Fighter Revamp.... [Archive] - EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

Grumpy_Warrior_01

06-22-2012, 02:45 PM

Here is a TLDR for the fighter archetype references in the June 21 SOE telecast. This is mostly direct-quoted snippets from the developer responses: Changes are coming to the Test server in an effort to make fighters a more-fun class to play. Recklessness : This is an ability granted to all fighters at level 20 which is an extremely offensive, high-risk high-reward attack stance. Using the Recklessness stance you do extreme amounts of damage. Your ability damage is vastly improved, however your incoming damage is also vastly [increased], and you have more trouble holding aggro. If you are the third fighter in a raid, you can do some noticeable damage. Strikethrough Immunity : Whenever you use a temporary avoidance buff such as Shadowknight's Furor or Dragoon's Reflexes, you will have strikethrough immunity while those temporary buffs are active. So when you expect your avoidance to go up, it actually goes up. This is completely intuitive and more reliable. Fighter Heals : All fighter heals are now based upon a percentage of the target's maximum health. For example, Lay On Hands would be pretty much a complete heal, no matter who you target. Fighter heals will not be affected by potency. If you want a bigger heal, get more health. This change will offer more flexibility and fun factor for fighters. The Recklessness stance and the heal change will allow raids to take a fourth fighter to do some offense or to help heal, instead of using that spot for another wizard.

Yimway

06-22-2012, 05:06 PM

<cite>Grumpy_Warrior_01 wrote:</cite><blockquote> The Recklessness stance and the heal change will allow raids to take a fourth fighter to do some offense or to help heal, instead of using that spot for another wizard. </blockquote>Lets face it, another BL or another fighter... Doesn't matter, recklessness is pointless. It only opens up the door to dps wanting to be able to tank, etc, etc.

Tekadeo

06-23-2012, 08:50 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Grumpy_Warrior_01 wrote:</cite><blockquote> The Recklessness stance and the heal change will allow raids to take a fourth fighter to do some offense or to help heal, instead of using that spot for another wizard. </blockquote>Lets face it, another BL or another fighter... Doesn't matter, recklessness is pointless. It only opens up the door to dps wanting to be able to tank, etc, etc.</blockquote>Who cares? Let 'em tank if they want to. Tanking is just a headache anyway these days.

BChizzle

06-23-2012, 09:52 PM

Im still lulzing waiting for the all encompassing fighter nerfs Bruener has been crying about for years. Thank God the devs have enough sense not to listen to you guys.

Aull

06-23-2012, 10:19 PM

From what I have gathered so far this doesn't sound like an entire fighter revamp but more of allowing fighters to have a stance available to them to help fill less than perfect groups. Basically if a group cannot find an available dps mage/scout then another non tanking fighter could fit the group and move on with game play.As for clearing trash on a raid then this would allow any non tanking fighter a place to help burn through and move on to more important things that comes later in the raid.I think it all comes down to competing with other new games that have less classes but far more versitility for each class.Honestly I welcome this but if I had my choice I would want far more content across the board. More overland zones to explore and also the herioc and raid setting as well.I doubt that even with this change that raids will suffer with the to many fighters in the raid. It may allow for two more fighters but the raid structure as a whole will still need to be planned accordingly.

Kimber

06-24-2012, 01:16 AM

I really dont see the point of the stance tbh. I dont see how its going to put more fighters in raids or even in groups. Most of us at 92 are putting out 30K+ DPS in quest gear in O stance ( yes I low balled it a bit for some of us but you get my point ) and if you watch what buttons you mash you wont pull aggro. The only way it will really help us get spots in raids is to put it up to T1 DPS cause I know given the option of taking anouther wiz or lock putting out 100K over a tank putting out 50K ( just using numbers here is all ) the wiz or lock goes every time. It has to be a bump to T1 dps or it will not work. And in closing if I wanted to be T1 dps ( or any DPS for that matter ) I would have rolled a DPS class

Fairin

06-24-2012, 04:01 AM

"but i rolled a _fighter class_ to dps!" - quoteing alot.. of people this .. is only going to end up badly

Bruener

06-24-2012, 05:08 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Im still lulzing waiting for the all encompassing fighter nerfs Bruener has been crying about for years. Thank God the devs have enough sense not to listen to you guys.</blockquote>Lets see 3 major issues I said needed to be addressed.1. Fighter DPS2. Fighter Heals not scaling3. Strike through on savesAnd I guess you missed in the webcast at about the 11:50 mark where he specifically mentions some class balance fixes too.Lulz'ing a lot?

BChizzle

06-24-2012, 06:25 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Im still lulzing waiting for the all encompassing fighter nerfs Bruener has been crying about for years. Thank God the devs have enough sense not to listen to you guys.</blockquote>Lets see 3 major issues I said needed to be addressed.1. Fighter DPS2. Fighter Heals not scaling3. Strike through on savesAnd I guess you missed in the webcast at about the 11:50 mark where he specifically mentions some class balance fixes too.Lulz'ing a lot?</blockquote>None of those are nerfs in fact they are all buffs for all tanks, you have been making stuff up for years and again being exposed for it. Again Bruener your crying has always been blah blah blah I cant play my class but your class is going to be nerfed at the fighter update, well its here and guess what fighters are getting buffed you couldn't be further from the pulse .

Bruener

06-24-2012, 09:04 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Im still lulzing waiting for the all encompassing fighter nerfs Bruener has been crying about for years. Thank God the devs have enough sense not to listen to you guys.</blockquote>Lets see 3 major issues I said needed to be addressed.1. Fighter DPS2. Fighter Heals not scaling3. Strike through on savesAnd I guess you missed in the webcast at about the 11:50 mark where he specifically mentions some class balance fixes too.Lulz'ing a lot?</blockquote>None of those are nerfs in fact they are all buffs for all tanks, you have been making stuff up for years and again being exposed for it. Again Bruener your crying has always been blah blah blah I cant play my class but your class is going to be nerfed at the fighter update, well its here and guess what fighters are getting buffed you couldn't be further from the pulse .</blockquote>Come on man, is ignorance a huge part of your role-playing?Those are obviously buffs which I have stated in many threads was a need for ALL Fighters. The issue is in Fighter DPS in relation to T1 DPS and how large the gap has gotten, which in turn puts a lot of pressure on minimum amount of spots for Fighters. We went from 4 comfortably in SF to even that 3rd feels like a real drag in DoV. Of course you know this because in tells you completely agreed with the limitation on Fighter spots because of the DPS issue.Heals not scaling. Again something I have posted about many times since DoV. I even had this discussion with you in tells a couple months ago and how they needed to be changed to % based heals to scale...and you agreed.Strike through immunity. This was a bare minimum that we all agreed needed to happen. Now I wonder if Brawler temp abilities will show the same "immunity".This covers the issues Fighters in general have been having. Than there is the issue of balance between Fighters which Xelgad specifically said there are going to be some fixes to cover balance. What exactly do you think that means? I guess we will see on Tuesday, but as of right now some of us have been spot on.

Laenai

06-24-2012, 09:11 PM

I feel like I'm misunderstanding something....Will this new stance replace the offensive stance? Or is this an addition ie yet another extra stance for brawler hotbars?

Tekadeo

06-24-2012, 09:27 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Im still lulzing waiting for the all encompassing fighter nerfs Bruener has been crying about for years. Thank God the devs have enough sense not to listen to you guys.</blockquote>Lets see 3 major issues I said needed to be addressed.1. Fighter DPS2. Fighter Heals not scaling3. Strike through on savesAnd I guess you missed in the webcast at about the 11:50 mark where he specifically mentions some class balance fixes too.Lulz'ing a lot?</blockquote>TBH I'm usually against Bruenor's ravings but I see you guys go 'round a LOT, and this is him owning you right here. Not that it's his own original idea, most fighters would agree we all needed this. I would say we also need more on our Defensive stance (additional hate bonus, about 100% to taunts, and uncapped hate) but idk.SK's are dam near T1 DPS as it stands so idk how this is going to work with Reckless up.

Tekadeo

06-24-2012, 09:28 PM

<cite>Laenai@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>I feel like I'm misunderstanding something....Will this new stance replace the offensive stance? Or is this an addition ie yet another extra stance for brawler hotbars?</blockquote>No it won't replace the offensive stance, it just makes it mostly redundant, just like the Brawler's medium stance. It is a waste of a hotbar spot if it's there hon.

BChizzle

06-25-2012, 05:38 AM

<cite>Tekadeo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Im still lulzing waiting for the all encompassing fighter nerfs Bruener has been crying about for years. Thank God the devs have enough sense not to listen to you guys.</blockquote>Lets see 3 major issues I said needed to be addressed.1. Fighter DPS2. Fighter Heals not scaling3. Strike through on savesAnd I guess you missed in the webcast at about the 11:50 mark where he specifically mentions some class balance fixes too.Lulz'ing a lot?</blockquote>TBH I'm usually against Bruenor's ravings but I see you guys go 'round a LOT, and this is him owning you right here. Not that it's his own original idea, most fighters would agree we all needed this. I would say we also need more on our Defensive stance (additional hate bonus, about 100% to taunts, and uncapped hate) but idk.SK's are dam near T1 DPS as it stands so idk how this is going to work with Reckless up.</blockquote>Apparently you haven't been paying attention, Bruener has been crying about getting non SK's nerfed for years and promising everyone it was coming. The rest of us you know the sane people have been talking about getting tanks buffed rather than nerfed and that is what has happened. I have been a proponent of buffing tanks and very supportive of fighter heals getting fixed (but not crit), SK's being allowed to cast BL in combat, and I hate strikethrough as a mechanic it is bad design. All you have to do is browse a little history and you will find Bruener crying about how other tanks will be getting nerfed come the fighter revamp when others have said the right solution is to buff buff buff.The only thing left now that will be unbalanced is still the amount of instagib crap that encounters throw at us, SOE needs to fix encounters so they hit more often but for less or else quite simply the tanks with the most tools will still be the most effective choice.

Caethre

06-25-2012, 02:11 PM

<cite>Fairin wrote:</cite><blockquote>"but i rolled a _fighter class_ to dps!" - quoteing alot.. of people this .. is only going to end up badly</blockquote>(( ^^^ so true.Already you get "fighters" who think they are DPS first and tanks second. This new stance will just make that worse *chuckle*.I know I won't use the new stance on my monk anymore than I already use the offensive or hybrid stance I have now, so it won't make an iota of difference to me personally.But perhaps I can see this new stance will help some casual raidforces and PUG raids, who take whomever turns up, and a 4th, 5th or even 6th fighter in this stance might be a better option than an empty slot or a very weak character of another class ))

Tekadeo

06-25-2012, 11:10 PM

<cite>Felishanna@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Fairin wrote:</cite><blockquote>"but i rolled a _fighter class_ to dps!" - quoteing alot.. of people this .. is only going to end up badly</blockquote>(( ^^^ so true.Already you get "fighters" who think they are DPS first and tanks second. This new stance will just make that worse *chuckle*.I know I won't use the new stance on my monk anymore than I already use the offensive or hybrid stance I have now, so it won't make an iota of difference to me personally.But perhaps I can see this new stance will help some casual raidforces and PUG raids, who take whomever turns up, and a 4th, 5th or even 6th fighter in this stance might be a better option than an empty slot or a very weak character of another class ))</blockquote>I don't see any issue with someone rolling a fighter just to DPS. If you don't want to play with them for some reason, then don't. It simply doesn't affect you, so stop worrying about it. And recklessness is officially replacing your hybrid stance.And some tanks ARE dps. Zerkers and SKs are REQUIRED to DPS, and DPS hard to hold aggro. We have no siphons or transfers at all period. It is the way the class was created, and truthfully we both sacrifice a lot of survivability for this offensive potential. Love the rage tho, keep it up.

Bruener

06-25-2012, 11:59 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Tekadeo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Im still lulzing waiting for the all encompassing fighter nerfs Bruener has been crying about for years. Thank God the devs have enough sense not to listen to you guys.</blockquote>Lets see 3 major issues I said needed to be addressed.1. Fighter DPS2. Fighter Heals not scaling3. Strike through on savesAnd I guess you missed in the webcast at about the 11:50 mark where he specifically mentions some class balance fixes too.Lulz'ing a lot?</blockquote>TBH I'm usually against Bruenor's ravings but I see you guys go 'round a LOT, and this is him owning you right here. Not that it's his own original idea, most fighters would agree we all needed this. I would say we also need more on our Defensive stance (additional hate bonus, about 100% to taunts, and uncapped hate) but idk.SK's are dam near T1 DPS as it stands so idk how this is going to work with Reckless up.</blockquote>Apparently you haven't been paying attention, Bruener has been crying about getting non SK's nerfed for years and promising everyone it was coming. The rest of us you know the sane people have been talking about getting tanks buffed rather than nerfed and that is what has happened. I have been a proponent of buffing tanks and very supportive of fighter heals getting fixed (but not crit), SK's being allowed to cast BL in combat, and I hate strikethrough as a mechanic it is bad design. All you have to do is browse a little history and you will find Bruener crying about how other tanks will be getting nerfed come the fighter revamp when others have said the right solution is to buff buff buff.The only thing left now that will be unbalanced is still the amount of instagib crap that encounters throw at us, SOE needs to fix encounters so they hit more often but for less or else quite simply the tanks with the most tools will still be the most effective choice.</blockquote>"We're also changing how the Strikethrough mechanic interacts with tank classes. First, Crouching Tiger and Bodyguard will no longer grant full time immunity to Strikethrough. As the Brawler classes have gained active and passive tools to reduce spike damage, full time Strikethrough Immunity is no longer necessary. Furthermore, our content designers will be able to use Strikethrough to challenge groups regardless of which tank class they're using. For the second half of this change, Strikethrough Immunity has been added to all buffs that temporarily increase uncontested avoidance by 20% or more. This will make those temporary buffs more reliable and intuitive."Gonna keep going?

BChizzle

06-26-2012, 05:20 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Tekadeo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Im still lulzing waiting for the all encompassing fighter nerfs Bruener has been crying about for years. Thank God the devs have enough sense not to listen to you guys.</blockquote>Lets see 3 major issues I said needed to be addressed.1. Fighter DPS2. Fighter Heals not scaling3. Strike through on savesAnd I guess you missed in the webcast at about the 11:50 mark where he specifically mentions some class balance fixes too.Lulz'ing a lot?</blockquote>TBH I'm usually against Bruenor's ravings but I see you guys go 'round a LOT, and this is him owning you right here. Not that it's his own original idea, most fighters would agree we all needed this. I would say we also need more on our Defensive stance (additional hate bonus, about 100% to taunts, and uncapped hate) but idk.SK's are dam near T1 DPS as it stands so idk how this is going to work with Reckless up.</blockquote>Apparently you haven't been paying attention, Bruener has been crying about getting non SK's nerfed for years and promising everyone it was coming. The rest of us you know the sane people have been talking about getting tanks buffed rather than nerfed and that is what has happened. I have been a proponent of buffing tanks and very supportive of fighter heals getting fixed (but not crit), SK's being allowed to cast BL in combat, and I hate strikethrough as a mechanic it is bad design. All you have to do is browse a little history and you will find Bruener crying about how other tanks will be getting nerfed come the fighter revamp when others have said the right solution is to buff buff buff.The only thing left now that will be unbalanced is still the amount of instagib crap that encounters throw at us, SOE needs to fix encounters so they hit more often but for less or else quite simply the tanks with the most tools will still be the most effective choice.</blockquote>"We're also changing how the Strikethrough mechanic interacts with tank classes. First, Crouching Tiger and Bodyguard will no longer grant full time immunity to Strikethrough. As the Brawler classes have gained active and passive tools to reduce spike damage, full time Strikethrough Immunity is no longer necessary. Furthermore, our content designers will be able to use Strikethrough to challenge groups regardless of which tank class they're using. For the second half of this change, Strikethrough Immunity has been added to all buffs that temporarily increase uncontested avoidance by 20% or more. This will make those temporary buffs more reliable and intuitive."Gonna keep going?</blockquote>Ive been tanking in offensive for months now this is a buff since now I will be strikethrough immune in offensive.

Boli32

06-26-2012, 06:40 AM

Honestly it'll be better just to get rid of the stances altogether - they just either didn't do enough or were an unnessercary nerf; Recklessness as it sounds should have been how the offensive stance should have worked in the first place. effectively trading the tank's ability to survive for increased DPS when you were not needed to hold agro.Perhaps ironically the brawler stances were already like this and they had 3 of them to choose from... plate tank stances were pretty much meaningless whichever stance you were in most times.If I was in charge I'll just drop the offensive stance completly; add the stat boosts to the self buffs (e.g. +s/c/p +STR +proc) and then change the defensive stance to (+mitigation, +health - removing the negative drawbacks) and use the new reckless stance as the offensive stance.The amount of times I've got in an argument over tanking in the offensive stance simply because it is called the offensive stance and not the defensive stance is crazy. Pretty much from RoK onwards I never considered using the defensive stance at all - and thus in many people's eyes I was "not a real tank".The same will be true for the new recklessness stance - if it does not reduce the tank's ability to take damage it will simply be the new stance - but at the same time it needs to be strong enough so a tank can physcially take a hit before swapping to the "tank stance" should they need to in an emergancy.

Yimway

06-26-2012, 12:41 PM

<cite>Boli@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>Honestly it'll be better just to get rid of the stances altogether - they just either didn't do enough or were an unnessercary nerf; Recklessness as it sounds should have been how the offensive stance should have worked in the first place. effectively trading the tank's ability to survive for increased DPS when you were not needed to hold agro.</blockquote>No!That was exactly Aerilik's design that got shot down unilaterally last time.Just cause you choose to do dps should not mean you can't build agro. Sure you should trade survivability for dps, that makes sense, but when you out-class content there should be no reason no to go into as little survivability as needed and still tank.This idea of a stance that sets agro to 0 is a bad idea. Why don't other classes get the same stance? The answer is it would be game breaking for anyone else to have it, and that is sufficient reason for it not to exist for fighters as well.I realize we've not seen the stance yet, but the entire thing smacks of exactly what we saw before.

Caethre

06-26-2012, 02:24 PM

<cite>Tekadeo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Felishanna@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Fairin wrote:</cite><blockquote>"but i rolled a _fighter class_ to dps!" - quoteing alot.. of people this .. is only going to end up badly</blockquote>(( ^^^ so true.Already you get "fighters" who think they are DPS first and tanks second. This new stance will just make that worse *chuckle*.I know I won't use the new stance on my monk anymore than I already use the offensive or hybrid stance I have now, so it won't make an iota of difference to me personally.But perhaps I can see this new stance will help some casual raidforces and PUG raids, who take whomever turns up, and a 4th, 5th or even 6th fighter in this stance might be a better option than an empty slot or a very weak character of another class ))</blockquote>I don't see any issue with someone rolling a fighter just to DPS. If you don't want to play with them for some reason, then don't. It simply doesn't affect you, so stop worrying about it. And recklessness is officially replacing your hybrid stance.And some tanks ARE dps. Zerkers and SKs are REQUIRED to DPS, and DPS hard to hold aggro. We have no siphons or transfers at all period. It is the way the class was created, and truthfully we both sacrifice a lot of survivability for this offensive potential. Love the rage tho, keep it up.</blockquote>(( Sure, players can do whatever they like ... roll a tank to play DPS, roll a healer to tank, roll a mage to be a healer, whatever floats their personal boats. But you are right, I will avoid playing with the few people who are quite that stupid as a rule.Back on planet "know-what-the classes-are-for", fighters are designed with the PRIMARY role of tanking in mind. Those fighters who think that maxing their parse is more important than staying alive or keeping aggro, and more important than their groups actually living through fights and their raids not wiping, are quite welcome to keep grouping with other people.Unfortunately I do end up meeting them in PUGs when not playing my own tank from time to time. :/"Love the rage tho, keep it up". Whatever that meant ))

BChizzle

06-27-2012, 02:31 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Im still lulzing waiting for the all encompassing fighter nerfs Bruener has been crying about for years. Thank God the devs have enough sense not to listen to you guys.</blockquote>Lets see 3 major issues I said needed to be addressed.1. Fighter DPS2. Fighter Heals not scaling3. Strike through on savesAnd I guess you missed in the webcast at about the 11:50 mark where he specifically mentions some class balance fixes too.Lulz'ing a lot?</blockquote>None of those are nerfs in fact they are all buffs for all tanks, you have been making stuff up for years and again being exposed for it. Again Bruener your crying has always been blah blah blah I cant play my class but your class is going to be nerfed at the fighter update, well its here and guess what fighters are getting buffed you couldn't be further from the pulse .</blockquote>Come on man, is ignorance a huge part of your role-playing?Those are obviously buffs which I have stated in many threads was a need for ALL Fighters. The issue is in Fighter DPS in relation to T1 DPS and how large the gap has gotten, which in turn puts a lot of pressure on minimum amount of spots for Fighters. We went from 4 comfortably in SF to even that 3rd feels like a real drag in DoV. Of course you know this because in tells you completely agreed with the limitation on Fighter spots because of the DPS issue.Heals not scaling. Again something I have posted about many times since DoV. I even had this discussion with you in tells a couple months ago and how they needed to be changed to % based heals to scale...and you agreed.Strike through immunity. This was a bare minimum that we all agreed needed to happen. Now I wonder if Brawler temp abilities will show the same "immunity".This covers the issues Fighters in general have been having. Than there is the issue of balance between Fighters which Xelgad specifically said there are going to be some fixes to cover balance. What exactly do you think that means? I guess we will see on Tuesday, but as of right now some of us have been spot on.</blockquote>When we spoke I told you brawlers didnt need ST immunity anymore because we were at plate levels in mit. I also told you I didnt need to even use my defensive stance anymore and if my temps were reliable I could tank in offensive or mid easily and it was actually a benefit as I wouldnt get fiery feedbacked all over the place. I never said heals shouldnt scale and I agree a % base effect or just adjusting the amount the heals do is what will make it worthwhile.The answer is yes brawlers can use their temps for strikethrough immunity in offensive now this is a buff, it will result in a bit more than 40 seconds of immunity to strikethrough per 1.5 minutes.Again you think this is the solution to balance but it won't change anything, your class didn't get anything that will make them worth bringing to a raid, quite simply the most tricks to get through all the stupid one hit mechanics our lazy devs keep throwing at us will make that choice of tank what should be raiding and guess what nothing has changed about that.The real problem here is the universal nerf to mit thats basically going to screw over everyone. More wards are going to be eaten on physical aes means less heals on the tank means bye bye tank on physical ae encounters.

Boli32

06-27-2012, 06:01 AM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Boli@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>Honestly it'll be better just to get rid of the stances altogether - they just either didn't do enough or were an unnessercary nerf; Recklessness as it sounds should have been how the offensive stance should have worked in the first place. effectively trading the tank's ability to survive for increased DPS when you were not needed to hold agro.</blockquote>No!That was exactly Aerilik's design that got shot down unilaterally last time.Just cause you choose to do dps should not mean you can't build agro. Sure you should trade survivability for dps, that makes sense, but when you out-class content there should be no reason no to go into as little survivability as needed and still tank.This idea of a stance that sets agro to 0 is a bad idea. Why don't other classes get the same stance? The answer is it would be game breaking for anyone else to have it, and that is sufficient reason for it not to exist for fighters as well.I realize we've not seen the stance yet, but the entire thing smacks of exactly what we saw before.</blockquote>The cancelled fighter revamp was more due to the how taunting worked and gathering hate gain whilst actively reducing dps in the defensive stance.I was more advocating that there is no need for EITHER an offensive or defensive stance (shove all the bonuses on the self buffs) but merely turning reckless on/off instead would count as going offensive or defensive.

BChizzle

06-27-2012, 06:33 AM

<cite>Boli@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Boli@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>Honestly it'll be better just to get rid of the stances altogether - they just either didn't do enough or were an unnessercary nerf; Recklessness as it sounds should have been how the offensive stance should have worked in the first place. effectively trading the tank's ability to survive for increased DPS when you were not needed to hold agro.</blockquote>No!That was exactly Aerilik's design that got shot down unilaterally last time.Just cause you choose to do dps should not mean you can't build agro. Sure you should trade survivability for dps, that makes sense, but when you out-class content there should be no reason no to go into as little survivability as needed and still tank.This idea of a stance that sets agro to 0 is a bad idea. Why don't other classes get the same stance? The answer is it would be game breaking for anyone else to have it, and that is sufficient reason for it not to exist for fighters as well.I realize we've not seen the stance yet, but the entire thing smacks of exactly what we saw before.</blockquote>The cancelled fighter revamp was more due to the how taunting worked and gathering hate gain whilst actively reducing dps in the defensive stance.I was more advocating that there is no need for EITHER an offensive or defensive stance (shove all the bonuses on the self buffs) but merely turning reckless on/off instead would count as going offensive or defensive.</blockquote>People like to make crap up about the old fighter revamp that never existed. You hit the head on the nail, the problem was that the old revamp went too far in turning tanking fighters into tauntbots and that was everyones issue with it because it was boring as hell to spam your taunts and not to be able to dps. It had nothing to stances agro or anything along those lines.

Beko

06-27-2012, 03:45 PM

Everyone deserves to play how they want to play.

RafaelSmith

06-27-2012, 04:33 PM

<cite>Beko@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Everyone deserves to play how they want to play.</blockquote>When soloing...sure.

Beko

06-27-2012, 06:31 PM

<cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Beko@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Everyone deserves to play how they want to play.</blockquote>When soloing...sure.</blockquote>No, in any scenerio, everyone deserves to play how they want to play, this is why everquest had so many classes, to accomidate all types of playstyles.

Caethre

06-27-2012, 07:35 PM

<cite>Beko@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>No, in any scenerio, everyone deserves to play how they want to play, this is why everquest had so many classes, to accomidate all types of playstyles.</blockquote>(( Literally, you are correct. Everyone can play (or at least try to play) exactly how they want, as long as it is within the EULA which they agree to every time they log into the game.However, that does not change what the classes are actually DESIGNED to do, and for which they are best suited.The Fighter classes (all six of them) are designed as their primary role to be tanks. Players rolling fighters to be primarily a pure DPS class are not doing themselves any favours. You know this as well as I do, or you should. They are going to really struggle to find groups and raids to accept them.I'm surprised there is anyone arguing otherwise ))

Tekadeo

06-27-2012, 08:09 PM

<cite>Felishanna@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Beko@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>No, in any scenerio, everyone deserves to play how they want to play, this is why everquest had so many classes, to accomidate all types of playstyles.</blockquote>(( Literally, you are correct. Everyone can play (or at least try to play) exactly how they want, as long as it is within the EULA which they agree to every time they log into the game.However, that does not change what the classes are actually DESIGNED to do, and for which they are best suited.The Fighter classes (all six of them) are designed as their primary role to be tanks. Players rolling fighters to be primarily a pure DPS class are not doing themselves any favours. You know this as well as I do, or you should. They are going to really struggle to find groups and raids to accept them.I'm surprised there is anyone arguing otherwise ))</blockquote>I havent seen one person arguing otherwise. No one is rolling a fighter simply to DPS. The primary role is the same. To put it simply, Reckless is ONLY to be used when that primary role is not needed. I'm surprised you derived any of that from what any person is posting here....but that's not to say people won't do this in the future. But if they do, so be it. Don't like it? Don't play with them, doesn't affect you one stinkin bit.

Caethre

06-27-2012, 08:14 PM

<cite>Tekadeo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Felishanna@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Beko@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>No, in any scenerio, everyone deserves to play how they want to play, this is why everquest had so many classes, to accomidate all types of playstyles.</blockquote>(( Literally, you are correct. Everyone can play (or at least try to play) exactly how they want, as long as it is within the EULA which they agree to every time they log into the game.However, that does not change what the classes are actually DESIGNED to do, and for which they are best suited.The Fighter classes (all six of them) are designed as their primary role to be tanks. Players rolling fighters to be primarily a pure DPS class are not doing themselves any favours. You know this as well as I do, or you should. They are going to really struggle to find groups and raids to accept them.I'm surprised there is anyone arguing otherwise ))</blockquote>I havent seen one person arguing otherwise. No one is rolling a fighter simply to DPS. The primary role is the same. To put it simply, Reckless is ONLY to be used when that primary role is not needed. I'm surprised you derived any of that from what any person is posting here....but that's not to say people won't do this in the future. But if they do, so be it. Don't like it? Don't play with them, doesn't affect you one stinkin bit.</blockquote>(( Really, Takadeo? And yet earlier in this thread....<cite>Tekadeo wrote:</cite><blockquote>I don't see any issue with someone rolling a fighter just to DPS.</blockquote>Next.... ))

Tekadeo

06-27-2012, 08:19 PM

<cite>Felishanna@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Tekadeo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Felishanna@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Beko@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>No, in any scenerio, everyone deserves to play how they want to play, this is why everquest had so many classes, to accomidate all types of playstyles.</blockquote>(( Literally, you are correct. Everyone can play (or at least try to play) exactly how they want, as long as it is within the EULA which they agree to every time they log into the game.However, that does not change what the classes are actually DESIGNED to do, and for which they are best suited.The Fighter classes (all six of them) are designed as their primary role to be tanks. Players rolling fighters to be primarily a pure DPS class are not doing themselves any favours. You know this as well as I do, or you should. They are going to really struggle to find groups and raids to accept them.I'm surprised there is anyone arguing otherwise ))</blockquote>I havent seen one person arguing otherwise. No one is rolling a fighter simply to DPS. The primary role is the same. To put it simply, Reckless is ONLY to be used when that primary role is not needed. I'm surprised you derived any of that from what any person is posting here....but that's not to say people won't do this in the future. But if they do, so be it. Don't like it? Don't play with them, doesn't affect you one stinkin bit.</blockquote>(( Really, Takadeo? And yet earlier in this thread....<cite>Tekadeo wrote:</cite><blockquote>I don't see any issue with someone rolling a fighter just to DPS.</blockquote>Next.... ))</blockquote>Learn to read^^ I'll copy and paste it for you though:...that's not to say people won't do this in the future. But if they do, so be it. Don't like it? Don't play with them, doesn't affect you one stinkin bit."What's your argument here, then? Oh you don't have one, you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Cool.

Dominiscious

07-12-2012, 05:39 PM

<cite>Kimber@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>I really dont see the point of the stance tbh. I dont see how its going to put more fighters in raids or even in groups. Most of us at 92 are putting out 30K+ DPS in quest gear in O stance ( yes I low balled it a bit for some of us but you get my point ) and if you watch what buttons you mash you wont pull aggro. The only way it will really help us get spots in raids is to put it up to T1 DPS cause I know given the option of taking anouther wiz or lock putting out 100K over a tank putting out 50K ( just using numbers here is all ) the wiz or lock goes every time. It has to be a bump to T1 dps or it will not work. And in closing if I wanted to be T1 dps ( or any DPS for that matter ) I would have rolled a DPS class</blockquote>I have no idea what class you are currently playing as a fighter but I am putting out anywhere from 180k to 300k depending on buffs in group on raids and thats without recklessness and as a Guardian.

Yimway

07-13-2012, 02:04 PM

<cite>Dominiscious wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have no idea what class you are currently playing as a fighter but I am putting out anywhere from 180k to 300k depending on buffs in group on raids and thats without recklessness and as a Guardian.</blockquote>Yeap, right where I am unless you count some silly parses on those heroic ae fights <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />At the same time, our T1 DPS is pushing 600k-1M depending on encounter.I think I can push my guard to 500k in reckless with the right group placement, maybe a little bit more, but why in the world would you bring me in reckless in any group over putting a BL there instead?I will continue to log an alt if I'm not needed to tank, I don't plan to use this stance other than to make some epreen parse posts for prosterity.I question how many of you don't have viable alts when the raid is full of tanks? As old as this game is, and as easy and fast as having a viable alt is, is this stance really needed?

Aull

07-14-2012, 05:50 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>I think I can push my guard to 500k in reckless with the right group placement, maybe a little bit more, but why in the world would you bring me in reckless in any group over putting a BL there instead?I will continue to log an alt if I'm not needed to tank, I don't plan to use this stance other than to make some epreen parse posts for prosterity.I question how many of you don't have viable alts when the raid is full of tanks? As old as this game is, and as easy and fast as having a viable alt is, is this stance really needed?</blockquote>I say no. This stance isn't needed for the reason as your statement suggests. All this stance will do is take outdated fighter offensive stances and make them even more of a waste.If anything what I think the devs should have done is make each fighters offensive stance something unique to each fighter in question. No one fighter offensive stance being the same as the other fighters like reckless stance is now. Make it something that really benefits each fighter individually and that the offensive stance has some good damage potential for those that choose to use it.

Draylore

07-17-2012, 02:24 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>I question how many of you don't have viable alts when the raid is full of tanks? As old as this game is, and as easy and fast as having a viable alt is, is this stance really needed?</blockquote>I have exactly 2 toons....a Guardian and a Assassin and I am in the extreme minority in having so few. This stance is NOT needed in the slightest.

Shredderr

07-18-2012, 11:19 AM

So first we cant crit now potency doesnt affect our heals.... why dont they take heals and give us something useful. Sounds like they regret giving us heals at all. Scouts and mages heals still crit ?

Troy

07-19-2012, 01:12 PM

<cite>Felishanna@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Beko@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>No, in any scenerio, everyone deserves to play how they want to play, this is why everquest had so many classes, to accomidate all types of playstyles.</blockquote>(( Literally, you are correct. Everyone can play (or at least try to play) exactly how they want, as long as it is within the EULA which they agree to every time they log into the game.However, that does not change what the classes are actually DESIGNED to do, and for which they are best suited.The Fighter classes (all six of them) are designed as their primary role to be tanks. Players rolling fighters to be primarily a pure DPS class are not doing themselves any favours. You know this as well as I do, or you should. They are going to really struggle to find groups and raids to accept them.I'm surprised there is anyone arguing otherwise ))</blockquote>I absolutely 100% agreee - I rolled my fighters - including a brawler - to tank - NOT DPS - if I want a dps class to play - I would be playing a scout or mage.

Boli32

07-19-2012, 01:29 PM

And what if you rolled a more offensive fighter?90% of the problem in this tank balance is people rolled more offensive fighter class and expect - no DEMAND to not only do more DPS but to tank as well and efficiently as the more defensive ones.

Kazoth

07-24-2012, 08:13 PM

Im going to test a bit more before i get into this discussion, initial tests sure seems to point towards SK being the highest DPS class now though as long as they can stay alive, shouldnt be a problem beside AE

EverDog

07-25-2012, 01:00 AM

Before GU64 SK having only Skyshrine EM x4 gears already could sometimes do more than 400k DPS,which means he can be more than 700k for now on the recklessness.It is not very easy for T1 DPS having only EM gears to go above 700k.

Landiin

07-25-2012, 01:01 AM

Our guilds mystic just solo healed HM lyceam(sp) with a SK in reckless stance. He said he really didn't have any issues and the SK was ripping the zone apart. I'll try to get a parse from him and post it when he logs back on.

Bruener

07-25-2012, 10:01 AM

Yes the stance gives some nice DPS, mostly on AE encounters. But testing it last night in Sullons HM I was extremely squishy.Agro is a huge issue in the stance despite getting a link and having -22 hate gain. Potency still affects the taunt values making them pretty massive.I would say fix the potency - taunt value issue and the stance is very well balanced in raiding for its intended purpose.

BChizzle

07-25-2012, 01:26 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yes the stance gives some nice DPS, mostly on AE encounters. But testing it last night in Sullons HM I was extremely squishy.Agro is a huge issue in the stance despite getting a link and having -22 hate gain. Potency still affects the taunt values making them pretty massive.I would say fix the potency - taunt value issue and the stance is very well balanced in raiding for its intended purpose.</blockquote>Also make sure it removes all block.

Silzin

07-25-2012, 01:39 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yes the stance gives some nice DPS, mostly on AE encounters. But testing it last night in Sullons HM I was extremely squishy.Agro is a huge issue in the stance despite getting a link and having -22 hate gain. Potency still affects the taunt values making them pretty massive.I would say fix the potency - taunt value issue and the stance is very well balanced in raiding for its intended purpose.</blockquote>Also make sure it removes all block.</blockquote>Making the stance Remove all Block Chance would only be balinced. I think

BChizzle

07-25-2012, 01:43 PM

<cite>Silzin@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yes the stance gives some nice DPS, mostly on AE encounters. But testing it last night in Sullons HM I was extremely squishy.Agro is a huge issue in the stance despite getting a link and having -22 hate gain. Potency still affects the taunt values making them pretty massive.I would say fix the potency - taunt value issue and the stance is very well balanced in raiding for its intended purpose.</blockquote>Also make sure it removes all block.</blockquote>Making the stance Remove all Block Chance would only be balinced. I think</blockquote>Yup it is complete bullpoopy that brawlers get 0 block in this stance but plate tanks get full benefit of a shield.

Bruener

07-25-2012, 02:27 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Silzin@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yes the stance gives some nice DPS, mostly on AE encounters. But testing it last night in Sullons HM I was extremely squishy.Agro is a huge issue in the stance despite getting a link and having -22 hate gain. Potency still affects the taunt values making them pretty massive.I would say fix the potency - taunt value issue and the stance is very well balanced in raiding for its intended purpose.</blockquote>Also make sure it removes all block.</blockquote>Making the stance Remove all Block Chance would only be balinced. I think</blockquote>Yup it is complete bullpoopy that brawlers get 0 block in this stance but plate tanks get full benefit of a shield.</blockquote>Make Brawlers unequip an offhand to get their block than.Plates get to use a shield in recklessness, Brawlers get to DW or use a 2h and still get thier avoidance and aren't affected by disarms.Really, don't even go there.

BChizzle

07-25-2012, 02:42 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Silzin@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yes the stance gives some nice DPS, mostly on AE encounters. But testing it last night in Sullons HM I was extremely squishy.Agro is a huge issue in the stance despite getting a link and having -22 hate gain. Potency still affects the taunt values making them pretty massive.I would say fix the potency - taunt value issue and the stance is very well balanced in raiding for its intended purpose.</blockquote>Also make sure it removes all block.</blockquote>Making the stance Remove all Block Chance would only be balinced. I think</blockquote>Yup it is complete bullpoopy that brawlers get 0 block in this stance but plate tanks get full benefit of a shield.</blockquote>Make Brawlers unequip an offhand to get their block than.Plates get to use a shield in recklessness, Brawlers get to DW or use a 2h and still get thier avoidance and aren't affected by disarms.Really, don't even go there.</blockquote>Ill take having an offhand not swing on a brawler no problem for knights stance, lets go there. Also brawlers get 0 block in this stance while you get full benefit of a shield. This is why nobody can ever take you seriously because you can't grasp simple things like this being unbalanced.

Bruener

07-25-2012, 04:07 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Silzin@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yes the stance gives some nice DPS, mostly on AE encounters. But testing it last night in Sullons HM I was extremely squishy.Agro is a huge issue in the stance despite getting a link and having -22 hate gain. Potency still affects the taunt values making them pretty massive.I would say fix the potency - taunt value issue and the stance is very well balanced in raiding for its intended purpose.</blockquote>Also make sure it removes all block.</blockquote>Making the stance Remove all Block Chance would only be balinced. I think</blockquote>Yup it is complete bullpoopy that brawlers get 0 block in this stance but plate tanks get full benefit of a shield.</blockquote>Make Brawlers unequip an offhand to get their block than.Plates get to use a shield in recklessness, Brawlers get to DW or use a 2h and still get thier avoidance and aren't affected by disarms.Really, don't even go there.</blockquote>Ill take having an offhand not swing on a brawler no problem for knights stance, lets go there. Also brawlers get 0 block in this stance while you get full benefit of a shield. This is why nobody can ever take you seriously because you can't grasp simple things like this being unbalanced.</blockquote>Things don't have to be equal to be balanced. Sorry.My point is that Brawlers get to DW or use a 2h weapon for maximum melee DPS while Plate tanks have to use a shield. Furthermore the mechanic of disarm is a big detriment to Plate tanks since they lose their avoidance when it happens while Brawlers do not.I mean its not like the temps and the reuse on the temps you can use are balanced.Sorry. The stance does exactly what SOE's intent was. It gives Fighters a boost to their DPS at the cost of a lot of survivability. As a SK using this last night I was extremely squishy dying to AEs and trash that out of the stance I don't even notice a bump on.

Landiin

07-25-2012, 04:25 PM

I don't think you should be able to tank anything in this stance much less a HM heroic zone. When you are in this stance you should be equal to mages when it comes to survivability.

Bruener

07-25-2012, 05:31 PM

<cite>Toranx@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>I don't think you should be able to tank anything in this stance much less a HM heroic zone. When you are in this stance you should be equal to mages when it comes to survivability.</blockquote>Again, speaking from a raid standpoint.....you do take damage like a mage. Actually you take much more magic damage than mages. They can easily one shot a tank.The stance is not nearly as big of a deal as people are making it out to be either. Yes, I got to play around in it last night in a zone that has been on farm status since quite a while before SS came out. I died a ton. T1 still easily own the ZW.When talking about Heroic zones I have not tested it in. However, we all know how easy SOE has made Heroic zones in SS. I am sure that I could go into the zone and easily tank it with a solo healer in Recklessness, but I am geared far above the zone anyway (which is why I don't do them). Personally I think it is a testament of how much hps a healer can put out to keep up somebody taking that much damage.This stance is not going to suddenly make Fighters the DPS classes that everybody wants to run zones with because of how much they parse. It is not going to push guilds to replace DPS classes with Fighters for raiding. All it does is exactly what SOE wanted to accomplish with the stance. It gives a 3rd and 4th Fighter in the raid a chance to not be a drain on raid-wide DPS for the trash and other encounters that they are not needed for tanking. Or if running a Heroic zone a group doesn't feel like they doomed themselves by bringing a second Fighter.Ultimately it will mean more people playing Fighters which means more oppurtunity for grouping and better recruiting for Tanks.

Landiin

07-26-2012, 07:42 PM

All of our tanks was in reckless through the raid last nite and they had no issues staying alive. Granded it was just a farm night but still they shouldn't even come close to being able to do this in this stance.Every one knows fighters are not going to take any t1 dps role but you guys are well into the t2 dps range now and with tons and tons more survivability then them.In conclusion I think they should also cut your heath by 30% when in this stance.

BChizzle

07-27-2012, 01:24 AM

Block needs to be set to 0 when in recklessness. You already have an SK tanking current raid content in this stance. That is an imbalance if there ever was one.

The_Cheeseman

07-27-2012, 02:45 AM

I think it would be funny if Recklessness made it totally impossible to get aggro, like Maestro's debuff in SoH.(Note: this is not a serious suggestion)

Landiin

07-27-2012, 03:08 AM

When in this stance fighters should not be able to survive any longer then any of the other classes if they have agro. IMO their physical mit, avoidance and health should be worse then mages being they can at the click of a button be fully armored. This isn't just coming from a T1 class opinion I was a main tank at one point and understand you guys want to DPS also but you should be able to have the cake and eat it too.

BChizzle

07-27-2012, 06:51 AM

<cite>Toranx@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>When in this stance fighters should not be able to survive any longer then any of the other classes if they have agro. IMO their physical mit, avoidance and health should be worse then mages being they can at the click of a button be fully armored. This isn't just coming from a T1 class opinion I was a main tank at one point and understand you guys want to DPS also but you should be able to have the cake and eat it too.</blockquote>It isn't the mit it is the avoidance. Quite simply a plate fighter can equip a shield and not get hit while in recklessness.

DragonHearted99

07-27-2012, 10:31 AM

Having played with the stance in raid as a Paladin (both SS and Sullons HM), what Bruener says is exactly what needs to be fixed with the stance. Potency - Taunt Value - Proc Taunt issue. The increased potency is having a ridiculous effect on threat and spells/cas which proc threat. However; if that is the intention of the devs (working as intended-lulz), maybe why the stance is called "reckless", then I will just drop all spells/cas which proc threat and also never use a taunt. Unfortunately, that does not stop others from casting hate transfers on us.@ Toran- good to see you are still playin the game, hope all is well with you and yours! <blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yes the stance gives some nice DPS, mostly on AE encounters. But testing it last night in Sullons HM I was extremely squishy.Agro is a huge issue in the stance despite getting a link and having -22 hate gain. Potency still affects the taunt values making them pretty massive.I would say fix the potency - taunt value issue and the stance is very well balanced in raiding for its intended purpose.</blockquote></blockquote>

RafaelSmith

07-27-2012, 10:41 AM

From what little ive seen ..Reckless stance needs to be toned down....either lower the DPS or greatly reduce the fighters ability to survive while using it.In its current form its OP.......moreso for some fighter classes than others which in itself is a problem....its no wonder Bruener likes it. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Bruener

07-27-2012, 10:50 AM

Blanka's jealous argument aside there is basically one way to look at the stance.Is it accomplishing SOE's intent for making the stance without going overboard.Xelgad said they were making the stance to give more usefulness to the Fighters, and specifically mentioned the 3rd and 4th Fighters on a raid roster during trash. Fighters, and SOE agreed, they wanted a reason to keep those Fighters in the raid during all the encounters instead of just bringing them in on the few encounters they are needed to tank.When I look at this stance I see it as a success since it does exactly that. Guilds are not going to bring more than 4 Fighters and can keep Fighter mains in for trash/farming.Despite what some people are saying nobody doing any non-farm/trash raiding is going to use Recklessness during an encounter that needs tanking. The AEs alone become massive and destroy tanks.In conclusion, if the stance just ensures wanting to keep 4 Fighters in a raid without it feeling like a drain and doesn't start pushing guilds to utilize more than that seriously than how can you say that the stance is OP'd?OP'd is having 4 spots for 2 classes in a raid. OP'd is utilizing 4 spots for 1 cleric type in a raid. OP'd is being one of the top defensive and offensive tanks at the same time.EDIT: One thing I would probably do to tweak the stance more though is just ensure that no matter what you have 0 hate gain.

Landiin

07-27-2012, 12:02 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Despite what some people are saying nobody doing any non-farm/trash raiding is going to use Recklessness during an encounter that needs tanking. The AEs alone become massive and destroy tanks.When mages are used to tank entire farm runs I'll agree this stance isn't OP.In conclusion, if the stance just ensures wanting to keep 4 Fighters in a raid without it feeling like a drain and doesn't start pushing guilds to utilize more than that seriously than how can you say that the stance is OP'd?Why would you bring a swash over a SK? Or really even a brig these days over a SK? SK's in this stance can distroying them in DPS while in this stance.</blockquote>Edited out all the trolling remark so the post maybe able to be kept intact..

RafaelSmith

07-27-2012, 12:56 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>: One thing I would probably do to tweak the stance more though is just ensure that no matter what you have 0 hate gain.</blockquote>I would also prevent any Defensive/"Tank" cooldowns and snaps from being useable while in the stance. Fighter wants to take place of DPS then thats all he/she should be able to do while in that stance. Being able to pop Stoneskins, ToS, Dragoon, yada yada or whatever while in Reckless stance doesnt make much sense.

Bruener

07-27-2012, 12:57 PM

<cite>Toranx@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Despite what some people are saying nobody doing any non-farm/trash raiding is going to use Recklessness during an encounter that needs tanking. The AEs alone become massive and destroy tanks.When mages are used to tank entire farm runs I'll agree this stance isn't OP.In conclusion, if the stance just ensures wanting to keep 4 Fighters in a raid without it feeling like a drain and doesn't start pushing guilds to utilize more than that seriously than how can you say that the stance is OP'd?Why would you bring a swash over a SK? Or really even a brig these days over a SK? SK's in this stance can distroying them in DPS while in this stance.</blockquote>Edited out all the trolling remark so the post maybe able to be kept intact..</blockquote>Rogues should be balanced against other scouts/utility if they have problems with a spot. Honestly though why would a raid not bring a Brig? They increase the DPS of everybody massively. We don't utilize a Swash right now, and perhaps that is an indicator they need some adjusting, but from the sounds of it they can parse almost as much as an Assassin, have access to debuffs on mobs nobody else has, and has the best hate transfer to a tank in-game. 1 Rogue per raid doesn't seem bad at all, but if they think they need a boost for additional slots I would suggest going after the Bard spots that are hording 4 in a raid.If you can answer honestly do you really see this increasing the desireability of Fighters in raids to more than 4? If not than there really is no argument against it. If so, than please let us know how that will happen.

Bruener

07-27-2012, 01:01 PM

<cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>: One thing I would probably do to tweak the stance more though is just ensure that no matter what you have 0 hate gain.</blockquote>I would also prevent any Defensive/"Tank" cooldowns and snaps from being useable while in the stance. Fighter wants to take place of DPS then thats all he/she should be able to do while in that stance. Being able to pop Stoneskins, ToS, Dragoon, yada yada or whatever while in Reckless stance doesnt make much sense.</blockquote>Snaps are supposed to be disabled.Other classes have temp abilities for the same reason. Keep in mind some Fighters have more than others, or more useability due to lower reuses though (Brawler temps for example versus Crusader temps).

RafaelSmith

07-27-2012, 01:02 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Rogues should be balanced against other scouts/utility if they have problems with a spot. </blockquote>But its ok for Fighters to be rebalanced against those same rogues/utility,etc cause they have/had problem with spots? Cause that is exactly what they did with Reckless.Tanks should be balanced against other tanks for tank spots not kludged to compete with non-tanks.

RafaelSmith

07-27-2012, 01:10 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>: One thing I would probably do to tweak the stance more though is just ensure that no matter what you have 0 hate gain.</blockquote>I would also prevent any Defensive/"Tank" cooldowns and snaps from being useable while in the stance. Fighter wants to take place of DPS then thats all he/she should be able to do while in that stance. Being able to pop Stoneskins, ToS, Dragoon, yada yada or whatever while in Reckless stance doesnt make much sense.</blockquote>Snaps are supposed to be disabled.Other classes have temp abilities for the same reason. Keep in mind some Fighters have more than others, or more useability due to lower reuses though (Brawler temps for example versus Crusader temps).</blockquote>Reinforcement works just fine in Reckless. I believe Rescue was disabled but pretty sure Cry of Warrior was not.With the exception of that ghetto AE blocker/Parry thing from Pred AA tree that noone specs into...last I checked my Assassin did not have anything resembling a stoneskin or ToS, etc.

Bruener

07-27-2012, 01:33 PM

<cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Rogues should be balanced against other scouts/utility if they have problems with a spot. </blockquote>But its ok for Fighters to be rebalanced against those same rogues/utility,etc cause they have/had problem with spots? Cause that is exactly what they did with Reckless.Tanks should be balanced against other tanks for tank spots not kludged to compete with non-tanks.</blockquote>They weren't. Why is it hard for people to come to terms with raids maybe wanting to keep 4 Fighters in? Its not like Fighters are even asking for an even distribution of the raid slots asking for 6. What Fighters want, and ultimately will be healthier for raid forces, is to have a reason not to sit Fighters 3 and 4 outside of the few encounters that actually benefit from their tanking. It means keeping mains on the roster for the positions instead of alts for a lot of guilds.The stance already cripples the tank a lot since they lose a lot of survivability and have agro issues with it. Which are the balancing issues to make sure that it is a tool for Fighters on trash/farm status content. Remove the agro issues completely and the Fighter becomes like other DPS classes that worry very little about agro and will allow them to go full bore. Getting rid of their temp abilities would make the stance less useful and combined with the hate issue means it will not accomplish the DPS increase it is supposed to. The people actually wanting Fighters to have no hate in it are actually pushing it the opposite direction they want it to go making it so that Fighters literally become pure DPS classes.Sounds like reinforcement should be changed and any other ability that gives hate positions. I know Chaos Cloud on my SK doesn't give me positions anymore.And just because a DPS class chooses not to spec for an ability to increase their survivability doesn't mean its not there. Fighters spec most of their abilities too. I can make a pure DPS spec that would drop those abilities as well....but I choose not to go the extra DPS to get more survivability. Predators don't have to worry about that I guess.

RafaelSmith

07-27-2012, 01:39 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Rogues should be balanced against other scouts/utility if they have problems with a spot. </blockquote>But its ok for Fighters to be rebalanced against those same rogues/utility,etc cause they have/had problem with spots? Cause that is exactly what they did with Reckless.Tanks should be balanced against other tanks for tank spots not kludged to compete with non-tanks.</blockquote>They weren't. Why is it hard for people to come to terms with raids maybe wanting to keep 4 Fighters in? Its not like Fighters are even asking for an even distribution of the raid slots asking for 6. What Fighters want, and ultimately will be healthier for raid forces, is to have a reason not to sit Fighters 3 and 4 outside of the few encounters that actually benefit from their tanking. It means keeping mains on the roster for the positions instead of alts for a lot of guilds.The stance already cripples the tank a lot since they lose a lot of survivability and have agro issues with it. Which are the balancing issues to make sure that it is a tool for Fighters on trash/farm status content. Remove the agro issues completely and the Fighter becomes like other DPS classes that worry very little about agro and will allow them to go full bore. Getting rid of their temp abilities would make the stance less useful and combined with the hate issue means it will not accomplish the DPS increase it is supposed to. The people actually wanting Fighters to have no hate in it are actually pushing it the opposite direction they want it to go making it so that Fighters literally become pure DPS classes.Sounds like reinforcement should be changed and any other ability that gives hate positions. I know Chaos Cloud on my SK doesn't give me positions anymore.And just because a DPS class chooses not to spec for an ability to increase their survivability doesn't mean its not there. Fighters spec most of their abilities too. I can make a pure DPS spec that would drop those abilities as well....but I choose not to go the extra DPS to get more survivability. Predators don't have to worry about that I guess.</blockquote>Well I guess its a catch-22. We do not want fighters to be able to tank while in Reckless stance...yet to accomplish that we either have to remove hate and drastically decrease their ability to do 'tank' things beyond hate...like survival CDs.I guess at this point.....we are stuck with this stupid idea so Ide rather they just let the fighters have easymode no worry DPS in exchange for being pretty certain they will not be able to tank anything...nothing while in that stance.ATM there is too much cake and pie which is never healthy.

Bruener

07-27-2012, 01:46 PM

<cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Rogues should be balanced against other scouts/utility if they have problems with a spot. </blockquote>But its ok for Fighters to be rebalanced against those same rogues/utility,etc cause they have/had problem with spots? Cause that is exactly what they did with Reckless.Tanks should be balanced against other tanks for tank spots not kludged to compete with non-tanks.</blockquote>They weren't. Why is it hard for people to come to terms with raids maybe wanting to keep 4 Fighters in? Its not like Fighters are even asking for an even distribution of the raid slots asking for 6. What Fighters want, and ultimately will be healthier for raid forces, is to have a reason not to sit Fighters 3 and 4 outside of the few encounters that actually benefit from their tanking. It means keeping mains on the roster for the positions instead of alts for a lot of guilds.The stance already cripples the tank a lot since they lose a lot of survivability and have agro issues with it. Which are the balancing issues to make sure that it is a tool for Fighters on trash/farm status content. Remove the agro issues completely and the Fighter becomes like other DPS classes that worry very little about agro and will allow them to go full bore. Getting rid of their temp abilities would make the stance less useful and combined with the hate issue means it will not accomplish the DPS increase it is supposed to. The people actually wanting Fighters to have no hate in it are actually pushing it the opposite direction they want it to go making it so that Fighters literally become pure DPS classes.Sounds like reinforcement should be changed and any other ability that gives hate positions. I know Chaos Cloud on my SK doesn't give me positions anymore.And just because a DPS class chooses not to spec for an ability to increase their survivability doesn't mean its not there. Fighters spec most of their abilities too. I can make a pure DPS spec that would drop those abilities as well....but I choose not to go the extra DPS to get more survivability. Predators don't have to worry about that I guess.</blockquote>Well I guess its a catch-22. We do not want fighters to be able to tank while in Reckless stance...yet to accomplish that we either have to remove hate and drastically decrease their ability to do 'tank' things beyond hate...like survival CDs.I guess at this point.....we are stuck with this stupid idea so Ide rather they just let the fighters have easymode no worry DPS in exchange for being pretty certain they will not be able to tank anything...nothing while in that stance.ATM there is too much cake and pie which is never healthy.</blockquote>If we start seeing raids push out DPS classes to bring in 6 Fighters I will start agreeing with that statement.

Landiin

07-27-2012, 05:46 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Toranx@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Despite what some people are saying nobody doing any non-farm/trash raiding is going to use Recklessness during an encounter that needs tanking. The AEs alone become massive and destroy tanks.When mages are used to tank entire farm runs I'll agree this stance isn't OP.In conclusion, if the stance just ensures wanting to keep 4 Fighters in a raid without it feeling like a drain and doesn't start pushing guilds to utilize more than that seriously than how can you say that the stance is OP'd?Why would you bring a swash over a SK? Or really even a brig these days over a SK? SK's in this stance can distroying them in DPS while in this stance.</blockquote>Edited out all the trolling remark so the post maybe able to be kept intact..</blockquote>Rogues should be balanced against other scouts/utility if they have problems with a spot. Honestly though why would a raid not bring a Brig? They increase the DPS of everybody massively. We don't utilize a Swash right now, and perhaps that is an indicator they need some adjusting, but from the sounds of it they can parse almost as much as an Assassin, have access to debuffs on mobs nobody else has, and has the best hate transfer to a tank in-game. 1 Rogue per raid doesn't seem bad at all, but if they think they need a boost for additional slots I would suggest going after the Bard spots that are hording 4 in a raid.If you can answer honestly do you really see this increasing the desireability of Fighters in raids to more than 4? If not than there really is no argument against it. If so, than please let us know how that will happen.The point is, you CAN tank in this stance. Untill you CANNOT tank as in you die if you get agro fro any lenth of time, this stance is OP. </blockquote>If you can flip flop from high T2 DPS to full on tanking, then IMO the downside of the DPS should be a switft death if you get agro. As it is now, you no where in danger if you get agro. I am quite sure any healer at your tear can keep you up on just about all names but end progression HDoV and PoW while in this stance.