The idea of avoidance tanking is ruining the game [Archive]

View Full Version : The idea of avoidance tanking is ruining the game

MainFra

09-29-2005, 10:48 PM

<DIV>If this game ever ends up dying, then the root cause must be the idea of avoidance tanking.</DIV> <DIV>Avoidance will always fail at high end mobs. To let the avoidance tanks have a chance at tanking high end mobs, the developers must give avoidance tanks some special abilities. However, these special abilities will make the avoidance tanks super powerful when they are not tanking end game mobs.</DIV> <DIV>The end result is that all fighter classes will be balanced against high end mobs, not against the mobs you are fighting everyday.</DIV> <DIV>However, this game is not about end game only. In one word, to balance using end game scenario is just plain stupid.</DIV> <DIV>The result is that all fighters can tank high end mobs now, but not all fighters can tank the everyday mobs equally well.</DIV> <DIV>I see this game is dying everyday. From the data at <A href="http://www.mmogchart.com/" target=_blank>http://www.mmogchart.com/</A>, you can see that the subscriber base of EQII has stopped growing long ago. This isn't a really good sign for this game. However, I really don't care anymore.</DIV>

skyeandang

09-29-2005, 11:03 PM

This is just a thought... Avoidance Tanking makes no sense, reality wise... "Let me protect the others in my group by getting out of the way of the blows of the enemy. " A high Avoidance character would be a great soloer. A high Plate character would be a great MT. The two concepts are not necassarily interchangable. There is no such thing as a "tank" with no or little armor. Those are called Strike Vehicles. They have big guns, are fast with wheels, and are light. Isn't that what a Bruiser or monk is? Hit hard and move fast?

Thanous

09-29-2005, 11:05 PM

Please take a look at this <a href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=3&message.id=20073" target=_blank>thread.</a> I'm trying to gather information from different fighters to show what we all have to work with defense wise. <div></div>

MainFra

09-29-2005, 11:09 PM

I think SOE made a bad decision to put brawlers in the fighter archetype. Just give brawlers evac and track ability, and put them in the scout archetype please. For the sanity of all of us. I don't mind if brawlers becomes gods, but as long as they are not in our archetype, and do not post in our forums, I might have a chance to actually come back and play my guardian.

MainFra

09-29-2005, 11:13 PM

Another of my thought is that there is never going to be a balance between avoidance tanks and mitigation tanks. It's just like you are trying to balance the flavor of orange and apple. They are just totally different stuff. Get the hell out of here please. Put brawlers in scout archetype, or even give them a big nuke and put them in mage archetype please.

Pry

09-29-2005, 11:22 PM

My advice is to get rid of avoidance altogether for the fighter classes and make Mitigation exactly the same, but I am sure that this is another solution all 5 other fighter classes will hate. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Gaige

09-29-2005, 11:29 PM

I'd rather not be a scout, plz and thanx.

Raahl

09-29-2005, 11:32 PM

To tell you the truth though brawlers should have been scouts and possibly rogues should have been fighters.

Gaige

09-29-2005, 11:34 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Raahl wrote: To tell you the truth though brawlers should have been scouts and possibly rogues should have been fighters. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>This stems from what? Past games, your opinion? What exactly. I see no reason why the brawler classes shouldn't be in the fighter archetype.

MainFra

09-29-2005, 11:39 PM

It's just obvious that putting brawlers in fighter archetype has caused lots of problems for this game.

Gaige

09-29-2005, 11:40 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MainFrame wrote: It's just obvious that putting brawlers in fighter archetype has caused lots of problems for this game. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> I don't see them. Putting guardians in the fighter archetype did though. It trivialized encounters, including raids, and caused the other 5 fighter classes to be useless where their primary role was concerned. So maybe we should move them.

BostonFNO

09-29-2005, 11:41 PM

<DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Prynn wrote: My advice is to get rid of avoidance altogether for the fighter classes and make Mitigation exactly the same, but I am sure that this is another solution all 5 other fighter classes will hate. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> I think it is THE solution. I agree with the OP on the avoidance issue but not that the brawlers need to be moved from the fighter class. There is plenty of room for all of us. They should just make all our mitigation, avoidance, taunting and dps the same. Then the only difference in the classes would be aesthetic and whatever utility we bring to the table. There is no reason any class should have downsides to it, let everyone bring different upsides to the table. This way we will all be able to get the job done on a level playing field and the fighter with the best gear for the situation will be main tanking. Thats balance.</DIV>

MainFra

09-29-2005, 11:46 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gaige wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MainFrame wrote: It's just obvious that putting brawlers in fighter archetype has caused lots of problems for this game. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> I don't see them. Putting guardians in the fighter archetype did though. It trivialized encounters, including raids, and caused the other 5 fighter classes to be useless where their primary role was concerned. So maybe we should move them. <HR> Who trivialized what? I didn't trivialize anything. I got wiped in all of the level 50+ epic X 4 raids so far.</BLOCKQUOTE>

MainFra

09-29-2005, 11:47 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gaige wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MainFrame wrote: It's just obvious that putting brawlers in fighter archetype has caused lots of problems for this game. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> I don't see them. Putting guardians in the fighter archetype did though. It trivialized encounters, including raids, and caused the other 5 fighter classes to be useless where their primary role was concerned. So maybe we should move them. <HR> Who trivialized what? I didn't trivialize anything. I got wiped in all of the level 50+ epic X 4 raids so far.</BLOCKQUOTE>

Gaige

09-29-2005, 11:50 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MainFrame wrote: Who trivialized what? I didn't trivialize anything. I got wiped in all of the level 50+ epic X 4 raids so far. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Last I checked you aren't the only guardian playing. That said sorry you wiped, but plenty of guardians didn't.

Raahl

09-29-2005, 11:51 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gaige wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Raahl wrote: To tell you the truth though brawlers should have been scouts and possibly rogues should have been fighters. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>This stems from what? Past games, your opinion? What exactly. I see no reason why the brawler classes shouldn't be in the fighter archetype. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> Based on my opinion mostly and some observations between the brawler community and the scout community. Early on most brawlers were content to do DPS and not MT, some were not. Some scouts commented that brawlers did too much damage and the they were being outdamaged by them. So, whether sony meant to or not, in the beginning the Brawler class was about DPS not being a MT. Brigands and Swashbucklers seem to fit in the fighter role better than brawlers. I don't picture them as being sneaky types. I definately see brawlers sneaky, especially monks.

Pry

09-29-2005, 11:54 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> BostonFNORD wrote: <DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Prynn wrote: My advice is to get rid of avoidance altogether for the fighter classes and make Mitigation exactly the same, but I am sure that this is another solution all 5 other fighter classes will hate. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> I think it is THE solution. I agree with the OP on the avoidance issue but not that the brawlers need to be moved from the fighter class. There is plenty of room for all of us. They should just make all our mitigation, avoidance, taunting and dps the same. Then the only difference in the classes would be aesthetic and whatever utility we bring to the table. There is no reason any class should have downsides to it, let everyone bring different upsides to the table. This way we will all be able to get the job done on a level playing field and the fighter with the best gear for the situation will be main tanking. Thats balance.</DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> Yes indeed. I would be perfectly happy if they leveled mitigation and avoidance for all 6 fighter classes, and I am talking NO disparity whatsoever. Or alternatively getting rid of avoidance in lieu of mitigation, or getting rid of mitigation in lieu of avoidance and upping the kept value to be exactly the same across fighter classes. Then give Guardians 2 utilities. Such as a heal and/or the ability to take hitpoints from group members instead of giving HP's to group members (because it doesn't work) as well as an invisibility. Then we are talking balance.

RafaelSmith

09-29-2005, 11:57 PM

<blockquote><hr>Gaige wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Raahl wrote:To tell you the truth though brawlers should have been scouts and possibly rogues should have been fighters. <div></div> <hr> </blockquote>This stems from what? Past games, your opinion? What exactly. I see no reason why the brawler classes shouldn't be in the fighter archetype. <div></div><hr></blockquote>The mistake was making the fighter archetype one-dimensional. i.e making Fighter = Tank and only Tank. That is where trying to include both Brawlers and Plates in the same archetype fails. The idea of Tank and only tank really shouldnt have happened until we all diverged down our final chosen path..i,e level 20. We are all still fighters at heart...i.e the main thing we do is "fight" but "fighting" comes in many ways...dishing it out, taking it while others dish it out, etc. <div></div>

MainFra

09-29-2005, 11:58 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gaige wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MainFrame wrote: Who trivialized what? I didn't trivialize anything. I got wiped in all of the level 50+ epic X 4 raids so far. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Last I checked you aren't the only guardian playing. That said sorry you wiped, but plenty of guardians didn't. <HR> Sure I am not the only guardian. Does the fact that a small amount of players playing well justify the huge changes to the game? Some players like to brag and show off the uber loot. But that's just a small percentage of them. The truth is that on any given server, only an extremely small amount of players are winning the level 50+ epic X 4 raids regularly. For 90% of the average players, the end game level 50+ epic X 4 raids were more than challenging already. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Frostborne

09-30-2005, 12:22 AM

<blockquote><hr>Prynn wrote: <blockquote> <hr> BostonFNORD wrote: <div> <blockquote> <hr> Prynn wrote: My advice is to get rid of avoidance altogether for the fighter classes and make Mitigation exactly the same, but I am sure that this is another solution all 5 other fighter classes will hate. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <div></div> <hr> </blockquote>I think it is THE solution. I agree with the OP on the avoidance issue but not that the brawlers need to be moved from the fighter class. There is plenty of room for all of us. They should just make all our mitigation, avoidance, taunting and dps the same. Then the only difference in the classes would be aesthetic and whatever utility we bring to the table. There is no reason any class should have downsides to it, let everyone bring different upsides to the table. This way we will all be able to get the job done on a level playing field and the fighter with the best gear for the situation will be main tanking. Thats balance.</div> <hr> </blockquote> Yes indeed. I would be perfectly happy if they leveled mitigation and avoidance for all 6 fighter classes, and I am talking NO disparity whatsoever. Or alternatively getting rid of avoidance in lieu of mitigation, or getting rid of mitigation in lieu of avoidance and upping the kept value to be exactly the same across fighter classes. Then give Guardians 2 utilities. Such as a heal and/or the ability to take hitpoints from group members instead of giving HP's to group members (because it doesn't work) as well as an invisibility. Then we are talking balance. <div></div><hr></blockquote>/sarcacm Yes, make everyone a generic copy of each other, because it's not like everyone doesn't already look the same in game anyways! Don't forget to ask for the same damage, attack rate, weapon choice, and attack probability rating or we might not get that too! /sarcasm off I'm just being fecitious, don't mind me. <div></div>

Shizzirri

09-30-2005, 12:26 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MainFrame wrote: It's just obvious that putting brawlers in fighter archetype has caused lots of problems for this game. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> How about we make them priests because they can heal? Or mages because they can invis? And what does that have to do with avoidance tanks ruining the game, seriously at least say something like their avoidance shouldn't mean jack on a mob 6 levels higher than them.

Frostborne

09-30-2005, 12:40 AM

<blockquote><hr>Shizzirri wrote: <blockquote> <hr> MainFrame wrote: It's just obvious that putting brawlers in fighter archetype has caused lots of problems for this game. <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> How about we make them priests because they can heal? Or mages because they can invis? And what does that have to do with avoidance tanks ruining the game, seriously at least say something like their avoidance shouldn't mean jack on a mob 6 levels higher than them. <div></div><hr></blockquote> Ding! Correct! And I agree. The issue is avoidance. Avoidance means to me, you are moving around and not trying to get hit. If it was only active while moving say, it would make more sense. It's not evasion, it's avoidance. This makes sense for agility classes that should be moving around, using their speed/snares/roots to avoid getting hit, using ranged damage, and possibly hitting a monster from behind, because they aren't meant to tank, they are meant to avoid. By nature of the name, they were never meant to be hit at directly, and if they are, it's not something they are supposed to be standing there taking. The nature of a plate class fighter means that they do less damage and move slower, thus they need mitigation. They have plate armor, a shield, and a heavy sword, how are they supposed to have high avoidance? They shouldn't. Evasion maybe. That implies they are in combat, but avoidance? No. I think that might be one of the problems with the combat determination being made using that "stat", it's erroneous. If you're avoiding something, you aren't hitting it, you can't avoid AND hit something at the same time can you? It just doesn't make sense. The whole brawler/monk using this value as their ability to tank, makes no sense. Tanking in armor is about trading blows and soaking up damage dealt. Evasion is about dodging blows, and maybe sneaking one in occasionally. The way it is now, one class gets to do both tank, evade, avoid, moreso than any of the other classes. Where's the tradeoff and balance in that?<div></div>

Raahl

09-30-2005, 12:41 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Shizzirri wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MainFrame wrote: It's just obvious that putting brawlers in fighter archetype has caused lots of problems for this game. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> How about we make them priests because they can heal? Or mages because they can invis? And what does that have to do with avoidance tanks ruining the game, seriously at least say something like their avoidance shouldn't mean jack on a mob 6 levels higher than them. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> Cause originally their biggest trait was DPS. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Gaige

09-30-2005, 01:03 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Raahl wrote: Cause originally their biggest trait was DPS. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> Which was broken. Now you want to balance a class based on a broken mechanic? How about stripping mitigation from guardians and balancing them as avoidance tanks, since they tanked via avoidance for 10 months.

Krooner

09-30-2005, 01:15 AM

Well Gaige its no longer broken and now your the super tanks. The choice is simple. If you want to tank then give up some DPS while your in a defensive stance, and not a token 5% You say you want to be fair but your post betray you.

MainFra

09-30-2005, 02:14 AM

Lets just all quit this game. Let the one whoever wants to be super tank to play by himself. Who cares.

dparker7

09-30-2005, 02:36 AM

<DIV>Gaige finally has a good idea. Remove Guards from the fighter archtype, give them their own archtype and then we can remove any concerns about equal DPS and equal tanking. Brilliant!</DIV>

JNewby

09-30-2005, 10:06 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gaige wrote: I'd rather not be a scout, plz and thanx. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> why cause then you could do scout dps guardian tanking and have bard utility? man cant imagine that

JNewby

09-30-2005, 10:12 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gaige wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Raahl wrote: Cause originally their biggest trait was DPS. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> Which was broken. Now you want to balance a class based on a broken mechanic? How about stripping mitigation from guardians and balancing them as avoidance tanks, since they tanked via avoidance for 10 months. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> sorry already been done... still I have yet to hear how brawlers get 300+ dps and can still be as good if not better tanks? with everything else they get.. that is hte bottom line and everyone ducks that question by saying something like quit repeating yourself.. but the main fact is that is nto balance