the combat cordinator aka the tank

[Yojimbo99]

<DIV> <DIV>Wow, lots of talk, flames and crying on this subject to say the least; guess one more thread wouldn't hurt.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>First off i would like to say the words  "tank" and "tanking" and the various images they bring to mind really kinda throw a wrench into the idea of an advoidane fighter. They give the way to the mentality that a only a person wearin vanguard armor and shaking his/her fist from behind a coffee table is capable of handling the role of a fighter. So i give to you the new defining word as the fighters main role: Comabat Cordinator. yep silly to have to be so pc but it might help</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As a Combat Cordinator our job can be broken down as following(which is just rehash of what we know already)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>1. cope with damage dealt by a mob to insure a winning out come to the group(as in a healer being able to keep up with the damage we take over the course of an encounter)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>2. mob attention (making sure we are the ones coping with the damage)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>3. dealling damage (as to put a mob down  quicker to help with 1 and to help insure 2)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>4. the pull and pace of combat(one pull to the next)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>None of these are laid out in any order, I feel that they are all part of the equation and a Large Drastic lack of one of the forementioned abillities will result in a poor combat cordinator</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Thats the way we look at it from the fighters view(tanking) but we also have to look at it form the gamers perspective. Gain over Time(G/T) vs Risk : gain can be summed up rather easy loot and xp. Time says it all there. Risk the pushing the boundaries of the group to get the most  G/T. And this really is the idea of fighter balance as it should be looked at.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now when most people see a brawler type fighter they assume some really silly stuff: that we cant hold aggro and cant cope with damage there by makign the risk vs G/T too great to have a happy day of playing a game.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There presentally some issues with plates relying on advoidance as their primary means of defense as opposed to mitigation that needs to be fixed. However it can not be stressed enough that the whole fighter line has broken or non working combat arts which i feel should really be ironed out first( this game isnt a month or even two months old now, time we get this stuff fixed: seriously they have made some steps where as we would like to see leaps, bounds and strides as players) This reliance on advoidance for plate classes has many worrying about the state of thier class and i can understand the concern however all fighters were meant to be just that and fill the role of combat cordinator with no one class being the shinning beacon of what every  other fighter should be.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Also, many assume by what monks want as equal ability to hold our own that we somehow want equal mitigation,superior dps, great self and group utility, ect.(in short many feel that when a monk states that he/she wants to "tank" on par that we want the world) Nothing could further from the truth for me any way. I just want to group and not have a member say something totally stupid like "we can have the pet tank" And we dont want to be belittled by other players and picked up into groups cause of a mis conception of our intended role( the old i can tank and group response is like yeah right or a flat out "monks cant tank" and they try and push you outa the combat cordinator spot for a plate guy 3-4 lvls lower)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So where am i going with all this, simple. most plates assume that our dps is staggeringly high and although good does in no way make up for our short comings as they stand now. A plate tank in a group with only 15-20% less or so advoindance with a sheild does not balance out with a brawler with 40-50% less mitigation. Also with "effective grey outs"(ego's) this is even putting the desparity between brawlers and plates further. Now going back to the G/T formula we can get sense of why many players over look the brawlers as a vialbe fight, wheres as our dps should be making up for our taunt line and damage coping. Ideally we would get hit less but for more and that also doesnt mean for the same over time( plates have a valid point about the damage over time part which ill explain) and our damage should be dropping the mobs quicker there by carrying out the G/T for the group. Thats why plates have a problem with us if we took damage over time the same as they did  ie: if we are doing more damage and going on to the next mob and so on and taking the same damage in the encounter over time then we are really gettin more G/T then they could hope for. The way we should be looking at this is by a far more broad spectrum not just the damage taken over time but damage taken during the encounter and down time  per encounter. As it stands we have no G/T edge (unless we are talking small groups of 3 or less chaining greens to blues) in normal groups, the dps edge we have is offset by power/health loss however not balanced( we are not kiling large mobs fast enough to have the down time between encounters equal out to the same G/T that a plate tanking in a group could) And for the record many plates say stuff like the mob stuns or stiffles me ...believe it or not it happens to monks and this puts into the position as a combat cordinator of making a choice of our "apparent" edge in dps or making sure we get the job done.(we get stiffled now we choose :buff oursleves or group to help maitain aggro or taunt or take risk with a combat art that might be riposted blocked or miss there by running a risk of loosing aggro)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>so in summary here I want what I feel many monks who wish to fill the combat cordinator role as intended do: not to be passd over because we dont have the same ability to fulfill the G/T aspect that a plate tank can and does</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That was just some food for thought there as how i see things as they stand, and no i dont have a great idea to fix it either.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Rolangard; Slayer of Fairies</DIV> <DIV>toxxulia</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV></DIV>

[Nemi]

All true.However, people have come to EQ2 with their heads full of EQ1 and can't see beyond the name - Monk. Guess it speaks volumes about the minds of the majority those frequenting forums.

[-Aonein-]

<DIV><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=7&message.id=4810" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=7&message.id=4810</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=7&message.id=4463" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=7&message.id=4463</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Give it a rest please Nemi, the " people have there heads in the sand and think monks EQ2 are the same from EQ1 monks " argument is 6 months old, move on. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The screen shots show what Brawlers can do at this point, Jez is just lucky enough to have a guild that let him tank it, the problem is because Monks havent had the same chance, then that must mean they cant do it? Have you tanked all the way to lvl 50 Nemi? Have you tanked high end raid material Nemi? Do you think you got what it takes to control agro on a mob with 18 - 20 other people beating on it?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Jez has quite clearly shown you all that Brawlers can tank High End material and if a Bruiser can do it, im 100% sure a Monk can, reguardless of how easy certain Monks think it is even though they themselves havent even tanked it, maybe once they let him tank Darathar and he shows those pictures as well, and im 100% sure he will tank Darathar, then maybe we will get some much needed silence from the people who have have no idea what there talking about.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Taemek Frozenberg 45th Berserker<BR>16th Outfitter<BR>Everfrost Server<BR><BR>Enlightened Aonein Amillion ( retired )<BR>70th Stone Fist of The Celestial Fist<BR>Five Rings on Luclin Server</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by -Aonein- on <span class=date_text>03-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:15 AM</span>

[Nemi]

Um what are you talking about? Your tirade made no sense to me at all.I'm glad you are aware Brawlers can tank, I'm well aware of what Jez and Gage have tanked. However, for the vast majority of people who play this game, they don't read the forums. For the vast majority of people who play this game, they don't realise what the archetype system means.I'm glad your not one of them.

[SageMarrow]

<P>well i will say this, </P> <P>i completely understand the point and the plight of the post where as i read it all, one of the largest things players cannot understand on this issue, that i myself have not said clearly either until now, is that no matter what they do, within the current configurations, they will either make a monster out of a player or a slaughter out of a raid, or a mockery of normal content.</P> <P>that means there is no way outside of testing it a billion times in a billion setups against a billion mob typs, (litterally), that they can adjust mitigation to where they dont mitigate TOO much, and in the exact and direct combination to where they dont avoid TOO much, with buff stacking incorporated,  does that make sense? even if you take defensive buffs and turn them into mitigation buffs, you still may get a MT with Mitigation values through the rough with the right setup and he will still be technically invuinerable by IN GAME means, meaning that a healer is present. So if a guardian mitigates 90% of all damage on a blow that would take 4800 damage max, what does that equate too? .9x4800= lol you have made an attack that hits for 4800 hit for 480 damage all most. that cant be right - but thats what the numbers say, while some other factors would have to be equated in such as ++/groupx4 status and all that - the blow would still land at around 1200 tops. which is very easy to manage with 4 healers in group- if not more in a raid situation</P> <P>they give the player characters stats and such and then build the mobs around how to best us.  Even still lets do the same thing on the other side where avoidance is concerened,,</P> <P>avoidance is great, but it will never be equal to mitigation at its foundation, just because it has a chance to fail at all, but even if we were to overtly rely on avoidance and we avoided 50/100 attacks, there is no way to determine when or how those attacks would fall, for close to 4500 percent after our 32%mitigation was worked in on that same 4800 attack. They may fall 3 in a row, they may fall real spread out and with no noticeable difference in between, but there is still that RISK, that IMO- is VERY likely to come up over the course of a 45 minute fight. do you agree?</P> <P>now while we have the damage taken, output together in a nut shell, generally speaking, consider healing power. a wardens best heal heals for something like 700hp a tick. and a templars reactives dont even need to be verbalized lol. but 2 reactive healers stacking their reactives on 1 MT is pretty great in action in combination with mitigation, the HP of the MT wont even move. Ive seen it personally.  </P> <P>while on the other hand, no amount of reactive heal and regen can surmount a 43-4500 HP attack, let alone 3 of them in a row. We always suggest wardens, but that would take 7 different wardens chain healing wards that cant handle the damage. In case you didnt know, im not aware of anyone elses knowledge in game but my own, but wards dont scale to compete with raid mobs damage output. for obvious reasons in fact, if you give a warden a ward that can handle 12,000Hp, then you just made them able to solo anything that isnt nailed to the floor. </P> <P>So now things should make sense as to what the REAL problem is that SOE is facing At the moment, i hope they figure things out  - but more than likey - because of the time = frustration - and depression over the issue that most are facing, they are gonna rush a solution out and just PO everyone, while i hope they dont, only time will tell.</P>

[-Aonein-]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SageMarrow wrote:  <P>So now things should make sense as to what the REAL problem is that SOE is facing At the moment, i hope they figure things out  - but more than likey - because of the time = frustration - and depression over the issue that most are facing, they are gonna rush a solution out and just PO everyone, while i hope they dont, only time will tell.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Sounds like you played one to many SoE games Sage. :smileywink:</P> <P>You also made me realise something else, When they reduce the amount of times a plate class avoids and when you take into consideration the amount a Brawler takes in damage when he gets hit, this will ultimately make Templars / Inquisitors reactive heals basicaly useless, cause the amount of times a Plate class will get hit, a reactive heal will be burnt up in a few seconds, and reactive heals on a Brawler is pointless cause he gets hit for so much damage. So they will have to revamp Templars / Inquisitors reactive heals also to fit the change they make, ethier to absorb more damage, or to heal for more damage.</P> <P>Ethier way you look at it, SoE have stuffed up big time, and the fact that it took 5 months for them to redesign the way the AC value was displayed, and then realise there was a problem is just sad.</P> <P>Taemek Frozenberg 45th Berserker<BR>16th Outfitter<BR>Everfrost Server<BR><BR>Enlightened Aonein Amillion ( retired )<BR>70th Stone Fist of The Celestial Fist<BR>Five Rings on Luclin Server<BR></P> <p>Message Edited by -Aonein- on <span class=date_text>03-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:50 AM</span>

[SageMarrow]

<P>ROFL!!.../cry yeah im a soe fanboy, (no i really am)</P> <P>im a big fan, this game just kinda caught be off gaurd, because i dont expect alot from new games with new concepts and new structures(SWG, etc), its just understandable that the kinks will have to be worked out and balanced etc with a new idea...</P> <P>but in the case of EQ2 , i will be totally honest in saying that i expected flying dragons, class specific armors that progressed the role play of the classes, a challengeing gameplay scheme,  heroic feel to the classes while being balanced, (and not the angry mob of adventurers come to kill up some stuff feeling),  Some race specific mounts, so my iksar could ride around on a scaled wolf from eq1. </P> <P>I expected this game to be the end all be all of MMORPG's. seriously, i did, this shouldnt have been looked at as a new project or game, it shouldve carried everything that eq1 had at its end and worked from there.  polished up the weak spots, and moved on from there, wouldve really been EQ2, not just a name licensing thing to provide more revenue off the branch of another game, and they wouldnt be stuck running 2 games at once, and the carry over couldve been incredible from eq1 - eq2 and they couldve put the other game to rest just simply by taking out all the exploits (kiting, pullling. etc) and upgrading the graphics engine...</P> <P>simple science to me.stick with what worked for 6 years, give it an overhaul and a revamp, push it out the door.</P> <P>you dont make a sequel to a movie without the stars from the original. its just bad business, and asking for a movie to bomb, when you make a sequel. it has to be the same thing as the previous movie = just bigger badder and faster and stronger, = unless you are progressing a story, but thats not the case here. So no wonder why they get so much slack about this being nothing like eq1, they shouldnt have called it eq2 then right? thats what people expect out of a sequel.. </P> <P>i swear i need to handle thier marketing and Public relations</P> <p>Message Edited by SageMarrow on <span class=date_text>03-27-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:10 PM</span>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SageMarrow wrote:<BR> <P>this shouldnt have been looked at as a new project or game, it shouldve carried everything that eq1 had at its end and worked from there.  polished up the weak spots, and moved on from there, wouldve really been EQ2, not just a name licensing thing to provide more revenue off the branch of another game, and they wouldnt be stuck running 2 games at once, and the carry over couldve been incredible from eq1 - eq2 and they couldve put the other game to rest just simply by taking out all the exploits (kiting, pullling. etc) and upgrading the graphics engine...</P> <P>simple science to me.stick with what worked for 6 years, give it an overhaul and a revamp, push it out the door.So no wonder why they get so much slack about this being nothing like eq1, they shouldnt have called it eq2 then right? thats what people expect out of a sequel.. </P> <P>i swear i need to handle thier marketing and Public relations</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Sage, this game is for everyone out there who DID NOT like EQ1.</P> <P>Who didn't like the raiding, the time sinks, the kill stealing, the pvp, the griefing, etc etc.</P> <P>SoE has said that themselves many, many times.</P> <P>Its alike in name and lore, that's just about it.</P> <P>They made the game to get back the customers it lost who did NOT like how hardcore EQ1 was.</P> <P>It isn't meant to be a true sequel.</P> <P>Its obvious you are let down because you didn't read the plans/direction of the game that's been around since alpha.<BR></P>

[Wiou]

Speak for yourself Gage. I enjoyed eq1 for 4 years. Still would enjoy it, but I felt I should move on and try something new. Who knows? Maybe there are people out there that play both! <div></div>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Wiou wrote:<BR>Speak for yourself Gage. I enjoyed eq1 for 4 years. Still would enjoy it, but I felt I should move on and try something new.<BR><BR>Who knows? Maybe there are people out there that play both!<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>That isn't what I meant.  I was answering Sage, not saying players of EQ1 can't play EQ2.</P> <P>It isn't meant to be EQ1 with fixed problems and better graphics, its an entirely new game, that moves away from a lot of the core gamplay in EQ1.<BR></P>

[Wiou]

EQ2 and EQ1 have the same *general* concept.. which is why everyone goes into a tisy if class_01 didnt do what class_01 did in EQ1,  but I agree with you. <div></div>

[Nemi]

If they made this game to be EQ1 but poished, then they are ultimately stealing their own playerbase. That would kill EQ1. Instead, EQ1 has a thriving player base and EQ2 was aimed at the casual gamer.I'm afraid I have to agree with Gage, your looking for the wrong thing in EQ2. And I sure hope SoE never crumbles and gives you it.

[Mystiq]

<P>Hey, let's see if we can turn another well written and legitimate post into a bicker fest because some of us fighters just love to hate each other :smileyindifferent:</P> <P>Nice post Yojimbo99. I would almost say that it deserves a spot over on the guardian forums, because they really need to read a good post with realistic expectations of what us Brawlers want from our class, and get the idea that we want to be better in every way out of their thick skulls. No doubt it will just be dragged down into bickering by those unable to accept that both sides of the argument have their points and truth.</P>

[SageMarrow]

<DIV>both coudlve been done easily, AND expanded upon what was already in place, running 2 games separately cost more money - that means running 2 server bases etc.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>i never knew that it was supposed to be a completely different game and not a true sequel, more than likely this is why wow is doing so well now, they basically took up the charge where eq1 left off, by expanding on the core of what that game was supposed to be.. But i will admit that i never knew it wasnt supposed to be a true sequel. (i probably wouldnt have played it.../cry)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>but either way - thats enough of the thread hijack - back to the topic at hand.</DIV>