What I would like to see in Guardians...

[Airog]

<DIV>This is a list of what I would like to see as a Guardian:</DIV> <DIV>          I would like us to do 30% the DPS of other fighter classes (while in defensive stance) and around 80% of other fighters (when in offensive stance), have NO groups buffs or any other type of group utility. Have massively better self-buffs and taunts. And an armor class just for us (above Heavy Armor). I would like to see us Mitigate roughly 85% (of course this is assumeing most high end T6 raid mobs will hit for around 4-5k unmitigated and speical attack for 7-10k unmitigated, and not attack too fast) of incomeing damage raid buffed and avoid around 20%. (Against some of the hardeest raid mobs). Don't give us intervene or anything stupid like that. Give us higher innate resists then any other fighter class. Highest base HP.</DIV> <DIV>             Now, for those of you that think Gaige is responsible (in part or in whole) for the monk changes. I am going to try and reach 5,500 posts asking for this. If this happens then you can go back and say whatever to Gaige, till then S*T*F*U about him being responsible. Sound fair?</DIV>

[Airog]

SOE. Have you considered this yet? You should do it, let me know what you think.

[Airog]

<DIV>I think this is the way to go, this would mean that EQ2 DID have fully Mitigation based tanks. And would be very good at their job. We can always tweak the numbers a little, but this is a great idea. Let's look into this, shall we Moorguard? BTW, please start makeing posts in the forums addressed directly to me. Thank you very much for your time and customer support.</DIV>

[Airog]

Hm, would it be ok if I went to Monk/Bruiser/Paladin/Shadow Knight/Bezerker forums and started pointing out how they should be nerfed, or made better? Would I get resposes from DEV's there? That would be great. Then we can work together to create a Guardian all Guardians would love, while I get to point out what other classes have or don't have over us that they should or shouldn't.

[Airog]

Wow, this is gonna take awhile everybody. 5,500 posts is gonna be several months off, who knows, maybe by next adventure pack... We shall see.

[Airog]

Oh! I just got a GREAT idea! Do the EXACT same thing sot monks (except reverse MIT and AVOID). So raid buffed, full fabled the avoid 85% on the raid mob and mitigate 20%. That would be nice, then when all their utility/DPS has been taken away, and they are made into an avoidance tank (like some of them want), then we can laugh when they get 1 or 2 shotted. Then we can say, hm, Mitigation doesn't matter eh? Mitigation ISN'T superior to avoidance eh? 

[Airog]

Comeon, how about a little feedback?

[Airog]

No, wait, no feedback, let me make 2,000 posts in this one thread, with nobody else posting. That would get me almost half way there. Need stuff to talk about though, hm, maybe somebody should make another thread with ideas for me to talk about on this thread?

[AwesomeSau]

<DIV>I uh... Amen!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Preach on, brother.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'm tired of being useless as anything other than MT on raids. And I hate the fact that we're not even going to be the best tanks in all (most) circumstances anymore.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>/cry</DIV>

[Airog]

Ok scratch that last idea, lets get plenty of feedback now. If you are tired of being useless as anything then MT, you should take another look at my posts. That is all I want to be useful for. THAT IS IT. Tanking for groups will always be fine for us, but I couldn't care less if Monks and all other fighters were better suited for that role. I don't want ANY group utility, and virtually no DPS would be fine too.

[Airog]

<DIV>I want Guardians to be absolute best tanks at the big bad raid mobs.</DIV>

[AwesomeSau]

<DIV>Well you suggest that we do more DPS than normal, thus I was led to believe that we were being upgraded in DPS too. But eh, we're already the best tanks. I can deal with things how they are. I won't enjoy being moved to a mediocre tank after the combat revamp though.</DIV>

[Airog]

Hm, didn't realize it came off that way, but make no mistake, I want us to have worst DPS, except monks, they can be just as bad, like I said. the can avoid as much as we mitigate, and vice versa. Then I wanna hear people say Mitigation is not king.

[AwesomeSau]

<DIV>I can kind of see where you're coming from, but at the same time. That leaves hundreds of Guardians job-less. Guilds only need 2-3 MTs. =/</DIV>

[Airog]

<DIV>Guilds only need 2-3 of every class... If that.</DIV>

[Airog]

If I hit 10,000 posts can I get a red name and then directly change stuff in game rather then asking for it to be changed?

[Gaige]

/chuckle

[Sasaki Koji]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Airoguy wrote:<BR> <DIV>This is a list of what I would like to see as a Guardian:</DIV> <DIV>          I would like us to do 30% the DPS of other fighter classes (while in defensive stance) and around 80% of other fighters (when in offensive stance), have NO groups buffs or any other type of group utility. Have massively better self-buffs and taunts. And an armor class just for us (above Heavy Armor). I would like to see us Mitigate roughly 85% (of course this is assumeing most high end T6 raid mobs will hit for around 4-5k unmitigated and speical attack for 7-10k unmitigated, and not attack too fast) of incomeing damage raid buffed and avoid around 20%. (Against some of the hardeest raid mobs). Don't give us intervene or anything stupid like that. Give us higher innate resists then any other fighter class. Highest base HP.</DIV> <DIV>             Now, for those of you that think Gaige is responsible (in part or in whole) for the monk changes. I am going to try and reach 5,500 posts asking for this. If this happens then you can go back and say whatever to Gaige, till then S*T*F*U about him being responsible. Sound fair?</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>haha...

[Airog]

Hm, what exactly are you two laughing at?

[Gungo]

<DIV>Airoguy wrote</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Hm, what exactly are you two laughing at? </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The funny thing is there is perception and reality, perception is far stronger motivator then reality. So even if the deelopers succeed in creating perfect balanced between mitigation and avoidance. The perception will always be avoidance is the lesser of the two. Simply becuase people will see the spike damage greater within the avoidance tank. the realitty may be both take equal damage over time. But placed side by side mitigation will always win. Don't worry my friend i don't want your job, i want equality</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Down with classism! segragation was outlawed before i was born.</DIV>

[Airog]

Yeah, that is EXACTLY what I was saying, on a 5minute raid overall we take the same amount of damage, but yes, spike damage occurs on avoid tanks MANY MANY MANY times greater then MIT tanks, thus, long term means very little to who really gets to tank where as, if you were to make it so the Monks avoided SO much long term they took 1/3 or 1/4 the damage so as to mreduce spike damage that would be "unfair also". I wouldn't mind Monks/Bruiser being thrown a raid, just for the ones that want to tank, something like, when you enter that zone, your DPS gets cut to half and MIT and AVOID is buffed so you are superior, haha, wouldn't that be some funny sh**!

[Airog]

Hm, somebody suggested Monkian? Lets see.... 85% avoidance against raid mobs, 85% mitigation against raid mobs, best taunts ever, great DPS, 360 degree parry. I LOVE IT! How about that Moorguard, then you can make a Shadowaldin, Bezuiser, hm, maybe a Troubire, Rangassin, Swashgand, Warizard, Coerusionist... ect...

[Gungo]

<P>Instead of unoriginal thinking like a harclave buff for bralwers =p i was thinking mroe of the line a crushing furry type atking mob.</P> <P>the NPC raid mob would have an atk that hits for 1k but 8 consecustive times (8k total for the math impaired) if any of the initial atks miss the following atks all miss if all 8 connect then the mob gets a strength buff. This would create a damage spike to non -avoidance tanks as well as make the more do more dam w any consecutive atks. whereas an avodiance tank may miss a few 1k hits and the mobs strength buff. Thus have an easier time tanking. Sure a gaurd cna still tank the mob, but it should be considerably harder then a brawler. Whether its a special atk or a combat art the mob casts alot i leave that up to the devs, but it should be at least on a 10-15sec timer if its a special.</P> <P> </P>

[Shizzirri]

<P>Harclaves will suck in about 2 weeks time so that buff will be irrelevant I hear its getting nerfed.</P> <P>Spike damage is a lot harder to heal at least with the mitigation tank the damage being dealt stays a little more consistant and remember avoidance on high level raid mobs that are 6 level higher than you doesn't happen much...even to guardians.</P>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Shizzirri wrote:<BR> <P>Spike damage is a lot harder to heal at least with the mitigation tank the damage being dealt stays a little more consistant and remember avoidance on high level raid mobs that are 6 level higher than you doesn't happen much...even to guardians.<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Is it though?  I know we normally keep Noah full health, period.  We don't wait for damage to happen.  There is no reason you can't do that with monks.  In fact it should prove to be just as mana efficient.</P> <P>As MG stated, save the +to hit bonus, avoidance versus raid mobs should be about the same as a same lvl heroic.</P> <P>Besides, as I've stated time and time again, you guys don't tank primarily by mit, but by avoidance, using your mit to lessen the spikes you take.</P> <P>So its all the same anyway.<BR></P>

[Gungo]

<DIV>Shizzirri wrote </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Harclaves will suck in about 2 weeks time so that buff will be irrelevant I hear its getting nerfed.</DIV> <DIV> <P>Spike damage is a lot harder to heal at least with the mitigation tank the damage being dealt stays a little more consistant and remember avoidance on high level raid mobs that are 6 level higher than you doesn't happen much...even to guardians.</P> <P>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___</P> <P>True but would the atk i mention previously not create an artificial spike damage on mitigation tanks compared to avodiance tanks. As well as the strength buff enforcing avodiance then mtitgation. the "...even on gaurdians" senetence has me confused shouldn't an avoidance tank have a better chance to avoid an atk when fully buffed compared to a gaurdian. Even at a 6 lvl difference although i never stated the raid mob had to be at a 6 lvl difference. An avodiance tank should be able to avoid at least 1 out of 8 atks where as at 6 lvls liek you propose a mititgtion tank may not. especially if this atk where on a 10 sec timer and the strenght buff was 30 seconds or longer.</P></DIV>

[Airog]

Yeah, but lets say 8 x 1k (after our MIT) so, monks take, what, 2k a hit? More? So, you get hit 4 times, you are gone, we get hit 8, we still have a chance. It is all around about, that would just creat HUGE spike damage potential for ANYBODY...

[ShinigamiD]

<P>So in other words, Gaige, you want to tank epic mobs equally well to a guardian, do more DPS, have more utility, and consider it balanced...</P> <P>Gotcha!</P>

[Airog]

<DIV>Hm, did Gaige say that? Gaige, is that what you think?</DIV>

[Corv]

<span><blockquote><hr>ShinigamiDuo wrote:<p>So in other words, Gaige, you want to tank epic mobs equally well to a guardian, do more DPS, have more utility, and consider it balanced...</p> <p>Gotcha!</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>Yup.  You got him about as firmly as if you'd grabbed a hagfish with a pair of soup spoons.  </span><div></div>

[Airog]

Hagfish??

[Gungo]

<DIV>airoguy wrote:</DIV> <DIV>Yeah, but lets say 8 x 1k (after our MIT) so, monks take, what, 2k a hit? More? So, you get hit 4 times, you are gone, we get hit 8, we still have a chance. It is all around about, that would just creat HUGE spike damage potential for ANYBODY... </DIV> <DIV>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>well then thats what the combat revamp is suppsoe to fix, if that is the case </DIV> <DIV>but those numbers you provided are artificially inflated 100% increase per hit from a gaurd to brawler come on =p.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>try something more along the lines of 20% =p</DIV> <DIV> say 1200 for the brawler so thsoe 4 hits whiel the gaurd takes 8k a brawler would take 4,800 and doesnt have to deal with the increase dam from the strength on the next hits for 30 secs =p</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>seems to me unless the disparity in mitigation is so messed up that brawlers end up taking 100% or greater damage per hit the bralwer would still be a better tank. </DIV>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> ShinigamiDuo wrote:<BR> <P>So in other words, Gaige, you want to tank epic mobs equally well to a guardian, do more DPS, have more utility, and consider it balanced...</P> <P>Gotcha!<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>/sigh<BR>

[Airog]

Comeon Gaige, you answered that guy, and not me?

[Airog]

Ok, your right, so say, you take 20% more damage, and avoid 20% more attacks, assumeing you get hit by 6 then, and us by 8 (of course worst case for us both is <img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> You take 7200, we take 8k, you have a chance of takeing up to 9600, we don't. You have to see, that if you only take 20% more damage, you should only avoid 20% more. If you swap avoid for MIT, I do not believe there are ANY situations you could come up with where an avoid tank would be better simply by the fact that if you try to create artificial damage spikes on a plate tank, while relying upon avoidance to stop it, you inherintly run the risk of takeing even MORE damage on one lucky attack then a Guardian EVER will. So, why would you gamble? Even if they did introduce that type of attack, what are the chances you are going to take all 8? If you are talking 20% differance in avoidance, on average, that is what, 1 extra blow to the guardian in that situatuion? When I say Mitigation is king, that is because if you avoided 99% of inc attacks and mitigated 0% you couldn't raid, if you mitigated 99% and avoided 0% you would be OHSOUBERGODLY.

[Airog]

Also, I would like to add, that does not mean you monks and stuff should not tank, but I am saying that situation would not play out. They could probably come up with something though.

[Gungo]

although there is a chance i may take a slightly larger hit would need to fail avodiance checks 8 times for 9,600 damage in a row the chance of tha thappening if avodiance is properly configured is much less likly then the chance a guard takes that all 8 hits  for 8 k of dam. basically a mititgation tank would appear to have alot more spiek damage hits then would an avoidance tank. becuase although i maye take 1 huge spike damage hit the gaurdian will likely take several and each time he does the consecutive hits would benefit from the extra strength and do even more damage to him. Thus making a gaurd a much worse tank.

[-Aonein-]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gungo wrote:<BR>although there is a chance i may take a slightly larger hit would need to fail avodiance checks 8 times for 9,600 damage in a row the chance of tha thappening if avodiance is properly configured is much less likly then the chance a guard takes that all 8 hits  for 8 k of dam. basically a mititgation tank would appear to have alot more spiek damage hits then would an avoidance tank. becuase although i maye take 1 huge spike damage hit the gaurdian will likely take several and each time he does the consecutive hits would benefit from the extra strength and do even more damage to him. Thus making a gaurd a much worse tank. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>There is no such thing as spike damage with a mitigation tank because its a percentage value to absorb the amount of incoming damage making it a constant, not a percent chance to absorb incoming damage which would make it inconsistant.</P> <P>Avoidance on the other hand is a percent chance to avoid, its inconsistant because its a chance percentage not a solid value like mitigation.</P>

[Gungo]

TAEMEK please read the entire thread thank you

[Airog]

Guardians FTW!

[Gungo]

come on air how did he win obvoisuly taemek didn't read the entire thread he read one part took it out of context and was talkign about soemthing he had no idea about. The point we were talking about is allowing avodiance to artificially create spike damage for mitigation. Obviously Mitigation is fairly constant incoming damage but under the atk i mention giving mobs a mitigation tank would recieve additonal hits when he failed to avodi an atk and since a mitigation tank should have a lower avoidance he will receive alot more additonal hits resulting in a perceived spike damage. it sgettign late and i am getting carpul tunnel typing the same thing as people decide to read one quote in an entire thread. so ngiht all

[Shizzirri]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gungo wrote:<BR> <DIV>Shizzirri wrote</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Harclaves will suck in about 2 weeks time so that buff will be irrelevant I hear its getting nerfed.</DIV> <DIV> <P>Spike damage is a lot harder to heal at least with the mitigation tank the damage being dealt stays a little more consistant and remember avoidance on high level raid mobs that are 6 level higher than you doesn't happen much...even to guardians.</P> <P>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___</P> <P>True but would the atk i mention previously not create an artificial spike damage on mitigation tanks compared to avodiance tanks. As well as the strength buff enforcing avodiance then mtitgation. the "...even on gaurdians" senetence has me confused shouldn't an avoidance tank have a better chance to avoid an atk when fully buffed compared to a gaurdian. Even at a 6 lvl difference although i never stated the raid mob had to be at a 6 lvl difference. An avodiance tank should be able to avoid at least 1 out of 8 atks where as at 6 lvls liek you propose a mititgtion tank may not. especially if this atk where on a 10 sec timer and the strenght buff was 30 seconds or longer.</P></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Question have you ever tanked a raid mob 6-8 levels higher than you? Take Darathar, he ripos for 5k+ if I attacked him I would die fast.  However, with the combat changes I believe riposte damage is being mitigated correct me if I'm wrong but that's what I heard.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Obviously not, we don't actually evade attacks from an epic encounter like lets say the krathuk very often, now when we're tanking something easier like King Dryak yes we avoid attacks, parry, riposte, etc.  When I tank Darathar I NEVER riposte, and trust me I'm watching the damage I take very closely.  A pure avoidance tank will never be able to tank an orange epic encounter because of the current rules in place and should they be fixed no because a mob thats seven levels higher than you and triple up is going to own you, your avoidance shouldn't work as efficiently as it does on a level 50 mob, yes guardians buff defense but defense doesn't do jack on high level orange mobs. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>A mitigation tank shouldn't be able to avoid the mob because that's not the purpose of one, its to take damage because they can do so in a more efficeint manner than an avoidance tank.  Guardians currently have the best mitigation in the game and they can buff defense, hence why they're the best tanks, we're called "defensive" tanks for a reason.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Again look at the post where you said you took slightly more dps, well the cost of that decision is yes you get better dps so your not going to be able to tank as effectively as other classes.</DIV>

[Gaige]

<DIV>The flaw being if you guys are the only tanks who can tank orange epic mobs, then no other tanks are needed, since you'll obviously be the best choice everywhere else.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Therefore only one fighter class is needed, the guardian, and the other 5 are useless.</DIV>

[Gungo]

<P>Slighly more dps is taken out of context and no it shouldn't cost me my core abilites. And to answer your question no i havent tanked darathar because of an unbalance and broken mechanic that only allows gaurds to tank a majority of raids. and yes Ripostes are now mitigated and with the reduction of parry NPCs will Riposte less. furthermore you shouldnt riposte on darathar at all, becuase of the design of the encounter.</P> <P>finally i disagree live is messed up atm gaurds avoid more then avoidance tanks, because of their broken abilites (defense stacking). Should i tank darathar? If that is the intended raid for me i see no problem w an avodiance tank avodiing hits from darathar. Actually on that encounter thats exactly what most tanks try to do avodi gettign riposte by darathar =p and actually your defense on live does add alot more avodiance then you think on mobs 6 lvls higher. Its not unheard of for gaurds to reach 280+ defense. 280 defnese basically means you con evenly (white) to a mob 6 lvls higher in regards to your defense. So whatt are you trying to prove here that you are unbalanced on live. That is obviosuly apparant, hence this giant combat revamp and buffign of avoidance tanks, nerfing of defense buffs etc.  On live atm gaurdians avoid damage from npc's and use thier mitigation to lessen the damage that make it thru. How it should be Mitigation tanks lessen the damage taken while occasianlly avodiaing a hit.</P>

[-Aonein-]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gungo wrote:<BR>come on air how did he win obvoisuly taemek didn't read the entire thread he read one part took it out of context and was talkign about soemthing he had no idea about. The point we were talking about is allowing avodiance to artificially create spike damage for mitigation. Obviously Mitigation is fairly constant incoming damage but under the atk i mention giving mobs a mitigation tank would recieve additonal hits when he failed to avodi an atk and since a mitigation tank should have a lower avoidance he will receive alot more additonal hits resulting in a perceived spike damage. it sgettign late and i am getting carpul tunnel typing the same thing as people decide to read one quote in an entire thread. so ngiht all <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>No, Gungo ive read alot of your threads.</P> <P>The thing you want is to tank just almost as good as a Guard but have the best DPS with in the fighter arch type also according to this graph that you threw up :</P> <P> </P> <P></P> <HR> <P>Gungo wrote :</P> <P>actually I <FONT color=#ffff00><STRONG>want</STRONG></FONT></P> <DIV align=left><BR><BR><I>Tank Ability</I> ---<FONT size=1>Guardian/Monk/Bruiser/Beserker/Paladin/shadowknight</FONT>--<FONT size=1>Berserker</FONT>--<FONT size=1>Paladin</FONT>--<FONT size=1>Shadowknight</FONT>--<FONT size=1>Monk</FONT>--<FONT size=1>Bruiser</FONT>--- <I>DPS Ability</I></DIV><I></I> <P><I>No class shoudl ever give up their primary role in exchange for their secondary effects.. i am tired of explaining the same thing over and over read the thread on will guads still be main tank in gaurdian forums if u want to see how all tansk should tank.</I></P> <P></P> <HR> <P>So Gungo wants Brawlers to be Second best Tank with in the fighter arch type <STRONG><U>PLUS</U></STRONG> have the best DPS with in the fighter arch type. Thats a <STRONG><U>tad</U></STRONG> unbalanced there Gungo. Please do define what a Berserker is in this graph, im very interested in what we are.</P> <P>So even if your theroy did go into game play and they added this artifical spike damage for Plate class tanks which basically makes them just the same in the Tanking department as a Brawler, why would anyone ever play a Guardian with there bottom of the barrel DPS when a Brawler can tank just the same but also do the best DPS?</P> <P>Whats the point of playing a mitigation tank if your going to take spike damage from auto attack that makes your tanking the same as a Brawler? Simple answer is, None.</P> <P>This is how the Fighter line works on Test and i suggest you get use to it because with less then 2 weeks to go, its as good as its going to get :</P> <P>                                                          <FONT color=#ff3300>Fighter Archtype Line</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ff3300>Tankability <---- Guardian / Paladin / Shadow</FONT><FONT color=#ff3300>knight / Berserker / Monk / Bruiser ----> DPS ability</FONT></P> <DIV>This is SoE's main aim according to Moorgards posts on the matter about where the fighter arch type is headed. Your just going to have to accept, as long as your Brawler class is in the Fighter arch type that is shared with pure mitigation tanks that you arent going to be able to tank as well as them, but at least you get better utility and DPS then a Guardian to balance the difference.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>One thing you need to get used to Gungo is, your not the only class that has sacraficed something here, everyone single arch type and every single sub class has sacraficed something for the better of the game.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Welcome to the online gaming of SoE, your in their world now.</DIV><p>Message Edited by -Aonein- on <span class=date_text>09-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:59 PM</span>

[Gungo]

<DIV> <P>So Gungo wants Brawlers to be Second best Tank with in the fighter arch type <STRONG><U>PLUS</U></STRONG> have the best DPS with in the fighter arch type. Thats a <STRONG><U>tad</U></STRONG> unbalanced there Gungo. Please do define what a Berserker is in this graph, im very interested in what we are.</P> <P>O please thats Exill freaking line graph i copied/edited i never said i wanted to be second best tank i said i wnted equal tanking for all. and the best dps in the fighter archtype. Is that unblanced nope not if the other core abilites of other classes balance correctly. Paladins gets heals, SK lifetaps/powetaps, Guards HP/defensive buffs/shield buffs. the secondary abilities you have should balance the secodnary abilites i have. The classes archtype should not be sacrificed, that will lead as it is on live to an unbalance TAEMAK. Hence thsi combat revamp that is changing tanking balance. Your tankign was broken and my dps was broken.  </P> <P>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________</P> <P><FONT color=#ff3300>Fighter Archtype Line</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ff3300>Tankability <---- Guardian / Paladin / Shadowknight / Berserker / Monk / Bruiser ----> DPS ability</FONT></P> <DIV>This is SoE's main aim according to Moorgards posts on the matter about where the fighter arch type is headed. Your just going to have to accept, as long as your Brawler class is in the Fighter arch type that is shared with pure mitigation tanks that you arent going to be able to tank as well as them, but at least you get better utility and DPS then a Guardian to balance the difference.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I may be wrong but i do read the forums regularly but i don't remebr morrgard posting this Line graph. </DIV> <DIV>I remebr the DPS chart, but i clearly didn't see anywhere he posted gaurdians would be the best tanks. If so Link the post were he said gaurdians would be the best tank and this conversation is ended and you win, if not i will presume you are talking out of your azz.</DIV> <DIV>and no where does it say mtitgation is better then avodiance more of this talk coming from that recepticle you sit on. TAEMMY boy if you are going to quote someone as saying something or imply stuff at least make it somewhat believable the more i read your post the more lies and rhetoric i find. and finally TAEMMY Brawlers having more utility then gaurds coem on my utility is my DPS. You have thsoe group defense /hp/shield buffs. The last utility spell i had in group was back in february rigth before they nerfed shrug off.</DIV></DIV>

[-Aonein-]

<P>What you need to do Gungo is stick a sock in your dirty loud mouth and read every single post in this thread.</P> <P>You need to use your brain and learn that Guardians give up the most DPS and the most utility to be the best mitigation tanks, now that being said, stick a sock in it and read, and funny enough what do you know, there is a lvl 50 Bruiser in this next thread too.</P> <P><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=comtest&message.id=5823#M5823" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=comtest&message.id=5823#M5823</A></P> <P>Pay carefull attention to Sixmains, Moskito ( lvl 50 Bruiser who states that it is balanced on beta unlike you who is just rambling on utter BS ), SunTsu and finally Salastine. But i urge you to read the entire thing because other people throw in little details every now and then also.</P> <P>As for the post from moorgard, its lost in eqvault.com somewhere and i am having trouble finding it. You quite welcome to do a search in there in regaurds to Moorgards interviews and find the post yourself that has a DPS chart AND a Tank chart, im pretty sure it also had a Utility chart in there also.</P> <P>I find it laughable that Bruisers are saying its somewhat balanced, but because Gongo has to lose some DPS to become balanced he is all upset, awww. Well guess what Gongo, we <STRONG><U>all</U></STRONG> lost DPS, the entire Fighter arch type was nerfed, get used to it.</P> <p>Message Edited by -Aonein- on <span class=date_text>09-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:17 PM</span>

[Airog]

Haha! Argueing like little school girls! Wow, lots of things to reply to, no, Gungo, I did not think Taemek won anything, I was just haveing some fun there, didn't even read Taemek's post. Secondly, last I checked Gungo wasn't asking for equal tnaking ability for everything, he was asking for something more along the lines of 50% raid tanking to Gaurds, 25% to pallies and 25% to monks, correct me if I am wrong Gungo. In conclusion, you all are flameing in my wish list, er, um, I mean, serious post to Moorguard about how I personnally want the class to go. I asked for feedback, but I have not gotten much (if any) good feedback, so maybe all ya'll should re-read my posts, and give me feedback to my original ideas. Or you keep on flameing I suppose.

[-Aonein-]

<P>Well you want 5000 posts dont you? lol :smileytongue:</P> <P>Read that link i supplied potty mouth, that should strike up a good conversation here. :smileywink:</P> <p>Message Edited by -Aonein- on <span class=date_text>09-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:10 PM</span>

[-Aonein-]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Airoguy wrote:<BR>last I checked Gungo wasn't asking for equal tnaking ability for everything, he was asking for something more along the lines of 50% raid tanking to Gaurds, 25% to pallies and 25% to monks, correct me if I am wrong Gungo. In conclusion <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Ok if thats what he wants, then where does the other 2 sub class's fit into the tanking scene after Guards / Bruisers share the number one spot for raid tanking plus Bruisers have top of the line DPS, Pallies / Monks also in same reguard to Guards / Bruisers just not as good? I mean we are talking about balancing right? and making it fair, yes? Or am i confused and only 4 class's out of the 6 really matter?</P> <P>So where does SK's Berserkers fit in this some what delusional world Gongo, please do enlighten us?</P> <P>Ill say it again which you already stated im right about Airoguy, SoE made a huge mistake of putting Brawlers in the Fighter arch type, period.</P><p>Message Edited by -Aonein- on <span class=date_text>09-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:10 PM</span>

[Gungo]

My point TAEM, is that you lied and used false presumptions in your response. You can't find the post from moorgard saying gaurdians will be the best tank becuase it doesn't exsist. Nor has anyone ever said mitigation is suppse to be better then avodiance in this game. The fact is your peddling propaganda and no one is buying it. <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>and once again reading comprhension seems to have missed you.</DIV> <DIV> <P>"I find it laughable that Bruisers are saying its somewhat balanced, but because Gongo has to lose some DPS to become balanced he is all upset, awww. Well guess what Gongo, we <STRONG><U>all</U></STRONG> lost DPS, the entire Fighter arch type was nerfed, get used to it."</P> <P>Where please link have you ever seen me complain about losing DPS?</P> <P>Still peddling ? TAEM stop trying to pass off those lies as facts. You only do harm to your own integrity. If i were you i would try to salavage whatever dignity i had left and just leave thsi conversation. But maybe i am making to harsh an assumption, i think i am giving you to much credit. </P> <P> </P> <P> </P></DIV>

[Gungo]

<P>I thought you said you read alot of my posts TAEMEK? another lie ?</P> <P>I said i wanted tanking to remain constant among the classes brawlers, crusaders, warriors. I have never said i wanted guards and bruiser to be the best tanks (again w the lies TAEM) </P> <P>which fits in line with the in game quest of fighters at lvl 10. all fighters are given the choice to tank equally its just how they want to tank that changes brawlers chose, avoidance. no where during that time period did it say Thank you for choosing the avodiance Tank your primary archtype role is now being diluted. No where did it say Warriors will be the best tank. What i have not gotten into yet is the subclass choice. And ONLY at that time subclasses are given the option of focusing on offense or defense. Now in regards to avoidance tanking a monk chooses defense, a bralwer chooses offense. I have no problem being slightly less capable then a monk in tanking becuase i clearly made that choice. But the monk never decided to stray from a defnesive tank, monks chose defensive tanking all the way thru its only the type of tankign that changed at the class lvl. So why again should a nonk tank worse then a equally equipped gaurd?</P> <P>Aye airoliz you are correct as supporter of situational tanking i reccommeded brawlers tank 25% of raids (swarm mobs, monk/scout type mobs), crusaders 25% (caster types), and warriors 50% ( dragon type heavy hitters). i also reccommedned that all fighters have some utility whereas my utility is dps(within the fighter tree), and a crusaders is heals/powertaps, a guard has hp buffs/defnesive bufffs/ shield (althought i do believe guards need more utility). There is no reason a gaurd should not have a secondary benefit to raids, they need utility. a secodn guard should not be useless on raids. Every guard that posts he doesn't want utility and he only wants to tank is really just askign for an advantage over other fighters and pidgeon hole-ing his own class. </P> <P>Message Edited by Gungo on <SPAN class=date_text>09-02-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>06:05 AM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Gungo on <span class=date_text>09-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:05 AM</span>

[Sir_Halbarad]

Fighter's primary role is to tank for <b>experience </b>groups... That's what SOE (Moorguard) stated before eq2 went live. We had that. It worked. Now they change it. I sure hope with the nerf bat aiming straight at our face, we get some kind of those shiny toys the brawlers have at the moment. <div></div>

[Gungo]

<DIV>Maybe so but they never mentioned raid tanking and that is what we are defining now.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>so while all fighter should tank equally well in xp groups, all should tank equally well in raids. To do anything other than that will lead to unbalance.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I do hope you get your shiny toys as well.</DIV>

[Exill]

Brawlers tanking as well as Guardians and yet doing 4x the DPS is also unbalanced. <div></div>

[Gungo]

<DIV>using a genralised statement w/o taking into account other factors such as utilites or rankings can be unbalanced.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But in our current set up it is not</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>1  dps is still messed up and healers should not outdps guards in offensive stance.</DIV> <DIV>2  brawlers only do more dps compared to other fighters</DIV> <DIV>3  balanced is achived by core of your secondary abilites, never should your primary role be compromised.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>so while a brawler does more dps, your taunts, shields and group damage absorbation abilites should compensate for the increased dps.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>using statistics like x2, x4, x100, or 150% does not take into account the actual variable </DIV> <DIV>so while a brawler may currently be doing x4 of a guard, a scout will be doing x25 of a guards dps, and you may be doing x100 the amount of dam compared to a priest those statements don't portray the actual ranking and balance.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>so yes it may be a brawler doing x4 the damage of a guard is balanced when you take into account the gaurrdians other abilites (and once again that shoudl not include an advantage in that classes primary role)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by Gungo on <span class=date_text>09-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:49 AM</span>

[Shizzirri]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gungo wrote:<BR> <DIV>using a genralised statement w/o taking into account other factors such as utilites or rankings can be unbalanced.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But in our current set up it is not</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>1  dps is still messed up and healers should not outdps guards in offensive stance.</DIV> <DIV>2  brawlers only do more dps compared to other fighters</DIV> <DIV>3  balanced is achived by core of your secondary abilites, never should your primary role be compromised.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>so while a brawler does more dps, your taunts, shields and group damage absorbation abilites should compensate for the increased dps.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>using statistics like x2, x4, x100, or 150% does not take into account the actual variable </DIV> <DIV>so while a brawler may currently be doing x4 of a guard, a scout will be doing x25 of a guards dps, and you may be doing x100 the amount of dam compared to a priest those statements don't portray the actual ranking and balance.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>so yes it may be a brawler doing x4 the damage of a guard is balanced when you take into account the gaurrdians other abilites (and once again that shoudl not include an advantage in that classes primary role)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <P>Message Edited by Gungo on <SPAN class=date_text>09-02-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>08:49 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>What he's saying is he wants to tank like us but when he's tanking he shouldn't have his normal dps because he's taunting and such instead, however when he's not tanking he wants to have the best fighter dps because guardians have better abilities than bruisers in regards to utility, but when a guardian is not the primary tank in a situation their dps should not go up because again we have good group buffs or some nonsense, so yeah he wants a bruiser to tank like a guardian, but in situations where he's not the primary tank he wants the top dps off all the fighters, in addition when guardians are not the primary tank he's saying because we have better utility buffs than bruisers we should have lower dps.</P> <P>So if I'm getting this right bruisers will move up in the tank ladder, stay the same in the dps ladder and utility ladder right, ya that's fair sign me up!</P>

[-Aonein-]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Shizzirri wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gungo wrote:<BR> <DIV>using a genralised statement w/o taking into account other factors such as utilites or rankings can be unbalanced.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But in our current set up it is not</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>1  dps is still messed up and healers should not outdps guards in offensive stance.</DIV> <DIV>2  brawlers only do more dps compared to other fighters</DIV> <DIV>3  balanced is achived by core of your secondary abilites, never should your primary role be compromised.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>so while a brawler does more dps, your taunts, shields and group damage absorbation abilites should compensate for the increased dps.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>using statistics like x2, x4, x100, or 150% does not take into account the actual variable </DIV> <DIV>so while a brawler may currently be doing x4 of a guard, a scout will be doing x25 of a guards dps, and you may be doing x100 the amount of dam compared to a priest those statements don't portray the actual ranking and balance.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>so yes it may be a brawler doing x4 the damage of a guard is balanced when you take into account the gaurrdians other abilites (and once again that shoudl not include an advantage in that classes primary role)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <P>Message Edited by Gungo on <SPAN class=date_text>09-02-2005</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>08:49 AM</SPAN><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>What he's saying is he wants to tank like us but when he's tanking he shouldn't have his normal dps because he's taunting and such instead, however when he's not tanking he wants to have the best fighter dps because guardians have better abilities than bruisers in regards to utility, but when a guardian is not the primary tank in a situation their dps should not go up because again we have good group buffs or some nonsense, so yeah he wants a bruiser to tank like a guardian, but in situations where he's not the primary tank he wants the top dps off all the fighters, in addition when guardians are not the primary tank he's saying because we have better utility buffs than bruisers we should have lower dps.</P> <P>So if I'm getting this right bruisers will move up in the tank ladder, stay the same in the dps ladder and utility ladder right, ya that's fair sign me up!</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Exactally, sign me up too!</P> <P>He obviouslly doesnt read as many threads or posts he claims he does or he would know that priests out damaging Fighters is a bug and there currently working on a fix for it.</P> <P>He just cant seem to grasp that Guardians give up the most DPS and Utility to be in the top spot with in the Fighter Line for survivability. As a Berserker i have no problem accepting ill never tank as good as a Guard because im happy with my class and the way its looking to turn out after the revamp.</P> <P>We had this debate about Utility for taunts months ago and Moorgard posted about it <A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=combat&message.id=45756#M45756" target=_blank><STRONG><FONT color=#ff3300>here</FONT></STRONG></A>. While that is a old post, the fundamentals are the same.</P> <P>As for me lieing Gongo, its because Alan Crosby has taken over for Moorgard and they deleted all his interviews on eqvault.com, your quite welcome to look for yourself. Why they deleted them is beyond me. Unless they never archived them to begin with. The link i supplyed you above though basically says that Guardians have the best tanking ability because of the trade off in damage, read it.</P> <DIV>Here Gongo let me help you seeing as you didnt read the entire post i supplyed you, this is just a small part of from a lvl 50 Bruiser her / himself :</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Moskito wrote :</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Guardian<BR>HP: 4762<BR>Power: 2252<BR>Avoidance: 57,2 %<BR>Mitigation: 62,7%<BR><BR><BR>Bruiser<BR>HP: 4201<BR>Power: 2224<BR>Avoidance: 74,8%<BR>Mitigation: 55,9%  while draining Health ~90 Hp a tick !<BR><BR>The Bruiser has 17,6% higer Avoidance while having 7% less Mitigation. [WHILE the guardian is NOT using his short duration Mitigation buffs, AND while the Bruiser looses health every  tick]<BR><BR><BR>i dont see the "great imbalance"<BR><BR>we bruisers had to live with the imbalance 12 Months. The Guardian was the one and only Choice as Raid MT. The balancing process [and balacing isnt finished till release] is going to equal the tanking abilities to a great extend.<BR><BR>Btw Tunabash seems to lack some of great Guardian stuff because he has unbuffed 2782 Mitigation [while teh Guardian i coose for the comparison has 3048 Mitigation unbuffed = 5% more Mitigation unbuffed = much better Tanking Gear]<BR><BR>Now add the 5% metter Mitigation Gear to your Choice Tunabash and he difference in Mitigation buffed is not 7% but 12%.<BR><BR><BR>IMHO the DEVs are quite close to Blance between Brawler and Guardians.<BR>Maybee they should have a look at Crusaders now.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The way the changes are starting to pan put on Beta and Test its looking pretty balanced to me and the lvl 50 Bruiser states that as well.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Ive noticed in alot of your posts Gongo you are still trying to relate stuff from Live. Im really not sure where you seem to think that while you tank you sacrafice all DPS and while you arent tanking you have the best DPS. Again, why would anyone play a Guardian if a Brawler could do the job just the <STRONG><U>same</U></STRONG> but have more DPS?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Once again Gongo, read <A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=comtest&message.id=5823&view=by_date_ascending&page=1" target=_blank><STRONG><FONT color=#ff3300>this</FONT></STRONG></A> thread, all of it. Your ability to tank compaired to a Guardian is pretty well balanced.</DIV><p>Message Edited by -Aonein- on <span class=date_text>09-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:57 AM</span>

[Subtlekni]

<span><blockquote><hr>Gungo wrote:<div></div> <div></div> <div>using a genralised statement w/o taking into account other factors such as utilites or rankings can be unbalanced.</div> <div> </div> <div>But in our current set up it is not</div> <div> </div> <div>1  dps is still messed up and healers should not outdps guards in offensive stance.</div> <div>2  brawlers only do more dps compared to other fighters</div> <div>3  balanced is achived by core of your secondary abilites, never should your primary role be compromised.</div> <div> </div> <div>so while a brawler does more dps, your taunts, shields and group damage absorbation abilites should compensate for the increased dps.</div> <div> </div> <div>using statistics like x2, x4, x100, or 150% does not take into account the actual variable </div> <div>so while a brawler may currently be doing x4 of a guard, a scout will be doing x25 of a guards dps, and you may be doing x100 the amount of dam compared to a priest those statements don't portray the actual ranking and balance.</div> <div> </div> <div>so yes it may be a brawler doing x4 the damage of a guard is balanced when you take into account the gaurrdians other abilites (and once again that shoudl not include an advantage in that classes primary role)</div> <div> </div><p>Message Edited by Gungo on <span class="date_text">09-02-2005</span> <span class="time_text">08:49 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote>I understand now! Before, monks were > than guardians when it came to soloing, and leveling fast in small groups. Monks > guardians in utility, and it really helped to have multiple monks on a raid, as opposed to guardians most instanced raids. Guardians were > monks in tanking high end mobs. Post revamp: Monks > guardians for soloing. Monks = guardians for tanking. Got no clue on utility, but I think it's fair to assume monk > guardains there too, or at least equal. Yep, seems real fair to me. </span><div></div>

[-Aonein-]

<P>O and while i remeber, you did say that you signed up for DPS and not tanking, no?</P> <P>Sounds to me you are [Removed for Content] because you are losing your DPS and being scaled down and because you cant tank as *equally* as you said a number of posts ago, you need to try and come up with a idea that basically makes a Guardian a Brawler but with out the DPS because the Guardians utility should make up for the lose of DPS compaired to a Brawler.</P> <P>Again, with this logic, why would anyone even roll a Guardian?</P> <P>Im with Shizz, sign me up for the new Bruiser class, maybe even Gage would roll a Bruiser if it worked like that.</P> <p>Message Edited by -Aonein- on <span class=date_text>09-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:07 AM</span>

[Airog]

<P>Yay! More posts for me!</P> <P>     Um, first off, stop putting words in each others mouths, how about instead of, So, Gungo is saying this, or Naemek is saying that. How about, Gungo, is this what you are saying you want? That alllows for correction without putting words in each others mouths.</P> <P>    "So why again should a monk tank worse then an equally equipped gurad" Hm, I do believe you are talking about raid tanknig correct? Because from what I hear, monks are prefferred for regular exp groups, as at those levels they tank just as well and do more DPS, downing the mob sooner. Hence, if that is correct (never played a monk, only going by what I have heard, please correct me if I am wrong) and monks DO get the ability to raid tank, then either they need to be hardcore DPS nerfed, or group tanking nerfed, and we need some OMGUBERSOLEET utility and/or DPS to make up for us not tanking, now, before you jump all over me, Gaige, I DO NOT WANT UTILITY, BECAUSE I WANT TO BE OMGSOUBERLEET MAIN RAID TANK. That is what I personnaly want, But IF they give Monks/Paladins 33%, 25%, 15%, or 5% or whatever percent of raids, then yes, I would like some utility and DPS to balance it out.</P> <P>     Our group buffs right now are decent, I will give you that, but come re-vamp, they are makeing them really bad. (Yes that is right, they seem to be takeing away most of what little utility we had). There is no way you would ever want a Guards buffs over other classes buffs, in any group on a raid, in any raid situation. We will see how the shielding thing works, but I highly doubt it will make up for much, if any of our lost utility. Not only are we loseing our utility, but we are moveing down on the DPS ladder. And if certain people get it their way, the tanking ladder. Wow, that would SUCKOMGBIGFATBALLS. So please, if SOE makes it so that any other classes can raid tank (as well or better) give us some utility, no, scratch that, give us lots of utility. I would also like to point out that right now, most fighters can raid tank, just not as well as guardians. Heck, I am sure all of the best geared fighters can tank Deception [Removed for Content], er I mean dragons. probably Fire and Ice, both Drayek's, Zalak, Rognog, (maybe MotM), but at this point, I don't see anybody besides a Guard tanking Darathar, or most of the contested, as well as certain instances.</P>

[Airog]

Cool, I never posted a thread before that got over 50 posts! Yay! It is a red colored folder instead of yellow!

[Nazo]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Subtleknife wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>I understand now!<BR>Before, monks were > than guardians when it came to soloing, and leveling fast in small groups.<BR>Monks > guardians in utility, and it really helped to have multiple monks on a raid, as opposed to guardians most instanced raids.<BR>Guardians were > monks in tanking high end mobs.<BR><BR>Post revamp:<BR>Monks > guardians for soloing.<BR>Monks = guardians for tanking.<BR>Got no clue on utility, but I think it's fair to assume monk > guardains there too, or at least equal.<BR><BR>Yep, seems real fair to me. <BR><BR></SPAN> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>That about sums it. </DIV><p>Message Edited by Nazowa on <span class=date_text>09-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:18 AM</span>

[Airog]

Wow, Hero already, I am moveing up yo! Gaige here I come!!

[Gungo]

<DIV> <P>"So if I'm getting this right bruisers will move up in the tank ladder, stay the same in the dps ladder and utility ladder right, ya that's fair sign me up!"</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>In regardss from live to the combat revamp</P> <P>we shoudl go up in the comabt ladder as well as all othe rfighters to be equal in tanking in regards to all 3 defensive tanks </P> <P>with offensive versions being slightly mroe offense and slgihtly less defense</P> <P> </P> <P>go down the dps to be below scouts/casters btu above other fighters</P> <P> </P> <P>and utility shouldnt change from live as in we have none compared to gaurds.</P></DIV><p>Message Edited by Gungo on <span class=date_text>09-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:49 AM</span>

[Gungo]

<DIV> <P>As for me lieing Gongo, its because Alan Crosby has taken over for Moorgard and they deleted all his interviews on eqvault.com, your quite welcome to look for yourself. Why they deleted them is beyond me. Unless they never archived them to begin with. The link i supplyed you above though basically says that Guardians have the best tanking ability because of the trade off in damage, read it.</P> <P>______________________</P> <DIV> <P>So Gungo wants Brawlers to be Second best Tank with in the fighter arch type <STRONG><U>PLUS</U></STRONG> have the best DPS with in the fighter arch type. Thats a <STRONG><U>tad</U></STRONG> unbalanced there Gungo. Please do define what a Berserker is in this graph, im very interested in what we are.</P> <P>O please thats Exill freaking line graph i copied/edited i never said i wanted to be second best tank i said i wnted equal tanking for all. and the best dps in the fighter archtype. Is that unblanced nope not if the other core abilites of other classes balance correctly. Paladins gets heals, SK lifetaps/powetaps, Guards HP/defensive buffs/shield buffs. the secondary abilities you have should balance the secodnary abilites i have. The classes archtype should not be sacrificed, that will lead as it is on live to an unbalance TAEMAK. Hence thsi combat revamp that is changing tanking balance. Your tankign was broken and my dps was broken.  </P> <P>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________</P> <P><FONT color=#ff3300>Fighter Archtype Line</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ff3300>Tankability <---- Guardian / Paladin / Shadowknight / Berserker / Monk / Bruiser ----> DPS ability</FONT></P> <DIV>This is SoE's main aim according to Moorgards posts on the matter about where the fighter arch type is headed. Your just going to have to accept, as long as your Brawler class is in the Fighter arch type that is shared with pure mitigation tanks that you arent going to be able to tank as well as them, but at least you get better utility and DPS then a Guardian to balance the difference.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I may be wrong but i do read the forums regularly but i don't remebr morrgard posting this Line graph. </DIV> <DIV>I remebr the DPS chart, but i clearly didn't see anywhere he posted gaurdians would be the best tanks. If so Link the post were he said gaurdians would be the best tank and this conversation is ended and you win, if not i will presume you are talking out of your azz.</DIV> <DIV>and no where does it say mtitgation is better then avodiance more of this talk coming from that recepticle you sit on. TAEMMY boy if you are going to quote someone as saying something or imply stuff at least make it somewhat believable the more i read your post the more lies and rhetoric i find. and finally TAEMMY Brawlers having more utility then gaurds coem on my utility is my DPS. You have thsoe group defense /hp/shield buffs. The last utility spell i had in group was back in february rigth before they nerfed shrug off.</DIV></DIV> <P>__________________________________________________ _______________________________________</P> <P>The lies TAEM is you presumed mitigation is intended to be better then avodiance. You stated my intentions where to become the 2nd best tank when clearly i did not and you stated moorgard said gaurds will be the best tank. when no one can support such a claim. If Moorgard posted guardians are intended to be the best MT then this conversation would never have started, but the fact is that article never happen hence why you can not find it. You are lying TAEM, you are misinterpreting other peoples intentions, and pullign quotes out of context in order to support your upsurd claims. That my Friend is a lyier.</P> <P> </P></DIV>

[Gungo]

<DIV> <DIV>The way the changes are starting to pan put on Beta and Test its looking pretty balanced to me and the lvl 50 Bruiser states that as well.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Ive noticed in alot of your posts Gongo you are still trying to relate stuff from Live. Im really not sure where you seem to think that while you tank you sacrafice all DPS and while you arent tanking you have the best DPS. <STRONG>Again, why would anyone play a Guardian if a Brawler could do the job just the <U>same</U> but have more DPS?</STRONG></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Once again Gongo, read <A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=comtest&message.id=5823&view=by_date_ascending&page=1" target=_blank><STRONG><FONT color=#ff3300>this</FONT></STRONG></A> thread, all of it. Your ability to tank compaired to a Guardian is pretty well balanced.</DIV> <DIV>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Because your secondary abilites such as  taunts, buffs, etc still allow you to have superior utilites in those areas. On Beta you are the best defensive buffers and are NEEDED on raids, you also have the best and largest arrays of taunts allowing you better agro control.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>your point why would anyone play a gaurd if all tanks were relativly equal and guards has less dps because they are needed.</DIV> <DIV>Tell me why would anyone play a bruiser as 6 best tank and 9th best DPS? Its all subjective</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I am asking for equality here in my archtype role, no where in a monks process of choices in game did he give up his choice to be a defnesive tank at lvl 10 he chose to avoid instead of mitigate (i Dont remebr gettign the memo saying i no longer am able to ful fill my archtype role as well as other tanks) ( i didn;t see where it stated warrors are the bette  tanks) later on the monk was given the choice of mroe offense or defense orientation i as a bruiser chose offense and i have no probelm doing  mroe dps as monk but tankign less then monk, but where does a monk choose as a defense avodiance tank to be anything less then a gaurdian defensive mititgation tank.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV></DIV>

[-Aonein-]

<P>No you wont be equal in tanking, there will be a 10% difference like shown above. So you will be 10% better at DPS while the Guardian will be 10% better at tanking. Thats how it equals out.</P> <P>Mages = At one end they do the strongest DPS with little utility in reguards to Wizards / Warlocks, at the other end there is Most utility while sacraficing the most DPS in the line in reguards to Illusionists / Coercers.</P> <P>Scouts = Most DPS for little utility, at the other end little DPS while having more utility in reguards to Troubadors / Dirges.</P> <P>Priest = Strongest healing potential at one end with little utility in reguards to Templars / Defillers and on the other end strong utility but not as strong healing potential in reguards to Furys / Wardens etc.</P> <P>Fighters = Strongest DPS at one with less survivability in reguards to Brawlers and at the other end strongest survive rate at the cost of DPS in reguards to Guardians.</P> <P>You have already been shown that the difference in tanking is 12% from a Guardian to a Brawler, so its really pretty close. Now the question is, now that they have fixed auto attack and the STR bonus on Beta, do Bruisers do 10% more DPS then a Guardian?</P><p>Message Edited by -Aonein- on <span class=date_text>09-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:38 AM</span>

[Armeng]

<span><blockquote><hr>Gaige wrote:/chuckle <div></div><hr></blockquote>agree</span><div></div>

[JNewby]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gaige wrote:<BR> <DIV>The flaw being if you guys are the only tanks who can tank orange epic mobs, then no other tanks are needed, since you'll obviously be the best choice everywhere else.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Therefore only one fighter class is needed, the guardian, and the other 5 are useless.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>well they werent until this patch.. b4 monks and bruisers did nice dps stifled and stunned.. could offtank.. zerkers did hella dmg and coudl offtank even MT if no gurds and gave very nice life buffs... sks have a very nice mit debuff and did dps as well as offtanked pallies had backup heals for aoes and such and were the rezzers... some of the still holds but now or it seems most will be generic tanks and woull have to sit out cause htey are useless...

[-Aonein-]

<BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gungo wrote:<BR> <DIV> <P> </P> <P>The lies TAEM is you presumed mitigation is intended to be better then avodiance. You stated my intentions where to become the 2nd best tank when clearly i did not and you stated moorgard said gaurds will be the best tank. when no one can support such a claim. If Moorgard posted guardians are intended to be the best MT then this conversation would never have started, but the fact is that article never happen hence why you can not find it. You are lying TAEM, you are misinterpreting other peoples intentions, and pullign quotes out of context in order to support your upsurd claims. That my Friend is a lyier.</P> <P> </P></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR> </P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I didnt have to state your intentions you did it for us, here let me show you again like a number of other people have :</P> <P> </P> <HR> Gungo wrote:<BR> <DIV> <DIV align=left><B>Fighter Spectrum</B><BR></DIV><BR><I>Tank Ability</I> ---<FONT size=1>Guardian</FONT>--<FONT size=1>Berserker</FONT>--<FONT size=1>Paladin</FONT>--<FONT size=1>Shadowknight</FONT>--<FONT size=1>Monk</FONT>--<FONT size=1>Bruiser</FONT>--- <I>DPS Ability<BR><BR></I><BR>Brawlers have the highest dps out of all the fighters and in return they have the lowest tanking ability. Just because they have the lowest tanking ability does not mean that they cannot tank. Every class in the fighter archtype can tank, it is just a matter of how well. The same goes for DPS.<BR><I><BR></I><BR><BR>How (most) Brawlers want it to be:<BR><BR><I>Tank Ability</I> ---<FONT size=1>Guardian/Monk/Bruiser</FONT>--<FONT size=1>Berserker</FONT>--<FONT size=1>Paladin</FONT>--<FONT size=1>Shadowknight</FONT>--<FONT size=1>Monk</FONT>--<FONT size=1>Bruiser</FONT>--- <I>DPS Ability<BR><BR></I>Brawlers are trying to propose that they should have equal tanking ability as Guardians and yet still reign at the top of the dps ability. If Brawlers can tank as well as Guardians then Guardians should be able to DPS as well as Brawlers.<BR> <P>Message Edited by Exill on <SPAN class=date_text><FONT color=#756b56>09-01-2005</FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>05:49 PM</SPAN></P> <P> </P> <P><STRONG><FONT color=#ffff00>actually I <U>want</U></FONT></STRONG></P> <DIV align=left><BR><BR><I>Tank Ability</I> ---<FONT size=1>Guardian/Monk/Bruiser/Beserker/Paladin/shadowknight</FONT>--<FONT size=1>Berserker</FONT>--<FONT size=1>Paladin</FONT>--<FONT size=1>Shadowknight</FONT>--<FONT size=1>Monk</FONT>--<FONT size=1>Bruiser</FONT>--- <I>DPS Ability</I></DIV><I></I></DIV> <P><I>No class shoudl ever give up their primary role in exchange for their secondary effects.. i am tired of explaining the same thing over and over read the thread on will guads still be main tank in gaurdian forums if u want to see how all tansk should tank.</I></P> <DIV align=left><BR></DIV> <P><BR></P> <P></P> <HR> <P> </P> <P>You stated your itentions pretty clear here for eveyone to see.  As you can clearly see you have the Brawler class filling two roles, not having a primary role at all.</P> <P>What is it with you Gonzo, cant you understand that Guardians give up all DPS and utility to beome the best tank while you, a brawler keep your DPS and more utility then a Guardian has AND the difference in your ability to tank is 10% but yet that isnt balanced for you?</P> <P>What ive told you isnt lieing ethier, i even gave you a post where Moorgard is basically telling you that it scales on DPS vs tanking ability. You have the most DPS and that decreases your ability to tank, Guards have the least DPS and that increases there ability to tank. Why cant you see that, even after reading Moorgards post?</P> <P>Here i couldnt of siad this better myself so i copy and pasted it just for you :</P> <P></P> <HR> <P>Moorgard wrote:</P> <P>The round of changes currently on Test only deal with the defensive side of things. They won't go live without other changes that are coming.</P> <P>We're making some fundamental changes to the spell system that are in progress right now. We're also determining the relative damage potential of each class and will be adjusting spells and arts to meet that scale.</P> <DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#ffff00>With fighters, damage potential is weighed against tanking ability.</FONT></STRONG> <STRONG><FONT color=#ffff00>The latter is defined not just by avoidance or mitigation, but by the kind of buffs and abilities they get. Guardians and Paladins get the most defensive-oriented abilities, both for themselves and their groupmates. As a result, they will have the lowest damage output. At the other end of the scale are Bruisers and Monks, with Berserkers and Shadowknights in the middle.</FONT></STRONG></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Keep in mind these differences are not wide chasms. A Guardian who upgrades all his damage arts could probably outdamage a Bruiser that puts little effort into upgrading his abilities. Likewise, a Monk who pays attention to gear and arts can be a better pure tank than an unskilled Paladin. The onus for maximizing the potential of a given character is on the player, because that's the one element of class balance that we have absolutely no control over.</DIV> <P>===========================<BR>Steve Danuser, a.k.a. Moorgard<BR>Game Designer, EverQuest II</P> <P></P> <HR> <P> </P> <P>What part of that do you not understand?</P> <P><BR></P>

[Krooner]

<P><STRONG><FONT size=4>Very well put.</FONT></STRONG></P> <P><STRONG><FONT size=4></FONT></STRONG> </P> <P><STRONG><FONT size=4>I have spent a great deal of time and $$$ on my gear.  I make sure that my spell book is also upgraded as I get new spells.  There will and should always be that "close" seperation of the classes.  If you find yourself being outclassed in your primary role and you havent done the upkeep on your toon then you should start asking yourself why.  And dont just blame it on SOE first.   </FONT></STRONG></P>

[Airog]

They are talking, fully fabled, fully Master I'd, who is better at what? Of course a fully fabled with full master I's fighter of any class will tank better then any other fighter with app I's and handcrafted gear.

[Gungo]

<P>READING COMPREHENSION TAEM:</P> <P>read your link again you missed the lien above.</P> <DIV> <P>Moorgard wrote:</P> <P>The round of changes currently on Test only deal with the defensive side of things. They won't go live without other changes that are coming.</P> <P><FONT color=#cc0000>We're making some fundamental changes to the <FONT color=#cc00ff>spell system</FONT> that are in progress right now. We're also determining the relative damage potential of each class and will be adjusting <FONT color=#cc00ff>spells and arts</FONT> to meet that scale.</FONT></P> <DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#ffff00>With fighters, damage potential is weighed against tanking ability.</FONT></STRONG> <STRONG><FONT color=#ffff00>The latter is defined not just by avoidance or mitigation, but by the kind of buffs and abilities they get. Guardians and Paladins get the most defensive-oriented abilities, both for themselves and their groupmates. As a result, they will have the lowest damage output. At the other end of the scale are Bruisers and Monks, with Berserkers and Shadowknights in the middle.</FONT></STRONG></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Keep in mind these differences are not wide chasms. A Guardian who upgrades all his damage arts could probably outdamage a Bruiser that puts little effort into upgrading his abilities. Likewise, a Monk who pays attention to gear and arts can be a better pure tank than an unskilled Paladin. The onus for maximizing the potential of a given character is on the player, because that's the one element of class balance that we have absolutely no control over.</DIV> <P>===========================<BR>Steve Danuser, a.k.a. Moorgard<BR>Game Designer, EverQuest II</P> <P>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _________</P> <P>So where does moorgard say brawlers are less capable tanks then Guardians</P> <P>to me that says what i gain in dam arts you gained in the group hp buffs, group mitigation buffs, sheilding buffs etc </P> <P>read it again its the spell system you get defensive i get offensive arts.</P> <P>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _________</P> <P>I am sorry if you interpreted that line graph that way i know your comprehension is a lil low =/</P> <P>but that was Exill line graph i believe i was only trying to prove my point</P> <P>to me that bar reads although guards are on the low end on the dps chain all tanks can tank equally</P> <P>but what they lack in dps they make up for in secondary abilites such as buffs/shields/etc (alhough you may need more )</P> <P>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _________</P> <P>what i dont understand is are you really a liar or jus tthat slow ?<BR></P></DIV>

[Airog]

He's a Guard, he's just slow... Like I have been saying, too many blows to the head.

[-Aonein-]

<P>You really are clueless arent you Gonzo. " Where does Moorgard say that Brawlers are less capable tanks " you say? Read this one more time, just this part :</P> <P> </P> <P><STRONG><FONT color=#ffff00><FONT size=4>" <U>With fighters, damage potential is weighed against tanking ability</U></FONT>.</FONT></STRONG> <STRONG><FONT color=#ffff00>The latter is defined not just by avoidance or mitigation, but by the kind of buffs and abilities they get. Guardians and Paladins get the most defensive-oriented abilities, both for themselves and their groupmates. As a result, they will have the lowest damage output. At the other end of the scale are Bruisers and Monks, with Berserkers and Shadowknights in the middle. "</FONT></STRONG></P> <P><STRONG><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT></STRONG> </P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff>So this is telling you that what we gain in utility, you gain in DPS? Surely you really cant be that stupid? Here let me help, see he says:</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff> " Guardians and Paladins get the most defensive-oriented abilities, both for themselves and their groupmates. As a result, they will have the lowest damage output. At the other end of the scale ( plz note he said <STRONG><U>SCALE</U></STRONG> here ) are Bruisers and Monks, with Berserkers and Shadowknights in the middle " </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff>He goes on later speaking about how if a Guardian was to concentrate on his Damage arts etc and a Bralwer was lazy and didnt keep up he would probally outdamage the brawler. Why? Because the differences are not wide chasms just like he states that also. But clearly you are that stupid because see here :</FONT></P> <P> </P> <P><FONT color=#cc0000>" We're making some fundamental changes to the </FONT><FONT color=#cc00ff>spell system</FONT><FONT color=#cc0000> that are in progress right now. We're also determining the relative <U><STRONG><FONT size=4>damage potential</FONT></STRONG></U> of each class and will be adjusting </FONT><FONT color=#cc00ff>spells and arts</FONT><FONT color=#cc0000> to meet that scale. "</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#cc0000></FONT> </P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff>He is talking about Damage output of spells and arts and balancing the scale with how much defense etc is added to those who arent as offensively oriented as the scale goes towards the Brawler side of the scale. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff>Scale as in DPS scale from a Guardian at one end having the worst DPS due to having the most defensive-oriented abilities and a Brawler having the most DPS due to having the least defensive-oriented abilites. Adjusting spells and arts to meet the desired damage potential and defensive ability with in the Fighter Archtype is what he is refering too here. In simple terms he is talking about balancing Damage vs Mitigation because thats what the Fighter Arch type is all about, tanking. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff>He <STRONG><U>doesnt</U></STRONG> say " With fighters, damage potential is weighed agaisnt utilty..." or he <STRONG><U>doesnt</U></STRONG> say " With fighters, tanking is weighed against utility..."  does he? Or is that how you read that too?</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff>There was a guy who replied to you which drove the nail home :</FONT></P> <P> </P> <P></P> <HR> <P><SPAN><FONT size=2><FONT color=#ffffff>@gungo:</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffff00 size=2>Sorry, but if you are mostly interested in the primary tanking role only and do not care about the other toys that your bruiser gets together with the nice dps, you should have the balls to reroll as a guardian. It is a pity that you obviously did not have mmorpg experience or informed yourself on the SOE boards, that you did not know at character creation that by picking the most offensive fighter you will be the least defensive and therefore not be tanking that much on raids (at least not the hardest mobs, the raid bosses).</FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT size=2><FONT color=#ffffff>I also really like to do good dps (I almost rolled a scout) and I like things like FD, invis (god, I miss my old eq1 sk sometimes a lot), but I chose pure tanking ability at the character creation to be the most defensive tank to tank the big mobs.</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffffff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </P> <P></P> <DIV>Ritsar Kavaris<BR>50 Guardian / 50 Alchemist<BR>Paradigma Guild (Valor)</DIV> <P> </P> <P></P> <HR> <P> </P> <P>Anyway feel free to twist Moorgards words to suit your needs, i just tell it how it is and how SoE intends to balance the Fighter archtype out.</P> <P>And do please stop calling me a liar, i gave you a post where Moorgard states how the tanking ability is scaled, and its exactally how i have been stating it all along, so i really cant see how i am lieing.</P><p>Message Edited by -Aonein- on <span class=date_text>09-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:43 AM</span>

[-Aonein-]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Airoguy wrote:<BR>He's a Guard, he's just slow... Like I have been saying, too many blows to the head. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Im a Berserker, i smash myself in the head. :smileywink:

[Airog]

GDI, I can't kepe you all straight, seems to be more fooking Bruiser/Monks/Zerkers/Pallies/SK's posting here then freaking Guards...

[-Aonein-]

<P>Guards and Berserkers are brother at arms though.</P> <P>Maybe its because all the Guards have gone and rolled Monks / Brusiers......:smileyindifferent:</P> <P>Thought my sig was pretty obvious im not a Guardian. :smileywink:</P> <p>Message Edited by -Aonein- on <span class=date_text>09-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:46 AM</span>

[Airog]

Ah, Guard, Zerker, we are the same underneath all the armor... =P

[Gungo]

<DIV> <P>Anyway feel free to twist Moorgards words to suit your needs, i just tell it how it is and how SoE intends to balance the Fighter archtype out. <FONT color=#cc0000>Just as you have twisted his words to fit your needs? eitherway he was talking about the combat art revamp. And while looking at the combat art revamp on Beta i see guards didn't get any buffs to have you tank better then others. So i can presume his intentions as i see on beta is that while guards gain group hp buffs, group miti buffs, shield buffs, i in turn have gained combat arts to do more dam and have no group defense buffs to help me. So pull messeges out of context and construe them however you wish i guess only moorgard knows his true intentions with that post. (Well him and every other semi compentant person)</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00><STRONG>The latter is defined not by avoidance or mitigation, but by the kind of buffs and abilities they get. <FONT color=#cc0000>See i too can pull quotes around and say look he means avoidance and mitigation core abilites will be balnced at the archtype lvl and thier buffs/combat arts are what seperates them. Guards get HP buffs for group. i get to do combat arts for my group. and you are correct on that scale monks and bruisers get very little group buffs, but we gain combat arts. </FONT></STRONG></FONT></P> <P>And do please stop calling me a liar, i gave you a post where Moorgard states how the tanking ability is scaled, and its exactally how i have been stating it all along, so i really cant see how i am lieing.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff>There was a guy who replied to you which drove the nail home :</FONT></P> <P></P> <HR> <P><SPAN><FONT size=2><FONT color=#ffffff>@gungo:</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffff00 size=2>Sorry, but if you are mostly interested in the primary tanking role only and do not care about the other toys that your bruiser gets together with the nice dps, you should have the balls to reroll as a guardian. It is a pity that you obviously did not have mmorpg experience or informed yourself on the SOE boards, that you did not know at character creation that by picking the most offensive fighter you will be the least defensive and therefore not be tanking </FONT></SPAN><SPAN><FONT color=#ffff00 size=2>that much on raids (at least not the hardest mobs, the raid bosses).</FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffff00 size=2>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _______________</FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#cc0000 size=2>And what curtail did he imply that i should of played other games to realize i needed to be a gaurd to be the best tank or maybe i should of read the boards that said wait..... all fighers are balanced at the archtype lvl and all fighters would be able to perfrom thier roles equally. I guess he was right though people should change thier class and pick a gaurdian now because the game is broken and guards are obviously the best tank? O yeah thats considered fair and balanced.</FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffff33 size=2>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________________________</FONT></SPAN></P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffff00 size=2> <P><FONT color=#cc0000>" We're making some fundamental changes to the </FONT><FONT color=#cc00ff>spell system</FONT><FONT color=#cc0000> that are in progress right now. We're also determining the relative <U><STRONG><FONT size=4>damage potential</FONT></STRONG></U> of each class and will be adjusting </FONT><FONT color=#cc00ff>spells and arts</FONT><FONT color=#cc0000> to meet that scale. "</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff66>and you know what they did changes to the combat arts. there are tons of posts how <STRONG>DAMAGE</STRONG> </FONT>was reduced on combat arts some people went up some went down brawlers obviously needed to go down quite a bit since they outdps'ed scouts and casters.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff66>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________________________</FONT></P> <P>You are right i shouldn't call you a liar i'll just have to agree with airoguy. you probably took to many hits on the head.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#ffff00 size=2>Fighting about what other peopel have said is pathetic, just like airoliz has said you are onyl resorting to he said /she said/ gongo said because you are fighting a game of wits and obviously came unarmed. I feel like i am trying to play chess with my dog. Tell me do you wear a helmet in the shower?</FONT></SPAN></P></FONT></DIV><p>Message Edited by Gungo on <span class=date_text>09-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:17 PM</span>

[Gungo]

Nothing constructive is coming from this thread only name calling and bickering now while throwing he said she said crapola around so unless somethign constructive comes up i am leaving this flame thread.

[-Aonein-]

<P>The simple answer for you is, take a look at the class spell sets on Test / Beta.</P> <P>It speaks for itself and defines what Moorgard is saying in that Post.</P>

[Exill]

<p><b>"With fighters, damage potential is weighed against tanking ability." - Moorgard </b></p> <p>The quote speaks for itself. </p> <div></div>

[Airog]

Wow, this post has gotten way of, keep posting about this stuff, but please re-read my original post and make some comments there, maybe we can get Moorguard to take a serious loko at this thread.

[-Aonein-]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Airoguy wrote:<BR>Wow, this post has gotten way of, keep posting about this stuff, but please re-read my original post and make some comments there, maybe we can get Moorguard to take a serious loko at this thread. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Not sure he will after your first attempt tp attract the Devs attention lol. :smileywink: <p>Message Edited by -Aonein- on <span class=date_text>09-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:35 PM</span>

[jadsded]

Sorry Air, Moor will never respond to this thread way too much flamage.  As to the back and forth arguement... This is the perspective of a former 65 Monk (Time flagged when retired back in 11/04) and a current lvl 35 Gaurd.  As a monk in Eqlive I was DPS adn that was about it.  SKs Bards and Rangers more or less took over pulling leaving us jobless in raids, save standing behind the mob and whacking it.  I could tank in groups in a pinch if our MA went LD or soemthing or if no tank was to be found and the mobs didnt hit too hard.  That was my role and I delt with it, it was the character I played and I loved it.  (Especially when grinding and I got to actually pull)  When I made the move to EQ2 I made a scout with the intention of being an assassin, but one of my friends lived in Q and wanted me to betray so out of that my dirge was born.  Well one of my other friends joined in the fun and HAD to be a scout, so I made a fighter.  When it came time to decide what I wanted to be I chose Guardian.  Why? Because I wanted to be the MA,  I wanted to be the one taking the hits and taking them well.  DPS? pff who needs that (though I swear I out-damage our lazy scout at times).  The point is every Guardian chose a Guardian to be just that the MA.  And our utility that is spoken of is what makes us good at it... that is how our class was designed. The reason I didn't pick a brawler?  Because they were made to be able to be a SERVICEABLE tank with good DPS (and get fun lil tricks like FD, mend, purge...)  If you chose one thinking you were going to be MA on UberRaid_01 then I'm sorry but you were misinformed.   While I can feel your pain, having played a monk for 65 lvls in EQlive, if you really want to feel like a [Removed for Content] tank that is more or less useless in raids, buy EQlive and roll a monk. If you take away tanking from Guards (by giving it to everyone else) you just made us characters that can't use 1/3rd of our spells (taunts and agg), we already don't use 1/3 of our spells anyways since all that intervene lines do is kill you faster.  So I guess when you guys are equal tanks we'll just sit on the sidelines and throw our group buffs on you making you even more uber.  Finally a class I can dual box. Jadd 35 Guardian Faydark Server <div></div>

[dparker7]

<DIV> <P>Wow Gunga, that was impressive.  Are you so unwilling to consider that you misread moorgard that you unknowingly removed the 'just' from his post you requoted, or did you just decide upon rereading that the just really hurts your point?</P> <P>I think that post also clearly states the 'buffs and abilities' related to tanking are not utility, they are part of the tanking balance.  That would make guardian utility next to zero.  They also cant heal.  They're the lowest on the DPS scale for fighters.  Yet they should only tank as well as a monk?  </P> <P>If you still believe Guardians have more utility, please list it, cause I dont see any.  Taunts, buffs, and the intervene line are all a part of tanking.  I guess you could include the power drain and interrupts as utility, but they're fairly minor.  </P></DIV>

[Airog]

You are prolly right jadsded, gonna have to start a new thread and hope for no flameing... =P

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> jadsded wrote:<BR>we already don't use 1/3 of our spells anyways since all that intervene lines do is kill you faster. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>1)  This is because of the way broken aggro works on live, allowing one player to hold aggro on multiple mobs.  If this was not the case, your intervene line would be much more useful and not so overlooked.  Its sad that an entire playerbase basically overlooks this line because of their "me" mentality.</P> <P>2) On beta I'm 99.9% sure this line takes mitigation into consideration, and Noah has used it on me before, particularly intercept and its upgrade, which takes 100% of the damage for a target.</P> <P>I've always found it funny that guardians say "we have no utility" and then admit they don't use 1/3rd of their given spells.  <BR></P> <p>Message Edited by Gaige on <span class=date_text>09-04-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:03 AM</span>

[Balmore]

Broken Aggro = Holding Aggro for the whole encounter? This is the least a serious tank could do! <div></div>

[Gaige]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Balmore wrote:<BR>Broken Aggro = Holding Aggro for the whole encounter?<BR><BR>This is the least a serious tank could do!<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>By broken aggro I was referring to reactives.  I really do *not* believe that one fighter should hold aggro on multiple mobs, especially epic though.<BR></DIV>

[blueduckie]

<P>Its funny that they only work right on beta at most? Never surrender is fine but doesnt do alot. Vigilance is fine if you put it on yourself. Intervene line it self sentry protect are only fine on a plate class.</P> <P>Dont call our utility worth something if your calling our intervene line utility gaige. If it takes our mitigation into effect after changes cool. Could be a saving grace on someone else which i liked. In eqlive /shied <person> was my favoritte tool added. Saved so many people with it. So if they fix it id be happy. I dont mind dieing to protect someone else however. I do mind the way it is atm. When you pop guardian sphere on a caster or priest and take 2-8x the dmg. You can get 1 shotted. So you basically just got yourself 1 shotted for someone who is gonna die n the 2nd shot. Doesnt do much of anything but kill 2 people instead of 1. In a group it can be decent. On a raid its worthless. In changes if it works well and can use target assist off of mobs and not have to target person than i say good for it and am happy with the line finally.</P>

[Balmore]

<div></div><a target="_blank" href="../view_profile?user.id=3187"><span></span></a>Gaige, I'm sorry ... thought you were talking about aggro only. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Thank you for explaining ...<div></div>

[Airog]

<DIV>Gaige:</DIV> <DIV>"Balmore wrote:<BR>Broken Aggro = Holding Aggro for the whole encounter?<BR><BR>This is the least a serious tank could do!<BR> <HR> By broken aggro I was referring to reactives.  I really do *not* believe that one fighter should hold aggro on multiple mobs, especially epic though."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You don't think a single tank should tank MotM?</DIV>

[Gaige]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Airoguy wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You don't think a single tank should tank MotM? <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>Nope.  That's two yellow con x4 +++ epic mobs AND multiple adds.  Hell no.<BR></DIV>

[Gungo]

hmm you gaige does have a point tanking 2 epics x4 ^^^ epics and adds does seem to negate multiple tanks.

[dparker7]

<P>But isnt that just the sort of encounter you envision brawlers tanking gungo?</P> <P>And the reason for 1 tank in MotM has as much to do with how healing works as how tanking works.</P>

[Gungo]

<P>yeah it is what i envision and actually seems to be close to what i am getting :smileywink: </P> <P>still doesn't solve the issue that raid encounters are not designed to alw for multiple tanks.</P> <p>Message Edited by Gungo on <span class=date_text>09-04-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:07 PM</span>

[Airog]

<DIV>Sorry, I been off the boards awhile, lol. So Gaige, let me ask you this, you personally don't like a single tank tanking MotM? Or you think that according to SOE it isn't supposed to happen? Do you think this is "broken" and if so, by what reasoning do you think this? Has a dev said that one tank should not tank an entire single encounter? (both of the ^^^'s are in one encounter) and even though there are many differant encounters on the adds, they are extremely week. Even if a single tank should not tank The eye and the Saw blade, why not all the adds?</DIV>

[Gungo]

<DIV>personnally i don't see a problem w 1 tank tanking 1 epic and all the adds. But since gaige did mention this it made me wonder why design it this way wouldn't it be more challenging and better if ou needed 2 tanks, although i have to agree w airoguy i beleive the encounter was designed for 1 tank. Which is part of the reason why there are so many fighter arguments. they are limiting raids by onyl requiring 1 tank.</DIV>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Airoguy wrote:<BR> <DIV>Sorry, I been off the boards awhile, lol. So Gaige, let me ask you this, you personally don't like a single tank tanking MotM? Or you think that according to SOE it isn't supposed to happen? Do you think this is "broken" and if so, by what reasoning do you think this? Has a dev said that one tank should not tank an entire single encounter? (both of the ^^^'s are in one encounter) and even though there are many differant encounters on the adds, they are extremely week. Even if a single tank should not tank The eye and the Saw blade, why not all the adds?</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>While MotM may be a different scenario, because yes they are a single encounter, I still do not agree with it.  But I can accept that encounter because it may be scaled for one tank.</P> <P>BUT...</P> <P>I was referring to one tank being able to tank ALL of the armies in Act 1 of Brutal at the same time.  That's kind of overkill.  Okay, not kind of, it is.  </P> <P>Is it the guardians fault?  Nah, I think it has a lot to do with how healing and raid buffs work, but it still isn't an ideal scenario.<BR></P>

[Airog]

Cool, thanks for clarifying Gaige. I am not familiar with Brutal Acts of War unfortantely. So I have no say there.

[gigant]

<DIV>i been quiet for sometime now, since community started talking about combat change, but now am really sick of guardians this guardians that and all of this kind of bauble , not to mention X class should and shouldnt, i begin to wonder , did really most ppl who are argueing about thier class read the class discription?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>to begin with, the day i chosed to be a guardian i was one among very few on my server, and tbh i really knew what i chosed that class spicifically, even if someone spend sometime reading, guardian isnt the good class for solo, in fact guardian is meant for grping, yet guardians wasnt raelly much of a class until early 30's, and i still remember someone was talking in ooc that thier class was just a guardian with upgraded dps, i know the fact that all fighters should be able to tank in certain scenarios or certain cases, am good with that. and thats SOE fault that made almost all but very few epic mobs hitting with same type of dmg, now the game been out for 10 months, and i dont really remember how long it was on beta, these things about combat or w/e should be fixed long time ago, now with all these changes skills and w/e i feel like am going to be playing a new class in DOF. i dont mind.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>think we let SOE smart designers decide how they going to "balance" the game with this change, but i do know one thing for a fact, the day that guardians gets the middle finger in this party its the day when a respectful class in EQ2 gets insulted, and am sure every guardian is proud to be a guardian.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>thats my 2 coppers, sorry i didnt want to hijack the thread, i just let some pressure out.</DIV>

[Sasaki Koji]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gaige wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Airoguy wrote:<BR> <DIV>Sorry, I been off the boards awhile, lol. So Gaige, let me ask you this, you personally don't like a single tank tanking MotM? Or you think that according to SOE it isn't supposed to happen? Do you think this is "broken" and if so, by what reasoning do you think this? Has a dev said that one tank should not tank an entire single encounter? (both of the ^^^'s are in one encounter) and even though there are many differant encounters on the adds, they are extremely week. Even if a single tank should not tank The eye and the Saw blade, why not all the adds?</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>While MotM may be a different scenario, because yes they are a single encounter, I still do not agree with it.  But I can accept that encounter because it may be scaled for one tank.</P> <P>BUT...</P> <P>I was referring to one tank being able to tank ALL of the armies in Act 1 of Brutal at the same time.  That's kind of overkill.  Okay, not kind of, it is.  </P> <P>Is it the guardians fault?  Nah, I think it has a lot to do with how healing and raid buffs work, but it still isn't an ideal scenario.<BR></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Epic encounters like Echos of time: Epic, Meeting of the minds, And mabey A deserted Cave come to mind here. Need more than one MT buffed and ready to get hurt by something.

[JNewby]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gungo wrote:<BR> <DIV>Maybe so but they never mentioned raid tanking and that is what we are defining now.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>so while all fighter should tank equally well in xp groups, all should tank equally well in raids. To do anything other than that will lead to unbalance.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I do hope you get your shiny toys as well.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>ok but guardians are the worst for exp groups and were the best for raids.. now worst for exp groups and I duno the same for raids? not sure</P> <P> </P>

[Sasaki Koji]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> JNewby wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gungo wrote:<BR> <DIV>Maybe so but they never mentioned raid tanking and that is what we are defining now.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>so while all fighter should tank equally well in xp groups, all should tank equally well in raids. To do anything other than that will lead to unbalance.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I do hope you get your shiny toys as well.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>ok but guardians are the worst for exp groups and were the best for raids.. now worst for exp groups and I duno the same for raids? not sure</P> <P> </P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>being a SK... i say guardians just plain suck reguardless /grin everyone quit your guard and become a necro! haha /wobble around mindlessly and knock over a piano</P> <P>/sober</P> <P>ok like i sad in other forums, it depends on the player. Theres alot of skills that need to be moved around and likely relearned and practiced with. I know all fighters will have to do the same.</P>

[JNewby]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sasaki Kojiro wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gaige wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Airoguy wrote:<BR> <DIV>Sorry, I been off the boards awhile, lol. So Gaige, let me ask you this, you personally don't like a single tank tanking MotM? Or you think that according to SOE it isn't supposed to happen? Do you think this is "broken" and if so, by what reasoning do you think this? Has a dev said that one tank should not tank an entire single encounter? (both of the ^^^'s are in one encounter) and even though there are many differant encounters on the adds, they are extremely week. Even if a single tank should not tank The eye and the Saw blade, why not all the adds?</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>While MotM may be a different scenario, because yes they are a single encounter, I still do not agree with it.  But I can accept that encounter because it may be scaled for one tank.</P> <P>BUT...</P> <P>I was referring to one tank being able to tank ALL of the armies in Act 1 of Brutal at the same time.  That's kind of overkill.  Okay, not kind of, it is.  </P> <P>Is it the guardians fault?  Nah, I think it has a lot to do with how healing and raid buffs work, but it still isn't an ideal scenario.<BR></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Epic encounters like Echos of time: Epic, Meeting of the minds, And mabey A deserted Cave come to mind here. Need more than one MT buffed and ready to get hurt by something. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>nah u only need one tank for those...