Is this what reckless stance ment to do

[jjlo69]

<p>looking around on various sites i came across this parse where a pali tanking in reckless stance in heroic content..</p><p>can anyone tell me what is wrong with this picture.</p><p><img src="http://i47.tinypic.com/v3hxrd.jpg" /></p>

[Lemilla]

<p>Apart from being a 7-second AoE trash parse from players that are overgeared for the content? Of course you get ridiculous results when doing that.</p>

[Geothe]

<p>Use of bad data is bad. heh.Show a set of named parses and then we can talk.</p>

[Mermut]

<p>Last night on an EM UD raid, our MT was reckless stance for most of the trash... and ended up parsing 258k zone-wide, only our assassin out parsed the MT zone-wide.</p>

[Haciv]

<p>Tanks are OP now and everyone knows it.  There's no point to playing anything but a tank atm.</p>

[Boli32]

<p>The results are completly inflated; tanks in general are often better geared than their raid/group and have a wide collection of spike agro (damage) abilities aimed at grabbing agro FAST.</p><p>before patch I could easily be top of the parse - and if the fight ended in under 10s I could aim at 1st or second depending who was in my group. I can just offload all my spike damage and since the tank is in combat before everyone else ACT will show the tank with a much higher parse. If you had the assasin do all the pulling and have them offload all their AoEs before the mobs came within range and THEN the tank grabbed agro the result will be reversed.</p><p>I will admit that the damge increase is higher than I expected but at the same time the damge incoming is a LOT higher as well... AoEs are one-shots unless you use a save.. that is *every* AoE.</p><p>The issue is not the tank's new stance.. is that we can use it as against trash herioc or easy named there is a *lot* of overhealing in general Healer Healers can do 10k hps for example... wityhout recklessness the tank will take 4k DPS, with it 8k DPS... that still means they survive.</p><p>That said tanks have spent the better part of 2 years being told "they are not DPS"... having "real" and even healers regually outparse them and they shoudl just "concemntrate on the tanking".</p><p>well tbh an increase in tank DPS is needed... if only to put the fun bakc in the game for trash and easy named - they still need to use the defe stance (now DEFINATLY the defensive stance due to the 5% DR on it) for where it counts.... why begrudge the tanks some fun?... half of the game seems to revolve aroudn makign a tank's life a living hell.. and that doesn't include the constant pestering from half of their guild to tank every zone in a row without a break whilst they are half on auto-follow.</p>

[Neobe]

<p>I find it hard to believe ur tank was in Reck stance for the trash, b/c when i was using reck last night if i didnt play like a scout i would get one shotted. 50% more dmg taken really hurts. The parse post why not show a fight when ppl werent already getting over mil dps. Im not saying the reck isnt broken, i parse 340k zw last night in Selvalak Awkened that was about a 100k increase in my dps in there from before the update. But this isnt for good players this is so the crappy players can try and find a place in a raid or a group.</p>

[Kunaak]

<p>if you start thinking a tank is a DPS class, cause of this post....</p>

[Kunaak]

<p><cite>Uncle@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>looking around on various sites i came across this parse where a pali tanking in reckless stance in heroic content..</p><p>can anyone tell me what is wrong with this picture.</p><p><img src="http://i47.tinypic.com/v3hxrd.jpg" /></p></blockquote><p>sure, you have elemental toxicity, Time Warp, that beast lord temp buff, heritics, and invective - a tank in reckless stance,  a AE tank with no other real AE classes in group, and a bunch of well timed buffs, on a 7 zecond trash parse in a heroic zone with a linked encounter of roughly 50 adds that die if you blink - and your trying to imply this is a normal parse for a tank in reckless stance.</p>

[jjlo69]

<p><cite>Kunaak wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Uncle@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>looking around on various sites i came across this parse where a pali tanking in reckless stance in heroic content..</p><p>can anyone tell me what is wrong with this picture.</p><p><img src="http://i47.tinypic.com/v3hxrd.jpg" /></p></blockquote><p>sure, you have elemental toxicity, Time Warp, that beast lord temp buff, heritics, and invective - a tank in reckless stance,  a AE tank with no other real AE classes in group, and a bunch of well timed buffs, on a 7 zecond trash parse in a heroic zone with a linked encounter of roughly 50 adds that die if you blink - and your trying to imply this is a normal parse for a tank in reckless stance.</p></blockquote><p>hmm your right looks like temps was maybe 20%  but as i stated at the top this was just heroic content.. so tanking in reckless is def possible as you can see here.. as i start to see / get other parses ill post them as well</p>

[Koleg]

<p><cite>Kunaak wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Uncle@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>looking around on various sites i came across this parse where a pali tanking in reckless stance in heroic content..</p><p>can anyone tell me what is wrong with this picture.</p></blockquote><p>sure, you have elemental toxicity, Time Warp, that beast lord temp buff, heritics, and invective - a tank in reckless stance,  a AE tank with no other real AE classes in group, and a bunch of well timed buffs, on a 7 zecond trash parse in a heroic zone with a linked encounter of roughly 50 adds that die if you blink - and your trying to imply this is a normal parse for a tank in reckless stance.</p></blockquote><p>Don't be obtuse ... That group also killed Dozer in 3:42, which is slow compared to other people's parses I've seen.  Ant the Zone-In to Dozer pull was 17 minutes plus the 3:42 for Dozer making it 21 minutes from zone-In to boss kill.  You (all) can discount his 2.2mil trash parse all you like, but you cannot discount the fact that groups can clear UD in under 20 minutes ... AND THEN get mythicals for the "effort".</p>

[jjlo69]

<p>here is another one that just poped up it was a lil longer 44 sec it was only 1.9 mil</p><p><img src="http://i49.tinypic.com/v49u09.jpg" width="1600" height="871" /></p>

[Neobe]

<p>Once again you posted a parse on garbag, post a single target fight that last about 1min+.</p>

[Lader]

<p>pow trash, guard sk and bruiser all in reckless. Guard didnt lose aggro except to the other tanks, they were doing 300-500k. Healing them was a joke.</p>

[Mermut]

<p><cite>Neobe wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Once again you posted a parse on garbag, post a single target fight that last about 1min+.</p></blockquote><p>The point is that a tank shouldn't be ABLE to 'tank' in reckless stance. (ie hold aggro and not spike wildly.. as if a scout tried to 'tank' the same fight)</p>

[Rageincarnate]

<p>not to nit pick, but those abilities are sk abilities...</p><p>as in that's an sk parse, not a pally parse.   </p><p>And an sk should spike real high on an ae trash parse.  That's expected.</p>

[japanfour]

<p>Hey look my parse! BTW that parse is on Underdepths trash, and even before the recklessness stance I can top the parse on those encounters because I know when to use what for them. Its just gonna be more obvious on multi encounters because of the  amount of encounter and AOE DPS a paladin is capable of.</p><p>most dps classes that know what they are doing will still out parse tanks where it counts. I guess you will have to accept that fighters are the dps kings when it comes to adds and trash now. is it a big deal? no. does it help? yes, i think it helps with timesinks( killing trash fast is always good)</p><p>.I think the only thing this is going to break is well geared tanks in EM zones if they know how to work it and know the encounter. I actually wish they would improve the stance a bit by making tanks able to go in and out of it during tanking ( Ideally i would like to be able to switch to my defensive stance for add sets on fights and resume my dps stance if possible)</p>

[jjlo69]

<p>this stance should have never made it to live as is trash or not you shouldnt be tanking in that stance and doing 1.9~2.2 mil period.. the potency needs tuned down to about 25~40% extra at most with the 50 extra</p>

[Rasttan]

<p><cite>Uncle@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>this stance should have never made it to live as is trash or not you shouldnt be tanking in that stance and doing 1.9~2.2 mil period.. the potency needs tuned down to about 25~40% extra at most with the 50 extra</p></blockquote><p>Statflation is everywhere, raids are doing 9-10 million dps why are you surprised on some worthless group of trash that no one should care about, or post about on a group of 20-30 mobs that die in 5-30 seconds what anyone parses.</p><p>DPS classes are hitting 1 million dps on HM named and PoW named thats what matters</p>

[jjlo69]

<p><cite>Rasttan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Uncle@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>this stance should have never made it to live as is trash or not you shouldnt be tanking in that stance and doing 1.9~2.2 mil period.. the potency needs tuned down to about 25~40% extra at most with the 50 extra</p></blockquote><p>Statflation is everywhere, raids are doing 9-10 million dps why are you surprised on some worthless group of trash that no one should care about, or post about on a group of 20-30 mobs that die in 5-30 seconds what anyone parses.</p><p>DPS classes are hitting 1 million dps on HM named and PoW named thats what matters</p></blockquote><p>you right your guilds dps is which is great.. i wonder how your parsing in reckless on raids humor us and post one</p>

[Freejazzlive]

<p><cite>Rasttan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Statflation is everywhere, raids are doing 9-10 million dps why are you surprised on some worthless group of trash that no one should care about, or post about on a group of 20-30 mobs that die in 5-30 seconds what anyone parses.</p><p>DPS classes are hitting 1 million dps on HM named and PoW named thats what matters</p></blockquote><p>That's a very nice outline of the entire problem facing this game.</p>

[japanfour]

<p><cite>Uncle@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>this stance should have never made it to live as is trash or not you shouldnt be tanking in that stance and doing 1.9~2.2 mil period.. the potency needs tuned down to about 25~40% extra at most with the 50 extra</p></blockquote><p>I can think of a million things in this game that arent balanced in terms of my ideals, alas this isnt my game to design. I can say this however. Paladins are due for something that gives them more viability. Paladin has been one of the lowest parsing tanks for a long while. I think you are complaining because of numbers, and not really understanding what this stance can give your raids or your groups with someone handling it properly. I still get ripped up on single target dps, and I do VERY well on multi target encounters, and i believe thats rightful for my class in my opinion.</p><p>And like I said before, I can top the parse on those drakes out of stance in defensive, as long as a warlock isnt in the group. The post was more of a joke than anything. I honestly cant belive the scrutiny its getting.</p>

[jjlo69]

<p>it getting the attention it deserves..  </p>

[japanfour]

<p><cite>Freejazzlive wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Rasttan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Statflation is everywhere, raids are doing 9-10 million dps why are you surprised on some worthless group of trash that no one should care about, or post about on a group of 20-30 mobs that die in 5-30 seconds what anyone parses.</p><p>DPS classes are hitting 1 million dps on HM named and PoW named thats what matters</p></blockquote><p>That's a very nice outline of the entire problem facing this game.</p></blockquote><p>stats are stats and if you are skilled you can know how to parse, the problem must be that people arent good at their class?</p>

[Freejazzlive]

<p><cite>japanfour wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Freejazzlive wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Rasttan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Statflation is everywhere, raids are doing 9-10 million dps why are you surprised on some worthless group of trash that no one should care about, or post about on a group of 20-30 mobs that die in 5-30 seconds what anyone parses.</p><p>DPS classes are hitting 1 million dps on HM named and PoW named thats what matters</p></blockquote><p>That's a very nice outline of the entire problem facing this game.</p></blockquote><p><strong>stats are stats</strong> and if you are skilled you can know how to parse, the problem must be that people arent good at their class?</p></blockquote><p>I wasn't talking about whether or not people know how to parse. However, I will concede that the overall problem of statflation doesn't really pertain to this thread, so my apologies for pointing out that statflation is bad.</p>

[Landiin]

<p><cite>Mermut wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Neobe wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Once again you posted a parse on garbag, post a single target fight that last about 1min+.</p></blockquote><p>The point is that a tank shouldn't be ABLE to 'tank' in reckless stance. (ie hold aggro and not spike wildly.. as if a scout tried to 'tank' the same fight)</p></blockquote><p>I agree 100%, these tanks keep trying to deflect the issue by saying it was trash. Lets see a mage tank it. Even if they could it still isn't quite fair as they don't have the option of becoming heavily armored with a press of a key.</p>

[Neiloch]

<p><cite>Rasttan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><strong>A few select beastlords</strong> are <strong>sometimes</strong> hitting 1 million dps on HM named and PoW named thats what matters</p></blockquote><p>Fixed it for ya.</p><p>All arguments as to the specific performance are moot.</p><p>Fighters can now easily fill two distinct roles in raids. No one else can do this. Fighters are able to do the job of two classes while some are having trouble doing one. <strong>THIS</strong> is the problem.</p><p>The very<em> idea</em> of only giving some classes the ability to do two roles is inherently broken and severely unbalanced.</p><p>Simply nerfing the stance wouldn't be enough to fix this since anything sufficient would nerf it to useless, so may as well get rid of it. They would either need to get rid of it outright, or assign secondary roles to <strong>ALL</strong> the other classes except beastlords since they already have one.</p><p>So until then, balance isn't just lopsided, it's unattainable.</p>

[Davngr1]

<p>nerf it..</p><p> devs this is worst idea you have ever implemented..      i mean i can deal with a scout class being OP but screw a tank.</p><p>  give my dps classes as much potency or remove this stance.     </p>

[Vellisse]

<p>Take this stance out of the game.</p><p>It's not necessary for tanks be getting that kind of potency and DPS.</p><p>Either take the stance out completely, or give it to healers/mages/scouts.</p><p>What idiot thought of this?</p>

[Davngr1]

<p><cite>Anellise@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Take this stance out of the game.</p><p>It's not necessary for tanks be getting that kind of potency and DPS.</p><p>Either take the stance out completely, or give it to healers/mages/scouts.</p><p>What idiot thought of this?</p></blockquote><p>QFE</p><p> dev fail x 500000k</p>

[jjlo69]

<p><img src="http://i45.tinypic.com/3321guo.png" />here is a reckless monk parse from our raid tonight  </p><p>group set up was ranger(me) monk, inq, warlock, illy, troubie</p>

[Landiin]

Nice parse! Nope not OP at all. See ya T2 classes Oh and you none buffing Rangers too, the bench is -> that way.

[Twyxx]

<p>I haven't seen recklessness in action yet, but a 2mil UD seven second drake parse means absolutely nothing.  It doesn't mean they can tank anything legitimate in it.  Personally, if this makes tanks kill easy stuff like UD names or PoW trash quicker I'm 100% fine with it. Still haven't heard of it being effectively used on any named fight that matters.</p>

[Jeepned2]

<p>Whine all you want, but this is SoE's baby. They where told a million times that this would make tanks and especially crusaders super OP. Obviously they didn't care and now you have tanks crushing everything in thier paths. Why take a Ranger when I can take an SK in Recklessness mode with Bloodletter to help keep him up under any circumstance? Rangers bring nothing to the table for the other group or raid members, but look what the SK brings, Death March and Unholy Hunger to start with. Sorry folks, this is the path that SoE picked and decided to shove down our throats. Complaining never has changed SoE's mind, why would it now?</p>

[japanfour]

<p><cite>Jeepned2 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Whine all you want, but this is SoE's baby. They where told a million times that this would make tanks and especially crusaders super OP. Obviously they didn't care and now you have tanks crushing everything in thier paths. Why take a Ranger when I can take an SK in Recklessness mode with Bloodletter to help keep him up under any circumstance? Rangers bring nothing to the table for the other group or raid members, but look what the SK brings, Death March and Unholy Hunger to start with. Sorry folks, this is the path that SoE picked and decided to shove down our throats. Complaining never has changed SoE's mind, why would it now?</p></blockquote><p> I would take a ranger over an SK for a heroic group and a hardmode group if I wanted some Single target dps.... If I want AE DPS then I guess I would take an SK, or a warlock.</p><p> I think pallys are due for some buffness anyhow... I dont know why they dont give rangers more utility in raids, but crying about somone elses class being reinforced isnt going to make them take a look at your class, its really misleading.</p><p>Example: If someone treats me poorly, do you think I talk about how he/she is treating others better? Nope.. I talk about how I dont like how they are treating me, because that is the fact of the situation, if I were to be indirect, i wouldnt be clear and that information would get misconstrued.</p><p> If you have a problem with the utility an SK brings versus a ranger, or a ranger VS Class_01 You should petition it, or PM a dev about it and make genuine attempts to have a conversation with a developer able to affect the game ( make sure you know 100% about what you are talking about though for others sake...). The sad thing about these boards is that most of the time its just vague complaints with no substance or facts backing the arguements, which is kind of hard for a developer to pinpoint( I dont know about you but if i am hired to fix something, I need to know all the problems and functions before I approach it with a solution.).</p><p>Remember for the most part a developers understanding of a game is more OBJECTIVE than a customer playing the game with a SUBJECTIVE connection to it. People keep bringing backhanded emotion towards others here and I am pretty sure this passive aggressive action helps the people that improve this game very little. I think developers are actually responding more this time around, lets not screw it up because of bitterness, its just gonna make things worse.</p>

[Rasttan]

<p><cite>Uncle@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><img src="http://i45.tinypic.com/3321guo.png" />here is a reckless monk parse from our raid tonight  </p><p>group set up was ranger(me) monk, inq, warlock, illy, troubie</p></blockquote><p>Do you ever check tanks DPS threads what a tiny jump in dps from that stance, before Reckless on this 3 group pull which is a fairly optimal number for AE heavy set up tanks 400-500k was being done. People tanked these in offensive dual weilding or 2 hder before Reckless not turtled up trying to stay alive, its a very easy encounter.</p><p>Oh also was he tanking? From that group set up looks like he was just DPS with a good dps group set up.</p><p>Just find a way for Tanks to have more than 1-2 Raid slots, tanks are the least used and fastest tossed to the side class on any encounter.</p>

[Davngr1]

<p><cite>Rasttan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Uncle@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><img src="http://i45.tinypic.com/3321guo.png" />here is a reckless monk parse from our raid tonight  </p><p>group set up was ranger(me) monk, inq, warlock, illy, troubie</p></blockquote><p>Do you ever check tanks DPS threads what a tiny jump in dps from that stance, before Reckless on this 3 group pull which is a fairly optimal number for AE heavy set up tanks 400-500k was being done. People tanked these in offensive dual weilding or 2 hder before Reckless not turtled up trying to stay alive, its a very easy encounter.</p><p>Oh also was he tanking? From that group set up looks like he was just DPS with a good dps group set up.</p><p>Just find a way for Tanks to have more than 1-2 Raid slots, tanks are the least used and fastest tossed to the side class on any encounter.</p></blockquote><p>give them someone elses spot NOT A dps spot.</p>

[japanfour]

<p><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Rasttan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Uncle@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><img src="http://i45.tinypic.com/3321guo.png" />here is a reckless monk parse from our raid tonight  </p><p>group set up was ranger(me) monk, inq, warlock, illy, troubie</p></blockquote><p>Do you ever check tanks DPS threads what a tiny jump in dps from that stance, before Reckless on this 3 group pull which is a fairly optimal number for AE heavy set up tanks 400-500k was being done. People tanked these in offensive dual weilding or 2 hder before Reckless not turtled up trying to stay alive, its a very easy encounter.</p><p>Oh also was he tanking? From that group set up looks like he was just DPS with a good dps group set up.</p><p>Just find a way for Tanks to have more than 1-2 Raid slots, tanks are the least used and fastest tossed to the side class on any encounter.</p></blockquote><p>give them someone elses spot NOT A dps spot.</p></blockquote><p>Is there designated slots on each raid now for what goes where? I lead raids and I am gonna take the good SK over a bad dpser. It doesnt matter the slot.</p>

[Davngr1]

<p><cite>japanfour wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Rasttan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Uncle@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><img src="http://i45.tinypic.com/3321guo.png" />here is a reckless monk parse from our raid tonight  </p><p>group set up was ranger(me) monk, inq, warlock, illy, troubie</p></blockquote><p>Do you ever check tanks DPS threads what a tiny jump in dps from that stance, before Reckless on this 3 group pull which is a fairly optimal number for AE heavy set up tanks 400-500k was being done. People tanked these in offensive dual weilding or 2 hder before Reckless not turtled up trying to stay alive, its a very easy encounter.</p><p>Oh also was he tanking? From that group set up looks like he was just DPS with a good dps group set up.</p><p>Just find a way for Tanks to have more than 1-2 Raid slots, tanks are the least used and fastest tossed to the side class on any encounter.</p></blockquote><p>give them someone elses spot NOT A dps spot.</p></blockquote><p>Is there designated slots on each raid now for what goes where? I lead raids and I am gonna take the good SK over a bad dpser. It doesnt matter the slot.</p></blockquote><p>i'm sure two classes are really happy with this change but the other 22 either don't care either way or flat out think it's BAD.</p><p>  and what you mean by <span style="color: #ff0000;">"good"</span> crusader is <span style="color: #ff0000;">overpowerd broken abiilty</span> and what you mean by <span style="color: #33cccc;">"bad"</span> dps class is <span style="color: #33cccc;">not having 600+ potency to face roll</span> with!</p><p>  lol what a joke..    i wonder what soe developer is playing a crusader this expac.    it's like TSO but at least tehn they were amazing a TANKINg now it's just a cluster F***.. </p><p>  hey guise lets give T2 dps a stance that gives them 1000% block and 50% damage reduction along with positional hate to every ca/spell so they can tank on trash while the tanks dps!</p><p>  k?</p><p>  WONDERFUL idea!</p><p>   lets give the bards and chanters wards so the the shamen can ast pom and gravitas!</p><p>   and hey!</p><p>  why stop there?!?!?!</p><p>   i'm sure we can further destroy the balance in this game!</p><p> at any rate.. IF the moronic mind set prevails over COMMON SENSE..   then my brusier, guard and zerk better start getting just as much benefit from this stance as my sk. </p><p>   cos having 4 or 5 sk raids is just LOL</p>

[Koleg]

<p>Is it too soon to say I told you so ... I guess I could wait until after the bouns PVP weekend and listen to all the up coming QQ.</p>

[Davngr1]

<p><cite>japanfour wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>i'm sure two classes are really happy with this change but the other 22 either don't care either way or flat out think it's BAD.</p><p>  and what you mean by <span style="color: #ff0000;">"good"</span> crusader is <span style="color: #ff0000;">overpowerd broken abiilty</span> and what you mean by <span style="color: #33cccc;">"bad"</span> dps class is <span style="color: #33cccc;">not having 600+ potency to face roll</span> with!</p><p>  lol what a joke..    i wonder what soe developer is playing a crusader this expac.    it's like TSO but at least tehn they were amazing a TANKINg now it's just a cluster F***.. </p><p>  hey guise lets give T2 dps a stance that gives them 1000% block and 50% damage reduction along with positional hate to every ca/spell so they can tank on trash while the tanks dps!</p><p>  k?</p><p>  WONDERFUL idea!</p><p>   lets give the bards and chanters wards so the the shamen can ast pom and gravitas!</p><p>   and hey!</p><p>  why stop there?!?!?!</p><p>   i'm sure we can further destroy the balance in this game!</p><p> at any rate.. IF the moronic mind set prevails over COMMON SENSE..   then my brusier, guard and zerk better start getting just as much benefit from this stance as my sk. </p><p>   cos having 4 or 5 sk raids is just LOL</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">*Please do not quote forum violations*</span></p></blockquote><p>  huh?</p> <p>  yes..   i don't like playing a DPS class and having a TANK class do close to my damage. </p> <p>   it's about the same feeling someone playing a HEALER would feel if a DPS class was doing comparable heals as them.  </p> <p> oh wait..  this all ready happened..      isn't that why critical heals got nerfed?</p><p> my sk and zerk were not OUT HEALING healers but it was still UNBALANCED.  </p><p> the same way this is.</p> <p> so in fact:</p> <p>  this is a BROKEN ability that DESTROYS game balance and fun in this game for 22 classes.</p><p>  yes, i'm articulating the fact that i do not approve of the direction this change is taking.</p>

[Fendaria]

<p><cite>japanfour wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Is there designated slots on each raid now for what goes where? I lead raids and I am gonna take the good SK over a bad dpser. It doesnt matter the slot.</p></blockquote><p>Can you do the opposite and take a good DPSer over a bad main tank?</p><p>Fendaria</p>

[Landiin]

<p><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p> hey guise lets give T2 dps a stance that gives them 1000% block and 50% damage reduction along with positional hate to every ca/spell so they can tank on trash while the tanks dps!</p></blockquote><p>This! This needs to happen ASAP to balance out this reckless stance fighters got.</p>

[Davngr1]

<p><cite>Toranx@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p> hey guise lets give T2 dps a stance that gives them 1000% block and 50% damage reduction along with positional hate to every ca/spell so they can tank on trash while the tanks dps!</p></blockquote><p>This! This needs to happen ASAP to balance out this reckless stance fighters got.</p></blockquote><p>yea!</p><p> it could be like TOR!</p><p> ranger tanks!</p><p>edit.</p><p> no really..  this would work!</p><p>   ok guise..    me and my healer stand here out of aoe range and i'll put the mob over there for the dps tanks!</p>

[Jeepned2]

<p><cite>japanfour wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Jeepned2 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Whine all you want, but this is SoE's baby. They where told a million times that this would make tanks and especially crusaders super OP. Obviously they didn't care and now you have tanks crushing everything in thier paths. Why take a Ranger when I can take an SK in Recklessness mode with Bloodletter to help keep him up under any circumstance? Rangers bring nothing to the table for the other group or raid members, but look what the SK brings, Death March and Unholy Hunger to start with. Sorry folks, this is the path that SoE picked and decided to shove down our throats. Complaining never has changed SoE's mind, why would it now?</p></blockquote><p> I would take a ranger over an SK for a heroic group and a hardmode group if I wanted some Single target dps.... If I want AE DPS then I guess I would take an SK, or a warlock.</p><p> I think pallys are due for some buffness anyhow... I dont know why they dont give rangers more utility in raids, but crying about somone elses class being reinforced isnt going to make them take a look at your class, its really misleading.</p><p>Example: If someone treats me poorly, do you think I talk about how he/she is treating others better? Nope.. I talk about how I dont like how they are treating me, because that is the fact of the situation, if I were to be indirect, i wouldnt be clear and that information would get misconstrued.</p><p> If you have a problem with the utility an SK brings versus a ranger, or a ranger VS Class_01 You should petition it, or PM a dev about it and make genuine attempts to have a conversation with a developer able to affect the game ( make sure you know 100% about what you are talking about though for others sake...). The sad thing about these boards is that most of the time its just vague complaints with no substance or facts backing the arguements, which is kind of hard for a developer to pinpoint( I dont know about you but if i am hired to fix something, I need to know all the problems and functions before I approach it with a solution.).</p><p>Remember for the most part a developers understanding of a game is more OBJECTIVE than a customer playing the game with a SUBJECTIVE connection to it. People keep bringing backhanded emotion towards others here and I am pretty sure this passive aggressive action helps the people that improve this game very little. I think developers are actually responding more this time around, lets not screw it up because of bitterness, its just gonna make things worse. </p></blockquote><p>Umm, don't see a lot of SoE apologist any more.  Right now with the same gear a Ranger will not out parse an SK either on a single target nor on a AE fight. And a Ranger (sorry for picking on the Rangers, maybe in EQ3 you'll get the treatment you deserve), brings nothing but dps to a group. </p><p>I'll skip all your other apologies and more right to the heart of this one. SoE is OBJECTIVE as you put it. What could possibly be the objective of making crusaders super OP over all other dps classes? With my SK I can be killing away doing massive damage, all of a sudden the mt goes down... OH NO's... Switch from Recklessness to tank mode, take a death with Bloodletter and look.... 100% health, throw my big taunts that I wasn't using while in Recklessness and blamo, aggro complete, mobs are mine, we win the fight and I get to go back to Recklessness. Where is the Objective to this? Apologize all you want, after tons of input during testing this stupid idea was still allowed to go to live. </p><p>Since SoE only knows how to "fix" things by nerfing it... hopefully they will "fix" this soon.</p>

[Twyxx]

<p><cite>Jeepned2 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>japanfour wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Jeepned2 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Why take a Ranger when I can take an SK in Recklessness mode with Bloodletter to help keep him up under any circumstance? Rangers bring nothing to the table for the other group or raid members, but look what the SK brings, Death March and Unholy Hunger to start with. Sorry folks, this is the path that SoE picked and decided to shove down our throats. Complaining never has changed SoE's mind, why would it now?</p></blockquote><p> I would take a ranger over an SK for a heroic group and a hardmode group if I wanted some Single target dps.... If I want AE DPS then I guess I would take an SK, or a warlock.</p></blockquote><p>Umm, don't see a lot of SoE apologist any more.  Right now with the same gear a Ranger will not out parse an SK either on a single target nor on a AE fight. And a Ranger (sorry for picking on the Rangers, maybe in EQ3 you'll get the treatment you deserve), brings nothing but dps to a group. </p></blockquote><p>You all seriously play with some terribad rangers, I'm guessing.  Go look at the ranger parse thread on flames and show me a tank parse that can touch those.</p>

[Neiloch]

<p>Tanks in my guild have already accepted that this will be getting nerfed. They were easily getting T1 DPS, some while tanking trash in PoW and challenge drunder. Any DPS that sits on the bench during raids just got made into an endangered species. Why swap in DPS when you can keep the tanks in full time and just have them switch stances?</p><p><cite>Twyxx wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>You all seriously play with some terribad rangers, I'm guessing.  Go look at the ranger parse thread on flames and show me a tank parse that can touch those.</p></blockquote><p>Ours were getting anywhere between 500k-1mil depending on the fight and if it was AE.</p>

[Twyxx]

<p>What fights?  Your tanks are some of the best geared in the game as well.  Then also factor in that if you're talking about Berik, Boar and maybe even Tagrin those are easy fights for Revelations at this point and the healers/tanks can get away with recklessness at the same level an average raid guild would on Telkoran.  That's one of the tough things with this stance is balancing it for top end vs avg raid vs heroic.</p>

[Neiloch]

<p>Even entertaining the idea that it's fine just because it doesn't work on what would be a progression kill for each guild is ridiculous.</p><p>If that's the case I'll be expecting my 'Dirge' stance that allows me to do T1 DPS whilst buffing like a bard in all but progression fights shortly.</p><p>Again I have no problem with classes being able to fill two roles. My problem is that ONLY FIGHTERS can do it, further compounded by other classes barely able to fill ONE. So while other classes are falling behind compared to their role-similar peers or just in general compared to all classes, fighters literally DOUBLED in usefulness.</p><p>Putting forth this change without a similar addition to the rest of the classes was a HUGE mistake on the developers part. This isn't alpha where you can add major game changing features in uneven chunks. Being a 'living, breathing MMO world' doesn't change that.</p><p>Here are the only ways it can be fixed, and it <em>does</em> need to be fixed.</p><p>A. Get rid of the stance</p><p>B. Nerf the stance</p><p>C. Add secondary stance to ALL the other classes AT THE SAME TIME. <strong>Not</strong> something stupid like give preds/rogues utility stance then wait 2 months to give utility DPS stances then another two months for priests to get some second stance.</p><p>Failing secondary stances for all other classes they should have AT LEAST made utility classes buffs raid wide and cross group castable. That way they don't monopolize more than 1/4 of a raid on hard/progression fights and free's up more slots for fighters/DPS.</p>

[Freejazzlive]

<p>Maybe none of this would even have been deemed "necessary," if SOE would quit turning every fight into a DPS race, & instead actually put some meaningful non-DPS challenges into bosses.</p><p>Or, maybe if they would just put in more fights in which secondary nameds need to be off-tanked <strong>away</strong> from the main raid force, which would then cause raid groups to take on more fighters in order to handle all of the mobs that need to be off-tanked.</p><p>I'm sure there are other possibilities that people far more clever than I can dream up. But regardless, I don't think that allowing Fighters a full-blown DPS stance is or was the answer. & yes, BTW, I'm all in favor of removing the "requirement" for 4 Bards & 4 Enchanters ... honestly, I can't believe SOE keeps designing raids that cause raid forces to think they need that kind of class makeup to begin with.</p><p>Finally, I'm gonna say this: IMO, one of the worst meta-problems in MMOs is the reduction in raid sizes. When your max raid force is 24 players, & you've got 24 classes, & people can't get in because their class is perceived as worthless in a raid force, your game has a serious design issue. I think raiding was a <strong>LOT</strong> more fun in the old days of EQ1 & the early days of WoW, when 40+ people on the Vent server meant for serious lulz all night long, & guilds didn't have to worry as much about how to balance out the raid force to keep everyone happy.</p>

[Rasttan]

<p><cite>Neiloch@Butcherblock wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Even entertaining the idea that it's fine just because it doesn't work on what would be a progression kill for each guild is ridiculous.</p><p>If that's the case I'll be expecting my 'Dirge' stance that allows me to do T1 DPS whilst buffing like a bard in all but progression fights shortly.</p><p>Again I have no problem with classes being able to fill two roles. My problem is that ONLY FIGHTERS can do it, further compounded by other classes barely able to fill ONE. So while other classes are falling behind compared to their role-similar peers or just in general compared to all classes, fighters literally DOUBLED in usefulness.</p><p>Putting forth this change without a similar addition to the rest of the classes was a HUGE mistake on the developers part. This isn't alpha where you can add major game changing features in uneven chunks. Being a 'living, breathing MMO world' doesn't change that.</p><p>Here are the only ways it can be fixed, and it <em>does</em> need to be fixed.</p><p>A. Get rid of the stance</p><p>B. Nerf the stance</p><p>C. Add secondary stance to ALL the other classes AT THE SAME TIME. <strong>Not</strong> something stupid like give preds/rogues utility stance then wait 2 months to give utility DPS stances then another two months for priests to get some second stance.</p><p>Failing secondary stances for all other classes they should have AT LEAST made utility classes buffs raid wide and cross group castable. That way they don't monopolize more than 1/4 of a raid on hard/progression fights and free's up more slots for fighters/DPS.</p></blockquote><p>Failing secondary stances for all other classes they should have AT LEAST made utility classes buffs raid wide and cross group castable. That way they don't monopolize more than 1/4 of a raid on hard/progression fights and free's up more slots for fighters/DPS.</p><p>There ya go, you finally figured it out, No one uses tanks and everyone wants 4-5-6 bards4-5-6 chanters they allready monopolize more that 1/4 theres at least 8 in most raids which is allready 1/3 and usually theres 9-10 of them.</p><p>Find a way to get a few fighters in a raid instead of the 1-2 tops 3 and get on the classes that allready take up 35-40% of a raid force. Reckless may not be the answer but fighters get sat more than any class ever has period.</p>

[Neiloch]

<p><cite>Rasttan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>There ya go, you finally figured it out, No one uses tanks and everyone wants 4-5-6 bards4-5-6 chanters they allready monopolize more that 1/4 theres at least 8 in most raids which is allready 1/3 and usually theres 9-10 of them.<p>Find a way to get a few fighters in a raid instead of the 1-2 tops 3 and get on the classes that allready take up 35-40% of a raid force. Reckless may not be the answer but fighters get sat more than any class ever has period.</p></blockquote><p>I know you probably didn't mean it personally, but I knew they needed to do something about utility before they attempted a fix back during SF. I am STILL mad some whiners on the forums got that squashed. I wish the devs were as stubbornly committed to that as they were to recklessness.</p><p>All this does is shuffle the problem around. At best NOTHING has been solved and at worst they have severely messed up class dynamics.</p><p>I really don't hate recklessness as a concept, but again just giving fighters a way to fill two roles and leaving everyone else out was a HUGE mistake. especially when some DPS classes aren't even desired right now. </p><p>Also, LOL@ complaining to a ranger about sitting a lot. Ranger = ranged assassin with zero utility. Forget sitting, i'm lucky to be in a high end guild AT ALL. I wouldn't be if I wasn't exceptionally competent, punctual, and already knew the leadership of my guild when i decided to raid again.</p><p>Rangers are little more than a relief pitcher for other DPS classes right now, and understandably so. but hey why even take time swapping me in now when a fighter can take over in 5 seconds by switching stances? Even if he does a tier less DPS?</p><p><strong>TL;DR:</strong> Recklessness compounds/magnifies A LOT of problems that should have been solved a long time ago and BEFORE anything like recklessness was put in. I suspect they chose this route since it was so easy to implement.</p>

[Opeij]

<p>Have some parses:</p><p>(03:44) training dummy: 58433 Opeij-pierce-43613Opeij | 58433 - Forward Charge VIII (Master), no Combat Abilities</p><p>(03:51) training dummy: 56692 Opeij-pierce-43555Opeij | 56692 - Recklessness, no Combat Abilities</p><p>(02:33) training dummy: 85535 Opeij-Slam-100457Opeij | 85535 - Recklessness, all Combat Abilities used as soon as able</p><p>(02:56) training dummy: 74356 Opeij-Slam-55139Opeij | 74356 - Forward Charge VIII (Master), all Combat Abilities used as soon as able</p><p>This was done on an Epic Training Dummy, from behind it. I am a 92/320 guard, <a href="http://u.eq2wire.com/soe/character_detail/871881376447">http://u.eq2wire.com/soe/character_...il/871881376447</a> (Opeij). This was done with my <a href="http://u.eq2wire.com/item/index/1466959922">http://u.eq2wire.com/item/index/1466959922</a> (Radiant Dracurian Great Spear) with an Ethereal Adornment of Blasting (Greater).</p><p>As you can see, with just melee, recklessness does about 3.07% less damage. With combat arts, it did about 15% more damage than regular offensive stance. This is with only my guardian, no potions, no mercs, no outside buffs. I'm slightly above average gear, mainly faction armor with 3 pieces of raid gear. I don't have any parses for actual dps classes, so I have nothing to compare to. From this data, I don't really see recklessness as being overpowered. I was already doing a moderate amount of damage before recklessness, and it only actually increases combat art damage. This is because melee is not affected by potency.</p><p>The only  *huge* upside to recklessness is the -hate mod. Lore-wise, I would think if you're being reckless, you wouldn't even think about how much hate you're pulling. Your character would be doing anything they could to just damage the mob.</p><p>Just my 2cp.</p>

[Ryptide]

<p><cite>Opeij wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">As you can see, with just melee, recklessness does about 3.07% less damage.</span></strong> With combat arts, it did about 15% more damage than regular offensive stance. This is with only my guardian, no potions, no mercs, no outside buffs. I'm slightly above average gear, mainly faction armor with 3 pieces of raid gear. I don't have any parses for actual dps classes, so I have nothing to compare to. From this data, I don't really see recklessness as being overpowered. I was already doing a moderate amount of damage before recklessness, and it only actually increases combat art damage. <strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">This is because melee is not affected by potency.</span></strong></p><p>The only  *huge* upside to recklessness is the -hate mod. Lore-wise, I would think if you're being reckless, you wouldn't even think about how much hate you're pulling. Your character would be doing anything they could to just damage the mob.</p><p>Just my 2cp.</p></blockquote><p>Read the bold areas of what you wrote again.  Have your read what Recklessness does?</p>

[Neiloch]

<p>No offense meant but using a guardian is about the worst fighter to use for this. Their just not getting much out of it compared to the others, especially crusaders.</p><p>This whole thing is a disaster imo and that's why i'm certain it's just a 'test' for something they have planned in EQ Next. Seriously I could probably put together a decent feature list just based on what's been suddenly added to EQ2 recently.</p>

[Opeij]

<p>Recklessness does: </p><p>-Increases Potency of caster by 50.0%, -Removes all threat positions from abilities that inflict damage, -Decreases hate gain of caster by 30.0%, -Increases all damage done to caster by 50%, -Doubles the caster's potency, -Grants Recklessness to caster halving all hate gain.</p><p>Obviously I have read what recklessness does. What does this have to do with the conversation Synj? A little more content in your post than "have your [sic] read what Recklessness does?" would be terribly useful.</p>

[Davngr1]

<p><cite>Twyxx wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Jeepned2 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>japanfour wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Jeepned2 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Why take a Ranger when I can take an SK in Recklessness mode with Bloodletter to help keep him up under any circumstance? Rangers bring nothing to the table for the other group or raid members, but look what the SK brings, Death March and Unholy Hunger to start with. Sorry folks, this is the path that SoE picked and decided to shove down our throats. Complaining never has changed SoE's mind, why would it now?</p></blockquote><p> I would take a ranger over an SK for a heroic group and a hardmode group if I wanted some Single target dps.... If I want AE DPS then I guess I would take an SK, or a warlock.</p></blockquote><p>Umm, don't see a lot of SoE apologist any more.  Right now with the same gear a Ranger will not out parse an SK either on a single target nor on a AE fight. And a Ranger (sorry for picking on the Rangers, maybe in EQ3 you'll get the treatment you deserve), brings nothing but dps to a group. </p></blockquote><p>You all seriously play with some terribad rangers, I'm guessing.  Go look at the ranger parse thread on flames and show me a tank parse that can touch those.</p></blockquote><p>no.</p><p> you just play with terrible crusaders and that's hard since both are pretty much faceroll classes when it comes to dps with wreckless.</p>

[ratbast]

<p><cite>Opeij wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Recklessness does: </p><p>-Increases Potency of caster by 50.0%, -Removes all threat positions from abilities that inflict damage, -Decreases hate gain of caster by 30.0%, -Increases all damage done to caster by 50%, -Doubles the caster's potency, -Grants Recklessness to caster halving all hate gain.</p><p>Obviously I have read what recklessness does. What does this have to do with the conversation Synj? <span style="color: #ff0000;">A little more content</span> in your post than "have your [sic] read what Recklessness does?" would be terribly useful.</p></blockquote><p>heres <span style="color: #ff0000;">a little more</span>.</p><p>i dont presume to speak for someone else, but the way you handled your post made it seem you were barely in possession of the facts. buttressing obvious facts that are givens with the description of reckless as your evidence. (explaining why reckless  increases your CA damage)</p><p>i didnt think you hadnt read it, i attributed your claim of 3% (to 3 significant digits) less damage (which i took to mean you believe autoattack reckless performed less as a matter of mechanics, 3% less, because you used the active on-going verb 'does'<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> to be a function of your ignorance of rng, and a disconnect in your mind between reckless buff package and training dummy parses. you really did understand potency doesnt impact autoattack and you really did understand reckless buffs potency. you just didnt put that together to understand "autoattack only" will be the same (nearly identical) whether potency is buffed or not.</p><p>many of the ppl in this thread have a deeper understanding and broader context to pull from. which is why you get responses like 'guardians arent a very good test subject'. there is a whole other discussion thread about the disparity between fighters and how potency plays out for them and whether its innately fair. guardians arent a good control group to pull statistics from in this case. why? because they have the lowest CA damage of all 6 fighters, they are an extreme example.</p><p>i think its great you took the time to 1) test it 2) give your honest feedback and opinion, even if its for selfserving reasons. we should all be allowed to seek our own interest, and companies would be wise to listen. i just hope customers who want meaningful class specialization win out. in the end, it comes down to balance, and the presumption of equality we are socialized to believe. this is why class imbalance causes ppl to throw such fits, yes they are self serving but it violates the concept of equality, which is deeply ingrained into our society from our youth.</p><p>like the matrix when 'whole crops were lost' because ppl rejected a harmonious matrix, western customers will bail on system that is not balanced with equality in mind. reckless is out of bounds because it violates the big 3(tank, heal, dps) and crosses roles but only 1 archtype gets it. thats not equal and its not fair.</p><p>i dislike the notion of crossing roles, which is why i dont play rift. can any avatar choice be significant and lasting? not if you can simply respec.</p><p>but unfair is the granddaddy of all violations. it really dwarfs role crossing in western civ. and fighter-only reckless is unfair. imo role crossing bast ardizes eq2. will be sad to see it happen should they not reverse this. makes sense tho if this is just an exnext testing ground.</p>

[Neiloch]

<p><cite>ratbast wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>i dislike the notion of crossing roles, which is why i dont play rift. can any avatar choice be significant and lasting? not if you can simply respec.</p></blockquote><p>I didn't like it in rift but I LOVED it in DCUO. Mainly because switching role had nothing to do with switching style. Going from DPS to another role like controller, healer or tank didn't require me to use a COMPLETELY different set of abilities and/or weapons. If I did DPS with a bow and fire powers, then I also tanked with a bow and fire powers. Maybe I swap 1 or two of those powers around and play <em>slightly </em>differently, but that's about it.</p><p>recklessness concept is almost out of DCUO now that I think about it. It's just a raw straightforward stance. DPS stance in DCUO worked the same way, just a stright up boost in attack power. BUT <strong>EVERYONE</strong> HAD ACCESS TO IT. Everyone had access to the DPS role and 1 'support' role: tank, healer, or controller.</p><p>If they want to do that here they would have to give all the priests, bards and enchanters access to a DPS stance, then start taking the current DPS classes and giving them one of the other 3 roles. I'm thinking: preds=utility, rogues=tanks, sorcerers=utility, summoners=healers. That would be ideal I think and make the most sense, but if SoE did do it I'm thinking they would do pred+rogues=tanks, sorc+summoner=utility.</p><p>Would be interesting/horrifying trying to tank as a ranger. People would be mad I keep slightly adjusting the mob trying to make it stay at 5 meters so I can range auto.</p>

[Freejazzlive]

<p>I think the bottom line is that there are other, better ways of making Fighters more desirable in raids, & if you combined them by making Chanters & Bards "less necessary," you'd go a lot farther towards balancing raid forces than you do simply by giving Fighters a DPS stance.</p><p>I'll leave it to others to speculate as to why SOE chose the DPS stance.</p>

[Gargamel]

<p>oh pissoff freejazz... so "don't give them MY dps, give them THEIR utility" is your answer?</p><p>Personally I don't mind reckless, I mostly raid and more raid dps means easier fights.</p><p>But considering how many ways troubs have been neglected for YEARS, to suggest what little advantage they have left be co-opted  pretty much deserves a punch in the face.</p><p>(what would that be by the way, power regen? reuse (that is on tons of gear now?)... i mean really... what???)</p>

[japanfour]

<p><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Twyxx wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Jeepned2 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>japanfour wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Jeepned2 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Why take a Ranger when I can take an SK in Recklessness mode with Bloodletter to help keep him up under any circumstance? Rangers bring nothing to the table for the other group or raid members, but look what the SK brings, Death March and Unholy Hunger to start with. Sorry folks, this is the path that SoE picked and decided to shove down our throats. Complaining never has changed SoE's mind, why would it now?</p></blockquote><p> I would take a ranger over an SK for a heroic group and a hardmode group if I wanted some Single target dps.... If I want AE DPS then I guess I would take an SK, or a warlock.</p></blockquote><p>Umm, don't see a lot of SoE apologist any more.  Right now with the same gear a Ranger will not out parse an SK either on a single target nor on a AE fight. And a Ranger (sorry for picking on the Rangers, maybe in EQ3 you'll get the treatment you deserve), brings nothing but dps to a group. </p></blockquote><p>You all seriously play with some terribad rangers, I'm guessing.  Go look at the ranger parse thread on flames and show me a tank parse that can touch those.</p></blockquote><p>no.</p><p> you just play with terrible crusaders and that's hard since both are pretty much faceroll classes when it comes to dps with wreckless.</p></blockquote><p>Your unconstructive posts are pointless. Every comment you have made in this thread gives nothing to the devs, just a bunch of frustrated emotional responses. Any good ranger can outparse me on my crusader in reckless, end of story. No matter how hard I faceroll. I also doubt twyxx has played with terrible crusaders, just sayin. Shoukin isnt the kind of guild to allow that as far as I know...</p><p>But yeah keep trying to get this nerfed with comments like this, its really amusing. I just hope that subjective crybabies such as yourself yield little to no result on this game. So cry away, the developers made this stance, hyped it up and I dont think its gonna go anywhere, tears or no tears.</p>

[Freejazzlive]

<p><cite>Gargamel wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>so "don't give them MY dps, give them THEIR utility" is your answer?</p></blockquote><p>No, that is <strong>NOT</strong> what I wrote or even intended to imply, & I've no idea at all why you inferred such. I said not one word about giving anyone utility -- instead, I suggested that the Devs stop churning out raid fights that are nothing but DPS races, & I suggested that something be done to allow raid forces to take fewer Bards & Chanters, so as to allow more slots for other classes. But regardless, IMO giving Fighters DPS comparable to T2 or even T1 DPS classes is ... just ... silly.</p><p>NB: I'm a Troubie. I don't do DPS, I do buff-botting. I'm one of the classes I believe to be stupidly over-present in raid forces, so my suggestion somewhat hurts <strong>me</strong>, as opposed to hurting anyone else.</p><p>Have a nice day.</p>

[japanfour]

<p><cite>Gargamel wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>oh pissoff freejazz... so "don't give them MY dps, give them THEIR utility" is your answer?</p><p>Personally I don't mind reckless, I mostly raid and more raid dps means easier fights.</p><p>But considering how many ways troubs have been neglected for YEARS, to suggest what little advantage they have left be co-opted  pretty much deserves a punch in the face.</p><p>(what would that be by the way, power regen? reuse (that is on tons of gear now?)... i mean really... what???)</p></blockquote><p>well the idea behind nerfing something new a neglected class is attaining because someones class is lacking in their opinion is just not the way to go.</p><p>Also, as a person who loves playing a troub, they have come a LONG way from what they used to be Pre SF. Though I do agree that they could use another unique ability, as well as coercers.</p><p>Dont worry about the possibility of others vague suggestions haha, not bagging on you. but People just say THIS IS BROKEN all the time here and offer no real solution. They seem to be smart enough to know something is broke, but dont know the solution to it. Pointless whining mostly.</p><p>I think the bottom line is if you cant find an alternative idea to suggest yourself, suggest nothing. This has been implemented and I dont think you making negative statements will, or should hold weight in terms of the developers decisions. Unless someone can post data proving that its broken ( single target parses on challenging mobs, stuff of that nature) This arguement is just subjective.</p><p>So bring some real evidence of this stances broken-ness otherwise hold that tongue!</p>

[Landiin]

<p><span style="font-size: 11px;"><strong><em>n/a</em></strong></span></p>

[Ryptide]

<p><cite>Opeij wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Recklessness does: </p><p>-Increases Potency of caster by 50.0%, -Removes all threat positions from abilities that inflict damage, -Decreases hate gain of caster by 30.0%, -Increases all damage done to caster by 50%, -Doubles the caster's potency, -Grants Recklessness to caster halving all hate gain.</p><p>Obviously I have read what recklessness does. What does this have to do with the conversation Synj? A little more content in your post than "have your [sic] read what Recklessness does?" would be terribly useful.</p></blockquote><p><p><cite>Opeij wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">As you can see, with just melee, recklessness does about 3.07% less damage.</span></strong> </p><p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">This is because melee is not affected by potency.</span></strong></p></blockquote></p><p>I thought it was obvious.  You contradicted yourself.  Just looking at extended dps doesn't tell anyone anything.  Any number of things could be responsible for the 3.07%.  Does your offensive stance have a damage proc?  How many times did you swing ea time?  What were your average hits for ea test?  The list goes on.. and on..</p>

[Davngr1]

<p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>So heres what i got from this thread since im not reading it all, buthurt all over as normal that thier dps classes are bad and can't outparse a tank?</p></blockquote><p>   so here's what i got from this thread because i did read it all:</p><p>  tons of cry baby crusaders don't want to lose their broken ability because most can't actually tank and rather like being able to face roll T1 damage.</p></blockquote><p>Im not a crusader i play a bruiser and in our force i main tank, i had both of my crusaders go recklessness and do three-hundred k i told them to get out of the stance because of thier terribad dps, tl;dr version: tanks are tanks.</p></blockquote><p>  just because you and the players in your raid force aren't intelligent enough to benefit from this broken ability it does not mean that it is not broken.</p><p>  there are always terrible players that make broken abilities/items/zones seem balanced because they don't know how to push buttons.</p><p>PS.</p><p> please keep posting.  i find responding to your post highly entertaining.  <3</p></blockquote><p>They are very good off-tanks and they know how to press buttons eleventy times better than you, however saying that this ability is going to outparse tier 1 dps is entirely wrong. And Freejazzlive i can't multiquote, wtb flames. And they were in defensive stance as i wanted them to be in it for hm sullons and also hm dagarn. They usually do about 200kish with defensive so an 100k increase honestly isnt that good its why my bruiser does without recklessness.</p></blockquote><p>  the crusader i raid with was off tanking in wreckless stance most the time because of agro and didn't die anymore times than usual and all he was was an inquis.   oh and doing t1 quality damage the entire time..   400k to 1.3? mill on names/trash/whatever</p>

[Davngr1]

<p>this forum is broken..</p><p>  all my post fall in the middle of thread..  wow.</p><p> just as broken as this ablity</p>

[Davngr1]

<p><cite>japanfour wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Twyxx wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Jeepned2 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>japanfour wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Jeepned2 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Why take a Ranger when I can take an SK in Recklessness mode with Bloodletter to help keep him up under any circumstance? Rangers bring nothing to the table for the other group or raid members, but look what the SK brings, Death March and Unholy Hunger to start with. Sorry folks, this is the path that SoE picked and decided to shove down our throats. Complaining never has changed SoE's mind, why would it now?</p></blockquote><p> I would take a ranger over an SK for a heroic group and a hardmode group if I wanted some Single target dps.... If I want AE DPS then I guess I would take an SK, or a warlock.</p></blockquote><p>Umm, don't see a lot of SoE apologist any more.  Right now with the same gear a Ranger will not out parse an SK either on a single target nor on a AE fight. And a Ranger (sorry for picking on the Rangers, maybe in EQ3 you'll get the treatment you deserve), brings nothing but dps to a group. </p></blockquote><p>You all seriously play with some terribad rangers, I'm guessing.  Go look at the ranger parse thread on flames and show me a tank parse that can touch those.</p></blockquote><p>no.</p><p> you just play with terrible crusaders and that's hard since both are pretty much faceroll classes when it comes to dps with wreckless.</p></blockquote><p>Your unconstructive posts are pointless. Every comment you have made in this thread gives nothing to the devs, just a bunch of frustrated emotional responses. Any good ranger can outparse me on my crusader in reckless, end of story. No matter how hard I faceroll. I also doubt twyxx has played with terrible crusaders, just sayin. Shoukin isnt the kind of guild to allow that as far as I know...</p><p>But yeah keep trying to get this nerfed with comments like this, its really amusing. I just hope that subjective crybabies such as yourself yield little to no result on this game. So cry away, the developers made this stance, hyped it up and I dont think its gonna go anywhere, tears or no tears.</p></blockquote><div><p>my post have been logical as well as emotional because this is a GAME and games are suppose to be fun and having fun is associated with being HAPPY being happy is an emotion! </p> <p>   i'm not happy with this change and as a matter of FACT only two classes are happy about this change and that's pallys and sk's.   brawlers don't care either way because they dont' ahve the heals to mitigate inc damage and warriors don't have the CA damage (though zerk could benefit from aoe proc but since they can't proc a troubadors procs they aren't going to be as powerful). </p> <p>  another FACT is that giving a class DOUBLE potency is going to make it IMPOSSIBLE to balance professional class effects that proc damage.</p> <p>  you and other crusaders who dont' admit that this ability is grossly unbalanced are the only babies.  </p> <p>  this WILL get nerfed at some point the same way the broken dirge mythical got nerfed.  the problem is how many people will quit before it does.   </p> <p>    i'm not having fun in raid when a frigging tank is out parsing me.</p></div>

[Hammieee]

<p>So heres what i got from this thread since im not reading it all, buthurt all over as normal that thier dps classes are bad and can't outparse a tank?</p>

[Davngr1]

<p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>So heres what i got from this thread since im not reading it all, buthurt all over as normal that thier dps classes are bad and can't outparse a tank?</p></blockquote><p>   so here's what i got from this thread because i did read it all:</p><p>  tons of cry baby crusaders don't want to lose their broken ability because most can't actually tank and rather like being able to face roll T1 damage.</p>

[Hammieee]

<p><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>So heres what i got from this thread since im not reading it all, buthurt all over as normal that thier dps classes are bad and can't outparse a tank?</p></blockquote><p>   so here's what i got from this thread because i did read it all:</p><p>  tons of cry baby crusaders don't want to lose their broken ability because most can't actually tank and rather like being able to face roll T1 damage.</p></blockquote><p>Im not a crusader i play a bruiser and in our force i main tank, i had both of my crusaders go recklessness and do three-hundred k i told them to get out of the stance because of thier terribad dps, tl;dr version: tanks are tanks.</p>

[Freejazzlive]

<p><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>tons of cry baby crusaders don't want to lose their broken ability because most can't actually tank and rather like being able to face roll T1 damage.</p></blockquote><p>Ironically, Davngr1 is vociferously lobbying to keep his Beastlord from being nerfed.</p>

[Davngr1]

<p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>So heres what i got from this thread since im not reading it all, buthurt all over as normal that thier dps classes are bad and can't outparse a tank?</p></blockquote><p>   so here's what i got from this thread because i did read it all:</p><p>  tons of cry baby crusaders don't want to lose their broken ability because most can't actually tank and rather like being able to face roll T1 damage.</p></blockquote><p>Im not a crusader i play a bruiser and in our force i main tank, i had both of my crusaders go recklessness and do three-hundred k i told them to get out of the stance because of thier terribad dps, tl;dr version: tanks are tanks.</p></blockquote><p>  just because you and the players in your raid force aren't intelligent enough to benefit from this broken ability it does not mean that it is not broken.</p><p>  there are always terrible players that make broken abilities/items/zones seem balanced because they don't know how to push buttons.</p><p>PS.</p><p> please keep posting.  i find responding to your post highly entertaining.  <3</p>

[Freejazzlive]

<p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Im not a crusader i play a bruiser and in our force i main tank, i had both of my crusaders go recklessness and do three-hundred k i told them to get out of the stance because of thier terribad dps, tl;dr version: tanks are tanks.</p></blockquote><p>What stance did you tell them to use, if the 300k DPS from Reckless was "terri-bad?" How much DPS were they doing in that alternative stance?</p>

[japanfour]

<p><cite>Freejazzlive wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>tons of cry baby crusaders don't want to lose their broken ability because most can't actually tank and rather like being able to face roll T1 damage.</p></blockquote><p>Ironically, Davngr1 is vociferously lobbying to keep his Beastlord from being nerfed.</p></blockquote><p>pretty much!</p>

[Hammieee]

<p><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>So heres what i got from this thread since im not reading it all, buthurt all over as normal that thier dps classes are bad and can't outparse a tank?</p></blockquote><p>   so here's what i got from this thread because i did read it all:</p><p>  tons of cry baby crusaders don't want to lose their broken ability because most can't actually tank and rather like being able to face roll T1 damage.</p></blockquote><p>Im not a crusader i play a bruiser and in our force i main tank, i had both of my crusaders go recklessness and do three-hundred k i told them to get out of the stance because of thier terribad dps, tl;dr version: tanks are tanks.</p></blockquote><p>  just because you and the players in your raid force aren't intelligent enough to benefit from this broken ability it does not mean that it is not broken.</p><p>  there are always terrible players that make broken abilities/items/zones seem balanced because they don't know how to push buttons.</p><p>PS.</p><p> please keep posting.  i find responding to your post highly entertaining.  <3</p></blockquote><p>They are very good off-tanks and they know how to press buttons eleventy times better than you, however saying that this ability is going to outparse tier 1 dps is entirely wrong. And Freejazzlive i can't multiquote, wtb flames. And they were in defensive stance as i wanted them to be in it for hm sullons and also hm dagarn. They usually do about 200kish with defensive so an 100k increase honestly isnt that good its why my bruiser does without recklessness.</p>

[Freejazzlive]

<p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>And they were in defensive stance as i wanted them to be in it for hm sullons and also hm dagarn. They usually do about 200kish with defensive so an 100k increase honestly isnt that good its why my bruiser does without recklessness.</p></blockquote><p>Going from 200k to 300k is a 33% increase, & if 300k is "terribad DPS" then what is 200k?</p><p>Why, exactly, did you want them in defensive? You haven't explained that.</p>

[Hammieee]

<p><cite>Freejazzlive wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>And they were in defensive stance as i wanted them to be in it for hm sullons and also hm dagarn. They usually do about 200kish with defensive so an 100k increase honestly isnt that good its why my bruiser does without recklessness.</p></blockquote><p>Going from 200k to 300k is a 33% increase, & if 300k is "terribad DPS" then what is 200k?</p><p>Why, exactly, did you want them in defensive? You haven't explained that.</p></blockquote><p>To "Tank" thier job, and 300k isnt enough for me to run a tank instead of a dps class. Having them in defensive is the entire point i run three tanks and not just me.</p>

[Neiloch]

<p>I'm going off our <strong>tanks</strong> laughing in ventrilo at how ridiculous recklessness is and saying they think it will be nerfed along with the ridiculous numbers I see in ACT. We tested it out purposely to see how high it could go. You buff a recklessness fighter like you would any other T1 DPS and they can do just as well, if not better in AoE fights. I don't feel the need to post the numbers because that would be purely for other players benefit, SoE has all these numbers already. I'm just telling them I know that they know.</p><p>A nice side benefit is anyone fighting 'for' recklessness in it's current state shows how little they know about the game. Nice little test I suppose. I just hope it's short term.</p>

[Hammieee]

<p><cite>Neiloch@Butcherblock wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I'm going off our <strong>tanks</strong> laughing in ventrilo at how ridiculous recklessness is and saying they think it will be nerfed along with the ridiculous numbers I see in ACT. We tested it out purposely to see how high it could go. You buff a recklessness fighter like you would any other T1 DPS and they can do just as well, if not better in AoE fights. I don't feel the need to post the numbers because that would be purely for other players benefit, SoE has all these numbers already. I'm just telling them I know that they know.</p><p>A nice side benefit is anyone fighting 'for' recklessness in it's current state shows how little they know about the game. Nice little test I suppose. I just hope it's short term.</p></blockquote><p>It may be overpowered sure, but my tanks will be in this stance very limited situations and id never run a tank over a dps class.</p>

[Freejazzlive]

<p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Freejazzlive wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>And they were in defensive stance as i wanted them to be in it for hm sullons and also hm dagarn. They usually do about 200kish with defensive so an 100k increase honestly isnt that good its why my bruiser does without recklessness.</p></blockquote><p>Going from 200k to 300k is a 33% increase, & if 300k is "terribad DPS" then what is 200k?</p><p>Why, exactly, did you want them in defensive? You haven't explained that.</p></blockquote><p>To "Tank" thier job, and 300k isnt enough for me to run a tank instead of a dps class. Having them in defensive is the entire point i run three tanks and not just me.</p></blockquote><p>Did you actually need all of those tanks tanking?</p><p>At this point, I'm not talking about you running them instead of a DPS class. I'm just wondering why you wouldn't want another 200k DPS. I ask, sincerely, because I don't know the fights you're talking about.</p>

[Freejazzlive]

<p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>It may be overpowered</p></blockquote><p>If it is, then it should be nerfed. What you tell your other Fighters to do, or whether you'd run Fighters over DPS classes, isn't relevant to the question of it being over-powered. In fact, since your raid forces Fighters would only be in that stance for a limited time, nerfing Recklessness won't affect your raid force very much.</p><p>& of course, for any non-raid content, it's not needed. So, I'm gonna ask again why it was ever even implemented. You say your own tanks won't use it much, & Japanfour has agreed with me that the stance was never needed to begin with. So what's the point of an overpowered, un-needed stance?</p>

[Bruener]

<p><cite>Freejazzlive wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>It may be overpowered</p></blockquote><p>If it is, then it should be nerfed. What you tell your other Fighters to do, or whether you'd run Fighters over DPS classes, isn't relevant to the question of it being over-powered. In fact, since your raid forces Fighters would only be in that stance for a limited time, nerfing Recklessness won't affect your raid force very much.</p><p>& of course, for any non-raid content, it's not needed. So, I'm gonna ask again why it was ever even implemented. You say your own tanks won't use it much, & Japanfour has agreed with me that the stance was never needed to begin with. So what's the point of an overpowered, un-needed stance?</p></blockquote><p>Simple.  To want to keep the 3rd and 4th Fighter in raid full time for the downtime on encounters they are not needed.  It means using 4 Fighter mains instead of alts and less shuffling around to maximise DPS.</p><p>It does not push raids to want more than 4 Fighters for an optimum set up, so I ask you what is the problem you have with this stance?</p><p>Even in heroic you still need your heals, you still need your utility to maximise DPS, and nobody is going to turn away a real DPS class.  It is extremely easy content that groups don't even stop to take a breath on.  Its like complaining about a class parsing higher in a solo instance when everybody knows its just easy.</p>

[Davngr]

<p>yes it does give a reason to have 4 fighters.    once people get the hang of this new ability there will be 3-4 crusaders in raid along with one guard to tank and aoe avoid all of them. </p><p> crusaders in wreckless are amazing sustained dps if they don't suck at pushing buttons.</p>

[Bruener]

<p><cite>Davngr wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>yes it does give a reason to have 4 fighters.    once people get the hang of this new ability there will be 3-4 crusaders in raid along with one guard to tank and aoe avoid all of them. </p><p> crusaders in wreckless are amazing sustained dps if they don't suck at pushing buttons.</p></blockquote><p>First of all Brawlers in Recklessness do just as good DPS.</p><p>Second there isn't enough spots for more than 4 Fighters in a raid.  It would lower the synergy of groups and lower raid wide DPS.</p><p>Third Brawlers still are more survivable than Crusaders.</p><p>Fourth Brawlers are much better in a Melee group to raise everybody's DPS and for their personal Parse.</p><p>Stop being jealous just because with temps and all their AEs a Crusader out parses you on some meaningless trash.  It is not going to have the affect you claim at all and is only going to push what SOE's intent was.  Maintaining 4 Fighters in a raid.</p>

[ratbast]

<p><cite>Freejazzlive wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;"><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">It may be overpowered</span></p></blockquote><p>If it is, then it should be nerfed. What you tell your other Fighters to do, or whether you'd run Fighters over DPS classes, isn't relevant to the question of it being over-powered. In fact, since your raid forces Fighters would only be in that stance for a limited time, nerfing Recklessness won't affect your raid force very much.</p><p>& of course, for any non-raid content, it's not needed. So, I'm gonna ask again why it was ever even implemented. You say your own tanks won't use it much, & Japanfour has agreed with me that the stance was never needed to begin with. So what's the point of an overpowered, un-needed stance?</p></blockquote><p>ppl are now admitting its OP and arguing other reasons to keep it. they acknowledge it. or saying, yeah its needs a nerf.</p><p>the problem is if you sit down and think about it, nerfing it makes it useless. any version of reckless that is sufficiently strong is OP, and any reckless that is toned down is meh and why bother adding it to game.</p><p>adding any new thing is this way, its either OP or useless. that is why reckless should be rolled back. the game did not need a magic crutch to pick up any slack. end result can only be either op or useless.</p><p>add-ons to game need to fill in gaps or be innovative. reckless is nothing of either sort. its like applying 5 pounds of make-up to a pretty girl. decrease in beauty.</p><p>there was no gap for fighter dps and this is not innovative, many games have tried this (classlessness). it decreases customization of eq2 toons making them all less special and individual. now more classes can do significant dps. i dont mind an alternate stance, but this invades many classes entire 'reason for being', gimmicky new stances should be innovative no?</p>

[Neobe]

<p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Davngr wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>yes it does give a reason to have 4 fighters.    once people get the hang of this new ability there will be 3-4 crusaders in raid along with one guard to tank and aoe avoid all of them. </p><p> crusaders in wreckless are amazing sustained dps if they don't suck at pushing buttons.</p></blockquote><p>First of all Brawlers in Recklessness do just as good DPS.</p><p>Second there isn't enough spots for more than 4 Fighters in a raid.  It would lower the synergy of groups and lower raid wide DPS.</p><p>Third Brawlers still are more survivable than Crusaders.</p><p>Fourth Brawlers are much better in a Melee group to raise everybody's DPS and for their personal Parse.</p><p>Stop being jealous just because with temps and all their AEs a Crusader out parses you on some meaningless trash.  It is not going to have the affect you claim at all and is only going to push what SOE's intent was.  Maintaining 4 Fighters in a raid.</p></blockquote><p>Agree, i have been out parsed on a few fights by crusaders ive group with but overall ZW beat them everytime.</p>

[jjlo69]

<p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Davngr wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>yes it does give a reason to have 4 fighters.    once people get the hang of this new ability there will be 3-4 crusaders in raid along with one guard to tank and aoe avoid all of them. </p><p> crusaders in wreckless are amazing sustained dps if they don't suck at pushing buttons.</p></blockquote><p>First of all Brawlers in Recklessness do just as good DPS.</p><p>Second there isn't enough spots for more than 4 Fighters in a raid.  It would lower the synergy of groups and lower raid wide DPS.</p><p>Third Brawlers still are more survivable than Crusaders.</p><p>Fourth Brawlers are much better in a Melee group to raise everybody's DPS and for their personal Parse.</p><p>Stop being jealous just because with temps and all their AEs a Crusader out parses you on some meaningless trash.  It is not going to have the affect you claim at all and is only going to push what SOE's intent was.  Maintaining 4 Fighters in a raid.</p></blockquote><p>hey deule wondering when you were gonna put in you .02 that it not OP...i love to see a couple of your parses</p>

[Bruener]

<p><cite>Uncle@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Davngr wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>yes it does give a reason to have 4 fighters.    once people get the hang of this new ability there will be 3-4 crusaders in raid along with one guard to tank and aoe avoid all of them. </p><p> crusaders in wreckless are amazing sustained dps if they don't suck at pushing buttons.</p></blockquote><p>First of all Brawlers in Recklessness do just as good DPS.</p><p>Second there isn't enough spots for more than 4 Fighters in a raid.  It would lower the synergy of groups and lower raid wide DPS.</p><p>Third Brawlers still are more survivable than Crusaders.</p><p>Fourth Brawlers are much better in a Melee group to raise everybody's DPS and for their personal Parse.</p><p>Stop being jealous just because with temps and all their AEs a Crusader out parses you on some meaningless trash.  It is not going to have the affect you claim at all and is only going to push what SOE's intent was.  Maintaining 4 Fighters in a raid.</p></blockquote><p>hey deule wondering when you were gonna put in you .02 that it not OP...i love to see a couple of your parses</p></blockquote><p>Well haven't really been able to hop into the stance a lot because to tank is my number 1 job.</p><p>We did run Tallons HM and I got to try it out some.  Pulling the trash up to the first named I was 3rd on the parse at like 900k from a mage group.  Beat by 2 mages and the other T1 DPS classes not far behind me (lets face it if you have TW with AEs on trash it is ownage).</p><p>Its also important to know that the Warlock beat me by over 500k DPS and was over 1.4mil DPS for the trash prior to the named.</p><p>I ran it on PoW trash and was 5th on the parse probably because ST is not a SKs best friend like AE.</p><p>Not worth running on anything that is half way important because me staying alive saves other people.</p><p>To me that sounds like it is working since it basically gives a couple fighters something to do on the encounters that don't matter.</p>

[Haciv]

<p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Uncle@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Davngr wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>yes it does give a reason to have 4 fighters.    once people get the hang of this new ability there will be 3-4 crusaders in raid along with one guard to tank and aoe avoid all of them. </p><p> crusaders in wreckless are amazing sustained dps if they don't suck at pushing buttons.</p></blockquote><p>First of all Brawlers in Recklessness do just as good DPS.</p><p>Second there isn't enough spots for more than 4 Fighters in a raid.  It would lower the synergy of groups and lower raid wide DPS.</p><p>Third Brawlers still are more survivable than Crusaders.</p><p>Fourth Brawlers are much better in a Melee group to raise everybody's DPS and for their personal Parse.</p><p>Stop being jealous just because with temps and all their AEs a Crusader out parses you on some meaningless trash.  It is not going to have the affect you claim at all and is only going to push what SOE's intent was.  Maintaining 4 Fighters in a raid.</p></blockquote><p>hey deule wondering when you were gonna put in you .02 that it not OP...i love to see a couple of your parses</p></blockquote><p>Well haven't really been able to hop into the stance a lot because to tank is my number 1 job.</p><p>We did run Tallons HM and I got to try it out some.  Pulling the trash up to the first named I was 3rd on the parse at like 900k from a mage group.  Beat by 2 mages and the other T1 DPS classes not far behind me (lets face it if you have TW with AEs on trash it is ownage).</p><p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Its also important to know that the Warlock beat me by over 500k DPS and was over 1.4mil DPS for the trash prior to the named.</span></strong></p><p>I ran it on PoW trash and was 5th on the parse probably because ST is not a SKs best friend like AE.</p><p>Not worth running on anything that is half way important because me staying alive saves other people.</p><p>To me that sounds like it is working since it basically gives a couple fighters something to do on the encounters that don't matter.</p></blockquote><p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">It's also important to know that the Warlock that beat you likely had UT, EV, and Bolster.   Try it again where you get the buffs and they dont and compare then.</span></strong></p>

[Faildozer]

<p>of course the t1 warlock had all the buffs. If i were to go into a zone and stack the grp so that im getting all the buffs, im going to top the parse on my guardian even without reckless.. In a raid setup he isnt going ot get all the buffs that go on the top parsing t1 dps and even if he did he wouldnt get as much benefit from them.. If people start recruiting shadowknights just to give them all the buffs then that is on you guys.. good job proving a point by complaining about the t1 not doing enough dps because you gave all buffs to the SK...</p>

[jjlo69]

<p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Uncle@Mistmoore wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Davngr wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>yes it does give a reason to have 4 fighters.    once people get the hang of this new ability there will be 3-4 crusaders in raid along with one guard to tank and aoe avoid all of them. </p><p> crusaders in wreckless are amazing sustained dps if they don't suck at pushing buttons.</p></blockquote><p>First of all Brawlers in Recklessness do just as good DPS.</p><p>Second there isn't enough spots for more than 4 Fighters in a raid.  It would lower the synergy of groups and lower raid wide DPS.</p><p>Third Brawlers still are more survivable than Crusaders.</p><p>Fourth Brawlers are much better in a Melee group to raise everybody's DPS and for their personal Parse.</p><p>Stop being jealous just because with temps and all their AEs a Crusader out parses you on some meaningless trash.  It is not going to have the affect you claim at all and is only going to push what SOE's intent was.  Maintaining 4 Fighters in a raid.</p></blockquote><p>hey deule wondering when you were gonna put in you .02 that it not OP...i love to see a couple of your parses</p></blockquote><p>Well haven't really been able to hop into the stance a lot because to tank is my number 1 job.</p><p>We did run Tallons HM and I got to try it out some.  Pulling the trash up to the first named I was 3rd on the parse at like 900k from a mage group.  Beat by 2 mages and the other T1 DPS classes not far behind me (lets face it if you have TW with AEs on trash it is ownage).</p><p>Its also important to know that the Warlock beat me by over 500k DPS and was over 1.4mil DPS for the trash prior to the named.</p><p>I ran it on PoW trash and was 5th on the parse probably because ST is not a SKs best friend like AE.</p><p>Not worth running on anything that is half way important because me staying alive saves other people.</p><p>To me that sounds like it is working since it basically gives a couple fighters something to do on the encounters that don't matter.</p></blockquote><p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">900k on unimportant mobs as you put <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>in tallon 3rd on the zw and 5th on the zw respectively in POW (that trash HP is above average) beating some of your beastly T1 DPS impressive.  Just curious where you would ended up if you were  in offensive stance only. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></p>

[Haciv]

<p><cite>Faildozer@Permafrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>of course the t1 warlock had all the buffs. If i were to go into a zone and stack the grp so that im getting all the buffs, im going to top the parse on my guardian even without reckless.. In a raid setup he isnt going ot get all the buffs that go on the top parsing t1 dps and <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">even if he did he wouldnt get as much benefit from them</span></strong>.. If people start recruiting shadowknights just to give them all the buffs then that is on you guys.. good job proving a point by complaining about the t1 not doing enough dps because you gave all buffs to the SK...</p></blockquote><p>A SK actually get more use of the entire buff.  UT does nothing for a Lock except 2 extra ticks, as they'll already be capped on cast, reuse, and recovery where as a SK will fully benefit from the entire buff.  EV will benefit him even more so than a mage if the potency from that is doubled with recklessness, not to mention the extra MA.</p><p>I'm just saying... do a fair comparison.  Compare an unbuffed SK to an unbuffed Lock, or compare a buffed Lock to a buffed SK.  Who ever is a better parser should get the buffs to make them parse higher.  If you're buffing people that are parsing lower than the SK, then you're not maximizing your raids DPS.  I've already proven in a heroic setting with my setup that it's better to buff an SK over a Lock here:  <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=520670">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=520670</a></p><p>If anything, all you've done is proved my point.  An unbuffed SK beats an entire raid, except 2 people.  GG.</p>

[Haciv]

<p>Just verified now with my SK and an Illy.</p><p>Recklessness DOES give double potency of whatever you get from EV.  I got 25 potency from EV w/o recklessness, and I got 50 potency with recklessness.  So, explain to me again... how is a SK not the best class to use buffs on?</p>

[Haciv]

<p><cite>Haciv wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Just verified now with my SK and an Illy.</p><p>Recklessness DOES give double potency of whatever you get from EV.  I got 25 potency from EV w/o recklessness, and I got 50 potency with recklessness.  So, explain to me again... how is a SK not the best class to use buffs on?</p></blockquote><p>And... just tested Theives Guild and it gives double the potency it would normally otherwise give to a non-recklessness fighter.  I'd imagine that all powerful potency buffs (such as Primal Fury) will double, just like EV and TG do.  Stack a SK with Primal Fury, UT, EV, and TG and it's game over.</p>

[Davngr]

<p>dev's all ready know for a fact that this ability is stupid broken.</p><p>  EVERYONE told them it was stupid broken on test and they pushed it to live now it's on live and it's stupid as we said it was.</p><p> at this point they can decided to keep it and futher agrivate everyone or get rid of it all together.</p><p>  IF they get rid of it..  good</p><p>   IF they don't then they better tweak it out so it benefits my bruiser, guard and zerk.    yes it's does fine on monks because of op dragonfire but it's pretty meh on my bruiser.</p>

[Cyrdemac]

<p>It's fine as it is. Increased damage output for increased damage income. And it's only good on easy and trash encounters. Hard ones, where you actually need a good tank, are no option for Recklessness. And these are the encounters where DPS actually matters. Period.</p>

[Luhai]

<p>The biggest problem I see with the stance is the ability to tank with Recklessness. The dehate could be much higher to prevent fighters from using this to actually tank stuff.</p><p>I could tank Sky 1-4 just fine with 1 healer while hardly ever losing aggro.</p>

[Neiloch]

<p><cite>ratbast wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>ppl are now admitting its OP and arguing other reasons to keep it. they acknowledge it. or saying, yeah its needs a nerf.<p>the problem is if you sit down and think about it, nerfing it makes it useless. any version of reckless that is sufficiently strong is OP, and any reckless that is toned down is meh and why bother adding it to game.</p></blockquote><p>Exactly.</p><p>IF they want to keep recklessness and not have it be useless at the same time, they are going to need to go over AT LEAST the otehr DPS classes and do some serious tweaking.</p><p><cite>Cyrdemac wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>It's fine as it is. Increased damage output for increased damage income. And it's only good on easy and trash encounters. Hard ones, where you actually need a good tank, are no option for Recklessness. And these are the encounters where DPS actually matters. Period.</p></blockquote><p>Again, this idea that as long as it doesn't work on the hardest of fights is ignorant at best. MOST of the game ISN'T the hardest fights. It's <strong><em>so</em></strong> fun not getting demand/play time EXCEPT for the PITA fights. And only that if you are lucky enough to have one of the better dps/utility ratios.</p>

[Hammieee]

<p>Its fine as it is, stop being bad and getting outparsed by tanks.</p>

[Faildozer]

<p>Vicah, the only thing about what you say that is correct is that the SK will benefit from the reuse and recovery speed from UT. Any fighter in gear this xpac should be over 600ma and not even close to the next cap so the MA increase on EV is a wash. Yes any potency they get will be double the amount a lock will but locks base damage is innately a LOT higher. The extra ticks from UT also will give much more damage to the lock and have much shorter reuse compared to that of the Shadowknights hard hitters, combined with Focused Casting and the chance for it to be reset the damage potential for the Lock is much greater, even before adding in the lock does 10% more damage when the mob is under 30% health.</p><p>Before you say anything, I logged on to my lock and my SK set their potency to within .6 of each other (sk actually had more,) and tested all of these. The only glaring aoe spell that the shadowknight has that hits much harder than any of the locks aoes is Grave Sac/Chaos Cloud and the damage doesnt tick as often but nevertheless it is a huge amount of damage but on a long reuse. Also for this reason while SK's might spike real high on short AoE fights a well played warlock will easily top single target even with SK's death touch hitting very hard, the reuse is 2 long and the lock has much better sustainable dps options and higher spike damage capabilities.</p><p>TLDR, SK's chaos cloud and death touch hit hard but locks get much higher relative dps gains from the buffs.</p>

[Faildozer]

<p>Again, i am fine with the fact that they dont want people to tank in it.. They shouldnt make the tank squishier they should just make it impossible to have any threat increase or positive hate gain or proc a lot of positional dehates. What I saw in another thread that would be a good alternative is to make the damage increase greater but only if you are the target of the mob, that way people arent getting blown up by aoes moreso than other classes.. These are viable ways to prevent people from tanking in it but the damage isnt the issue..</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Neobe wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I find it hard to believe ur tank was in Reck stance for the trash, b/c when i was using reck last night if i didnt play like a scout i would get one shotted. 50% more dmg taken really hurts. The parse post why not show a fight when ppl werent already getting over mil dps. Im not saying the reck isnt broken, i parse 340k zw last night in Selvalak Awkened that was about a 100k increase in my dps in there from before the update. But this isnt for good players this is so the crappy players can try and find a place in a raid or a group.</p></blockquote><p>You're probably a brawler?</p><p>Block chance with a shield remains in reckless stance, and those tanks running a shield can survive trash fights no problem.  I infact can survive most named fights without much issue.  I do have to block a bit more aggressively, but I'm finding it not to be an issue for alot of EM raid content.</p>

[ratbast]

<p><cite>Faildozer@Permafrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Vicah, the only thing about what you say that is correct is that the SK will benefit from the reuse and recovery speed from UT. Any fighter in gear this xpac should be over 600ma and not even close to the next cap so the MA increase on EV is a wash. Yes any potency they get will be double the amount a lock will but locks base damage is innately a LOT higher. The extra ticks from UT also will give much more damage to the lock and have much shorter reuse compared to that of the Shadowknights hard hitters, combined with Focused Casting and the chance for it to be reset the damage potential for the Lock is much greater, even before adding in the lock does 10% more damage when the mob is under 30% health.</p><p>Before you say anything, I logged on to my lock and my SK set their potency to within .6 of each other (sk actually had more,) and tested all of these. The only glaring aoe spell that the shadowknight has that hits much harder than any of the locks aoes is Grave Sac/Chaos Cloud and the damage doesnt tick as often but nevertheless it is a huge amount of damage but on a long reuse. Also for this reason while SK's might spike real high on short AoE fights a well played warlock will easily top single target even with SK's death touch hitting very hard, the reuse is 2 long and the lock has much better sustainable dps options and higher spike damage capabilities.</p><p>TLDR, SK's chaos cloud and death touch hit hard but locks get much higher relative dps gains from the buffs.</p></blockquote><p>the fact you are honestly comparing these classes is really all we need to know. you are getting nitty gritty with a t1 dps and a crusader on the subject of dps.</p><p>if you wanted some real numbers, there are screenshots of a warlock sk group. one day they ran UD with warlock getting buffs, another day with sk. when lock got buffs they both parsed about 250k zw. when sk got buffs he did 330k or so and the lock did 240k. zw.</p><p>granted that is including not just UT, but also bolster. but it just makes the point even more obvious. reckless crusaders are the only class worth buffing for potency and spell damage (and apparentluy green stats).</p>

[Faildozer]

<p>Dude.. Vicah is the guy im talking to.. Of course if you take away all the buffs from a Lock their dps is going ot go down and if you give them all to a tank their dps will go up.. This isnt rocket science.. And the "nitty gritty" is doing a basic spell efficiency comparison and if you arent parsing well you should probably do the same for your char instead of running to the forums to complain about a SK parsing well on a heroic instance laced with aoe fights.</p>

[Haciv]

<p><cite>Faildozer@Permafrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Vicah, the only thing about what you say that is correct is that the SK will benefit from the reuse and recovery speed from UT. Any fighter in gear this xpac should be over 600ma and not even close to the next cap so the MA increase on EV is a wash. Yes any potency they get will be double the amount a lock will but locks base damage is innately a LOT higher. The extra ticks from UT also will give much more damage to the lock and have much shorter reuse compared to that of the Shadowknights hard hitters, combined with Focused Casting and the chance for it to be reset the damage potential for the Lock is much greater, even before adding in the lock does 10% more damage when the mob is under 30% health.</p><p>Before you say anything, I logged on to my lock and my SK set their potency to within .6 of each other (sk actually had more,) and tested all of these. The only glaring aoe spell that the shadowknight has that hits much harder than any of the locks aoes is Grave Sac/Chaos Cloud and the damage doesnt tick as often but nevertheless it is a huge amount of damage but on a long reuse. Also for this reason while SK's might spike real high on short AoE fights a well played warlock will easily top single target even with SK's death touch hitting very hard, the reuse is 2 long and the lock has much better sustainable dps options and higher spike damage capabilities.</p><p>TLDR, SK's chaos cloud and death touch hit hard but locks get much higher relative dps gains from the buffs.</p></blockquote><p>Overall, your theory is disproven by my personal experience and data in a heroic setting that is posted in the other thread I started.  I'm speaking from first hand experiance and I've shown how group DPS as a whole (for my group) goes up when you buff an SK over a Lock.  I've explained on how Recklessness effects me in my time that I choose to play the game.</p><p>You know, as well as members of your guild, that Gaarysal and I are some of the top players on the server.  I'm not a scrub player as many who are off server would probably want to believe, and I've contributed meaningful data in the past to show bugs as well as suggestions for class balance.  I know you're probably having fun with the new stance, and that's cool.  I'm having fun with it on my SK & Pally for now as well and that's what the game is all about.</p><p>I would encourage people from top guild to simply compare apples to apples and orange to oranges.  Try buffing a SK and in a beast group and see if the gain from that added DPS, outweighs the loss of DPS from not buffing a Lock.  From my personal group experience, it was more beneficial to buff the tank class over the dps class to do the role of DPS'ing.  I feel as if that needs some adjustment for the sake of balancing the roles of classes in the game.  If roles are changed that's fine, I get it, but now for the first time in the game there's a clear invasion of classes that can excel at two completely separate roles simultaneously.</p><p><strong>My end question though is, why should I keep playing my Sorc for the content I choose to play (EZ/HM Heroic)?</strong>  I personally do not see a reason at this point in time.  For the content that I choose to play, there's simply no need for a "DPS class" when tanks are capable of doing my job better than I can possibly be doing it myself.  I'm only trying to represent one aspect of the game (6 man groups), and I understand, that but there's a few people who choose to do heroic zones so I feel as if the matter should be looked into more.</p><p>That is all.</p><p>Side Note: Chaos Cloud which can be reset on demand with Death March is a quicker reuse than Focus Casting (which is a random reset).  IMO, Chaos Cloud is more powerful because Focus Casting is somewhat nullified by Illy's TW resets. </p>

[Faildozer]

<p>I am in no way saying you are a scrub and I know just the opposite is true, I am just pointing out that of course if you buff a SK they are going to parse a lot higher. I think what is also lost on you is the fact that a SK cant really effectively use Reck on hardmode content due to pulling threat and the major increase in damage taken from aoes. I think you should play your lock because you enjoy it but this is somethign for 3rd and 4th tanks so they dont have to ride the bench on trash and fights that only require 2 tanks. I do not think any guilds are going to actively recruit a crusader to fill a raid dps spot and if they do they probably arent killing anythign worth noting.</p><p>I again feel that the main thing people are complaining about is the dps and the fact that people can still tank the easier content. I feel the DPS is a non issue because given what it is usable on it doesnt matter if a fighter is parsing real high and it actually HELPS the raid by not having to recruit a dps to sit or sitting a fighter main and also when has killing trash faster ever hurt any guild? The fact that a SK or monk is doing a lot of damage shouldnt matter. You say that they can excel at 2 roles simultaneously is somewhat inaccurate. I know in heroic content they can do both and they can in easier raid settings but on progression or harder mobs it is one or the other. I am fine if they want to make it impossible to tank and have even offered suggestions but at the same time I think the fact that SKs can do good dps and offer some utility is never a bad thing and the gains from recklessness hsould be left alone or maybe drop the initial 50 potency gain at the very most. I dont think you will have to worry about any dps classes on a roster (unless they are slacking in a very noticeable way) being replaced by a fighter and at the same time they would probably still look for an equivelant class. This is the same overreaction when BLs first came out and everybody was afraid they would take all the dps slots on the roster which obviously hasnt happened despite putting out much more dps than any fighters will with this stance.</p>

[Bruener]

<p>You really shouldn't focus on a ZW of encounters that on average are like 20 to 30 seconds for you guys.  It is meaningless parsing even if you decide to merge them all together to try and make 1 actual decent size parse.</p><p>If you really want to compare numbers take real encounters that last 2+ minutes and see where it really parses out.  The longer a parse gets the further and further ahead true DPS classes get.</p><p>Now back to the whole reason they made this stance, to have a reason to keep fighter number 3 and 4 in a raid full time instead of them being a crutch to efficiency if you keep them in when they are not needed.  Recklessness accomplishes exactly that without pushing to have more than 4 Fighters since it will start having a negative effect on efficiency.</p><p>Ideally for a mage group you are going to have 1 bard, 1 chanter, 1 healer, 1 summoner, 1 sorceror, and 1 Crusader for maximum synergy with procs and buffs.  Ideally in a melee DPS group you are going to have 1 bard, 1 chanter, 1 healer, 2 Rogue/Predator/Beastlord, 1 Brawler for maximum DPS gain.  Ideally for an OT group you basically drop 1 of those scouts and add in a second healer.  Ideally for a MT group you are going to have 2 healers, 1 bard, 1 chanter, Guard or Monk, 1 scout transfer.</p><p>To try and drop 1 of those classes out to put in another Fighter you lower the DPS of the raid.  Sit the Summoner in the mage group and you lose ET for example.  Sit a Brig for a fighter and the whole raid loses DPS.</p><p>There is no way you can argue that Recklessness is a pretty good success when it accomplishes exactly what their goal was without pushing things beyond wanting 4 Fighters.</p><p>Heroic encounters, raid trash, EM encounters that might as well be trash with how easy it is are terrible examples to try and justify nerfing the stance.  A string of meaningless 25 second encounters from zones that from day 1 of launch were extremely easy are terrible examples.</p>

[Ryptide]

<p>Faildozer@Permafrost wrote:</p><blockquote><p>but this is somethign for 3rd and 4th tanks so they dont have to ride the bench on trash and fights that only require 2 tanks.</p></blockquote><p>If that 3rd or 4th tank stays in, someone else has to sit, so how does that solve anything?</p>

[Bruener]

<p><cite>Ryptide@Permafrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Faildozer@Permafrost wrote:</p><blockquote><p>but this is somethign for 3rd and 4th tanks so they dont have to ride the bench on trash and fights that only require 2 tanks.</p></blockquote><p>If that 3rd or 4th tank stays in, someone else has to sit, so how does that solve anything?</p></blockquote><p>Because somebody should have to sit for the 3rd and 4th Fighter.  They are key classes and needed on some encounters and those spots should be reserved for full time mains on the roster.  Having to sit to make the raid more efficient for a large amount of content is lame and causes recruiting issues.</p><p>Mind boggling that people continually fight to have Fighter spots limited to so few in a 24 raid set up where even if they take 4 spots the are still under represented compared to any other classes in the game.</p><p>Recklessness fixes the Fighter representation issue.  Now its time to move onto utility and lower their spots to increase more spots for DPS.</p>

[Ryptide]

<p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Ryptide@Permafrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Faildozer@Permafrost wrote:</p><blockquote><p>but this is somethign for 3rd and 4th tanks so they dont have to ride the bench on trash and fights that only require 2 tanks.</p></blockquote><p>If that 3rd or 4th tank stays in, someone else has to sit, so how does that solve anything?</p></blockquote><p>Because somebody should have to sit for the 3rd and 4th Fighter.  They are key classes and needed on some encounters and those spots should be reserved for full time mains on the roster.  Having to sit to make the raid more efficient for a large amount of content is lame and causes recruiting issues.</p><p>Mind boggling that people continually fight to have Fighter spots limited to so few in a 24 raid set up where even if they take 4 spots the are still under represented compared to any other classes in the game.</p><p>Recklessness fixes the Fighter representation issue.  Now its time to move onto utility and lower their spots to increase more spots for DPS.</p></blockquote><p>You're missing the point.  First let's assume that the entire raid force is full member status.  No matter what you do, someone is going to be displaced and have to sit.  If you redesign utility, so less raid spots are required, making more room for dps classes, then what do you do with the extra utility characters, that people have spent years developing and gearing those toons?</p><p>I'm not against the stance,  I love it on all my fighters.  But them using the excuse to keep 1 or 2 extra fighters in raid is just plain stupid.  Are you going to sit a dps class, so a fighter can stay in the raid on reck stance for trash?</p>

[Davngr]

<p><cite>Haciv wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><strong>My end question though is, why should I keep playing my Sorc for the content I choose to play (EZ/HM Heroic)?</strong>  I personally do not see a reason at this point in time.  For the content that I choose to play, there's simply no need for a "DPS class" when tanks are capable of doing my job better than I can possibly be doing it myself.  I'm only trying to represent one aspect of the game (6 man groups), and I understand, that but there's a few people who choose to do heroic zones so I feel as if the matter should be looked into more.</p></blockquote><p>this is waht it comes down to.</p> <p>  who cares if this ability isn't as overpowered in 1% of content?</p><p> and you're not better players just because you choose to faceplant to hard content till you learn the strats.    you're just persistent.</p>

[Freejazzlive]

<p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Now its time to move onto utility and lower their spots to increase more spots for DPS.</p></blockquote><p>This should have been the <strong>FIRST</strong> thing done, before implementing Reckless.</p><p>Note that my main is a Troubie.</p>

[Neiloch]

<p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Its fine as it is, stop being bad and getting outparsed by tanks.</p></blockquote><p>It's OP. Stop having terrible fighters coasting on the fact that they can tank.</p><p>Wow this style of argument is really easy. too bad it's useless and not constructive.</p><p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>You're probably a brawler?<p>Block chance with a shield remains in reckless stance, and those tanks running a shield can survive trash fights no problem.  I infact can survive most named fights without much issue.  I do have to block a bit more aggressively, but I'm finding it not to be an issue for alot of EM raid content.</p></blockquote><p>I'd love to see some sort of block debuff on recklessness.</p><p><cite>Ryptide@Permafrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>If you redesign utility, so less raid spots are required, making more room for dps classes, then what do you do with the extra utility characters, that people have spent years developing and gearing those toons?</blockquote><p>I know more than few utility classes that would jump at the idea of being able to switch their mains. They play out of demand rather than pure choice.</p><p><cite>Freejazzlive wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Now its time to move onto utility and lower their spots to increase more spots for DPS.</p></blockquote><p>This should have been the <strong>FIRST</strong> thing done, before implementing Reckless.</p><p>Note that my main is a Troubie.</p></blockquote><p>Agree 100%. but if anyone remembers in SF era they tried something to fix this by making a lot of buffs raid wide and single target buffs cross group and castable on one person per group. Utility players threw a fit on the forums. Wish they didn't. I think what SoE tried was making a kind of diminishing returns thing on having multiple of the same class as well. For example having 2 dirges was <em>almost</em> the same but then it dropped sharp when you had 3 or 4 in raid.</p>

[EverDog]

<p>imo, it would be nice if SOE makes Rogues/Summoners a Half Utility and a Half DPS classes.</p><p>For example, reduce summoner's DPS and give bard/chanter pets which can be something in Raid.</p><p>Or add more buff compenents to Rogue's debuffs as bard's prestige did.</p><p>If we can say "maybe we want 4chanters/4bards, but summoners and rogues also work"</p><p>it will help alot.</p>

[Cherri]

<p>Can we please have reckless stance do the following :</p><p>All skills that proc taunts now proc dehates</p><p>All hate positionals now proc dehate positionals</p><p>Monks had their hate positionals turned into dehate positionals whilst in reckless, can this be done to all tanks.</p><p>SOE did mention that this stance was meant to not allow tanks to tank in it. This is why the dehates are needed.</p><p>Now tanks are running about Solo/Heroic content in this new stance with basically no penalty due to the fact that theyre newly aquired DPS still lets them hold agro, they still have taunts and taunt procs and healers can still easily keep them alive even with the tanks taking 50% more damage in heroic content.</p>

[Cherri]

<p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Its fine as it is, stop being bad and getting outparsed by tanks.</p></blockquote><p>I agree, reckless is fine dps wise but does need to be tweaked so that tanks cannot tank heroic content in it.</p>

[Ryptide]

<p><cite>Neiloch@Butcherblock wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Ryptide@Permafrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>If you redesign utility, so less raid spots are required, making more room for dps classes, then what do you do with the extra utility characters, that people have spent years developing and gearing those toons?</blockquote><p>I know more than few utility classes that would jump at the idea of being able to switch their mains. They play out of demand rather than pure choice.</p></blockquote><p>So we're saying by giving fighters this dual role, they will need to redesign all the utility classes and change the raid dynamics / balance, in order to accomdate having 1 or 2 more fighters stay in raid and be useful?  </p><p>Someone is still getting sat in the end.  If they redo utility so less is needed and people are now on their pure dps classes, who will sit?  The fighter or the pure dps class?</p><p>I think it's a good idea for fighters to have a pure dps stance.  I think healers should get the same thing.  I don't think that fighters should be able tank, or healers heal, heroic and/or raid content while in these "pure dps" stances.</p>

[Davngr]

<p><cite>Ryptide@Permafrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I think it's a good idea for fighters to have a pure dps stance.  I think healers should get the same thing.  I don't think that fighters should be able tank, or healers heal, heroic and/or raid content while in these "pure dps" stances.</p></blockquote><p>you sir are wise beyond your years!  </p><p> ps.</p><p>   thougt i full agree with mr. pep.  i would like my assassin to have a groupward!  purely for bg's and their bad "no healer" set ups!</p>

[Neiloch]

<p><cite>Ryptide@Permafrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>So we're saying by giving fighters this dual role, they will need to redesign all the utility classes and change the raid dynamics / balance, in order to accomdate having 1 or 2 more fighters stay in raid and be useful?  </blockquote><p>No. I'm saying if it's such a huge problem classes are being underrepresented based on how many of them there are they should look at classes they have a bloated class/slot ratio because of player demand, such as utility classes who usually get 6-8 slots when there are 4 classes.</p><p>FYI they have already fundamentally changed raid dynamics/balance with the dual role itself.</p><p><cite>Ryptide@Permafrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>Someone is still getting sat in the end.  If they redo utility so less is needed and people are now on their pure dps classes, who will sit?  The fighter or the pure dps class?</blockquote><p>Someone getting sat is inevitable for any guild that recruits/uses more than 24 raiders. Trying to avoid it outright is futile. What <em>can</em> be avoided is roles being in extremely high or low demand relative to the other classes. Role demand should directly proportional to how many classes can fill that role.</p><p><cite>Ryptide@Permafrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I think it's a good idea for fighters to have a pure dps stance.  I think healers should get the same thing.  I don't think that fighters should be able tank, or healers heal, heroic and/or raid content while in these "pure dps" stances.</p></blockquote><p>I've played 3 other MMO's that institute multi or dual role systems for classes. One thing they absolutely <strong>did not </strong>do is only give it to a fraction of the classes. If they are going to put in a dual role system ALL the classes should get dual roles AT THE SAME TIME. None of this 'let's pretend it's alpha and release features in gigantic unfinished chunks' nonsense.</p>

[Xaxtionlorex]

<p><cite>Cuddlewards@Unrest_old wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Can we please have reckless stance do the following :</p><p>All skills that proc taunts now proc dehates</p><p>All hate positionals now proc dehate positionals</p><p>Monks had their hate positionals turned into dehate positionals whilst in reckless, can this be done to all tanks.</p><p>SOE did mention that this stance was meant to not allow tanks to tank in it. This is why the dehates are needed.</p><p>Now tanks are running about Solo/Heroic content in this new stance with basically no penalty due to the fact that theyre newly aquired DPS still lets them hold agro, they still have taunts and taunt procs and healers can still easily keep them alive even with the tanks taking 50% more damage in heroic content.</p></blockquote><p>This, 100x this, doing pow last I was still snapping warboar adds with chaos cloud, even if it dosent have 3 hate postionals, its still drops 120k hate procs+ the Hate over Time.</p>

[Neiloch]

<p>Instituting massive deaggros so tanks can't get aggro in recklessness is going to break a lot of things. Any fight that is hate sensitive would give them a severe advantage as DPS, for example. This is because they would be able to go full out without getting aggro while the other DPS classes would still have to hold back.</p><p>I think their aggro generating ability via hate generating specifc abilities should be lowered, but done so without touching 'DPS' aggro. In combination with this all tanking specific stats should take a HUGE hit when in recklessness. Such as block, riposte and parry. Making them clothies by lowering their mitigation more would just be ridiculous.</p>

[Ryptide]

<p>Fixing the agro is only part of it.  If fighters in reck stance are to parse like t2 dps then they need to survive like t2 dps.  That means no death saves, stoneskins, reduced mitigation etc..  Unless they want to start handing out abilities like stone deaf, superior guard, close mind, brawler tenacity to the other dps classes.</p><p>A smarter way to "represent" the fighter class and increase their desirability in raids beyond the 2nd or 3rd tank, would be to give them something everyone could benefit from.  What if Recklessness gave fighters an ability everyone in the group a boost, including themselves?  </p><p>For example, if fighters in reck stance gave a melee damage rating mod to the group as well as some potency buffs, then everyone benefits, to a smaller degree individually, but overall a similar increase spread across the group.  Desire for the extra fighter or two would definitely increase.</p>

[Landiin]

<p><cite>Neiloch@Butcherblock wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Instituting massive deaggros so tanks can't get aggro in recklessness is going to break a lot of things. Any fight that is hate sensitive would give them a severe advantage as DPS, for example. This is because they would be able to go full out without getting aggro while the other DPS classes would still have to hold back.</p><p>I think their aggro generating ability via hate generating specifc abilities should be lowered, but done so without touching 'DPS' aggro. In combination with this all tanking specific stats should take a HUGE hit when in recklessness. Such as block, riposte and parry. Making them clothies by lowering their mitigation more would just be ridiculous.</p></blockquote><p>This ^^^</p><p>50% Damage increase wasn't a very good/thought out penalty to impose. What is 50% more damage after you'v blocked it, avoided it, mitigated most of it? The Penalty should of been 0 block, decrease physical mitigation, avoidance, Riposte and parry by a good percentage. Block all + hate positions and remove all thread (see taunts) from DPS CA's. Then I think people wouldn't be in such an uproar.</p>

[Hammieee]

<p><cite>Ryptide@Permafrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Fixing the agro is only part of it.  If fighters in reck stance are to parse like t2 dps then they need to survive like t2 dps.  That means no death saves, stoneskins, reduced mitigation etc..  Unless they want to start handing out abilities like stone deaf, superior guard, close mind, brawler tenacity to the other dps classes.</p><p>A smarter way to "represent" the fighter class and increase their desirability in raids beyond the 2nd or 3rd tank, would be to give them something everyone could benefit from.  What if Recklessness gave fighters an ability everyone in the group a boost, including themselves?  </p><p>For example, if fighters in reck stance gave a melee damage rating mod to the group as well as some potency buffs, then everyone benefits, to a smaller degree individually, but overall a similar increase spread across the group.  Desire for the extra fighter or two would definitely increase.</p></blockquote><p>No, i take 50% more damage i need those to survive, reading for the win. And no.</p>

[Koleg]

<p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Ryptide@Permafrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Fixing the agro is only part of it.  If fighters in reck stance are to parse like t2 dps then they need to survive like t2 dps.  That means no death saves, stoneskins, reduced mitigation etc..  Unless they want to start handing out abilities like stone deaf, superior guard, close mind, brawler tenacity to the other dps classes.</p><p>A smarter way to "represent" the fighter class and increase their desirability in raids beyond the 2nd or 3rd tank, would be to give them something everyone could benefit from.  What if Recklessness gave fighters an ability everyone in the group a boost, including themselves?  </p><p>For example, if fighters in reck stance gave a melee damage rating mod to the group as well as some potency buffs, then everyone benefits, to a smaller degree individually, but overall a similar increase spread across the group.  Desire for the extra fighter or two would definitely increase.</p></blockquote><p>No, i take 50% more damage i need those to survive, reading for the win. And no.</p></blockquote><p>DPS classes don't "need to survive", they need to learn how to play so as not to take damage in the first place.  If you want the DPS of a T1 then you should get the survivibility of a T1.  50% more damage (ie 150% not 200%) is not a big enough deterrant to keep fighters out of Reckless while tanking.</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Koleg@Unrest_old wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>DPS classes don't "need to survive", they need to learn how to play so as not to take damage in the first place.  If you want the DPS of a T1 then you should get the survivibility of a T1.  50% more damage (ie 150% not 200%) is not a big enough deterrant to keep fighters out of Reckless while tanking.</p></blockquote><p>Not even remotely.  Reckless has become my new stance unless I'm doing HM encounters or using pug healers.</p>

[Hammieee]

<p>Are you sure atan? Aoe's in sullons i prefer to hit me for 40k~ instead of 65k~. Lets not even get started on sullon zek's aoe's. But regardless i havnt ran skyshrine in awhile so i dont know where the stance is there.</p>

[Ryptide]

<p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Ryptide@Permafrost wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Fixing the agro is only part of it.  If fighters in reck stance are to parse like t2 dps then they need to survive like t2 dps.  That means no death saves, stoneskins, reduced mitigation etc..  Unless they want to start handing out abilities like stone deaf, superior guard, close mind, brawler tenacity to the other dps classes.</p><p>A smarter way to "represent" the fighter class and increase their desirability in raids beyond the 2nd or 3rd tank, would be to give them something everyone could benefit from.  What if Recklessness gave fighters an ability everyone in the group a boost, including themselves?  </p><p>For example, if fighters in reck stance gave a melee damage rating mod to the group as well as some potency buffs, then everyone benefits, to a smaller degree individually, but overall a similar increase spread across the group.  Desire for the extra fighter or two would definitely increase.</p></blockquote><p>No, i take 50% more damage i need those to survive, reading for the win. And no.</p></blockquote><p>Lrn how to joust just like the rest of the dps classes.  lol</p>

[Geothe]

<p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Are you sure atan? Aoe's in sullons i prefer to hit me for 40k~ instead of 65k~. Lets not even get started on sullon zek's aoe's. But regardless i havnt ran skyshrine in awhile so i dont know where the stance is there.</p></blockquote><p>Did you actually read his entire sentence?He said reckless for all fights except HM encounters.Sullons is HM .... therefore, he would not be using reckless there.  Its not that hard to read.</p><p>That said,NO TANK should be able to -tank- in Reckless stance.  Period. End of story.All avoidance needs to be removed while Reckless is active as well.  The fact that entire x4 raids can be tanked in this stance just screams broken.</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Geothe wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Are you sure atan? Aoe's in sullons i prefer to hit me for 40k~ instead of 65k~. Lets not even get started on sullon zek's aoe's. But regardless i havnt ran skyshrine in awhile so i dont know where the stance is there.</p></blockquote><p>He said reckless for all fights except HM encounters.</p></blockquote><p>Yeah, I wouldn't tank anything HM in reckless currently.  I think there are a couple of fights I could, but I wouldn't risk it.  </p><p>As far as EM Skyshrine, the only one that was tough at all in my opinion was Sevelar/Putrator, in that if I got double upped on the normal aoe + the random nox, I had to stoneskin it out or have a deathsave up nearly immediately.</p><p>I was honestly surprised how easy it was to stay up.  The mob in sevalak with the 4 adds, I expected to go splat with all 5 on me at times, but wasn't a problem at all.</p>

[Hammieee]

<p>Anyways back onto recklessness! So how are the dps classes getting outparsed today?!</p>

[Koleg]

<p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Anyways back onto recklessness! So how are the dps classes getting outparsed today?!</p></blockquote><p>via AE-Auto and +300% Potency, don't be so obtuse.</p>

[Draylore]

<p>While the reckless stance is in fact accomplishing what it was intended to do......its doing so without enough penalty.</p><p>My Guardian is my 2nd account box alt.......has total crap for gear....does not even have SS faction gear yet and has no problem tanking SS heroic stuff in reckless stance.   So while I have no idea how things are playing out at the upper raid level for tanks usign Reckless....I do understand the game and can only imagine it really doesnt change much.   And reckless stance for Guardian is rather lame when compared to what it does for Crusaders.</p><p>Point is..I believe SOE intended this to not be used for tanking but it is....I know I am only speaking from the meaningless heroic level but given my Guards gear.....things are relative and the penalty for using Reckless and being able to tank while using it needs to be significantly increased.</p><p>I see nothing wrong with the intent of the stance...give that #3 or #4 tank something meaningful to do for the majority of the time they are in a raid.......but it needs to come at a drastic cost.......that is the inability to tank anything effectively while using it.   Currently it is not IMO and is comes out OP.</p>

[Goozman]

<p>We're going to need a couple dozen more nether wing parses before we can determine if recklessness is OP</p>

[Koleg]

<p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Koleg@Unrest_old wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Anyways back onto recklessness! So how are the dps classes getting outparsed today?!</p></blockquote><p>via AE-Auto and +300% Potency, don't be so obtuse.</p></blockquote><p><strong><span style="color: #ff9900;">[Removed post.]</span></strong></p></blockquote><p>No, not really.  I have a Crusader and a Brawler (doesn't everybody) both in raid gear, but this is the wrong type of implementation this game needs.  There is no need to eliminate the design of 6 to 8 classes in one fell swoop.  I was originally P.O.'ed with the OP Beastlords, but have since come to realize that barely 1 in 10 beastlords actaully know how the beastlord mechanics work and only those very few can top the parse over knowledgable sorcerers, predetors or summoners and I just LOL at the others that think they know how to play the class.  The issue with Reckless is that it takes absolutely ZERO skill to top those pre-HM parses due to the gifted +300% potency.  It's just dumb.</p>

[Hammieee]

<p><cite>Koleg@Unrest_old wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Koleg@Unrest_old wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Anyways back onto recklessness! So how are the dps classes getting outparsed today?!</p></blockquote><p>via AE-Auto and +300% Potency, don't be so obtuse.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff9900;"><strong>[Removed post.]</strong></span></p></blockquote><p>No, not really.  I have a Crusader and a Brawler (doesn't everybody) both in raid gear, but this is the wrong type of implementation this game needs.  There is no need to eliminate the design of 6 to 8 classes in one fell swoop.  I was originally P.O.'ed with the OP Beastlords, but have since come to realize that barely 1 in 10 beastlords actaully know how the beastlord mechanics work and only those very few can top the parse over knowledgable sorcerers, predetors or summoners and I just LOL at the others that think they know how to play the class.  The issue with Reckless is that it takes absolutely ZERO skill to top those pre-HM parses due to the gifted +300% potency.  It's just dumb.</p></blockquote><p>Our shadowknight got 5th on the parse on hm klaaktus does that mean hes op????????</p>

[Koleg]

<p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Koleg@Unrest_old wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Koleg@Unrest_old wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Anyways back onto recklessness! So how are the dps classes getting outparsed today?!</p></blockquote><p>via AE-Auto and +300% Potency, don't be so obtuse.</p></blockquote><p><strong>[Removed post.]</strong></p></blockquote><p>No, not really.  I have a Crusader and a Brawler (doesn't everybody) both in raid gear, but this is the wrong type of implementation this game needs.  There is no need to eliminate the design of 6 to 8 classes in one fell swoop.  I was originally P.O.'ed with the OP Beastlords, but have since come to realize that barely 1 in 10 beastlords actaully know how the beastlord mechanics work and only those very few can top the parse over knowledgable sorcerers, predetors or summoners and I just LOL at the others that think they know how to play the class.  The issue with Reckless is that it takes absolutely ZERO skill to top those pre-HM parses due to the gifted +300% potency.  It's just dumb.</p></blockquote><p>Our shadowknight got 5th on the parse on hm klaaktus does that mean hes op????????</p></blockquote><p>-IF- the ONLY reason that SK got 5th place was due to the +300% Potency gifted from the Reckless stance, whether they were in a MT, OT or DPS role, then the answer is of course, YES.  Like being 5th compared to 1st is some measurement of OP'erness, it's not, the mechanic of Reckless is what is the OP'ed part not the application.  But you already knew what I would say, and you have already discounted my opinion.  So, I'll post this retorically for posterity.</p>

[Hammieee]

<p><cite>Koleg@Unrest_old wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Koleg@Unrest_old wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Koleg@Unrest_old wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Anyways back onto recklessness! So how are the dps classes getting outparsed today?!</p></blockquote><p>via AE-Auto and +300% Potency, don't be so obtuse.</p></blockquote><p><strong>[Removed post.]</strong></p></blockquote><p>No, not really.  I have a Crusader and a Brawler (doesn't everybody) both in raid gear, but this is the wrong type of implementation this game needs.  There is no need to eliminate the design of 6 to 8 classes in one fell swoop.  I was originally P.O.'ed with the OP Beastlords, but have since come to realize that barely 1 in 10 beastlords actaully know how the beastlord mechanics work and only those very few can top the parse over knowledgable sorcerers, predetors or summoners and I just LOL at the others that think they know how to play the class.  The issue with Reckless is that it takes absolutely ZERO skill to top those pre-HM parses due to the gifted +300% potency.  It's just dumb.</p></blockquote><p>Our shadowknight got 5th on the parse on hm klaaktus does that mean hes op????????</p></blockquote><p>-IF- the ONLY reason that SK got 5th place was due to the +300% Potency gifted from the Reckless stance, whether they were in a MT, OT or DPS role, then the answer is of course, YES.  Like being 5th compared to 1st is some measurement of OP'erness, it's not, the mechanic of Reckless is what is the OP'ed part not the application.  But you already knew what I would say, and you have already discounted my opinion.  So, I'll post this retorically for posterity.</p></blockquote><p>He outparsed our wizard by 20k who didnt have a troub/illy but ok i guess our warlock beating him by 400k doesnt mean anything.</p>

[Haciv]

<p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Koleg@Unrest_old wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Koleg@Unrest_old wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Koleg@Unrest_old wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Anyways back onto recklessness! So how are the dps classes getting outparsed today?!</p></blockquote><p>via AE-Auto and +300% Potency, don't be so obtuse.</p></blockquote><p><strong>[Removed post.]</strong></p></blockquote><p>No, not really.  I have a Crusader and a Brawler (doesn't everybody) both in raid gear, but this is the wrong type of implementation this game needs.  There is no need to eliminate the design of 6 to 8 classes in one fell swoop.  I was originally P.O.'ed with the OP Beastlords, but have since come to realize that barely 1 in 10 beastlords actaully know how the beastlord mechanics work and only those very few can top the parse over knowledgable sorcerers, predetors or summoners and I just LOL at the others that think they know how to play the class.  The issue with Reckless is that it takes absolutely ZERO skill to top those pre-HM parses due to the gifted +300% potency.  It's just dumb.</p></blockquote><p>Our shadowknight got 5th on the parse on hm klaaktus does that mean hes op????????</p></blockquote><p>-IF- the ONLY reason that SK got 5th place was due to the +300% Potency gifted from the Reckless stance, whether they were in a MT, OT or DPS role, then the answer is of course, YES.  Like being 5th compared to 1st is some measurement of OP'erness, it's not, the mechanic of Reckless is what is the OP'ed part not the application.  But you already knew what I would say, and you have already discounted my opinion.  So, I'll post this retorically for posterity.</p></blockquote><p>He outparsed our wizard by 20k who didnt have a troub/illy but ok i guess our warlock beating him by 400k doesnt mean anything.</p></blockquote><p>What kind of group / buffs did the SK have?</p><p>If the SK didn't have Illy / Troub buffs either, then the SK beating the Wiz kiiiiiinda shows how OP a SK with Recklessness is.  If you want to do a fair comparison, at least give them the same buffs.  Compare a UT'd & EV'd SK vs a UT'd & EV'd Lock and show the results.  That's all.</p>

[Koleg]

<p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>He outparsed our wizard by 20k who didnt have a troub/illy but ok i guess our warlock beating him by 400k doesnt mean anything.</blockquote><p>Yeah, thats right.  a Warlock is High AE-DPS with ultra Low Survivibility and High risk aggro.  You also 'left out' whether the Lock had an illy/troub like the High Single Target DPS Wizard with ultra low survivibility did.</p><p>In some way people feel that High Survivibility fighters should also be allotted High AE + Single Taregt DPS.  I'm starting to think it's not the stance that is completely OP & Broken, but its the way people are managing thier game expectations.  Why not just log in and /claim your uber gear and logout (for good) since nobody seems to care about balance, design or challenge.  Duel role classes in this game currently number 7 out of 26.</p>

[RafaelSmith]

<p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Koleg@Unrest_old wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Koleg@Unrest_old wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Anyways back onto recklessness! So how are the dps classes getting outparsed today?!</p></blockquote><p>via AE-Auto and +300% Potency, don't be so obtuse.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff9900;"><strong>[Removed post.]</strong></span></p></blockquote><p>No, not really.  I have a Crusader and a Brawler (doesn't everybody) both in raid gear, but this is the wrong type of implementation this game needs.  There is no need to eliminate the design of 6 to 8 classes in one fell swoop.  I was originally P.O.'ed with the OP Beastlords, but have since come to realize that barely 1 in 10 beastlords actaully know how the beastlord mechanics work and only those very few can top the parse over knowledgable sorcerers, predetors or summoners and I just LOL at the others that think they know how to play the class.  The issue with Reckless is that it takes absolutely ZERO skill to top those pre-HM parses due to the gifted +300% potency.  It's just dumb.</p></blockquote><p>Our shadowknight got 5th on the parse on hm klaaktus does that mean hes op????????</p></blockquote><p>Yes</p>

[Hammieee]

<p>Warlock had ut and ev sk had mage group troub illy still didnt even touch him, now giving him ut wouldnt of made him out parse anyone know please lock this thread someone?</p>

[jjlo69]

<p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Warlock had ut and ev sk had mage group troub illy still didnt even touch him, now giving him ut wouldnt of made him out parse anyone know please lock this thread someone?</p></blockquote><p>actually there are alot of valid points including yours so there is no reason to lock the thread... and the sk still got jcaped more then likely and of course lets not forget time warp</p>

[Haciv]

<p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Warlock had ut and ev sk had mage group troub illy still didnt even touch him, now giving him ut wouldnt of made him out parse anyone know please lock this thread someone?</p></blockquote><p>So, if the SK isn't all that great for DPS, and the Wizard without an Illy / Troub was so close... then I have to ask, why'd you shortchange your Wizard on buffs by giving the SK a mage group over the Wizard?</p><p>Again, I'm still waiting for someone (besides myself) to compare apples to apples and post the results.</p>

[Koleg]

<p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Warlock had ut and ev sk had mage group troub illy still didnt even touch him, now giving him ut wouldnt of made him out parse anyone know please lock this thread someone?</p></blockquote><p>Why bother locking it now?  I know it has to be hard to Brag about fighter DPS in Reckless and which T1's they outparsed today without letting SOE know they totally hosed this one up and having them read your bragging and nerf it.</p>

[Hammieee]

<p>We run 4 tanks, one in each group. we have 4 mages they switch out who gets to go in, a dps class from the scout group wasnt here so the wizard got lucky. But regardless its good to lock this because its just me saying its not op and the same people swearing it is over and over again its pointless.</p>

[japanfour]

<p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>We run 4 tanks, one in each group. we have 4 mages they switch out who gets to go in, a dps class from the scout group wasnt here so the wizard got lucky. But regardless its good to lock this because its just me saying its not op and the same people swearing it is over and over again its pointless.</p></blockquote><p>Honestly, its genuinely irrelevant to any good tank if they remove this stance, I mean I doubt anyone playing a tank made it to DPS, atleast before this update. I only get to use it if there isnt a DPS sitting and there is an open spot or we dont need as many tanks for the encounter. Even if I use it to tank ( with amends its currently possible) its not increasing the RW dps that much, I would of preferred a utility based stance over it to increase RW dps, if its gonna stay as is. Its just not as useful as people think. All it's doing is decreasing the time sync, and I mean with pointless parts of raids, like trash, and the free targets ( the raid mobs that require little to no effort for the raidforce you are in or script coordination.)</p>

[jjlo69]

<p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p> But regardless its good to lock this because its just me saying its not op and the same people swearing it is over and over again its pointless.</p></blockquote><p>well overall the stance is imho pointless and still buggy in its current state Example: still being able to tank content that should not be tanked in this stance.. Now if you agree or not that is the point of this topic to get your .02 in as to why it is not pointless</p>

[Xaxtionlorex]

<p>Haciv, you post parses from 1 group zones doing the EM fights, that data reallllly isn't usefull for anything,post raid parses to show its broken. That said.</p><p>Issues I've found in HM drunder/Pow.</p><p>1. I can still tank, fix that.</p><p>2.Threat, make it canncel the threat from all abilities, don't make it dehates[maybe on taunts] I'm more then happy to work on my threat from my dps, but having to manage that, + the threat production, Chaos cloud still drops 120k+ threat on hit plus the threat on each dot tick.</p><p>3.50% damage taken, scrap it. Read the rest of this before you freak it.</p><p>The problem with the above is 50% of EVERYTHNG, makes reckless junk with out a healer babysitting you, aoe's,  dots, curses, make raiding in this stance backwards.  If you want to make this stance useful, it needs to be +50% damage taken from MELEE attacks. Testing it out in PoW, the boars big hit would some times just smash me through 1 blood letter, a blood siphon, and wards, because of how much damage I was taking.</p><p>4. Tank cool downs, alot of them are able to make us tank through things we shouldnt be able to [untill theres magic damage, then well,] reckless should make the following changes as well.</p><p>-Drops users block chance to 0%</p><p>-Drops users parry to 5%</p><p>-Drops Riposte to 5%</p><p>-Changes how tank cool downs work, I can only speak from the SK/crusader side of this, warriors/bruisers pitch in.</p><p>Shadow Knights Furor.</p><p>-100% riposte</p><p>-4-5k hate proc</p><p>-20% spell damage</p><p>Shadow knights Furor ,in reckless.</p><p>+20% spell damage</p><p>+some sort of damage proc [scales with CB and PoT [Super low number to bring it to a reasonable level while in reck]</p><p>+10% chance to decrease threat postion by 1 on hostile spell cast.</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Xaxtionlorex wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>-Changes how tank cool downs work, I can only speak from the SK/crusader side of this, <strong>warriors/bruisers pitch in.</strong></p></blockquote><p>The issue is stoneskins block all damage, so well, I can survive the boar just fine as an example.  The entire stance should just be scrapped, or if anything replaced with a utility stance.</p><p>Otherwise, it requires way too much tailoring to each class to both make it useful, and make it so you can't tank in it.</p><p>As stated when this idea was announced, its the wrong idea, its not needed, and the detrimental portions of it are too easily bypassed.</p>

[Asif]

<p>Hey lets remember not all tanks in this game Raid and some even group very little so this stance works good for them.</p><p>It has brought fun back to tanks like that (  like my SK ) he has not been played for awhile .</p><p>So tweek it so it still works but dont kill it right out Soe. ( I hope you can do it right)</p>

[Xaxtionlorex]

<p>It dosen't need alot of tailoring, it just needs to disable the not dying portion of abilites, and lock out stone skins cast by the fighter,  my biggest issue with the +50 taken from all is how baddly we eat up wards,on one boar kill i had so much more damage taken,and healing recived, because of this ward eating.</p><p>Bad design is bad, yes, but we gotta deal with it, so lets atleast make it work.</p><p>They didnt' do enough testing and it isn't going any where, so the best we can do is fix it.</p>

[Silzin]

As I see it, a raiding monk, there are 2 things that need to happen to make Reckless balanced better. 1. Remove all Block and only block when in reckless. 2. All Snaps to - positions, except say maybe Rescue. Getting and holding agro in Reckless needs to be harder. I think with just these 2 additions it would give all tanks the same penalties. this though does not address that Reckless does not benefit all tanks that same.

[Parable]

<p><cite>Xaxtionlorex wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Haciv, you post parses from 1 group zones doing the EM fights, that data reallllly isn't usefull for anything,post raid parses to show its broken. That said.</p></blockquote><p>Yeah Vicah, you don't raid so you and your opinion don't matter.  Right?</p><p> madsadbad, etc.</p>

[Haciv]

<p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">*Please do not quote forum violations*</span></p></blockquote><p>PST Permafrost.Gaarysal, TBH.</p>

[jjlo69]

<p><cite>Xaxtionlorex wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Haciv, you post parses from 1 group zones doing the EM fights, that data reallllly isn't usefull for anything,post raid parses to show its broken. That said.</p><p> as havciv has stated he no longer raids and has made valid points imho rember this game not all about raiding.</p><p>Issues I've found in HM drunder/Pow.</p><p>1. I can still tank, fix that.</p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">agree</span></p><p>2.Threat, make it canncel the threat from all abilities, don't make it dehates[maybe on taunts] I'm more then happy to work on my threat from my dps, but having to manage that, + the threat production, Chaos cloud still drops 120k+ threat on hit plus the threat on each dot tick.</p><p>3.50% damage taken, scrap it. Read the rest of this before you freak it.</p><p>The problem with the above is 50% of EVERYTHNG, makes reckless junk with out a healer babysitting you, aoe's,  dots, curses, make raiding in this stance backwards.  If you want to make this stance useful, it needs to be +50% damage taken from MELEE attacks. Testing it out in PoW, the boars big hit would some times just smash me through 1 blood letter, a blood siphon, and wards, because of how much damage I was taking.</p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">thats the point of the  pentality to make it where your squishy like a dps.</span> </p><p>4. Tank cool downs, alot of them are able to make us tank through things we shouldnt be able to [untill theres magic damage, then well,] reckless should make the following changes as well.</p><p>-Drops users block chance to 0%</p><p>-Drops users parry to 5%</p><p>-Drops Riposte to 5%</p><p>-Changes how tank cool downs work, I can only speak from the SK/crusader side of this, warriors/bruisers pitch in.</p><p>Shadow Knights Furor.</p><p>-100% riposte</p><p>-4-5k hate proc</p><p>-20% spell damage</p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"> agree</span></p><p>Shadow knights Furor ,in reckless.</p><p>+20% spell damage</p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">20% spell damage is Over kill your already at double potency + 50</span></p><p>+some sort of damage proc [scales with CB and PoT [Super low number to bring it to a reasonable level while in reck]</p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">adding fuel to the fire no thanx</span></p><p>+10% chance to decrease threat postion by 1 on hostile spell cast.</p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">this would be op see your own post about aboput a reckless tank should be ableto handle there own hate while dpsing.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">one change id like to see.. while in reckless and potncy adding buffs Ie EV  that are not that of you own can not be applied to the warrior/sk/brawler respectly. but as well all know trhe odds of that happing would be slim to nine</span></p></blockquote>

[Hammieee]

<p><cite>Haciv wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: #000000;"><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">*Please do not quote forum violations*</span></p><div><span style="color: #ff0000;"></span></div></blockquote></span></p></blockquote><p>PST Permafrost.Gaarysal, TBH.</p></blockquote><p>Tell him to app.</p>

[Haciv]

<p><cite>Xaxtionlorex wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Haciv, you post parses from 1 group zones doing the EM fights, that data reallllly isn't usefull for anything,post raid parses to show its broken. That said.</p></blockquote><p>Ya see, here's the problem.  I'll show you a raid parse in just a moment BUT... you're going to say it doesn't matter and that's cool because it's the new trend with everyone.</p><p>I've now come to the conclusion everyone thinks that if a Fighter has the potential to top the DPS, then the fight doesn't matter.  As Parable had previously outlined in the other Recklessness thread, almost the entire game doesn't matter, only a handful of really hard mobs matter right now to the majority of the people posting (and in a few months those mobs probably wont matter either).  As a result of the above, I've also come to the conclusion that there must be the perception that Mage and Scout DPS must only be useful on some HM named nowadays.  That again, poses the question of... what's the point of a DPS class for 95%+ of the entire game when a Tank class can DPS better or equally well as a Mage or Scout?</p><p>Now, this is where I come from.  I come from a mindset where pretty much EVERYTHING matters.  If I'm in raid, I want to top the trash, the named, and the ZW's.  If I'm in a group, I want to top the trash, the named, and the ZW's.  If I'm doing something solo, I want to be the first to do it.  Sure some content is trivial but to me that doesn't mean that it doesn't matter, I want to be tops.  I dominated my entire server in RoK, TSO, SF, and the start of DoV. Call it competitiveness or call it OCD, that's my mindset.  Anyone who has raided or grouped with me, knows that I give it my all when it comes to DPS because I always want to be #1.</p><p>The problem I have now is, equally buffed and geared, some Fighter classes are equally capable of doing my sole job yet I am not equally capable of doing anyone else's job.  Mages are the only classes with no stance to boost an aspect of their character.  Scouts might as well have no alternate stance, as their defensive stance is completely useless.  There needs to be a tradeoff somewhere.  If fighters are able to Scout and Mage DPS then (as asked in my other thread), what is the point of a DPS class for all the content that "doesn't matter"?  The answer is that there is no point.  If you're currently playing a Pred, Rogue, Sorc, or Summoner you are better of deleting your character and rerolling a SK at this point.  Not only will you be able to DPS like you were on your DPS class toon but you'll also have the ability to tank the stuff that "does matter".</p><p>So... here's the only raid parse that I have.  I'm sure it's completely invalid and it shows nothing more than how big of a noob I am and how bad I am.  For context though, our group was invited to be a 4th group in a UD / Sevalak raid along with a couple other people to fill in some spots.  Myself and Gaarysal were in the same group (Inq, Mystic, Troub, Brig, Lock, SK).  I had UT and Bolster, Gaarysal had Link from an out of group Coercer and nothing else.  Other groups were properly setup with support classes.  It was the first current tier x4 raid I had done in over 10 months.</p><p><img src="http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/4970/savalak725.jpg" width="726" height="585" /></p><p>This data is fairly consistent with the data I have pulled from the Heroic zones.  Gaarysal was roughly within 10% of me, when I had the buffs.  I believe that if we were to run the same zone with the same setup, if the buffs were on him that he would then beat me by a larger margin than I beat him by.  So, again... Vicah was buffed and Gaarysal was not and that is how close the margin was.  IMHO, if Gaarysal (the SK) had UT and Bolster over Vicah (the Warlock) that the overall raid DPS would of been higher.   That is one of the fundamental problems I see with Recklessness stance.</p><p>So... how about this.  I've shown parses in this thread and the other that I started.  Instead of me showing how OP Recklessness stance is and having people call me bad, how about all the people that say Recklessness is NOT OP show their parses so that I can call all the Fighters bad.</p><p>TLDR, I'm a scrub and like wasting people's time by reading my worthless experiences.</p>

[Yimway]

<p>haciv,</p><p>I think your post is actually quite good and illustrates the problem where it will be observed most.   That parse is very par for casual raid forces who would be motivated to use extra tanks in rackless stance to begin with.  And as you pointed out, that enables tanks of similar gear playstyle to parse way outside what the rest of the raid is capable of.</p><p>Considering these are the very raid forces reckless was put in for, it is relevant to the discussion, even if the numbers are not relevant to other posters in this thread.</p><p>Raiding hardcore, casual, and in pugs, those are numbers I see in non hardcore raids.   In our hardcore raid that SK would run 4-500k but there would be 4 t1 dps well ahead of him.</p>

[Bruener]

<p>The bad get mad.</p><p>We have a new guild rule.  No Recklessness on named mobs due to how squishy tanks are.</p><p>We also have dirges complaining about all the rezzing they are doing now with how easily Fighters in Recklessness die to simple AEs.</p><p>It used to be the trigger happy wizard that died constantly.  Now it is the Crusaders in a mage group since agro is high with no means to drop it and it is hard for a single healer to keep up with the amount of incoming damage.</p><p>Vicah, prior to DoV when Fighters were neutered it would be completely normal for the Fighters tanking to be at the same spot in the parse.  I can probably pull up parses from KoS having the Zerker tank and top the parse with their temps.  DoV was a mess at launch and now they are giving back to Fighters to put them back to where they were at the cost of some more survivability.</p><p>The stance is unique in that it provides different types of benefits to different Fighters as well.  Crusaders and Brawlers get the most benefit from it.  Brawlers have dehate abilities they can use to help keep their agro under control.  Plate tanks can utilize a shield instead to help keep them alive since they are agro junkies.  Some Fighters have more temps that are up more often to keep them going while in Recklessness.  And in the case of a Guard probably not the best to utilize in Recklessness...but a Guard in raid is going to be tanking while the Fighters in the non-tanking set up groups are going to be the ones going Recklessness.  Crusaders in mage type groups.  Brawlers in melee type groups.  The Fighter I find missing out is Zerkers that don't see as much benefit and due to out dated mechanics they simply are lacking.</p><p>Couple months will pass and everybody will be completely used to the idea of Fighters actually doing decent DPS on easy content and nobody will even talk about it.</p>

[japanfour]

<p><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The bad get mad.</p><p>We have a new guild rule.  No Recklessness on named mobs due to how squishy tanks are.</p><p>We also have dirges complaining about all the rezzing they are doing now with how easily Fighters in Recklessness die to simple AEs.</p><p>It used to be the trigger happy wizard that died constantly.  Now it is the Crusaders in a mage group since agro is high with no means to drop it and it is hard for a single healer to keep up with the amount of incoming damage.</p><p>Vicah, prior to DoV when Fighters were neutered it would be completely normal for the Fighters tanking to be at the same spot in the parse.  I can probably pull up parses from KoS having the Zerker tank and top the parse with their temps.  DoV was a mess at launch and now they are giving back to Fighters to put them back to where they were at the cost of some more survivability.</p><p>The stance is unique in that it provides different types of benefits to different Fighters as well.  Crusaders and Brawlers get the most benefit from it.  Brawlers have dehate abilities they can use to help keep their agro under control.  Plate tanks can utilize a shield instead to help keep them alive since they are agro junkies.  Some Fighters have more temps that are up more often to keep them going while in Recklessness.  And in the case of a Guard probably not the best to utilize in Recklessness...but a Guard in raid is going to be tanking while the Fighters in the non-tanking set up groups are going to be the ones going Recklessness.  Crusaders in mage type groups.  Brawlers in melee type groups.  The Fighter I find missing out is Zerkers that don't see as much benefit and due to out dated mechanics they simply are lacking.</p><p>Couple months will pass and everybody will be completely used to the idea of Fighters actually doing decent DPS on easy content and nobody will even talk about it.</p></blockquote><p>This</p>

[Dexella]

<p>Hi everyone,</p><p>There was a good amount of constructive feedback present in this thread, which I have passed on to the appropriate parties.</p><p>However, it seems like the conversation has run its course, so I'm going to lock the thread. Also, here's a friendly reminder to take a look at our <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=499935" target="_blank">forum guidelines</a>. Let's keep the conversation productive. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></p><p>~Dexella</p>