Are all developers just blind? [Archive] - EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

Danter

09-30-2005, 09:09 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Corvan wrote:<BR><BR>Honestly, just state the facts and chill out. They know there's an imbalance. The fighter revamp is only half-way done. I sincerely doubt they thought they could make all classes tank roughly the same without re-balancing DPS and utility as well. It's a big job though, so a little patience is in order. <BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>I agree with stating the facts and chlling out, this is probably the best strategy for us to be heard. The thing is that I don't think they do know there's an imbalance.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Moorgard posted on here defending Brawlers about how we have "good protection utlity" and also posted elsewhere that they plan to keep avoidance tanking the same. This will make Brawlers better tanks in all encounters that are not raids, which is 95% of the content.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Also Brawlers get 360 degree parry/deflect which is imbalancing just by itself when comparing to fighter's shields (which are only frontal) on 95% of the encounters in game which are aoe, let alone the huge gap mathematically between mitigation and avoidance as of now.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Until I hear Moorgard post and acknowledge that their is a major problem with Guardians due to lack of meaningful utlity, DPS, and tanking disparity; I will continue to fight for rebalancing.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Why should we have patience? We waited months for the combat changes to be tested and just because SOE completely misjudges the time line and slams the 9/7 patch on Test with 4 full days remaining until launch, why should we have to suffer for months until this gets fixed? They had beta testers, test testers, plus their QA team testing these out and it's this incomplete? The whole point of the combat changes were to balance classes. This was supposed to already have been done or very close to being done, but as of right now, the fighter class in particular is no where near balanced. It's even farther apart than before.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The only issues that get fixed immediately are issues affecting xp and loot. Since fully fabled groups could kill orange and red mobs on launch, this gets recognized and fixed immediately. Since Silent City mobs were dropping low tiered fabled items that won't even be useful once T6 raids get going, this gets nerfed immediately. However, when classes have problems, they not only don't address them and give the player base assurance that it's being looked into, they usually flat out ignore them or post that they're evaluating the situation but will take months to fix.</DIV>

Gungo

09-30-2005, 09:19 PM

<DIV> <DIV> <DIV>Danterus wrote:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Until I hear Moorgard post and acknowledge that their is a major problem with Guardians due to lack of meaningful utlity, DPS, and tanking disparity; I will continue to fight for rebalancing.</DIV></DIV> <DIV>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Again, I'm not saying that every subclass is now perfectly balanced and nothing needs to change. There have been some questions lately about guardian utility, and we aren't ignoring those observations. Utility is often situational, and we want to see how all the classes play out for a while before deciding whether something needs to be changed. But I assure you that we're just as prepared to make necessary changes now as we have been since launch.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>All that said though, you may be right that some players will remain bound and determined to only pay attention to two numbers and make all their decisions based on them alone. The only effective way to counter such behavior is through education and experience, and that takes time.</DIV> <P>===========================<BR>Steve Danuser, a.k.a. Moorgard<BR>Game Designer, EverQuest II </P> <P>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _________</P></DIV><p>Message Edited by Gungo on <span class=date_text>09-30-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:20 AM</span>

Danter

09-30-2005, 09:27 PM

<DIV>I read the Moorgard quote before that post and it is very ambigous and doesn't answer anything really. He still hasn't said that there is a problem, he just says that he's examining data. They obviously examined data in Beta and Test, so why the hell is this still in issue? He's calling our utility situational, which clearly isn't true. Situational utility has a use, Guardian's Sphere and Senty never do.</DIV>

Timzil

09-30-2005, 10:05 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gungo wrote:<BR> <DIV> <DIV> <DIV>Danterus wrote:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Until I hear Moorgard post and acknowledge that their is a major problem with Guardians due to lack of meaningful utlity, DPS, and tanking disparity; I will continue to fight for rebalancing.</DIV></DIV> <DIV>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Again, I'm not saying that every subclass is now perfectly balanced and nothing needs to change. There have been some questions lately about guardian utility, and we aren't ignoring those observations. Utility is often situational, and we want to see how all the classes play out for a while before deciding whether something needs to be changed. But I assure you that we're just as prepared to make necessary changes now as we have been since launch.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>All that said though, you may be right that some players will remain bound and determined to only pay attention to two numbers and make all their decisions based on them alone. The only effective way to counter such behavior is through education and experience, and that takes time.</DIV> <P>===========================<BR>Steve Danuser, a.k.a. Moorgard<BR>Game Designer, EverQuest II </P> <P>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _________</P></DIV> <P>Message Edited by Gungo on <SPAN class=date_text>09-30-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>10:20 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>In other words, SOE is going to drag it's feet and hope we eventually accept our inadequecies or reroll. DPS and Mitigation apparently are just more examples of flavor and lore.

MainFra

09-30-2005, 10:15 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> kr8ztwin wrote:<BR> <P>my god quit whining lol. Guards tank great....mit is better....avoidance scales at lvls. I'd never pick a random pick avoid mt <FONT color=#cc0000>on a raid</FONT> over a mit tank...thats like playing blackjack. Sometimes you win....most of the time you lose it all. </P> <P>I do have a guard.....but i must say.....I only read these boards because its like watching grown babies cry.:robottongue:</P> <P> </P> <P>TIP: when you want to get your way in the real world...do you [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot], whine and complain to to ppl or do you actually go with a more productive route?</P> <P><BR></P> <HR> <P>Stop talking about raids!</P> <P>There is nothing named raids to most of us!</P> <P>If you want raid, you go raid. Others are just here for fun. There is no fun for guardians now, you know that as a fact???</P> <P> </P></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

Oneira

09-30-2005, 11:20 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MainFrame wrote:<BR> <DIV>Can't you just see that brawlers can DPS and tank at same time, while guardians can only tank?</DIV> <DIV>Now, who needs a guardian anyway?</DIV> <DIV>Don't tell me we will be equal in end game raids. </DIV> <DIV>I don't play this game anymore, however, even when I did play, the raids were not the game, for more than 90% of the guardians. We don't want to be equal in something which we didn't play.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I don't post on this board out of respect for my lack of knowledge about Guardians, at least in the past, but this constant outcry that Brawlers are now so much better than Guardians in every way and that Guardians suck. . .well I'm sick of it. For several reasons--</P> <P>First, I always read "brawlers" , but then when posters go on and either give stats or relate their observations, 99% their examples are of Bruisers, not Monks. There is usually some line about, "and the same probably is true of Monks too". I don't know whether Bruisers are overpowered or not...i have read many things that lead me not to assume this, but as a 51 Monk who has grouped with 51 Zerkers, Guardians and Paladins and SKs, it seems quite plain to me that all of them close to me in comparison on many counts.</P> <P>The other thing that really bothers me about these threads is that though many of you claim not to be, the fact is you ARE calling for a nerf of the Brawling class while at the same time demanding an upgrade to Guardians. Brawlers (read Bruisers) do too much damage while tanking and we don't, Brawlers have FD and we don't. . . (guess what? we aint' the only ones), Brawlers (read Bruisers) can tank blue ^^^ mobs and we can't (yeah well, I've talked to a number of Bruisers who say that SOME very specific mobs of this kind can be soloed, but against most blue ^^^ they'd get wiped like anybody else), Brawlers have 360 degree avoidance and we don't. But often times the claims border on the unbelievable. Brawlers (read Bruisers) can get almost as high a mitigation as I can . . . .unqualified statements like that are very misleading and ultimately without value. Maybe they can, but at what price? Sure, as a monk I can add over +1000 to my mitigation and be almost as high as a guardian's...of course, i'm also stunned and my DPS drops to zero.</P> <P>And speaking from experience, I was grouped with a 51 guardian last night fighting groups of 52-54^^ and ^^^ heroic faction guards in Maj'Dul. His equipment was nearly tops to be sure, with about half fabled armor and jewelry and a prismatic weapon. He tanked them absolutely no sweat and it was clear that he was better than me. With my deflect buff on him (TV), his avoidance wa 52.5% wheras mine with an adept III Spider Stance was a little over 60%. You draw your own conclusions on how "gimped" he was. Granted, not every 50+ Guardian is going to have 4 or 5 pieces of fabled equipment, but many of them are going to have at least legendary. And yes, his considerably higher mitigation DID make a BIG difference, and his lack of 360 degree avoidance did not hurt him very much at all.</P> <DIV>So to answer the poster's question, who needs a guardian anyway? Well i'll tell you, I do. I'll still take guardians as my preferred tank anytime. But what if I were the tank and the guardian was supporting? Then the Guardians' buffs should be of enough value to make him worth it. Calling for our nerf or insisting that you be the clear #1 tanks again is not fair to the rest of us. </DIV>

Oneira

09-30-2005, 11:31 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Wasuna wrote:<BR> <P>What my complaint is all about is SOE decision to scew tanking towards Avoidance when the entire goal of the combat changes was to equalize tanks.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Your view, which has been repeated by many others, needs to be answered because again, it is misleading. Combat has not been "skewed" toward avoidance. Before the revamp, avoidance didn't mean crap when you faced a ^^^ mob as a tank. If you didn't have good mitagation you were dead. Now avoidance means something. It's value has been increased. But have you ever tried tanking a ^^^ mob that's 4 levels above you with just avoidance and a brawler's mitigation? Well I have. Guess what happens? You get hit ....the attack value of the mob is too high for you to avoid even half the time. And when you get hit, you get hit HARD, and if the mob hits you 3 or 4 times without missing (which is quite possible), you die.</P> <P> </P> <P>Don't tell me avoidance owns mitigation now, please. </P> <P> </P> <P>Contrary to the general opinion here, I think the Devs did a great job balancing..yes balancing...the monk class so that they can tank well with a bit of tactics. It's not all about avoidance being uber now, it's not. What they did was to give us enough stuns and stifles and skills that dispel or ward negative effects (with short duration), that, if you use them wisely, you can do some pretty good tanking. But you also take a risk: stuns and stifles can be resisted and are resisted. As a monk you take a chance.</P> <P>That's as much about judgment, luck, and tactics as it is about sitting back and relying on your avoidance.<BR></P>

MainFra

10-01-2005, 01:17 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Oneira wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MainFrame wrote:<BR> <DIV>Can't you just see that brawlers can DPS and tank at same time, while guardians can only tank?</DIV> <DIV>Now, who needs a guardian anyway?</DIV> <DIV>Don't tell me we will be equal in end game raids.</DIV> <DIV>I don't play this game anymore, however, even when I did play, the raids were not the game, for more than 90% of the guardians. We don't want to be equal in something which we didn't play.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I don't post on this board out of respect for my lack of knowledge about Guardians, at least in the past, but this constant outcry that Brawlers are now so much better than Guardians in every way and that Guardians suck. . .well I'm sick of it. For several reasons--</P> <P>First, I always read "brawlers" , but then when posters go on and either give stats or relate their observations, 99% their examples are of Bruisers, not Monks. There is usually some line about, "and the same probably is true of Monks too". I don't know whether Bruisers are overpowered or not...i have read many things that lead me not to assume this, but as a 51 Monk who has grouped with 51 Zerkers, Guardians and Paladins and SKs, it seems quite plain to me that all of them close to me in comparison on many counts.</P> <P>The other thing that really bothers me about these threads is that though many of you claim not to be, the fact is you ARE calling for a nerf of the Brawling class while at the same time demanding an upgrade to Guardians. Brawlers (read Bruisers) do too much damage while tanking and we don't, Brawlers have FD and we don't. . . (guess what? we aint' the only ones), Brawlers (read Bruisers) can tank blue ^^^ mobs and we can't (yeah well, I've talked to a number of Bruisers who say that SOME very specific mobs of this kind can be soloed, but against most blue ^^^ they'd get wiped like anybody else), Brawlers have 360 degree avoidance and we don't. But often times the claims border on the unbelievable. Brawlers (read Bruisers) can get almost as high a mitigation as I can . . . .unqualified statements like that are very misleading and ultimately without value. Maybe they can, but at what price? Sure, as a monk I can add over +1000 to my mitigation and be almost as high as a guardian's...of course, i'm also stunned and my DPS drops to zero.</P> <P>And speaking from experience, I was grouped with a 51 guardian last night fighting groups of 52-54^^ and ^^^ heroic faction guards in Maj'Dul. His equipment was nearly tops to be sure, with about half fabled armor and jewelry and a prismatic weapon. He tanked them absolutely no sweat and it was clear that he was better than me. With my deflect buff on him (TV), his avoidance wa 52.5% wheras mine with an adept III Spider Stance was a little over 60%. You draw your own conclusions on how "gimped" he was. Granted, not every 50+ Guardian is going to have 4 or 5 pieces of fabled equipment, but many of them are going to have at least legendary. And yes, his considerably higher mitigation DID make a BIG difference, and his lack of 360 degree avoidance did not hurt him very much at all.</P> <DIV>So to answer the poster's question, who needs a guardian anyway? Well i'll tell you, I do. I'll still take guardians as my preferred tank anytime. But what if I were the tank and the guardian was supporting? Then the Guardians' buffs should be of enough value to make him worth it. Calling for our nerf or insisting that you be the clear #1 tanks again is not fair to the rest of us. </DIV> <P><BR></P> <HR> <P>First, want to tell you, if you don't play a guardian, please don't post how good you think guardians are. The fact is, you are not hit by Hurricane Katrina, and you think the people being hit are doing quite well, to your surprise.</P> <P>Do you know that guardians have a complete useless line of spells?</P> <P>Just for your information, the developers intention is that our complete useless spells are equal to paladin's heals, bruisers' DPS and FD, now what do you think?</P> <P>So, for short, if you don't know about something, don't think you know it. Please.</P> <P> </P></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

MainFra

10-01-2005, 01:19 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Oneira wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Wasuna wrote:<BR> <P>What my complaint is all about is SOE decision to scew tanking towards Avoidance when the entire goal of the combat changes was to equalize tanks.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Your view, which has been repeated by many others, needs to be answered because again, it is misleading. Combat has not been "skewed" toward avoidance. Before the revamp, avoidance didn't mean crap when you faced a ^^^ mob as a tank. If you didn't have good mitagation you were dead. Now avoidance means something. It's value has been increased. But have you ever tried tanking a ^^^ mob that's 4 levels above you with just avoidance and a brawler's mitigation? Well I have. Guess what happens? You get hit ....the attack value of the mob is too high for you to avoid even half the time. And when you get hit, you get hit HARD, and <FONT color=#cc0000>if the mob hits you 3 or 4 times without missing (which is quite possible), you die</FONT>.</P> <P>Don't tell me avoidance owns mitigation now, please. </P> <P>Contrary to the general opinion here, I think the Devs did a great job balancing..yes balancing...the monk class so that they can tank well with a bit of tactics. It's not all about avoidance being uber now, it's not. What they did was to give us enough stuns and stifles and skills that dispel or ward negative effects (with short duration), that, if you use them wisely, you can do some pretty good tanking. But you also take a risk: stuns and stifles can be resisted and are resisted. As a monk you take a chance.</P> <P>That's as much about judgment, luck, and tactics as it is about sitting back and relying on your avoidance.<BR></P> <P><BR></P> <HR> <P>Guess what, I am always hit by the mob 3 or 4 times without missing, and I always die.</P> <P>Again, don't assume you know other people's class well than themselves.</P></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

Wasuna

10-01-2005, 01:44 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Oneira wrote:<BR><BR> <P>Your view, which has been repeated by many others, needs to be answered because again, it is misleading. Combat has not been "skewed" toward avoidance. Before the revamp, avoidance didn't mean crap when you faced a ^^^ mob as a tank. If you didn't have good mitagation you were dead. Now avoidance means something. It's value has been increased. But have you ever tried tanking a ^^^ mob that's 4 levels above you with just avoidance and a brawler's mitigation? Well I have. Guess what happens? You get hit ....the attack value of the mob is too high for you to avoid even half the time. And when you get hit, you get hit HARD, and if the mob hits you 3 or 4 times without missing (which is quite possible), you die.</P> <P> </P> <P>Don't tell me avoidance owns mitigation now, please. </P> <P> </P> <P>Contrary to the general opinion here, I think the Devs did a great job balancing..yes balancing...the monk class so that they can tank well with a bit of tactics. It's not all about avoidance being uber now, it's not. What they did was to give us enough stuns and stifles and skills that dispel or ward negative effects (with short duration), that, if you use them wisely, you can do some pretty good tanking. But you also take a risk: stuns and stifles can be resisted and are resisted. As a monk you take a chance.</P> <P>That's as much about judgment, luck, and tactics as it is about sitting back and relying on your avoidance.<BR></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>OK.. just for your education I'll post what Moorgard says about Mitgation and Avidance:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>---------------------------------------------</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Moorgard wrote:</DIV> <DIV> <DIV>Due to this streaky nature, avoidance chance needs to be somewhat higher than mitigation to achieve the same net effect. If a warrior were to have 50% mitigation and 35% avoidance while a brawler had 35% mitigation and 50% avoidance, their tanking would not be seen as comparable by players. Mitigation always wins.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>---------------------------------------------</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The rest of his post is going on about how they justify this logic. The fact of the all of this is that Tanks were tuned for raid encounters so that all fighters would be able to tank equally. Now the problem with that is that Avoidance is streaky. Streaky in exp groups is hardley noticable where as streaky in a raid is a raid wipe. So what does SOE do... they make Avoidance of Avoidance Tanks higher so the streaky nature of MTing raids is acceptable. Now we have Mitigation tanks that are 20-30% less effect in tanking 99% of everything in the game.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Fighters got tuned for raids and to heck with the rest of the game. In regular exp groups Mitigation tanks suck and Moorgard is the one that confirmed this information. Mitigation tanks already were seeing it but he confirmed it.</DIV></DIV>

Corv

10-01-2005, 02:04 AM

<span><blockquote> <div></div><blockquote><hr> Oneira wrote:<p>I don't post on this board out of respect for my lack of knowledge about Guardians, at least in the past, but this constant outcry that Brawlers are now so much better than Guardians in every way and that Guardians suck. . .well I'm sick of it. For several reasons--</p> <p>First, I always read "brawlers" , but then when posters go on and either give stats or relate their observations, 99% their examples are of Bruisers, not Monks. There is usually some line about, "and the same probably is true of Monks too". I don't know whether Bruisers are overpowered or not...i have read many things that lead me not to assume this, but as a 51 Monk who has grouped with 51 Zerkers, Guardians and Paladins and SKs, it seems quite plain to me that all of them close to me in comparison on many counts.</p> <p><font color="#cc00ff">I've grouped with monks my level. In terms of tanking, I'd say I have a slight edge, but I also have significantly more fabled armor than any I've grouped with. The difference is nowhere near what it used to be in any case.</font> </p> <p>The other thing that really bothers me about these threads is that though many of you claim not to be, the fact is you ARE calling for a nerf of the Brawling class while at the same time demanding an upgrade to Guardians. Brawlers (read Bruisers) do too much damage while tanking and we don't, </p> <p><font color="#cc00ff"> You need to parse some fights. Monks currently out-damage many scout classes easily and come close to assasins if they don't use assasinate in a very short fight to skew the numbers. If I'm in full-out DPS mode and an equal level monk with good weapons is tanking, I don't out damage him. On average I do less than 70% of what he does. When our roles reverse he does more than double my damage, because my damage is cut by about 40% when I'm tanking. Monks lose a much smaller portion of their DPS when tanking because they can continue using their DW/2H weapons while tanking effectively. I currently need more gear to do inferior DPS while not-tanking, and can't even come close while tanking. That's not balanced given how close our tanking abilities are. This has also resulted in a significant single-target aggro imbalance. It's easier to hold aggro off of wizards, warlocks, and assasins than monks currently, and that's when they're *not* taunting!</font> </p> <p><font color="#cc00ff">BTW, This appears to be primarily a Guardian and Paladin problem. Zerkers have very decent damage post-revamp. I can't really speak for SK's. </font></p> <p>Brawlers have FD and we don't. . . (guess what? we aint' the only ones), Brawlers (read Bruisers) can tank blue ^^^ mobs and we can't (yeah well, I've talked to a number of Bruisers who say that SOME very specific mobs of this kind can be soloed, but against most blue ^^^ they'd get wiped like anybody else), Brawlers have 360 degree avoidance and we don't. But often times the claims border on the unbelievable. Brawlers (read Bruisers) can get almost as high a mitigation as I can . . . .unqualified statements like that are very misleading and ultimately without value. Maybe they can, but at what price? Sure, as a monk I can add over +1000 to my mitigation and be almost as high as a guardian's...of course, i'm also stunned and my DPS drops to zero. </p> <p><font color="#ff33ff"> Please consider this. You can tank very nearly as well as a Guardian, and perhaps even better in some situations. You out-DPS them significantly in *all* situations. Your mitigation buffs do have drawbacks, but the ammount of mitigation they add puts to shame any buff the #1 mitigation tank has. Regardless of how it balances out in practice, it's conceptually offensive. They really ought to try to achieve the same effect with short-term *avoidance* buffs for brawlers instead. (i.e. No nerf in ability, just change the ability to fit the class's concept better.) On top of that, you get invis, FD, and that insane 100% riposte ability. Monk utility flat-out owns all other fighter sub-classes. Now that they've balanced defense and are presumably looking at offense, utility is next in line. If the defense and offense of all sub-classes is meant to be roughly the same, then I think *all* fighter sub-classes should have utility spells as useful as what Monks have. Is that so very wrong?</font> </p> <p>And speaking from experience, I was grouped with a 51 guardian last night fighting groups of 52-54^^ and ^^^ heroic faction guards in Maj'Dul. His equipment was nearly tops to be sure, with about half fabled armor and jewelry and a prismatic weapon. He tanked them absolutely no sweat and it was clear that he was better than me. With my deflect buff on him (TV), his avoidance wa 52.5% wheras mine with an adept III Spider Stance was a little over 60%. You draw your own conclusions on how "gimped" he was. Granted, not every 50+ Guardian is going to have 4 or 5 pieces of fabled equipment, but many of them are going to have at least legendary. And yes, his considerably higher mitigation DID make a BIG difference, and his lack of 360 degree avoidance did not hurt him very much at all. </p> <p><font color="#ff33ff">Did you try tanking? I think you'd be surprised at just how well you'd do. Try parsing some fights and you see that the huge tanking disparity you still think is there has pretty much vanished. </font> </p> <div>So to answer the poster's question, who needs a guardian anyway? Well i'll tell you, I do. I'll still take guardians as my preferred tank anytime. But what if I were the tank and the guardian was supporting? Then the Guardians' buffs should be of enough value to make him worth it. Calling for our nerf or insisting that you be the clear #1 tanks again is not fair to the rest of us. <font color="#cc00ff">All tanks have very similar tanking ability. Not all tanks have similar DPS or utility. If you don't see a problem there, then there's not much I can say.</font> </div> <hr></blockquote> <div></div> </blockquote></span><div></div>

ChrisRay

10-01-2005, 03:54 AM

One thing that really needs to be considered when comparing brawler DPS to scout DPS. There is "Burst" damage and sustained damage. Scout have very low refresh timers on most of their attacks. Paticularly my bard which has reload timers of about 10 seconds on most attacks. Brawlers have "High" recast timers on all their abilities. Brawlers for sure have really great burst damage but their sustained damage is lower than even my bard in most fights that last more than 30 seconds. Whether this is balanced. I dont know. But you can take any fight and say "They have highest DPS" Wizards can burst huge amounts of damage on a single target but it doesnt give an accurate reflection to overall DPS. Dont forget that when comparing DPS there is a significant difference betweem burst damage and sustained damage.

MainFra

10-01-2005, 04:06 AM

<DIV><SPAN>Brawlers have innate auto attack damage bonus. Talking about long recast timer, guardians have all of their CAs timed at least 30s - 1 min.</SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN>It's just ridiculous that SOE thinks it's uber important to balance tanking abilitiles, while leaving DPS untouched. </SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN>Why should guardians do the least DPS? Give me one justifiable reason.</SPAN></DIV>

Tridyed

10-01-2005, 04:06 AM

<P>Well no matter what they claim, they are ignoring the class totally. I am a Necromancer and I do get to stand behind the fight and watch whats going on with this new melee combat change. What seems to bother me the most is the way the devs in here just act like hey it's what THEY want to see happen. </P> <P>Well I got news for them .... unless EQ2 staff is big enough to pay the bills it won't be long till eq2 is dust in the wind. The devs need to realize that just because some dev wants his class to be the uber tank and hell with what customers want is sure to kill it. Any one who sells to the public and then ignores what the public asks for is dead in the water. The fact that one dev has said there will be no going back , no options and to bad if your a Guardian is just trying to ruin the game, not help it.</P> <P>This game is supported by us not the devs... I'm kinda guessing the they don't pay one penny to play and then go back and make their class the uber tanks. IT just reeks of bias. And with the postings they are making it looks like they don't care if we stay or not.</P> <P>Giving the Bruisers and Monks all the stuff they did and didn't take any thing away from them and then stuck a huge [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] sword into the Guardians just proves that the devs don't have one clue as to what their player base wants. Maybe the idea is to keep losing enough % of the market till its only the devs left and then they can come here and go ... "see everyone that's here playing does like the new system, we told ya". </P> <P><EM><FONT color=#ff0033>If you don' think this is true go check out what % of the market they had vs what they have right now. Why are there no listing for server populations on the servers.... everyone I see now days no matter what time of the day say light load. Where are all the players? They used to be here .. wher did they go? Do a /who <class> for each class and do the math. We are losing many many players.</FONT></EM></P> <P>Any company that would be blind enough to ignore their player base and make things so obviously wrong balance wise will get what they deserve. That being said I wish it was getting fixed, I do think the game LOOKS great but there are way to many things wrong and they just keep selling us more exp packs and don't fix the problems that were already there and then bring in new ones.</P> <P>My class is ok for now but im sure since we can actually solo a bit they will give that to the monks and bruisers and say that its not fair that casters get spells and the monks and bruisers need them to be a viable class.</P> <P>We all put our cash forward because they claimed they were fixing the problems with balance and now we see that ... well they didnt even get close and to me it looks like they made most things worse.No way a plate class, with the weapons we have in this game, should be the crap tank of the bunch.</P> <P>I would suggest that in a few months when they come asking for more cash for the next exp pack that we all just not buy it. If you want sony's attention then hit them where it gets their attention, <STRONG><FONT color=#ff0033>THE POCKET BOOK</FONT></STRONG>, if people don't buy it next time I will bet that will force a change in the attitudes of the current devs real fast. We can argue till we are blue in the face and if the devs want thier class to be the S**T then its going to be that way till the cash flow starts dropping then it will change. Probably with a new dev team that actually listens to players and not what THEY think mightsell. Your player base is here and you have shut the doors in their face and it won't work for long.</P> <P>I would also challenge them to play a guardian to 60 and lets hear how great they are after that amount of fun ... </P> <P>What about it devs .. tell us all what server and names so we can all come and watch how wrong we all are here. <STRONG><FONT color=#ff0033>COME PROVE US WRONG.</FONT></STRONG></P> <P> </P>

ChrisRay

10-01-2005, 04:17 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MainFrame wrote:<BR> <DIV><SPAN>Brawlers have innate auto attack damage bonus. Talking about long recast timer, guardians have all of their CAs timed at least 30s - 1 min.</SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN>It's just ridiculous that SOE thinks it's uber important to balance tanking abilitiles, while leaving DPS untouched. </SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN>Why should guardians do the least DPS? Give me one justifiable reason.</SPAN></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I was comparing scout to brawler. A comparison which was brought up. Anyone with a lick of sense knows that brawlers out damage guardians. So instead of defensive rhetoric posts. Try and pay attention next time.

MainFra

10-01-2005, 04:39 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> ChrisRay wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MainFrame wrote:<BR> <DIV><SPAN>Brawlers have innate auto attack damage bonus. Talking about long recast timer, guardians have all of their CAs timed at least 30s - 1 min.</SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN>It's just ridiculous that SOE thinks it's uber important to balance tanking abilitiles, while leaving DPS untouched. </SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN>Why should guardians do the least DPS? Give me one justifiable reason.</SPAN></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR><FONT color=#cc0000>I was comparing scout to brawler</FONT>. A comparison which was brought up. Anyone with a lick of sense knows that brawlers out damage guardians. So instead of defensive rhetoric posts. Try and pay attention next time. <P><BR></P> <HR> <P>This is a board talking about guardians. We all know that you were comparing scouts to brawlers. There is no need to do that. If the brawlers are doing sufficient damages that you need compare them to scouts, then there is definitely something wrong about the brawlers. Can't you see that?</P> <P> </P> <P> </P></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

MainFra

10-01-2005, 04:43 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Tridyed wrote:<BR> <P>Well no matter what they claim, they are ignoring the class totally. I am a Necromancer and I do get to stand behind the fight and watch whats going on with this new melee combat change. What seems to bother me the most is the way the devs in here just act like hey it's what THEY want to see happen.</P> <P>Well I got news for them .... unless EQ2 staff is big enough to pay the bills it won't be long till eq2 is dust in the wind. The devs need to realize that just because some dev wants his class to be the uber tank and hell with what customers want is sure to kill it. Any one who sells to the public and then ignores what the public asks for is dead in the water. The fact that one dev has said there will be no going back , no options and to bad if your a Guardian is just trying to ruin the game, not help it.</P> <P>This game is supported by us not the devs... I'm kinda guessing the they don't pay one penny to play and then go back and make their class the uber tanks. IT just reeks of bias. And with the postings they are making it looks like they don't care if we stay or not.</P> <P>Giving the Bruisers and Monks all the stuff they did and didn't take any thing away from them and then stuck a huge [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] sword into the Guardians just proves that the devs don't have one clue as to what their player base wants. Maybe the idea is to keep losing enough % of the market till its only the devs left and then they can come here and go ... "see everyone that's here playing does like the new system, we told ya".</P> <P><EM><FONT color=#ff0033>If you don' think this is true go check out what % of the market they had vs what they have right now. Why are there no listing for server populations on the servers.... everyone I see now days no matter what time of the day say light load. Where are all the players? They used to be here .. wher did they go? Do a /who for each class and do the math. We are losing many many players.</FONT></EM></P> <P>Any company that would be blind enough to ignore their player base and make things so obviously wrong balance wise will get what they deserve. That being said I wish it was getting fixed, I do think the game LOOKS great but there are way to many things wrong and they just keep selling us more exp packs and don't fix the problems that were already there and then bring in new ones.</P> <P>My class is ok for now but im sure since we can actually solo a bit they will give that to the monks and bruisers and say that its not fair that casters get spells and the monks and bruisers need them to be a viable class.</P> <P>We all put our cash forward because they claimed they were fixing the problems with balance and now we see that ... well they didnt even get close and to me it looks like they made most things worse.No way a plate class, with the weapons we have in this game, should be the crap tank of the bunch.</P> <P>I would suggest that in a few months when they come asking for more cash for the next exp pack that we all just not buy it. If you want sony's attention then hit them where it gets their attention, <STRONG><FONT color=#ff0033>THE POCKET BOOK</FONT></STRONG>, if people don't buy it next time I will bet that will force a change in the attitudes of the current devs real fast. We can argue till we are blue in the face and if the devs want thier class to be the S**T then its going to be that way till the cash flow starts dropping then it will change. Probably with a new dev team that actually listens to players and not what THEY think mightsell. Your player base is here and you have shut the doors in their face and it won't work for long.</P> <P>I would also challenge them to play a guardian to 60 and lets hear how great they are after that amount of fun ...</P> <P>What about it devs .. tell us all what server and names so we can all come and watch how wrong we all are here. <STRONG><FONT color=#ff0033>COME PROVE US WRONG.</FONT></STRONG></P> <P> </P> <P><BR></P> <HR> <P>This is an excellent post, Tridyed. I actually read every word of it.</P> <P>SOE really needs to hear what customers are complaining about. SONY is going to cut its number of employees significantly, and I am wondering if the bat is not hitting SOE.</P></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

ChrisRay

10-01-2005, 05:24 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR></P> <HR> <P>This is a board talking about guardians. We all know that you were comparing scouts to brawlers. There is no need to do that. If the brawlers are doing sufficient damages that you need compare them to scouts, then there is definitely something wrong about the brawlers. Can't you see that?</P> <P> </P> <P> </P></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>The post <STRONG>above </STRONG>mine was talking about scout damage to brawler damage. My reply was directly related to it. I wasnt any less on topic than they were. Your point was irrelevent to what was being discussed.</DIV>

NighthawkX

10-01-2005, 06:13 AM

<P>I have both a monk and a troubador in the mid 30's and its not even a close comparison, specially in a group of 6 my troubador flat out burys the monk in his group damage potential. My troubador can easily get 3 or 4 times the amount of damage out in a group as my monk. The only place the damage gets close is while soloing single targets, than my troubador is only about 1.5 times as much as the monk. Now I will say before combat upgrade yes the monk did often outdamage the troubador. Than again my troubador before cu could tank about as well as the monk. Now my troubador doesn't even come close to the monks tanking ability. But don't even try to put them in the same damage catagory as its no comparison. A scout trying to do damage any of them will simply blow a monk out of the water in damage after revamp.</P> <P> </P> <P>Now I know a few of you will try and use one of the dps caculators to try and show where a monk outdamaged a troubador. In a group of 3 or 4 casters and troubador and monk and whatever, troubador could litterally sit their and never cast swing showing he did 0.0 dps yet he still provided more dps to the group than the monk.</P> <P>I support guardians getting some usefull utility, don't count out some you have but a little more in the protective fields, I have seen some elsewhere I thought fit. But unfortunately many of you don't want that, you want brawlers canned and people demanding to have you their and brawlers sitting the bench(not all of you but some do).</P> <P>Before revamp Guardians, Templers, Paladins, and Rangers made up about 75% of the server. It was not unusual to do a /who guardian and get over 100 than do a /who monk get 20 /who bruiser and get 10. That tells me their was something majorly wrong going on their without even playing them. Now afterwords its a little closer. Guardians on average when i check only about 2 to 3 times as many. </P>

ChrisRay

10-01-2005, 06:47 AM

<DIV>Thats pretty much my sentiments too. My troubador is in low 40's and my Brawler is in high 30's and I can pretty much safely say my troubador sustained DPS is significantly higher. The brawler "Does" put out significant short term damage. Which can be misleading to the overall DPS a troubador offers over brawlers. Again this has nothing to do with guardians other than the fact that people are mis representing the classes in over all capabilities.</DIV>

MainFra

10-01-2005, 07:14 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> NighthawkX wrote:<BR> <P>I have both a monk and a troubador in the mid 30's and its not even a close comparison, specially in a group of 6 my troubador flat out burys the monk in his group damage potential. My troubador can easily get 3 or 4 times the amount of damage out in a group as my monk. The only place the damage gets close is while soloing single targets, than my troubador is only about 1.5 times as much as the monk. Now I will say before combat upgrade yes the monk did often outdamage the troubador. Than again my troubador before cu could tank about as well as the monk. Now my troubador doesn't even come close to the monks tanking ability. But don't even try to put them in the same damage catagory as its no comparison. A scout trying to do damage any of them will simply blow a monk out of the water in damage after revamp.</P> <P> </P> <P>Now I know a few of you will try and use one of the dps caculators to try and show where a monk outdamaged a troubador. In a group of 3 or 4 casters and troubador and monk and whatever, troubador could litterally sit their and never cast swing showing he did 0.0 dps yet he still provided more dps to the group than the monk.</P> <P>I support guardians getting some usefull utility, don't count out some you have but a little more in the protective fields, I have seen some elsewhere I thought fit. But unfortunately many of you don't want that, you want brawlers canned and people demanding to have you their and brawlers sitting the bench(not all of you but some do).</P> <P><FONT color=#cc0000>Before revamp Guardians, Templers, Paladins, and Rangers made up about 75% of the server</FONT>. It was not unusual to do a /who guardian and get over 100 than do a /who monk get 20 /who bruiser and get 10. That tells me their was something majorly wrong going on their without even playing them. <FONT color=#cc0000>Now afterwords its a little closer</FONT>. Guardians on average when i check only about 2 to 3 times as many.</P> <P><BR></P> <HR> <P>Trying to bring the number of players of every class to equal by huge nerfing is just stupid.</P> <P>I always play plate tank classes in all games. And this is true for many other players. The images of scout, healer or monks just dont fit me. If you think the plate tank classes are overpowered because lots of players are playing them, then you are just plainly wrong.</P> <P>Plate tank classes were never overpowered, and didn't deserve the huge nerfs in this combat revamp.</P> <P>The numbers are closer now, mostly because people don't like the weirdness of SOE. If you think you can give bruisers or monks lots of goodies and ask me to play them, you will never make it.</P></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

JNewby

10-01-2005, 10:28 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> kr8ztwin wrote:<BR> <P>my god quit whining lol. Guards tank great....mit is better....avoidance scales at lvls. I'd never pick a random pick avoid mt on a raid over a mit tank...thats like playing blackjack. Sometimes you win....most of the time you lose it all. </P> <P>I do have a guard.....but i must say.....I only read these boards because its like watching grown babies cry.:robottongue:</P> <P> </P> <P>TIP: when you want to get your way in the real world...do you [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot], whine and complain to to ppl or do you actually go with a more productive route?</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>yeah cept mit def has been big time nerfed plus guards were nerfed at same time brawlers nurfed in dps avoidance and mit.. to the point they have same mit as guards</P> <P> </P> <p>Message Edited by JNewby on <span class=date_text>10-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:38 AM</span>

NighthawkX

10-01-2005, 10:33 AM

<P>Actually tanks were way overpowered before revamp, and so were monks and bruisers. Scouts didn't hold a candle to them and were not desired. If you didn't see it than you are just blind to your own class. As far as the tanks themselves I am not mentioning all plate tanks, why were shadowknights not as popular, why not berserkers their plate tanks. The reason is the view overall from the populous which actually still exists is that Guardians are the best tank. And actually you still are the best tank in most situations. You are better at white+ heroics and epics, maybe not against solo creatures but nonone has problems their anyways. Only area you will get overpicked is if its an epic that has a massive amount of a certain type of damage. To expect to be the best always is wrong period.</P> <P>As for nerfs all the tanks were nerfed includeing bruisers and monks. Every class has been eating dirt way more now than it was before, granted I and some others view this as added challenge to overcome where some don't like it(personal preference to each his own, I tend to like to have to work for rewards vs just being rewarded because its time)</P> <P>As for expecting you to pick another class I don't expect you to. If you like your class's style and cosmetics fine, everyone has their preferences as to what they like. But if you pick a class because you expect it to be the best that is wrong. Unfortunately many play the game always trying to pick the best character type and these people usually end up with a dissapointment eventually. Most will keep playing the class as before some will start playing there alts more till it becomes there main. It still doesn't change the fact that if there is more than 10 times as many playing one class as there is another than more than likely there is more problems than just cosmetics.</P> <P>Now after all that I like guardians and feel they should excell defensively and protectively, self and group, heck best taunts. Giveing group hp and mitigation doesn't mean you are not doing your job, ever noticed how many more of them do aoe's and things like assault, you just lessoned all those scouts what damage they took and you were doing your job. And unfortunately even the best tank has times where an add hits, you may of just helped your healer live a few seconds longer while you taunted it off.</P> <P>I also get tired of listening to people who give arguments who discount all there advantages and trumpet up someone elses advantages as being more than what they are or heck pooling them all together as if some class really got them all. And no not pointing to any paticular class or person as actually there are tons on every board that do this stuff and I laugh at them all regardless of class.</P> <P>To help your class get examples and ideas that will make it better and give reasons examples as to why they are needed. Just saying we should be best, or its no fair someone else has more won't work. And in fact I usually see people like this as well on all the different boards and to those I commend them regardless of class.</P> <P>As for damage I feel brawlers should only have a slight lead and mostly requiring there offensive stance and addition of group offensive buffs. Where Guardians and Paladins should have a slight lead defensively but mostly requiring there defensive stance and defensive group buffs. Berserkers and shadowknights in the middle. And in my oppinion its pretty much there on the defensive side, not sure about offensively seems like Guardians and paladins might be a tad behind the eight ball.</P> <p>Message Edited by NighthawkX on <span class=date_text>09-30-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:39 PM</span>

Oneira

10-01-2005, 08:21 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Corvan wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Oneira wrote:<BR> <P><BR>I don't post on this board out of respect for my lack of knowledge about Guardians, at least in the past, but this constant outcry that Brawlers are now so much better than Guardians in every way and that Guardians suck. . .well I'm sick of it. For several reasons--</P> <P>First, I always read "brawlers" , but then when posters go on and either give stats or relate their observations, 99% their examples are of Bruisers, not Monks. There is usually some line about, "and the same probably is true of Monks too". I don't know whether Bruisers are overpowered or not...i have read many things that lead me not to assume this, but as a 51 Monk who has grouped with 51 Zerkers, Guardians and Paladins and SKs, it seems quite plain to me that all of them close to me in comparison on many counts.</P> <P><FONT color=#cc00ff>I've grouped with monks my level. In terms of tanking, I'd say I have a slight edge, but I also have significantly more fabled armor than any I've grouped with. The difference is nowhere near what it used to be in any case.</FONT></P><FONT color=#cc00ff></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE><FONT color=#ffff00>You say they have a slight edge. In what sense do we have this edge? </FONT> <P><BR></P> <P>The other thing that really bothers me about these threads is that though many of you claim not to be, the fact is you ARE calling for a nerf of the Brawling class while at the same time demanding an upgrade to Guardians. Brawlers (read Bruisers) do too much damage while tanking and we don't,<BR></P> <P><FONT color=#cc00ff> You need to parse some fights. Monks currently out-damage many scout classes easily and come close to assasins if they don't use assasinate in a very short fight to skew the numbers. If I'm in full-out DPS mode and an equal level monk with good weapons is tanking, I don't out damage him. On average I do less than 70% of what he does. When our roles reverse he does more than double my damage, because my damage is cut by about 40% when I'm tanking. Monks lose a much smaller portion of their DPS when tanking because they can continue using their DW/2H weapons while tanking effectively. I currently need more gear to do inferior DPS while not-tanking, and can't even come close while tanking. That's not balanced given how close our tanking abilities are. This has also resulted in a significant single-target aggro imbalance. It's easier to hold aggro off of wizards, warlocks, and assasins than monks currently, and that's when they're *not* taunting!</FONT><BR></P> <P><FONT color=#cc00ff>BTW, This appears to be primarily a Guardian and Paladin problem. Zerkers have very decent damage post-revamp. I can't really speak for SK's.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#cc00ff><FONT color=#ffff00>Indeed, parsing fights would be important as partial evidence. That Monks outdamage many scout classes and come close to assassins in DPS I find difficult to believe. I cannot give you hard evidence on that, because I do not have a parser--and parsers do not provide conclusive evidence by the way. I can only tell you what I notice when playing my Monk. I regularly group with a Ranger, and when he uses his bow and stealth attacks, there's no way I can match his DPS. No way. With all group buffs on for STR bonuses, my two best attacks (which are on a 30-second timer, one being Master II and the other Adept III), do about mid 500's for damage. A Swashie 1 level above me was also doing excellent DPS when I grouped with him last night.</FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#cc00ff><FONT color=#ffff00>I will agree with you that Monks probably lose less DPS than tanking than Guardians do. Although I'm not sure the discrepancy is quite that much, since we get the same stuns and knockdowns that you get. The dual-wield allows us to do more DPS, but also brings with it the consequence of more riposte attacks from the mob...unless that has changed.</FONT><BR><BR></FONT></P> <P>Brawlers have FD and we don't. . . (guess what? we aint' the only ones), Brawlers (read Bruisers) can tank blue ^^^ mobs and we can't (yeah well, I've talked to a number of Bruisers who say that SOME very specific mobs of this kind can be soloed, but against most blue ^^^ they'd get wiped like anybody else), Brawlers have 360 degree avoidance and we don't. But often times the claims border on the unbelievable. Brawlers (read Bruisers) can get almost as high a mitigation as I can . . . .unqualified statements like that are very misleading and ultimately without value. Maybe they can, but at what price? Sure, as a monk I can add over +1000 to my mitigation and be almost as high as a guardian's...of course, i'm also stunned and my DPS drops to zero.<BR></P> <P><FONT color=#ff33ff> Please consider this. You can tank very nearly as well as a Guardian, and perhaps even better in some situations. You out-DPS them significantly in *all* situations. Your mitigation buffs do have drawbacks, but the ammount of mitigation they add puts to shame any buff the #1 mitigation tank has. Regardless of how it balances out in practice, it's conceptually offensive. They really ought to try to achieve the same effect with short-term *avoidance* buffs for brawlers instead. (i.e. No nerf in ability, just change the ability to fit the class's concept better.) On top of that, you get invis, FD, and that insane 100% riposte ability. Monk utility flat-out owns all other fighter sub-classes. Now that they've balanced defense and are presumably looking at offense, utility is next in line. If the defense and offense of all sub-classes is meant to be roughly the same, then I think *all* fighter sub-classes should have utility spells as useful as what Monks have. Is that so very wrong?</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>OF all the things you claim here, the one thing I agree with is that Monk utility is excellent and Guardian utility needs to be improved. We have 2 mitigation buffs. One is Stone stance which gets an upgrade at 54. I don't know what the adept III 54 skill looks like, but the adept III stone stance adds something in the +1100 range. When activated, you are stunned for the duration and cannot attack, taunt, or move. The other is Facing the Mountain which upgrades again at 54. Adept III on this gives you +350 mitigation and roots the caster. Are these unbalanced? </FONT><BR></P> <P>And speaking from experience, I was grouped with a 51 guardian last night fighting groups of 52-54^^ and ^^^ heroic faction guards in Maj'Dul. His equipment was nearly tops to be sure, with about half fabled armor and jewelry and a prismatic weapon. He tanked them absolutely no sweat and it was clear that he was better than me. With my deflect buff on him (TV), his avoidance wa 52.5% wheras mine with an adept III Spider Stance was a little over 60%. You draw your own conclusions on how "gimped" he was. Granted, not every 50+ Guardian is going to have 4 or 5 pieces of fabled equipment, but many of them are going to have at least legendary. And yes, his considerably higher mitigation DID make a BIG difference, and his lack of 360 degree avoidance did not hurt him very much at all.<BR></P> <P><FONT color=#ff33ff>Did you try tanking? I think you'd be surprised at just how well you'd do. Try parsing some fights and you see that the huge tanking disparity you still think is there has pretty much vanished. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Yes, I was tanking 54 and 55^^ and ^^^ last night. Using a defensive stance I was doing pretty well with 2 healers. But the SK in the party also did some tanking and he did a comparable job. However, the same thing still applied. Now and then I would take spike damage because my mitigation was a bit lower than a plate tank.</FONT><BR></P> <DIV>So to answer the poster's question, who needs a guardian anyway? Well i'll tell you, I do. I'll still take guardians as my preferred tank anytime. But what if I were the tank and the guardian was supporting? Then the Guardians' buffs should be of enough value to make him worth it. Calling for our nerf or insisting that you be the clear #1 tanks again is not fair to the rest of us.<BR><BR><FONT color=#cc00ff>All tanks have very similar tanking ability. Not all tanks have similar DPS or utility. If you don't see a problem there, then there's not much I can say.</FONT></DIV><FONT color=#cc00ff></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><BR></DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BR></BLOCKQUOTE></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

Oneira

10-01-2005, 08:22 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MainFrame wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Oneira wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Wasuna wrote:<BR> <P>What my complaint is all about is SOE decision to scew tanking towards Avoidance when the entire goal of the combat changes was to equalize tanks.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Your view, which has been repeated by many others, needs to be answered because again, it is misleading. Combat has not been "skewed" toward avoidance. Before the revamp, avoidance didn't mean crap when you faced a ^^^ mob as a tank. If you didn't have good mitagation you were dead. Now avoidance means something. It's value has been increased. But have you ever tried tanking a ^^^ mob that's 4 levels above you with just avoidance and a brawler's mitigation? Well I have. Guess what happens? You get hit ....the attack value of the mob is too high for you to avoid even half the time. And when you get hit, you get hit HARD, and <FONT color=#cc0000>if the mob hits you 3 or 4 times without missing (which is quite possible), you die</FONT>.</P> <P>Don't tell me avoidance owns mitigation now, please. </P> <P>Contrary to the general opinion here, I think the Devs did a great job balancing..yes balancing...the monk class so that they can tank well with a bit of tactics. It's not all about avoidance being uber now, it's not. What they did was to give us enough stuns and stifles and skills that dispel or ward negative effects (with short duration), that, if you use them wisely, you can do some pretty good tanking. But you also take a risk: stuns and stifles can be resisted and are resisted. As a monk you take a chance.</P> <P>That's as much about judgment, luck, and tactics as it is about sitting back and relying on your avoidance.<BR></P> <P><BR></P> <HR> <P>Guess what, I am always hit by the mob 3 or 4 times without missing, and I always die.</P> <P>Again, don't assume you know other people's class well than themselves.</P></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR><FONT color=#ffff00>That is a two-way street, because a lot of claims are being made about the abilities of brawlers in this thread.</FONT>

Oneira

10-01-2005, 08:35 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MainFrame wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Oneira wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MainFrame wrote:<BR> <DIV>Can't you just see that brawlers can DPS and tank at same time, while guardians can only tank?</DIV> <DIV>Now, who needs a guardian anyway?</DIV> <DIV>Don't tell me we will be equal in end game raids.</DIV> <DIV>I don't play this game anymore, however, even when I did play, the raids were not the game, for more than 90% of the guardians. We don't want to be equal in something which we didn't play.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I don't post on this board out of respect for my lack of knowledge about Guardians, at least in the past, but this constant outcry that Brawlers are now so much better than Guardians in every way and that Guardians suck. . .well I'm sick of it. For several reasons--</P> <P>First, I always read "brawlers" , but then when posters go on and either give stats or relate their observations, 99% their examples are of Bruisers, not Monks. There is usually some line about, "and the same probably is true of Monks too". I don't know whether Bruisers are overpowered or not...i have read many things that lead me not to assume this, but as a 51 Monk who has grouped with 51 Zerkers, Guardians and Paladins and SKs, it seems quite plain to me that all of them close to me in comparison on many counts.</P> <P>The other thing that really bothers me about these threads is that though many of you claim not to be, the fact is you ARE calling for a nerf of the Brawling class while at the same time demanding an upgrade to Guardians. Brawlers (read Bruisers) do too much damage while tanking and we don't, Brawlers have FD and we don't. . . (guess what? we aint' the only ones), Brawlers (read Bruisers) can tank blue ^^^ mobs and we can't (yeah well, I've talked to a number of Bruisers who say that SOME very specific mobs of this kind can be soloed, but against most blue ^^^ they'd get wiped like anybody else), Brawlers have 360 degree avoidance and we don't. But often times the claims border on the unbelievable. Brawlers (read Bruisers) can get almost as high a mitigation as I can . . . .unqualified statements like that are very misleading and ultimately without value. Maybe they can, but at what price? Sure, as a monk I can add over +1000 to my mitigation and be almost as high as a guardian's...of course, i'm also stunned and my DPS drops to zero.</P> <P>And speaking from experience, I was grouped with a 51 guardian last night fighting groups of 52-54^^ and ^^^ heroic faction guards in Maj'Dul. His equipment was nearly tops to be sure, with about half fabled armor and jewelry and a prismatic weapon. He tanked them absolutely no sweat and it was clear that he was better than me. With my deflect buff on him (TV), his avoidance wa 52.5% wheras mine with an adept III Spider Stance was a little over 60%. You draw your own conclusions on how "gimped" he was. Granted, not every 50+ Guardian is going to have 4 or 5 pieces of fabled equipment, but many of them are going to have at least legendary. And yes, his considerably higher mitigation DID make a BIG difference, and his lack of 360 degree avoidance did not hurt him very much at all.</P> <DIV>So to answer the poster's question, who needs a guardian anyway? Well i'll tell you, I do. I'll still take guardians as my preferred tank anytime. But what if I were the tank and the guardian was supporting? Then the Guardians' buffs should be of enough value to make him worth it. Calling for our nerf or insisting that you be the clear #1 tanks again is not fair to the rest of us. </DIV> <P><BR></P> <HR> <P>First, want to tell you, if you don't play a guardian, please don't post how good you think guardians are. The fact is, you are not hit by Hurricane Katrina, and you think the people being hit are doing quite well, to your surprise.</P> <P>Do you know that guardians have a complete useless line of spells?</P> <P>Just for your information, the developers intention is that our complete useless spells are equal to paladin's heals, bruisers' DPS and FD, now what do you think?</P> <P>So, for short, if you don't know about something, don't think you know it. Please.</P> <P> </P></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I came here and posted because of the claims that were being made about Brawlers and their abilities. I did not say how good or not good guardians were as a class. I related my observations on the tanking issue. That Guardian utility skills that relate to protecting the party, like increasing mitigation, etc. should be improved is something that seems reasonable.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>As I mentioned to another poster, the "Don't Know" argument is a two-way street. Most of you do not play either a monk or bruiser I'll bet, but like me, you group with players who do and you observe what they can do. To say that guardian tanking is now no better than a brawler tanking is the issue, and specifically, the issue of taking damage. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Nowhere did I say that Guardians are just fine as whole and should not be changed. I do think their utility needs improvement. In other words, the contribution of a Guardian to the group has to be greater than just simply tanking, since there is more parity in tanking now. My opinion? Guardians should be slightly better tanks than the rest. Not much, but slightly. And not in all situations. </FONT><BR></P>

Corv

10-02-2005, 12:31 AM

<div></div><div></div><div></div> <span> <blockquote><blockquote><span><blockquote> <div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Oneira wrote: <p></p><font color="#ffff00">You say they have a slight edge. In what sense do we have this edge? </font> <p><font color="#ff33cc">I said guardians have a slight edge. To clarify, I'd say it's in terms of spike damage soaking only, *not* aggro holding capability. (see below)</font> </p><font color="#cc00ff"><font color="#ffff00">Indeed, parsing fights would be important as partial evidence. That Monks outdamage many scout classes and come close to assassins in DPS I find difficult to believe. <font color="#ff00cc">Inititially I found it hard to believe too, but it is true. I grouped with a brawler last night and he out-damaged the wizard, warlock, brigand, and assasin that we had in the group consistently, and frequently by ridiculous margins *while* he was *tanking*. I couldn't even touch him while going balls-out offensive with a fabled 2H'er.</font> I cannot give you hard evidence on that, because I do not have a parser--and parsers do not provide conclusive evidence by the way. I can only tell you what I notice when playing my Monk. I regularly group with a Ranger, and when he uses his bow and stealth attacks, there's no way I can match his DPS. No way. <font color="#ff33cc">I trust my parses more than your vague impressions, sorry.</font> With all group buffs on for STR bonuses, my two best attacks (which are on a 30-second timer, one being Master II and the other Adept III), do about mid 500's for damage. A Swashie 1 level above me was also doing excellent DPS when I grouped with him last night. <font color="#ff33cc">Guardians have an attack that does over 1000 damage with a minute recast. People see it and go, "Wow, nice DPS!" Well, the largest attack a class has is very misleading. Again, I must stress that you need to do some parsing. Go pick up Combatstats <a href="http://www.combatstats.com/" target="_blank">here</a>. It's free. Use it.</font> </font></font> <p><font color="#cc00ff"><font color="#ffff00">I will agree with you that Monks probably lose less DPS than tanking than Guardians do. Although I'm not sure the discrepancy is quite that much, since we get the same stuns and knockdowns that you get. The dual-wield allows us to do more DPS, but also brings with it the consequence of more riposte attacks from the mob...unless that has changed.</font></font></p> <p><font color="#cc00ff"><font color="#ff33cc">Some of the best bruiser weapons are *slow* two-handers such as the Royal Great Flail. Those attack much slower than any 1H weapon I've seen, so brawlers using one to tank can take significantly less riposte damage than Guardians. Dual Wield weapons are probably not the best choice when you're tanking.</font> </font></p> <font color="#ff00cc">Oh, and just in case you don't trust my parses, here are my vague impressions. At *one* point in the evening we decided to try having the bruiser do DPS just to see what he was capable of. His numbers were, astonishing. They went up far more than I expected. However, his aggro was even more amazing. I pulled, threw up my reactive taunt, and spammed every CA and taunt I had as it refreshed. Adds stayed on me, but the moment the bruiser started attacking a mob he ripped aggro off me like it was nothing. He wasn't taunting. It was just raw DPS. Our conclusion was that it was pointless to have me tank because he winds up with aggro anyways.</font> <p><font color="#ffff00">OF all the things you claim here, the one thing I agree with is that Monk utility is excellent and Guardian utility needs to be improved. We have 2 mitigation buffs. One is Stone stance which gets an upgrade at 54. I don't know what the adept III 54 skill looks like, but the adept III stone stance adds something in the +1100 range. When activated, you are stunned for the duration and cannot attack, taunt, or move. The other is Facing the Mountain which upgrades again at 54. Adept III on this gives you +350 mitigation and roots the caster. Are these unbalanced? </font></p> <p><font color="#ff33cc">Yes and no. When things get ugly guardians can raise their own mitigation by about 1000 total with two buffs, which is substantially less than what you can do. (Seeing as we're the #1 defensive mitigation tank and you're the #1 offensive avoidance tank, that's conceptually not balanced, IMHO) The drawback to our buffs is reduced attack and we're rooted, which is not quite as bad as being stunned. However, while stunned you can still cast some CA's/taunts, and you can still hold aggro if other members of your group back off. Your ability to increase your durability in the short-term to survive and allow the healers to catch up is superior to ours. Is that balanced? You're the high-DPS offensive tank. You tell me.</font></p> <p><font color="#ffff00">Yes, I was tanking 54 and 55^^ and ^^^ last night. Using a defensive stance I was doing pretty well with 2 healers. But the SK in the party also did some tanking and he did a comparable job. However, the same thing still applied. Now and then I would take spike damage because my mitigation was a bit lower than a plate tank.</font></p> <div><font color="#ff33cc">You did a comparable tanking job with slightly higher spikes, but did he do comparable damage to you? </font> </div></blockquote><blockquote><hr> </blockquote> <div></div></blockquote></span> <div></div></blockquote><hr></blockquote></span><p>Message Edited by Corvan on <span class=date_text>10-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:33 PM</span>

Landiin

10-02-2005, 03:05 AM

<span><blockquote><hr>Corvan wrote:<div></div><div></div><div></div> <span> <blockquote><blockquote><span><blockquote> <div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Oneira wrote:<font color="#cc00ff"><font color="#ffff00"><font color="#ff33cc"></font> </font></font> <p><font color="#cc00ff"><font color="#ffff00">I will agree with you that Monks probably lose less DPS than tanking than Guardians do. Although I'm not sure the discrepancy is quite that much, since we get the same stuns and knockdowns that you get. The dual-wield allows us to do more DPS, but also brings with it the consequence of more riposte attacks from the mob...unless that has changed.</font></font></p> <p><font color="#cc00ff"><font color="#ff33cc">Some of the best bruiser weapons are *slow* two-handers such as the Royal Great Flail. Those attack much slower than any 1H weapon I've seen, so brawlers using one to tank can take significantly less riposte damage than Guardians. Dual Wield weapons are probably not the best choice when you're tanking.</font> </font></p> <font color="#ff00cc">Oh, and just in case you don't trust my parses, here are my vague impressions. At *one* point in the evening we decided to try having the bruiser do DPS just to see what he was capable of. His numbers were, astonishing. They went up far more than I expected. However, his aggro was even more amazing. I pulled, threw up my reactive taunt, and spammed every CA and taunt I had as it refreshed. Adds stayed on me, but the moment the bruiser started attacking a mob he ripped aggro off me like it was nothing. He wasn't taunting. It was just raw DPS. Our conclusion was that it was pointless to have me tank because he winds up with aggro anyways.</font></blockquote><div></div></blockquote></span> <div></div></blockquote><hr></blockquote></span> And that is just one of the many reasons why we get passed over for tanking groups. With a guard and I am guess other plate classes as well, people can't open up on an encouter like they can with a monk/bruiser tanking. The agro/hate they create with just their DPS is more then we can create spamming taunts/group buffs. Bruiser/monk = more agro, greater dps = Faster killing = faster exp. If I wasn't a guard and was makeing a group you bet I would try to get one over plate, you would be silly not to. </blockquote></span><div></div>

Gaige

10-02-2005, 07:34 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> MainFrame wrote: <P>Plate tank classes were never overpowered, and didn't deserve the huge nerfs in this combat revamp.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Oh please. That is the most ridiculous thing you've ever said.<BR>

NighthawkX

10-02-2005, 08:33 AM

<P>Unfortunately to many of you do use the parsers and they do simply lie, because they don't atribute the damage being added to the right person. On heroic oppertunitys it always goes to whomever completed it, many times this is a tank who keeps doing theres over and over. It doesn't also acount for the massive offensive buffs that the other classes have. The wizard has a very high nasty proc damage buff they put that on the bruiser and your parser will say the bruiser is doing all that damage but it really came from having the wizard.</P> <P>I have a troubador and they traditionally don't show that high of damage on parsers, and I laugh because a troubador can easily add 3 to 4 times the damage in a group as what a monk(have one of them to). Its not even close. Quit lieing and making bruiser damage to be more than it is. In no way shape or form does a bruiser unless they are 3 times more damageing than a monk come even close to any of the scout or mage classes. Simply yes your parser is lieing to you or your taking the damage information when those scout and mages were not trying or didn't need to because the creatures were so weak.</P> <P>I have no problem wishing for the best for guardians and would like to see them get some improvements, but simply putting out false statements to try and make an argument do not help your case. The argument that bruisers are more damageing than guardians is a true statement and in my oppinion they should only be slightly higher, within 5 to 10 percent. I may support a damage increase for guardians but don't use lies against a class to try and justify it.</P>

ChrisRay

10-02-2005, 08:51 AM

Heck even solo bruiser/monks dont do more damage than a troubador. For soloing. Aria of Excitement line is your friend. Proccing on Cheap Shot/Snare/Debuffs and every other offensive spells troubadors have with a 30% proc rate. And troubadors are still lowest on the DPS scale compared to other scouts. Its simply not accurate in the least to say monks/bruisers significantly out damage troubadors/scouts. Not to mention troubadors have much lower refresh timers on their abilities so for a long sustained fight troubador damage potential is far greater. <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now I'm all for guardians getting some buffs. I genuinely believe they could use some tweaking. But the level of obsurdity in some of the comparisons here is astounding. Like Nighthawk I have a brawler and a troubador within the same level range of the low 40's. And I have general idea of where they stand damage wise.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <P> </P><p>Message Edited by ChrisRay on <span class=date_text>10-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:53 PM</span>

Landiin

10-02-2005, 09:18 AM

Even if they don't do more DPS then a scout, their DPS > and Utilities are > so we guards and the plate classes need to be boosted in them areas if we are to be ballanced.

a6eaq

10-02-2005, 10:15 AM

Gaige wrote: <DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> MainFrame wrote: <P>Plate tank classes were never overpowered, and didn't deserve the huge nerfs in this combat revamp.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Oh please. That is the most ridiculous thing you've ever said.<BR> <HR> </DIV> <P>Hmmm, is the <U>bot program</U> up again leveling your toon? I find it curious that you will post everytime someone says plate tanks did not need to be nerfed or were not overpowered, but neglect to mention that your class could be buffed to near 100% avoidance prior to LU13. If you can avoid almost every attack, then you too may be considered "overpowered", should you be nefed now because of it? </P> <P>Do you go to bed with a smile on your face every night now that your crying has made your class more perferred as a MT than a Guardian in many groups game wide? I hope you do, because I have news for you, it will change again. It is SOE's way. Anyone that plays this game for the fun of it would never ask for a nerf of another to make his class better. That is all you did. Cry how overpowered we were. Intentional or not, those tyes of posts will be turned into nerfs by the devs at SOE because it is all they know how to do. Just look to EQ for proof.</P> <P>Give it six months or maybe a year and the nerf bat will swing back your way. When it does, we will find you crying again i guess. As if you ever stopped.</P>

ChrisRay

10-02-2005, 10:57 AM

<DIV>Landiin. The way you act on the brawler/guardian forums is as if we dont want you to have improvements you need. The only thing I wish you guys would stop doing is making obsurd comparisons that dont make any sense about the capabilities of brawlers. The level of exxageration here is astounding. But the things said here were actually true. Brawlers would be L33t ninjas that could solo yellow heroics all the time. Never take any damage and out DPS all scouts. It's simply not true.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The game itself seems to be paced towards faster combat these days. I have 2 classes in their low 30s. Defilers/Necromancer. And 2 classes in their low/mid 40s. Troubador/Bruisers and I have found the changes to be fairly balanced among those 4 classes in capabilities and versatility. An underpowered class ((if guardians are really under powered)) can be fixed without calling for nerfs for other classes. The game is geared towards a faster combat system now;. So guardians/Paladins and some priest classes may be tuned a bit differently to accomodate these changes and thats to be expected. But please, for the sake of everyone. Try not to get all the other classes nerfed because you feel your class in adequate right now. Theres plenty of time for change.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by ChrisRay on <span class=date_text>10-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:58 PM</span>

Corv

10-02-2005, 12:21 PM

<span><blockquote><hr>NighthawkX wrote:<div></div> <p>Unfortunately to many of you do use the parsers and they do simply lie, because they don't atribute the damage being added to the right person. On heroic oppertunitys it always goes to whomever completed it, many times this is a tank who keeps doing theres over and over. It doesn't also acount for the massive offensive buffs that the other classes have. The wizard has a very high nasty proc damage buff they put that on the bruiser and your parser will say the bruiser is doing all that damage but it really came from having the wizard.</p> <p>I have a troubador and they traditionally don't show that high of damage on parsers, and I laugh because a troubador can easily add 3 to 4 times the damage in a group as what a monk(have one of them to). Its not even close. Quit lieing and making bruiser damage to be more than it is. In no way shape or form does a bruiser unless they are 3 times more damageing than a monk come even close to any of the scout or mage classes. Simply yes your parser is lieing to you or your taking the damage information when those scout and mages were not trying or didn't need to because the creatures were so weak.</p> <p>I have no problem wishing for the best for guardians and would like to see them get some improvements, but simply putting out false statements to try and make an argument do not help your case. The argument that bruisers are more damageing than guardians is a true statement and in my oppinion they should only be slightly higher, within 5 to 10 percent. I may support a damage increase for guardians but don't use lies against a class to try and justify it.</p><hr></blockquote><font color="#ff33cc">Absolutely false. Some of the damage does come from procs, damage shields, etc. placed on whoever is tanking, but when the bruiser goes offensive and I tank, and take over all those buffs, my damage goes way *down* and his goes *up*. Try it yourself. Swap roles. Bruiser DPS is insane and the difference between offensive and defensive was overwhelming the effect of any other buffs or damage shields when we were parsing. </font></span><div></div>

NighthawkX

10-02-2005, 02:44 PM

<P>My statement isn't false, the damage caculators will atribute damage from a wizards proc that he gives someone else to the person he gives it to, and believe me its an awesome proc have you ever had it put on you maybe not usually goes on damage dealers but oh well. So here the wizard is giving a massive damage boost but someone else gets the credit for that damage in the damage caulator. Same way with my troubador he gives a lot of group damage buffs(haste, aria, etc) these are large group damage benefits that the damage calculator ends up spreading throughout the group to other people.</P> <P>You are implying that a bruiser will outdamage(granted you didn't say level compared to other group members) mages and scouts, now yes before revamp they could but not anymore, unless the scout or mage isn't remotely trying. This is a false statement and it gives a false impression to others believeing that bruisers need to be nerfed. I personally like to see balance in the classes and if the guardians get some damage boost it won't matter to me I am fine with it, but people are not going to see your point when you make outrageous implications to justify nerfing another class to make you better.</P> <P>As far as your damage between you and the bruiser I can believe your statements there, they do more damage than a guardian. I never tried to dispute that part of your claim. Get some casters or bards in your group and you will notice some drastic increases in your damage. The game after revamp has made them a lot more valuable. Groups used to be almost all fighter and healer classes, now the damage difference is a lot more and noticeable by picking them up.</P>

Gaige

10-03-2005, 12:57 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> a6eaq wrote:<BR> <P>neglect to mention that your class could be buffed to near 100% avoidance prior to LU13. </P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, but with crappy mitigation. 100% avoidance was against a solo toon at lvl 50, not against raid mobs. Only guardians were getting 100/100, which is what mattered.<BR>

JNewby

10-03-2005, 12:39 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> NighthawkX wrote:<BR> <P>Actually tanks were way overpowered before revamp, and so were monks and bruisers. Scouts didn't hold a candle to them and were not desired. If you didn't see it than you are just blind to your own class. As far as the tanks themselves I am not mentioning all plate tanks, why were shadowknights not as popular, why not berserkers their plate tanks. The reason is the view overall from the populous which actually still exists is that Guardians are the best tank. And actually you still are the best tank in most situations. You are better at white+ heroics and epics, maybe not against solo creatures but nonone has problems their anyways. Only area you will get overpicked is if its an epic that has a massive amount of a certain type of damage. To expect to be the best always is wrong period.</P> <P>As for nerfs all the tanks were nerfed includeing bruisers and monks. Every class has been eating dirt way more now than it was before, granted I and some others view this as added challenge to overcome where some don't like it(personal preference to each his own, I tend to like to have to work for rewards vs just being rewarded because its time)</P> <P>As for expecting you to pick another class I don't expect you to. If you like your class's style and cosmetics fine, everyone has their preferences as to what they like. But if you pick a class because you expect it to be the best that is wrong. Unfortunately many play the game always trying to pick the best character type and these people usually end up with a dissapointment eventually. Most will keep playing the class as before some will start playing there alts more till it becomes there main. It still doesn't change the fact that if there is more than 10 times as many playing one class as there is another than more than likely there is more problems than just cosmetics.</P> <P>Now after all that I like guardians and feel they should excell defensively and protectively, self and group, heck best taunts. Giveing group hp and mitigation doesn't mean you are not doing your job, ever noticed how many more of them do aoe's and things like assault, you just lessoned all those scouts what damage they took and you were doing your job. And unfortunately even the best tank has times where an add hits, you may of just helped your healer live a few seconds longer while you taunted it off.</P> <P>I also get tired of listening to people who give arguments who discount all there advantages and trumpet up someone elses advantages as being more than what they are or heck pooling them all together as if some class really got them all. And no not pointing to any paticular class or person as actually there are tons on every board that do this stuff and I laugh at them all regardless of class.</P> <P>To help your class get examples and ideas that will make it better and give reasons examples as to why they are needed. Just saying we should be best, or its no fair someone else has more won't work. And in fact I usually see people like this as well on all the different boards and to those I commend them regardless of class.</P> <P>As for damage I feel brawlers should only have a slight lead and mostly requiring there offensive stance and addition of group offensive buffs. Where Guardians and Paladins should have a slight lead defensively but mostly requiring there defensive stance and defensive group buffs. Berserkers and shadowknights in the middle. And in my oppinion its pretty much there on the defensive side, not sure about offensively seems like Guardians and paladins might be a tad behind the eight ball.</P> <P>Message Edited by NighthawkX on <SPAN class=date_text>09-30-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>11:39 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>and know scouts do best dps in game and can tank as well.. enjoy</P> <P> </P>