Since Fighter's get Recklessness, what the point of a DPS class now? [Archive]

japanfour

07-27-2012, 02:17 PM

<cite>Jeepned2 wrote:</cite><blockquote>There is no reason why you can not raid now with one Guardian, let's be generous and say eight healers and thirteen crusaders and crush all content. Imagine all the thirteen crusaders all parsing 200K+ minimum. Eight healers are there just to get off the raid killing dots that SoE decided there needed to be to get more healers into raids. I have no clue what SoE's thinking was on this since they don't share thier thought process (or in this case lack of thought process). It was a stupid idea that tons of people had warned them about, which they decided to ignore. Not sure how long this is going to last because to tell you the truth I didn't think the Monk as an MT was going to last long. So many classes are now seriously deminished, some to the point of being lucky that they are already in a raiding guild. I'm a troub and we have been marginal players for a long time now and the new recklessness really doesn't hurt or help my place in a raid. But I sure hate seeing how desondent a lot of my dps class friends are. SoE has shoved this down your throats without caring how you (non-tank dps types) are being effected. Sorry but all I can tell you from a troubs point of view, deal with it case this is SoE's long term plan that they spent a boat load of time and money on. Don't look for any relief any time soon.</blockquote> Parsing 200k without recklessness, in fact I was able to parse 200k on a mob before I raided PoW. Not saying this to brag, just kind of pointing out that this person is just overly emotional and not trying to understand where a tank is DPS wise. If anything they really need to make this stance more viable for zerk/Guard. Its been less than a week and you all think its broken. I also dont think you understand what a raid really needs to contend in this game, if you think its a 6 crusader set up, obviously you are just trolling and want some sort of response to your negative remarks. And as far as numbers go, remember when a class was viable based on the spells and abilities that they had and their ability timing on casting them? Because you clearly dont, and most people here dont. It must be the numbers of dps that classes put out that makes them important on raids, not the buffs they give others, not the heals, not the amazing power feeds, debuffs. Just the DPS that people complain about thats all thats important to people here. ( this does not apply to rangers, they obviously need more than focus aim at the moment to help the group/raid out) The funny thing is I doubt there was as much complaining about this when the game came out and parsing wasnt really existant. I wonder why people loved the game so much then..... Maybe just maybe because people just liked playing what they liked playing. Shocking, i know..

Fendaria

07-27-2012, 02:31 PM

<cite>Haciv wrote:</cite><blockquote>So, why bother continue playing my Sorc when I can do the same dps AND tank on a SK?</blockquote>Same thing happened with Beastlords. Better DPS and more functionality/flexibility than any of the T1 DPS classes.Oh well <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Fendaria

ratbast

07-27-2012, 03:09 PM

<cite>japanfour wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Jeepned2 wrote:</cite><blockquote>There is no reason why you can not raid now with one Guardian, let's be generous and say eight healers and thirteen crusaders and crush all content. Imagine all the thirteen crusaders all parsing 200K+ minimum. Eight healers are there just to get off the raid killing dots that SoE decided there needed to be to get more healers into raids. I have no clue what SoE's thinking was on this since they don't share thier thought process (or in this case lack of thought process). It was a stupid idea that tons of people had warned them about, which they decided to ignore. Not sure how long this is going to last because to tell you the truth I didn't think the Monk as an MT was going to last long. So many classes are now seriously deminished, some to the point of being lucky that they are already in a raiding guild. I'm a troub and we have been marginal players for a long time now and the new recklessness really doesn't hurt or help my place in a raid. But I sure hate seeing how desondent a lot of my dps class friends are. SoE has shoved this down your throats without caring how you (non-tank dps types) are being effected. Sorry but all I can tell you from a troubs point of view, deal with it case this is SoE's long term plan that they spent a boat load of time and money on. Don't look for any relief any time soon.</blockquote> Parsing 200k without recklessness, in fact I was able to parse 200k on a mob before I raided PoW. Not saying this to brag, just kind of pointing out that this person is just overly emotional and not trying to understand where a tank is DPS wise. If anything they really need to make this stance more viable for zerk/Guard. Its been less than a week and you all think its broken. I also dont think you understand what a raid really needs to contend in this game, if you think its a 6 crusader set up, obviously you are just trolling and want some sort of response to your negative remarks. And as far as numbers go, remember when a class was viable based on the spells and abilities that they had and their ability timing on casting them? Because you clearly dont, and most people here dont. It must be the numbers of dps that classes put out that makes them important on raids, not the buffs they give others, not the heals, not the amazing power feeds, debuffs. Just the DPS that people complain about thats all thats important to people here. ( this does not apply to rangers, they obviously need more than focus aim at the moment to help the group/raid out) The funny thing is I doubt there was as much complaining about this when the game came out and parsing wasnt really existant. I wonder why people loved the game so much then..... Maybe just maybe because people just liked playing what they liked playing. Shocking, i know..</blockquote>yes tanks have been doing too much dps for a long time. they should all be lower on dps than every single mage and scout (all utility included).the premise of these archtypes is that they cannot take a hit, so in return they hurt it faster.tanks CAN take hits. in exchange for having this ability, they hurt mobs slower. its a fair trade and makes things even.except eq2 has aggro broken and relies on dps to hold aggro <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />the above poster proves me point. you have someone coming on here seeing a reckless tank matching a buffed sorc, and his response is hey so what i put up similar numbers before reckless, before pow.the fighter archtype is broken. its all over the place with its fingers in all the roles, even before reckless, and the undisputed tanks to boot.now they can keep tanking and do very respectable dps. this is either the end of the class system as we know it (other classes can jump to new major roles), or else the fighter archtype is now a prestige archtype. better than all the others.i see the need to get more fighters in, it just needs to be in a utility capacity, NOT as a dps. the dps market is saturated with frustration already over addition of beastlord. fighters new stance should be a utility stance that doesnt compete with (buffs differently) bards or chanters.each group needs 2 utility, a chanter and a bard. yet there are only 4 utility classes out of 24 (taking up 8 in raid). this is the best role for tanks new stance and its the least saturated market. meanwhile, fighters are 6 classes out of 24 (taking up 3 in raid).from a design perspective, utility is not one of the big 3 (tank, heal, dps), and is the best choice for an alternate role a stance could give. crossing roles in the big 3 destroys the core purpose of having classes.if you look at enjoyment of playing, there is a gap for utility. if ANYONE simply gets a new role added to their archtype it should help address this recruitment issue.there are so many reasons a utility stance is the right move, from recruitment, to group/raid slots, to niche filling. as well as not ruining class system by violating big 3.

japanfour

07-27-2012, 05:31 PM

<cite>ratbast wrote:</cite><blockquote>yes tanks have been doing too much dps for a long time. they should all be lower on dps than every single mage and scout (all utility included).the premise of these archtypes is that they cannot take a hit, so in return they hurt it faster.tanks CAN take hits. in exchange for having this ability, they hurt mobs slower. its a fair trade and makes things even.except eq2 has aggro broken and relies on dps to hold aggro <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" />the above poster proves me point. you have someone coming on here seeing a reckless tank matching a buffed sorc, and his response is hey so what i put up similar numbers before reckless, before pow.the fighter archtype is broken. its all over the place with its fingers in all the roles, even before reckless, and the undisputed tanks to boot.now they can keep tanking and do very respectable dps. this is either the end of the class system as we know it (other classes can jump to new major roles), or else the fighter archtype is now a prestige archtype. better than all the others.i see the need to get more fighters in, it just needs to be in a utility capacity, NOT as a dps. the dps market is saturated with frustration already over addition of beastlord. fighters new stance should be a utility stance that doesnt compete with (buffs differently) bards or chanters.each group needs 2 utility, a chanter and a bard. yet there are only 4 utility classes out of 24 (taking up 8 in raid). this is the best role for tanks new stance and its the least saturated market. meanwhile, fighters are 6 classes out of 24 (taking up 3 in raid).from a design perspective, utility is not one of the big 3 (tank, heal, dps), and is the best choice for an alternate role a stance could give. crossing roles in the big 3 destroys the core purpose of having classes.if you look at enjoyment of playing, there is a gap for utility. if ANYONE simply gets a new role added to their archtype it should help address this recruitment issue.there are so many reasons a utility stance is the right move, from recruitment, to group/raid slots, to niche filling. as well as not ruining class system by violating big 3.</blockquote>Ideally what should the best tank parse? I dont think that anything but T1 DPS should be topping the parse, I think utility classes should be competing with tanks atleast when they arent in relentless, I think that relentless dps should be inbetween utility and a DPS focused class. Thats just my opinion based on what content I play and how I play personally, so naturally I like the stance and support it. I am just saying what you think should be in this game is nothing more than an opinion. Show why you think what. instead of "HMM THIS SHOULD BE HERE AND THAT SHOULD BE THERE BECAUSE I SAID SO"I understand the difference between the classes. I just dont think this change is as grave as people make it out to be. I also think its too early to pass all of this judgement, I think people should really test it and kind of reserve judgement untill then.DPS based hate has been around norrath since eq1. I doubt they will make it any different. People like doing damage, hate gain is an excuse for a fighter to do its job and enjoy being able to damage things at the same time.I believe that the stance is a utility to a group or a raid. Because it shifts the purpose of a tank to suit something else, hopefully decreasing the timesink on some encounters.Each group does not need a chanter and a bard. Its nice and all, but its not always needed. Usually one of the two will do for any heroic content, and most Hardmode group content. Ideal group make up should be looked at on an encounter to encounter basis instead of this general ideal of group makeup. Another problem that I see here is this generalization of how people think this game needs to be played. Its silly to throttle the versatility of something because of what people think works or doesnt work based on their opinions on how the game must be played.I dont agree with you on your design perspective. These 3 roles arent supposed to be exclusive IMO, I am a healing tank, that provides utility, but I havent been the top choice for hardmode stuff ,groups or raiding at first. Yet back before this stance, no one was complaining about paladins being able to heal rez dps and tank. I just think your idea on these roles being so rigidly cut is not the way to go.I dont think that this was added to boost tank recruitment in raiding, and I think just adding something cool isnt the way to go. I do think however that Troubadors and coercers need more fun abilities that make them enjoy the class more. I have never seen such a high turnover rate in anyother class. I just feel that people just dont enjoy those two classes in PVE. PVP is another story though..Maybe for a troub or a coercer yes. I dont care about the big 3 being seperate, I understand the focus of it in each archetype, I just dont get people that want tanking traits to be exclusive to tanks and vice versa. some encounters in this game dictate versatility and every class needs what it can get to work with the encounter and succeed.

Landiin

07-27-2012, 06:09 PM

Honestly I my gripe isn't about fighters DPSing, my gripe is about them still being able able to stay alive for a sustained period of time with agro while in the stance. IMO the should die faster then a mage if they get agro. Block should be forced to 0, mit and avoidance should be slashed by no less then 35% and their heath should take a hit too.

Koleg

07-27-2012, 06:11 PM

<cite>japanfour wrote:</cite><blockquote>Ideally what should the best tank parse?</blockquote>Ultimately, equal to the second best healer. I'd say the best healer but as far as DPS healers go Inquisitors are just as broken. Tank hate should have -NEVER- been based on the same mechanic as DPS. It was a cop-out and the "lazy" way for SOE dev's to build the threat system, becasue they can globally apply it rather than building two different measurements.I do have to say... Reckless Hate Modifiers are fun to play with now at the very least. Having Peaceful links on your tanks if kind of funny for a Coercer. Reckless + Enranging Demeanor is almost a wash but will still stack with Dirge/Assassin Hate. So even in Reckless a good/smart fighter can easily remain with +100% Hate Mod or drop down to -100% if they so choose, which would be the +/- caps.

Tigerr

07-27-2012, 06:21 PM

Sorry but, I'm personally sick of all the idiot fighters on my server thinking they are a DPS class now and should be recruited by all the guilds as DPS just because SoE was gullible enough to believe all the "fighterz needz dps" hype. Fighters are...not....dps.. I personally don't care if a fighter does 900k on a fight, most of that damage is AOE burst, and if we are just holding the adds on the sides, the single target ranger doing 300k is doing way more for the raid than the noob fighters. Seems like as soon as recklessness hit, they all thought that they will be able to replace DPS classes and now, when guilds will STILL not recruit them they get mad because well, thats what SoE intended. One more time... I'd rather have a ranger do 500k than 900k from a fighter that thinks they are dps... More numbers= not helping raid the way they think. This needs to be toned down abit, no matter what you do SoE, the community wont just "accept" it like you want us too. No "good" guild will EVER recruit fighters as dps, EVER. Maybe on a casual run through EM skyshrine but never on any hard raids unless they are already in the guild. There wont be any recruitment messages like "recruiting predator/sorc/fighter with recklessness. Since fighters got a useless stance and we apparently merged with RIFT, can my priest have a tank stance?... I want to play MT sometimes too. These casual decisions are whats killing the game, seriously.Edit- I just wanted to mention that there is no way to force a certain archtype into raids, regardless of what you give them... Some guilds might run 9 fighters, some guilds run 2-3 druids, some have 2 mage groups with a BL... You cannot add stuff based on what the community prefers. As a priest, should I complain that there are WAYYYY more mages in the raid than priests?.. Should I get something that will make me into something else just so i get a spot?... DEF not. This reminds me of the CM change, when SoE catered to all the people complaining how hard it is to get their CM up and opened up the zones... All of those people thought they would be accepted with open arms into ANY group they wanted... Instead of getting told that they dont have enough Crit Mit, they got told they suck and for them to learn their class better... You cannot force something unto the community lol, it just wont work out the way you guys thought it would.

Freejazzlive

07-27-2012, 06:23 PM

<cite>japanfour wrote:</cite><blockquote> The funny thing is I doubt there was as much complaining about this when the game came out and parsing wasnt really existant. I wonder why people loved the game so much then.....</blockquote>Because back then, tanks tanked, healers healed, DPS dps'd, & utility utility'd.Crazy concept, eh?

Tigerr

07-27-2012, 06:33 PM

To the post 3 up, what recruitment issue?... When people rolled their class, they KNEW what was required of them... There are only 4 tanks in a raid so you are expected to be EXCEPTIONAL to get a spot in a top end guild... In lower end guilds it does not matter, they stack whatever they want anyway. Specially for EM SSx4... which is COMPLETELY facerollable with any raid setup you like. When I rolled a healer I knew that they are needed but, if I wasn't good, I would NOT get any groups, I would NOT have a spot in a good guild etc. There are different classes for a reason, not so some random could become a healer/dps/tank with a click of one button.. Regardless of what the SERVER demands are. What some people are saying is that there should be 12 tanks in a raid to make it "fair" sorry but no. Like I mentioned before, its up to the community, right now, they can take 12 fighters + mixed bunch of classes to EMssX4 and STILL clear most of it... People just chose not to do that... Skyshrine is facerollable enough... I'd rather keep my 4 tank setup in Drunder HM than to have them there as DPS.Players make their own artificial blocks, they CAN grab 12 tanks or they can grab acouple of utility classes and expand on their OWN dps... SoE does NOT need to compensate.

japanfour

07-27-2012, 06:44 PM

<cite>Koleg@Unrest_old wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>japanfour wrote:</cite><blockquote>Ideally what should the best tank parse?</blockquote>Ultimately, equal to the second best healer. I'd say the best healer but as far as DPS healers go Inquisitors are just as broken. Tank hate should have -NEVER- been based on the same mechanic as DPS. It was a cop-out and the "lazy" way for SOE dev's to build the threat system, becasue they can globally apply it rather than building two different measurements.I do have to say... Reckless Hate Modifiers are fun to play with now at the very least. Having Peaceful links on your tanks if kind of funny for a Coercer. Reckless + Enranging Demeanor is almost a wash but will still stack with Dirge/Assassin Hate. So even in Reckless a good/smart fighter can easily remain with +100% Hate Mod or drop down to -100% if they so choose, which would be the +/- caps.</blockquote>I dont think its a cop out, everyone drools over damage/dps so having hate gain and damage go hand in hand makes sense from a logical point ( if I call someone a butthole "taunt" I am sure its not gonna make anyone mad at me compared to a nice kick in the groin. just putting that out there.) Not to mention if they removed hate gain from dps, then all of the DPS classes can literally roll face on every encounter to kill it, there will be no fear of gaining aggro, and no tactic involved in playing any dps. Healers can DPS pretty well lately, I have seen a mystic top the parse from the same exact group of mobs you see on my parse on the first page. I think he parsed about 700k. Should I post that the heroic endline is OP for shamans and that they all think they are dps now because of my opinions on an ability used in a single situation that obviously benefits my class? I am just saying the range for healer DPS is pretty insane in terms of the player knowledge required to maximize it. I also believe that I am partially a damage dealing class so i should absolutely do more than a healer that isnt really required to attack the mob at all. I dont think i should do more than DPS focused classes though, but absolutely more than a healer in my non dps stance, and slightly more than utility in the dps stance. Unless its a multi encounter, tanks should never have a chance at topping the parse ( which atm they dont on single target, despite the tears.)

japanfour

07-27-2012, 06:44 PM

<cite>Freejazzlive wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>japanfour wrote:</cite><blockquote> The funny thing is I doubt there was as much complaining about this when the game came out and parsing wasnt really existant. I wonder why people loved the game so much then.....</blockquote>Because back then, tanks tanked, healers healed, DPS dps'd, & utility utility'd.Crazy concept, eh?</blockquote> And if they still arent able to do that, I think they might be doing it wrong. Another mind blowing concept...

japanfour

07-27-2012, 06:58 PM

<cite>Tigerr wrote:</cite><blockquote>Sorry but, I'm personally sick of all the idiot fighters on my server thinking they are a DPS class now and should be recruited by all the guilds as DPS just because SoE was gullible enough to believe all the "fighterz needz dps" hype. Fighters are...not....dps.. I personally don't care if a fighter does 900k on a fight, most of that damage is AOE burst, and if we are just holding the adds on the sides, the single target ranger doing 300k is doing way more for the raid than the noob fighters. Seems like as soon as recklessness hit, they all thought that they will be able to replace DPS classes and now, when guilds will STILL not recruit them they get mad because well, thats what SoE intended. One more time... I'd rather have a ranger do 500k than 900k from a fighter that thinks they are dps... More numbers= not helping raid the way they think. This needs to be toned down abit, no matter what you do SoE, the community wont just "accept" it like you want us too. No "good" guild will EVER recruit fighters as dps, EVER. Maybe on a casual run through EM skyshrine but never on any hard raids unless they are already in the guild. There wont be any recruitment messages like "recruiting predator/sorc/fighter with recklessness. Since fighters got a useless stance and we apparently merged with RIFT, can my priest have a tank stance?... I want to play MT sometimes too. These casual decisions are whats killing the game, seriously.Edit- I just wanted to mention that there is no way to force a certain archtype into raids, regardless of what you give them... Some guilds might run 9 fighters, some guilds run 2-3 druids, some have 2 mage groups with a BL... You cannot add stuff based on what the community prefers. As a priest, should I complain that there are WAYYYY more mages in the raid than priests?.. Should I get something that will make me into something else just so i get a spot?... DEF not. This reminds me of the CM change, when SoE catered to all the people complaining how hard it is to get their CM up and opened up the zones... All of those people thought they would be accepted with open arms into ANY group they wanted... Instead of getting told that they dont have enough Crit Mit, they got told they suck and for them to learn their class better... You cannot force something unto the community lol, it just wont work out the way you guys thought it would.</blockquote>If a tank thinks he is primarily dps, he is the problem, not the abilities he is using. We dont need nerfs because someone is stupid. And if you are sick and tired of it, find a tank that knows what to do and when to do it.

etch666

07-27-2012, 07:03 PM

Bottom line is this:Before the GU fighter dps was fine.All this GU did was turn crusaders into sorcerers with hate gain and deathsaves.

Twyxx

07-27-2012, 07:08 PM

<cite>Neiloch@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote>I love the idea of classes/styles being able to fill multiple rolls.Unforunately only enacting it for SOME classes was a mistake to say the least.Really wish SoE would stop using the excuse of this being a 'living, breathing' MMO to push out content in unfinished chunks. I can just imagine phrases like "we'll just finish it later" is thrown around in those offices constantly.It's not wreckless tank vs. dps, its Class who can DPS AND main tank vs. DPS. We've already successfully used wrecklessness fighters on bosses several times. Not tanking, but just in the raid doing DPS. So any 'it's just for trash' lines are from a place of ignorance and delusion.Who wants to bet something very similar to this will be in EQ Next? It's sequel-testbed all over again. I remember it all too well when EQ1 started getting huge revamps that just happen to resemble mechanics that ended up in EQ2.</blockquote>I actually think rangers have two roles, they're just both dps (single target and aoe) with no utility . Problem is we can't just hit a button and switch between them. If we could, I'd be perfectly happy to let the other classes have these dual roles.

Freejazzlive

07-27-2012, 07:46 PM

<cite>japanfour wrote:</cite><blockquote> And if they still arent able to do that, I think they might be doing it wrong. Another mind blowing concept...</blockquote>Tanks are tanking, DPSing, & utilitying.This isn't about people who "still aren't able to do that." This is about classes which are doing my job, as well as their own.

Rainmare

07-27-2012, 07:56 PM

first off before you complain about the numbers. take a look at your own admitance. your are in top end skyshrine gear/HM jewelry. and I bet your group is either a solid guild group or similarly geared. you know, the kind of group that UD/Dozekar is a boring easy walk in the park zone/fight.now I ask you to let him tank in reckless with a non-hm/guild group as see how well he does in reckless. the kind of group that Dozekar actually presents a challenge to. I bet he dies alot.or how abut instead of testing in UD...why don't you test it in HM instances. see how well he stands up then in a zone that might actually present a challenge to you.I would say then if he's still facerolling and no one has issues keeping him alive then maybe you got a valid complaint. but don't come and complain about it when your doing easy stuff with a group that could sleepwalk through the zone in the first place about how overpowered it is.I bet in a zone that's actually dangerous to you, that 50% more damage taken effect might have a much bigger impact.

Haciv

07-27-2012, 08:42 PM

<cite>Rainmare@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>first off before you complain about the numbers. take a look at your own admitance. your are in top end skyshrine gear/HM jewelry. and I bet your group is either a solid guild group or similarly geared. you know, the kind of group that UD/Dozekar is a boring easy walk in the park zone/fight. </blockquote>So, it's not OP if Fighters can be T1 DPS for 95%+ of the total content while tanking? Why bother playing anything BUT an SK if you're not HM Raiding? In solo, heroic, and easy raids, there's no reason I can come up with to continue playing a Sorc atm.BTW, We're in top HEROIC gear, it's not like we're in POW / HM Drunder / HM SS raid gear.<cite>Rainmare@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>now I ask you to let him tank in reckless with a non-hm/guild group as see how well he does in reckless. the kind of group that Dozekar actually presents a challenge to. I bet he dies alot. </blockquote>Do a completely random test to see if a random pug healer(s) can keep a tank in recklessness up? I'd rather test to see if I can heal a pug tank with recklessness, than tank with a pug healer. Both are pretty much a recipe for fail since I'm on Permafrost. I'll pass, I don't do pugs much anymore.<cite>Rainmare@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>or how abut instead of testing in UD...why don't you test it in HM instances. see how well he stands up then in a zone that might actually present a challenge to you.I would say then if he's still facerolling and no one has issues keeping him alive then maybe you got a valid complaint. but don't come and complain about it when your doing easy stuff with a group that could sleepwalk through the zone in the first place about how overpowered it is.I bet in a zone that's actually dangerous to you, that 50% more damage taken effect might have a much bigger impact.</blockquote>We've done HM CD & Lyceum with Recklessness. Can prolly do first 2 named in HM DP too /shrug. If you have smart healers, and know the fights, it's possible. I'd imagine most anyone with full HM Raid gear can cake walk those zones in Recklessness. --------So, explain to me... why would anyone want to play anything but an SK right now? I see no point to continue playing my Sorc atm.

Neiloch

07-27-2012, 08:51 PM

<cite>Rainmare@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>first off before you complain about the numbers. take a look at your own admitance. your are in top end skyshrine gear/HM jewelry. and I bet your group is either a solid guild group or similarly geared. you know, the kind of group that UD/Dozekar is a boring easy walk in the park zone/fight.now I ask you to let him tank in reckless with a non-hm/guild group as see how well he does in reckless. the kind of group that Dozekar actually presents a challenge to. I bet he dies alot.or how abut instead of testing in UD...why don't you test it in HM instances. see how well he stands up then in a zone that might actually present a challenge to you.I would say then if he's still facerolling and no one has issues keeping him alive then maybe you got a valid complaint. but don't come and complain about it when your doing easy stuff with a group that could sleepwalk through the zone in the first place about how overpowered it is.I bet in a zone that's actually dangerous to you, that 50% more damage taken effect might have a much bigger impact.</blockquote>Okay so instead of fighters complaining about not having enough slots in a raid you shift it to DPS?Why bother swapping in DPS classes even just for trash when fighters can just swap stances. There are more DPS classes than fighters, they SHOULD have more slots in a raid. Duh.The classes that have too many are bards and enchanters. Maybe this whole thing will ripple into giving DPs classes a bit more utility and making bard/enchanter stuff raid wide so any raid with a hope of progressing doesn't need 4 bards and 4 enchanters. Thing is SoE did try and solve that problem in a very straight forward way but then people (bards/enchanters) had a hissy fit they wouldn't be so needed they get to monopolize 1/4 of raid slots.This entire idea that since they can't use recklessness on the hardest content that it's perfectly fine is ignorant at best.

Twyxx

07-27-2012, 09:02 PM

<cite>Neiloch@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote>The classes that have too many are bards and enchanters. Maybe this whole thing will ripple into giving DPs classes a bit more utility and making bard/enchanter stuff raid wide so any raid with a hope of progressing doesn't need 4 bards and 4 enchanters. Thing is SoE did try and solve that problem in a very straight forward way but then people (bards/enchanters) had a hissy fit they wouldn't be so needed they get to monopolize 1/4 of raid slots.</blockquote>Excellent point. Some of these fights in PoW we've used 5 chanters on just to deal with the drains. 3 chanters/3 bards should be plenty if the utility of other classes were boosted some. Having to have 4 chanters and 4 bards all the time is out of balance. Rogues and predators get 1-2 spots each. Sorcs get 2-3, Summoners 1-2. There are never enough chanters and bards out there to consistently fill all the available spots.

Ryptide

07-27-2012, 09:07 PM

ratbast

07-27-2012, 10:01 PM

my comments in greenyour special comments in red() my subtexts to your thoughts.<cite>japanfour wrote:</cite><blockquote>Ideally what should the best tank parse? I dont think that anything but T1 DPS should be topping the parse, I think utility classes should be competing with tanks atleast when they arent in relentless, I think that relentless dps should be inbetween utility and a DPS focused class. Thats just my opinion based on what content I play and how I play personally, so naturally I like the stance and support it.(opinion is entirely based on self interest) I am just saying what you think should be in this game is nothing more than an opinion. Show why you think what. instead of "HMM THIS SHOULD BE HERE AND THAT SHOULD BE THERE BECAUSE I SAID SO"</blockquote><blockquote>im more than a little perplexed how you state your opinion without any logical reasoning, and then make this statement above.</blockquote><blockquote>I understand the difference between the classes. (personal flavor: professing knowledge) I just dont think this change is as grave as people make it out to be. (opinion about others opinions) I also think its too early to pass all of this judgement, I think people should really test it and kind of reserve judgement untill then. (this is an obfuscating opinion about meta data)DPS based hate has been around norrath since eq1. (history lession) I doubt they will make it any different. (speculation about eq2s future actions) People like doing damage,(duh-which is why increasing one reduces everyone elses relative rank) hate gain is an excuse for a fighter to do its job and enjoy being able to damage things at the same time.(misunderstanding of hate, the crux of having aggro to actually be the tank)hate gain is not an excuse, its absolutely essential to TANKING, its core function.I believe that the stance is a utility to a group or a raid. Because it shifts the purpose of a tank to suit something else, hopefully decreasing the timesink on some encounters. (belief and hope statement)you are arguing an archtype specific buff "REALLY" helps everyone, since their contribution speeds things up. have you thought thru the logical application of your logic? it would justify a million potency buff that only wizards got. it justifies basically anything that buffs period.Each group does not need a chanter and a bard. (as long as your expectations are low enough it doesnt need anything except 2 players) Its nice and all, but its not always needed. Usually one of the two will do for any heroic content, and most Hardmode group content. Ideal group make up should be looked at on an encounter to encounter basis instead of this general ideal of group makeup. Another problem that I see here is this generalization of how people think this game needs to be played. Its silly to throttle the versatility of something because of what people think works or doesnt work based on their opinions on how the game must be played. (creating pretext that all opposition to reckless is mindless opinion)we are not talking about what you can get away with as you limp thru content, we are talking about optimal builds that intelligent players will seek, recruit, and invite to group/raid.I dont agree with you on your design perspective. These 3 roles arent supposed to be exclusive IMO, I am a healing tank, that provides utility, but I havent been the top choice for hardmode stuff ,groups or raiding at first. Yet back before this stance, no one was complaining about paladins being able to heal rez dps and tank. I just think your idea on these roles being so rigidly cut is not the way to go.(restating) "I am a healing tank, that provides utility" this is the problem. plus you want to explode fighter dps on top of that. why have classes when ppl get away with mindsets like your own? also i never said they were exclusive. they are focuses where they should be stronger than those who specialize in either of the other 3 main roles.I dont think that this was added to boost tank recruitment in raiding (speculation about soes intention with reckless), and I think just adding something cool isnt the way to go.i guarantee crusaders see this as something very cool/orgasmic.I do think however that Troubadors and coercers need more fun abilities that make them enjoy the class more. I have never seen such a high turnover rate in anyother class. I just feel that people just dont enjoy those two classes in PVE. PVP is another story though.. (also, if you feel this way what sense does it make to give fighters a special treat--reckless-- instead of the utility classes)Maybe for a troub or a coercer yes. I dont care about the big 3 being seperate, (go try rift then, its class system will suit you, eq2 is a specialized class system from the ground up) I understand the focus of it in each archetype, I just dont get people that want tanking traits to be exclusive to tanks and vice versa. some encounters in this game dictate versatility and every class needs what it can get to work with the encounter and succeed. (this is not a question of every class selfishly clawing for any scraps they can get their grubby hands on, reckless is a single archtype versatility buff that invades multiple other classes REASON FOR BEING, also pretending this is needed to succeed is incorrect)</blockquote>your post is full of irrelevent content. it deflects and distracts from the issue and makes it less clear. if reckless is good, make it clear. muddying the waters with other problems does not justify more bad design choices (reckless).usually i wouldnt care much that you say i have no reasons, but when your post is largely a net deposit of attitude, sans reasoning, its absurd. i would be willing to discuss why 3 main roles is better, due to its impact on values like interdependency, but i just dont think you would have anything to add. what i did discuss appears to be non-reasoned gibberish in your eyes.

Proud_Silence

07-28-2012, 06:13 AM

Our raid healers must be pretty bad, cause i die pretty easy in reckless as bruiser, and i was just OT. Hate generation is immense and without a buff to disable hate mod ( yno like singular focus to negate AE dmg), and seemingly harmless AE's are suddenly bringing me below 50% or outright oneshoting me, and if i got aggro on something in that moment and take another autoattackround + extra magic dmg it's time for a dirtnap.I see a few people making claims that HM nameds are being tanked in this stance, and i really have a hard time believing that, because of a raid can keep up a MT using a buff making him take 50% more dmg instead of defensive stance against HM or POW nameds, howcome they can't clear POW ? pardon my ignorance on the scripts of pow nameds, the guild i'm part of is merely killing some HM drunder nameds.Despite all this, i fully agree that this stance was and is completely unneeded and personally i don't like it as bruiser and player, because it just feels very odd to get this released to live, i don't see the point. Actually i do see one explanation; it's the typical SoE way, they knew there was an issue with the tankspots on raids, and some nameds in a zone needing up to 3 or 4. and instead of putting thought into the 6 offensive stances, because that woulda have taken time ( = money), so they just jammed this reckless stance down our throats, god knows what they were thinking boosting potency like this in regards to Crusaders and their spells....If this was taken off of live servers again, i wouldn't miss it a single second.

Slittherss

07-28-2012, 08:19 AM

Speaking as a brig in my guild, I am already pretty upset with this. If it wasn't for my debuffs doing something in raid I would have been put out to pasture a while back. But this really takes the cake, I can generally do 290K-375K on EM skyshrine raid mobs, yet when Recklessness hit our Monk went from a normal 200k-250k to a whopping 400K-500K avg and i'm screaming What The Hell. I can bet to argue that the Bruiser can take it even further dmg wise. This is dumb, sorry but no amount of Debuffs and bull crap that sony tries to feed my class, I want my own version of this for Rogue, call me selfish but if a f'ing brawler can do it why can't a class that STABS MOBS IN THE BACK do this?

japanfour

07-28-2012, 01:10 PM

<cite>Freejazzlive wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>japanfour wrote:</cite><blockquote> And if they still arent able to do that, I think they might be doing it wrong. Another mind blowing concept...</blockquote>Tanks are tanking, DPSing, & utilitying.This isn't about people who "still aren't able to do that." This is about classes which are doing my job, as well as their own.</blockquote> all classes are dpsing. All classes in this game currently provide some form of utility. I can do some minor healing, rez, and take a hit. A healer can heal, dps rez, cure quickly. A dps can cast buffs on a tank assisting with hate providing a utility, same with mages. I just think that you are wrong about classes in general, because out of principal they all serve a group purpose no matter how small or large. I think there are a few classes that they can work on adding specified versatility to in terms of how they affect archetypes, and that is the real problem here...the lack of utility in a few classes. This shouldnt be a kid mad because someone else got a new toy, but based on the responses here that is all this outcry looks like.

Landiin

07-28-2012, 01:51 PM

Japanfour quit trolling man. The facts are fighters are tanking in this stance and doing high T2 and if they are any good at all they are doing low T1 dps while doing it. That is broken and not the intent of this new stance. Instead of trying to preserve the state of OP of this stance how about you for once give ideas how to fix it. Take the advice you gave in another post of yours and give a suggestion for once.

Davngr1

07-28-2012, 02:35 PM

this is so explicitly broken that it's offensive that it even made it to live. was this a joke? are you thing to troll players by giving two classes a broken over powered ability and watching what happens?

japanfour

07-28-2012, 03:10 PM

<cite>ratbast wrote:</cite><blockquote>my comments in greenyour special comments in red() my subtexts to your thoughts.<cite>japanfour wrote:</cite><blockquote>Ideally what should the best tank parse? I dont think that anything but T1 DPS should be topping the parse, I think utility classes should be competing with tanks atleast when they arent in relentless, I think that relentless dps should be inbetween utility and a DPS focused class. Thats just my opinion based on what content I play and how I play personally, so naturally I like the stance and support it.(opinion is entirely based on self interest) I am just saying what you think should be in this game is nothing more than an opinion. Show why you think what. instead of "HMM THIS SHOULD BE HERE AND THAT SHOULD BE THERE BECAUSE I SAID SO"</blockquote><blockquote>im more than a little perplexed how you state your opinion without any logical reasoning, and then make this statement above.</blockquote><blockquote>I understand the difference between the classes. (personal flavor: professing knowledge) I just dont think this change is as grave as people make it out to be. (opinion about others opinions) I also think its too early to pass all of this judgement, I think people should really test it and kind of reserve judgement untill then. (this is an obfuscating opinion about meta data)DPS based hate has been around norrath since eq1. (history lession) I doubt they will make it any different. (speculation about eq2s future actions) People like doing damage,(duh-which is why increasing one reduces everyone elses relative rank) hate gain is an excuse for a fighter to do its job and enjoy being able to damage things at the same time.(misunderstanding of hate, the crux of having aggro to actually be the tank)hate gain is not an excuse, its absolutely essential to TANKING, its core function.I believe that the stance is a utility to a group or a raid. Because it shifts the purpose of a tank to suit something else, hopefully decreasing the timesink on some encounters. (belief and hope statement)you are arguing an archtype specific buff "REALLY" helps everyone, since their contribution speeds things up. have you thought thru the logical application of your logic? it would justify a million potency buff that only wizards got. it justifies basically anything that buffs period.Each group does not need a chanter and a bard. (as long as your expectations are low enough it doesnt need anything except 2 players) Its nice and all, but its not always needed. Usually one of the two will do for any heroic content, and most Hardmode group content. Ideal group make up should be looked at on an encounter to encounter basis instead of this general ideal of group makeup. Another problem that I see here is this generalization of how people think this game needs to be played. Its silly to throttle the versatility of something because of what people think works or doesnt work based on their opinions on how the game must be played. (creating pretext that all opposition to reckless is mindless opinion)we are not talking about what you can get away with as you limp thru content, we are talking about optimal builds that intelligent players will seek, recruit, and invite to group/raid.I dont agree with you on your design perspective. These 3 roles arent supposed to be exclusive IMO, I am a healing tank, that provides utility, but I havent been the top choice for hardmode stuff ,groups or raiding at first. Yet back before this stance, no one was complaining about paladins being able to heal rez dps and tank. I just think your idea on these roles being so rigidly cut is not the way to go.(restating) "I am a healing tank, that provides utility" this is the problem. plus you want to explode fighter dps on top of that. why have classes when ppl get away with mindsets like your own? also i never said they were exclusive. they are focuses where they should be stronger than those who specialize in either of the other 3 main roles.I dont think that this was added to boost tank recruitment in raiding (speculation about soes intention with reckless), and I think just adding something cool isnt the way to go.i guarantee crusaders see this as something very cool/orgasmic.I do think however that Troubadors and coercers need more fun abilities that make them enjoy the class more. I have never seen such a high turnover rate in anyother class. I just feel that people just dont enjoy those two classes in PVE. PVP is another story though.. (also, if you feel this way what sense does it make to give fighters a special treat--reckless-- instead of the utility classes)Maybe for a troub or a coercer yes. I dont care about the big 3 being seperate, (go try rift then, its class system will suit you, eq2 is a specialized class system from the ground up) I understand the focus of it in each archetype, I just dont get people that want tanking traits to be exclusive to tanks and vice versa. some encounters in this game dictate versatility and every class needs what it can get to work with the encounter and succeed. (this is not a question of every class selfishly clawing for any scraps they can get their grubby hands on, reckless is a single archtype versatility buff that invades multiple other classes REASON FOR BEING, also pretending this is needed to succeed is incorrect)</blockquote>your post is full of irrelevent content. it deflects and distracts from the issue and makes it less clear. if reckless is good, make it clear. muddying the waters with other problems does not justify more bad design choices (reckless).usually i wouldnt care much that you say i have no reasons, but when your post is largely a net deposit of attitude, sans reasoning, its absurd. i would be willing to discuss why 3 main roles is better, due to its impact on values like interdependency, but i just dont think you would have anything to add. what i did discuss appears to be non-reasoned gibberish in your eyes.</blockquote>of course I state my opinions here, this is a discussion board. At least I am explicit in stating that its my opinion. Opinions aren't based on pure self interest, but self interest is part of it, just not 100%. I honestly wouldnt care if it stays or goes, because its not going to hurt anything in this game either way. I don't even use the stance much, atleast on content relevant to me.I have been playing the game a while, I have seen the tendency in mechanics, why cant I speculate? If I am wrong, I am wrong. Either way, hate is dps based, it seems to be a thing that the developers in this game favor. And once again, going back to what I said. I dont misunderstand hate, but I can see how my statement was flawed and I apologize for that.Hate gain isnt as essential to a paladin for tanking(though it does assist alot in high end content). It is for other fighters and I know that, but I also know that tanks have been doing what I do, better than me, and they arent paladins. So there is that. If hategain is tied in with dps, then DPS is part of that core function as far as I am concerned.My belief and hope statement is for others, not for myself, I understand my abilities as best I can, and my hopefulness is for other classes understanding their purpose.Of course I understand the principle of my statement and how it can apply to everything, good thing that doesn't matter because of the specifics of what we are really discussing here, recklessness stance. I could talk about how over the top comparing this to having a million potency which is a real stretch. Either way, you stray from the subject to put my argument out of context which I can respect, its a good debate tactic.I think that any opinion not having any facts against the stance are meaningless so far, because nearly every post so far on this stance has had nothing to analyze. Thats the point here I am trying to bring out. I dont care if the stance gets nerfed or removed, I just want to make sure it gets removed based off of data, or evidence of its broken-ness instead of unjustified player opinion.I dont think this really messes with dps as bad as you think. I can bloat my parse up on any mob when buffs from other classes are timed well, and my parse was an obvious example of that. I sacrifice alot of my defensive skill for some more damage in the stance( and since plate tanks take alot of spike damage, thats significant), and I can still OT on some challenging fights . Either way, my single target dps is still not T1 dps as people are claiming here in the stance, and I am geared pretty well/have a oretty good understanding of a paladin/SK.Once again I can speculate in a discussion, I think I am allowed to do that. I can be wrong, but since I am not stating them as some sort of clairvoyant fact I dont think I am in the wrong for doing so.Just because I feel that way it doesnt mean take something new away from someone else. I just think that those 2 classes need enhancement, so please seperate the issue. Taking something away from my class would not cancel out my issues with another class not being as enjoyable or viable.Class specialization does exist here and its why I like it over the pure versatility in rift. People on these boards are constantly struggling with various issues, that range from simply understanding a class, to posting indirect information to maintain the OPness of a class as well. I still dont know of a single target parse where a crusader can top a T1 dpser that knows what he is doing so once again this idea that this stance is going to take others out of the game is silly, SOE is going to balance it if it comes to that. If they dont, thats a definite problem that should be adressed when it is discovered. As far as clawing for every resource to succeed in any situation or game, I disagree because thats effort in my opinion, finding all the resources to win. I guess that goes hand in hand with the amount of personal interest involved in an opinion.If recklessness isnt good, you too can make it clear, and post some data. This is a thread about the intention of it after all. I have stated that I can be beat on my paladin in the stance by T1/T2 even in my guild and thats while timing myself on buffs and temps. I think its good because it boosts my dps while not tanking, so I can play this game alot more actively and diligently as a tank/off tank. since I am not the first chosen main tank(bruisers, brawlers are usually more desirable), this is a good stance to test to help me as an off tank on DPS checks on encounters or gives me the chance to supply more dps to an encounter that has no adds or dps checks. It could be a good start, for an off tank stance, and that is why I support the idea of it. Is it balanced? I doubt it is entirely perfect, but its a step in the right decision based on how encounters are in this game. I post here hoping it doesnt get nerfed, but properly refined based on sound data presented.I dont think this is going to affect or hinder anything in this game in terms of raiding guilds, groups or recruitment, atleast when people are conscious about how their class operates. I will say your reasoning is better than most here because I can actually respond to you and have a discussion with you, I am grateful for that and respect that you can talk to me here. I am just open and honest about what I think wrong or right. If I am wrong about anything I will openly admit it. Just get the data, or factual empirical evidence.

Haciv

07-28-2012, 03:12 PM

Just finished another UD with the SAME group as the first 3 parses I posted on page 1 just to keep the data as reliable as possible. Instead of Bolstering and UT'ing me, we buffed the SK. Groupwide DPS was much higher, and tank DPS through the roof:ZONWIDE:<img src="http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/1958/728zw1.jpg" width="743" height="585" />And.... just to show that the drakes didn't help ME any... here's my best drake parse I've ever done... and I still lost:<img src="http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/3440/drakesnew.jpg" />

japanfour

07-28-2012, 03:18 PM

<cite>Toranx@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Japanfour quit trolling man. The facts are fighters are tanking in this stance and doing high T2 and if they are any good at all they are doing low T1 dps while doing it. That is broken and not the intent of this new stance. Instead of trying to preserve the state of OP of this stance how about you for once give ideas how to fix it. Take the advice you gave in another post of yours and give a suggestion for once.</blockquote>there is no parses posted. Post one, and dont post one from a zone where there are 10 mob encounters that a crusader can bloat their parse on.

Freejazzlive

07-28-2012, 03:31 PM

<cite>japanfour wrote:</cite><blockquote> all classes are dpsing.</blockquote>There are, however, classes which are quite specialized in doing DPS, which have very little else they bring to the group. There are other classes which used to bring quite a lot to a group, but no longer do because of changes to the game mechanics & the way named fights are designed.The issue is not that Fighters are DPSing, actually. The issue, as perceived, is that Fighters are doing better DPS than are pure DPS classes. I remember a time when Fighters had two stances, offensive & defensive, just like Rogues do. I'm not at all sure why the offensive stance, as it was, wasn't sufficient. I'm terribly not sorry to say that with everything they already had going for them, the very last thing Pallies & SKs (in particular) needed was better DPS.

Haciv

07-28-2012, 03:49 PM

nt

Haciv

07-28-2012, 03:51 PM

nt

japanfour

07-28-2012, 04:20 PM

<cite>Freejazzlive wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>japanfour wrote:</cite><blockquote> all classes are dpsing.</blockquote>There are, however, classes which are quite specialized in doing DPS, which have very little else they bring to the group. There are other classes which used to bring quite a lot to a group, but no longer do because of changes to the game mechanics & the way named fights are designed.The issue is not that Fighters are DPSing, actually. The issue, as perceived, is that Fighters are doing better DPS than are pure DPS classes. I remember a time when Fighters had two stances, offensive & defensive, just like Rogues do. I'm not at all sure why the offensive stance, as it was, wasn't sufficient. I'm terribly not sorry to say that with everything they already had going for them, the very last thing Pallies & SKs (in particular) needed was better DPS.</blockquote>going back to what I said before, I am parsing on single targets with people that know how to parse and not really getting close to T1, I would say I can get my single target above 300k-400k AT THE MOST IF I AM ON IT WITH TEMPS. on a sound single target encounter, which isnt much compared to any T1 dps class at my tier. So once again if I am doing better than the pure dps class the problem isnt me, its him. And I am geared like a boss, optimally specced, have triggers for temps and everything. I am literally trying my best to post a "broken" parse, but I cant. I am actually trying at the moment to see for myself if this is broken.

ratbast

07-28-2012, 05:44 PM

<cite>japanfour wrote:</cite><blockquote>of course I state my opinions here, this is a discussion board. At least I am explicit in stating that its my opinion. Opinions aren't based on pure self interest, but self interest is part of it, just not 100%. I honestly wouldnt care if it stays or goes, because its not going to hurt anything in this game either way. I don't even use the stance much, atleast on content relevant to me.I have been playing the game a while, I have seen the tendency in mechanics, why cant I speculate? If I am wrong, I am wrong. Either way, hate is dps based, it seems to be a thing that the developers in this game favor. And once again, going back to what I said. I dont misunderstand hate, but I can see how my statement was flawed and I apologize for that.Hate gain isnt as essential to a paladin for tanking(though it does assist alot in high end content). It is for other fighters and I know that, but I also know that tanks have been doing what I do, better than me, and they arent paladins. So there is that. If hategain is tied in with dps, then DPS is part of that core function as far as I am concerned.My belief and hope statement is for others, not for myself, I understand my abilities as best I can, and my hopefulness is for other classes understanding their purpose.Of course I understand the principle of my statement and how it can apply to everything, good thing that doesn't matter because of the specifics of what we are really discussing here, recklessness stance. I could talk about how over the top comparing this to having a million potency which is a real stretch. Either way, you stray from the subject to put my argument out of context which I can respect, its a good debate tactic.I think that any opinion not having any facts against the stance are meaningless so far, because nearly every post so far on this stance has had nothing to analyze. Thats the point here I am trying to bring out. I dont care if the stance gets nerfed or removed, I just want to make sure it gets removed based off of data, or evidence of its broken-ness instead of unjustified player opinion.I dont think this really messes with dps as bad as you think. I can bloat my parse up on any mob when buffs from other classes are timed well, and my parse was an obvious example of that. I sacrifice alot of my defensive skill for some more damage in the stance( and since plate tanks take alot of spike damage, thats significant), and I can still OT on some challenging fights . Either way, my single target dps is still not T1 dps as people are claiming here in the stance, and I am geared pretty well/have a oretty good understanding of a paladin/SK.Once again I can speculate in a discussion, I think I am allowed to do that. I can be wrong, but since I am not stating them as some sort of clairvoyant fact I dont think I am in the wrong for doing so.Just because I feel that way it doesnt mean take something new away from someone else. I just think that those 2 classes need enhancement, so please seperate the issue. Taking something away from my class would not cancel out my issues with another class not being as enjoyable or viable.Class specialization does exist here and its why I like it over the pure versatility in rift. People on these boards are constantly struggling with various issues, that range from simply understanding a class, to posting indirect information to maintain the OPness of a class as well. I still dont know of a single target parse where a crusader can top a T1 dpser that knows what he is doing so once again this idea that this stance is going to take others out of the game is silly, SOE is going to balance it if it comes to that. If they dont, thats a definite problem that should be adressed when it is discovered. As far as clawing for every resource to succeed in any situation or game, I disagree because thats effort in my opinion, finding all the resources to win. I guess that goes hand in hand with the amount of personal interest involved in an opinion.If recklessness isnt good, you too can make it clear, and post some data. This is a thread about the intention of it after all. I have stated that I can (BEAUTIFUL: "so youre saying theres a chance?" -lloyd christmas) be beat on my paladin in the stance by T1/T2 even in my guild and thats while timing myself on buffs and temps. I think its good because it boosts my dps while not tanking, so I can play this game alot more actively and diligently as a tank/off tank. since I am not the first chosen main tank(bruisers, brawlers are usually more desirable), this is a good stance to test to help me as an off tank on DPS checks on encounters or gives me the chance to supply more dps to an encounter that has no adds or dps checks. It could be a good start, for an off tank stance, and that is why I support the idea of it. Is it balanced? I doubt it is entirely perfect, but its a step in the right decision based on how encounters are in this game. I post here hoping it doesnt get nerfed, but properly refined based on sound data presented.I dont think this is going to affect or hinder anything in this game in terms of raiding guilds, groups or recruitment, atleast when people are conscious about how their class operates. I will say your reasoning is better than most here because I can actually respond to you and have a discussion with you, I am grateful for that and respect that you can talk to me here. I am just open and honest about what I think wrong or right. If I am wrong about anything I will openly admit it. Just get the data, or factual empirical evidence.</blockquote>honestly im not sure what is going on here. i feel like im in the twilight zone. and you are not the only one, others are saying this same thing. yes there has been a parse that was like 7 seconds or something but that was a different thread.did you read the OP of this thread? it was a zw parse of the final skyshrine heroic instance (not fight, INSTANCE).<img src="http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/3702/ud1g.jpg" width="736" height="583" />vicah is a warlock with tc or ut, cant remember, plus mystic buffage. gaarysal is the tank. again, this isnt verified, this is just what someone posted. i dont find it particularly hard to believe. got fighters running around with 600 potency.(btw i dont object to you stating your opinions. thats great. what i took issue with was quoting my entire post and saying Show why you think what. instead of "HMM THIS SHOULD BE HERE AND THAT SHOULD BE THERE BECAUSE I SAID SO in response to my post. i did give reasonings, plus i can elaborate on them making them longer. and its hypocritical for you say that and go on to spout unsupported opinions. i would not give an opinion with arguement of 'i said so', which was your direct implication to my directly quoted post. so i broke down your post into subtexts showing the heart of your arguments: mostly just opinion without logical rhetoric.)

japanfour

07-28-2012, 05:46 PM

<cite>ratbast wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>japanfour wrote:</cite><blockquote>of course I state my opinions here, this is a discussion board. At least I am explicit in stating that its my opinion. Opinions aren't based on pure self interest, but self interest is part of it, just not 100%. I honestly wouldnt care if it stays or goes, because its not going to hurt anything in this game either way. I don't even use the stance much, atleast on content relevant to me.I have been playing the game a while, I have seen the tendency in mechanics, why cant I speculate? If I am wrong, I am wrong. Either way, hate is dps based, it seems to be a thing that the developers in this game favor. And once again, going back to what I said. I dont misunderstand hate, but I can see how my statement was flawed and I apologize for that.Hate gain isnt as essential to a paladin for tanking(though it does assist alot in high end content). It is for other fighters and I know that, but I also know that tanks have been doing what I do, better than me, and they arent paladins. So there is that. If hategain is tied in with dps, then DPS is part of that core function as far as I am concerned.My belief and hope statement is for others, not for myself, I understand my abilities as best I can, and my hopefulness is for other classes understanding their purpose.Of course I understand the principle of my statement and how it can apply to everything, good thing that doesn't matter because of the specifics of what we are really discussing here, recklessness stance. I could talk about how over the top comparing this to having a million potency which is a real stretch. Either way, you stray from the subject to put my argument out of context which I can respect, its a good debate tactic.I think that any opinion not having any facts against the stance are meaningless so far, because nearly every post so far on this stance has had nothing to analyze. Thats the point here I am trying to bring out. I dont care if the stance gets nerfed or removed, I just want to make sure it gets removed based off of data, or evidence of its broken-ness instead of unjustified player opinion.I dont think this really messes with dps as bad as you think. I can bloat my parse up on any mob when buffs from other classes are timed well, and my parse was an obvious example of that. I sacrifice alot of my defensive skill for some more damage in the stance( and since plate tanks take alot of spike damage, thats significant), and I can still OT on some challenging fights . Either way, my single target dps is still not T1 dps as people are claiming here in the stance, and I am geared pretty well/have a oretty good understanding of a paladin/SK.Once again I can speculate in a discussion, I think I am allowed to do that. I can be wrong, but since I am not stating them as some sort of clairvoyant fact I dont think I am in the wrong for doing so.Just because I feel that way it doesnt mean take something new away from someone else. I just think that those 2 classes need enhancement, so please seperate the issue. Taking something away from my class would not cancel out my issues with another class not being as enjoyable or viable.Class specialization does exist here and its why I like it over the pure versatility in rift. People on these boards are constantly struggling with various issues, that range from simply understanding a class, to posting indirect information to maintain the OPness of a class as well. I still dont know of a single target parse where a crusader can top a T1 dpser that knows what he is doing so once again this idea that this stance is going to take others out of the game is silly, SOE is going to balance it if it comes to that. If they dont, thats a definite problem that should be adressed when it is discovered. As far as clawing for every resource to succeed in any situation or game, I disagree because thats effort in my opinion, finding all the resources to win. I guess that goes hand in hand with the amount of personal interest involved in an opinion.If recklessness isnt good, you too can make it clear, and post some data. This is a thread about the intention of it after all. I have stated that I can (BEAUTIFUL: "so youre saying theres a chance?" -lloyd christmas) be beat on my paladin in the stance by T1/T2 even in my guild and thats while timing myself on buffs and temps. I think its good because it boosts my dps while not tanking, so I can play this game alot more actively and diligently as a tank/off tank. since I am not the first chosen main tank(bruisers, brawlers are usually more desirable), this is a good stance to test to help me as an off tank on DPS checks on encounters or gives me the chance to supply more dps to an encounter that has no adds or dps checks. It could be a good start, for an off tank stance, and that is why I support the idea of it. Is it balanced? I doubt it is entirely perfect, but its a step in the right decision based on how encounters are in this game. I post here hoping it doesnt get nerfed, but properly refined based on sound data presented.I dont think this is going to affect or hinder anything in this game in terms of raiding guilds, groups or recruitment, atleast when people are conscious about how their class operates. I will say your reasoning is better than most here because I can actually respond to you and have a discussion with you, I am grateful for that and respect that you can talk to me here. I am just open and honest about what I think wrong or right. If I am wrong about anything I will openly admit it. Just get the data, or factual empirical evidence.</blockquote>honestly im not sure what is going on here. i feel like im in the twilight zone. and you are not the only one, others are saying this same thing. yes there has been a parse that was like 7 seconds or something but that was a different thread.did you read the OP of this thread? it was a zw parse of the final skyshrine heroic instance (not fight, INSTANCE).<img src="http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/3702/ud1g.jpg" width="736" height="583" />vicah is a warlock with tc or ut, cant remember, plus mystic buffage. gaarysal is the tank. again, this isnt verified, this is just what someone posted. i dont find it particularly hard to believe. got fighters running around with 600 potency.(btw i dont object to you stating your opinions. thats great. what i took issue with was quoting my entire post and saying Show why you think what. instead of "HMM THIS SHOULD BE HERE AND THAT SHOULD BE THERE BECAUSE I SAID SO in response to my post. i did give reasonings, plus i can elaborate on them making them longer. and its hypocritical for you say that and go on to spout unsupported opinions. i would not give an opinion with arguement of 'i said so', which was your direct implication to my directly quoted post. so i broke down your post into subtexts showing the heart of your arguments: mostly just opinion without logical rhetoric.)</blockquote>like I said, post a single target parse, or zonewide parse that doesnt involve a 10 mob encounter ( those nether drakes) and the parse will be significantly different.

Freejazzlive

07-28-2012, 05:52 PM

<cite>japanfour wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Freejazzlive wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>japanfour wrote:</cite><blockquote> all classes are dpsing.</blockquote>There are, however, classes which are quite specialized in doing DPS, which have very little else they bring to the group. There are other classes which used to bring quite a lot to a group, but no longer do because of changes to the game mechanics & the way named fights are designed.The issue is not that Fighters are DPSing, actually. The issue, as perceived, is that Fighters are doing better DPS than are pure DPS classes. I remember a time when Fighters had two stances, offensive & defensive, just like Rogues do. I'm not at all sure why the offensive stance, as it was, wasn't sufficient. I'm terribly not sorry to say that with everything they already had going for them, the very last thing Pallies & SKs (in particular) needed was better DPS.</blockquote>going back to what I said before, I am parsing on single targets with people that know how to parse and not really getting close to T1.</blockquote>Unlike others, I'm not concerned with you getting into T1. I'm concerned with you getting into T2 & then competing with Swashies & Brigs & so forth. I know I said "pure DPS classes," & that was probably not the right way to word it, so my apology for any confusion caused.The point still remains -- which you didn't address -- that I don't see why a new stance was needed to begin with, nor do I believe that Pallies & SKs (in particular) needed better DPS at all.

japanfour

07-28-2012, 06:02 PM

<cite>Freejazzlive wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>japanfour wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Freejazzlive wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>japanfour wrote:</cite><blockquote> all classes are dpsing.</blockquote>There are, however, classes which are quite specialized in doing DPS, which have very little else they bring to the group. There are other classes which used to bring quite a lot to a group, but no longer do because of changes to the game mechanics & the way named fights are designed.The issue is not that Fighters are DPSing, actually. The issue, as perceived, is that Fighters are doing better DPS than are pure DPS classes. I remember a time when Fighters had two stances, offensive & defensive, just like Rogues do. I'm not at all sure why the offensive stance, as it was, wasn't sufficient. I'm terribly not sorry to say that with everything they already had going for them, the very last thing Pallies & SKs (in particular) needed was better DPS.</blockquote>going back to what I said before, I am parsing on single targets with people that know how to parse and not really getting close to T1.</blockquote>Unlike others, I'm not concerned with you getting into T1. I'm concerned with you getting into T2 & then competing with Swashies & Brigs & so forth. I know I said "pure DPS classes," & that was probably not the right way to word it, so my apology for any confusion caused.The point still remains -- which you didn't address -- that I don't see why a new stance was needed to begin with, nor do I believe that Pallies & SKs (in particular) needed better DPS at all.</blockquote>the Swash in my guild can still consistently outparse me/crusader on single target, not so much on multi anymore when in stance. I dont know for sure on brigand, but I will let you know when I can on that. I dont think that the new stance was something that we needed, but it does look like it can be the start of a good idea, I think it needs more direction towards what a tank does while still maintaining some sort of offensive based perk with consequence. Either way the dps its giving out isnt as serious as people claim.

ratbast

07-28-2012, 06:03 PM

<cite>japanfour wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Toranx@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Japanfour quit trolling man. The facts are fighters are tanking in this stance and doing high T2 and if they are any good at all they are doing low T1 dps while doing it. That is broken and not the intent of this new stance. Instead of trying to preserve the state of OP of this stance how about you for once give ideas how to fix it. Take the advice you gave in another post of yours and give a suggestion for once.</blockquote>there is no parses posted. Post one, and dont post one from a zone where there are 10 mob encounters that a crusader can bloat their parse on.</blockquote>do you honestly think wizards are simply disregarding a warlocks parse on UD because of the content type?UD cant be dismissed.edit: also your responses are calling into question your intelligence. the parse posted was of a WARLOCK barely beating a crusader. whose parse was bloated on trash?

Freejazzlive

07-28-2012, 06:08 PM

<cite>japanfour wrote:</cite><blockquote>the Swash in my guild can still consistently outparse me/crusader on single target, not so much on multi anymore when in stance.</blockquote>IMO, that should be the other way around -- Swashy was always the AOE DPS class, due to Hurricane & inherent AOEs. You shouldn't even come close to a Swashy on AOE fights, & if you are, then something is wrong.

japanfour

07-28-2012, 06:08 PM

<cite>ratbast wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>japanfour wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Toranx@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Japanfour quit trolling man. The facts are fighters are tanking in this stance and doing high T2 and if they are any good at all they are doing low T1 dps while doing it. That is broken and not the intent of this new stance. Instead of trying to preserve the state of OP of this stance how about you for once give ideas how to fix it. Take the advice you gave in another post of yours and give a suggestion for once.</blockquote>there is no parses posted. Post one, and dont post one from a zone where there are 10 mob encounters that a crusader can bloat their parse on.</blockquote>do you honestly think wizards are simply disregarding a warlocks parse on UD because of the content type?UD cant be dismissed.</blockquote>on a multi target encounter they should be, as warlocks are more designated for AOE dps and are anle to really ramp it up on those nether drakes.

ratbast

07-28-2012, 06:10 PM

<cite>japanfour wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>ratbast wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>japanfour wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Toranx@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Japanfour quit trolling man. The facts are fighters are tanking in this stance and doing high T2 and if they are any good at all they are doing low T1 dps while doing it. That is broken and not the intent of this new stance. Instead of trying to preserve the state of OP of this stance how about you for once give ideas how to fix it. Take the advice you gave in another post of yours and give a suggestion for once.</blockquote>there is no parses posted. Post one, and dont post one from a zone where there are 10 mob encounters that a crusader can bloat their parse on.</blockquote>do you honestly think wizards are simply disregarding a warlocks parse on UD because of the content type?UD cant be dismissed.</blockquote>on a multi target encounter they should be, as warlocks are more designated for AOE dps and are anle to really ramp it up on those nether drakes.</blockquote>now you are figuring it out. so a reckless crusader is barely edged out in UD, on warlock parse bloating content, while the sorc is fully buffed and is getting all the buff love.

japanfour

07-28-2012, 06:28 PM

<cite>ratbast wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>japanfour wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>ratbast wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>japanfour wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Toranx@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Japanfour quit trolling man. The facts are fighters are tanking in this stance and doing high T2 and if they are any good at all they are doing low T1 dps while doing it. That is broken and not the intent of this new stance. Instead of trying to preserve the state of OP of this stance how about you for once give ideas how to fix it. Take the advice you gave in another post of yours and give a suggestion for once.</blockquote>there is no parses posted. Post one, and dont post one from a zone where there are 10 mob encounters that a crusader can bloat their parse on.</blockquote>do you honestly think wizards are simply disregarding a warlocks parse on UD because of the content type?UD cant be dismissed.</blockquote>on a multi target encounter they should be, as warlocks are more designated for AOE dps and are anle to really ramp it up on those nether drakes.</blockquote>now you are figuring it out. so a reckless crusader is barely edged out in UD, on warlock parse bloating content, while the sorc is fully buffed and is getting all the buff love.</blockquote>I dont think I am figuring out what you are trying to convey to me, I am all ears though. I just dont see what you are trying to state. I dont know what edged out means. I do get that you are trying to present a comical situation where a wizard gets alot of buffs and cant parse on some trash. But if he is mad about that he should betray to warlock.

TheSpin

07-28-2012, 06:41 PM

I believe there is a good argument against using a zonewide parse for measuring a single character's contribution to a raid. I will give a very basic example to explain why.Scenario:Character 1, does 100k DPS to a single target.Character 2, Does 50k DPS to up to 6 targets.Fight 1: Single Mob, Difficult Encounter. Character 1 does 100k DPS, Character 2 does 50k DPSFight 2: Group of 6, Equally challenging overall as fight 1. Character 1 does 100k DPS, Character 2 does 300k DPS.End Parse:Character 1 does 200k dps total, his DPS was invaluable for fight 1, though not as helpful for fight 2.Character 2 does 350k dps total, but his damage was pretty negligible in fight 1. in fight two, he did not contribute any more than character 1 did in the single target fight, but the numbers make it seem as if he is more valuable overall than character 1 because his overall parse is much higher.

ratbast

07-28-2012, 06:51 PM

<cite>japanfour wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>ratbast wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>japanfour wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>ratbast wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>japanfour wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Toranx@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Japanfour quit trolling man. The facts are fighters are tanking in this stance and doing high T2 and if they are any good at all they are doing low T1 dps while doing it. That is broken and not the intent of this new stance. Instead of trying to preserve the state of OP of this stance how about you for once give ideas how to fix it. Take the advice you gave in another post of yours and give a suggestion for once.</blockquote>there is no parses posted. Post one, and dont post one from a zone where there are 10 mob encounters that a crusader can bloat their parse on.</blockquote>do you honestly think wizards are simply disregarding a warlocks parse on UD because of the content type?UD cant be dismissed.</blockquote>on a multi target encounter they should be, as warlocks are more designated for AOE dps and are anle to really ramp it up on those nether drakes.</blockquote>now you are figuring it out. so a reckless crusader is barely edged out in UD, on warlock parse bloating content, while the sorc is fully buffed and is getting all the buff love.</blockquote>I dont think I am figuring out what you are trying to convey to me, I am all ears though. I just dont see what you are trying to state. I dont know what edged out means. I do get that you are trying to present a comical situation where a wizard gets alot of buffs and cant parse on some trash. But if he is mad about that he should betray to warlock.</blockquote>you are misinformed about 1 hypothetical point (hypothetical since we are all relying on another persons parse and cant verify it). the top of the parse in question was a warlock. there is no wizard near the top of the parse. if group had wizard he was obliterated by the tank by approx 200k extdps.

ratbast

07-28-2012, 06:57 PM

<cite>TheSpin wrote:</cite><blockquote>I believe there is a good argument against using a zonewide parse for measuring a single character's contribution to a raid. I will give a very basic example to explain why.Scenario:Character 1, does 100k DPS to a single target.Character 2, Does 50k DPS to up to 6 targets.Fight 1: Single Mob, Difficult Encounter. Character 1 does 100k DPS, Character 2 does 50k DPSFight 2: Group of 6, Equally challenging overall as fight 1. Character 1 does 100k DPS, Character 2 does 300k DPS.End Parse:Character 1 does 200k dps total, his DPS was invaluable for fight 1, though not as helpful for fight 2.Character 2 does 350k dps total, but his damage was pretty negligible in fight 1. in fight two, he did not contribute any more than character 1 did in the single target fight, but the numbers make it seem as if he is more valuable overall than character 1 because his overall parse is much higher.</blockquote>good points to keep in mind. but as a rough tool its results (zw) should be looked at.the weighting required for your analysis is subjective as well. making it less useful as a measurement.when the zone is cleared, the zw is posted. thereby feeding egos and justifying ppls psyches for why they rolled that class. cant get around that fact. and nobody is doing math to weight each persons per encounter contribution and giving a performance quotient. ppl are just getting credit for their gross damage.

japanfour

07-28-2012, 07:05 PM

<cite>ratbast wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>japanfour wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>ratbast wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>japanfour wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>ratbast wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>japanfour wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Toranx@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Japanfour quit trolling man. The facts are fighters are tanking in this stance and doing high T2 and if they are any good at all they are doing low T1 dps while doing it. That is broken and not the intent of this new stance. Instead of trying to preserve the state of OP of this stance how about you for once give ideas how to fix it. Take the advice you gave in another post of yours and give a suggestion for once.</blockquote>there is no parses posted. Post one, and dont post one from a zone where there are 10 mob encounters that a crusader can bloat their parse on.</blockquote>do you honestly think wizards are simply disregarding a warlocks parse on UD because of the content type?UD cant be dismissed.</blockquote>on a multi target encounter they should be, as warlocks are more designated for AOE dps and are anle to really ramp it up on those nether drakes.</blockquote>now you are figuring it out. so a reckless crusader is barely edged out in UD, on warlock parse bloating content, while the sorc is fully buffed and is getting all the buff love.</blockquote>I dont think I am figuring out what you are trying to convey to me, I am all ears though. I just dont see what you are trying to state. I dont know what edged out means. I do get that you are trying to present a comical situation where a wizard gets alot of buffs and cant parse on some trash. But if he is mad about that he should betray to warlock.</blockquote>you are misinformed about 1 hypothetical point (hypothetical since we are all relying on another persons parse and cant verify it). the top of the parse in question was a warlock. there is no wizard near the top of the parse. if group had wizard he was obliterated by the tank by approx 200k extdps.</blockquote>there isnt a wizard on the top of the parse because the majority of the encounters in UD are multiple target, so naturally most AOE DPS classes are going to be favored on the parse if knowledgable in that zone specifically.

Parable

07-28-2012, 07:09 PM

It was a buffed warlock and a shadowknight in UD--the zonewide should be absolutely fine for comparison, it's not like it's a single target class vs an aoe class. Both vic and gaary had comparable parses on the three big drake encounters. Maybe tonight Gaary will get UT and bolster and we'll see what kind of disparity there'll be.

Haciv

07-28-2012, 08:48 PM

<cite>japanfour wrote:</cite><blockquote>like I said, post a single target parse, or zonewide parse that doesnt involve a 10 mob encounter ( those nether drakes) and the parse will be significantly different.</blockquote>Ok... here's the parse from one of the zones at the start of the thread MINUS the drakes. The drakes have nothing at all to do with the zonewide. It looks virtually the same...ZONEWIDE MINUS DRAKES:<img src="http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/2893/zwminusdrakes.jpg" width="741" height="588" />DRAKE PULL 1:<img src="http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/6878/drake1b.jpg" />DRAKE PULL 2:<img src="http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/8227/drake3.jpg" />DRAKE PULL 3:<img src="http://img542.imageshack.us/img542/4827/drake2.jpg" width="748" height="591" />-------------------------------------Last night I was on my Brig for the hell of it and Gaary was tanking again, with another warlock in group (Lichal). Here was the zonewide:<img src="http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/7637/briggroup.jpg" />Here's a single-ish target named:<img src="http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/4129/singletarget.jpg" width="748" height="586" />and here is Gaary's damage breakdown:<img src="http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/3359/gaarybreakdown.jpg" />SK IS NOT OP AT ALL, NOTHING TO SEE HERE... MOVE ALONG.

japanfour

07-28-2012, 09:16 PM

<cite>Haciv wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>japanfour wrote:</cite><blockquote>like I said, post a single target parse, or zonewide parse that doesnt involve a 10 mob encounter ( those nether drakes) and the parse will be significantly different.</blockquote>Ok... here's the parse from one of the zones at the start of the thread MINUS the drakes. The drakes have nothing at all to do with the zonewide. It looks virtually the same...ZONEWIDE MINUS DRAKES:<img src="http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/2893/zwminusdrakes.jpg" width="741" height="588" />DRAKE PULL 1:<img src="http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/6878/drake1b.jpg" />DRAKE PULL 2:<img src="http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/8227/drake3.jpg" />DRAKE PULL 3:<img src="http://img542.imageshack.us/img542/4827/drake2.jpg" width="748" height="591" />-------------------------------------Last night I was on my Brig for the hell of it and Gaary was tanking again, with another warlock in group (Lichal). Here was the zonewide:<img src="http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/7637/briggroup.jpg" />Here's a single-ish target named:<img src="http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/4129/singletarget.jpg" width="748" height="586" />and here is Gaary's damage breakdown:<img src="http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/3359/gaarybreakdown.jpg" />SK IS NOT OP AT ALL, NOTHING TO SEE HERE... MOVE ALONG.</blockquote>now we are getting somewhere, take note guys, this is what we call data.SKs are overpowered in this instance, shouldnt be parsing over warlocks IMO, I can understand the few instances that it applies to, but yeah you are spot on this needs to be toned down. Though I wouldnt tone it down generally, just specifically for each class that is obviously getting way more out of it than what the devs intended? I still think we need some epic parses, and so on, so we understand whatever this brings to fighter as a whole, all of the parses are from underdepths, and I still dont think that any action can be taken based on Underdepths parses alone. Thanks for posting this though, much appreciated.

Neiloch

07-29-2012, 02:09 AM

<cite>japanfour wrote:</cite><blockquote>now we are getting somewhere, take note guys, this is what we call data.</blockquote>SoE already has all this data. Posting it here makes no difference, it's just to prove to other players that the data is real.All I'm seeing from people who insist recklessness is fine is them 'moving the goalpost' any time someone says a fighter is doing ridiculous DPS. Starting from a 5 fighter heroic zone run destroying the parse all the way to "Show me a fight that is extremely difficult for that raid force where tank did top DPS then we have a problem." As if doing T1 DPS or doing high DPS whilst tanking the rest of the time is perfectly fine (FYI: it's not).So get off this 'i'm not going to believe it's OP until I see data for every possible scenario' because that's just being stubbornly obtuse. We know it's op the same way that we know if you drive a car at 120mph into a brick wall it is not going to end well without actually have done it or seen it. We don't have the luxury of going through data since it's live and well past the crash test phase.

Landiin

07-29-2012, 02:33 AM

Correct, they have all the data and have had all the data. They can rum simulation with each class doing max DPS for that class vs any encounter. They knew this would push fighters over the top. Noramly this happens they are pushing, herding us if you will, into a direction they want us to go. Now that there is a great injustice (see reckless stance) they can put something on the table that we normally might not of liked but now we'll eat it because of the injustice.Of course this is just my speculation and could be totally off base on whats going on. But I refuse to believe they didn't see this coming.

Freejazzlive

07-29-2012, 11:07 AM

<cite>japanfour wrote:</cite><blockquote>SKs are overpowered in this instance, shouldnt be parsing over warlocks IMO, I can understand the few instances that it applies to, but yeah you are spot on this needs to be toned down. Though I wouldnt tone it down generally, just specifically for each class that is obviously getting way more out of it than what the devs intended?</blockquote>I'm not convinced that merely nerfing its impact on SKs alone is going to fix the issue, & I'm also betting it's not just a few instances in which this will happen.

Rasttan

07-29-2012, 11:51 AM

<cite>Freejazzlive wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>japanfour wrote:</cite><blockquote>SKs are overpowered in this instance, shouldnt be parsing over warlocks IMO, I can understand the few instances that it applies to, but yeah you are spot on this needs to be toned down. Though I wouldnt tone it down generally, just specifically for each class that is obviously getting way more out of it than what the devs intended?</blockquote>I'm not convinced that merely nerfing its impact on SKs alone is going to fix the issue, & I'm also betting it's not just a few instances in which this will happen.</blockquote>Why is everyone focused on the DPS part of the ability, the entire stance was created to get Fighters equal representation or at least a couple more spots in raids, I hardly think it was designed nor did they really look at its impact on herioc content. It may need some changes on a class by class basis but to just dump it completely puts fighters back at square one. As in 1-2 raid spots. Every burn fight which is what EQ has been for most encounters and especially the last year and a half means maximize dps dump extra fighters first, then figure out how to tweak dps even more after you have cleared out the fighters.People have fighters swap to alts for burns all the time.And the arguement of cutting every class down to the bare minimum for a burn doesnt work when fighter bare minimum is 1, and every other archeotype for an ideal burn is at least 4 spots and should be more than 4 to really maximize a burn.The idea is to get more fighters in, how thats done is the problem wo other classes feeling squeezed, well when your the class whos been sqeezed for 8 years you have a slightly different outlook than the ones with 8-9-10 of there archeotype represented in a decent raid set up.

shadowhawk

07-29-2012, 12:33 PM

<cite>Rasttan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Why is everyone focused on the DPS part of the ability, the entire stance was created to get Fighters equal representation or at least a couple more spots in raids, I hardly think it was designed nor did they really look at its impact on herioc content. It may need some changes on a class by class basis but to just dump it completely puts fighters back at square one. As in 1-2 raid spots. Every burn fight which is what EQ has been for most encounters and especially the last year and a half means maximize dps dump extra fighters first, then figure out how to tweak dps even more after you have cleared out the fighters.People have fighters swap to alts for burns all the time.And the arguement of cutting every class down to the bare minimum for a burn doesnt work when fighter bare minimum is 1, and every other archeotype for an ideal burn is at least 4 spots and should be more than 4 to really maximize a burn.The idea is to get more fighters in, how thats done is the problem wo other classes feeling squeezed, well when your the class whos been sqeezed for 8 years you have a slightly different outlook than the ones with 8-9-10 of there archeotype represented in a decent raid set up.</blockquote>You only have to consider a raid brake down to realize that there really are not many dps slots in a raid and that is not a roll that tanks should be going for.24 Spots in a raid6 to 8 healers in a raid4 dirges/troubs4 ill/corc3 tanks -ie spot fighters should fill1 brig atleast for debuffat a min we have just filled 18 raid spots... which leaves just 6 spots for dps and if more healers are in raid could be just 4Now considers that for those 5 to 7 dps slots you have assassin, beaslord, ranger, swash, brig, wiz, warlock, necro, and conj all trying for those slots.... now you want to add in pal/sk/monk/bruis/guard/and zerker???Everyone knows the raid breakdowns.... and have for years... if you want to be a tank in a raid... well you have to be better then the others or find another guild. Tanks were doing fine dps before reckless and now they are beating out alot of the dps classes and some tanks add better buffs then some dps classes. There was no reason at all for this change. It does nothing but add more imbalance to the game.

Faildozer

07-29-2012, 12:53 PM

They need to make reckless proc multiple position dehates CONSTANTLY if they dont want people tanking. People are alreayd squishy enough in it. You guys are crazy however for complaining about more dps for any raid force especially considering how this games population is floundering.. This is a very viable solution to instead of recruiting another dps to sit on fights that need 4 tanks or have a tank or 2 tanks sit on trash and burn fights you keep the same roster setup... I know a lot of you are blinded by hatred but this change HELPS the game if they make a few small tweaks to prevent tanks from tanking in it. Even then, you will still have people complaining because they are stuck in the notion of tanks shouldnt dps, healers shouldnt dps, dps should only dps. This close minded thinking is preventing Sony from developing real changes that will actually help this game in the long run. Nobody is going to recruit a Shadowknight over a Warlock but they dont have to recruit another dps to replace that shadowknight on fights where the shadowknight isnt doing anything..I think utility classes and rogues need to have their damage adjusted as well but getting recklessness nerfed due to a lynch mob mentality of kill anything new and different isnt going to help the game in the long run.

Faildozer

07-29-2012, 12:57 PM

Oh and lets not forget.. This stance isnt used on anything actually difficult (no EM ss is not difficult) and really only trash and em Burn fights that require 1-2 tanks in which fighters 3 and 4 were usually sat to bring in actual dps classes that are sitting or vice versa.. This allows more raid versatility and the fact you guys are fighting it is insane. It is healthy for the game population to not have to overrecruit just for specific fights or have to carry around geared alts and lose a diff main for fights.

Jadekah

07-29-2012, 01:33 PM

Our tanks were tanking PoW trash and most of HM Vallons/Sullons with it. You cannot tell me with a straight face that the penalites for using the stance are enough. Take away a tanks blocking, deathsaves, and damage negating abilities. THAT would make it Reckless, and the same as every other T1 that doesnt have those abilities.

Faildozer

07-29-2012, 01:39 PM

POW trash is real hard amiright?

Freejazzlive

07-29-2012, 01:43 PM

It would help dramatically if raid forces didn't need 4 Bards & 4 Chanters. Raid-wide buffs would probably help in that regard.It would also help dramatically if Fighters could be brought in for things other than DPS -- like, say, nasty adds that have to be off-tanked, not just DPS'd.Some of these ideas have been floated by raiders for several years now, so it's not like I'm suggesting anything radical. But, apparently they ARE things which SOE has never considered, or can't/won't do for some reason.As for Recklessness: I've yet to see a single argument as to why it's necessary, & no, "we needed it to get more Fighters in the raid" is not a good argument, as I've already covered at least one method of doing this without having Fighters stepping on DPS.

Faildozer

07-29-2012, 01:45 PM

Its not a reason to get more fighters in raid... its a reason to not sit these fighters on fights where they arent needed and dont do enough dps to justify keeping them in.

Bruener

07-29-2012, 01:54 PM

<cite>Freejazzlive wrote:</cite><blockquote>It would help dramatically if raid forces didn't need 4 Bards & 4 Chanters. Raid-wide buffs would probably help in that regard.It would also help dramatically if Fighters could be brought in for things other than DPS -- like, say, nasty adds that have to be off-tanked, not just DPS'd.Some of these ideas have been floated by raiders for several years now, so it's not like I'm suggesting anything radical. But, apparently they ARE things which SOE has never considered, or can't/won't do for some reason.As for Recklessness: I've yet to see a single argument as to why it's necessary, & no, "we needed it to get more Fighters in the raid" is not a good argument, as I've already covered at least one method of doing this without having Fighters stepping on DPS.</blockquote>Yes, everybody knows that the utility spots in raids is imbalanced. Adjusting utility spots would open up more DPS spots tbh, and without Recklessness added it would have done absolutely nothing at all to want to keep 4 Fighters in a raid full time. My hopes are that the next step for SOE is to address utility classes.As far as "adds" there are encounters with adds. But SOE is not going to make every encounter the same. And the encounters that do have the "adds" as soon as they become farm status raids are immediately looking at how they can bring in more DPS and sit Fighters. More DPS means faster and easier farming. That is the whole problem and why SOE introduced the Recklessness stance so that as that happens Fighters can go "reckless" and not be sat to bring in more DPS.It was necessary to provide guilds with a reason to keep 4 Fighter mains in a raid full time instead of just bringing in 3rd and 4th as needed. It makes it easier for a raid to keep up a full roster and keep Fighters active full time.And anybody that thinks that a SK can keep up with a good Warlock on fights that last longer than 20 seconds is crazy and probably needs to find a better warlock.

Bruener

07-29-2012, 01:56 PM

<cite>Faildozer@Permafrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>Its not a reason to get more fighters in raid... its a reason to not sit these fighters on fights where they arent needed and dont do enough dps to justify keeping them in.</blockquote>Exactly.Based on how Recklessness works I have not seen any reason that a guild would want to bring in more than 4 Fighters in an optimum set up. But it is enough to keep 4 Fighters in full time.To me that means the stance is a success.

Freejazzlive

07-29-2012, 01:57 PM

<cite>Faildozer@Permafrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>its a reason to not sit these fighters on fights where they arent needed and dont do enough dps to justify keeping them in.</blockquote>Which could be accomplished with different fights that actually require multiple tanks, instead of just piling on more DPS.Which, in fact, I've already suggested multiple times.

Haciv

07-29-2012, 02:17 PM

Here's the data from last night's UD with the SAME group as the first 3 parses I posted on page 1 just to keep the data as reliable as possible. Instead of Bolstering and UT'ing me, we buffed the SK. Groupwide DPS was much higher, and tank DPS through the roof:ZONWIDE:<img src="http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/1958/728zw1.jpg" width="743" height="585" />And.... just to show that the drakes didn't help ME any... here's my best drake parse I've ever done... and I still lost:<img src="http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/3440/drakesnew.jpg" />

Davngr

07-29-2012, 02:36 PM

<cite>Haciv wrote:</cite><blockquote>Here's the data from last night's UD with the SAME group as the first 3 parses I posted on page 1 just to keep the data as reliable as possible. Instead of Bolstering and UT'ing me, we buffed the SK. Groupwide DPS was much higher, and tank DPS through the roof:ZONWIDE:<img src="http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/1958/728zw1.jpg" width="743" height="585" />And.... just to show that the drakes didn't help ME any... here's my best drake parse I've ever done... and I still lost:<img src="http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/3440/drakesnew.jpg" /></blockquote><div> yup.. tanks in wreckless are the best target for ALL dps temps, dps group buffs and dps single target buffs. thus now the dps classes will no longer receive these buffs and will lower their parse more and increase wreckeless tanks even more. was that intended? how will developers balance future dps procs/effects? will the balance be for a regular dps toon with average potency and overpowered for tanks in wreckless or the other way around and useless to average dps classes? </div>

Cyrdemac

07-30-2012, 06:52 AM

Amazing to see just 2 or 3 ppl whining about this new fighter stance. I really thought, there would be more bad DD players in the game.Seriously, this stance is fine. If a T1 dps class gets zw outparsed on a HARDMODE instance, this player has to l2p.The increased damage income on the stance is bad enough for good tanks to switch it off on hard encounters. And THESE are the encounters, where DPS actually matters, so plz stop whining.

Neobe

07-30-2012, 09:11 AM

Im not going to sit here and try and say this stance isnt broken, b/c it is. At the group content, and even EM some HM content, this stance is just op in the right hands. Now then should soe remove this stance b/c all the ok raid tanks in the game are just smashing face? NO b/c it did what they wanted which was to give fighters more slots in in both raids and group. On group content once you get your one fighter most group stop looking and trun away other fighters who ask, and on raids 2-4 slots are set side for a fighter depending on the fights. Like in EM SS raid content you can get away with 2 tanks for every fight but maybe one, Gorescale. This stance now allows raid/group leaders to bring in more fighters to help speed up group/raid formation without worring that they might just be getting into a slow grinding raid/group. But i just cant see raid leaders tsitting any dps class in favor for a tank dps. Ranger are about the only class that really got screwed not having nothing else but dps to help the group/raid, but everyone else you have debuffs or blockers and other little tools that go into making a raid work. While its funny to think about filling your raid up with tanks and healers and going to town, ya that would work on EM stuff, maybe, but HM no it wouldnt. All in all if this stance coming out has casused you to lose you spot to a fighter DPS it wasnt b/c they are so much better then you now it was b/c you sucked and everyone thought you where a a**hole anyways and now they just have a reason to sit you.

Landiin

07-30-2012, 11:38 AM

Geothe

07-30-2012, 12:11 PM

This stance really is all kinds of screwy from a balance perspective. Not only does it jack fighter DPS way to high and will have massive scaling issues, it doesn't even affect all fighters even close to equally. It is flat out poorly implemented and not thought out at all.It really should be something along the lines of:1) Deduce all avoidance to zero.2) Remove the +50% more incoming damage and replace it with +50% more damage if the direct target of the attack.3) Keep the removal of all hate position increases on abilities.4) Instead of -20% hate (or is it 30?), just make it so that all +hate stats/buffs are inactive. ie Dirge can have +hate on the tank, but it wont actually apply while reckless is active. As soon as reckless cancelled the dirge hate takes effect instantly without having to wait for the dirge to apply the buff.5) Get rid of the HP damage when cancelling the buff... but keep it so that it can not be activated in combat.6) Instead of the crazy potency crap, just give the stance a percentage modified to all damage. ie +20% to all outgoing Spell, CA, and autoattack damage.1+2 will make it so that it really will not be possible to tank in this stance while not screwing over DPSing fighters from AEs.3 will allow all abilities to be used still without instanly pulling agro.4+5 will allow a fighter to cancel reckless and take up tanking again in emergencies (ie MT/OT explode). But they wont be able to stance dance in and out of the stance still.6 will evenly apply the damage bonus to all fighter classes without having the extremes (crazy DPS on SK, minimal increase on Guard/Zerk). A moderate while signficant DPS increase in Reckless is acceptable, a flat out 20-25% change is very reasonable and wont push existing DPS classes out. The currently insane potency increases (for some fighters) is just outright moronic.

Neiloch

07-30-2012, 12:30 PM

<cite>Faildozer@Permafrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>I think utility classes and rogues need to have their damage adjusted as well but getting recklessness nerfed due to a lynch mob mentality of kill anything new and different isnt going to help the game in the long run.</blockquote>I actually agree with this, but I think the other DPS classes should be getting looked at too, but in varying degrees. Nerfing recklessness to any extreme degree would make it useless, so I would much rather see others get bumped up a bit.<cite>Cyrdemac wrote:</cite><blockquote>Amazing to see just 2 or 3 ppl whining about this new fighter stance. I really thought, there would be more bad DD players in the game.Seriously, this stance is fine. If a T1 dps class gets zw outparsed on a HARDMODE instance, this player has to l2p.The increased damage income on the stance is bad enough for good tanks to switch it off on hard encounters. And THESE are the encounters, where DPS actually matters, so plz stop whining.</blockquote><cite>Faildozer@Permafrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>Oh and lets not forget.. This stance isnt used on anything actually difficult (no EM ss is not difficult) and really only trash and em Burn fights that require 1-2 tanks in which fighters 3 and 4 were usually sat to bring in actual dps classes that are sitting or vice versa.. This allows more raid versatility and the fact you guys are fighting it is insane. It is healthy for the game population to not have to overrecruit just for specific fights or have to carry around geared alts and lose a diff main for fights.</blockquote><cite>Faildozer@Permafrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>POW trash is real hard amiright?</blockquote>This is the new 'go to' defense for this.The idea just because it can't be used on the hardest fights or fights that 'matter' isn't good enough.It also shows a HUGE amount of hypocrisy because that's EXACTLY what fighters have been complaining about for years. That they were only getting spots for hard fights when the raid needed several tanks. Now you have just shifted that EXACT same problem to DPS classes and tell them to 'stop whining' when they use the SAME COMPLAINT you have been using for years.The problem with raids spots falls squarely on the shoulders of utility classes. Healers are the only ones getting anywhere near the correct amount of slots. DPS and fighters have to split up less slots than there are classes, meanwhile utility classes get DOUBLE. There are 4 utility classes and raids either have or want EIGHT of them in raid. How is this not the first problem addressed when looking at raid diversity?Personally my ideal 'solution' would be to enable and start making 30 player raids.

Neobe

07-30-2012, 12:43 PM

<cite>Geothe wrote:</cite><blockquote>This stance really is all kinds of screwy from a balance perspective. Not only does it jack fighter DPS way to high and will have massive scaling issues, it doesn't even affect all fighters even close to equally. It is flat out poorly implemented and not thought out at all.It really should be something along the lines of:1) Deduce all avoidance to zero.2) Remove the +50% more incoming damage and replace it with +50% more damage if the direct target of the attack.3) Keep the removal of all hate position increases on abilities.4) Instead of -20% hate (or is it 30?), just make it so that all +hate stats/buffs are inactive. ie Dirge can have +hate on the tank, but it wont actually apply while reckless is active. As soon as reckless cancelled the dirge hate takes effect instantly without having to wait for the dirge to apply the buff.5) Get rid of the HP damage when cancelling the buff... but keep it so that it can not be activated in combat.6) Instead of the crazy potency crap, just give the stance a percentage modified to all damage. ie +20% to all outgoing Spell, CA, and autoattack damage.1+2 will make it so that it really will not be possible to tank in this stance while not screwing over DPSing fighters from AEs.3 will allow all abilities to be used still without instanly pulling agro.4+5 will allow a fighter to cancel reckless and take up tanking again in emergencies (ie MT/OT explode). But they wont be able to stance dance in and out of the stance still.6 will evenly apply the damage bonus to all fighter classes without having the extremes (crazy DPS on SK, minimal increase on Guard/Zerk). A moderate while signficant DPS increase in Reckless is acceptable, a flat out 20-25% change is very reasonable and wont push existing DPS classes out. The currently insane potency increases (for some fighters) is just outright moronic.</blockquote>I agree that the stance should effect avoid/mit but not to 0 then you make the whole thing would not even be playable the correct way. But a reducion in the defence skill and deflection/parry skill could help bring a dps fighter more in line to where a scout sits with avoid/mit. then you could leave the dmg taken inc and tanking in the stance would be alot harder.I also agree that one stance for all fighters was really dumb and lazy. War do not fight like crusaders and they dont fight like brawler and so on. So why did they think one stance would work for us all baffles me.I rather them not screw with hate at all, only b/c i dont think they could put it into the game without breaking agro for fighters overall. But another issues i seen with this stance, at least on my monk, i can be sitting at 600K+ dps and not even be worry about pulling agro with all the dehates they give me in this stance. Now maybe its a bug but 2 of my hate postion attacks dont just lose those hate postions they turn into dehates. coming up faster and removing more postions then any scout ability.I for one would be just fine being really squish with agro problems b/c then only a few players would learn to use the stance and be good with it rather then a ton of ppl running around over using the stance for purpose the Dev didnt intent for.As for the potency thing i really cant say i have any good ideas there. The dircit inc to our skills may work maybe with addition of some CB to the stance.Then again maybe this is the start of things to come and all classes are getting a role force change. Maybe next they will give scouts more utility skills to better support groups/raid, Mages might get more/better debuffs and healers might get some tanking skills to survive better with. Who knows what they are thinking. Or maybe they just dont care about us and only want to cater to the weekend warriors who show up spend their money on the Marketplace and quit the game after a few weeks. Only time will tell.

Mermut

07-30-2012, 02:04 PM

If the point is to give tanks more spots in a raid, then making the 'alternate stance' into a ultility stance would have made more sense... since most raids are short of ultility anyway.The problem with that, however, is utility is mostly a thankless job and no tank would want to use the stance. It would have benifited raid forces more, it would have addressed the 'role imbalance' in raids more...

Bruener

07-30-2012, 03:05 PM

<cite>Mermut wrote:</cite><blockquote>If the point is to give tanks more spots in a raid, then making the 'alternate stance' into a ultility stance would have made more sense... since most raids are short of ultility anyway.The problem with that, however, is utility is mostly a thankless job and no tank would want to use the stance. It would have benifited raid forces more, it would have addressed the 'role imbalance' in raids more...</blockquote>So what spots do you think would have been taken giving Fighters an alternate "utility" stance? You can't replace the current utility of 4 bards/chanters any way that you look at it.So giving the utility you take the same DPS spots only you want to make T1 DPS get even more buffs?Recklessness accomplishes exactly what they wanted easily.As to it affecting each Fighter differently maybe that was by design. Don't you think that SOE could see how each class was going to benefit?

Gealaen_Gaiamancer

07-30-2012, 03:14 PM

<cite>Neiloch@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote>The problem with raids spots falls squarely on the shoulders of utility classes. Healers are the only ones getting anywhere near the correct amount of slots. DPS and fighters have to split up less slots than there are classes, meanwhile utility classes get DOUBLE. There are 4 utility classes and raids either have or want EIGHT of them in raid. How is this not the first problem addressed when looking at raid diversity?Personally my ideal 'solution' would be to enable and start making 30 player raids.</blockquote>I'm not sure I follow on this one--if you added room for another group per raid, then you'd just be adding room for two more utility characters to enhance that group. Still the same proportion of that class to the rest of the raid. How about making utility class effects "entire raid" so you'd only need four-ish of them total?Ow, stop stabbing me, utility peeps!

Mermut

07-30-2012, 03:39 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Mermut wrote:</cite><blockquote>If the point is to give tanks more spots in a raid, then making the 'alternate stance' into a ultility stance would have made more sense... since most raids are short of ultility anyway.The problem with that, however, is utility is mostly a thankless job and no tank would want to use the stance. It would have benifited raid forces more, it would have addressed the 'role imbalance' in raids more...</blockquote>So what spots do you think would have been taken giving Fighters an alternate "utility" stance? You can't replace the current utility of 4 bards/chanters any way that you look at it.So giving the utility you take the same DPS spots only you want to make T1 DPS get even more buffs?Recklessness accomplishes exactly what they wanted easily.As to it affecting each Fighter differently maybe that was by design. Don't you think that SOE could see how each class was going to benefit?</blockquote>Most raids don't HAVE the 4 chanters and 4 bards the so many people seem to think is 'neccesary'. If the tank 'alternate stance' gave them some utility similar to bards or chanters, they could fill those 'neccessary' slots that never seem to have enough interested players. Most people don't enjoy utility because it is a mostly thankless job. Everybody wants somebody ELSE to play the ultilty, so their own dps numbers can be higher. My guess is this is why they never considered giving tanks an 'utiltly' stance to get the more raid spots.. because most tanks would never, ever hit that stance.

Davngr

07-30-2012, 04:06 PM

<cite>Cyrdemac wrote:</cite><blockquote>Amazing to see just 2 or 3 ppl whining about this new fighter stance. I really thought, there would be more bad DD players in the game.Seriously, this stance is fine. If a T1 dps class gets zw outparsed on a HARDMODE instance, this player has to l2p.The increased damage income on the stance is bad enough for good tanks to switch it off on hard encounters. And THESE are the encounters, where DPS actually matters, so plz stop whining.</blockquote> bias much? this proves that crusaders are flat out telling lies about what this stance can really do. this crusader poster says "2 or 3" people when in fact you can just go into the different threads on this subject and count well over that number. NEWS FLASH- you can't cover up the broken that is this stance. we all raid with ACT and some of us (who care about balance) play crusaders and don't want this broken stance even if it is fun for our crusader toons. why? we understand that overall balance and fun of all classes is more important to the game since we understand that a huge part of the "fun" of an mmo is the people we play with. means that over all balance is better than one or two overpowered classes. on a separate note: i like the idea given by a poster for the adjustments to this stance but would rather it just go away and tanks just be given a dps boost that they can use while tanking. also the real problem solver for this problem isn't to make tanks dps it's to make utility buffs raid wide so you cut utility to one illy, one troub, one dirge, one coercer. this will make that one utility stupid important so they won't lose their clout but will stop forcing raid forces to bring 8 of them. also some durrr durrr will jump in and say that this change will just mean more dps but i say they're wrong. every class now a days adds their own flavor and you're better off bringing each one to help the raid. also add in more tank killing effects or give tanks TANKING utility so the MT becomes invisible almost with 3 other tanks in the raid lending him their help.

Hammieee

07-30-2012, 04:09 PM

Any raid without 4 bards and 4 chanters is not going to be the best guild that they can be, and anyways if you're getting outparsed by a tank on "trash" i really couldn't care. If you are getting outparsed by them on nameds in raids cool story bro you're bad.

Goozman

07-30-2012, 04:20 PM

Not "everyone" is complaining about it. As far as I've seen, the only people who have been complaining, in game, are people who play their dps classes really terribly.I will say my alt monk's dps skyrocketed higher than my alt paladin's. The monk can about match my wizard and swashbuckler; but I don't really see this as a problem. The monk can survive a couple hits with temp buffs, the swashbuckler exponentially weakens mobs, and the wizard... well... I do think wizards need a boost in dps.That said; I've not yet seen any other fighters in reckless worth a crap, so until EQ2 players stop being terrible, I don't see this as an issue at all.

Cyrdemac

07-30-2012, 04:40 PM

<cite>Goozman wrote:</cite><blockquote>Not "everyone" is complaining about it. As far as I've seen, the only people who have been complaining, in game, are people who play their dps classes really terribly....That said; I've not yet seen any other fighters in reckless worth a crap, so until EQ2 players stop being terrible, I don't see this as an issue at all.</blockquote>THIS <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

ratbast

07-30-2012, 05:55 PM

<cite>Mermut wrote:</cite><blockquote>If the point is to give tanks more spots in a raid, then making the 'alternate stance' into a ultility stance would have made more sense... since most raids are short of ultility anyway.The problem with that, however, is utility is mostly a thankless job and no tank would want to use the stance. It would have benifited raid forces more, it would have addressed the 'role imbalance' in raids more...</blockquote>you are 100% accurate about tanks not wanting to take utility role. which is sad because tanks ALREADY beat utility on the dps parse in their regular stances. the tank role is more valid than utility; and the supplemental role of dps which EVERYONE has, tanks win over utility.letting tanks become fully competent dps with another stance makes them light years ahead of the utility classes.this stance makes fighters a prestige archtype, superior to all scouts, healers, and mages. and leaves utility in same spot, inferior to all. lower than EVERYONE else for enjoyment, purpose, and recruitment. well, maybe templars are down there with them.remind me why we looked at buffing tanks dps? if they need more spots this is the exact wrong way to do it. it exacerbates the inequality they have with utility without diminishing the need for utility. meanwhile the dps niche is fully saturated.

ratbast

07-30-2012, 06:11 PM

also it helps to think thru the raw operations of the stance. it reduces an aspect of fighters which is entirely unneeded if they are no longer tanking, and has no purpose. it reduces their survivability by 1/3 (+50 damage received). meanwhile, their raw potency is buffed 50, then their gross potency is simply doubled. try that with any other archtype, and the net effect is a huge gain. buff a healers potency 50, then double it, then reduce a healers healing by 1/3. they come out way ahead, plus their ability to dps climbs drastically. the raw computations of this buff package make it an enormous buff. its not morphing tanking ability into something new. its elevating the class to a higher plane of existent. its not an exchange, its a gift. even mages would jump at a chance for this stance, add 50 potency, double all potency, then reduce damage by 1/3. LOL. why would anyone stay in their empty shell regular stance if that option was open? its not a transformation, its an elevation. any balanced version of reckless is pointless and useless. any reckless strong enough to be worth putting in game is simply unbalancing.edit. try this...(x+50) x 2) x 2/3result = 4x/3 + 67...its not a morph or exchange. for a mage with 200 potency, the net effect is simple: +133 potency, AFTER downside is factored in.

Rasttan

07-30-2012, 06:32 PM

<cite>ratbast wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Mermut wrote:</cite><blockquote>If the point is to give tanks more spots in a raid, then making the 'alternate stance' into a ultility stance would have made more sense... since most raids are short of ultility anyway.The problem with that, however, is utility is mostly a thankless job and no tank would want to use the stance. It would have benifited raid forces more, it would have addressed the 'role imbalance' in raids more...</blockquote>you are 100% accurate about tanks not wanting to take utility role. which is sad because tanks ALREADY beat utility on the dps parse in their regular stances. the tank role is more valid than utility; and the supplemental role of dps which EVERYONE has, tanks win over utility.letting tanks become fully competent dps with another stance makes them light years ahead of the utility classes.this stance makes fighters a prestige archtype, superior to all scouts, healers, and mages. and leaves utility in same spot, inferior to all. lower than EVERYONE else for enjoyment, purpose, and recruitment. well, maybe templars are down there with them.remind me why we looked at buffing tanks dps? if they need more spots this is the exact wrong way to do it. it exacerbates the inequality they have with utility without diminishing the need for utility. meanwhile the dps niche is fully saturated.</blockquote>Remind me of the scout to fighter ratio in a raid again? And what it has been the last 8 years.Remind me of the class with heal and dps stances now the same class hitting 300-400k+ dps in raids probobly these healers beat most the people posting here. Or do you guys never look at healer dps threads.Remind me of just how you can give any class enough utility to want them over a bard or chanter and still let them have a primary ability which is eactly what you are complaining about here.DPS is the easiest thing to giveNow lets get the number of utility down which is the real problem to begin with, how about we give all scouts a utility stance there you dps can stay in the raid and get more spots because complaining tanks are going to take them is a sky is falling panic reaction.

Davngr

07-30-2012, 06:44 PM

<cite>Rasttan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>ratbast wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Mermut wrote:</cite><blockquote>If the point is to give tanks more spots in a raid, then making the 'alternate stance' into a ultility stance would have made more sense... since most raids are short of ultility anyway.The problem with that, however, is utility is mostly a thankless job and no tank would want to use the stance. It would have benifited raid forces more, it would have addressed the 'role imbalance' in raids more...</blockquote>you are 100% accurate about tanks not wanting to take utility role. which is sad because tanks ALREADY beat utility on the dps parse in their regular stances. the tank role is more valid than utility; and the supplemental role of dps which EVERYONE has, tanks win over utility.letting tanks become fully competent dps with another stance makes them light years ahead of the utility classes.this stance makes fighters a prestige archtype, superior to all scouts, healers, and mages. and leaves utility in same spot, inferior to all. lower than EVERYONE else for enjoyment, purpose, and recruitment. well, maybe templars are down there with them.remind me why we looked at buffing tanks dps? if they need more spots this is the exact wrong way to do it. it exacerbates the inequality they have with utility without diminishing the need for utility. meanwhile the dps niche is fully saturated.</blockquote>Remind me of the scout to fighter ratio in a raid again? And what it has been the last 8 years.</blockquote> so you give tanks better ways to tank or make content require more tanks. this stance is broken in so many ways it's not even funny. first of all it's amazing for crusaders and monks but does very little for guards, zerks and brusiers. second problem is that on 95% of content crusaders will be doing T1 damage.. i know the dumb people here think they're putting one over on everyone by calling it "trash parses" and "meaingless content" or whatever but the FACT is that 95% of thsi game IS trash and meaningless. third and worst of all is the fact that giving a class double or such a powerful ability will make itemization a nightmare for comming expansions and is sure to bring endless balance problems to this game in much the same way that other over powerd badly implemented abilities have.

Goozman

07-30-2012, 06:48 PM

<cite>Davngr wrote:</cite><blockquote> this stance is broken in so many ways it's not even funny.</blockquote>No it's not. You're just a bad player.Rofl... I just realized you're the one being crazy mocked on the other site, and you're complaining in every thread here lol. You are sad.

ratbast

07-30-2012, 06:48 PM

<cite>Rasttan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>ratbast wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Mermut wrote:</cite><blockquote>If the point is to give tanks more spots in a raid, then making the 'alternate stance' into a ultility stance would have made more sense... since most raids are short of ultility anyway.The problem with that, however, is utility is mostly a thankless job and no tank would want to use the stance. It would have benifited raid forces more, it would have addressed the 'role imbalance' in raids more...</blockquote>you are 100% accurate about tanks not wanting to take utility role. which is sad because tanks ALREADY beat utility on the dps parse in their regular stances. the tank role is more valid than utility; and the supplemental role of dps which EVERYONE has, tanks win over utility.letting tanks become fully competent dps with another stance makes them light years ahead of the utility classes.this stance makes fighters a prestige archtype, superior to all scouts, healers, and mages. and leaves utility in same spot, inferior to all. lower than EVERYONE else for enjoyment, purpose, and recruitment. well, maybe templars are down there with them.remind me why we looked at buffing tanks dps? if they need more spots this is the exact wrong way to do it. it exacerbates the inequality they have with utility without diminishing the need for utility. meanwhile the dps niche is fully saturated.</blockquote>Remind me of the scout to fighter ratio in a raid again? And what it has been the last 8 years.Remind me of the class with heal and dps stances now the same class hitting 300k dps in raidsRemind me of just how you can give any class enough utility to want them over a bard or chanter and still let them have a primary ability which is eactly what you are complaining about here.DPS is the easiest thing to giveNow lets get the number of utility down which is the real problem to begin with</blockquote>im not in disagreement with you over fighter slots in raid.i probably am in disagreement with you on specialization tho. imo each archtype should have a utility class (2 subclasses- even healers).if we cant make bruisers into utility tanks, i think a stance any tank could use would be the next best option. 1/3 of scouts and 1/3 of mages cant blow stuff up. they are much weaker at the archtypes focus: dps.utility is a mongrel role. ppl dont like it. its thankless. but its the best option to get more fighters into raids.plz no arguments about bards and chanters having utility locked up. soe could push them out depending on what buffs a utlity stance fighter gives. its all about the buff package. bards and chanters dont have it locked up unless soe says so. id like crusaders to have a mage buff package, warriors to have a melee buff package and brawlers to have a mix. thus 3 tanking fighters per raid, 3 utility fighters per raid. maybe let one of the utility stances increase survivability and push out a healer or 2.fighters already do too much dps. this stance is just wrong.i am not in disagreement about healer dps imbalance either. some healers are pumping out too much. that should be fixed, instead of justifying another archtypes broken stance. the inq class in general is due for a curb stomp level nerf.

Davngr

07-30-2012, 06:52 PM

<cite>Goozman wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr wrote:</cite><blockquote> this stance is broken in so many ways it's not even funny.</blockquote>No it's not. You're just a bad player.</blockquote>really? because you think wizards need a boost and wizards are doing GREAT damage so it's actually you who is the bad player. my crusader is a beast with this stance active. the crusader i raid with is a beast with this stance active. my zerk ? my guard? my bruiser? this stance is meh at best. that is NOT balance. also please stop calling people bad players. specially if you, yourself are terrible.

Neiloch

07-30-2012, 10:16 PM

<cite>Cyrdemac wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Goozman wrote:</cite><blockquote>Not "everyone" is complaining about it. As far as I've seen, the only people who have been complaining, in game, are people who play their dps classes really terribly....That said; I've not yet seen any other fighters in reckless worth a crap, so until EQ2 players stop being terrible, I don't see this as an issue at all.</blockquote>THIS <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>Are you serious? So you think its more likely the new, unprecedented stance they just added is working fine when their INTENTION was to insanely boost fighter DPS and DPS players who have been playing the same role for years just suck?It's more likely if your fighters aren't doing well/overpowered on the parse with the stance because they don't know how to DPS since this stance is new to them, possibly don't know how to work their equipment well for DPS and the entire role of high DPS is new to them when it comes to fighters.Although I certainly won't argue against the idea some of the DPS complaining just suck. That's just an unfortunate eventuality.

Freejazzlive

07-30-2012, 10:43 PM

More raid-wide buffs from Bards & Chanters ... less need for Bards & Chanters. IMO, claims that every raid force has to have 4 of each are lacking imagination.Of course, as Neilloch points out, simply allowing for 6 more players would likely smooth things out a bit, as well. As I've already said, the single biggest meta-game mistake that modern MMOs are making is the reduction in raid sizes, especially at the "end game" levels. I didn't believe this to be true when WoW largely did away with 40-man raids, but I've definitely changed my mind since then.Bring back bigger raid sizes.As for whether or not this ability needs to be nerfed .... I'm sorry folks, but I just don't believe that SOE is going to up-tune other classes to make up for any DPS discrepancy. Not only have I never really seen SOE do this, it would mean further nerfing of content .... or else a lot of work to re-tune existing content to the new over-powered paradigm. That, in turn, means even MORE statflation on new gear, & the Crazy Train spirals into the stratosphere. I think it's more likely that Recklessness will be nerfed, if SOE is to do anything at all with it.But I'm now veering into Repetitive Land, so I'm going to bow out entirely. IMO, SOE has the data, & the ball is now in their court ... probably for them to score an "own goal" with ..... <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/1cfd6e2a9a2c0cf8e74b49b35e2e46c7.gif" border="0" />

ratbast

07-31-2012, 02:16 AM

<cite>Freejazzlive wrote:</cite><blockquote>More raid-wide buffs from Bards & Chanters ... less need for Bards & Chanters. IMO, claims that every raid force has to have 4 of each are lacking imagination.Of course, as Neilloch points out, simply allowing for 6 more players would likely smooth things out a bit, as well. As I've already said, the single biggest meta-game mistake that modern MMOs are making is the reduction in raid sizes, especially at the "end game" levels. I didn't believe this to be true when WoW largely did away with 40-man raids, but I've definitely changed my mind since then.Bring back bigger raid sizes.As for whether or not this ability needs to be nerfed .... I'm sorry folks, but I just don't believe that SOE is going to up-tune other classes to make up for any DPS discrepancy. Not only have I never really seen SOE do this, it would mean further nerfing of content .... or else a lot of work to re-tune existing content to the new over-powered paradigm. That, in turn, means even MORE statflation on new gear, & the Crazy Train spirals into the stratosphere. I think it's more likely that Recklessness will be nerfed, if SOE is to do anything at all with it.But I'm now veering into Repetitive Land, so I'm going to bow out entirely. IMO, SOE has the data, & the ball is now in their court ... probably for them to score an "own goal" with ..... <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/1cfd6e2a9a2c0cf8e74b49b35e2e46c7.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>6 new slots? meaning a new group?since buffs are groupwide i dont see how increasing # of groups would help, each new group would need the base utility. i think the effect you want is more PER group. so 4 or 8 more raid spots not 6.

Neiloch

07-31-2012, 02:44 AM

<cite>ratbast wrote:</cite><blockquote>6 new slots? meaning a new group?since buffs are groupwide i dont see how increasing # of groups would help, each new group would need the base utility. i think the effect you want is more PER group. so 4 or 8 more raid spots not 6.</blockquote>It would help and make bigger raids, and I just like bigger raids in general. Of course I SERIOUSLY doubt they will ever do that on EQ2 so I'm not even going to bother talking about it anymore.making more utility buffs raid wide and cross group would definitely free up slots and it's a perfectly reasonable request. The only other alternative would be something like shifting more utility away from enchanters and bards but that would marginalize them when that is all they have to offer. Unfortunately out of all of these, marginalizing utility classes seems to be their method of choice.

Cyrdemac

07-31-2012, 04:52 AM

<cite>Neiloch@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Cyrdemac wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Goozman wrote:</cite><blockquote>Not "everyone" is complaining about it. As far as I've seen, the only people who have been complaining, in game, are people who play their dps classes really terribly....That said; I've not yet seen any other fighters in reckless worth a crap, so until EQ2 players stop being terrible, I don't see this as an issue at all.</blockquote>THIS <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>Are you serious? So you think its more likely the new, unprecedented stance they just added is working fine when their INTENTION was to insanely boost fighter DPS and DPS players who have been playing the same role for years just suck?It's more likely if your fighters aren't doing well/overpowered on the parse with the stance because they don't know how to DPS since this stance is new to them, possibly don't know how to work their equipment well for DPS and the entire role of high DPS is new to them when it comes to fighters.Although I certainly won't argue against the idea some of the DPS complaining just suck. That's just an unfortunate eventuality.</blockquote>Yes. You have no idea how many old dps players can suck at their job. Why? Because they never got any kind of competition in their field to show them, what kind of dps is expected of them.But thats not majority. This stance works fine, because it's right the thing, SoE wanted to achieve. Giving Fighter's a chance to do some serious dps and allow them to pull aggro if they choose to do so.And yes, it's possible to tank in this stance on easy content and even hardmode trash. But as I said, those fights doesn't matter. The big fights are the hard ones, where you turn this thing off and tank at full capacity.All I see here is dps players complaining about trash and heroic parses of fighter players overgeared for this content. And you wonder, why I ignore their complains?The reason that not all fighters get those high numbers you expect is easy. To achieve the highest numbers, you actually have to spec and equip like a dps class. But by doing this, fighter's sacrifice more of their ability to actually tank. Giving up tools and defense for more damage won't help on the big difficult fights and I personally would never do this.No serious raidforce puts a permanent dps role to a fighter-class.My primary job is to tank. When I want to pass by trash or get through easy mode content, I use this stance to save some time. In no way I rule the zonewide parse with it, just spiking on trash AE encounters and loosing on single target ones. Fighters ruling zonewide parses, really have bad dps players with them and might have also turned their skill tree from tanking to pure dps to achieve this. So they give up one role to do another.

theriatis

07-31-2012, 07:21 AM

Hi,can i then have a tank stance ? Just for the Trash and Heroic Fights, not for the "Real" Fights where i need to shell out real DPS. That would really help my class as i would not be that squishy in easy fights where we don't need the Big Numbers and i think that would be the right thing to do for SOE.Regards,a Wizard.*Pulls out the 20m long Sarcasm Banner... please wait, still pulling...*

Lanloki

07-31-2012, 07:56 AM

Yeah What He (Theriatis) said!!!!

Fendaria

07-31-2012, 12:11 PM

<cite>theriatis wrote:</cite><blockquote>Hi,can i then have a tank stance ? Just for the Trash and Heroic Fights, not for the "Real" Fights where i need to shell out real DPS. That would really help my class as i would not be that squishy in easy fights where we don't need the Big Numbers and i think that would be the right thing to do for SOE.Regards,a Wizard.*Pulls out the 20m long Sarcasm Banner... please wait, still pulling...*</blockquote>I'm thinking the stance should also give the player an additional pet which they can choose a version for DPS, raidwide heal, or raidwide mana proccing. I mean for those Trash and Heroic fights, healers should be in there DPSing too and with the pet we could both tank and heal those fights.Fendaria

ratbast

07-31-2012, 02:30 PM

<cite>Cyrdemac wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Neiloch@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Cyrdemac wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Goozman wrote:</cite><blockquote>Not "everyone" is complaining about it. As far as I've seen, the only people who have been complaining, in game, are people who play their dps classes really terribly....That said; I've not yet seen any other fighters in reckless worth a crap, so until EQ2 players stop being terrible, I don't see this as an issue at all.</blockquote>THIS <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>Are you serious? So you think its more likely the new, unprecedented stance they just added is working fine when their INTENTION was to insanely boost fighter DPS and DPS players who have been playing the same role for years just suck?It's more likely if your fighters aren't doing well/overpowered on the parse with the stance because they don't know how to DPS since this stance is new to them, possibly don't know how to work their equipment well for DPS and the entire role of high DPS is new to them when it comes to fighters.Although I certainly won't argue against the idea some of the DPS complaining just suck. That's just an unfortunate eventuality.</blockquote>Yes. You have no idea how many old dps players can suck at their job. Why? Because they never got any kind of competition in their field to show them, what kind of dps is expected of them.But thats not majority. This stance works fine, because it's right the thing, SoE wanted to achieve. Giving Fighter's a chance to do some serious dps and allow them to pull aggro if they choose to do so.And yes, it's possible to tank in this stance on easy content and even hardmode trash. But as I said, those fights doesn't matter. The big fights are the hard ones, where you turn this thing off and tank at full capacity.All I see here is dps players complaining about trash and heroic parses of fighter players overgeared for this content. And you wonder, why I ignore their complains?The reason that not all fighters get those high numbers you expect is easy. To achieve the highest numbers, you actually have to spec and equip like a dps class. But by doing this, fighter's sacrifice more of their ability to actually tank. Giving up tools and defense for more damage won't help on the big difficult fights and I personally would never do this.No serious raidforce puts a permanent dps role to a fighter-class.My primary job is to tank. When I want to pass by trash or get through easy mode content, I use this stance to save some time. In no way I rule the zonewide parse with it, just spiking on trash AE encounters and loosing on single target ones. Fighters ruling zonewide parses, really have bad dps players with them and might have also turned their skill tree from tanking to pure dps to achieve this. So they give up one role to do another.</blockquote>no competition? there is a glut of competition for dps slots. there is very little competition for utility. any bad player can do it cuz 50% of their contribution is passive in their buffs.and if those fights dont matter, why not boost all scrub classes dps? why just tanks? templars should be t1 dps on trash, since it doesnt matter.you constantly use broken logic.

Davngr

07-31-2012, 02:34 PM

frankly i'm scared as to what else this dev team wants to do to the game. has eq2 become some science project or something?

ratbast

07-31-2012, 03:34 PM

<cite>Cyrdemac wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>ratbast wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Cyrdemac wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Neiloch@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Cyrdemac wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Goozman wrote:</cite><blockquote>Not "everyone" is complaining about it. As far as I've seen, the only people who have been complaining, in game, are people who play their dps classes really terribly....That said; I've not yet seen any other fighters in reckless worth a crap, so until EQ2 players stop being terrible, I don't see this as an issue at all.</blockquote>THIS <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>Are you serious? So you think its more likely the new, unprecedented stance they just added is working fine when their INTENTION was to insanely boost fighter DPS and DPS players who have been playing the same role for years just suck?It's more likely if your fighters aren't doing well/overpowered on the parse with the stance because they don't know how to DPS since this stance is new to them, possibly don't know how to work their equipment well for DPS and the entire role of high DPS is new to them when it comes to fighters.Although I certainly won't argue against the idea some of the DPS complaining just suck. That's just an unfortunate eventuality.</blockquote>Yes. You have no idea how many old dps players can suck at their job. Why? Because they never got any kind of competition in their field to show them, what kind of dps is expected of them.But thats not majority. This stance works fine, because it's right the thing, SoE wanted to achieve. Giving Fighter's a chance to do some serious dps and allow them to pull aggro if they choose to do so.And yes, it's possible to tank in this stance on easy content and even hardmode trash. But as I said, those fights doesn't matter. The big fights are the hard ones, where you turn this thing off and tank at full capacity.All I see here is dps players complaining about trash and heroic parses of fighter players overgeared for this content. And you wonder, why I ignore their complains?The reason that not all fighters get those high numbers you expect is easy. To achieve the highest numbers, you actually have to spec and equip like a dps class. But by doing this, fighter's sacrifice more of their ability to actually tank. Giving up tools and defense for more damage won't help on the big difficult fights and I personally would never do this.No serious raidforce puts a permanent dps role to a fighter-class.My primary job is to tank. When I want to pass by trash or get through easy mode content, I use this stance to save some time. In no way I rule the zonewide parse with it, just spiking on trash AE encounters and loosing on single target ones. Fighters ruling zonewide parses, really have bad dps players with them and might have also turned their skill tree from tanking to pure dps to achieve this. So they give up one role to do another.</blockquote>no competition? there is a glut of competition for dps slots. there is very little competition for utility. any bad player can do it cuz 50% of their contribution is passive in their buffs.and if those fights dont matter, why not boost all scrub classes dps? why just tanks? templars should be t1 dps on trash, since it doesnt matter.you constantly use broken logic.</blockquote>Thank you very much. Postings like this prove my theory that some ppl have no clue about reading posts, understanding sentences, understanding of mechanics or doing dps.</blockquote>you are a genius at taking things out of context and using faulty logic. very good troll skills, especially when combined with condescension.your last post has nothing to add to discussion, just an indirect insult. if you wanted to actually resolve something you would point out what you believe to be misunderstanding. i dont have energy for ppl like this.i actually pointed out your faulty logic so you could fix it: if meaningless fights justify dps boosts for 1 class, it justifies it for all. trash does not justify a gamewide buff for the fighter archtype. dont bother responding cuz im just gonna ignore you.

Neiloch

07-31-2012, 03:50 PM

<cite>Cyrdemac wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yes. You have no idea how many old dps players can suck at their job. Why? Because they never got any kind of competition in their field to show them, what kind of dps is expected of them. Yeah you're right there isn't 8 DPS classes in direct competition with each other at all times with more 3rd party tools to do so than any other role.But thats not majority. This stance works fine, because it's right the thing, SoE wanted to achieve. Giving Fighter's a chance to do some serious dps and allow them to pull aggro if they choose to do so.And yes, it's possible to tank in this stance on easy content and even hardmode trash. But as I said, those fights doesn't matter. The big fights are the hard ones, where you turn this thing off and tank at full capacity. So I should be expecting a stance that lets me buff like a dirge, heal like a shaman or tank like a zerker just as long as its the bottom 95% of the content right? According to your logic that would be perfectly reasonable request. Honestly I am open to the idea but only if they add dual/multiple roles for all classes AT THE SAME TIME.All I see here is dps players complaining about trash and heroic parses of fighter players overgeared for this content. And you wonder, why I ignore their complains? Actually I wonder why you think heroic and easy raid content is so inconsequential not to need proper balance when people run it constantly.The reason that not all fighters get those high numbers you expect is easy. To achieve the highest numbers, you actually have to spec and equip like a dps class. But by doing this, fighter's sacrifice more of their ability to actually tank. Giving up tools and defense for more damage won't help on the big difficult fights and I personally would never do this. Spec? not so much. Especially when you can have nearly every AA at this stage of the game. Gear? yes. and guess what? Just about any tank worth their existence has a second set of gear for DPS that can be swapped in just as fast as switching into the reckless stance.No serious raidforce puts a permanent dps role to a fighter-class.My primary job is to tank. When I want to pass by trash or get through easy mode content, I use this stance to save some time. In no way I rule the zonewide parse with it, just spiking on trash AE encounters and loosing on single target ones. Fighters ruling zonewide parses, really have bad dps players with them and might have also turned their skill tree from tanking to pure dps to achieve this. So they give up one role to do another. No they don't as I have already laid out.</blockquote>

Hammieee

07-31-2012, 05:19 PM

Freejazzlive

07-31-2012, 05:35 PM

<cite>Cyrdemac wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yes. You have no idea how many old dps players can suck at their job. Why? Because they never got any kind of competition in their field to show them, what kind of dps is expected of them</blockquote>Regardless of the rest of your post & its merits, this opening line is so much nonsense that I'm having a hard time believing you intended it seriously. Apparently, you think that all the T1 & T2 DPS players have never competed against each other over the last 8 years of this game's life-span, though I'm not at all sure why you would make such a ridiculous claim.It's especially bizarre that you're making it in the context of this thread. Apparently, you think DPS players are so clueless that we need assistance from a Fighter. So, on top of being ridiculous, you end up being condescending & insulting as well./facepalm

Tigerr

08-01-2012, 06:01 AM

So, as a healer, what If I was given a stance that let me tank.... and when I pop that stance on ( remember, healer) I'd give up 50% of my heals and in this stance I would be as good if not better than some fighters.. On trash or w.e the hell... That would make fighters mad.. Right?.. I understand dropping your primary role so you can do 25% of another one. This is kind of like dropping 50% main role and gaining 100% dps..

RafaelSmith

08-01-2012, 10:32 AM

Its as if I have stepped back in time to just post TS'k'O launch.

Cyrdemac

08-01-2012, 11:27 AM

<cite>Freejazzlive wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Cyrdemac wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yes. You have no idea how many old dps players can suck at their job. Why? Because they never got any kind of competition in their field to show them, what kind of dps is expected of them</blockquote>Regardless of the rest of your post & its merits, this opening line is so much nonsense that I'm having a hard time believing you intended it seriously. Apparently, you think that all the T1 & T2 DPS players have never competed against each other over the last 8 years of this game's life-span, though I'm not at all sure why you would make such a ridiculous claim.It's especially bizarre that you're making it in the context of this thread. Apparently, you think DPS players are so clueless that we need assistance from a Fighter. So, on top of being ridiculous, you end up being condescending & insulting as well./facepalm</blockquote>Again. Nobody seem to be able to read properly. Did I ever said something about competition only between dps-classes? When you have a raid full of so-called t1-dps wich are now out-dpsed by a fighter zonewide, I can clearly see, where the problem is.NO properly played T1 dps can be outparsed zonewide by a fighter, period. But still you insist on a broken ability when it happens. So your bad dps is not caused by a bad playstyle but by an overpowered ability of another class.The lack of understanding in a simple sentence is the same problem of understanding to play a dps class properly and getting outparsed suddenly by fighters.The only insult I can see here is being called a liar <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?start=90&topic_id=520670" target="_blank">recently</a> by just stating facts. I didn't throw the first stone.If you have any ideas on tweaking this ability to avoid high dps numbers of overgeared fighters in simple heroic and EM raid content, feel free.And again, a DPS player who gets constantly zonewide outparsed by a fighter on RAID content is nothing but a bad player. This is a fact.There are a lot of capable DD-players out there, but they aren't the ones complaining. What does that tell you?Unless SoE suddenly changes their mind and removing this stance (wich I couldn't care less), then this stance works exactly as they wanted it to.So maybe we get back to proper non-insulting arguments, shall we?

EvilAstroboy

08-01-2012, 11:51 AM

<cite>Haciv wrote:</cite><blockquote>What play environment was this buff designed for and what's the point of being any DPS class now for 95% of the content? My Sorc has been my main for years but now if I want to DPS, I'm better off just logging in my SK. The downside to Recklessness stance is only really seen on raid named if tanking. For solo, grouping, and most of the raid content, what's the downside to being a fighter now when you can tank anything while doing the same DPS as a Mage or Scout?Below are 3 full Underdepths runs since the patch using the same group. I had UT and Bolster on Vicah (a warlock), Gaarysal (a SK) did not. Had the buffs been on him, I would of been absolutely smashed into the ground. We both have the same baseline gear of using faction armor and hm heroic jewelry.So, why bother continue playing my Sorc when I can do the same dps AND tank on a SK?</blockquote>Your DPS is very low for a Wizard who is alegedly your main.You should have been doing a fair bit more than what the SK was, even in Reckless.The stance is fine in terms of how much DPS it gives (putting tanks about 100-200k DPS behind T1 DPS) but all the positionals and taunts need to be turned into dehates / depositionals. For people complaining that this means they will never have aggro issues like other DPS classes - yep that is right. But it is better than the alternative where a tank can currently tank in this stance.My SK has no dramas tanking in Reckless stance in the HM instances, the additional damage really is pretty insignificant if I am using a shield. I also have no issue in keeping aggro because I still have a crapload of taunts and threat. I tried to go into a group as a DPS just to try it out, I was topping the parse (mostly because the DPS in the group were bad) but also the other tank couldnt hold aggro off me if he tried.The only thing that would stop me from tanking in the stance is if it was impossible for me to hold aggro by changing +threat and +positions into negatives like they did in the first Fighter revamp. The problem with that revamp was that there was no offensive stance to tank in and the defensive stance did next to no damage, now we have 3 stances - defensive tank, offensive tank and offensive non-tank. Make it so the non-tank stance makes it impossible to tank, otherwise it will just be a novelty skill to burn trash faster while tanking, rather than what it was intended for in allowing non-tanking tanks to participate as DPS.

Koleg

08-01-2012, 12:25 PM

You guy's cannot continue to use the argument that DPS classes are bad or terri-bad as the entire justification of why Reckless is not OP'ed. Are all of the Blue PBAoE Fighters all the best players EQ2 has ever seen and all of a sudden destroy all the T1 DPS becasue of their skill? HA! What a joke. Fighters running around with 500 to 700 Potency is dumb, dumb, dumb when it's SOE who gave them 250 to 350 of it over every single other player around trying to gear and play one of the 19 other classes.The point is this: For every single encounter in the game, including Solo, Heroic or Raid, from level 1 thru 92, fighters now have a HUGE advantage with the combination of DPS (gifted by SOE, not due to their skill) and the ability to tank with high survivability. This is a trended outline which will only ebb in top tier Hardmode content which constitutes less than 5% of the available content.If you think T1 DPS is bad now, HA, just wait until they all bench thier T1 and roll high DPS PBAoE fighters and face-roll thier keyboards just like those saying how great they are with or w/o this stance. From this point forward there is absolutely ZERO reason to roll a T1 non-fighter becasue non-fighter T1 DPS is harder and slower to level up, as well as being 10 times easier to learn and easier to play. You all think it's hard to find Utility classes now to fill raids... we're moving in the wrong direction. This was and is a bad idea and has been very poorly implemented./Welcome to EverFighter2 enjoy your stay for as short as it may be.

Yimway

08-01-2012, 12:37 PM

So, to sorta prove a point, I MT'd all of SS EM raid content last night in reckless stance.I did 90%ish of the content with a 2hander, but had to use a shield on a couple fights in order to be able to stoneskin every AE. I'm not PoW geared, and was kitted out in gear that comes from SS EM raiding.I really don't think this stance is working as intended.Oh yeah, and I was healed by a recruit shaman that was obviously sub-par to our normal shammy who took the night off. So, yeah, reckless, what was this to do again?

Parable

08-01-2012, 01:19 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>So, to sorta prove a point, I MT'd all of SS EM raid content last night in reckless stance.I did 90%ish of the content with a 2hander, but had to use a shield on a couple fights in order to be able to stoneskin every AE. I'm not PoW geared, and was kitted out in gear that comes from SS EM raiding.I really don't think this stance is working as intended.Oh yeah, and I was healed by a recruit shaman that was obviously sub-par to our normal shammy who took the night off. So, yeah, reckless, what was this to do again?</blockquote>Haven't you heard, EM content doesn't matter?Level to 92 - Doesn't matterPowerleveling aa's - Doesn't matterFarming old raids - Doesn't matterHeroic content - Doesn't matterEM trash - Doesn't matterEM named - Doesn't matterHM trash - Doesn't mattersome HM named - Doesn't matter"hard" HM named - Recklessness working as intendedSo, for a worldwide competing guild, Reckless is fine for 10-15 encounters in the game.

Faildozer

08-01-2012, 02:36 PM

considering you can do all non raid stuff as any class including a t1 dps and can tank a lot of the easy raid names with a scout tanking or hell even our warlock can probably tank that stuff should we nerf their dps and survivability?? or is it just none of this stuff is challenging so even with recklessness drawbacks its not going to be much harder but you cant use it on actual challenging content unless you want to get face planted.. It is just to help speed up trash and make it so you dont have to recruit as many people into guild just to have mains sitting for certain encounters.. nothing more, nothing less. If you are going to quit your main for X amount of years because of this change you probably were looking for a reason to quit anyway.. Same thing with the people who quit before brawler changes even came out.

Koleg

08-01-2012, 02:45 PM

<cite>Faildozer@Permafrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>considering you can do all non raid stuff as any class including a t1 dps and can tank a lot of the easy raid names with a scout tanking or hell even our warlock can probably tank that stuff should we nerf their dps and survivability?? or is it just none of this stuff is challenging so even with recklessness drawbacks its not going to be much harder but you cant use it on actual challenging content unless you want to get face planted.. It is just to help speed up trash and make it so you dont have to recruit as many people into guild just to have mains sitting for certain encounters.. nothing more, nothing less. If you are going to quit your main for X amount of years because of this change you probably were looking for a reason to quit anyway.. Same thing with the people who quit before brawler changes even came out.</blockquote>No, you have to pick one -OR- the other, SOE gave fighters both at the same time. And FWIW, there are not Warlocks tanking EM SS raid Bosses and the only scouts doing that are the BL's that cannot control thier OP'ed DPS and rip aggro and even then its only for a second or two.Thats quite a river ain't it, De Nile?

theriatis

08-01-2012, 05:14 PM

<cite>Haciv wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Daedrassil@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Haciv wrote:</cite><blockquote>So, why bother continue playing my Sorc when I can do the same dps AND tank on a SK?</blockquote>Your DPS is very low for a Wizard who is alegedly your main. </blockquote>I stopped reading your post riiiiight abooout there. </blockquote>Because we forgot how to do DPS with the Patch that introduced Recklessness, riiiiiight <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Fendaria

08-02-2012, 03:33 PM

<cite>theriatis wrote:</cite><blockquote>Because we forgot how to do DPS with the Patch that introduced Recklessness, riiiiiight <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>Its true. Somehow when this patch went in I find myself only wanting to cast Solar Flare. Its like I don't have any other spells anymore. Well, and Protoflame. I just love watching that little guy run up to the mob.Fendaria

Hammieee

08-02-2012, 04:41 PM

If you're getting outparsed by tanks you're bad its as simple as that there is no argument here, this isn't overpowering tanks it just adding some flexibility to raids. When you can show me some raid zones proof of a good player ( I don't mean your top parser in random guild #289813921). I mean i've seen a warden top a parse before in a guild i know of does that make wardens super ultra over powered to the point where they need to be nerfed? No, it means thier dps classes weren't doing thier job.

Freejazzlive

08-02-2012, 04:56 PM

<cite>Cyrdemac wrote:</cite><blockquote>Again. Nobody seem to be able to read properly. Did I ever said something about competition only between dps-classes?</blockquote>No, you didn't, because apparently you don't realize that competition amongst DPS classes is the only competition that OUGHT to matter.I didn't bother with the rest of your post -- so don't whine about my selective quote -- because, again, the very first line ruins your credibility.

Yimway

08-02-2012, 04:58 PM

<cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>If you're getting outparsed by tanks you're bad its as simple as that there is no argument here, this isn't overpowering tanks it just adding some flexibility to raids. When you can show me some raid zones proof of a good player ( I don't mean your top parser in random guild #289813921). I mean i've seen a warden top a parse before in a guild i know of does that make wardens super ultra over powered to the point where they need to be nerfed? No, it means thier dps classes weren't doing thier job.</blockquote>Reckless lets me beat down our t2 dps while tanking raids. No, I'm not beating out T1, but I could see an sk properly buffed in a dps group getting pretty high up there. We don't currently have one on roster to do some test runs with though.

Freejazzlive

08-02-2012, 05:01 PM

japanfour

08-02-2012, 07:40 PM

<cite>Freejazzlive wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Faildozer@Permafrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>considering you can do all non raid stuff as any class including a t1 dps and can tank a lot of the easy raid names with a scout tanking or hell even our warlock can probably tank that stuff should we nerf their dps and survivability??</blockquote>No, we should just do all Heroic content with 5 Fighters in Recklessness, & 1 Healer. After all, who needs T1 DPS classes, or crowd control, or even utility when that group can face-roll its way through any non-raid content? You know, the stuff that "doesn't matter?"I dunno, maybe YOU think 90% of the game's content "doesn't matter," but that would be an extremely bizarre stance for SOE to take.</blockquote>I believe that most of the content in this game doesnt matter. This game is plagued with unfinished things, tens of thousands of appearance items, broken items, zones that people dont visit very long. They make gear so easily attainable that Heroic zones are incredibly easy compared to the instances given at DoV launch ( hate or love that era of the game, atleast the zones were tough initially) Add a bunch of raids that only 1-5 progression guilds may to for raiding only to scrap the gear at the end game.I would say that 90% of this games content USED to matter. But now it definitely doesnt matter. Especially if you are looking at a game for its gameplay. the challenge/playability is mostly at the end of this game. The rest is just training wheels.

githyanki

08-02-2012, 08:08 PM

Ok so i've seen this post reach 9 pages. I think its time to have a realistic discussion about the reckless stance and raid content. I raid in two different forces one with a monk and the other with a beastlord. My bst's raid can clear more content faster even with fewer people as most of them are better players. My monks raid force is a newer raid still gearing in ss and we just beat dozeker the first time a few weeks ago. My bst's raid beat dozeker the first week and facerolled most of the zone with maybe two pulls. As far as heroic content you really dont even need a tank to be in defensive for all but maybe two names...and then only if you have bad or pug healers. Reckless stance in that content gives you the chance to push thru cd in 4 minutes instead of 5 or 6. Most are just farming shards for their 7th alt to get adorns or what not.Now for ss ez mode raid content. My bst's raid can run thru both zones in about an hour and a half with less then 3 groups. We have not beaten hm sullons yet but have made it to her a few times. So its not like all of those toons have pow gear or something. Just good players doing their thing with decent buffs and solid concentration. When you consider reckless stance in ez mode content it makes some fights faster but its not like we aren't beating them down already. And except for maybe the drake trash encounters the sk and bruiser dont beat any t1 dps unless they are afk or dead. Real numbers for fights like dagarn which is an aoe fight burn fight our sk in reckless dies 2 to 3 times in the mage group and does about 300 to 400k. Only an inquis keeping him up and its faster to rez him then heal him as the inqui wants to dps too. Fight lasts maybe 1.5 minutes to maybe 2.5 minutes. And that is with a short raid of 3 groups. The lock, wizzy, bst(me), swashy and sin are all pushing past 450 to 600k with 3 groups. The bards are doing 200kish depending on who shows up. Sounds ok to me. Sucks having low attendance in the summertime. On single ez mode ss raid mobs the same dps classes will do between 350 to 550 and the sk does about 300 to 400. In drunder hm sullons he dies to trash aoe's alot and the rest of the dps stays about the same that they do in groups of trash mobs in ss ez mode. Now on the drake trash fights in ez ss he can push past 1 mil but so can our lock and when we had a conj they did the same thing with our trouby sometimes doing 700k. Its a trash fight who cares. The difference between stuff that is actually harder...hm drunder and ez mode ss is kinda important to realize. Heroic stuff doesn't matter you can duo cd and 3 man all but the last fight in dracur prime and the last fight in ud. Raids is where it matters because that is the content that reckless works but at a cost. And then only in ez mode stuff with weak aoe's.Now my monk's raid is different altogether. Its a young raid force with varying skill lvls. My monk and our other tank the sk do comparable dps on aoe and singles. I main tank on the monk and he grabs all the junk. With questionable healers i have to be careful when i use reckless. Never on any names as i don't want to have to do the fight twice from a wipe and only sometimes on trash. Lets use the same dagarn fight as an example sk in reckless me in defensive 4 groups with decent buffs two mage groups. Fight lasts about the same sk will blow all 3 bloodletters using group blockers I can do about 300 to 350 in defensive sk does about 300 to 450 and dies probably once we beat the mob in about 2.5 minutes. About the same raid dps with my bst's 3 groups and 4 with my monk's. The decent bst will run over 500 maybe the ranger does 450 and the t1 mages vary from 300 to 250. So is it player skill that lets the sk do more then the mages or just the mages with less gear and learning how to optimize what they are doing? My monk doing 300kish is usually in the top 3 in defensive. Is that just the amount of buffs or the lack of skilled t1 dpsers? In this case reckless helps a newer raid beat something a bit easier that can still be challenging to them. Thought that was the intent in ez mode raiding. Lets use the same drake trash fight with my monk's raid force. Healers pop divine guidance so everybody including the reckless sk and monk survive the big aoe's on the way in and he'll do around 900 to 700 and i'll show up in the 600 to 700 range depending on how many times i can get dragonfire to repop. Fight lasts 20 seconds and bst sucks ranger crushes and mages vary from 300 to 1 mil. Seems ok for a trash fight that is really a bone for aoe classes imo. What people are failing to realize is that if you can stand up all the time maintanking in reckless in raid. That means your healers in your group could keep up any bst in spiritual about the same with the same degree of diffuculty. That means they are very good and can make up for the extra 50 percent bump in aoe damage.

githyanki

08-02-2012, 09:27 PM

Forgot to post this. I play on the crushbone server and githyanki is my monk's name. You can then look up my alts and guilds. Feel free to look up guildprogress then after so you can see i'm not full of it. I can find parses if anybody really wants but i'm not sure how to put them into a post...i'm a bit computer stupid.

Xaxtionlorex

08-03-2012, 09:20 AM

If you're sk is in a mage group, aoe'ing on a fight like dagarn EM, and only doing 300-400 and 3 times, well, he dosen't need to be in reckless, he dosen't have the gear to take hits from the add's he's going to pick up, and his healers don't have the gear to keep him going, or don't give a to keep him up, he needs to drop back to sword stance and suck it up.I run recklessness in EM,hm Drunder, and some times PoW[Depends on group] Its not hard, but it takes gear, and healers who will be atentive to the fact.**Double fighter groups are terrible, dont even consider using reckless, you're just bad and greedy at that point.

Rasttan

08-03-2012, 07:08 PM

For years tanks were fairly competitive DPS in solo, herioc or raid content we could push T1 dps in a good dps set up and do T2 dps in about any setup. Hell there was even 2 sets of gear made for tanks 1 specifically for DPS. That was the norm and no one complained back then.DOV came out and tank DPS went down the Toilet. The original tank gear was horrible and agro became a huge problem as DPS classes just blew tanks away on the parse. Reckless is a way to get some of that back and it is a Risky stance, people are showing what can happen while in reckless not what usually happens. I can say I have parsed like a beast in reckless on some pulls but I also have been flat out crushed and had to swap stance after a rez.In SF I raided with a Top guild, well the Top guild and we tanks were easily with in 10% of T1 dps if we had the right set up and a good AE pull. Tanks have been competitive and should be. Why is the single job of the tank to hold a mob and do nothing else. This stance does not let you just saunter around and pull every and anything at will and stay alive.It should be tweaked to equal out among the classes, and a group benifit added to the stance but scrapped no.In SF even with our DPS numbers we still parked tanks for burn fights, to say that still wont happen now is simply not true, to state these fantasy 5 crusader groups and what not is nothing but a waste of everyones time. Even with reckless a zero buffed tank as in 5 in a group, will not come close to a real dps group.Its not a bad Idea, it serves a purpose for extra tanks it just needs adjustment and people to stop acting as if theres 5,000,000 tanks parsing 2 mil dps thats just not the case.

Neiloch

08-04-2012, 02:21 AM

So after more time raiding with fighters and the stance here is what I have found to be the major problems:#1. SK's are crazy over powered with it (don't raid with a pally but hearing they are as well). anyone who just heard what the stance does could have told you this was going to happen. They were already WELL above the other fighters in DPS and do it via spells/ca's.#2. Brawlers can get some buffs rogues and preds usually get and spike some nice numbers. Really not a problem.#3. Fighters can tank/keep aggro in it. Doesn't matter what content it is. If there is a equally geared, well performing T1 in the group and the tank can be in recklessness keeping aggro whilst taking a hit MUCH better than the other DPS classes, there is a serious problem.<hr />-------------------------------------------------------So #2, meh. I never have a problem with people taking turns 'spiking,' its fun.I don't think there is a solution for #1 without getting some section of people really mad. SK's have been OP in the fighter DPS department for quite a while and recklessness just amplified it where they are breaching into pure DPS classes. Anything to fix it would have to be specific to them. Whether its moving everyone else up or them down. I think we are just gonna have to wait and hope the next wave of additional skills for classes brings things into more balance. (again I don't raid regularly with a paladin so I refuse to speak about them specifically or just say 'crusaders'<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />#3 is completely unacceptable but also fixable. Anyone who thinks someone in a pure DPS stance should be able to fill the tank role well is nuts. Yes as a raid equipped ranger I can fill the tank role for easy heroic content, but still not nearly as well as a fighter in recklessness.Fixing this by making the stance proc massive deaggro's or positionals would make fighters THE damage class to bring on fights that have special aggro mechanics. they would be in the highest demand for fights that do any kind of memwipe since they could go 'full out' without reprecussion. This while they are already able to take a hit better than the other DPS classes even in recklessness.Instead I think recklessness should negate any of their tanking centric stats. Things like block, avoidance and perhaps even strikethrough since that is mostly for when you are face to face with a target. This would lower their ability to TANK but not lower their survivability so much they can barely survive even when they aren't tanking. This would also force them to manage their aggro and damage relative to the person tanking just like all other DPS classes have to.

zehly

08-04-2012, 08:36 PM

<cite>Neiloch@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote>Instead I think recklessness should negate any of their tanking centric stats. Things like block, avoidance and perhaps even strikethrough since that is mostly for when you are face to face with a target. This would lower their ability to TANK but not lower their survivability so much they can barely survive even when they aren't tanking. This would also force them to manage their aggro and damage relative to the person tanking just like all other DPS classes have to.</blockquote>This.I have seen so much complaining, and so few offer up an intelligent solution.

Hammieee

08-04-2012, 10:01 PM

That would be awesome neiloch if fighters did as much as dps classes.

Laretha

08-04-2012, 10:15 PM

First solution is remove it! easy as. Its a broken mechinic and needs to go!!!!!I have no issue with adding more fun into the game but at the expense of others its rediculus!Wrecklesstance should mean wreckless not I win stance in most content!If it is to stay! They need to remove all surviviability. On my Paladin in wreckless all heals, all deathsaves, wards procs and strikethrough, Parry and repose should be gone and mit value set to mage level! Nothing that allows a tank to tank! Become a glass mage, and give them one or 2 deagros like any other mage. In other words wreckless should be wreckless simple as that. This is not balanced its wrong for so many reasons its not funny most have been discussed!!!To try and assist having more fighters in raids and grps at the expense of other classes is just as bad.

Silzin

08-04-2012, 11:12 PM

Your comparison of a Reckless Tank to a Cloth Cannon is very bad analogy. a Reckless Tank should be more like a Scout DPSing/tanking. Mages can do most all of their dps from 15+M away, and tanks in Reckless most certainly can not do that.

Laretha

08-05-2012, 01:08 AM

The Best Dps from Mages is in close range these days not from 15 metres especially AoE fights.Further Tanks can move and keep the same amount of DPS up where mages have to be stationary.While in this stance Tanks can dps while moving so they can joust the aoe while still dpsing a mages dps drops to zero, They can afford to take agro with little or no consquences. Why they have more hitpoints, can use an emergency stone skins or blockers and damage avoidence or if they die and there self death prevent goes up. Others can heal ward and absorb alot more damage any where near what a mage. infact some have 3 death prevents that come up every 3 minutes or so!If lucky a mage may have 2 degros of any value but if u pull agro from a raid x4 boss normally u are one shotted it can happen that fast. So this is not balanced at all......

Cyrdemac

08-05-2012, 05:50 AM

<cite>Laretha wrote:</cite><blockquote>The Best Dps from Mages is in close range these days not from 15 metres especially AoE fights.Further Tanks except Crusaders can move and keep the same amount of DPS up where mages have to be stationary.While in this stance Tanks except Crusaders can dps while moving so they can joust the aoe while still dpsing a mages dps drops to zero (but still take more damage than the mage), They can afford to take agro with little or no consquences (because they have NO way to get rid of it!). Why they have more hitpoints, can use an emergency stone skins or blockers and damage avoidence or if they die and there self death prevent goes up. Others can heal ward and absorb alot more damage any where near what a mage. infact some have 3 death prevents that come up every 3 minutes or so!If lucky a mage may have 2 degros of any value but if u pull agro from a raid x4 boss normally u are one shotted it can happen that fast. Dunno,our mages usually last everal seconds, enough to get bakc the aggro.So this is not balanced at all......And mages still out-DPS Fighters in Recklessness constantly, if they are not asleep.</blockquote>Corrected it for you. But yes, tanks can still tank in it, because SoE want's them to have a chance to survive tanking in it. Usually as long as the tools are up.

Laretha

08-05-2012, 06:39 AM

Actually Crusaiders attacks are mixed between Ca's and spells so that not 100% correct which is more than anything a mage has also u get auto attack be it ranged or melee and mage auto is like what 2k dps? fighters is like a tad bit more hey!You mised my first post saying give tanks 2 detaunts like mages and u dont need to worry about all those wards heals death prevents , blocker and stones skins that makes tanking group instances in recklessness without much need of troubs bards chanters as you have all the hate and surviability you need.recklessness should actually mean it why should you be able to dps as much or if not more than some T1 dps with little or no real chance of dying. Sorry I know you want to keep it the way it is but meh its broke

Aull

08-05-2012, 12:12 PM

Even with reckless most fighters will not be beating most true dps classes. The crusaders can smoke the parse on respectable aoe pulls/fights. If anything this benefits the crusaders far more than the other fighters.Reckless stance should have never been a consideration to begin with. Developers should have looked at modifying each fighters already exsisting offensive stance and cater those offensive stances to what that fighter is good at or should be good at.This game I think has lost to many of the devs that originally developed the fighters and what each fighter was to be good at.In all it doesn't matter. This game obviously has lost its potency. SOE cannot put out enough content worth being called an expansion since ROK. That alone lets me know they do not have the staff available to make expansion worth being called an expansion.

Neiloch

08-05-2012, 02:44 PM

<cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>That would be awesome neiloch if fighters did as much as dps classes.</blockquote>Fighters? No. Crusaders? Yes. I've seen it. Repeatedly. Just because you haven't doesn't mean it's not true since a reality exists beyond your personal experience. Since this is a positive/negative issue, the very fact of it ever happening completely negates any negative claims. Just because more people have not experienced the weightlessness of space than have doesn't mean that the 'denial' of weightlessness is any more true than the existence.Denying it doesn't make it any less true. Everyone can have their own opinions but you can't have your own facts. You can keep denying the high DPS nature but it means ultimately nothing. Nor do I have to prove to you what I have seen because again, your opinion means nothing.<cite>Silzin@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Your comparison of a Reckless Tank to a Cloth Cannon is very bad analogy. a Reckless Tank should be more like a Scout DPSing/tanking. Mages can do most all of their dps from 15+M away, and tanks in Reckless most certainly can not do that.</blockquote>Partly true. Mages do need to be closer than 15 meters to do their maximum DPS these days. I agree they want reckless tanks to be similar to scout DPS though. Which is why I suggested recklessness remove their tanking stats of which scouts do not have. Unless they have equipped themselves 'atypically' at the direct sacrifice of DPS. Even if a scout did such a thing they still could never approach the tanking ability of a fighter in recklessness.

Hammieee

08-05-2012, 03:39 PM

Rasttan

08-05-2012, 03:43 PM

<cite>Neiloch@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>That would be awesome neiloch if fighters did as much as dps classes.</blockquote>Fighters? No. Crusaders? Yes. I've seen it. Repeatedly. Just because you haven't doesn't mean it's not true since a reality exists beyond your personal experience. Since this is a positive/negative issue, the very fact of it ever happening completely negates any negative claims. Just because more people have not experienced the weightlessness of space than have doesn't mean that the 'denial' of weightlessness is any more true than the existence.Denying it doesn't make it any less true. Everyone can have their own opinions but you can't have your own facts. You can keep denying the high DPS nature but it means ultimately nothing. Nor do I have to prove to you what I have seen because again, your opinion means nothing.<cite>Silzin@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Your comparison of a Reckless Tank to a Cloth Cannon is very bad analogy. a Reckless Tank should be more like a Scout DPSing/tanking. Mages can do most all of their dps from 15+M away, and tanks in Reckless most certainly can not do that.</blockquote>Partly true. Mages do need to be closer than 15 meters to do their maximum DPS these days. I agree they want reckless tanks to be similar to scout DPS though. Which is why I suggested recklessness remove their tanking stats of which scouts do not have. Unless they have equipped themselves 'atypically' at the direct sacrifice of DPS. Even if a scout did such a thing they still could never approach the tanking ability of a fighter in recklessness.</blockquote>The stance needs balanced between fighters, what you see is the exception not the rule, yes really good fighters with really good healers can put up really good numbers. But on average tanks are dying in this stance unless they are with there familiar group.Personally id love to see it with a fixed damage number doesnt have to be potency and a smaller group boost attatched to it.It needs some work yes but people are ranting on here like groups of fighters are running wild through the game killing everything in there path. Hell I have only seen one 2 fighter group in the last 50 groups ive been in so herioc content zero impact from my experience. And in our raids we will spike past T1 but we arnt beating T1, we still use defensive quite a bit.And T1 dps doesnt have a constant battle with agro very few people arnt going all out all the time, once again yea theres a few exceptions but it doesnt happen alot unless its a memwipe or some tank disarm/stun/stiffle and then the purpose of that effect was to kill dps thats why those are in the game.

ratbast

08-05-2012, 05:13 PM

<cite>Neiloch@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>That would be awesome neiloch if fighters did as much as dps classes.</blockquote>Fighters? No. Crusaders? Yes. I've seen it. Repeatedly. Just because you haven't doesn't mean it's not true since a reality exists beyond your personal experience. Since this is a positive/negative issue, the very fact of it ever happening completely negates any negative claims. Just because more people have not experienced the weightlessness of space than have doesn't mean that the 'denial' of weightlessness is any more true than the existence.Denying it doesn't make it any less true. Everyone can have their own opinions but you can't have your own facts. You can keep denying the high DPS nature but it means ultimately nothing. Nor do I have to prove to you what I have seen because again, your opinion means nothing.<cite>Silzin@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Your comparison of a Reckless Tank to a Cloth Cannon is very bad analogy. a Reckless Tank should be more like a Scout DPSing/tanking. Mages can do most all of their dps from 15+M away, and tanks in Reckless most certainly can not do that.</blockquote>Partly true. Mages do need to be closer than 15 meters to do their maximum DPS these days. I agree they want reckless tanks to be similar to scout DPS though. Which is why I suggested recklessness remove their tanking stats of which scouts do not have. Unless they have equipped themselves 'atypically' at the direct sacrifice of DPS. Even if a scout did such a thing they still could never approach the tanking ability of a fighter in recklessness.</blockquote>the issue i have with your post is that it assents to reckless fighter and standard scout dps being equal.that premise is flawed. how can someone go into a stance that is specifically not their archtypes purpose, and be even with others who specialized for that role at class creation and are locked in? they should be VASTLY inferior.imo, fighters as an archtype should be lower dps than all 12 mages and scouts simply due to their core purpose. obviously this isnt the case, as they beat the utility classes even in defense stance. but then to give reckless, which pushes them up towards t2 (and can t1 at times), this is asanine.altnernate stances should not compete directly with others primary stance (or role). if they do, they need to be inferior at that job versus the class that has that job as their primary purpose. its straight up broke for a reckless tank to zw outdps any t1 that is within 1 gear level (fabled - legendary - treasured). yes, fabled reckless tanks should not beat competent legendary t1.its simply unfair to those who are locked into roles that have less survivability than a defensive tank, to then have tanks able to come over to their niche, and back EVEN MIDCOMBAT!

SisterTheresa

08-05-2012, 05:47 PM

In all honesty, for me .. Recklessness is something I will not use.Yes yes, it might be a great thing for tanks not being the main one, but I specifically built my Guardian around tanking, from his AAs and gear to how he has his skills lined up.I won't look throught he other posts, but if anyone hasn't seen what the skil is in game, this is the explination for my Guardian (level 92):<img src="http://i1180.photobucket.com/albums/x410/Ridolain_Kirkwall/reckless.jpg" />I cannot see trading the ability to do more damage with the ability to TAKE more damage. That .... makes no sense.I could redo my AAs to combat-like skills and still keep my ability to get hit.Besides, if anyone thinks my Guardian will out-DPS a well geared wizard doing up into the 13k of damage ... uh ... yeah. I'm sure you DPS classes will be fine.

Landiin

08-05-2012, 05:52 PM

Why wouldn't you use it? If the incoming dmg is less then the incoming heals while in this stance it is the same as you being fully defensive. Not using it would be a disservice to your group/raid.

Rasttan

08-05-2012, 06:00 PM

<cite>ratbast wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Neiloch@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>That would be awesome neiloch if fighters did as much as dps classes.</blockquote>Fighters? No. Crusaders? Yes. I've seen it. Repeatedly. Just because you haven't doesn't mean it's not true since a reality exists beyond your personal experience. Since this is a positive/negative issue, the very fact of it ever happening completely negates any negative claims. Just because more people have not experienced the weightlessness of space than have doesn't mean that the 'denial' of weightlessness is any more true than the existence.Denying it doesn't make it any less true. Everyone can have their own opinions but you can't have your own facts. You can keep denying the high DPS nature but it means ultimately nothing. Nor do I have to prove to you what I have seen because again, your opinion means nothing.<cite>Silzin@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Your comparison of a Reckless Tank to a Cloth Cannon is very bad analogy. a Reckless Tank should be more like a Scout DPSing/tanking. Mages can do most all of their dps from 15+M away, and tanks in Reckless most certainly can not do that.</blockquote>Partly true. Mages do need to be closer than 15 meters to do their maximum DPS these days. I agree they want reckless tanks to be similar to scout DPS though. Which is why I suggested recklessness remove their tanking stats of which scouts do not have. Unless they have equipped themselves 'atypically' at the direct sacrifice of DPS. Even if a scout did such a thing they still could never approach the tanking ability of a fighter in recklessness.</blockquote>the issue i have with your post is that it assents to reckless fighter and standard scout dps being equal.that premise is flawed. how can someone go into a stance that is specifically not their archtypes purpose, and be even with others who specialized for that role at class creation and are locked in? they should be VASTLY inferior.imo, fighters as an archtype should be lower dps than all 12 mages and scouts simply due to their core purpose. obviously this isnt the case, as they beat the utility classes even in defense stance. but then to give reckless, which pushes them up towards t2 (and can t1 at times), this is asanine.altnernate stances should not compete directly with others primary stance (or role). if they do, they need to be inferior at that job versus the class that has that job as their primary purpose. its straight up broke for a reckless tank to zw outdps any t1 that is within 1 gear level (fabled - legendary - treasured). yes, fabled reckless tanks should not beat competent legendary t1.its simply unfair to those who are locked into roles that have less survivability than a defensive tank, to then have tanks able to come over to their niche, and back EVEN MIDCOMBAT!</blockquote>Fighters should not be below utility, there purpose is to enhance other toons including fighters, they have no bigger claim to dps than any non pure dps class, And a fighters main purpose is hitting/holding the mob, not debuffing, curing, rezzing, ...etc which are all jobs of utility and healers which involve not damaging the mob but making others do more damage. Of all the non pure dps toons fighters have only 1 secondary function and that's to do damage.

Landiin

08-05-2012, 06:07 PM

And other utilities have no less reason to claim they need more tanking skills then fighters if that is the case.

ratbast

08-05-2012, 07:22 PM

<cite>Rasttan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>ratbast wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Neiloch@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>That would be awesome neiloch if fighters did as much as dps classes.</blockquote>Fighters? No. Crusaders? Yes. I've seen it. Repeatedly. Just because you haven't doesn't mean it's not true since a reality exists beyond your personal experience. Since this is a positive/negative issue, the very fact of it ever happening completely negates any negative claims. Just because more people have not experienced the weightlessness of space than have doesn't mean that the 'denial' of weightlessness is any more true than the existence.Denying it doesn't make it any less true. Everyone can have their own opinions but you can't have your own facts. You can keep denying the high DPS nature but it means ultimately nothing. Nor do I have to prove to you what I have seen because again, your opinion means nothing.<cite>Silzin@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Your comparison of a Reckless Tank to a Cloth Cannon is very bad analogy. a Reckless Tank should be more like a Scout DPSing/tanking. Mages can do most all of their dps from 15+M away, and tanks in Reckless most certainly can not do that.</blockquote>Partly true. Mages do need to be closer than 15 meters to do their maximum DPS these days. I agree they want reckless tanks to be similar to scout DPS though. Which is why I suggested recklessness remove their tanking stats of which scouts do not have. Unless they have equipped themselves 'atypically' at the direct sacrifice of DPS. Even if a scout did such a thing they still could never approach the tanking ability of a fighter in recklessness.</blockquote>the issue i have with your post is that it assents to reckless fighter and standard scout dps being equal.that premise is flawed. how can someone go into a stance that is specifically not their archtypes purpose, and be even with others who specialized for that role at class creation and are locked in? they should be VASTLY inferior.imo, fighters as an archtype should be lower dps than all 12 mages and scouts simply due to their core purpose. obviously this isnt the case, as they beat the utility classes even in defense stance. but then to give reckless, which pushes them up towards t2 (and can t1 at times), this is asanine.altnernate stances should not compete directly with others primary stance (or role). if they do, they need to be inferior at that job versus the class that has that job as their primary purpose. its straight up broke for a reckless tank to zw outdps any t1 that is within 1 gear level (fabled - legendary - treasured). yes, fabled reckless tanks should not beat competent legendary t1.its simply unfair to those who are locked into roles that have less survivability than a defensive tank, to then have tanks able to come over to their niche, and back EVEN MIDCOMBAT!</blockquote>Fighters should not be below utility, there purpose is to enhance other toons including fighters, they have no bigger claim to dps than any non pure dps class, And a fighters main purpose is hitting/holding the mob, not debuffing, curing, rezzing, ...etc which are all jobs of utility and healers which involve not damaging the mob but making others do more damage. Of all the non pure dps toons fighters have only 1 secondary function and that's to do damage.</blockquote>yes all have secondary function to contribute dps. but the role of utility is not a fully legitimate role. tanking stands on its own two feet as a worthwhile, needed, essential job in every single fight. utility is not just not in the spotlight, its absolutely thankless. and you can get by without it a million times easier than without a tank.giving the class with the more valid role ALSO higher dps (for both class types its a secondary function) is bad balance. thus tanks win over utility in 1) primary role (tanking > utility) and 2) secondary role (dps parse: fighters beat chanters and bards).utility is a mongrel role. this is why is hard to recruit and ppl dont enjoy the classes as much as others. adjusting the secondary function of the nonpuredps is a no-brainer. reckless takes an existing imbalance and explodes it.any tank alternate stance needs to be utility and a direct move away from their own personal dps.

Rasttan

08-05-2012, 10:54 PM

<cite>ratbast wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rasttan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>ratbast wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Neiloch@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>That would be awesome neiloch if fighters did as much as dps classes.</blockquote>Fighters? No. Crusaders? Yes. I've seen it. Repeatedly. Just because you haven't doesn't mean it's not true since a reality exists beyond your personal experience. Since this is a positive/negative issue, the very fact of it ever happening completely negates any negative claims. Just because more people have not experienced the weightlessness of space than have doesn't mean that the 'denial' of weightlessness is any more true than the existence.Denying it doesn't make it any less true. Everyone can have their own opinions but you can't have your own facts. You can keep denying the high DPS nature but it means ultimately nothing. Nor do I have to prove to you what I have seen because again, your opinion means nothing.<cite>Silzin@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Your comparison of a Reckless Tank to a Cloth Cannon is very bad analogy. a Reckless Tank should be more like a Scout DPSing/tanking. Mages can do most all of their dps from 15+M away, and tanks in Reckless most certainly can not do that.</blockquote>Partly true. Mages do need to be closer than 15 meters to do their maximum DPS these days. I agree they want reckless tanks to be similar to scout DPS though. Which is why I suggested recklessness remove their tanking stats of which scouts do not have. Unless they have equipped themselves 'atypically' at the direct sacrifice of DPS. Even if a scout did such a thing they still could never approach the tanking ability of a fighter in recklessness.</blockquote>the issue i have with your post is that it assents to reckless fighter and standard scout dps being equal.that premise is flawed. how can someone go into a stance that is specifically not their archtypes purpose, and be even with others who specialized for that role at class creation and are locked in? they should be VASTLY inferior.imo, fighters as an archtype should be lower dps than all 12 mages and scouts simply due to their core purpose. obviously this isnt the case, as they beat the utility classes even in defense stance. but then to give reckless, which pushes them up towards t2 (and can t1 at times), this is asanine.altnernate stances should not compete directly with others primary stance (or role). if they do, they need to be inferior at that job versus the class that has that job as their primary purpose. its straight up broke for a reckless tank to zw outdps any t1 that is within 1 gear level (fabled - legendary - treasured). yes, fabled reckless tanks should not beat competent legendary t1.its simply unfair to those who are locked into roles that have less survivability than a defensive tank, to then have tanks able to come over to their niche, and back EVEN MIDCOMBAT!</blockquote>Fighters should not be below utility, there purpose is to enhance other toons including fighters, they have no bigger claim to dps than any non pure dps class, And a fighters main purpose is hitting/holding the mob, not debuffing, curing, rezzing, ...etc which are all jobs of utility and healers which involve not damaging the mob but making others do more damage. Of all the non pure dps toons fighters have only 1 secondary function and that's to do damage.</blockquote>yes all have secondary function to contribute dps. but the role of utility is not a fully legitimate role. tanking stands on its own two feet as a worthwhile, needed, essential job in every single fight. utility is not just not in the spotlight, its absolutely thankless. and you can get by without it a million times easier than without a tank.giving the class with the more valid role ALSO higher dps (for both class types its a secondary function) is bad balance. thus tanks win over utility in 1) primary role (tanking > utility) and 2) secondary role (dps parse: fighters beat chanters and bards).utility is a mongrel role. this is why is hard to recruit and ppl dont enjoy the classes as much as others. adjusting the secondary function of the nonpuredps is a no-brainer. reckless takes an existing imbalance and explodes it.any tank alternate stance needs to be utility and a direct move away from their own personal dps.</blockquote>Not fully legitimate? Huge group dps boost, great debuffs, great single target buffs, great raid wide temp buffs, rezzing, hate transfers, debates, stone skins, power regen ...etc and good personal dps, do you realize what utility directly and indirectly contributes to a parse a crapload more than a fighter by miles there not even in the same ballpark. Your reply sounds like a utility who doesn't want to admit what they contribute. Btw I run a bard myself from time to time what an awesome mix of skills he has.

ratbast

08-06-2012, 01:58 AM

<cite>Rasttan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Not fully legitimate? Huge group dps boost, great debuffs, great single target buffs, great raid wide temp buffs, rezzing, hate transfers, debates, stone skins, power regen ...etc and good personal dps, do you realize what utility directly and indirectly contributes to a parse a crapload more than a fighter by miles there not even in the same ballpark. Your reply sounds like a utility who doesn't want to admit what they contribute. Btw I run a bard myself from time to time what an awesome mix of skills he has.there is no unique contribution that is essential (and definitely not appreciated by nonbufftargets), except rarely a mana healer. fighters on the other hand are needed on exactly everything for their unique contribution only they can provide. im amazed you think you have points to make here. fighters flat out blow away utility. all fighters have hate tools, paly can rezz (just like 1 of the 4 utility classes), guards stoneskin (again, just like 1 of the 4 utility classes). you ought to make a list of all the things ONLY FIGHTERS do like pulling, positioning, taunting, taking hits. then add in the things they shouldnt be doing, like healing. we have a whole archtype dedicated to that. are any utility putting out heals like fighters do? NO.so after dropping the 2 things only 1 of the 4 utility does, yet some fighters do, your list is left with dps boost (true for 3/4 utility) debuffs (more t2 thing, who blow away utility on dps), power regen (true). raidwide buffs is something fighters have as well.i know the nickel and dime stuff adds up, but on a toon by toon basis, it is not unique enough or strong enough to even closely match what fighters bring with their simple job of tanking. to then have fighters beating them on parse is just bizarre.</blockquote>tank-heal-dps, those are the 3 tier 1 functions. they are intuitive synergizing roles with equal division of labor. each role is clear, concise and enjoyable. they all have simple obvious purposes.aggro-mana heal-crowd control-debuff mob-buff others. these are tier 2 functions, they are nowhere near as important as the above 3. added to that fact, most of these roles have been hammered/nerfed to facilitate encounter micromanagement by devs. debuff caps, stat caps, cc immunity. the only utility job that is even remotely thrown a bone is mana healer. ever heard of a fight that was a 'debuff check'? lol. there are gimmick fights that are mana heal fights, but the vast majority of fights are survivability (tank healer, 2 of the big 3), dps check (1 of the big 3), or script.progression isnt being held up by utilty, even as absent as they may be on a given nite. what i find interesting is that tanks enjoy having a big 3 function, as well as the primary hefty role in a utility function (aggro). they are primarily responsible for this. add in combat mastery for brawlers and they are extremely robust on utility side.its a silly argument to say buffing others (or other utility) is even on the same plane as tanking. without massive overpowering boosts to these tier 2 jobs, they are not fully valid in and of themselves to carve out a niche. if you think you know so much, explain how "fighters are balanced with utility" while simulaneously having issues recruiting utility.the fact almost all content is do-able without utility classes means competent and geared utility should beat every single tank of every single zw.since you are arguing they are EQUALLY VALID (tanks and utility), why should fighters BEAT utility on the parse while in defensive stances? shouldnt they be neck-and-neck if equally valid? hmm. so to justify that tanks beating them on parse you need to sell "utility is more important than tanking" atleast barely. along comes reckless, and now you have to say "utility is more important than tanking" not barely, but by lightyears (therefore we need to throw tanks a bone with a new uber stance). nobody believes that. TANKING is more important than utility so they shouldnt beat utility on the communal secondary role of dps in any stance at all <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />justifying reckless is an exercise in futility. its exactly the wrong direction if you want balance and class differentiation. it appears to be a hack fix to control raid demographics. the elegant balanced fix is giving tanks a utility stance and pushing out some chanters bards and maybe some healers.6 healer classes, but often 8 raid slots.4 chanter/bard, but often 8 raid slots.6 fighters but only 3 raid slots. the answer is NOT to chew into the dps niche. its saturated.

Faildozer

08-06-2012, 07:44 PM

dude, if the utility you play wiht are losing to fighters in defensive stance you are playing with bad utility.. If you are playing with bad utility you arent really giving good information on how classes should be balanced given you arent playing with people who are actually optimally performing on their characters..All that being said, i think utility should be given boosts to make them not only more viable in terms of dps but give some of their lackluster 'utility' abilities something to make them more meaningful.. Same thing goes for rogues. The debuffs they bring to raid are certainly not required (most raids still bring at least a brig) but they need to either receive a dps boost (dps isnt terrible but not t1,) or given new debuffs that will make them more desirable to have in raids and given a spot when a lot of fights are DPS checks or have dps checks built in.

Rasttan

08-06-2012, 07:57 PM

<cite>ratbast wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rasttan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Not fully legitimate? Huge group dps boost, great debuffs, great single target buffs, great raid wide temp buffs, rezzing, hate transfers, debates, stone skins, power regen ...etc and good personal dps, do you realize what utility directly and indirectly contributes to a parse a crapload more than a fighter by miles there not even in the same ballpark. Your reply sounds like a utility who doesn't want to admit what they contribute. Btw I run a bard myself from time to time what an awesome mix of skills he has.there is no unique contribution that is essential (and definitely not appreciated by nonbufftargets), except rarely a mana healer. fighters on the other hand are needed on exactly everything for their unique contribution only they can provide. im amazed you think you have points to make here. fighters flat out blow away utility. all fighters have hate tools, paly can rezz (just like 1 of the 4 utility classes), guards stoneskin (again, just like 1 of the 4 utility classes). you ought to make a list of all the things ONLY FIGHTERS do like pulling, positioning, taunting, taking hits. then add in the things they shouldnt be doing, like healing. we have a whole archtype dedicated to that. are any utility putting out heals like fighters do? NO.so after dropping the 2 things only 1 of the 4 utility does, yet some fighters do, your list is left with dps boost (true for 3/4 utility) debuffs (more t2 thing, who blow away utility on dps), power regen (true). raidwide buffs is something fighters have as well.i know the nickel and dime stuff adds up, but on a toon by toon basis, it is not unique enough or strong enough to even closely match what fighters bring with their simple job of tanking. to then have fighters beating them on parse is just bizarre.</blockquote>tank-heal-dps, those are the 3 tier 1 functions. they are intuitive synergizing roles with equal division of labor. each role is clear, concise and enjoyable. they all have simple obvious purposes.aggro-mana heal-crowd control-debuff mob-buff others. these are tier 2 functions, they are nowhere near as important as the above 3. added to that fact, most of these roles have been hammered/nerfed to facilitate encounter micromanagement by devs. debuff caps, stat caps, cc immunity. the only utility job that is even remotely thrown a bone is mana healer. ever heard of a fight that was a 'debuff check'? lol. there are gimmick fights that are mana heal fights, but the vast majority of fights are survivability (tank healer, 2 of the big 3), dps check (1 of the big 3), or script.progression isnt being held up by utilty, even as absent as they may be on a given nite. what i find interesting is that tanks enjoy having a big 3 function, as well as the primary hefty role in a utility function (aggro). they are primarily responsible for this. add in combat mastery for brawlers and they are extremely robust on utility side.its a silly argument to say buffing others (or other utility) is even on the same plane as tanking. without massive overpowering boosts to these tier 2 jobs, they are not fully valid in and of themselves to carve out a niche. if you think you know so much, explain how "fighters are balanced with utility" while simulaneously having issues recruiting utility.the fact almost all content is do-able without utility classes means competent and geared utility should beat every single tank of every single zw.since you are arguing they are EQUALLY VALID (tanks and utility), why should fighters BEAT utility on the parse while in defensive stances? shouldnt they be neck-and-neck if equally valid? hmm. so to justify that tanks beating them on parse you need to sell "utility is more important than tanking" atleast barely. along comes reckless, and now you have to say "utility is more important than tanking" not barely, but by lightyears (therefore we need to throw tanks a bone with a new uber stance). nobody believes that. TANKING is more important than utility so they shouldnt beat utility on the communal secondary role of dps in any stance at all <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" />justifying reckless is an exercise in futility. its exactly the wrong direction if you want balance and class differentiation. it appears to be a hack fix to control raid demographics. the elegant balanced fix is giving tanks a utility stance and pushing out some chanters bards and maybe some healers.6 healer classes, but often 8 raid slots.4 chanter/bard, but often 8 raid slots.6 fighters but only 3 raid slots. the answer is NOT to chew into the dps niche. its saturated.</blockquote>I've said multiple times reckless needs to be fixed, the way you under value utility though is a joke. What do you consider being able to perform? Killing EM SS? Even that with no buffs on your tank and no hate transfer will be quite the chore.Your class pick up more utility also to get more of your class in a raid and bump utility out if thats the path you want.You list the tanking tools as if there something special, every tanking tool is no different than your dps tools thats a base of the class, positioning a mob for christs sake your reaching so deep, ill throw out scouts get to attack from behind when not tanking!!! To equal your logic.A Part of agro is damage im sorry good dps is breaking 800-900 1mil dps, tanks doing 500k+ should be happening with dps capable of those numbers actually 3/4 of that we should be doing making up 500k dps of hate is a huge gap to pick up.And what progression kills have been made with out any of the unneeded utility exactly zero thats what. BTW I think both utility and fighters should get a dps boost to be honest real good dps has blown both hose groups away.This game is DPS thats what everyone and every raid leader wants, not sitting around with 500,000k taunts you want to dump every fighter for ever from a raid except the bare minimum do that to them.And ill say it again if they balance it, then it wont be so bad it allready does squat for Guardians and Zerkers ok for Brawlers if we stack crap and blow CM who BTW brawlers cant keep there block chance like Plates do in reckless by equipping shield, and really only consistantly boosts Pallies and especially SK's.Then they can balance out utility which does do a lot and takes alot of spots despite what you think about them, not us few fighters, also how many extra fighters are in groups now and raids? I'll answer that for you also zero to 1. And usaully zero.And why bring up the raid spot arguement to the class that has the fewest.

ratbast

08-06-2012, 10:35 PM

<cite>Rasttan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>I've said multiple times reckless needs to be fixed, the way you under value utility though is a joke. What do you consider being able to perform? Killing EM SS? Even that with no buffs on your tank and no hate transfer will be quite the chore.yes chore, but still possible. impossible without tanks or healers or enough dps. utility is not a requirement. its contribution is not unique or powerful enough to hold up the raid when its absent.Your class pick up more utility also to get more of your class in a raid and bump utility out if thats the path you want.You list the tanking tools as if there something special, every tanking tool is no different than your dps tools thats a base of the class, positioning a mob for christs sake your reaching so deep, ill throw out scouts get to attack from behind when not tanking!!! To equal your logic.yes scouts have back attack, stealth, melee range limitations, meanwhile mages only have los. its something that matters. just like positioning the mob so it doesnt frontal the raid. tanks positioning job is a million times more crucial, and it effects EVERYBODY. the next most important positioning class is healers (keep tank up so he can do his million times more important job), then scouts (only impacts their own dps), then mages (only impacts their own dps).A Part of agro is damage im sorry good dps is breaking 800-900 1mil dps, tanks doing 500k+ should be happening with dps capable of those numbers actually 3/4 of that we should be doing making up 500k dps of hate is a huge gap to pick up.having dps be source of aggro is arbitrary. obviously its a good idea for nondamage aggro or else there would only be 2 top roles. dps and heal. picking up 500k is meaningless. hate doesnt impact mobs health. its an intangible stat that has no logical reason to be limited to 500k or 500 quintillion. it doesnt effect mobs health. positional hate does up to infinity. whats a measely 500k? if number logic is your thing, they need to remove positionals.And what progression kills have been made with out any of the unneeded utility exactly zero thats what.you are making it an all or none argument, and reducing context to a tiny sliver of content: server or ww 1st kils. with no tanks its the same, no progress. its clear that you can get by missing utility. the ONLY utilty role that holds up progression is mana healer. and thats for a tiny fraction of content. i wasnt trying to say ww 1st progression kills are done without utility. casual guilds beat their own progression mobs while missing some or all utility on a constant on-going basis. utility doesnt hold a candle compared to fighters. casual guilds dont beat their progression mobs without tanks, healers, or required dps (something utilty is at best only indirectly helping-THAT is not an equal role).BTW I think both utility and fighters should get a dps boost to be honest real good dps has blown both hose groups away.so in your opinion, a fighter reckless, while leaving utility behind, is the wrong answer.This game is DPS thats what everyone and every raid leader wants, not sitting around with 500,000k taunts you want to dump every fighter for ever from a raid except the bare minimum do that to them.And ill say it again if they balance it, then it wont be so bad it allready does squat for Guardians and Zerkers ok for Brawlers if we stack crap and blow CM who BTW brawlers cant keep there block chance like Plates do in reckless by equipping shield, and really only consistantly boosts Pallies and especially SK's.you are talking about interarchtype balance, meanwhile, there are 19 classes outside the archtype who receive zilch as tanks got this new stance out of thin air. its disingenuous/intellecutal dishonest for pro-reckless ppl to say balance matters.Then they can balance out utility which does do a lot and takes alot of spots despite what you think about them, not us few fighters, also how many extra fighters are in groups now and raids? I'll answer that for you also zero to 1. And usaully zero.then? tanks are already beating utility, if you absolutely must boost them at different times, why would you boost the class doing more damage first, if both need help?And why bring up the raid spot arguement to the class that has the fewest.i dont disagree with bringing in more fighters to raid or group, i disagree with the direction of the new stance.at the end of the day, dps is a secondary role for both tanks and utility. how does buffing the stronger of the 2 make any sense? and this while fighters contribute more to success of raid. just compare the classes, how crucial they are, how fun to play, and then adjust where they ought to measure up for this secondary role. reckless makes no sense if balance is even remotely desired.</blockquote>

Landiin

08-07-2012, 06:28 AM

Rasttan

08-07-2012, 03:21 PM

<cite>ratbast wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rasttan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>I've said multiple times reckless needs to be fixed, the way you under value utility though is a joke. What do you consider being able to perform? Killing EM SS? Even that with no buffs on your tank and no hate transfer will be quite the chore.yes chore, but still possible. impossible without tanks or healers or enough dps. utility is not a requirement. its contribution is not unique or powerful enough to hold up the raid when its absent.Your class pick up more utility also to get more of your class in a raid and bump utility out if thats the path you want.You list the tanking tools as if there something special, every tanking tool is no different than your dps tools thats a base of the class, positioning a mob for christs sake your reaching so deep, ill throw out scouts get to attack from behind when not tanking!!! To equal your logic.yes scouts have back attack, stealth, melee range limitations, meanwhile mages only have los. its something that matters. just like positioning the mob so it doesnt frontal the raid. tanks positioning job is a million times more crucial, and it effects EVERYBODY. the next most important positioning class is healers (keep tank up so he can do his million times more important job), then scouts (only impacts their own dps), then mages (only impacts their own dps).A Part of agro is damage im sorry good dps is breaking 800-900 1mil dps, tanks doing 500k+ should be happening with dps capable of those numbers actually 3/4 of that we should be doing making up 500k dps of hate is a huge gap to pick up.having dps be source of aggro is arbitrary. obviously its a good idea for nondamage aggro or else there would only be 2 top roles. dps and heal. picking up 500k is meaningless. hate doesnt impact mobs health. its an intangible stat that has no logical reason to be limited to 500k or 500 quintillion. it doesnt effect mobs health. positional hate does up to infinity. whats a measely 500k? if number logic is your thing, they need to remove positionals.And what progression kills have been made with out any of the unneeded utility exactly zero thats what.you are making it an all or none argument, and reducing context to a tiny sliver of content: server or ww 1st kils. with no tanks its the same, no progress. its clear that you can get by missing utility. the ONLY utilty role that holds up progression is mana healer. and thats for a tiny fraction of content. i wasnt trying to say ww 1st progression kills are done without utility. casual guilds beat their own progression mobs while missing some or all utility on a constant on-going basis. utility doesnt hold a candle compared to fighters. casual guilds dont beat their progression mobs without tanks, healers, or required dps (something utilty is at best only indirectly helping-THAT is not an equal role).BTW I think both utility and fighters should get a dps boost to be honest real good dps has blown both hose groups away.so in your opinion, a fighter reckless, while leaving utility behind, is the wrong answer.This game is DPS thats what everyone and every raid leader wants, not sitting around with 500,000k taunts you want to dump every fighter for ever from a raid except the bare minimum do that to them.And ill say it again if they balance it, then it wont be so bad it allready does squat for Guardians and Zerkers ok for Brawlers if we stack crap and blow CM who BTW brawlers cant keep there block chance like Plates do in reckless by equipping shield, and really only consistantly boosts Pallies and especially SK's.you are talking about interarchtype balance, meanwhile, there are 19 classes outside the archtype who receive zilch as tanks got this new stance out of thin air. its disingenuous/intellecutal dishonest for pro-reckless ppl to say balance matters.Then they can balance out utility which does do a lot and takes alot of spots despite what you think about them, not us few fighters, also how many extra fighters are in groups now and raids? I'll answer that for you also zero to 1. And usaully zero.then? tanks are already beating utility, if you absolutely must boost them at different times, why would you boost the class doing more damage first, if both need help?And why bring up the raid spot arguement to the class that has the fewest.i dont disagree with bringing in more fighters to raid or group, i disagree with the direction of the new stance.at the end of the day, dps is a secondary role for both tanks and utility. how does buffing the stronger of the 2 make any sense? and this while fighters contribute more to success of raid. just compare the classes, how crucial they are, how fun to play, and then adjust where they ought to measure up for this secondary role. reckless makes no sense if balance is even remotely desired.</blockquote></blockquote>You bring up non game related abilites and try tie them into the class abilities thats where we disagree. Positioning a mob is a player skill from the guy behind the keyboard the importance of it means nothing as it has nothing to do with an in game skill/tool. Fighters are not fun to play its tedious you stare at casting bars, and watch timers. You eat more control effects than any other class. Fighter is a mind set of play alot of people avoid just like utility, just with different challenges.Your opinion is that utilitys role is hardly needed, mine is that not only do they do good dps allready they do a ton of other stuff way more than any other class in specific game abilities not tied to player skill. And they are very needed much more so than you think and they contribute more to raids than any other class group, they are the most represented classes in a raid for a reason.Sorry we dont agree but Fighters should be the top t2 dps class, thats my opinion.

ratbast

08-07-2012, 05:51 PM

<cite>Rasttan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Sorry we dont agree but Fighters should be the top t2 dps class, thats my opinion.</blockquote>kudos for honesty.might be informative to understand how you arrived at that opinion, so we can lump those arguments into your conclusion, meaning they are on same wavelength.i dont think anyone except those who play fighters as mains (and then only some) would agree with you. imo, most ppl see your definition/design of fighter dps to be radical/extremist. im betting rogues and summoners would vehemently agree.every time a t2 dps dies (lack of survivability) a rasttan designed fighter rejoices and dances on their grave. why did those fools roll rogues and summoners? idiots. not only less survivability, but less dps. (Fighters should be the top t2 dps) man those guys really are stupid.

Rasttan

08-07-2012, 07:14 PM

<cite>ratbast wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rasttan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Sorry we dont agree but Fighters should be the top t2 dps class, thats my opinion.</blockquote>kudos for honesty.might be informative to understand how you arrived at that opinion, so we can lump those arguments into your conclusion, meaning they are on same wavelength.i dont think anyone except those who play fighters as mains (and then only some) would agree with you. imo, most ppl see your definition/design of fighter dps to be radical/extremist. im betting rogues and summoners would vehemently agree.every time a t2 dps dies (lack of survivability) a rasttan designed fighter rejoices and dances on their grave. why did those fools roll rogues and summoners? idiots. not only less survivability, but less dps. (Fighters should be the top t2 dps) man those guys really are stupid.</blockquote>Conj/Necro/Swash are allready T1 dps Brigs need a boost but good ones hold there own, you make way to many assumptions, you assume you speak for the masses, good players never want to see anyone die, You must play with an entirely different group of players than I do because I see much more achieved from the classes you seem to think are at a dissadvantage.Best of luck in your gaming adventures

ratbast

08-07-2012, 08:06 PM

ive never heard of your new model. there is the standard model, with preds, sorcs as t1, rogues summoner as t2, and utlity as t3. then there are player defined models that track current trends. most ppl put beastlord at top, maybe with assassin, necro, warlock too. then t2 as wizard, conjy, swash, brig or some variation. the model you are proposing should have been defined if you want to use something radically different. there is no way swash and beastlord are the same tier of anyones model except yours. yours is so flat that it might not even need a third tier, let alone 4th or 5th. honestly i dont care, you just need to communicate your own proprietary model in advance. i guarantee the classes you are putting in t1 dont think they all are in same stratosphere. maybe this will help you but maybe not. but...your original statement about fighters beating all t2 dps is a SHOULD kind of statement about an ideal world. your last response is in a completely different vein. its about current reality. you are arguing apples and oranges to defend your position. not a good sign. the theory behind these classes is that rogues and summoners are a lower tier than nonbuffing/nondebuffing sorc/preds. therefore your theory that fighters should beat all t2 should not hinge on who is currently occupying the t2 slot on the actual parse. tbh i have a hard time taking you at your word, because if you move all the t2 into t1, then your original statement makes no sense "Fighters should be the top t2 dps class". who is left in t2 for them to be the top over? you even think brigs need to move up a tier. its much more plausible that you irrationally believe tanks should beat all t2 (in standard model) and just wont defend your statement when confronted. (edit: i think it deserves to be noted that you are a proponent of reckless)

Davngr

08-08-2012, 02:49 PM

i don't know how to get this thru to you but i'll give it a shot. I PLAY A DPS CLASS TO PARSE.. ok? think we got that! I PLAY AT 100% FOR EVERY PULL SO THAT I CAN TOP THE ZONE WIDE PARSE... that's why i play a damage dealer TANK CLASSES HAVE RECEIVED VERY FEW DAMAGE CENTRIC ABILITIES ACROSS THE LIFE OF THIS GAME.. they have received TANKING ABILITIES because they are TANKS! DAMAGE CLASSES HAVE RECEIVED VERY FEW SURVIVABILITY ABILITIES ACROSS THE LIFE OF THIS GAME.. they have received DAMAGE DEALING ABILITIES because they are DAMAGE DEALERS! going to make a leap of faith now and hope you can stay with me. this is a simple concept but it might go over most peoples heads. to do the damage that i now do on my dps classes i have to use all those various ABILITIES that i have received over the years: MY DPS CLASSES DAMAGE IS DEPENDENT ON HOW WELL I USE THESE ABILITIES. to do the damage that i now do on my tank classes i pretty much only have to time auto attack and buttons as they light up: MY TANKS DAMAGE IS DEPENDENT ON TRIVIAL KEY PRESSING because THE CLASS ABILITIES I HAVE ACCRUED THRU OUT THE YEARS ARE FOR TANKING not DAMAGE DEALING. what does this mean? it means that i won't ever take a zonewide again because the crusader does not need to use his temps or special abilities to do the same quality damage as me. meaning that for every pull all he has to do is hit his buttons in any particular order for the most part and do top parse damage. IF he knows the few tricks and tactics he will even higher damage. • i don't care if the harder encounters require them to be in a tanking stance. • i don't care if every high end guild dolt comes here and tells me i'm a bad player. • this was a terrible change and it does not make sense WHAT SO EVER. •THE CRUSADER ALL READY HAD A RAID SPOT! • CRUSADERS ALL READY DID TOP DAMAGE! • OTHER TANKS THAT DID NEED A BOOST GOT VERY LITTLE FROM THIS! this is really simple. how can you possibly not see how bad this change is?

Thalzokal

08-08-2012, 03:18 PM

In raid last night and our Zerker in reckless was outparsing our swash who does very good dps, usually #1 or 2. So what does this mean? Let's start filling raids with 6-8 "TANKS" who can outpase scouts and mages AND take less damage. This makes no sense to me at all.

inspire1444568

08-09-2012, 05:01 PM

Only one suggestion: Reckless should be slightly weaker !And YES, <blockquote>DAMAGE CLASSES HAVE RECEIVED slightly SURVIVABILITY ABILITIES ACROSS THE LIFE OF THIS GAME.. they have received DAMAGE DEALING ABILITIES because they are DAMAGE DEALERS!</blockquote>

inspire1444568

08-09-2012, 05:08 PM

One of the main problems of SOE is the lack of a sense of proportion !

theriatis

08-10-2012, 07:22 AM

<cite>inspire1444568 wrote:</cite><blockquote>One of the main problems of SOE is the lack of a sense of proportion !</blockquote>Please, tell us something we don't already know. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Regards, theriatis.

Jeepned2

08-11-2012, 11:25 AM

This post has made me realize several things about my Troub and Coercer. One, people hate that I am pretty much guaranteed a raid spot since eight raids slots apparently have to be utility. Two, many of you don't think that my utility is really THAT vital. And three, it's clear that SoE isn't going to address any of the Troub's issues anytime in the near future since they are too busy giving us cool things like SOEmote and all that new cool stuff on the sc. So based on all your posts, some extremely well thought out I must say, I have decided to retire both of my utility class toons. Switch my main the other night and am no longer a raiding Troub. I can now stop listening to the arguements as to why so and so should be getting Jester's Cap (sometimes though the reason they NEED Jester's is so funny it was worth seeing them ask for it).For six years I have raided playing utility. I have switched back and forth between the Coercer and the Troub based not on what I wanted to play but what was needed by my guild to help progression. But you all have made me see the light. Playing utility is a thankless job, always has been always will be. We don't show up at the top of parses, we don't heal, we get acussed of being able to goof off while playing (many other decreptions have been used before). Like we can just put ourselves on autofollow and just pay attention when the loot drops. Yes there are people out there who believe we do that.It's probably best that I do retire them now though. Mostly due to the extreme dislike I have of this stance. I would never Jester's Cap a tank in recklessness mode (Yes I do Jester's tanks under certain circumstances, like MT on the pull). I also for the same dislike of the stance, I would never give a tank Peaceful Link if on my Coercer. This may or may not be to the detriment of my raid, so the best thing to do is retire them.Now I'm off to play the class that I always wanted to, Ranger. You know the class that most raiding guilds don't want. Who bring absolutely nothing to the table but DPS? Yea, I may have to sit during some raids, but I'll still be playing a class I really enjoy.And so another raiding Troub and Coercer disappear from the pool and are now sitting in a non-raiding guild. Which is actually pretty refreshing in itself.

sintextblindsu

08-11-2012, 03:07 PM

<cite>Jeepned2 wrote:</cite><blockquote>This post has made me realize several things about my Troub and Coercer. One, people hate that I am pretty much guaranteed a raid spot since eight raids slots apparently have to be utility. Two, many of you don't think that my utility is really THAT vital. And three, it's clear that SoE isn't going to address any of the Troub's issues anytime in the near future since they are too busy giving us cool things like SOEmote and all that new cool stuff on the sc. So based on all your posts, some extremely well thought out I must say, I have decided to retire both of my utility class toons. Switch my main the other night and am no longer a raiding Troub. I can now stop listening to the arguements as to why so and so should be getting Jester's Cap (sometimes though the reason they NEED Jester's is so funny it was worth seeing them ask for it).For six years I have raided playing utility. I have switched back and forth between the Coercer and the Troub based not on what I wanted to play but what was needed by my guild to help progression. But you all have made me see the light. Playing utility is a thankless job, always has been always will be. We don't show up at the top of parses, we don't heal, we get acussed of being able to goof off while playing (many other decreptions have been used before). Like we can just put ourselves on autofollow and just pay attention when the loot drops. Yes there are people out there who believe we do that.It's probably best that I do retire them now though. Mostly due to the extreme dislike I have of this stance. I would never Jester's Cap a tank in recklessness mode (Yes I do Jester's tanks under certain circumstances, like MT on the pull). I also for the same dislike of the stance, I would never give a tank Peaceful Link if on my Coercer. This may or may not be to the detriment of my raid, so the best thing to do is retire them.Now I'm off to play the class that I always wanted to, Ranger. You know the class that most raiding guilds don't want. Who bring absolutely nothing to the table but DPS? Yea, I may have to sit during some raids, but I'll still be playing a class I really enjoy.And so another raiding Troub and Coercer disappear from the pool and are now sitting in a non-raiding guild. Which is actually pretty refreshing in itself.</blockquote> great post and entirely true. maybe someone in the devs corner will realize what they're doing to the game.edit. ever since this BS went live there have been a lot of people missing raid, people that use to never miss one raid. wonder why?

Hammieee

08-11-2012, 03:51 PM

<cite>Jeepned2 wrote:</cite><blockquote>This post has made me realize several things about my Troub and Coercer. One, people hate that I am pretty much guaranteed a raid spot since eight raids slots apparently have to be utility. Two, many of you don't think that my utility is really THAT vital. And three, it's clear that SoE isn't going to address any of the Troub's issues anytime in the near future since they are too busy giving us cool things like SOEmote and all that new cool stuff on the sc. So based on all your posts, some extremely well thought out I must say, I have decided to retire both of my utility class toons. Switch my main the other night and am no longer a raiding Troub. I can now stop listening to the arguements as to why so and so should be getting Jester's Cap (sometimes though the reason they NEED Jester's is so funny it was worth seeing them ask for it).For six years I have raided playing utility. I have switched back and forth between the Coercer and the Troub based not on what I wanted to play but what was needed by my guild to help progression. But you all have made me see the light. Playing utility is a thankless job, always has been always will be. We don't show up at the top of parses, we don't heal, we get acussed of being able to goof off while playing (many other decreptions have been used before). Like we can just put ourselves on autofollow and just pay attention when the loot drops. Yes there are people out there who believe we do that.It's probably best that I do retire them now though. Mostly due to the extreme dislike I have of this stance. I would never Jester's Cap a tank in recklessness mode (Yes I do Jester's tanks under certain circumstances, like MT on the pull). I also for the same dislike of the stance, I would never give a tank Peaceful Link if on my Coercer. This may or may not be to the detriment of my raid, so the best thing to do is retire them.Now I'm off to play the class that I always wanted to, Ranger. You know the class that most raiding guilds don't want. Who bring absolutely nothing to the table but DPS? Yea, I may have to sit during some raids, but I'll still be playing a class I really enjoy.And so another raiding Troub and Coercer disappear from the pool and are now sitting in a non-raiding guild. Which is actually pretty refreshing in itself.</blockquote>Utility hits buttons and makes the real dps classes stronger, and should also be putting out some decent numbers and going to a ranger is np. They are a fun class and any guild to have one is getting great dps. Regardless not peaceful linking a tank just because you don't like that a class can be flexible and not outparse real dps classes is ridicuolous. The only time that i am tanking and someone rips agro it is because it is another tank every dps class in raid i talk to is always at about 30-40 hate and it spikes to 50 if they timewarp on pull. Agro just plain isnt hard to get on a dps class, with the troubs dehate and the fact that most guilds run 2 coercers its simple to PL your swash/assassin/brigand/ranger everyone there has a transfer but the ranger so in reality just a ranger but most guilds run two mage groups one mage group and 2 melee groups. In our guild we run four tanks im a bruiser so i get dehates so its not a problem but our shadowknight sure. But regardless lets stop QQing over something that isnt broken and doesn't create any problems other than bad dps classes saying its OP because they can't outparse a tank.

Jeepned2

08-11-2012, 04:42 PM

<cite>Hammasaurusrex@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>Utility hits buttons and makes the real dps classes stronger, and should also be putting out some decent numbers and going to a ranger is np. They are a fun class and any guild to have one is getting great dps. Regardless not peaceful linking a tank just because you don't like that a class can be flexible and not outparse real dps classes is ridicuolous. The only time that i am tanking and someone rips agro it is because it is another tank every dps class in raid i talk to is always at about 30-40 hate and it spikes to 50 if they timewarp on pull. Agro just plain isnt hard to get on a dps class, with the troubs dehate and the fact that most guilds run 2 coercers its simple to PL your swash/assassin/brigand/ranger everyone there has a transfer but the ranger so in reality just a ranger but most guilds run two mage groups one mage group and 2 melee groups. In our guild we run four tanks im a bruiser so i get dehates so its not a problem but our shadowknight sure. But regardless lets stop QQing over something that isnt broken and doesn't create any problems other than bad dps classes saying its OP because they can't outparse a tank.</blockquote>Some things to correct:1. I don't dislike any class. I don't peaceful link tanks not because I don't like the class, it's because tanks aren't suppose to need peaceful link. They are suppose to ... well... be a tank and ask for my hate, not my dehate. I also only give de-hate to those in a troub group if no one else in the dirge group(s) needs a de-hate. It's wasteful since the troub almost takes them to the dehate cap by him/her self.2. We run three tanks normally, Monk (MT) and either a Zerk and a Pally or two Pallys.3. Getting out dps'd by a tank was never a concern on my Troub. Could care less who outparses me (OK, if they were to do something with the Mystics and they started out parsing me, that would be a problem for me). DPS isn't my main job.4. We don't run two mage groups anymore. Beastlords made sure of that. Now it's MT, OT, Mage and Melee groups. So only one troub needed. On my troub, Jesters go to Wizard, Warlocks, Summoners, Beastlords, Assassins, Rangers first (not in that order either) then anyone else. That puts Recklessness tanks way down the list. As for my Coercer's Peaceful Link, same people on the list. Again Recklessness tanks don't and won't make the cut.5. Never said that Recklessness was broken. The idea and concept is what is broken. If you are going to let tanks to massive dps, the what's next? How about Brigands get a new stance that doubles or triple thier avoidance, mit and health and adds an aggro proc to all ca's so they can tank? Same for Swashys? SoE is heading down a slippery slope where people are going to start demanding that since they did this for tanks, we want X ability for scouts or for mages or for healers. Why not have just one class with four stances so you can be a tank, healer, scout or mage? That is my problem with Recklessness and that's why in my own little (very little) fashion I have made the decision that no recklessness tank will recieve any of my single target buffs. And now that I've moved on from my utility classes I guess it doesn't matter. For your sake, let's just hope that more utility class players don't feel about it the same way I do. Will I ever return to raiding on my utility class toons? If my guild got desparate for a Coercer or a Troub then yes I'd play mine, with the understanding that there be a serious effort to recruit a Troub or Coercer so I could return to my Ranger. It would also come with the understanding that I would continue my Recklessness tank buff ban.

ratbast

08-11-2012, 06:07 PM

<cite>sintextblindsu wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Jeepned2 wrote:</cite><blockquote>This post has made me realize several things about my Troub and Coercer. One, people hate that I am pretty much guaranteed a raid spot since eight raids slots apparently have to be utility. Two, many of you don't think that my utility is really THAT vital. And three, it's clear that SoE isn't going to address any of the Troub's issues anytime in the near future since they are too busy giving us cool things like SOEmote and all that new cool stuff on the sc. So based on all your posts, some extremely well thought out I must say, I have decided to retire both of my utility class toons. Switch my main the other night and am no longer a raiding Troub. I can now stop listening to the arguements as to why so and so should be getting Jester's Cap (sometimes though the reason they NEED Jester's is so funny it was worth seeing them ask for it).For six years I have raided playing utility. I have switched back and forth between the Coercer and the Troub based not on what I wanted to play but what was needed by my guild to help progression. But you all have made me see the light. Playing utility is a thankless job, always has been always will be. We don't show up at the top of parses, we don't heal, we get acussed of being able to goof off while playing (many other decreptions have been used before). Like we can just put ourselves on autofollow and just pay attention when the loot drops. Yes there are people out there who believe we do that.It's probably best that I do retire them now though. Mostly due to the extreme dislike I have of this stance. I would never Jester's Cap a tank in recklessness mode (Yes I do Jester's tanks under certain circumstances, like MT on the pull). I also for the same dislike of the stance, I would never give a tank Peaceful Link if on my Coercer. This may or may not be to the detriment of my raid, so the best thing to do is retire them.Now I'm off to play the class that I always wanted to, Ranger. You know the class that most raiding guilds don't want. Who bring absolutely nothing to the table but DPS? Yea, I may have to sit during some raids, but I'll still be playing a class I really enjoy.And so another raiding Troub and Coercer disappear from the pool and are now sitting in a non-raiding guild. Which is actually pretty refreshing in itself.</blockquote> great post and entirely true. maybe someone in the devs corner will realize what they're doing to the game.edit. ever since this BS went live there have been a lot of people missing raid, people that use to never miss one raid. wonder why?</blockquote>i raid with a couple guilds, and i noticed a recent absenteeism trend in both of them. i had attributed it to the progression timeline not being smooth (skyshrine -> hm drunder). ofc they were absent so i couldnt ask them what the real reason was.im glad they revamped hm drunder itemization. smoothing out the progression timeline is infinitely more important than creating this aberrant stance (reckless). instead of solving an motivation issue for playerbase, they bring in something that demoralizes marginal dpsers. reckles would be fixing the wrong thing (to focus on), except its not fixing anything. its breaking it. so in this case its breaking the wrong thing.the scripting difference between em skyshrine and hm drunder is like night and day. if such a large performance req gap is intended, casuals need some kind of congratulations when they kill em dozekar x4 to let them know they won the game for their playstyle. otherwise guilds will keep scheduling hm drunder nite, and ppl will be frustrated and be absent, and trend towards quiting.

sintextblindsu

08-12-2012, 12:04 AM

<cite>ratbast wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>sintextblindsu wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Jeepned2 wrote:</cite><blockquote>This post has made me realize several things about my Troub and Coercer. One, people hate that I am pretty much guaranteed a raid spot since eight raids slots apparently have to be utility. Two, many of you don't think that my utility is really THAT vital. And three, it's clear that SoE isn't going to address any of the Troub's issues anytime in the near future since they are too busy giving us cool things like SOEmote and all that new cool stuff on the sc. So based on all your posts, some extremely well thought out I must say, I have decided to retire both of my utility class toons. Switch my main the other night and am no longer a raiding Troub. I can now stop listening to the arguements as to why so and so should be getting Jester's Cap (sometimes though the reason they NEED Jester's is so funny it was worth seeing them ask for it).For six years I have raided playing utility. I have switched back and forth between the Coercer and the Troub based not on what I wanted to play but what was needed by my guild to help progression. But you all have made me see the light. Playing utility is a thankless job, always has been always will be. We don't show up at the top of parses, we don't heal, we get acussed of being able to goof off while playing (many other decreptions have been used before). Like we can just put ourselves on autofollow and just pay attention when the loot drops. Yes there are people out there who believe we do that.It's probably best that I do retire them now though. Mostly due to the extreme dislike I have of this stance. I would never Jester's Cap a tank in recklessness mode (Yes I do Jester's tanks under certain circumstances, like MT on the pull). I also for the same dislike of the stance, I would never give a tank Peaceful Link if on my Coercer. This may or may not be to the detriment of my raid, so the best thing to do is retire them.Now I'm off to play the class that I always wanted to, Ranger. You know the class that most raiding guilds don't want. Who bring absolutely nothing to the table but DPS? Yea, I may have to sit during some raids, but I'll still be playing a class I really enjoy.And so another raiding Troub and Coercer disappear from the pool and are now sitting in a non-raiding guild. Which is actually pretty refreshing in itself.</blockquote> great post and entirely true. maybe someone in the devs corner will realize what they're doing to the game.edit. ever since this BS went live there have been a lot of people missing raid, people that use to never miss one raid. wonder why?</blockquote>i raid with a couple guilds, and i noticed a recent absenteeism trend in both of them. i had attributed it to the progression timeline not being smooth (skyshrine -> hm drunder). ofc they were absent so i couldnt ask them what the real reason was.im glad they revamped hm drunder itemization. smoothing out the progression timeline is infinitely more important than creating this aberrant stance (reckless). instead of solving an motivation issue for playerbase, they bring in something that demoralizes marginal dpsers. reckles would be fixing the wrong thing (to focus on), except its not fixing anything. its breaking it. so in this case its breaking the wrong thing.the scripting difference between em skyshrine and hm drunder is like night and day. if such a large performance req gap is intended, casuals need some kind of congratulations when they kill em dozekar x4 to let them know they won the game for their playstyle. otherwise guilds will keep scheduling hm drunder nite, and ppl will be frustrated and be absent, and trend towards quiting.</blockquote>i can understand why you would think that it might be something else that is suddenly "demoralizing" players but it's pretty obvious to me why. since these players have face planted vs content endless times and logged in the next night for raid happy and cheery ready for another round of dirt munching.

Loldawg

08-12-2012, 03:44 AM

<cite>ratbast wrote:</cite><blockquote>yes all have secondary function to contribute dps. but the role of utility is not a fully legitimate role. tanking stands on its own two feet as a worthwhile, needed, essential job in every single fight. utility is not just not in the spotlight, its absolutely thankless. and you can get by without it a million times easier than without a tank.giving the class with the more valid role ALSO higher dps (for both class types its a secondary function) is bad balance. thus tanks win over utility in 1) primary role (tanking > utility) and 2) secondary role (dps parse: fighters beat chanters and bards).utility is a mongrel role. this is why is hard to recruit and ppl dont enjoy the classes as much as others. adjusting the secondary function of the nonpuredps is a no-brainer. reckless takes an existing imbalance and explodes it.any tank alternate stance needs to be utility and a direct move away from their own personal dps.</blockquote>they should've given the dps boost to chanters / bards. tank dps is too high for how important they are to raids. instead you see healers and tanks out parsing bards and chanters. no wonder its hard to find 8 utility. totally thankless and boring classes to play.

sintextblindsu

08-12-2012, 04:01 AM

<cite>Loldawg@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>ratbast wrote:</cite><blockquote>yes all have secondary function to contribute dps. but the role of utility is not a fully legitimate role. tanking stands on its own two feet as a worthwhile, needed, essential job in every single fight. utility is not just not in the spotlight, its absolutely thankless. and you can get by without it a million times easier than without a tank.giving the class with the more valid role ALSO higher dps (for both class types its a secondary function) is bad balance. thus tanks win over utility in 1) primary role (tanking > utility) and 2) secondary role (dps parse: fighters beat chanters and bards).utility is a mongrel role. this is why is hard to recruit and ppl dont enjoy the classes as much as others. adjusting the secondary function of the nonpuredps is a no-brainer. reckless takes an existing imbalance and explodes it.any tank alternate stance needs to be utility and a direct move away from their own personal dps.</blockquote>they should've given the dps boost to chanters / bards. tank dps is too high for how important they are to raids. instead you see healers and tanks out parsing bards and chanters. no wonder its hard to find 8 utility. totally thankless and boring classes to play. </blockquote>coulden't agree more. open up raid wide/cross group buffs and give utility more damage. if a raid wants to bring more than one utility they can but don't have to.

Bruener

08-12-2012, 04:34 PM

<cite>sintextblindsu wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Loldawg@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>ratbast wrote:</cite><blockquote>yes all have secondary function to contribute dps. but the role of utility is not a fully legitimate role. tanking stands on its own two feet as a worthwhile, needed, essential job in every single fight. utility is not just not in the spotlight, its absolutely thankless. and you can get by without it a million times easier than without a tank.giving the class with the more valid role ALSO higher dps (for both class types its a secondary function) is bad balance. thus tanks win over utility in 1) primary role (tanking > utility) and 2) secondary role (dps parse: fighters beat chanters and bards).utility is a mongrel role. this is why is hard to recruit and ppl dont enjoy the classes as much as others. adjusting the secondary function of the nonpuredps is a no-brainer. reckless takes an existing imbalance and explodes it.any tank alternate stance needs to be utility and a direct move away from their own personal dps.</blockquote>they should've given the dps boost to chanters / bards. tank dps is too high for how important they are to raids. instead you see healers and tanks out parsing bards and chanters. no wonder its hard to find 8 utility. totally thankless and boring classes to play. </blockquote>coulden't agree more. open up raid wide/cross group buffs and give utility more damage. if a raid wants to bring more than one utility they can but don't have to.</blockquote>This is a completely different argument and does not belong in this thread.Yes, there is an issue with utility and specifically how many spots they soak up in a raid. This thread though is about Recklessness for Fighters and how /fail DPS classes are jealous of it.

ratbast

08-12-2012, 06:12 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>This is a completely different argument and does not belong in this thread.Yes, there is an issue with utility and specifically how many spots they soak up in a raid. This thread though is about Recklessness for Fighters and how /fail DPS classes are jealous of it.</blockquote>i disagree. this thread is about fighters gaining ground into a world that is not their own: dps.the previous post was stating the correct solution (fighter utility stance INSTEAD of reckless dps stance). instead of fighter moving in on dps (threads concern), it should move into utility.its a solution to the complaint this thread is. imo, extremely relevent.

sintextblindsu

08-12-2012, 06:36 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>sintextblindsu wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Loldawg@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>ratbast wrote:</cite><blockquote>yes all have secondary function to contribute dps. but the role of utility is not a fully legitimate role. tanking stands on its own two feet as a worthwhile, needed, essential job in every single fight. utility is not just not in the spotlight, its absolutely thankless. and you can get by without it a million times easier than without a tank.giving the class with the more valid role ALSO higher dps (for both class types its a secondary function) is bad balance. thus tanks win over utility in 1) primary role (tanking > utility) and 2) secondary role (dps parse: fighters beat chanters and bards).utility is a mongrel role. this is why is hard to recruit and ppl dont enjoy the classes as much as others. adjusting the secondary function of the nonpuredps is a no-brainer. reckless takes an existing imbalance and explodes it.any tank alternate stance needs to be utility and a direct move away from their own personal dps.</blockquote>they should've given the dps boost to chanters / bards. tank dps is too high for how important they are to raids. instead you see healers and tanks out parsing bards and chanters. no wonder its hard to find 8 utility. totally thankless and boring classes to play. </blockquote>coulden't agree more. open up raid wide/cross group buffs and give utility more damage. if a raid wants to bring more than one utility they can but don't have to.</blockquote>This is a completely different argument and does not belong in this thread.Yes, there is an issue with utility and specifically how many spots they soak up in a raid. This thread though is about Recklessness for Fighters and how /fail DPS classes are jealous of it.</blockquote>exactly why wouldn't DPS classes be upset about this change when in fact the best damage ability was given to tank clases two of wich were all ready parsing quite high before hand.

Bruener

08-12-2012, 07:50 PM

<cite>ratbast wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>This is a completely different argument and does not belong in this thread.Yes, there is an issue with utility and specifically how many spots they soak up in a raid. This thread though is about Recklessness for Fighters and how /fail DPS classes are jealous of it.</blockquote>i disagree. this thread is about fighters gaining ground into a world that is not their own: dps.the previous post was stating the correct solution (fighter utility stance INSTEAD of reckless dps stance). instead of fighter moving in on dps (threads concern), it should move into utility.its a solution to the complaint this thread is. imo, extremely relevent.</blockquote>Fighter giving "utility" does exactly the same thing.Sorry, no guild has magically added more Fighters to their roster to fill more spots in raids. Recklessness isn't designed for that. It is designed to keep the current Fighters needed for encounters busy during trash and the other encounters they aren't tanking. So that they aren't sat for more utility/DPS. The argument to give Fighters more utility versus the added DPS is just silly. It would do exactly the same thing as the added DPS only it gives even more to other classes. Classes that don't need it.Real DPS classes still do the top DPS. Great Fighters in Recklessness bring good DPS. But at the end of the day raids still will bring only 4 Fighters to ensure they have enough Fighters for certain content that requires them. The goal of SOE is to keep those 4 Fighters in ALL the time without feeling like a burden on the raid.TBH, I don't think the stance is working because Fighters have too much hate and are too squishy when they get agro now it ends up just slowing the raid down.What really should have been done is simply an increase to Fighter and T2 DPS to close the gap on T1 DPS that has gotten too large since DoV launched. People have a real short memory if they can't remember that Tanks buffed in their group pushed T1 DPS for many many xpacs. I am sure I have some parses from KoS and EoF of our guild Zerker MT'ing back than topping the parse with his temps. It wasn't uncommon to see a Guard in RoK pushing DPS numbers with their Mythical. SKs in TSO. Crusaders + Zerkers in SF. Brawlers actually pushing DPS numbers through all of those. DoV comes along and simply because you play a T1 DPS class it automatically launched you way above everybody else in DPS despite being a mediocre player, or less geared. T1 should never have gotten away from being 20% higher on a parse with equal buffs and skill versus being 100%+ more.And for those arguing about a DPS class bringing just their DPS please don't forget that T1 DPS classes bring some of the best DPS buffs to other classes in the game. Icelash, Hemotoxin, ET, that Warlock buff, etc. Its not like those classes don't also bring some serious raid wide DPS along with their personal DPS. Not to mention how much synergy there is in a group without having more than 1 Fighter in there. All those classes buffing each other is much more efficient than what having a second Fighter in a group would bring.

ratbast

08-12-2012, 09:25 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Fighter giving "utility" does exactly the same thing.(yes but it doesnt crap on utility. whether you like it or not, the dps parse is the holy grail of eq2 glory. ppl in alternate stances should not be winning in this metric)Sorry, no guild has magically added more Fighters to their roster to fill more spots in raids. Recklessness isn't designed for that. It is designed to keep the current Fighters needed for encounters busy during trash and the other encounters they aren't tanking. So that they aren't sat for more utility/DPS. The argument to give Fighters more utility versus the added DPS is just silly. It would do exactly the same thing as the added DPS only it gives even more to other classes. Classes that don't need it.Real DPS classes still do the top DPS. Great Fighters in Recklessness bring good DPS. But at the end of the day raids still will bring only 4 Fighters to ensure they have enough Fighters for certain content that requires them. The goal of SOE is to keep those 4 Fighters in ALL the time without feeling like a burden on the raid.TBH, I don't think the stance is working because Fighters have too much hate and are too squishy when they get agro now it ends up just slowing the raid down.What really should have been done is simply an increase to Fighter and T2 DPS to close the gap on T1 DPS that has gotten too large since DoV launched. People have a real short memory if they can't remember that Tanks buffed in their group pushed T1 DPS for many many xpacs. I am sure I have some parses from KoS and EoF of our guild Zerker MT'ing back than topping the parse with his temps. It wasn't uncommon to see a Guard in RoK pushing DPS numbers with their Mythical. SKs in TSO. Crusaders + Zerkers in SF. Brawlers actually pushing DPS numbers through all of those. DoV comes along and simply because you play a T1 DPS class it automatically launched you way above everybody else in DPS despite being a mediocre player, or less geared. T1 should never have gotten away from being 20% higher on a parse with equal buffs and skill versus being 100%+ more.And for those arguing about a DPS class bringing just their DPS please don't forget that T1 DPS classes bring some of the best DPS buffs to other classes in the game. Icelash, Hemotoxin, ET, that Warlock buff, etc. Its not like those classes don't also bring some serious raid wide DPS along with their personal DPS. Not to mention how much synergy there is in a group without having more than 1 Fighter in there. All those classes buffing each other is much more efficient than what having a second Fighter in a group would bring.</blockquote>your solution of reducing gap between nonpure dps and pure dps is a great subject. logically, if over time ppl get better at their niche, pure dps will exponentially break away from nonpure, BECAUSE BUFFERS WILL GET BETTER AT BUFFING. (and nonpure will get better at whatever their nonpure thingy is, in contrast to getting better at dps)to not explode dps gaps, pure dps would have to stagnate and utility would have to stagnate. the solution is for hate gain to be taunt based, NOT DPS BASED. making tanks hold aggro thru dps is bad design for many reasons.i dont mind a periodic dps imbalance reset, but ppl play these classes for a reason, they SHOULD be doing more. letting tanks even be marginal dps buff targets for tc, ut, bc is insanity.

Bruener

08-12-2012, 09:38 PM

<cite>ratbast wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Fighter giving "utility" does exactly the same thing.(yes but it doesnt crap on utility. whether you like it or not, the dps parse is the holy grail of eq2 glory. ppl in alternate stances should not be winning in this metric)</blockquote></blockquote>They aren't unless there is an extreme skill difference, gear difference, or both.

ratbast

08-12-2012, 11:03 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>ratbast wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Fighter giving "utility" does exactly the same thing.(yes but it doesnt crap on utility. whether you like it or not, the dps parse is the holy grail of eq2 glory. ppl in alternate stances should not be winning in this metric)</blockquote></blockquote>They aren't unless there is an extreme skill difference, gear difference, or both.</blockquote>i actually meant winning over utility and generally winning at life. i did NOT mean being #1 on the parse. i would be surprised if reckless was that imbalanced that they were the de facto new beastlords. they dont have to be #1 to be game breaking.

theriatis

08-13-2012, 04:37 AM

Hi,what did we learn from previous Threads with Reckless in the Subject ?Whining/flaming/namecalling gets threads closed.That's what Atan was trying to avoid in his thread.So - how could SoE fix Recklessness ?Lets first have a look at the Basics:One of the Problems seems that the different Tank Classes provide different DPS with the Reckless Stance and differentSurvival ability. If the Powers that be could bring them at least on a Basic Level in the same League, (which is hard enough) that would be a start.The two basic Questions someone could ask is: 1. How do the different tank classes do DPS ?Is it AE or Single Target ? Do they get the most of CAs or Autoattack ? Is Spell or Melee providing more DPS for them ?2. How do they survive an Encounter ?Is it mitigation ? Is it avoidance ? Is it Blockchance ? Is it CAs or Spells ? (or a weird mixture of all ?)This is just tackling the basics, what i have not (yet) in this equotation is Gear/AAs (and i will not go as far and bringing the individual players skill into it).Having three different Reckless Stances for the Three Subtypes would make sense, but this will be a little more Development Time (maybe doing less SC Sales and more Bugfixing would do the trick *coughs*).To bring every tank on one level in Reckless will not be possible, so at least bring them in the same league.Someone care to make a list so everyone could see were and how the Stance for every Class should be tweaked ?Thats what i was missing here...Regards, theriatis.

sintextblindsu

08-13-2012, 06:11 AM

i'm not going to run exact numbers because until a player is raid buffed it's anyone's call how damage will increase. i know boxing and kiling dummys on test didn't give me any perspective on how insane my crusaders damage would be on live. • do a "double CA" like the prestige do now. so your ca hits twice like SDA(yes it would be a triple CA hit with the prestige) . this will remove the scaling problem with raid/group buffs where a tank in reckless is getting double the benefit and thus breaking balanced effects along with any future effects. add an auto attack multiplier bonus. • stay away from anything that flat out increases base damage in any way shape or form and clearly stay from any raw base % increase to back bone stats such as STR, potency and critical bonus. • lower the 50% inc damage to 20%(maintained 50% inc damage is just as broken as double potency) or keep it at 50% but only when being targeted (thus no penalty when not being targeted). • removed block. i would still rather my tanks get better at tanking not damage dealing but that's just a personal thing.

Cyrdemac

08-13-2012, 06:33 AM

I guess, you guys are aware, that they removed chance to block in Recklessness already on Test? A Fighter in Recklessness has now less avoidance than a scout in off stance, not a single detaunt/deaggro tool and still gets 50% more damage, even on range?

theriatis

08-13-2012, 07:00 AM

Yeap.And thats the Basis Problem: Lack of Proportion. No Fine-Tuning any more.To less DPS ? Oh, lets just add 50% Potency and get over with it.To much survival ? Oh, lets just remove Block and get over with it.Reckless Stance was on test, all the Problems where described, no one seemed to care, it got to live...and now we all are - in deep dirt.Everytime a new mechanic is added to fix problems which are inherently in the game, they are added in a way that it either screws up with current mechanics or is just way out of Proportion.So, discussions start. SoE could prevent all this flaming and whining with just take a bit more time and handle such things with care and not stomping in a porcelain shop like an elephant.And yes, this is not the first time such a thing was done; it was done before and nothing was learned from it.Regards, theriatis.

ratbast

08-13-2012, 07:44 AM

<cite>theriatis wrote:</cite><blockquote>Hi,what did we learn from previous Threads with Reckless in the Subject ?Whining/flaming/namecalling gets threads closed.That's what Atan was trying to avoid in his thread.So - how could SoE fix Recklessness ?Lets first have a look at the Basics:One of the Problems seems that the different Tank Classes provide different DPS with the Reckless Stance and differentSurvival ability. If the Powers that be could bring them at least on a Basic Level in the same League, (which is hard enough) that would be a start.The two basic Questions someone could ask is: 1. How do the different tank classes do DPS ?Is it AE or Single Target ? Do they get the most of CAs or Autoattack ? Is Spell or Melee providing more DPS for them ?2. How do they survive an Encounter ?Is it mitigation ? Is it avoidance ? Is it Blockchance ? Is it CAs or Spells ? (or a weird mixture of all ?)This is just tackling the basics, what i have not (yet) in this equotation is Gear/AAs (and i will not go as far and bringing the individual players skill into it).Having three different Reckless Stances for the Three Subtypes would make sense, but this will be a little more Development Time (maybe doing less SC Sales and more Bugfixing would do the trick *coughs*).To bring every tank on one level in Reckless will not be possible, so at least bring them in the same league.Someone care to make a list so everyone could see were and how the Stance for every Class should be tweaked ?Thats what i was missing here...Regards, theriatis.</blockquote>why would you bring another threads topic here? especially a thread that was locked. there is a reason soemod locked down atans thread to brainstorm ways to fix reckless.this thread is about fighters new stance devaluing dps classes. read the original post, it contains parse of sk/warlock heroic ud group, where lock had buffs and barely beat the tank. the same group ran the zone a week or so later and the sk got the buffs instead of the lock. he blew the lock away. (zw) that is what this thread is about. either refute the premise of the thread or agree reckless is broken. there isnt anything else on topic to discuss here.you are all over the place. you make a thread complaining about wiz dps being low and t1 dps balance and then you come here hijacking this thread to problem solve a stance that is game breaking. whats your angle?is ANYONE gonna debunk this threads premise? tear apart the original post and the parse. explain why it doesnt matter and that warlock should be happy with the outcome.