Changes to Fighters... [Archive] - EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

Koleg

06-20-2012, 03:02 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>"Changes are coming to PVP and fighters class for EverQuest II." Err... we gonna get our healing criticals back like every other class in the game? I'm tired of my useless 1000 point healing abilities when I have 65000 Health. Or are we getting a needless threat increase? (I generate enough threat as is.) Or are we getting our hit rates looked at?</blockquote>Fighter DPS is currently too high and their survivability is too low unless / until they out-gear a zone. I'd watch what you ask for, it's HIGHLY unlikely you'll end up liking / wanting what they think is a solution.Threat certainly could use a bump. Threat values have been left unadjusted (and non scalar) for the last two expansions, unlike DPS which has quadruptled or more. Fighters don't need critical heals for the sole reason to remove or lessen the need for healers or to powerlevel or solo more content.

Windstalker

06-20-2012, 03:38 PM

The designers will get into the details tomorrow in the webcast and we will post a few articles. Ultimately, we need your help to Test the changes next week, but overall I think they are a good move on the part of our mechanics team that will help game play overall.The changes are not specific to PvP. I hesitate to say anything in advance of the webcast for fear of wild speculation, but the changes....Nah, I'll let them tell you tomorrow. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Goozman

06-20-2012, 03:40 PM

As someone who plays a Monk and Paladin, I can come up with 1,000 things that should be changed. Definitely think Fighter heals should crit; also think Fighter dps should be lowered, but threat (particularly burst threat) substantially increased.I feel like the monk in particular needs some kind of opening ranged attack that gives them a buttload of threat off the bat; Dragon Fire works to some small degree, but I'd prefer an encounter only ability for this instance. I don't like reliance on hate mod buffs or hate transfers for tanks to be able to compete for aggro with say... a ranger. I think any well played tank should be able to hold aggro (st and ae) off of equally skilled and geared dps, without the buff crutch.I've also always felt like (and this includes all classes, not just fighters) auto attack damage is too high, and combat art damage is too low. I'm thinking a sizable nerf to autoattack damage multipliers, but perhaps multi-attack or flurry work on combat arts, and combat arts have a reduced reuse timer (like 15s instead of 30s base). Something that would turn these 55% autoattack parses into maybe 20%; also, perhaps to keep finding new weapons fun and interesting, your weapons can help determine your combat arts damage.

Talathion

06-20-2012, 03:42 PM

Some fighters give up "MAX HEALTH" "Defensive Abilities" and Other things for more damage, and that isn't even as much as it used to be.If your going to lower fighters damage, then your going to have to seriously change some abilities to compensate/add alot more defenses to several classes.You might as well Merge Guardian/Berserker, if you lower DPS, berserker will be useless.

Goozman

06-20-2012, 03:47 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>You might as well Merge Guardian/Berserker, if you lower DPS, berserker will be useless.</blockquote>Aren't they already? lulzI mean... A Guardian can max his MA and AE auto with easy mode instance gear and a wild swings adornment now (I was almost able to do just that on a Mystic, for poop's sake). Those multitudes of DPS and Haste buffs were already useless; and I'm pretty sure Guardian and Berserker combat arts already did about the same damage; but Berserkers may have a couple more.

Talathion

06-20-2012, 03:50 PM

<cite>Goozman wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>You might as well Merge Guardian/Berserker, if you lower DPS, berserker will be useless.</blockquote>Aren't they already? lulzI mean... A Guardian can max his MA and AE auto with easy mode instance gear and a wild swings adornment now (I was almost able to do just that on a Mystic, for poop's sake). Those multitudes of DPS and Haste buffs were already useless; and I'm pretty sure Guardian and Berserker combat arts already did about the same damage; but Berserkers may have a couple more.</blockquote>So, Guardian Single Target Combat Arts do MORE damage (25% from talents.) and even have 100% Hit Rates.Guardians also have a AOE 25% Dehate Buff (group.) and a 50% Hate Reduction on a Target, and a 15% hate Transfer.They also have stoneskins (some of them last awile, most are clicked.)/3000-4000 Extra Health. (Zerkers do not get health buffs.)Please consider all this when you decide to nerf class damage.Lol, Our mythical also converts damage into hate...

Yimway

06-20-2012, 04:05 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>So, Guardian Single Target Combat Arts do MORE damage (25% from talents.) and even have 100% Hit Rates.</blockquote>Only when we're not tanking, which is um, well, never for me.

Goozman

06-20-2012, 04:05 PM

My point was if all 6 fighters were reduced by somewhere around 25%, Berserkers would still be in the same boat they are now. That said, they obviously wouldn't lower fighter dps without completely altering threat mechanics.And again, all that said, they probably aren't lowering fighter damage, as they wouldn't be acting all excited about the changes if they knew players' tearducts were all going to explode.

Yimway

06-20-2012, 04:10 PM

<cite>Goozman wrote:</cite><blockquote>And again, all that said, they probably aren't lowering fighter damage, as they wouldn't be acting all excited about the changes if they knew players' tearducts were all going to explode.</blockquote>Yeah, I'm not excited about even the idea of change at the moment. Maybe everyone is too young or too forgetful to remember Aerliks proposed fighter changes. That was the last time SoE took a serious effort at this task and that pile of garbage was the worst possible thing that could have gone live.So, you'll have to excuse me if I'm not terribly excited they're going to do something again. Sure it might be great and fix some of the issues we have currently, but all in all, the current state is perhaps better than its ever been, so the potential to make it much worse seems more likely than the chance it will be better.Xelgad has shown some real promise in the past, so maybe it will be good. But me as an eq2 player, an eq2 guild leader, and an eq2 raid officer, I'd be far more excited to hear they were fixing templars instead of fighters.

Talathion

06-20-2012, 04:18 PM

I would love it if they fixed.- Juggernaut. (Lul.)- Ward of Rage. (Lul, isn't effected by Ability Mod or Potency.)- Open Wounds (level 92 Version would fix it.)- Blood Rage (Lul, 1000 point noncrit heal.)- Adrenaline (damage reduction again.)Sorry.. most of us are all "doom and gloom" of any fighter changes these days.

Loendar

06-20-2012, 04:46 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>"Changes are coming to PVP and fighters class for EverQuest II."Err... we gonna get our healing criticals back like every other class in the game? I'm tired of my useless 1000 point healing abilities when I have 65000 Health.Or are we getting a needless threat increase? (I generate enough threat as is.)Or are we getting our hit rates looked at?</blockquote>Clearly not playing a Guardian.Heal change doesn't impact me at all AND my aggro sucks no matter what I do (compared to the DPS Gods that are SK's/Paladins on top of their threat transfer/generation).Kindly keep your limited scope views quiet.

Dethdlr

06-20-2012, 05:24 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Maybe everyone is too young or too forgetful to remember Aerliks proposed fighter changes.</blockquote>You sir, are cruel. The night terrors just stopped last month from the trauma caused by those proposed changes.

Rahatmattata

06-20-2012, 05:51 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote> Maybe everyone is too young or too forgetful to remember Aerliks proposed fighter changes. That was the last time SoE took a serious effort at this task and that pile of garbage was the worst possible thing that could have gone live.</blockquote>I'm permanantly scarred from the whole Aerilik fiasco. Still sad that the multiattack, 8% uncontested riposte, and guard epic damage reduction were never restored. Xelgad seems pretty competent to me though.Whatever the announcement is, it's already in the final stages of development, and I'm guessing it isn't anything spectacular or a complicated change. I seriously doubt they made adjustments to individual abilities of fighters, I have a feeling it's a couple of sweeping basic mechanic adjustments to all fighters... but I really hope it's not some 2-part massive change that gets trashed after implementing the nerf stage of the changes *coughaerilikcough*

Talathion

06-20-2012, 05:54 PM

I sent a PM, and I got back a "NO.".Appears to be they arn't going to be playing with fighter DPS at all.What I think they are doing is one of three things.- Removing the Hate Cap %.- Increasing threat of taunts. (maybe changing the animations as well.)- Adding Healing Criticals back to fighers.

Rahatmattata

06-20-2012, 05:55 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>What I think they are doing is one of three things.</blockquote><blockquote>- Adding Healing Criticals back to fighers.</blockquote>you wish.

Talathion

06-20-2012, 05:57 PM

<cite>Malevolencexx@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>What I think they are doing is one of three things.</blockquote><blockquote>- Adding Healing Criticals back to fighers.</blockquote>you wish.</blockquote>She said the tank she plays is excited for the changes to come.I think she plays a paladin or sk.They want heal criticals back more then anyone so, dream big?Theres no reason for heals not criticalling anymore since the best fighters do not even benefit from them (Brawlers/Guardians.)

Talathion

06-20-2012, 06:03 PM

So from what I get so far.They are buffing Paladin heals (not confirmed how.) and changing amends. (negative, they are gonna nerf it.)They are buff SK heals. (not confirmed how.)They are buffing some fighters DPS and Hate Gain. (not comfirmed how.)The changes effect crusaders the most though.Thats what I get from rumors.

Rahatmattata

06-20-2012, 11:17 PM

Rumors from talathion are srs biz.

Onorem

06-21-2012, 01:16 AM

hoosierdaddy

06-21-2012, 02:28 AM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>So from what I get so far.They are buffing Paladin heals (not confirmed how.) and changing amends. (negative, they are gonna nerf it.)They are buff SK heals. (not confirmed how.)They are buffing some fighters DPS and Hate Gain. (not comfirmed how.)The changes effect crusaders the most though.Thats what I get from rumors.</blockquote>Everything you've posted in this thread (and this post, in particular) is speculation. My guess is that the fighter changes will entail something that neither you, nor anyone else could have possibly foreseen.This isn't necessarily a good thing and I'm sort of curious as to what sort of internal testing, if any, has gone into these changes based on the developers requesting absolutely zero feedback from the fighter community in regard to the matter.I definitely can't seem then nerfing any class and even further alienating any portion of an already dwindling player base.(By the way, what fighter in EQ2 besides you wants fighter heals to crit? If the difference between you surviving as a main tank is your heals critting, you need to recruit new healers. The only time I ever use my heals are for the DR attached to one of them and the % for the other to reset the DR one.)

Peogia

06-21-2012, 02:48 AM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>"Fighters Non-Percent based Healing Abilities have been lowered, but can now be critically applied."Something needs to happen so non-brawler/guardians can also tank POW.Its silly that brawlers have a higher healing parse then Paladins/SKs.</blockquote>Great more nerfs where is Live Gamer when ya need to firesale liquidate

Daalilama

06-21-2012, 02:48 AM

<cite>hoosierdaddy wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>So from what I get so far.They are buffing Paladin heals (not confirmed how.) and changing amends. (negative, they are gonna nerf it.)They are buff SK heals. (not confirmed how.)They are buffing some fighters DPS and Hate Gain. (not comfirmed how.)The changes effect crusaders the most though.Thats what I get from rumors.</blockquote>Everything you've posted in this thread (and this post, in particular) is speculation. My guess is that the fighter changes will entail something that neither you, nor anyone else could have possibly foreseen.This isn't necessarily a good thing and I'm sort of curious as to what sort of internal testing, if any, has gone into these changes based on the developers requesting absolutely zero feedback from the fighter community in regard to the matter.I definitely can't seem then nerfing any class and even further alienating any portion of an already dwindling player base.(By the way, what fighter in EQ2 besides you wants fighter heals to crit? If the difference between you surviving as a main tank is your heals critting, you need to recruit new healers. The only time I ever use my heals are for the DR attached to one of them and the % for the other to reset the DR one.)</blockquote>I think they are leaning towards generic more than specific changes to the fighters...prob the easiest things for them: prob raising if not removing the threat cap and bumping or adjust taunts upward....My raid main is a temp but I also play a guard and a pally...and aside from wanting even a nominal heal of any sort on the guard(highly doubtful thats coming) I dont think they are going to be toying around with fighter heals anytime soon.

Novusod

06-21-2012, 05:35 AM

For those that have been following the fighter discussions they might know that I created a thread called:All Tanks are currently Underpowered Post GU63.There was a pretty good discussion going on in there for a while and many of the master tank players agreed that the fighter archtype is in trouble. I am sure the devs had a chance to read it as well. If so I have a really good idea of where this is going.

Rahatmattata

06-21-2012, 08:17 AM

I haven't really had any threat problems since I started playing endgame stuff again. The only people that rip really are other tanks. And in my guild it is not a problem because we know how to tow the line and work together. More aggro is not something I would care to see for the guardian class.Most players in my guild are better geard than my character, and I didn't really have much trouble holding pug hate as a fresh 92..

Loendar

06-21-2012, 10:31 AM

<cite>Malevolencexx@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>I haven't really had any threat problems since I started playing endgame stuff again. The only people that rip really are other tanks. And in my guild it is not a problem because we know how to tow the line and work together. More aggro is not something I would care to see for the guardian class.Most players in my guild are better geard than my character, and I didn't really have much trouble holding pug hate as a fresh 92..</blockquote>I'm glad to hear that you don't have problems in the aggro department but I certainly do on my Guardian. I'm raiding and have a pretty good spread of gear but aggro control is a complete MESS. That is even after adding hate gain adorns to everything I can find, hitting up the AA's to increase it, etc.With that said - yes, I tend to lose aggro mostly to other tanks (not always) BUT that is a problem if I'm the one that is meant to be holding the mob. The other tanks are able to pull aggro off of me without even trying - they don't have to taunt, etc. - they have to purposely turn off things and lower their own DPS to give me a shot to keep it. That's a problem imho.And that is the other part of this. My DPS compared to SK's, Pallys and even Monk classes is laughable. They are doing (easily) 2x to 4x my DPS on every encounter. And we all know that DPS is at least as important, if not the most important, aspect to keeping aggro since our taunt values are SO low. And before you point out that my DPS simply sucks (and it does) I thought it was just me as well until I compared my parses to other raid-geared Guardians and saw that they came in at the same level. It ain't just me. ;pWith ALL of that said I don't know how you can say "More aggro is not something I would care to see for the guardian class." Even IF you never lose aggro, how could making it less spikey and manageable be something bad?

Meirril

06-21-2012, 10:49 AM

<cite>Loendar@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Malevolencexx@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>I haven't really had any threat problems since I started playing endgame stuff again. The only people that rip really are other tanks. And in my guild it is not a problem because we know how to tow the line and work together. More aggro is not something I would care to see for the guardian class.Most players in my guild are better geard than my character, and I didn't really have much trouble holding pug hate as a fresh 92..</blockquote>I'm glad to hear that you don't have problems in the aggro department but I certainly do on my Guardian. I'm raiding and have a pretty good spread of gear but aggro control is a complete MESS. That is even after adding hate gain adorns to everything I can find, hitting up the AA's to increase it, etc.With that said - yes, I tend to lose aggro mostly to other tanks (not always) BUT that is a problem if I'm the one that is meant to be holding the mob. The other tanks are able to pull aggro off of me without even trying - they don't have to taunt, etc. - they have to purposely turn off things and lower their own DPS to give me a shot to keep it. That's a problem imho.And that is the other part of this. My DPS compared to SK's, Pallys and even Monk classes is laughable. They are doing (easily) 2x to 4x my DPS on every encounter. And we all know that DPS is at least as important, if not the most important, aspect to keeping aggro since our taunt values are SO low. And before you point out that my DPS simply sucks (and it does) I thought it was just me as well until I compared my parses to other raid-geared Guardians and saw that they came in at the same level. It ain't just me. ;pWith ALL of that said I don't know how you can say "More aggro is not something I would care to see for the guardian class." Even IF you never lose aggro, how could making it less spikey and manageable be something bad?</blockquote>On our raids I'm pulling about half as much DPS on my OT pally as our MT guardian. When I MT I put out about double the DPS I do when I'm OT. Sure gear factors in but more than that its all the buffs and reactive procs that give the MT a real advantage in DPS.That being said next to our guardian I'm finding snap agro to be more important than constant generation. Even more important is being able to reduce the amount of incomming damage. Paladins use to have a real advantage in that department but it doesn't feel like it anymore. Mythic buff should give me effectively 24% damage reduction but it seriously doesn't feel like it works. Either that or the guard has as much or more than I do because there are situations where the guard will survive but I'll just drop dead to spike damage.

Peogia

06-21-2012, 10:50 AM

<cite>Loendar@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Malevolencexx@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>I haven't really had any threat problems since I started playing endgame stuff again. The only people that rip really are other tanks. And in my guild it is not a problem because we know how to tow the line and work together. More aggro is not something I would care to see for the guardian class.Most players in my guild are better geard than my character, and I didn't really have much trouble holding pug hate as a fresh 92..</blockquote>I'm glad to hear that you don't have problems in the aggro department but I certainly do on my Guardian. I'm raiding and have a pretty good spread of gear but aggro control is a complete MESS. That is even after adding hate gain adorns to everything I can find, hitting up the AA's to increase it, etc.With that said - yes, I tend to lose aggro mostly to other tanks (not always) BUT that is a problem if I'm the one that is meant to be holding the mob. The other tanks are able to pull aggro off of me without even trying - they don't have to taunt, etc. - they have to purposely turn off things and lower their own DPS to give me a shot to keep it. That's a problem imho.And that is the other part of this. My DPS compared to SK's, Pallys and even Monk classes is laughable. They are doing (easily) 2x to 4x my DPS on every encounter. And we all know that DPS is at least as important, if not the most important, aspect to keeping aggro since our taunt values are SO low. And before you point out that my DPS simply sucks (and it does) I thought it was just me as well until I compared my parses to other raid-geared Guardians and saw that they came in at the same level. It ain't just me. ;pWith ALL of that said I don't know how you can say "More aggro is not something I would care to see for the guardian class." Even IF you never lose aggro, how could making it less spikey and manageable be something bad?</blockquote>The greatest mistake I ever made in my life was betraying my berserker to guardian had two berserkers so thought I should have little verity I find the class utterly useless in most situations for tanking and playing game zero dps not so great taunts the super long recasts make them trivial to even exist since they are always down for 75% of pulls ect will proble betray back to berserker and have two berserkers again so I have more fun classes to play then useless collectables and this also reminds me Please add a class change potion so I can change my guardian into something that is fun and useful

Loendar

06-21-2012, 12:24 PM

<cite>Meirril wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Loendar@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Malevolencexx@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>I haven't really had any threat problems since I started playing endgame stuff again. The only people that rip really are other tanks. And in my guild it is not a problem because we know how to tow the line and work together. More aggro is not something I would care to see for the guardian class.Most players in my guild are better geard than my character, and I didn't really have much trouble holding pug hate as a fresh 92..</blockquote>I'm glad to hear that you don't have problems in the aggro department but I certainly do on my Guardian. I'm raiding and have a pretty good spread of gear but aggro control is a complete MESS. That is even after adding hate gain adorns to everything I can find, hitting up the AA's to increase it, etc.With that said - yes, I tend to lose aggro mostly to other tanks (not always) BUT that is a problem if I'm the one that is meant to be holding the mob. The other tanks are able to pull aggro off of me without even trying - they don't have to taunt, etc. - they have to purposely turn off things and lower their own DPS to give me a shot to keep it. That's a problem imho.And that is the other part of this. My DPS compared to SK's, Pallys and even Monk classes is laughable. They are doing (easily) 2x to 4x my DPS on every encounter. And we all know that DPS is at least as important, if not the most important, aspect to keeping aggro since our taunt values are SO low. And before you point out that my DPS simply sucks (and it does) I thought it was just me as well until I compared my parses to other raid-geared Guardians and saw that they came in at the same level. It ain't just me. ;pWith ALL of that said I don't know how you can say "More aggro is not something I would care to see for the guardian class." Even IF you never lose aggro, how could making it less spikey and manageable be something bad?</blockquote>On our raids I'm pulling about half as much DPS on my OT pally as our MT guardian. When I MT I put out about double the DPS I do when I'm OT. Sure gear factors in but more than that its all the buffs and reactive procs that give the MT a real advantage in DPS.That being said next to our guardian I'm finding snap agro to be more important than constant generation. Even more important is being able to reduce the amount of incomming damage. Paladins use to have a real advantage in that department but it doesn't feel like it anymore. Mythic buff should give me effectively 24% damage reduction but it seriously doesn't feel like it works. Either that or the guard has as much or more than I do because there are situations where the guard will survive but I'll just drop dead to spike damage. </blockquote>I'll agree that group make-up does play a role in some of the items I mentioned above. The difference is that it plays a much larger role for a Guardian than it does the other tanks (I'm not trying to turn this thread into a 'woe is Guardian' one - but it is the class I have direct experience with). A Pally or SK can still shine in a less than optimal group make up where a Guardian is seriously limited unless the stars align.As for snap aggro - you are correct. That is just about the ONLY major thing that I bring to the table over the other tank classes and it is of moderate usefulness on raids unless the boss is scripted to make it needed. Even then - an SK or Pally can still fill that role in most cases if they work together - the Guardian abilities just allows us to ignore cooperation in favor of snapping it. ;pI'm really interested to hear what they are going to propose today but I suspect it will be a) lower DPS of all tanks to stop the T1 DPS classes from feeling bad, b) attempt to raise Hate by raising the caps and c) try to address the lack of DPS by increasing taunts amounts across the board.All of those items are doomed to fail - imho - as they have tried similar things in the past and can't seem to get the balance right. If they could JUST make taunts have the exact same aggro holding power as the same amount of DPS (I'm sure it is supposed to but it doesn't seem to translate) and then increase it to take over 1:1 for any DPS loss/gaps then it might work. But that never happens.

Yimway

06-21-2012, 01:42 PM

<cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>For those that have been following the fighter discussions they might know that I created a thread called:All Tanks are currently Underpowered Post GU63.There was a pretty good discussion going on in there for a while and many of the master tank players agreed that the fighter archtype is in trouble. I am sure the devs had a chance to read it as well. If so I have a really good idea of where this is going.</blockquote>Accept that thread is largely rubbish.

Yimway

06-21-2012, 01:51 PM

<cite>Loendar@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Malevolencexx@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>I haven't really had any threat problems since I started playing endgame stuff again. The only people that rip really are other tanks. And in my guild it is not a problem because we know how to tow the line and work together. More aggro is not something I would care to see for the guardian class.Most players in my guild are better geard than my character, and I didn't really have much trouble holding pug hate as a fresh 92..</blockquote>I'm glad to hear that you don't have problems in the aggro department but I certainly do on my Guardian. I'm raiding and have a pretty good spread of gear but aggro control is a complete MESS. That is even after adding hate gain adorns to everything I can find, hitting up the AA's to increase it, etc.</blockquote>I do agree agro is a bit of a mess.Here is a simple example of what irritates the heck out of me:I'm on guard parsing 180k on a name. I'm running 100% hate mod (actually frequently over cap around 106).Our OT monk is parsing 200k on same name. He's running 35% hate mod.The 75% more effective hate mod is not enough to consistently overcome his hate generation.Now yes of course there are more variables, I've got a 15% siphon on the BL doing 400k. I'm getting the feed from the in group coercer and I verified the coercer in my group is outparsing the one in his group. He has no feeds, and only his transfer on me from his avoidance buff.All of those variables considered, the amount of additional dps he'd need to be doing to be ripping from me is fairly significant, yet its happening fairly frequently. And yes I've parsed for threat increasers.At its core, I think something is fishy with the hate mechanics, but I've not yet been able to put my finger on exactly what it is. And I only see it in regards to holding from other fighters. I have no issue holding off the dps classes spiking up 800k-1mil dps.Uncapping positive hate mod seems like an obvious change to be made. I can't really think of any reason why it should be capped.

Bloodrage

06-21-2012, 02:08 PM

I certainly hope they do something to make paladins into a viable raid mt again. One stoneskin on loh which is on a very long recast and useless 8-12k heals when mobs are hitting 20-30k+ ma/flurries just makes no sense. Not being able to stoneskin 40-60s recast dt's on drunder hm/pow mobs is silly. Divine Aura is useless as the majority of hm mobs can easily hit over 50% max hp & our 8second block is also pretty lulz while other tanks have 20sec parrry/riposte ect. We also have the least deathsaves of all tanks (1).Amends is also pretty useless as any mt with have hate transfer capped from scout/coercer ect. Also note that people complain about amends while guardians have grp hate reduction, hate transfer, ect ect.Paladins severely need to be buffed up.

Wilin

06-21-2012, 02:19 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yeah, I'm not excited about even the idea of change at the moment. Maybe everyone is too young or too forgetful to remember Aerliks proposed fighter changes. That was the last time SoE took a serious effort at this task and that pile of garbage was the worst possible thing that could have gone live.</blockquote>Yep, and before that, I still have nightmares about LU13...At the time, I was 100% Guardian and I stuck with it until TSO beta.

Rahatmattata

06-21-2012, 02:42 PM

<cite>Bloodrage wrote:</cite><blockquote>We (paladins) also have the least deathsaves of all tanks (1).</blockquote>Guards also get 1 death save.

Hammieee

06-21-2012, 03:58 PM

Saying fighters have agro issues is silly, i'm an bruiser doing 200-250k holding agro off an 600-800k warlock. He never spikes above 30% agro if that, however my offtank constantly is the one who is getting high agro.

Loendar

06-21-2012, 04:36 PM

<cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>Saying fighters have agro issues is silly, i'm an bruiser doing 200-250k holding agro off an 600-800k warlock. He never spikes above 30% agro if that, however my offtank constantly is the one who is getting high agro.</blockquote>I don't think anyone said ALL fighters have aggro issues - and that, in and of itself, is the issue. Massive inconsistencies.

Yimway

06-21-2012, 04:40 PM

<cite>Loendar@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>Saying fighters have agro issues is silly, i'm an bruiser doing 200-250k holding agro off an 600-800k warlock. He never spikes above 30% agro if that, however my offtank constantly is the one who is getting high agro.</blockquote>I don't think anyone said ALL fighters have aggro issues - and that, in and of itself, is the issue. Massive inconsistencies.</blockquote>The issue is specifically around hate generation between fighters. I agree with others I can hold agro off someone doing 1mil dps just fine (non-fighter). However as I outlined I can't hold agro off a fighter doing 20k more than me even when my hate mod is 3x his.

Loendar

06-21-2012, 04:46 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Loendar@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>Saying fighters have agro issues is silly, i'm an bruiser doing 200-250k holding agro off an 600-800k warlock. He never spikes above 30% agro if that, however my offtank constantly is the one who is getting high agro.</blockquote>I don't think anyone said ALL fighters have aggro issues - and that, in and of itself, is the issue. Massive inconsistencies.</blockquote>The issue is specifically around hate generation between fighters. I agree with others I can hold agro off someone doing 1mil dps just fine (non-fighter). However as I outlined I can't hold agro off a fighter doing 20k more than me even when my hate mod is 3x his.</blockquote>I can agree with this - the primary issue is other fighters yanking aggro even when they make an effort not to (in theory) and I'm doing everything I can to keep it.There are still some (albeit rare) instances where a DPS class will get something and not let go though.

Bruener

06-21-2012, 05:50 PM

<cite>Loendar@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Loendar@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>Saying fighters have agro issues is silly, i'm an bruiser doing 200-250k holding agro off an 600-800k warlock. He never spikes above 30% agro if that, however my offtank constantly is the one who is getting high agro.</blockquote>I don't think anyone said ALL fighters have aggro issues - and that, in and of itself, is the issue. Massive inconsistencies.</blockquote>The issue is specifically around hate generation between fighters. I agree with others I can hold agro off someone doing 1mil dps just fine (non-fighter). However as I outlined I can't hold agro off a fighter doing 20k more than me even when my hate mod is 3x his.</blockquote>I can agree with this - the primary issue is other fighters yanking aggro even when they make an effort not to (in theory) and I'm doing everything I can to keep it.There are still some (albeit rare) instances where a DPS class will get something and not let go though.</blockquote>How is your agro without dirge+coercer+swash/assassin?The problem is that Fighters aren't even the ones generating most of their agro.There is also a real problem with a T1 DPS dropping a 4-5mil nuke in a single shot while Fighters get a 60k taunt and a 30k CA.Than most important is the balance issue between Fighters themselves. All said and done with the group set up a Fighter has to have to maintain agro there are a couple Fighters that have a huge advantage in end game content due to a large avoidance advantage, a superior Death Save recastable in-combat, and superior saves.Its going to be interesting to see what they come up with. But this is long over-due since DoV launch.Hopefully this is a serious effort to have raids want to utilize at least 4 Fighters in a raid ALL the time.

Goozman

06-21-2012, 09:47 PM

So what did they talk about? I checked the video a couple minutes in, and all they talked about the entire time was Battlegrounds, so I didn't really pay attention.

Rainmare

06-21-2012, 11:50 PM

Okay here's the general things Fighters are getting:all our temp buffs that give damage reduction are now immune to Strikethrough.all fighter heals will no longer be effected by Potency, but will all also be percentage healswe're all getting a new stance at 20. it's called Recklessness, and supposedly will give us DPS class damage, and reduce our ability to take hits to DPS class levels.they siad there will be lots of class specific tweaks that they didn't go into that we'll have to read the notes for on tuesday when it hits Test.

The_Cheeseman

06-22-2012, 12:36 AM

Great, so they can't balance fighters as tanks, so they decided to turn us all into hybrid DPS'ers instead. This is going to work out wonderfully, I can already see it. Not only will we be dealing with balance issues between tanks, but we'll also start being compared with DPS classes, and lord knows there's no competition in that department. But hey, if they want to let me sacrifice my survivability to become a DPS class whenever I don't feel like tanking, I won't complain. But twenty plat says the guys who have to remain DPS 100% of the time will.

hoosierdaddy

06-22-2012, 12:38 AM

<cite>Rainmare@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>Okay here's the general things Fighters are getting:all our temp buffs that give damage reduction are now immune to Strikethrough.all fighter heals will no longer be effected by Potency, but will all also be percentage healswe're all getting a new stance at 20. it's called Recklessness, and supposedly will give us DPS class damage, and reduce our ability to take hits to DPS class levels.they siad there will be lots of class specific tweaks that they didn't go into that we'll have to read the notes for on tuesday when it hits Test.</blockquote>So, basically, all non-brawler tanks are getting (temporarily) brawlerized?Why don't they just grant strikethrough immunity to every defensive stance and a version of Amends to every fighter?The only differences will be in our animations. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" />Edit: Disregarding the DPS stuff, which is mostly irrelevant and antithetical to raid tanking. This is just a means of working more tanks into raids without directly addressing difficult balance problems.

Novusod

06-22-2012, 12:54 AM

I watched the video and the Fighter Points they made were:1. Fighters get an Reckless offensive stance that increases damage of Combat Arts.This sounds a lot like the failed Fighter Revamp that was tested in TSO. This type was tested for months and months in 2009 before finally being scrapped. The whole idea of turning a fighter into a scout was massively rejected by the community because it does not work. The Point to bringing a 3rd and 4rd tank to the raid was in case the MT went down the back up tank(s) would pick up the named. If the back up tanks go splat then there is no point bringing them. Bottom Line here is: No Way, DO NOT WANT, No No No. 2. Fighter Heals become percentage based and are no longer affected by Potency.This is actually a Nerf to real fighter survivability because of the way death prevents work. All death prevents would have to be 100% heals to be viable in current raiding and hard heroic content.3. Some form of strikethrough immunity is added to all fighters.4. Class Focuses are removed from adornments and new focus tree added but this effects all classes.What really needs to happen:- Uncap hate gain so Fighters aren't as dependent on transfers from other classes. - Give fighters a way to deal with mechanics of strikethrough 2.0 (see fiery feedback, and thunderclap)- Fighter is the hardest role in the game right now so please cut us some slack. Look at the way things were comparatively to how they were in Sentinels Fate. Fighters were much more powerful then they are now. This general nerf to fighters over the last two years has really hurt the game.

BChizzle

06-22-2012, 01:16 AM

<cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>I watched the video and the Fighter Points they made were:1. Fighters get an Reckless offensive stance that increases damage of Combat Arts.This sounds a lot like the failed Fighter Revamp that was tested in TSO. This type was tested for months and months in 2009 before finally being scrapped. The whole idea of turning a fighter into a scout was massively rejected by the community because it does not work. The Point to bringing a 3rd and 4rd tank to the raid was in case the MT went down the back up tank(s) would pick up the named. If the back up tanks go splat then there is no point bringing them. Bottom Line here is: No Way, DO NOT WANT, No No No. 2. Fighter Heals become percentage based and are no longer affected by Potency.This is actually a Nerf to real fighter survivability because of the way death prevents work. All death prevents would have to be 100% heals to be viable in current raiding and hard heroic content.3. Some form of strikethrough immunity is added to all fighters.4. Class Focuses are removed from adornments and new focus tree added but this effects all classes.What really needs to happen:- Uncap hate gain so Fighters aren't as dependent on transfers from other classes. - Give fighters a way to deal with mechanics of strikethrough 2.0 (see fiery feedback, and thunderclap)- Fighter is the hardest role in the game right now so please cut us some slack. Look at the way things were comparatively to how they were in Sentinels Fate. Fighters were much more powerful then they are now. This general nerf to fighters over the last two years has really hurt the game.</blockquote>You are crazy Obano. These changes are great, and recklessness sounds great too. As long as they handle the % based stuff properly which should be easy to do with testing feedback it won't be a nerf. Fighters don't have a hate problem and there is nothing wrong with classes transferring hate to you its part of the whole overall raid dynamic where each class brings something. Thunderclap and Fiery Feedback really are nothing huge stop complaining about it.Overall I like the changes so that plates can get immunities when running their temps (Also brawlers better get those same immunities for our temps while in offensive!) I like the idea of a DPS stance that will allow a non tanking brawler not to be a waste of a raid spot. The reason why the old fighter changes were widely rejected was simply because it was going to make them into taunt bots, this is entirely different.Also they don't even have to touch deathsaves, they can still function the way they do.

Strangeguy

06-22-2012, 01:36 AM

Nice deeps produces tons of aggro.Nice deeps increases popularity and respect.Respected tanks' orders are followed more accurately and promptly.This is a great new tweak to tank classes IMHO.Gimme!Thanks a ton Developers. We really appreciate it and do notice all your hard work.Grand the beserker, Freeport.

Meirril

06-22-2012, 03:13 AM

<cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>I watched the video and the Fighter Points they made were:1. Fighters get an Reckless offensive stance that increases damage of Combat Arts.This sounds a lot like the failed Fighter Revamp that was tested in TSO. This type was tested for months and months in 2009 before finally being scrapped. The whole idea of turning a fighter into a scout was massively rejected by the community because it does not work. The Point to bringing a 3rd and 4rd tank to the raid was in case the MT went down the back up tank(s) would pick up the named. If the back up tanks go splat then there is no point bringing them. Bottom Line here is: No Way, DO NOT WANT, No No No. 2. Fighter Heals become percentage based and are no longer affected by Potency.This is actually a Nerf to real fighter survivability because of the way death prevents work. All death prevents would have to be 100% heals to be viable in current raiding and hard heroic content.3. Some form of strikethrough immunity is added to all fighters.4. Class Focuses are removed from adornments and new focus tree added but this effects all classes.What really needs to happen:- Uncap hate gain so Fighters aren't as dependent on transfers from other classes. - Give fighters a way to deal with mechanics of strikethrough 2.0 (see fiery feedback, and thunderclap)- Fighter is the hardest role in the game right now so please cut us some slack. Look at the way things were comparatively to how they were in Sentinels Fate. Fighters were much more powerful then they are now. This general nerf to fighters over the last two years has really hurt the game.</blockquote>1) changes nothing raid wise. Well, in low end raid forces you might see fighters in DPS roles.2) As a paladin (you know, the fighter with 6 healing abilities, 8 if you count life taps) percentage based means my heals might be worth touching instead of waiting for any attack to refresh. Not that you want to heal as a paladin. If your depending on self-healing something is horribly wrong.4) Just asking, what is bad about fighters depending on other classes for hate generation? Raids arn't about you, its about what everybody brings to the table. If anything you'd want more classes to get transfers so it isn't so obvious what your MT group should look like class wise. To me that sounds just as bad as saying that since I'm a paladin I should be a good enough healer to handle group or raid content. Yes, agro management is a big part of raid tanking but your making it sound like it needs to be all you when your suppose to have 5 other people helping you do your job.

Ritten

06-22-2012, 04:02 AM

Good change... yeah.Also: "At level 20 mages will now get a defensive stance making them much less squishy"I mean, it's only fair, right?

Rainmare

06-22-2012, 04:14 AM

It changes things a little bit. it now means hopefully that a Paladin can actually get in a raid as a dps/backup healer if there's not a 'tanking' role for him. and that other fighters can become 'dpsers' worth bringing. in fact they specifically use that as an example...bringing a paladin to a raid as a backup healer/dpser rather then a tanking position. so I think 'recklessness' is going to give a HUGE dps increase at a HUGE survivability hit. we'll become maybe psuedo rogues? as I doubt we'll become ranger/assassinish in damage.percentage heals are wonderful as a paladin...depending on if the ward becomes a percent heal..and that means the group heal will be worth casting to. especially in little group were your healer is a merc...or doing 'older' content that people mostly ignore now like the instances to help a BL with thier epic or thier epic kills...or even the SS instances. be nice to help group heal or the like if someone eats a knockback or a manadrain at a bad time, and actually have those heals be worth a darn.but we'll have to see how it plays out on Test. it might be great, it might not be. I'm hoping it'll be as good as I think it will be in my head though.

EverDog

06-22-2012, 04:24 AM

Reckless offensive stance might bring Shadowknight oddyssey into game again if not balanced very well.Becase SK is DPSing well enough even when in Mage group, where GRD (or BSK MNK BRU) almost turns into a joke.

Peogia

06-22-2012, 10:59 AM

<cite>Windstalker wrote:</cite><blockquote>The designers will get into the details tomorrow in the webcast and we will post a few articles. Ultimately, we need your help to Test the changes next week, but overall I think they are a good move on the part of our mechanics team that will help game play overall.The changes are not specific to PvP. I hesitate to say anything in advance of the webcast for fear of wild speculation, but the changes....Nah, I'll let them tell you tomorrow. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>I'm not sure why this thread or topic exists they are not really doing anything for fighters only PVP sounded mainly PVP up date fighters will get cluttered with another buff when they could of just fixed the current dps buff fighters already have soon we will have 3 buffs like monks and monks 4 and it sounds like are character traits tree going to get reset from this up date it was so simple to work with never saw need to fix it its the AA that can be a royal pain please consolidate/simply AAhow long until fighter buffs are consolidated<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/0a4d7238daa496a758252d0a2b1a1384.gif" border="0" /> I don't need 2 dps tank buffs can only use one at a time<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/97ada74b88049a6d50a6ed40898a03d7.gif" border="0" /> I don't feel much thought was put into the fighter up date atleast from what was said in this video lol<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYf1afTX0e8" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYf1afTX0e8</a>Can you Please add a class change potion so I can change my Fighter/Guardian into something that is fun and useful

Gilasil

06-22-2012, 11:15 AM

<cite>Rainmare@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>Okay here's the general things Fighters are getting:all our temp buffs that give damage reduction are now immune to Strikethrough.all fighter heals will no longer be effected by Potency, but will all also be percentage healswe're all getting a new stance at 20. it's called Recklessness, and supposedly will give us DPS class damage, and reduce our ability to take hits to DPS class levels.they siad there will be lots of class specific tweaks that they didn't go into that we'll have to read the notes for on tuesday when it hits Test.</blockquote>*cheers*It's WAY overdue.I gave up on fighters because there were always more then were needed. A group only needs one tank. A raid typically a couple but certainly less then 6.Many people playing fighters are quite happy to take on a DPS role if they can do it. It's WAY better then sitting on the bench. If you don't want to DPS on your fighter you can talk it over with the other fighters in the group and decide who gets to be the tank.There will be some issues with respect to true DPS classes unless they're getting something big too. Best thing is to wait and see how the details work out.I may have to dust off a few of my fighters after this goes live.

kalaria

06-22-2012, 11:44 AM

<cite>Peogia wrote:</cite><blockquote>Can you Please add a class change potion so I can change my Fighter/Guardian into something that is fun and useful</blockquote>Simple Answer:NO.You want a different subclass.... then level one up.

hoosierdaddy

06-22-2012, 12:05 PM

<cite>Gilasil wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rainmare@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>Okay here's the general things Fighters are getting:all our temp buffs that give damage reduction are now immune to Strikethrough.all fighter heals will no longer be effected by Potency, but will all also be percentage healswe're all getting a new stance at 20. it's called Recklessness, and supposedly will give us DPS class damage, and reduce our ability to take hits to DPS class levels.they siad there will be lots of class specific tweaks that they didn't go into that we'll have to read the notes for on tuesday when it hits Test.</blockquote>*cheers*It's WAY overdue.I gave up on fighters because there were always more then were needed. A group only needs one tank. A raid typically a couple but certainly less then 6.Many people playing fighters are quite happy to take on a DPS role if they can do it. It's WAY better then sitting on the bench. If you don't want to DPS on your fighter you can talk it over with the other fighters in the group and decide who gets to be the tank.There will be some issues with respect to true DPS classes unless they're getting something big too. Best thing is to wait and see how the details work out.I may have to dust off a few of my fighters after this goes live.</blockquote>I see what you're saying (and what the devs are trying to do), but a second fighter will never be invited to a group in the place of a "T1" (or even "T2") DPS class. Perhaps in a casual setting, but you'll still not see raids with more than 3 or 4 tanks unless it is absolutely required for the encounter.

TheSpin

06-22-2012, 12:20 PM

I think there may be some potential here.I have long agreed that there are simply too many tank classes and not enough roles tanks can fill in a group or raid.I think the key to balancing fighters into a potential dps spot is to look at everything each class brings to the table other than dps. One idea I have to maintain fighter's usefulness while filling a dps role in their reckless stance would be for them to have a single ability, like rescue, on a moderately long cooldown that allows them to immediately step into a tank role if the situation calls for it. So let's say you're in a group and the tank goes down, the 'reckless' tank can pop their rescue ability and it will automatically switch them into defensive stance and move their hate position up. I also think there should be some kind of penalty associated with using this ability, such as being locked into this tanking stance for the rest of the encounter, or at least for a couple minute cooldown.That way when it's time to form a group, you can opt to have a dps that can also add some debuffs, like a brig, or you can opt to bring in a reckless fighter who can step into the tank role if it is necessary for a particular fight or on a bad pull.

Loendar

06-22-2012, 12:29 PM

Unfortunately none of the proposed changes will have any noticable impact on my tank class (Guardian). Here's to hoping that the 'balance changes' they didn't cover in the podcast will help.A DPS role will mostly likely bring my DPS up to the level that Paladins, SK's and Monks already enjoy while in their current Defensive stances (this is based on my personal raid experience with those classes - I recognize that there are exceptions to every DPS rule). MY tank cohorts are already doing 2x+ my damage on every raid target - bringing me up to their defensive DPS level while turning me to paper isn't helping me.Strikethrough Immunity getting fixed to actually work? Okay - that is good, I suppose. Wasn't something that I noticed as lacking though and certainly won't balance me.Heals changing to a percentage-base? Sweet - for those tanks that have heals ... I'm not one of them. I am critically underwhelmed.

Gilasil

06-22-2012, 12:33 PM

<cite>hoosierdaddy wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gilasil wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rainmare@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>Okay here's the general things Fighters are getting:all our temp buffs that give damage reduction are now immune to Strikethrough.all fighter heals will no longer be effected by Potency, but will all also be percentage healswe're all getting a new stance at 20. it's called Recklessness, and supposedly will give us DPS class damage, and reduce our ability to take hits to DPS class levels.they siad there will be lots of class specific tweaks that they didn't go into that we'll have to read the notes for on tuesday when it hits Test.</blockquote>*cheers*It's WAY overdue.I gave up on fighters because there were always more then were needed. A group only needs one tank. A raid typically a couple but certainly less then 6.Many people playing fighters are quite happy to take on a DPS role if they can do it. It's WAY better then sitting on the bench. If you don't want to DPS on your fighter you can talk it over with the other fighters in the group and decide who gets to be the tank.There will be some issues with respect to true DPS classes unless they're getting something big too. Best thing is to wait and see how the details work out.I may have to dust off a few of my fighters after this goes live.</blockquote>I see what you're saying (and what the devs are trying to do), but a second fighter will never be invited to a group in the place of a "T1" (or even "T2") DPS class. Perhaps in a casual setting, but you'll still not see raids with more than 3 or 4 tanks unless it is absolutely required for the encounter.</blockquote>They'll be wanted if they can do T1 DPS. They're not wanted now because they can't. It all depends how much DPS they'll get with this reckless stance.Obviously if a fighter in reckless stance can do T1 DPS there's going to be some serious issues with respect to DPS classes unless they get something too. I really hope SoE is addressing that. We need to know more.

Peogia

06-22-2012, 01:01 PM

<cite>kalaria wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Peogia wrote:</cite><blockquote>Can you Please add a class change potion so I can change my Fighter/Guardian into something that is fun and useful</blockquote>Simple Answer:NO.You want a different subclass.... then level one up. </blockquote>kalaria that isn't even your decision to decide so why even bother responding to the post when you have nothing to contribute<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/0a4d7238daa496a758252d0a2b1a1384.gif" border="0" />

Rageincarnate

06-22-2012, 01:12 PM

It's a good start sony. Seems to be well thought out.Fighters can join instance groups as dps, 100 block--- actually means 100% block lol.. crazy i know.Fighters don't always have to be in defensive with a shield.. by all means go offensive and smack something.The heal changes ? might ? be enough for crusaders and zerkers? maybe? I'm not sure. I know longer play my sk or my zerker so i wont speak of that. I'm still of the opinion both classes could use 1-2 single target snap agros added.Sk's, monks could use at least 1 more interupt added to something with a decent recast.I am kind of wondering though.. the bigger problem with hate seems to be others fighters and huge spikes. Like the conj eb's and then soul burns and spikes 2 million dps in a 5 second time frame. I think i still would like intercept to be more useful then it is currently. I can precast it on a target that i know is going to go nuts, i think it should "intercept" a hate percentage as well from the target.I also think if the tank "misses" the mob that should have a threat value as well.

kalaria

06-22-2012, 01:14 PM

<cite>Peogia wrote:</cite><blockquote>kalaria that isn't even your decision to decide so why even bother responding to the post when you have nothing to contribute<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/0a4d7238daa496a758252d0a2b1a1384.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>Hahaha.Why do you even bother to post SC requests in threads involving mechanics discussions?Talk about having nothing to contribute....

Yimway

06-22-2012, 02:24 PM

So are DPS classes getting a stance called 'Tankiness' that reduces there dps but increases their damage prevention and agro?Recklessness is a terribad idea.

Rageincarnate

06-22-2012, 02:48 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>So are DPS classes getting a stance called 'Tankiness' that reduces there dps but increases their damage prevention and agro?Recklessness is a terribad idea.</blockquote>50 plat says that the new stance has a huge deagro component.

Talathion

06-22-2012, 03:13 PM

The new stance can't increase damage recieved, because that would make AOEs destroy us.It will have to lower our Physical Mitigation/Parry/Defense by alot.A good way to do it would be to lower our base avoidance and protection as well.The problem is, if its just damage taken recieved, a brawler could just throw that on, and with all there innate protection/avoidance not really decrease the bulk of his defences.It would have to be something really drastic."The fighter no longer can block attacks""Increases damage taken by 5%.""Lowers Mitigation of Caster by 1500.""Increases hate gain by -1000%."This would remove brawlers innate protection/the shield chance of plate fighters, so we can't tank in this stance so easilly and abuse the system.

Rageincarnate

06-22-2012, 03:30 PM

oh dont forget - 75% healing. we don't want the brawlers to heal right?

Talathion

06-22-2012, 03:43 PM

<cite>Rageincarnate@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>oh dont forget - 75% healing. we don't want the brawlers to heal right?</blockquote>I don't think you can lower percent based heals, I think they arn't modifiable, so i'm not sure, but good idea.With something like that, you could even have a DPS stance for healers.

Yimway

06-22-2012, 03:55 PM

<cite>Rageincarnate@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>So are DPS classes getting a stance called 'Tankiness' that reduces there dps but increases their damage prevention and agro?Recklessness is a terribad idea.</blockquote>50 plat says that the new stance has a huge deagro component.</blockquote>It does. My point is if tanks want to be dps, are we going to let dps tank?

Talathion

06-22-2012, 03:59 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rageincarnate@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>So are DPS classes getting a stance called 'Tankiness' that reduces there dps but increases their damage prevention and agro?Recklessness is a terribad idea.</blockquote>50 plat says that the new stance has a huge deagro component.</blockquote>It does. My point is if tanks want to be dps, are we going to let dps tank?</blockquote>That would be cool, give Mages the chance to be Magical Warding Tanks. (turn there spells into combat arts/make them ward alot of damage, let them use melee weapons.)Give Scouts a Chance to be Avoidance Tanks.

Gilasil

06-22-2012, 04:01 PM

I'm betting my plat that fighters in this mode will have about T2 DPS if their gear and AA are set up for it. Except without the utility that other T2 DPS classes bring.

kalaria

06-22-2012, 04:14 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rageincarnate@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>So are DPS classes getting a stance called 'Tankiness' that reduces there dps but increases their damage prevention and agro?Recklessness is a terribad idea.</blockquote>50 plat says that the new stance has a huge deagro component.</blockquote>It does. My point is if tanks want to be dps, are we going to let dps tank?</blockquote>I agree.Tanks in their "Recklessness" stance should be no where at all near the DPS output of non bard/chanters. If they are able to parse even with any actual DPS class while being able to swap to pure tank with a mere buff change, then that will be horribly horribly unbalanced.

Talathion

06-22-2012, 04:18 PM

<cite>kalaria wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rageincarnate@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>So are DPS classes getting a stance called 'Tankiness' that reduces there dps but increases their damage prevention and agro?Recklessness is a terribad idea.</blockquote>50 plat says that the new stance has a huge deagro component.</blockquote>It does. My point is if tanks want to be dps, are we going to let dps tank?</blockquote>I agree.Tanks in their "Recklessness" stance should be no where at all near the DPS output of non bard/chanters. If they are able to parse even with any actual DPS class while being able to swap to pure tank with a mere buff change, then that will be horribly horribly unbalanced.</blockquote>If they arn't near the DPS of them, then why take a reckless tank over a beastlord, who can out dps most dpsers in their "HEALING" stance while healing the groups mana/hp and doing 1200k Damage and improving the groups critical bonus/potency?

Silzin

06-22-2012, 04:22 PM

the "Recklessness" stance does not need to do anything that drastic to provent tanks from tanking in it, just have a part of it that is like: Every time you are attacked you will proc, 100% chance, -1 hate position on attacker.

Helmarf

06-22-2012, 04:26 PM

I realy dont like this idea with a special dps stance, it will benefit some fighter classes more then the others still able to holding agro, not taking to much damage and doing s..t loads of dps, belive me it will be so.And servers are not exactly crowded with fighters who is willing to take the job in a raid guild, we managed to recruit 1 in 8 months. So i cant se no benefits at all of this.Well a paladin Heal Stance would be cool with crit heals.And what about the other classes that have fallen behind, any inc love in a near future?

Yimway

06-22-2012, 04:34 PM

<cite>Silzin@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>the "Recklessness" stance does not need to do anything that drastic to provent tanks from tanking in it, just have a part of it that is like: Every time you are attacked you will proc, 100% chance, -1 hate position on attacker. </blockquote>Hey look, its Aerilik's fighter revamp all over again!This is all nonsense. Fix tanking, leave tanks, well tanking.

Gilasil

06-22-2012, 04:55 PM

<cite>Helmarf wrote:</cite><blockquote>And servers are not exactly crowded with fighters who is willing to take the job in a raid guild, we managed to recruit 1 in 8 months. So i cant se no benefits at all of this.</blockquote>There must be something very unusual about your situation as this is not my personal experience or that of several other people I know playing fighters.I quit raiding when I was informed that our casual raiding alliance had too many tanks. (and remember this is a CASUAL raiding alliance -- things are much more relaxed then the hardcore raiders) I was welcome to stay if I rolled say, a brigand -- or anything else not a fighter -- but I wouldn't be seeing many raids on my fighter. It was basically that two fighters would be the raid tanks. If you weren't one of those two you better get a non-fighter or you won't be doing much raiding with that alliance. My guild leader at the time -- a guardian -- went into a funk and eventually quit the game. It was understandable as about 25% of the people involved were playing fighters as their main and who wants 6 fighters in a raid?I've known other people playing fighters who were up against that problem.So I don't know what was up with your guild, but it sure sounds different from my experience and that of many people I've known.

Yimway

06-22-2012, 05:02 PM

<cite>Gilasil wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Helmarf wrote:</cite><blockquote>And servers are not exactly crowded with fighters who is willing to take the job in a raid guild, we managed to recruit 1 in 8 months. So i cant se no benefits at all of this.</blockquote>There must be something very unusual about your situation as this is not my personal experience or that of several other people I know playing fighters.</blockquote>We see alot of people wanting to play a fighter on raids.We see VERY few people capable of playing a fighter on a raid.

Talathion

06-22-2012, 05:07 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gilasil wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Helmarf wrote:</cite><blockquote>And servers are not exactly crowded with fighters who is willing to take the job in a raid guild, we managed to recruit 1 in 8 months. So i cant se no benefits at all of this.</blockquote>There must be something very unusual about your situation as this is not my personal experience or that of several other people I know playing fighters.</blockquote>We see alot of people wanting to play a fighter on raids.We see VERY few people capable of playing a fighter on a raid.</blockquote>Just like DPSers, we will see good ones and bad ones.People will not take a Reckless Tank unless they know they are very good, or gifted, well known or talented.The exception being beastlords/bards/enchanters.

Gilasil

06-22-2012, 05:10 PM

In that situation, just about all the fighters involved had successfully tanked for the raid. It's just that the raid didn't need that many tanks. Most had to go if the alliance was ever to move forward.Obviously in a hard core alliance this situation would never have arisin because that many fighters would have never been allowed in even temporarily.The result was a real mess.

Gealaen_Gaiamancer

06-22-2012, 05:13 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>This is all nonsense. Fix tanking, leave tanks, well tanking.</blockquote>"Nonsense" might be a bridge too far. The problem with tanking, as I understand it, is not that tanks are not tanking but that there are too many tanks tanking too well.There are limited opportunities for tanks in organized play--one per group in heroics and one or two or three per raid. Okay, sure, there are no doubt exceptions where having several dedicated offtanks is the right thing to do, but if those offtanks are screwing with the main tank's agro then it comes down to a lot of yelling or not bringing as many tanks and looking in to other options when adds need to be OT-ed.I'm looking forward seeing how this plays out on Test ... giving non-MT/2T tanks the option to step away from "tank" but still contribute to the group/raid is an interesting variation.

Yimway

06-22-2012, 05:22 PM

<cite>Gealaen_Gaiamancer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>This is all nonsense. Fix tanking, leave tanks, well tanking.</blockquote> I'm looking forward seeing how this plays out on Test ... giving non-MT/2T tanks the option to step away from "tank" but still contribute to the group/raid is an interesting variation.</blockquote>Most of us are running 3 fighters these days anyway. Meaning we keep 4-5 on roster. We're not going to just drag another fighter along just cause they can parse 100k more now. We will continue to run just as many fighters as requried and swap in Beastlords where you'd carry a 4th fighter.The classes offer little utility and nearly any other class in that slot, even with recklessness is going to be prefered. I do not like this as if its fair for fighters to get a dps stance, its fair for dps to get a viable tank stance. And all in all, I don't like the game that path leads to.

Rahatmattata

06-22-2012, 05:37 PM

I don't care about a dps stance, if I'm not there to tank stuff, I don't want to be there anyway. I def didn't roll a guard to fill a dps slot.

Talathion

06-22-2012, 05:41 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gealaen_Gaiamancer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>This is all nonsense. Fix tanking, leave tanks, well tanking.</blockquote> I'm looking forward seeing how this plays out on Test ... giving non-MT/2T tanks the option to step away from "tank" but still contribute to the group/raid is an interesting variation.</blockquote>Most of us are running 3 fighters these days anyway. Meaning we keep 4-5 on roster. We're not going to just drag another fighter along just cause they can parse 100k more now. We will continue to run just as many fighters as requried and swap in Beastlords where you'd carry a 4th fighter.The classes offer little utility and nearly any other class in that slot, even with recklessness is going to be prefered. I do not like this as if its fair for fighters to get a dps stance, its fair for dps to get a viable tank stance. And all in all, I don't like the game that path leads to.</blockquote>It depends on how good the stance is, if the reckless stance is as good as i'm thinking it might just be good enough to actually take a fighter as DPS. (Might do as much DPS as a Beastlord, if not more on the AOE side.)

kalaria

06-22-2012, 05:45 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>If they arn't near the DPS of them, then why take a reckless tank over a beastlord, who can out dps most dpsers in their "HEALING" stance while healing the groups mana/hp and doing 1200k Damage and improving the groups critical bonus/potency?</blockquote>If they are equal the DPS, why take other DPSing classes when a DPS fighter can instantly become a tank with the click of as single button? Shouldn't ever happen.The reckless stance is so similar to the disaster Aerlik nearly inflicted on this game that it makes me nervous.

Talathion

06-22-2012, 05:46 PM

<cite>kalaria wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>If they arn't near the DPS of them, then why take a reckless tank over a beastlord, who can out dps most dpsers in their "HEALING" stance while healing the groups mana/hp and doing 1200k Damage and improving the groups critical bonus/potency?</blockquote>If they are equal the DPS, why take other DPSing classes when a DPS fighter can instantly become a tank with the click of as single button? Shouldn't ever happen.The reckless stance is so similar to the disaster Aerlik nearly inflicted on this game that it makes me nervous.</blockquote>DPSers bring alot more to the table then just DPS.DPSers are the reason most tanks hold aggro, they produce more threat then the tank does some times.Beastlords increase the entire groups damage/potency, ect...Swashys can transfer most of there damage to the tank as threat and take a hit for himbrigands can lower the targets defences/avoidance/mitigation by a crapton.If you don't know what classes do, you shouldn't comment on them.

Yimway

06-22-2012, 05:48 PM

<cite>kalaria wrote:</cite><blockquote>The reckless stance is so similar to the disaster Aerlik nearly inflicted on this game that it makes me nervous.</blockquote>It smacks very much of that. In fact it sounds like they took the offensive stances he made, cut, paste, and renamed to Recklessness.

kalaria

06-22-2012, 05:49 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>It depends on how good the stance is, if the reckless stance is as good as i'm thinking it might just be good enough to actually take a fighter as DPS. (Might do as much DPS as a Beastlord, if not more on the AOE side.)</blockquote>Which should NEVER be the case.Fighter DPS needs to remain below Preds/Sorcs/Rogues/Summoners. (all things being equal of course gear/skill wise).

Gealaen_Gaiamancer

06-22-2012, 05:50 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gealaen_Gaiamancer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>This is all nonsense. Fix tanking, leave tanks, well tanking.</blockquote> I'm looking forward seeing how this plays out on Test ... giving non-MT/2T tanks the option to step away from "tank" but still contribute to the group/raid is an interesting variation.</blockquote>Most of us are running 3 fighters these days anyway. Meaning we keep 4-5 on roster. We're not going to just drag another fighter along just cause they can parse 100k more now. We will continue to run just as many fighters as requried and swap in Beastlords where you'd carry a 4th fighter.The classes offer little utility and nearly any other class in that slot, even with recklessness is going to be prefered. I do not like this as if its fair for fighters to get a dps stance, its fair for dps to get a viable tank stance. And all in all, I don't like the game that path leads to.</blockquote>Yup, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. But for raid groups that, for whatever reason, are overtanked and don't have or don't want to use non-tanks for the other slots ... this gives them the option of playing an antitank-tank.It just occurred to me to hope that 'reckless' stance is really awesome ... because calling someone an "antitank-awesometank" would be hillarious. "AT-AT looking for raid slot." Okay, silly moment has passed.

kalaria

06-22-2012, 05:50 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>If you don't know what classes do, you shouldn't comment on them.</blockquote>You should really be taking your own advice.Then again, if you did, we'd never see you posting here at all anymore.

Yimway

06-22-2012, 05:53 PM

<cite>kalaria wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>If you don't know what classes do, you shouldn't comment on them.</blockquote>You should really be taking your own advice.Then again, if you did, we'd never see you posting here at all anymore.</blockquote>Amen Brother!

Talathion

06-22-2012, 05:56 PM

Thought without thought process isn't thought, Think about what those classes can do what fighters can't and do the math, there will probably still be 4 fighters in the raid max, even with this buff, unless its significant enough to do its job.Otherwise, theres no reason to add it.

kalaria

06-22-2012, 06:01 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Thought without thought process isn't thought,</blockquote>Oh the irony of that statement coming from you! It is simply hilarious.Think about what fighters can do that other classes can't as well?Whats this... they can take big hits and tank mobs? What, casters and scouts can't even touch those abilities?! /gasp!

Talathion

06-22-2012, 06:02 PM

<cite>kalaria wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Thought without thought process isn't thought,</blockquote>Oh the irony of that statement coming from you! It is simply hilarious.Think about what fighters can do that other classes can't as well?Whats this... they can take big hits and tank mobs? What, casters and scouts can't even touch those abilities?! /gasp!</blockquote>Reckless Stance will probably make you squishier then a Wizard.

kalaria

06-22-2012, 06:06 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Reckless Stance will probably make you squishier then a Wizard. </blockquote>And changing stances is a long and time involved process involving calling out to an NPC or house......oh wait.Changing stances requires just clicking a buff?!Wow, thats near instantaneous isnt it, imagine that.

Talathion

06-22-2012, 06:07 PM

<cite>kalaria wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Reckless Stance will probably make you squishier then a Wizard. </blockquote>And changing stances is a long and time involved process involving calling out to an NPC or house......oh wait.Changing stances requires just clicking a buff?!Wow, thats near instantaneous isnt it, imagine that.</blockquote>A buff you probably can't switch during combat.

Yimway

06-22-2012, 06:08 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Reckless Stance will probably make you squishier then a Wizard.</blockquote>Your wrong. It will make you taking damage from a mob swinging at you fairly dangerious (that is if you could actually get agro in the stance). However your survivability to AE's will still be much higher than everyone else due to having short terms and other abilities to mitigate / prevent damage. A Stoneskin is still a stoneskin. Ask your dps class players how many damage prevention abilities they get.Recklessness is not going to make takes parse as real dps classes, if it does, it breaks the game. Period.

Talathion

06-22-2012, 06:09 PM

kalaria

06-22-2012, 06:12 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Your wrong. It will make you taking damage from a mob swinging at you fairly dangerious (that is if you could actually get agro in the stance). However your survivability to AE's will still be much higher than everyone else due to having short terms and other abilities to mitigate / prevent damage. A Stoneskin is still a stoneskin. Ask your dps class players how many damage prevention abilities they get.Recklessness is not going to make takes parse as real dps classes, if it does, it breaks the game. Period.</blockquote>This.

Rahatmattata

06-22-2012, 06:15 PM

On the bright side, talthion got a new tank stance.

Talathion

06-22-2012, 06:16 PM

We should really wait for test.

TheSpin

06-22-2012, 06:17 PM

There's really two 'fixes' that could be made to fighters in my opinion and it seems like this thread is focusing a lot more on one than the other.The most legitimate 'problem' with fighters is that the 6 fighter classes are not equal at their job (tanking). IMO this should be the primary focus of any adjustments made to fighters. Either specific lines should be drawn where some tanks are specifically given more support skills to fill off-tank roles rather than main-tank role, or they all need to be brought up to the same level as viable main tanks.The secondary problem with fighters is that there aren't enough spots for them in raids (sometimes groups). This could be solved by making changes to the above problem, or it can be solved as a completely seperate issue. The current idea to solve this seems to be giving more dps to fighters. but possible alternatives include giving more dps to mobs and making changes that would allow multiple tanks to reduce the damage done to each other, or perhaps, why not simply allow a mob target two people? Then you'd need two tanks. Other ideas include letting tanks protect their group by absorbing some AOE damage for them, this might be especially handy for self-healing tanks. Either way I think SOE should consider more options other than tweaking fighter dps.

Yimway

06-22-2012, 06:32 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote></blockquote>Thats more of a Guardian/Monk thing then a general fighter thing.But Guardians/Monks will not do the same damage as a Shadowknight and Berserker.</blockquote>Seriously man, use your brain sometime...How many death saves do dps classes have? Control Cures? Immuities? There are all sorts of defensive abilities spread out accross the tanking class that in turn would warrant that they never do dps class level output.

Rageincarnate

06-22-2012, 08:07 PM

Hammieee

06-22-2012, 09:12 PM

I know for a fact once my guild gets a guardian so my bruiser can become the 4th tank just chilling down there with the swash, i can hit combat mastery with the new offensive stance and chill and be a little behind the real dps classes and have the swash top the parse. Bruisers offer honestly decent utility, combat mastery is just amazing and brutality is decent as its raid wide increase to damage and also hate reducers in raid wide.

Talathion

06-22-2012, 09:48 PM

<cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>I know for a fact once my guild gets a guardian so my bruiser can become the 4th tank just chilling down there with the swash, i can hit combat mastery with the new offensive stance and chill and be a little behind the real dps classes and have the swash top the parse. Bruisers offer honestly decent utility, combat mastery is just amazing and brutality is decent as its raid wide increase to damage and also hate reducers in raid wide.</blockquote>With the gear thats dropping now (leather) it would be easy to gear up too.

BChizzle

06-23-2012, 12:30 AM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote></blockquote>Thats more of a Guardian/Monk thing then a general fighter thing.But Guardians/Monks will not do the same damage as a Shadowknight and Berserker.</blockquote>Seriously man, use your brain sometime...How many death saves do dps classes have? Control Cures? Immuities? There are all sorts of defensive abilities spread out accross the tanking class that in turn would warrant that they never do dps class level output.</blockquote>Come on you guys even playing the same game as me? Mages can get a freaking ae avoid proc that beats out anything any tank can throw as a save when it comes to non direct damage, bard turnstrike, chanters ae avoids, etc etc etc etc etc you guys are so full of it.

gourdon

06-23-2012, 02:26 AM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote></blockquote>Thats more of a Guardian/Monk thing then a general fighter thing.But Guardians/Monks will not do the same damage as a Shadowknight and Berserker.</blockquote>Seriously man, use your brain sometime...How many death saves do dps classes have? Control Cures? Immuities? There are all sorts of defensive abilities spread out accross the tanking class that in turn would warrant that they never do dps class level output.</blockquote>Come on you guys even playing the same game as me? Mages can get a freaking ae avoid proc that beats out anything any tank can throw as a save when it comes to non direct damage, bard turnstrike, chanters ae avoids, etc etc etc etc etc you guys are so full of it.</blockquote>Predators do not get anything. I'm pretty sure rogues don't either.The flexibility of being able to take a second role will over power further a set of classes that are already near the top in PVP, solo-molo and small group capability. Fighters being able to switch over to competitive DPS can't happen without giving everyone else tank like defensive capabilities period.

BChizzle

06-23-2012, 03:20 AM

Rasttan

06-23-2012, 03:28 AM

<cite>gourdon wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote></blockquote>Thats more of a Guardian/Monk thing then a general fighter thing.But Guardians/Monks will not do the same damage as a Shadowknight and Berserker.</blockquote>Seriously man, use your brain sometime...How many death saves do dps classes have? Control Cures? Immuities? There are all sorts of defensive abilities spread out accross the tanking class that in turn would warrant that they never do dps class level output.</blockquote>Come on you guys even playing the same game as me? Mages can get a freaking ae avoid proc that beats out anything any tank can throw as a save when it comes to non direct damage, bard turnstrike, chanters ae avoids, etc etc etc etc etc you guys are so full of it.</blockquote>Predators do not get anything. I'm pretty sure rogues don't either.The flexibility of being able to take a second role will over power further a set of classes that are already near the top in PVP, solo-molo and small group capability. Fighters being able to switch over to competitive DPS can't happen without giving everyone else tank like defensive capabilities period.</blockquote>Yet still the least desirable and worst played class in the game, how many fighters on raids compared to scouts, mages, ...etc how many times is there ever a fighter doubled up in a group, and when the fighter sucks the group/raid is screwed if a dps sucks you can still get crap done. Whats the one class allways taken to the minimum needed to kill a raid mob the all powerful fighter.Do we need this stance no we dont, but the fact is no one ever wants more than the absolute minimum of fighters on raids, in groups. And if you want more or take more your an idiot with current game mechanics. Anyway DPS are blowing past 1 million dps on parses all the time hardly think the fighter boost will equal that kind of output, unless the dps is bad and the fighter is good then you deserve to get your head handed to you.Fighters still wont give the group what bards/chanters do anyway, they wont debuff like scouts do, they cant be ranged dps like mages, so if you do 20% more dps in this new stance nothings gonna change. Except when your trying to form something and you cant find any other class because you sure the hell wernt looking for another fighter, you may take one because you know they wont be a total waste of space now.

Seiffil

06-23-2012, 09:57 AM

Talathion

06-23-2012, 11:16 AM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Reckless Stance will probably make you squishier then a Wizard.</blockquote>Your wrong. It will make you taking damage from a mob swinging at you fairly dangerious (that is if you could actually get agro in the stance). However your survivability to AE's will still be much higher than everyone else due to having short terms and other abilities to mitigate / prevent damage. A Stoneskin is still a stoneskin. Ask your dps class players how many damage prevention abilities they get.Recklessness is not going to make takes parse as real dps classes, if it does, it breaks the game. Period.</blockquote>All Mages have ranged, they can stay out of melee AEs.Brigands have AOE Immunity.All Mages have several defensive abilities and "Cloak" which gives AOE Immunity.There are several old items mages can use to pretty much stoneskin every big AE, which is just one alternative.Assassins/Rangers have several short duration AOE immunities in several AA lines.Swashbucklers have Advanced Warning, Dirges/Troubadors have Bladedance. Are we playing the same game?

Rahatmattata

06-23-2012, 12:20 PM

Unless they changed it in the past few years, brig aoe blocker amazing reflexes was nerfed into a proc at eof launch and has been useless since. It's really hard to proc a 10 second aoe blocker when you need one.

sojurn1

06-23-2012, 12:24 PM

basically they are making tanks be able to take other spots in raids, lol really who will recruit a tank over another class, if you play a tank you hope to actully do a tank role why would tanks want to have yet more people after thier gear when some of the new fighters that really only ever want to dps will grab the tank loot. This looks great for some fighter classes but i think personally it will open the door to players that really should not have the spots over other classes that are actully needed. it will also make some fighter classes call for nerfs over other fighter classes. And yes i play sk as main monk as alt also have all tank classes and see there individual issues. in my force if we have enogth tanks i simply play a brigg or a healer i do not get my sk to do other jobs

Equilibrium

06-23-2012, 12:51 PM

They are testing alot of new features and ideas in this game as of late as many people know. This is probably to get a grasp on players reactions to classes filling multiple roles. If the feedback is good, guess what, WoW/Rift type duel specs for everybody. This is a way that they can do class consolidation without actually getting rid of classes. They love throwing around the fact they have 25 classes to chose from, but they understand that it is hurting the game, hence why no other MMO has such huge selection to chose from.

Talathion

06-23-2012, 12:59 PM

Would be fun to see a Reckless Stance for healers.

Dovifat

06-23-2012, 02:05 PM

More raid spots for Fighters is a good move and long overdue. They shouldn't come at the expense of Scouts though, and they will pretty much 100%, as Rogues, Assassins and Rangers aren't all that well off themselves. If they want to fix class distribution in raids they will have to tackle the utility issue sooner or later. Sooner, as in: pretty much at the start of the process, would probably be the smart choice, but further increasing competition for the few spots that are not utility, tank or healer first and cleaning up the mess later kinda works too I guess...

Talathion

06-23-2012, 02:47 PM

<cite>Dovifat wrote:</cite><blockquote>More raid spots for Fighters is a good move and long overdue. They shouldn't come at the expense of Scouts though, and they will pretty much 100%, as Rogues, Assassins and Rangers aren't all that well off themselves. If they want to fix class distribution in raids they will have to tackle the utility issue sooner or later. Sooner, as in: pretty much at the start of the process, would probably be the smart choice, but further increasing competition for the few spots that are not utility, tank or healer first and cleaning up the mess later kinda works too I guess...</blockquote>They removed Scout debuffs/AE Preventions/Buffs!? When!?

kalaria

06-23-2012, 03:00 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>They removed Scout debuffs/AE Preventions/Buffs!? When!?</blockquote>They removed fighter damage reductions, damage immunities, stone skins, death prevents?! When?!

Talathion

06-23-2012, 03:06 PM

<cite>kalaria wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>They removed Scout debuffs/AE Preventions/Buffs!? When!?</blockquote>They removed fighter damage reductions, damage immunities, stone skins, death prevents?! When?!</blockquote>AE Prevention for DPS > Stoneskins+Death Preventions+Damage Immunities+Damage Reduction.

Tigerr

06-23-2012, 03:26 PM

I don't even know how you guys assume that with this change fighters will be stacked in groups/raids. This might work out for a casual run through SS but even with fighter dps being upped, no one is going to stack fighters to replace a dps. This is probably the most idiotic change SoE can make.. They assume if they add another 100k+ dps to a fighter, they are going to be more desired and everyone will have 3 fighters in a group or even 6 in a raid. For tough stuff, no matter what the people playing fighters think, no guild thats worth anything will bring fighters along just because they got a boost to dps. I dont understand why Sony is catering to the "I cant get no groups as a fighter, I lose aggro , WAHH WAHH WAHH" crowd. The community will NOT accept it. Didn't they learn this with the Crit Mit removal?.. As soon as it was removed people were in tears from the joy, assuming there is no more artificial "barrier" so even the most "casual" player can get into groups. Guess what, even still, noone is going to want scrubs in raid/group even if they can live through it. The community simply did not care. Noone wanted to drag people without gear through zones and the players set their own requirement. This will NOT make fighters more desirable, all thats going to happen is there will be an increase in the "Omg, they said i cant tank and didn't let me stay in the group to dps" posts in this forum. Instead of fixing individual fighters, they give them a dps buff... LOL. This will be just like dungeon finder, noone will care for it and noone is going to have a fighter in a group/raid to dps. Maybe the casual raiders will stack up 10 fighters in a raid but, like i mentioned earlier, for the hard stuff there is NO way any fighter will be seeing any sort of "Oh i'm going to just chill here and dps cause stuff is hard as a tank". Any good fighter that played longer than hell, 2 months probably can put out good numbers. This really isint needed. There is a reason why people use 4 per raid, its a tough role to fill and honestly, thats what they were designed as. Giving a fighter multiple roles won't make anything different. I understand working with enhancing aggro etc on some fighters but this is just insane. Oh btw, I kind of want to tank on my inquisitor too, maybe you should give healers a defensive stance so that when there a no tanks, we can pound stuff out /sarcasm off. On the character selection screen, people selected "TANK"... not "TANKDPSHYBRID" .

Talathion

06-23-2012, 03:36 PM

Its not even on test yet...

KNINE

06-23-2012, 03:55 PM

Eridu

06-23-2012, 04:36 PM

I hope this works but it's an uphill battle the designers have combatting the group/raid set up rigidity that's often unnecessary overkill ("how lame such trivial content" 'sah right), and in the longer term destroys the game's overall health.People want to Play when they Play. I'm sure many are sick of having to log on their dirge just because they're looking for gear for their main. This game's run shorter and shorter on the simple sense of enjoyed gaming time. Anything that infuses "fun" for people back into this work work work of a game is best for everyone. Only the short-sighted and rigid would think otherise but that's much of the playerbase after the Dismality that was DoV1 group and raid content.Good luck Devs, the community of the game need things like this to work out, even if they don't want to admit that someone else not them should be able to enjoy themselves.

ratbast

06-23-2012, 05:01 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>kalaria wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Thought without thought process isn't thought,</blockquote>Oh the irony of that statement coming from you! It is simply hilarious.Think about what fighters can do that other classes can't as well?Whats this... they can take big hits and tank mobs? What, casters and scouts can't even touch those abilities?! /gasp!</blockquote>Reckless Stance will probably make you squishier then a Wizard.</blockquote>reckless, as described, adds versatility to fighters.its a straight benefit exclusive to 1 archtype.imo, if eq2 wants a unilateral buff to the strongest archtype...they ought to trend towards utility in the process. meaning tanks should repurpose to utility, NOT DPS.

gourdon

06-23-2012, 05:19 PM

<cite>Seiffil@Permafrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>gourdon wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote></blockquote>Thats more of a Guardian/Monk thing then a general fighter thing.But Guardians/Monks will not do the same damage as a Shadowknight and Berserker.</blockquote>Seriously man, use your brain sometime...How many death saves do dps classes have? Control Cures? Immuities? There are all sorts of defensive abilities spread out accross the tanking class that in turn would warrant that they never do dps class level output.</blockquote>Come on you guys even playing the same game as me? Mages can get a freaking ae avoid proc that beats out anything any tank can throw as a save when it comes to non direct damage, bard turnstrike, chanters ae avoids, etc etc etc etc etc you guys are so full of it.</blockquote>Predators do not get anything. I'm pretty sure rogues don't either.The flexibility of being able to take a second role will over power further a set of classes that are already near the top in PVP, solo-molo and small group capability. Fighters being able to switch over to competitive DPS can't happen without giving everyone else tank like defensive capabilities period.</blockquote>Since the person you quoted reference AE avoids, yes, predators can get one, Impenetrable which is the final ability in the sta tree. Swashbucklers have a group AE avoid and brigands also have an AE avoid. Both for the brigands and predators those avoids are self only, but saying that predators don't get anything shows that you also didn't look.</blockquote>You're right. The guy who doesn't know what is useful mentioned the AE avoid. There is an AE avoid at the end of the Stamina line for Predators. However, it is common for predators to max out that line and not take it. I'm talking about raiders here, not just me. It is a short duration useless piece of garbage that prevents the user from using any combat arts and doesn't block a direct AoE. It isn't worth a spot on the combat bar much less 2AA points. It is a dishonest or ignorant assertion that Impenetrable is meaningful in this conversation.

gourdon

06-23-2012, 05:27 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>kalaria wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>They removed Scout debuffs/AE Preventions/Buffs!? When!?</blockquote>They removed fighter damage reductions, damage immunities, stone skins, death prevents?! When?!</blockquote>AE Prevention for DPS > Stoneskins+Death Preventions+Damage Immunities+Damage Reduction.</blockquote>Funny. I was unaware that tanks were avoiding taking their stoneskins, death preventions, damage immunities and damage reduction when they are available as AAs. Check out some predators and learn the truth.

Talathion

06-23-2012, 05:57 PM

<cite>gourdon wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>kalaria wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>They removed Scout debuffs/AE Preventions/Buffs!? When!?</blockquote>They removed fighter damage reductions, damage immunities, stone skins, death prevents?! When?!</blockquote>AE Prevention for DPS > Stoneskins+Death Preventions+Damage Immunities+Damage Reduction.</blockquote>Funny. I was unaware that tanks were avoiding taking their stoneskins, death preventions, damage immunities and damage reduction when they are available as AAs. Check out some predators and learn the truth.</blockquote>Um.. Im saying its better, not that they arn't taking it.AE Prevention (Not getting hit at all) is better then All the stoneskins/stuff in the world.

ratbast

06-23-2012, 06:02 PM

<cite>KNINE wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>"Changes are coming to PVP and fighters class for EverQuest II."Err... we gonna get our healing criticals back like every other class in the game? I'm tired of my useless 1000 point healing abilities when I have 65000 Health.</blockquote>Really lol.. not like tanks can't solo pretty much what they want anyway.. but you want crit heals back for what lol.. if you die as a tank in a grp or raid.. get new healers.. not like healing is that hard now a days either..crit heals for fighters should just stay gone lol..</blockquote>giving reckless stance (which should increase group dps, not fighters personal dps) could make healing matter again. but not if you make fighters heals even slightly stronger. fighters enjoy too much control over their own survival as it is already.for reckless, fighter survivability needs to be repurposed to support, not personal dps. reckless stance should make them into a tanking bard/chanter, helping out other group members with their own dps roles. a (self dps buff) reckless is just a chance for fighters to shine. thats bad. they already get to do that every time they pop a riposte temp on an aoe fight. if they want to shine on dps parse, they should role t1 scout or mage.utility reckless should be an option when you have great heals in group. personally i find it insulting when cripple tanks dual wield and then brag about topping the parse. if they wanna ride bareback, it should make the dps classes parse skyrocket, not their own. stealing others thunder, when its all they got, is really selfish. fighters tank, heal, aggro, control encounter, and dps. dps is all a ranger can bring, period. what i see coming is cripple tanks outparsing marginal dps players because they have a healer who can handle it. that shouldnt be the result.those tanks only can dual wield cuz im healing them thru it. it really aggravates me their weakness is made strong, which then empowers them to compete with actual dps classes. that should never be, for comparably geared players.if a tank is so uber he can get away with it, fine, let him sacrifice survivability for dps by switching out gear, but reckless stance should grant utility for others benefit, not fighters personal dps.repurposing for major roles (tank, heal, dps) is bad design. repurposing should be for support roles only, like buffing, rezzing, mana healing.

Aull

06-23-2012, 07:08 PM

I don't think that this stance is gonna be a bad idea. Honestly I believe that eq2 is old and now with other games like Rift that allow for multiple roles this is where they are moving to.I am sure that once this fighter change happens that other archtypes will see a new stance as well.While this may be viewed for raid purposes I do think this stance will have a great fun factor for less than perfect heroic groups or just the everyday norrath quests. No waiting for that brig, wiz, or whatever to fill one needed slot that now another fighter should be able to fill decently.I am also sure that many here have multiple alts that if a true dps slot is needed then they will camp and bring that toon in to fill that dps slot.For hard core raiders this new fighter stance may not be a huge help but for pugs and throw together raids it will probably lower any down time waiting for a dps classes to become available.When the game was young even rouges could tank somewhat or be dps too. No one cried foul back then.

Talathion

06-23-2012, 09:10 PM

<cite>ratbast wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>KNINE wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>"Changes are coming to PVP and fighters class for EverQuest II."Err... we gonna get our healing criticals back like every other class in the game? I'm tired of my useless 1000 point healing abilities when I have 65000 Health.</blockquote>Really lol.. not like tanks can't solo pretty much what they want anyway.. but you want crit heals back for what lol.. if you die as a tank in a grp or raid.. get new healers.. not like healing is that hard now a days either..crit heals for fighters should just stay gone lol..</blockquote>giving reckless stance (which should increase group dps, not fighters personal dps) could make healing matter again. but not if you make fighters heals even slightly stronger. fighters enjoy too much control over their own survival as it is already.for reckless, fighter survivability needs to be repurposed to support, not personal dps. reckless stance should make them into a tanking bard/chanter, helping out other group members with their own dps roles. a (self dps buff) reckless is just a chance for fighters to shine. thats bad. they already get to do that every time they pop a riposte temp on an aoe fight. if they want to shine on dps parse, they should role t1 scout or mage.utility reckless should be an option when you have great heals in group. personally i find it insulting when cripple tanks dual wield and then brag about topping the parse. if they wanna ride bareback, it should make the dps classes parse skyrocket, not their own. stealing others thunder, when its all they got, is really selfish. fighters tank, heal, aggro, control encounter, and dps. dps is all a ranger can bring, period. what i see coming is cripple tanks outparsing marginal dps players because they have a healer who can handle it. that shouldnt be the result.those tanks only can dual wield cuz im healing them thru it. it really aggravates me their weakness is made strong, which then empowers them to compete with actual dps classes. that should never be, for comparably geared players.if a tank is so uber he can get away with it, fine, let him sacrifice survivability for dps by switching out gear, but reckless stance should grant utility for others benefit, not fighters personal dps.repurposing for major roles (tank, heal, dps) is bad design. repurposing should be for support roles only, like buffing, rezzing, mana healing.</blockquote>How would lowering a fighters defense for something besides DPS be a benefit?

Tekadeo

06-23-2012, 11:23 PM

All classes should have this flexibility. If a Swashy wants to be max Utility, let him! If a Warlock wants to tank, let him! If a Warden wants to be T1 DPS, let him! How about an Inquis tank, or a Paladin healer? Who cares? Who doesn't want more flexible people to play with, and to enjoy what they are playing?Stop being selfish little ACT nerds. Enjoy playing the game, and enjoy playing the game with others who enjoy playing the game. Just because you get outparsed by a fighter doesn't mean you aren't still great DPS. Unless they let fighters do Beastlord numbers. Then the game might crumble without at the same time tweaking others to catch up.

Gilasil

06-24-2012, 01:59 AM

So SoE talked about this change in general terms for a couple minutes with no specifics and people have already decided it's a horrible idea. All we know is fighters in reckless stance will do much better DPS and be much squishier. That's it. There's a lot of unknowns in there. How much gear and AA will matter (I'd expect a lot). How quick you can switch (just because you can switch other stances quickly does that mean this can be switched quickly? Do you KNOW?), how a DPS fighter stacks up against a DPS class. We don't know. It isn't even on test, nobody outside SoE has tried it and nobody outside SoE knows anything about the specifics, but everybody is certain it'll be a disaster. Yea right.People speculate about it and then condem SoE based on their speculations.I agree that if a fighter in this new stance can easily do T1 DPS and switch back instantly to tank it'll be a disaster. But we don't know. It's at least as likely that a fighter in this new stance will do DPS, but nothing that a halfway competant player of a dedicated DPS class couldn't do better.Unless the fighters have been made into T1 DPS I'd be rather surprised if hard core raiders would change anything. I saw a few posts where that's what some were expecting. Fine. If that turns out to be the case -- fighters can fill a DPS role but not as well as a true DPS class -- the hard core raiders can ignore this change as it doesn't concern them.A more casual raiding group (there are many) might be happy if they could turn some of their excess fighters into passable DPS types as they probably have to make do with a far from ideal raid setup anyway, which likely means too many fighters. This allows them to put those excess fighters to good use.But we don't know. I'd suggest that people who are really interested in this should copy a character over to Test this Tuesday and find out. Ideally they should try to copy an entire raid force over to find out but that's their call.Then again, some people just like to speculate.

ratbast

06-24-2012, 03:25 AM

its not just that it violates the class division of labor, tank-heal-dps. its that it gives fighters a 2nd role (dps) that is more valid than other classes (bards/chanters) 1st role (support). playing support in eq2 is a grotesque ugly red-headed step-child. its a thankless job where you get out dps'ed by tanks. when was the last time someone asked for the power restored parse to be posted in chat? or the rezz parse? or the size of VC's and number of times your group triggered it? that stuff is never brought up. its quietly watched by dps'ers, while the extdps is shown over and over for all to see. that is what it means to be a utility class in eq2. giving tanks a reckless stance that gives them more personal dps is sick and wrong. class repurposing should never cross core roles. support only.

Tekadeo

06-24-2012, 08:26 AM

<cite>ratbast wrote:</cite><blockquote>its not just that it violates the class division of labor, tank-heal-dps. its that it gives fighters a 2nd role (dps) that is more valid than other classes (bards/chanters) 1st role (support). playing support in eq2 is a grotesque ugly red-headed step-child. its a thankless job where you get out dps'ed by tanks. when was the last time someone asked for the power restored parse to be posted in chat? or the rezz parse? or the size of VC's and number of times your group triggered it? that stuff is never brought up. its quietly watched by dps'ers, while the extdps is shown over and over for all to see. that is what it means to be a utility class in eq2. giving tanks a reckless stance that gives them more personal dps is sick and wrong. class repurposing should never cross core roles. support only.</blockquote>There is nothing more "valid" in this game than Utility classes. Four classes get eight spots in a raid. Thankless? Sure, but you are guaranteed a raid spot if you want it. As a fighter there are generally three spots for six classes. Get off your high horse and your head out of the mud. I don't like the utility's role much either, but they have it way better than others ESPECIALLY tanks. And even with Reckless that will not chance any time soon, point blank period.

Davngr1

06-24-2012, 08:48 AM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>gourdon wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>kalaria wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>They removed Scout debuffs/AE Preventions/Buffs!? When!?</blockquote>They removed fighter damage reductions, damage immunities, stone skins, death prevents?! When?!</blockquote>AE Prevention for DPS > Stoneskins+Death Preventions+Damage Immunities+Damage Reduction.</blockquote>Funny. I was unaware that tanks were avoiding taking their stoneskins, death preventions, damage immunities and damage reduction when they are available as AAs. Check out some predators and learn the truth.</blockquote>Um.. Im saying its better, not that they arn't taking it.AE Prevention (Not getting hit at all) is better then All the stoneskins/stuff in the world.</blockquote>stop posting non-sense tala stoneskin>>>>>>>>>> aoe avoid specially pred aoe avoid that for the most part come with some lame damage penalty along with gimping the class if they actually take those AA. this (depending on how much damage it adds) could make the same balance problem that brigs having 100% avoid did. sure their damage was lower than t1 classes but the fact they pretty much didn't have to worry about scripts made them overpowered. also some of the tanks are at their limit for damage. any type of big boost and they will be a dps class period with insane survivability.

Talathion

06-24-2012, 01:26 PM

<cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>gourdon wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>kalaria wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>They removed Scout debuffs/AE Preventions/Buffs!? When!?</blockquote>They removed fighter damage reductions, damage immunities, stone skins, death prevents?! When?!</blockquote>AE Prevention for DPS > Stoneskins+Death Preventions+Damage Immunities+Damage Reduction.</blockquote>Funny. I was unaware that tanks were avoiding taking their stoneskins, death preventions, damage immunities and damage reduction when they are available as AAs. Check out some predators and learn the truth.</blockquote>Um.. Im saying its better, not that they arn't taking it.AE Prevention (Not getting hit at all) is better then All the stoneskins/stuff in the world.</blockquote>stop posting non-sense tala stoneskin>>>>>>>>>> aoe avoid specially pred aoe avoid that for the most part come with some lame damage penalty along with gimping the class if they actually take those AA. this (depending on how much damage it adds) could make the same balance problem that brigs having 100% avoid did. sure their damage was lower than t1 classes but the fact they pretty much didn't have to worry about scripts made them overpowered. also some of the tanks are at their limit for damage. any type of big boost and they will be a dps class period with insane survivability.</blockquote>Most Stoneskins are "Chances to Avoid" like 10%, or 24% as a Fighter, or 5 Hit Temp Buffs.Having AE Immunity (Completely Immune to the Damage.) is 100x better in every and all situations.Also, everyone is dreaming if they think this stance will be something you can just switch on and off.This stance will have massive penaltys, one of them will most likely be you "Cannot Turn off this stance in combat." which means you can either be a tank or a DPS, not both.

Equilibrium

06-24-2012, 04:24 PM

Finding 24 people that have the same play times and play the "right" classes for a particular raid is one of the hardest things about a low population MMORPG. This is a good idea only because it is going to lead to more classes being able to duel/tri spec to fill multiple roles. 25 classes is way overkill, and they are just now coming to grips with that. Better late than never.Nobody likes grinding toons to max level/aa and then having to progress on each toon individually to gear up when expansions hit. Say what you want about WoW and Rift, but they have it right with allowing classes to fill multiple roles, and those games actually have healthy populations.

Davngr1

06-24-2012, 09:38 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>gourdon wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>kalaria wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>They removed Scout debuffs/AE Preventions/Buffs!? When!?</blockquote>They removed fighter damage reductions, damage immunities, stone skins, death prevents?! When?!</blockquote>AE Prevention for DPS > Stoneskins+Death Preventions+Damage Immunities+Damage Reduction.</blockquote>Funny. I was unaware that tanks were avoiding taking their stoneskins, death preventions, damage immunities and damage reduction when they are available as AAs. Check out some predators and learn the truth.</blockquote>Um.. Im saying its better, not that they arn't taking it.AE Prevention (Not getting hit at all) is better then All the stoneskins/stuff in the world.</blockquote>stop posting non-sense tala stoneskin>>>>>>>>>> aoe avoid specially pred aoe avoid that for the most part come with some lame damage penalty along with gimping the class if they actually take those AA. this (depending on how much damage it adds) could make the same balance problem that brigs having 100% avoid did. sure their damage was lower than t1 classes but the fact they pretty much didn't have to worry about scripts made them overpowered. also some of the tanks are at their limit for damage. any type of big boost and they will be a dps class period with insane survivability.</blockquote>Most Stoneskins are "Chances to Avoid" like 10%, or 24% as a Fighter, or 5 Hit Temp Buffs.Having AE Immunity (Completely Immune to the Damage.) is 100x better in every and all situations.Also, everyone is dreaming if they think this stance will be something you can just switch on and off.This stance will have massive penaltys, one of them will most likely be you "Cannot Turn off this stance in combat." which means you can either be a tank or a DPS, not both.</blockquote>what? are you trying to mislead people on purpose? i play most of the tanks at lvl 92 with 320 AA .. I KNOW what they have and what is best in a raid setting. when's the last time you raided a dps class? the BEST possible way to deal with aoe damage is to stoneskin the damage and deal out a damage depending on how much damage the player stoned skinned. the next best is to out right stone skin the damage or avoid the damage WITH OUT having to stop attacking. after that the best is to use a one of your death saves so IF you die you STILL NEVER miss beat anyway after all those comes the aoe avoids that have penalties and can ever wear off if you take any type of damage even if it's a tiny professional aoe or anything... so either you KNOW nothing about raiding or you're flat out posting lies.. pick your poison.

Talathion

06-24-2012, 10:01 PM

<cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>gourdon wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>kalaria wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>They removed Scout debuffs/AE Preventions/Buffs!? When!?</blockquote>They removed fighter damage reductions, damage immunities, stone skins, death prevents?! When?!</blockquote>AE Prevention for DPS > Stoneskins+Death Preventions+Damage Immunities+Damage Reduction.</blockquote>Funny. I was unaware that tanks were avoiding taking their stoneskins, death preventions, damage immunities and damage reduction when they are available as AAs. Check out some predators and learn the truth.</blockquote>Um.. Im saying its better, not that they arn't taking it.AE Prevention (Not getting hit at all) is better then All the stoneskins/stuff in the world.</blockquote>stop posting non-sense tala stoneskin>>>>>>>>>> aoe avoid specially pred aoe avoid that for the most part come with some lame damage penalty along with gimping the class if they actually take those AA. this (depending on how much damage it adds) could make the same balance problem that brigs having 100% avoid did. sure their damage was lower than t1 classes but the fact they pretty much didn't have to worry about scripts made them overpowered. also some of the tanks are at their limit for damage. any type of big boost and they will be a dps class period with insane survivability.</blockquote>Most Stoneskins are "Chances to Avoid" like 10%, or 24% as a Fighter, or 5 Hit Temp Buffs.Having AE Immunity (Completely Immune to the Damage.) is 100x better in every and all situations.Also, everyone is dreaming if they think this stance will be something you can just switch on and off.This stance will have massive penaltys, one of them will most likely be you "Cannot Turn off this stance in combat." which means you can either be a tank or a DPS, not both.</blockquote>what? are you trying to mislead people on purpose? i play most of the tanks at lvl 92 with 320 AA .. I KNOW what they have and what is best in a raid setting. when's the last time you raided a dps class? the BEST possible way to deal with aoe damage is to stoneskin the damage and deal out a damage depending on how much damage the player stoned skinned. the next best is to out right stone skin the damage or avoid the damage WITH OUT having to stop attacking. after that the best is to use a one of your death saves so IF you die you STILL NEVER miss beat anyway after all those comes the aoe avoids that have penalties and can ever wear off if you take any type of damage even if it's a tiny professional aoe or anything... so either you KNOW nothing about raiding or you're flat out posting lies.. pick your poison.</blockquote>Completely avoiding the damage > Stoneskin, because it doesn't waste a stoneskin in the first place.Also, some fighter classes do not get stoneskins that are good against AOEs, only direct damage.

Davngr1

06-25-2012, 08:23 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>gourdon wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>kalaria wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>They removed Scout debuffs/AE Preventions/Buffs!? When!?</blockquote>They removed fighter damage reductions, damage immunities, stone skins, death prevents?! When?!</blockquote>AE Prevention for DPS > Stoneskins+Death Preventions+Damage Immunities+Damage Reduction.</blockquote>Funny. I was unaware that tanks were avoiding taking their stoneskins, death preventions, damage immunities and damage reduction when they are available as AAs. Check out some predators and learn the truth.</blockquote>Um.. Im saying its better, not that they arn't taking it.AE Prevention (Not getting hit at all) is better then All the stoneskins/stuff in the world.</blockquote>stop posting non-sense tala stoneskin>>>>>>>>>> aoe avoid specially pred aoe avoid that for the most part come with some lame damage penalty along with gimping the class if they actually take those AA. this (depending on how much damage it adds) could make the same balance problem that brigs having 100% avoid did. sure their damage was lower than t1 classes but the fact they pretty much didn't have to worry about scripts made them overpowered. also some of the tanks are at their limit for damage. any type of big boost and they will be a dps class period with insane survivability.</blockquote>Most Stoneskins are "Chances to Avoid" like 10%, or 24% as a Fighter, or 5 Hit Temp Buffs.Having AE Immunity (Completely Immune to the Damage.) is 100x better in every and all situations.Also, everyone is dreaming if they think this stance will be something you can just switch on and off.This stance will have massive penaltys, one of them will most likely be you "Cannot Turn off this stance in combat." which means you can either be a tank or a DPS, not both.</blockquote>what? are you trying to mislead people on purpose? i play most of the tanks at lvl 92 with 320 AA .. I KNOW what they have and what is best in a raid setting. when's the last time you raided a dps class? the BEST possible way to deal with aoe damage is to stoneskin the damage and deal out a damage depending on how much damage the player stoned skinned. the next best is to out right stone skin the damage or avoid the damage WITH OUT having to stop attacking. after that the best is to use a one of your death saves so IF you die you STILL NEVER miss beat anyway after all those comes the aoe avoids that have penalties and can ever wear off if you take any type of damage even if it's a tiny professional aoe or anything... so either you KNOW nothing about raiding or you're flat out posting lies.. pick your poison.</blockquote>Completely avoiding the damage > Stoneskin, because it doesn't waste a stoneskin in the first place.Also, some fighter classes do not get stoneskins that are good against AOEs, only direct damage.</blockquote>sometimes tala.. you make even less sense then usual so you waste stone skins? and you don't "waste" aoe avoids? and some aoe's can't avoided but they can be deathsaved or stoneskined. it's hard enough to get a spot in a raid as dps.. giving fighters those spots is durrtastic.. why don't you guys give them some utillity spots or something? or maybe let them help heal.. i duno

Outkast1980

06-25-2012, 09:40 PM

These changes are terrible, definitely weren't thought that far out, I hope the people on test give immediate and strong feedback against ALL these fighter changes. This will make things worse and will do terrible for class balancing. Dumb, dumb dumb dumb. Please don't let these changes make it to the live servers!

Ahlana

06-25-2012, 09:53 PM

<cite>Outkast1980 wrote:</cite><blockquote>These changes are terrible, definitely weren't thought that far out, I hope the people on test give immediate and strong feedback against ALL these fighter changes. This will make things worse and will do terrible for class balancing. Dumb, dumb dumb dumb. Please don't let these changes make it to the live servers!</blockquote>It is a water downed version of the fighter revamp that got scrapped.. I am looking forward to testing it, sounds promising to me /shrugThen again I was for the fighter revamp

Gilasil

06-25-2012, 11:57 PM

As I recall, the fighter revamp upped the damage you could do in offensive stance but played with the aggro such that it was impossible to hold aggro in offensive. They then upped the aggro abilities in defensive stance. I copied a character over to test, tanked for a group under the new rules, and liked it. Under the new changes all tanking would be done in defensive stance. An extra fighter in a group might go offensive and help out a bit more in the DPS department, although it was still nowhere near the DPS of a true DPS class.As with this change, it probably wouldn't have done much for hard core raiders but for the vast majority of fighters who aren't hard core raiding, it would have given them more flexibility and helped them tank better for their groups.As I recall, people complained bitterly that with those changes they couldn't tank in offensive, which was the whole point. I thought that complaint was a load of crap -- if you're tanking you should only be worrying about DPS to the extent it helps you hold aggro, and with those changes cranking out DPS was no longer as important for holding aggro. Others complained that it made it too easy to hold aggro, although if that were truly the issue it would have been easy enough to tune things so it wasn't quite so easy. Whatever. Anyway, it was scrapped.We'll know more in the next few days, but this is in many ways a much more limited change which apparently doesn't address tanking at all. All it does is give fighters some additional flexibility to combat the problem that groups only need one tank and raids only a couple. Again, it's very likely it won't affect hard core raiders at all.I for one plan to copy at least one fighter over to test and maybe more.

Tekadeo

06-26-2012, 12:21 AM

<cite>Outkast1980 wrote:</cite><blockquote>These changes are terrible, definitely weren't thought that far out, I hope the people on test give immediate and strong feedback against ALL these fighter changes. This will make things worse and will do terrible for class balancing. Dumb, dumb dumb dumb. Please don't let these changes make it to the live servers!</blockquote>You know NOTHING about these changes yet. Save your weak opinion for after they hit test, and then it's still probably best if you keep your lame opinions to yourself, as they are "definitely weren't thought that far out." I guarantee the changes were, and by magnitudes longer than you took to conjure this post.

Tekadeo

06-26-2012, 12:28 AM

<cite>Gilasil wrote:</cite><blockquote>As I recall, the fighter revamp upped the damage you could do in offensive stance but played with the aggro such that it was impossible to hold aggro in offensive. They then upped the aggro abilities in defensive stance. I copied a character over to test, tanked for a group under the new rules, and liked it. Under the new changes all tanking would be done in defensive stance. An extra fighter in a group might go offensive and help out a bit more in the DPS department, although it was still nowhere near the DPS of a true DPS class.As with this change, it probably wouldn't have done much for hard core raiders but for the vast majority of fighters who aren't hard core raiding, it would have given them more flexibility and helped them tank better for their groups.As I recall, people complained bitterly that with those changes they couldn't tank in offensive, which was the whole point. I thought that complaint was a load of crap -- if you're tanking you should only be worrying about DPS to the extent it helps you hold aggro, and with those changes cranking out DPS was no longer as important for holding aggro. Others complained that it made it too easy to hold aggro, although if that were truly the issue it would have been easy enough to tune things so it wasn't quite so easy. Whatever. Anyway, it was scrapped.We'll know more in the next few days, but this is in many ways a much more limited change which apparently doesn't address tanking at all. All it does is give fighters some additional flexibility to combat the problem that groups only need one tank and raids only a couple. Again, it's very likely it won't affect hard core raiders at all.I for one plan to copy at least one fighter over to test and maybe more.</blockquote>I definitely understand what you are saying here, and agree with it mostly. Except the red part. In what world does this part matter? To ACT-monkeys? A fighter is hitting a mob with a giant Axe or sword or bo staff, but somehow it's not supposed to hit as hard as an assassin's knife? I don't get it. Our giant muscles and weapons mean nothing to the whimsical nature of "OMG I'm SUPPOSED to do more damage than you!" Again, stop focusing on ACT and realize that we are on the same team. The mob dies faster if we do more damage! It's a win-win, i promise.The only issue with fighter DPS is with soloing. And I'll agree, it should be almost impossible to solo in Reckless stance, or there should be restrictions put on entering group zones/raid zones unless you have 4 or 8 people (for groups and raids, respectively).

Novusod

06-26-2012, 01:20 AM

From the other thread before it gets LOCKED.<cite>Tekadeo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Tekadeo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>These fighter changes are seriously the worst thing to ever happen to this game. This certainly WILL be the straw that breaks the cammels back here. Forcing tanks who actually want to tank into a dps role is not going to fly. It is just going to make a lot of people ragequit including myself.</blockquote>What, exactly, is forcing a "tank who actually want to tank" into a dps role? Stop childishly throwing blind allegations around until you know something. Right now, we know nothing, really. And if you rage quit over a change that may or may not even affect you, no one will care anyway...But something tells me you are just a sadpanda that your brawler won't be king of the hill tank any more. This makes me smile. Fairness is a good thing, kid.</blockquote>I have been a brawler for a LONG time. Do you know that we didn't even have strikethrough immunity at one time back in the day. Removing strikethrough immunity will return brawlers back to those days and I know exactly how that worked. Those were very bad times to be a brawler tank.</blockquote>I was a Monk dating back to DoF, so I know all about this. Truth be told we had carved out a nice niche as the 3rd fighter and the Emergency tank. SoE gave us snaps and death saves and tsunami abilities for this purpose. We were given tons of skills with the idea that they weren't overpowered because they weren't MEANT to be MT-capable. I only switched to my Zerker in TSO because we needed an MT after our guild collapsed (due to the avatar gear nerfs). Now the tables are turned, except the DoV-era brawler was by far and away more powerful by comparison than any tank has been since Guardians in RoK, probably even more so. All the tricks we were given as emergency tanks became necessary and supreme tanking tools. Brawler's Tenacity is god-mode and WAY better than any other death save of other fighters. Be thankful you got to be gods for pretty much two years. You will still be amazing, all your damage-immunity skills will still be great, brawler's tenacity will continue to be overpowered too. Know how many damage immunity skills Zerkers have? One, for three seconds. Unless you waste 22 AA's to get Dragoon's Reflexes.TL;DR version: Quit whining about being brought back to the tank pack. Be happy you get flexibility to DPS if needed.</blockquote>So why couldn't you keep tanking on your Monk? Your actions through your own addmission speak louder than your words. You even admit the brawlers weren't meant to be MT.So now fast forward to 2012 and we have all these MT/OT brawlers tanking for guilds and now they being told you are not supposed to be tanks anymore but here is this DPS stance. Be Thankfull? Be thanksfull for what being jerked arround by devs who can't keep class roles static after 8 years. Serously nobody is going to take this and put up with this any more.

Rainmare

06-26-2012, 02:01 AM

<cite>Tekadeo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gilasil wrote:</cite><blockquote>As I recall, the fighter revamp upped the damage you could do in offensive stance but played with the aggro such that it was impossible to hold aggro in offensive. They then upped the aggro abilities in defensive stance. I copied a character over to test, tanked for a group under the new rules, and liked it. Under the new changes all tanking would be done in defensive stance. An extra fighter in a group might go offensive and help out a bit more in the DPS department, although it was still nowhere near the DPS of a true DPS class.As with this change, it probably wouldn't have done much for hard core raiders but for the vast majority of fighters who aren't hard core raiding, it would have given them more flexibility and helped them tank better for their groups.As I recall, people complained bitterly that with those changes they couldn't tank in offensive, which was the whole point. I thought that complaint was a load of crap -- if you're tanking you should only be worrying about DPS to the extent it helps you hold aggro, and with those changes cranking out DPS was no longer as important for holding aggro. Others complained that it made it too easy to hold aggro, although if that were truly the issue it would have been easy enough to tune things so it wasn't quite so easy. Whatever. Anyway, it was scrapped.We'll know more in the next few days, but this is in many ways a much more limited change which apparently doesn't address tanking at all. All it does is give fighters some additional flexibility to combat the problem that groups only need one tank and raids only a couple. Again, it's very likely it won't affect hard core raiders at all.I for one plan to copy at least one fighter over to test and maybe more.</blockquote>I definitely understand what you are saying here, and agree with it mostly. Except the red part. In what world does this part matter? To ACT-monkeys? A fighter is hitting a mob with a giant Axe or sword or bo staff, but somehow it's not supposed to hit as hard as an assassin's knife? I don't get it. Our giant muscles and weapons mean nothing to the whimsical nature of "OMG I'm SUPPOSED to do more damage than you!" Again, stop focusing on ACT and realize that we are on the same team. The mob dies faster if we do more damage! It's a win-win, i promise.The only issue with fighter DPS is with soloing. And I'll agree, it should be almost impossible to solo in Reckless stance, or there should be restrictions put on entering group zones/raid zones unless you have 4 or 8 people (for groups and raids, respectively).</blockquote>the reason why the red part matters is because that's what gets all the 'dps' classes and such up in arms. a tanking fighter shouldn't give one whit about his dps. his only concern should be holding aggro and staying alive. period. oh and as to your analogy about the big bad fighter vs the assassin? a big bad fighter trains himself not to DEAL damage, but to ABSORB damage. a fighter knows how to weild a sword/ax/bo. he knows how to make someone hurt. the assassin however has trained his whole life to know exactly how to take a 4 inch blade and kill a fully armored ogre in plate. that's why they do more damage. it's not about the big muscles and the power in the hit, it's about knowing where to hit to make your strikes the most deadly. in game, that's translated into bigger DPS numbers.a fighter shouldn't be looking at a dps parse and talking about how he's second on the parse or first on the parse. he shouldn't be as a tank. the wizard manipluating the laws of physics and reality should be. the assassin that can strike six vital organs in three hits should be. the ranger that can pin a fly to a wall and thirty yards should be. when your tanking, you shouldn't care about dps beyond the minimum to hold aggro. your job then is not to do the killing. your job is just to keep the the critters attention and withstand the beating it tries to give you.the Reckless stance is supposed to be for the balls out, frothing at the mouth blitzkrieging manaic fighter. he's not looking to tank...he doesn't care about absorbing hits, he just wants to smash something into little piles of fleshy goo. as such he should get a jump in damage, at the cost of defense he wants to swing away with his weapon and leave himself open in a blind aggression. then he should pay the penalty of getting the snot knocked out of him when his opponent catches an opening.

Tekadeo

06-26-2012, 02:04 AM

<cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>So why couldn't you keep tanking on your Monk? Your actions through your own addmission speak louder than your words. You even admit the brawlers weren't meant to be MT.So now fast forward to 2012 and we have all these MT/OT brawlers tanking for guilds and now they being told you are not supposed to be tanks anymore but here is this DPS stance. Be Thankfull? Be thanksfull for what being jerked arround by devs who can't keep class roles static after 8 years. Serously nobody is going to take this and put up with this any more.</blockquote>Not sure what you missed there, but I stated as much. Brawlers were given wonderful tanking tools that were meant for emergencies only. Devs knew brawlers were not used for MTing roles, thats why they gave you guys more powerful skills. But once the mit/avoidance %'s changed it became ridiculous. Adding strikethrough immunity just made it ludicrous. And bro it's a MMORPG, things always change. Things arent even supposed to stay the same, that would make it stagnant and lame. MT roles have flopped back and forth a few times, DPS tiers have changed. Even healers have become powerful or weaker.Welcome to Norrath, I guess--but then again you said you were a vet so you should already know all this.

Tekadeo

06-26-2012, 02:14 AM

<cite>Rainmare@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>the reason why the red part matters is because that's what gets all the 'dps' classes and such up in arms. a tanking fighter shouldn't give one whit about his dps. his only concern should be holding aggro and staying alive. period. oh and as to your analogy about the big bad fighter vs the assassin? a big bad fighter trains himself not to DEAL damage, but to ABSORB damage. a fighter knows how to weild a sword/ax/bo. he knows how to make someone hurt. the assassin however has trained his whole life to know exactly how to take a 4 inch blade and kill a fully armored ogre in plate. that's why they do more damage. it's not about the big muscles and the power in the hit, it's about knowing where to hit to make your strikes the most deadly. in game, that's translated into bigger DPS numbers.a fighter shouldn't be looking at a dps parse and talking about how he's second on the parse or first on the parse. he shouldn't be as a tank. the wizard manipluating the laws of physics and reality should be. the assassin that can strike six vital organs in three hits should be. the ranger that can pin a fly to a wall and thirty yards should be. when your tanking, you shouldn't care about dps beyond the minimum to hold aggro. your job then is not to do the killing. your job is just to keep the the critters attention and withstand the beating it tries to give you.the Reckless stance is supposed to be for the balls out, frothing at the mouth blitzkrieging manaic fighter. he's not looking to tank...he doesn't care about absorbing hits, he just wants to smash something into little piles of fleshy goo. as such he should get a jump in damage, at the cost of defense he wants to swing away with his weapon and leave himself open in a blind aggression. then he should pay the penalty of getting the snot knocked out of him when his opponent catches an opening.</blockquote>Why not?This is silly reasoning to me. Why wouldn't I be trying to destroy my targets on my Berserker? Seriously, why? Nobody plays this game to taunt. Not one person. And the only reason people are up in arms is because of ACT. WE ARE ON THE SAME TEAM! I truly just want to be able to hold my own aggro on my Zerker while making my target die faster. If I wasn't into destruction, I wouldve rolled a guardian and enjoyed their better defensive skills--which Zerkers lack because we are MEANT to be a DPS tank. I agree. This is the point of Reckless.

Yimway

06-26-2012, 11:57 AM

Reclessness is a terribad design choice. Honestly it feels like Xelgad took some player nudging here and made a horrible decision.Its a real catch 22 anyway you look at it.1) Its either not enough of a dps increase and really doesn't matter and we'll sit a fighter for a utility or dps class unless simply no one else is available and the fighter has no viable alts (in an aging game, this is becoming more and more less likely).or2) It will be a significant dps increase to make the fighter able to parse in T2 dps range. In which case even with the damage penalty in the stance, because of all the other innate damage prevention and avoidance available to a fighter, you have a new t2 dps class that can out survive all your other t2 classes.Either way you slice this guano, its still guano.

Caethre

06-26-2012, 12:11 PM

<cite>Tekadeo wrote:</cite><blockquote>I was a Monk dating back to DoF, so I know all about this. Truth be told we had carved out a nice niche as the 3rd fighter and the Emergency tank. ... because they weren't MEANT to be MT-capable.</blockquote>(( INCORRECT!The developers of this game have stated many times, that every fighter class should be able to fulfil a tank role, just like every priest class should be able to fill a priest role, and so on. This was not very clear at game launch in 2004 (were you here then? I was). However, it was made VERY clear at game update 13. Now of course GU13 was mostly about priests, but it set the design approach for classes meeting archetypal roles very clearly, a design approach that has been repeatedly stressed in the intervening years. Not everyone liked it, of course, but the intent of the game designers was very clear.Yes, Brawlers were not fixed for ages after that. Yes, Brawlers had this "made up" role for "third fighter", not that I ever took notice of that, but it was generally the red headed stepchild class of the game, unable to do its primary INTENDED role - tanking. Even most groups didn't even want a brawler as a tank, they might take you as DPS if they couldn't get anyone else. No surprise - I wouldn't have taken one either, and I was one!A couple of years ago, the devs finally fixed it, and at that point Brawlers were tanks as they should be. Suddenly, I could join a raid and people would (genuinally) ask if the plate tank or the brawler was the MT. And since many knew me, I often ended up with the role, something that would never have happened a year earlier.This was INTENDED. This meets the CORE DESIGN OF THE GAME. You stating otherwise is either misdirection, lack of knowledge or bare-faced lies, I have no idea which.You know, most players (including most plate tank players) agree with that. Most players do not want one or two classes deliberately made useless. But there are always a few who are too selfish, and want their own class to stand stronger than all others, rather than face competition. That is how the attitude that those who support the position of brawlers should just be crap 'extra tanks' who have some made up low-value role comes across. Pure selfish.I am a Monk. I am MT-capable.If I join an open raid, for example, I expect to be equally considered for the MT spot with any other fighter on that raid of equivalent gear level.That is how it is meant to be.I will quote back at you, what YOU said earlier in this thread.<cite>Tekadeo wrote:</cite><blockquote>Fairness is a good thing, kid.</blockquote>It sure is. You need to listen to your own advice ))

Caethre

06-26-2012, 12:16 PM

(( All the above is a response to an earlier post on the thread.In terms of the thread subject, my jury is still out, as I don't know how this will all be implemented.From what I have read so far, I just won't use Reckless stance anyway, ever, because I am a Defensive Monk Tank, so I can't see a use for it. But I can see a benefit for casual raidforces who may have too many tanks and not enough of some other classes (which happens in casual forces a lot).The devil is always in the details. And we do not know those yet. So I'll wait and see. ))

Jrral

06-26-2012, 01:37 PM

<cite>Gilasil wrote:</cite><blockquote>As I recall, people complained bitterly that with those changes they couldn't tank in offensive, which was the whole point. I thought that complaint was a load of crap -- if you're tanking you should only be worrying about DPS to the extent it helps you hold aggro, and with those changes cranking out DPS was no longer as important for holding aggro.</blockquote>The problem there is that this ignores everything but the raid or full group main tank role. Specifically:<ul><li>The off-tank role in raids, where the OT has to contribute as DPS for most of the fight but needs to be able to quickly yank adds away from the raid and tank them for a moment while they're killed. Often those adds don't themselves hit hard so full defensive stance just isn't needed to handle them if the healer's on the ball, but they still have to be tanked and a fighter can't tank them when every single snap-aggro ability he has moves him down the hate list.</li><li>Small-group situations where, lacking a full group, the fighter has to contribute as DPS as well as play tank. Usually combined with unchallenging content, eg. the fighter helping a healer or two through the overland solo content. In that setup defensive stance better not be needed, there's simply no way any not-braindead-stupid tank should be taking major damage from solo mobs with one healer with him, let alone two. And the fighter there is the major source of DPS.</li></ul>My objection to the abandoned fighter-revamp changes weren't that they were bad for the end-game main-tank role. They were very good for that. They were just horrible for the other 75% of the game where fighters weren't being end-game main tanks.NB: same thing for healers. I have a setup for my warden that sacrifices the majority of the healing-oriented AAs in favor of improving her damage. It's for running the solo content where I just don't need uber healing. She's got raid gear on and I've single-healed groups in raids, I'm not going to have trouble keeping an SK alive in the Withered Lands so I might as well set up to do as much damage as I can so we can get the mobs dead and move on. I'm not taking that build into a raid, mind you, but the solo quest content isn't a raid.

Yimway

06-26-2012, 01:57 PM

<cite>Jrral@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>My objection to the abandoned fighter-revamp changes weren't that they were bad for the end-game main-tank role. They were very good for that. They were just horrible for the other 75% of the game where fighters weren't being end-game main tanks.</blockquote>No, they were bad all around as they removed almost all skill related to tanking from the game.

Rageincarnate

06-26-2012, 02:30 PM

weee theres going to be some forum bans.

Talathion

06-26-2012, 02:38 PM

This idea is NOT even on test yet.And its a GOOD idea.Sorry you don't agree, but this is for the better of things.

Rageincarnate

06-26-2012, 02:40 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>This idea is NOT even on test yet.And its a GOOD idea.</blockquote>you do realize.. all you got was some minor heal increases.. and it wont prevent 1 shots? all this did was make you a stronger instance tank... You shouldnt really be celebrating.

Yimway

06-26-2012, 02:40 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>This idea is NOT even on test yet.And its a GOOD idea.</blockquote>Not really, the recycled ideas from the last go around are still bad ideas.The changes to strikethru though, those are good ideas and well past due.Changing heals to % based and unmotifiable was also a good idea. In fact, I'm pretty sure both of those ideas were on my list of things that should be in this revamp before the details were posted.Recklessness better be very different from Aeralik's fighter offensive stance, otherwise, it needs to just go. Currently it sounds an aweful lot like or exactly like the former revamp O-Stance.

Daalilama

06-26-2012, 03:06 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>This idea is NOT even on test yet.And its a GOOD idea.</blockquote>Not really, the recycled ideas from the last go around are still bad ideas.The changes to strikethru though, those are good ideas and well past due.Changing heals to % based and unmotifiable was also a good idea. In fact, I'm pretty sure both of those ideas were on my list of things that should be in this revamp before the details were posted.Recklessness better be very different from Aeralik's fighter offensive stance, otherwise, it needs to just go. Currently it sounds an aweful lot like or exactly like the former revamp O-Stance.</blockquote>I think you right...I'm somewhat iffy at the thought of my raid tanks going reckless stance just to pad their parse instead of doing their job...cant totally blame them as the ever increasing need for dps has been leading us down this road for too long. % to heals was way overdue and temp Strikethrough immunity for other tanks same thing...think would have been better for a temp buff to let 3rd or 4th string tanks to go negative hate (i.e. a 4th tank like a sk hiting grave sac to pump dps but not get agro)...they also should have put in pve changes to more than just tanks as they said they would after 63 but before 64 but I guess dungeon maker tweaks come first.

Equilibrium

06-26-2012, 03:18 PM

With the utility classes having such OP buffs and feeds that most raids desire 8 slots dedicated for solely that, who even has room to consider bringing more fighters?I think it is a good idea only if they plan on making every other class type be able to perform multiple roles, ya know, like successful games do.

Yimway

06-26-2012, 03:42 PM

<cite>Daalilama@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote>Recklessness better be very different from Aeralik's fighter offensive stance, otherwise, it needs to just go. Currently it sounds an aweful lot like or exactly like the former revamp O-Stance.</blockquote>I think you right...I'm somewhat iffy at the thought of my raid tanks going reckless stance just to pad their parse instead of doing their job...cant totally blame them as the ever increasing need for dps has been leading us down this road for too long. % to heals was way overdue and temp Strikethrough immunity for other tanks same thing...think would have been better for a temp buff to let 3rd or 4th string tanks to go negative hate (i.e. a 4th tank like a sk hiting grave sac to pump dps but not get agro)...they also should have put in pve changes to more than just tanks as they said they would after 63 but before 64 but I guess dungeon maker tweaks come first.</blockquote>Thats actually not a bad way to do it. In Reckless stance all taunt values and positionals are reversed. However procs would have to remain positive. Something like Ire procing -hate positions would equate to you never having to worry about agro.You still would have to contend with getting agro and being somewhat conscious of your agro meter and if you do rip it, you go splat.Then it just comes down to how much their dps is bumped and if they've become a grossly over survivable t2 dps or not. And if there is really good enough reason to let an archtype fill multiple raid roles? I'm really still not sold that this should be the case.

Talathion

06-26-2012, 04:09 PM

<img src="http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/6101/54769388.png" />Fighters will take 50% more Damage.They are effectively Wizards with the stance on.No, it does not remove hate positions from damage spells.

Tigerr

06-26-2012, 04:12 PM

This change def shouldn't happen... Tanks should get a increase to their DEFENSIVE tools, yeah, I agree with that 100%. Like I mentioned earlier, any tank that played more than 2 months and knows his class already does decent dps. People roll fighters not because they have amazing DPS but because its fun being the main/off/third tank for the raid/group or whatever. This is what gives the game BALANCE (abit screwed but, classes are better now than they ever were). There is no reason why a TANK should switch to a stance thats going to kill his DEFENSES just so he could get DPS in. Its balance, there is no reason why that should happen because either way, noone is going to drag extra fighters along on raids/groups because can serve as "dps". Trust me, not one non scrub will bring 10 fighters even if they do 300k ( some fighters already do). This is the same thing as me asking to tank on my Inquisitor. If priests got a stance to completely kill our heals and get a defensive boost + aggro boost so we could tank, it would be pretty idiotic right?... Same thing here... Really. If people want to DPS let them roll a DPS class, fighters do enough DPS as is. The people crying for the change don't understand that this will not make fighters the "HYBRID" to pick up for groups. This is really getting idiotic... content is broken, the scrubs complain, they give fighters DPS stance.... Amazing reasoning. And really, the changes to Darklight Wood are AMAZINGGGGG, because yknow, I pass through there every single day ( LAWLLLLL). I really don't think the "podcast" team even played a character over lvl 40. The changes are soo herpdederp that its really not funny anymore. "WAT U GAIZ THINKZ< I PUTS MOAR DPSZ ON TANKZZZ + REVAMPZING DARKLIGHT WOODZZZ" ..

Talathion

06-26-2012, 04:14 PM

<cite>Tigerr wrote:</cite><blockquote>This change def shouldn't happen... Tanks should get a increase to their DEFENSIVE tools, yeah, I agree with that 100%. Like I mentioned earlier, any tank that played more than 2 months and knows his class already does decent dps. People roll fighters not because they have amazing DPS but because its fun being the main/off/third tank for the raid/group or whatever. This is what gives the game BALANCE (abit screwed but, classes are better now than they ever were). There is no reason why a TANK should switch to a stance thats going to kill his DEFENSES just so he could get DPS in. Its balance, there is no reason why that should happen because either way, noone is going to drag extra fighters along on raids/groups because can serve as "dps". Trust me, not one non scrub will bring 10 fighters even if they do 300k ( some fighters already do). This is the same thing as me asking to tank on my Inquisitor. If priests got a stance to completely kill our heals and get a defensive boost + aggro boost so we could tank, it would be pretty idiotic right?... Same thing here... Really. If people want to DPS let them roll a DPS class, fighters do enough DPS as is. The people crying for the change don't understand that this will not make fighters the "HYBRID" to pick up for groups. This is really getting idiotic... content is broken, the scrubs complain, they give fighters DPS stance.... Amazing reasoning. And really, the changes to Darklight Wood are AMAZINGGGGG, because yknow, I pass through there every single day ( LAWLLLLL). I really don't think the "podcast" team even played a character over lvl 40. The changes are soo herpdederp that its really not funny anymore. "WAT U GAIZ THINKZThe Stance makes us as squishy if not squishier then wizards.

Malleria

06-26-2012, 04:19 PM

lol potency <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/136dd33cba83140c7ce38db096d05aed.gif" border="0" />Now how about a real offensive buff?

Yimway

06-26-2012, 04:24 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>The Stance makes us as squishy if not squishier then wizards.</blockquote>No it doesn't. I can be in this stance and literally never take damage.

Rageincarnate

06-26-2012, 04:26 PM

umm ? potency?

Yimway

06-26-2012, 04:32 PM

<cite>Rageincarnate@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>umm ? that's good?</blockquote>I'm intriqued by the buff. I mean my CAs are truely worthless dps, but your talking about 400 potency stacked in with the aa and prestige modifiers available to CA's as well. What that does to the effective abmod cap makes me intriqued on how high I can get those CA's too. Like the prestige modifier is flat out 15% modifier after potency?Latch that up with the rapid resets available on key combat arts, it might be interesting to see what they spam up to.What gets me about the buff and the entire idea is this. To maximize this, I pretty much have to adorn my gear and select specific aa choices ahead of time. The ability to really viably swap between dps build and tank build from encounter to encounter is not viable, even if the potency buff pans out (jury still out on that).Side note, its easy to see why they don't want tank heals modified by potency anymore =P

Gilasil

06-26-2012, 04:48 PM

All this addresses is the fact that roughly 25% of played toons are fighters but there are far fewer then 25% of the slots available in groups and raids for tanks. I can't see hardcore raiders, such as those posting here, using this stance for anything. I can most definately see casual groups made up of pretty much random mixtures of classes using it a lot.A hardcore raiding outfit will get the best class for the job. In a more casual setting you pretty much have to take what you can get. Just getting six people for a group or 24 people for a raid can be a major accomplishment, let alone optimum classes, or even reasonable archetypes. This introduces some much needed flexability and for that it's a great idea.IF it really does turn out that it is possible to tank in this stance (against reasonable opponants -- nobody cares if you can tank greens) then they need to revisit its downsides and make them harsher. That's why it's on Test instead of being pushed to live. Likewise, if you have high end raid gear nobody cares if you can tank solo mobs or low end heroics in this stance.

Goozman

06-26-2012, 06:22 PM

I'm unsure how much big boosts to potency will play out in the dps of fighters. Doubling potency would only increase dps by 20-25%, if my wild calculations are anywhere near accurate; but then, possibly not even that much in some cases.For example, Holy Ground is a sizable chunk of a Paladin's dps. On a 175k zonewide parse, it ends up being around 8-10%... While potency would greatly effect this ability, it would be stupid to consider using this ability in Reckless stance due to its positional hate, so in the end, it's not helpful at all.Seems to me there are two classes which will inherit the greatest benefit of this stance, and that would be Brawler1 and Brawler2, as there was no reduction in avoidance, and I can't think of any damage abilities these classes have which increase threat. I'm also curious to see how big they can get their Devastation Fists with this.

Yimway

06-26-2012, 06:28 PM

<cite>Goozman wrote:</cite><blockquote>I'm unsure how much big boosts to potency will play out in the dps of fighters. Doubling potency would only increase dps by 20-25%, if my wild calculations are anywhere near accurate; but then, possibly not even that much in some cases.</blockquote>I don't think your calculations are correct.I think your applying the potency but forgeting it still crits and still gets crit bonus applied.

Serik

06-26-2012, 06:37 PM

<cite>Goozman wrote:</cite><blockquote>Seems to me there are two classes which will inherit the greatest benefit of this stance, and that would be Brawler1 and Brawler2, as there was no reduction in avoidance, and I can't think of any damage abilities these classes have which increase threat. I'm also curious to see how big they can get their Devastation Fists with this.</blockquote>This really doesn't benefit brawlers as much as you might think. I wasn't able to get a training dummy to test with, but the extra potency didn't really help all that much. The huge potency buff really benefits crusaders the most since they don't rely on auto-attack damage as much as other fighters.

Talathion

06-26-2012, 06:44 PM

Damage on PVE Is bugged atm on test.

Goozman

06-26-2012, 06:44 PM

Well, autoattack is generally the same % for my Paladin as it is for my Monk, with the exception of large ae fights, where the Monk's crane flock shines and the Paladin's aes shine. Combined with Chi, especially, I definitely see Brawlers receiving the most benefit from this stance; not to mention their single target avoidance buff can be placed on the tank for some bonus win (as this stance does not lessen avoidance).Add to this the fact that someone else brought up much earlier. Brawlers have buttloads of snaps, and a couple low recast melee immunities which would allow them to temporarily tank even in this stance. I don't foresee any of the plate tanks getting invited to DPS, but I can see it happening with brawlers, easily.

Dovifat

06-26-2012, 09:46 PM

<cite>Detriment@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote>With the utility classes having such OP buffs and feeds that most raids desire 8 slots dedicated for solely that, who even has room to consider bringing more fighters?I think it is a good idea only if they plan on making every other class type be able to perform multiple roles, ya know, like successful games do. </blockquote>Not necessary because no other role than tank is hurting for raid spots.On class level it's a different story.

Kenazeer

06-26-2012, 10:59 PM

Not that it really matters, but powerlevelling with a fighter just got that much easier...lol.

Gilasil

06-27-2012, 01:03 AM

Oh I agree that ever class should be able to perform two different roles (although only one at a time). But no other role is required for as few slots as tanks. So the classes whose only role is tank really need another role.Flexibility is sorely needed in this game and I think the devs understand that. Too many times over the years we'd get a group together except we'd be missing one key role -- usually healer -- and end up disbanding. Mercenaries did a lot to ease that problem but there is still a problem (just not as bad). Now they're addressing the problem of fighters being pigeonholed into one role whose demand isn't high.I suspect that's why beastlords have two roles. If you don't need another DPS they can do support. If you don't need more support they can do DPS. Most likely going forward they're going to be trying for all classes to have two roles.I suspect that the high end hard core raiders posting here have no need for this flexability and will probably say so. However, more casual people -- who have a very hard time just getting six people together for groups or 24 for raids of ANY class will find more flexability makes for a much more satisfying game with less frustration.

EverDog

06-27-2012, 08:24 AM

It is realy stupid SOE killed Monk and Bruiser class in test server.Removing ST immunity from their Defensive stance should be OK.But to nerf their death saves and "Tag Team" is really stupid,considering brawlers should be best as "an Emergency Tank"And Reckless Stance giving potency which benefits Shadowknight too much is stupid.SOE wants Shadowknight Odyssey again ?If this "killing brawler class patch" is going to live then just give them 3 or 4 more blue AoEsor none would play brawler class.

Novusod

06-27-2012, 09:33 AM

Indeed it is very dumb that they are completely killing off the brawler in GU64. There are so many nerfs my head is spinning.- Mittigation nerf- Self heal nerf- Strikethrough nerf (avoidance tanks no long allowed to avoid hits for more than 10s)- Death save nerfI mean the Bruiser is completely unplayable on Test. This is coming from one of the top long time raiding brawlers out there. There is no way I will be able to continue to fill my current tanking role in raid after these changes.To those who say the bruiser and brawlers in general needed a nerf you don't know what you are talking about. The idea that brawlers were overpowered is a complete MYTH. The Guard and SK I raid with easily keep up with or even surpass me as we rotate the tanking jobs. Under GU63 mechanics there isn't a mob in the game I could tank that either the Guard or the SK could not also tank. The healers even tell me as much.

Loendar

06-27-2012, 10:55 AM

<cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>I mean the Bruiser is completely unplayable on Test. This is coming from one of the top long time raiding brawlers out there. There is no way I will be able to continue to fill my current tanking role in raid after these changes.</blockquote>Wow - completely unplayable. That sucks. I'm sure that isn't hyperbole at all!(whoops... forgot my sarcasm tag)The fact is that none of these changes are really all that impressive either on the Pro or Con side of the equation. In my opinion no class (fighter or otherwise) should ever have 100 percent immunity to a specific type of detrimental 100 percent of the time (I'm looking at you SK 100 percent fear resist).It just removes an element of what limited tactics there are when engaging mobs from the game and then only from a specific class making them the 'go to' class for a lot of battles. If the point of these changes is to level the playing field then those types of things should be removed across the board. Additionally, the AE fighter vs single target fighter concept should have been scrapped or turned into a 'stance' that all fighters can swap between (though why anyone would ever NOT pick AE in the current system is beyond me and points to the problem that exists).My Guardian is no better (or worse, I suppose) with these changes than they were before them. I have no heals to be impacted by this, I tank in Defensive stance and my DPS sucks (even dual wielding in offensive stance it sucks) and these changes won't 'fix me' unless I want to NOT tank on my tank. And the fix for Strikethrough Immunity? Hmph - okay, that might save me here and there assuming I time it correctly but I honestly haven't not having it as being a major detriment to my staying alive.All in all - I'm underwhelmed AND these changes aren't going to impact 90% of the fighter/raid population and certainly aren't going to cause people to replace DPS classes they are using now with fighters - so it doesn't even address the basic concept that fighters need more raid slots.Really - one thing they need to do is make it so that fighters have buffs that a) increase the survivability of their group/raid that you can't get elsewhere and b) make them play off each other via buffs - something that allows fighters to share the dmg between them, gives a percentage of their mitigation to the MT/OT and similar things so having more in a raid makes the MT/OT better the more of them there are around.

RafaelSmith

06-27-2012, 11:21 AM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Reclessness is a terribad design choice. Honestly it feels like Xelgad took some player nudging here and made a horrible decision.Its a real catch 22 anyway you look at it.1) Its either not enough of a dps increase and really doesn't matter and we'll sit a fighter for a utility or dps class unless simply no one else is available and the fighter has no viable alts (in an aging game, this is becoming more and more less likely).or2) It will be a significant dps increase to make the fighter able to parse in T2 dps range. In which case even with the damage penalty in the stance, because of all the other innate damage prevention and avoidance available to a fighter, you have a new t2 dps class that can out survive all your other t2 classes.Either way you slice this guano, its still guano.</blockquote>This is pretty much my feelings on the Recklessness stance thing. To make it count they almost have to make it 'OP'.I just do not see it as turning out good in any way as a whole.Sure it might make some Fighters happy as can be but only by making them 'OP'. We've seen that too many times already in EQ2s history...cough...TSO.I played/raided in Rift for awhile and while the whole 'anybody can fill just about any role' concept was cool at the start....it shortly ruined the experience becuase it really removed any sense of contribution and teamwork. Its really the main reason I quit Rift.That sorta thing is nice for heroic level stuff but just ruins raiding IMO. Guess i just prefer raiding to be about specializing instead of simply filling slots with warm bodies.Would much prefer they spend their efforts comming up with enocunter/raids where having 3-4 tanks filling their intended purpose is actually a benefit.

Caethre

06-27-2012, 12:09 PM

<cite>Loendar@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>My Guardian is no better (or worse, I suppose) with these changes than they were before them.All in all - I'm underwhelmed AND these changes aren't going to impact 90% of the fighter/raid population</blockquote>(( I'd agree, except for the massive nerf to the Brawler AA skill "Enhance: Brawler's Tenacity". That is the brawler death save, it has no other purpose, just a death save with three triggers on a long refresh. The nerf is to reduce its duration when ten ranks have been purchased using AA from 90s to 60s.That really is a big nerf, and will impact all brawlers (well maybe not the ultra-high-end-geared 0.1% of brawlers, but all the rest).It is also completely gratuitous, because the mit nerf (which affects everyone), the death save potency nerf (which effects all fighters) and the strikethrough immunity nerf (for brawlers in defensive stance, which was expected) are quite enough, without hammering all brawlers with this as well.Other than that huge over-reaction from SOE, the rest of the change is "meh" ))

Slowin

06-27-2012, 12:15 PM

<cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Reclessness is a terribad design choice. Honestly it feels like Xelgad took some player nudging here and made a horrible decision.Its a real catch 22 anyway you look at it.1) Its either not enough of a dps increase and really doesn't matter and we'll sit a fighter for a utility or dps class unless simply no one else is available and the fighter has no viable alts (in an aging game, this is becoming more and more less likely).or2) It will be a significant dps increase to make the fighter able to parse in T2 dps range. In which case even with the damage penalty in the stance, because of all the other innate damage prevention and avoidance available to a fighter, you have a new t2 dps class that can out survive all your other t2 classes.Either way you slice this guano, its still guano.</blockquote>This is pretty much my feelings on the Recklessness stance thing. To make it count they almost have to make it 'OP'.I just do not see it as turning out good in any way as a whole.Sure it might make some Fighters happy as can be but only by making them 'OP'. We've seen that too many times already in EQ2s history...cough...TSO.I played/raided in Rift for awhile and while the whole 'anybody can fill just about any role' concept was cool at the start....it shortly ruined the experience becuase it really removed any sense of contribution and teamwork. Its really the main reason I quit Rift.That sorta thing is nice for heroic level stuff but just ruins raiding IMO. Guess i just prefer raiding to be about specializing instead of simply filling slots with warm bodies.Would much prefer they spend their efforts comming up with enocunter/raids where having 3-4 tanks filling their intended purpose is actually a benefit.</blockquote>Really can't find a downside to the recklessness stance as long as its not increasing their DPS to T1. Nobody that has any other option is gonna start bringing 6 fighters to a raid. You lose out on the debuffs/utility of the other classes. If you have no other option than to bring 6 fighters.. than great.. this gives you more leeway. I only see a problem if it somehow becomes optimal to stack raids with fighters.. but i fail to see how this will ever be the case. You can argue that they have more surviviability than some other T2 dps maybe.. but I wasn't aware that T2 dps that knew how to play really had trouble doing T2 dps and surviving.. so whats the problem? They bring their own perks to the table that a fighter doesn't so who cares if the fighter can stand in the whole time.

Yimway

06-27-2012, 12:35 PM

<cite>Slowin wrote:</cite><blockquote>You can argue that they have more surviviability than some other T2 dps maybe.. but I wasn't aware that T2 dps that knew how to play really had trouble doing T2 dps and surviving.. so whats the problem? They bring their own perks to the table that a fighter doesn't so who cares if the fighter can stand in the whole time.</blockquote>I don't think you understand what a t2 dps would parse when they can ignore the jousts that everyone else has to make.There are quite a few fights that if a fighter in reckless stance can do t2 dps on, they'll actually be more like 1.5 since they'll be able to ignore scripting that others can not.The issue lies specifically in that fighters have too many defensive abilities compaired to legacy t2 classes. If I was a current T2 dps, I'd be pretty upset about this update.If you consider the tools available to guard/brawler in a reckless stance to just flat out ignore / overcome nearly all scripting in this game, you might start to realize why legacy t2 classes should be upset by this change. Its sort of OK for these classes to have all this survivability available to them when tanking mobs, but as soon as you multiply their dps potential by 1.5+, it becomes an issue to have all these survivability tools while having that improved dps potential at the same time.

Rageincarnate

06-27-2012, 12:59 PM

careful boss, your advocating getting an ability of yours nerfed.I'm just gonna say this.I'm a monk. I wont be using this reckless stance. I dont like it. If it was swappable in combat.. maybe.. that would actually make sense. dps the name until adds pop.. swap stance, pick up adds.I don't know what the heck the point is of having just a dps tank. Thats just silly.My stoneskin (perfect guard) cancels when i hit ca's.. so, umm no.. i still can't stay in. Inner focus will stay up but thats traumas only.I am NOT about to blow tenacity to not joust an ae if this fight is at least semi challenging. Thats a death save.. i save it for oh craps like it's meant to be..As for the ca boost on monk ca's? lol .. Do you know how often im sitting there waiting for them to come back even with 80 ab reuse? i'm guessing what 5-20k boost per ca depending on the ca in reckless stance? When i auto attack for over 100k with my 2 hander in my normal offensive stance??Until test stops crashing on me everytime i try and login and see some parses.. I will reserve judgement.. but gut instinct says this isn't very good.

Loendar

06-27-2012, 01:03 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Slowin wrote:</cite><blockquote>You can argue that they have more surviviability than some other T2 dps maybe.. but I wasn't aware that T2 dps that knew how to play really had trouble doing T2 dps and surviving.. so whats the problem? They bring their own perks to the table that a fighter doesn't so who cares if the fighter can stand in the whole time.</blockquote>I don't think you understand what a t2 dps would parse when they can ignore the jousts that everyone else has to make.There are quite a few fights that if a fighter in reckless stance can do t2 dps on, they'll actually be more like 1.5 since they'll be able to ignore scripting that others can not.The issue lies specifically in that fighters have too many defensive abilities compaired to legacy t2 classes. If I was a current T2 dps, I'd be pretty upset about this update.If you consider the tools available to guard/brawler in a reckless stance to just flat out ignore / overcome nearly all scripting in this game, you might start to realize why legacy t2 classes should be upset by this change. Its sort of OK for these classes to have all this survivability available to them when tanking mobs, but as soon as you multiply their dps potential by 1.5+, it becomes an issue to have all these survivability tools while having that improved dps potential at the same time.</blockquote>Out of curiousity - has anyone parsed out the DPS in Recklessness stance on Test vs. Offensive on Live? I haven't because I don't currently have a character active on Test (and I believe my Test Copy version is still pending).Just trying to figure out what kind of real world uptick we are seeing instead of the conjecture.

RafaelSmith

06-27-2012, 01:31 PM

<cite>Slowin wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Reclessness is a terribad design choice. Honestly it feels like Xelgad took some player nudging here and made a horrible decision.Its a real catch 22 anyway you look at it.1) Its either not enough of a dps increase and really doesn't matter and we'll sit a fighter for a utility or dps class unless simply no one else is available and the fighter has no viable alts (in an aging game, this is becoming more and more less likely).or2) It will be a significant dps increase to make the fighter able to parse in T2 dps range. In which case even with the damage penalty in the stance, because of all the other innate damage prevention and avoidance available to a fighter, you have a new t2 dps class that can out survive all your other t2 classes.Either way you slice this guano, its still guano.</blockquote>This is pretty much my feelings on the Recklessness stance thing. To make it count they almost have to make it 'OP'.I just do not see it as turning out good in any way as a whole.Sure it might make some Fighters happy as can be but only by making them 'OP'. We've seen that too many times already in EQ2s history...cough...TSO.I played/raided in Rift for awhile and while the whole 'anybody can fill just about any role' concept was cool at the start....it shortly ruined the experience becuase it really removed any sense of contribution and teamwork. Its really the main reason I quit Rift.That sorta thing is nice for heroic level stuff but just ruins raiding IMO. Guess i just prefer raiding to be about specializing instead of simply filling slots with warm bodies.Would much prefer they spend their efforts comming up with enocunter/raids where having 3-4 tanks filling their intended purpose is actually a benefit.</blockquote>Really can't find a downside to the recklessness stance as long as its not increasing their DPS to T1. Nobody that has any other option is gonna start bringing 6 fighters to a raid. You lose out on the debuffs/utility of the other classes. If you have no other option than to bring 6 fighters.. than great.. this gives you more leeway. I only see a problem if it somehow becomes optimal to stack raids with fighters.. but i fail to see how this will ever be the case. You can argue that they have more surviviability than some other T2 dps maybe.. but I wasn't aware that T2 dps that knew how to play really had trouble doing T2 dps and surviving.. so whats the problem? They bring their own perks to the table that a fighter doesn't so who cares if the fighter can stand in the whole time.</blockquote>Many fighters on live today are already into T2 levels of DPS.My only tank is a Guardian so really not one of those ...but Ive taken my Guardian on raids to fill up slots and even in his craptastic quest level gear I can ignore just about every single encounter script just by timing the various defensive pops. Lets assume ...as crazy as it sounds to say that the new stance lets Guardians in appropriate gear hit those T2 DPS numbers on a raid.....I would be able to ignore things that other T2 DPS cannot.If SoE wants to go down the Rift road......fine but do it correctly....give fighters a true DPS role but make it so they are stuck in that stance while in combat and none of their defensive abilities are usuable....then we can have them filling DPS slots. People want to play fighters for DPS....cool.....just as long as they are under the same penalties that other DPS they are competing with are. And while we are at it....give mages and scouts stoneskins, etc.

Yimway

06-27-2012, 02:37 PM

<cite>Loendar@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Out of curiousity - has anyone parsed out the DPS in Recklessness stance on Test vs. Offensive on Live? I haven't because I don't currently have a character active on Test (and I believe my Test Copy version is still pending).Just trying to figure out what kind of real world uptick we are seeing instead of the conjecture.</blockquote>Damage output and the stance itself are currently bugged on test.

Yimway

06-27-2012, 02:43 PM

<cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>If SoE wants to go down the Rift road......fine but do it correctly....give fighters a true DPS role but make it so they are stuck in that stance while in combat and none of their defensive abilities are usuable....then we can have them filling DPS slots. People want to play fighters for DPS....cool.....just as long as they are under the same penalties that other DPS they are competing with are. And while we are at it....give mages and scouts stoneskins, etc.</blockquote>This is exactly the debate we're going to open up if this idea goes forward. Scouts and mages will demand / need the same defensive abilities that tanks get to use even though they're in reckless stance.As far as T2 dps, lately I find we're not even running any 't2' classes anymore as the debuffs just don't matter as they should.We in fact killed a new HM mob for us lastnight. Close to flawless on it, and thinking back to it we didn't have one t2 on the raid. Now granted, I wasn't tanking on my guard, just soaking ae's for other tanks, so yeah I could have been reckless and been right behind t1 dps while filling this role.Guess I should be all for recklessness then, eh?

RafaelSmith

06-27-2012, 03:33 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>If SoE wants to go down the Rift road......fine but do it correctly....give fighters a true DPS role but make it so they are stuck in that stance while in combat and none of their defensive abilities are usuable....then we can have them filling DPS slots. People want to play fighters for DPS....cool.....just as long as they are under the same penalties that other DPS they are competing with are. And while we are at it....give mages and scouts stoneskins, etc.</blockquote>This is exactly the debate we're going to open up if this idea goes forward. Scouts and mages will demand / need the same defensive abilities that tanks get to use even though they're in reckless stance.As far as T2 dps, lately I find we're not even running any 't2' classes anymore as the debuffs just don't matter as they should.We in fact killed a new HM mob for us lastnight. Close to flawless on it, and thinking back to it we didn't have one t2 on the raid. Now granted, I wasn't tanking on my guard, just soaking ae's for other tanks, so yeah I could have been reckless and been right behind t1 dps while filling this role.Guess I should be all for recklessness then, eh?</blockquote>Yep...and if this stupid unneeded idea goes forward.....sadly Scouts and Mages will be justified in those demands.Hehe, Well from a selfish ..."all me....its all about my numbers ..could care less about overall game balance pov" I guess we should all be for Recklessness =P Hence so many chiming in about how great this addition is.Thats the problem with listening too much to the playerbase imo. Someone somewhere at SOE heard someone somewhere in game wine cause their so called 'dps' fighter was being left out of raids......tada Recklessness inc.

Slowin

06-27-2012, 03:56 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>This is exactly the debate we're going to open up if this idea goes forward. Scouts and mages will demand / need the same defensive abilities that tanks get to use even though they're in reckless stance.As far as T2 dps, lately I find we're not even running any 't2' classes anymore as the debuffs just don't matter as they should.We in fact killed a new HM mob for us lastnight. Close to flawless on it, and thinking back to it we didn't have one t2 on the raid. Now granted, I wasn't tanking on my guard, just soaking ae's for other tanks, so yeah I could have been reckless and been right behind t1 dps while filling this role.Guess I should be all for recklessness then, eh?</blockquote>Why does it matter that you killed a HM mob with a less than optimal raid force? Again, i'm still trying to understand how raid forces, especially like yours, can possibly see a downside to this change? This provides MORE flexibility for casual raid forces to tackle new content. You run without T2 dps.... which is fine.. you can clear the content you're clearing with a raid full of whatever you want and it wouldn't matter. That isn't a class balance issue, its a symptom of the challenge level of the content you're clearing.Look at the rosters for the remaining hardcore guilds... they haven't stopped running with "T2 dps classes." They won't stop running with them after this change. The only difference will be their 4th tank can dps when he's not required to be tanking something.I can totally understand the point of view that says this change is not necessary but to claim it will be detrimental to game balance just makes no sense.Someone completely against this change needs to layout what they believe to be their optimal raidforce that includes more than 4 tanks. Maybe i'm missing something but there just is no reason to ever have more than 4 tanks on a raid when you have access to the other classes that are available.

Yimway

06-27-2012, 04:12 PM

<cite>Slowin wrote:</cite><blockquote>Look at the rosters for the remaining hardcore guilds... they haven't stopped running with "T2 dps classes." They won't stop running with them after this change. The only difference will be their 4th tank can dps when he's not required to be tanking something.</blockquote>I wouldn't be surprised if they start moving to less t2 classes. For exmample, rogues are practicaly optional these days. The differential in loss of brigand debuffs is fairly easily made by putting a BL where the brig was. And Swash? heh why bother?I'm against this change cause of the 'scope creep' it will cause. When people get upset about fighters out parsing them cause they didn't have to do pesky things like pay attention to scripts.And I don't plan on running more than 4 tanks with this change, however I may be compelled to run 4 tanks more often. But in the end, its the complaining from everyone else and they 'I should have this too' arguements we'll see till SoE craters on them too.When all in all, this stance is absolutely not needed. It fixes no problems and only creates new ones from my perspective.

RafaelSmith

06-27-2012, 04:22 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>When all in all, this stance is absolutely not needed. It fixes no problems and only creates new ones from my perspective.</blockquote>Thats pretty much what it boils down for me as well.I just do not see the need for this and only see it causing more problems.Most raid forces that I know of have 3-4 or more tanks on their roster......do they use all of them on every raid?......no but then again most raids that I know of also have some sorta bench.Most players that I know of that play that #3 or #4 tank know their lot in life......they accept that with the exception of that very important encounter or very important mechanic they really are just along for the ride.....its knowing they are needed for that very important 'thing' or that they could be called on any day to MT that they like. Its only players that roll fighters with tanking as a second thought that seem to care where they show up on the parse during trash fights.Just do not see what problem they think they are trying to fix with this.

Beko

06-27-2012, 04:26 PM

Its a good stance, but 50% More Damage Recieved Will Kill Wards. (You soak up double the warding of any other DPSer.)You Also LOSE alot of damage/Accuracy by losing offensive stance.You also can't use Sks Grave Sacrament/Zerks Gibe/Paladins big AOE, there Most Damaging Attacks because of the Hate positionals.You also rip aggro like a mofo as a tank because of hate gain.And I can't even test the damage because the potency is broken. :/And there needs to be a GREATER penalty for switching out the stance, like you have 80% more damage after leaving the stance for the next 10 seconds.

Tigerr

06-27-2012, 05:01 PM

This change is NOT needed... Instead of rolling these completely USELESS changes, why not give the fighters some actual stuff RELATED to what their class does... yknow, DEFENSIVE stuff?. I have a few tanks, they put out more DPS than some scouts during some fights. I'm really curious who came up with this dumb idea, instead of fixing stuff that MATTERS.. you gave fighters DPS because the scrubs were complaining they couldn't get any groups because they want to "DPS"?...Stop...listening....to...the...herpdederp..... playerbase.. Fighters are VERY good on dps, and if anyone at SoE played a fighter past level 30, they'd know that the DPS they put out is pretty close up with the T2-T1 classes on some fights. This has to be one of the least thought out changes EVER to be made. Now that you guys gave them the idea that it is doable, all the crappy fighters that always wanted to DPS ( Noone in their right mind will invite a fighter to dps even after this change) will flock to the test boards and give you a +1111111 thumbs up. This is a HORRIBLE change, and the people giving a thumbs up ( 3 people ) have no idea or care what is going to happen to mechanics/future game/classes after this change.. They just want to DPS and they want it now. (Lets not forget there are alot of people that DONT comment on the forums and are completely disgusted when they hear stuff like this). If you give this to fighters (PEOPLE ROLL THEM TO TANK STUFF, they are NOTTT there for dps) you might as well give a DEFENSIVE stance to mages, scouts, and priests so they can tank just as good as a fighter, right?.. Big mistake going with this, stop it with the IDIOTIC ideas that only BREAK gameplay.

Tekadeo

06-27-2012, 05:07 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Slowin wrote:</cite><blockquote>Look at the rosters for the remaining hardcore guilds... they haven't stopped running with "T2 dps classes." They won't stop running with them after this change. The only difference will be their 4th tank can dps when he's not required to be tanking something.</blockquote>I wouldn't be surprised if they start moving to less t2 classes. For exmample, rogues are practicaly optional these days. The differential in loss of brigand debuffs is fairly easily made by putting a BL where the brig was. And Swash? heh why bother?I'm against this change cause of the 'scope creep' it will cause. When people get upset about fighters out parsing them cause they didn't have to do pesky things like pay attention to scripts.And I don't plan on running more than 4 tanks with this change, however I may be compelled to run 4 tanks more often. But in the end, its the complaining from everyone else and they 'I should have this too' arguements we'll see till SoE craters on them too.When all in all, this stance is absolutely not needed. It fixes no problems and only creates new ones from my perspective.</blockquote>DPS numbers have just become too astronomical. T2 Utility doesn't matter, unless it is Utility that significally (and parse-ably) alters damage numbers. The utility of these classes has not scaled, and my Brigand's debuffs are all but worthless because so many other classes (especially bards) all debuff mobs to the max anyway. Only so much mitigation to debuff, so maybe they should make Dispatch make the mob take a %more damage, ignoring mitigation? Or the swashy debuffs make the raid takes %less damage? I'm not a full-on proponent of the current state of the Recklessness buff, honestly I don't think it will be used very often by anyone. But I wont be able to tell until Test actually works....

Rageincarnate

06-27-2012, 05:58 PM

i wish i under stood peoples logic. I quite honestly don't even get it.Here's a scenario.3 tanks. 1 mt 1ot and a 3rd in case. Some fights use 3.. it makes sense.Oh noes mt goes down, now the 3rd tank and the ot were in reckless stance and then kill themselves switching stances and now you all die. You really want that? That sounds a special kind of special to me.

Beko

06-27-2012, 06:06 PM

<cite>Rageincarnate@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>i wish i under stood peoples logic. I quite honestly don't even get it.Here's a scenario.3 tanks. 1 mt 1ot and a 3rd in case. Some fights use 3.. it makes sense.Oh noes mt goes down, now the 3rd tank and the ot were in reckless stance and then kill themselves switching stances and now you all die. You really want that? That sounds a special kind of special to me.</blockquote>Reckless Stanced Tanks arn't meant to be tanks dude, try tanking a named as a scout or wizard and see what happens.When you choose to be a reckless tank, your not a tank anymore, don't expect them to pick up adds, expect them to get back until a Tank gets aggro back.The developers said so themselves, the stance allows a fighter to fill a DPS Spot, DPSers don't Tank mobs.

Rageincarnate

06-27-2012, 06:17 PM

So what your telling me is these changes effect at best 1 -2 raid spots?and i lost 2k mit, 30 seconds of dp, 1 trigger of dp ....for it. and i realistically can't even use it.I'll give you the strikethrough immune on the d stance.. that was op.

Dethdlr

06-27-2012, 06:28 PM

Quite often while questing or running easier instances, we end up with a second tank wanting to tag along. It's the alt somebody is currently working on and the one they need AAs or XP on. In those situations we pretty much always say yes. Don't ask me to explain the mechanics, but in my experience, for as long as I can remember, if you're in a less than optimal group with more than one tank, aggro can be a pain. 1 tank, 1 healer, 3 dps, aggro is fine. 2 tanks, 1 healer, 3 dps, and the dps will start pulling aggro. Maybe I'm just unlucky but that's how it seems to go in my experience.If they put this in right and tweak it a bit, Recklessness stance could solve that issue. It shouldn't be to a point where you would want to replace another class with a second tank when forming an optimal group, but for less than optimal groups, this could be a good thing.Would it effect raiding? Not my concern. Haven't done regular x4 raiding in a while. But from what I've read, the raiding viewpoint is heavily represented here already. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Loendar

06-27-2012, 06:36 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Loendar@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Out of curiousity - has anyone parsed out the DPS in Recklessness stance on Test vs. Offensive on Live? I haven't because I don't currently have a character active on Test (and I believe my Test Copy version is still pending).Just trying to figure out what kind of real world uptick we are seeing instead of the conjecture.</blockquote>Damage output and the stance itself are currently bugged on test.</blockquote>Bugged? I've never heard of such a thing! ;pThought I guess it being Test and all it is acceptable - but you would think it should at least pretend to work when implemented. SOMEONE should certainly have known it didn't work at all before pushing it out from Dev.

Tekadeo

06-27-2012, 06:48 PM

<cite>Rageincarnate@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>So what your telling me is these changes effect at best 1 -2 raid spots?and i lost 2k mit, 30 seconds of dp, 1 trigger of dp ....for it. and i realistically can't even use it.I'll give you the strikethrough immune on the d stance.. that was op.</blockquote>You didnt lose any triggers of your death prevent, and even at 60s BT is still by far the best dp in the game. Losing mit for everyone is questionable, but in reality braweler mit is too high. I can't get anywhere near your avoidance on any of my plates, even with you in offensive stance.Really you won't notice anything, brawlers will still be #1 and #2 after this goes live.

Mathrim

06-27-2012, 06:58 PM

<cite>Tekadeo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rageincarnate@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>So what your telling me is these changes effect at best 1 -2 raid spots?and i lost 2k mit, 30 seconds of dp, 1 trigger of dp ....for it. and i realistically can't even use it.I'll give you the strikethrough immune on the d stance.. that was op.</blockquote>You didnt lose any triggers of your death prevent, and even at 60s BT is still by far the best dp in the game. Losing mit for everyone is questionable, but in reality braweler mit is too high. I can't get anywhere near your avoidance on any of my plates, even with you in offensive stance.Really you won't notice anything, brawlers will still be #1 and #2 after this goes live.</blockquote>I haven't been on test to confirm, but my understanding is that Enhance: Brawlers Tenacity no longer gives the 3rd trigger bonus when you put 10 points into it on the Heroic Tree. It is now just a straight 1.5 second duration extension per point.That is called losing a trigger whether you think so or not if what I hear from test is true. Did every brawler spec for it? No. But now those brawlers that did no longer have that option.

BChizzle

06-27-2012, 07:22 PM

<cite>Tekadeo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rageincarnate@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>So what your telling me is these changes effect at best 1 -2 raid spots?and i lost 2k mit, 30 seconds of dp, 1 trigger of dp ....for it. and i realistically can't even use it.I'll give you the strikethrough immune on the d stance.. that was op.</blockquote>You didnt lose any triggers of your death prevent, and even at 60s BT is still by far the best dp in the game. Losing mit for everyone is questionable, but in reality braweler mit is too high. I can't get anywhere near your avoidance on any of my plates, even with you in offensive stance.Really you won't notice anything, brawlers will still be #1 and #2 after this goes live.</blockquote>Please stop with this, you don't have the remotest clue what you are talking about.

Outkast1980

06-27-2012, 07:48 PM

<cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>When all in all, this stance is absolutely not needed. It fixes no problems and only creates new ones from my perspective.</blockquote>Thats pretty much what it boils down for me as well.I just do not see the need for this and only see it causing more problems.Most raid forces that I know of have 3-4 or more tanks on their roster......do they use all of them on every raid?......no but then again most raids that I know of also have some sorta bench.Most players that I know of that play that #3 or #4 tank know their lot in life......they accept that with the exception of that very important encounter or very important mechanic they really are just along for the ride.....its knowing they are needed for that very important 'thing' or that they could be called on any day to MT that they like. Its only players that roll fighters with tanking as a second thought that seem to care where they show up on the parse during trash fights.Just do not see what problem they think they are trying to fix with this.</blockquote>There is no need for this your completely right with that. ALl this is going to do is annoy non-tank dps classes imo.

Outkast1980

06-27-2012, 07:49 PM

ratbast

06-27-2012, 08:02 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>gourdon wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>kalaria wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>They removed Scout debuffs/AE Preventions/Buffs!? When!?</blockquote>They removed fighter damage reductions, damage immunities, stone skins, death prevents?! When?!</blockquote>AE Prevention for DPS > Stoneskins+Death Preventions+Damage Immunities+Damage Reduction.</blockquote>Funny. I was unaware that tanks were avoiding taking their stoneskins, death preventions, damage immunities and damage reduction when they are available as AAs. Check out some predators and learn the truth.</blockquote>Um.. Im saying its better, not that they arn't taking it.AE Prevention (Not getting hit at all) is better then All the stoneskins/stuff in the world.</blockquote>stop posting non-sense tala stoneskin>>>>>>>>>> aoe avoid specially pred aoe avoid that for the most part come with some lame damage penalty along with gimping the class if they actually take those AA. this (depending on how much damage it adds) could make the same balance problem that brigs having 100% avoid did. sure their damage was lower than t1 classes but the fact they pretty much didn't have to worry about scripts made them overpowered. also some of the tanks are at their limit for damage. any type of big boost and they will be a dps class period with insane survivability.</blockquote>Most Stoneskins are "Chances to Avoid" like 10%, or 24% as a Fighter, or 5 Hit Temp Buffs.Having AE Immunity (Completely Immune to the Damage.) is 100x better in every and all situations.Also, everyone is dreaming if they think this stance will be something you can just switch on and off.This stance will have massive penaltys, one of them will most likely be you "Cannot Turn off this stance in combat." which means you can either be a tank or a DPS, not both.</blockquote>what? are you trying to mislead people on purpose? i play most of the tanks at lvl 92 with 320 AA .. I KNOW what they have and what is best in a raid setting. when's the last time you raided a dps class? the BEST possible way to deal with aoe damage is to stoneskin the damage and deal out a damage depending on how much damage the player stoned skinned. the next best is to out right stone skin the damage or avoid the damage WITH OUT having to stop attacking. after that the best is to use a one of your death saves so IF you die you STILL NEVER miss beat anyway after all those comes the aoe avoids that have penalties and can ever wear off if you take any type of damage even if it's a tiny professional aoe or anything... so either you KNOW nothing about raiding or you're flat out posting lies.. pick your poison.</blockquote>Completely avoiding the damage > Stoneskin, because it doesn't waste a stoneskin in the first place.Also, some fighter classes do not get stoneskins that are good against AOEs, only direct damage.</blockquote>this is an interesting argument. he is saying X is superior, because it doesnt waste the more valueable commodity Y.

Rageincarnate

06-27-2012, 08:15 PM

<cite>Outkast1980 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Beko@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rageincarnate@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>i wish i under stood peoples logic. I quite honestly don't even get it.Here's a scenario.3 tanks. 1 mt 1ot and a 3rd in case. Some fights use 3.. it makes sense.Oh noes mt goes down, now the 3rd tank and the ot were in reckless stance and then kill themselves switching stances and now you all die. You really want that? That sounds a special kind of special to me.</blockquote>Reckless Stanced Tanks arn't meant to be tanks dude, try tanking a named as a scout or wizard and see what happens.When you choose to be a reckless tank, your not a tank anymore, don't expect them to pick up adds, expect them to get back until a Tank gets aggro back.The developers said so themselves, the stance allows a fighter to fill a DPS Spot, DPSers don't Tank mobs.</blockquote> LOL! <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /> +1</blockquote>you would rather have the raid wipe, then the fighter with no assigned tasks save it. Gotcha. When are the druids getting their rezzes fixed? We are going to need them.

Rahatmattata

06-27-2012, 08:17 PM

I'm excited for the strikethrough immunity on some temp buffs, and will use the new offensive stance when I don't have to tank anything.More dps and defense? Don't mind if I do.

Tekadeo

06-27-2012, 08:24 PM

<cite>Rageincarnate@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Outkast1980 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Beko@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rageincarnate@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>i wish i under stood peoples logic. I quite honestly don't even get it.Here's a scenario.3 tanks. 1 mt 1ot and a 3rd in case. Some fights use 3.. it makes sense.Oh noes mt goes down, now the 3rd tank and the ot were in reckless stance and then kill themselves switching stances and now you all die. You really want that? That sounds a special kind of special to me.</blockquote>Reckless Stanced Tanks arn't meant to be tanks dude, try tanking a named as a scout or wizard and see what happens.When you choose to be a reckless tank, your not a tank anymore, don't expect them to pick up adds, expect them to get back until a Tank gets aggro back.The developers said so themselves, the stance allows a fighter to fill a DPS Spot, DPSers don't Tank mobs.</blockquote> LOL! <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /> +1</blockquote>you would rather have the raid wipe, then the fighter with no assigned tasks save it. Gotcha. When are the druids getting their rezzes fixed? We are going to need them.</blockquote>I'm gonna say that you will have at least two tanks that will not use Recklessness, smarty <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

ratbast

06-27-2012, 08:29 PM

<cite>Tekadeo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>ratbast wrote:</cite><blockquote>its not just that it violates the class division of labor, tank-heal-dps. its that it gives fighters a 2nd role (dps) that is more valid than other classes (bards/chanters) 1st role (support). playing support in eq2 is a grotesque ugly red-headed step-child. its a thankless job where you get out dps'ed by tanks. when was the last time someone asked for the power restored parse to be posted in chat? or the rezz parse? or the size of VC's and number of times your group triggered it? that stuff is never brought up. its quietly watched by dps'ers, while the extdps is shown over and over for all to see. that is what it means to be a utility class in eq2. giving tanks a reckless stance that gives them more personal dps is sick and wrong. class repurposing should never cross core roles. support only.</blockquote>There is nothing more "valid" in this game than Utility classes. Four classes get eight spots in a raid. Thankless? Sure, but you are guaranteed a raid spot if you want it. As a fighter there are generally three spots for six classes. Get off your high horse and your head out of the mud. I don't like the utility's role much either, but they have it way better than others ESPECIALLY tanks. And even with Reckless that will not chance any time soon, point blank period.</blockquote>support is a mongrel role. all three major roles (tank, heal, dps) blow it out of the water.support is 1 of the hardest things to recruit. 8 spots in raid for utility, and you think fighters should be repurposed to dps? thats impractical as well as a violation of major role division.repurposing should be for mongrel roles only.

Caethre

06-27-2012, 08:36 PM

<cite>Beko@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rageincarnate@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>i wish i under stood peoples logic. I quite honestly don't even get it.Here's a scenario.3 tanks. 1 mt 1ot and a 3rd in case. Some fights use 3.. it makes sense.Oh noes mt goes down, now the 3rd tank and the ot were in reckless stance and then kill themselves switching stances and now you all die. You really want that? That sounds a special kind of special to me.</blockquote>Reckless Stanced Tanks arn't meant to be tanks dude, try tanking a named as a scout or wizard and see what happens.When you choose to be a reckless tank, your not a tank anymore, don't expect them to pick up adds, expect them to get back until a Tank gets aggro back.The developers said so themselves, the stance allows a fighter to fill a DPS Spot, DPSers don't Tank mobs.</blockquote>(( There is some logic in what you are saying here - for example, for casual raids running 6 tanks, where only 2 are actually needed. Ok the 3rd might be asked to be ready to step in if one of the main two dies, but the remaining 3 might be asked to just be "reckless DPS".The logic doesn't hold so well in the case you quoted from the other poster, however, because the OT at the very least has a responsibility to be able to step in at once if the MT dies, so them being in reckless is ... well, not very bright, in my opinion. At least, I would never do that, I'd remain in defensive, ready at a moment's notice to do the job I was designed for.However, for those of us who play fighters as serious tanks, the idea of being the 6th fighter in a raid is one we would not be interested in actually being to start with. This is not four expansions back when brawlers were utterly useless and broken for their main role, and had no choice but to be DPS. I play a fighter to tank.So the new stance seems weird, because if it does not meet its intended purpose, it is of very limited value, but if it does meet its intended purpose and raids really start recruiting fighters as DPS, this is not only going to upset the real DPS classes, but it will also mean some people start making fighters just as DPS, which is ... totally anti-thematic for the archetype.But all said and done, I can't say I really care about it, I just think it will all end badly.... ))

Rageincarnate

06-27-2012, 08:48 PM

<cite>Felishanna@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Beko@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rageincarnate@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>i wish i under stood peoples logic. I quite honestly don't even get it.Here's a scenario.3 tanks. 1 mt 1ot and a 3rd in case. Some fights use 3.. it makes sense.Oh noes mt goes down, now the 3rd tank and the ot were in reckless stance and then kill themselves switching stances and now you all die. You really want that? That sounds a special kind of special to me.</blockquote>Reckless Stanced Tanks arn't meant to be tanks dude, try tanking a named as a scout or wizard and see what happens.When you choose to be a reckless tank, your not a tank anymore, don't expect them to pick up adds, expect them to get back until a Tank gets aggro back.The developers said so themselves, the stance allows a fighter to fill a DPS Spot, DPSers don't Tank mobs.</blockquote>(( There is some logic in what you are saying here - for example, for casual raids running 6 tanks, where only 2 are actually needed. Ok the 3rd might be asked to be ready to step in if one of the main two dies, but the remaining 3 might be asked to just be "reckless DPS".The logic doesn't hold so well in the case you quoted from the other poster, however, because the OT at the very least has a responsibility to be able to step in at once if the MT dies, so them being in reckless is ... well, not very bright, in my opinion. At least, I would never do that, I'd remain in defensive, ready at a moment's notice to do the job I was designed for.However, for those of us who play fighters as serious tanks, the idea of being the 6th fighter in a raid is one we would not be interested in actually being to start with. This is not four expansions back when brawlers were utterly useless and broken for their main role, and had no choice but to be DPS. I play a fighter to tank.So the new stance seems weird, because if it does not meet its intended purpose, it is of very limited value, but if it does meet its intended purpose and raids really start recruiting fighters as DPS, this is not only going to upset the real DPS classes, but it will also mean some people start making fighters just as DPS, which is ... totally anti-thematic for the archetype.But all said and done, I can't say I really care about it, I just think it will all end badly.... ))</blockquote>Missed the point. The second tank's stance isn't the point. The public reaction is this literally.... "i'd rather die then let a tank dps more." I was merely trying to guide you a point but arrive there on your own is what i was doing.

Gilasil

06-27-2012, 11:54 PM

<cite>Felishanna@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>(( There is some logic in what you are saying here - for example, for casual raids running 6 tanks, where only 2 are actually needed. Ok the 3rd might be asked to be ready to step in if one of the main two dies, but the remaining 3 might be asked to just be "reckless DPS".The logic doesn't hold so well in the case you quoted from the other poster, however, because the OT at the very least has a responsibility to be able to step in at once if the MT dies, so them being in reckless is ... well, not very bright, in my opinion. At least, I would never do that, I'd remain in defensive, ready at a moment's notice to do the job I was designed for.However, for those of us who play fighters as serious tanks, the idea of being the 6th fighter in a raid is one we would not be interested in actually being to start with. This is not four expansions back when brawlers were utterly useless and broken for their main role, and had no choice but to be DPS. I play a fighter to tank.So the new stance seems weird, because if it does not meet its intended purpose, it is of very limited value, but if it does meet its intended purpose and raids really start recruiting fighters as DPS, this is not only going to upset the real DPS classes, but it will also mean some people start making fighters just as DPS, which is ... totally anti-thematic for the archetype.But all said and done, I can't say I really care about it, I just think it will all end badly.... ))</blockquote>I've seen raids with six fighters.You may not want to go as a reckless fighter but for many, going as a reckless fighter is WAY better then not going at all, which would be the only real choice for at least three of those six fighters as the raid obviously can't do much with six fighters.It's unfortunate that, while hard core raiders are well represented here, casual raiders are not. This reckless stance really makes sense for casual raiders and groups. Not the hardcore.The hardcore raiders see no reason for it and for them there is no reason. But for the casuals this could be useful.And I agree, any OT who goes into a fight in reckless has obviously been hit a few too many times on the head.

Tekadeo

06-28-2012, 12:43 AM

<cite>Gilasil wrote:</cite><blockquote>And I agree, any OT who goes into a progression fight in reckless has obviously been hit a few too many times on the head.</blockquote>Fixed it for you.

Tekadeo

06-28-2012, 12:49 AM

<cite>ratbast wrote:</cite><blockquote>support is a mongrel role. all three major roles (tank, heal, dps) blow it out of the water.support is 1 of the hardest things to recruit. 8 spots in raid for utility, and you think fighters should be repurposed to dps? thats impractical as well as a violation of major role division.repurposing should be for mongrel roles only.</blockquote>You really need to check the definition of Mongrel. It means hybrid, not lesser. And every player in the game is a hybrid DPS/whatever, if they are doing it right. No Enchanters go to play simply to power feed, do they? Or Tanks simply to stand and hold aggro? Any priest worth two pinches knows that they should be helping DPS. Support is a major role, especially considering you have to have EIGHT of them (from only four classes) in a prototypical raid setup. Everything you said here is a waste of time.

Tekadeo

06-28-2012, 01:20 AM

<cite>Mathrim@Unrest_old wrote:</cite><blockquote>I haven't been on test to confirm, but my understanding is that Enhance: Brawlers Tenacity no longer gives the 3rd trigger bonus when you put 10 points into it on the Heroic Tree. It is now just a straight 1.5 second duration extension per point.That is called losing a trigger whether you think so or not if what I hear from test is true. Did every brawler spec for it? No. But now those brawlers that did no longer have that option.</blockquote>Then go on test and educate yourself bro. You still get the third trigger. You only lose 30s on the duration, still 60s which is still very good.And any brawler who didn't spec for it was straight up clueless.

Helmarf

06-28-2012, 04:45 AM

Why do i want to invite someone who takes 50% more damage then the others in a raid?

Drupal

06-28-2012, 05:33 AM

<cite>Helmarf wrote:</cite><blockquote>Why do i want to invite someone who takes 50% more damage then the others in a raid?</blockquote>Because these days it's all about dps. Why bring T2 dps classes, heck why bring support classes, when you can bring tank classes which do more dps than those ?

Helmarf

06-28-2012, 06:07 AM

<cite>Drupal wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Helmarf wrote:</cite><blockquote>Why do i want to invite someone who takes 50% more damage then the others in a raid?</blockquote>Because these days it's all about dps. Why bring T2 dps classes, heck why bring support classes, when you can bring tank classes which do more dps than those ?</blockquote>If a fighter is in recklessness stance they will take 50% more damage "Increases all damage done to caster by 50%" sounds like splat to me on most HM aoes. So realy dosent matter how much dps a fighter can do in that stance if they keep dying on every aoe.

Drupal

06-28-2012, 06:18 AM

<cite>Helmarf wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Drupal wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Helmarf wrote:</cite><blockquote>Why do i want to invite someone who takes 50% more damage then the others in a raid?</blockquote>Because these days it's all about dps. Why bring T2 dps classes, heck why bring support classes, when you can bring tank classes which do more dps than those ?</blockquote>If a fighter is in recklessness stance they will take 50% more damage "Increases all damage done to caster by 50%" sounds like splat to me on most HM aoes. So realy dosent matter how much dps a fighter can do in that stance if they keep dying on every aoe.</blockquote>You know as well as I do that AOE's can be jousted, they can have wards in the groups , etc etc. It doesn't change the fact they do a lot dps and they can stay alive as well.

Dovifat

06-28-2012, 07:51 AM

<cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>Just do not see what problem they think they are trying to fix with this.</blockquote>Uh, role composition of raids outside of the most hardcore guilds obviously. Everyone knows some changes are necessary and opening up more than 3 ( at best ) spots for fighters is a good thing.It just shouldn't come at the expense of T2 DPS who aren't in a good place themselves even before this change.

Loendar

06-28-2012, 10:34 AM

<cite>Gilasil wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Felishanna@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>(( There is some logic in what you are saying here - for example, for casual raids running 6 tanks, where only 2 are actually needed. Ok the 3rd might be asked to be ready to step in if one of the main two dies, but the remaining 3 might be asked to just be "reckless DPS".The logic doesn't hold so well in the case you quoted from the other poster, however, because the OT at the very least has a responsibility to be able to step in at once if the MT dies, so them being in reckless is ... well, not very bright, in my opinion. At least, I would never do that, I'd remain in defensive, ready at a moment's notice to do the job I was designed for.However, for those of us who play fighters as serious tanks, the idea of being the 6th fighter in a raid is one we would not be interested in actually being to start with. This is not four expansions back when brawlers were utterly useless and broken for their main role, and had no choice but to be DPS. I play a fighter to tank.So the new stance seems weird, because if it does not meet its intended purpose, it is of very limited value, but if it does meet its intended purpose and raids really start recruiting fighters as DPS, this is not only going to upset the real DPS classes, but it will also mean some people start making fighters just as DPS, which is ... totally anti-thematic for the archetype.But all said and done, I can't say I really care about it, I just think it will all end badly.... ))</blockquote>I've seen raids with six fighters.You may not want to go as a reckless fighter but for many, going as a reckless fighter is WAY better then not going at all, which would be the only real choice for at least three of those six fighters as the raid obviously can't do much with six fighters.It's unfortunate that, while hard core raiders are well represented here, casual raiders are not. This reckless stance really makes sense for casual raiders and groups. Not the hardcore.The hardcore raiders see no reason for it and for them there is no reason. But for the casuals this could be useful.And I agree, any OT who goes into a fight in reckless has obviously been hit a few too many times on the head.</blockquote>I'm a casual raider and I'm not really excited about Recklessness stance. We currently run with 3 fighters in our raids (SK, Pally and (me) Guardian) - we DO have other people have tanks at max. level but we don't bring them along because their other characters bring a lot more to the table in the form of buffs, etc.For me the underlying issue is they are trying to fix a real issue (no use for more than 2-3 tanks in a raid) by applying a 'fix' that just ignores the issue. Rather than make more tanks useful by complementing each other and making their groups/fellow fighters better they simply tell us to stop being fighters and DPS instead. I already HAVE a max. level wizard - if I wanted to play a DPS and not be a tank, I would play that character.And what's next? Once the normal SOE way of WAY overcompensating with this change kicks in it will be silly not to bring as many fighters in DPS stance as you can your hands on. So - the next fix to the underutilization of T1 DPS classes being brought will be to give my Wizard a healing stance? Y'know - since he can't do his job, we'll just give him a new one.The more I hear/read about this change the less 'on board' I am.

kalaria

06-28-2012, 10:42 AM

<cite>Dovifat wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>Just do not see what problem they think they are trying to fix with this.</blockquote>Uh, role composition of raids outside of the most hardcore guilds obviously. Everyone knows some changes are necessary and opening up more than 3 ( at best ) spots for fighters is a good thing.It just shouldn't come at the expense of T2 DPS who aren't in a good place themselves even before this change.</blockquote>Opening more spots on raids needs to be done by changing bards/chanters. 1/3rd the spots in the raid going to 4 classes because of buff mechanics is moronic.

Helmarf

06-28-2012, 10:54 AM

<cite>Drupal wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Helmarf wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Drupal wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Helmarf wrote:</cite><blockquote>Why do i want to invite someone who takes 50% more damage then the others in a raid?</blockquote>Because these days it's all about dps. Why bring T2 dps classes, heck why bring support classes, when you can bring tank classes which do more dps than those ?</blockquote>If a fighter is in recklessness stance they will take 50% more damage "Increases all damage done to caster by 50%" sounds like splat to me on most HM aoes. So realy dosent matter how much dps a fighter can do in that stance if they keep dying on every aoe.</blockquote>You know as well as I do that AOE's can be jousted, they can have wards in the groups , etc etc. It doesn't change the fact they do a lot dps and they can stay alive as well.</blockquote>True.But sounds like more healers then which will lower raid dps in that case and its not flawless perfect all the time <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Equilibrium

06-28-2012, 11:37 AM

They also mentioned in the webcast Paladins being able to take a healing spot. Hopefully this means they are scrapping the 25 class gimmick, consolidating the classes and allowing them to be able to fill multiple roles. It takes SOE a while to catch on to other games good ideas, but they eventually do.

Yimway

06-28-2012, 01:01 PM

<cite>Helmarf wrote:</cite><blockquote>If a fighter is in recklessness stance they will take 50% more damage "Increases all damage done to caster by 50%" sounds like splat to me on most HM aoes. So realy dosent matter how much dps a fighter can do in that stance if they keep dying on every aoe.</blockquote>Are you just dense? Fighters have plenty of abilities to negate those ae's and take no damage.I'm very confident I can run a 10 minute fight with multiple ae timers and still not take 1 point of damage from them while running recklessness.

Yimway

06-28-2012, 01:02 PM

<cite>kalaria wrote:</cite><blockquote>Opening more spots on raids needs to be done by changing bards/chanters. 1/3rd the spots in the raid going to 4 classes because of buff mechanics is moronic.</blockquote>Bingo!This is the issue, not giving fighters something else to do on raids other than tank or be tank support.

Equilibrium

06-28-2012, 01:08 PM

Yes support classes need some real tweaking, alot of us have been saying this for a long time. 8 support, 8 healers, 3 fighters, that leaves 5 spots. Maybe some reckless tanks can fill those precious roles, laugh at loud.

Twyxx

06-28-2012, 01:18 PM

<cite>Detriment@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yes support classes need some real tweaking, alot of us have been saying this for a long time. 8 support, 8 healers, 3 fighters, that leaves 5 spots. Maybe some reckless tanks can fill those precious roles, laugh at loud.</blockquote>8 healers??

Helmarf

06-28-2012, 02:47 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Helmarf wrote:</cite><blockquote>If a fighter is in recklessness stance they will take 50% more damage "Increases all damage done to caster by 50%" sounds like splat to me on most HM aoes. So realy dosent matter how much dps a fighter can do in that stance if they keep dying on every aoe.</blockquote>Are you just dense? Fighters have plenty of abilities to negate those ae's and take no damage.I'm very confident I can run a 10 minute fight with multiple ae timers and still not take 1 point of damage from them while running recklessness.</blockquote>Do you think all fighter classes have the same abilltys to maintane that in lets say HM Drunder/PoW enviroment? Standing close to aoes dps'ing in reclessness stance rotating your fancy abillitys, yeah riiiiiight and who you calling dense?Better have some ranged dps in instead!!!

Yimway

06-28-2012, 02:59 PM

<cite>Helmarf wrote:</cite><blockquote>Do you think all fighter classes have the same abilltys to maintane that in lets say HM Drunder/PoW enviroment? Standing close to aoes dps'ing in reclessness stance rotating your fancy abillitys, yeah riiiiiight and who you calling dense?Better have some ranged dps in instead!!! </blockquote>Atleast half can, more if one in the raid happens to be a guardian.The 50% damage penalty is hardly a penalty that a fighter with a clue can't survive thru.

ratbast

06-28-2012, 03:02 PM

<cite>Helmarf wrote:</cite><blockquote>Why do i want to invite someone who takes 50% more damage then the others in a raid?</blockquote>'others'?they take 50% more damage than themselves. you are confusing it.is there a max hp penalty as well? that would really make this 'penalty' mean something.

ratbast

06-28-2012, 03:32 PM

<cite>Tekadeo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>ratbast wrote:</cite><blockquote>support is a mongrel role. all three major roles (tank, heal, dps) blow it out of the water.support is 1 of the hardest things to recruit. 8 spots in raid for utility, and you think fighters should be repurposed to dps? thats impractical as well as a violation of major role division.repurposing should be for mongrel roles only.</blockquote>You really need to check the definition of Mongrel. It means hybrid, not lesser. And every player in the game is a hybrid DPS/whatever, if they are doing it right. No Enchanters go to play simply to power feed, do they? Or Tanks simply to stand and hold aggro? Any priest worth two pinches knows that they should be helping DPS. Support is a major role, especially considering you have to have EIGHT of them (from only four classes) in a prototypical raid setup. Everything you said here is a waste of time.</blockquote>grammar police/dictionary alert: so now you are going with dictionary definitions even tho you know the connotation implied here. yes i mean lesser, just like you understood and wrote yourself 'lesser'.first of all, a rhetorical question... why would you say what i wrote was a waste of time and then reply.second, if what i wrote was a waste, why reiterate 8 support and not respond to the lunacy of repurposing tanks to dps instead of utility? dps slots are a more cutthroat and important role. do you think its sane to have tanks have dps stance versus utility stance?if you bother disagreeing with me, why not make a case that repurposing tanks to dps is good. instead you just work on elevating the role of support. i sure hope you dont think you can sell SUPPORT > DPS. noone will buy that. tanks rerolling to dps with a mere stance is terrible for the game. so they can reroll cross archtype with a click, but not to opposing subclass without doing betrayal timeline...just for YOUR fun from <a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mongrel" target="_blank">http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mongrel</a><table ><tbody><tr><td valign="top">Noun</td><td valign="top">1.</td><td><img title="mongrel - derogatory term for a variation that is not genuine" src="http://img.tfd.com/wn/24/620AD-mongrel.png" width="106" height="133" align="right" />mongrel - derogatory term for a variation that is not genuine; something irregular or inferior or of dubious origin; "the architecture was a kind of bast-ard suggesting Gothic but not true Gothic"</td></tr></tbody></table>versatility needs to be towards mongrel roles.

RafaelSmith

06-28-2012, 03:36 PM

<cite>Helmarf wrote:</cite><blockquote>Why do i want to invite someone who takes 50% more damage then the others in a raid?</blockquote>Reading fail.They take 50% more damage than they would if not in reckless stance.....not others in raid. Which assuming the fighter is an idiot and does not know how to prevent or minimize the dmg....is still less than the other T2-T1 DPS they would be benching.

ratbast

06-28-2012, 03:43 PM

<cite>Gilasil wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Felishanna@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>(( There is some logic in what you are saying here - for example, for casual raids running 6 tanks, where only 2 are actually needed. Ok the 3rd might be asked to be ready to step in if one of the main two dies, but the remaining 3 might be asked to just be "reckless DPS".The logic doesn't hold so well in the case you quoted from the other poster, however, because the OT at the very least has a responsibility to be able to step in at once if the MT dies, so them being in reckless is ... well, not very bright, in my opinion. At least, I would never do that, I'd remain in defensive, ready at a moment's notice to do the job I was designed for.However, for those of us who play fighters as serious tanks, the idea of being the 6th fighter in a raid is one we would not be interested in actually being to start with. This is not four expansions back when brawlers were utterly useless and broken for their main role, and had no choice but to be DPS. I play a fighter to tank.So the new stance seems weird, because if it does not meet its intended purpose, it is of very limited value, but if it does meet its intended purpose and raids really start recruiting fighters as DPS, this is not only going to upset the real DPS classes, but it will also mean some people start making fighters just as DPS, which is ... totally anti-thematic for the archetype.But all said and done, I can't say I really care about it, I just think it will all end badly.... ))</blockquote>I've seen raids with six fighters.You may not want to go as a reckless fighter but for many, going as a reckless fighter is WAY better then not going at all, which would be the only real choice for at least three of those six fighters as the raid obviously can't do much with six fighters.It's unfortunate that, while hard core raiders are well represented here, casual raiders are not. This reckless stance really makes sense for casual raiders and groups. Not the hardcore.The hardcore raiders see no reason for it and for them there is no reason. But for the casuals this could be useful.And I agree, any OT who goes into a fight in reckless has obviously been hit a few too many times on the head.</blockquote>i dont consider myself a hardcore raider, but i think there is a distinction you are missing.raiders arent opposed to this on grounds of unnecessary. many raiders who are opposed see it as threat to classs balance. an attack on the fabric of the system itself.its not about reckless being superfluous, its about reckless being dangerous and unfair.

Tekadeo

06-28-2012, 05:00 PM

<cite>ratbast wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Tekadeo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>ratbast wrote:</cite><blockquote>support is a mongrel role. all three major roles (tank, heal, dps) blow it out of the water.support is 1 of the hardest things to recruit. 8 spots in raid for utility, and you think fighters should be repurposed to dps? thats impractical as well as a violation of major role division.repurposing should be for mongrel roles only.</blockquote>You really need to check the definition of Mongrel. It means hybrid, not lesser. And every player in the game is a hybrid DPS/whatever, if they are doing it right. No Enchanters go to play simply to power feed, do they? Or Tanks simply to stand and hold aggro? Any priest worth two pinches knows that they should be helping DPS. Support is a major role, especially considering you have to have EIGHT of them (from only four classes) in a prototypical raid setup. Everything you said here is a waste of time.</blockquote>grammar police/dictionary alert: so now you are going with dictionary definitions even tho you know the connotation implied here. yes i mean lesser, just like you understood and wrote yourself 'lesser'.first of all, a rhetorical question... why would you say what i wrote was a waste of time and then reply.second, if what i wrote was a waste, why reiterate 8 support and not respond to the lunacy of repurposing tanks to dps instead of utility? dps slots are a more cutthroat and important role. do you think its sane to have tanks have dps stance versus utility stance?if you bother disagreeing with me, why not make a case that repurposing tanks to dps is good. instead you just work on elevating the role of support. i sure hope you dont think you can sell SUPPORT > DPS. noone will buy that. tanks rerolling to dps with a mere stance is terrible for the game. so they can reroll cross archtype with a click, but not to opposing subclass without doing betrayal timeline...just for YOUR fun from <a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mongrel" target="_blank">http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mongrel</a><table ><tbody><tr><td valign="top">Noun</td><td valign="top">1.</td><td><img title="mongrel - derogatory term for a variation that is not genuine" src="http://img.tfd.com/wn/24/620AD-mongrel.png" width="106" height="133" align="right" />mongrel - derogatory term for a variation that is not genuine; something irregular or inferior or of dubious origin; "the architecture was a kind of bast-ard suggesting Gothic but not true Gothic"</td></tr></tbody></table>versatility needs to be towards mongrel roles.</blockquote>I'm saying the term Mongrel is completely inaccurate. Utility isn't irregular/inferior or of dubious origin by any stretch of the imagination, they are really superior to the others because they get eight slots for 4 classes. You sound silly using this word over and over and over when you clearly don't comprehend the meaning of it, or moreso you don't understand the mechanics of this game.I'll add that I don't hate the idea of Fighters becoming secondary utility classes while still tanking and DPSing, even taking raid spots from them. This might actually be more sensible although I'm positive there will still be rampant whining.