Why cant berserkers be a pure dps class?

[MrDiz]

Im pretty clueless as to the berserker (or monk for the matter) class. But my image of the berserker is not an armorered tank, but of a half naked madman with braids and two axes.... like an english football hooligan with better hygiene.I imagine them having a lot of hp, but little mitigation and no avoidance, but putting a massive damage load down. Id have them outdamge assassins, but have zero tank ability and zero utility.its just how I see them I guess <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />But then I would also have monks dps the same as scouts, and tank exactly the same. In many ways they are similar classes. Both use speed and dodging rather than armour, they both use precision attacks rather than massive double handed sword type swings. monks have more health, scouts have stealth.Id have berserkers as melee wizards with absolutely nothing else. Id have monks as similar to assassins/rangers with regards tanking and dps.Leave the tanking to pallys, sks and guardians <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> I mean seriosuly, who wants david caradine tanking Vox??

[Stormbil]

If you want lots of damage, then choose one of the predator subclasses.  Berserkers are tanks.

[Daun]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MrDizzi wrote:<BR>But my image of the berserker is not an armorered tank, but of a half naked madman with braids and two axes.... like an english football hooligan with better hygiene.<BR><BR><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>I would have to agree with you here, but unfortunately SOE does not have the same <DIV>image of the berserker that we share.</DIV>

[MrDiz]

Why?

[MrDiz]

Let me put it a different way: How would it harm the game to allow berserkers to be a full dps class like wizard IF they have zero tanking ability?Mad McHamish and his two best friends Axe1 & Axe2 is not exactly prime candidate for swashbuckler or ranger class <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />DPS can mean scout, or mage ... why cant it mean fighter? As a scout myself, my only problem with berserker as a dps class is that its also a tank class. Remove heavy armour and shield option from zerkers and crank up their damage and it wont upset me as a scout.

[Donners]

<DIV>Sorry but it was said cleary at the beginning of EQ2 that Berserkers are offensive Tanks. In EQ1 you had Berserkers that were more dps since they could not wear heavy. So if you want to play a ''real'' Berserker go to EQ1 :smileyvery-happy:</DIV> <DIV>I am just fine with tanking stuff and meanwhile doing some damage</DIV>

[Khal]

<DIV>I am not willing to give up my tanking ability.</DIV>

[Ancient-O]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Khalad wrote:<BR> <DIV>I am not willing to give up my tanking ability.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Nor I. I chose Berserker on my most recent character specifically for him to be the point-man after I found myself disappointed with my Paladin.

[electron]

Dizzi, I don't want to come off as attacking you on a personal level, but just what in the HELL made you want to post this? Berserkers as a DPS only class? [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] that man, we're tanks with attitude, you want DPS? stick with what you got man. I don't even understand why this would come up!! How bout we make furies DPS class instead and let templars do all the healing? tank + drunk +([Removed for Content] off like he just got kicked in the balls really hard) = berserker <div></div>

[TheFat]

<P>I would also have to say that the tanking ability was what I signed up for when I made my zerk. Also, if you were to convert the zerk class to "a meleeing wizard" with uber dps and no mitigation or avoidance to speak of, we'd be doing a lot of face planting. </P> <P>Other dps classes have ways to handle being the glass cannon. Mages get roots, pets, and stuns to keep the bad guys at bay. Scouts have stealth, aggro lowering skills, flanking attacks, and all have at least some ranged skills which help keep them alive in groups, and allow kiting when solo. A pure melee dps with no defense would become more of a liability in a group than an asset and would be suicide in a raid. When the aoe's and ripostes started flying the zerk wouldn't have any ranged skills to fall back on and wouldn't be able to take the damage to stay in close and melee. </P>

[CherobylJ]

<P>To OP: Why 9 months into the game do you want to completely redesign a class?  Isn't that a tad bit unfair to folks who have played a Bers every night over that time period?</P> <P>Bers != what you want them to be in  EQ2.  Kinda late to alter that at this point. </P>

[cacabutt]

<P>I think the OP should read this, especially my reply!</P> <P><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=4&message.id=12933" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=4&message.id=12933</A></P> <P> </P>

[Friskc]

<HR> <DIV>tank + drunk +([Removed for Content] off like he just got kicked in the balls really hard) = berserker <HR> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>HAHA, lol i like that !!!! you should put that in your bio !! </DIV>

[MrDiz]

<P>What actually promted me to post this was actually berserkers themselves.</P> <P>1) Whenever I see people arguing over whos DPS is the most l33t its always a zerker and assassin <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Zerkers in general seem to have a thing about dps.</P> <P>2) Zerkers on the boards are going wild about the dps nerf.</P> <P>3) Lots of people are pointing out that 34% of the player base plays fighters, and only 18% can be tanks, which leaves a lot of fighters having to fill a different role, which is almost always dps.</P> <P>4) I also posted it because its an option and Id like to see peoples thoughts. The vast majority accept that Zerkers as a balanced class should not be capable of being a tank and a major dps player, but it seems like the only option discussed is nerfing their dps. Nerfing their tanking seemed like an option to at least explore.</P> <P>5) Finally many people picked their class not because of a 'role' or the sony manual description, which I never even read. Many people seem to think this is a roleplaying game and chose a swashbuckler because it sounded cool, or a berserker cos they thought it was like a viking berserker from some book they once read. Perhaps for some people the bezerker is not supposed to be a guardian that dual wields <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P> </P> <P>Anyway, wasnt looking for abuse, just hoping to get some views and insight. If I were sony I would actually split berserkers into 2 new classes: One a DPS (berserker) similar to assassin that used large  axes/maces/swords / light armour only, and suicidal moves instead of precise ones; The second similar to the exisitng berserker - a dual wielding offensive tank (Stormtrooper), with a nerfed dps so they dont make rogues useless, but more than a guardian.  After the patch id have all berserkers choose a path.</P>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> MrDizzi wrote: <P>Leave the tanking to pallys, sks and guardians <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> I mean seriosuly, who wants david caradine tanking Vox??</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Not the best line to use if you aren't looking to get flamed I think.  /shrug<BR>

[cr0wangel]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> electron wrote:<BR><BR>tank + drunk +([Removed for Content] off like he just got kicked in the balls really hard) = berserker<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>:smileyvery-happy::smileyvery-happy::smileyvery-happy:</DIV>

[MrDiz]

<P>LOL i would be surprised if most of these guys even remember the onld Kung-Fu TVseries <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> And if so I can handle the hoard of middle aged grasshopper fans.</P> <P> </P> <P>My point was that few people who coose a monk see them selves as a meat shield. I personally dont think ALL fighters should be tanks. There should be fighters who believe the best way to defeat an enemy is to hit him a lot, as hard as you can, preferably in the goolies. 34% of players are fighters, only 18% can be tanks. Thats almost half the tanks left doing some other job.</P> <P> </P> <P>Anyway, just spitballing ideas here. Not got anything invested in it either way. Fighters can be tanks or dps in my opinion. As long as they aint both I dont see the problem.</P>

[Gaige]

<DIV>The problem is that SOE says they are tanks, and SOE makes the game.  That and there are already 12 DPS classes, which is 50% of available classes.</DIV>

[Vatec]

<P>Frankly, I think the most elegant solution to the whole tank-balancing issue is to do what Sony intends to do with the summoner sub-classes: two different tiers of damage-dealing, one in offensive mode, one in defensive mode.</P> <P>In that way, all six tank archetypes could tank almost equally (via whatever combination of mitigation and avoidance) and all three would have something useful to do when they weren't tanking.</P> <P>Right now the basic flaw is that one third of all players play tanks, but only one sixth of the members of a full group need to =be= tanks (ratio is even worse for raids, obviously). The Hold the Line ability should be the benchmark for how this works: turn it on, you become a tank, turn it off you become third-tier DPS.</P> <P>I sincerely =hope= this is what SOE is planning....</P>

[MrDiz]

<P>Having tanks able to swtich to DPS mode is a good solution to make tanks feel useful, but how would you handle the dps classes? Should a swashy be able to switch to tank mode to be useful?</P> <P>Ive heard sony said that fighters should be tanks, but I wonder how well thought out that was. They had to know that a lot of people would play fighters. Bascially as it stands, 1 in 3 people play one. Unless groups are maxed at 3 players thats a lot of tanks not tanking. So why not have some fighter classes as DPS rather than tanks. The biggest hurdle seems to be that people have played these classes for a long time. But realisitically, whats the alternative? Give wizards and scouts the ability to tank or heal? We know they are gonna get nerfed and currently it seems they will nerf the dps. Is there noone who would prefer them to nerf the tank side instead?</P> <P>BTW Im really not bothered which they nerf, im just in curiosity mode right now <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P>

[Khal]

I don't disagree with the need for changing the dps ranks, but of course I don't want fighters lowered so much just cause they can tank.  Rogues bards enchanters summoners, even sorcs bring quite a bit grp utility.  I disagree that bards and enchanters should outdamage brawlers, zerkers and SK, they bring so much utility to groups and raids.  I completely agree that sorcs and preditors need to be on top, followed by rogues and summoners. 

[CherobylJ]

<DIV>MrDizzi</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I appreciate the fact you are enititled to your opinion but yes/no do you play a high level Berserker?  If not why the passion to "sort the class out"?</DIV>

[Eyes_of_Truth]

<P><FONT color=#66ff99>MG- who's now a full fleged dev- stated simply that all fighters are tanks but tank differently.</FONT></P> <P>Moorgard wrote:<BR></P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>Fighters are tanks.</FONT><FONT color=#ff0000> They don't all tank the same, and tanking isn't all they do, but that doesn't change the core role all fighters share. While some might envision a different approach, that role isn't going to go away just because some might prefer a different take on certain classes.</FONT></P> <P>The combat revamp isn't just a changing of balance numbers; it is a reevaluation of abilities. For fighters, this means some expanded spell lines, some shifting around of abilities from one subclass to another, and changes to the way defensive buffs work.</P> <P>Right now, guardians are far and away the best tank due to a combination of their buff stacking and the way defensive buffs are seen in combat rolls. Both those aspects are changing. Think of the guardian's abilities as being spread around a bit to the other fighter classes.</P> <P>In no particular order (other than pairing subclasses of the same class), here are a few (but not all) of the ways tanks will be distinguished from one another after the changes take effect. </P> <UL> <LI>Guardians will have the greatest capability to grant their defense to others. They also have a greater number of taunts. <LI>Berserkers will do more damage than guardians, especially when tanking. While they also have taunts, part of their taunting comes from the damage they do. <LI>Paladins have heals and a nice array of taunts. <LI>Shadowknights have lifetaps and higher damage than paladins. <LI><FONT color=#ffff00><FONT color=#ffffff>Monks excel in avoidance, and their ability to purge negative spell effects is being expanded</FONT>.</FONT> <LI>Bruisers mitigate a bit better and do more damage than monks, which again is the basis for part of their taunting ability.</LI></UL> <P><FONT color=#ffffff>All fighters will have useful defensive and offensive stances that they can choose depending on their role in the group. Additionally, each fighter will gain a significant resistance to a particular type of damage, which should make different classes be desirable under certain situations.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff>Again, this isn't about taking away tanking from guardians. I suspect after the revamp, in a lot of raid situations you'd still want a guardian as main tank. However, the changes should give more flexibility to other tank classes, and give situational advantages to each. Personally, I'm</FONT> looking forward to that.</P> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff99>Cant get more dead on specific than that now can you lol.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff99></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff99></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff99>Main problem i see with the fighter's roll is that it currently cant be shared. You can have 6 fighters in a raid, yet only one is allowed to tank? Lacks logic to me.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff99></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff99>If allowed to stack, these tanks could form a unit (limited by range, not by group, so as long as 6 fighters were in same raid and located near eachother, they could activate this unti tanking mode) that pools their aggro into a consolodated area that mobs hate list would register as "unit_of_fighters001" and all hate would go to there. Any incoaming direct damage would be split 6 ways, allowing for group healing to more efficantly heal incoming damage, allowing healers to heal longer, therefore giving the 12 DPS people more time to get the mob dead, and less likely a chance for them to gain aggro (since the unit now have x6 the tuanting power rolled into one)</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff99></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff99>I dont know, to me one fighter being able to stave off the main assult of a dragon seems wacky, to me 6 people each taking a bit of this assult sounds more reasionable, with a personal healer for each.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff99></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff99>For this to work, changes to buffs need to be made obviously. Raid wide buffing of group buffs that cost concentration need to be allowed by right clicking the buff in maintained window then selecting "raid amplifiy" that will spredit to all 4 groups, but tha the cost of 5 concentration, so choose your best buff for the situation or keep your group (or targeted group) buffed with all your avalible buffs. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff99></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff99>Targeted group buff and targeted group heal need to be added options while raiding. If all 6 fighters group, increase their abilities with their non-concentration group buffs, then get multiple group buffs from the other groups, they can be made into a powerfull barrier between the mob and the other 3 groups. If healers can cast their group heals on the 6 fighters, they would recive maximum efficancy from their healing powers, and stacking a varriety of healers would provide the benefit of their special group heals (group reactive,regen or ward) to use the best heal to power ratio. If they allow different reactives from the two subclasses to both stack, as well as both regens of the two druids, and both wards of the two shamans to stack with eachother, then you would have 6 healers each using 6 different special group heals on the 6 tanks, and using group instant heals when these cant keep up. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff99></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff99>Varriety in raids would become a much better factor than trippling up on the same class.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff99></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff99>Well it's late and i ahve to go now, hope some of this amde sence, im only 1/2 coherant atm, and i need some sleep, so parden my presentation, but i hope you like the ideas atleast.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff99></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff99>Toodles!</FONT></DIV> <p>Message Edited by Eyes_of_Truth on <span class=date_text>07-16-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:20 AM</span>

[Vatec]

<P>The idea of tank stacking is definitely attractive from a gameplay perspective, but I suspect it would require a =lot= of rewriting of code.</P> <P>Fact is, every single class provides DPS, even healers.  For some classes, that's their whole identity (rangers and assassins are killers, plain and simple; if you don't believe it, do their hallmark quests).  For others, it's something they do when they aren't filling their main role.</P> <P>Here are the flaws I see with current plans:</P> <P>A. Guardians will "share their defensive abilities" or what-not.  Unfortunately, this isn't as useful as it sounds unless the Guardian is off-tanking.  In a well-run group, the DPS and healing classes could be naked and it wouldn't matter, because they shouldn't get attacked.  And if they do get attacked, whatever defensive benefits the Guardian offers probably aren't going to make that big a difference.  So the Guardians' signature ability is only useful when they are using it to support someone else as main tank.</P> <DIV>B. Berserkers will do more damage when tanking.  Again, this is when damage is -least- important, IMO.  If a Berserker is at his best only when being main tank, that means Berserkers won't be sought out for any other role.  So, if the main tank position is already filled, Berserkers are out of luck and just have to hope that someone will let them come along for the ride.  It's either that or be main tank.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Basically, if what Moorgard describes actually comes to pass, it will be a major role reversal:  a Berserker main tank with a Guardian off-tank buffing will the the "optimal" setup.  Frankly, I think that goes against the grain of both classes.  Sure, most Berserkers probably think of themselves as tanks.  But they also think of themselves as psychotic killing machines (*wink*).  Guardians, OTOH, are almost all of the "tank" mentality.  The changes Moorgard outlines may or may not be of benefit to Berserkers (depending on whether or not they =want= to tank), but they will force a lot of Guardians into a role they did not envision when they made their subclass choice.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So no, I don't advocate that fighters have an on/off switch that turns them into top-notch DPS machines.  Rather, I would hope that a brawler in offensive mode would be at the low end of tier 2 or the high end of tier 3 with defensive skills sufficiently reduced to match.  A crusader in offensive mode would be a tier lower than that and the warriors would, as usual, straddle the crusaders, with berserkers ranked slightly higher than shadow knights and guardians slightly lower than paladins.  Again, defensive abilities would be adjusted down, only when in offensive mode, to match the increased DPS.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Yes, this arrangement would give fighters a bit more flexibility than the other classes, but it would compensate for their relative lack of utility (no escape, no tracking, no run buffs, moderate usefulness of their group defensive buffs) and their somewhat excessive numbers.  It's a practical solution, it follows a precedent (summoners with offensive pets versus summoners with defensive pets), it somewhat matches current SOE thinking ("every fighter will have useful offensive and defensive stances"), and it would be relatively easy to implement (add a few combat arts rather than an entire new game mechanic).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As for the original post, if I wanted pure DPS, I'd go with a scout or mage.  In fact, I have:  my highest-level character is a Ranger, who just loves when green mobs drop dead at his feet before they ever got to swing at him.  But when I play my Berserker-to-be, I want to be a big, tough combat monster who can take a beating and dish one out.  And that's mostly a matter of perception.  I don't =need= the DPS of a Ranger, because I can tank way longer.  As long as I see big orange numbers every 3.8 seconds, I'm happy ;^)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[fenixilius]

<DIV>When i first looked at the classes in this game i knew hat i wanted to play. There was no ifs or buts. It was a berzerker. I've always loved the concept of a swing swinging pyschopath with a lust for blood and battle, but .....i also have always loved being a tank. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The zerker combined these 2 game passions of mine.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I've only gotten to lvl 31 with my iksar zerker, so i have no experience in anything higher than that.  I know im no guardian when i comes to tanking.....well taking damage i should say, i would have to argue sometimes when it comes to those normal groups about whos the better overall tank.... But i dont mind taking more damage or being hit more, every hit upon me just fuel the fire within...the blessing of the zerking skill. I find the dps of the zerker class is its one main power when it tanks. It increases aggro upon us, the curren target dies faster lessening the load of the healer. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The zerker in my opinion does not need a "tank mode", it has some abilities like that...which i never use....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It needs to be what its always been, a high damage dealing tank, lowering its dps and giving it a "tank mode", and especially making it a damage only class...just dosnt do the class justice.</DIV>

[MrDiz]

No I dont play a berserker. No I am not passionate about the changes.Just noticed a lot of happenings that have flowed over to the swashbuckler and guardian boards and thought Id come here to try out an idea. I assume you are in total agreement that does not preclude me having an opinion or voicing potetial ideas for discussion.Actually the changes won't affect me one way or the other, and as long as something i done, I really dont care what. But a lot of zerkers seem to annoyed at losing their dps. So I just wondered if it might be possible to leave their dps and remove their tanking instead. Or even split the class in to so people can decide which path they want to follow. Was just an idea.

[uux]

<span><blockquote><hr>MrDizzi wrote:No I dont play a berserker. No I am not passionate about the changes.Just noticed a lot of happenings that have flowed over to the swashbuckler and guardian boards and thought Id come here to try out an idea. I assume you are in total agreement that does not preclude me having an opinion or voicing potetial ideas for discussion.Actually the changes won't affect me one way or the other, and as long as something i done, I really dont care what. But a lot of zerkers seem to annoyed at losing their dps. So I just wondered if it might be possible to leave their dps and remove their tanking instead. Or even split the class in to so people can decide which path they want to follow. Was just an idea.<hr></blockquote>AFAIK, no one has really said berserkers are going to lose their DPS.  Do you really know what being listed in Tier 3 means?  I sure don't.  How close is that to Tier 2?  How far is it from Tier 1?  I've seen it said time and time again, it will depend on how you play your class. Are you familiar with any of the berserker combat arts or buffs?  After just hitting level 41, I can tell you that I have ONE high damage CA.  It's on a long re-use timer as well (I know there will be more in the levels to come).  It doesn't come close to a mage's uber nuke in damage, or what a scout can dish out.  So where does my damage come from if not my CAs?  It's the buffs, and without the ability to tank, they'd be meaningless.</span><div></div>

[PerinSto]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MrDizzi wrote:<BR>No I dont play a berserker. No I am not passionate about the changes.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>/shakes head</P> <P>I enjoy being a tank and do not want to be changed to a "pure dps class".  Thanks.<BR></P>

[The-Preach]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MrDizzi wrote:<BR> <P>What actually promted me to post this was actually berserkers themselves.</P> <P>1) Whenever I see people arguing over whos DPS is the most l33t its always a zerker and assassin <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Zerkers in general seem to have a thing about dps.</P> <P>2) Zerkers on the boards are going wild about the dps nerf.</P> <P>3) Lots of people are pointing out that 34% of the player base plays fighters, and only 18% can be tanks, which leaves a lot of fighters having to fill a different role, which is almost always dps.</P> <P>4) I also posted it because its an option and Id like to see peoples thoughts. The vast majority accept that Zerkers as a balanced class should not be capable of being a tank and a major dps player, but it seems like the only option discussed is nerfing their dps. Nerfing their tanking seemed like an option to at least explore.</P> <P>5) Finally many people picked their class not because of a 'role' or the sony manual description, which I never even read. Many people seem to think this is a roleplaying game and chose a swashbuckler because it sounded cool, or a berserker cos they thought it was like a viking berserker from some book they once read. Perhaps for some people the bezerker is not supposed to be a guardian that dual wields <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P> </P> <P>Anyway, wasnt looking for abuse, just hoping to get some views and insight. If I were sony I would actually split berserkers into 2 new classes: One a DPS (berserker) similar to assassin that used large  axes/maces/swords / light armour only, and suicidal moves instead of precise ones; The second similar to the exisitng berserker - a dual wielding offensive tank (Stormtrooper), with a nerfed dps so they dont make rogues useless, but more than a guardian.  After the patch id have all berserkers choose a path.</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I honestly didn't read the rest of this post and it's responses, solely because I just woke up. Due to that, if I repeat things that have already been said. I apologize. =)</P> <P> Personally, I love my class and role as a berserker just as it is right now. Originally, I expected myself to be more of a DPS class then a tanking class. If only because like you said, when I envision a Berserker....I see a lunatic biting off the tip of his sheild and spitting it at people. Even so, at this point in the game, it would cause way too much mayhem to change the class. People that chose to be a Berserker so that they could tank, would get the shaft. While others who wanted DPS, would find themselves getting pummeled by mobs. I could see, possibly a lowering of mitigation, allowing the dps to go up or even remain as it stands....erm...well....yeah...I'm a little too tired to really get my thoughts straight. So, I'll just say this and shut up. Lol</P> <P>  When it comes down to a lvl 50 guardian or a lvl 50 Berserker, the guardian normally takes the role of main tank. While the Berserker gets placed as a support or secondary tank. Their buffs and dps make them optimal for as much, so in a sense. Things are set up the way I feel they were most likely meant to be. Only downside being the amount of DPS a zerker can put out against a large group. Some of our AoE attacks are frickin nasty. By the way, what's a sheild? I think that I've heard of one before.....just...not really sure...*Goes to get some coffee.* Oh yeah, others may not like your post. But I think exploring all angles is a good thing. It's nice to keep your mind open to new ideas and possibilities, though I would've left out a few of those comments. Someone may take it offensively and throw rocks at you....or even his mug. =)</P>

[MrDiz]

<DIV>So should sony split the berserker into 2 classes and allow berserkers the option to choose which 'path' to follow? I mean then the berserkers who really wanted dps could go one way, and the tanks could go the other. Is it an option?</DIV><p>Message Edited by MrDizzi on <span class=date_text>07-18-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:04 AM</span>

[uux]

<span><blockquote><hr>MrDizzi wrote:<div></div> <div></div> <div>So should sony split the berserker into 2 classes and allow berserkers the option to choose which 'path' to follow? I mean then the berserkers who really wanted dps could go one way, and the tanks could go the other. Is it an option?</div><p>Message Edited by MrDizzi on <span class="date_text">07-18-2005</span> <span class="time_text">08:04 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote>*sigh*  In this hypothetical situation, what does a zerker who chooses DPS gain with the loss of tanking?  You would need a completely different line of CAs.  Basically, you're talking about a two-handed axe wielding scout without any utility.  How about the whiny scouts get to choose a path to follow instead?  You can increase your DPS by giving up all of your utility and avoidance.  Did you read my earlier response?  You do understand where a lot of the berserker damage comes from, right? AoE's do help a lot.  If you use a parser, it'll make a zerker shine.  However, what about single mobs?  Does that low damage 100-150 melee AoE parse as high as the mage's 1500 blast on a single mob?  No.   Not even close.  Yet, some feel the need to nerf the zerker's AoE's so they parse better when dealing with grouped mobs.   Boo hoo.  Get over it.  Learn what the parser is actually telling you. For those that think berzerkers needs a good nerfing, what do you think will happen when we start doing less damage?  You're shiny parser will tell you how much more uber you are at killing?  Guess what.  We keep aggro by dealing damage.  You'll have to restrain yourself from outdoing us.  Sounds fun, eh?</span><div></div>

[MrDiz]

<P>I see your'e point and if utility was even remotely useful to gaining a group Id agree with you. But its not. Everyone knows that including sony. A swashbuckler joins a group and he is DPS - no arguments, no discussion, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars. Its not like I see "/ooc group looking for one more, utility class 40+" very often <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>Myself personally would like them to totally change the 'utility' role to be a neccessary one. But it just wont happen. They cant make 99% of groups need group invis. They cant make 99% of groups require pick locks to open chests. They cant make 99% of groups require tracking. Utility will never be a requirement for group position the way tanking, healing and dps are. People would go beserk if all groups required a scout to open loot chests, or tracking was required to find ALL nameds.</P> <P>Utility will never be a primary role. I wish it would. I truly do. But it wont. So we have to deal with the realities on the ground. Primary roles are those roles required by a group to combat heroics and epics. Thats just one of those conventional wisdom things that we all have to work around. You are not going to stop the slow tide of dps chars being retired and replaced with tank/dps chars with the promice of 'utility' in EQ2 as the current game stands.</P> <P>So back to realistic options: I feel beserkers should not be arbitrarily and summarily changed to a pure tank class because for many they played it because of its dps, not tank ability. They should at least get the option.</P>

[Espyderman]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MrDizzi wrote:<BR>Let me put it a different way: How would it harm the game to allow berserkers to be a full dps class like wizard IF they have zero tanking ability?<BR><BR>Mad McHamish and his two best friends Axe1 & Axe2 is not exactly prime candidate for swashbuckler or ranger class <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR><BR>DPS can mean scout, or mage ... why cant it mean fighter? As a scout myself, my only problem with berserker as a dps class is that its also a tank class. Remove heavy armour and shield option from zerkers and crank up their damage and it wont upset me as a scout.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Cause when the game was created they were put into the tank class for balancing issues. Otherwise Queynos would have one real tank class and thats it, wouldnt be fair. Whatever you think berserker is, is not in this game. Deal with it.

[Espyderman]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MrDizzi wrote:<BR> <P>What actually promted me to post this was actually berserkers themselves.</P> <P>1) Whenever I see people arguing over whos DPS is the most l33t its always a zerker and assassin <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Zerkers in general seem to have a thing about dps.</P> <P>2) Zerkers on the boards are going wild about the dps nerf.</P> <P>3) Lots of people are pointing out that 34% of the player base plays fighters, and only 18% can be tanks, which leaves a lot of fighters having to fill a different role, which is almost always dps.</P> <P>4) I also posted it because its an option and Id like to see peoples thoughts. The vast majority accept that Zerkers as a balanced class should not be capable of being a tank and a major dps player, but it seems like the only option discussed is nerfing their dps. Nerfing their tanking seemed like an option to at least explore.</P> <P>5) Finally many people picked their class not because of a 'role' or the sony manual description, which I never even read. Many people seem to think this is a roleplaying game and chose a swashbuckler because it sounded cool, or a berserker cos they thought it was like a viking berserker from some book they once read. Perhaps for some people the bezerker is not supposed to be a guardian that dual wields <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P> </P> <P>Anyway, wasnt looking for abuse, just hoping to get some views and insight. If I were sony I would actually split berserkers into 2 new classes: One a DPS (berserker) similar to assassin that used large  axes/maces/swords / light armour only, and suicidal moves instead of precise ones; The second similar to the exisitng berserker - a dual wielding offensive tank (Stormtrooper), with a nerfed dps so they dont make rogues useless, but more than a guardian.  After the patch id have all berserkers choose a path.</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>And this is why your not making games or part of any gaming company.<BR>

[MrDiz]

<P>LOL Espy, sorry man had to laugh. Was offered a job by a game company as a developer <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Dont really think me having an opinion about game mechanics would have been a problem. On the contrary, being able to analyse and consider new options is an asset.</P> <P>However back to the point, I appreciate that the original description of berserker was not what it will become. And I truly feel for you. Its a bummer that the berserker class is kinda losing its identity with a dps nerf. Hence the reason I was talking about making it a dps class instead. And please not, I was just chewing the fat with this idea. Obviously the idea has flaws as many of you identify your berserker as more of a warrior/tank (as per sony description) than my idea of the berserker (frothing madman). However in my defence many berserkers are using this identity of a berserker to defend their right to keep their current DPS status.</P> <P>Oh, and as for me having to 'deal with it', im not sure I see what I have to deal with. I didnt like them nerfing my templars lvl 50 spell, I didnt like them nerfing the crafter writs (which made me rich), and i probably wont like a thousand other things they do, and Im sure I will deal with it in the spirit it was meant. But this time its you that is getting hit by this change not me. Im sure it will affect my guardian too, but not to the same extent as berserkers. This is why im suggesting options for you to talk about, dismiss or otherwise rip apart.</P> <P>You know your class better than I ever could and I accept I am no expert. Im willing to accept that sonys fix for the current problems will be the right one. But it doesnt stop us talking about other options does it <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P> </P>

[uux]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>MrDizzi wrote:<p>I see your'e point and if utility was even remotely useful to gaining a group Id agree with you. But its not. Everyone knows that including sony. A swashbuckler joins a group and he is DPS - no arguments, no discussion, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars. Its not like I see "/ooc group looking for one more, utility class 40+" very often <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><hr><font color="#ccff00">Aye.   Hopefully, the "revamp" will deal with these issues.  The point of it was balancing, not figuring out who to beat with the nerf stick, and to make it fair, hit everyone.  Personally, I tend to group well with scouts.  We tend to take mobs down very fast.</font><hr><p>So back to realistic options: I feel beserkers should not be arbitrarily and summarily changed to a pure tank class because for many they played it because of its dps, not tank ability. They should at least get the option.</p><hr></blockquote>        <font color="#ccff00">As I've tried to point out, and I think it has been better stated in other threads, a lot of zerker damage is reactive (from buffs).  This will only happen when zerkers are taking  hits.  Take away the mitigation, and you take away the ability to take the hits.  They'd need a whole new line of abilities as the reactive approach simply wouldn't work anymore.  Counter-strike for 150 damage?  Bah.  Is it worth it when the mob is hitting you for 300?  Granted the counter-strike hit every mob in range in front of you, but they're all wailing on you.  It really is a tank class.The description that MG gave of what a zerker will be like after the revamp is not too far off from what it is now.  The DPS will come from the tanking ability.  Sounds like reactive buffs still.  How much will the DPS be affected?  Can't even begin to guess.  Someone mentioned an avoidance or agility penalty for wearing heavy armor.  That seems like a reasonable trade-off.  Would that not be the choice you're looking for?  More options like this?  Encumberance penalty, perhaps?</font></span><span></span><span></span><span>         </span><div></div>

[Tarkaro]

<DIV> <DIV><STRONG>Hello all!</STRONG></DIV> <DIV><STRONG>I don't wish to start (or continue) a debate about different  classes and who should do what under which class.  I do wish to share this tidbit of information though, Especially with the folks at SOE...</STRONG></DIV> <DIV><STRONG></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG>Berserk</STRONG></DIV> <DIV><STRONG>adj : in a murderous frenzy as if possessed by a demon; "the soldier went completely amuck"; "berserk with grief"; "a berserk worker smashing windows" [syn: amuck, amok, demoniac, demoniacal, possessed(p)] n : one of the ancient Norse warriors legendary for working themselves into a frenzy before a battle and fighting with reckless savagery and insane fury .</STRONG></DIV> <DIV><STRONG></STRONG><BR><STRONG>Word History: When we say that we are going berserk, we may not realize how extreme a state this might be. Our adjective comes from the noun berserker, or berserk, which is from the Old Norse word berserkr, “a wild warrior or champion.” Such warriors wore hides of bears, which explains the probable origin of berserkr as a compound of *bera, “bear,” and serkr, “shirt, coat.” These berserkers became frenzied in battle, howling like animals, foaming at the mouth, and biting the edges of their iron shields. Berserker is first recorded in English in the early 19th century, long after these wild warriors ceased to exist. </STRONG></DIV> <DIV><BR><STRONG>Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc. </STRONG></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000>We are not meat shields, we are killing machines!</FONT></STRONG></DIV></DIV>

[Eyes_of_Truth]

<P>Dictonary meanings are pointless dude.</P> <P>If your going for the realistic aspect, how does one fighter hld of a raging dragon? Shoudlnt it atleast take more than 1 person?</P> <P>Apparently not in eq2 or any mmo.....1 tank is all you need....which blows /cry</P> <P>Toodles!</P> <P>Ps: but seriously, dont focus on your name, focus on your archetype and class. Your a fighter that primarily defense, a warrior that defends by physical mitigation and guarding, and as a berserker your secondary ability is to deal good damage, while increasing your groups damage. Your sub-class doesnt define your roleina  group, it mearly adds an extra level of ability for your character.</P>

[Spike]

<DIV>  Why not be both have two sets of gear in your bag one for dpsing and one for tanking, that way there is no reason to be clumped into one mindset.  On an off topic our dps comes from aoes without those we can do maybe 200 dps on a single raid mob. I have a hard time breaking 200 on Tremblar while using all my CA's and procs.  </DIV>

[MrDiz]

I think its pretty much been decided that no class will have two primary roles. Thats been discussed to death already i think.

[electron]

Ok look, people are too much into whether we 'zerkers ought to be "pure dps" or "tank" class. [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] man? From level 1 -20 we've been tanks, now we're gonna change and go full on DPS while the guardian remains, unchallenged as the world greatest tank??? I'll be honest, I am kinda [Removed for Content] at the belief that the only person reliable to tank (especially raid mobs) is a guardian... And if that is true then we as berserkers are the most worthless class out there. If we can't tank, and can't nuke for over 1k damage [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] good do we bring to a fight? Well, it's a good thing the majority of people are wrong because we ARE good tanks and we will rip an [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] open or two. It's this blend that makes us unique and completely kick [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]. We may not be the ultra tank, but the difference is nominal, you gotta ask yourself how much is that little bit of mitigation worth? Probably just as much as our ability to go completely ape[expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]. Personally, I feel our class is perfect! When I played I hadn't read the manual really at all, I just knew what my RL friend would tell me. I chose fighter because, Hell I wanna fight stuff! I chose warrior because on the class hallmark you're told a warrior is someone who LIVES for the heat of battle! You're right there on the front lines protecting comrades and maruading junk. Totally soldme on that! And then when it became time to choose whether I wanted to sacrifice a little offense to improve my defense or vice versa.... Well, you know what I picked. Berserkers kick [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot], deal with it... <div></div>

[MrDiz]

<blockquote><hr>electron wrote: Berserkers kick [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot], deal with it... <div></div><hr></blockquote>I 100% ageee. Berserkers are extremeley powerful and do, as you put it, kick expletive. And sony 100% agrees too, as they really do intend to 'deal with it'.

[Dherf]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> TheFates wrote:<BR> <P>I would also have to say that the tanking ability was what I signed up for when I made my zerk. Also, if you were to convert the zerk class to "a meleeing wizard" with uber dps and no mitigation or avoidance to speak of, we'd be doing a lot of face planting. </P> <P>Other dps classes have ways to handle being the glass cannon. Mages get roots, pets, and stuns to keep the bad guys at bay. Scouts have stealth, aggro lowering skills, flanking attacks, and all have at least some ranged skills which help keep them alive in groups, and allow kiting when solo. A pure melee dps with no defense would become more of a liability in a group than an asset and would be suicide in a raid. When the aoe's and ripostes started flying the zerk wouldn't have any ranged skills to fall back on and wouldn't be able to take the damage to stay in close and melee. </P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I'm totally aggree!!</DIV> <DIV>I'm really don't understand why there'r still a posts like MrDizzi's one!!! It's really silly.  SoE said at the begin what Zerk are.... They'r tank with some offencive buffs ...NOT DPS CLASS</DIV>

[Dherf]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Eyes_of_Truth wrote:<BR> <P>Dictonary meanings are pointless dude.</P> <P>Ps: but seriously, dont focus on your name, focus on your archetype and class. Your a fighter that primarily defense, a warrior that defends by physical mitigation and guarding, and as a berserker your secondary ability is to deal good damage, while increasing your groups damage. Your sub-class doesnt define your roleina  group, it mearly adds an extra level of ability for your character.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Well said!<BR></DIV>

[MrDiz]

<blockquote><DIV>I'm really don't understand why there'r still a posts like MrDizzi's one!!! It's really silly.  SoE said at the begin what Zerk are.... They'r tank with some offencive buffs ...NOT DPS CLASS</DIV><hr></blockquote>Errrr.. because many berserkers are saying they consider themselves a dps class. Because I thought considering a different option might be helpful. Yeah, your'e right, silly me.

[uux]

<span><span><blockquote><hr>MrDizzi wrote: I 100% ageee. Berserkers are extremeley powerful and do, as you put it, kick expletive. And sony 100% agrees too, as they really do intend to 'deal with it'.<hr></blockquote> Bah.  Don't pretend that you have any idea exactly how SOE will change the berserker class.  You're crying nerf before any changes have been made.  Why are you trying to scare people away from this class?  If something is too powerful, I'm sure it will be fixed.  Overall, I'd wager the berserker class will be one with some of the fewest changes.  We only have general ideas of what will come.   The changes will hit the test servers first.   Let's just wait and see what happens there before giving in to FUD.</span></span><div></div>

[MrDiz]

uux, read the posts dude. Read them, and try to see the humour in the 'deal with it' line. <div></div>

[Styk]

I can admit that berserkers in their current state are a tad overpowered ( i can hit 200-280 dps on raids consistent with a Royal Great Flail ) ..... That needs to be adjusted ... My only worry is will SoE truly give 4 plate tanks a viable group and or raid tank role post combat changes... Thou i never intended to be a raid MT when i made a zerker.... i still cant accept that fact that a guards lvl 50 AE taunt is 150+ threat more then mine at app1 while mine is adept 3 ( good thing they cant use it currently on ^^^ targets but they still have taunting assualt and their lower tier AE taunt ) Also our group DD AE stun needs to have threat added to it so that the other half of the warrior tree has the same compareable AE taunting ability like guardians ( meaning instead of only having one AE taunt we will have 2 like Guardians ) Those are my prime concerns <div></div>

[uux]

<span><blockquote><hr>MrDizzi wrote:uux, read the posts dude. Read them, and try to see the humour in the 'deal with it' line. <div></div><hr></blockquote> I read it.  I understood the 'deal with it' line.  I wasn't impressed (but you can keep patting yourself on the back).  Now, it's your turn.  Read all the replies you have been given, then look closely at your posts and try to tell me they're not flamebait. To many people see the words 'combat revamp' and then say "it's about time those zerkers got nerfed".  When a ranger can solo a ^^ that cons yellow (but they complain it takes a long time), it's not the zerker class that needs to be nerfed.  Sure, DPS will be lowered.  How much?  2%?  10%  15%?   The point of my post was that none of the players really know.  It's a shame you missed that.</span><div></div>

[Espyderman]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MrDizzi wrote:<BR>Im pretty clueless as to the berserker (or monk for the matter) class. But my image of the berserker is not an armorered tank, but of a half naked madman with braids and two axes.... like an english football hooligan with better hygiene.<BR><BR>I imagine them having a lot of hp, but little mitigation and no avoidance, but putting a massive damage load down. Id have them outdamge assassins, but have zero tank ability and zero utility.<BR><BR>its just how I see them I guess <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR><BR>But then I would also have monks dps the same as scouts, and tank exactly the same. In many ways they are similar classes. Both use speed and dodging rather than armour, they both use precision attacks rather than massive double handed sword type swings. monks have more health, scouts have stealth.<BR><BR>Id have berserkers as melee wizards with absolutely nothing else. Id have monks as similar to assassins/rangers with regards tanking and dps.<BR><BR>Leave the tanking to pallys, sks and guardians <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> I mean seriosuly, who wants david caradine tanking Vox??<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Original manual states Zerker as a tank class with more dps then other tanks. Thats why Zerkers arent DPS and thats why im tired of hearing people whine over this issue. If they could actually read they would understand their class, but they dont so they think they are something they are not. And all those who think Zerker should be dps, dont know the word balance or fair.

[MrDiz]

UUX, sorry man but youre totally misunderstanding me. The 'deal with it' comment was in responce to someone commanding me 'to deal with it' as if I had a problem with berserkers because they were so 'awesome'. I was trying (humourously) to point out that its sony that have the problem with berserker power, not me. I dont care what sony do to berserkers specifically as long as they have balance across the classes. Obviously my humour was a little too vague <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> My post was simply suggesting that perhaps there are more than one way to deal with the beserker issue than simply removing their dps.  Some berserkers seemed to identify DPS as their main role, and I was wondering if that was an option (as it fits the typical image of one anyway). Then some berserkers spoke out and identified the class of their choice as a tank (as per the manual) so i then suggested perhaps it was an option that berserkers could choose which role they see themselves as. Its called a discussion. I came up with an idea. Some people didnt like it. I came up with another. I was just throwing ideas around here. And I am totally baffed as to what is 'flamebait' in any of my posts. I genuinely thought perhaps some people might enjoy sharing ideas. After all, how else would sony know what the players felt about the game otherwise? <div></div>

[uux]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>MrDizzi wrote:UUX, sorry man but youre totally misunderstanding me. The 'deal with it' comment was in responce to someone commanding me 'to deal with it' as if I had a problem with berserkers because they were so 'awesome'. I was trying (humourously) to point out that its sony that have the problem with berserker power, not me. I dont care what sony do to berserkers specifically as long as they have balance across the classes. Obviously my humour was a little too vague <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><hr></blockquote>No, I understood your humor.  Really.  Just struck a nerve is all.  No worries.</span><span><blockquote><hr>My post was simply suggesting that perhaps there are more than one way to deal with the beserker issue than simply removing their dps.  Some berserkers seemed to identify DPS as their main role, and I was wondering if that was an option (as it fits the typical image of one anyway). Then some berserkers spoke out and identified the class of their choice as a tank (as per the manual) so i then suggested perhaps it was an option that berserkers could choose which role they see themselves as. Its called a discussion. I came up with an idea. Some people didnt like it. I came up with another.<hr></blockquote>What is the "berserker issue"?   Do you feel they are over powered?  Why?  Some DPS parser said so?  Can you name the combat arts that are over powered?  What combat art does a parser state is doing the most damage?  My entire point of even contributing to this thread was to point out that none of this has been mentioned in any official discussion of the combat revamp.  Berserkers haven't been the focus of any of it.  Sure, maybe fighter DPS has to be lowered some to strike balance across the classes.  I'm willing to bet that the difference isn't going to be as large as some would like to think.</span><span>As for a pure DPS class, what would this be?  An axe wielding bruiser?  Can it be a trade off with armor, agi, and avoidance penalties?  An encumberance penalty for those carrying two sets of armor around?  As I tried to state before as well, without a whole new line of CAs, you still couldn't come close to the DPS of a scout.  A lot of DPS comes from tanking.   Without the mitigation, that will not work so well.</span><div></div>

[MrDiz]

<i> <span>What is the "berserker issue"?   Do you feel they are over powered?  Why? </span> </i> Actually no I dont. And to be honest from my perspective their is no berserker issue. What there is is an identity issue amongst some of the dps classes. Especially the less DPS capable DPS classes <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Myself for example I have 3 chars. A tank, a healer and a DPS. With my tank and healer I have a definate sense of identity. A role within group. My healer cant solo very well but is very desirable for groups/raids. My tank can solo superbly and is desirable for groups (and I guess once I hit 50 perhaps raids too). Now my main happens to be neither or these. My main (the char with the most hours played) is my favourite character. He is stylish, sexy and looks good in leather. Unfortunately he is a swashbuckler. And the thing that defines the swashbukler is currenty DPS. Now personally I think what defines a swashbuckler should be his 'utility'. The sneak, track, lock picking and scouting kind of thing. Now i know, sneak is sometimes useful when alone and getting to a group, and tracking is sometimes useful when looking for a specific named. But for 99.9% of the groups you join its one step removed from fluff. We can argue about that if you want, I have a thread in the combat boards on the subject (big surprise?). But otherwise I ask you to believe me when I tell you that utilities such as group sneak and tracking have never ever once ever gotten me a group invite. Not ever <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> They dont help me solo either. Now they could revamp the game to have random spawn spots, locked chests and a host of other things that would make people say "Hey we need a scout", but lets face it that would end up with a million posts of people being 'slapped in the face' and predicting the end of EQ2 just like they did when attunable gear was added. I personally think people would get over it and just adapt to the new 'need' for utility within a group and start making groups that contained Tank/Healer/DPS & Utility. Solo people would whine about locked chests making some of the loot unattainable, but after a few weeks they would get used to this and it would become a norm. Scouts might solo less efficienly but they would get slightly more of the loot they actually drop. Balance. Sony think otherwise (as do many if not most here) and seem to be heading down the path of making scouts and mages into DPS classes, fighters into tanks and priests into healer: Sticking with the current Tank/Healer/DPS formula. Their hope seems to be that people will need rogues for their DPS more if they nerf fighter dps. So whats my view? Personally they should leave berserkers as they are and make utility a 'need' rather than something u may use once every ten levels. And even if they choose not to change utility I have no wish to see berserkers 'reduced'. It doesnt help and I think making them slightly more offensive guardians is a bad idea. Berserkers are not overpowered. Rogues are just in an identity limbo. Within the confines of the current EQ2 group dynamic, rogues are berserkers without the ability to tank and slightly better clothes sense. What they really should do is 'fix' the game, not fix berserkers. But we all know they wont. They have already stated this new 'DPS hierarchy' vision of theirs. But let me ask you this: How would you deal with the balance of classes right now? How would you encourage people to stop retiring scouts and starting fighters? <div></div>

[Memmoch]

<div></div>The scouts in my guild are doing just fine actually, they have a role, and it's DPS.  I've had group members parse the zerkers verus warlocks verus wizards verus swashbucklers verus assasians etc.  All of those are able to out dmg a zerker on a sustained basis.  Sure we come high, and even out do some of them some of the time but it's all situational.  If we choose we can dump all our power into our abilites and maybe beat out some of the pure DPS's out there.  But while they will have plenty of power for the next fight we'll be left needing to regen soo the next fight it will be vastly different Unless they wait until everyone is FP again...which just dosn't make much since.  The game is still in it's infancy, and as such we should expect changes to come down the pipe line (remember we are dealing with SOE).  To imply they are clueless though is a little harsh, after all these are the same people that have the number 1 running MMO currently on the market....eq1.  That's fast changing but if you do some research you'll find that eq1 still makes up most of the market.  You don't sustaine a 6+ year game without having some clue, and you wouldn't NOT take what you learned from one game and apply it to the new game. To answer your questions though do some research.....the berserkers of old was not some profession that people elected to get into like tax advisors or something.  Berserkers was what people applied to the really fearsome fighters that terrified people because anytime they got into battle they would be overcome with bloodlust, killing everyone around them. The comment about them being bare chested while correct to a point but in the end is also a mistake.  They was bare chested most the time cause everyone else was bare chested most the time...you was considered wealthy if you had hardened leather for armor...royalty if you had plate.  They also tended to use the heavier weapons because they were stronger than most...when they raged mundane things like the weight of a weapon meant little to them, they just wielded whatever would do the most dmg...so they could move onto the next person. They also was able to take a beating, cause when they was raging you would pretty much have to hack someone who was a berserker into pieces before they would stop coming at you <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <div></div>

[MrDiz]

Im sorry but what youre saying is you can outdps a scout if you unload power into your combat arts? Thats the same for me. If I dont use combat arts my dps will be below a coercers <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Of all 3 characters I have my swashy is the one that uses the most power per fight.

[infernus006]

<div></div><div></div>First of all, I wanna say that I don't understand why some non-zerkers feel the need to come on our board and start crap with us and try to tell us what they think our class should be like (which is something totally different from what it is and what we want it to be).  As if we care what they think. I also agree with the people who are somewhat confused by the fact that scouts are or are considered to be a dps class and nothing more.  Take the swash for example since it was mentioned here...I have found myself actively seeking out those from the rogue class (swash and brig) to group with every single time I do just about anything in Lavastorm, especially Solusek's Eye, just because of their group invis.  Lately I've found myself having to make do with either a level 50 fury or wizard's invis which isn't nearly as reliable (certain mobs tend to see through it, but not always, so you just never really know with them whereas with a rouge class's group invis I have found it 100% reliable in very circumstance and prefer it even though it slows movement speed).  So generally I will not step foot into SE or any other tough place like that where I want or need to avoid mobs in without some kind of invis, and like I said I prefer a rouge's over anyone else's.  So that alone makes them very important IMO, and that, of course, not all they can do.  And we all know that bard's get all sorts of uber group buffs and that's what makes them desirable to me, not their dps.  And let's not forget good old track...I don't understand why some scouts might feel that this is a usless skill except under very specific circumstances...most of the quests you do in this game require the killing of some specific named mob or type of mob and unless you either already know exactly where it is offhand, have it marked on a map of the area, or have the exact loc of the thing from ogaming or something then you're pretty much screwed unless you have a scout with you as I see it.  And even if you have all of those other things, having a scout with you still makes it easier.  Not to mention the ability to disarm traps on chests...that might seem trivial to some people, especially since it seems like they took away the ability of any trap to actually kill you, but still...I will never touch a chest when I have a scout with me.  So all in all, I think that all the scout classes are pretty uber in their own ways.  Ranger especailly seems very popular and is well known as being one of the best soloing classes in the game, if not the best (next to zerkers of course <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> ).  There is no reason for them to be jealous of or resent us in any way or feel like we are "less powerful" than us just because we can tank and they can't...there's plenty of other things they can do that we would never even dream of being able to do.  So yeah, like someone else said...get over it!  Be happy with what you got or reroll another toon and quit trying to get other people's classes nerfed.<p>Message Edited by infernus006 on <span class=date_text>08-16-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:37 PM</span>

[Sin_of_the_Lot]

<P>i didnt bother to read everything of the topic just the first part but it gave me a general idea,</P> <P>you say zerkers need to be able to choose between tanking and dps, we got that choice; at level 18 when you did your subclass, berserkers will wreck havoc on the battlefield destroying anything in their path while guardians will stand and wait for backup to arrive, i chose to wreck mayen now im being turned into a tank, at least get the [Removed for Content] quest description right if your going to do things that way. still i believe i want to see how my dps will get nerfed, if i go allout on damage i can steal hate off any tank as a 46 zerker froglok, no problem. if the dps nerf will cut me down to less than 150 a second ill accept but if you go below 100 a second with fabled weapons you can stick it right up your rear</P>

[Dak-D]

<span><blockquote><hr>Sin_of_the_Lotus wrote:<div> i chose to wreck mayen now im being turned into a tank, at least get the [Removed for Content] quest description right if your going to do things that way. </div><hr></blockquote>Hahaha ... classic !</span><div></div>

[Ralluw]

<div></div><div></div>I am gonna explain my mentality for choosing a zerker to dps, and then my solution to the coming lack of dps. I came from EQ1 as a Rogue, i liked doing DPS, I then played a Thief naturally in FFXI, but originally wanted to be a Dark Knight for there DPS, reading I learned one should be a thief first, this worked perfectly, and I eventually did become a Dark Knight/Thief, super DPS.  Coming into EQ2 I wanted to be like the Dark Knight from FFXI, high DPS using very destructive (but not nessacarily fast, meaning 2H) weapons augmented by abilities and magic.  I looked at the SK here, it looked good, but it was evil, and my EQ1 guild (which i was joining) was good, back then being evil in a good guild was bad, so I looked for an alternative.  I liked my Dark Knight, and didn't wanna be a scout, so I saw Berzerker and was sold on the high damage warrior as thou it was what I was looking for.  And it was all I ever wanted, but that is going away now, and SoE isn't going to listen to us on this issue. My solution: to me, zerker is dead, I personally can't accept the role of tank, maybe I am doing fine as a tank, but whenever I do I feel like I am gimped and failing everyone in some way everytime I die.  Perhaps it is a psychological problem, but I was happy with my zerker, now I am not. This is why I choose the next closest thing to a "mythological berserker" and rerolled as a scout to be Brigand.  I don't care about doing the most DPS, I always knew as a zerker I could never do this, and I know as a brigand I never well, so long as I am now a DPS. My worst fear is 9 months down the line SoE decides to up and change it all again to balance the archetypes so they each have a balanced set of rolls and with a new expansion coming my level 60 brigand ends up being a tank and my retired level 50 berzerker is the new dps and now I have 20 levels to catch up to my guild instead of leveling up the 10 with them.  That is the situation now, I am inline to being behind my guild once more and not able to enjoy any of the DoF exploration because I cannot accept the roll of tank without hating every moment of it. Any other zerkers that want to be dps, i suggest you start leveling a scout or mage now so you have a head start. P.S. you don't need to tell me to wait and see or that I don't know what is going to happen, I will leave it at that Zerjha - 50 Berserker Zirjha - 17 Rogue <div></div><p>Message Edited by Ralluwen on <span class=date_text>08-18-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:48 AM</span>

[infernus006]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div>"I cannot accept the roll of tank without hating every moment of it." You never should have chosen the fighter archetype to begin with in that case because even brawlers are expected to tank sometimes.  Think about it, if you are LFG somewhere and a group that consists of a mage, a priest, and a scout invites you to join them, what exactly do you think they're inviting you for?  LOL You mean to tell me that if such a group invites you and expects you to tank for them you're going to tell them "Sorry I can't do it, I'm just a dps ok, keep looking,"? I honestly don't see how you made it to 50 with your zerker being like that.  <span>:robotsurprised:</span> Personally I find zerkers who are afraid to tank rather pathetic.  If you don't like tanking, fine, but absolutely refusing to fulfill that role at any time in the game is just plain wrong, IMO.  Why even have any taunts and defense buffs then?  Why even get to wear plate armor?  Should have picked a class that gets more dps spells instead since that's all you obviously ever really want or need to be happy in this game.  Otherwise it's really just a waste, and not just with the new revamp coming up but even as it stands right now. "My worst fear is 9 months down the line SoE decides to up and change it all again to balance the archetypes so they each have a balanced set of rolls and with a new expansion coming my level 60 brigand ends up being a tank and my retired level 50 berzerker is the new dps..." I really don't think you'll ever have to worry about a scout class becoming a tank in this game.  But that's not to say they will always be that good of dps either.  Right now they are but normally when I think of a scout I don't think of dps, I think of stealth, and tracking, and utility, and...well...scouting.  LOL I'm not saying they should nerf the scout's dps, just saying they very well could and probably get away with it because I don't think the scout archetype was originally meant to be a high dps one. Anyhow, good luck with your brigand.  <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><p>Message Edited by infernus006 on <span class=date_text>08-18-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:49 AM</span>

[Ralluw]

I find contradiction in your post infernus, on one hand you berate me for thinking of a fighter as anything but a tank, but then say you would normally consider a scout as something other then dps.  I agree, a scout is someone you would expect to sneak around and find things out, i.e. scout, which to some extent they do, but moreso they fight offensively.  Just has you must agree that one would expect a fighter to be someone who would do battle, swing weapons, hurt the enemy, defend themselves and others, i.e. fight and to some extent fighters do all this, but moreso they just defend themselves. Anyways, the part I wanted to address was your assertion that I refuse to tank, which is wrong, I have done everything to equip myself as a decent tank including having almost full ebon armor (i am lacking about 25 mit because of the two missing ebon pieces), an ebon assualt axe and a fabled shield, 12sta hex dolls, adept 3 taunts, etc.  I off-tanked for my guild last night against an epic instance.  My point being, I never said I refuse to tank, I say I don't like too.  That said my guild has many willing, able and better geared tanks then me and frankly is not lacking for tanks, but is lacking for dps. To answer how I got to 50, i quested and solo'd as I really don't enjoy the forced/repetitive pace of grouping. That I fear to tank may be true, but I don't fear letting my character die, more I feel zerkers were ment to be 2nd rate tanks and 2nd rate dps (which they currently are) rather then 1st rate tanks and 3rd rate dps or 1st rate dps and 3rd rate tanks.  But becase we are soon to be tanks and this is not what I want, I don't feel I will make a good tank. I realize zerkers are no longer intended to be dps, they are tanks, thus my decision to reroll now, rather then be disappointed when the changes roll out and useless to my guild. <div></div>

[infernus006]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div>"you berate me for thinking of a fighter as anything but a tank" I never said we are nothing but tanks.  I went over this before on another thread...guardians are the only tanking class in this game that are really nothing but tanks.  The rest of us are at least a little more than that and suffer a slightly reduced amount of defensive capabilities (compared to that of a guard) in exchange for some extra abilities that they don't have.  That's how I see it. "one would expect a fighter to be someone who would do battle, swing weapons, hurt the enemy, defend themselves and others, i.e. fight and to some extent fighters do all this, but moreso they just defend themselves." I disagree.  I feel that currently zerkers do all of that moreso than they just defend themselves.  Keep in mind that tanking, especially for a zerker, is not so much about defending yourself but using your abilities to defend others.  Zerkers just do it more offensively than guardians atm.  Personally, I would like it to stay that way. "I never said I refuse to tank, I say I don't like too." Well, I'm sorry, but that's a lie.  You said, and I quote, "I personally can't accept the role of tank..."  So there you have it. "I realize zerkers are no longer intended to be dps, they are tanks, thus my decision to reroll now..." Good decision considering your aversion to tanking, however the point being that zerkers were never intended to be a pure dps class to begin with...so I question those who even roll a zerker in the first place with that kind of attitude. "...rather then be disappointed when the changes roll out and useless to my guild." Zerkers are not nor ever will be useless in a guild.  If that ever becomes true and they refuse to fix it then I will quit the game.  Because I for one do not feel like rerolling another char.  Personally, I'm hoping for the best with this new revamp and trying to be more optimistic about it than I have been previously.  Let's at least give it a chance, I say.<p>Message Edited by infernus006 on <span class=date_text>08-18-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:33 PM</span>

[Ralluw]

<div></div><div></div>You are taking what I say out of context:<span><blockquote><hr>infernus006 wrote:"I never said I refuse to tank, I say I don't like too."Well, I'm sorry, but that's a lie.  You said, and I quote, "I personally can't accept the role of tank..."  So there you have it.<hr></blockquote>You did not read the rest of that sentence: "</span>I cannot accept the roll of tank without hating every moment of it."  This means I will accept doing it, but I dislike doing it, not that I wouldn't accept doing it at all. <font color="#ff0000"><b>EDIT: </b></font>I realize I did indead earlier say <span>"I personally can't accept the role of tank...", but the response you attacked was not to that quote.  In saying </span><span>"I personally can't accept the role of tank..." I ment to imply that I am currently not a locked down tank, i can be dps as well, thus I can accept many roles, one of which makes playing a zerker enjoyable for me.  But post-changes it would seem that I will have to accept the role of tank, a role I do not like to play thus I cannot accept playing as a zerker anymore.  If I had intended to imply that I refuse to tank I would have said, "Ipersonally <u>don't</u> accept the roll of a tank"  I admit the tense in this sentence is confusing and I would have better stated my point had I said, </span><span>"I personally can't accept the <u>sole</u> role of tank..." which I feel berserkers are about to become.</span><span><blockquote><hr>infernus006 wrote:"...rather then be disappointed when the changes roll out and useless to my guild."Zerkers are not nor ever will be useless in a guild.  If that ever becomes true and they refuse to fix it then I will quit the game.  Because I for one do not feel like rerolling another char.  Personally, I'm hoping for the best with this new revamp and trying to be more optimistic about it than I have been previously.  Let's at least give it a chance, I say.<p>Message Edited by infernus006 on <span class="date_text">08-18-2005</span><span class="time_text">01:33 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Again, you take a statement out of context, I said: </span>"thus my decision to reroll now, rather then be disappointed when the changes roll out and useless to my guild."This means "I" will be useless to my guild as I do not want to tank and therefore am not a better tank then a better equiped berserker with fabled gear, master 1 skills and who actually wants to tank.  I want to do DPS, my guild needs DPS, my guild has 10 other tanks just as good as me, most of which actually want to tank, my guild has 2-6 scouts on a raid average to 6-10 fighters.  Another tank will be useless.  Another dps will not.<blockquote><hr>Ralluwen wrote:but I was happy with my zerker, now I am not.<hr></blockquote>To clarify, I mean to say was happy with my zerker when I thought it would continue as it is, I am not happy with it now due to what I see coming.I am just trying to lay down the fact that SoE is changing zerkers into tanks.  If you don't like it, you will have to accept it and change your likes or reroll; if you do like it then you have nothing to worry about.<div></div><p>Message Edited by Ralluwen on <span class=date_text>08-18-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:28 AM</span>

[infernus006]

<div></div><div></div><div></div>LOL I was gonna say, you must be getting really confused now.  Because you did in fact say that you "can't accept the roll of a tank" and that was it, plain and simple, at least in that particular sentence it was.  And that is what I was referring to when I quoted that.  Although it does seem like you keep wanting to contradict yourself now, which I find rather annoying. "<span>In saying </span><span>"I personally can't accept the role of tank..." I ment to imply that I am currently not a locked down tank" Well that's just silly because that's not what you said.  Not at all.  So why not just say what you mean in the first place? "</span><span>But post-changes it would seem that I will have to accept the role of tank, a role I do not like to play thus I cannot accept playing as a zerker anymore. " Well, like I said before...if you had no intention of ever really tanking then you should never have created a berserker to start with.  And not just because of the revamp.  Surely you must realize by now that as a zerker, at least currently, a good deal of our dps comes from haste procs that go off when we get hit...therefore you must be tanking, ie getting hit, to get at least half the dps out of your zerker that it's capable of.  Now if you never realized that then I would have to say that's pretty sad because after all this time you still don't know how to play your char correctly.  I sincerely hope that you have better luck as a brigand for sure. "</span>I am just trying to lay down the fact that SoE is changing zerkers into tanks." *Sigh* You still don't seem to get the fact that zerkers are not getting "changed" into tanks...we always have been and always will be tanks and if you didn't know that then there is something very seriously wrong considering that you have a level 50 one (or at least claim to).  IMO you just need to accept the fact that you made a bad choice to start with and the upcoming revamp has nothing at all to do with that. <div></div><p>Message Edited by infernus006 on <span class=date_text>08-18-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:12 PM</span>