We are gonna dodge, you are gonna mitigate has to be the stupidest statement I have ever heard.

[Subtlekni]

<DIV>I seem to be seeing a lot of people, maybe it's just the same ones and their prattle just makes my eyes hurt until I think it is a lot of people, regardless, I keep seeing the statement that guardians are going to mitigate and (insert other class here) are going to dodge.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>First off, some basic math.  Lvl 40 Guardian. Lvl 40 mob. (some of these numbers are kind of rough to make the math more obvious).</DIV> <DIV>Guardian let us say has a 50% avoid, and a mitigation that grants 50% versus this mob in question.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Mob attacks 100 times for 100 points of damage each time.</DIV> <DIV>Half of the hits are total misses. Half of the hits are for half damage.</DIV> <DIV>Total damage taken: 2500 points.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Let us say the same guardian has a 25% avoid, and twice as much mitigation resulting in a 70% mitigation versus the mob in question.</DIV> <DIV>1/4 of the hits are for damage, so 75X100= 7500 damage * .30 =  2250.</DIV> <DIV>Total damage taken is less, which SOUNDS good, but that totally discounts all of the negative affects that would be involved in the 75 attacks that do land. Even common mobs would be landing a great deal more attacks that inflict stuns, dots, disease, stifle etc.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>All of those negative affects makes would very likely make a guardian less desirable in a pickup group than other tank classes, possible by a very very larget margain. More stuns, more stifles = less ability to hold hate. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Currently we have a very decent avoidance. A shield allows us to block the incoming attack. This means the attack doesn't get mitigated, it gets stopped out right. Our skill with a weapon allows us to parry incoming attacks, never hit us, and our skill with a blade is key to keeping us alive, since if we just relied on mitigation, we would die. Granted  our base mitigation should be more closely tied to our armor, and I think it should be less if we are naked but with shards no one is ever normally without gear anymore).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I made a very concious decision when I started a guardian, based on the information that was available at the time.  Guardians appeared to basically have no frills other than their ability to do the best possible job tanking. I was content with that trade off, others choose a different path, and now they want my path changed to suit their views.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I should be able to tank just as well, only differently.  Ok, picture if you would some weird pen and paper role playing game where you can pick your abilities one at a time to build just the character you want. But there are trade offs you have to make.  One person might choose to make their character just as tough, armored, and ready to withstand any melee fight as possible. </DIV> <DIV>Another might choose to make their character a cool martial artist, able to play dead on the ground to move through dangerous areas, or avoid certain death. They might choose to do more damage in a fight, or to be able to draw on their inner training to recover from near fatal damage and continue instantly on their way.   Should the 2nd character with more 'frills' be as good in the core area that the no frills tank choose to specialize in? Should a guardian be able to mend and feign death just as good as a monk, only 'differently' ?  Cause you know, we are both fighters, equal, but different, so where is my different but equal mend?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>They should have made 5 more fighter classes. The Monkg, which is much like a normal monk, but has the ability to avoid more, dodge more, parry more, and mitigate slightly less than a guardian. The Monkg does the exact same DPS as a guadrian though, and can't mend, fd etc.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Then you could have a Palading, this holy warrior has the same avoid and mitigation of a guardian, and he backs it up with the exact same combat skills as a guradian. When you have the spells, oh wait, nope, no spells, no heals. When you have the rightous anger of this Palading on your side, you are prepared to tank just like a guardian.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I don't think that the other fighter clasess should be unable to fill the role of a guardian in an upper level raid situation, but I feel it should be a lot harder for them to fill the role then a the same level guardian. This seems to be the case currently.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Gaige]

<P>Ok, no flame, just answer me this, please?</P> <P>SoE has stated fighters are tanks.</P> <P>Guardians think they have no utility and no dps.  Therefore they either MT or don't play.</P> <P>Guardians are the most defensive of the fighters, with the best taunts, and mitigation.</P> <P>Tanking = taking damage and holding aggro.</P> <P>So if all of these things are true, then what are the 5 other fighters for?</P> <P>We are regulated to less DPS than scouts and wizards, we can't heal, by design supposedly we'll never tank as well.</P> <P>I don't understand.</P> <P>If SoE is going to build a subclass in an archetype that is hand over fist better at the role than the other 5, why make the other 5?</P> <P>Put Paladin in the priest class, put SK/bruiser/monk/berserker in the scout class.</P> <P>It makes no sense.</P> <P>If tank A is better than tank B, C, D, E and F in every scenario as a tank, which is the role of the archetype, then why have them?</P> <P>Sure you can say DPS, but scouts are better.</P> <P>Sure you can say utility, but scouts/mages are more useful and better.</P> <P>Sure you can say offtank, but who really needs one?  Offtank = DPS.  At least that's what I get told when I mention offtank in these threads.</P> <P>Sure we can be a buff bot, except most of our buffs suck.</P> <P>So while you guys can say OMG IF OTHER FIGHTERS CAN TANK, WHY BE A GUARDIAN.</P> <P>But we can say OMG IF GUARDIANS ARE THE BEST TANKS, WHY BE THE OTHER FIGHTERS!</P> <P>It doesn't make sense.</P>

[Subtlekni]

<P>I feel your frustration.</P> <P>Is this the first game that Sony has made that you have played? Sure sounds like it.  </P> <P>I know what my role is. It is fairly clearly defined. I'm sorry that Sony, and you don't know what your role is. I'm not sure how many people played a monk in EQ1 pre kunark, but they had a very similar problem. They had no clear role. The whole monk as master puller and monk as high tier DPS developed out of their frustration with having a mucked up role and a few bugs.  With so many dang classes now I was fairly sure Sony wouldn't get it right, so I went with a sure thing that would have a clear role.</P> <P>Guardians = best at tanking. Seemed like a no brainer.</P> <P>Sorry it is not working out for you. Maybe they should offer a /convert_to_guardian option for other fighter classes that hate their class.  Of course if they ever end up making all other fighters exactly equal to guardians in tanking ability, then maybe they should offer guardians a /convet_to_other option.</P> <P>I don't know what your role needs to be, just would appreciate it if you could find it without making trying to make your class a prestige class version of mine.</P> <P> </P>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Subtleknife wrote:<BR> <P>I don't know what your role needs to be, just would appreciate it if you could find it without making trying to make your class a prestige class version of mine.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>SoE did that when they built this on archetype instead of subclass.  It isn't my design, but since it is the way the game works, I want it to be balanced.  /shrug<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I played SWG for a little over a year, so this isn't my first SoE game, although I didn't play the first EQ.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on <span class=date_text>04-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:59 PM</span>

[Sunrayn]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR> <P>SoE has stated fighters are tanks.</P> <P>Tanking = taking damage and holding aggro.</P> <P>So if all of these things are true, then what are the 5 other fighters for?</P> <P>We are regulated to less DPS than scouts and wizards, we can't heal, by design supposedly we'll never tank as well.</P> <P>I don't understand.</P> <P>If SoE is going to build a subclass in an archetype that is hand over fist better at the role than the other 5, why make the other 5?</P> <P>If tank A is better than tank B, C, D, E and F in every scenario as a tank, which is the role of the archetype, then why have them?</P> <P>But we can say OMG IF GUARDIANS ARE THE BEST TANKS, WHY BE THE OTHER FIGHTERS!</P> <P>It doesn't make sense.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Four simple, very simple questions for you to answer.</P> <P>Are paladins currently tanking raid mobs?</P> <P>Are monks currently tanking raid mobs?</P> <P>Are bruisers currently tanking raid mobs?</P> <P>Are guardians the *only* fighter class currently tanking raid mobs?<BR></P>

[ugl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR> <P>Ok, no flame, just answer me this, please?</P> <P>SoE has stated fighters are tanks.</P> <P>Guardians think they have no utility and no dps.  Therefore they either MT or don't play.</P> <P>Guardians are the most defensive of the fighters, with the best taunts, and mitigation.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>BS.  And you know it.  Zerkers have the best aggro control, and the SAME mitigation.  Paladins and SK have the SAME mitigation.</FONT></P> <P> </P> <P>Tanking = taking damage and holding aggro.</P> <P>So if all of these things are true, then what are the 5 other fighters for?</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>Theyre not true, as noted above.</FONT></P> <P>We are regulated to less DPS than scouts and wizards, we can't heal, by design supposedly we'll never tank as well.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>You, the zerkers, and the bruisers DO HAVE DPS equal to scouts.  AGAIN, BS.</FONT></P> <P>I don't understand.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>YES you do.  You just like to play stupid.</FONT></P> <P>If SoE is going to build a subclass in an archetype that is hand over fist better at the role than the other 5, why make the other 5?</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>HAND over fist my [Removed for Content].  Name me one mob that a guardian can tank that a crusader or a Brawler cannot tank??</FONT></P> <P>Put Paladin in the priest class, put SK/bruiser/monk/berserker in the scout class.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>YEA, your overpowered right now.  Cause your doing damage on par with scouts, yet tanking everything a guardian can.</FONT></P> <P>It makes no sense.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>It sure doesnt.  Why can a monk tank anything a guard can and still fill DPS roles adequatley.  You need nerfed, or Guardians need a DPS boost to put them inline with other FIGHTERS.</FONT></P> <P>If tank A is better than tank B, C, D, E and F in every scenario as a tank, which is the role of the archetype, then why have them?</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>Because tank B, C, D, and E can do everything a guardian can do, + DPS on par with scouts.  Those that cant got heals and wards and such.</FONT></P> <P>Sure you can say DPS, but scouts are better.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>Not by much.  In fact, monks outdamage many scout classes.  Deny that?</FONT></P> <P>Sure you can say utility, but scouts/mages are more useful and better.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>Wow, you mean there actually a archtype that can do something better then your class?  Thats a huge unbalance.</FONT></P> <P>Sure you can say offtank, but who really needs one?  Offtank = DPS.  At least that's what I get told when I mention offtank in these threads.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>Yes, and you can fill the DPS role just fine, cant you?  As well as tank.</FONT></P> <P>Sure we can be a buff bot, except most of our buffs suck.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>Wow, guess they should give you shaman buffs too?</FONT></P> <P>So while you guys can say OMG IF OTHER FIGHTERS CAN TANK, WHY BE A GUARDIAN.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>No we say of other fighters can tank exactley as well as a guardian, why be a guardian, when the other fighters can do DPS roles in groups and raids, AND tank anything we can tank.</FONT></P> <P>But we can say OMG IF GUARDIANS ARE THE BEST TANKS, WHY BE THE OTHER FIGHTERS!</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>Because you can do everything a guardian can do, and rival most scouts and mages in DPS.</FONT></P> <P>It doesn't make sense.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>IT doesnt make sense that a class thats overpowered, like yours, is asking and going to receive even further boosts without getting yer arses nerfed hard at the same time.</FONT></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <p>Message Edited by uglak on <span class=date_text>04-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:25 PM</span>

[mauiwuchild]

<P>hmm Gage, you should research what SOE did in EQ1, the changes it went through... especially with Monks (which I played since release).</P> <P>Then you will see why they said they were trying to do things differently here in EQ2.</P> <P>I read your posts and agree with a lot of your views but I still don't get what your ideal role would be for your character. In EQ1 when Monk mitigation got nerfed, it completely trashed my ability to even be a light tank, mostly because I was a high end Monk, yet not SUPER UBER. The gear that was dropping that guilds would give to their Monks should not have been wearable by Monks, really it was an old class design system that made Monk AC calculate differently that bit SOE in the butt. So you had super Monks that could tank a ton of stuff they shouldn't be, and just to bring those in line they had to nerf all of Monk mitigation. It was a bad scene. All I wanted to be able to do was jump in there once and a while and not die instantly when we needed to put a new tank on the mob. There was just no way since I couldn't mitigate the crazy hits the upper tier mobs were doing.</P> <P>I think what EQ2 is trying to do is bring the Fighters closer together, but not as close as you may want. SOE obviously wants Guardians to be the choice for 'the hero tank', much like the Warrior in EQ1. Now the question is, where do the other Fighter classes fit in? Well they FIGHT. They need to fight in different ways, and be able to bring cool things to the table... that's sorta subjective. Is 'cool' a special attack? Or is 'cool' something that can win a fight for a raid? Different strokes</P> <DIV>We compare EQ1 to EQ2 because there are A LOT of designers and coders from the EQ1 team working on EQ2 and they take with them, experience, and a drive to improve on what they did last time.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>SO!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In my perfect world, AS A GUARDIAN. I think it would be badass to have every huge fight require a <STRONG>secondary</STRONG> tank, not just for taking some minor damage. This is sort of like 'Voltron lite'. The 2 classes become one. They both need to stand in front of the mob, close together, and depending on which class is your secondary (to the guardian), you either gain some kind of bonus depending on which ability the other class brings to the table. For example, the Guardian/Monk team might be the ultimate absorbtion team, while a Guardian/Berserker team might still have decent absorbtion but also generate an effect on the mob that you could not otherwise generate.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Anywy, that's my armchair dev post for the year.</DIV>

[Gaige]

Uglak we all know that the damage disperity is going to be adjusted, so why do you continue to rant about it.

[Owa]

<DIV><FONT size=2>May I just point out that <EM>not</EM> everybody plays this game as a 'sport' in which the most important aspect is to be the best. I would imagine that tens of thousands of EQ2 players play their characters because they enjoy adventuring in a constantly changing fantasy world. That's it. That's why they play. Some like the idea of being magic-wielders, some enjoy healing, others using stealth or being an invulnerable 'meatshield'. There's plenty of choice and at least six different classes you can play on one account. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>EQ2 is necessarily a more forgiving game than its predecessor, as it was designed to capture the attention of the thousands and thousands of non-'min/maxers' who stopped playing EQ1.  People cancelled their accounts for many reasons, clearly, but not the least of these was the frustration about how the game was increasingly designed for the die-hard 'raiders', 'ubergamers' and 'uberguilds' -  to the point that playing without an 'uber' character or guild was not even an option.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>(For people who live for that sort of thing, EQ1 is still going, by the way)</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>In EQ2 there's no prizes to be had (are there?) other than enjoying the game. My main character is a Monk, and while the class not exactly how I'd personally like it - and whose is? - it's the <EM>most suitable for me as regards playing and enjoying the game</EM>. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>We don't all want to be  the 'best players' and many of us - and this is going to sound really weird to some of you - <EM>actually group with people because we like them</EM>  regardless of which class they play!</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Does it really matter <EM>that</EM> much if someone has a 'better' class than you? Only if you don't like your class as it is.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Play the class you like. Play with people you like. It's simple really. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>It is, after all, something we're supposed to be doing for fun...</FONT></DIV>

[SageMarrow]

<DIV>The 2 classes become one. They both need to stand in front of the mob, close together, and depending on which class is your secondary (to the guardian), you either gain some kind of bonus depending on which ability the other class brings to the table. For example, the Guardian/Monk team might be the ultimate absorbtion team, while a Guardian/Berserker team might still have decent absorbtion but also generate an effect on the mob that you could not otherwise generate.</DIV> <DIV>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I suggested this a while back..</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I was thinking something more along the lines of a **leadership** ability that would make a given archetype better.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#cc0000>Guardian leads Priest...Buff that decreases aggro by x percent generated by healing and + x% added to heals</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#cc0000>Bererker leads Priest... Buff that increases debuff strength and reduces hate generated by casting them </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#cc0000>Bruiser leads Scouts... Buff that allows a chance to critical strike for all scout types involved and +30 agility</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#cc0000>Monk leads Scouts...    Buff that allows an avoidance buff to all scouts and +30 agility</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#cc0000>Paladin leads Mages... Buff that allows increased Hp to all mage types and an additional limited proc ward upon taking damage.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#cc0000>Shadowknight leads Mages... Buff that allows increased Damage potential (critical strike?) and an additional limited proc lifetap upon taking damage.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#cc0000></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>That would make all fighters **needed** on raids in some capacity as to maximize efficiency speed and ability of the raid party. So while some things can be done WITH an extra fighter, they can easily be done without, where as you please the casuals and the min/max in one breath, as well as give all fighters a reason to be present on raids and balances out that bogus:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>2/24 and at least adds a little flexibility to that equation if the buffs were done on a per class basis.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <P>Message Edited by SageMarrow on <SPAN class=date_text>04-02-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>12:33 AM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by SageMarrow on <span class=date_text>04-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:34 AM</span>

[ugl]

<P>In Muds, Including Toril, the sojourn continues  (Which EQ1 was made after), You did have multiple tanks on raids and group fights.</P> <P>They has a rescue skill, which basically made you number 1 on the hate list.  (Worked everytime, not like the one we got, it was instant, you pushed recue and you jumped infront of the mob)</P> <P>The raid mobs hit sooo hard, that theFighters had a fighter chain (rescue each other IN ORDER), while the clerics had a heal chain (To heal the fighters that just got rescued)   This set a ferocious pace when raiding , as you had to watch the tank infront of you and rescue him before he went down.  Just as you rescued him a heal would hit HIM, then bam, next fighter recued you, then you got your heal.  And yes, the raid MOBS were MEANS, had AES, and made it so if ya didnt have alot of tanks, you werent raiding, just like now ya need alot of healers.  Of course, the more fighters you had, the less healers you had to have, and vise versa, as the speed of the healer chain was dependent on the number of tanks you had.</P> <P>You never had too many fighters, Healers or DPS for raids.   3 tanks 2 DPS and one healer was fine for a group, tanks would leap frog with rescue to spread out the damage of a named (or hard mob).   Hell, you could even group without a healer and get stuff done, though it was always better with a healer.   As long as ya had a few healing potions and several fighters to leap frog, a group could still drop [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot].  5 fighters could just spread the damage, and if got real bad quaff a heal  (heals potions were expsnsive so ya couldnt just burn em up).. Raids were non stop leap frongs (with like 18 warriors) and healers still had a heal chain too ...   </P> <DIV>I guess this is impossible with graphics and 3d thrown in or something.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In another mud (cant remember the name, think midguard or something, but was very popular)  Fighter in a group formed a phalanx...   It tied them together, so the fighters surrounded the casters.  You put fighters on front, left and right, and healers and casters went in the middle...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If you didnt have enough fighters, a cleric would take a spot on the phalanx.  (this was when clerics just didnt wear platemail for show, they reall were warrior/healers).  This made mobs would attack from different directions...  Was pretty cool too..</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In muds, you couldnt walk around however, you moved from room to room and it was all text based, just like in your chat window.</DIV> <P><SPAN class=time_text>The ability to move around in rooms is what I think negated these tank tactics. When some wise gamer/coder figures out how to put it back in, the role of MT would be gone forever, just like it was back then.   There isnt a Main Healer or Main DPS.   The MT role is what has put a damper on the tank classes.  It severly limits the need for tanks in these games.</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by uglak on <span class=date_text>04-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:13 AM</span>

[Geothe]

<P>The real truth of the matter is:  the archae type system, is in most case, a completely not true.</P> <P>What really exists is 4 main class types, and then a whole slew of hybrids.</P> <P>Main Classes: FIghter, Priest, SCout, Mage.</P> <P>Warriors = Pure Fighters</P> <P>Crusaders = Fighter/Priest (Heals) hybrid</P> <P>Brawlers = Fighter/SCout (Melee DPS) Hybrid</P> <P>Wizards = Pure mages</P> <P>Summoners = Mage/FIghter (Tanking pet) Hybrid</P> <P>Illusionist = Mage/Priest-ish (Buffs, protect party by immobilizing damage) Hybrid</P> <P>Predator = Pure scout (Melee DPS)</P> <P>Rogue = Pretty much pure scout as well</P> <P>Bard = Scout/Priest (Group buffs) Hybrid</P> <P>Druid = Pure priest</P> <P>Shaman = Priest/Mage (spell debuffs and damage) Hybrid</P> <P>Cleric = Priest/FIghter (mitigation) Hybrid</P> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>They way the classes actually are REALLY to create quite a "gray" zone between the four "archae-types"</DIV>

[Raea]

Uglak heh you have any links to where I might be able to find those muds if they are still running?  Talk about cool ideas... I still think designers have the ability to do stuff like this, however things like the agro list need to be removed and changed.  As long as the mob can only focus it's attention on one person, there is always going to be main tanks. I kinda like the idea of your "group" being the target for agro, instead of a single person.  And damage being spread across the "group" instead of a single person, based on your positioning.  I mean if you look at any sort of melee involving a few people, they attack everyone, take one swing at this guy, take a swing at the next while the first guy is recovering, etc. I guess i'm looking for more of a FPS twitch style of gameplay for melee.  Caster could be involved in this as well. Prolly need higher bandwith to do things like this... But imagine controling your char similar to some of the old first person RPG's (can't remember the name of it offhand, but it had FPS type combat where you chose how to swing based on your mouse movements).  Maybe this game has a special type of controler, i dunno.  But you chose how to attack your opponent by how you move yourself.  Thrust, sideswipe, overhand swing, etc.  But you also had to choose if you wanted to block, parry, dodge, etc. So skill in this game would be based on your own personal "twitch" factor, biased a little bit by your PC specs, but a lot more interactive than just damage/delay/buttonmashing.  As a fighter, you would have to look at your enemies attack pattern and parry/dodge/etc.  See that uber boss swinging with a heavy overhanded swing, you better have your sword up in the air ready to parry else your gonna take a huge hit.  Perhaps casters would have a on screen thing of symbols and incanations that would flash on screen.  And you would have to copy the patterns for the spell in the exact order, and in the proper timing, else you would "fizzle" your spell.  Lower level spells have just a few incanations.  higher level spells have many.  The number of incanations depends on the castime of the spell. Think of like a "simon" pad as a loose example.  Only the incanations for a spell are never different.  lending to a casters ability to play his class based on the actual players ability to memorize patterns.  So you could have two equal level casters, but one is a lot slower at casting his spells, and fizzles more often due to the fact that the player just isn't that smart.  Maybe you even tie in voice recognition into the casting game as well.  So if you mumble into the mic, or get distracted and say something wrong, you fizzle. I dunno, just ideas to get the game away from "auto attack/afk" and watching tv while I play my char. <div></div>

[Belce]

<P>Elder Scrolls is that game.</P> <P>Another game that had a similiar idea is Neocron, for mmorpg.</P> <P>I like a game where my character has skills that develop and I choose to use them, rather than have to make them work based on mu ability to use a mouse/keyboard in relation to a server event.  </P> <P> </P>

[SageMarrow]

<P>yeah i enjoyed Marrowinds, DDO (Dungeons and Dragons online has a simliar approach coming into it, but more complex)</P> <P>If even one MMO gets an active combat engine right = they are gonna change the way things work, and restore actual fun to the genre outside of trying to have the best **gear** around.. which at the end of the day is all that EQ2 amounts too.</P> <P>Tradeskill??? FOR CASH - why cash??? TO BUY GEAR!!! (for my 10 alts)</P> <P>Adventure??? (killing the same mobs for 10 levels straight which equates to about 16Real Life days straight) why???? FOR LOOT - why loot??? FOR CASH - why cash?? = TO BUY GEAR!!!!!</P> <DIV>As you can see its all a vicious cycle for those of us who dont have a horde of online friends to sit and poke fun at or with. If they plan on this being a strictly PvE game, then Norrath needs to come alive and quick...</DIV>

[Styk]

Uglak do me a favor and dont lie about the berserker class pls... Thou we do have better agro then Guards , we sure as hell DONT MITIGATE JUST LIKE Guards ( Guards have us beat by considerable margin ) Also Berserkers and Brusiers have the same DPS as LAZY SCOUTS who dont use poisons or play their class to the fullest... Pls give me consistent 250+ dps and you can say that but till then dont lie pls <div></div>

[Gaige]

Actually you guys have the same mitigation.  Given the level and equipment is the same.

[Raea]

<DIV>Yeh mitigation would be the same, Guardians would just avoid a few more hits due to the +defense buffs, instead of the +offense/haste buffs bezerkers get.</DIV>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Raeani wrote:<BR> <DIV>Yeh mitigation would be the same, <FONT color=#ffff00>Guardians would just avoid a few more hits due to the +defense buffs</FONT>, instead of the +offense/haste buffs bezerkers get.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>There we have it folks, the main problem.  What makes guardians the most defensive tank in the game?  Avoidance.  <BR>

[VonStein]

<P>Take a look at the Guardian spell Allay...</P> <P> </P> <P>23% added avoidance to ANOTHER character... and this is in my mid 20'5...</P> <P> </P> <P>if theres a Zerker in the party, and we're close to mitigation.... I tell them to tank... and keep this up...</P> <P>They get the Zerk and extra damage.... but end up with better avoidance because I'm adding to theres.... add in the bruiser ability that does the same???</P> <P>You get a high damage main tank, with GREAT avoidance....</P>

[Aethane]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> VonSteinan wrote:<BR> <P>Take a look at the Guardian spell Allay...</P> <P> </P> <P>23% added avoidance to ANOTHER character... and this is in my mid 20'5...</P> <P> </P> <P>if theres a Zerker in the party, and we're close to mitigation.... I tell them to tank... and keep this up...</P> <P>They get the Zerk and extra damage.... but end up with better avoidance because I'm adding to theres.... add in the bruiser ability that does the same???</P> <P>You get a high damage main tank, with GREAT avoidance....</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Nice story, too bad allay is bugged and it doesnt work. It says that but it doesn't actually give that avoidance. seriously if you are going to make stuff up and flat out lie you aren't helping anything, btw the devs know this so your lie is pointless.

[FamilyManFir]

<blockquote><hr>Aethane wrote:Nice story, too bad allay is bugged and it doesnt work. It says that but it doesn't actually give that avoidance.<hr></blockquote>Actually, we don't know if it's bugged or if there's a display bug.So far as I've been able to tell, none of the Fighter Archetype CAs that add "Avoidance" change the Avoidance display in the Persona screen. I don't know if that means that the CAs are bugged or if the Avoidance display in the Persona screen is bugged and doesn't take these CAs' effects into consideration. Remember that this Avoidance display is very new.It would be easier if the CA reported that it changed a particular Avoidance skill, but it just reports that it changes "Avoidance."

[Rysva]

<DIV>I play a SK and will abide the danger of being flamed and give my 2 cents worth to this topic...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>At the beginning of EQ2 it was officially stated that all classes (fighter, priest, scout, mage) would perform their jobs equally well: fighters tank, mages do magic DPS, scouts melee DPS, healers heal. The only difference between the subclasses would be the way they achieve it. It was stated that for example a wizard and a necro would be the same DPS. The only difference would be that the wizard excels at high nukes and does more peak dmg whereas the necro does DPS with it´s pet over time. But in the end both would do the same DPS. Some healers use reactive, others direct heals, others heals over time. Some scouts use positional attacks, others stealth based. Some fighters gain agro with taunts, others with spell damage, others heal and others with melee dmg. Some fighters gain their tanking ability by using heavy armor and mitigating hits whereas others do it by deftly avoiding hits. But all would be able to tank in the end. A fighter´s effectiveness therefore should always be measured upon his tanking abilities and how good he is at maintaining aggro. If a tank is good DPS it´s only to do one thing: maintain aggro. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I liked this way classes were designed as the possibility of having a completely [Removed for Content], useless class is almost nil that way. At release I was sure about wanting to play a FP based, heavy armor tanking class. So that left me Guardian, Berserker and SK. I chose a SK because I liked the concept of gaining agro via spell damage + taunts and the ability to lifetap and harmtouch.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Till this day I haven´t had any problems tanking and although I don´t play one of the other classes I think SOE´s concept of making em all do their job equally well worked out. I mainly play in groups I have formed and I don´t care which type of healer, scout or mage I have. I have found them to all perform equally well. If one of em sucked it was mainly due to their personal playstyle, not the class.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I am raidleader in my guild and we have killed our first raidmobs recently. Already I hear the whining of Guardians why I tank and don´t let them do it even though I am 2 levels higher. They state that they played a Guardian to tank and that a SK will never be able to tank a raidmob. I have read this statement from many Guardians in the forums too. Well, I played a SK to tank too. And now I should give up tanking just because the whole Guardian forum starts talking down the tanking abilities of all other fighters?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I know that Guardians have advantages over all others in tanking: tower shield, more taunts, better def aso.. But until someone can prove me the contrary via solid proof I will believe in a SK as raid tank. So plz stop stating that Guardians are the uber tanks and influencing the whole Guardian society until you have 100% proof that you really do the job better than the rest!</DIV>

[English Da Gua]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Rysva wrote:<BR> <DIV>I play a SK and will abide the danger of being flamed and give my 2 cents worth to this topic...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>At the beginning of EQ2 it was officially stated that all classes (fighter, priest, scout, mage) would perform their jobs equally well: fighters tank, mages do magic DPS, scouts melee DPS, healers heal. The only difference between the subclasses would be the way they achieve it. It was stated that for example a wizard and a necro would be the same DPS. The only difference would be that the wizard excels at high nukes and does more peak dmg whereas the necro does DPS with it´s pet over time. But in the end both would do the same DPS. Some healers use reactive, others direct heals, others heals over time. Some scouts use positional attacks, others stealth based. Some fighters gain agro with taunts, others with spell damage, others heal and others with melee dmg. Some fighters gain their tanking ability by using heavy armor and mitigating hits whereas others do it by deftly avoiding hits. But all would be able to tank in the end. A fighter´s effectiveness therefore should always be measured upon his tanking abilities and how good he is at maintaining aggro. If a tank is good DPS it´s only to do one thing: maintain aggro. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I liked this way classes were designed as the possibility of having a completely [Removed for Content], useless class is almost nil that way. At release I was sure about wanting to play a FP based, heavy armor tanking class. So that left me Guardian, Berserker and SK. I chose a SK because I liked the concept of gaining agro via spell damage + taunts and the ability to lifetap and harmtouch.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Till this day I haven´t had any problems tanking and although I don´t play one of the other classes I think SOE´s concept of making em all do their job equally well worked out. I mainly play in groups I have formed and I don´t care which type of healer, scout or mage I have. I have found them to all perform equally well. If one of em sucked it was mainly due to their personal playstyle, not the class.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>I am raidleader in my guild and we have killed our first raidmobs recently. Already I hear the whining of Guardians why I tank and don´t let them do it even though I am 2 levels higher. They state that they played a Guardian to tank and that a SK will never be able to tank a raidmob. I have read this statement from many Guardians in the forums too. Well, I played a SK to tank too. And now I should give up tanking just because the whole Guardian forum starts talking down the tanking abilities of all other fighters?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>I know that Guardians have advantages over all others in tanking: tower shield, more taunts, better def aso.. But until someone can prove me the contrary via solid proof I will believe in a SK as raid tank. So plz stop stating that Guardians are the uber tanks and influencing the whole Guardian society until you have 100% proof that you really do the job better than the rest!</FONT></DIV> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>     Hmm you are the one in a guild that chose those guardians, it is not the communities fault you have [Removed for Content] guardians in your guild who somehow missed the whole concept of level > all in terms of tanking (when comparing like fighters).</P> <P>    Who cares if you have read guardians saying they are the only / best raid tanks. Guess what, I could quote you dumb things said by every class. Everyone out there knows all fighters can tank, it is certain other fighters saying they need a boost to tanking ability because guardians are the best. How about you point that out? I will tell you one thing, DPSing is bloody easy, hell I'd rather DPS. I get the same chance at loot and work about 1/100 as much.</P> <P>    No one here is force feeding anyone, if certain guardians feel they are the best tank because of a sentence here or there in this forum, who is at fault? The person who wrote the sentence or the genius who believes it...Exactly. </P> <P>   The best raid tank is the fighter class who is being played by the most skilled person.</P> <P>    We don't need to prove we are the best raid tank. We don't care. We CAN do the job when called upon, that is all that matters.You have monks here saying we are the best and only raid MTs. How about all you who read a few errant posts and then generalize stop doing that. Get the facts and don't compare the guardian communtiy to the few in your guild who probably haven't posted *$%#&! in this forum.</P> <P>   I would draw this in crayon if I could, but I cannot. EVERY FIGHTER CAN MT IN THE END GAME, IT IS PROVEN EVERYDAY. That being said, we (guardians) don't care if we are the best raid MT, as long as we can do the job when asked.</P><p>Message Edited by English Da Guard on <span class=date_text>04-06-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:21 AM</span>

[CherobylJ]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> annaspider wrote:<BR> <DIV><FONT size=2>May I just point out that <EM>not</EM> everybody plays this game as a 'sport' in which the most important aspect is to be the best. I would imagine that tens of thousands of EQ2 players play their characters because they enjoy adventuring in a constantly changing fantasy world. That's it. That's why they play. Some like the idea of being magic-wielders, some enjoy healing, others using stealth or being an invulnerable 'meatshield'. There's plenty of choice and at least six different classes you can play on one account. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>EQ2 is necessarily a more forgiving game than its predecessor, as it was designed to capture the attention of the thousands and thousands of non-'min/maxers' who stopped playing EQ1.  People cancelled their accounts for many reasons, clearly, but not the least of these was the frustration about how the game was increasingly designed for the die-hard 'raiders', 'ubergamers' and 'uberguilds' -  to the point that playing without an 'uber' character or guild was not even an option.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>(For people who live for that sort of thing, EQ1 is still going, by the way)</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>In EQ2 there's no prizes to be had (are there?) other than enjoying the game. My main character is a Monk, and while the class not exactly how I'd personally like it - and whose is? - it's the <EM>most suitable for me as regards playing and enjoying the game</EM>. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>We don't all want to be  the 'best players' and many of us - and this is going to sound really weird to some of you - <EM>actually group with people because we like them</EM>  regardless of which class they play!</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Does it really matter <EM>that</EM> much if someone has a 'better' class than you? Only if you don't like your class as it is.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Play the class you like. Play with people you like. It's simple really. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>It is, after all, something we're supposed to be doing for fun...</FONT></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>/cheer<BR>

[CherobylJ]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> uglak wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Guardians are the most defensive of the fighters, with the best taunts, and mitigation.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>BS.  And you know it.  Zerkers have the best aggro control, and the SAME mitigation.  Paladins and SK have the SAME mitigation.</FONT></P> <P>.....</P> <P>We are regulated to less DPS than scouts and wizards, we can't heal, by design supposedly we'll never tank as well.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>You, the zerkers, and the bruisers DO HAVE DPS equal to scouts.  AGAIN, BS.</FONT></P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Same BASE mitigation != same mitigation after combat arts, which Guards own hands down (deservedly).  Tell the whole argument not a half truth.</P> <P>Bers dps = Scout DPS??  Come on we can be good, in the right circumstances, but not sustained, at least not with my toon.<BR></P>

[TheMeatShie]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Rysva wrote:<div>I play a SK and will abide the danger of being flamed and give my 2 cents worth to this topic...</div> <div> </div> <div>At the beginning of EQ2 it was officially stated that all classes (fighter, priest, scout, mage) would perform their jobs equally well: fighters tank, mages do magic DPS, scouts melee DPS, healers heal. The only difference between the subclasses would be the way they achieve it. It was stated that for example a wizard and a necro would be the same DPS. The only difference would be that the wizard excels at high nukes and does more peak dmg whereas the necro does DPS with it´s pet over time. But in the end both would do the same DPS. Some healers use reactive, others direct heals, others heals over time. Some scouts use positional attacks, others stealth based. Some fighters gain agro with taunts, others with spell damage, others heal and others with melee dmg. Some fighters gain their tanking ability by using heavy armor and mitigating hits whereas others do it by deftly avoiding hits. But all would be able to tank in the end. A fighter´s effectiveness therefore should always be measured upon his tanking abilities and how good he is at maintaining aggro. If a tank is good DPS it´s only to do one thing: maintain aggro. </div> <div> </div> <div>I liked this way classes were designed as the possibility of having a completely [Removed for Content], useless class is almost nil that way. At release I was sure about wanting to play a FP based, heavy armor tanking class. So that left me Guardian, Berserker and SK. I chose a SK because I liked the concept of gaining agro via spell damage + taunts and the ability to lifetap and harmtouch.</div> <div> </div> <div>Till this day I haven´t had any problems tanking and although I don´t play one of the other classes I think SOE´s concept of making em all do their job equally well worked out. I mainly play in groups I have formed and I don´t care which type of healer, scout or mage I have. I have found them to all perform equally well. If one of em sucked it was mainly due to their personal playstyle, not the class.</div> <div> </div> <div>I am raidleader in my guild and we have killed our first raidmobs recently. Already I hear the whining of Guardians why I tank and don´t let them do it even though I am 2 levels higher. They state that they played a Guardian to tank and that a SK will never be able to tank a raidmob. I have read this statement from many Guardians in the forums too. Well, I played a SK to tank too. And now I should give up tanking just because the whole Guardian forum starts talking down the tanking abilities of all other fighters?</div> <div> </div> <div>I know that Guardians have advantages over all others in tanking: tower shield, more taunts, better def aso.. But until someone can prove me the contrary via solid proof I will believe in a SK as raid tank. So plz stop stating that Guardians are the uber tanks and influencing the whole Guardian society until you have 100% proof that you really do the job better than the rest!</div> <div></div><hr></blockquote>A non-guardian that can raid tank well?l /gasp /sarcasm off I for one /applaude someone that can play the class they chose to get the job done instead of whining... </span><div></div><p>Message Edited by TheMeatShield on <span class=date_text>04-06-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:17 AM</span>

[Stra]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Gage-Mikel wrote:<p>Ok, no flame, just answer me this, please?</p><hr></blockquote>We have answered this many times, but I will try again. Though I might point out that your entire tone of your post is, indeed, inflamatory.<blockquote><hr><p>SoE has stated fighters are tanks.</p><hr></blockquote><p>You seem to be obsessed with this and have a narrow minded view of a tank; but I will address that later in this post so read on.</p><blockquote><hr><p>Guardians think they have no utility and no dps.  Therefore they either MT or don't play.</p><hr></blockquote><p>They dont. We have no utility spells, no invis, no feign death, no sneaks, reses, safe falls. We have defensive skills only. We can play as off-tank but that is rare because their are other tanks that make better off tanks.</p><blockquote><hr><p>Guardians are the most defensive of the fighters, with the best taunts, and mitigation.</p><hr></blockquote><p>Taunts are a very small part of holding aggro. If you think guardians hold aggro with their taunts alone then you know us very little.</p><blockquote><hr><p>Tanking = taking damage and holding aggro.</p><hr></blockquote><p>Wrong. There are a lot of aspects to tanking. The ones you described are two of many skills. You have forgotten the job of picking up adds, peeling mobs off more fragile characters as well as a whole host of other issues.</p><blockquote><hr><p>So if all of these things are true, then what are the 5 other fighters for?</p><hr></blockquote><p>Strange that you have reached level 50 without figuring this out. Monks rock in grouping because of their ability to peel. Berzerkers and monks can put out so much damage over time more than a guardian that it makes them great at peeling off the mobs from healers and scouts and mages. Furthermore, in a raid situation, in a time locked instance, there is nothing better than a monk that can feign death and preserve the raid when things go wrong. A monk equipped with a couple of feathers can res everyone and get the raid back going again. The same holds true for a potential group wipe. Scouts can not do this, in fact no other class can. Feign death is such an unbelievably powerful spell and that is something that can not be underestimated.</p><p>Bruisers are similar to monks in their skills, though a bit more offence related at the cost of some defence.</p><p>Palladins are great off-tanks and off-healers. They have some nice 2 handed weaps that are quested and give them decent damage. Add to that their damage from divine magic and you have an effective fighting machine. A pally can also execute a Lay on Hands spell to recharge the tank to full and let everyone survive a close call with a couple adds. They can also off tank adds quite well to boot. Another great role for pally is to be an off-healer, healing the scouts and mages from AE hits so that the main healer can concentrate on the main tank.</p><p>Shadow Knights are kings when it comes to finishing a fight quickly. There is nothing like a harm touch at the right moment to finish off that douible up green you were fighting when a double up blue adds. SKs can also life tap their enemies to get an extra heal as the enemies attack them. This is not to mention their DOTs and other spells that also make them excellent peelers and add tankers.</p><p>Berzerkers are great for peeling. Sometimes a mob will add on my poor templar that has to keep healing me over and over again on the main fight. A berzterker can blood rage and inflict horendous damage on that add, taking aggro and preserving the healer.</p><p>SKs, Monks, Bruisers, Pallys, and Zerkers can all solo decently. It takes a guardian FOREVER to kill even a green and our DPS isnt high enough to take out grouped greens above level 21 or so. By 23 I couldnt solo two single up green grouped mobs. However, the tanks with more DPS can because they can generate enough DPS to take down one of the mobs fast and half the incomming damage. Even killing solo mobs takes a guardian somewhere between a long time and forever.</p><blockquote><hr><p>We are regulated to less DPS than scouts and wizards, we can't heal, by design supposedly we'll never tank as well.</p><hr></blockquote><p>You chose a <b>class </b>with other skills. You <span><b>chose</b> </span>to have these skills over being purely defensive and nearly useless out of a group. You <b>chose </b>to have feign death and other skills. When the time came to choose your class, you went a direction for a reason. You may have looked at guardians and said "dang these guys wont be able to solo for crap" or "wow, look at all the more DPS for Monks" or "hey feign death is really useful" or whatever. You certainly  didnt <b>choose </b>to be a monk based on random chance. Nor did I <b>choose </b>guardian on random chance. I saw all those other utilities and said "that would be cool, but what I really want to be is the best tank in the game so Ill sacrifice that other stuff for tanking."</p><p>Now you are saying, "Yeah baby, now that I got all of that, I want what you have too." In essence, you are a kid that had to choose between chocolate ice cream or vanilla; having chosen chocolate, you now want to steal your brother's vanilla ice cream cone and have both.</p><blockquote><hr><p>I don't understand.</p><hr></blockquote><p>That much is clear.</p><blockquote><hr><p>If SoE is going to build a subclass in an archetype that is hand over fist better at the role than the other 5, why make the other 5?</p><hr></blockquote><p>Better in what way? You seem to have enormously narrow definitions of better. What is more is that I dont see you volutneering ditching feign death to get what you want. You seem to want to be the best tank AND have all the other stuff.</p><p>My definition of better is much more situational. I see better as depending upon what situation we are analyzing. If we are analyzing situations where scouts and mages in group are taking hits from AEs and the healer is busy just keeping the MT alive, then clearly the pally is better than the guardian. If we are examining a potential raid wipe then the monk is better than the guardian. If we are analyzing being a dumb meat shield than a guardian is the better choice.</p><p>The game is about trade offs, not having everything. There arent 4 classes in the game and 4 jobs. There are 24 combat classes in the game and thousands of jobs. Some people are going to be better at jobs X, Y and Z than me. Thats fine, but then Im going to be better at A and B than them. Having gotten your skills at X, Y and Z, it is just pure greed to also demand A and B.</p><blockquote><hr><p>Put Paladin in the priest class, put SK/bruiser/monk/berserker in the scout class.</p><hr></blockquote><p>Now you are just being sensationalistic and intentionally inflamatory.</p><blockquote><hr><p>It makes no sense.</p><hr></blockquote><p>Actually, its pretty much only you and a few people that dont make sense; but boy do you yell loud. I know many monks in game that have never even been to the forum and when I send them to this thread, they come back and just simply say O_o at your ideas.</p><blockquote><hr><p>If tank A is better than tank B, C, D, E and F in every scenario as a tank, which is the role of the archetype, then why have them?</p><hr></blockquote><p>Again, your black and white definition of "better". Open up your mind. There is more to the game than taking damage, healing damage and doing damage.</p><blockquote><hr><p>Sure you can say DPS, but scouts are better.</p><hr></blockquote><p>You chose a compromise class. I didnt. *shrug* your own fault. The spell lists were published. If you failed to do proper research than that is your problem. On my alt I chose a bard. I know I wont do as good DPS as a predator but does that matter? Nope. I get a lot of other things and I am willing to make a trade off. Does that mean some people may not want me in group over a mage or scout? Maybe, but then such people dont know jack about the game anyway so they are doing me a favor by excluding me. Those that know the capabilities and advantages of a bard will invite me in a second.</p><blockquote><hr><p>Sure you can say utility, but scouts/mages are more useful and better.</p><hr></blockquote><p>Again, you chose a compromise. You didnt want ot be just a piece of meat in front of the mob. Life and this game are both about tradeoffs.</p><blockquote><hr><p>Sure you can say offtank, but who really needs one?  Offtank = DPS.  At least that's what I get told when I mention offtank in these threads.</p><hr></blockquote><p>Offtanks have several jobs and any group worth its salt will have them if they have the choice. The best group for normal fighting is 2 fighters, 1+ healers and the rest DPS. As for which healers or DPS, that depends on what you are fighting, where you are fighting, relative skill levels, player skill levels and a thousand other things. That is one reason pickup groups are so hopeless is because the players dont know each others skills and techniques and arent, generally, willing to listen and learn.</p><blockquote><hr><p>Sure we can be a buff bot, except most of our buffs suck.</p><hr></blockquote> <p>Of course they do. You compromised. *shrug* and now you dont like it. However, if you think that the usefulness of your buffs has anything to do with the extra 2 points in parry, you are silly. The buffs are the best tool we have for one thing ... . . . . Give Up ? . . . Aggro management. Yes, the buffs are uber taunts. With them you can control multiple encouters like clockwork. They als generate insane aggro against single encounters. If you arent casting them <b>in combat</b>, not before or after, then you are missing 2/3 of your aggro skill. </p> <blockquote><hr><p>So while you guys can say OMG IF OTHER FIGHTERS CAN TANK, WHY BE A GUARDIAN.</p><hr></blockquote><p>That is not what we have said and if you think it is then you are as dense as a black hole. In addition your all caps contradicts your previous statement of not wanting to be inflamatory.</p><p>What we have said is that if you want to take damage <b>as good</b> as us then fine; just give up mend, feign death, your dps skills and so on. If you want to take damage as good as us, make the same sacrifices we have made. You advocate that DPS, Feign, Mend and your other utility skills be removed and your damage taking ability be leveled to that of a guardian then, fine, ill support you. However, you might have a great majority of your fellow monks livid at you. Those other monks chose the compromise and are happy with it.</p><blockquote><hr><p>But we can say OMG IF GUARDIANS ARE THE BEST TANKS, WHY BE THE OTHER FIGHTERS!</p><hr></blockquote><p>Best at taking damage, not best tank. Again you ignore many other tankign jobs. Being a good tank is <b>hard</b>, one of the hardest tasks in the game. There are many jobs to manage and many aspects to consider. Some of these are best done by guardians (taking damage for example) and some are better done by others (handling adds and peeling for example).</p><blockquote><hr><p>It doesn't make sense.</p><hr></blockquote>The only thing that doesnt make sense are your suggestions.</span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Strast on <span class="date_text">04-06-2005</span> <span class="time_text">05:09 PM</span></p><p>Message Edited by Strast on <span class=date_text>04-06-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:10 PM</span>

[Nemi]

Strast...I'm speechless. What singleminded, utter devotion to what you believe is right. You go man and explain exactly how this game should work. No, don't bother about the Dev posts, or the Archetype system. Don't worry that EVERY class stems from 4 basic job roles - Forget that, you're RIGHT!

[TheMeatShie]

Classes stemming from 4 types doesnt mean that all classes that are in the same sub should be exactly the same in every situation.  If this were true, what would be the point in having a subclass? <div></div>

[Subtlekni]

<span><blockquote><hr>Nemi wrote:Strast...I'm speechless. What singleminded, utter devotion to what you believe is right. You go man and explain exactly how this game should work. No, don't bother about the Dev posts, or the Archetype system. Don't worry that EVERY class stems from 4 basic job roles - Forget that, you're RIGHT!<hr></blockquote>I am a guardian, so I know that makes me slightly biased.  But I really am trying just as hard as I can to look at this objectively.  Yes we are all fighters. But yes we all agreed to make trade offs when we picked our class.  Now don't get rilled up, I'm not saying that other classes should not be able to MT in raid encoutners.  I think guardians should have a slight edge in being the MT for an epic encounter due to our combination of damage ignoring (yeah i'm not gonna use the avoidance term, cause it implies dodging. Here I stand in 2 tons of armor, bring it on, I don't need to dodge that sword thrust, and i don't need to have my armor reduce it by half. With my armor and my shield and my ability to parry, I am not gonna take any damage.... this time.) and our damage mitigation. Why should Guardians get this edge, if other fighters do not? Trade offs. Guardians are all about trading everything else for defense.  Should other fighters be able to MT in a raid with just a bit more difficulty than a guardian? Yes. And they currently seem to be able to do that. Guardians, and I'm gonna say it, don't have superior taunts.  There are neigh infinite cases where other fighters at the same level have a supeior ability to draw argo onto themselves.  We have lowered DPS. We lack utility skills that other fighters have. So what do we have? Some would have you believe that we have ONE spell that can make another fighter a better main tank than us. But those who play guardians tend to agree that this ONE spell is broken.  Some would have you belive that our defensive buffs make up for all we trade off. Ooookkkkk... If that is what you say. But I still don't believe it. Some very vocal people here have said that "All fighers are tanks, and all fighters should have the defensive skills of a guardian."  Or "If Guardians are best able to be MT, it makes the other fighters irrelevent." I've got defense. That is all I have.  If all figthers have the same overall defense of a guardian, why play a guardian?   I humble offer three options:     1. Convert all other fighter classes to have the exact same skill. Give us all the same DPS. Either give us all lay hands, or take it away from all of us.  Same for FD. Safe fall. Summon squire. Same skills, same spells. That way it will be 'balanced'.     2.  Give all  fighters the overall defensive ability  of a  guardian.  Remove guardians as a playable class, and offer  all guardians the ability to convert to another fighter class of the same level.     3.  Find out if the other fighters utility really doesn't allow it to scale as well in raid situations. IF this is true, find a way to scale their utility to raid situations. I really like option 3. But again, that is just me. </span><div></div>

[Mig]

"It takes a guardian FOREVER to kill even a green and our DPS isnt high enough to take out grouped greens above level 21 or so."This statement is incorrect. I can routinelly take out the green ^^ groups in cazic. And if the mob is melee based, I've been able to take out blue heroic mobs as well. The terror wraiths outside the temple are one example. I've also parsed my dps and I routinely can achieve a nice average of around 100+ while fighting green, blue groups if I have the power regen to back me up.

[English Da Gua]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> CherobylJoe wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> uglak wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Guardians are the most defensive of the fighters, with the best taunts, and mitigation.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>BS.  And you know it.  Zerkers have the best aggro control, and the SAME mitigation.  Paladins and SK have the SAME mitigation.</FONT></P> <P>.....</P> <P>We are regulated to less DPS than scouts and wizards, we can't heal, by design supposedly we'll never tank as well.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>You, the zerkers, and the bruisers DO HAVE DPS equal to scouts.  AGAIN, BS.</FONT></P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Same BASE mitigation != same mitigation after combat arts, which Guards own hands down (deservedly).  Tell the whole argument not a half truth.</P> <P>Bers dps = Scout DPS??  Come on we can be good, in the right circumstances, but not sustained, at least not with my toon.<BR></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>    You people are absolutely amazing. You say someone is telling half truths, yet YOU come and post 1/4 of the truth. I'd take the 1/2s over what you post.</P> <P>   Have you ever examined a guardian skill? GUESS WHAT THEY APPLY TO THE GROUP. That means if a zerker wanted to MT he could have the same buffs if you put the guardian in the group (don't say oh but my MT group must be this or that, if you want the buffs put the guardian there). Thank you for playing, but no parting gifts for you. </P> <P>    At 50 we have three guardian only spells that are self only. Fortified stance (you all get a stance spell as zerkers don't you?), call to protection, which grants offensive skills to the group and increases the parry of caster by 4 based on description (actually gives 5),  and hunker down...does anyone actually use this spell? I mean it says it reduces hate but description does not show this. As is you would be better off just turning off attack so you avoid the stifle component because fully buffed the +Def doesn't stack anyway.</P> <P>   So ya, you are right, wow guardians are better hands down with their +5 parry CoP spell and hunker down. You all get a stance spell anyway from what I hear so you can't say we have the market cornered there. If you are going to shoot down someone's post saying they are using half truths, the least you could do is just a tad bit of research on what you are commenting on.</P><p>Message Edited by English Da Guard on <span class=date_text>04-06-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:40 AM</span>

[Subtlekni]

<span><blockquote><hr>Migyb wrote:"It takes a guardian FOREVER to kill even a green and our DPS isnt high enough to take out grouped greens above level 21 or so."This statement is incorrect. I can routinelly take out the green ^^ groups in cazic. And if the mob is melee based, I've been able to take out blue heroic mobs as well. The terror wraiths outside the temple are one example. I've also parsed my dps and I routinely can achieve a nice average of around 100+ while fighting green, blue groups if I have the power regen to back me up.<hr></blockquote>Yeah, shame on me for not calling BS on that one too Migyb.   You are right on that acount. The statement that guardians have 0 DPS is obviously false, and I don't want to imply that. I just want our lower dps taken into account when our class is looked at from a balance perspective. </span><div></div>

[SageMarrow]

<P>well compare this Mygyb...</P> <P>against a green ^^ mob or a solo even con mob... </P> <P>i put out 100 dps without using 1 combat art...</P> <P>and im a bruiser.... so imagine what that gap would be if i did use my combat arts that are all built with haste buffs, and attacks that do up to 600dmg in one strike..</P> <P>then imagine it again if i were flanking and somone else was tanking...</P> <P>and im level 40.... <STRONG><EM><U>and</U></EM></STRONG> i can tank raid mobs with the right build...</P> <P>so i suggest you take that back to the side of the fence where your friends stay on that dps argument before someone gets nerfed lil buddy!!!</P>

[Mig]

<blockquote><hr>SageMarrow wrote:<P>well compare this Mygyb...</P> <P>against a green ^^ mob or a solo even con mob... </P> <P>i put out 100 dps without using 1 combat art...</P> <P>and im a bruiser.... so imagine what that gap would be if i did use my combat arts that are all built with haste buffs, and attacks that do up to 600dmg in one strike..</P> <P>then imagine it again if i were flanking and somone else was tanking...</P> <P>and im level 40.... <STRONG><EM><U>and</U></EM></STRONG> i can tank raid mobs with the right build...</P> <P>so i suggest you take that back to the side of the fence where your friends stay on that dps argument before someone gets nerfed lil buddy!!!</P> <hr></blockquote>Not sure what your trying to say. I was never stating an opinion, just a fact.

[SageMarrow]

im saying read Subtlknifes post and that about says it all.

[Mig]

I'm not sure what he's trying to say either. In fact I'm not sure what any one seems to be saying in this thread. But I know the argument that guardians cannot solo, or have poor DPS is just not true.

[Subtlekni]

<span><blockquote><hr>SageMarrow wrote:im saying read Subtlknifes post and that about says it all. <div></div><hr></blockquote></span>Well good, but I'm a little confused.   Migyb pointed out that in fact guardians do actually do damage.  He quoted damage from a fight where he was using combat arts, and was able to achieve 100 dps. He's a lot higher than 40 i'm sure, based on his comment about greens in CT.  You say you can do 100 dps without using any combat arts, and that you are 40. Clearly you will be able to significantly outdamge Migyb when you are the same level and have appropriate gear. Migyb posted that guardians are not total cripples when it comes to soloing. Nope, we are not. that is the truth.  Should we be? Good question, but hiding the fact that we can solo green ^^ doesn't serve to bring things in balance. Can you solo green ^^ Sage? I hope so. But I honestly don't know.  Still not sure what point you are trying to make.

[MoonglumHMV]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SageMarrow wrote:<BR> <P>well compare this Mygyb...</P> <P>against a green ^^ mob or a solo even con mob... </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>i put out 100 dps without using 1 combat art...</FONT></P> <P>and im a bruiser.... so imagine what that gap would be if i did use my combat arts that are all built with haste buffs, and attacks that do up to 600dmg in one strike..</P> <P>then imagine it again if i were flanking and somone else was tanking...</P> <P>and im level 40.... <STRONG><EM><U>and</U></EM></STRONG> i can tank raid mobs with the right build...</P> <P>so i suggest you take that back to the side of the fence where your friends stay on that dps argument before someone gets nerfed lil buddy!!!</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Sage, I'm going to have to try <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> to call BS on that statement.  What is special about you or your weapons that you can hit 100 DPS w/o using a single combat art?  If you can, wouldn't ANY class that can DW weapons of similar speed/damage as yours also hit 100 DPS w/o using combat arts?<BR>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Strast wrote:<BR> <SPAN><BR> <P> Furthermore, in a raid situation, in a time locked instance, there is nothing better than a monk that can feign death and preserve the raid when things go wrong. A monk equipped with a couple of feathers can res everyone and get the raid back going again. The same holds true for a potential group wipe. Scouts can not do this, in fact no other class can. Feign death is such an unbelievably powerful spell and that is something that can not be underestimated.</SPAN></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Sure, I wanna see someone successfully FD Darathar, or Vision of Vox.</P> <P>How many raids have you saved by having someone FD?</P> <P>You can also just disband someone with feathers.</P> <P>Also, SKs get FD and theirs is targettable, they can make anyone FD <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR></P>

[Gaige]

<P>You guys can say that we make choices to move us out of the MT tank role all you want, but its *NOT* true.</P> <P>That would be true if this game were based on subclass, but it isn't, its based on archetype.</P> <P>So therefore when we pick our archetype, we pick our job.</P> <P>When we pick our class and subclass we pick how we do our job.</P> <P>That's what you guys can't swallow because of the EQ1 and other game mentality.</P>

[Subtlekni]

<span><blockquote><hr>Gage-Mikel wrote:<p>You guys can say that we make choices to move us out of the MT tank role all you want, but its *NOT* true.</p> <p>That would be true if this game were based on subclass, but it isn't, its based on archetype.</p> <p>So therefore when we pick our archetype, we pick our job.</p> <p>When we pick our class and subclass we pick how we do our job.</p> <p>That's what you guys can't swallow because of the EQ1 and other game mentality.</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>If you are replying to me, and it seems like you are half quoting me here and then choosing to twise my words, please get it right.  Cause you just [Removed for Content] me off when you misquote me.   I said you made choices about what class you are playing. Sorry if it hurts your feelings, but taking a class involves making trade offs.   I'm going to quote you from the little book that came with the game. It's full of errors, but let's see what is says: <i>Guardians can don the heaviest armors to protect themsleves in combat and aid in the defense of their allies. They stand firm against any threat and bear the brunt of attacks while felling opponest with any variety of weapons. </i> Now, that is what I based my decision to play on, and what I expected when I became a guardian. Care to share with me the line that you based yours off of?  I feel that guardians give up a lot of utility, dps, taunting ability etc in favor of superior defense.  I never said other fighters can't MT. Read my quote again.  I do think that from a damage perspective that guardians should have a defensive edge when it comes to dealing with incoming damage. You seem to think the ability to 'tank' and by tanking i mean dealing with damage is the defining ability of the fighter archetype.  Tell me this, by your reasoning we should all 'Tank' equally well.   Should all scouts do damage equally well? Cause I hate to tell you this, but they don't. </span><div></div>

[Ender]

Defense for all fighters will get nerfed. So umm yeah. <div></div>

[SageMarrow]

<P>well in case you dont know guy, we get a skill called brawl, -40 deflection +20 fist skill.</P> <P>With fist weapons with a high damage rating, on a green ^^, that makes ALL of my attacks land at just about maximum damage and higher against a green mob...basically making the mob almost 8 levels lower than me as far as attack is concerned.</P> <P>As well as rousing cry that gives +8 to crushing peircing and slashing - and a 4% dps increase, a taunt that gives 3% increase and short duration buff that gives i believe another 5% haste, and my ancient slayer ring that everyones got 3%haste.</P> <P>Thats how i can do that... </P> <P>and on a green ^^ mob it doesnt matter about the -40 deflection, cause i dont get hit anyway, which i would assume is because of the defense skill scaling and mobs ability to hit an opponent based on the overall defensive level.</P> <P>(and if you call a buff a combat art then okay you got me)</P> <P>so just in case you were wondering.</P> <P>Other wise the point that i was making to midgyb subtleknife was that the same fight that he can solo is a bit more of a struggle for me. I cant afk and autoattack. I actually have to fight. </P> <P>I cant solo a blue ^^ at all - green only. With good gear a guardian can afk a blue ^^. </P> <P>so i guess the point that i was trying to make was that i can do the same thing with more dps but it really doesnt matter because ill be half dead by the end of the [Removed for Content] fight@!!!##@</P> <P>but i know i didnt say that - but it is what i meant...</P> <P> </P><p>Message Edited by SageMarrow on <span class=date_text>04-06-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:01 PM</span>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Subtleknife wrote:<SPAN><BR><BR>You seem to think the ability to 'tank' and by tanking i mean dealing with damage is the defining ability of the fighter archetype.  Tell me this, by your reasoning we should all 'Tank' equally well.   Should all scouts do damage equally well? Cause I hate to tell you this, but they don't.</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Of course I seem to think its the defining ability, because it is.  SoE has stated that many times.  In fact they've continued to state that as that role of all the subclasses from fighter also.  Nowhere have they stated that picking one subclass over the other changes your role.</P> <P>No, they shouldn't damage the same, but they should be able to fill their archetype's role in a group.</P> <P>That's why enchanter and summoner DPS is being increased also.<BR></P>

[Subtlekni]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR><BR> <P>No, they shouldn't damage the same, but they should be able to fill their archetype's role in a group.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Oh, Ok. What fighter class did you say you played again Gage? And you are not able to tank in an experience group? And by that I mean all of people that play your class, not just you. Cause honestly Gage, I'm starting to think that some of your complaints MIGHT be specific to you.</P> <P><BR> </P>

[SageMarrow]

<P>no what hes saying is that they need to take away the ability to use group buffs to hold aggro and the taunts we do get and make us rely on our dps to hold aggro alone...</P> <P>and give us avoidance based tanking on par with a guardians defense.</P> <P>Is that it gage? a guardian like tank who relies on dps to hold aggro?</P> <P>riggghtt...</P> <P>because we all know you have to give up something.... so instead of FD and invis and mend, just make it the taunt lines and group buffs.</P> <P>So that way the only reason you wont be a better tank is because you cant hold aggro...</P> <P>riiggghttt</P> <P> </P>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Subtleknife wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR><BR> <P>No, they shouldn't damage the same, but they should be able to fill their archetype's role in a group.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Oh, Ok. What fighter class did you say you played again Gage? And you are not able to tank in an experience group? And by that I mean all of people that play your class, not just you. Cause honestly Gage, I'm starting to think that some of your complaints MIGHT be specific to you.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Tanking in an experience group is only part of the game.  I never read where they balanced the xp game and the rest of the game seperately.</P> <P>But to answer your question, yes I can, and have, tanked xp groups from 1 to 50.<BR></P>

[Subtlekni]

<DIV> <P><EM>Tanking in an experience group is only part of the game.  I never read where they balanced the xp game and the rest of the game seperately.</EM></P> <P>Couple of questions.....  Just so I can understand.</P> <P>The complaint is that monks are useless on raids, and never get invited?  Can some of the other monks tell me if this is true? Cause I feel really bad if it is true.</P> <P>Or is the complaint that the only person to have ever tanked a raid encounter is a guardain?  That sucks if that is true.  I really feel that under the right condition any fighter class should be able to tank in a raid type enviroment.  Should it be easier for a guardian? Sure. Should it be impossible for a monk? Nope.</P> <P> </P> <P>Let's picture me and gage are both 50. I'm not 50 yet, but let's play pretend.  We come up on a lvl 47^^ mob, but we are feeling our oats and decide we can take it out. Let's say we are gonna be really inefficent, and decide that only one person is going to be allowed to take damage.  I decide to tank it, and gage attacks it from behind, slowly we wear it down, and eventually we kill it with me at just at a sliver of life.  We repeat the same experiment, this time replacing gage with a lvl 50 guardian. Does anyone want to place bets on what my life total will be whenever the fight ends?  But Gage and the lvl 50 guardian that we replaced Gage with in the 2nd example are both fighters, surely they can both filll the exact same role right? I mean, this game is balanced right?  Notice that Gage didn't even mend me half way through that first fight.</P> <P>If you think the line above is contrived, then what do you think main tanking on a raid is? It is highly contrived. </P> <P>Oh, regarding the tank like a gaurdian, but dps like a monk comment that was made in the post above.... is that what you want Gage? Cause seems to me that would make you a bit of an unbalanced soloer....</P> <P> </P></DIV>

[Stra]

<span><blockquote><hr>Migyb wrote:"It takes a guardian FOREVER to kill even a green and our DPS isnt high enough to take out grouped greens above level 21 or so."This statement is incorrect. I can routinelly take out the green ^^ groups in cazic. And if the mob is melee based, I've been able to take out blue heroic mobs as well. The terror wraiths outside the temple are one example. I've also parsed my dps and I routinely can achieve a nice average of around 100+ while fighting green, blue groups if I have the power regen to back me up.<hr></blockquote>If you have high level equipment you can sometimes solo green++ mobs but I would doubt blue++ mobs. Using high level heritage weapons, ebon armor and so on would do it. However, once again, you arent going to do it very fast and when confronting a group of two green+ mobs, you will have a hard time. You might be able to pull it off with uber equipment but it surely isnt going to level you very fast. As for your 100dps, that sounds about right. Of course that is not sustained, just while power lasts. And a monk comparatively equipped at the same level is going to do tripple that; a scout 6 times that. </span><div></div>

[Stra]

<span><blockquote><hr>Gage-Mikel wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Subtleknife wrote: <div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Gage-Mikel wrote: <p>No, they shouldn't damage the same, but they should be able to fill their archetype's role in a group.</p> <hr> </blockquote> <p>Oh, Ok. What fighter class did you say you played again Gage? And you are not able to tank in an experience group? And by that I mean all of people that play your class, not just you. Cause honestly Gage, I'm starting to think that some of your complaints MIGHT be specific to you.</p> <hr> </blockquote> <p>Tanking in an experience group is only part of the game.  I never read where they balanced the xp game and the rest of the game seperately.</p> <p>But to answer your question, yes I can, and have, tanked xp groups from 1 to 50.</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>Oh wait now. You can tank in groups, you can tank raid mobs yet you want more? You want to be the most mana efficient tank as well? You also want to keep Feign, your DPS, Mend and other utilities? The case for Gage being simply an unreasonable greedy individual is made. Guilty as charged. </span><div></div>

[Stra]

<span><blockquote><hr>Subtleknife wrote: <div><p>The complaint is that monks are useless on raids, and never get invited?  Can some of the other monks tell me if this is true? Cause I feel really bad if it is true.</p> <p>Or is the complaint that the only person to have ever tanked a raid encounter is a guardain?  That sucks if that is true.  I really feel that under the right condition any fighter class should be able to tank in a raid type enviroment.  Should it be easier for a guardian? Sure. Should it be impossible for a monk? Nope.</p></div><hr></blockquote>His complaint is that he wants more. He has said he can tank raid encounters (and other monks have proven this). He has also said he can be MT in groups 1 to 50. So what he wants is to be the most mana efficient MT and the prefered choice for raid MT as well as keep his Feign Death, Mend, DPS and utility spells. In the process, he wants guardian avoidance (and thus guardians) nerfed which would basically destroy any ability we have to tank at all. Monks get in raids all the time. They have great positional attacks and there is nothing like a feign capable monk or 2 to rescue the raid when things go bad. I say to monks in my raid, "If I go down, go somewhere safe and feign immediately until it succeeds." This has saved us on timed encounters several times. Guardians are merely more mana efficient in raids and that means when pushing the boundaries (taking groups of 3 blue+++ mobs for example) the guardian gives more of a padd of security and steadiness than the spiky damage taken by a monk. </span><div></div>

[Rysva]

<DIV> <P>From the EQ2 Knowledge Base:</P> <P> <HR> <P></P> <P><EM>What is a Warrior?</EM></P> <P><EM>Warriors are melee fighters who use heavy armor and weapons to strike down their enemies and protect their allies. They fight well in close quarters and can take quite a bit of damage without much worry.</EM></P> <P><EM>What is a Guardian?</EM></P> <P><EM>Guardians fight selflessly with the intent of taking the brunt of an assault and defending their allies in the process. They are well suited to holding an opponent in melee combat, while their comrades attack from other angles.</EM> </P> <P><EM>What is a Berserker?</EM></P> <P><EM>Berserkers are fearless combatants who use vicious, rapid attacks to achieve victory. They fight relentlessly, using whatever weapons they can to pummel their opponent into submission.</EM> </P> <P><EM>What is a Brawler?</EM></P> <P><EM>Brawlers are individuals who use their entire bodies in combat. They do not rely on weapons alone to inflict damage, and will often use their fists, feet, and their momentum to attack their foes.</EM> </P> <P><EM>What is a Monk?</EM></P> <P><EM>Monks are focused, honorable martial artists. They use a host of fighting styles and meditative techniques to focus their bodies and defeat their opponents. Many of their techniques imitate the fighting styles of wild animals and beasts.</EM> </P> <P><EM>What is a Bruiser?</EM></P> <P><EM>Bruisers are dishonorable ruffians who will not hesitate to resort to cheap shots and taunting to throw their enemy off balance. Their techniques take advantage of their enemies' weaknesses in order to give the Bruiser and his allies the upper hand in combat.</EM> </P> <P><EM>What is a Crusader?</EM></P> <P><EM>Crusaders are heavily armored fighters who have access to a wide variety of weapons. They call upon divine power to strengthen themselves and protect against attacks that are made against them.</EM> </P><EM></EM> <P><EM>What is a Shadowknight?</EM></P> <P><EM>Shadowknights are insidious dark crusaders who increase their combat abilities by tapping into the dark forces of disease and death. Like Bruisers, they are not above using cheap shots and dishonorable tactics if it will give them an edge.</EM> </P> <P><EM>What is a Paladin?</EM></P> <P><EM>Paladins are the defenders of honor, nobility, and virtue. They wear heavy armor and can use a wide variety of weapons. They are also able to call upon divine powers of good to smite their foes.</EM></P> <P> <HR> <P></P> <DIV>Too bad I couldn´t find a question "What is a Fighter?" or any info in the KB that describes the fighter archtype.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>According to the description Crusaders have a defensive touch, but Warriors excel in being defensive. Brawlers seem more offensive orientated. The Guardian has the most defensive description of all. Crusaders rely upon Divine powers to do their job and Brawlers can´t just use weps to do damage.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I think the devs did a good job to make the classes meet these descriptions so I don´t really understand why ppl complain.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Brawlers were meant to be able to tank with their deftness aka avoidance. This has the downside that when something hits em it will hit em for full force mostly as they won´t mitigate much damage with medium armor. I find this to be realistic and follows the concept of Monks in the classical AD&D setting. They should be able to tank a slowed and heavily debuffed raidmob with the help of wards. On the offensive side they do good melee damage due to dual wield and focussing their bodies and minds on exploiting the weakness of their enemies.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Crusaders are defenders of everything holy/unholy and were meant to be able to tank with their heavy armor mitigation and with the help of their gods. They shouldn´t avoid as many hits as a Brawler but when they get hit they should mitigate a good amount of it. So they should be able to tank a raidmob. Due to their religious devotion they can´t devote all their life to the combat arts and therefore rely on divine powers in a fight. So they have offensive and defensive spells. Paladins recieve healings and Lay on hands and are more defensive - Shadow Knights recieve lifetaps and Harm Touch and are more offensive. On the offensive side they rely on their spell damage as melee damage output is lala due to the concentration on their religion.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Warriors are ppl who devoted their life to the mastery of combat and helping their comrades in battle. They were meant to be able to tank with the use of heavy armor mitigation. They won´t avoid as many hits as the Brawler but mitigate as least as well as a similar equipped Crusader. So they should be able to tank a raidmob and excel at it. Due to their devotion to combat arts and not being distracted to religion like the Crusader they learn more melee and defensive skills than him. This goes to the expense of offensive power. The Guardian concentrates more on defense and the Berserker more on his offense. In general the Warrior does more melee damage than the Crusader but less than the Brawler.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I´m not saying that only Guardians should tank raidmobs. Imo all Fighters should be able to. Only some classes should be better suited than others.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>My preference for raidtank would be:</DIV> <DIV>Guardian > Berserker/Paladin/Shadowknight > Monk/Bruiser</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Guardians spend so much time in their life learning defensive skills so they should have the edge here followed by Berserker, Pally and SK who gave up some defense to become more offensive, the Berserker with melee and the Crusaders with divine powers.  Monks and Bruisers devote so much time to the perfection of their minds and bodies that they´re limited to medium armor.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>On the melee damage side it should look like this:</DIV> <DIV>Monk/Bruiser > Berserker > Guardian > Paladin/Shadowknight</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Brawlers should be the king in melee damage and should be on par with scouts imo due to taking so many drawbacks in tanking. Then comes the offensive orientated Warrior, the Berserker, then the Guardian. Last come the Crusaders as they rely more on their gods to aid them in combat.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>On spell damage side it should look like this:</DIV> <DIV>Paladin/Shadowknight > Monk/Bruiser > Berserker/Guardian</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Crusaders devote much of their life to religion and are therefore granted good offensive spells. Then come the Brawlers and finally the Warriors with almost nil spell damage.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Overall damage should be like this:</DIV> <DIV>Monk/Brawler > Berserker/Shadowknight/Paladin > Guardian</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I would find this a realistic setup reguarding which class puts emphasis in during his life.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Seeing this and the way classes were being designed from the beginning I don´t understand why Brawlers complain why they aren´t able to tank raidmobs. You are, there are just classes in the game that do it much better than you and you must´ve been aware at that from the beginning. See it from a realistic point of view: if your were in a fight who would you rather have on your side? The skinny, cloth shirted deft guy or the big brunt in a football suit? I´d prefer the latter and I bet you would too. Why? Cuz he has higher chances of winning. Yes, the deftly guy could kick the brunt in the nutts but what if he doesn´t hit the right spot right away? Chances are he won´t survive it and if he falls you will too...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I as a SK have absolutely no problem letting a Guardian tank that raidmob. Be my guest. He is better at it than me. But plz stop posting stuff like: "We are Guardians, we took the downsides and went through hell leveling to 50 this class to tank endgame so all raidmobs belong to us. Only a sucker would let a different class tank." I know not every Guardian has this opinion. Some have tho... <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV></DIV>

[MoonglumHMV]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SageMarrow wrote:<BR> <P>well in case you dont know guy, we get a skill called brawl, -40 deflection +20 fist skill.</P> <P>With fist weapons with a high damage rating, on a green ^^, that makes ALL of my attacks land at just about maximum damage and higher against a green mob...basically making the mob almost 8 levels lower than me as far as attack is concerned.</P> <P>As well as rousing cry that gives +8 to crushing peircing and slashing - and a 4% dps increase, a taunt that gives 3% increase and short duration buff that gives i believe another 5% haste, and my ancient slayer ring that everyones got 3%haste.</P> <P>Thats how i can do that... </P> <P>and on a green ^^ mob it doesnt matter about the -40 deflection, cause i dont get hit anyway, which i would assume is because of the defense skill scaling and mobs ability to hit an opponent based on the overall defensive level.</P> <P>(and if you call a buff a combat art then okay you got me)</P> <P>so just in case you were wondering.</P> <P>Other wise the point that i was making to midgyb subtleknife was that the same fight that he can solo is a bit more of a struggle for me. I cant afk and autoattack. I actually have to fight. </P> <P>I cant solo a blue ^^ at all - green only. With good gear a guardian can afk a blue ^^. </P> <P>so i guess the point that i was trying to make was that i can do the same thing with more dps but it really doesnt matter because ill be half dead by the end of the [Removed for Content] fight@!!!##@</P> <P>but i know i didnt say that - but it is what i meant...</P> <P> </P> <P>Message Edited by SageMarrow on <SPAN class=date_text>04-06-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>03:01 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry...you said you did it w/o any combat arts...to me that meant you walked up to the MOB and hit auto attack...didn't think you were using any skills...but you were just talking about 'active' combat arts if you will, not including buffs....that make a little more sense to me now, thanks for the clarification.  I'll take off my call of BS now <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> LOL

[SageMarrow]

<DIV>sorry about that moonglum, shouldve specified-= but yeah i guess i meant active combat arts. But those numbers a bit deflated- most are actually higher than that after i checked them in game. as far as the buffs and skills that add haste. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>but the fact still remains that for the most part its still a dps race against the mob = haste or no haste.</DIV>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Strast wrote:<BR><SPAN>They have great positional attacks</SPAN> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>No we don't.  We have no positional attacks, that's bruisers.<BR>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Strast wrote:<BR><SPAN>As for your 100dps, that sounds about right. Of course that is not sustained, just while power lasts. And a monk comparatively equipped at the same level is going to do tripple that; a scout 6 times that. <BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>WTB 300dps and 600dps for my ranger friend :smileyindifferent:<BR>

[Dbil]

Can someone just find Gage a /god hack so he will quit crying about tanking and leave the guardian boards? <p>Message Edited by Dbil on <span class=date_text>04-07-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:53 AM</span>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dbil wrote:<BR> Can someone just find Gage a /god hack so he will quit crying about tanking and leave the guardian boards? <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>I'd settle for a /tara_reid hack, but I doubt I'd leave the guardian boards.  I love you guys.<BR>

[Stra]

<span><blockquote><hr>Strast wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Gage-Mikel wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Subtleknife wrote: <div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Gage-Mikel wrote: <p>No, they shouldn't damage the same, but they should be able to fill their archetype's role in a group.</p> <hr> </blockquote> <p>Oh, Ok. What fighter class did you say you played again Gage? And you are not able to tank in an experience group? And by that I mean all of people that play your class, not just you. Cause honestly Gage, I'm starting to think that some of your complaints MIGHT be specific to you.</p> <hr> </blockquote> <p>Tanking in an experience group is only part of the game.  I never read where they balanced the xp game and the rest of the game seperately.</p> <p>But to answer your question, yes I can, and have, tanked xp groups from 1 to 50.</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>Oh wait now. You can tank in groups, you can tank raid mobs yet you want more? You want to be the most mana efficient tank as well? You also want to keep Feign, your DPS, Mend and other utilities? The case for Gage being simply an unreasonable greedy individual is made. Guilty as charged. </span><div></div><hr></blockquote>I quote my previous post to answer anything Gage Says from now on. </span><div></div>

[Nemi]

<blockquote><hr>Strast wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Strast wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Gage-Mikel wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Subtleknife wrote: <div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Gage-Mikel wrote: <p>No, they shouldn't damage the same, but they should be able to fill their archetype's role in a group.</p> <hr> </blockquote> <p>Oh, Ok. What fighter class did you say you played again Gage? And you are not able to tank in an experience group? And by that I mean all of people that play your class, not just you. Cause honestly Gage, I'm starting to think that some of your complaints MIGHT be specific to you.</p> <hr> </blockquote> <p>Tanking in an experience group is only part of the game.  I never read where they balanced the xp game and the rest of the game seperately.</p> <p>But to answer your question, yes I can, and have, tanked xp groups from 1 to 50.</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>Oh wait now. You can tank in groups, you can tank raid mobs yet you want more? You want to be the most mana efficient tank as well? You also want to keep Feign, your DPS, Mend and other utilities? The case for Gage being simply an unreasonable greedy individual is made. Guilty as charged. </span><div></div><hr></blockquote>I quote my previous post to answer anything Gage Says from now on. </span><div></div><hr></blockquote>All I see from your posts Strast is that you want Guardians to be put above everyone and after that you could care less. You have no desire for balance, no desire for anything other than ensuring your place as the only Main Tank is maintained. You do not respond to any points brought up in someone elses post, instead you attack the character of the person and try to belittle them as 'greedy' 'guilty' 'unreasonable'. Easy words to bandy about and show that you cannot attack the logic of the argument and instead try to attack the credibility of the poster.You put words into other peoples mouths, and extrapolate their posts to inflate what they are asking for.In simple English:1) There should be no M0B in the game that REQUIRES a Guardian to tank it.To try and prevent you mis-construing that above statement:1) Guardians may well be more efficient2) Guardians may well be more reliable<b><i><u>BUT</u></i></b> it should not <b><i><u>REQUIRE</u></i></b> a GuardianGuardians 1st among equals is fine to me.

[TheMeatShie]

<span> <blockquote>All I see from your posts Strast is that you want Guardians to be put above everyone and after that you could care less. You have no desire for balance, no desire for anything other than ensuring your place as the only Main Tank is maintained. You do not respond to any points brought up in someone elses post, instead you attack the character of the person and try to belittle them as 'greedy' 'guilty' 'unreasonable'. Easy words to bandy about and show that you cannot attack the logic of the argument and instead try to attack the credibility of the poster.You put words into other peoples mouths, and extrapolate their posts to inflate what they are asking for.In simple English:1) There should be no M0B in the game that REQUIRES a Guardian to tank it.To try and prevent you mis-construing that above statement:1) Guardians may well be more efficient2) Guardians may well be more reliable<b><i><u>BUT</u></i></b> it should not <b><i><u>REQUIRE</u></i></b> a GuardianGuardians 1st among equals is fine to me.<hr></blockquote> The problem with this belief is that to make this true, you have to balance content more, not classes. Guardians are the class that sacrifices nearly all utility and dps to be the most defensive tank.  When you balance content, if it is balanced along the point that raid mob x hits for XXX with a high attack rating, to balance it to be challenging for the most defensive tanks in the game, it is quite a bit more challenging for any other tank class in the game that is not as defensive.   By having mobs like this that are challenging for the most defensive plate tank to go face to face with, if that plate tank actually has any defensive value versus physical attacks over the other classes, it will pretty much make it near impossible for another class to tank.  This is not so much of a margin now, and all classes can tank raid mobs, but as expansions come out and the damage numbers increase as will this margin. My content balancing point is like this... remember innoruk in plane of time? Remember how it was more helpful to have a knight tank him due to their abilities?  Kudos to the designer who got that bright hair - because it was a factor of the CONTENT that made it more tankable by knights.  I think the biggest concern between the tanks is raid roles... people worry that if mobs are tailored to guardians, they will have no job at raids.  I can simpathize with this, as i played a Paladin to lvl 65 in eq1... i thought it was unfair that warriors got this advanatage vs raid mobs ie defensive.. but you know what? After rolling a Warrior and leveling him to 70 i QUICKLY realized how much many of the things i had as a bonus as a knight really did help me, something i couldnt see from my perspective as easily as a knight. I still think the fact remains, Guardians fall short of every other "tank" class in their archetype in many different ways, be it dps, utility, etc... In situations where those matter, a Guardian cannot perform like those tanks.  Guardians are built to be more defensive then these other tanks, and when every tank can tank all 100% of the mobs in the game, where is the advantage to being a guardian?  Im sorry, but if i really thought sony would make it to where every class can tank every mob in the game, i would have rolled a class with invis and a horse =P  I sacraficed utility, dps, and bells and whistles so that in those raid type situations that make up a very small portion of the mobs in game at this time i would have benefits above others.  Some people truly seem to believe that its ok for other tank types to have bonuses in other areas, but the moment it comes down to tanking mobs that using the best defensive tank in the game gives Guardians a bonus, its an inbalance?  This is not balance IMHO... </span><div></div>

[Nemi]

Utility.How does self invis help a group or a raid? One that is unreliable above level 40 (if at all) and lasts around 25 seconds. If you are seen, you probably have little power left for a fight. (Because it drains power to zero in about 25seconds)How does Feign Death help a group or a raid? You can res the priest? Maybe, but if your group just wiped the chances of you FDing against an orange/red mob, getting up, ressing the priest and ressing everyone else before you can rebuff / med to fight adds is <i>VERY REMOTE</i>. You're quicker releasing and fighting back down or just evaccing before you wipe.How does a 5 minute 15% hit point heal help a group or raid? If I need to stop tanking a mob, to target someone to heal them, then either:1) The healer is OOP so we're going to die.2) The healer is LD so we're going to die.3) The group is crap so we're going to die.If it takes a Monk Mend to save your group, then you're doing something EXTREMELY wrong.<b><i>ALL</i></b> of the above 'utility' spells are useful in SOLO play only and for me, that shouldn't come into a discussion about group roles.I'm sorry, but I see having 1 class out of 6 do only one job as being imbalanced.If Monks being the masters of avoidance had a significant bonus over all other when fighting multiple mobs, would you be happy? If fighting more than 1 mob required a Monk would you be happy? I mean, Warriors are in 300lbs of plate, great against the person they are fighting against, not much use about the other 3.

[TheMeatShie]

<div></div>Do you not agree that these "utility" are helpful in some way?  It is impossible to completely balance all classes on every aspect of the game, so alot of the times different classes shine more in different situations.  If we were totally balanced vs taking damage against a raid mob, but when you want to recover a shard you can invis and walk right to it to where i would have to possibly find someone that could invis me, or find a group to fight there... that is an advantage.  If you dont think the tradeoffs are worth it, and you would rather give up those utilities and advantages to be able to shine being the most defensive tank vs high end raid mobs, i suggest rolling a guardian, the game is still relatively new... Oh and how does wearing hundreds of lbs of plate not help when getting beat on by 3 mobs... is one mob hitting 2 inches of plate, while the other two mobs wack on someone naked?  Im missing the perspective on this. <div></div><p>Message Edited by TheMeatShield on <span class=date_text>04-08-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:45 AM</span>

[Nemi]

Well you have 300lb plate, with a visor that lets you see approx 60 degrees in front of you. If someone is behind you, to the side of you and to the front of you, you're snookered. You can see the guy to the front, you have shield to block the attacks on your left side and front (if you're right-handed).The guys to the back of you and to the right have free reign to land blows that you cannot block or dodge. Plate armour is not invulnerable, there are weak spots at the joints, under the arm, legs. The best tactic against a fully clad knight was to get in close and stick a knife in at the joint.A monk doesn't have this problem, he's agile, quick and can combat multiple opponents, prevent them flanking him and having a vastly improved peripheral vision. So in a scenario with multiple mobs, you REQUIRED a Monk? Are you happy? Guardians are the best at 1 on 1 encounters, Monks for multiple? I bet my last dime you're not happy. No one class should be REQUIRED to tank a mob.<hr>Does my utility give me an advantage? I would say probably not. If my shard is at the bottom of a dungeon, then I would have been there with a group, therefore I would recover it with a group. Invis isn't going to save me, Monk invis is NOT that reliable. Lots of yellow mobs see through it assuming my power will last out to allow me to run to my shard. When I get there, my power will be out, there will be mobs everywhere and I'll be dead again.The only use Invis has is in some outdoor areas to help shortcut. More often than not, sprinting will do much the same thing and get you there quicker.<p>Message Edited by Nemi on <span class=date_text>04-08-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:59 PM</span>

[TheMeatShie]

<span><blockquote><hr>Nemi wrote:Well you have 300lb plate, with a visor that lets you see approx 60 degrees in front of you. If someone is behind you, to the side of you and to the front of you, you're snookered. You can see the guy to the front, you have shield to block the attacks on your left side and front (if you're right-handed).The guys to the back of you and to the right have free reign to land blows that you cannot block or dodge. Plate armour is not invulnerable, there are weak spots at the joints, under the arm, legs. The best tactic against a fully clad knight was to get in close and stick a knife in at the joint.A monk doesn't have this problem, he's agile, quick and can combat multiple opponents, prevent them flanking him and having a vastly improved peripheral vision. So in a scenario with multiple mobs, you REQUIRED a Monk? Are you happy? Guardians are the best at 1 on 1 encounters, Monks for multiple? I bet my last dime you're not happy. No one class should be REQUIRED to tank a mob.<hr>Does my utility give me an advantage? I would say probably not. If my shard is at the bottom of a dungeon, then I would have been there with a group, therefore I would recover it with a group. Invis isn't going to save me, Monk invis is NOT that reliable. Lots of yellow mobs see through it assuming my power will last out to allow me to run to my shard. When I get there, my power will be out, there will be mobs everywhere and I'll be dead again.The only use Invis has is in some outdoor areas to help shortcut. More often than not, sprinting will do much the same thing and get you there quicker.<p>Message Edited by Nemi on <span class="date_text">04-08-2005</span> <span class="time_text">12:59 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Umm if the mobs are behind me, i cant parry or block them... so that is null.  When they hit me from the back, its still not naked... my armor absorbs blows still, eh? And if you think your utility doesnt give you any advantages, i would say you dont really realize the powers of your class and that you should pick another.</span><div></div>

[Nemi]

Ah, that old chestnut eh Meat?I obviously don't understand my class because you tell me so.I don't care how much armour you have on, if you let someone behind you, blind. Your dead. Hell, he can knock you to the ground and stick pins in you at his leisure.

[Deadjest]

<DIV>    The problem is Sony ment for all fighters to fight equally in EQ2,  they know people like to play different brands of tanks and wanted to get away from the mistakes they made with the War in EQL and the rest of the tanks there.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>    The problem is you CANNOT have different types of tanks, tank equally on the same mob, it just doesnt work, can't be the same AND be different.   What compounded this is that EQ2 wanted one thing but since they broght over many of the old teams from EQL they are as much stuck in a mode of thinking as some of the tanks are here.   </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>    So the issue is, Sony Advertised one thing and we got another, most tanks I know, ( I have RL friends that play all the differnt tanks) picked the tank that they did for the same reason I picked a SK and my other friend picked a Guardian.   We like in your face tanking/fighting.   I am sorry if some people dont understand that but that is the way it is.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>   What should have happend since we have 5 differnt tanks, each tank is BETTER at tanking certian types of mobs then the other tank is.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>   Such as Guardians tank hard hitting mobs the best, on the other end Monks tank fast striking mobs the best and Crusaders fall inbetween but heavily resist various types of magic procs the best which further can be broken down to each type of tank being able to resist heavily set number magics, such as for Crusaders it would be Divine, Disease and Poison, Monks - Mental and Fire and Cold and Zerks super resistant to Mental cause they are nuts after all, hard to control a crazy.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>   And same would go for our DPS.   Slow hard hitting tanks should have a good dmg ration vs heavy armor but does not really getting any better vs lite armor.</DIV> <DIV>Fast striking tanks with fists or duel weilding do great dmg vs lite armor and it decrease to the close you get to heavy armor and finely at heavy armor they are sub par DPS then the heavy tanks.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>  That is called balance.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>  The balance isnt in pure tanking for every tank on one single mob but the end result of various tanks vs various types of mobs.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>  There is somthing just mentaly wrong with the idea of people in general rolling up any one type of tank and thinking he should be best AFTER Sony advertised so hard on all tanks tanking equally.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>  But hey, it takes all kinds I see.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>  Haruchai</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Nemi]

Well said.Two types of balance:1) Balance vs MoB - Different MoBs for different tanks2) Balance vs Setup - Different classes work with different tanks.What we seem to be getting is EQ1.Guardian + Heal chain + Fluff

[Subtlekni]

<span><blockquote><hr>Nemi wrote:Ah, that old chestnut eh Meat?I obviously don't understand my class because you tell me so.I don't care how much armour you have on, if you let someone behind you, blind. Your dead. Hell, he can knock you to the ground and stick pins in you at his leisure.<hr></blockquote>Nemi, there you go trying to bring reality into this. If I had 3 bad guys, that had trained for 1 month with a sword, and I had my choice between a fully armored guy with a sword that had trained for one month, and a real life martial artist that had trained since he as 8 years old for 25 years, I'd put my money on the guy with the armor and the sword any dang day of the week. He's still probably going to die, but he stands a heck of a lot better chance than the unarmored 'martial artist'.  You can quote me your belt rank, or what your sensai said, or what ever bull you want to bring in, but all you make apparent is that you have never been in a real fight if you do, and have no concept of it.  So please don't go draggin reality into this, or lvl 50 monks would be dieing to groups of gnolls in blackburrow. </span><div></div>

[Nemi]

Reality? Haven't seen many knights wandering about in suits of armour recently.I was countering the argument that 1 subclass is REQUIRED for a given situation. Guardians are happy because they are the N#1 for all situations atm, and I'm sure that would change if Monks were suddenly REQUIRED for another situation.As for reality in a Fantasy game: The game has to be based in some form of reality otherwise you cannot make any connection to it or understand it.

[Subtlekni]

Ok. The argument seems to be that your 'utility' doesn't help you on raids.  There even seems to be some that argue that your utility doesn't really help you before raids.  I haven't played an EQ2 monk to high levels, so I will not pretend to be 100% sure.  But as far as the pre raid help of utility, and this is <u>not</u> me saying that the following things I ask make up the whole of your utility. This is just a couple of questions that I feel shed a little light. How many monks have died because they were leaving the griffon ride walking down the ramp, lagged a bit and died. If so, how many times? How many guardians? How many times? Walking down a steep hill, how many monks, died? How many times? Guardians? How many monks have ever completed higher level quests solo because they can get where they need to be without argo, or loose that argo if they chooose to? How many times? Guardians? How many crusaders have managed to kill a casting mob solo that would totally kill a guardian? And I've seen it. Pally same gear as me, same level, he won, I'd be lucky to get to half. I don't complain about these things. I accept it as part of my lot in life. It is what I choose to give up to do what I do. Now you say all fighters should be able to do what I do, how I do it, and exactly as well.  But NO ONE else here that plays another class has bought into my suggestion that Guardians be given the exact same utility as the other classes? Why is that?  We are all fighters... shouldn't we be equal? Reguarding the more reasonable person that made the post about mobs that should be better balanced for one type of fighter to tank than another. I'm fine with that. I welcome that. I'm not against other classes being able to MT raid mobs. Honestly I'm not. Go back, read. See. I welcome some diversity in this. But if guardians are not the most defensive tank, then what are we? I think some people, and yes I mean some of the brawlers that post here, just want guardians, and possibly even berserkers removed from the game. Or their class made the 'clear choice' by anyone that isn't brain dead, which is the same thing. Is that what you guys really want?

[Nemi]

You haven't read a post of mine then. You jumped in the middle of a debate above without reading the background to it.I don't want to tank equal to a Guardian, or as 'good' as a Guardian but I want to Tank what a Guardian tanks. <b><u>I have no issues with Guardians being the most defensive tank in the game. I have issues with Guardians believing they should be the only subclass to tank raid content.</u></b>The above may not be you, but plenty in this forum believe the above.<hr>To answer your other points:You're telling me I am restricted from tanking Raid mobs because you can lag and died falling from a cliff or Griff tower?I haven't completed any high level quests solo. They all require killing high level mobs, or visiting areas my invis won't work. Remember our self invis last 25 seconds. That doesnt get us very far. FD is a lottery chance, if I'm in danger I'll hit my sprint button and make a beeline away just like anyone else.Sprinting gives me a chance to outrun a mob. FD either: Fails and makes me prone with 0 defense (you die)....All these are fails... Succeeds, I now have no buffs and I'm surrounded by aggro mobs.

[Owa]

<P>Personally, I 've found my feign Death and Wind Walk, Mend and Safefall to be very useful in solo situations - although somewhat less so in groups. I tried other fighter types, don't care in the slightest that Guardians are better defensive tanks  - I much prefer playing a Monk. </P> <P><U>However</U>, the trouble is I'm only level 41 - and from what I can glean from the level 50 Monks, the aforementioned abilities become markedly less useful in the endgame - specifically Wind Walk which, apparently, doesn't work at all from 42-50.</P> <P>Now, unless all the high-level Monks  are lying*, these discussions about 'trade offs' and  'utility spells'  have to take into account the fact that our advanges disappear as we reach the endgame whereas yours increase. Especially as the endless 'class balance' arguments are fundamentally about  high-level raid content</P> <P>In my view, I think Brawlers should be less 'tanky' than Warriors or Crusaders, the offensive end of the Fighter achetype, if you will, which blends into the Scout tree - but that is just my own opinion and one that is definitely not shared by all Brawlers. I can solo blue ^^ (sometimes) and can tank orange or red ^^ non-caster mobs pretty well with a decent group - and that's as much tanking ability as I think we need. If a guardian wants to tank, and can tank better, I happily defer to him (or her) and go into DPS mode, thus demonstrating my favourite Monk trait of all: versatility.</P> <P>Oh, and something that I thought was funny was that the vocal Mr Strast describes himself as <EM>leader of a casual guild for players with maturity and a desire for fellowship</EM>. Maybe I've been misreading his posts or simply misunderstand the words 'maturity', 'casual' and 'fellowship'..? :smileywink:</P> <P> </P> <P>(* Insert conspiracy theory here)</P>

[Subtlekni]

<span><blockquote><hr>Nemi wrote:<font color="#ff0000">You haven't read a post of mine then. You jumped in the middle of a debate above without reading the background to it.</font><font color="#ff0000"> </font>I don't want to tank equal to a Guardian, or as 'good' as a Guardian but I want to Tank what a Guardian tanks. <b><u>I have no issues with Guardians being the most defensive tank in the game. I have issues with Guardians believing they should be the only subclass to tank raid content.</u></b>The above may not be you, but plenty in this forum believe the above.<hr> <font color="#6666cc">Sorry to have jumped into a thread that I have no business posting in then. Reguarding your underlined post, please read the first post made in this thread. Read it carefully. Read the part about it being easier for a guardian, but fighter class having the potential to succeed. I don't know if that is the same as what you are saying. So please tell me. If it is slightly harder for a monk to tank a raid mob, is that ok? Or is that outside the realm?</font> To answer your other points:<font color="#ff0000">You're telling me I am restricted from tanking Raid mobs because you can lag and died falling from a cliff or Griff tower?</font><font color="#ff0000"> </font> <i>ME: But as far as the pre raid help of utility, and this is <u>not</u> me saying that the following things I ask make up the whole of your utility. This is just a couple of questions that I feel shed a little light.</i> <font color="#666699">I didn't say what I meant correctly, and that is my bad. These are not reasons for your utility to make you unable to tank raid mobs (cause as we all know, bruisers can never tank raid mobs, it's impossible, has never and will never happen /sarcasm off).  These are questions regarding the statement that your utility gives you NO advantages pre raid.  If they truely give you no advantages pre raid, then fine, I accept it. But I'd like to see a discussion regarding this assertion that pre raid the utility of monks give them no advantages.  Are all monk abilities like the lvl 20 fun spell horses now? Are they all with 0 purpose?  This was not my understanding, but if this is so, then it changes things in my mind.</font><font color="#666699"> </font><font color="#666699"> </font><font color="#666699">Again, my bad. I meant to say higher level quests. Ie quests that a guardian at the same level would find difficult to complete. Be this running down to the atrium to get a bracer at lvl 16 under a full spawn, or wat ever else. I'm not using this as an example to explain why monks can't tank raid mobs, I'm just trying to determine if in fact the utility that a brawler has, has ever given them any bonus, in the game, ever.</font> I haven't completed any high level quests solo. They all require killing high level mobs, or visiting areas my invis won't work. Remember our self invis last 25 seconds. That doesnt get us very far. FD is a lottery chance, if I'm in danger I'll hit my sprint button and make a beeline away just like anyone else.Sprinting gives me a chance to outrun a mob. FD either: Fails and makes me prone with 0 defense (you die)....All these are fails... Succeeds, I now have no buffs and I'm surrounded by aggro mobs.<hr></blockquote></span><div></div>

[Subtlekni]

<span><blockquote><hr>annaspider wrote:<p>Personally, I 've found my feign Death and Wind Walk, Mend and Safefall to be very useful in solo situations - although somewhat less so in groups. I tried other fighter types, don't care in the slightest that Guardians are better defensive tanks  - I much prefer playing a Monk. </p> <p><u>However</u>, the trouble is I'm only level 41 - and from what I can glean from the level 50 Monks, the aforementioned abilities become markedly less useful in the endgame - specifically Wind Walk which, apparently, doesn't work at all from 42-50.</p> <p>Now, unless all the high-level Monks  are lying*, these discussions about 'trade offs' and  'utility spells'  have to take into account the fact that our advanges disappear as we reach the endgame whereas yours increase. Especially as the endless 'class balance' arguments are fundamentally about  high-level raid content</p> <p>In my view, I think Brawlers should be less 'tanky' than Warriors or Crusaders, the offensive end of the Fighter achetype, if you will, which blends into the Scout tree - but that is just my own opinion and one that is definitely not shared by all Brawlers. I can solo blue ^^ (sometimes) and can tank orange or red ^^ non-caster mobs pretty well with a decent group - and that's as much tanking ability as I think we need. If a guardian wants to tank, and can tank better, I happily defer to him (or her) and go into DPS mode, thus demonstrating my favourite Monk trait of all: versatility.</p> <p>Oh, and something that I thought was funny was that the vocal Mr Strast describes himself as <em>leader of a casual guild for players with maturity and a desire for fellowship</em>. Maybe I've been misreading his posts or simply misunderstand the words 'maturity', 'casual' and 'fellowship'..? :smileywink:</p> <p>(* Insert conspiracy theory here)</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>Bless you  annaspider!  Yes. Exactly!  My argument is that instead giving all of the fighter classes the higher defense of the guardians, the one thing that sets guardians appart. Instead of doing that, why not expand the utility of the other classes in raid settings.  I've got some dumb ideas of how to do it, but I'm sure someone else has much better ones.  The things that set brawlers and crusaders appart for the first 50 levels was their utility.  Why can't that utility be expanded to raid content?  I know it's not there now, and I'm sure it will be hard and painful process to reach, but doesn't it make more sense? And least we forget, in a traditional raid of 24 people, there is only going to be one MT. Even if it is a guardian, what do you think the other guardians that might be along on the raid are going to be doing? Or do people even bother bringing more than one guardian?   If you are looking for raid playabiltiy, then having utility that can meaningfully contribute to the raid is MUCH more useful taken as a whole, then then ability to be that one person out of the 24 that is the MT.   </span><div></div>

[MastikFantastik]

<P>Ok, I have posted this (or similar statements) in threads before and I will post it again. I play regularaly with a monk friend.  I tank most of the time because I am higher level and easier to heal for the average healer.  not to say he can't tank what I can.  Matter of fact he can and has on occasion.  A lot of the time he is in DPS mode and I am in ... well .. guardian mode :smileyhappy: .. lol. thus I am MT .  When we are fighting he is generally the MA for everyone else in the group.</P> <P>Heck if he wants to get beat on by x number of mobs and have everyone else use me to assist and have me kill the mobs then all the power to him. But him being the MT cuts his DPS and he likes having that DPS.  Also as a rule he taunts the mobs Ia m taunting, not often but he does.   Why so that in the case that I go down he is next highest on the agro list and the mob(s) turn its' (their) attention to him rather then the healers(the rare time he gains agro I gain it right back with the next taunt).   That to me sounds like he is doing his role right and tanking whether it is the MT/OT/MA.  An example of how he did a great job of tanking stuff I died on was Lord Everling in Nek Castle.  We were lower levels then we are now however. I had the group of mobs attacking me and before 1 mob dropped dead (1 was close) I died. Now I don't blame anyone for this, there was a lot of DPS flying at me, and only 4 of us there. Now he steps up and finishes killing Everling (mob that was almost dead), maintains agro, and kills off 1 other mobe before the healer could rez me even. He tanked the last mob(s) as well.  That sounds to me like a monk tanking a mob I couldn't at the time.  And here is the kicker he was 2 levels lower than me.  Also I was in good gear for the level not greyed out newbie armor either.</P> <P>The point that I trying to convey in this post is that Monks/Bruiser/Pallies/SK's/Zerkers can all tank what a guardian can. Not to say that they will be the first choice for that/those encounter(s).  I chose to be a guardian to be the slab of armored meat that inspires hatred in mob(s) to keep my party safe. Seeing that all the 5 others can tank the same mobs as I can, doesn't bother me at all. However people whinning that they can't does, because they can, even if it is harder or they need to usea different combination of players in the group/raid to make it successful. </P> <P>I have examples of each of the fighter archtypes tanking raid mob(s) that I can and could have at the time but they did with me in the group/raid.  Not because they had better gear (most of the times I did) but because they wanted to try/or they saw it as a good thing to have me as the OT/MA rather than the MT. A prime example of a zerker being MT while I was OT was in CH when we were going to kill the raid mob for the ghoulbane restoration.  When you looked at the stats I was slighty higher in AC, HP, Avoidance, and some resists then the zerker. How ever they were MT and I was OT, guess what happend... that's right we were successful. Not because a guardian was MT because everyone there did what they could to compliment each other. I used Allay, and Never surrender on the zerker. And when needed Sentinal (usually when allay and neversurrender were down).  I also only had to OT 1 mob. Other then that I would target the same mob the zerker was on. At the end of the fight The zerker was still leaps and bounds over me in DPS and they WERE the MT and used a sheild and 1 hander where as I was using dual weilders to up what little DPS I have.</P> <P>So to all those that claim that guardians are the only ones that can tank raid mob(s), I have to say BS. They all can, all be it a matter of using different tactics. If you want to use the same tactics a guardian MT raid uses, make a guardian and play him for that raid if you don't then devise(think up) a different tactic on how to do it, from several other posts we have seen everyclass of fighter MT a raid. 1 Person does not make the raid it takes the raid to do that.  (on a side note 1 person can break a raid though.. lol)</P> <P>$edited to correct a couple spelling errors that I did notice$</P> <P>Message Edited by MastikFantastik on <SPAN class=date_text>04-08-2005</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>08:15 AM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by MastikFantastik on <span class=date_text>04-08-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:15 AM</span>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> TheMeatShield wrote:<BR><BR><SPAN>I still think the fact remains, Guardians fall short of every other "tank" class in their archetype in many different ways,<FONT color=#ffff00> be it dps, utility, etc... In situations where those matter, a Guardian cannot perform like those tanks.</FONT>  Guardians are built to be more defensive then these other tanks, and when every tank can tank all 100% of the mobs in the game, where is the advantage to being a guardian? </SPAN> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Wow.  When it comes to DPS and utility, a guardian can't perform!  Because DPS and utility are scout/mage roles!  No tank should be performing those roles on a regular basis.</P> <P>When guardians can tank 100% of the mobs in the game, and the other fighters can't, and their DPS and utility is worse than two archetypes, where is the advantage of being one of the five other fighters?</P> <P>There isn't.</P> <P><BR> </P>

[Gaige]

<DIV><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Subtleknife wrote:<BR>Ok. The argument seems to be that your 'utility' doesn't help you on raids.  There even seems to be some that argue that your utility doesn't really help you before raids.  I haven't played an EQ2 monk to high levels, so I will not pretend to be 100% sure.  <BR><BR>But as far as the pre raid help of utility, and this is <U>not</U> me saying that the following things I ask make up the whole of your utility. This is just a couple of questions that I feel shed a little light.<BR><BR>How many monks have died because they were leaving the griffon ride walking down the ramp, lagged a bit and died. If so, how many times?<BR>How many guardians? How many times?<BR><BR>Walking down a steep hill, how many monks, died? How many times?<BR>Guardians?<BR><BR>How many monks have ever completed higher level quests solo because they can get where they need to be without argo, or loose that argo if they chooose to? How many times?<BR>Guardians?<BR><BR>How many crusaders have managed to kill a casting mob solo that would totally kill a guardian? And I've seen it. Pally same gear as me, same level, he won, I'd be lucky to get to half.<BR><BR>I don't complain about these things. I accept it as part of my lot in life. It is what I choose to give up to do what I do.<BR>Now you say all fighters should be able to do what I do, how I do it, and exactly as well.  But NO ONE else here that plays another class has bought into my suggestion that Guardians be given the exact same utility as the other classes? Why is that?  We are all fighters... shouldn't we be equal?<BR><BR>Reguarding the more reasonable person that made the post about mobs that should be better balanced for one type of fighter to tank than another. I'm fine with that. I welcome that. I'm not against other classes being able to MT raid mobs. Honestly I'm not. Go back, read. See. I welcome some diversity in this. But if guardians are not the most defensive tank, then what are we?<BR><BR>I think some people, and yes I mean some of the brawlers that post here, just want guardians, and possibly even berserkers removed from the game. Or their class made the 'clear choice' by anyone that isn't brain dead, which is the same thing. Is that what you guys really want? <BR><BR><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Hahahah omg I can't believe I just read that.  Hahhahahahaa.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU BRAWLERS WANT TO TANK GOOD, YOU HAVE SAFEFALL AND WE DON'T!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Hahahahahahahaha.<BR></DIV>

[TheMeatShie]

<span> <blockquote><blockquote><span></span> <hr> </blockquote> <p>Wow.  When it comes to DPS and utility, a guardian can't perform!  Because DPS and utility are scout/mage roles!  No tank should be performing those roles on a regular basis.</p> <p>When guardians can tank 100% of the mobs in the game, and the other fighters can't, and their DPS and utility is worse than two archetypes, where is the advantage of being one of the five other fighters?</p> <p>There isn't.  </p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>Then your utility needs to be looked at more, along the lines of the roles and abilities it gives you.  Personally i know people in game that love the monk class, but then again by your standards they are insane to love such a weak and worthless class. DPS is not a scout/mage ROLE, dps is something that every class does, that scout mages do the best. And btw what mobs in game CANT be tanked by all fighters? im not talking YOU fell on your face, im talking CANT be tanked...</span><div></div>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> TheMeatShield wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN></SPAN> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Wow.  When it comes to DPS and utility, a guardian can't perform!  Because DPS and utility are scout/mage roles!  No tank should be performing those roles on a regular basis.</P> <P>When guardians can tank 100% of the mobs in the game, and the other fighters can't, and their DPS and utility is worse than two archetypes, where is the advantage of being one of the five other fighters?</P> <P>There isn't.<BR><BR> </P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Then your utility needs to be looked at more, along the lines of the roles and abilities it gives you.  Personally i know people in game that love the monk class, but then again by your standards they are insane to love such a weak and worthless class.<BR><BR>DPS is not a scout/mage ROLE, dps is something that every class does, that scout mages do the best.<BR><BR>And btw what mobs in game CANT be tanked by all fighters? im not talking YOU fell on your face, im talking CANT be tanked...<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Well, I haven't seen a brawler tank Darathar :smileysurprised:</P> <P>I love the monk class, I always have.  We just aren't balanced the way we should be.</P> <P>I realize DPS is something every class does *including guardian*, but it *is* the defined role of the scout and the mage classes.  One is for caster DPS one is for melee DPS.</P> <P>Besides, the only utility that we get that is useful to a group is FD, which is unreliable at best and serves nowhere near the role it did in EQ1.</P> <P>Mend = 5 mins for % based; if a group is depending on mend they are going to die.</P> <P>Safefall = Does what for a group?  Even if it did, scouts get it too.</P> <P>Invis = Does what for a group?  Even if it did certain mage/scout/priest subclasses get group invis.  I think I used invis for maybe three levels, and then only to get to a few xp groups in Varsoon that were ahead of me.  I removed it from my hotbar at 42.</P> <P>SoE needs to do one of three things imho:</P> <P>1) Balance tanks as tanks, including raids.  Ensuring that although fighters will have to fight for one spot, they can all at least qualify and fight for it.</P> <P>2) Make offtanking worthwhile.  Make sure every fighter class can excel at offtanking in the right scenario.  Differentiate offtanking from just doing melee DPS so as to have a defined line for scout/fighter roles when not MT.</P> <P>3) Just be done with it and admit defeat, make guardian the best.  Give up the archetype system because they don't know how to code it, revert everything to EQ1 like balance and have the Holy Trinity with a bunch of useless classes.</P> <P>They don't have much other choice.<BR></P>

[Subtlekni]

<span><blockquote><hr>Gage-Mikel wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Subtleknife wrote:Ok. The argument seems to be that your 'utility' doesn't help you on raids.  There even seems to be some that argue that your utility doesn't really help you before raids.  I haven't played an EQ2 monk to high levels, so I will not pretend to be 100% sure.  But as far as the <font color="#cc0000">pre raid help of utility</font>, and this is <u>not</u> me saying that the following things I ask make up the whole of your utility. This is just a couple of questions that I feel shed a little light.How many monks have died because they were leaving the griffon ride walking down the ramp, lagged a bit and died. If so, how many times?How many guardians? How many times?Walking down a steep hill, how many monks, died? How many times?Guardians?How many monks have ever completed higher level quests solo because they can get where they need to be without argo, or loose that argo if they chooose to? How many times?Guardians?How many crusaders have managed to kill a casting mob solo that would totally kill a guardian? And I've seen it. Pally same gear as me, same level, he won, I'd be lucky to get to half.I don't complain about these things. I accept it as part of my lot in life. It is what I choose to give up to do what I do.Now you say all fighters should be able to do what I do, how I do it, and exactly as well.  But NO ONE else here that plays another class has bought into my suggestion that Guardians be given the exact same utility as the other classes? Why is that?  We are all fighters... shouldn't we be equal?Reguarding the more reasonable person that made the post about mobs that should be better balanced for one type of fighter to tank than another. I'm fine with that. I welcome that. I'm not against other classes being able to MT raid mobs. Honestly I'm not. Go back, read. See. I welcome some diversity in this. But if guardians are not the most defensive tank, then what are we?I think some people, and yes I mean some of the brawlers that post here, just want guardians, and possibly even berserkers removed from the game. Or their class made the 'clear choice' by anyone that isn't brain dead, which is the same thing. Is that what you guys really want? <hr> </blockquote> <div>Hahahah omg I can't believe I just read that.  Hahhahahahaa.</div> <div> </div> <div>I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU BRAWLERS WANT TO TANK GOOD, YOU HAVE SAFEFALL AND WE DON'T!</div> <div> </div> <div>Hahahahahahahaha.</div><hr></blockquote>Yeah read the whole post. It wasn't what I meant. If you have followed anything about what I have had to say, you would know it was not what  I meant. He replied very quickly before I had a chance to add in some comments that I had origionally intended, and if you will look, in my reply, I tried to clarify what  I meant. But you are going for the cheap shots. You don't care about the argument, you just want to score points on it.  Thankfully I have wised up and realise that you don't represent brawlers as a whole, but what might be called a 'troll'.  Either that or someone that just really doesn't get it.</span><span> I really think for you that it is not about brawlers tanking. It's about YOU tanking. You damaging. You doing, you you you. I'd ask you what role you think a monk should fill, but it is quite clear what you want, everything. </span><span> Either way, kudos on taking what I said and getting "</span><span>I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU BRAWLERS WANT TO TANK GOOD, YOU HAVE SAFEFALL AND WE DON'T!" out of it. That took a lot of skill to come up with something that witty.  </span> <div></div>

[MastikFantastik]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> TheMeatShield wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN></SPAN> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Wow.  When it comes to DPS and utility, a guardian can't perform!  Because DPS and utility are scout/mage roles!  No tank should be performing those roles on a regular basis.</P> <P>When guardians can tank 100% of the mobs in the game, and the other fighters can't, and their DPS and utility is worse than two archetypes, where is the advantage of being one of the five other fighters?</P> <P>There isn't.<BR><BR> </P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Then your utility needs to be looked at more, along the lines of the roles and abilities it gives you.  Personally i know people in game that love the monk class, but then again by your standards they are insane to love such a weak and worthless class.<BR><BR>DPS is not a scout/mage ROLE, dps is something that every class does, that scout mages do the best.<BR><BR>And btw what mobs in game CANT be tanked by all fighters? im not talking YOU fell on your face, im talking CANT be tanked...<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>Well, I haven't seen a brawler tank Darathar</FONT> :smileysurprised:</P> <P><FONT color=#3333cc>Well I am sure that they will, just give people time to get there witht the right strategy.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I</FONT> <FONT color=#ffff00>love the monk class, I always have.  We just aren't balanced the way we should be.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#3300cc>I am glad you like the class. As for balanced as you should be, honestly that goes for everyones class and if you think differently that's fine. However if I see the Monk class as balanced (which I don't) and you don't we have differing opinions and that's life.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I realize DPS is something every class does *including guardian*, but it *is* the defined role of the scout and the mage classes.  One is for caster DPS one is for melee DPS.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#3333ff><FONT color=#3300cc>True but are the</FONT> </FONT><FONT color=#3300cc>but look at that statement Archtype has a range in their DPS area and are considered the DPS CLASS of their ARCH.  Fighters have Bruisers and Monks that are generally considered the DPS. Mages have Wizzards and Warlocks.  Scouts have Assassins, and swashbuclkers.  Priests have Furys and Defilers. These are generally the classes people think of DPS when they think Archtype DPS/DPS in general (peoples views go figure).</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Besides, the only utility that we get that is useful to a group is FD, which is unreliable at best and serves nowhere near the role it did in EQ1.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#3300cc>Well I concede the success or lack of FD in this version of EQ. I have said it before I regularly group witha  monk friend. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Mend = 5 mins for % based; if a group is depending on mend they are going to die.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#3300cc>I don't and wouldn't expect to depend on that mend. But there has been times it has saved my butt. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Safefall = Does what for a group?  Even if it did, scouts get it too.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#3300cc>Ok true but Brawlers are the only fighter type to get it so thus its a untility to you, not fighters as a whole. Then again do I as a platewearing guardian expect safe fall, heck no. I can't imagine a 220lb guy covered in about 200lbs of armor leaping from a cliff with out looking like a squished pop(soda) can. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Invis = Does what for a group?  Even if it did certain mage/scout/priest subclasses get group invis.  I think I used invis for maybe three levels, and then only to get to a few xp groups in Varsoon that were ahead of me.  I removed it from my hotbar at 42.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#3300cc>Well if you are never exploring new content it might due little for the group.  But I knwo that I personally have not explored allthe content and when in a dungeon I send in the monk to see what's around the corner maybe give a quick head count (estimation).</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>SoE needs to do one of three things imho:</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>1) Balance tanks as tanks, including raids.  Ensuring that although fighters will have to fight for one spot, they can all at least qualify and fight for it.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#3300cc>That's what they are trying to do, however if you want all of us to compete for the 1 slot only and no others then we would need to get rid a bunch abilites as a whole archtype.  Such as untilities, any DPS that the Archtype has. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>2) Make offtanking worthwhile.  Make sure every fighter class can excel at offtanking in the right scenario.  Differentiate offtanking from just doing melee DPS so as to have a defined line for scout/fighter roles when not MT.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#3300cc>Umm I think every fighter class can excel in offtanking in most scenarios already not just the "right" ones. I do it on occassions where I am not called upon to be the MT.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>3) Just be done with it and admit defeat, make guardian the best.  Give up the archetype system because they don't know how to code it, revert everything to EQ1 like balance and have the Holy Trinity with a bunch of useless classes.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#3300cc>IWell I am sorry to say, a monk, pally, sk, zerker in equivalent gear in this game can tank a lot better then they could in equivalent gear (to each other) in EQ1. (would say bruiser but there was no bruisers). And unless the people don't know the person behind the other computer they might stay with the "Holy trinity" combo because they  don't know any better.  I trio a lot with a Mystic, a Monk, and myself guardian and we do great. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>They don't have much other choice.<BR></FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#3300cc>Ummm ok. If they don't then give all abilities, racial bonuses, class bonus to everyone and change the game name to EVERYONESTHESAMEQUEST II .  The more you make people the same the more boring the game will become because on no supprises.  Like the combo I was part of the duo.  Guardian and Conjuror, we did things I would have not thought possible for us with out CC or at least a healer. </FONT><BR></P> <P> <HR> <P></P></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV>

[Subtlekni]

<span><blockquote><hr>Gage-Mikel wrote:<div></div><p>Well, I haven't seen a brawler tank Darathar :smileysurprised: </p> <p>       <font color="#6666cc">Good, I'm very glad you could find one example to hold up.</font> </p> <p>I love the monk class, I always have.  We just aren't balanced the way we should be.</p> <p><font color="#6666cc">       So by all means, let's unblance guardians to make monks balanced.</font> I realize DPS is something every class does *including guardian*, but it *is* the defined role of the scout and the mage classes.  One is for caster DPS one is for melee DPS.</p> <p><font color="#6666cc">       So you are in favor of removing the DPS disparity between guardians and monks? </font>Besides, the only utility that we get that is useful to a group is FD, which is unreliable at best and serves nowhere near the role it did in EQ1.</p> <p><font color="#6666cc">       So you are in favor or removing FD from monks? </font> Mend = 5 mins for % based; if a group is depending on mend they are going to die.</p> <p><font color="#666699">       Would you be ok having it removed then?</font> Safefall = Does what for a group?  Even if it did, scouts get it too. <font color="#6666cc">       Can we nix that as well?</font> </p> <p>Invis = Does what for a group?  Even if it did certain mage/scout/priest subclasses get group invis.  I think I used invis for maybe three levels, and then only to get to a few xp groups in Varsoon that were ahead of me.  I removed it from my hotbar at 42.</p> <p><font color="#6666cc">          Great, let's remove it from the class </font></p> <p><font color="#6666cc">So. Assuming all of the above is ok. We have monks now able to tank EXACTLY like a guardian.  I'm happy with that if you are. Just make sure you can get most of the other tanks to sign on. Oh we will also need to adjust some of your buffs, but not much.   I think we can finally agree on something Gage. .</font> SoE needs to do one of three things imho:</p> <p>1) Balance tanks as tanks, including raids.  Ensuring that although fighters will have to fight for one spot, they can all at least qualify and fight for it. </p> <p><font color="#6666cc">             Great, I'd like the position for being able to layhands the MT when things hit the fan. When will I qualify for that position?</font> </p> <p>2) Make offtanking worthwhile.  Make sure every fighter class can excel at offtanking in the right scenario.  Differentiate offtanking from just doing melee DPS so as to have a defined line for scout/fighter roles when not MT.</p> <p>3) Just be done with it and admit defeat, make guardian the best.  Give up the archetype system because they don't know how to code it, revert everything to EQ1 like balance and have the Holy Trinity with a bunch of useless classes. </p> <p><font color="#6666cc">4) Let brawlers and crusaders excel in raid situations in much the same way they excel prior to raid groups.. By bringing something different and flavorful to the fold that warriors simply can't bring.</font> </p> <p>They don't have much other choice.</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote></span><div></div>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> Subtleknife wrote: <P><SPAN><FONT color=#6666cc>4) Let brawlers and crusaders excel in raid situations in much the same way they excel prior to raid groups.. By bringing something different and flavorful to the fold that warriors simply can't bring.</FONT><BR></SPAN></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>w00t we agree.</P> <P>I would very much love to excel in raid groups the way I did prior: by tanking.</P> <P><BR> </P>

[stainremov]

this is aimed directly at gage-mikel: what if after all the dps balancing, sony kept monks not as tanks, but more as dps. what would you argue then? nothing is stopping sony from improving your avoidance while still keeping you more on the dps side than tanking. i think you are following the idea of "all fighters are tanks" too strongly. soe has a history of saying a lot of things and doing somethign else instead later down the line. you should know this from swg, and almost everybody knows it from eq. scouts are supposed to be dps, but bards are almost always outdps'd by zerkers. but they provide a lot of utility (buffs). mages are supposed to be the best dps, but mezzers are one of the worst dps classes in the game. but they bring a lot of utility to a group (buffs, mezzes, breeze). priests are supposed to be healers, but some of them are more offensive than others (and consequently not as good at healing - something a lot of them just refuse to realize). druids get a lot of dots and more damage dealing spells. heck, a fury's lion form even grants a chance for an extra attack. everyone says "all healers are supposed to heal equally," but right now, that really is not the case. and i think even after balancing, i think you'll see that certain classes heal better than others while others are clearly supposed to be more offensive. back to fighters, "all fighters are supposed to tank equally," but almost everything indicates that just isn't going to happen. as of right now, it's very obvious that monks are supposed to be more dps oriented than the rest of the fighters. they get far more offensive skills than all the other classes. the best example of this would be the skill dragon stance - inrease damage and accuracy and decrease armor class and defense. a guardian would NEVER get a skill like that. guardians also have much better taunts than either of the brawler classes. so it's very obvious that guardians were supposed to hold aggro better than a monk or a bruiser. in fact, i think feign death might even be able to be used as a detaunt. for example, if a monk or bruiser gets too much aggro because of their high dps, they might be able to fd back to the MT. (although i have to admit, i've never seen anybody do this, i think it would work). a detaunt is a skill that a guardian or paladin would NEVER get. fd might not save a raid from being wiped by voice of vox or some other epic encounter, but im sure it would send the mob back to the MT if the monk drew too much aggro. one thing soe almost never does is take away or add skills when nerfing. they might change the effects of the skills (how much dmg it does, how much aggro gained, the side effects, etc.), but they never take a spell or combat art away and replace it with some brand new skill. so EVEN in the unlikely chance that monks/bruisers are somehow nerfed so their dps is made the same as guardians (or even anywhere near a guardian's lvl), they would still have the same set of skills, but would do less damage. guardians would STILL be the better tank PURELY off of ability to hold aggro (which IS what tanking is). monks/bruisers might get their taunts improved or whatever, but guardians still have a whole set of short duration buffs that draw a lot of aggro. regardless of whether or not brawlers stay high dps or not, i can almost guarantee that your dreams of a monk being chosen over a guardian in an epic+++x4 ecnounter will never come true. <div></div>

[SageMarrow]

<P>well honestly if you guys look at the state of the world at present and the way that the raids are being built and so forth.... You will notice that now they almost REQuIERE 3-4 fully buffed tanks at all times...</P> <P>unlimited adds on zergs and such... so they are making tanks a requirement on raids in one way or another. so let it go.</P> <P>Otherwise, yeah - a fully buffed monk avoids like all heck against your average level x ^^ mob. So hey - take what you got and run with it.</P> <P>They are also allowing the classes to go thier own direction. Guardians will ALWAYS be the most defensive tank, that isnt going to change. </P> <P>THere is no such thing as equal but different.</P> <P>By making certain mobs that require a certain tank to be successful, you are still cutting off content to raids and groups without a monks. I have heard of ALOT of monks and bruisers on my server that tank raid mobs. </P> <P>The guild that is the "raid" guild on my server has several examples of monks/bruisers tanking all sorts of raid mobs. Just because they dont post here doesnt mean that it hasnt happened.</P> <P>So allow the game to evolve and be different. Let gage become a guardian as a class. Dont force all monks to become guardians because of him.</P> <P>If you were to ask gage if he wanted a dps decrease and a utility scrap all together, he would say yes.... So hes a useless example, and just wants to be a guardian called monk. So dont pay any attention to him. Either he will re-roll or quit, oh darn, i dont think that most on the forums would give a hoot.</P> <P>Other wise nemi, i love ya bro, but we will be balanced as dps before we are balanced as tanks. That i can almost promise you. Most that played a monk or bruiser didnt play that class to be exclusively tanks. Thats just bottom line. If monks/bruisers didnt have some sense of dps, then why call it a monk??? give the monk heals? then just call it a paladin!</P> <P>Believe it or not, some lore is going into the class. SOE will balance the classes as they see fit, but they arent crazy enough to screw the marketing of making a monk a guardian berzerker type monk... if that makes sense...</P> <P>That would be marketing suicide to call 6 classes 1 - with just a name. I know that you can say all the different but equal stuff... but that just not feasible, It cant happen. I know it sucks and its a bit misleading as to what the devs put out there, but they are not crazy enough to do that. </P> <P>If someone told you that everquest had 24 classes and 6 were basically all 1 = would you play it? HECK NO!! that would just sound like a bogus cop out to achieve balance. And you wouldnt have played it, seriously. You played a monk to be a fighter/tank and that much has been given to you. On a raid, heck, you wont EVER be the PRimARY tank. Not because you suck or not because you cant, but simply because there are four classes that do it better because of one primary factor, mitigaiton. </P>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> stainremover wrote:<BR> the best example of this would be the skill dragon stance - inrease damage and accuracy and decrease armor class and defense. a guardian would NEVER get a skill like that. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Which gets upgraded by two stances, both of which increase defense.  One by ten and one by fifteen.  One also adds haste, the other increases our DPS by a percentage.</P> <P>But yes, dragon stance is offensively oriented, but the stance sweeping crane, which we also get that tier, is defensively oriented.<BR></P>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SageMarrow wrote:<BR> <P>They are also allowing the classes to go thier own direction.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>You sure are reading a lot into his statement Sage.  LoL.  Wishful thinking?</DIV>

[SageMarrow]

<P>no, not wishful thinking, the statement the made about balancing by subclass...not very complicated, He said very clearly that they are not going to balance classes by archetype but by classes to an extent and that "that is not the way the classes in our game work."</P> <P>He said very clearly that any game with a significant number of subscibers in a fantasy based MMO game, has different subclasses and that different but equal is an almost intangible goal without doing away with almost all inherent class differences.</P> <P>That called common sense gage, something that you have proven time and again that you do not posses, and tend to validate your lack therof with "SoE Says". That have yet again been proven to be fickle as hell as we have all told you. You apparently dont have any clue about how this game works or any other MMORPG does for that matter. </P> <P>They will always please the masses before the individual ambitionist that always reaer their heads. and tha is presented very clearly in a player like you that would forsake everything in and of your class to achieve mitigation based tanking called avoidance...and dont care about anything that came with the class.</P> <P>If some one told me that 6 classes out of every four archetypes did the same darn thing with different spell names, i wouldnt have played it = and i can speak for 350,000 other players as well. While you and nemi might say "thats an assumption" test it out and see. Thats another dare thats not coming from a guardian...</P>

[stainremov]

for such a lenghty message addressed directly to you, i'm surprised you only had something to say about that part. i was expecting more from you. i must say i'm disappointed. <div></div>

[TheMeatShie]

<div></div><div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Gage-Mikel wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr><span></span><div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <p>Well, I haven't seen a brawler tank Darathar :smileysurprised: Havent seen, and CANT, different things.... </p> <p>I love the monk class, I always have.  We just aren't balanced the way we should be. </p> <p>I realize DPS is something every class does *including guardian*, but it *is* the defined role of the scout and the mage classes.  One is for caster DPS one is for melee DPS. </p> <p><font color="#ffff00">Ok so you say DPS is the *defined* role of the scout and mage class... So, by your terms of *balance* to where every class in an archetype should be exactly the same in every situational aspect, then an enchanter should definately do as much dps as a wizard/warlock... i mean come on, they are in the same archetypes, right? </font> </p> <p>Besides, the only utility that we get that is useful to a group is FD, which is unreliable at best and serves nowhere near the role it did in EQ1. </p> <p>Mend = 5 mins for % based; if a group is depending on mend they are going to die.</p> <p>Safefall = Does what for a group?  Even if it did, scouts get it too.</p> <p>Invis = Does what for a group?  Even if it did certain mage/scout/priest subclasses get group invis.  I think I used invis for maybe three levels, and then only to get to a few xp groups in Varsoon that were ahead of me.  I removed it from my hotbar at 42. </p> <p><font color="#ffff00">It would make alot more sense to me that if these things are not working the way you think they should, you should spend more of your crying on them, because to be honest i think the chances that you get them improved on would be higher than your tanking ability becoming equal to guardians.</font> </p> <p>SoE needs to do one of three things imho:</p> <p>1) Balance tanks as tanks, including raids.  Ensuring that although fighters will have to fight for one spot, they can all at least qualify and fight for it. </p> <p><font color="#ffff00">Personally i think sony needs to balance to content and abilities of all the classes so that other roles are created... Monks were more prevalent as pullers in eq1, and you dont see that as much in eq2, that is a role that could easily be filled by the monk classes with a few tweaks that a guardian would not be able to possibly do as well. Because in total honesty, they cant have one class based as defensive as possible giving up other skills/abilities for this, then make the others with those skills/abilities with the exact same benefits defensively.  Thats not balance.</font> </p> <p>2) Make offtanking worthwhile.  Make sure every fighter class can excel at offtanking in the right scenario.  Differentiate offtanking from just doing melee DPS so as to have a defined line for scout/fighter roles when not MT. </p> <p><font color="#ffff00">To a good degree i agree, but to a large degree i think they have made giant leaps since everquest1.  When i am offtanking as a guardian in eq2, i can block/parry blows intended for the MT, i can cover casters with my sexah iksar bod making it to where if MT loses aggro to them i am taking blows for them etc.  They offer alot more variety in eq2 offtanking than in eq1.  If its enough /shrug all speculative.</font> </p> <p>3) Just be done with it and admit defeat, make guardian the best.  Give up the archetype system because they don't know how to code it, revert everything to EQ1 like balance and have the Holy Trinity with a bunch of useless classes. </p> <p><font color="#ffff00">I believe your view of the archetype system is bogus.  Considering youve played other SOE games before, come on... Every class in each archetype being exactly the same on every aspect... 24 classes... Hey but i do have some ice, its only $50 a bag, but its *magic* ice, would you like to buy some gage?</font> </p> <p>They don't have much other choice.</p> <div></div><font color="#ffff00">Actually they could problably leave the balance as *they* intended... considering all the happy monks in Norrath. If you seriously believe your arguements bend sonys arm to the extent that they either have to take action or just give up on the game due to lack of options, please... You are in SOE's world now, remember?</font><hr></blockquote></span><div></div><p>Message Edited by TheMeatShield on <span class="date_text">04-09-2005</span> <span class="time_text">03:43 AM</span></p><p>Message Edited by TheMeatShield on <span class=date_text>04-09-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:44 AM</span>

[Nemi]

I couldn't be arsed to read your post.No grammar, no sentence structure or paragraphs = post gets skipped.I'm sorry but I'd rather read a dumb post well-laid out, than make my eyes bleed with block text.

[TheMeatShie]

<span><blockquote><hr>Nemi wrote:I couldn't be arsed to read your post.No grammar, no sentence structure or paragraphs = post gets skipped.I'm sorry but I'd rather read a dumb post well-laid out, than make my eyes bleed with block text.<hr></blockquote>Some people would prefer shiny things .. Im horribly crushed that you didnt read my post, i posted it just for YOU /cry</span><div></div>

[Nemi]

Sorry Meat, my reply was to Stainremover.

[TheMeatShie]

My typing is the leet too /flex <span>:smileyvery-happy:</span> <div></div>

[Gaige]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SageMarrow wrote:<BR> <P>no, not wishful thinking, the statement the made about balancing by subclass...not very complicated, He said very clearly that they are not going to balance classes by archetype but by classes to an extent and that "that is not the way the classes in our game work."</P> <P>He said very clearly that any game with a significant number of subscibers in a fantasy based MMO game, has different subclasses and that different but equal is an almost intangible goal without doing away with almost all inherent class differences.</P> <P>That called common sense gage, something that you have proven time and again that you do not posses, and tend to validate your lack therof with "SoE Says". That have yet again been proven to be fickle as hell as we have all told you. You apparently dont have any clue about how this game works or any other MMORPG does for that matter.</P> <P>They will always please the masses before the individual ambitionist that always reaer their heads. and tha is presented very clearly in a player like you that would forsake everything in and of your class to achieve mitigation based tanking called avoidance...and dont care about anything that came with the class.</P> <P>If some one told me that 6 classes out of every four archetypes did the same darn thing with different spell names, i wouldnt have played it = and i can speak for 350,000 other players as well. While you and nemi might say "thats an assumption" test it out and see. Thats another dare thats not coming from a guardian...<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>LOL!  He didn't say any of those things.  You inferred those things from his statements.  *$%#&! Sage.<BR></DIV>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SageMarrow wrote:<BR> <P>i can speak for 350,000 other players as well.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Ha Ha, yeah right.  Cocky much?<BR>

[SageMarrow]

<DIV> <P>Scout classes aren't being ignored. The fact that we haven't made a lot of specific changes to them yet, other than lots of bug fixes, does not mean we never intend to do anything about them. But we can't address every single class at the same time, so there has to be some that are looked at first and some that are examined later. Generally speaking, there were other classes more direly in need of attention than scouts have been, but scouts will have their time under the magnifying glass soon.</P> <P><FONT size=4><FONT color=#cc0000>Some people want to take my quotes and fashion them into abso</FONT><FONT color=#cc0000>lutes</FONT></FONT>, when in fact most of my statements are intentionally free of such pitfalls. It's not because I want to string players along or avoid issues, but because of the fact that this is a game that will change. <FONT size=4><FONT color=#cc0000>If I were to say that ClassX will always do more damage than ClassY, then for the rest of time people would be clinging to that post as a legal binding contract. MMOs don't work that way.</FONT> </FONT>All I can tell you is what we intend for the near future,<FONT color=#cc0000 size=4> and everything--EVERYTHING--is subject to change.</FONT></P> <P>Scouts are in something of a unique position compared to other archetypes, as they are arguably the least linear of all of them. They do lots of damage, but DPS isn't all they do. They can tank a lot of encounters fairly well, but they aren't the best tanks. They have lots of very nice utility abilities, but utility alone doesn't define who you are. And this makes the archetype the trickiest to balance in a way that people won't complain about, because there are players who want different aspects of the class to be emphasized over other facets, and not everyone will agree on which is most important.</P> <P><FONT color=#cc0000 size=4>Keep in mind that DPS doesn't exist in a vacuum.</FONT> If a class has an ability that increases the DPS of others, that's a factor. If another class has the ability to reduce the DPS of the target, that's a factor in both group DPS and healing. <FONT color=#cc0000 size=4>It isn't your own DPS numbers alone that show your benefits in a group or solo situation.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#cc0000><FONT size=4>Think of what balance literally means: it's weighing various factors against each other. </FONT></FONT><FONT color=#00cc00><FONT size=5>While there is some balance at the archetype level, it is refined further at each class and subclass.</FONT> </FONT>Sorcerers give up most of their defense for high offense, whereas enchanters are giving up defense for a combination of damage and crowd control. Bards don't have as much personal DPS as other scouts, but they have the greatest potential to increase the damage output of others.<FONT color=#cc0000 size=4> Every class should have some little nuances like this that differentiate them.</FONT> The trouble is, even players of that class won't agree on what they want that uniqueness to be.</P> <P>Look at some of the posts in this thread. "Scouts SHOULD be this. Mages SHOULD be this." As much as you might have opinions on your class based on preferences from other games, we're the ones who define what each class is in our game. <FONT color=#cc0000 size=4>And I'm not going to give you absolute statements that paint myself or the team into a corner, because every player is going to weigh all the various nuances of their class differently.</FONT> Just because you don't agree with the decisions we make about class abilities does not make them wrong, nor do the decisions we make invalidate your opinions.</P> <P><FONT color=#cc0000 size=4>The whole notion of class balance is 90% emotion and 10% fact.</FONT> That's just how it is, because it means something different to everyone.<FONT color=#cc0000 size=4> No MMO with a significant number of subscribers is ever going to achieve balance that makes everyone happy unless they make class distinctions absolutely meaningless in one way or another.</FONT> <FONT color=#cc0000 size=4>We prefer not to go that route, which means there will forever be thread after thread on these boards complaining that ClassA is completely out of balance compared to ClassB.</FONT></P> <P>===========================<BR>Moorgard</P> <P> </P> <P>Yet again, im blind and the words are not there and im making up stuff again. Poor sage...<BR></P></DIV><p>Message Edited by SageMarrow on <span class=date_text>04-09-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:54 AM</span>

[SageMarrow]

<P>but hey guess what gage?</P> <P>that too is subject to change. :smileywink:.</P>

[Gaige]

<DIV>Yes, I read it.  But he never says the class/subclass balancing is away from the archetype role, does he?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>He also says *everything* is subject to change, so yeah, that means everything, not just what you want.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Also its funny you are quoting a post where he says not to take his statements as the gospel, but you are doing that very thing <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV>

[SageMarrow]

<DIV> <P>but hey guess what gage?</P> <P>that too is subject to change. <IMG height=16 src="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif" width=16 border=0>.</P> <P>__________________________________________</P> <P>reading is fundamental...</P></DIV>

[Nemi]

I have no idea what you're gloating over Sage but it obviously makes you feel better =)I'll wait for LU#7 and see where we're going from there. If they decide to abandon what they have stated from back when it was announced, through Beta and recently as last month then fine. I'll move on, I chose this game on the grounds of what the stated aims were.Gage and I base our standpoint on all the literature surrounding the game."All sublcasses fulfil the role of Archetype""Brawlers are intended to be tanks""Each Fighter does his role but differently and uniquely"You base your standpoint on the fact you chose Monk because you played EQ1 and wanted a DPS class. If SoE change their standpoint and you get what you want, fine. Whiners win.

[English Da Gua]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Nemi wrote:<BR>I have no idea what you're gloating over Sage but it obviously makes you feel better =)<BR><BR>I'll wait for LU#7 and see where we're going from there. If they decide to abandon what they have stated from back when it was announced, through Beta and recently as last month then fine. I'll move on,<FONT color=#ffff00> I chose this game on the grounds of what the stated aims were</FONT>.<BR><BR>Gage and I base our standpoint on all the literature surrounding the game.<BR><BR>"All sublcasses fulfil the role of Archetype"<BR>"Brawlers are intended to be tanks"<BR>"Each Fighter does his role but differently and uniquely"<BR><BR>You base your standpoint on the fact you chose Monk because you played EQ1 and wanted a DPS class. If SoE change their standpoint and you get what you want, fine. Whiners win.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>   I guess my question to you is, did you ever play any SoE games before? Gage has stated he has played other games by Sony.</P> <P>   If your answer is no, then I understand your frustration and I am sorry you fell for the hype.</P> <P>   But, if you answer yes, then you have no excuse. All of us who have played other Sony games understand that the Sony PR people are just that, Public Relations, because every SoE game starts with intial hype, but the game never follows suit. Their sole job is to get the population excited about the game, by any means necessary, even if that means bending the truth. They have no actual foot hold in game production, or game direction. So again, if you answered yes, but still chose the game because you read all the articles and everything, expecting this game to be a far cry from EQ1 with monks tanking like a plate class who's sole goal in life (the game) was to take a beating and be the front man on the toughest of tough mobs, then that is your bad, not SoE's.<BR></P> <p>Message Edited by English Da Guard on <span class=date_text>04-09-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:39 PM</span>

[Gaige]

<P>So we are supposed to read everything taking into account that anyone paid by SoE is lying?</P> <P>Is that what you are saying?</P>

[Nemi]

<span><blockquote><hr>English Da Guard wrote:<div></div><p>  I guess my question to you is, did you ever play any SoE games before? Gage has stated he has played other games by Sony.</p> <p>   If your answer is no, then I understand your frustration and I am sorry you fell for the hype.</p> <p>   But, if you answer yes, then you have no excuse. All of us who have played other Sony games understand that the Sony PR people are just that, Public Relations, because every SoE game starts with intial hype, but the game never follows suit. Their sole job is to get the population excited about the game, by any means necessary, even if that means bending the truth. They have no actual foot hold in game production, or game direction. So again, if you answered yes, but still chose the game because you read all the articles and everything, expecting this game to be a far cry from EQ1 with monks tanking like a plate class who's sole goal in life (the game) was to take a beating and be the front man on the toughest of tough mobs, then that is your bad, not SoE's.</p> <div></div><p>Message Edited by English Da Guard on <span class="date_text">04-09-2005</span> <span class="time_text">12:39 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote> I played EQ1 for 5 years. I enjoyed it right up until I didn't have time to raid every night and be available at 5mins notice because a raid mob had spawned. I wasn't part of the 'hate machine' that was some sad EQ1 players. Everquest was something new, it didn't have raids designed from the beginning, that was something that evolved as the game progressed. Hybrid syndrome was an unfortunate side-effect of that, however, SoE made some great improvements to make sure all classes had a role to play in raids. Granted, some didn't like the roles (necro mana batteries) but at least SoE developed one. Given that track record and hindsight, I expected EQ2 to live up to SoE's claims. No hybrid-syndrome. I don't tend to buy into the global SoE conspiracy theory. SoE was just very successful with EQ, and therefore got the brunt of the whiners. </span><div></div>

[English Da Gua]

<P>   No Gage, I am simply saying that SoE is notorious for saying one thing and doing another. This is not the first time nor will it be the last time. Given that track record, you should not have put as much weight into what they said pre release.</P> <P>   You know why they make sex offenders register, it is because these people are 'likely' to commit a sex crime again. If it smells like a rat, and looks like a rat, it probably is a rat. Same applies to SoE. If they have stated one thing and done another, as they have done in nearly every game they have made, what makes you think they would somehow change with EQ2?</P> <P>    A zebra does not change his stripes.</P>

[SageMarrow]

<DIV>Just an FYI,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>SOE has one of the largest and most potent and financially driven Marketing and Public relations back up of ANY MMORPG developer out and will as long as they are attatched to SONY the hardware,software, gaming rig super power multi-international company. <==== thats alot...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And gage i know that i have told you this before...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Sony has a crap load of money, man power, and any thing else that they might think they need to fuel this game and make it successful. But moorgards statement about everything is subject to change..thats exactly what we have been trying to tell you gage. No flame or shut up gage about it - just the ugly truth...</DIV>

[Nemi]

RE: "Everything is subject to change - EVERYTHING" He also states in his post, "All I can tell you is what we intend for the near future," Given that all his recent posts have been that Brawlers are tanks, that he is aware of the +defense stacking issues and the fact Warriors avoid as much as Brawlers, I'm confident that Brawlers will still be fashioned into Tanks. <div></div>

[Deadjest]

<P>    Greetings all.</P> <P>I think this Topic has gone on long enough for a few conclusions to have been drawn by now, and based on that, arguments will not preswayed either side past where they are.</P> <P>Basicly we have two camps of ideas going on here.</P> <P>1)  TANKING PREFERENCE:   The tanks in this camp no matter what their class is, want to be the top tanking class INSPITE of what Sony has advertised BEFOR the game even came out.   When people want somthing against what a game was ment for, its like Retarde d Fury, you just can't stop it.   No manner of logic is going to sway them from their stance.   They want it so choices are more limited and that in turn means they don't have to compete vie skill for the tanking position as much and on the list goes etc. . . </P> <P>2)  TANKING BALANCE:  This camp of tanks, from Guardians to Monks, wants a balance in the tanking department.   For the most part, anyone who picked a class under FIGHTER pretty much wanted the same thing, in your face fighting but in a manner that best matched their style.   Nothing more, nothing less.</P> <P>Lets face it at this point, both camps are have ideas that are VERY opposite of each other and I dont think that will change when they are that far positive and negitive of each other.</P> <P>I have played EQL since the day it came out, I had a 68 SK and had close to 500 AA, for any player here to break down to the point of arguing Tank Utility on EQ2, man they have pretty much lost their argument and is reaching for straws.   After EQL, the tanks in EQ2 are so watered down that its down right incredible.</P> <P>Thats like Jonny Moronic who got a B+ in math arguing with Larry Touchmymonkey who got a A - in math, WHOS DA MAN!  WHOS DA MAN!</P> <P>I have already lined out what needs to be done for Tank balace and if it takes Guardians getting more DPS and Utility ( utility, lol ) then so be it.   For in the end its all about us getting what Sony Adevertised and having fun. </P> <P>It should be about whats best for the community, not one small sector.</P> <P>Haruchai</P>

[Nemi]

Dead on! 1 Tank - 6 Classes! <div></div>

[English Da Gua]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Nemi wrote:<BR>Dead on!<BR><BR>1 Tank - 6 Classes!<BR><BR><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>   /sigh. The name of the world is Norrath not Utopia.</P> <P>   You guys just do not get it. If you think every tank should tank every situation in the same manner, strategy, time etc then YOU missed what was advertised. Pre release they said all tanks could tank, but some would have advantages in certain situations. </P> <P>   Well look at the facts. All tanks can tank in all situations. All tanks have tanked nearly every mob in the game with success, perhaps all of them.</P> <P>   This whole thing has turned into "xxx class tanks better then yyy class." Maybe, but THAT is what was advertised. A grind group would gladly take a DPS tank over a guardian if they had adequate healing. So in certain situations others can tank better then a guardian.</P> <P>    It has truly come down to people either not trying to use strategy or people just thinking they cannot do something. It has been proven time and again that all fighters can tank when those avatars are played by skilled players.</P> <P>    After the defense nerfs all fighters will be weaker. Even if they up avoidance, based on how hits are calculated, you will still get hit a ton due to defense nerfs and plate tanks will get hit even more. They can't just make us get hit all the time otherwise any tank that needs to use CAs to keep aggro will be screwed because a group with a 55^^^ and 4 ^^ on him will not be able to do anything. It isn't going to happen.  Think about it. Yes increase your avoidance, yay, you will get worked just the same unless YOU figure out a strategy that works and get the right people on a raid.</P> <P>    Unless they implement God mode into EQ2, it is actually gonna take more then your zerg tactics or whatever you are doing wrong, because others have figured it out.</P><p>Message Edited by English Da Guard on <span class=date_text>04-10-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:40 PM</span>

[Nemi]

No English, I didn't say all being identical. While all tanks atm can tank some Raid content, it's certainly not all. I've said enough times, Guardians first among equals, but all should be able to do it. <div></div>

[English Da Gua]

<DIV>  Ok well explain to me how you would do that. I have read all your posts and none of your ideas are at all viable.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>  If you make it so plate classes get hit with everything, they will never be able to taunt, so that doesn't work.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>  Only thing you could do is add certain mobs with a high to hit rate so monks have to tank those. But you wouldn't be happy with that and neither would plate tanks as then you are forced to have an avoidance tank which not all guilds have.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>   So tell me, how do you do it. Plate tanks have to be able to avoid often otherwise no way a Guard or other plate class could keep aggro since we rely on CAs and stifles and stuns would get through all day long. Avoidance tanks should be able to avoid more. They will still get worked by spells and AEs, and due to lack of HPs a plate tank is still chosen.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>  So by all means, tell me. If you have a good idea I would gladly stand behind it, but I have yet to read anything by you or Gage that is at all feasible.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>  Best idea I saw was from Sage. Give plate classes an ability that prevents stuns from the front 180 and decrease our avoidance and increase yours.</DIV><p>Message Edited by English Da Guard on <span class=date_text>04-10-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:07 PM</span>

[SageMarrow]

<DIV>No English,<BR><BR>I didn't say all being identical.<BR><BR>While all tanks atm can tank some Raid content,<STRONG><EM><U> it's certainly not all</U></EM></STRONG>. I've said enough times, Guardians first among equals, but all should be able to do it.<BR>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff33>Nemi, </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff33></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff33>gonna have to call BS on you...unless you have attempted to tank Darather or any other high level raid mob, then you dont know, so YOU cannot comment on it. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff33></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff33>I know of a paladin who has tanked Darather, i know a Berserker who has tanked Darather. And that is all that i know of personally. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff33></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff33>You do NOT know if a monk has or has not done it yet. Simple as that, you dont... So until you do and can speak for every single monk/bruiser in game, dont at all.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff33></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff33>anything else is just an assumption, and we know how relavent those are dont we?</FONT></DIV>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> English Da Guard wrote:<BR> <P>So in certain situations others can tank better then a guardian.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Wrong.  Because when tanking monks/bruisers don't do a whole bunch of dps if they are smart, they are conserving power for taunts and buffs.</P> <P>So what you have is that in every scenario the guardian can tank, but some of the other tanks can replace a guardian adequately.</P> <P>In other scenarios a guardian is flat out better, and/or required.</P> <P>There isn't currently a single scenario in this game where a guardian can't MT and succeed, period.</P> <P>That isn't balanced.<BR></P>

[SageMarrow]

<P>it is balanced because the guardian trades in all of the fluff and supposed utility to be a meat shield...</P> <P>no heals at all, </P> <P>no dps capability beyond auto attack and good weapons</P> <P>no encounter escape (FD)</P> <P>and the like...</P> <P>Nothing but taunts and skills that keep him from getting hit as hard as often. Which is what tanking is about.</P> <P>Which is why i say that the *other* tanks need to be given another way to tank outside of the taunt, buff, taunt method...</P> <P>They made the classes the way they did with individual classes in mind gage... They are not going to just take a skill out and replace it totally... </P> <P>So if you want balance you better go another route to get that tanking ability because the all out defensive route has been taken.</P>

[Deadjest]

<DIV>    The only way to balance out the tanks is to break it down on how different types of armors and avoidance effect the DPS of the mob and then reverse it to how our DPS is effected by the mobs armor and avoidance, and then move on to the last step on how effective each tank is resisting various types of magic.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>   Alot of spike damage is going to happen through magic and meele bursts and that in turn should effect how well a tank takes it.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>   There is no possible way of making all the tanks be eqaul on the same mob without giving them the same abilities and slapping a different name on it to make us FEEL GOOD about being different.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>   If anything all the tanks here are listed under FIGHTER.   Bah you guys are making me have a Mr Rogers moment.   Say it with me boys and girls, F I G H T E R ,  now say it with me FIGHTER, see, I knew you could do it  :smileyhappy:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>   And since all the Tanks are listed under Fighter,  we all should be pushing on a United front to have Sony make us all fighters and different ones at that, so actualy TATICS can be used in various combos.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>   And EQ should be working on how mobs actualy should work, anyone who has been in some RL big fights or played some good old fashion RPGs knows, there is no such thing HOLDING AGRO.   That concept is as idiotic as it comes.   In a standard 6 man team, 2 - 3 people should be tanks and the last 3 - 4 are DPS and Healing class's.</DIV> <DIV>  </DIV> <DIV>  There should be a coding in the mob that at some random point the mob will switch agro and attack a random player and force tanks to try to regain the agro but also brings into play why you would have 2 - 3 tanks per group. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>  To compensate for this the mobs should be hitting for less damage but still hit hard enough to make it hurt and have all your tanks tanking at the same time with the Scouts playing jockey for postion and DPS caster standing well to the back, range should have a effect on agro.   I just find the zerg rush of mobs being held back by one figher as far from RL and Fantasy as you can get and boring.   Its close to a washing machine cycle, no brains just dump the load in, hit the button and walk away, and repeat as loads are cycled out.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>  Sorry for being so straight foward, its late and I am tired.   It just bugs me at times that we are all listed as fighters and instead of sticking together to help each other out we are fighting each other.   We should be enjoying what makes us different and how it spices up EQ2, and when we see a weekness in a fellow brothers preformence that is not player related, we should beh banding together and help each other out.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>  I have always played a Shadow Knight, but that didnt stop me in EQL for doing the sit in with the Wars when they felt they didnt get enough for their class.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>  And btw, the argument that any class gave up somthing to be as tough as they are is another idiot concept, EQ2 didnt design it that way, it just worked out that way.   If a class didnt get enough then that is where the that class community should be pushing, more Utility  ( ha I laugh at that word here ) and push for more DPS depending on the balance of it all.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>  But the end result is, lets try looking out for one another instead of bashing, it would be nice if EQ2 pushed for a class corespondent and they took a pole to see how their class stacks, and then the class reps talk to each other about what could be done and then move on to the devs and see what could happen.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>  Heh maybe this is all wishful thinking but what the heck, I am paying RL money each month to play a Fantasy game.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>  Haruchai</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Mie]

<P>Gage concept make the game worst.</P> <P>i.e. chanters want nuke as hard as Wizard.</P> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Stra]

<span><blockquote><hr>Subtleknife wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Nemi wrote:Ah, that old chestnut eh Meat?I obviously don't understand my class because you tell me so.I don't care how much armour you have on, if you let someone behind you, blind. Your dead. Hell, he can knock you to the ground and stick pins in you at his leisure.<hr></blockquote>Nemi, there you go trying to bring reality into this. If I had 3 bad guys, that had trained for 1 month with a sword, and I had my choice between a fully armored guy with a sword that had trained for one month, and a real life martial artist that had trained since he as 8 years old for 25 years, I'd put my money on the guy with the armor and the sword any dang day of the week. He's still probably going to die, but he stands a heck of a lot better chance than the unarmored 'martial artist'.  You can quote me your belt rank, or what your sensai said, or what ever bull you want to bring in, but all you make apparent is that you have never been in a real fight if you do, and have no concept of it.  So please don't go draggin reality into this, or lvl 50 monks would be dieing to groups of gnolls in blackburrow. </span><div></div><hr></blockquote>This is what they are doing all the time. Instead of looking at the classes at a whole, they look at some little tiny micro part of them and say, "Ha that is why we should be buffed." Nemi picks situations where his utility skills wont be useless to try to show that he needs more. He wants to be the best in all situations at all times. Gage and him are birds of a feather. Instead of saying, "Well, no, invis doesnt do me any good in raid but it is great when I need to get that shard deep in the dungeon." Instead he says, "It no good in a raid therefore you cant use it as an argument." They then change the focus and microcasm as it suits them. They started out comparing fighters JUST on the point of damage taken, nothing else, and concluded that guardians have too much power. When we point out their utility spells, they find places where they arent useful and then say they cant be used as an argument. When we point out their defensive buffs, they compare ONLY the defensive buffs to our defensive buffs. They keep changing focus. What they refuse to do is look at the whole picture. Look at the utility spells and buffs and tanking all in the context of multiple situations. We can try until we are blue in the face to get them to see reason but their focus is too narrow minded to adapt. The balance has to be done on a big picture basis and not one or two little microcasms. I personally would like to see monks have some more stuns and interrupts. I think that would be great. But then I am thinking more big picture and not just one little mocrocasm. Guardians gave up a HELL OF alot to be pure defensive tanks, now the people like Gage and Nemi would like to take for themselves the ONE AND ONLY good thing guardians can do; namely being the most mana-efficient tank. <i>BTW: Nemi, if you think any martial artist is going to win in any fight against guns (what invalidated the suit of metal armor) then you have been watching far too many Bruce Lee movies. </i></span><div></div>

[Stra]

<span><blockquote><hr>Gage-Mikel wrote:<p>So we are supposed to read everything taking into account that anyone paid by SoE is lying?</p> <p>Is that what you are saying?</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>Lying is such an extreme word. Lets ust say that everything they say is in flux. It is relevant only at the time said and not necessarily relevant 2 months later as their situation fluxes. However, it is quite clear that many things were said that simply did not come to pass. Ironically 100% of monks I talked to in game and sent to this and the other thread where you flame us, have come back thinking you are bonkers. *shrug* its your own people man. </span><div></div>

[Stra]

<span><blockquote><hr>English Da Guard wrote:<div></div> <div></div> <div>  Ok well explain to me how you would do that. I have read all your posts and none of your ideas are at all viable.</div> <div> </div> <div>  If you make it so plate classes get hit with everything, they will never be able to taunt, so that doesn't work.</div> <div> </div> <div>  Only thing you could do is add certain mobs with a high to hit rate so monks have to tank those. But you wouldn't be happy with that and neither would plate tanks as then you are forced to have an avoidance tank which not all guilds have.</div> <div> </div> <div>   So tell me, how do you do it. Plate tanks have to be able to avoid often otherwise no way a Guard or other plate class could keep aggro since we rely on CAs and stifles and stuns would get through all day long. Avoidance tanks should be able to avoid more. They will still get worked by spells and AEs, and due to lack of HPs a plate tank is still chosen.</div> <div> </div><hr></blockquote>And he is also forgetting the mitigation of magic attacks. Guardians usually have significantly higher resists on themselves as well as their gear. Will the monks be asking for our resists later and then maybe our defence spells and so on? Greedy arent they. But take heart ... from my research into people that rarely come into the forums, it seems that Gage and Nemi are NOT representative of their class. </span><div></div>

[Deadjest]

<P>    Actualy, the only picture that counts is Pure Tanking.   Anything else is fluff, if a class does not have enough fluff then that is where the fight should be for that class.</P> <P>   Any group I have played in does not care if the Tank can FD or go invis, they just want to know, can you hold agro, can you take a beating without wasting the clerics power, do you know how to pull without wiping the party.   And thats it.</P> <P>   If you are invis, your not tanking, if you are FD your not tanking and some other group member is getting beat up and more then likely its a non tank, which is a big no no.</P> <P>   If you are under the list as Fighter, then Tanking is the ONLY thing that counts, Period.</P> <P>   Sony screwed up the first time in EQL in making Wars a one trick pony and it messed up the etire game for the War is what everything was balanced off of and its starting to happen here if this line of thinking continues unchecked.</P> <P>   What needs to happen is for somone bright on the Dev Team to think up what a Guardian can do group wise besides his tanking, what buff, or special ability that will put them on par with the top fluff tank in our 5 tank system.   After that, you can start to balance the class's inbetween.  There are many possabilities out there for beefing up tanks in any direction.   Just some brains needs to be applied.</P> <P>   Now I don't mind if anyone here is a A Hole and just wants to be top dog and doesnt care about anyone else, at least they are being true to themselves and being a man about it.   What I despise is people trying to apply some warped since of logic to back up stupidity or selfishness.   Just be honest about it.</P> <P>  Baby wants his pacifier and he wants it NOW!   That I can understand and deal with, lol.</P> <P>  Haruchai</P> <P> </P>

[SageMarrow]

<P>yep, just like i said, they need to find a totally different way for each tank to tank- and achieve balance from that standpoint..</P> <P>But thats not what they did, and we all know SOE wont take skills and add skills that have already been released. They might nerf the hell out of it... but totally revamp a class, no.</P> <P>So deadjester is right IMO. If they are trying to achieve 1 concurrent role for 6 classes, then it will have to be a bit more technical than get hit and be good at it...</P> <P>while utilities are good, only 1 utility matters WHILE tanking..pressing taunt. </P> <P>Tanking will have to be more involved beyond pressing taunt and holding aggro. </P>

[SageMarrow]

<P>on a side note, personally i suggested that they make offense actually matter. So while x class can sustain that much damage and go the meat shield route while tanking.</P> <P>Give brawlers the ability to by pass enemy defenses or somn so that the kill speed ratio to damage taken can be relative...</P> <P>While some dont see this as tanking, honestly that is how they could balance it without going over the bridge and through the tunnel IMO.</P> <P>If i can potentially kill a mob as fast relatively as a guardian can take that damage consistently, then i would say that makes sense.</P> <P>So in effect i would take an additional healer in some cases, but provide faster kill speed. Where as a guardian would require 1 healer and less kill speed, but leaving that group spot open for more utility and or dps...</P> <P>Which in effect would be alot more fun for brawler types as well. ive never seen bruce lee run around in circles while his friends beat up people...hell he beat up people and who ever wanted a piece could jump in!!!</P> <P>It just puzzles me how some players like gage could be totally infatuated with the idea of pressing taunt and group buffs while playing a combat oriented class....a bit wierd.</P>

[Nemi]

<P>I'm backing out of this debate and will watch what happens in LU#7 and decide from there:</P> <P>Bottom Line:</P> <P>All Fighters should be able to tank ALL raid mobs and succeed. If Guardians are one-trick ponies then they need to be given additional utility/DPS to allow them to compete on both MT and OT roles.</P> <P>As for how to achieve that: They need to re-think how they create Raid mobs. Scaling damage done against the tank by a Factor X is simply not the way to make mobs hard. Everyone in a raid should feel the same addrenalin rush as the Tank. Everyone should be at risk and have something to do. That goes for groups too, not simply stand behind a mob and spam CAs.</P> <P>All tanks can tank 1 to 50, that tells me the problem is how they scale Raid mobs, not that there is an imbalance between Fighters.</P>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Strast wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR> <P>So we are supposed to read everything taking into account that anyone paid by SoE is lying?</P> <P>Is that what you are saying?</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Lying is such an extreme word. Lets ust say that everything they say is in flux. It is relevant only at the time said and not necessarily relevant 2 months later as their situation fluxes. However, it is quite clear that many things were said that simply did not come to pass. <BR><BR><FONT color=#ffff00>Ironically 100% of monks I talked to in game and sent to this and the other thread where you flame us, have come back thinking you are bonkers. *shrug* its your own people man.</FONT></SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>So you are saying every guardian that plays this game agrees with what you say?</P> <P>Forgive me Strast, but I don't call people I don't know and don't play with "my people" just because they picked the same class.</P> <P>I share my opinions, not everyone's, and I'm entitled to mine.<BR></P>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Deadjester wrote:<BR> <P>   Actualy, the only picture that counts is Pure Tanking.   Anything else is fluff, if a class does not have enough fluff then that is where the fight should be for that class.</P> <P>  Any group I have played in does not care if the Tank can FD or go invis, they just want to know, can you hold agro, can you take a beating without wasting the clerics power, do you know how to pull without wiping the party.   And thats it.</P> <P>  If you are invis, your not tanking, if you are FD your not tanking and some other group member is getting beat up and more then likely its a non tank, which is a big no no.</P> <P>  If you are under the list as Fighter, then Tanking is the ONLY thing that counts, Period.</P> <P>  Sony screwed up the first time in EQL in making Wars a one trick pony and it messed up the etire game for the War is what everything was balanced off of and its starting to happen here if this line of thinking continues unchecked.</P> <P>  What needs to happen is for somone bright on the Dev Team to think up what a Guardian can do group wise besides his tanking, what buff, or special ability that will put them on par with the top fluff tank in our 5 tank system.   After that, you can start to balance the class's inbetween.  There are many possabilities out there for beefing up tanks in any direction.   Just some brains needs to be applied.</P> <P>  Now I don't mind if anyone here is a A Hole and just wants to be top dog and doesnt care about anyone else, at least they are being true to themselves and being a man about it.   What I despise is people trying to apply some warped since of logic to back up stupidity or selfishness.   Just be honest about it.</P> <P> Baby wants his pacifier and he wants it NOW!   That I can understand and deal with, lol.</P> <P> Haruchai</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Best. Post. Ever.<BR>

[SageMarrow]

<P>well gage im gonna have to stop you there and say this:</P> <P>you never asked for more utility directed towards tanking...</P> <P>you never said anything about boosting the stances available to the monk class in order to make them better at tanking.</P> <P>those things even I would have stood behind you whole heatedly on...your crusade began basically saying that monks cant tank raid mobs, and you dont like it. THen it turned to guardians are overpowered, whats the point in the other tanks.</P> <P>So clear that up then... because when you say crap like - take the dps - take FD - take invis - and everything else that makes the monk the monk, all to tank just as good as a guardian...</P> <P>you sound a bit off center....</P> <P>while its too late for that now - since everyone has already labelled you as a troll and whatever else... </P> <P>That much we probably could have gotten away with and slipped away un noticed, lol. as far as just a boost to our stances and concentration buffs that actually assist in tanking. thats simple, would probably be overpowering sometimes against certain mobs, if they got any more potent, but hey - no one pays any attention to brawlers anyway.</P> <DIV>:smileywink:</DIV>

[Gaige]

<P>1) Guardians are overpowered.  Its being addressed.</P> <P>2) I would give up my FD, invis, mend blah blah to tank better.  I'm a tank class not a FD class.</P> <P>Read the post I quoted, it says everything that needs to be said.</P> <P>Tank classes should be balanced on their tanking ability, and all of us should have enough filler to be able to perform when not MT.</P> <P>Having one best tank breaks any balance the fighter tree could hope for.</P>

[SageMarrow]

<P>1) Guardians are overpowered.  Its being addressed.</P> <P>2) I would give up my FD, invis, mend blah blah to tank better.  I'm a tank class not a FD class.</P> <P>Read the post I quoted, it says everything that needs to be said.</P> <P><STRONG><U>Tank classes should be balanced on their tanking ability, and all of us should have enough filler to be able to perform when not MT.</U></STRONG></P> <P><STRONG><U>Having one best tank breaks any balance the fighter tree could hope for.</U></STRONG></P> <P>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>yes gage, we know that... and no guardians are not overpowered.... buff stacking is a problem... not the guardian class. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>Guardians just happen to be the class that gets the most out of buff stacking above the others. So honestly and effectively - every class that relies heavily on the defense skill itself is getting addressed.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>Gage- they are NOT and i repeat NOT going to scrap an entire class and rebuild it around tanking.... understand that= feel it = love it= </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>why cant you just understand and why must you ARGUE about EVERYTHING? seriously man?</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>you are not a tank class BTW, you are a MONK, a class with the ability to tank... the classes are not built at the archetype level gage. understand that - for that matter you wouldnt have any combat arts, only things relavent to tanking. such as slows, taunts, and skills that increase your defense....</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>at level 35, were you not looking for those spells on your hot bar? Or did you miss something gage?</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>Monks were not built around tanking as their sole purpose, and it took you to level 50 to realize that.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>and the sentences that i highlighted in your post sound great, but they are NOT going to change around an entire class to achieve balance. Do you understand that?</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>There will always be one best tank gage... even after balancing, this issue came up over the buff stacking and defense stacking crap. Not because the classes were unbalanced. Guardians with thier current skill load out will always be the most mana efficient tanks in relation to the healers and healing that is available in game.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>thats not that complicated gage. </FONT></P> <P>Message Edited by SageMarrow on <SPAN class=date_text>04-11-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>10:40 AM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by SageMarrow on <span class=date_text>04-11-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:41 AM</span>

[Sunrayn]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR> <P>2) I would give up my FD, invis, mend blah blah to tank better.  I'm a tank class not a FD class.</P> <P><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Silly Gage, give all that up for extra tanking ability?  Giving all that up would make you a G-u-a-r-d-i-a-n  <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Noah]

<DIV>A Dead Horse says "Hi, please stop hitting me"</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What I think is going to be funny is when they make adjustments to buffs/def/<insert what people think is overpowered>  you are going to hear the screams of 1000s of players saying things are to hard now.  It is already happening with the tweeks done to raid mobs.  Now take that same raid mob and run in w/ 1/3 the amount of Def that can be put up now.  Sure the "tank" might stay up but now priests will get agro (since spamming heals will be needed).  W/o the group def buff they will enjoy way less Def to avoid damage and go SPLAT pretty quick.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>At the same time, the offtank - or *other class that wants to tank* will get hurt too.  Less Def for them (and buffs) means less chance at avoidance and harder hits!  WuWu!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Hmm.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Looking back at what I wrote, I would say the *balance crusade* needs to continue.  More and more posts need to be made so as to nerf classes and/or make mobs hit better.  Why do I say such things?  Im pretty much a "challenge" addict.  Once there is no challenge.... there is very little incentive to go kill a mob.  This last patch made it somewhat fun but I can't wait till the Def nerf comes.... it is gonna be <STRONG>Chaotic!!</STRONG></DIV> <DIV><STRONG></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV>Keep up the good work Gage and Sage... Im behind y'all 100% percent!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Stra]

<span><blockquote><hr>Gage-Mikel wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Strast wrote:<span> <blockquote> <hr> Gage-Mikel wrote: <p>So we are supposed to read everything taking into account that anyone paid by SoE is lying?</p> <p>Is that what you are saying?</p> <div></div> <hr> </blockquote>Lying is such an extreme word. Lets ust say that everything they say is in flux. It is relevant only at the time said and not necessarily relevant 2 months later as their situation fluxes. However, it is quite clear that many things were said that simply did not come to pass. <font color="#ffff00">Ironically 100% of monks I talked to in game and sent to this and the other thread where you flame us, have come back thinking you are bonkers. *shrug* its your own people man.</font></span> <hr> </blockquote> <p>So you are saying every guardian that plays this game agrees with what you say?</p> <p>Forgive me Strast, but I don't call people I don't know and don't play with "my people" just because they picked the same class.</p> <p>I share my opinions, not everyone's, and I'm entitled to mine.</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>Now just how did you extract that statement out of what I said? I said <font size="4"><b><u><i>100% of monks that I talked to</i></u></b></font> in game said you were nuts. Do try not to make up things I didnt say. As for guardians disagreeing with me, Im sure there are. I havent seen one yet but Im sure there are some.  You are entitled to your opinions. You are also entitled to be smacked aroudn with a trout and those little things called facts when you repeatedly and incessantly annoy us by posting things you KNOW will inflame people on the board. Why you do it is a mystery that only you can know, but you know darn well you will get smacked here so dont go running to mommy shouting, "That badger bit me just because I whacked it with a stick!!!!"</span><div></div>

[Stra]

<span><blockquote><hr>Deadjester wrote:<p>    Actualy, the only picture that counts is Pure Tanking.   Anything else is fluff, if a class does not have enough fluff then that is where the fight should be for that class.</p> <p>   Any group I have played in does not care if the Tank can FD or go invis, they just want to know, can you hold agro, can you take a beating without wasting the clerics power, do you know how to pull without wiping the party.   And thats it.</p> <p>   If you are invis, your not tanking, if you are FD your not tanking and some other group member is getting beat up and more then likely its a non tank, which is a big no no.</p> <p>   If you are under the list as Fighter, then Tanking is the ONLY thing that counts, Period. </p><hr></blockquote>That is a single minded view of tanking and I surely wouldnt want anyone with that attitude in my groups. The game is much more diverse than taking damage, healing, doing damage. Open your mind. </span><div></div>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> Strast wrote: <P><SPAN>Now just how did you extract that statement out of what I said? I said <FONT size=4><B><U><I>100% of monks that I talked to</I></U></B></FONT> in game said you were nuts. Do try not to make up things I didnt say.<BR><BR>As for guardians disagreeing with me, Im sure there are. I havent seen one yet but Im sure there are some. <BR><BR>You are entitled to your opinions. You are also entitled to be smacked aroudn with a trout and those little things called facts when you repeatedly and incessantly annoy us by posting things you KNOW will inflame people on the board. Why you do it is a mystery that only you can know, but you know darn well you will get smacked here so dont go running to mommy shouting, "That badger bit me just because I whacked it with a stick!!!!"</SPAN><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I inferred, that's how.</P> <P>For example:  You said that all monks you spoke to disagree with me.  You said it as if it was remarkable.  Like "omg no one agrees with Gage".  So therefore I assumed that most guardians agree with your sentiments, which is why people disagreeing with me would seem so profound.</P> <P>I'm surprised you can post, Firefox problems and all <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR></P>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Strast wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Deadjester wrote:<BR> <P>    Actualy, the only picture that counts is Pure Tanking.   Anything else is fluff, if a class does not have enough fluff then that is where the fight should be for that class.</P> <P>   Any group I have played in does not care if the Tank can FD or go invis, they just want to know, can you hold agro, can you take a beating without wasting the clerics power, do you know how to pull without wiping the party.   And thats it.</P> <P>   If you are invis, your not tanking, if you are FD your not tanking and some other group member is getting beat up and more then likely its a non tank, which is a big no no.</P> <P>   If you are under the list as Fighter, then Tanking is the ONLY thing that counts, Period.<BR><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>That is a single minded view of tanking and I surely wouldnt want anyone with that attitude in my groups. The game is much more diverse than taking damage, healing, doing damage. Open your mind. <BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>ROFL, no it isn't.  Are you insane?</P> <P>All that really matters is taking damage, doing damage and being healed.  Everything else is fluff.</P> <P>Also, it most certainly isn't a single minded view of tanking.  A single minded view of tanking would be the one you have <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>You know, guardians are the best, should be the best, yadda yadda.<BR></P>

[Stra]

<span><blockquote><hr>Nemi wrote: <p>All Fighters should be able to tank ALL raid mobs and succeed. If Guardians are one-trick ponies then they need to be given additional utility/DPS to allow them to compete on both MT and OT roles.</p><hr></blockquote>We dont want that. If we had wanted that we would have picked a hybrid. We dont need your crumbs after you try your damndest to have your cake and eat it too. Without completely redesigning the game or completely screwing it up, there is no way they can change it. In this and the other thread all possible resolutions have been proposed and shot down in roaring flames. </span><div></div>

[Stra]

<span><blockquote><hr>Gage-Mikel wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Strast wrote: <p><span>Now just how did you extract that statement out of what I said? I said <font size="4"><b><u><i>100% of monks that I talked to</i></u></b></font> in game said you were nuts. Do try not to make up things I didnt say.As for guardians disagreeing with me, Im sure there are. I havent seen one yet but Im sure there are some. You are entitled to your opinions. You are also entitled to be smacked aroudn with a trout and those little things called facts when you repeatedly and incessantly annoy us by posting things you KNOW will inflame people on the board. Why you do it is a mystery that only you can know, but you know darn well you will get smacked here so dont go running to mommy shouting, "That badger bit me just because I whacked it with a stick!!!!"</span></p> <hr> </blockquote> <p>I inferred, that's how.</p> <p>For example:  You said that all monks you spoke to disagree with me.  You said it as if it was remarkable.  Like "omg no one agrees with Gage".  So therefore I assumed that most guardians agree with your sentiments, which is why people disagreeing with me would seem so profound.</p> <p>I'm surprised you can post, Firefox problems and all <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p> <hr></blockquote>You inferred incorrectly. To infer is to "</span> To conclude from evidence or premises."[1] You had no evidence for your statement, nor did anything I say lead any rational being to conclude I had taken a survey of 100% of monks or guardians in the game. You did something else called, Invent, " To produce or contrive (something previously unknown) by the use of ingenuity or imagination."[2] As for firefox and the operation timed out issue, they obviously repaired it. It doesnt take a genious to figure that out. <span> [1] http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=infer [2] http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=invent</span><div></div>

[Stra]

<span><blockquote><hr>Gage-Mikel wrote: <p>ROFL, no it isn't.  Are you insane?</p> <p>All that really matters is taking damage, doing damage and being healed.  Everything else is fluff.</p> <p>Also, it most certainly isn't a single minded view of tanking.  A single minded view of tanking would be the one you have <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p> <p>You know, guardians are the best, should be the best, yadda yadda.</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>I feel sorry for you. You spoke that like a persion that set out to grind to level 50. Trample the roses, forget the scenery and disregard the story as all fluff. I authentically feel sorry for you, Im not being witty or sarcastic. You have quite clearly missed the entire game in your rush to get to 50.</span><div></div>

[SageMarrow]

<DIV> <P>ROFL, no it isn't.  Are you insane?</P> <P><STRONG><U>All that really matters is taking damage, doing damage and being healed.  Everything else is fluff.</U></STRONG></P> <P>Also, it most certainly isn't a single minded view of tanking.  A single minded view of tanking would be the one you have <IMG height=16 src="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif" width=16 border=0></P> <P>You know, guardians are the best, should be the best, yadda yadda.<BR>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>If EQ2 comes to this then we all need to put away our keyboards and walk away slowly, credit card numbers in hand...</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>I am the main one trying to get the game away from this dumb stigma that it does have high potential to become, and on the min/max side of things- it is already.</FONT></P> <P> </P></DIV>

[Gaige]

<P>It is, and it always will be.  My rush to get to 50 ended 3 months ago anyway.</P> <P>You can say mez is needed, but if you have enough healing and dps, it isn't.</P> <P>You can say such and such buff is needed, but if you have enough healing and dps, it isn't.</P> <P>That's just how these games work.</P> <P>Those 3 things are the only things that really matter.</P> <P> </P>

[Margen]

<P>Strast wrote:</P> <P>Shadow Knights are kings when it comes to finishing a fight quickly. There is nothing like a harm touch at the right moment to finish off that douible up green you were fighting when a double up blue adds. SKs can also life tap their enemies to get an extra heal as the enemies attack them. This is not to mention their DOTs and other spells that also make them excellent peelers and add tankers.<BR></P> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Well I am a SK, and you really need to learn about SK abilities.  HT is not a raid saver, it gets resisted A LOT, its on a 30 min timer and it doesn't equal a single scout or mage damage abilitie.  Lifetaps don't cover a single hit and they are power hogs.  While our dps is better then Guairdians and palladins from my experiance, it not going to make us really sought after.  Our dots are fairly weak and and take quite a bit of power and our aggro generation isn't in the same ball park as Guiardians or Zerkers.</DIV>

[SageMarrow]

<DIV> <P>It is, and it always will be.  My rush to get to 50 ended 3 months ago anyway.</P> <P>You can say mez is needed, but if you have enough healing and dps, it isn't.</P> <P>You can say such and such buff is needed, but if you have enough healing and dps, it isn't.</P> <P>That's just how these games work.</P> <P>Those 3 things are the only things that really matter.</P> <P>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____</P> <P>at present, yep you are right, cant argue with you there...</P></DIV>

[Chanliang]

<div></div>Arguing will never stops until soe announces something. The fact is Gage and rest that we can't have it all. While archtype system is nice and works to a degree it can't bend forever. For fighters it now allows all to tank most of the thing in EQ2 perhaps 99% of the stuff.  If you're having 6 subclasses which are supposed to be based on either mitigation or avoidance you possibly cannot make them equal tanking hardest possible stuff on game. With gaining something you should loose something no matter what soe has stated pre-game whether it's dps/utility/heals/etc. Gage you post a lot here and I can mostly understand your attitude but brawlers can tank 99% of game content so in game/soe point of view your class fill tank requirement and archtype role.  You can argue this if it pleases you but you choosed monk and got dps and utility and loosed some tank ability which in this case also meant that you lost 1% chance to tank game content which even didn't exist when game went live.  Good reason or not brawlers also make great off-tanks and are welcome to fill dps slot if not MT spot is availlable. I don't know what will happen in LU#7 both my characters mystic and berserker are going to have big changes and I'm quite sure I won't like them that much cause I hate big fundamental changes when I'm already used to something. What comes to original topic all tanks need avoidance like it or not, you don't do anything with MT who is most of the time stunned/stifled/interrupted. Soaks damage or not. <div></div><p>Message Edited by Chanliang on <span class=date_text>04-12-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:45 AM</span>

[Nemi]

<DIV>I think the argument now is:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Should all Fighters be able to tank all raid mobs in the game?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Some Guardians seem to think that they should be the only tank able to do this. This is what I argue against. If Guardians state they give up everything to tank <1% of mobs then they need to argue for more fluff, because I think all fighters should be able to tank all mobs in the game.</DIV>

[Chanliang]

<span><blockquote><hr>Nemi wrote:  I think all fighters should be able to tank all mobs in the game.<hr></blockquote>I agree as well but considering current game mechanics making situation so might be impossible unfortunately without overpowering someclass. Avoidance has a serious weakness and that is lady Luck. Some times she loves you and sometimes not.  Only way to counter this is at the moment mitigation (if healer abilities don't count) and if you have loads of mitigation then you shouldn't have that much avoidance. 2 edged sword, now that thing will be adjusted somehow but I don't see it helping monks anyway, actually change will be more harder for them if fix touches buff stacking. All armor except very light are ridiculously close each other already, makes me wonder why on earth I choosed mystic with medium armor over druid with light cause light usually has better mods and now mitigation is almost identical with medium armor.  Heavy armor isn't that far away either, few lousy %.</span><div></div>

[MoonglumHMV]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> English Da Guard wrote:<BR> <DIV>  Ok well explain to me how you would do that. I have read all your posts and none of your ideas are at all viable.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>  If you make it so plate classes get hit with everything, they will never be able to taunt, so that doesn't work.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>  Only thing you could do is add certain mobs with a high to hit rate so monks have to tank those. But you wouldn't be happy with that and neither would plate tanks as then you are forced to have an avoidance tank which not all guilds have.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>   So tell me, how do you do it. Plate tanks have to be able to avoid often otherwise no way a Guard or other plate class could keep aggro since we rely on CAs and stifles and stuns would get through all day long. Avoidance tanks should be able to avoid more. They will still get worked by spells and AEs, and due to lack of HPs a plate tank is still chosen.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>  So by all means, tell me. If you have a good idea I would gladly stand behind it, but I have yet to read anything by you or Gage that is at all feasible.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>  Best idea I saw was from Sage. Give plate classes an ability that prevents stuns from the front 180 and decrease our avoidance and increase yours.</DIV> <P>Message Edited by English Da Guard on <SPAN class=date_text>04-10-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>02:07 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>English, we have discussed this before, and I told you I couldn't think of anything at the time...but an idea popped into my head today that I wanted to run by you or the others...what if you had to take X% of your hit points in damage before a state (stun, stifle, etc...) would stick?  As the plate tanks got a mitigation boost or mitigation buffs or whatever, then they would be less and less often getting hit for over that X%, while with an avoidance boost or avoidance buffs or whatever the brawlers would get, they would be getting hit less often, but when they did get hit, the would get hit with those states nearly every time.</P> <P>I also would go with Sage's idea of an arc that you had a higher chance of resisting states, I don't know that I could go with a full prevent stuns, because against single mob's and the way the AI is now, you can line up multiple mobs directly in front of you, I feel that would be a bit higher powered...maybe a mod on shields that increased the arc and the resistance %...</P> <P>Just ideas...be nice <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P>

[Deadjest]

<P>    Strast, I read your response to my post, weither you would want me in your group or not is meaningless so I take no ofense since you opinions on that subject has no value for it does not add to the topic at hand which is tanking for all the class's under Fighter.</P> <P>   But since the subject is about Tanking among the Fighter class's I am curious how you came to that conclusion.</P> <P>   I would like to know what more there is to Tanking besides pulling, holding agro, and sustaining damage.   Pulling is a art form all in its own and takes personal skill, holding agro is a matter of button mashing and some thought as to power managment in comparsion to mob death rate and sustaing damage is pretty much equipment related and some def skills as the game now stands.</P> <P>  Please explain what it is that you find is close minded then take the time to go beyond the close minded borders you say I have set so that we may all improve beyond where we are.</P> <P>  Haruchai</P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

[Rah]

<P>Gage,</P> <P>If all that is needed is a healer and dps then why are you whining hear about guardians are overpowered? Dont you do more DPS than guardians do?Shouldnt you instead be posting in the priest archetype boards for better healing to compensate for there inability to keep you on your feet? Perhaps an artisan that has the recipie for "imbued pajamas of Anti-RNG " you know the ones that have the effect of every time you are killed by a raid mob it automatically post to the guardian forums about how it was the guardians fault you got  killed, every CA you have received is utter fluff and although Defense is there style of tanking all fighters should be able to be just as defensive or its not fair.</P> <P>Just thought I would kick this rotting horse before LU#8 is released and I am subject to the effects of the Pajamas you require.</P> <P>Rahge</P> <P> </P>

[SageMarrow]

<P>well no one wants offense to be a viable form of tanking, it has to be the click/taunt/buff, with good armor to take a beating approach for them to be happy.</P> <P>They want to **feel** like a true meat shield....</P>

[TheMeatShie]

How can guardians be first among equals? This invalidates itself, if Guardians are first, they are not among equals in that exact situation....  Just like saying every class should dps the same, but scouts and mages should be *first* at it... almost like saying better. As for the notion that Guardians shouldnt be the only ones able to tank that <1% of top end raid content, they arent....they are just better at it, as every other class in the game is better than guardian at another aspect. How the game mechanics are atm, if a Guardian is "superior" at taking less damage (ie being highest defense vs melee class in game) then that is part of the class, that is what SOE has balanced that class around.  SOE did not sit around and balance the classes, then accidentally give guardians the best defense. I think the fact still remains, every fighter class can tank great for groups.  Every fighter class can tank raid content.  Every fighter class tanks in a different way, and in different situations different tanks are better than others... If a group is light on dps, a shadow knight may be alot more beneficial than a guardian. Having larger strengths in one aspect and lighter strengths in another aspect is more i would considered balanced.  Every class being the same in taking melee damage, while one specific class has been balanced around having that strength and the other classes are balanced around having other abilities is not what i consider balanced. <div></div>

[English Da Gua]

<P>   Basically, the problem is two fold.</P> <P>   1) Monks can tank +99% (perhaps 100%) of all raid mobs with the right setup. Either they refuse to try, do not have the resources, or do not post about it. Thing is, a guardian can fail just as easily as a monk with the wrong setup. TRUST ME  :smileywink:</P> <P>   2) If a guardian cannot avoid, he is WORTHLESS in the end game, and probably throughout most of the game. While monks want more avoidance then a guardian (as should be), unless the skills are actually changed and more are added, the avoidance will never be a large gap, it can't be due to the nature of the game.</P> <P>    While I am all for equal but different methods of tanking, I really feel it exists on some level. Strange black ore has been in the game since day one, and the Devs know what it is used for, but we have simply not figured it out. The same is true on raids. If you fail all the time, keep trying and learn.</P> <P>     If ideas like Sage had about a stun ability get implemented, I have no problem getting smacked on 90% of the hits, so long as I can do my job, which is to maintain aggro and take a beating. While I agree we should all be striving for the same goals, many hide what they want using smoke and mirrors to try and gain the upper hand while calling it balance.</P> <DIV>     Light Armor wearers, as much as they should avoid, should get hit with specials and AEs. So my question, like I have asked before, is how would you make a system as such? The problem lies in the fact that the game is totally different 1-50 then it is at 50. If you change one aspect, you slide the scale one way. I get tired of reading how monks are useless on raids. A good FIGHTER will get a spot because of his skill, not his class. (Granted only one spot, perhaps two, may be available due to game mechanics)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>     Personally, I would love to see what Sage has mentioned implemented. I would also like to see monks given an inherent ability that increases their chance to avoid specials and AEs. This would give them what they want, while still leaving them vulnerable to RNG. Monks will still die more often the guardians on a raid, all things being equal, as it should be. </DIV> <DIV>  </DIV> <DIV>     That being said, EQ2 stated early all tanks will be able to perform their role in MOST situations. For those of you who do not realize that most is not the same as all, I find it funny you use what SoE stated pre release to your advantage, but then somehow turn most into meaning all. If it is true, as even monks have said, that you can tank all but less then 1% of the mobs in the game, please explain to me how +99% does not equal most? I mean if you are going to hold SoE to its word, perhaps you should read all the words SoE provided.</DIV>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> English Da Guard wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>    <FONT color=#ffff00> That being said, EQ2 stated early all tanks will be able to perform their role in MOST situations.</FONT> For those of you who do not realize that most is not the same as all, I find it funny you use what SoE stated pre release to your advantage, <FONT color=#ffff00>but then somehow turn most into meaning all.</FONT> If it is true, as even monks have said, that you can tank all but less then 1% of the mobs in the game, please explain to me how +99% does not equal most? <FONT color=#ffff00>I mean if you are going to hold SoE to its word, perhaps you should read all the words SoE provided.</FONT> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>What situation is present in this game where the guardian class can not perform the MT role?</P> <P>Its a two way street English.  If we can tank 99% of it, your class should be the same.  1% may not seem like a lot to you, but if the shoe was on another foot, it most certainly would <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR></P>

[English Da Gua]

<P>  /sigh.</P> <P>   You have not tried every way, so you cannot say it is not 100%. Fact still stands you have not tried every possible group setup / strategy etc. It has been said numerous times that a guardian can tank easier due to his defensive nature.</P> <P>   Fact is, a guild that wishes to use a monk to MT the hardest content in the game needs to actually think a little more and be creative. It should be more difficult to tank with a monk due to his nature. Therefore, until you have tried all the possible combinations etc, please stop trying to say "oh guardians can and I cannot," that is getting old.</P> <P>    Monks have even said a guardian should be able to tank with more leeway then a monk. There is more room for failure with a monk in general. So, that being said, until you use all combinations and strategies, you have no, ABSOLUTELY NO grounds for change beyond buff stacking. If you try all the combinations and strategies imaginable and still fail, then I am 100% in agreement with you... but you haven't.</P><p>Message Edited by English Da Guard on <span class=date_text>04-12-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:18 PM</span>

[Nemi]

<P>Using a monk and using a guardian isn't rocket science.</P> <P>You have a tank...you need to keep him alive. You use wards and heals, that's it. There is no secret super end-game tactics involving different tanks.</P> <P> </P>

[Deadjest]

<P>    I believe the problem lies in the fact, if you have one tank class that can tank in all situations and another tank class that is just situational, then you have a imbalance.   There is no way to get around that fact.</P> <P>   One form of Balance is all tanks can preform in ALL situations when it comes to tanking mobs/raid mobs.   The difference would be each Tank would preform +/-  in minor degrees in relation to other tanks of differnt class's.    That way depending on mob content and raid mob, nobody is left out BUT you would Prefer the tank best suited for the job.</P> <P>   Another form of Balance is by making tanks a bit more specialized in their Defense abilities, be it  armor mitigation, avoidance, spell resists, and speical attack resists.   So again you would have tanks +/- being pretty balanced on regular mobs but on Raid mobs, it would really mean you need the right tank for the job.   Which in turn would mean all tank class's would be needed in a guild and feel more useful.   And if you had a complex raid where multi types of tanks are needed, it could get very interesting.</P> <P>  Using tank DPS is a option on standard mobs but once you start hitting bigger named mobs, it is no longer viable.</P> <P>  As for Sony making tanks the way they are on purpose is subjective to opinion and not fact.</P> <P>  The fact is, if all the class's were made to be what they were on launch date, we would not be having these Live Update and tweeking's going on.   For we would be working as intended but as the facts prove, that is not the case.   What EQ2s vision truly is for each tank I am not sure because that to is subject to change.</P> <P>  The issue really is to define the goals of the major categores.</P> <P>  <STRONG>Fighters </STRONG>- Tanking</P> <P>  <STRONG>Scout </STRONG>- Dps, Utility</P> <P>  <STRONG>Mages</STRONG> - Dps, Utility</P> <P>  <STRONG>Priests </STRONG>- Healing, Utility</P> <P>  If a class in these sections fails to meet that goal, then you have a problem.</P> <P>  For a Guardian to be able to tank in all situations better then everyone else, that is a major issue.</P> <P>  On the other hand, for a Monk to tank equal to Guardian in the same situations and retain their DPS, that to is a major issue.</P> <P>  Since we are all different, the only viable option is to make the coding on Tanking and DPS in relation to how armor, resists and speical abilities effect each other a bit more complex so the tanks can be more diversified then they already are.</P> <P>  Or make all tanks Guardians and let the fun truely begain as all the tanks vie for MT, that would be of great amusment to watch there!  For then it would only be skill and equimpment set the tanks apart!</P> <P>  Haruchai</P> <P> </P>

[Nemi]

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Deadjester wrote:<BR> <P>    Or make all tanks Guardians and let the fun truely begain as all the tanks vie for MT, that would be of great amusment to watch there!  For then it would only be skill and equimpment set the tanks apart!</P> <P> Haruchai</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>And we would be back to EQ1 :smileyvery-happy::smileyvery-happy:<BR><BR></DIV>

[TheMeatShie]

<div></div>Um i belive he is saying all figther classes being exactly the same as guardian and fighting over the same MT spot... As far as each tank having a specialty vs types of damage, it is a creative system.  Content would have to be balanced very specifically around this.  The problem i see that lies in this, is within doing this they completely revamp content AND classes.  Figthers would have to be totally revamped all around to be balaned while content would at the same time.  The position would move ALOT more from one class having a marginal advanatage over others, to needing the specific type of tank the content was tuned for - because if they make it to where the advantages are big enough to mean anything at all, then balance the content to be challenging, your success rate goes down by leaps and bounds using a different fighter class than it is tuned for.  The flexibility of the strategy of the game would fall even more. I find it funny how people say if the most defensive fighter class in the game is the one that most commonly tanks the <1% of mobs in the game, the classes are imbalanced because the other fighters are being left in the cold.  If Guardians are the most defensive class in the game and give up other skills/abilities for this, do you think this is supposed to be worthless? Seems people are always fine with the idea of the Guardian being the most defensive class and "first among equals" ::rolls eyes:: until that defense means anything.  Fighters dont get all the abilities monks get, monks do not get all of the abilities fighters get.  The idea that the two classes perform differently in different situations is flavor, not imblance - and this doesnt mean x class avoids while y class mitigates giving both classes the same success rate. <div></div><p>Message Edited by TheMeatShield on <span class=date_text>04-13-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:41 AM</span>

[Nemi]

<DIV>If Guardians are going to use the crutch,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Waa! I have no DPS</DIV> <DIV>Waa! I have no utility</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Then Guardians should be given more utility, more DPS and other classes should be given more defense to allow them to tackle the <0.5% of mobs that they can't.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Just because you are the 'most' defensive class should not mean ONLY YOU can tank certain mobs. There should be no mob in the game that REQUIRES a specific class. That is of course unless you are going to create a mob for every tank class in the game = lame in my opinion.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[SageMarrow]

<DIV> <P>What situation is present in this game where the guardian class can not perform the MT role?</P> <P>Its a two way street English.  If we can tank 99% of it, your class should be the same.  1% may not seem like a lot to you, but if the shoe was on another foot, it most certainly would <IMG height=16 src="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif" width=16 border=0><BR>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>Using FD to escape a near death situation, pass aggro along, revive a potential wipe.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>Using Invis to catch up to party members deep inside dungeons, personal corpse retrivals, exploration without opposition.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>Secured spot in a group as both tank and dps next too and above other potential group candidates.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>Now all of these things are used highly by monks/bruisers 1-45, and the cut off is at around 45 for these things to work in high consistency, so thats what that 1%  of content that brawlers supposedly cant tank is used for. 80% of your career as a brawler in exchange for 1% of content.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>Im pretty sure that that is what Moorgard meant by that little statement about "balancing those tradeoffs" persay.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>Just a thought.</FONT></P></DIV>

[SageMarrow]

<P>Guys - read my above post, we all know that SOE counts that as a tradeoff, whether we would say screw it or not is not the point, SOE counts it as something that will be factored into the scheme of **IF** we get more defense.</P> <P>And something tells me that before they do something like that or anything of the sort, they will give us a FD that works more often and a stonger mend spell...or some other avenue of that utility that we dispise and want in exchange for tanking ability.</P> <P>Despite popular belief, tanking raid mobs is probably the concern of 10% of brawlers out there-  and while that is an assumption, We probably could all agree on that. </P> <P>So basically as complex as this situation is, balance is fine 1-50 and the classes that are supposed to do what pretty much do. Something tells me they are not going to change the entire game around for 3 difficult raid mobs. </P> <P>If they see a problem with the game 1-50- then it will be addressed. And apparently SOE saw a problem there with the way avoidance itself was working, not with the raid environment, their problem with the raid environment was moreso about the buff stacking that was making all characters reach invulnerable levels in relation to the mobs they were fighting. Especially even more so when the mob was debuffed and slowed into oblivion.</P> <P>So getting more defense is a bit far stretched, but the mobs in question will more than likely be toned down back to thier original status, making thier damage output and frequency relative so that any TANK type can TANK it. But guardians will remain the best in that same respect...honestly, because they should be the best amoung equals...</P>

[Nemi]

<P>Yep Sage I agree,</P> <P>I just got suckered by another Guardian whine 'we have no dps or utility' post.</P>

[MastikFantastik]

<div></div>To restate something that English mentioned as I have as well. Monks can tank but need the proper combination to do it.  Someone stated above in the thread its not rocket science healers heal and ward the tank. Well I have to say that is true to a point but how its done and with what combinations might be.  Such as having a group like: Monk(MT), Mystic, Defiler, Druid, Conj (they get a small ward they can put on you too), Bard. This might make it so that a monk can tank enything I don't know if it does, has anyone tried this for the raid mobs that monks haven't tanked yet?  Where as the tradinitional group would be Guard, cleric, healer (of other type), DPS x3..  why does that group work a lot of the time (not all) its simple because the 2 healers using the guardian defense can keep him up on his feet long enough for that DPS to kill the mob. Now replace that guard with a monk, that might not work as well because if the monk gets hit frequently enough (bad string of luck) he does not have the hp nor mitgation to take all the hits.  He dodges more but when hit its for more.  Hmm wait a second I just thought of something could it be that raid mobs hit more often then a regular mob? and hit harder?  Could that be why the traditional cleric healing the mt won't work on someone in lighter armor then the healer?  just a thought.  That's is where the different strategies might come into play like the conj warding in addition to the Mystics/defilers, and the druid/fury or cleric type healing the dmg that is take after the ward is dropped from the monk and the bard type doing dmg, buffing the bageezes out of the group or debuffing the mob so that it doens't hit as much or for as much.  Now that being said we can see the monk tanking the same mob as the Guardian just in a different manner. Yes this might be considered "harder" but in reality its a different strategy and one that someone might not be used to, thus it is precieved as harder. I am all for ideas like the monks being able to have a chance of avoiding aoes, and such just the rng thing might be a bit much if the monk isn't facing the mob head on. I don't know too many martial artists that can dodge an arrow that they don't know is comming at them. Now here is some direct quoting of the manual that was shipped with the game. "You know the one you never read because manuals are for the weak" ? lol.. just kidding so here goes. (I am not going to type out all the manual on Crusaders, Zerkers, nor Bruisers, seeing the debate seems to be focussed on Guardians and Monks.) <font color="#ff0000">Fighter:</font><font color="#ff0000"> </font><font color="#ff0000">Fighters enjoy the thick of the fray, often absorbing the brunt of attacks while taking the battle to the enemy directly. Fighters can wear a variety of armor, and employ a host of weapons and combat arts to defeat enemies. </font><font color="#ff0000"> </font><font color="#ff0000">Fighters use brute strength and sturdy weapons to deal physical damage to their enemies. Always at the forefront of combat, Fighters stand toe-to-toe with opponenents keeping their allies from harm.</font><font color="#6633ff"> </font> Lets look at that definition a bit closer. <font color="#ffff00">Fighters enjoy the thick of the fray, often absorbing the brunt of attacks while taking the battle to the enemy directly. Fighters can wear a variety of armor, and employ a host of weapons and combat arts to defeat enemies <font color="#ffffff">Hmm it says often absorbing the brunt not always. Also I notice a variety of armor, hmm how many fighters do you know wearing VERY-LIGHT Armor?  We know monks/bruiser wear light armor but even they don't wear a full suit of very light. </font></font><font color="#ffff00">Fighters use brute strength and sturdy weapons to deal physical damage to their enemies. Always at the forefront of combat, Fighters stand toe-to-toe with opponenents keeping their allies from harm. <font color="#ffffff">True we all use brute strength to deal dmg to the enemy, but when was the last time you saw a guardian in defensive mode out damage any monk in their defensive mode? I can say I haven't seen that occur even once.  As for standing toe-to-toe with the enemy that is what whom ever the MT of that fight does, I don't care if it's a guardian, monk, a cleric, heck even an illusionist.  Whom ever is the MT they will be there so that doesn't just apply to fighters.  Curious I still haven't seen the word TANK come from SOE in this section of the manual. hmm.. maybe further in. <font color="#ff0000">Warrior:</font><font color="#ff0000"> </font><font color="#ff0000">Warriors utilize heavy armor and weapons to safeguard their companions and inflict damage on their opponents. They stand bravely at the forefront of battle, striking fear into the hearts of their enemies. </font> hmm still no mention of tank but I do see that Warriors use heavy armor and stand in the forefront (that suggests to me in front of the mob). Lets see  in comparrison what it says about brawlers. <font color="#ff0000">Brawler:</font><font color="#ff0000"> </font><font color="#ff0000">Brawlers specialize in physical combat styles that bring them face-to-face with the enemy. Favoring light armor and hand to hand combat tactics, brawlers have honed their bodies into potent weapons.  </font><font color="#ff0000"> </font> Well looks like they can be in front of the mob too to "tank it" but it does hint that they do more damage then their warroir buddies and sounds like they won't be as durable because of the lighter armor. Now to the nitty Gritty. The Guardian and Monk classes. <font color="#ff0000">Guardian: Guardians can don the heaviest armors to protect themselves in combat an aid in the defense of their allies. They stand firm agaisnt any threat and bear the brunt of attacks while felling opponents with any variety of weapons. <font color="#ffffff">Yep guardians can wear the heaviest armors, but so can Zerkers, paladins, and shadow knights.  In the manual it shows that the only Fighter Archtype that can wear Vaguard aromor is the guardian yet all 4 of those classes can, not to mention clerics. looks like guardians are intended to be meat sheilds as the are to bear the brunt of </font> </font></font></font>attacks. <font color="#ff0000">Monk: Monks are disciplined combatants who specialize in martial arts. They hon their bodiesto be nimble to avoid enemy blows, and to deliver clean and efficient counter attacks. <font color="#ffffff"> That sound to me like monks should dodge (avoid) more then the guardians, and they do but it doesn't suggest that they can take the blow as well and wearing that light armor they don't thus making it harder to "tank the mob tradionally". Now looking in the manual it doesn't use the word Tank once, and it does suggest that the heavier armor wearing guardians will be taking the brunt of most attacks (not form a  specific encounter/mobs in general) where are a monk would avoid more.  Now looking at those definitions and if you follow the lines of class to subclass, it looks to me that guardians are ment to be a meat sheild and monks more dps then meat sheild. It does not say anywhere that monks, nor guardians for that matter will be able to tank everything. That is something people got to realize. Everyclass is different, and whether it is the fact that people don't wnat to change their strategies or can't is one of the main problems.  Not that monks and others can't tank as well as guardians, just that a guardian is meant to take that damage and therefore that is the strategy that is being used, to tank/complete the raid etc... encounters.  Now if you put that monk in place of the guardian the strategy to get that done will have to be different because they are not ment to take the same damage as a guardian. If they upped the avoidance of monks too much (unless they divise a different methode that I can't think of) they will make all other classes in the fighter archtype irrelevant because why have a guardian that will get hit more often and do less dps (same goes for any of the others, well maybe not bruisers). Or if they dropped the guardians (and other plate wearers) then we still have a problem with the stiffles and stuns and such unless they have some sort of idea on how to mitigate that  or make the effect less potent on plate classes. I hope this post just shows that no one is or isn't  a Tank just that to achieve the same kills you will have to do it differently, and if a group/raid/guild only wants a guardian to tank a raid then that's their choice and not the class's choice.  If you try different tactics/group set ups you should be able to achieve the same goals as a guardian MT raid/group. <font color="#ffff00">So please try before you come here and cry.</font></font></font><div></div><p>Message Edited by MastikFantastik on <span class=date_text>04-13-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:52 AM</span>