Would there be less Fighter hate if...

[Tekadeo]

<p>...as someone suggested, Fighters were given more Utility instead of Recklessness?  Serious, I'm very curious. </p><p>Right now we have 8 slots in a raid taken by 4 utility classes, and only 3 slots taken by 6 Tank classes.  Since there are 25% more fighter classes, shouldnt we hold 25% more positions?  So from that aggregate 11 spots after Healers and """pure""" DPS classes, there should in theory be lets just say 6 fighters and 5 utility? Or better yet one of each and another "pure" DPSer?</p><p>Perhaps if each fighter could get a revamp (or additional stuff) to their raid buffs to compensate: </p><p>Crusaders could give significant potency, noticeable healer help and major raidwide power procs,</p><p>Warriors could give raidwide threat transfers and dehates, crit bonus and HP/mit buffs, and</p><p>Brawlers could give raidwide damage/taunt procs and flurry.</p><p>I wouldn't mind this really now that I look at it, as long as the bonuses we give would be worth taking a couple extra fighters over a couple bards/enchanters. </p><p>Face it, players think the parse is sacred, and though shalt not outparse the parsers.  And plus most people don't even want to play their utility classes, at all.  So I could see a lot less uproar over this monster that has caused these forums to go nuts...</p><p>Think about it and get back to me.</p>

[Fairin]

<p>thou shalt not take my bards slot</p>

[Novusod]

<p>No thanks. Save the Revamps including recklessness for EQNext. Eq2 is 8 years old so these class roles should be set in stone by now. Learn the lessons and move on.</p><p>If there are too many fighters than maybe they should not make so many fighter classes to begin with. Changing fighters into DPS or utility can only be handled by making an entirely new game. Start thinking about EQNext beta and leave Eq2 alone.</p>

[Tekadeo]

<p><cite>Novusod wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>No thanks. Save the Revamps including recklessness for EQNext. Eq2 is 8 years old so these class roles should be set in stone by now. Learn the lessons and move on.</p><p>If there are too many fighters than maybe they should not make so many fighter classes to begin with. Changing fighters into DPS or utility can only be handled by making an entirely new game. Start thinking about EQNext beta and leave Eq2 alone.</p></blockquote><p>Really?  This is your response?  It's backwards thinking like this that makes a game become stagnant and for players to leave-- "Ah no why change anything, ever?  It's been dumb for this long, why stop now?"</p><p>That is plain ignorant to me.  I actually see more upside to utility than this Recklessness idea.  You wouldn't have to sacrifice your tanking ability for more utility, I would imagine.  And at the end of the day, we are all tanks.</p>

[Tekadeo]

<p><cite>Fairin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>thou shalt not take my bards slot</p></blockquote><p>In this proposal, there would still be 5 slots available for bards/chanters.  If you can't crack that list then be less bad at barding.</p>

[Jemoo]

<p>With your reasoning, we should have a slot for every class... that's NOT how MMOs work, especially at high-end. This game isn't about everyone getting to do whatever they want, the classes in this game are niche classes. If you want to bring utility to the raid, there are classes for that, if you want to DPS, there are classes for that. Making tanks bring more than tanking to the raid is breaking that balance. There are 25 classes and each has a role, why are we changing up those roles after 8 years? As Novusod said, it's a little late in the game for that. I think Recklessness is even straying a bit too far, but it will help PuG raids be able to do a bit more (and maybe the most casual guilds).  Yes a game can become stagnant, but changing up how the classes work in this game is not the answer, evolve the classes with-in their roles to suit the content and that's all you need to do. If you really want a game where each class has multiple roles it can possibly fill in a raid, WoW does a decent job and Rift is fantastic, but that's just not the style of EQ2.</p>

[Tekadeo]

<p><cite>Ferk@Butcherblock wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>With your reasoning, we should have a slot for every class... that's NOT how MMOs work, especially at high-end. This game isn't about everyone getting to do whatever they want, the classes in this game are niche classes.</p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Why shouldn't it be what they strive for?  I would think ideally you could take 24 different classes and have an optimal raid; why would you ever be opposed to that?  Not that you HAVE to have 24 unique classes, but right now that's no even remotely close for an optimal raid (2 dirge, 2 troub, 2-4 inquisitors, 2 coercer, 2 illy~ish)</span></p><p>If you want to bring utility to the raid, there are classes for that, if you want to DPS, there are classes for that. Making tanks bring more than tanking to the raid is breaking that <span style="color: #993366;">balance.</span></p><p><span style="color: #993366;">OH MY GOD DID YOU REALLY JUST SAY THE WORD BALANCE?!</span></p><p>There are 25 classes and each has a role, why are we changing up those roles after 8 years? As Novusod said, it's a little late in the game for that. I think Recklessness is even straying a bit too far, but it will help PuG raids be able to do a bit more (and maybe the most casual guilds).  Yes a game can become stagnant, but changing up how the classes work in this game is not the answer,<span style="color: #993366;"> evolve the classes with-in their roles to suit the content and that's all you need to do.</span> </p><p><span style="color: #993366;">This statement doesn't make sense--evolve classes within their roles to suit the content?  You mean like making fighters do more DPS so you don't fail on burn fights?  Oh okay, it's being done boss.</span></p><p> If you really want a game where each class has multiple roles it can possibly fill in a raid, WoW does a decent job and Rift is fantastic, but that's just not the style of EQ2.</p><p><span style="color: #993366;">Ah you mean successful games.  Why would SoE ever want to be successful, right?</span></p></blockquote>

[Jemoo]

<p>If we were to try and get all 24 spots for different classes, it would not fit into a cohesive raid. There are 6 tanks, their job is to take damage and deal a bit back. There are ZERO fights that call for any more than 2 or maybe 3 people to be holding agro and taking damage, but you think that we should make room for 6? That's doubling up two groups with two fighters for what reason? One of each scout (not counting BLs right now) is reasonable, each scout bring something different to how they deal damage, or help others deal damage for the bards. Content, however, is set up to have a bard in each group (btw why would you ever want two Troubadors when a Dirge will help more than one archtype and bring the same DPS)? Fitting in each healer class, ok but some are far better than others. Take Templars in their current state as an example, why bring one when you can have more DPS, better Curing, and a solo healer to make room for more T1 DPS classes? One each of Mages? Alright, but I'd rather have more than one Coercer, and if we can get a few solo healers then additional T1 damage is always better. Here's the thing, it's not about the fact that we have 24 spots and 24 classes (BLs being such a late addition has changed this to be even worse), it's about how SoE designed the class structure, the raid structure (4 groups of 6 members), and most importantly the content. Aside from Rift, no other game has a break down of Fighter, Scout, Mage, Priest quite the way EQ2 does. Sure you could put EQ1, WoW, or SW:ToR classes into these categories, but that's not the way their games are designed. I would gladly take 2 Warriors, 2 Crusaders, and 2 Brawlers into a raid IF EQ2 was designed, from the beginning, for that set up. But that's not how it has EVER been and it's far too late into the game's life cycle to change that, especially mid-expansion cycle. My argument is not that one spot for each class in the game is something the game shouldn't have, but rather than with the age of the game, the amount of content out, and the class design since launch (each archtype being built for one purpose and one purpose only) that the idea of making Fighters viable utility, DPS, or hell, even healers, just is not what should be happening in the game at this time. The whole idea of classes filling more than one role is extremely successful in other games, but as Novusod said, don't do that to an 8 year old game, do it to the one you have in development and leave this one the way it has been since the beginning. And by the way, EQ2 is FAR more successful than most people give it credit for as far as MMOs go.</p>

[Elanjar]

<p>for something like this to work you'd need a specific buff for each fighter subclass or possibly by general class. each buff would need to morph the fighter to a specific task. IE warriors buff would design zerkers/guards to replace MT / OT dirge slots. thus the buff would need to provide things specificalky wanted in a tank group. increased survivability, greater threat control, possibly power or damage procs/buffs. etc for other fighters in similar roles. the idea has potential but i dont think soe has the time or desire to do it right</p>

[Kimber]

<p>Putting a Zerk and a Guard in the same group actually works rather well btw.  The both gain some surviablity due to group buff procs and the guard gains some DPS.  The problem is a dirge helps the Guard or the Zerk more than they help each other.  However that is the job of the Dirge so all is well.  A few years ago I suggested the idea of a 24 class raid and yes it can be done takes longer to clear the content though.  While I understand that at this point in EQ2 trying to ""balance"" things to make a 24 class raid the best way to do it would be almost impossable.  I would not mind if the Devs maybe put in bonus stuff for guilds that clear content with 24 class.  Maybe better drop rates for the harder to get gear or a raid wide buff that is only up when 24 unique class's present that reduces raid wide damage by x% or grants x% potancy or something that would possably make it worth it to take 24 diff class but not unbalance things from what we have now.</p>

[Tekadeo]

<p>That wouldn't be even close to practical.</p><p>Spread the utility out, make us interchangeable.  I really like this idea the more I think about it. </p><p>I know it is silly to think that SoE can completely reverse fields after something is on test, but really -really- making us interchangeable with Utility classes makes a whole lot more sense than making us interchangeable with DPS classes simply because of the lack of balance and raid slot proportions that are afforded chanters and bards.</p><p>6-8 healers</p><p>4-6 tanks</p><p>4-6 chanters/bards</p><p>Fill the rest with Rogues/summoners/sorcs/preds/BLs as you see fit.</p><p>I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel here, just attempting to fix some much-needed balance of class desireability.</p>

[Elanjar]

<p><cite>Tekadeo wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I know it is silly to think that SoE can completely reverse fields after something is on test, but really -really- making us interchangeable with Utility classes makes a whole lot more sense than making us interchangeable with DPS classes simply because of the lack of balance and raid slot proportions that are afforded chanters and bards.</p></blockquote><p>They've scrapped changes before... altho I wouldn't expect a replacement for a few years. And tbh this "fighter revamp" is a single buff. It probably took all of 10 minutes to code. Its identical across all fighters... Its not really much of a revamp.</p>

[Tekadeo]

<p><cite>Elanjar@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Tekadeo wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I know it is silly to think that SoE can completely reverse fields after something is on test, but really -really- making us interchangeable with Utility classes makes a whole lot more sense than making us interchangeable with DPS classes simply because of the lack of balance and raid slot proportions that are afforded chanters and bards.</p></blockquote><p>They've scrapped changes before... altho I wouldn't expect a replacement for a few years. And tbh this "fighter revamp" is a single buff. It probably took all of 10 minutes to code. Its identical across all fighters... Its not really much of a revamp.</p></blockquote><p>I know, but it took them what 3 years to come back with a replacement after the scrapping?  I wish they would've taken feedback from that time and used it here.  I know I have suggested the Fighter Utility many times over the years.</p>

[Tekadeo]

<p><span style="color: #cc99ff;">Anyone else see a downside to this?  Is it overpowering fighters too much?  Maybe turning their current group/raid buffs into actual worthwhile buffs, but giving them single target maintainable buffs (that can't be used on self, like the old Battle Cry) that they can spred around similar to BC, UT, PLink, EV.  </span></p><p><span style="color: #cc99ff;">IDK I'm just spitballing here, but I honestly believe this would be a better option than Recklessness atm.  </span></p>

[Tekadeo]

<p><span style="color: #cc99ff;">Gonna post here again although no one else seems to love my awesome idea for dispersing the arbitrarily overpopulated and overrepresented utility classes.  No, I don't think you need eight raid spots while tanks get three.</span></p><p><span style="color: #cc99ff;">Fighters:</span></p><p><span style="color: #cc99ff;">Multiple single target buffs they can't cast on themselves, only group members.</span></p><p><span style="color: #cc99ff;">Fighters provide hate gain and transfers to other tanks.  Fighters shall be solely responsible for their aggro.  </span></p><p><span style="color: #cc99ff;">Reckless Stance goes in the trash can.</span></p><p><span style="color: #cc99ff;">All current fighter temps on test that gain strikethrough immunity stay.  Berserkers still need something here though since they are the only fighter without a strikethrough immune temp buff to call their own.</span></p><p><span style="color: #cc99ff;">Offensive Stances has 20% more damage, 20% more incoming physical damage.  1min recast.</span></p><p><span style="color: #cc99ff;">Defensive Stance has +100% to taunts and 5% damage reduction</span></p><p><span style="color: #cc99ff;"></span></p><p><span style="color: #cc99ff;">Bards/Chanters:</span></p><p><span style="color: #cc99ff;">All group buffs become raidwide buffs.</span></p><p><span style="color: #cc99ff;">No bard/chanter debuffs can stack.  Increase bard debuffs or change encounters to compensate.</span></p><p><span style="color: #cc99ff;">Single target buffs cannot be cast on self, silly dirges.</span></p><p><span style="color: #cc99ff;">Illy and Enchanter need to buff martial classes more betterer</span></p><p><span style="color: #cc99ff;">I was going to say add more DPS to utility classes, but tbh I have seen what great ones can do and I think it would be crazy.  Even still, maybe give them more, I'm not sure</span></p>

[Yimway]

<p>Conceptualy replacing recklessness with watered down (but stackable) versions of the single target bard/chanter buffs is a more palletable sollution.</p><p>In that they don't replace utility, they augment it, or they might fill a slot when no utility logs in.</p><p>I still in principle do not like any class being able to jump the defined roles in eq2 unless all classes can do it.  Opening that door I feel will be catostrophic in the long term.  But SoE doesn't think in long term about anything.</p>

[Regolas]

It's definitely doable and not that hard to do. Rangers have a short duration buff called Focus Aim that's pretty useless at top level, BUT it provides bonuses to the group but not the ranger. (it provides different even worse improvements for the ranger casting it). Having this kind of group buff, that doesn't provide the buff to the caster, will mean its viable to have 2 fighters in a group in a raid, if you can't find a dirge.

[Regolas]

Without making fighters better at soloing.

[Tekadeo]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Conceptualy replacing recklessness with watered down (but stackable) versions of the single target bard/chanter buffs is a more palletable sollution.</p><p>In that they don't replace utility, they augment it, or they might fill a slot when no utility logs in.</p><p>I still in principle do not like any class being able to jump the defined roles in eq2 unless all classes can do it.  Opening that door I feel will be catostrophic in the long term.  But SoE doesn't think in long term about anything.</p><p><span style="color: #cc99ff;"></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #cc99ff;">I agree but after all---aren't fighters just Utility anyway?  Isn't holding aggro and taking hits our sole reason for being in a raid?  I think splitting those 11 current Utility slots (4 chanters, 4 bards, 3 tanks) more evenly would make sense for the game.  Two chanters, two bards, four or five fighters balances out more, and if you want you can fill more DPS slots.</span></p>

[Tekadeo]

<p><cite>Regolas wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>Without making fighters better at soloing.</blockquote><p>Honestly I think this is what people are most worried about.  Fair enough, but we are already the best soloers I think. </p><p>Would make more sense if group zones required someone to have 3 players to zone in or a raid to have 8 to zone in.</p>

[Ikunai]

All those ideas are crap, especially the notion of balance this game never had balance to begin with to keep saying it did is complete lunacy. If Sony actually cared they would listen they stopped listening years ago, it shows fairly well because every class forum and test discussion are filled with nothing but complaints. Just like wow's Eq2 doesn't have to try to be like Wow it already is the devs listen about the same there as here. As for Fighters lets take a look at them truthfully. Guardians and Berzerkers.... and paladins are the only three fighters who's main draw and gimmick are even intact. Monks Bruisers and Sk's had their draw ripped out long ago and don't even have a gimmick anymore. At one point in time Monks and Bruisers could viably do damage without a weapon equipped now all fighters do much the same unarmed. Sk's at one time where meant solely for utility,dps and off-tanking and even had a real pet, which is now a lvl 50 fluff pet. Eq2 is getting hard to care to even play with all the constant changes that take away the fun of said class. Also pvp can go die in a fire, I only play eq2 now because a friend plays it most korean mmo's have more class diversity at this point. Even eq1 has more fun content than eq2 because its classes are diverse and haven't left the bounds in which they where created to begin with.

[Tekadeo]

<p><cite>Ikunai wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>All those ideas are crap, especially the notion of balance this game never had balance to begin with to keep saying it did is complete lunacy. If Sony actually cared they would listen they stopped listening years ago, it shows fairly well because every class forum and test discussion are filled with nothing but complaints. Just like wow's Eq2 doesn't have to try to be like Wow it already is the devs listen about the same there as here. As for Fighters lets take a look at them truthfully. Guardians and Berzerkers.... and paladins are the only three fighters who's main draw and gimmick are even intact. Monks Bruisers and Sk's had their draw ripped out long ago and don't even have a gimmick anymore. At one point in time Monks and Bruisers could viably do damage without a weapon equipped now all fighters do much the same unarmed. Sk's at one time where meant solely for utility,dps and off-tanking and even had a real pet, which is now a lvl 50 fluff pet. Eq2 is getting hard to care to even play with all the constant changes that take away the fun of said class. Also pvp can go die in a fire, I only play eq2 now because a friend plays it most korean mmo's have more class diversity at this point. Even eq1 has more fun content than eq2 because its classes are diverse and haven't left the bounds in which they where created to begin with.</blockquote><p>Dude take a pill or something.  This post couldn't be more useless..</p>

[Rahatmattata]

<p>All this class hybrid abilities bleeding over stuff is stupid. Bring bards and enchanters for utility, priests for healing, tanks for tanking, and dps classes for dpsing. The game has been successful for 8 years using this model, why f it up? Only room for 3 tanks in a raid? Too bad, suck it up.</p><p>In the 7 or 8 years I have played this game, I have raided with casual guilds, and hardcore guilds, and I have never failed to get a raid slot on any class I've played at end game... just sayin.</p>

[ZachSpastic]

<p><cite>Malevolencexx@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>All this class hybrid abilities bleeding over stuff is stupid. Bring bards and enchanters for utility, priests for healing, tanks for tanking, and dps classes for dpsing. <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>The game has been successful for 8 years using this model</strong></span>, why f it up? Only room for 3 tanks in a raid? Too bad, suck it up.</p><p>In the 7 or 8 years I have played this game, I have raided with casual guilds, and hardcore guilds, and I have never failed to get a raid slot on any class I've played at end game... just sayin.</p></blockquote><p>You must use a very unique definition of 'successful'.</p><p>Anywho, during development some Einstein at SOE came up with the brilliant concept of needlessly creating duplicates of all of the classes. EQ2 has been hamstrung by this ever since. With the addition of the Beast Lord class, which SOE swore up and down would never be added to EQ2, SOE has made very clear that they have absolutely no interest whatsoever in balancing the classes or making all classes equally desirable in end-game raiding. As if the constant FOTM swinging was not enough of a clue. The majority of the players wanting to play Fighters, and what seems like pretty much everyone having two Fighter alts, doesn't mean jack in San Diego.</p>

[Rahatmattata]

<p><cite>ZachSpastic wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>You must use a very unique definition of 'successful'.</p></blockquote><p>My definition of successful means keeping the game up and running for 8 years while turning a profit. What's yours?</p>

[Tekadeo]

<p><cite>Malevolencexx@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>ZachSpastic wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>You must use a very unique definition of 'successful'.</p></blockquote><p>My definition of successful means keeping the game up and running for 8 years while turning a profit. What's yours?</p></blockquote><p>...While losing hundreds of accounts monthly due to lack of class balance and content.</p><p>This DPS stance is causing player balance (or at least perception of balance) to go to pot.  Everyone hates it, including half the fighters I talk to.</p><p>They should have scrapped it and given us utility.  It's a win-win.  You know half the bards and chanters you play with absolutely HATE playing them, right?</p>

[Thor]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Conceptualy replacing recklessness with watered down (but stackable) versions of the single target bard/chanter buffs is a more palletable sollution.</p><p>In that they don't replace utility, they augment it, or they might fill a slot when no utility logs in.</p><p>I still in principle do not like any class being able to jump the defined roles in eq2 unless all classes can do it.  Opening that door I feel will be catostrophic in the long term.  But SoE doesn't think in long term about anything.</p></blockquote><p>That is so true.  If someone absolutly want to raid and can't get a spot with their fighter, they should roll a desirable class and be good at playing it or, if they can't get in to any raiding guild, they should try form their own guild. So there are other options.</p>

[Tekadeo]

<p><cite>Thorine@Oasis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Conceptualy replacing recklessness with watered down (but stackable) versions of the single target bard/chanter buffs is a more palletable sollution.</p><p>In that they don't replace utility, they augment it, or they might fill a slot when no utility logs in.</p><p>I still in principle do not like any class being able to jump the defined roles in eq2 unless all classes can do it.  Opening that door I feel will be catostrophic in the long term.  But SoE doesn't think in long term about anything.</p></blockquote><p>That is so true.  If someone absolutly want to raid and can't get a spot with their fighter, they should roll a desirable class and be good at playing it or, if they can't get in to any raiding guild, they should try form their own guild. So there are other options.</p></blockquote><p>This has been a problem for years though.  Why <em>should </em>someone who is a good tank be forced to roll a "desireable" class to raid?  This hurts the game in the long run because people can't gear up their tanks and don't get practice playing them.  They have to play a bard or a chanter instead due to the arbitrary need for more and more utility.</p><p>I refuse to run PUGs with my DPS classes because most tanks are so poorly played and/or undergeared.</p><p>I still don't see a problem with tanks having more group utility to make them more raid-desireable (outside of straight DPS) as long as it doesn't make them better soloers. Maybe it's too late to go back on Recklessness, but I think the argument is there.</p>

[japanfour]

<p><cite>Novusod wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>No thanks. Save the Revamps including recklessness for EQNext. Eq2 is 8 years old so these class roles should be set in stone by now. Learn the lessons and move on.</p><p>If there are too many fighters than maybe they should not make so many fighter classes to begin with. Changing fighters into DPS or utility can only be handled by making an entirely new game. Start thinking about EQNext beta and leave Eq2 alone.</p></blockquote><p>eq2 has thrown everything at us, the idea that this game has EVER been set in stone in any way is a laugh and you know that. I know that you know that.</p>

[aeyinar]

<p>the fact fighters can solo better then every other class is why there are so many tanks and bad ones i hear some fighters in SS say this is the first time i have done a grp on there tank...  the fact is there are somany tanks do to the fact it is 4x as easy to lvl a fighter then a mage or scout or and 2x as easyer then a hlr... a nec or conj can solo well but once they hit higher lvl they will fin that in endgame they are broke due to the fact that pets are useless in raiding do to ae-auto(a bigger problem imo then anything with fighters)what really needs to be done is NON-fighter classes need there survivability incressed so that if you do solo with a ranger or coecer lets say you can throw up a self heal or stoneskin and have as much fun soloing as a fighter and anyone with a pet needs it immune to ae-auto.</p>

[Tekadeo]

<p><cite>aeyinar wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>the fact fighters can solo better then every other class is why there are so many tanks and bad ones i hear some fighters in SS say this is the first time i have done a grp on there tank...  the fact is there are somany tanks do to the fact it is 4x as easy to lvl a fighter then a mage or scout or and 2x as easyer then a hlr... a nec or conj can solo well but once they hit higher lvl they will fin that in endgame they are broke due to the fact that pets are useless in raiding do to ae-auto(a bigger problem imo then anything with fighters)what really needs to be done is NON-fighter classes need there survivability incressed so that if you do solo with a ranger or coecer lets say you can throw up a self heal or stoneskin and have as much fun soloing as a fighter and anyone with a pet needs it immune to ae-auto.</p></blockquote><p>Summoner pets are useless in raid?  Learn to position your pet man, that's a sad joke.  If your pet has survivability issues, it's a problem between the keyboard and the chair.</p><p>I will agree that non-fighters could use more solo survivablity.  Makes no difference to me.  And I can agree this game needs all pets to be AoE immune as long as they aren't the target of the caster, but aoe-auto immunity is just dumb.  Learn to control the thing for pete's sake.</p>

[Rahatmattata]

<p>I think pets should be able to survive aoe dots and dets and stuff... but anything that requires the raid to joust, your pet should have to joust too.</p>

[aeyinar]

<p>sorry i figured the other classes with pets had the same issues i di by the high number on death parses ....im a coecer so no aoe blocker on my pet that i can keep up 100%. my mystic has all the aoe blocker stuff how ever the pet is so weak it dies from  a single ae auto attack  from adds on doz fight in ud easy mode....</p>

[Cyrdemac]

<p>I guess, if anyone forces me to use an utility stance in a raid as a third tank, this would be the day, I stopped playing.</p>

[Tekadeo]

<p><cite>Cyrdemac wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I guess, if anyone forces me to use an utility stance in a raid as a third tank, this would be the day, I stopped playing.</p></blockquote><p>You are already utility boss.  It's called Tank. And I didn't suggest a stance, I suggested bettergroup/target buffs.</p><p>The thread is a little outdated, they won't be getting rid of Reckless; but I still think the idea is valid and tbh a way better plan than Reckless ever was.</p><p>Increasing other peoples' DPS instead of our own would have been a million times more sane, and would've created a million times less bad feedback.  Fighters are there to tank, and if they need more reason to ride along it should've been to take Utility roles instead of DPS roles--those spots are highly contested as is.  However, making a Zerker or a Bruiser be a capable replacement for a scout group/off tank Dirge would be great and add more flexibility.</p>