Dont get too comfortable with your Berserker will you.

[-Aonein-]

<DIV>Im not one to cry nerf incoming, but im not sure how to take this post from Moorgard.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=6&message.id=13301#M13301" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=6&message.id=13301#M13301</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It can be percieved many ways, but they all lead t o one conclusion.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Taemek Frozenberg 45th Berserker<BR>16th Outfitter<BR>Blood and Ice<BR>Everfrost Server<BR><BR>Enlightened Aonein Amillion ( retired )<BR>70th Stone Fist of The Celestial Fist<BR>Five Rings on Luclin Server</DIV>

[SageMarrow]

<DIV>+++++++++++++++++++++</DIV> <DIV>+                                           +</DIV> <DIV>+                                           +</DIV> <DIV>+                                           +</DIV> <DIV>+                                           +</DIV> <DIV>+                                           +</DIV> <DIV>+                                           +</DIV> <DIV>+++++++++++++++++++++</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>seems that will be the look of the archetype system before the end of all this. 24 classes = 4 jobs = square</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>more than likely it will effect Heavy tanks (warriors) more so than others. and they are even considering changing buffs to accomodate the change. How they will do it is a complete mystery to me, and even to them so it seems.  that much is all that i can say without going off on a tangent or rant about the subject... so i guess i will leave it alone.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>good day!</DIV>

[bathory610]

<font color="#66ff00">i wish their primary focus would be to fix all the broken spells first, the app 1-master 1 probs also. some of these probs they are focusing on doesnt seem to make any sense to me, And i wish we had more info about upcoming changes and what their future plans are; then i wouldnt feel like such a whiny lil **** when i mention stuff like this. some of our stuff has been broken since launch and when i see such silly aesthetic changes i wonder if they even pay attention. And again i feel like im shortchanging the devs as many if not the majority of posters on this board do.....but i see where all the frustration is coming from.....................silence.................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ................... </font><div></div>

[Chanliang]

Well I don't think that this will affect that much to berserkers as we don't have that much +defence skills compared to guardians.  With luck we might get more mitigation which would actually be good for us.  Time will tell... <div></div>

[Huna]

I don't know about you guys, but I can solo low greens without any trouble, since they don't hit me very often if at all.  Now reading the post in that link, it tells me that they "never intended" for me to be able to fight anything that is trivial because it's green and can't hit me, and that they are going to fix it.  So, pretty soon all of the classes that could solo green stuff easily because of not getting hit, will start getting hit more and the fight that would have been trivial will now become much harder.  Personally I llike it the way it is now, I can 99% of the time solo a low green without worry of dieing, and probably 90%+ of the time solo a high green without worry of dieing.  Although, sometimes the high green gets lucky and I have to run, or possibly die. <div></div>

[Darkd]

Umm green??  Ever read the description of a conned green?  Its suppose to be a very very easy fight.  I believe it even says something like "Yawn this creature should be of little to no challenge for you"  So it makes perfect sense that a green should rarely hit you since you are a much more skill fighter than it is.

[Huna]

I agree, but the post I read from moorgard makes it sound like it's not intended and will be changed.  I just have a bad feeling that the monk issue is going to cause a nerf on everyone, and make everyones life harder.  I understand they want to be an equal tank, as they should, but it may turn out that they don't change much and everyone else is dropped down to their level instead of them being raised up to the proper level.  Then you will have everyone complaining, and nobody will be happy. <div></div>

[Padi]

<DIV>One thing that concerns me is I went and inspected a couple 40ish monks lastnight and what I saw was a tank who should easily out tank me by the numbers.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I saw a monk who's avoidance was listed at about 75%</DIV> <DIV>Mine is 58% without a shield and 64% with</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now the untrained eye would say that the monk will take 11% less damage on average, but that's false.  You have to look at how often you are going to be hit, then figure out the ratio of damage taken.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I will be hit 36% of the time, the monk will be hit 25% of the time.  That means I'm going to take 44% more damage than a monk based on avoidance.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>When comparing mitigation, I was buffed to 54% mitigation the monk was buffed to 32%.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This means the monk is being hit for 68% of normal damage while I'm being hit for 54% normal damage.  Based on mitigation, he's going to take 26% more damage than I will.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So based on mitigation, the monk takes 26% more damage</DIV> <DIV>and based on avoidance, the zerker takes 44% more damage</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>End result it eh zerker takes about 18% more damage than a monk.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Based on these numbers, the monk clearly should be taking less damage.  I'm afraid that the Dev's are going to just subtract the percentages and think monks are taking more damage.  The closer you get to 100% avoidance, the more 1% makes a difference.  The further away you are from 100% damage, the less a 1% matters.  Hopefully the dev's realize this.</DIV>

[ArivenGemini]

<span><blockquote><hr>SageMarrow wrote:<div></div> <div>+++++++++++++++++++++</div> <div>+                                           +</div> <div>+                                           +</div> <div>+                                           +</div> <div>+                                           +</div> <div>+                                           +</div> <div>+                                           +</div> <div>+++++++++++++++++++++</div> <div> </div> <div>seems that will be the look of the archetype system before the end of all this. 24 classes = 4 jobs = square</div><hr></blockquote> What is wrong with the concept that each person in a sub-class being equal to everyone else in that same subclass?  Why is it so evil that we are all able to tank if a fighter?  Why is it wrong that we choose which subclass that we want based on the flavor, role play and METHOD of doing its stated goal instead of min/maxing to get the one single sub-class that is perfect? What is wrong with equality? </span><div></div>

[Ixiecoa]

<P>err i hope they do what they promise because it might, if done right, be a big step into zerks (and other fighter classes) beeing able to tank raidmobs efficently ( yeah i know we can, but a guardian is always MUCH better at it, not SLIGHTLY better like he should be)</P> <P>like a poster above says we can tank low green groupmobs. this is only because of our defense skill. try soloing that green w/o stance and youll see him hit alot more often. 5 defense mean basically 1 lvl of tanking.</P> <P>if ya got 65% avoidance at lvl 50 against a lvl 50 mob, you get say (dont know exact numbers) 80 % avoidance against a lvl 44 mob and 50% avoidance against a lvl 56 mob. (just an exampe numbers arent parsed)</P> <P>however lets say you get 10 defense from buffs... that equals 2 lvls...... et voila you have your 65% against lvl 52 mobs even though technically you re just lvl 50, but your defense is like a lvl 52 tank would have. that means you will also have higher avoidance against the lvl 44, and higher avoidance against the lvl 56 mob </P> <P>now only guardians get the real high defense buffs, ours is broken (controlled rage doesnt stack with stance) so vs a berserker a guardian will always have about 15 more defense (thats 3 lvls..... ) if both have the same groupbuffs.</P> <P>so take a lvl 54 epic raid mob.... with the right buffs a guardian can put his defense so high that it equals a lvl 60 tank..... and for that lvl 60 tank the raid mob will hit as often as the green doublearrow hits you while soloing..... us zerkers however will -with max buffs- only reach the defense of a lvl 57 tank, and therefore the raid mob will hit ya as often as a blue doublearrow does you while soloing.... thats why guards make the much better tanks on highlvl epic encounters =)</P> <P>all the numbers in this post are just speculations but the idea behind it, is how it works in the game (i know guardians could solo blue doublearrows while they own me hard even though the guardian had much worse gear)</P> <P>i hope SoE changes the way defense works ... or at least give s all other fighter classes defense buffs that make em closer to guardians</P> <P>i DO support guardians beein the best tanks in the fighter archetype, but not with a gap so huge as it is now.</P> <P> </P>

[CherobylJ]

<HR> <P>A change that makes everyone not as good at avoiding damage isn't the solution in and of itself. When our mobs hit, they tend to hit for high amounts of damage, so suddenly even common fights would become a slaughter. Therefore any change to the way avoidance works will be accompanied by other changes that shift game balance such that mobs could hit more frequently but for much less damage.</P> <P>This is still in the discussion phase, so additional changes will probably be made as well, such as to the effects of +Defense buffs or to the buffs themselves. But like I said we're still talking about this, so I will post details once a decision has been made on how we plan to tackle this issue</P> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Well I'm not quite sure how I read this.  I think they are going to make avoidance more "meaningful" by altering the attack frequency of mobs upward and change the max damage downward per hit (so that if your avoidance is high then you would have more chances to avoid and wouldnt be punished as badly on a "per hit" basis).  I'm not entirely sure this is a rational idea; it would seem to me that this would:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>1) over power redactive (per hit) heals (unintended effect?)</DIV> <DIV>2) lead to less relative damge over time taken for high avoidance classes (intended effect?) </DIV> <DIV>3) lead to more relative damge over time for high mitigation classes (unless they tune very carefully and god hopes they parse the beejesus out of this before implementing)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'm not sure though why Moorguard mentions reducing the effectivness of defensive skills.  It would seem the attack frequency/max damage change would alter things enough?  Seems to myself potentially changing TWO major combat variables at the same time would be very risky.  Also it seems from reading Noah/Tuna on the Guard boards that those types of skills are very integral to the high end raid dynamics, seems like that could also be potentially risky if they alter the benefit of def spells.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Last point: I'm extremely disappointed that they had to wait until the mitigation/avoidance numbers were put into the UI in order to do some cross-class analysis.  It really is unacceptable that SOE customer service appears to have an extremely poor set of tools to do analysis with, I would expect that they at the least would have database scripts they can run to get at non UI data by which to make informed decisions. Being "suprised" 5+ months into production of a game on fundamental melee mechanics is, to be frank, something I'd be very embarassed about if I stood in their shoes.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Renshiren]

<P>What is wrong with the concept that each person in a sub-class being equal to everyone else in that same subclass?  Why is it so evil that we are all able to tank if a fighter?  Why is it wrong that we choose which subclass that we want based on the flavor, role play and METHOD of doing its stated goal instead of min/maxing to get the one single sub-class that is perfect?<BR><BR>What is wrong with equality?<BR></P> <P> </P> <P>Based on this everthing/everyone being equal does this mean my Warlock gets to tank and live past 1.5 hits?</P> <P> </P> <P>Kathuk  32 Warlock</P> <P>Oowamp 23 zerker</P> <p>Message Edited by Renshiren on <span class=date_text>03-23-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:58 AM</span>

[Darkd]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ariven wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SageMarrow wrote:<BR> <DIV>+++++++++++++++++++++</DIV> <DIV>+                                           +</DIV> <DIV>+                                           +</DIV> <DIV>+                                           +</DIV> <DIV>+                                           +</DIV> <DIV>+                                           +</DIV> <DIV>+                                           +</DIV> <DIV>+++++++++++++++++++++</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>seems that will be the look of the archetype system before the end of all this. 24 classes = 4 jobs = square</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>What is wrong with the concept that each person in a sub-class being equal to everyone else in that same subclass?  Why is it so evil that we are all able to tank if a fighter?  Why is it wrong that we choose which subclass that we want based on the flavor, role play and METHOD of doing its stated goal instead of min/maxing to get the one single sub-class that is perfect?<BR><BR>What is wrong with equality?<BR><BR><BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Because diversity and individualism is what makes a game like this exciting.  If eveyone had a cookie cutter toon just dressed differently where is the fun?  And No there shouldnt be equality, I am sorry.  What if you only had the choice of one car, truck, or van just in different colors?  What a boring place this would be!<BR>

[ArivenGemini]

<span><blockquote><hr>Renshiren wrote:<div></div> <p>What is wrong with the concept that each person in a sub-class being equal to everyone else in that same subclass?  Why is it so evil that we are all able to tank if a fighter?  Why is it wrong that we choose which subclass that we want based on the flavor, role play and METHOD of doing its stated goal instead of min/maxing to get the one single sub-class that is perfect?What is wrong with equality?</p> <p>Based on this everthing/everyone being equal does this mean my Warlock gets to tank and live past 1.5 hits?</p> <p>Kathuk  32 Warlock</p> <p>Oowamp 23 zerker</p> <div></div><p>Message Edited by Renshiren on <span class="date_text">03-23-2005</span> <span class="time_text">09:58 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote> No, it means your warlock should be on par with wizards, coercers and illusionists overall.. with pluses and minuses giving flavor and a different path to the SAME end... Whereas it means that a monk a bruiser a berserker a palidan a SK and a guardian should overall be able to tank equally.. each with their own pluses and minuses giving flavor and a different path to the SAME end..</span><div></div>

[ArivenGemini]

<span><blockquote><hr>Darkdog wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Ariven wrote:<span> <blockquote> <hr> SageMarrow wrote: <div></div> <div>+++++++++++++++++++++</div> <div>+                                           +</div> <div>+                                           +</div> <div>+                                           +</div> <div>+                                           +</div> <div>+                                           +</div> <div>+                                           +</div> <div>+++++++++++++++++++++</div> <div> </div> <div>seems that will be the look of the archetype system before the end of all this. 24 classes = 4 jobs = square</div> <hr> </blockquote>What is wrong with the concept that each person in a sub-class being equal to everyone else in that same subclass?  Why is it so evil that we are all able to tank if a fighter?  Why is it wrong that we choose which subclass that we want based on the flavor, role play and METHOD of doing its stated goal instead of min/maxing to get the one single sub-class that is perfect?What is wrong with equality?</span> <div></div> <hr> </blockquote>Because diversity and individualism is what makes a game like this exciting.  If eveyone had a cookie cutter toon just dressed differently where is the fun?  And No there shouldnt be equality, I am sorry.  What if you only had the choice of one car, truck, or van just in different colors?  What a boring place this would be! <div></div><hr></blockquote>So you are saying that we cannot have diversity if we have equal end results?  Equal does not mean Identical.. it means equal..  Different ways of doing the same thing gives for flavor.. as long as the end result is the same then the path doesn't matter..   And you refusing to read all of my post and focusing on your belief that equal means cookie cutter doesn't change the fact that we CAN shoot for equality without cloning.. </span><div></div>

[Darkd]

I am sorry you feel that way but speaking for myself I dont want all classes of a certain archtype to be equal.  This would really lead to a bland watered down game.  Each subclasses should offer its own special and unique characteristics.  The main issue here is the fact that SOE decided to put the Monk/Bruiser classes in the tank archtype which is a poor fit IMO.  They should have been a dps class that could take a bit more damage than other dps but never be put in the situation to have to tank.

[ArivenGemini]

<span><blockquote><hr>Darkdog wrote:<div></div>I am sorry you feel that way but speaking for myself I dont want all classes of a certain archtype to be equal.  This would really lead to a bland watered down game.  Each subclasses should offer its own special and unique characteristics.  The main issue here is the fact that SOE decided to put the Monk/Bruiser classes in the tank archtype which is a poor fit IMO.  They should have been a dps class that could take a bit more damage than other dps but never be put in the situation to have to tank.<hr></blockquote>Why do you think that?  It certainly isn't a fact as much as it is your opinion... but I am interested in why you feel that?   I think they are great as a nice direction to take when tanking.. </span><div></div>

[FamilyManFir]

<span><blockquote><hr>Darkdog wrote:I am sorry you feel that way but speaking for myself I dont want all classes of a certain archtype to be equal.  This would really lead to a bland watered down game.  Each subclasses should offer its own special and unique characteristics.  The main issue here is the fact that SOE decided to put the Monk/Bruiser classes in the tank archtype which is a poor fit IMO.  They should have been a dps class that could take a bit more damage than other dps but never be put in the situation to have to tank.<hr></blockquote>Sorry, Darkdog, I disagree. Having played both an Avoidance tank and a Mitigation tank I can say with authority that there is a world of difference in how you play the two.  If/when they manage to balance the subclasses so that both can accomplish the same ends each will still "</span><span>offer its own special and unique characteristics." Where the Archetype system excels is in its ability to allow characters to form and join groups.  When balance is good (it will likely never be perfect) you don't wind up with shunned subclasses.  Thus, you can choose whichever flavor of Archetype you want to play and be fairly assured that you can group with others and be needed and fill a role. While it might be possible for the devs to create 24 different "niches," one for each class to fill, it would be a near-impossible job to balance them.  Moreover, human nature would defeat such a thing, as players won't pay attention to 24 different roles, they will generalize and group them together themselves. </span><div></div>

[ArivenGemini]

<span><blockquote><hr>FamilyManFirst wrote:<span>Having played both an Avoidance tank and a Mitigation tank I can say with authority that there is a world of difference in how you play the two.  If/when they manage to balance the subclasses so that both can accomplish the same ends each will still "</span><span>offer its own special and unique characteristics." Where the Archetype system excels is in its ability to allow characters to form and join groups.  When balance is good (it will likely never be perfect) you don't wind up with shunned subclasses.  Thus, you can choose whichever flavor of Archetype you want to play and be fairly assured that you can group with others and be needed and fill a role. </span><hr></blockquote>QFE <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </span><div></div>

[Darkd]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ariven wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Darkdog wrote:<BR> I am sorry you feel that way but speaking for myself I dont want all classes of a certain archtype to be equal.  This would really lead to a bland watered down game.  Each subclasses should offer its own special and unique characteristics.  The main issue here is the fact that SOE decided to put the Monk/Bruiser classes in the tank archtype which is a poor fit IMO.  They should have been a dps class that could take a bit more damage than other dps but never be put in the situation to have to tank.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Why do you think that?  It certainly isn't a fact as much as it is your opinion... but I am interested in why you feel that?   I think they are great as a nice direction to take when tanking..<BR><BR><BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>LOL I am not going to debate the same topic on two different threads.  As I have said before until I am in a senerio where a monk/ bruiser steps up to the plate and tanks then this will be my opinion.  After 42 levels and playing since day one every time I have ever grouped with a monk/bruiser they have run away from the tanking responsibilites like a piece of tainted meat.  I have also been in groups where I have been asked to tank when a monk/bruiser that is 2-3 levels higer has requested me to tank since he was not a tank.

[ArivenGemini]

<span><blockquote><hr>Darkdog wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Ariven wrote:<span> <blockquote> <hr> Darkdog wrote: <div></div>I am sorry you feel that way but speaking for myself I dont want all classes of a certain archtype to be equal.  This would really lead to a bland watered down game.  Each subclasses should offer its own special and unique characteristics.  The main issue here is the fact that SOE decided to put the Monk/Bruiser classes in the tank archtype which is a poor fit IMO.  They should have been a dps class that could take a bit more damage than other dps but never be put in the situation to have to tank. <hr> </blockquote>Why do you think that?  It certainly isn't a fact as much as it is your opinion... but I am interested in why you feel that?   I think they are great as a nice direction to take when tanking..</span> <div></div> <hr> </blockquote>LOL I am not going to debate the same topic on two different threads.  As I have said before until I am in a senerio where a monk/ bruiser steps up to the plate and tanks then this will be my opinion.  After 42 levels and playing since day one every time I have ever grouped with a monk/bruiser they have run away from the tanking responsibilites like a piece of tainted meat.  I have also been in groups where I have been asked to tank when a monk/bruiser that is 2-3 levels higer has requested me to tank since he was not a tank. <div></div><hr></blockquote> I feel that is more of a player behind the alt issue..  I have been in groups where the guardian 4+ levels higher than my monk has asked that I MT..   I assume that he either 1) wanted a break from MT or 2) felt I was better at it than he was...  I dont mind either option.. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />   The problem with players that have issues tanking isn't limited to just monk/bruiser.. I have run into a LOT of bad cursader based tanks...to the point where I typically refuse to be in a group where one is MT..  but there are a few shining examples (one in my guild) that do know what they are doing and do it rather well...  it isn't the class its the player in that case.. and in the case with the monks/bruisers.. I have even been in a group where the bruiser I just invited said "now we have to get a tank"... I insisted he give it a shot and he did.. and did fantastic... now I hope he has gone on to tank for more groups and built up his confidence even more.. Thats the big problem with having different people play the same class.. we get really bad ones and really good ones..  I am just trying to understand the mentality of someone who plays a TANK class who wants to just do DPS...  the guardian I mentioned earlier has been bitten by the DPS bug lately and has been making me and the palidin in our guild do the tanking... and in his case it isn't due to the incapacity to do the job.. he is a fantastic tank.. I think its just time for him to take a break from being the center of combat. </span><div></div>

[Oldlore]

<DIV>I have a 30 monk and a 36 berserker.  The problem with comparing warriors with brawlers is that if you make both classes equal when it comes to tanking, what're you gonna do about the fact that monks/bruisers have much higher damage output.  There'd be no reason to play a guardian/berserker if a monk could tank as well as you if they wanted to *and* also put out higher DPS if they also chose to.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>imo <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV>

[FamilyManFir]

<span><blockquote><hr>Oldlore wrote:<div>I have a 30 monk and a 36 berserker.  The problem with comparing warriors with brawlers is that if you make both classes equal when it comes to tanking, what're you gonna do about the fact that monks/bruisers have much higher damage output.  There'd be no reason to play a guardian/berserker if a monk could tank as well as you if they wanted to *and* also put out higher DPS if they also chose to.</div> <div> </div> <div>imo <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></div><hr></blockquote>Well, for one, there's the flavor itself.  Believe me, I have no interest in playing an Ogre Monk (though some do).  It just doesn't work for me. Number two, weapons.  There are many weapons that a Berserker and Guardian can use that a Monk can't.  Choose a Monk and you may get more DPS but you're going to be restricted in what you can wield.  Ghoulbane is out, not to mention the EBBC. Number three, aggro control.  Monks have to work a lot harder to keep aggro than Guardians or, even more so, Berserkers.  Not that Monk's can't do it but it takes a lot more effort and attention. Number four, no matter how you slice it, a Monk is going to be a riskier Tank than a Guardian or Berserker.  There <i>will </i>be fights where the RNG seems like it's out to get you and you're going to sweat or even die.  OTOH there will be fights where you can't be touched.  Most fights, of course, will fall between these two extremes.  Skill goes a long way toward evening this out but a) you're going to have to practice to get that skill and b) it will never completely go away. Monks, on the flip side, have that nice DPS, many prefer the more exotic flavor of the class, and they have some utility Combat Arts that help them out.  Seems like an even trade to me.</span><div></div>

[SageMarrow]

<DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Darkdog wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ariven wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SageMarrow wrote:<BR> <DIV>+++++++++++++++++++++</DIV> <DIV>+                                           +</DIV> <DIV>+                                           +</DIV> <DIV>+                                           +</DIV> <DIV>+                                           +</DIV> <DIV>+                                           +</DIV> <DIV>+                                           +</DIV> <DIV>+++++++++++++++++++++</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>seems that will be the look of the archetype system before the end of all this. 24 classes = 4 jobs = square</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>What is wrong with the concept that each person in a sub-class being equal to everyone else in that same subclass?  Why is it so evil that we are all able to tank if a fighter?  Why is it wrong that we choose which subclass that we want based on the flavor, role play and METHOD of doing its stated goal instead of min/maxing to get the one single sub-class that is perfect?<BR><BR>What is wrong with equality?<BR><BR><BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Because diversity and individualism is what makes a game like this exciting.  If eveyone had a cookie cutter toon just dressed differently where is the fun?  And No there shouldnt be equality, I am sorry.  What if you only had the choice of one car, truck, or van just in different colors?  What a boring place this would be!<BR> <P><BR></P> <HR> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>Okay, yet again, let me say this. Keep in mind that all the classes are not equal on opposite footing.  We are and were built around a system that embodied the class- not the job, which in this case is tanking.  Bruisers do alot of DPS because simply put, a bruiser embodies a brutal fighter that comes to a fight with a broken bottle glass. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>HIs taunts include fear spells as a mean angry intimidating figure would. And this is how the classes were made. So at the point in equality, what would you do?  </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>That would mean that we would have to take away ALL the paladins heals and give him 1-2 so that he cant sustain his own life to 10K + HP. We would have to take away a berskers DPS capability in group fights so that he can better match up to his defensive skill. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>And if we continue on down the line in that fashion, the result that ends up is a bunch of classes with names. = you dont change you cars color if you want a different car - you change the car itself.  Equal but different would not entail a paladin being able to heal himself to such massive proportions risk free right?  that makes just about all fighter classes inferior in some respect.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>All the fighter classes skills, LEAN towards tanking, but only 1 classes skills SCREAM it.  Because they are tanks exclusively. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>And on a side note, equal but different also means that you have 1 single purpose in groups.  that means either 2/24 in raids, or 1/6 in groups.  So you cannot play the class you want because you can only do one thing= tank. So everytime you want a group as a guardian, a system error comes up and tells you that the server is saturated with fighter types- please choose another LOL?? i hope not.  Because compare that to a healer, there can gladly be more than one healer in the group, wouldnt hurt a thing, some prefer the two healer method - </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff33>but that still puts ALL fighter classes into a box that big up above and says fight for it... all six of you idiots = fight for 3 potential spots your entire career. I dont want to be put in that position, and i dont think anyone else that chose a guardian or a monk did either. IMO. if you are a guardian, you wont hesitate to invite a monk to come do dps, but i for darn sure wouldnt invite a guardian to come do dps in my group = would you?</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>

[Mie]

<BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I just don't know why <SPAN>Moorgard</SPAN> keep saying Monk/Brusier are tank.</P> <P>Then why not all mage can nuke as hard as wizard, why all priest are not the same ....etc etc</P> <P>You won't expect enchanter can nuke for 3k damage, you won't expect mystic to heal like Templar</P> <P>Monk/Brusier have their role.  Fear , Mez , Mend, FD make them very hard to die. Their dps almost the same as scout ( if not better ).</P> <P>If you ever group with a well-equiped Brusier , you will noitce they will get aggo very easily . Why ? because of their dps are few times better than us. Currently , they are not "paper" .  Normal double up mob hardly kill a brusier.</P> <P>If <SPAN>Moorgard</SPAN> / SOE don't change their mind, we going to see a superman in next few weeks.</P> <P> </P></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

[FamilyManFir]

<span><blockquote><hr>Mielx wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <p>I just don't know why <span>Moorgard</span> keep saying Monk/Brusier are tank.</p> <p>Then why not all mage can nuke as hard as wizard, why all priest are not the same ....etc etc</p> <p>You won't expect enchanter can nuke for 3k damage, you won't expect mystic to heal like Templar</p> <p>Monk/Brusier have their role.  Fear , Mez , Mend, FD make them very hard to die. Their dps almost the same as scout ( if not better ).</p> <p>If you ever group with a well-equiped Brusier , you will noitce they will get aggo very easily . Why ? because of their dps are few times better than us. Currently , they are not "paper" .  Normal double up mob hardly kill a brusier.</p> <p>If <span>Moorgard</span> / SOE don't change their mind, we going to see a superman in next few weeks.</p> </blockquote> <div></div><hr></blockquote>Sorry, Mielx, but I believe you are incorrect. 1) I, and others, <b><i>do</i></b> expect Mystics to heal as well as Templars.  Again, not the same, but as well as. Were you aware that in Beta, originally, the "specialty" of Templars was that they had the best direct heals?  The devs noticed, however, that that made Templars vastly preferred as Priests and decided to take steps.  Now all Priest subclasses have direct heals that are about the same power and Templars have Reactive Heals as their "specialty." Currently there are problems with the Mystic class and its subclasses.  Among other things their Wards are, IMHO, underpowered, and are completely bypassed by Special attacks, even physical ones like Wild Swing.  These issues will be, I believe, addressed, but it's taking SOE a while to get to them (like it's taking SOE a while to get to Shadow Knights). 2) The Mage archetype is currently undergoing review and revisement by SOE.  They recently upgraded the power of the Sorcerers and their subclasses; they have stated that Enchanters are next.  I fully expect Enchangers' DOTs to be upgraded soon.  I also expect Conjurers' pets to be upgraded. Also, the Mage Archetype has several different roles which <i>can</i> be put on "sliders" without breaking the Archetype.  Mages' roles are High Damage, Crowd Control and Power Maintenance (like Priests' healing, but for Power).  From what I've read it looks to me like Sorcerers are the strongest at Damage (directly, anyway) with some CC and PM; Enchanters are obviously CC masters with good damage from DOTs and some PM; Conjurers appear to be the best at PM (cannibalizing from their pets) with good damage from their pets and a little CC.  You can do this kind of give-and-take with Mages without breaking the Archtytpe. You can't do that with Fighters or Priests.  Any Fighter class which dissipates damage better than others will be vastly preferred; any  Fighter class which can't hold aggro will be shunned.  There <i>is</i> a bit of give-and-take in the Fighter classes regarding aggro management; Brawlers have to work harder to keep aggro, but they can do it.  If they couldn't then their taunts would have to be upgraded to keep the class viable. Finally, once again, Brawlers aren't supposed to be, and I expect never will be, any kind of "superman."  Even if their Damage Dissipation is brought in-line with plate tanks' there are still deficits to playing a Brawler-type.  I listed several above.  Right now, given what I've heard about Guardians' tanking, it looks to me like <i>Guardians</i> are the "superman" of Tank classes.  If you're concerned about a sub-class being a "superman" I suggest you look there. </span><div></div>

[PerinSto]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Mielx wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I just don't know why <SPAN>Moorgard</SPAN> keep saying Monk/Brusier are tank.</P> <P>Then why not all mage can nuke as hard as wizard, why all priest are not the same ....etc etc</P> <P>You won't expect enchanter can nuke for 3k damage, you won't expect mystic to heal like Templar</P></BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Classes in the fighter line are tanks.  Brawlers/Monks/Bruisers are in the fighter line.  Therefore Brawlers/Monks/Bruisers are tanks.  </P> <P>No one is saying that they tank the same as Warriors or Crusaders, but they can and do tank.<BR></P>

[Darkd]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> PerinStone wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>No one is saying that they tank the same as Warriors or Crusaders, but they can and do tank.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>No one is saying a 350 lbs Offensive Linemen cant throw a football, but he shouldnt be the starting Quarterback either.</DIV>

[SageMarrow]

<P>yes thats true with the other classes, but the fact still remains. The game design doesnt permit for functionality of those things that would be okay in concept which is where the classes were balanced - against concept so it seems. </P> <P>wards cant scale because if there is ever a ward that can absorb 10,000K damage then a mystic type will be able to solo hordes of mobs, and we cant do that can we?</P> <DIV>Enchanters cant have uber enchantment/charm spells because it will be exploited every time by players, crowd control isnt managed by an enchanter in this game, but by a MT. telling others to stay tight, telling the other dps to stay behind the mob, and if adds come, its his responisbility to get control of it before it jumps the healer, while a mez could work, the group builds and make ups dont permit it. And in comparison to a wizard, killing mobs 5 at a time is alot faster than the 1 at a time method, since in regular groups 1 healer has the capability to keep up with healing the tanks with ease. all the mana regen items, and superior station drinks, the mana regen isnt<EM> totally</EM> neccessary either. the most down time that will be experienced in between exp group fights is someone being afk for the most part.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>so while its GREAT in concept = actual in game structure doesnt make it equal for the most part and most would rather the 3000 damage nukes over mana regen and such that an enchanter can provide. </DIV>

[Happyfunba]

<P>I actually think by breaking up Armor Class into Mitigation and Avoidance that they've added two such "sliders" with which to adjust the tanks in a way that can indeed offer them individual flavor. This is in conjunction with armor and weapon usability, not to mention the different types of group buffs we each can (already or in the future) offer to our respective groups. I know that I make my group a better attacking group. Guardiens are kings at defending their group members. I'm sure SKs, Paladins, Monks, and Bruisers have their own types of group buffs to offer though. The question really is, can this all be balanced among itself so that each character type can preform their basic role while additionally offering something that other tank classes don't. Something that the group itself will be happy they are getting.</P> <P>These may very well be asthetic differences, but they are differences non-the-less. And though there is never just one exclusive bonus that any group HAS to have, it does allow for each group to have it's own sense of diversity and style without changing the overall viability or success rate.</P> <P>I offer increased attack speed and Strength to my groups, as well as hit points and a bit of defense. I can also do some minor shielding for select group members. These are things I add to my group as an aside to the damage I can offer and how well I can tank. This is the flavor I offer my groups.</P> <P>I can NOT heal my group members, offer them other stat bonuses like Stamina or Wisdom, I can't effect their resists nor can I increase or otherwise affect their power pools. These are all things that other tanks can offer though, so there is indeed a difference among us. </P> <P>Again, these are utilities that are never hands-down, "we HAVE to choose this tank over this one because he offers this" differences. Rather, they are small differences among us which offer something that can be used by the rest of the group in more of a "cool, that will help out a bit" sort of way. And that's fine with me. I think we can be diverse in that sense as well as have some diversity in the way we function as a tank overall.</P> <P>I think the mitigation and avoidance percentages will only help to add more flavor to each tank class ASSUMING they can find a reasonable balance between us all. As a Berserker who wears heavy plate, I expect that I will always have a better mitigation rate than a Monk. In turn, I expect that Monks will always be able to outright avoid attacks better than I will. I expect too that Guardiens will also be balanced in a similar manner so that I not only fall within a reasonable comparison to Monks, but also compare to Guardiens reasonably as well. </P> <P>Tie into that the idea of utilities. I personally feel that Berzerkers offer a decent amount of utility to our groups. However, maybe other tank classes offer more. I'm perfectly fine with a different tank offering more utility provided they in turn lose a bit of their tanking ability in comparison to me. Where the balance becomes lost is when one class not only has highly sought-after utility but can also preform their basic role better than any other class. It's all about balancing each of these items. The more extreme you try to go in different directions, I don't think it's really more diversity you're adding to the characters but really a more situational role you're offering them. </P> <P>No matter how much we try to create different roles for every character type, the game itself will always be whittled down to the lowest amount of eccentials. Whatever diversity we attempt to create, it will only ever boil down to what specificially is needed. If each character type does not have a significant amount of general viability then the ONLY thing they will be called upon to do is what they specifically are good at. To me, that's not fun. To me, that creates a game which is actually even less diverse than allowing multiple characters the ability to preform a needed role adequately.</P>

[SageMarrow]

<P>precisely- i agree that all classes need one thing that makes them desireable to the most essential of capabilities. not just by what they can or cant do.</P> <P>shadowknights should get a spell that transfers 1/4 up to 1/2 of all damage that is healed during a fight into damage for the mob opponent,</P> <P>paladins, already have functional heals that at high levels can almost replace a healer for the most part. </P> <P>monks should get a group avoidance buff for about 50%</P> <P>bruisers should get the opportunity to provide a 50% chance to critical strike</P> <P>berserkers already have a group rampage haste buff</P> <P>guardians already have a group defensive buff.</P> <P>Things like this would be great and give each class the **unique** utility required to shine in a group in times that other dps or utility classes are not present. would make the game alot more flexible and fun as well.</P>

[JBo]

<P>Actually Brawlers can tank very well.</P> <P>Whenever I have a brawler in my group, I always let them tank.</P> <P>Believe it or not, they all tank better than I do.</P> <P>Why they keep posting on Guardian's forum? Cause they don't need to tank as well as us. They already tank better than us.</P> <P>They just don't tank well as Guardians.</P> <P>Currently, talk about tankablity, as what I see in the game:</P> <P>Guardian > SK > Paladian > Bruiser > Berserker</P> <P>Maybe there are minor differences, but Guardian is the number one right now. </P> <P>The major problem for us now is that our defensive spells just don't stack (Controlled Rage + Reckless Stance), which makes us falling behind in the high levels.</P> <P>If Controlled Rage can be fixed, then we will happily be:</P> <P>Guardian> Berserker > SK > Paladian > Bruiser</P> <P>DPS wise, it's exactly the opposite. SK and Paladian may need a fine tune though.</P> <P> </P>