Kaberu
06-26-2005, 12:21 PM
<DIV> <DIV><EM>Please note that this post is only to express my concerns and I have no idea what the final outcome will be after the combat changes. I do hope this will spur a bit of a preventative measure just in case things get really [Removed for Content].</EM></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Combat mobs are coming, I can understand that. By the looks of it, I am now grouped just above the priests for damage. One thing I don't know and the one thing we should know are the details. So here are the questions I would like have answered if it were already after the combat patch:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Are these tiers only accurate in a group situation where the tank class noted is tanking and the scout classes noted are attacking from behind a safely taunted mob, in other words: If a Berserker goes to solo a mob and a scout of equal level does the same, we both attack mobs of the same level, is the scout going to out DPS the Berserker?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>When I am grouped with a Troub/Dirge, I usually out DPS them mostly because of the vast array of buffing they bring to the table. By the looks of it, they will have a vast array of buffing AND still out damage me... is this true?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If these modifications are only for group balancing then can we see a solo heirarchy for the classes showing the tiers for solo play? </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If a Berserker pulls a group of 4 or 5 mobs... are the Guardian, Paladin and SK going to be able to keep up in terms of overall DPS as noted in the tiers? Are the the individual scout classes all going to be able to still out DPS me?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Based on the Berserker/Guardian comparison: If a guardian focuses a <EM>little</EM> more on DPS and the Berserker a <EM>little</EM> more on defense it should yield two classes of nearly identical capabilities. Why not just leave it at the generic Warrior class and let the stat progression decide the DPS and tanking abilities? </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I signed up for a Berserk for a couple reasons. All the information leading up to the release and even now in the OFFICIAL site described Berserkers as essentially a plate wearing, DPS class. In regular group situations we should be able to tank and we hold aggro more due to our higher damage output than our taunt abilities. As of right now this is largely true:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>At 50, I have one true single target taunt, Bully. Promise of Violence (or Raging Strike for that matter) is not an actual taunt. If I am at the top of the aggro list, it doesn't give me any extra aggro except from the miniscule damage it does, the strength boost and maybe a little more if it makes me Berserk. Promise of Violence DOES put me at the top of the list if I am not there allowing me to jump in and take over (or save someone). Promise of Violence does not give me a head start on the next person so I have to generate more aggro than whoever else is at the top of the list with my single taunt, Bully.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I have one encounter based taunt, Fearsome Shout. For pure taunts, that's all we really have.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So why do we keep aggro so well? Do I spam my taunts? Nope. I use Bully to pull a single target, Fearsome Shout to pull a group and I let my high damage attacks, encounter based attacks and of course going Berserk, hold aggro. The Promise of Violence / Bully combo will take aggro back if I lose it. If I am in a highly volitile area then of course I'll add more taunts, but in typical groups, it's not usually needed. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Does this make us unbalanced? Well in a raid, I have very little in the way to build aggro over time compared to the guardian who has a larger array of taunts. I cannot actually out taunt the guardian. What I can do is let him build up as much aggro as he likes, then jump ahead of him in line. If I'm already at the top of the list however, there's noone to jump ahead of and I only have my one single taunt (Bully) and my encounter taunt (Fearsome shout) to build aggro with.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Again, this normally isn't a problem due to one thing, our high DPS. So for my biggest question of all. Are we being screwed out of one of our primary aggro generators due to this update?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>We all know that Guardians are the status quo for tanking raid mobs so is that an unbalance against us? What do I do in a raid? Typically, I'm in the main tank group usually for my stackable HP buffs and Vehemence (which I can cast on a single target to add an extra avoidance chance as well as allowing the target to berserk). Since I am not the main tank, I can rely on my melee DPS to act as a filler for the scout that isn't there. I also have the promise/taunt combo that lets me pull adds away from the main tank, protect casters/healers that draw aggro, and step in as a backup tank if the main and secondary drop. I also have decent group melee buffs... I have group hastes, a group damage proc and even a small strength buff (although unless it breaks one of the barriers, 100, 150, 200, 300 etc... it has little effect aside from maybe adding power if STR is your power pool attribute). </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If I'm not in the main tank group however, I'm a part DPS, part bodyguard. if DPS is taken away, I'm left with being a bodyguard which, although I like that role, is not the reason I signed up.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>From the official site about my class:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG>Fighter</STRONG>:</DIV> <DIV><EM>Fighters use brute strength and sturdy weapons to deal physical damage to their enemies. Always at the forefront of combat, fighters stand toe-to-toe with opponents while keeping their allies from harm. No matter the risk, fighters never back down from a challenge.</EM></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG>Warrior</STRONG>:</DIV> <DIV><EM>Warriors utilize heavy armor and weapons to safeguard their companions and inflict damage upon the enemy. They stand bravely at the forefront of battle, striking fear into the hearts of their opponents.</EM></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG>Berserker</STRONG>:</DIV> <DIV><EM>Berserkers are chaotic warriors who inflict heavy damage with all manner of weapons. Their furious attacks overwhelm their opponents, to whom they show no mercy.</EM></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Tanking references: <U>Fighter</U>: "<EM>while keeping their allies from harm" ... </EM><U>Warrior</U><EM>: "utilize heavy armor and weapons to safeguard their companions" </EM>... <U>Berserker</U>: none</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Damage references: <U>Fighter</U>: "<EM>use brute strength and sturdy weapons to deal physical damage to their enemies</EM>" ... <U>Warrior</U>: "<EM>utilize heavy armor and weapons to ... inflict damage upon the enemy</EM>" ... <U>Berserker</U>: "<EM>Berserkers are chaotic warriors who inflict heavy damage with all manner of weapons. Their furious attacks overwhelm their opponents, to whom they show no mercy.</EM>"</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Compare this to Guardians: "<EM>Guardians don heavy armor to protect themselves in combat and aid in the defense of their allies. They will stand firm against any threat and lead their party to victory."</EM></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Can you find any damage reference in there?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And did you notice this: The Guardian description definately relates to being a group member and thus more group oriented, the Berserker one does not. Plus, the group orientation refers to what exactly? "<EM>Aid in the defense of their allies</EM>" and "<EM>stand firm against any threat and lead their party to victory</EM>" ... I'd say tanking.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And the only other Fighter description that might imply more damage than Berserkers are the Bruisers: "<EM>Bruisers are powerful thugs who use raw physical force to pummel their opponents into submission. They have transformed their bodies into brutal weapons designed to inflict suffering upon their enemies.</EM>"</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Admittedly, the Bruiser description only says "into submission" while berserkers "show no mercy" so arguments can be made.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What's funny is the Crusader description:</DIV> <DIV><EM>Crusaders are armored juggernauts that call upon divine powers to aid them in battle. Capable of dealing impressive physical damage, crusaders can wield a variety of weapons and shields.</EM></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Seems to me they should tank better than any other fighter right? I wonder how many went this path because of that description just to find out Guardians are the better tanks?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And what of scouts?</DIV> <DIV><EM>Scouts use stealth and cunning to explore the unknown. Highly skilled at detecting and disarming traps, they are experts at infiltrating the lair of the enemy. In combat, scouts rely upon the element of surprise to inflict opportunistic damage and gain an advantage over their opponents.</EM></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Look, changes are fine and all but there is a significant problem here. I did not draw the quotes from a months old version of the EQ2 site. I copied them right now. I made my choice based on these descriptions. I chose Berserker because I love throwing myself into the midst of battle. Every interview I read, every note and post I read on the official site leading up to the release essentially equated fighters to down and dirty, nitty gritty melee combat. Fighters were suppose to be the primary force of melee damage. I went Berserker because I was under the impression that while we shared capabilities as fighters and while as warriors we were the same as would-be guardians... we broke from that and went to a more frenzied, carnage-ridden approach once we went Berserker. And as far as scouts go: "<EM>scouts rely upon the element of surprise to inflict opportunistic damage and gain an advantage over their opponents.</EM>" I don't know about you but that implies they only do significant damage when the opportunity arises. Getting an advantage over the opponent? Seems to imply debuffing to me.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If these descriptions are no longer valid, then why are they still up? Maybe they'll change them to better reflect the direction taken in the patches? That's all fine and dandy but I invested alot of time and money into building a character I love just to have the rug pulled from under me? If the descriptions are not changed shouldn't Sony be guilty of "bait-and-switch" tactics that many companies have been fined and punished for? They are advertising a product/service that doesn't reflect the actual product/service at that point right?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Debate all you like that we should be the same as guardians but that line of thinking goes back to EQ1. In EQ1, warriors tanked and that was about it. This is EQ2, they defined what the classes would do and I at least, made the choice based on what the people creating the game told me. Is this starting to become a candy-wrapped version of EQ1. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Based on the descriptions, where should we all sit from a melee standpoint? In general Fighters should be higher than Scouts. But with the approproate conditions, this is what I see. I should note that none of these lists indicated a degree of difference but it should at least be a measurable or significant one:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Soloing / Front Attack:</DIV> <DIV>Monks / Bruiser</DIV> <DIV>Berserker</DIV> <DIV>Shadowknight</DIV> <DIV>Paladin</DIV> <DIV>Guardian</DIV> <DIV>Brigand / Swashbuckler</DIV> <DIV>Troubador / Dirge</DIV> <DIV>Assassin / Ranger</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Optimal Conditional Damage:</DIV> <DIV>Assassin (from stealthed rear attacks) / Ranger (from ranged attacks)</DIV> <DIV><EM>*Berserker (vs group of 3 or more)</EM></DIV> <DIV>Brigand / Swashbuckler (from flanking/rear attacks)</DIV> <DIV>Monk / Bruiser (from the front, main aggro target)</DIV> <DIV>Berserker (any angle)</DIV> <DIV>Shadowknight (any angle)</DIV> <DIV>Paladin (any angle)</DIV> <DIV>Guardian (any angle)</DIV> <DIV>Troubador / Dirge</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Debuffing:</DIV> <DIV>Troubador / Dirge</DIV> <DIV>Brigand / Swashbuckler</DIV> <DIV>Assassin / Ranger</DIV> <DIV>Shadowknight</DIV> <DIV>Guardian / Berserker / Monk / Bruiser</DIV> <DIV>Paladin</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Buffing (notably group):</DIV> <DIV>Troubador / Dirge</DIV> <DIV>Paladin</DIV> <DIV>Guardian / Berserker / Monk / Bruiser</DIV> <DIV>Shadowknight</DIV> <DIV>Brigand / Swashbuckler</DIV> <DIV>Assassin / Ranger</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Tanking (mitigation / taking damage only):</DIV> <DIV>Guardian</DIV> <DIV>Paladin / Shadowknight</DIV> <DIV>Berserker</DIV> <DIV>Brigand / Swashbuckler</DIV> <DIV>Troubador / Dirge</DIV> <DIV> <DIV>Ranger / Assassin</DIV>Monk / Bruiser</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Durability (includes avoidance, self-healing, etc... how long one can last unsupported or how likely to survive):</DIV> <DIV>Paladin</DIV> <DIV>Shadowknight</DIV> <DIV>Monk / Bruiser</DIV> <DIV>Guardian</DIV> <DIV>Berserker</DIV> <DIV>Brigand / Swashbuckler</DIV> <DIV>Troubador / Dirge</DIV> <DIV>Assassin / Ranger</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Am I paranoid? Maybe a little bit but there are definately reasons to be concerned. I'm not asking to be the top of the heap but I am asking for what I paid for. If it turns out the class combat changes are far too extreme away from the basic principles laid out then there is a real problem that has to be dealt with.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It's easy for people to tell me, "you picked a TANK class, so it should be a tank!" Well I didn't. I picked a Fighter, I picked a Warrior. I picked a Berserker. In EQ1 people equated Warriors with low damage / high tanking and that is were this ideal is coming from. That is also why I don't play a Warrior in EQ1. The Warrior was redefined by Sony for EQ2 and I accepted it. Berserker was a subclass of Warrior that I also accepted. The official site still describes my class as I accepted them. My class is changing to reflect none of that.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So for my final question to Sony:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Are you going to fix the game to reflect the advertisements or the advertisements to reflect the game?</DIV></DIV>