Equality for All

[Creppie]

<DIV>Could we have this stickied so we can put this to rest?  I know it still probably wont end the debate but a person has to try.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=faq&message.id=1#M1" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=faq&message.id=1#M1</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <DIV> <DIV> <P><B><SPAN><FONT size=5><FONT color=#00cc99>The Class System FAQ</FONT></FONT></SPAN></B></P> <P><B><FONT color=#00cc99 size=3></FONT></B> </P> <P><B><FONT size=3><FONT color=#ffff99>How does the EQII class system work?</FONT></FONT></B></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff size=3>We use a branching archetype system.<SPAN>  </SPAN>A player begins our game at level 1 as a commoner.<SPAN>  </SPAN>At level 3 the player will choose one of four adventure archetypes: the fighter, the priest, the mage, or the scout.<SPAN>  </SPAN>Each of the adventuring archetypes branches into three classes, one of which the player will choose at level 10.<SPAN>  </SPAN>Each class then further branches into two subclasses, which is chosen at level 20.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=3></FONT> </P> <P><B><FONT size=3><FONT color=#ffff99>Will I be required to choose an archetype/class/subclass in order to continue leveling?</FONT></FONT></B></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff size=3>Yes.<SPAN>  </SPAN>You must choose your path of advancement before you can continue to level.</FONT></P> <P> </P> <P><B><FONT size=3><FONT color=#ffff99>Will I be able to surrender my archetype/class/subclass choices and choose again?</FONT></FONT></B></P> <P><FONT size=3><FONT color=#ffffff>No, you will not be able to reverse your selection.<SPAN>  </SPAN>We plan on educating players beforehand about where each path takes them, but reversing those decisions or “respec’ing” isn’t something we plan to allow.</FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff size=3></FONT> </P> <P><B><FONT color=#66ff66 size=3>Won’t balancing become a real issue with that many classes?</FONT></B></P> <P><FONT color=#66ff66 size=3>Class balance is always a complicated issue, but the archetype system allows us to manage it much more effectively.<SPAN>  </SPAN><FONT color=#ff0033>Each class and subclass is balanced at the archetype level</FONT>.<SPAN>  </SPAN><U><FONT color=#ff3333>Every archetype has a main role in a group situation, and each member of a given archetype will be able to fill that role <STRONG>equally well</STRONG></FONT></U>.<SPAN>  </SPAN>If you're a fighter, you can tank for a group; if you're a priest, you can heal for a group; and so on. This is the beauty of an archetype system. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#66ff66 size=3></FONT> </P> <P><B><FONT color=#ffff99 size=3>Will there be enough variety in the classes and subclasses of an archetype, or will all priests, for instance, be the same?</FONT></B></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff size=3>Will there be variety? Of course. Different abilities, spells, combat styles... the whole works. Some classes will be able to do some tasks better than others, but the primary purpose of the class will always be there.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff size=3></FONT> </P> <P><B><FONT color=#ffff99 size=3>Will I be able to multi class and create something along the lines of a Fighter-Mage?</FONT></B></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff size=3>No.<SPAN>  </SPAN>While our archetype system does allow for a great deal of variety in how you play your character, we will not be allowing players to mix and match parts of various classes.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff size=3></FONT> </P> <P><B><FONT color=#ffff99 size=3>Will there be experience penalties based on your class or race?</FONT></B></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff size=3>There will be no experience penalties (or bonuses) based on your race or class in EQII.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff size=3></FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=3><FONT color=#ffff99><B>Will all subclasses be available in both Qeynos and </B><B>Freeport</B><B>?</B></FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff size=3>Monks, paladins, templars, mystics, swashbucklers, rangers, conjurors, and illustionists can only be trained in Qeynos. Bruisers, shadowknights, inquisitors, defilers, brigands, assassins, necromancers, and coercers can only be trained in Freeport. The rest will be found in both cities.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff size=3></FONT> </P> <P><B><FONT color=#ffff99 size=3>Will there be a particular class designed specifically for players who want to solo?</FONT></B></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff size=3>We are not designing any specific classes to be more efficient at soloing than others. We intend to provide lots of solo content for all classes in EQII.</FONT></P></DIV></DIV> <P></P> <DIV>===========================<BR>Steve Danuser, a.k.a. Moorgard<BR>Game Designer, EverQuest II</DIV></DIV>

[Sunrayn]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Creppie wrote:<BR> <DIV>Could we have this stickied so we can put this to rest?  I know it still probably wont end the debate but a person has to try.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=faq&message.id=1#M1" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=faq&message.id=1#M1</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <DIV> <DIV> <P><B><SPAN><FONT size=5><FONT color=#00cc99></FONT></FONT></SPAN></B></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff size=3>Will there be variety? Of course. Different abilities, spells, combat styles... the whole works. <STRONG>Some classes will be able to do some tasks better than others, but the primary purpose of the class will always be there</STRONG>.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff size=3></FONT> </P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff size=3>We are not designing any specific classes to be more efficient at soloing than others. We intend to provide lots of solo content for all classes in EQII.</FONT></P></DIV></DIV> <P></P> <DIV>===========================<BR>Steve Danuser, a.k.a. Moorgard<BR>Game Designer, EverQuest II</DIV></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Here ya go, bringing your attention to the important part of his post and bolded it for ya.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Its already been proven that other fighters COULD tank even raid mobs so,  that is a non issue, no matter what others may have you believe.</DIV>

[Wasuna]

The other person summed it up pretty good. But just in case you missed it I'll post the same thing.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Creppie wrote:<BR> <DIV>Could we have this stickied so we can put this to rest?  I know it still probably wont end the debate but a person has to try.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=faq&message.id=1#M1" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=faq&message.id=1#M1</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <DIV> <DIV> <P><B><SPAN><FONT size=5><FONT color=#00cc99>The Class System FAQ</FONT></FONT></SPAN></B></P> <P><B><FONT color=#ffff99 size=3>Will there be enough variety in the classes and subclasses of an archetype, or will all priests, for instance, be the same?</FONT></B></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff size=3>Will there be variety? Of course. Different abilities, spells, combat styles... the whole works. <FONT color=#ff9900 size=6>Some classes will be able to do some tasks better than others, but the primary purpose of the class will always be there.</FONT></FONT></P> <P>===========================<BR>Steve Danuser, a.k.a. Moorgard<BR>Game Designer, EverQuest II</P></DIV></DIV></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

[Galeo1]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Wasuna wrote:<BR>The other person summed it up pretty good. But just in case you missed it I'll post the same thing.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Creppie wrote:<BR> <DIV>Could we have this stickied so we can put this to rest?  I know it still probably wont end the debate but a person has to try.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=faq&message.id=1#M1" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=faq&message.id=1#M1</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <DIV> <DIV> <P><B><SPAN><FONT size=5><FONT color=#00cc99>The Class System FAQ</FONT></FONT></SPAN></B></P> <P><B><FONT color=#ffff99 size=3>Will there be enough variety in the classes and subclasses of an archetype, or will all priests, for instance, be the same?</FONT></B></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff size=3>Will there be variety? Of course. Different abilities, spells, combat styles... the whole works. <FONT color=#ff9900 size=6>Some classes will be able to do some tasks better than others, but the primary purpose of the class will always be there.</FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#66ff00 size=6>Like taunt, defensive buffs, offensive buffs, and dps.  Nothing the core ability of tanking.</FONT></P> <P>===========================<BR>Steve Danuser, a.k.a. Moorgard<BR>Game Designer, EverQuest II</P></DIV></DIV></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

[Creppie]

Yes, I read that.  Would you agree that tanking is the main role for the fighter?  Then that would fall under the equally definition.  Adding dps or buffing the defense would fall under your highlighted section.  Not the primary aspect of the class.<div></div>

[Creppie]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Galeo1 wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Wasuna wrote:<BR>The other person summed it up pretty good. But just in case you missed it I'll post the same thing.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Creppie wrote:<BR> <DIV>Could we have this stickied so we can put this to rest?  I know it still probably wont end the debate but a person has to try.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=faq&message.id=1#M1" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=faq&message.id=1#M1</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <DIV> <DIV> <P><B><SPAN><FONT size=5><FONT color=#00cc99>The Class System FAQ</FONT></FONT></SPAN></B></P> <P><B><FONT color=#ffff99 size=3>Will there be enough variety in the classes and subclasses of an archetype, or will all priests, for instance, be the same?</FONT></B></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff size=3>Will there be variety? Of course. Different abilities, spells, combat styles... the whole works. <FONT color=#ff9900 size=6>Some classes will be able to do some tasks better than others, but the primary purpose of the class will always be there.</FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#66ff00 size=6>Like taunt, defensive buffs, offensive buffs, and dps.  Nothing the core ability of tanking.</FONT></P> <P>===========================<BR>Steve Danuser, a.k.a. Moorgard<BR>Game Designer, EverQuest II</P></DIV></DIV></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Exactly

[Veshtan]

<DIV>Perhaps you should realize that our defensive and offensive buffs aren't as good as the other fighter classes...thus we need them fixed, eh?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And you should remove the DPS, doesn't count for us..never did...still doesn't.</DIV>

[Creppie]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Veshtan wrote:<BR> <DIV>Perhaps you should realize that our defensive and offensive buffs aren't as good as the other fighter classes...thus we need them fixed, eh?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And you should remove the DPS, doesn't count for us..never did...still doesn't.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Please don't change the subject.  Many of us agree that your utility abilites need to be adjusted.  The point was to put to rest the "Guardians, Berzerkers, Paladins, SK's, Monks, and Bruisers.. are not supposed to tank equally well" garbage.  They said it, they put it in the FAQ's and they gave us LU 13 to make it so.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by Creppie on <span class=date_text>10-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:44 AM</span>

[Galeo1]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Veshtan wrote:<BR> <DIV>Perhaps you should realize that our defensive and offensive buffs aren't as good as the other fighter classes...thus we need them fixed, eh?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And you should remove the DPS, doesn't count for us..never did...still doesn't.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I have no issues with Guardians getting some of their abilities fixed.  I hope they do.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In my opinion, DPS is one of the flavors that help vary the fighters.  Some have it, some don't.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The core ability of tanking is what should be equalized.</DIV>

[Wasuna]

<P>I'm sorry. The original post was an attempt to prove something to Guardians by postion a quote from a developer. The first reply and mine we only highlighting another portion of that quote that was provided. The further posts show text in <FONT color=#66ff00><FONT size=6>Green</FONT> </FONT>was added to the quote by the poster and therefore is irrevelant. Can't add words to a quote as it no longer means anything.</P> <P>On that note, Guardians have less utility that all except maybe 1 other fighter, have the lowest DPS of all by maybe 1 other fighter and have equal or less tanking ability of all other fighters. You can roll everything into one big ball if you want but that does not change the fact that Guardian underperform in all aspects. DPS is not resisted as it's an average. If your agro is DPS related then you have better agro than a Guardian. I fail to see how rolling everything into a big ball makes things any different than they are if we look at each piece seperatly.</P>

[Veshtan]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Galeo1 wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Veshtan wrote:<BR> <DIV>Perhaps you should realize that our defensive and offensive buffs aren't as good as the other fighter classes...thus we need them fixed, eh?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And you should remove the DPS, doesn't count for us..never did...still doesn't.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I have no issues with Guardians getting some of their abilities fixed.  I hope they do.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In my opinion, DPS is one of the flavors that help vary the fighters.  Some have it, some don't.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The core ability of tanking is what should be equalized.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>You're right, Galeo (about the tanking, i mean.  I don't think this system was very smart, but it's the one we've got, so we've got to work within it, or jump ship)...the biggest problem i see is that DPS is a much stronger flavor then most other things, and has multiple roles in a fight, above just killing the mob as fast as possible.  So the fighter classes that have a lot of this have an inherent advantage over the ones that have less and are supposed to make it up with utility spells.   That's hard to balance.  I realize that.  It's why, while i'm mad at SOE, you don't see me cursing them, or asking for brawler nerfs.  It's not the brawler's fault.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Allaanon]

<DIV>Their are like 2-3 people on these forums saying we need to be a 'better' tank than others. The rest of us just want to have our other abilities match our class description.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That is the argument, not being the best tank.  </DIV>

[Veshtan]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Creppie wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Veshtan wrote:<BR> <DIV>Perhaps you should realize that our defensive and offensive buffs aren't as good as the other fighter classes...thus we need them fixed, eh?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And you should remove the DPS, doesn't count for us..never did...still doesn't.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Please don't change the subject.  Many of us agree that your utility abilites need to be adjusted.  The point was to put to rest the "Guardians, Berzerkers, Paladins, SK's, Monks, and Bruisers.. are not supposed to tank equally well" garbage.  They said it, they put it in the FAQ's and they gave us LU 13 to make it so.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <P>Message Edited by Creppie on <SPAN class=date_text>10-28-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>09:44 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>I'm not changing any subject, Creppie.  Part of balancing one's ability to tank is balancing their class as a whole.  If your class is out of balance and not as good as the others, then your ability to tank isn't as good as the others.  Do i believe i need more mitigation or avoidance?  NO.  Some have asked for that, i don't feel we need it.  I can take damage just fine.  It's just my ability as a tank is affected when other classes bring things to the plate that i can't, or have nothing of equal value to offer that might be different.<BR>

[Wasuna]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Galeo1 wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Veshtan wrote:<BR> <DIV>Perhaps you should realize that our defensive and offensive buffs aren't as good as the other fighter classes...thus we need them fixed, eh?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And you should remove the DPS, doesn't count for us..never did...still doesn't.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I have no issues with Guardians getting some of their abilities fixed.  I hope they do.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In my opinion, DPS is one of the flavors that help vary the fighters.  Some have it, some don't.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The core ability of tanking is what should be equalized.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Wrong. All fighters have tanking ability, DPS and utility which provide the flavor. You can not say that DPS should be flavor and tanking ability should be equal. I agree that all classes should have a flavor but right now Guardians taste like week old brussle sprouts without butter or salt. We have the lowest DPS of all fighter classes except maybe 1. We have lowest Utility of all fighter classes except maybe 1. We have equal or lower tanking ability. I firmly believe that we are atleast in the bottom half of the tanking ability tree but this is so subjective that it can't be determined without a full disclosure from SOE but that will never happen so I say Equal or lower. <BR>

[Galeo1]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Wasuna wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Galeo1 wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Veshtan wrote:<BR> <DIV>Perhaps you should realize that our defensive and offensive buffs aren't as good as the other fighter classes...thus we need them fixed, eh?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And you should remove the DPS, doesn't count for us..never did...still doesn't.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I have no issues with Guardians getting some of their abilities fixed.  I hope they do.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In my opinion, DPS is one of the flavors that help vary the fighters.  Some have it, some don't.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The core ability of tanking is what should be equalized.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Wrong. All fighters have tanking ability, DPS and utility which provide the flavor. You can not say that DPS should be flavor and tanking ability should be equal. I agree that all classes should have a flavor but right now Guardians taste like week old brussle sprouts without butter or salt. We have the lowest DPS of all fighter classes except maybe 1. We have lowest Utility of all fighter classes except maybe 1. We have equal or lower tanking ability. I firmly believe that we are atleast in the bottom half of the tanking ability tree but this is so subjective that it can't be determined without a full disclosure from SOE but that will never happen so I say Equal or lower. <BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I agree with you there.  Full disclosure from SOE would go a long way toward solving the tank imbalance.  </P> <P>The sooner we get that, the sooner we can fix this debacle and get back to having fun.  Last time I checked, this is a game. :smileyhappy:<BR></P>

[Wasuna]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Allaanon wrote:<BR> <DIV>Their are like 2-3 people on these forums saying we need to be a 'better' tank than others. The rest of us just want to have our other abilities match our class description.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That is the argument, not being the best tank. </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Not sure who your referring to but I wanted to be clear here. I never said I wanted to be the best tank. I only said I wanted to be equal. I have always said that DPS, Tanking Ability and Utility are what they have to play with. I don't care what they change to make us equal but they darn well better make us equal if they ever want me to shut up.</P> <P>Now I did highlight the section of the quote that addressed what i wanted read. You have to accept everything that is said and not just a single point (I was pointing out what they ignored) unless of course your going to run for political office.</P>

[ReviloTX]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Creppie wrote:<BR> <BR> <DIV>Please don't change the subject.  Many of us agree that your utility abilites need to be adjusted.  The point was to put to rest the "Guardians, Berzerkers, Paladins, SK's, Monks, and Bruisers.. are not supposed to tank equally well" garbage.  They said it, they put it in the FAQ's and they gave us LU 13 to make it so.<BR></DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Please find me the FAQ where it says all fighter subclasses will TANK equally well.  It doesn't, it says we can perform a ROLE equally well.  I have already proven that other fighters can fulfill their tanking role equally well as guardians even if they take more damage.  How? Simple, they can heal themsleves.  (After watching a pally solo a ^^^ heroic a few levels under him last night, I realized just how much they can actually heal themselves too, in some cases it's quite a bit.  I was two levels above the pally doing it and that mob would have smoked me.. I know because I was two boxing the same mobs with my inquis and I was having to heal with him quite a bit).  Add on DPS and additional utility like stifles/stuns and you end up with a hugely imbalanced fighter archetype, and guardians are not only the worst dps and utility, but also the worst at performing their core role, tanking.</P> <P>Please stop coming in here saying that they said all tanks should tank equally, they never did.  You are making an interpretation of what they actually said, which is that we would all fulfill a ROLE equally.  They did in fact interpret the design of the subclasses incorrectly as you guys are, and hence we got LU13.  What we're saying is, they messed up their interpretation and need to re-think it.  The guardian subclass was designed around being the best tank (it shouldn't be so substantial that others aren't chosen for groups, I give you that), if you can't see that by how the fighter subclasses were designed then I think you need to roll a guardian.</P> <P> </P> <P><BR></P>

[ReviloTX]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Galeo1 wrote: <DIV><BR>I have no issues with Guardians getting some of their abilities fixed.  I hope they do.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In my opinion, DPS is one of the flavors that help vary the fighters.  Some have it, some don't.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The core ability of tanking is what should be equalized.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Your logic makes no sense.  We tank equal and others DPS better.. what exactly is the reason for choosing a guardian then?<BR>

[Creppie]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Wasuna wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Allaanon wrote:<BR> <DIV>Their are like 2-3 people on these forums saying we need to be a 'better' tank than others. The rest of us just want to have our other abilities match our class description.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That is the argument, not being the best tank. </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Not sure who your referring to but I wanted to be clear here. I never said I wanted to be the best tank. I only said I wanted to be equal. I have always said that DPS, Tanking Ability and Utility are what they have to play with. I don't care what they change to make us equal but they darn well better make us equal if they ever want me to shut up.</P> <P>Now I did highlight the section of the quote that addressed what i wanted read. You have to accept everything that is said and not just a single point (I was pointing out what they ignored) unless of course your going to run for political office.</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>You can buff the defense of the group better then any of the other fighter classes, and hold group agro.  If that's not the case atm then that needs to be fixed.  Many of the complaints have been that those particular abilities aren't fun or sexy.  I would agree.  Some however do like the idea of bringing defense to a group.</P> <P>But again the intent of this post was to stop the posts that say that ALL fighter subclasses shouldn't tank equal.  They should by design.  For those of you who want equal tanking, this post isn't for you.</P> <P>Wasuna, I thought you were trying to say that they didn't need to be equal by highlighting that other text.  The part you highlighted just means that for example, guardians can add defense or protection to the group better then the other fighter classes without screwing up the core ability of tanking for all classes.</P> <P>I'm all for guardians for getting adjustments in that area, as long as it doesn't move them away form the guardians defensive nature.  Make it fun, but keep it with a defensive theme.</P>

[Gungo]

<P>Wasuna fact is SoE has all live in game stats. Fact after LU 13 no class is required anymore. you do tank as well as other fighters. Many other guards have said you do. Fact is guards are still the preferred MT in raids becuase they tank better and hold agro better. </P> <DIV><SPAN class=time_text>LU 13 didnt break guards they made it so all fighters can tank equally</SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=time_text><STRONG>Ask yourself after revamp is there any class so important now that you can't do a raid w/o them. That you can't group w/o them. The answer is no any tank can tank any healer can heal. Any caster/scout can dps.</STRONG>  <STRONG>That in itself is balanced</STRONG></SPAN></DIV> <P>you said it best. Guards need better utility and Increased DPS. Thats the onyl thing unbalanced with fighters atm.</P> <P>"On that note, <FONT color=#ffff33>Guardians have less utility that all except maybe 1 other fighter, have the lowest DPS of all by maybe 1 other fighter</FONT> and have equal or less tanking ability of all other fighters. You can roll everything into one big ball if you want but that does not change the fact that Guardian underperform in all aspects. DPS is not resisted as it's an average. If your agro is DPS related then you have better agro than a Guardian. I fail to see how rolling everything into a big ball makes things any different than they are if we look at each piece seperatly."</P> <P>It was posted prior by the devs that a guardian who focues more on offense woudl do mroe dps then a brawler who focused on defense. That is not the case currently on live. </P> <P>DPS does not neccesarily have to equal damage on combat arts it cna be acheived thru buffs or debuffs. Soem classes are inherently self buff oreinted some are group buff oriented. bards dont have alot of direct dps but they add alot of damage to the group via buffs and debuffs they are an example of a group orineted class. Many brawler skills are self oreinted in fact both monk and bruser have 1 group spell line.  there is a nice list of fixes on this board that does not turn gaurds into the best tank.  </P> <P>I'll probably end up playing a guard more often as well, but these are the ideas/changes i would like seen done.</P> <P></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>1) AoE rescue line - (magic resist based) like old rescue ~900-1000hate and 1 agro position usable once every 5 min. Magic based if guards current AOE taunt is mental based. That gives guards 2 resist types for taunts.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>2) Change intervene lines for guards to equal 100% or less total damage taken. Change Guardian sphere into </FONT><FONT color=#ffff00>A Group regenerating Ward - It would stop 1 or 2 hits and slowly regenerate. ~2,500. (althought guards should have an entire line dedicated to a group ward for all levels)</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>3) Remove shield damage from "Tower of Stone", (If they want also add a new Tower of stone type line that has a % chance to block AOE's on group but damages shields 10-20% based on quality of spell.)</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>4) </FONT><FONT color=#ffff00>Do more damage by possibly reducing timers on some combat arts, adding a small hate gain to peel lost agro on combat arts and adding a</FONT><FONT color=#ffff00> Debuf to the mob's resistance to slashing/crushing and piercing (thereby increasing the damage done by the Guardian and group)</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>5) Introduce a % stun resist to Hold the Line, Remove root from hold the line. Allow HTL to proc thru wards.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>6) increase the effectiveness of offensive stance by adding a small % to proc a stun or stifle as well as increased offensive damage.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I would also like to see an 'all or nothing approach to group taunts'. Either it succeeds with all mobs, or fails with all mobs. That way you can recast it, instead of currently maybe aggroing 1 out of 5 and having to wait to recast your AOE taunt. or they can change it to have the faster recast if any mobs resists instead of the full recast if any succeed.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Finally SoE should explain what shield factor actual does since they revamped it so much. If shield factor effects avodiance then it would give a logical comparison between sheilds tiers/types. If both kite and tower give a base 10% block, shield factor should add to avodiance or at minimal spell resist or mitgation therefor a shield with a shield factor of 700 should give a set increase and a shiedl factor of 900 a higher increase. Even if it is minimal any sort of comparison and upgrade will be recommended.</FONT></P> <DIV>Alot of the above was posted by nemi for a bit and other gaurds and non gaurds. Those sort of utility will help gaurds solo a ton better, group alot better, and increase thier tanking while also allowing for a more skillful playing.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Gungo on <span class=date_text>10-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:38 AM</span>

[Creppie]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> ReviloTX wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Creppie wrote:<BR> <BR> <DIV>Please don't change the subject.  Many of us agree that your utility abilites need to be adjusted.  The point was to put to rest the "Guardians, Berzerkers, Paladins, SK's, Monks, and Bruisers.. are not supposed to tank equally well" garbage.  They said it, they put it in the FAQ's and they gave us LU 13 to make it so.<BR></DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Please find me the FAQ where it says all fighter subclasses will TANK equally well.  It doesn't, it says we can perform a ROLE equally well.  I have already proven that other fighters can fulfill their tanking role equally well as guardians even if they take more damage.  How? Simple, they can heal themsleves.  (After watching a pally solo a ^^^ heroic a few levels under him last night, I realized just how much they can actually heal themselves too, in some cases it's quite a bit.  I was two levels above the pally doing it and that mob would have smoked me.. I know because I was two boxing the same mobs with my inquis and I was having to heal with him quite a bit).  Add on DPS and additional utility like stifles/stuns and you end up with a hugely imbalanced fighter archetype, and guardians are not only the worst dps and utility, but also the worst at performing their core role, tanking.</P> <P>Please stop coming in here saying that they said all tanks should tank equally, they never did.  You are making an interpretation of what they actually said, which is that we would all fulfill a ROLE equally.  They did in fact interpret the design of the subclasses incorrectly as you guys are, and hence we got LU13.  What we're saying is, they messed up their interpretation and need to re-think it.  The guardian subclass was designed around being the best tank (it shouldn't be so substantial that others aren't chosen for groups, I give you that), if you can't see that by how the fighter subclasses were designed then I think you need to roll a guardian.</P> <P> </P> <P><BR></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>ROFL!  Are you serius?  Did you not read the fist part?  I guess if you can prove that tanking isn't the main role of the fighter classes then you may have something, untill then you are just wrong.  Is that what you are saying?  Tanking isn't one of the fighters main roles?

[Urglu]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SOE wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><FONT color=#66ff66 size=3>If you're a fighter, you can tank for a <U><STRONG><EM><FONT color=#cc3333>group</FONT></EM></STRONG></U>; if you're a priest, you can heal for a group; and so on. This is the beauty of an archetype system. </FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>I really don't want to get dragged into this debate again, but you'll notice the word <EM>group</EM> above.  That suggests balancing was done at the group level, not the raid level. And yes, I realize pre LU13 Guards were overpowered for groups.  My point is that those who argue tanks were always supposed to be equal and rely on language such as that quoted cannot reasonably apply such analysis to the ability to tank raid mobs.  If you can show me statements which promise equal ability to tank raid mobs I will certainly concede the point, but if your arguments are all based on language such as that quoted above, then sorry but you don't have a leg to stand on.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Having said all that this debate is fairly pointless (other than the enjoyment some of us get in showing how wrong others are) since it is SOE's game and they maintain the right to change it as they see fit, and even retract earlier statements if they wish to. </DIV>

[Creppie]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Urglunt wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SOE wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><FONT color=#66ff66 size=3>If you're a fighter, you can tank for a <U><STRONG><EM><FONT color=#cc3333>group</FONT></EM></STRONG></U>; if you're a priest, you can heal for a group; and so on. This is the beauty of an archetype system. </FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>I really don't want to get dragged into this debate again, but you'll notice the word <EM>group</EM> above.  That suggests balancing was done at the group level, not the raid level. And yes, I realize pre LU13 Guards were overpowered for groups.  My point is that those who argue tanks were always supposed to be equal and rely on language such as that quoted cannot reasonably apply such analysis to the ability to tank raid mobs.  If you can show me statements which promise equal ability to tank raid mobs I will certainly concede the point, but if your arguments are all based on language such as that quoted above, then sorry but you don't have a leg to stand on.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Having said all that this debate is fairly pointless (other than the enjoyment some of us get in showing how wrong others are) since it is SOE's game and they maintain the right to change it as they see fit, and even retract earlier statements if they wish to. </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Isn't a raid nothing more then a larger group of people?  They never said "Tank for a group except....."  Really, SOE could have saved everyone a lot of greif if they had spelled it out with more detail for all situations, raids included.<BR>

[Gungo]

Moorgard did post that all fighters are meant to tank equally well. But i have never once seen a post claiming guards will be the best tank in any situation? I will search the forums for his post if you can find me one saying guards will be the best in any situation. Play with words all you want. the fact is guards were never meant to be the best tank. they were only meant to be one of the better defensive classes. Many have taken Defensive to mean the best tank. Which is not the same thing. a paladin is the defensive crusader w heals a shadowknight is the offensive crusader w life taps yet both tank equally well.

[Krooner]

<P>Its never smart to "Spell things out in detail" beacuse then when you mess up you have little to no excuse.</P> <P>If you keep things vauge its very easy to tell people.  " Its was never our vision too..."</P> <P>Whoe... deja vu.... seems familiar.</P> <P> </P>

[Galeo1]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> ReviloTX wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Galeo1 wrote: <DIV><BR>I have no issues with Guardians getting some of their abilities fixed.  I hope they do.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In my opinion, DPS is one of the flavors that help vary the fighters.  Some have it, some don't.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The core ability of tanking is what should be equalized.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Your logic makes no sense.  We tank equal and others DPS better.. what exactly is the reason for choosing a guardian then?<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I cannot really speak toward why ppl would choose a Guardian.  From what I've read, ppl were under the assumpation that Guardians would be the best tank and it was that way for 10 months.  </P> <P>Tanking is the core ability of the fighter class, not dps.  That being said, some will do it better than others.  </P>

[Creppie]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> ReviloTX wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Galeo1 wrote: <DIV><BR>I have no issues with Guardians getting some of their abilities fixed.  I hope they do.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In my opinion, DPS is one of the flavors that help vary the fighters.  Some have it, some don't.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The core ability of tanking is what should be equalized.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Your logic makes no sense.  We tank equal and others DPS better.. what exactly is the reason for choosing a guardian then?<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Some like the idea of a defensive styled tanks.  I don't but I've seen many posts from those that do.  Why do some people play female toons when they are male and visa versa?  There are many subjective reasons for picking one class over another.  I suppose if you are only looking for a best of the best class for all situations then you picked the wrong game in the first place.

[Gungo]

<DIV> <P>warbird wrote:</P> <P>Its never smart to "Spell things out in detail" beacuse then when you mess up you have little to no excuse.</P> <P>If you keep things vauge its very easy to tell people.  " Its was never our vision too..."</P> <P>Whoe... deja vu.... seems familiar.</P> <P>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________</P>True but that only applys if they messed up. And as far as i recall the only thing the devs admitted messing up on was having guards be the best tank pre-lu13. In fact they said that was wrong.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Gungo on <span class=date_text>10-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:14 AM</span>

[Krooner]

<P>I have said it once and I will say it again even though there are people out there too thick headed to grasp the concept.</P> <P>Guardians did have an advantage over other fighters in a few areas.  This did not make us gods and the bulk of the problem was not because the guardians were so uuuuuber.  It was because players were stuck into the mentality of beefing up one guy and standing behind him.  This isnt just true of EQ1 and 2 its true for many other group games.  A lot of people just got stuck in the rut of ... Guardian MT.. buff him.  When there were others options available to them that would have made the battle easier and even more fun for all.</P> <P> </P>

[Urglu]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gungo wrote:<BR>Moorgard did post that all fighters are meant to tank equally well. But i have never once seen a post claiming guards will be the best tank in any situation? I will search the forums for his post if you can find me one saying guards will be the best in any situation. Play with words all you want. the fact is guards were never meant to be the best tank. they were only meant to be one of the better defensive classes. Many have taken Defensive to mean the best tank. Which is not the same thing. a paladin is the defensive crusader w heals a shadowknight is the offensive crusader w life taps yet both tank equally well. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Gungo, based on the names of your toons and the majority of posts I have seen from you I have to assume you are all of 14 or 15 years old.  If that is the case, it certainly would explain the reading comprehension problems you exhibit on a daily basis. If not then I can only assume you are playing dumb or are in fact dumb.  Either way I refuse to discuss/debate this issue since you are clearly incapable of comprehending and responding to what I wrote as opposed to what you invent in your head after reading the post. </P> <P>Since this will be my last reponse in this thread I will just add that my analysis had nothing to do with "playing with words." I read the quote, found the key words used, and applied my analysis to those words and the context in which they were used.  </P>

[Gungo]

<DIV>Fact after LU 13 no class is required anymore. But Guards do tank as well as other fighters. Many other guards have said you do. Fact is guards are still the preferred MT in raids becuase they tank better and hold agro better. <DIV><SPAN class=time_text>LU 13 didnt break guards they made it so all fighters can tank equally</SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=time_text><STRONG>Ask yourself after revamp is there any class so important now that you can't do a raid w/o them. That you can't group w/o them. The answer is no any tank can tank any healer can heal. Any caster/scout can dps.</STRONG>  <STRONG>That in itself is balanced</STRONG></SPAN></DIV> <P>Many gaurds have said it best. That fighters are unbalanced because brawlers have more dps and crusaders have more utility. Guards need better utility and Increased DPS. Thats the onyl thing unbalanced with fighters atm.</P> <P>It was posted prior by the devs that a guardian who focues more on offense woudl do mroe dps then a brawler who focused on defense. That is not the case currently on live. </P> <P>DPS does not neccesarily have to equal damage on combat arts it cna be acheived thru buffs or debuffs. Soem classes are inherently self buff oreinted some are group buff oriented. bards dont have alot of direct dps but they add alot of damage to the group via buffs and debuffs they are an example of a group orineted class. Many brawler skills are self oreinted in fact both monk and bruser have 1 group spell line.  </P> <P>This is a nice list of fixes on this board that does not turn gaurds into the best tank. I have not came up with these ideas but many were brought up by gaurds and non gaurds. I'll probably end up playing a guard more often as well, but these are the ideas/changes i would like seen done.</P> <P></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>1) AoE rescue line - (magic resist based) like old rescue ~900-1000hate and 1 agro position usable once every 5 min. Magic based if guards current AOE taunt is mental based. That gives guards 2 resist types for taunts.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>2) Change intervene lines for guards to equal 100% or less total damage taken. Change Guardian sphere into </FONT><FONT color=#ffff00>A Group regenerating Ward - It would stop 1 or 2 hits and slowly regenerate. ~2,500. (althought guards should have an entire line dedicated to a group ward for all levels)</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>3) Remove shield damage from "Tower of Stone", (If they want also add a new Tower of stone type line that has a % chance to block AOE's on group but damages shields 10-20% based on quality of spell.)</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>4) </FONT><FONT color=#ffff00>Do more damage by possibly reducing timers on some combat arts, adding a small hate gain to peel lost agro on combat arts and adding a</FONT><FONT color=#ffff00> Debuf to the mob's resistance to slashing/crushing and piercing (thereby increasing the damage done by the Guardian and group)</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>5) Introduce a % stun resist to Hold the Line, Remove root from hold the line. Allow HTL to proc thru wards.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>6) increase the effectiveness of offensive stance by adding a small % to proc a stun or stifle as well as increased offensive damage.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I would also like to see an 'all or nothing approach to group taunts'. Either it succeeds with all mobs, or fails with all mobs. That way you can recast it, instead of currently maybe aggroing 1 out of 5 and having to wait to recast your AOE taunt. or they can change it to have the faster recast if any mobs resists instead of the full recast if any succeed.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Finally SoE should explain what shield factor actual does since they revamped it so much. If shield factor effects avodiance then it would give a logical comparison between sheilds tiers/types. If both kite and tower give a base 10% block, shield factor should add to avodiance or at minimal spell resist or mitgation therefor a shield with a shield factor of 700 should give a set increase and a shiedl factor of 900 a higher increase. Even if it is minimal any sort of comparison and upgrade will be recommended.</FONT></P> <DIV>Alot of the above was posted by nemi for a bit and other gaurds and non gaurds. Those sort of utility will help gaurds solo a ton better, group alot better, and increase thier tanking while also allowing for a more skillful playing.</DIV> <P> </P></DIV>

[Gungo]

<DIV>Urglunt wrote:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>"Gungo, based on the names of your toons and the majority of posts I have seen from you I have to assume you are all of 14 or 15 years old.  If that is the case, it certainly would explain the reading comprehension problems you exhibit on a daily basis. If not then I can only assume you are playing dumb or are in fact dumb.  Either way I refuse to discuss/debate this issue since you are clearly incapable of comprehending and responding to what I wrote as opposed to what you invent in your head after reading the post. </DIV> <P>Since this will be my last reponse in this thread I will just add that my analysis had nothing to do with "playing with words." I read the quote, found the key words used, and applied my analysis to those words and the context in which they were used. "</P> <P>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____________</P> <P>Wow urglunt how clever attacking the poster instead of the post. Since you claim your posts are so much more insightful then mine, i must digress. It seems you are far mroe educated then i am since your posts are filled with such delightful personal attacks and flames. If you must know I am a 26 year old Federal Agent who lives in NYC and investigates Terrorism, money laudering, Drug funding, Organized crime, etc.But please do continue with the personal attacks as you only further prove to others what a beneficial poster you are on these boards.</P> <P> </P><p>Message Edited by Gungo on <span class=date_text>10-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:08 PM</span>

[Krooner]

<P>Gungo.</P> <P>It doesnt matter what or how good the suggestion are from the flocks of people here on the guardian thread.  Its more than apparent that we will never be given anything that enhances our game play or fun factor again.  Why because right now there is someone reading this thread thinking to himself... " Yup see he wants to be uber again... he wants to be the only tank... ect."  Yep.. they are there right now wetting themselves every time theres even a mention of a guardian fix.</P> <P>So they come here and tell us how everything is fine as it is...Guardians are still the preffered MT.. yadda yadda yadda.. totally ignoring that for a great many of us ITS NOT FUN anymore.  We want it to be fun.. we have given it the old college try with the new changes and found it sorely lacking.  Do I and a great many of the guardians here want to be the ONLY tank.. NO.  </P> <P>IF they had changed one or two things about guardians in LU13 we could have lived with that and thats all it would have taken to level the playing field.</P> <P>But thats not what they did... they decimated our class and now our spell line is not only bereft of anything useful on the scale of the other classes.  We endure penalties to our class like none other.</P> <P>Before you click reply.. wait.. name one other class that has their equipment damaged every time they use a spell... I cant think of any at the moment.. can you ?</P> <P> </P>

[Raahl]

<DIV>Everyone needs to get it in their heads that there will never be balance between the fighter archtypes.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>With that said, Sony needs to fix the issues that guardians are bringing to them to make the game fun for Guardians.   As long as it doesn't break the other classes why should they care?</DIV>

[Gungo]

<P>Warbird well suggestions are better then the bickering on these boards. </P> <P>And i suggested removing armor damage from "tower of stone" there is no reason for it to be included its a neat concept, but a bad idea. The benefit doesn't overcome the cost. If it was a skill that blocked an AoE attack, then maybe 20% shield damage woudl suffice, but considering the abilties given to other classes it does not add up.</P>

[Krooner]

<P>Gungo..</P> <P> </P> <P>And as I have said before.... thanks for the effort.. thanks for the concern.... but it doesnt change what I said.</P> <P>We will never get the fix we need because of all the noise surrounding anything that benifits our class.</P> <P> </P>

[Wasuna]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gungo wrote:<BR> <P>Wasuna ..... playing.</P> <P>Message Edited by Gungo on <SPAN class=date_text>10-28-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>11:38 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I want to be equal to my fighter brothers. If SOE wants to make Guardians better tanks then so be it. If they want to make Guardians Teir 1 DPS then so be it. If they want to give Guardians some actual useful utility then so be it.</P> <P>Everybodies opinions of what we need to be made better means nothing becasue SOE did not listen to the Guardians in Beta for DOF where the combat changes were tested. What makes you think they are going to listen to us now.</P>

[Krooner]

<P>Wasuna.</P> <P> </P> <P><STRONG>Well said</STRONG></P>

[a6eaq]

<P>Hey, I have an awesome idea that will ensure we get possitive attention from the Devs!  Let's keep arguing semantics!  I mean, I know they will jump right on fixing us because the word "group" obviously is not the word "raid" so Guardians ARE supposed to be the best "Raid" tanks ever because nothing states that fighters can tank "raids equally"! /sarcasm off.</P> <P>Can we continue to butcher the English language anymore in childish attempts to make our class into something that it was never meant to be?  If every member of the Board of Directors, Dev Team, and anyone who posts on these forums from SOE came to our boards and stated that EVERY FIGHTER WILL TANK EQUALLY AND EVERY FIGHTER WILL TANK RAIDS EQUALLY WELL, those of you who keep making claims that we are or should be the only tank would still find some rediculous way to state your futile arguements.</P> <P>Wake up from your delearious dreams and realize, it ain't gonna happen and focus that energy into making our class equal to those pajama tanks please!</P>

[Kasar]

<span><blockquote><hr>a6eaq wrote:<p>Wake up from your delearious dreams and realize, it ain't gonna happen and focus that energy into making our class equal to those pajama tanks please!</p><hr></blockquote> Give it up, it sounds like it doesn't matter what bone they throw, nobody will be happy about it.  If guardians get any defensive advantage, it'll be "unfair".  If they boost DPS, then what's the berserker class for? Nothing'll change until the next combat revamp.  Roll a different class or cancel, nothing else will make any difference.</span><div></div>

[ReviloTX]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> a6eaq wrote:<BR> <P>Can we continue to butcher the English language anymore in childish attempts to make our class into something that it was never meant to be?  If every member of the Board of Directors, Dev Team, and anyone who posts on these forums from <FONT color=#ffff00>SOE came to our boards and stated that EVERY FIGHTER WILL TANK EQUALLY AND EVERY FIGHTER WILL TANK RAIDS EQUALLY WELL</FONT>, those of you who keep making claims that we are or should be the only tank would still find some rediculous way to state your futile arguements.</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Please find me the quotes where any dev said this.  You can't, because they didn't.  What they did say, was that we should perform our ROLE equally well.  As I have said like.. 10 times now, tanking ability is not the only thing that helps a tank perform his role.  Therefore, saying that tanking ability = tanking role, is false.  Therefore, you cannot take a statement where they said the tanking role should be performed equally well and turn it into a statement that says we will tank equally.  They never said we would tank equally.</P> <P>If you don't believe me that the tanking role can be performed equally well, without having the tanks actually TANK equally, I will give you a very simplified example that proves as much.  Self heals.  Guardians have none, other tanks have them.  Some are quite substantial and can be used fairly frequently.  This means less healing power, if we are all taking the same damage.  That in itself says that a tank without a self heal should take less damage than a tank with a self heal if we are performing our TANKING ROLE equally well.  Point proved.  It gets much more involved if you consider other utility as well (such as stuns/stifles), but I'll leave it at that since I proved my point.</P> <P>I've also pointed out that, yes, if one tank takes less damage than the others then most of the time they will be the prefered one on raids (with the addition of the massive resists on defensive stances, this allows others to tank raids as well).  So be it, we all realized this a long time ago when we chose our class, don't make us pay because a few others didn't.</P> <P>I'm not campaigning for guardians to be the uber #1 best tank and have the other 5 tanks sitting LFG all night.  I'm saying our class was designed around us taking less damage, and thats the way it should be.  It shouldn't render any other tanks useless, it should be an equivelant advantage that they gain from their dps and utility.  Other tanks want to come here and tell us we need utility and dps to make us equal, but that isn't why we chose our class.  If we wanted that we could have chosen it 11 months ago.  We wanted to take the least damage, and thats what our class should do.<BR></P>

[Troupez]

Will I be able to surrender my archetype/class/subclass choices and choose again? No, you will not be able to reverse your selection. We plan on educating players beforehand about where each path takes them, but reversing those decisions or “respec’ing” isn’t something we plan to allow. I find this statement from the FAQ to be very amusing. They did educate us beforehand about where each path takes us....but this education was for the pre-LU13 system. I chose Guardian because I did research on the classes and also used their education as a factor. The fact is that their "education" no longer applies to the game as it is now. It has been totally FUBARed

[MrDiz]

<P>Is it me or are half the comments/manuals/definitions from sony staff contradiciting the other half? And those that dont can be interpreted by the players one way that contradicts the way the other half intepret them?</P> <P> </P> <P>Can we stop posting sony comments as frankly it doesnt matter how we interpret them or how they meant them. If we disagree with what they are doing we are gonna say it anyways <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Since when did Sony saying something mean we accept it 100%? They been in this industyr a long time now and im pretty sure they havnt had 100% player agreement on what they were doing. Im also pretty sure theyve changed their vision(s) a million and one times because of it.</P> <P> </P> <P>Stop already!</P>

[SniperKitty]

The manual is fluff and pointless to use in any kind of discussion (well, whine in the case of guardians) about class balance.  Moorgard himself has posted that each archetype has a basic role to fulfill.  The role of the fighter is to tank.  Tanking means tanking for a group or for a raid.  Either way, you're still part of a group and still tanking.  Therefore the basic role of a fighter (regardless of sub-class since all six sub-classes of the fighter archetype are fighters) is to tank. It has been clearly stated that all fighters will perform their basic role equally well.  Any other abilities, fluff, utility will vary from class to class and sub-class.  Simple.  That is the beauty of the archetype system.  The problem is people like Ditzy who thinks their class or sub-class should be better at a core role than the other sub-classes. For all you thick headed guardians here it is once again: Fighters tank. Priests heal. Scouts do melee dps/utility. Mages do magical dps/utility. Those are the basic roles of the archetypes.  How each sub-class performs their basic role is different, but the end result is the same.  You may think it's boring to have six tanks that do the same role, but I like having choices.  The game would be a helluva lot more boring if there was just one tank, one priest, one mage, and one scout and that's all there was.  I like being able to choose to be a defensive minded guardian or a bloodthirsty zerker.  I like being able to choose between the divine might of the templar and the demure strength of a warden.  I like being able to choose between the funeral march of a dirge and the hidden blade of an assassin. These choices are what brings diversity to the game while the archetype system should, in theory, make it easier for the devs to balance the different sub-classes within an archetype.  All the crap you see in this guardian forum is a result of crybabies who lost their spot atop the totem pole and now they want it back.  Guess what, that totem pole has been knocked down and leveled, balanced, made even and it's not going back up with guardians at the top.  So get used to how things are or quit the game.  Simple, no? <div></div>

[Pry]

The four class system is really silly. It dumbs down the game for those people who don't like to think, because if you only need 1 class to do 1 function...it's not very smart or very fun either. The reasons that Monks and Bruisers come on this forum and slam on Guardians (like the above) is because they don't want to get nerfed. Otherwise, they wouldn't care what was done with Guardians, just like I don't care what happens to Monks and Bruisers. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Kasar]

<span><blockquote><hr>Prynn wrote:The reasons that Monks and Bruisers come on this forum and slam on Guardians (like the above) is because they don't want to get nerfed. Otherwise, they wouldn't care what was done with Guardians, just like I don't care what happens to Monks and Bruisers. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><hr></blockquote> But they do.  They blame their lack of demand for groups on their class and perceptions that guardians were better tanks. Couldn't be personality, that never matters...</span><div></div>

[Poochymama]

<FONT size=5></FONT><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> ReviloTX wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Creppie wrote:<BR> <BR> <DIV>Please don't change the subject.  Many of us agree that your utility abilites need to be adjusted.  The point was to put to rest the "Guardians, Berzerkers, Paladins, SK's, Monks, and Bruisers.. are not supposed to tank equally well" garbage.  They said it, they put it in the FAQ's and they gave us LU 13 to make it so.<BR></DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Please find me the FAQ where it says all fighter subclasses will TANK equally well.  It doesn't, it says we can perform a ROLE equally well.  I have already proven that other fighters can fulfill their tanking role equally well as guardians even if they take more damage.  How? Simple, they can heal themsleves.  (After watching a pally solo a ^^^ heroic a few levels under him last night, I realized just how much they can actually heal themselves too, in some cases it's quite a bit.  I was two levels above the pally doing it and that mob would have smoked me.. I know because I was two boxing the same mobs with my inquis and I was having to heal with him quite a bit).  Add on DPS and additional utility like stifles/stuns and you end up with a hugely imbalanced fighter archetype, and guardians are not only the worst dps and utility, but also the worst at performing their core role, tanking.</P> <P>Please stop coming in here saying that they said all tanks should tank equally, they never did.  You are making an interpretation of what they actually said, which is that we would all fulfill a ROLE equally.  They did in fact interpret the design of the subclasses incorrectly as you guys are, and hence we got LU13.  What we're saying is, they messed up their interpretation and need to re-think it.  The guardian subclass was designed around being the best tank (it shouldn't be so substantial that others aren't chosen for groups, I give you that), if you can't see that by how the fighter subclasses were designed then I think you need to roll a guardian.</P> <P> </P> <P><BR></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><B><SPAN><FONT size=5><FONT color=#00cc99>The Class System FAQ</FONT></FONT></SPAN></B></P> <P><B><FONT color=#00cc99 size=3></FONT></B> </P> <P><B><FONT size=3><FONT color=#ffff99>How does the EQII class system work?</FONT></FONT></B></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff size=3>We use a branching archetype system.<SPAN>  </SPAN>A player begins our game at level 1 as a commoner.<SPAN>  </SPAN>At level 3 the player will choose one of four adventure archetypes: the fighter, the priest, the mage, or the scout.<SPAN>  </SPAN>Each of the adventuring archetypes branches into three classes, one of which the player will choose at level 10.<SPAN>  </SPAN>Each class then further branches into two subclasses, which is chosen at level 20.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=3></FONT> </P> <P><B><FONT size=3><FONT color=#ffff99>Will I be required to choose an archetype/class/subclass in order to continue leveling?</FONT></FONT></B></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff size=3>Yes.<SPAN>  </SPAN>You must choose your path of advancement before you can continue to level.</FONT></P> <P> </P> <P><B><FONT size=3><FONT color=#ffff99>Will I be able to surrender my archetype/class/subclass choices and choose again?</FONT></FONT></B></P> <P><FONT size=3><FONT color=#ffffff>No, you will not be able to reverse your selection.<SPAN>  </SPAN>We plan on educating players beforehand about where each path takes them, but reversing those decisions or “respec’ing” isn’t something we plan to allow.</FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff size=3></FONT> </P> <P><B><FONT color=#66ff66 size=3>Won’t balancing become a real issue with that many classes?</FONT></B></P> <P><FONT color=#66ff66 size=3>Class balance is always a complicated issue, but the archetype system allows us to manage it much more effectively.<SPAN>  </SPAN><FONT color=#ff0033>Each class and subclass is balanced at the archetype level</FONT>.<SPAN>  </SPAN><U><FONT color=#ff3333>Every archetype has a <FONT color=#ccff00 size=5><FONT color=#ff0000>main role</FONT> </FONT>in a group situation, and each member of a given archetype will be able to fill that role </FONT><FONT color=#ff0000 size=5><STRONG>equally well</STRONG></FONT></U>.<SPAN>  </SPAN><FONT size=5>If you're a fighter</FONT>, <FONT size=5>you can tank</FONT> for a group; if you're a priest, you can heal for a group; and so on. This is the beauty of an archetype system. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#66ff66 size=3></FONT> </P> <P><B><FONT color=#ffff99 size=3>Will there be enough variety in the classes and subclasses of an archetype, or will all priests, for instance, be the same?</FONT></B></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff size=3>Will there be variety? Of course. Different abilities, spells, combat styles... the whole works. Some classes will be able to do some tasks better than others, but the primary purpose of the class will always be there.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff size=3></FONT> </P> <P><B><FONT color=#ffff99 size=3>Will I be able to multi class and create something along the lines of a Fighter-Mage?</FONT></B></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff size=3>No.<SPAN>  </SPAN>While our archetype system does allow for a great deal of variety in how you play your character, we will not be allowing players to mix and match parts of various classes.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff size=3></FONT> </P> <P><B><FONT color=#ffff99 size=3>Will there be experience penalties based on your class or race?</FONT></B></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff size=3>There will be no experience penalties (or bonuses) based on your race or class in EQII.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff size=3></FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=3><FONT color=#ffff99><B>Will all subclasses be available in both Qeynos and </B><B>Freeport</B><B>?</B></FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff size=3>Monks, paladins, templars, mystics, swashbucklers, rangers, conjurors, and illustionists can only be trained in Qeynos. Bruisers, shadowknights, inquisitors, defilers, brigands, assassins, necromancers, and coercers can only be trained in Freeport. The rest will be found in both cities.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff size=3></FONT> </P> <P><B><FONT color=#ffff99 size=3>Will there be a particular class designed specifically for players who want to solo?</FONT></B></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff size=3>We are not designing any specific classes to be more efficient at soloing than others. We intend to provide lots of solo content for all classes in EQII.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=3></FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=3>The highlighted part says that all tanks will tank equally well. It clearly states that the fighters main role is to tank and that all archetypes will be able to perfom their main role equally well.</FONT></P> <P><BR></P>

[Coredor]

<DIV>The bottom line is the biggest reason that the perception of tanking superiority exists is because they made it so. I also have a hard time believing it was a programming foul up.  The guardian sounded like the heir to the eq warrior and SOE programmed it that way.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>No one likes having things taken away from them, and when SOE created guards it didn't give them things other tanks had because of their defensive abilities.  They changed their minds end of story.  What they actually did spoke a whole lot louder than any archetype statements they made.  They need to learn that the surest way to tick their customer base off is nerfs, particularly if they're not expecting it. I'm not saying most guards weren't expecting a little more balance in LU 13. However no one was expecting the abomination that SOE put forth.</DIV>

[Ladicav]

<DIV>I have to agree with you Coredor. Making Guardians be the subset of what warriors were in EQ1 was done deliberately. I also have a very very hard time believing it was all just a programming or archetypeal foul up.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As for the rest of this thread, posting up something written by Moorgard then trying to interpret the contents to suit yourself do not hold any water with me. As of Moorgards last post on the Guardian forums, he didn't even know what a Guardians main role is now, he couldn't even explain it to *US*, other then the fact he said we could be the unsung heroes...and what the hell does THAT mean anyway. I have no confidence in someone whos posts are both ambiguous in meaning and yet also confirm nothing either. So you can link it all over the place if you want to, doesn't mean any of us have to believe it or even have the conviction to know what he even writes is accurate.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So long as we are linking things, here is something that is not ambiguous, is in a place where all players can read even new players, without having to troll through threads like these to find some post by a dev hidden away in some corner somewhere. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><A href="http://eq2players.station.sony.com/en/classes/playguide.vm?classId=5" target=_blank>http://eq2players.station.sony.com/en/classes/playguide.vm?classId=5</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Take particular note to the points made about tanking, and secondary tanking.</DIV>

[ReviloTX]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Poochymama p wrote: <P><FONT size=3>The highlighted part says that all tanks will tank equally well. It clearly states that the fighters main role is to tank and that all archetypes will be able to perfom their main role equally well.</FONT></P> <P><BR></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Wrong, it doesn't say that.  It says we will perform the ROLE equally well.  How many [Removed for Content] times do I have to explain this to you people.  It does not say we will tank equally.  Good lord I think I even explained this in this very thread.. here I go again.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Tanking Role = Tanking ability + DPS + Utility (especially heals/wards/mob debuffs)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Therefore, tanking ability does not equal tanking role.  They said ROLE, get it through your thick skulls.  They designed guardians to be the best at tanking ability, and reduced our DPS and utility to make the tanking ROLE equal.  Did it require some adjustments pre LU13?  Possibly, and probably so.  But instead they made the exact same misinterpretation that you are making by eliminating two very important parts of the above equation, DPS and utility.  </DIV>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> ReviloTX wrote:<BR><BR> <P> As I have said like.. 10 times now, tanking ability is not the only thing that helps a tank perform his role. </P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>But its the only thing that matters.  Your "balance" system equates to the fighter with the best tanking ability tanking, the fighter with the best dps ability dps'ing (like a scout) and the fighter with the best utility buffing... the fighter with the best tanking ability.</P> <P>We had that, it sucked.  No thanks.<BR></P>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ladicav wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So long as we are linking things, here is something that is not ambiguous, is in a place where all players can read even new players, without having to troll through threads like these to find some post by a dev hidden away in some corner somewhere. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><A href="http://eq2players.station.sony.com/en/classes/playguide.vm?classId=5" target=_blank>http://eq2players.station.sony.com/en/classes/playguide.vm?classId=5</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Take particular note to the points made about tanking, and secondary tanking. <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>And?  If that guide was written by me it would've had a totally different outlook.  That is a player with an opinion, it proves nothing.  Its just like the other "guides" out there.  If you think a player written guide is the end-all I suggest you read the Paladin one, lol.<BR>

[Pry]

<blockquote><hr>Gaige wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> ReviloTX wrote:<BR><BR> <P> As I have said like.. 10 times now, tanking ability is not the only thing that helps a tank perform his role. </P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>But its the only thing that matters.  Your "balance" system equates to the fighter with the best tanking ability tanking, the fighter with the best dps ability dps'ing (like a scout) and the fighter with the best utility buffing... the fighter with the best tanking ability.</P> <P>We had that, it sucked.  No thanks.<BR></P> No, it sucked for you and a very small group of other people, not everyone <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Gaige]

It sucked for any fighter who wasn't a guardian who didn't enjoy stealing the scout's spotlight and wanted to do their role.

[Nibbl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gaige wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ladicav wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So long as we are linking things, here is something that is not ambiguous, is in a place where all players can read even new players, without having to troll through threads like these to find some post by a dev hidden away in some corner somewhere. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><A href="http://eq2players.station.sony.com/en/classes/playguide.vm?classId=5" target=_blank>http://eq2players.station.sony.com/en/classes/playguide.vm?classId=5</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Take particular note to the points made about tanking, and secondary tanking. <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>And?  If that guide was written by me it would've had a totally different outlook.  That is a player with an opinion, it proves nothing.  Its just like the other "guides" out there.  If you think a player written guide is the end-all I suggest you read the Paladin one, lol.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>That guide was written by SoE, guess you didnt follow the link or read it.  If its not true SoE should remove it from the EQ2players class guide section.</P> <p>Message Edited by Nibblar on <span class=date_text>10-30-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:28 PM</span>

[ReviloTX]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gaige wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> ReviloTX wrote:<BR><BR> <P> As I have said like.. 10 times now, tanking ability is not the only thing that helps a tank perform his role. </P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>But its the only thing that matters.  Your "balance" system equates to the fighter with the best tanking ability tanking, the fighter with the best dps ability dps'ing (like a scout) and the fighter with the best utility buffing... the fighter with the best tanking ability.</P> <P>We had that, it sucked.  No thanks.<BR></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>It sucked for you because you apparently chose the wrong class to play.  You wanted the most defensive tank, but you didn't choose that one.  Almost everyone else understood how things were meant to be, and chose their class appropriately.  If you balance the equation that I put forth about the tanking role (I started a new thread to discuss and debate this formula - I think its the key to balancing the fighter archetype), it's fairly easy to see that if you don't have DPS or utility that your going to have a tanking ability edge.  We all saw that, realized it was what we wanted, and chose it.</P> <P>Don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying that things didn't need adjustments prior to LU13 and that brawlers didn't need a tanking boost.  I'm not saying guardians should be the god-mode end all be all tank either, I'm saying our lack of DPS and utility should be made up for with tanking ability.. that is the very definition of "the most defensive" tank.  It should be in line with your benefits (as they pertain to tanking) that you get from DPS and utility.</P> <P><BR> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gaige wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> ReviloTX wrote:<BR><BR> <P> As I have said like.. 10 times now, tanking ability is not the only thing that helps a tank perform his role. </P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>But its the only thing that matters.<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Absolutely false, and unfortunately for guardians the exact same mistake the dev's made with LU13.  It is FAR from the only thing that matters in a solo situation, and nearly as far from the only thing that matters in a group situation.  It very well may be the only thing that matters in a raid situation, but that is a very small portion of the game for most players and not even part of the game for a lot of players.  Also, we all realized the edge we would have raid tanking by being the most defensive tank, and for many of us it was the reason we chose our class.<BR><BR></P>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Nibblar wrote:<BR> <P>That guide was written by SoE, guess you didnt follow the link or read it.  If its not true SoE should remove it from the EQ2players class guide section.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>It most definately was not written by SOE.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P> <HR> ReviloTX wrote: <P></P> <P>It sucked for you because you apparently chose the wrong class to play.  <FONT color=#ffff00>I chose fighter.  After that it doesn't matter.  If I wanted to deal melee damage I'd have chose a scout.  Oh and all those whines and rants about it being boring because an archetype system is really four classes... how boring is it if you HAVE to pick guardian if you want to raid tank.  I like a flexible system that allows choices, not one that makes me play a class I'm not fond of in order to play the game in the way I want.  Six choices of how to do a job are vastly superior to one; unless the one choice is the one you happen to like.</FONT></P> <P>If you balance the equation that I put forth about the tanking role it's fairly easy to see that if you don't have DPS or utility that your going to have a tanking ability edge.  We all saw that, realized it was what we wanted, and chose it.  <FONT color=#ffff00>The archetype system doesn't allow for tradeoffs in utility/dps to interfere with the primary role.  All members of an archetype perform the primary role equally well.</FONT></P> <P>I'm saying our lack of DPS and utility should be made up for with tanking ability.. that is the very definition of "the most defensive" tank.  It should be in line with your benefits (as they pertain to tanking) that you get from DPS and utility.  <FONT color=#ffff00>Wrong.  All this does is reinforce the Guardian class as the "tank" class and the other fighters as either DPS or buffers.  This is very evident in looking at EQ2 pre-LU13 where that is exactly how the scenario played out.  Tanking ability should be balanced among the fighters and the DPS and utility balanced against others DPS and utility.  You do not fix a lack of DPS or utility by adding tanking ability.  You fix them by adding DPS and utility.  You can't mess with tanking ability very much because its the primary role of all fighters.</FONT></P> <P>It is FAR from the only thing that matters in a solo situation, and nearly as far from the only thing that matters in a group situation.  It very well may be the only thing that matters in a raid situation, but that is a very small portion of the game for most players and not even part of the game for a lot of players.  Also, we all realized the edge we would have raid tanking by being the most defensive tank, and for many of us it was the reason we chose our class.  <FONT color=#ffff00>Soloing is a seperate issue and is balanced as such.  All classes can solo effectively.  By having one fighter tank raids the best they automatically tank groups the best.  Its just how it is.  I understand you assumed you'd have an advantage at raid tanking by rolling a guardian due to prior games and preconceptions but the truth is the ability to tank is chosen when you pick fighter and doesn't change by any substantial amount at 10 or 20.</FONT><BR> <HR> <P></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR><BR> </P> <p>Message Edited by Gaige on <span class=date_text>10-30-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:56 PM</span>

[Ladicav]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gaige wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ladicav wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So long as we are linking things, here is something that is not ambiguous, is in a place where all players can read even new players, without having to troll through threads like these to find some post by a dev hidden away in some corner somewhere. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><A href="http://eq2players.station.sony.com/en/classes/playguide.vm?classId=5" target=_blank>http://eq2players.station.sony.com/en/classes/playguide.vm?classId=5</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Take particular note to the points made about tanking, and secondary tanking. <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>And?  If that guide was written by me it would've had a totally different outlook.  That is a player with an opinion, it proves nothing.  Its just like the other "guides" out there.  If you think a player written guide is the end-all I suggest you read the Paladin one, lol.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>You don't get it Gaige. That summary of Bruisers is SANCTIONED by SOE. It is given it's own space on the website, it's description must have *some value* since if it was all bull dung, it would not be on the SOE official class description pages and here would be a different description in its place, right?</P> <P>It isn't someones opinion of what the class should be, written on some user forum hidden away somewhere, that IS the defining description for Bruisers and it is displayed on the class description section with SOE's support. That is the blurb a new player looking at playing a Bruiser is most likely to read after reading the manual that comes with the game.</P> <P>That is the problem with you Gaige, you pick about the periphery of things, and attack things that have little meaning in the overall scheme of things. Take a step back and look at the whole picture here.<BR></P>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ladicav wrote:<BR><BR> <P>You don't get it Gaige. That summary of Bruisers is SANCTIONED by SOE. It is given it's own space on the website, it's description must have *some value* since if it was all bull dung, it would not be on the SOE official class description pages and here would be a different description in its place, right?</P> <P>It isn't someones opinion of what the class should be, written on some user forum hidden away somewhere, that IS the defining description for Bruisers and it is displayed on the class description section with SOE's support. That is the blurb a new player looking at playing a Bruiser is most likely to read after reading the manual that comes with the game.</P> <P>That is the problem with you Gaige, you pick about the periphery of things, and attack things that have little meaning in the overall scheme of things. <FONT color=#ffff00>Take a step back and look at the whole picture here.<BR></FONT></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Says the guy who is saying that link is a defining description of the bruiser class.</P> <P>Simply put its a write-up written by a player.  Its similiar to the Prima guides.</P> <P>Oh, and just so you know I'm looking at the whole picture here sir, that link is to a guide about brawlers, which players are from lvls 10 to 19.  I'd hardly call it defining of the bruiser class.  In fact it has nothing to do with the bruiser class at all.  Thank you.</P> <P>You of all people should know that, since a keystone in the foundation of the arguement for guardians being the best tank lies in the fact that the choices we make at 10 and 20 seperate us from the role and abilities we were granted by picking fighter.</P> <P>At least that guide is on the cutting edge and is accurate, yes?  I mean just look at all these awesome tidbits of info:</P> <P><EM><STRONG>Armor<BR></STRONG>Brawlers can use the following armor types:</EM><BR><EM><STRONG>Buckler</STRONG>, Light Armor, Skin and Very Light Armor.</EM></P> <P>Um, how about no.  They took bucklers away from brawlers forever ago.  Though, much to my amusement, this makes your post even less accurate, as bruisers/monks equipped round shields back in those days.  I can certainly see how this guide is class defining for bruisers sir.</P> <P><EM><STRONG>Key Skills<BR></STRONG>Brawlers make use of the following key skills:</EM><STRONG><BR></STRONG><EM>Brawling, Crushing, Defense, Deflection, Focus, Magic Affinity, Martial Arts, Parry, Piercing, Ranged, Safe Fall, Slashing, and <STRONG>Sneak.</STRONG></EM></P> <P>Oh yeah, I mean I remember sneaking all over the place as a brawler.  Considering I don't even have that skill and my invis is granted at lvl 24.  Oh wait this guide is about bruisers according to you.  They don't get invis at all, much less sneak.  Definately class defining.</P> <P><EM>Tanking<BR>The idea of tanking is to have a creature attack the most durable member of your party at all times, keeping the less durable members of the party from harm. <STRONG>Brawlers can tank, though it might not always be the best choice for this job, and may often be called upon to fill this role.</STRONG></EM></P> <P>Sounds about right to me.  That amazes me though, considering the source...</P> <P><EM>Race<BR>The following races are well suited to the intense physical demands of the brawler class:<BR>Barbarian, Dwarf, Froglok, Half-Elf, Human, Kerra, and Troll.<BR><BR>The following races will encounter more challenges in the role of a brawler:<BR>Dark Elf, Erudite, Gnome, Halfling, High Elf, Iksar, Ogre, Ratonga, Wood Elf.<BR><BR></EM>Finally, race just does not matter.</P> <P>So in the end, this "guide" to brawlers is decent, but dated.  Aside from a few personal opinions of the writer its basically charts and sentences citing what skills are acquired at what level, what stat bonuses you receive as a brawler and various other items from the EQ2 manual.</P> <P>Oh, but it still has nothing at all to do with bruisers.  I want to be sure your getting the whole picture, since that's such a keypoint for you.<BR></P> <p>Message Edited by Gaige on <span class=date_text>10-31-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:13 AM</span>

[ReviloTX]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gaige wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><FONT color=#ffff00>The archetype system doesn't allow for tradeoffs in utility/dps to interfere with the primary role.  All members of an archetype perform the primary role equally well.</FONT><BR></BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>The problem with this statement is that utilty and dps EFFECT the primary role.  If we "tank" the same and you have utility and dps that effect your tanking role (such as self heals), then you perform your tanking role better than I do.  Look at the equation I put forth "tanking role = tanking ability + DPS + utility + taunting ability" and tell me if it is an accurate formula.  If you say it is not, then I will be happy to explain why it is.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If it is, then what your saying is incorrect, and in fact you HAVE to consider DPS and utility when balancing the tanking role.  The equations your using are tanking role = tanking ability and fighter = tanking ability + dps + utility + taunting ability.  Your admitting the second equation isn't balanced and saying we need better utility and dps, but your mixing up your equations because your not willing to admit that dps and utility effect the tanking role.  They most certainly do, and I have explained it in several threads already.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gaige wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><FONT color=#ffff00>Tanking ability should be balanced among the fighters and the DPS and utility balanced against others DPS and utility.  You do not fix a lack of DPS or utility by adding tanking ability.  You fix them by adding DPS and utility.  You can't mess with tanking ability very much because its the primary role of all fighters.</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Same argument as above, DPS and utility are PART of the tanking role, so you can't just ignore them as if they aren't.  Also, I've said this hopefully as many times as you have said that we should get DPS and utility.. that isn't how our class was designed and isn't what we chose.  If we wanted DPS and utility we would have chosen a brawler a year ago.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><BR> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[ReviloTX]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gaige wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><FONT color=#ffff00>Soloing is a seperate issue and is balanced as such.  All classes can solo effectively.  By having one fighter tank raids the best they automatically tank groups the best.  Its just how it is.  I understand you assumed you'd have an advantage at raid tanking by rolling a guardian due to prior games and preconceptions but the truth is the ability to tank is chosen when you pick fighter and doesn't change by any substantial amount at 10 or 20.</FONT><BR></BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Bah, I meant to quote again and hit submit instead.  Just wanted to address these last comments.  As for soloing, give me a break.. I'd like to see you solo with a guard and tell me soloing is balanced.  If were no better in groups or raids than you, how is it ok for you to solo twice as efficient as us?</P> <P>The comment about one tank being superior on raids automatically making them the superior group tank is totally false.  I know this isn't EQ1, but since EQ1 proves you wrong I'll go ahead adn use it as an example.  SK/Pal are the best group tanks in EQ1, warrior are the best raid tanks.  Enough said, argument nullified.  Why? because their utility makes up for and even surpasses their disadvantage in tanking ability in a group setting.  BTW, don't think that I don't understand your side of the argument.  I was an SK in a raiding guild in EQ1.  I rarely got to tank a raid mob, and I was better equipped than most of our warriors.  I do realize EQ2 is built on an archetype system, but the rules for balancing the subclasses doesn't change.</P> <P> </P>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> ReviloTX wrote: <P>If we wanted DPS and utility we would have chosen a brawler a year ago.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I wouldn't.  Brawlers are tanks.  Dirges, troubadors, illusionists and coercers fit that bill though <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>All classes have 'dps and utility' including guardians; the ones I listed simply offer the most DPS and utility out of all the classes imho.  Much more than a brawler.</P> <P> <HR> <P>ReviloTX wrote:</P> <P></P> <P>I know this isn't EQ1, but since EQ1 proves you wrong I'll go ahead adn use it as an example.  <FONT color=#ffff00>Don't.  Different game.  Things from EQ1 prove nothing in EQ2.  EQ1 proves that only Iksar and Humans can be monks... EQ2... oh wait.  Yeah, just don't.</FONT></P> <P>I do realize EQ2 is built on an archetype system, but the rules for balancing the subclasses doesn't change.  <FONT color=#ffff00>Um, yes they do.  In games like EQ1 were classes are balanced individually, the outcome is much different then balancing by archetype.  You know this, you don't like this, and most of your posts complain about it and ask for it to be changed.</FONT> <HR> <P> </P><p>Message Edited by Gaige on <span class=date_text>10-31-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:48 AM</span>

[MrDiz]

<blockquote><hr>Galeo1 wrote:I have no issues with Guardians getting some of their abilities fixed.  I hope they do. <div> </div><div>In my opinion, DPS is one of the flavors that help vary the fighters.  Some have it, some don't.</div><div> </div><div>The core ability of tanking is what should be equalized.</div><hr></blockquote>DPS is NOT flavour. 'Roles' (things that are the main reason for some classes existance) cannot be flavour for any other classes unless. Scouts and Mages are DPS classes. That is their core role. Priests are healing classes. Thats their core role. Fighters of some classes get dps and healing. It is not their core role, but neither is it simply 'flavour' to be ignored in the balancing process. A paladin may not be a healer at core but he is more than capable of providing that role for certain circumstances. A monk may not be a DPS class but he is more than capable of performing that role in many cases. We did the entire FBSS hq with a paladin healer on my swashbuckler. I cant count the times (even since lu13) ive had a bralwer fill a dps role.I wonder what would happen if there was a 'tank flavoured' mage <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Nemi]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> ReviloTX wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>The problem with this statement is that utilty and dps EFFECT the primary role.  If we "tank" the same and you have utility and dps that effect your tanking role (such as self heals), then you perform your tanking role better than I do.  Look at the equation I put forth "tanking role = tanking ability + DPS + utility + taunting ability" and tell me if it is an accurate formula.  If you say it is not, then I will be happy to explain why it is.  </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>The simple answer to this is to have Guardians DPS and Utility tweaked. As you say we all tank the same as it stands, therefore the problem lies with Guardians DPS and Utility. Ask for that to be changed, not your tanking ability.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>Guardians have more HPs than a Brawler (not naked, after equipment) and Brawlers have a heal. Balanced? Maybe, maybe not.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>Guardians taunt better on multiple mobs than a Brawler- </FONT><FONT color=#ffff00>Guardians have poorer DPS than a Brawler</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>So taking your formula:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>Tanking ability = equal</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>Utility = equal (in a group role)</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>DPS = poorer</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>Taunting = better</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>Would you agree?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><BR> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV>

[MrDiz]

<blockquote><hr>Nemi wrote:<font color="#ffff00">So taking your formula:</font><div><font color="#ffff00"></font> </div><div><font color="#ffff00"></font> </div><div><font color="#ffff00">Tanking ability = equal</font></div><div><font color="#ffff00">Utility = equal (in a group role)</font></div><div><font color="#ffff00">DPS = poorer</font></div><div><font color="#ffff00">Taunting = better</font></div><div><font color="#ffff00"></font> </div><div><font color="#ffff00"></font> </div><div><font color="#ffff00">Would you agree?</font></div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><hr></blockquote><hr>Nope.My listing:Tanking = Maybe equal. Since mitigation boost on cobalt its similar. Bummer that a mit tank must be in full legendary to match an avoidance tank but its better than nothing.DPS = The worst. Not just poor but border line inconsequential. In a duo with a tamplar, the temp is the dps.Utility = NONE. Some have suggested intervene and guardian sphere are utility. These spells have never been useful (ergo of some utility). If I was the tank I would not waste time with them if i lost aggro, id be spamming my taunts. Even if not the MT and I just wanna field something that has lost aggro from the MT id probably just rescue and take aggro on to myself.Taunting = Better.... yes IF agaisnt multi . On single mobs a guardian could not pull aggro from a monk without using rescue or reinforce.

[Nemi]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MrDizzi wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Nope.<BR><BR>My listing:<BR><BR>Tanking = Maybe equal. Since mitigation boost on cobalt its similar. Bummer that a mit tank must be in full legendary to match an avoidance tank but its better than nothing.<BR><BR>DPS = The worst. Not just poor but border line inconsequential. In a duo with a tamplar, the temp is the dps. <FONT color=#ffff00>Exaggeration but I won't argue with you as I'm happy to see Guardians get a DPS boost.</FONT><BR><BR>Utility = NONE. Some have suggested intervene and guardian sphere are utility. These spells have never been useful (ergo of some utility). If I was the tank I would not waste time with them if i lost aggro, id be spamming my taunts. Even if not the MT and I just wanna field something that has lost aggro from the MT id probably just rescue and take aggro on to myself.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>So what exactly is the Monk Utility that gives them High rating above?</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00> Safefall - surely not, so I can fall off a Griff Tower saving myself 3 seconds of running.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Feign Death - Situational at best in a group, very limited. Soloing, yeah it's useful but then I don't solo.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Invis - Again useless in a group, soloing and travel useful.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>So for group utility, what exactly gives monk High utility that Guardians love so much? Our Heal? Well you have more HPs than I do and you have them always, I have a heal every 3 minutes.</FONT><BR><BR>Taunting = Better.... yes IF agaisnt multi . On single mobs a guardian could not pull aggro from a monk without using rescue or reinforce.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>But you're not competing with a Monk. In your group you can hold single mobs well (not the best) and with multiple mob encounters (which there are lots) you excel.</FONT><BR></P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV><p>Message Edited by Nemi on <span class=date_text>10-31-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:24 PM</span>

[MrDiz]

<blockquote><hr>Nemi wrote: <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MrDizzi wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Nope.<BR><BR>My listing:<BR><BR>Tanking = Maybe equal. Since mitigation boost on cobalt its similar. Bummer that a mit tank must be in full legendary to match an avoidance tank but its better than nothing.<BR><BR>DPS = The worst. Not just poor but border line inconsequential. In a duo with a tamplar, the temp is the dps. <FONT color=#ffff00>Exaggeration but I won't argue with you as I'm happy to see Guardians get a DPS boost.</FONT><BR><BR>Utility = NONE. Some have suggested intervene and guardian sphere are utility. These spells have never been useful (ergo of some utility). If I was the tank I would not waste time with them if i lost aggro, id be spamming my taunts. Even if not the MT and I just wanna field something that has lost aggro from the MT id probably just rescue and take aggro on to myself.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>So what exactly is the Monk Utility that gives them High rating above?</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00> Safefall - surely not, so I can fall off a Griff Tower saving myself 3 seconds of running.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Feign Death - Situational at best in a group, very limited. Soloing, yeah it's useful but then I don't solo.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Invis - Again useless in a group, soloing and travel useful.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>So for group utility, what exactly gives monk High utility that Guardians love so much? Our Heal? Well you have more HPs than I do and you have them always, I have a heal every 3 minutes.</FONT><BR><BR>Taunting = Better.... yes IF agaisnt multi . On single mobs a guardian could not pull aggro from a monk without using rescue or reinforce.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>But you're not competing with a Monk. In your group you can hold single mobs well (not the best) and with multiple mob encounters (which there are lots) you excel.</FONT><BR></P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV><p>Message Edited by Nemi on <span class=date_text>10-31-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:24 PM</span><hr></blockquote>Well the utility thing for monks id say was only a small part of the equation, unless you count the self heal as utility , and i guess we must as it doesnt have its own heading. I still think of monks as tanks with great dps. I tend to think of pallys as more tank with utility (counting heal as util).And I would agree with the taunting apart from the fact that they are resitable, which makes it less reliable especially on yellow mobs where the constant DPS type taunting seems more reliable right now. However its too early for me to have a firm opnion on it.

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> MrDizzi wrote: <P>DPS is NOT flavour. 'Roles' (things that are the main reason for some classes existance) cannot be flavour for any other classes unless. Scouts and Mages are DPS classes. That is their core role. Priests are healing classes. Thats their core role. Fighters of some classes get dps and healing. It is not their core role, but neither is it simply 'flavour' to be ignored in the balancing process. A paladin may not be a healer at core but he is more than capable of providing that role for certain circumstances. A monk may not be a DPS class but he is more than capable of performing that role in many cases. We did the entire FBSS hq with a paladin healer on my swashbuckler. I cant count the times (even since lu13) ive had a bralwer fill a dps role.<BR><BR>I wonder what would happen if there was a 'tank flavoured' mage <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Okay.  /sigh</P> <P>I can't believe you do not see the flaw in your arguements. </P> <P>Scouts and Mages are DPS classes.  Correct.</P> <P>Priests are healing classes.  Correct.</P> <P>Then you say "Fighters of some classes get DPS and healing".  You should've said "Fighters are tanks.  That is their core role".</P> <P>Every class in this game can and does DPS.  The end.  Every single one of them.  The amount of DPS done varies, but no class does so little damage as to be inconsequential.  If guardians can average 150dps and the fight lasts 3 minutes they do 27,000.  That is far from inconsequential.</P> <P>As for all your examples you can probably have a necro or conj tank the FBSS quest now.  You could have a Fury as DPS for the FBSS quest as well.</P> <P>So what is your point?</P> <P>Nothing?  Thought so.</P> <P>You simply see guardian: tank, zerker: tank, paly: healer, sk: ?, monk: dps, bruiser: dps.  Every post you make alludes to it and then you try to say "No, that's not what I'm saying".  I've never seen you reference monk/bruiser as anything other than a dps class.</P>

[RafaelSmith]

<span><blockquote><hr>Gaige wrote:<div></div> <p>If guardians can average 150dps and the fight lasts 3 minutes they do 27,000.  That is far from inconsequential.</p><hr></blockquote> Its about as inconsequential as a Guardian being able to tank 100% of the content while a Monk can only tank 98%.</span><div></div>

[Screamin' 1]

<span><blockquote><hr>Nibblar wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Gaige wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Ladicav wrote: <div> </div> <div>So long as we are linking things, here is something that is not ambiguous, is in a place where all players can read even new players, without having to troll through threads like these to find some post by a dev hidden away in some corner somewhere. </div> <div> </div> <div><a href="http://eq2players.station.sony.com/en/classes/playguide.vm?classId=5" target="_blank">http://eq2players.station.sony.com/en/classes/playguide.vm?classId=5</a></div> <div> </div> <div>Take particular note to the points made about tanking, and secondary tanking. <hr> </div></blockquote>And?  If that guide was written by me it would've had a totally different outlook.  That is a player with an opinion, it proves nothing.  Its just like the other "guides" out there.  If you think a player written guide is the end-all I suggest you read the Paladin one, lol. <hr> </blockquote> <p>That guide was written by SoE, guess you didnt follow the link or read it.  If its not true SoE should remove it from the EQ2players class guide section.</p> <p>Message Edited by Nibblar on <span class="date_text">10-30-2005</span> <span class="time_text">05:28 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Yes, apparently some people see what they want to see, as opposed to the actual facts. To spell it out, this is from the SOE FAQ linked above: </span><b><em>Tanking</em> The idea of tanking is to have a creature attack the most durable member of your party at all times, keeping the less durable members of the party from harm. Brawlers can tank, though it might not always be the best choice for this job, and may often be called upon to fill this role. </b> <div></div>

[Wasuna]

<DIV>I was going to further post in this thread until I saw that Gaige has posted here.</DIV>

[Raahl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gaige wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> MrDizzi wrote: <P>DPS is NOT flavour. 'Roles' (things that are the main reason for some classes existance) cannot be flavour for any other classes unless. Scouts and Mages are DPS classes. That is their core role. Priests are healing classes. Thats their core role. Fighters of some classes get dps and healing. It is not their core role, but neither is it simply 'flavour' to be ignored in the balancing process. A paladin may not be a healer at core but he is more than capable of providing that role for certain circumstances. A monk may not be a DPS class but he is more than capable of performing that role in many cases. We did the entire FBSS hq with a paladin healer on my swashbuckler. I cant count the times (even since lu13) ive had a bralwer fill a dps role.<BR><BR>I wonder what would happen if there was a 'tank flavoured' mage <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Okay.  /sigh</P> <P>I can't believe you do not see the flaw in your arguements. </P> <P>Scouts and Mages are DPS classes.  Correct.</P> <P>Priests are healing classes.  Correct.</P> <P>Then you say "Fighters of some classes get DPS and healing".  You should've said "Fighters are tanks.  That is their core role".</P> <P>Every class in this game can and does DPS.  The end.  Every single one of them.  The amount of DPS done varies, but no class does so little damage as to be inconsequential.  If guardians can average 150dps and the fight lasts 3 minutes they do 27,000.  That is far from inconsequential.</P> <P>As for all your examples you can probably have a necro or conj tank the FBSS quest now.  You could have a Fury as DPS for the FBSS quest as well.</P> <P>So what is your point?</P> <P>Nothing?  Thought so.</P> <P>You simply see guardian: tank, zerker: tank, paly: healer, sk: ?, monk: dps, bruiser: dps.  Every post you make alludes to it and then you try to say "No, that's not what I'm saying".  I've never seen you reference monk/bruiser as anything other than a dps class.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Do mages and scouts DPS equally?  No.</P> <P>Do Priests heal equally?  No.</P> <P>Why should fighters tank equally?  </P>

[SniperKitty]

<div></div><hr>Do mages and scouts DPS equally?  No. <font color="#ffff00"></font><hr><font color="#ffff00">No, but what they bring to a group makes them equal.</font><hr><p>Do Priests heal equally?  No.</p><hr><p><font color="#ffff00">Actually, priest healing is just about on par.  Wardens and Furies could use a little help with direct heals pre-50 and wardens post-50.  But aside from that issue, priest healing is pretty darn well balanced right now.</font></p><hr><p>Why should fighters tank equally?</p><hr><p><font color="#ffff00">Because they should.</font></p><div></div>

[Krooner]

<DIV>Sniperkitty Wrote:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <P>Why should fighters tank equally?<BR></P> <HR> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Because they should.</FONT><BR></P> <P> </P> <P>Ok.... Then EVERYTHING should be equal.  DPS, Utility, Soloing, ARMOR costs... EVERYTHING.</P> <P> </P></DIV>

[Ironmeow]

<DIV>i really dont get it, werent zerkers/pallys/sk's tanking just fine before the CU, yes i think they were, </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>and no monks are not tanks</DIV>

[Raberis]

<DIV>MrDizzi wrote:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I wonder what would happen if there was a 'tank flavoured' mage <IMG height=16 src="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif" width=16 border=0> </DIV> <DIV>__________________________________________________ ___________________________</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You mean like a Conjuror's earth pet (a second-rate tank, but flavored like a tank)?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Ironmeow]

<DIV>you mean a plate mage? i wish! wait isnt that a sk?</DIV>

[ReviloTX]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> RafaelSmith wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gaige wrote:<BR> <BR> <P>If guardians can average 150dps and the fight lasts 3 minutes they do 27,000.  That is far from inconsequential.</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Its about as inconsequential as a Guardian being able to tank 100% of the content while a Monk can only tank 98%.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Haha! perfect.<BR>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ironmeow wrote:<BR> <DIV>and no monks are not tanks <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Get over it.  We are.  The end.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P> <HR> RafaelSmith wrote: <P></P> <P><SPAN>Its about as inconsequential as a Guardian being able to tank 100% of the content while a Monk can only tank 98%.</SPAN><BR> <HR> <P></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Wrong.  Your class would be able to tank 100% of the content and dps on 100% of the content.</P> <P>Monks would be able to tank 98% of the content and dps 100% of the content.</P> <P>Not fully interchangeable, sorry.<BR></P> <p>Message Edited by Gaige on <span class=date_text>10-31-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:52 PM</span>

[Thanous]

In the spirit of the day, I offer this analogy.... Lets say that when we picked fighter when on the island, we were asked if we wanted candy, fruit, bread, or vege's.... We fighters picked candy... Around level 10, we got asked what kind of candy we wanted.... Some of us liked candy bars Some liked hard candy Some liked toffies Some liked chocolate At level 20, we were asked a new question based upon our previous choiced Those who liked candy bars got to pick between Snickers and Milky Way Those who like hard candy got to pick between atomic fireballs and life savers Those who like toffies got to pick between butter toffies and salt water toffie (don't know toffie that well) Those who like chocolate got to pick between milk chocolate and dark chocolate We were all promised candy. Candy = tanking Problem is that not everyone got candy to start with.  They got other things.  Maybe those who wanted fireballs got apples. The game tried to fix things and tried to make sure that people have what they asked for though... Problem was that some people liked the taste of what they were given instead of what they asked for... Problem was that some people still didn't get the candy they originally asked for... Problem was that some people still think they have fruit... <div></div>

[Hend]

<P>I think it's silly to form an opinion about what went through the SOE designers' heads based on an ambiguous FAQ written long before release.</P> <P>In stead, take a look at what the game looked like when it was released and tell me that SOE didn't anticipate and intend the guardian to be the best choice for a player wanting to maximize his tanking ability.</P> <DIV>Stating that all fighters were meant to tank equally well is the same as saying that the game designers where complete morons. They gave the guardian nothing but taunts and the ability to absorb a lot of damage with his armor, and of course they gave him more of that than any other class to make him an interesting option. He was the tanking specialist, by design. He couldn't solo well, he had no sexy utility spells, and he couldn't support a group well in any other way than by tanking, but he did tank better than any other class. He was designed that way. Intentionally, not accidentally. It's obvious. Don't deny it. Stop this nonsense, because it's an insult to everybody's intelligence.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Vork, 52 guardian</DIV>

[Ladicav]

<P>Pre-LU13 Monks tanked pretty well. I don't understand where this monks are fighters so they should also be tanks arguement arose, because they already could tank and tank pretty bloody well. Don't let Gaige etc make out as if they were such a pitiful tank class that LU13 was such an essential needed change to the whole structure of the combat system, because that is just bull. All the game needed was some tweaking in the right places, but instead we got a trainwreck. I came across many monks in my time who could do the same types of things I could as a Guardian, even hold agro on multi mob encounters, tank for a party against high orange cons and what have you, the same kinds of things that Paladins, Guardians, Zerkers etc could do every day also. One particular monk I knew was a bloody legend at his class, I would call him up when I needed to logout and come replace me as MT for my group sometimes, because I knew the group was safe with him as MT.</P> <P>SOE had the wool pulled over their eyes, plain and simple. The archetype system now is a screwup, with no real visible fixes in the near future. So get used to it, I've resigned myself to the fact that given SOE's history, unless the existing dev team gets replaced, we won't be seeing any love anytime soon. Classes in EQ1 didn't get a hard looking at until many years after release and that is because they replaced some of the devs with ones who wern't jaded by the whole experience, that's literally how long it took. After they fixed it up, many classes were happy again, but many people had also stopped playing by then also.</P> <P>You have to ask yourselves now, how long am I prepared to wait?</P><p>Message Edited by Ladicav on <span class=date_text>11-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:55 AM</span>

[Nemi]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ladicav wrote:<BR> <P>Pre-LU13 Monks tanked pretty well. </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Depending on the timeframe you choose, your statement could be correct. At release we tanked well, after the agility nerf we sucked.</FONT></P> <P>SOE had the wool pulled over their eyes, plain and simple. </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>If you believe this you need to stock up on your tin foil hats. Plain and simple.</FONT></P> <P> </P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Hendis wrote:<BR> <P>Instead, take a look at what the game looked like when it was released and tell me that SOE didn't anticipate and intend the guardian to be the best choice for a player wanting to maximize his tanking ability.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>You think that's the best course of action?  Why wouldn't you have people look at the classes after the massive combat/spell changes that were LU13 to see what SOE originally intended for the classes; or at a bare minimum what they intend for them now.<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>When the game was released up until January avoidance > mitigation and I could tank lvl 50 named giants at lvl 43 (red con) without getting hit.  I tanked Iceberg at 43 with 2 enchanters, a warden and a warlock.  You think that was working as intended?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There was a certain point in late December / early January were I could almost do the best DPS in the game and tank better than anyone else.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Are you *sure* that's what was intended?</DIV><p>Message Edited by Gaige on <span class=date_text>11-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:08 PM</span>

[Rockroi]

<span><blockquote><hr>Thanous wrote:In the spirit of the day, I offer this analogy.... Lets say that when we picked fighter when on the island, we were asked if we wanted candy, fruit, bread, or vege's.... We fighters picked candy... <div></div><hr></blockquote>Wait...we were promised candy?  What kind?  I want my [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] Candy!  Seriously, this was a decent analogy, but I guess the issue could be this: If I was given the choice between Milky Way and Butterfinger, and I choose Butterfinger how come now I am eating Three Musketeers?  And its not even the real 3 Musketeers; its a knock off brand.  And how come the guys who picked Reese's Penut Butter Cups (and who incidently wanted Butterfinger all along) still have Reese's, but its the better kind?  So some of us (including this n00b) have this tact: we know we can't have Butterfinger's anymore.  Got it.  But lets look at how we can have a better version of Three Musketeers.   Give us a Good Three Musketeers!  You may now bury this dead horse...</span><div></div>

[Ladicav]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Nemi wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ladicav wrote:<BR> <P>Pre-LU13 Monks tanked pretty well. </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Depending on the timeframe you choose, your statement could be correct. At release we tanked well, after the agility nerf we sucked.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#66ffff>Monks do not suck. Monks have never ever sucked so bad that they could not tank well. Monks tanked well then and they tank well now. I just don't see what the arguement is here. Why did we need sweeping changes?</FONT></P> <P>SOE had the wool pulled over their eyes, plain and simple. </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>If you believe this you need to stock up on your tin foil hats. Plain and simple.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#66ffff>If you believe Monks suck, not even tin foils hats can save you now.</FONT></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

[Nemi]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ladicav wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Nemi wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ladicav wrote:<BR> <P><FONT color=#66ffff>Monks do not suck. Monks have never ever sucked so bad that they could not tank well. Monks tanked well then and they tank well now. I just don't see what the arguement is here. Why did we need sweeping changes?</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Perhaps you never noticed it while you were tanking for your group that the monk was DPSing? I know after January time Heroic mobs knocked me into the red after 3 rapid hits and healers were just not wanting me to tank. I suppose your experience of a Monk was different during the agility nerf and block/deflection changes.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#66ffff>If you believe Monks suck, not even tin foils hats can save you now.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Reading comprehension 101: Monks sucked at tanking preLU13 depending on the timeframe chosen.</FONT></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

[Ladicav]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Nemi wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ladicav wrote:<BR> <P><FONT color=#66ffff>Monks do not suck. Monks have never ever sucked so bad that they could not tank well. Monks tanked well then and they tank well now. I just don't see what the arguement is here. Why did we need sweeping changes?</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Perhaps you never noticed it while you were tanking for your group that the monk was DPSing? I know after January time Heroic mobs knocked me into the red after 3 rapid hits and healers were just not wanting me to tank. I suppose your experience of a Monk was different during the agility nerf and block/deflection changes.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#66ff33>Reading comprehension 101: In my parties I was the MT. If you read correctly I used to call on my monk friend to MT for the group when I had to leave IE: HE would take my spot as MT. He always did a brilliant job, it never mattered what part of the year it was, or what season it was or if Jupiter was in the constellation of Sagittarius. When he soloed he was a machine, he could and still does, take down mobs I couldn't dream of soloing. If he was facing difficulties at any stage, including January, it never showed and he never talked about it. He just kept on rocking along. If it was the case as you point out, then it must have been fixed really quickly thereafter as to not have affected him much at all. Monks rock, they always have. The question still stands, why did we need this massive trainwreck of an overhaul?</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#66ffff>If you believe Monks suck, not even tin foils hats can save you now.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Reading comprehension 101: Monks sucked at tanking preLU13 depending on the timeframe chosen.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#66ff33>You didn't specify when exactly, and I'm not in the game of guessing when or what you meant Nemi, because most of the time you will just disagree, for the sake of disagreeing anmd those kind of games are just meant for kiddies. Especially when you write one line with almost no tangible information which basically flings faecal matter. So if you expect to fling faecal matter, expect to get it back. You said monks sucked, and they were your words not mine.</FONT></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

[Qilin]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gaige wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ironmeow wrote:<BR> <DIV>and no monks are not tanks <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Get over it.  We are.  The end.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P> </P> <P>Message Edited by Gaige on <SPAN class=date_text>10-31-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>02:52 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>It should not be the end because it's wrong. Monks should not be tanks, they should be classed with rangers and others that do not wear heavy plate, and be compensated by being a damage dealing class. Monks should have never been in the Fighter tree to begin with if the focus of the fighter tree was everyone tanks equally. Trying to shoehorn them into this class will continually lead to the balance issues we see now. As usual the squeky wheel got the oil, and in this case everything else that goes with it. Enjoy your game Gaige, you got just what you wanted, the main tank in this game does not wear armor, an impressive lesson of how lobbying can convince folks to do silly things. <BR> <p>Message Edited by Qilin on <span class=date_text>11-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:20 AM</span>

[Nemi]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE><BR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P>Ladicav wrote:<BR></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT color=#66ff33>Reading comprehension 101: In my parties I was the MT. If you read correctly I used to call on my monk friend to MT for the group when I had to leave IE: HE would take my spot as MT. He always did a brilliant job, it never mattered what part of the year it was, or what season it was or if Jupiter was in the constellation of Sagittarius. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I'm glad that when you left your group he got your spot. I know my experience and you know his. I know I went from being a great tank to one that could barely stand up against heroic mobs. I know for an avoidance tank I got hit nearly every second hit. I know for an avoidance tank, plate tanks had as much avoidance as me. My mitigation was nowhere near plates, my HPs far behind. As an avoidance tank, I couldn't avoid mobs to the side or behind me. Except for a broken level 10 training choice (or whatever level it was, I forget) that allowed me to AoE taunt every 8 seconds I would struggle at aggro. I know my experience of tanking compared to a plate that I was simply worse and could only serve as filler till a plate tank came along.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I know that when I levelled up over that period, that buffs and debuffs on mobs I could eventually hold aggro from mobs 11 levels above me. Notice I didn't say tank, because the game was broken that I didn't get hit very often. Although if I was unlucky, the group was wiped.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#66ff33>When he soloed he was a machine, he could and still does, take down mobs I couldn't dream of soloing. If he was facing difficulties at any stage, including January, it never showed and he never talked about it. He just kept on rocking along. If it was the case as you point out, then it must have been fixed really quickly thereafter as to not have affected him much at all. Monks rock, they always have. The question still stands, why did we need this massive trainwreck of an overhaul?</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Because the game was trivial. As noted above I could hold aggro on deep red mobs 11 levels above me, and if sufficiently buffed and the mob debuffed, there was no risk.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#66ff33>You didn't specify when exactly, and I'm not in the game of guessing when or what you meant Nemi, because most of the time you will just disagree, for the sake of disagreeing anmd those kind of games are just meant for kiddies. Especially when you write one line with almost no tangible information which basically flings faecal matter. So if you expect to fling faecal matter, expect to get it back. You said monks sucked, and they were your words not mine.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Least as a monk if you throw it back at me I can dodge it :smileyvery-happy:</FONT></P> <P></P> <HR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE><BR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>

[MrDiz]

<blockquote><hr>Gaige wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ironmeow wrote:<BR> <DIV>and no monks are not tanks <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Get over it.  We are.  The end.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P> <HR> RafaelSmith wrote: <P></P> <P><SPAN>Its about as inconsequential as a Guardian being able to tank 100% of the content while a Monk can only tank 98%.</SPAN><BR> <HR> <P></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Wrong.  Your class would be able to tank 100% of the content and dps on 100% of the content.</P> <P>Monks would be able to tank 98% of the content and dps 100% of the content.</P> <P>Not fully interchangeable, sorry.<BR></P> <p>Message Edited by Gaige on <span class=date_text>10-31-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:52 PM</span><hr></blockquote>If we are talking roles gaige there are about 0.0001% of the content a guardian would be chosen as dps. So its not dps 100% of the content because we dont get that option. Human nature is way more powerful than the gaming engine.Monks have the option to tank it all and failing that get a role as dps or even solo. Guardians get to tank it all or sit picking fluff out of thier navel.

[Gaige]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Qilin wrote:<BR> <BR>Enjoy your game Gaige, you got just what you wanted, the main tank in this game does not wear armor, an impressive lesson of how lobbying can convince folks to do silly things. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>I do.  I want to meet the person that lobbied to convince SOE to do "silly" things since they stated forever ago that monks were tanks.<BR></DIV>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> MrDizzi wrote: <P>If we are talking roles gaige there are about 0.0001% of the content a guardian would be chosen as dps. So its not dps 100% of the content because we dont get that option. Human nature is way more powerful than the gaming engine.<BR><BR>Monks have the option to tank it all and failing that get a role as dps or even solo. Guardians get to tank it all or sit picking fluff out of thier navel.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Guess what I was in a group in Cazel's yesterday with two guardians in it.  One in 'dps' mode which was even alluded to in group chat.</P> <P>As for "even solo" in your quip about monks... GET OVER IT.  Guardians CAN and DO solo too.  Quit saying you CAN'T solo as a guardian, because that is a LIE.</P> <P>Besides, every group and raid a guardian is in, they contribute DPS.  Every class contributes DPS.  I never said you'd be doing T1 DPS did I?  No.  I said you'd be doing DPS.  Because you can and do provide groups/raids DPS everyday.  All guardians do.<BR></P>

[Krooner]

<DIV>Any DPS the guardian can provide would be better provided by any one of the other classes with exception of a few healers.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Kasar]

<span><blockquote><hr>Gaige wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr></blockquote> <p>Guess what I was in a group in Cazel's yesterday with two guardians in it.  One in 'dps' mode which was even alluded to in group chat.</p> <p>As for "even solo" in your quip about monks... GET OVER IT.  Guardians CAN and DO solo too.  Quit saying you CAN'T solo as a guardian, because that is a LIE.</p> <p>Besides, every group and raid a guardian is in, they contribute DPS.  Every class contributes DPS.  I never said you'd be doing T1 DPS did I?  No.  I said you'd be doing DPS.  Because you can and do provide groups/raids DPS everyday.  All guardians do.</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote> Of course this begs the question, why wasn't the monk tanking?  Guardians are just as useful when not tanking, right?  Anyway, I can attest that guardians can solo.  I solo'd the vast majority of two levels, hours on end.  I got a few duo's with mages, but that was about it, healers are now few and far between.  Attempts at a full group exploring were just pitiful as the group mobs peeled off and I'd have to follow the group and mobs as they ran. </span><div></div>

[Ladicav]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gaige wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P>As for "even solo" in your quip about monks... GET OVER IT.  Guardians CAN and DO solo too.  Quit saying you CAN'T solo as a guardian, because that is a LIE.</P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Besides, every group and raid a guardian is in, they contribute DPS.  Every class contributes DPS.  I never said you'd be doing T1 DPS did I?  No.  I said you'd be doing DPS.  Because you can and do provide groups/raids DPS everyday.  All guardians do.<BR></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>My Guardian can solo, most can. It depends on your definition of solo. I wouldn't dare solo a yellow ^ con, it's a very good chance I'll come off second best, so lets back down to a standard white con with no arrows. That still takes a bloody long time to solo. If it's a standard no arrow yellow con, it takes an even bloody longer time and there is still a small chance it will kill me if I have a bad run of luck. So yes, if that is your definition of solo, we can solo. So if you consider this good soloing, then I guess that is what it is. But I know you as a monk can do a lot lot better than this. You should try it sometime Gaige, borrow someones Guardian, and not one that is decked out in all fabled gear, just an average Guardian and see how many you try to solo before you start considering thumbing your eyes out.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You will quickly find out that soloing just is not time efficient for most Guardians.</DIV>

[Hend]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P>Gaige wrote:</P> <P>As for "even solo" in your quip about monks... GET OVER IT.  Guardians CAN and DO solo too.  Quit saying you CAN'T solo as a guardian, because that is a LIE.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Of course we can solo, provided the encounter is easy enough, just like monks could tank before LU13. However, monks solo better than we do, and we can't have that, can we?<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Vork, 52 guardian.</DIV>

[Qilin]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gaige wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Qilin wrote:<BR> <BR>Enjoy your game Gaige, you got just what you wanted, the main tank in this game does not wear armor, an impressive lesson of how lobbying can convince folks to do silly things. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>I do.  I want to meet the person that lobbied to convince SOE to do "silly" things since they stated forever ago that monks were tanks.<BR></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Gaige = 3000 posts getting Monks to be the best tank in EQ II (by his own words, best = Only) 4000 Posts defending it. :smileyhappy:</DIV><p>Message Edited by Qilin on <span class=date_text>11-03-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:04 AM</span>

[Cylence]

<DIV>From someone that never bothered to post on the forums before...not that I'm not playing the game, just, like the majority of people who play, I don't take the time to come here and write...<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>When you talk about monks/bruisers tanking pre LU 13, this is something I can verify.  You see, A bruiser and a coercer started out as alts in March.  Our mains were Templar/Mystic with a Guardian as a tank.  Well, we didn't have a plate tank all the way up on our alts...so from March until September, *The bruiser* was our tank....He could tank *ALMOST AS WELL* as as the guardian on all normal, heroic content.  Not epic, but definitely on the lvling scene.   Now, we were both twinks, so that does need to be taken into consideration (full legendary, adept 3s).  But Bruisers *could* tank.  The fact that they were saying before LU 13 they could not is bs.  I mean, yes, the guardian was a superior tank.  And the bruiser was nicer as dps because most of his hits land from behind- but he was able to hold agro with a full group of Coercer/Warden/Ranger/Wizard dpsing and healing behind him.  The mobs died, we lvled- no problems</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Post LU 13.  The bruiser is our main tank.  It's easier to heal him than the guardian on heroic mobs.  Epics, depends on what it is.  The heat buffs that a guardian gets help him tank some epics a lil better.  But the bruiser prefers to solo, because he gets better exp solo because he can take down green heroic mobs, sometimes blue ones...and if he gets in trouble, he just feigns dead.  Yes, the bruiser also has a 1500 point mend at lvl 51- which is another bonus that makes him a superior tank.  This gives him almost more hp than the lvl 54 guardian.  The bruiser does more DPS off the bat than the lvl 52 wizard does (minus ice comet).  The Coercer, that's supposed to be the same damage tier as the bruiser, can't hold a candle to him...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So did LU 13 give bruisers an ability they did not have before?  No, it improved the skills they already had.  That's what I wanted to highlight.  You can't argue that a bruiser couldn't tank, because they could.  The imbalance is that a guardian can neither tank NOR solo efficiently and well. And that a bruiser can do both.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>From someone who has to hear this in both ears, simultaneously, from both perspectives...</DIV>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Qilin wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Gaige = 3000 posts getting Monks to be the best tank in EQ II (by his own words, best = Only) 4000 Posts defending it. :smileyhappy:</DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Nah, I had way more than 3000 pre LU13.  Way more.  I've only had maybe 1500 since then.</P> <P>Besides, SOE didn't change anything because of me, they changed it because it didn't fit their design.  /shrug.<BR></P>

[Quicks]

Man, I thought the assassin boards were bad, then I came in here and looked around.  At least we dont have bards or brigands coming on to our boards and argueing that they should be able to dps as well as assassins.  I really feel for you guys, truely. I mean SoE didnt give you guardians any KY with the combat changes, or a reach around for that matter. On the bright side things, they are looking at assassins, and hopefully guardians too (so they say at least). Im looking forward to the 16b test server notes, hopefully theres good news in it for both our class. Keep up the fight guys, theyll listen to you sooner or later, hopefully sooner. ~Thetmes 53 Assassin on Unrest Draconic Legion PS If its any consilation (sp?) Ill never let a monk tank in any group I form, specially some monk who thinks he knows it all. =P <div></div>