Combat changes and what will they mean to Guardians.

[Raahl]

<DIV> <DIV>Moorgard posted a few tidbits on the upcoming combat changes.  How exactly is this going to affect Guardians?  Who knows.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><U>Part 1</U></STRONG></DIV> <DIV><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=chars&message.id=29576#M29576" target=_blank><FONT color=#c8c1b5>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=chars&message.id=29576#M29576</FONT></A></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV><FONT color=#c8c1b5></FONT> <HR> </DIV> <DIV> <P>Fighters are tanks. They don't all tank the same, and tanking isn't all they do, but that doesn't change the core role all fighters share. While some might envision a different approach, that role isn't going to go away just because some might prefer a different take on certain classes.</P> <P>The combat revamp isn't just a changing of balance numbers; it is a reevaluation of abilities. For fighters, this means some expanded spell lines, some shifting around of abilities from one subclass to another, and changes to the way defensive buffs work.</P> <P>Right now, guardians are far and away the best tank due to a combination of their buff stacking and the way defensive buffs are seen in combat rolls. Both those aspects are changing. Think of the guardian's abilities as being spread around a bit to the other fighter classes.</P> <P>In no particular order (other than pairing subclasses of the same class), here are a few (but not all) of the ways tanks will be distinguished from one another after the changes take effect. </P> <UL> <LI>Guardians will have the greatest capability to grant their defense to others. They also have a greater number of taunts.</LI> <LI>Berserkers will do more damage than guardians, especially when tanking. While they also have taunts, part of their taunting comes from the damage they do.</LI> <LI>Paladins have heals and a nice array of taunts.</LI> <LI>Shadowknights have lifetaps and higher damage than paladins.</LI> <LI>Monks excel in avoidance, and their ability to purge negative spell effects is being expanded.</LI> <LI>Bruisers mitigate a bit better and do more damage than monks, which again is the basis for part of their taunting ability.</LI></UL> <P>All fighters will have useful defensive and offensive stances that they can choose depending on their role in the group. Additionally, each fighter will gain a significant resistance to a particular type of damage, which should make different classes be desirable under certain situations.</P> <P>Again, this isn't about taking away tanking from guardians. I suspect after the revamp, in a lot of raid situations you'd still want a guardian as main tank. However, the changes should give more flexibility to other tank classes, and give situational advantages to each. Personally, I'm looking forward to that.</P> <P>===========================<BR>Steve Danuser, a.k.a. Moorgard<BR>Game Designer, EverQuest II</P> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><STRONG><U>Part 2 (Fighter Autoattack Damage reduced)</U></STRONG></P> <P><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=spellart&message.id=55737#M55737" target=_blank><FONT color=#c8c1b5>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=spellart&message.id=55737#M55737</FONT></A></P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P><FONT color=#c8c1b5></FONT></P><FONT color=#c8c1b5></FONT> <HR> <P>Fighter autoattack damage is going down a bit, while Scout autoattack damage is going up. The class-based damage multiplier will only affect autoattack damage, not spells and arts. Autoattack damage should be more meaningful under the new combat system.</P> <P>I know Berserkers in particular are concerned about doing less damage after the revamp. Berserker damage will shine when tanking, as they will continue to do a lot of reactive damage (i.e. going berserk when they get hit). Under these conditions they could outdamage Bruisers and Monks, though the Brawlers have higher raw damage than Berserkers in a non-tanking role.</P> <P>Again, there are no magic numbers. A lot of what determines the effectiveness of a class is based on situation, tactics, level range, gear, and quality of abilities. There aren't huge unconquerable chasms for those classes close to each other on the damage scale, which is why you haven't seen us say things like "This class will always do more damage than that class under every possible condition."</P> <P>===========================<BR>Steve Danuser, a.k.a. Moorgard<BR>Game Designer, EverQuest II</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><STRONG><U>Part 3 (Mob revamping)</U></STRONG></P> <P><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=chars&message.id=30626#M30626" target=_blank><FONT color=#c8c1b5>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=chars&message.id=30626#M30626</FONT></A></P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV><FONT color=#c8c1b5></FONT> <HR> </DIV> <DIV>NPCs are getting their own type of revamp. They'll have a wider variety of spells and arts to choose from, and will use them more intelligently. They'll actually use their buffs, for instance. Startling, I know... <IMG height=16 src="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif" width=16 border=0></DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><STRONG><U>Part 4 (Ability upgrades)</U></STRONG>  (Thanks Smakem Dahead)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=combat&message.id=55397#M55397" target=_blank><FONT color=#c8c1b5>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=combat&message.id=55397#M55397</FONT></A></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV><FONT color=#c8c1b5></FONT> <HR> </DIV> <DIV>Your upgrades will actually be upgrades instead of the way many spells are now. In other words, your investment should make you happier in that you will actually see an upgrade by going up in quality level.</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P>===========================<BR>Steve Danuser, a.k.a. Moorgard<BR>Game Designer, EverQuest II</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV> <P> </P> <P>As we get more information I will update this post.  Please include links to official responses. </P> <P>Also PLEASE, PLEASE keep the discussion on topic.  </P>

[Raahl]

<P>Here are the pros/cons that I see.   </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><STRONG><U><FONT size=4>Possible CONS</FONT></U></STRONG></P> <OL> <LI>Even less DPS (this affects all fighters).  Less damage via autoattack.  <LI>Less avoidance (this affects all fighters).  No more stacking various class buffs. <LI>Less hit points.  No more stacking hit point buffs.  <LI>Less mitigation (this affects all fighters).  No more stacking mitigation buffs. <LI>Mobs being adjusted to use a wider range of specials including buffing themselves.  (could be good or bad) <LI>More difficult solo'ing because of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5</LI></OL> <P><STRONG><U><FONT size=4>Possible PROS</FONT></U></STRONG></P> <OL> <LI>"Supposedly" more taunts.  So overall better at keeping aggro.  Especially If aggro is fixed for the various healing spells. <LI>If the mobs are adjusted correctly to match the new combat changes, our soloablility might be less affected by the nerfs.  Heck who knows it might get better. <LI>Mobs being adjusted to use a wider range of specials including buffing themselves.  (could be good or bad) <LI>Upgrades will actually be upgrades instead of the way many spells are now. (Affects everyone) </LI></OL></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>There are a few possible pros and cons mentioned in other posts, I have not verified them yet so I will not add them yet.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If anyone finds the Moorgard posts on any of these, post the links here and I will add them to the list and to the original post.</DIV>

[chadgeisl]

<DIV>dont we just love new patches??</DIV>

[Shizzirri]

I see a lot of favor towards berserkers in these Moorguard posts, however I'm hoping with an increase in their DPS that their defensive skills go down at the cost of this increased dps just as its already the opposite with guardians.

[Raahl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Shizzirri wrote:<BR>I see a lot of favor towards berserkers in these Moorguard posts, however I'm hoping with an increase in their DPS that their defensive skills go down at the cost of this increased dps just as its already the opposite with guardians. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I don't believe that Beserkers are getting an increase in DPS.  Autoattack DPS is dropping for every fighter archtype and the DPS for Beserkers will be mostly when MT'ing, from Moorgards post.  Though I could have read it wrong.</P> <P>But that's beserker stuff.   I'm interested in how it will affect the Guardian class.  :smileyhappy:</P>

[ArivenGemini]

<span><blockquote><hr>Raahl wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Shizzirri wrote:I see a lot of favor towards berserkers in these Moorguard posts, however I'm hoping with an increase in their DPS that their defensive skills go down at the cost of this increased dps just as its already the opposite with guardians. <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <p>I don't believe that Beserkers are getting an increase in DPS.  Autoattack DPS is dropping for every fighter archtype and the DPS for Beserkers will be mostly when MT'ing, from Moorgards post.  Though I could have read it wrong.</p> <p>But that's beserker stuff.   I'm interested in how it will affect the Guardian class.  :smileyhappy:</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>Yeah that change to the DPS of berserkers tells me there will be more berserkers out of the job of offtank unless they improve the quality of the other buffs/etc that they get..    focusing bers more into MT only role isn't going to be fun <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> I am hoping that the guardian changes will be along the lines of improving safety of the group as a whole.. for example one way I could see them doing it is a group wide intervene/block buff that lets the guardian defend for others in case of adds or loss of agro, and instead of single target make it for the group... increased taunts means much better control of encounters.. maybe even better than the berserker "as I breathe I draw agro" capacity some can get... </span><div></div>

[Deadjest]

<P>Hmmm.   I really really think Sony is going about this all wrong.   By having each stat, weapon, etc, etc mean somthing different to each class, that is a balancing nightmare.</P> <P>If stats and weapons were equal no matter what class and who's hands they are in, and let ATK and Stats seperate what makes us different, this would be much easier.   The idea that a Scout and Tank with both having 100 Strength doing different damage with the same stats is just absurd.   Just let equipment make the difference and when you first make your chars, let the stat bonues for class's be stronger starting off.   In the end you would Tanks having 150 str compared to a Scouts 110 str and you will still see a difference.</P> <P>Let weapons be weapons and stats be stats.  That can easily be balanced.</P> <P>Combat Arts should be where the balancing act should be going on.  While Tanks might have a mix Defensive and Offensive Arts, the Scouts would have a stronger mix of Offensive and less Defensive arts and their Offensive Arts might be stronger while our Defensive Arts would be Stronger.</P> <P>And if we all run out of power, then the power of Stats vs Weapons would kick in.</P> <P>Race and Class stats starting off mean to little and for those worried about that if there was a major difference, that everyone would just make a ogre then, well there are other advantages to offset that and more that could be made with the Trait system.</P> <P>But I believe this hold out idea from EQL has to be a balancing nightmare, just has to.</P>

[Raahl]

<P>Yes Sony has a balancing nightmare on their hands.   Too many variables and too many ways to arrange them.</P> <P>I do not envy them.</P>

[SmakenDah]

<div></div><div></div><font color="#ff9900" face="Verdana" size="2">We actually have a group version of Intervene at level 50, it just doesn't get used because it's practically suicide (and despite being a group version you still have to target a group member before firing it). Currently it seems to be more use on other tanks than it does on the guys that need protecting (mages mainly). We seem to eat more damage when a Mage is taking a hit than when someone else is. Theory 1: It appears that is due to the way damage is calculated - when a mage is hit, the damage is calculated using their mitigation then the check to see if the Intervene is made. So we lose our mitigation in order to protect others. Now imagine that in a group situation where lots of mobs agro different people in the group. Theory 2: I suspect it's more about the mages not having as good avoidance - it's almost as painful with it on a cleric, likely because their avoidance isn't so good. I suspect we're actually taking: (full damage * %noted on spell) with no mitigation involved what so ever. I used Sentry on a cleric that, during prep for Drayek, got agro from buffing due to someone else prox agroing Drayek - I was pasted in less than 2 hits - I had about 9k HPs at the time. It was pretty much cast Sentry, dead 2 seconds later. Sentry Adept 1 says something along the lines of: You'll intercept 53% of the successful attacks on the target you place this art and take 86% of the damage. Imagine that for the whole group - it would be a problem if agro was a problem which is the only time it's of use. A little on the sucky side isn't it? What they should do is remove that % of damage and just make it use our mitigation. The higher levels of the abilities should increase the % chance that we take the hit instead. </font><div></div><p>Message Edited by SmakenDahed on <span class="date_text">07-21-2005</span> <span class="time_text">05:07 PM</span></p><p>Message Edited by SmakenDahed on <span class=date_text>07-21-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:08 PM</span>

[ArivenGemini]

<span><blockquote><hr>SmakenDahed wrote:<div></div><div></div><font color="#ff9900" face="Verdana" size="2"> Theory 2: I suspect it's more about the mages not having as good avoidance - it's almost as painful with it on a cleric, likely because their avoidance isn't so good. I suspect we're actually taking: (full damage * %noted on spell) with no mitigation involved what so ever. I used Sentry on a cleric that, during prep for Drayek, got agro from buffing due to someone else prox agroing Drayek - I was pasted in less than 2 hits - I had about 9k HPs at the time. It was pretty much cast Sentry, dead 2 seconds later. Imagine that for the whole group - it would be a problem if agro was a problem which is the only time it's of use. A little on the sucky side isn't it? What they should do is remove that % of damage and just make it use our mitigation. The higher levels of the abilities should increase the % chance that we take the hit instead. </font><div></div> <hr></blockquote>Yeah, logically if you are intercepting the damage, you should use your own mitigation.. i.e. diving on the grenade for someone wont use -their- armor ...  Since I rolled a half-elf thats a low level guardian, I dont even bother using intervene if I am MT.. I cant be sure that the healer can keep me alive on that type of a spike..   at least with my monk the buff is "block 29% of the attacks" ...  no damage absorbed so its worth it. With a monk buff on my fury I was able to "solo" (i.e. he kept out of the fight and was the only person in my group) a 7+ mob blue con heroic encounter... definately NOT what I think a light armor healer should be able to do.. Guardians should be king of mitigation and king of keeping others alive by utilizing that mitigation.. thematically I can understand why we take damage when saving them, simply because we are interposing that shield and armor that we have on between them and the thing what wants to munch on them... I can understand thematically why the monk blocks blows instead of interposing.. its all in the style of martial arts deflecting stuff.. Balancing us out and giving us a good solid position as MT and even offtank at times is what I want to see.. I also want to see monk given a good solid position... everything should have a time and a place... adding situational combat to our strategies and tactics would help liven things up. </span><div></div>

[Raahl]

<DIV>Yea I've noticed this also.  Perhaps that will be fixed in the new combat changes.</DIV>

[Wasuna]

Glad I was accepted into the EQ2 Beta. These combat changes will be nice and worked out when the game goes Live.

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Wasuna wrote:<BR>Glad I was accepted into the EQ2 Beta. These combat changes will be nice and worked out when the game goes Live. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Gratz on beta.<BR>

[SmakenDah]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Ariven wrote:<span> Yeah, logically if you are intercepting the damage, you should use your own mitigation.. i.e. diving on the grenade for someone wont use -their- armor ...  Since I rolled a half-elf thats a low level guardian, I dont even bother using intervene if I am MT.. I cant be sure that the healer can keep me alive on that type of a spike..   at least with my monk the buff is "block 29% of the attacks" ...  no damage absorbed so its worth it. ...</span><hr></blockquote><font color="#ff9900" face="Verdana" size="2">I should have been clear, I'm often not the MT for raids as we have a snowman in development and I've only got my first piece the other night. I wouldn't suggest using intervene type arts if you're the MT but as an extra Guardian it can be helpful as long as you cancel it fast (why I'd love to have them as toggles). I think Guards get a buff like that too, I just think the description isn't very good and most Guards assume it's another gimped version of intervene. Since we're generally the tank, we don't tend to use it. Next time I'm on and doing some group stuff I'll let my SK buddy tank and ask him to keep an eye out for messages that I block/parry/riposte. <font size="1"> (btw, my SK buddy tanks a faiav</font></font></span><span><font color="#ff9900" face="Verdana" size="2"><font size="1">r bit in groups - I don't h</font></font></span><span><font color="#ff9900" face="Verdana" size="2"><font size="1">e to be the tank)</font> </font></span><div></div><p>Message Edited by SmakenDahed on <span class=date_text>07-22-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:11 AM</span>

[Errar]

<P>I fully respect all that has been posted in this sig; however, I see nothing good for the guardians in this change.  Moorguard said it best in the opening line when he said guardians are far and away the best tank in the game.   In the message he wrote that, due to the new abilities, you may want different classes in different situations.</P> <P>After playing a frustrated, not desired, not wanted epic owning warrior to 65 in EQ1, I see bad visions all over again.  Personally, I like knowing that a guardian is the unmistakable tank of the game.  The choice should be made on how well the person plays their toon, not the limitation to tank placed upon them by Sony.</P> <P>I fully support all other fighter classes having special abilities, increased damage output, the ability to taunt, and being able to tank in normal situations; however, when the mobs get tough, there should only be one person standing at the front of the pack....the unmistable tank of the game..... <STRONG><FONT size=4>The Guardian</FONT></STRONG>!</P> <P>My guardian is only 34 atm, but once these changes go into effect and the biggest battle is to find a tanking job, I doubt he will ever see the day of light again. </P> <P>Draegger Huscarl </P>

[Arpophyllum]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SmakenDahed wrote:<BR> <SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ariven wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR>Yeah, logically if you are intercepting the damage, you should use your own mitigation.. i.e. diving on the grenade for someone wont use -their- armor ...  Since I rolled a half-elf thats a low level guardian, I dont even bother using intervene if I am MT.. I cant be sure that the healer can keep me alive on that type of a spike..   at least with my monk the buff is "block 29% of the attacks" ...  no damage absorbed so its worth it.<BR><BR>...<BR></SPAN><BR> <HR> <FONT face=Verdana color=#ff9900 size=2><BR>I think Guards get a buff like that too, I just think the description isn't very good and most Guards assume it's another gimped version of intervene. Since we're generally the tank, we don't tend to use it. Next time I'm on and doing some group stuff I'll let my SK buddy tank and ask him to keep an eye out for messages that I block/parry/riposte.<BR></FONT></SPAN> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>I think Allay is the line you're both thinking of, it's 29% at adept 1 I think...and the jump to master 1 is to 38-39% I think (it's quite large). If I'm remembering it correctly there is an upgrade to this, but I still use Allay since I have the master.<BR>

[Shizzirri]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Errar wrote:<BR> <P>I fully respect all that has been posted in this sig; however, I see nothing good for the guardians in this change.  Moorguard said it best in the opening line when he said guardians are far and away the best tank in the game.   In the message he wrote that, due to the new abilities, you may want different classes in different situations.</P> <P>After playing a frustrated, not desired, not wanted epic owning warrior to 65 in EQ1, I see bad visions all over again.  Personally, I like knowing that a guardian is the unmistakable tank of the game.  The choice should be made on how well the person plays their toon, not the limitation to tank placed upon them by Sony.</P> <P>I fully support all other fighter classes having special abilities, increased damage output, the ability to taunt, and being able to tank in normal situations; however, when the mobs get tough, there should only be one person standing at the front of the pack....the unmistable tank of the game..... <STRONG><FONT size=4>The Guardian</FONT></STRONG>!</P> <P>My guardian is only 34 atm, but once these changes go into effect and the biggest battle is to find a tanking job, I doubt he will ever see the day of light again. </P> <P>Draegger Huscarl </P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>In EQ1 they didn't do the sk's and pallies any favors because they wanted to tank and they also we're rather vocal about being balanced with warriors, I remember the big issue being warriors got a defenisve discipline and sk's and pallies didn't and that bothered some people.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>My biggest concern about this whole rebalancing thing is all the stuff I'm hearing about berserkers, and I'm still wondering if with what moorgaurd said in terms of dp's and offense, what's going to happen with their defense (without guardian buffs)?  I'm hoping it would go down as it would make the most sense.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Keep in mind guardians get a lot of help from other classes in terms of defense, aggro holding, and dps.  Reactives help us with aggro, etc.</DIV>

[Styk]

You do understand that even currently in the game the only defense buff for zerkers that work atm is our parry buff right? I dont know what your concern about is about Berserker Defense , we get ripped to shreads defense wise without a Guardian in the group..... I understand your plight but i dont think Guardians should be worried all too much.... In reality i think alot of the weenies ( people who dont know how to play ) who play figther types atm will get rooted out and the true warriors,brawlers and crusaders will come out.. Also lets keep it real , yall Guards gotta let us other tank types have some fun raid MTIng everynow and again <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <div></div>

[Nazo]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Styker wrote:<BR><BR>Also lets keep it real , yall Guards gotta let us other tank types have some fun raid MTIng everynow and again <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Personally I fully respect that statement. Just don't want to see it swing from one extreme to another...</DIV>

[Raahl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P>Styker wrote:<BR>You do understand that even currently in the game the only defense buff for zerkers that work atm is our parry buff right? I dont know what your concern about is about Berserker Defense , we get ripped to shreads defense wise without a Guardian in the group..... I understand your plight but i dont think Guardians should be worried all too much.... In reality i think alot of the weenies ( people who dont know how to play ) who play figther types atm will get rooted out and the true warriors,brawlers and crusaders will come out..</P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>We are not concerned about currently how things work in game, it's the upcoming Fighter Revamp we are concerned about.  It could very well be that Beserkers with a back up Guardian with be the prefered tank combo.   </FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P>Also lets keep it real , yall Guards gotta let us other tank types have some fun raid MTIng everynow and again <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>We do?  :smileywink:</FONT><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <HR> <BR></BLOCKQUOTE> <p>Message Edited by Raahl on <span class=date_text>07-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:50 AM</span>

[Wasuna]

<P>I have a problem with this statement:</P> <P><BR> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Styker wrote:<BR><BR>Also lets keep it real , yall Guards gotta let us other tank types have some fun raid MTIng everynow and again <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>As a Guardian I gave up DPS and any sort of utility for 50 levels just so I could excell at one aspect of the game. I do not remember hearing ANYBODY complain about Guarduians tanking ability until a good number of people reached level 50 and started raiding. Now all the other fighters that don't get any new toys ever couple of days when they level (becasue they are level 50 now) want what Guardians worked for their whole existance in the game.</P> <P>If this whole cry about Guardians being overpowered would have happened when people were level 30 or so then I would have a lot more sympathy for the crusade. Unfortunatly it happened when Gage hit level 50 and his guild wouldn't let him tank on raids.</P>

[SmakenDah]

<span><blockquote><hr>Arpophyllum wrote: I think Allay is the line you're both thinking of, it's 29% at adept 1 I think...and the jump to master 1 is to 38-39% I think (it's quite large). If I'm remembering it correctly there is an upgrade to this, but I still use Allay since I have the master. <hr></blockquote><font color="#ff9900" face="Verdana" size="2">I was referring to Vigilance which is the higher level version of Allay. It's description is a little odd because it doesn't describe the full effect properly (it also includes a 5% intervene type effect to it). It says it increases the avoidance of the target but when you apply it to someone you don't see the increase where as with other buffs you see it. I also never saw any messages saying I was blocking/parrying for some one else so it appeared to have no other effect than increasing my parry (and the 5% intervene). I would like to see this sort of ability expanded on and explained better along with more useful changes to the Intervene lines. </font></span> <blockquote><hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Keep in mind guardians get a lot of help from other classes in terms of defense, aggro holding, and dps.  Reactives help us with aggro, etc. </blockquote> <blockquote><hr></blockquote> <font color="#ff9900" face="Verdana" size="2">Yes, this is something that will impact all tanks - the reactives will be fixed so that they apply agro to the priest instead of to the tank. I suspect Guards won't hurt as much about this since we will have "more taunts". </font> <blockquote><hr></blockquote> <blockquote> Also lets keep it real , yall Guards gotta let us other tank types have some fun raid MTIng everynow and again </blockquote> <blockquote><hr></blockquote> <font color="#ff9900" face="Verdana" size="2">Agreed. </font><font color="#ff9900" face="Verdana" size="2"> </font><div></div>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> Wasuna wrote: <P>If this whole cry about Guardians being overpowered would have happened when people were level 30 or so then I would have a lot more sympathy for the crusade. Unfortunatly it happened when Gage hit level 50 and his guild wouldn't let him tank on raids.</P> <HR> <P>You're wrong.  I wasn't guilded when I hit 50, as I did it the first few days of January.  Also there was no reason to complain back then because all fighters can tank xp group mobs, I tanked to 50 np.</P> <P>The descrepancies weren't noticed until people started raiding, obviously.</P></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <p>Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on <span class=date_text>07-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:18 PM</span>

[SmakenDah]

<font color="#ff9900" face="Verdana" size="2">It's more obvious when you're looking at raid mobs or named mobs, but it's always been a problem. I've been hearing about Guardians being overpowered tanks for awhile now. (Gage, ask Nector and Necrotic about some of the rants they listened to over Teamspeak from Exmortis months ago when they where in II - they also saw it with Emanon who's now playing a Dirge) </font><font size="1"><font color="#ff9900" face="Verdana" size="2"> </font><font color="#ff9900" face="Verdana" size="2">Exmortis was a guildy SK (still is) who had a few levels on me and comparable gear at the time (fulginate). He was fine tanking regular encounters, even ones 9-10 levels above his but took a beating against named within that same level range. I usually had to Safe Guard him and eat some of the damage so that our healer could keep him up - sometimes he'd die too fast and I'd just take over tanking.</font> </font><div></div>

[zabor]

you are forgetting this statement by moorguard in post #1:Actually, monks are fighters who do nice damage. They can't tank as well as guardians in the current game, but as I've said before, that disparity is being addressed.

[Raahl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> zaboron wrote:<BR>you are forgetting this statement by moorguard in post #1:<BR><BR>Actually, monks are fighters who do nice damage. They can't tank as well as guardians in the current game, but as I've said before, that disparity is being addressed.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Who's forgetting that?  It's a comment about monks.  And the one that concerns me the most as a guardian.</P>

[RafaelSmith]

<span><blockquote><hr>zaboron wrote:you are forgetting this statement by moorguard in post #1:Actually, monks are fighters who do nice damage. They can't tank as well as guardians in the current game, but as I've said before, that disparity is being addressed.<hr></blockquote> Yep thats what Moorgard said.  As long as when its all done with Monk crappy DPS = Guardian crappy DPS = Pally crappy DPS = SK crappy DPS = Zerker crappy DPS = Bruiser crappy DPS and Monk Tanking = Guardian Tanking = ....blah blah then its balance...anything else is not balanced and defeats the concept of Archetype as interpreted by Gage, etc. Doesnt that sound fun...an archetype made up of clones =P .</span><div></div>

[Raahl]

<P>Send in the Clones...  </P> <P>I haven't seen any new info, good or bad, on the combat changes.  Anybody seen any more info?</P>

[Katur]

Anyone likely to share any info publically other than SOE reps are in beta to the expansion and it has a pretty harsh NDA. You wont see them posting it here if they are smart. :smileyvery-happy:

[Raahl]

<DIV><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Katur wrote:<BR>Anyone likely to share any info publically other than SOE reps are in beta to the expansion and it has a pretty harsh NDA. You wont see them posting it here if they are smart. :smileyvery-happy: <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>And I wouldn't want them to. :smileywink:</P> <P>Looking for official posts from SOE.</P>

[Katur]

<DIV>Official posts will most likely not be made until well after beta IMO. There is multiple reasons for this , but the main one is designers and devs have a reluctance to speak openly on these boards. What they say is quoted and taken to be the final word when in fact its far from it. I think it would be nice if they could openly come here , and explain this to us. I also know what players reaction would be from experiance. Best of luck though on getting them to shed some light on the situation.</DIV>

[Raahl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Katur wrote:<BR> <DIV>Official posts will most likely not be made until well after beta IMO. There is multiple reasons for this , but the main one is designers and devs have a reluctance to speak openly on these boards. What they say is quoted and taken to be the final word when in fact its far from it. I think it would be nice if they could openly come here , and explain this to us. I also know what players reaction would be from experiance. Best of luck though on getting them to shed some light on the situation.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I agree, though they shouldn't have started posting vague information that leads to even more speculation and questions.</P> <P>Now that they let part of the cat out of the bag, they need to consider answering some of the questions about what they meant by their earlier posts.</P>

[Raahl]

<BLOCKQUOTE> <P>New possible Con or Pro?</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P></P> <HR> Moorgard Posted: <P>- NPC damage tables now more closely match those of players. This will tend to decrease the melee damage of NPCs while increasing their spell damage.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Does avoidance/mitigation currently affect the chance for a spell to hit you or the damage it does?</P> <P>Do most of our buffs only buff defense against melee attacks?</P> <P>How will this affect Guardians?  I know I have a tough time with mages now as it is.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>

[JNewby]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> Wasuna wrote: <P>If this whole cry about Guardians being overpowered would have happened when people were level 30 or so then I would have a lot more sympathy for the crusade. Unfortunatly it happened when Gage hit level 50 and his guild wouldn't let him tank on raids.</P> <HR> <P>You're wrong.  I wasn't guilded when I hit 50, as I did it the first few days of January.  Also there was no reason to complain back then because all fighters can tank xp group mobs, I tanked to 50 np.</P> <P>The descrepancies weren't noticed until people started raiding, obviously.</P></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <P>Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on <SPAN class=date_text>07-25-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>12:18 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I think that was kinda his point... you were having fun with fiegn death and cool new damage spells while tanking the same as a guard... while guards got shafted with boring spells that do no dmg.. and no utility... and it was all fine withy ou when you could do 3x the dmg of guards and tank the same.. but now that u do 3x the dmg and cant tank its a prob

[Turb]

What he said <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />I think the choices between fighter subclasses are pretty nice as they are now. As a brawler I'd like to do a bit more dps at the expense of hardcore defence. But now noone will have the choice, and all fighters will be tanks with equally low dps and equal tanking ability. Yawn. Thanks so much Gage.

[AdiX__Styxx__]

<P>ignore gage he just sucks !</P> <P>whiney monkey guy!</P>

[zonol]

I've been here a week, and already figured that out about gage <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  It seems every game has one, at least now I know who EQ2's is. I'm just annoyed that nobody know exactly which race/class is the "best" tank now.  I wanted to be a barbarian guardian - to be a cornerstone of the "Tank/Healer/Others" group triangle - yet now I have no clue if I'm in for a surprise in 20 more levels. I'd really hate to think that a Guardians will be passed over in the LFG pool because we're not the best choice for tank. <div></div>

[Gaige]

<DIV><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> zonolix wrote:<BR>I've been here a week, and already figured that out about gage <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  It seems every game has one, at least now I know who EQ2's is.<BR><BR>I'm just annoyed that nobody know exactly which race/class is the "best" tank now.  I wanted to be a barbarian guardian - to be a cornerstone of the "Tank/Healer/Others" group triangle - yet now I have no clue if I'm in for a surprise in 20 more levels.<BR><BR>I'd really hate to think that a Guardians will be passed over in the LFG pool because we're not the best choice for tank.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Wow a week.  I feel special <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The group triangle as you call it, or "Holy Trinity" or FOTM or however you want to reference it is hopefully going away.  You made your class choice so that'd you'd always be picked to tank, because you assumed by being Barbarian, and a guardian, you would be the best choice.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That type of thinking is hopefully not going to be rewarded in this game at the cost of all the other players who chose to tank w/o being stereotyped into a Barbarian guardian.  Oh wait, I forgot Ogre guardians are okay too.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The problem is your "others" category could also be called "unneeded" as long as you add another category in your list: "melee/magic dps".</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Obviously 24 classes in this game can't all be needed at one time, and its better to have similiar fighters than 1 "best" one and 5 useless ones.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on <span class=date_text>08-05-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:36 AM</span>

[Raahl]

<DIV>Guys please stop baiting Gage.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The first installment of the combat changes is on test.  I suggest everyone start a character and test.  <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'm getting conflicting reports and have not gotten a chance to log into test.  So too soon to tell.  There are a number of major bugs in the combat changes that people are reporting.</DIV>

[Dagsxx]

<DIV>About time you guardians get some bench time.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[zonol]

So -- in the world according to Gage - Everything is Vanilla.  All fighters should be equal tanks, damage dealers, aggro holders. How is that "rewarding" something in the game?  If a group has a Guardian/Cleric - they don't need another guardian or 3.  Guardians != Unholy DPS.  Time to bring in bezerkers and monks to round out a custom group.  So there is no "unneeded" class.  What if I were to choose to play a Bezerker, because I'd rather dish out damage than get beat on as much? So yes Gage, it is better to have 1 "best" tank - hence the whole "best Tank" definition.  The other 5 "useless" ones as you put it -- well, they aren't first and foremost tanks.  They are front line melee, with other features and skillsets.  There are 24 classes in the game.  That's 24 different types of characters.  Go back and read the manual that comes with the game, it describes each class.  It also explains each race.  Do the exponential math to find the number of combinations - and it becomes pointless to "vanilla out" the playing field as you would desire.  Why have that many combinations if no one class/race combo is to be the "best." Sterotyping a Barbarian guardian as the best is a bad thing?  Give me a break.  Are we going to argue that a Euridite guardian should be able to go toe to toe with a Barbarian?  Yes, I picked the Barb/Guardian so that I would be picked to tank ---- because I wanted to tank.  I did not want to be a healer, mage, pet commander, archer.  I should have my special talent demoted because some monk wants to tank, yet didn't roll a guardian?  Yes, I will be passed over for groups that already have a tank, because they need to add DPS.  I did not roll a DPS character, nor have I ever whined that I didn't have unholy DPS.  If I wanted a DPS fighter, I would have rolled a monk or zerker, and kept my mouth shut when I got beat down with aggro. Go back and look at your manual.  All the stats and definitions are in there.  In summation: Monks != Guardians Euridites != Barbarians Warlocks != Tanks Bards != Druids 24 Classes != "Every body is equal.  Each person gets 1 piece of candy.  Welcome to Romper Room." <div></div>

[Gaige]

<P>I understand your points, I simply disagree.</P> <P>In this type of game, with limited roles and jobs, if you have a "best" at one of the primary roles, the other classes who are supposed to also have that primary role are useless.</P> <P>Its quite easy to understand.</P> <P>Also I seriously doubt EQ2 will have 24 specific roles to fill anytime soon, therefore the subclass lines have to be blurred a bit, or else you have people playing classes that really have nothing to offer.</P> <P>Which isn't a bad thing when your toon is the FOTM best of course, but it is when you aren't.</P> <P>/shrug</P> <P>I don't really enjoy arguing with you guys anymore, I understand your side, I have my side and it seems we'll never agree.</P> <P>I just really wish some of you would quit bringing me up, as people get mad when I post here, and I have some sort of hangup when it comes to replying to posts addressed to me.</P>

[ThePhoni]

<DIV>I still do not understand why people say they want 24 subclasses so that everyone can be different, and then complains when one of those 24 subclasses can do something better than the others.  I can understand that sometimes it sucks being a crusader or a brawler or a zerker because your not asked to tank a raid mob.  But that is no reason to make all 6 fighter subclasses the exact same via nerfs and "balancing" just so people can be selfish and demand their character be just as good as everone elses.  </DIV> <DIV>   Its not SOE's job to give us all the same cherry lollypop and tell us to enjoy, not everyone likes cherry.  But it seems when people choose lemon or orange.. then later see someone enjoying a cherry lollypop..  NOOO they have the better lollypop.  SOE please make the lemon lollypop i chose as good as that cherry one over there!  I mean come on everyone gets a lollypop and you got to choose your flavor, making them all equal is the same as making them all the same flavor!  I like having choices, I like the descriptions in the book and on the website about the subclasses.  This combat revamp changes many of those descriptions.  Now while i do think that all fighters should be able to tank regular group heroic mobs,  I also believe that there is no way in hell that SOE can effectively "balance" tanking across the board *especially with their GREAT track record on balancing.  Without effectively making all 6 fighter subclasses the same, vanilla.   So they should not even try to balance raid tanking, and just let guardians go on being the main raid tank.  And have the different subclasses obviously be able to tank differently in single group and solo situations.  It may not be the politically correct, we're all equal, fuzzy, love way to play the game.  But it gets the job done.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Edited because evidently hitting the tab key submits a post.</DIV><p>Message Edited by ThePhoniex on <span class=date_text>08-06-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:18 AM</span>

[H4nnib41]

Äh does anyone know an overview of spellchanges from Guard?

[yzyh]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> ThePhoniex wrote:<BR> <DIV>I still do not understand why people say they want 24 subclasses so that everyone can be different, and then complains when one of those 24 subclasses can do something better than the others.  </DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Personaly I always said that 24 class was a bad idea since that SoE released that information when I used to play Everquest 1.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>First thats impossible to make 24 class doing 24 different jobs. Their is just do not have 24 job to fill in a mmo.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>1.Tank</DIV> <DIV>2.DPS</DIV> <DIV>3.Buffer</DIV> <DIV>4.Debuffer</DIV> <DIV>5.Crowd controler</DIV> <DIV>6. soloer</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>1.Tank class: SoE tryed to make DPS tank, Defencive tank and supporting tank....... But well you just need 1 tank so.</DIV> <DIV>2.DPS class: B4 you had 3 type of DPS. Burst DPS (wizard), substainded DPS (rogues,monk,) and hyride DPS wich is ok substainded DPS and ok Burst DPS (ranger) But in EQ1 their is only substainded DPS and you have over 10class trying to fill this roll</DIV> <DIV>3.Buffer class: They could have made 1 reall good buffer class but not. They made lots of buffing class so each of them can only do 1 reall good buff.</DIV> <DIV>4.Debuffer class: Same again instead of 1 real good debuffer class (like shaman in EQ1 that sued to be good buffer also) you have a few debuffer that can all have only 1 good buff.</DIV> <DIV>5.Crowd controler class: They just do nto exist anymore. You don,t need a monk,bard puller, you don't need a chanter, bard mezzer or using charming spells.</DIV> <DIV>6. soloer class: They removed this also. Everyone can solo wich is a ood thing IMO but they could have made 1 ubber soloing class that wouldn't be that usefull in group. Myself I am not a fan of solo but their is players that like it. Or the necromancer class in EQ1 would been dead.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So we have 24class trying to find their role in the 6job you can have in a mmo.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So you have 24 beeing able to do only a pat of the job.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You do have 6class beeing flaged as buffer and debuffer (2bards, 2chanter and 2 shamans)</DIV> <DIV>8 class flaged as DPS (2rogues, 2predator, 2sorceror and 2 summoner)</DIV> <DIV>6 class flagged as main tank (the 6 fighter)</DIV> <DIV>4 class flagged as healer (2 druid and 2 cleric)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And well IMO I am happy that guardian are the  raiding tank. Why ? Bcuz they got DPS nerf bsed on their ability to tank in raid while the very big majority of the guardian population will just never be allowed to tank in a raid.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Expecialy if you started this game about a year after it was released. By the time you will make it to lvl 50 with your none raiding gear others guardian will be i full raiding gear. By the time you will be in full raiding gear the prevous guardian will have betther one with the new raiding gears for the new expension.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Ratty31]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> zonolix wrote:<BR><BR><BR>I'm just annoyed that nobody know exactly which race/class is the "best" tank now. <BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Did we ever know what race was the best tank?<BR>

[Nefrate]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ratty31 wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> zonolix wrote:<BR><BR><BR>I'm just annoyed that nobody know exactly which race/class is the "best" tank now. <BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Did we ever know what race was the best tank?<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>ATm thats Berseker.  highest aggro high DPS and can tank well. So based on a grouped view yeah. Berseker is the best choice as main tank no matter what race they are.</P> <P>ATM the best group is looking about that.</P> <P>Berseker, Paladin, Templar, Chanter, Warlock,  Wizard.</P> <P> </P> <P>Well once you do have a cleric/druid + Berseker and a paladin your group is going to rock wathever you put in  the  last 3 spot.</P> <P> </P>

[Macross_JR]

<span><blockquote><hr>Nefrate wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Ratty31 wrote: <blockquote> <hr> zonolix wrote:I'm just annoyed that nobody know exactly which race/class is the "best" tank now.  <div></div> <hr> </blockquote>Did we ever know what race was the best tank? <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <p>ATm thats Berseker.  highest aggro high DPS and can tank well. So based on a grouped view yeah. Berseker is the best choice as main tank no matter what race they are.</p> <p>ATM the best group is looking about that.</p> <p>Berseker, Paladin, Templar, Chanter, Warlock,  Wizard.</p> <p>Well once you do have a cleric/druid + Berseker and a paladin your group is going to rock wathever you put in  the  last 3 spot.</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>Are you crazy.  Berserker might have the highest dps aggro but in all honestly they can not out tank a guardian.  Don't get me wrong, zerkers make great tanks, just not the best.  As far as the best race for tanks, anyone that has the HP racial trait bonus plus the +5 Def bonus.</span><div></div>

[Ratty31]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Macross_JR wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Nefrate wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ratty31 wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> zonolix wrote:<BR><BR><BR>I'm just annoyed that nobody know exactly which race/class is the "best" tank now. <BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Did we ever know what race was the best tank?<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>ATm thats Berseker.  highest aggro high DPS and can tank well. So based on a grouped view yeah. Berseker is the best choice as main tank no matter what race they are.</P> <P>ATM the best group is looking about that.</P> <P>Berseker, Paladin, Templar, Chanter, Warlock,  Wizard.</P> <P> </P> <P>Well once you do have a cleric/druid + Berseker and a paladin your group is going to rock wathever you put in  the  last 3 spot.</P> <P> </P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Are you crazy.  Berserker might have the highest dps aggro but in all honestly they can not out tank a guardian.  Don't get me wrong, zerkers make great tanks, just not the best.  As far as the best race for tanks, anyone that has the HP racial trait bonus plus the +5 Def bonus.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>I agree, not sure where this "Barbarian makes the best tank" idea comes from.</DIV>

[Belce]

<DIV>I don't think anyone complains if your exp/writ/quest group is able to do well if the person tanking is from the fighter archtype or even the scout archtype.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The trouble seems to be who will tank the raid boss.  When it comes to tanking that, if the 6 various fighter types can be shown to have advanatages in some situations and not in others why is this not a good thing for the game?  By advantage, I don't mean impossible for another fighter class to do the job, but easier or better in some way.  And in those situations other fighter types could play a role to make it better as well for the prefered main tank fighter.  In such a sitaution, you may want an avoidance tank for a boss that does alot of 'ignore ac for damage attacks' as opposed to a mitigation tank, perhaps an undead boss would provide an oppurtunity for a SK or paladin to control aggro better than one with otherwise good taunts.  It would make sense for Sony to build boss encounters that have an easier path based on the skills that certain fighter types bring.  </DIV>

[ThePhoni]

<P>The problem is simple. SOE wants to make it so that all 6 tanks, can tank "equally".  This is a GREAT idea for the average group/solo player.  But it will NEVER work in raids, unless some very specific changes are made.  Why?  Because raids always need the "best".  Why?  because there is only 1 main tank.  The one guy that holds all the aggro, that has 6 healers on him constantly.  Up until this revamp that tank has almost ALWAYS been a guardian.  Will it still be a guardian after the revamp? I believe so, unless they redesign each raid with a slant twards a specific tank.  So Vox is best tanked by XXX and zalik is best tanked by this other class.  Can they do it? yes... do they have time in a month to do it? no</P> <P>Hell, i mean they have not even gotten to healer balancing yet and there is only a month left until the expansion.  I'm willing to bet that they push an incomplete revamp out on the 12th, and then tweak things for another month or 2.  Just like they should have done back in january, when the first murmors of "priest changes" were uttered.  Instead of waiting 8+ monthes to make a new system.  </P> <P>One peon's opinion "more work?"</P>

[oder]

Hello, i play a lvl 47 shadowknight. And yes, when i bought this game and read the contained literature i realized that the end-all tank would be the guardian,due to the fact that you guys really have nothing else going,besides,well,tanking. Every other fighter has a gimmick of some sort whether it be our laughable lifetaps or pally direct heals, but in the end, i believed that i would have a place in this game somewhere.    My question to you guardians is this, what, if any, purpose do we serve in raids? We are not picked for tanking ability, (altho i believe we can do it, maybe not as well or as efficiently) nor do we have any other features that are needed that some other class cant do better and more efficiently. It just seems like when the great fighter debate is brought up its about guardians,berserkers or monks, and while i think guardians should be set-up to be the best at tanking big bad named raid mobs, i am curious for your take on what role other tanks should perform. Namely SK's, because, well, i am one. But everyone should have a place. This is just an honest question, and not meant to be taken threateningly in any way, im not trying to start an argument here, just am curious. But at this moment, we really have nothing all that great, lifetaps are incredibly weak, to the point of being a waste of power, and our dps isnt all that swell where we are known for it. Granted, there is a combat balance looming in the near future, but im just wondering what ya all think.<div></div>

[Airog]

Aye, Sk's should have greater DPS then Guards, while still retaining the ability to tank in a group. They should not however be able to tank a raid mob, (at least not anywhere near as good as a Guard), so you get more DPS, and less tanking skill, kind of a trade off, BUT you still have the ability to tank. That is where SK's should stand, I have not played an SK so, can't say for sure, our guild had a 50 SK tanking because we were at a lack for level 50 Guardians (as I was level 45 when guild started to raid), I hit level 50 and have been tanking since, let me tell you, it does roll out smoother with a Guard, as it should.

[Macross_JR]

<span><blockquote><hr>oderus wrote:Hello, i play a lvl 47 shadowknight. And yes, when i bought this game and read the contained literature i realized that the end-all tank would be the guardian,due to the fact that you guys really have nothing else going,besides,well,tanking. Every other fighter has a gimmick of some sort whether it be our laughable lifetaps or pally direct heals, but in the end, i believed that i would have a place in this game somewhere.    My question to you guardians is this, what, if any, purpose do we serve in raids? We are not picked for tanking ability, (altho i believe we can do it, maybe not as well or as efficiently) nor do we have any other features that are needed that some other class cant do better and more efficiently. It just seems like when the great fighter debate is brought up its about guardians,berserkers or monks, and while i think guardians should be set-up to be the best at tanking big bad named raid mobs, i am curious for your take on what role other tanks should perform. Namely SK's, because, well, i am one. But everyone should have a place. This is just an honest question, and not meant to be taken threateningly in any way, im not trying to start an argument here, just am curious. But at this moment, we really have nothing all that great, lifetaps are incredibly weak, to the point of being a waste of power, and our dps isnt all that swell where we are known for it. Granted, there is a combat balance looming in the near future, but im just wondering what ya all think.<div></div><hr></blockquote>GoA is a god send buff to put on the MT.</span><div></div>

[Sir_Halbarad]

<div></div>Oderus, I see your concerns... I agree with every other Guardian on this board that every fighter should be able to tank for a group. To achieve that, you either: mitigate damage (Guardian and Paladin -with their heals-), avoid damage (Monk) or add damage so you dont have to avoid or mitigate as much damage (Bruiser, Berserker, Shadow Knight) That is what SOE offered to fighters, and that is what I bought... I remember a quote from Moorguard stating: Every Fighter will be able to tank for an experience group. Note the "experience group". In a Raid, that should be different. A Guardian, being reduced to meat shield only, should excel in this meat shield only task. If they add raid tanking abilities to all fighter classes, I want some gimmicks too... Heal, Track, Invis, FD, evac, anything. The problem from what I see and understand is that scout damage is too low compared to fighter damage. SOE's way? Nerf fighter damage. GREAT! What I would have wished for is more diversity. Paladins were fine... good utility, good tanking in groups... no change needed Warriors were a bit overpowered because of buff stacking... Cancel Buff stacking but make Return to Battle better... (500-700 hp) All other Fighters had GREAT dps, I havent seen any complaints and parses show alot of fighters outdamaging scouts if the fighters go max dps. Increasing scout dps would have been better than what they are doing now, but mayb they found the Holy Grail and all will be good now. Now, you want us to give you an idea how we could see an SK? Here is my impression of an SK: I value SK's for their ability to do burst damage when needed and to give a raid a 2nd chance. 1. Their ability to fd could be used in encounters to avoid a wipe and lockout 2. Shadow Knights should be able to do several forms of burst damage... + small one every 10 minutes + medium one every 30 minutes + big one every 60 minutes Unresistable but hardly stackable to avoid an SK Nuke Force 3. They should have a health draining heal (like wizard's mana pump) to assist in hard fights (not that efficient though) <div></div><p>Message Edited by Sir_Halbarad on <span class=date_text>08-11-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:55 PM</span>

[Nazo]

Sir Halabarad I agree with balancing the Fighters in ways you suggested but people do not want that. Now that they are level 50 their extra abilities do not mean anything to them. They want to be raid MT period...

[Airog]

And I want my charectar to fly and have 5,000DPS and mitigate 99.9% damage and avoid 99.9% of attacks and .... SO F**KING WHAT? They want to raid MT better then Guards? So they think they should be able to raid MT better then Guards??? Just cause a dam wizzie wants to raid MT they shouldn't be able to whine to SOE enough about it to make it happen. Duh.

[Nazo]

This is SoE game he who posts more wins :smileyvery-happy:

[depgates]

<P>What the hell man? Why is it that every fighter has to involve himself in a "whose D*CK is bigger" contest??? Guess what? NOT EVERY FIGHTER SHOULD BE A MT! When I first started building my fighter, back in the Antonica fighting days, yeah I was often a main tank, but as the classes evolved I eventually found my niche. In my humble opinion, Paladins are not ideally suited as MTs. Yeah ... utility class sucks, and I am tired of not being able to solo a wet paper bag, but I am unbeatable in a tank support role. </P> <P>Given the opportunity, every class will have whiners and a cheering section. It is a game, have fun with what you make, and if you don't like it ... MAKE ANOTHER TOON. Guardians are great tanks with their taunting and shielding, that is it. Paladins are great at supporting others, which really means we are great at no 'one' thing, but able to fill multiple roles. Zerkers and Monks, while also able to tank in a pinch, are suited best for DPS and buff support. Sure there are lots of things I like and dislike about my Paladin, but oh well. If I get tired enough of it, I will make a Zerker or a Guard. Screw that, I am making a Warlock so I can solo stuff. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>Most fighter complaints come from the masses who all want to be the hero taking the damage. Frankly, take the damage, I could care less either way. I tend to be more group focused. If I am the best option for MT, I'll do it. If I am not, I will do my best to support the MT. All these MT wannabies are the ones I have grouped with in the past who completely BLOW agro management because it becomes a fight for agro, rather than a coordinated attack. Just work at being the best at whatever it is you do. And next time you complain because you are only good at one thing ... remember us poor Pallies who ain't good at anything. </P> <P>Kodie Meatshield<BR>50 Paladin</P> <P>- Quick note on CC. If I am seeing it correctly, Pallies are headed the way of the Guardian. Still not as good, but we keep some nice heals and get massive taunts. And our already miserable DPS goes even lower, lol. I guess they figured we were too tough, just like the rest of ya. They did however, make our rez even better ... at least potentially. Course, if I had wanted to be a healer I would have made a Templar. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P>

[AwesomeSau]

It all sounds nerf to me.

[Airog]

Yeah, some of it does sound nerf, but sounds like they nerfed mobs too, wil just have to wait for live.

[AwesomeSau]

<DIV>Yeah. =/</DIV>

[Airog]

From what I have heard on Beta, it sounds good, but they are still adjusting things at this point.