Walking a mile in a monkeys shoes

[Eukat]

<DIV> <P><SPAN>The ideas and opinions expressed in this post are not new, I am certain others have posted similarly and I know I have but unlike others I feel that restating and rephrasing add clarity and legitimacy to such things. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>As someone who raids and parses those raids every day and has played since beta I feel I am qualified to make some observations. When we face a mob that is weak to slashing I outpace everyone by a noticeable margin, when the mob is slash resistant (it is the most common melee resistance) I fall behind bruisers/monks (mostly bruisers), assassins, and brigands, when there are large groups I do fairly well but the warlocks are far ahead of everyone. Wizards and Shadow knights seem to do well in every encounter but rarely at the top. Classes that I never see up front of the DPS list that should be on occasion: Rangers, Swashbucklers, conjurers, and necromancers. Some classes I don’t add to the parse list as often as I should so I may be a little off on their performance, but I believe I have a reasonable idea of their performance. </SPAN></P> <P></P> <P><SPAN>If this was by design I would think Sony was on the right track, and making progress toward a good balance, but it largely circumstantial. <SPAN> </SPAN>The reason I fall behind when a mob has a high slash resistance or is slash immune is because I have a good slashing weapon and average pierce and crushing weapons and I carry a full set of gear aimed at DPS for those occasions that I do not tank, which is usually the case.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>With the number of classes in EQ2 there simply cannot be one best DPS class, it's unfair to the dozen other DPS classes, but with a little planning we can all shine. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>I believe Sony is also missing an opportunity, and in this making unhappy players. All classes that have been branded in some way a DPS class want to be at the top of the DPS pile, this might seem imposable at first I believe it to be possible by taking a few steps, ill explain. If encounters and classes where to be designed with class roles in mind, and classes designed with these roles in mind you could have x class excel at x type situation with many possible combinations:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><SPAN>          </SPAN>Class A = good aoe attacks, poison/magic based well suited to large encounters vs. low magic/poison resistant mobs.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><SPAN>          </SPAN>ClassB = good single target with strong piercing skills well suited to single mobs with a weakness to piercing.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>          ClassC = good single target magic attack of one or two types i.e. fire, cold, divine, etc <SPAN> </SPAN>attacks well suited to mobs with low resistance to those attacks.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>By keeping in mind the role settled upon for a class when designing encounters there should be plenty of opportunities for one class to excel over others some of the times, while being in the middle of the DPS pack in others. More variation in encounter and class strengths and weaknesses would, I think, allow everyone to feel more unique and more valuable and thus more enjoyable. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>I also believe that a class’s total skill set should be considered when balancing them. Invisibility, group invisibility, track, safe fall, feign death, evac, and other utility skills have real merit and usefulness and are often, and I believe deliberately, overlooked by the representatives of those classes who frequently complain about their <SPAN> </SPAN>DPS; as far as utility skills no one has fewer than we warrior classes. Should you really be able to group invisibility, track, evade agro, and do more damage than anyone? </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>I have always advocated berserkers as a DPS class; that is the impression I gathered from the class description and from my beta experience. <SPAN> </SPAN>I don’t have much understanding for those that say they want berserks to be the supreme tank since the class descriptions clearly illustrated what class was going to rule that area. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>          If I was going to attempt to fix class balance I would:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>          Engineer more variation in encounters strengths and weaknesses.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>          Improve pets, they being a major strength of conjurers and necromancers.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>          Engineer encounters designed to maximize ranged weapon usage.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>          Improve rangers ranged skills so they truly devastating and are peerless in that area (not to exceed DPS of other classes when a ranger uses a combination of his ranged skills and melee skills).</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>          Give more melee skills a certain damage type i.e. piercing, slashing, and crushing to fit the role of that class.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>          Find a role for swashbucklers and tune them for that role. <SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>          Give scouts greater power in the area of heroic opportunities; I’m not certain how to do this but I know HOs are still largely ignored.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><SPAN>I don’t know if it is possible but if it is: make some encounters where mitigation is important (mobs that swing slowly, do massive damage and are hard to avoid) and encounters where avoidance is important (mobs that swing fast and do little damage per swing); to emphasize the tanking strength of monks and guardians. </SPAN></P></SPAN> <P><SPAN>In future expansions reintroduce the division between vanguard and plate armor and limit vanguard to guardians and crusaders. Maybe just paladins and stick shadow knights in plate; I’ll let them blame me when this happens (yea like that’s really going to happen). Of course doing this would require that all current vanguard armors remain usable by berserkers or give them replacements.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Wouldn’t it be a great playing experience to fight an encounter where, thought the related quest lore you learn that the target boss mob has a weakness to, and a fear of, assassination? To defeat the encounter you could do it as a very hard straight up fight; or you could defeat the boss mobs bodyguards, upon their death an event is triggered that casts a powerful debuff on the boss giving him a massive weakness to assassination. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Lastly, if anyone cares I’ll opt for berserks being strong in slashing single target or group, I don’t care which, I would even be happy with berserkers being the generic decent DPS in all encounters but not at the top type too. I don’t want to tank as well as a guardian or a monk but I wouldn’t mind being able to off tank if the occasion arises.</SPAN></P></DIV>

[Buzz]

Good post, sir. You've hit very well on the topics that cause the angst of players.  I'm not sure your solution is the slam dunk fix, but it's definitely going in the right direction.  I know that I can outperform my Brigand guildmate in large group fights, but they're WAY ahead of me in single person fights.  The Warlock actually outdamages me in both cases quite often. I guess we'll see what happens with the combat changes.  =P  Sony has a way of OVERcorrecting a situation so that suddenly the exact opposite is true.  <span>:smileysad:</span> <div></div>

[joeygopher]

<P>grats to the OP on one of the rare gems of insight to be found in the fighter forums :smileyhappy:</P> <P>I think more variation in the strengths & weaknesses of the encounters is really the way to go.  That way you do get different classes coming into their own against certain types of mobs.  No DPS tree = a hell of alot fewer complaints on the boards!</P> <P>I play a shadowknight, and came to EQ2 with no MMPORG experience and therefore making general assumptions as to what an evil guy with a big sword could do.  Imagine my surprise when I found that despite weilding weapons that should effectively remove heads, I was expected to just stand there and take a beating for everyone else (occasionally shouting abuse at creatures who could uncannily understandwhat I was saying!).  Initially, I thought "hey, we're being screwed here".  Now I'm thinking I don't think I should be the whackingest mob-whacker around, as long as in certain circumstances somebody will shout "we need a SK for this!".</P> <P>There's enough stuff to kill out there to provide a huge scope for different talents.  Resisitances are built in to the game already so we should see some more use of this.  Make some mobs that a certain archetype (or even subclasses) are really going to excel with.</P> <P>I reckon this would be the way to go to ensure everyone feels they have something worthwhile to contribute, both up to 50 and for the endgame.  And hey, fighters will have something other to do than tank!</P>

[Eukat]

Your experience with an SK was the same as I had in EQ1, I played an SK in EQ1 for years and it was a class with many problems for along time, many of the trends I see in EQ2 remind me of what happened to the SK in EQ1 and is part of why I am so concerned.

[cacabutt]

<DIV>Fantastic original post, I just wanted to add a couple comments. I think you should have posted this on the abilities forum since that is were this type of discussion is getting a lot of play.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Contrary to what you assert a lot of people are bringing up a classes utility as a legit balance consideration. Then again a lot are saying it shouldn't be, based on the archetype. Mostly said by people of classes with high utility that want more dps. Enchanters are a good example, some claim that because they are of the mage archetype their utility is not an issue. Well as a mystic, a very high utility class, I think I too should do huge dps since my utility isnt an issue, but since I'm of the priest archetype I just want to tank like a guardian, and I want it now or I quit! The idea that enchanters should do huge dps is absurd, just like the idea that a shadow knight or berserker should do low dps based on their archetype is also absurd. Maybe people should start considering that the archetype format is broken and has always been so. The whole thing reminds me of "the vision" Tm from EQ1, adherence to a policy on some principle that does nothing but make people unhappy; I say scrap it.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The truth is if you want to get grouped, or get into a good guild and be invited to raids by that guild you have to be of the elite class that does something better than every other class. group, guild, and raid all want the best tank, best healer, best dps, other classes are invited only when those few classes are not available or if your lucky enough to have really distinguished yourself as a very good player among a lot of people. Many games have proven this time and time again, there is little room for argument here, anyone with broad MMORPG experience knows this to be true. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What of the guy that really loves some class concept and picks one of those not so hot classes out of a desire to not to power game but of love for their class; does he not deserve the chance to group, guild and raid too? Being a second class citizen is no fun in any context. So it seems clear that EVERY class must shine in some area, every class.... number one, peerless, without peer, at something, something important is best. Important being tanking, healing, utility (I mean real utility here, like bards, shaman, enchanters), and dps. Classes that are mediocre tanks, mediocre dps, and mediocre utility spend so much time waiting for group, guild, raid invites that many people who love their class abandon it or the game, is this what we want, no paladins, shadow knights, necromancers, conjurers, berserkers, brawlers, etc to be found in the game?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>When I was choosing a class for EQ2 when reading the class description I recall thinking to myself "one would really have to love this class to play it because it is sure to be nerfed out of all existence", I was thinking specifically of crusaders and berserkers when I thought this. I don't know why you guys chose a class that was destine to be the paladin from EQ1 of EQ2 but you did, and I feel for you, I would change it if I could. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>PS. I was told after writing this that they eventually made shadow knights and paladins desirable in EQ1 after a few years. So please consider that I refer to the paladin of the first 4 or so years of EQ1.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I have also observed that everyone who benefits from bringing up the archetype issue does so in support of there argument, while those who the archetype issue damages there position attempt to dismiss it. It's become a device that is arbitrary at best, divisive at worst, and in my mind totally irrelevant in all cases. </DIV><p>Message Edited by cacabutt on <span class=date_text>07-13-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:57 AM</span>

[Korza]

<P>Your suggestion on the armor types and changes is kind of nice and would work well.</P> <P>Currently there are only 4 armor types in the game and there should be more variety. Armorsmiths are clamouring for more recipies as well as some levels they get no new ones at all.</P> <P>Cloth </P> <P>Leather</P> <P>Chain</P> <P>Plate</P> <P>There should be a field plate option at the very least which would be inbetween plate and chain and mixture of both as this was really the more common type of armor for a larger portion of history then the full plate which is the games current plate option. </P> <P>Now as to the abilities of classes. With the archtype system then each class in that system really does have to have a part that they are the best at or you end up with middle of the road classes that are the red headed step children and unless they are in a guild that includes everyone just cause or have a lot of friends those folks will not and do not get invited to raids and groups as much or at all. Raids  and or groups will stack the group to best suit the encounters they have planned. Which means people will not be wanted and therefore not invited. </P> <P>I can't see SOE balancing every encounter to be useful to each damage type so even having people good at one damage type or another will not be enough as you will have people that say well we are hunting mob X and so we need slash types and as they are the best xp in this level range people of crush or pierce damage are left to solo past those levels. So while the thought is good the execution is where I see it failing at. </P> <P> </P>

[IronCob]

<DIV>Very well stated, balance is a key issue in any interactive game MMO's more so than any other type of game. We can only hope sony realizes this and constantly and logicially fix  issues with taking consideration and input from seasoned plays like Euk and others.</DIV>

[MrDiz]

Excellent post. Would like to see something like this. However i do have one major quibble:<blockquote>I also believe that a class’s total skill set should be considered when balancing them. Invisibility, group invisibility, track, safe fall, feign death, evac, and other utility skills have real merit and usefulness and are often, and I believe deliberately, overlooked by the representatives of those classes who frequently complain about their DPS; as far as utility skills no one has fewer than we warrior classes. Should you really be able to group invisibility, track, evade agro, and do more damage than anyone? </blockquote>110% disagree. Sorry but it just doesnt happen. Noone ever ever starts a normal exp grinding group and demands a tracker, pathfinder or trap disarmer. If one is in the group we may use their tracking. We may let them disarm. We may every once in a blue moon use the group sneak. But its not group making/breaking. Noone ever said "Oh no the tracker is leaving, I guess we are finished here".Safe fall is nice if your too lazy to look where your going. But again it has nothing to offer a group. Groups want to know what you have that can make them kill faster/better etc to get more exp or loot. Should it be this way? Doesnt matter. Thats how it is.I get tells all the time on my templar. All the time. Can you help with this .... can you join us for a raid ... we need a healer .... etc. I get the same on my guardian. I never ever get that on my swashy. Never. Not once. Even with the lfg flag up I can go 4 and 5 hours without a tell. My templar can get 2 tells before the zone has finished loading <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />In fact the only time I needed group sneak was once when i was on my templar heading to BoF. I expect when my swashy hits 45+ he will get one or two tells a month for ferry service to get to BoF.... Utility is one of those things that should be invaluable in a roleplaying game, and yet is barely one step above useless in the exp/loot hunt that is eq2.

[industrock]

<DIV>hey, euk</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>don't forget to put a bruiser in the same category as berserker.</DIV>

[Espyderman]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eukatae wrote:<BR> <DIV> <P><SPAN>The ideas and opinions expressed in this post are not new, I am certain others have posted similarly and I know I have but unlike others I feel that restating and rephrasing add clarity and legitimacy to such things. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>As someone who raids and parses those raids every day and has played since beta I feel I am qualified to make some observations. When we face a mob that is weak to slashing I outpace everyone by a noticeable margin, when the mob is slash resistant (it is the most common melee resistance) I fall behind bruisers/monks (mostly bruisers), assassins, and brigands, when there are large groups I do fairly well but the warlocks are far ahead of everyone. Wizards and Shadow knights seem to do well in every encounter but rarely at the top. Classes that I never see up front of the DPS list that should be on occasion: Rangers, Swashbucklers, conjurers, and necromancers. Some classes I don’t add to the parse list as often as I should so I may be a little off on their performance, but I believe I have a reasonable idea of their performance. </SPAN></P> <P></P> <P><SPAN>If this was by design I would think Sony was on the right track, and making progress toward a good balance, but it largely circumstantial. <SPAN> </SPAN>The reason I fall behind when a mob has a high slash resistance or is slash immune is because I have a good slashing weapon and average pierce and crushing weapons and I carry a full set of gear aimed at DPS for those occasions that I do not tank, which is usually the case.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>With the number of classes in EQ2 there simply cannot be one best DPS class, it's unfair to the dozen other DPS classes, but with a little planning we can all shine. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>I believe Sony is also missing an opportunity, and in this making unhappy players. All classes that have been branded in some way a DPS class want to be at the top of the DPS pile, this might seem imposable at first I believe it to be possible by taking a few steps, ill explain. If encounters and classes where to be designed with class roles in mind, and classes designed with these roles in mind you could have x class excel at x type situation with many possible combinations:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><SPAN>          </SPAN>Class A = good aoe attacks, poison/magic based well suited to large encounters vs. low magic/poison resistant mobs.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><SPAN>          </SPAN>ClassB = good single target with strong piercing skills well suited to single mobs with a weakness to piercing.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>          ClassC = good single target magic attack of one or two types i.e. fire, cold, divine, etc <SPAN> </SPAN>attacks well suited to mobs with low resistance to those attacks.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>By keeping in mind the role settled upon for a class when designing encounters there should be plenty of opportunities for one class to excel over others some of the times, while being in the middle of the DPS pack in others. More variation in encounter and class strengths and weaknesses would, I think, allow everyone to feel more unique and more valuable and thus more enjoyable. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>I also believe that a class’s total skill set should be considered when balancing them. Invisibility, group invisibility, track, safe fall, feign death, evac, and other utility skills have real merit and usefulness and are often, and I believe deliberately, overlooked by the representatives of those classes who frequently complain about their <SPAN> </SPAN>DPS; as far as utility skills no one has fewer than we warrior classes. Should you really be able to group invisibility, track, evade agro, and do more damage than anyone? </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>I have always advocated berserkers as a DPS class; that is the impression I gathered from the class description and from my beta experience. <SPAN> </SPAN>I don’t have much understanding for those that say they want berserks to be the supreme tank since the class descriptions clearly illustrated what class was going to rule that area. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>          If I was going to attempt to fix class balance I would:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>          Engineer more variation in encounters strengths and weaknesses.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>          Improve pets, they being a major strength of conjurers and necromancers.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>          Engineer encounters designed to maximize ranged weapon usage.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>          Improve rangers ranged skills so they truly devastating and are peerless in that area (not to exceed DPS of other classes when a ranger uses a combination of his ranged skills and melee skills).</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>          Give more melee skills a certain damage type i.e. piercing, slashing, and crushing to fit the role of that class.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>          Find a role for swashbucklers and tune them for that role. <SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>          Give scouts greater power in the area of heroic opportunities; I’m not certain how to do this but I know HOs are still largely ignored.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><SPAN>I don’t know if it is possible but if it is: make some encounters where mitigation is important (mobs that swing slowly, do massive damage and are hard to avoid) and encounters where avoidance is important (mobs that swing fast and do little damage per swing); to emphasize the tanking strength of monks and guardians. </SPAN></P></SPAN> <P><SPAN>In future expansions reintroduce the division between vanguard and plate armor and limit vanguard to guardians and crusaders. Maybe just paladins and stick shadow knights in plate; I’ll let them blame me when this happens (yea like that’s really going to happen). Of course doing this would require that all current vanguard armors remain usable by berserkers or give them replacements.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Wouldn’t it be a great playing experience to fight an encounter where, thought the related quest lore you learn that the target boss mob has a weakness to, and a fear of, assassination? To defeat the encounter you could do it as a very hard straight up fight; or you could defeat the boss mobs bodyguards, upon their death an event is triggered that casts a powerful debuff on the boss giving him a massive weakness to assassination. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>Lastly, if anyone cares I’ll opt for berserks being strong in slashing single target or group, I don’t care which, I would even be happy with berserkers being the generic decent DPS in all encounters but not at the top type too. I don’t want to tank as well as a guardian or a monk but I wouldn’t mind being able to off tank if the occasion arises.</SPAN></P></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Another player who thinks he can develope games better then the company he pays. if your so right, where is your MMORPG?</DIV>

[Eukat]

<DIV>To answer your question; does it necessarily follow that if one can do a thing one must do that thing? My career does not involve game development, that is to say I don't develop games for a living; although I would entertain offers. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>From where do you derive that you believe  offering suggestions and conflicting opinion is bad? Only an idiot would suggest that the player community has nothing to offer to improve the game and enrich Sony, are you such an idiot?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If I don't like the road on which the game travels what would you have me, or any player do; hold my tongue and hope for the best? If I don't like the state of the nation I vote to enact change, I am voting now for the game I would like to play, I pay my government and they give me a voice, I pay Sony and I  feel I am entitled to a voice.</DIV>

[Eukat]

<DIV>BTW thanks for the support and suggestions offered in the replies, I really enjoyed reading Cacabutts post ( nice name dude).</DIV>

[Memmoch]

<div></div>Eukatae well put together post nameing some good suggestions.  Though I have to strongly disagree with you on some.  The adjusting of raid mobs so that certain figher classes would shine against them more is a awsome suggestion, as well as tuning them for strengths against some classes and weaknesses against others...great idea and would really make every class feel needed.  Something like this would take away the mindset of only one MT to get the job done, or only one raid set up concentrating on certain classes and ignoring others for all raid content like it currently is. Your idea of what a Offensive tank is though is incorrect in my opinion.  Now that might be due in fact to you being in beta and getting to play a zerker when they were insane DPS and tank. Though you had to of noticed down through the stages where they slowly tuned back our DPS in some situations as well.  Also during this time when Guardians started out with insane mitigation verus the other tanks and they slowly got tuned back naturally would cause you to assume that they are the supreme tank and the natural choice as MT.  The fact that their anchor spell currently is in debate on weither it works right or not ( it states that it ups the mitigation of the mob while slowing it but instead it ups the mitigation of the guardian) and what it does would make some think that a guardian is the way to go.  I say your idea of what a offensive tank is wrong because of what SOE put down on paper and here on the forums over and over again.  They said that Guardians would be the defensive tank in that they would buff their "GROUP" defensivly and shield their "GROUP" against some if not all dmg that might come their way.  They said that the Berserker would be the offensive tank in that they would buff their "GROUP" offensivly and would generate enough aggro through combat abilites to rarely have a need to worry about their "GROUP" taking dmg.  Reread what is said, we are NOT a DPS machine.  We are a TANK, that has the capablity to generate enough agro from our DPS/combat abilites to control the aggro so our group can take down the mob.  I also say that a guardian being the natural choice for MT is incorrect too because of the huge amount of aggro we generate compared to them allows other members in the raid group to UP their DPS without worry of pulling aggro allowing the raid as a whole to drop the mobs that much faster. In the end I think you are correct on your postings in that in certain situations we outshine most with our DPS but in other situations we drop down to the middle of the pile.  Too many people naturally assume that since we have the word offensive in our class description that we must be a DPS class.  <div></div>

[Eukat]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Memmoch wrote:<BR> Eukatae well put together post nameing some good suggestions.  Though I have to strongly disagree with you on some. <BR><BR>The adjusting of raid mobs so that certain figher classes would shine against them more is a awsome suggestion, as well as tuning them for strengths against some classes and weaknesses against others...great idea and would really make every class feel needed.  Something like this would take away the mindset of only one MT to get the job done, or only one raid set up concentrating on certain classes and ignoring others for all raid content like it currently is.<BR><BR>Your idea of what a Offensive tank is though is incorrect in my opinion.  Now that might be due in fact to you being in beta and getting to play a zerker when they were insane DPS and tank. Though you had to of noticed down through the stages where they slowly tuned back our DPS in some situations as well.  Also during this time when Guardians started out with insane mitigation verus the other tanks and they slowly got tuned back naturally would cause you to assume that they are the supreme tank and the natural choice as MT.  The fact that their anchor spell currently is in debate on weither it works right or not ( it states that it ups the mitigation of the mob while slowing it but instead it ups the mitigation of the guardian) and what it does would make some think that a guardian is the way to go.<BR><BR> I say your idea of what a offensive tank is wrong because of what SOE put down on paper and here on the forums over and over again.  They said that Guardians would be the defensive tank in that they would buff their "GROUP" defensivly and shield their "GROUP" against some if not all dmg that might come their way.  They said that the Berserker would be the offensive tank in that they would buff their "GROUP" offensivly and would generate enough aggro through combat abilites to rarely have a need to worry about their "GROUP" taking dmg.  Reread what is said, we are NOT a DPS machine.  We are a TANK, that has the capablity to generate enough agro from our DPS/combat abilites to control the aggro so our group can take down the mob.  I also say that a guardian being the natural choice for MT is incorrect too because of the huge amount of aggro we generate compared to them allows other members in the raid group to UP their DPS without worry of pulling aggro allowing the raid as a whole to drop the mobs that much faster.<BR><BR>In the end I think you are correct on your postings in that in certain situations we outshine most with our DPS but in other situations we drop down to the middle of the pile.  Too many people naturally assume that since we have the word offensive in our class description that we must be a DPS class. <BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I appreciate your reply, well stated. I am not advocating berserkers be dps machine and a tank as well; I for one do not recall Sony stating anything about the role of berserkers other than the class description on the eq2 web site, it states:</P> <P></P> <HR> 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. <HR> <P>That is what I read and believed when I chose my class. I am not advocating berserkers be any better a tank than a scout.</P> <P>Some have taken issue with my position on utility being taken into account when balancing classes and I would like to address that as well. While groups don't often pick classes becuse of their utility, they sometimes do and guilds often do. Even if that where not the case utility abilities still aid the player greatly; if you ignore utility when balancing combat ability then utility should be balanced separately; if that is the case then should'nt berserkers and guardians to be able to repair broken equipment, safe fall, sneak, and feign death?</P>

[Memmoch]

<div></div>In response to you Eukatae: On your issues on utilites playing a role in balancing out I couldn't agree with you more.  However you stated that: <font size="4"> 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.</font> The exact wording as what SOE has as our class discription.  One thing you missed though is the word Warrior's in that sentence.  Here is SOE's discription on what a Warrior is: <font size="4"> 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.</font> How can a DPS class stand at the forfront of battle, safeguarding their companions and inflicting damage upon the enemy?  They can't.  Tanks though can.  I think general consenus will state that the discription of the warrior by SOE and the player-base discription on what a Tank or Meatshield are will be almost the same, wouldn't you agree? In case anyone is wondering, here is SOE's discription on what a Guardian is....don't be too surprised <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <font size="4"> 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.</font> Hmm, aid in the defense of their allies.....interesting no?  After all, us Berserkers (who are tanks) would be considered a ally! +D <div></div>

[Dashel]

A bit late to this but wanted to throw in my 2 cents. In my mind there is absolutely no doubt about our role and it is that of a tank.  I dont see how anyone could argue otherwise.  Are Inquisitors DPS?  Furies?  Defilers?  No they are primarily healers, with an offensive bent to them. Zerks have high hit points, taunts and can wear plate.  They melee, can use all weapons and tower shields.  They have no utility and can not heal.  They are designed to be tanks, plain and simple.  If you dont buy the archetype argument, just look at the design of the class and how it's progressed.  Plate was added late, DPS has been tuned down.  Having said all that I very much enjoy reading Eukataes posts, they are always excellent.  I agree 100% with providing encouters for each class to shine based on slash/peirce/crush/poison/magic/other resistances as well as AOE and single target variables.  In my mind Zerks should be highly desired for slash vulnerable encounters and AOE encounters.  <div></div>

[MindParadox]

<P>Well, here goes, One more Zerker(yes, thats a Z OMG!!!!) adding his 2 acorns to the nut pile</P> <P>I'm a tank, to me this means two things, i can bully may way up to a mob, smack him with insane force and power upside the head, call him an idiot, and then let my buddies procede to do nearly anything they want to said mob without fear of reprisals from it, because they know two things</P> <P>1. i have agro</P> <P>once i have the agro, and you can ask literally anyone i have ever grouped with, if i say "i have the agro" it means that under no circumstances short of my death, dismemberment, being buried under a pile of dung for 3 weeks, and then burned, is anyone going to get that mob to turn at all whatsoever</P> <P> </P> <P>2. i can damage</P> <P>i am capable of providing hte amount of damage necessary to complete the fight before my group runs out of power, admittedly, without manastone and the proc from my spiffy Polished Granite Tomahawk(piece of crap in EQ1 by the way) i will have run out of power in the middle of the first mob that has 2 down arrows, and be relying soley on my tireless arms ever swinging those nice and lovely edges into the enemies flesh</P> <P> </P> <P>BUT the mob WILL die before anyone else in the group does, unless i die first</P> <P>unfortunately, SOE from what i am hearing doesnt like this, and is going to turn me into a guardian, which, at level 28, i stopped playing, to create a zerker, who is now level 41(gee, i wonder why, lets see, guardian=awesome vs 1 mob, then must rest, zerker, awesome against an ENCOUNTER, even if its a solo multiple mob encounter)</P> <P>hopefully, they will let my ratonga scout actually take some damage or bring back the Beastlord, as it looks like thats the only way ill enjoy the game according the information posted in the forums about the changes</P> <P>i know, i ramble, get over it, flame if ya wish, my fist burns for your face <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P>

[infernus006]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div>MrDizz, "Noone ever ever starts a normal exp grinding group and demands a tracker, pathfinder or trap disarmer." In that case would it be wrong to assume that you would be totally willing to completely give up all these "useless" utilities you possess as a scout in exchange for more DPS then?  And if so then why even be called a "scout" then? I've said this once and I'll say it again...if you're class is broken then it should be fixed rather than having another class nerfed just to make you look better. I for one totally agree with the whole "Berserkers are Warriors" deal.  We are tanks just as well as Guardians, we just have a different style of doing the job.  That means we get to wear all the same gear that they do and use it just as well as they do, we just get different CAs.  Similar to Wizards Vs. Warlocks.  IMO You can't have two subclasses from the same class being total opposites of each other, especially in the netrual classes like Warrior and Sorcerer.  They are just not meant to be that way and it would be very silly to try and make it that way IMO, especally if you're only going to do it to one subclass and not all the other ones.  As I see it they are meant to be almost exactly the same with just a different flare one way or another. So I say all these people who keep crying that zerkers should be nothing more than a pure DPS class because they hate to tank need to [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] and face the fact that they made a bad choice from the get go and reroll or something because it's not getting changed that way.  It's just not.  So there.  We should and I think always will have more DPS than our Guardian brothers but that's just our "flare".  We should and I think alwyas will be tanks.  Of course we shouldn't have so much DPS that it makes such a drastic distinction between us and them but the same goes for their uber defensive capabilties. From my experience, Brawlers are the light armor wearing DPS fighters of this game, they always have been, so if that's what you wanted then maybe you should go with that or a scout or mage even and quit whining and trying to get this classed totally screwed up for everyone that picked it for the right reason, to be a good tank with an offensive slant. Honestly, if you made your zerker to be nothing more than a DPS then that's pretty sad, IMO, and there's no excuse for it either, revamp or no revamp.  Either face the fact that you're a tank and make do with it or reroll as a DPS class and be happy.  There's really no other choice.  Except quitting the game of course...that's always an option too I suppose if you're that unhappy and don't want to reroll.  Just a thought!<p>Message Edited by infernus006 on <span class=date_text>08-23-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:30 PM</span>