change. As soon as DoV hit it was blatantly obvious that if you wanted to progress as fast as possible as a guild you had to switch to using Brawler tanks. This has not changed at all since DoV launch and as Buffrat said in another thread it probably won't change at all going forward because despite what Brawlers lose, they are still ahead.Basically it finally hit a peak when Developers specifically asked Testers for Skyshrine not to use Brawlers on the content at all because of how OP'd they are. It was impossible to put out balanced content when 2 of the tanks just make everything way easier.The changes coming in 64 are much needed changes and I am glad to see that SOE did not overdue it since there are a few GOOD brawlers out there that will still be GOOD, but its just enough to clear out the handful of raiders that obviously are playing a class that is grossly OP'd making up for a shortfall in skill.</blockquote>So what you are saying is guilds that were using zero brawlers in SF got upset they finially had to recruit one in DoV. Your bias is so thick you don't even know what you are saying. Content was ballanced arround having at least one brawler in the raid the same way content is ballanced arround have bards and enchanters in the raid or a certain number of healers. Take away the key classes and those fights quickly become impossible. It is that way by design.The testing methodology of class exclusion is so assine I don't even know where to begin. What if the devs said test the content without using without Crusaders. Where would you be now if they decided nerf your class into oblivion because a pick up raid of testers could not defeat content that was designed arround having a crusader in the raid. It is clear you do not understand any type of scientific testing methodology.</blockquote>Good guilds already had a Brawler on their roster.Really I can't even understand what you are trying to say here. Your class is OP'd. Your class will still be OP'd after gu 64. You quitting because your class is only OP'd instead of godly OP'd is laughs.

Caethre

07-03-2012, 09:08 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Your class is OP'd. Your class will still be OP'd after gu 64. You quitting because your class is only OP'd instead of godly OP'd is laughs.</blockquote>(( The funny thing is, all of this was and still is a lie.What you want, of course, is that other fighter classes are not even CONSIDERED as MT for groups and raids if there is an SK available, you want the rest of us grateful for breadcrumbs, as in your eyes we deserve nothing more than made-up second and third string roles.It is all pretty obvious what you want.Outside HM raiding, the fighters are closer to balanced now than they have ever been, and the strongest of the pack still remains your class. Any whining about other classes being "overpowered" and calling for them to be nerfed is just petty class jealousy.You need to follow the advice in your own signature, Bruener, because you have no interest in balance, only in making SKs even more overpowered again ))

Beko

07-03-2012, 12:00 PM

<cite>Felishanna@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Your class is OP'd. Your class will still be OP'd after gu 64. You quitting because your class is only OP'd instead of godly OP'd is laughs.</blockquote>(( The funny thing is, all of this was and still is a lie.What you want, of course, is that other fighter classes are not even CONSIDERED as MT for groups and raids if there is an SK available, you want the rest of us grateful for breadcrumbs, as in your eyes we deserve nothing more than made-up second and third string roles.It is all pretty obvious what you want.Outside HM raiding, the fighters are closer to balanced now than they have ever been, and the strongest of the pack still remains your class. Any whining about other classes being "overpowered" and calling for them to be nerfed is just petty class jealousy.You need to follow the advice in your own signature, Bruener, because you have no interest in balance, only in making SKs even more overpowered again&nbsp<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />)</blockquote>SKs are the Worst of all Tanks.

Koleg

07-03-2012, 01:31 PM

<cite>Beko@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Felishanna@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Your class is OP'd. Your class will still be OP'd after gu 64. You quitting because your class is only OP'd instead of godly OP'd is laughs.</blockquote>(( The funny thing is, all of this was and still is a lie.What you want, of course, is that other fighter classes are not even CONSIDERED as MT for groups and raids if there is an SK available, you want the rest of us grateful for breadcrumbs, as in your eyes we deserve nothing more than made-up second and third string roles.It is all pretty obvious what you want.Outside HM raiding, the fighters are closer to balanced now than they have ever been, and the strongest of the pack still remains your class. Any whining about other classes being "overpowered" and calling for them to be nerfed is just petty class jealousy.You need to follow the advice in your own signature, Bruener, because you have no interest in balance, only in making SKs even more overpowered again <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" />)</blockquote>SKs are the Worst of all RAID Tanks.</blockquote>I tend to find Zerkers the absolute worst of the raiding tanks .. followed very closely by 75% of the Poorly played Guardians. SK's are kings in Heroics and will become even more-so after GU64, along with becoming a viable Raiding MT/OT/DPS option.

BChizzle

07-03-2012, 03:02 PM

<cite>Koleg@Unrest_old wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Beko@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Felishanna@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Your class is OP'd. Your class will still be OP'd after gu 64. You quitting because your class is only OP'd instead of godly OP'd is laughs.</blockquote>(( The funny thing is, all of this was and still is a lie.What you want, of course, is that other fighter classes are not even CONSIDERED as MT for groups and raids if there is an SK available, you want the rest of us grateful for breadcrumbs, as in your eyes we deserve nothing more than made-up second and third string roles.It is all pretty obvious what you want.Outside HM raiding, the fighters are closer to balanced now than they have ever been, and the strongest of the pack still remains your class. Any whining about other classes being "overpowered" and calling for them to be nerfed is just petty class jealousy.You need to follow the advice in your own signature, Bruener, because you have no interest in balance, only in making SKs even more overpowered again <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" />)</blockquote>SKs are the Worst of all RAID Tanks.</blockquote>I tend to find Zerkers the absolute worst of the raiding tanks .. followed very closely by 75% of the Poorly played Guardians. SK's are kings in Heroics and will become even more-so after GU64, along with becoming a viable Raiding MT/OT/DPS option.</blockquote>Guardians have been top of the tanking food chain forever. Zerkers and SK's cant be touched by any other tanks when it comes to OT's, yes they arent as effective as an MT but can still get the job done.

Beko

07-03-2012, 05:36 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Koleg@Unrest_old wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Beko@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Felishanna@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Your class is OP'd. Your class will still be OP'd after gu 64. You quitting because your class is only OP'd instead of godly OP'd is laughs.</blockquote>(( The funny thing is, all of this was and still is a lie.What you want, of course, is that other fighter classes are not even CONSIDERED as MT for groups and raids if there is an SK available, you want the rest of us grateful for breadcrumbs, as in your eyes we deserve nothing more than made-up second and third string roles.It is all pretty obvious what you want.Outside HM raiding, the fighters are closer to balanced now than they have ever been, and the strongest of the pack still remains your class. Any whining about other classes being "overpowered" and calling for them to be nerfed is just petty class jealousy.You need to follow the advice in your own signature, Bruener, because you have no interest in balance, only in making SKs even more overpowered again <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" />)</blockquote>SKs are the Worst of all RAID Tanks.</blockquote>I tend to find Zerkers the absolute worst of the raiding tanks .. followed very closely by 75% of the Poorly played Guardians. SK's are kings in Heroics and will become even more-so after GU64, along with becoming a viable Raiding MT/OT/DPS option.</blockquote>Guardians have been top of the tanking food chain forever. Zerkers and SK's cant be touched by any other tanks when it comes to OT's, yes they arent as effective as an MT but can still get the job done.</blockquote>Bruisers are amazing OTs.

Bruener

07-03-2012, 06:51 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Guardians have been top of the tanking food chain forever. Zerkers and SK's cant be touched by any other tanks when it comes to OT's, yes they arent as effective as an MT but can still get the job done.</blockquote>OT what? Brawlers still take significantly less damage needing less heal attention while OT'ing. Have plenty of tools to grab up either those single big OT mobs or plenty of tools to grab up those AE add fodder while the raid burns them.Really all Fighters are AMAZING at OT'ing.Don't you OT? Aren't a lot of guilds specifically using a Brawler to MT and a Brawler to OT?Not going to argue that Guards aren't sitting pretty. But to try and silently down play how far ahead Brawlers are is just silly.

BChizzle

07-03-2012, 07:20 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Guardians have been top of the tanking food chain forever. Zerkers and SK's cant be touched by any other tanks when it comes to OT's, yes they arent as effective as an MT but can still get the job done.</blockquote>OT what? Brawlers still take significantly less damage needing less heal attention while OT'ing. Have plenty of tools to grab up either those single big OT mobs or plenty of tools to grab up those AE add fodder while the raid burns them.Really all Fighters are AMAZING at OT'ing.Don't you OT? Aren't a lot of guilds specifically using a Brawler to MT and a Brawler to OT?Not going to argue that Guards aren't sitting pretty. But to try and silently down play how far ahead Brawlers are is just silly.</blockquote>Quit with the lies already they are tiring. Zerkers and SK's are miles ahead of other classes for grabbing up swarms of adds without any effort and make the best OT's yes bruisers can OT as well but SK's and zerks are better. Much like all fighters can OT so can all fighters MT stop trying to act like your class is horrible the only thing horrible about it is the way you specifically play SK.

BChizzle

07-03-2012, 07:22 PM

Honestly Bruener just wants things back to how they were when you could have an SK just tank everything and be the MT and OT all at once and there wasn't any use for any other tanks in raids. He will cry and say how brawlers were OP in DoV but I don't recall any brawler being both MT and OT at the same time right through the DOV expansion the way SK's were from TSO through SF.

Fairin

07-09-2012, 04:46 PM

will take a skilled tank of whatever class than the current community flavor

Yimway

07-09-2012, 06:16 PM

<cite>Fairin wrote:</cite><blockquote>will take a skilled tank of whatever class than the current community flavor</blockquote>I find the best tanks already play one of every fighter, so we take a skilled tank and the one with the best tools.But in regards to this discussion, we run Monk / Guard / Zerker / PallyWe never have the Pally or Zerker MT, but any of the 4 might be the OT, just depends o nthe fight or the night. But when you have massive adds that matter and need to be tanked, the zerker and pally do a far better job than the other 2. When you have a big single with predictable damage output the monk and guard excel.In my mind, thats balance, and all these changes are significantly impacting this other than the guard and monk will be more interchangeable on HM than they currently are.

Boli32

07-10-2012, 05:20 AM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Fairin wrote:</cite><blockquote>will take a skilled tank of whatever class than the current community flavor</blockquote>I find the best tanks already play one of every fighter, so we take a skilled tank and the one with the best tools.But in regards to this discussion, we run Monk / Guard / Zerker / PallyWe never have the Pally or Zerker MT, but any of the 4 might be the OT, just depends o nthe fight or the night. But when you have massive adds that matter and need to be tanked, the zerker and pally do a far better job than the other 2. When you have a big single with predictable damage output the monk and guard excel.In my mind, thats balance, and all these changes are significantly impacting this other than the guard and monk will be more interchangeable on HM than they currently are.</blockquote>Whilst people have a case for zerkers not being able to MT *everything*; a Pally *should* be part of the MT rotation (as one of the defensive tanks; that in itself is proof of the classes being out of whak.

Yimway

07-10-2012, 02:15 PM

<cite>Boli@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote></blockquote>Whilst people have a case for zerkers not being able to MT *everything*; a Pally *should* be part of the MT rotation (as one of the defensive tanks; that in itself is proof of the classes being out of whak.</blockquote>I think you'ld have to give up amends and quite a few ae abilities to make that arguement.It is wrong for the class to be one of the best raid AE tanks and a solid ST raid tank at the same time. Their heavy AE focus on their abilities and what a solid ae amends target provides them makes them one of the best at dealing with ae add situations, and the ability to do that in full defensive build behind a shield as compaired to how a zerker approaches the same scenario.As I see it, there are 6 classes, and 3 of them are now ST/MT focused and 3 of them are AE/OT focused. The brawlers and Guard do a better job at tanking Dagarn Hm, and the crusaders and zerker to a far better job at tanking the adds. Can we swap positions in a pinch? Yeah we can try, but its signficantly harder for both of us trying to do what the other is designed for.Some people think balance means every tank can do ever job equally, I dont subscribe to that camp myself.For the record, I have no issues with the pally being re-tooled ground up to be a MT alternative, but at the same time we're going to have to move bruiser to an ae tank sollution to keep the overall archtype balanced 3/3. As I see it, tank balance overall is better than its been in ages. If anyone needs some attention its how SK's can do a slightly better job at surviving while ae tanking. As they have tools for it, but those tools aren't up enough. I could see an arguement for some changes there. The trick is accomplishing this without making them godmode heroic tanks again.

Aull

07-11-2012, 12:03 AM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Some people think balance means every tank can do ever job equally, I dont subscribe to that camp myself.For the record, I have no issues with the pally being re-tooled ground up to be a MT alternative, but at the same time we're going to have to move bruiser to an ae tank sollution to keep the overall archtype balanced 3/3. As I see it, tank balance overall is better than its been in ages. If anyone needs some attention its how SK's can do a slightly better job at surviving while ae tanking. As they have tools for it, but those tools aren't up enough. I could see an arguement for some changes there. The trick is accomplishing this without making them godmode heroic tanks again.</blockquote>Well stated Atan. I as well do not subscribe to that camp either. I think that when the game was young and still progressing with lots of content of every type that the six fighters had more individuality. Now that the game has aged and end game seems to be more about raiding and raid zones is why the fighters are being pushed to be able to do every job equally.I don't like that thought because in doing so it has taken what made each fighter different and piegoned holed them into one mold.In the real world not every person wins and gets a ribbon but that seems to be what players in eq2 want at least for the fighter arch type.

Beko

07-11-2012, 02:49 AM

Wow, today I've gotten kicked out of a group twice and replaced with a Monk, second time a guardian.

Yimway

07-11-2012, 04:56 PM

<cite>Beko@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Wow, today I've gotten kicked out of a group twice and replaced with a Monk, second time a guardian.</blockquote>Thats pretty silly unless they just don't like you personally... I mean everyone can tank heroic content with ease...

Beko

07-11-2012, 05:20 PM

Nah, HM Heroic (Elements of War.)

Boli32

07-12-2012, 06:04 AM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Boli@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote></blockquote>Whilst people have a case for zerkers not being able to MT *everything*; a Pally *should* be part of the MT rotation (as one of the defensive tanks; that in itself is proof of the classes being out of whak.</blockquote>I think you'ld have to give up amends and quite a few ae abilities to make that arguement.It is wrong for the class to be one of the best raid AE tanks and a solid ST raid tank at the same time. Their heavy AE focus on their abilities and what a solid ae amends target provides them makes them one of the best at dealing with ae add situations, and the ability to do that in full defensive build behind a shield as compaired to how a zerker approaches the same scenario.As I see it, there are 6 classes, and 3 of them are now ST/MT focused and 3 of them are AE/OT focused. The brawlers and Guard do a better job at tanking Dagarn Hm, and the crusaders and zerker to a far better job at tanking the adds. Can we swap positions in a pinch? Yeah we can try, but its signficantly harder for both of us trying to do what the other is designed for.Some people think balance means every tank can do ever job equally, I dont subscribe to that camp myself.For the record, I have no issues with the pally being re-tooled ground up to be a MT alternative, but at the same time we're going to have to move bruiser to an ae tank sollution to keep the overall archtype balanced 3/3. As I see it, tank balance overall is better than its been in ages. If anyone needs some attention its how SK's can do a slightly better job at surviving while ae tanking. As they have tools for it, but those tools aren't up enough. I could see an arguement for some changes there. The trick is accomplishing this without making them godmode heroic tanks again.</blockquote>My thinking is, and always has been there are 3 defensive tanks, and 3 offensive tanks.Pally, Guard, and Monk all trade off damage abilities for more defensive tools and the other 3 do the opposite. Pally has a couple more AoEs, Guards have a couple more stoneskins and Monks have more snap tools but they should be equal near as possible into the MT role.A Bruiser will outperform a pally in OT duty with multiple adds whilst doing more DPS, giving better utility and generally offer more suvibility should they need to pick up the main mob. They already HAVE the tools to be the AoE tank - having multiple AoEs does not mean you can survive and hold agro off multiple adds.If a class has literally traded out damage abilities, and even reduced damage based abilities for more "defensive" tools you should expect that they'll land in the role of a defensive and... MT role - except they do not. The case of having your cake and eating it is precisely the problem of tank balance. Zerkers, SKs and Bruisers have at various times been the prefered MT class AND they can do significantly more DPS than their more defensive counterparts.Truefully I'll gladly drop Amends; half our AoEs and our so-called "overpower healing abilities" for a couple of defensive tools which actually do the job they are supposed to.

Yimway

07-12-2012, 01:21 PM

<cite>Boli@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>Truefully I'll gladly drop Amends; half our AoEs and our so-called "overpower healing abilities" for a couple of defensive tools which actually do the job they are supposed to.</blockquote>I completely understand, and thats what it would take to make the change. I don't think you'd get the majority of the pallies to agree with ya though =/I do find that bruiser in your example, when fighting adds that matter, when they trend to survivability they don't hold the ae agro against a full ae burn from the raid. I always seem some of the mobs peel off of them where if I put a pally or zerker on those adds and don't see any problems.Maybe all the bruisers I've known sucked? I can't say. Certainly they did great when the adds weren't tough, but into the HM content they're ability to lock down 4+ mobs to an all out raidwide burn wasn't the same as the true AE tanks.

EverDog

07-12-2012, 08:20 PM

SOE Removing Brawler's ST immunity is OK to me. It should be expected.But nerfing brawler's tenacity and changing tag team is NOT OK to me.Because brawler is expected to be best as a tank in emergency.Instead of those nerfs, they should simply reduce brawlers block chance and see what will happen.And maybe giving more blue AoEs or hate transfer tools to brawler is nice compensation for no-more-braweler-MT-nerfs.Also You can say it is a Guardian's issue at the same time because Guardian is not very tough when it comes to surviving through enemy's massive autoattacks.This caused some issues in sentinel's fate when Zerker's Adrenaline/VoD and SK's 3 death saves sometimes made them much better than Guardian as raid MT.Guardian's survivability focused on 'predictable spikes' too much, which sometime causes fighter balancing issues.

Yimway

07-13-2012, 01:41 PM

<cite>EverDog wrote:</cite><blockquote>Guardian's survivability focused on 'predictable spikes' too much, which sometime causes fighter balancing issues.</blockquote>More and more on fights that matter, we're running both a guard and monk in mt group. We can easily flip the mob around as needed to block prevent everything and let the monks superiour auto attack avoidance handle the longer durration of the fight.Also, SoE has clued in on how to make this harder. What many don't understand is the casting time of Tower of Stone is really, really long compaired to most fighter blocks (1 second). Adding damage that needs to be blocked on abilities with 1s cast times from the mob makes preventing that predictable damage on the guard significantly harder if there is any variable in the mob's timing of the ability.I see how they are becoming more agile in encounter design to make things more interesting.

Rahatmattata

07-21-2012, 09:11 PM

<cite>Hennyo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rageincarnate@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Damager wrote:</cite><blockquote>100 swings -55% (Monks uncontested avoid) = 45 hits / .15 (Asumming 15% strikethrough) = 6.75 hits (Amount strikthru immune blocked) is equal to 70% damage reduction and 30% blaock on crusader?</blockquote>so 1 succesfull strikethrough.. could essentially be 5 hits. And is that 15% chance to strikethrough from somewhere or did you make that up? Not ripping .. just trying to understand.I'm basing my opinion on strikethrough not honoring uncontested avoid from parsing mob hit rates on my sk and having as high as 92% hit rates on me (melee) in defensive.. before the blanket strikethrough nerf.</blockquote>15% is just pulled out of the air, different encounters have a different strikethru chance.Yes, strikethru ignores all avoidance checks contested, or uncontested.</blockquote>Umm I am pretty sure that is incorrect, I was pretty sure that strike through doesn't effect dodge avoid, but it did everything else.</blockquote>Hennyo is correct, strikethrough ignores riposte, parry, and block. Accuracy ignores dodge and defense.<a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=481258" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=481258</a>

Rahatmattata

07-21-2012, 09:13 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Strikethrough Immunity makes ALL uncontested/contested avoidance completely uncontested.</blockquote>No.

The_Cheeseman

07-22-2012, 06:50 PM

<cite>EverDog wrote:</cite><blockquote>SOE Removing Brawler's ST immunity is OK to me. It should be expected.But nerfing brawler's tenacity and changing tag team is NOT OK to me.Because brawler is expected to be best as a tank in emergency.Instead of those nerfs, they should simply reduce brawlers block chance and see what will happen.And maybe giving more blue AoEs or hate transfer tools to brawler is nice compensation for no-more-braweler-MT-nerfs.Also You can say it is a Guardian's issue at the same time because Guardian is not very tough when it comes to surviving through enemy's massive autoattacks.This caused some issues in sentinel's fate when Zerker's Adrenaline/VoD and SK's 3 death saves sometimes made them much better than Guardian as raid MT.Guardian's survivability focused on 'predictable spikes' too much, which sometime causes fighter balancing issues.</blockquote>No, a brawler is not "supposed" to be a "tank in an emergency" we are supposed to be tanks. Period. Every tank should be capable of performing a main tank role, otherwise they are not really tanks, they're just part-timers.Nerfing brawler block chance is not the appropriate response. We don't need brawlers acting exactly like plate tanks, there are already 4 plate tanks in the game. We need to find ways to maintain the effectiveness of each fighter class, without sacrificing their unique playstyle differences. No point in maintaining 6 tank classes if they all play exactly the same way.If the nerfs make brawler MT'ing nonviable, they should be reversed. However, I don't believe that to be the case as of now.

Silzin

07-22-2012, 09:42 PM

there are 4 things I am seeing here as a main problems here. 1st. Loss of ST Immunity on the D Stance. this I think is going to be the largest and longest lasting change I am seeing. I think understand why it is being done and I am not sure I disagree with the reasoning of it. It may be for the health of the game, I am just not sure if this is the best way of doing it. Only time will tell and see if this is the right way of going. Brawlers may need more avoidance boosts to bring balance back to us. 2nd. Brawler's Tenacity has(d) a duration/reuse that was designed to be able to avoid scripts events that needed to be jousted. I can agree that it was broken and needed to be changed so it doesn't feel like it's an exploit using it as it was designed. The changed brawler's tenacity, on test that is probably going live, is not a usable death save with the short duration it has. there is a thread in the test forums about proposed changes that would not be a designed "exploit" and would be a good "death save." 3rd. tag team is not being Nurfed, it is being changed to work in some way that is usable. before this change it was not effective as a hate swap, it would not work consistently ever. I would proffer they fix the original ability, but this is an interesting option. a reliable 8 second avoid with ST Immunity on us and a target, it has many possibilities. 4th. the difference in Mitigation and Uncontested Block between Brawlers and Plate tanks. I don't believe that equally geared/spaced/stanced/buffed plate tank and brawler have relatively equal Mit. I also think that under the same conditions plate tanks have very similar Uncontested Block. I will be testing this after the update goes live. the balance of Mitigation is hard to change throw gear changes. the balance of Uncontested Block though is much easier to change with the protection on shields and the block chance on brawler only fists.