Why so many references to "tank class"?

[Ven_One]

Just came back to EQ2 after a month or so hiatus and I'm starting up a new brawler/bruiser. Just lurking on this board I've seen a lot of people refer to monks/bruisers as a "tank class". I was just wondering why people do that? Monks and Bruisers aren't, to my knowledge, a tank class, they're a "fighter" class. In everything I've read about either of the classes it's always stated that they'll have lower ac and higher damage. Now I think this is even more pronounced from what I'm reading.So, why do people insist on calling monks and bruisers tanks when they were obviously not meant to be so in the first place?

[Opa]

In short, you are taking a different understanding of "tank" than most people who populate this board.Your definition is something like "A fighter that actually looks like a literal tank: heavy armor, slow moving, etc."Most people on this board, however, use the term in a way that more dirctly refers to EQ2 gameplay. When they say "tank" they mean "A player character to hold agro, take damage, have high hit points and high defensive capacity."Neither definition it "right" but yours doesn't have much relevance to the actual mechanics of the game.

[Jezekie]

<blockquote><hr>Ven_One wrote:So, why do people insist on calling monks and bruisers tanks when they were obviously not meant to be so in the first place?<hr></blockquote>The three fighter classes are all tanks, end of story. If you want to be a DPS class create a mage or scout instead.<p>Message Edited by Jezekiell on <span class=date_text>02-08-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:01 PM</span>

[Ven_One]

<blockquote><hr>Opaki wrote:In short, you are taking a different understanding of "tank" than most people who populate this board.Your definition is something like "A fighter that actually looks like a literal tank: heavy armor, slow moving, etc."Most people on this board, however, use the term in a way that more dirctly refers to EQ2 gameplay. When they say "tank" they mean "A player character to hold agro, take damage, have high hit points and high defensive capacity."Neither definition it "right" but yours doesn't have much relevance to the actual mechanics of the game.<hr></blockquote>Close, but no cigar my definition of a tank. I use tank in the traditional mmorpg sense. IE a high mitigation agro sponge. Slow moving and armor is unimportant to me, mitigation is everything in my defintion of a tank. Perhaps it's because I played EQ1 for 5 years that I have this definition. Warriors in EQ1 were the ultimate raid tanks, then on down the list being Paladin and SK. In EQ1 monks were never meant to be tanks, this point is proven by the nerfs to mitigation that they took over the years. Reason given by SOE? Monks weren't meant to be tanks in EQ1 and I don't really see that changing for EQ2.That trend is already starting in EQ2 as well. SOE didn't intend monks and bruisers to be full fledged tanks, you can tell that in the lore descriptions of the sub-classes. They're meant to be damage dealers that are sturdier than most other damage dealers. Already SOE is taking steps to lower the tanking efectiveness of the class.ANd Jezekiel you're wrong. All four fighter classes are fighter classes, some better at tanking than others with monk and brawler at the bottom of the list and bound to drop further with perhaps a few tweaks to offense to make up for it. Just a guess about that last part though.

[Kilil]

<DIV>I think SOE is taking a different approach in EQ2. They have implimented a system where any of the subclasses of each archetype should be able to perform the job as well as others (can be situational). Brawlers wouldn't have taunts if not ment to gain agro and "tank", Defilers wouldn't have large heals and reactive heals if not ment to MH. All scout classes can dps and switch HO's and casters can dps. The only exception to this setup that I can tell are the enchanters who have a different role than the other casters I've worked with.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Monks/Bruisers are definatly ment to "tank" in EQ2. My static group uses a Bruiser as MT and Defiler as solo healer and it works great (did before patch, haven't got much time since to check). Its a different game and I really like the new setup.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This newest agi nerf was intended to lower the curve for the guys with the god stats and scout tanks, I don't believe it was ment to drop bruisers off the tanking charts. I may have a biased opinion, if they change bruisers from dps/tank to just dps my static will have to start new toons. I hope SOE intends to keep the versitility of sub classes open, makes the game fun and allows for much faster pickup groups. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Blixx</DIV><p>Message Edited by Kilil on <span class=date_text>02-08-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:16 AM</span>

[Neofa]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ven_One wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Opaki wrote:<BR>of the class.<BR><BR>ANd Jezekiel you're wrong. All four fighter classes are fighter classes, some better at tanking than others with monk and brawler at the bottom of the list and bound to drop further with perhaps a few tweaks to offense to make up for it. Just a guess about that last part though.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Our point exactly,... Monk and Bruiser .. not brawler at the bottom of the list.  It falls - Fighter -- Brawler - A) Monk B) Bruiser.  </P> <P>First of all EQ2 mechanics are not EQ1 mechanics with all LORE aside.  Lore doesn't equal gameplay, it never has.  Think of how unbalanced Everquest one became, now why on earth would they want to follow suit with Everquest II?</FONT></P> <P>Anyhow, considering that Brawlers are at the bottom of the "Tank" list, that means that we are the worst tanks in the Tank Genre.  Brawlers are in that classification, the TANK classification, and quite adequately placed at the bottom.  However, if one class is to be put in a classification, it has to meet the requirements of efficiently or effectively performing the role the classification has defined it to be.  </FONT></P> <P>To be simple.:  Why put brawlers in the same category as all the other tanks if they can't tank?</FONT></P> <P>We agree that we should be at the bottom, number 5 respectively, but number 5 should have the ability to Tank in a regular group.  We agree that we should be lesser tanks than number 1-4.  We agree that while tanking our DPS should be very much lowered, and while NOT tanking it should be much higher.  We agree the prefered tank should be the Guardian.</FONT></P> <P>But,.. Why have tanks number 2-3?  </FONT></P> <P>Well, if you can't get a guardian, or simply don't want a guardian because , oh say, your real life friend is a Berserker then you will go with the "lesser" tank.  However, this Berserker is able to tank satisfactorily enough to keep your party alive, and efficiently enough to provide an enjoyable experience.  The same applies to A paladin or SK.  They can get the job done.</FONT></P> <P>We refer to the brawlers to a "tanking" class because they are classfied as such, and up until 2/1/05 Could fulfill the role to a lesser degree, but a satisfactory one.  After said patch, they could not, (Notably in the upper tiers).</FONT></P> <P>You wouldn't even hear of this "tanking class" if things hadn't just been broken.  If SoE didn't want Brawlers to tank, then they wouldn't have put them in their classification pool.  EQ2 was built upon Archetypes to Class to SubClass.  EQ1 was not.  In EQ1 you picked your class and that was it.  SoE had room to tell you that your class was or was not meant to do xyz because there were no systems of branching classes in place.  It was simply what their current "vision" was.</FONT></P> <P>In EQ2 there IS a system.  A very simple design, that makes sense.  It has thus far been tweaked here and there, which is of course to be expected, but to take away a complete role of a class in one instant?  Not right.</FONT></P> <P>It would be akin to taking away a coercer's ability to do damage.  Sure Enchanters aren't the best DPS in their "Archetype" pool,.. but they can do decent DPS if they concentrate soley on offensive spells.  The reasoning behind this nerf would be, oh well, enchanters are meant to mez, aka crowd control, so we felt that having the option to deal damage effectively was overpowering.  But if you look back to where they CAME from, was the *Mage* Archetype.  The very definition of this archetype includes the ability to "Devastate enemies from the rear ranks" & "wield powerful forms of magic to strike down their opponents.,... "casting deadly attacks on enemies..."  This is taken straight from the Archetype description in the manual for mages.</FONT><BR></P> <P>Take care,</P> <P>Neofate</P> <p>Message Edited by Neofate on <span class=date_text>02-08-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:10 AM</span>

[Jezekie]

<blockquote><hr>Ven_One wrote:<blockquote>ANd Jezekiel you're wrong. All four fighter classes are fighter classes, some better at tanking than others with monk and brawler at the bottom of the list and bound to drop further with perhaps a few tweaks to offense to make up for it. Just a guess about that last part though.<hr></blockquote>We've been through this discussion before, either accept it or go create a mage or scout. Warriors, Crusaders and Brawlers are all tanks wether you like it or not.<blockquote><hr>Ven_One wrote:<blockquote>lore descriptions of the sub-classes.<hr></blockquote>The lore means jack, that has also been covered by Moorgard, they are there for fluff nothing else they do NOT describe the functionality of any of the classes. You'll find this in his post about the recent Berzerker changes.<p>Message Edited by Jezekiell on <span class=date_text>02-08-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:03 PM</span>

[Opa]

<DIV>I tried to be generous to what your definition of "tank" might have been.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Here's the bottom line. I'm not going to have this debate again, and I know people like Jez are probably equally uninterested in it. Bruisers are tanks. If you don't think so, fine. Play a guardian. Play the game however you like. Just keep your uninformed comments to yourself.</DIV>

[Corasik]

<DIV>It has been clearly stated from the beginning of the game, that the entire fighter tree, including Bruisers, and Monks are the tanks in the game. The difference between the worst tank, and the best tank is designed to be fairly small, as is the difference between the different fighter class damage output.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Infact all the fighter classes have a strong damage output, but only when they arnt tanking. Including guardians.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Bruisers and Monks get fighter heroic opportunities,  and will not be the best group dps. Good yes, but not scoutlike.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If anything gets adjusted with bruisers and monks, it will be a lowering of DPS, However its more likely that scouts and mages will have their high level skills fixed, as currently they dont work as well as they should, and our dps will look average at best. If we were supposed to be more damage than tank, then they would have put our classes as the lowest DPS scouts, and given us access to scout HO's</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>EQ2 is designed on a totally different concept to EQ1. SOE spent years trying to balance out 14 odd classes in EQ1, and it was too hard, there was never really a good balance. In EQ2 I believe the concept is to create a basic balance between the 4 archtypes, so that you can pick any subclass and still succeed in your raid/event.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The whole point in the recent patch to increase the AC number on display, was largely to add in the monk and buisers deflection skill into the equation, to proove that we are able to tank. However the fact is, its not quite balanced yet.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The idea behind the architypes is to remove the holy trinity, and once balancing is finished, it should be good</DIV>

[Kwonryu_DragonFi]

<blockquote><hr>Ven_One wrote:Just came back to EQ2 after a month or so hiatus and I'm starting up a new brawler/bruiser. Just lurking on this board I've seen a lot of people refer to monks/bruisers as a "tank class". I was just wondering why people do that? Monks and Bruisers aren't, to my knowledge, a tank class, they're a "fighter" class. In everything I've read about either of the classes it's always stated that they'll have lower ac and higher damage. Now I think this is even more pronounced from what I'm reading.So, why do people insist on calling monks and bruisers tanks when they were obviously not meant to be so in the first place?<hr></blockquote>In EQ2, All Fighters are "Tanks" and were meant to be so in the first place.

[RioR]

<DIV>Exactly. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>SOE has claimed for 2 years that in the archetype system all fighters will be able to fill an equal role in a group. A fighter's role is to be the tank. Therefore all fighters should be able to tank equally well. If this is not happening, and it is not, then SOE has failed in one of the major areas of the game. </DIV>

[Neofa]

<DIV>Amen! To the last 3 posts.  Finally, I see some consistant, rational thought process pertaining to the very BASIC design of the Fighter Archetype.  I really don't see how this can be argued so much if you truly take a close look at how simple the Everquest II Class system was designed.  As has been said over and over again, we are in the Fighter archetype, thus we are placed among the tanks, and in our case we are the lowest ranked.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Also consider, nothing that hasn't been said before, the abilities given to the Brawler Class:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Taunt (With multiple upgrades, even a TRAIT taunt selection if you so choose at later levels)</DIV> <DIV>Area effect Taunt (To taunt All enemies in an encounter) -- For what purpose? I would guess to tank them.</DIV> <DIV>Bouncer (A 3 consitution perma-buff that lowers offensive abilities and increases defensive abilties)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I can't think of the names exactly at this very moment of all of the major "tanking" ablities.  However, I do know we have an ability that "roots" us where we cannot move, we cannot use any ability or hotbutton, all we can do is chat for x seconds.  During this time our damage mitigation is boosted.  We also receive a huge AC buff that is short in duration, but it's method of action is to slowly eat away at our health while boosting our Armor Class by 15-20% (Rough guess).  I remember my AC going up well over 1000 points fromt his ability alone.  It just wouldn't make sense to NOT be considered a tank.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Neo</DIV>

[reakshav]

<DIV>27 Zerker here and I totally agree that monks/bruisers are suppost to beable to tank in this game.  If the OP read some of the developer threads on this topic he would know.  "ALL fighter class are tanks!!!" PERIOD.  This is not EQ1.  Brawlers are not gonna tank as well as a guardian utlimately, guardians give up dps for tanking ability.  Prepatch hi agility avatars could tank almost anything if they where buffed correctly and the nerf was to agility not directly to the monk class, it although did affect the monk community since agility was a big reason they could tank so well not just on deflection and avoidance alone.  I'm sure theres gonna be fixed to make monks viable tanks again.</DIV>

[reakshav]

<DIV><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=7&message.id=3223" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=7&message.id=3223</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This post should catch you up to speed.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Ghaleon]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ven_One wrote:<BR>Just came back to EQ2 after a month or so hiatus and I'm starting up a new brawler/bruiser. Just lurking on this board I've seen a lot of people refer to monks/bruisers as a "tank class". I was just wondering why people do that? Monks and Bruisers aren't, to my knowledge, a tank class, they're a "fighter" class. In everything I've read about either of the classes it's always stated that they'll have lower ac and higher damage. Now I think this is even more pronounced from what I'm reading.<BR><BR>So, why do people insist on calling monks and bruisers tanks when they were obviously not meant to be so in the first place?<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>We "were" a tank class, I consider myself more like one of those blow up toys with sand filled in the bottom - except here recently I dont seem to pop back up ~<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE>

[Tir]

<DIV align=left>I am really beginning to doubt the so called vision of eq2 that monks/bruisers are going to be tanks like the other subclasses in the fighter tree(guardian,berserker,paladin,shadowknight). It seems like we are slowly going back to the eq1 classification of tank races.</DIV> <DIV align=left> </DIV> <DIV align=left>Think that the difficult thing with the monk/bruiser subclasses is the combination of light armor and dps. If we are able to avoid damage as well as guardian or berserker we cant be doing as much damage as we currently do. So something had to give and in this case we lost some of our tanking cababilities in order to retain the dps aspect. </DIV> <DIV align=left> </DIV> <DIV align=left>I might be in the minority but I personally prefer the dps side of our subclass much more than the tanking aspect of it. Was a monk in eq1 and loved being monk in that game and being the dps dealing fighter in that game.  </DIV><p>Message Edited by Tirpe on <span class=date_text>02-08-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:16 PM</span>

[Ven_One]

Look, 95% of you aren't disagreeing with me at all, it's just a difference of opinion on what the term tank means. I already said that my defintion of tank differs than almost anyone who didn't play EQ1 as a tank. If you played EQ1 as a tank your definition of a tank is based on mitigation PERIOD. And Monk/bruiser just doesn't cut it in the mitigation department. In avoidance and damage we do (or did) fine, but that wasn't my point. My point was that there are mobs in this game that WILL hit you [FaarNerfed!] near every swing no matter what your avoidance and damage output are. And when it comes to fighting those mobs a monk/bruiser will not be the one you want being the main tank.Do monk/bruisers tank 90% of regular encounters just fine? Yes.Do monk/bruisers satisfy the loose defintion of agro holder? Yes.Do monk/bruisers have the mitigation to tank huge high end encounters as well as the other "tanks"? No.

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ven_One wrote:<BR>Look, 95% of you aren't disagreeing with me at all, it's just a difference of opinion on what the term tank means. I already said that my defintion of tank differs than almost anyone who didn't play EQ1 as a tank. If you played EQ1 as a tank your definition of a tank is based on mitigation PERIOD. And Monk/bruiser just doesn't cut it in the mitigation department. In avoidance and damage we do (or did) fine, but that wasn't my point. My point was that there are mobs in this game that WILL hit you [FaarNerfed!] near every swing no matter what your avoidance and damage output are. And when it comes to fighting those mobs a monk/bruiser will not be the one you want being the main tank.<BR><BR>Do monk/bruisers tank 90% of regular encounters just fine? Yes.<BR>Do monk/bruisers satisfy the loose defintion of agro holder? Yes.<BR><FONT color=#ffff00>Do monk/bruisers have the mitigation to tank huge high end encounters as well as the other "tanks"? No.<BR></FONT> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>When they fix our deflection/avoidance (and they will) then we won't need mitigation in order to tank high end encounters.  All that matters is the total damage received at the end of the fight.  That's why the different healing classes have different specialties.</P> <P>Lets say a raid mob ends up dealing the tank 25,000 points of damage throughout the encounter.</P> <P>The guardian looks like this:</P> <P>500, 500, 500, 500, 500, 500, 500 etc = 25,000 damage taken.</P> <P>The monk/bruiser will look like this:</P> <P>0 0 0 0 3000 0 0 0 0 3000 0 0 0 0 3000 = 25,000 damage taken</P> <P>If you add in a mystic/defiler ward that absorbs 1,800 points of damage it looks like this:</P> <P>0 0 0 0 1200 0 0 0 0 1200 etc</P> <P>Then its a simple matter of the healers using an instant heal to keep the tank alive whether or not its a guardian or a monk/bruiser.</P> <P>That is how it <EM>should</EM> work and if they ever fix deflection/avoidance, it will work that way.</P> <P>All the classes and gameplay are in the game for these scenarios to work, the game just needs to be tweaked a bit.</P> <P>The great thing about your opinion of a tank though... its your opinion, it doesn't mean anything.  Everyone has all sorts of opinions.  I could say my opinion of a bruiser is someone who stands on a griffon tower throwing rocks, doesn't mean that's how they work in the game now does it?<BR></P>

[Ven_One]

Gage-Mikel, when and if they do change the avoidance/deflection to the point that we take as little damage as the others then I will gladly agree with everyone here and praise my bruser as a tank. But until that day comes I stand by what I've already said in this post.-edit-Just for reference there is a game that has instituded 4 different kinds of tanks with different styles, one of them being pure avoidance. The game is COH, the avoidance tank (ice) is the most underplayed tank by a huge percentage in the game due to the streaky tendancies of computer generated random numbers or game rolls. The tanker will avoid fine for a few fights, then the number generator will slam in with 5 hits in a row killing the tank almost instantly. Unless SOE can come up with a much better combat number generator than any mmorpg in existance a pure avoidance/deflection tank will still be inferior.<p>Message Edited by Ven_One on <span class=date_text>02-08-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:42 PM</span>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ven_One wrote:<BR>Gage-Mikel, when and if they do change the avoidance/deflection to the point that we take as little damage as the others then I will gladly agree with everyone here and praise my bruser as a tank. But until that day comes I stand by what I've already said in this post.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>That's your perogative of course. </P> <P>But you must realize two things:</P> <P>1) You are wrong about the class' role.</P> <P>2) The class is broken.</P> <P>What you are doing would be like me posting that the mage archtype shouldn't be damage doers because at the moment they are broken.  Sure right now they suck at DD but that is their role, and they are going to be fixed to be able to fill that role.</P> <P>I don't care what you do, just clarify your opinion from fact, because unfortunately for you, they are not one and the same.<BR></P>

[Ven_One]

<BR><BLOCKQUOTE><HR><P>1) You are wrong about the class' role.</P>><hr></blockquote>Not at the moment I'm not. I don't really care what might be, I care about what is feasible right now.<P>2) The class is broken.</P>><hr></blockquote>I addresed that with my previous answer to you. When it's changed I'll come here and post whatever you want me to post in way of appeasement, but until that change happens this is my opinion.

[Kwonryu_DragonFi]

Well, at least now you know why brawlers are referenced as "tank class".What is common for all Fighters is this.Fighters use brute strength and sturdy weapons to deal physical damage to their enemies. Always at the forefront of combat, fighters stand toe-to-toe with opponents while keeping their allies from harm. No matter the risk, fighters never back down from a challenge.Brawlers specialize in physical combat styles that bring them face-to-face with the enemy.Favoring light armor and hand-to-hand battle tactics, brawlers have honed their bodies into potent weapons.<p>Message Edited by Kwonryu_DragonFist on <span class=date_text>02-09-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:42 AM</span>

[Raidi Sovin'faile]

<DIV>If I'm not supposed to be a tank, then why do I have the following setup:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I have two taunt lines, a group buff that causes huge aggro, and fully half my abilities specifically say "increases taunt" or has some debuff effect that causes aggro.. yet I only have one single ability that could possibly be considered a "deaggro": Feign Death. Yeah, the ability that removes all my self buffs if it works, and if it doesn't, I'm worse than a wizard getting beat on.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If I am supposed to be a damage dealer and more importantly, am <EM><STRONG>NOT</STRONG></EM> supposed to tank damage, then why do I have defensive abilities and ZERO way to reduce aggro without taking myself out of combat completely?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Like it or not, the class was built to be a tank class. Because one single aspect isn't working up to snuff doesn't mean our role has been redesigned.</DIV> <DIV>Yes, I said <EM>re</EM>designed... up until recently Bruiser and Monks could tank fine... even the ones that didn't have agility boosted all to high heaven. I'm sure if you grabbed a brawler type and boosted his agi to the "broken" levels, you'd see them tanking fine, because that's where the system has been rebalanced.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Hell, I <EM>still</EM> tank fine if the mob is below 40, and it's a single mob. I'm even not half bad against groups. And I'm not talking fluke well.. I'm talking VERY well.. as in getting hit only 10-20% of the time!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If you are a tank for 80% of the level spread, and can't for the top 20%... that just tells me that the class is <STRONG>BROKEN</STRONG> in the top 20%. <EM>NOT</EM> that it's been rebalanced as a DPS class for the last levels of the game. It makes no sense whatsoever, especially since we get the opposite of what a DPS class gets: aggro causing abilities instead of deaggro abilities.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><EM>Please give me some logical explanation as to why we can tank for most of the gaming career but not at the end, and not call that a broken class.</EM></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Miyu-Lega]

<blockquote><hr>Ghaleon wrote:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Ven_One wrote:<BR>Just came back to EQ2 after a month or so hiatus and I'm starting up a new brawler/bruiser. Just lurking on this board I've seen a lot of people refer to monks/bruisers as a "tank class". I was just wondering why people do that? Monks and Bruisers aren't, to my knowledge, a tank class, they're a "fighter" class. In everything I've read about either of the classes it's always stated that they'll have lower ac and higher damage. Now I think this is even more pronounced from what I'm reading.<BR><BR>So, why do people insist on calling monks and bruisers tanks when they were obviously not meant to be so in the first place?<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>We "were" a tank class, I consider myself more like one of those blow up toys with sand filled in the bottom - except here recently I dont seem to pop back up ~<BR><BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE><hr></blockquote>If this forum had a quote hall of fame, I'd nominate this in a heart beat.

[Ghaleon]

<DIV>lol, thanks Miyu =D</DIV>

[Manuel]

<DIV>People who relied on glitches now seems hurt... Those who standed by the hard numbers and ignored the mainstream are now succesful. I can tell ya at 44 I outdamage everyone on most occasions. Got my parseer always up. Higher lvl players are tough, but they fall too. I seem to be on par with lvl 50 people. I am a VERY happy man. My fists are on high demand, everyone knows theres no competion for my solid melee damage. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Feeling like a broken toy? Dont worry son, grab some knuckles, roughhouse//brawl and fly away to DPS land... Get your STR gear, your adepts and off to work. <A href="http://www.combatstats.com" target=_blank>www.combatstats.com</A> will prove handy. Forget mediocrity, youre gonna be #1 baby. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And to the square heads: I can STILL tank. You know what does it mean beign a better tank than other? You tank tougher stuff. So if you have the worst aptitudes for the job in the WAR range, dont expect to fight the same mobs. 2+2=4 son. Guess thats why they have the whole colour classifications things... Hint hint yellow hurts. Problem is some guys want to par with superior-by-design tanks, sorry folks aint gonna happen. Stick to yer whites & blues. Tanking has only become what it was intended to be, the thinking man tank, squeezing yer brains out to barely match mitigation classes, not just calling a chanter for teh win1</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Go ahead, one-star me. As of 09/02/05, I know Im right.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Manueles wrote:<BR> <DIV>People who relied on glitches now seems hurt... Those who standed by the hard numbers and ignored the mainstream are now succesful. I can tell ya at 44 I outdamage everyone on most occasions. Got my parseer always up. Higher lvl players are tough, but they fall too. I seem to be on par with lvl 50 people. I am a VERY happy man. My fists are on high demand, everyone knows theres no competion for my solid melee damage. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Feeling like a broken toy? Dont worry son, grab some knuckles, roughhouse//brawl and fly away to DPS land... Get your STR gear, your adepts and off to work. <A href="http://www.combatstats.com/" target=_blank>www.combatstats.com</A> will prove handy. Forget mediocrity, youre gonna be #1 baby. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And to the square heads: I can STILL tank. You know what does it mean beign a better tank than other? You tank tougher stuff. So if you have the worst aptitudes for the job in the WAR range, dont expect to fight the same mobs. 2+2=4 son. Guess thats why they have the whole colour classifications things... Hint hint yellow hurts. Problem is some guys want to par with superior-by-design tanks, sorry folks aint gonna happen. Stick to yer whites & blues. Tanking has only become what it was intended to be, the thinking man tank, squeezing yer brains out to barely match mitigation classes, not just calling a chanter for teh win1</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Go ahead, one-star me. As of 09/02/05, I know Im right.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Wow, you are gonna hate the next big patch aren't you?  When your great DPS is surpassed by all the casters since they are getting buffed up, and probably the scouts as well.</P> <P>The agility thing wasn't a glitch, it was an oversight by the dev team that led to a correction that was way overdone.</P> <P>I'm glad you enjoy being the #1 damage doer according to your flawed parser, have fun <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>You'll be complaining again when they fix the class.<BR></P>

[Victicu]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote: <P>I'm glad you enjoy being the #1 damage doer according to your flawed parser, have fun <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR> <HR> </P> <P>theres nothing flawed...a non-tanking brawler is the best dps</P> <P> </P></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Victicus7 wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote: <P>I'm glad you enjoy being the #1 damage doer according to your flawed parser, have fun <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR> <HR> <P></P> <P>theres nothing flawed...a non-tanking brawler is the best dps</P> <P> <HR> </P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Actually all the log parsers out have numerous problems, especially showing effective damage dealt by the entire group because of when they start tracking.   A lot of times you'll find that if everyone in the group runs statalyzer and parses their own damage that their damage is higher on their pc than it is on your log, etc etc.</P> <P>Besides, what I meant by flawed is the fact that brawlers aren't supposed to outdamage anyone but other fighters.  You'll see in the next big patch when they up all mages DPS, not to mention if they ever fix scouts.<BR></P>

[Ven_One]

Just as clarification on something. I've seen a few people say that all tanks were meant to do similar damage and take similar damage. If that ever becomes the case in this game I'll probably move on to a game that has a bit of variety.

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ven_One wrote:<BR>Just as clarification on something. I've seen a few people say that all tanks were meant to do similar damage and take similar damage. If that ever becomes the case in this game I'll probably move on to a game that has a bit of variety.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>That's cool, lots of MMOs out there.</P> <P>That will be the case eventually, because its how the game is designed.</P> <P>I'd say the devs are striving for a ~5% min/max on values within an archtype.</P> <P>So say a guardian is ~5% better at tanking (total damage taken) while a bruiser/monk is able to give out ~5% more damage over the encounter.</P> <P>The devs have repeatedly said the differences in the classes are subtle, and more for "flavor" than mechanics.<BR></P> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This is by design to avoid the "flavor of the month" classes that hinder all other MMOs.  After a game has been out awhile and people parse logs and find the "good" classes people migrate toward them.  This causes and inbalance in the game due to whatever skill said class had that was desirable which leads to "nerfing" and then another migration by the playerbase to the "uber" class.  Repeat ad nauseum.  That is what the archtype system was supposed to help avoid in this game.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This game was supposed to get away from the: Want to tank, play a warrior.  Want to heal, play a cleric.  Want to pull, play a monk; types of mentalities.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on <span class=date_text>02-09-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:35 AM</span>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ven_One wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> <P>1) You are wrong about the class' role.</P>> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Not at the moment I'm not. I don't really care what might be, I care about what is feasible right now.<BR><BR> <P>2) The class is broken.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I addresed that with my previous answer to you. When it's changed I'll come here and post whatever you want me to post in way of appeasement, but until that change happens this is my opinion.<BR></P> <P> <HR> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Well well, go figure I actually know what I'm talking about!</P> <HR> <P> Moorgard wrote:<BR></P> <DIV>This post is intended to discuss recent and upcoming changes to game balance. Some of these changes will be met favorably, others less so, but the goal of all of them is the same: to ensure a fun, challenging game that keeps players excited for years to come.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The changes discussed below will be seen in Live Update #3, which is on the Test server today and going to the live servers next week.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG>Damage Output</STRONG></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>There has been a lot of discussion on the forums since launch regarding the relative power of each class when it comes to dealing damage. The intended order of damage output by archetype is (and always has been): mage, scout, fighter, priest.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff3300>Obviously that isn't the order currently present in the game. Right now fighters do the most overall damage, followed by scouts, followed by mages, and finally priests. This is a situation we are working to remedy, and Live Update #3 will make major strides toward addressing it.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Mages are intended to to do a lot of damage at the price of being frail defensively. With this major update, wizards and warlocks will see a damage output increase of up to 300% in the case of many key spells. These changes, affecting the classes from 20 to 50, should put them at the top of the heap when it comes to damage output. We are still in the process of evaluating changes to summoners and enchanters, but recent DoT stacking changes, bug fixes in this update, and buff timer changes (see below) should help the other mage professions feel more useful and powerful until their damage output can be thoroughly assessed.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>The greatest imbalance currently in the game relates to fighters. Tanks are supposed to absorb damage, but they're also currently the best at dishing it out. This is due to the way our strength bonus works. Currently in the live game, a strength of 400 (achievable at the higher levels with buffs and gear) results in a 200% damage bonus. This results in fighters being the premier melee damage dealers, since they typically have the highest STR values.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000>Live Update #3 changes the bonus awarded by having high amounts of strength. The table below illustrates the effect of the bonus change.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000>STR  Old Bonus  New Bonus <BR>100    125%         125%<BR>200    150%         135%<BR>300    175%         145%<BR>400    200%         155%</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As you can see, the soloer or small group player, who is unlikely to reach high levels of strength, will see little or no impact. The change has a considerable effect at the upper levels of the game when players can achieve extremely high STR in raid encounters.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>While this change will have some impact on scouts, it should be minimal enough (due to the fact that they typically don't have STR at the same degree as fighters) that scouts will now have higher damage output than fighters. This helps scouts fill the role they were intended to fill as damage dealers through the use of their powerful arts.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This update by no means represents the final balance of damage output. We will continue to tune spells and arts to achieve the goals stated above.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG>Tanking</STRONG></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The last major update included a significant change to the way agility affected damage avoidance. Similar to the bonus given by strength shown above, agility had a major impact on how likely a character was to avoid an attack.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>For example, if a monk or bruiser could be buffed such that his agility was 200 points higher than the opponent's to-hit stats, they would avoid all but 4% of the enemy's damage output. A plate tank with a shield also had 96% avoidance, and a scout with no shield had 90% avoidance.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Even an AGI advantage of 100 points allowed light and heavy armor tanks to avoid all but 14% and 15% of enemy damage output, while scouts avoided 77% of the damage. Since this stat advantage was easily reachable with typical buffs and debuffs, tanking was trivialized in many encounters.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The change we implemented was to raise the stats of NPCs that are level 30 and higher while decreasing the bonus given by agility. Higher-level encounters were no longer as trivial to tank, especially for scouts (who are not meant to be tanking heroic and epic content anyway).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>After further parsing and analysis, we have decided that further delineation is needed between a fighter's ability to tank versus a scout's ability. As part of Live Update #3, we are improving heavy armor to mitigate 11% more damage and light armor to mitigate 35% more damage. In addition to making fighters tank better overall, this should address concerns raised by bruisers and monks. <FONT color=#ffff00>Light armor tanks still depend on deflection, but with increased mitigation their tanking ability should be less prone to streaks of damage. <HR> </FONT></DIV> <P>Well looky there.  In the next big patch that is currently on test (then one I told you about) they are lowering fighter DPS and increasing our mitigation so we can tank more on par with the other fighter classes.</P> <P>They are putting mages/scouts back on top of the DPS chart.</P> <P>Wait... why does this all sound eerily familiar?<BR></P>

[Raidi Sovin'faile]

<DIV>Thanx for pointing that bit out Gage... like to see that we'll get thrown a bone here.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I like how I ask how a class built with tank abilities can be not considered broken if they turn into 100% DPS and 0% Tank at the later levels.. and it's answered with a 1 star. Great... so you don't have any logical response to refute me and resort to 1 star'ing. Did I tick someone off with my post?</DIV>

[Ven_One]

You act like I'll be disappointed when that happens, Gage. When it happens I'll be fine with it and adjust my play style accordingly. If it seems to me that it wouldn't matter what fighter I chose and everything seems "the same" I'll move on. Anyway, that post still doesn't address one of my main points. I'll try to elaborate a bit. In his post M states that if our agility is 200 points above the mobs to-hit then we'll get hit 4% of the time. And for regular high encounters that will be fantabulous, but I wonder how many of the larger encounter high end mobs we'll be even close to that number above? Or perhaps..will we be above thier to-hit at all?<p>Message Edited by Ven_One on <span class=date_text>02-10-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:27 AM</span>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ven_One wrote:<BR>You act like I'll be disappointed when that happens, Gage. When it happens I'll be fine with it and adjust my play style accordingly. If it seems to me that it wouldn't matter what fighter I chose and everything seems "the same" I'll move on. <BR><BR>Anyway, that post still doesn't address one of my main points. I'll try to elaborate a bit.<FONT color=#ffff00> In his post M states that if our agility is 200 points above the mobs to-hit then we'll get hit 4% of the time.</FONT> And for regular high encounters that will be fantabulous, but I wonder how many of the larger encounter high end mobs we'll be even close to that number above? Or perhaps..will we be above thier to-hit at all? <P>Message Edited by Ven_One on <SPAN class=date_text>02-10-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>02:27 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>No actually that was his explanation of why agility was nerfed.  The change for our tanking is the 35% increase in our mitigation coupled with our avoidance.</P> <P>I never meant to imply you'd be disappointed, only that the changes show that fighters are meant to be tanks.<BR></P>

[SageMarrow]

<DIV> <DIV>Dear Gage and SOE</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I see you being very open about your feelings about the game and post often so hears my take on it-- that at the least at end game i would like to see some divergence of classes into more defined rolls - i HATE THE CONCEPT of everyone being alike= but differnet but alike...thats just pointless to me= unless they manage a way to intitaite skill based combat then the game becomes useless as being entertaining and fun..</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If it isnt enough to have all the classes wear just about the same crap armor clothes etc. Ive waited almost 2 years for this game and my car...(2005 mustang) and one is on the verge of letting me down... I put alot of time and effort into this game but for it to be balanced beyond balance is rediculous and unentertaining- i dont want to take damage personally i like playing body guard.. doing damage -- managing adds and baby sitting casters. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I would hate to say that if everyone is kinda the same but different in a similar way because ive waited so long for the game and ive put SOOO much time into my char.  SO yeah at the end game state or near the end game i wanna see some specialization of classes . as i said in an earlier post -- </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>i wanna see assassins with ninja outfits and go up in puffs of smoke when in stealth. i wanna see bruisers with an enrage ability when in low health (red) or when a party member goes down.. I wanna see swashbucklers with a parot scout pet and pirate type gear. i wanna see monks with a meditations skill where they hover over the ground indian style to use to med power and hp even faster after battles. i wanna see bruisers and monks with an agility skill so they can jump long distances and Warriors run/sprint longer w/ less mana consumption(IE stamina of war).  how about a knight class with the horse actually playing a part at high levels- how about beserkers looking like beserkers I E spiked armor open spaces somn that screams im crazy and like to break things with my mace or getting a class specific mount (somn beastly). How about a self Destruct for Warlocks that puts them on 1 HP and drains remaining Power to do massive damage but making them openly vulnerable(Mana Explosion)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> just some things to work for 50+ levels and gain that you have a real HEROiC status about you = somn that makes you a great character an individual even.   </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>and of course yes save it for the 45+ range so that still alleviates the task of the class migration. heck by level 45 or 50-- if you pick a class just for that... by then U DESERVE IT. but this everyone with the same armor and general ABILITY quite frankly sucks. there have been several times that i have almost fallen asleep playing the game and thats somthing that has never happend while playing GTA or Madden of Final Fantasy 10...(maybe final fantasy) but im not comparing them as games - im comparing fun factor. we get mad when people take EXp debt so serious but outside of selling crap and fighting what else is there= dont even go there with the questing -- its cool and all but fairly uneventful. so yeah gimme a reason to work 50 levels to become DIFFERENT!!!!!!!!!! let me know that im working my [Removed for Content] off so that i can get a Dr. jeckyl and mr Hyde type transformation as a beserker. Let me know that i get a Kung Fu type garb (in line with the game) and jackie chan type acrobatic/stunt ability to run along dungeon walls ninja gaiden style.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That way SOE can make a great game and everyone can stand back and say HEY WaTch this to thier friends and family and get other outsiders involved that way - heck its as simple as making the game worth playing - every day you can work to say i get this when get here and boy i cant wait ...but nothing inside me makes me rush to get a flowing black silk sash..sorry just doesnt.  not just. i gotta get that Chestplate i saw that guy with... just some amazement and girth to the gameplay experience the story line has never been that major most people dont even know what going on in the world out side of 500 yrs later....so concentrate on the gameplay itself/ everyone wants to play a nonlinear game and have awesome abilities to do and dazzle the masses.  the matrix online with w/o a doubt be a draw in from its action and fighting style and for people to really embody thier online persona ( can we say aid in Role play???) if you played an assasin or guardian-- to embody your roleplaying desires= what better way to do that than running around as a true shadow or at least the [Removed for Content] ninja type (in line with the game) armor of a color of your choosing. ( ninja assasin clans?? guilds of knights???? Healers for hire (we always need a heaeler at the worst time) ANYTHING... IMO i would love to see 10 ninja in red armor/garb running through nek forest at night at pathfinding speed w/ the ninja run type animation...MAN</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There has to be a purpose outside of the work people thats all im saying ( it cant just be yay i got the same Sash, fishbone earing, and armor as EVERY OTHER bruiser on my server!!!!)- so yeah gage- tank away thats fine - but the game isnt fun if its not fun. if we are alike and can do the same crap just in a different way thats not fun it just promotes a filler for your free time. I dont wanna be a Swiss chef and you be French chef and the bottom line is that we can both cook??? that concept would p.O. even the lousiest chef and totally degrade their hard work to get where they got in thier desired profession. period</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>THE SAGE </DIV></DIV>

[fur]

<DIV>Gage knows his class well and in that sense i respect him however he is off when it comes to bruisers, monks and bruisers do NOT have the same offensce /defence, bruisers in the high end game outdamage monks with ease with comparable skill levels/equip, we (bruisers that is) are on top of the warrior dps foodchain so this hurt us more then it does the monks, monks do not have the same offensive buffs neither the offensive damage skills we possess, they do however have very good utility buffs (they even have invis for gods sake! =) as well as very good group buffs and to top it off a targettable heal (mend line) and solid taunts  aoe and single. As long as we (bruisers) remain firmly planted as #1 in the warrior department when it comes to dps then im satisfied, regarding the pos/neg 5% vision thats nothing ive seen posted anywhere and so i guess thats wishful thinking on gages part, cause i dont see a coercer comin within 5% of a wizard's dps anytime soon but if gages vision falls through then they must and likewise a wizard will get 95% of the coercers utility , which i have a hard time seeing personally.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I think we will see alot more diversity when they have finished balancing, Moorgard also wrote that this is not final balancing in any way shape or form , and that they will continue evaluating and balancing, this game is still in its infancy , hell eq1 took almost 3 years before we had any resemblance of balance.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Peace </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Skull - Kithicor</DIV>

[Kwonryu_DragonFi]

Furok, dont compare Coercer with Wizard, compare with Illusionist.

[Rori]

<blockquote><hr>Ven_One wrote:Just came back to EQ2 after a month or so hiatus and I'm starting up a new brawler/bruiser. Just lurking on this board I've seen a lot of people refer to monks/bruisers as a "tank class". I was just wondering why people do that? Monks and Bruisers aren't, to my knowledge, a tank class, they're a "fighter" class. In everything I've read about either of the classes it's always stated that they'll have lower ac and higher damage. Now I think this is even more pronounced from what I'm reading.So, why do people insist on calling monks and bruisers tanks when they were obviously not meant to be so in the first place?<hr></blockquote>LOL not this again!!I play both a monk and a bruiser... both of them are tanks, don't care if people think we're supposed to be DPS or secondary tanks, they both MT. Fighters are supposed to all be able to tank with their own style, and I've played avoidance tanks in other games with great success. With the upcoming changes we'll be able to tank better than we have been (since the AGI deal).AC/HP are still a good way to go, but it takes strategy to tank with deflection. Either way it comes down to play style. Enjoy being an off tank/dps? go for it! monks/bruisers are great at it. Enjoy being an MT? again, go for it! monks/bruisers are decent at it.

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> furok wrote:<BR> <DIV>Gage knows his class well and in that sense i respect him however he is off when it comes to bruisers, monks and bruisers do NOT have the same offensce /defence, bruisers in the high end game outdamage monks with ease with comparable skill levels/equip, we (bruisers that is) are on top of the warrior dps foodchain so this hurt us more then it does the monks, monks do not have the same offensive buffs neither the offensive damage skills we possess, they do however have very good utility buffs (they even have invis for gods sake! =) as well as very good group buffs and to top it off a targettable heal (mend line) and solid taunts  aoe and single. As long as we (bruisers) remain firmly planted as #1 in the warrior department when it comes to dps then im satisfied, regarding the pos/neg 5% vision thats nothing ive seen posted anywhere and so i guess thats wishful thinking on gages part, cause i dont see a coercer comin within 5% of a wizard's dps anytime soon but if gages vision falls through then they must and likewise a wizard will get 95% of the coercers utility , which i have a hard time seeing personally.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I think we will see alot more diversity when they have finished balancing, Moorgard also wrote that this is not final balancing in any way shape or form , and that they will continue evaluating and balancing, this game is still in its infancy , hell eq1 took almost 3 years before we had any resemblance of balance.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Peace </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Skull - Kithicor</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I know that our subclasses aren't exactly the same, but their intended role is.  You guys should do the most damage out of the fighter tree and we should be right behind you, likewise we should tank a little better but you'll be right behind us.</P> <P>Its like a zerker/guardian comparison really, at least it should be.<BR></P>

[psubull]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ven_One wrote:<BR>Look, 95% of you aren't disagreeing with me at all, it's just a difference of opinion on what the term tank means. I already said that my defintion of tank differs than almost anyone who didn't play EQ1 as a tank. If you played EQ1 as a tank your definition of a tank is based on mitigation PERIOD. And Monk/bruiser just doesn't cut it in the mitigation department. In avoidance and damage we do (or did) fine, but that wasn't my point. My point was that there are mobs in this game that WILL hit you [FaarNerfed!] near every swing no matter what your avoidance and damage output are. And when it comes to fighting those mobs a monk/bruiser will not be the one you want being the main tank.<BR><BR>Do monk/bruisers tank 90% of regular encounters just fine? Yes.<BR>Do monk/bruisers satisfy the loose defintion of agro holder? Yes.<BR>Do monk/bruisers have the mitigation to tank huge high end encounters as well as the other "tanks"? No.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> In this situation, your opinion means jack.  It doesn't matter what your vision of a tank is, nor what their visions are.  It's all about what SOE wants tank to mean.  You cannot use your assumption on what a tank should be for one game by using what it meant in a different game.  That would be like calling a Dark Knight in FFXI a tank because in EQ, Shadow Knights were tanks.  The main argument across the entire board is that brawlers are not up to par with warrior/crusader subclasses as they are supposed to be (Stated by Moorguard, search for it).  You can't make the argument that bruisers and monks aren't tanks anymore, sorry, not happening.  The role of each of the 24 subclasses is not individual, as it was with classes in EQ,  It is based on the archetype.  Fighters have a role, scouts have a role, as do mages and priests.  Classes under an archetype do the same things DIFFERENTLY, but they don't do different things.  When things finally get polished out in the next few months, you'll realize that monks and bruisers should, and WILL, be able to tank anything a guardian or paladin would be able to tank.<BR><BR>How does this happen?  The SOE dev team will eventually come out with a good solution, making all fighter classes take the same damage in a fight (like they used to before the agility mess-up).   It should just be a difference in HOW the damage is dealt.  Sure, thinking about a bruiser tanking a dragon is laughable if you're an EQ nut, but if SOE's vision on bruisers comes true, then it should be possible.  Like SOE stated, there is no "best group."  You shouldn't need to always have a guardian or berserker or shadowknight tank, with a templar/inquisitor as the main healer.  When bruisers and monks finally get tanking skills, we will all breathe a sigh of relief.  Until then, I will continue to struggle and the healers will spam heals and wards as I attempt to tank blues/whites in EF/PF/Lava/CT.

[Raidi Sovin'faile]

<P><FONT color=#ffff00>My point was that there are mobs in this game that WILL hit you [FaarNerfed!] near every swing no matter what your avoidance and damage output are.</FONT></P> <P>I just think this is an odd statement to make. How in the world has anyone ever come to such a conclusion? If this is the entire basis of the "avoidance tanks won't work" argument, then I'd think it'd be best to go seek proof that such encounters/creatures exist before spouting off "maybe's" as some kind of fact that reinforces your point.</P> <P> </P> <P>And as for the "absurdity" of a martial artist tanking a dragon... why is it so hard to think of a cloth wearing agile warrior smacking a Dragon on its snout to get it's attention, angering it, and dodging this way and that after it attempts to retaliate.. further enraging it? That's scenarios I've seen and read about quite a few times myself, and they weren't "absurd" or "rediculous" seeming.</P> <P>Any game that includes a martial artist type is going to have some kind of aspect of story and scenario that deviates from the typical Medieval/European "Knight-in-shining-armor" aspect. This isn't Camelot... this isn't Knights of the Round... rather it's something that includes Martial Artists, as well as Evil folks (Necromancers, Shadow Knights, and Assassins) playing the role of the Hero.</P> <P>Try and wrap your head around that for a bit, and maybe you'll start to see and accept the game as it's being presented.</P>

[lordofdrago]

<blockquote><hr>Ven_One wrote:Just came back to EQ2 after a month or so hiatus and I'm starting up a new brawler/bruiser. Just lurking on this board I've seen a lot of people refer to monks/bruisers as a "tank class". I was just wondering why people do that? Monks and Bruisers aren't, to my knowledge, a tank class, they're a "fighter" class. In everything I've read about either of the classes it's always stated that they'll have lower ac and higher damage. Now I think this is even more pronounced from what I'm reading.So, why do people insist on calling monks and bruisers tanks when they were obviously not meant to be so in the first place?<hr></blockquote>It is too bad that you ask a simple question and some people on this board get angry and act like spoiled school girls. As others have said, the bottom is simply this:Bruisers can tank. By tank I mean be the primary focus of angry mobs during an encounter, and in so doing take the damage for all others in the group. Ignoring play style, 2 things are needed to tank. The ability to get and hold the attention of the encounter is first. Second, the ability to survive the beating that follows. Can Bruisers tank? Yes we can. At 44 I do tank sometimes. I'm asked to tank and I don't mind tanking. To be honest, I like tanking. The problem though is that as of this moment, there are many other fighter classes that tank better. So, the question becomes, why would any sane person want bruiser tanking *if* they can get a someone better at it doing? A normal group only needs 1 good main tank. It is uncommon that no guardians, beserkers, paladins, Shadow knights or monks are available. It happens, but it is rare.So, pay little mind to the rude people on this board. Bruiser aren't the best tanks but they can tank. You have to pick your battles though. An enounter with 4 yellow or orange 1ups is not going to be easy for me. An encounter with a single yellow or orange 2up often works very well for me though. We still have about the best damage output now. If you like that role, you can still excell in it too, that is the role most people expect us to fill.

[lordofdrago]

<blockquote><hr>psubullet wrote:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Ven_One wrote:<BR>Look, 95% of you aren't disagreeing with me at all, it's just a difference of opinion on what the term tank means. I already said that my defintion of tank differs than almost anyone who didn't play EQ1 as a tank. If you played EQ1 as a tank your definition of a tank is based on mitigation PERIOD. And Monk/bruiser just doesn't cut it in the mitigation department. In avoidance and damage we do (or did) fine, but that wasn't my point. My point was that there are mobs in this game that WILL hit you [FaarNerfed!] near every swing no matter what your avoidance and damage output are. And when it comes to fighting those mobs a monk/bruiser will not be the one you want being the main tank.<BR><BR>Do monk/bruisers tank 90% of regular encounters just fine? Yes.<BR>Do monk/bruisers satisfy the loose defintion of agro holder? Yes.<BR>Do monk/bruisers have the mitigation to tank huge high end encounters as well as the other "tanks"? No.<BR><HR></blockquote><BR><DIV></div>In this situation, your opinion means jack. It doesn't matter what your vision of a tank is, nor what their visions are. It's all about what SOE wants tank to mean. You cannot use your assumption on what a tank should be for one game by using what it meant in a different game. That would be like calling a Dark Knight in FFXI a tank because in EQ, Shadow Knights were tanks. The main argument across the entire board is that brawlers are not up to par with warrior/crusader subclasses as they are supposed to be (Stated by Moorguard, search for it). You can't make the argument that bruisers and monks aren't tanks anymore, sorry, not happening. The role of each of the 24 subclasses is not individual, as it was with classes in EQ, It is based on the archetype. Fighters have a role, scouts have a role, as do mages and priests. Classes under an archetype do the same things DIFFERENTLY, but they don't do different things. When things finally get polished out in the next few months, you'll realize that monks and bruisers should, and WILL, be able to tank anything a guardian or paladin would be able to tank.<BR><BR>How does this happen? The SOE dev team will eventually come out with a good solution, making all fighter classes take the same damage in a fight (like they used to before the agility mess-up). It should just be a difference in HOW the damage is dealt. Sure, thinking about a bruiser tanking a dragon is laughable if you're an EQ nut, but if SOE's vision on bruisers comes true, then it should be possible. Like SOE stated, there is no "best group." You shouldn't need to always have a guardian or berserker or shadowknight tank, with a templar/inquisitor as the main healer. When bruisers and monks finally get tanking skills, we will all breathe a sigh of relief. Until then, I will continue to struggle and the healers will spam heals and wards as I attempt to tank blues/whites in EF/PF/Lava/CT.<hr></blockquote>You are incorrect. Reality matters more than Sony's idea at any given time. Sony wanted Wizards to be the highest damage dealers. However, reality is that they really never have been. Will they fix it? Probably but that is not reality and never has been. Does that do anything at all for a wizard in game today? No.You state that all fighters used to take the same amount of damage. That clearly is not, nor has it EVER been true... and it probably never will true across all fighters. The whole reason for the AGI nerf was that brawlers with high AGI took far less damage than plate tanks. The whole reason for the light armor mitigation increase is because brawlers now take too much. You are incorrect is saying that it used to be the same. You are making a statement of fact that Sony has shown to not be true.

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> lordofdragons wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> psubullet wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ven_One wrote:<BR>Look, 95% of you aren't disagreeing with me at all, it's just a difference of opinion on what the term tank means. I already said that my defintion of tank differs than almost anyone who didn't play EQ1 as a tank. If you played EQ1 as a tank your definition of a tank is based on mitigation PERIOD. And Monk/bruiser just doesn't cut it in the mitigation department. In avoidance and damage we do (or did) fine, but that wasn't my point. My point was that there are mobs in this game that WILL hit you [FaarNerfed!] near every swing no matter what your avoidance and damage output are. And when it comes to fighting those mobs a monk/bruiser will not be the one you want being the main tank.<BR><BR>Do monk/bruisers tank 90% of regular encounters just fine? Yes.<BR>Do monk/bruisers satisfy the loose defintion of agro holder? Yes.<BR>Do monk/bruisers have the mitigation to tank huge high end encounters as well as the other "tanks"? No.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> In this situation, your opinion means jack. It doesn't matter what your vision of a tank is, nor what their visions are. It's all about what SOE wants tank to mean. You cannot use your assumption on what a tank should be for one game by using what it meant in a different game. That would be like calling a Dark Knight in FFXI a tank because in EQ, Shadow Knights were tanks. The main argument across the entire board is that brawlers are not up to par with warrior/crusader subclasses as they are supposed to be (Stated by Moorguard, search for it). You can't make the argument that bruisers and monks aren't tanks anymore, sorry, not happening. The role of each of the 24 subclasses is not individual, as it was with classes in EQ, It is based on the archetype. Fighters have a role, scouts have a role, as do mages and priests. Classes under an archetype do the same things DIFFERENTLY, but they don't do different things. When things finally get polished out in the next few months, you'll realize that monks and bruisers should, and WILL, be able to tank anything a guardian or paladin would be able to tank.<BR><BR>How does this happen? The SOE dev team will eventually come out with a good solution, making all fighter classes take the same damage in a fight (like they used to before the agility mess-up). It should just be a difference in HOW the damage is dealt. Sure, thinking about a bruiser tanking a dragon is laughable if you're an EQ nut, but if SOE's vision on bruisers comes true, then it should be possible. Like SOE stated, there is no "best group." You shouldn't need to always have a guardian or berserker or shadowknight tank, with a templar/inquisitor as the main healer. When bruisers and monks finally get tanking skills, we will all breathe a sigh of relief. Until then, I will continue to struggle and the healers will spam heals and wards as I attempt to tank blues/whites in EF/PF/Lava/CT.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>You are incorrect. <BR><BR>Reality matters more than Sony's idea at any given time. Sony wanted Wizards to be the highest damage dealers. However, reality is that they really never have been. Will they fix it? Probably but that is not reality and never has been. Does that do anything at all for a wizard in game today? No.<BR><BR>You state that all fighters used to take the same amount of damage. That clearly is not, nor has it EVER been true... and it probably never will true across all fighters. The whole reason for the AGI nerf was that brawlers with high AGI took far less damage than plate tanks. The whole reason for the light armor mitigation increase is because brawlers now take too much. You are incorrect is saying that it used to be the same. You are making a statement of fact that Sony has shown to not be true.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>You make good points, but we are talking about the design of the game for the long run, not the immediate future.  EQ1 is going on 5+ years, not two weeks.</P> <P>The design intention is to have every fighter able to be MT, with the damage taken over time being roughly the same for all classes BUT giving each individual subclass their own unique flavor and flair that makes them fun to play.</P> <P>After all the whole reason for the STR nerf is so scouts can outdamage fighters, and they are upping wiz/warlock DPS by a ton in the next patch.  So while your statements are true for today, they probably won't be true in the next couple of weeks, which is why living in the moment is so precarious.<BR></P>

[lordofdrago]

I agree with you that the "intent" is for all fighter to be able to tank. We are in sync there. I don't agree that the tanking ability of all fighters has been equal though. His statement was that all fighters took the same damage while tanking. That has never been true.I'm not sure that the intent is for there to be perfect balance. Moorgard has stated that indirectly. I think some MTs will take slightly more damage than other tanks while doing more damage. Other tanks will take less damage and probably do less damage. Just taking brawlers as an example. Monk are defensive brawlers and bruisers are offenive brawlers. They should be very close in most cases but not the same. A bigger extreme will be guardians and bruiser. These 2 classes are on the far end of the fighter scale. Guardians are billed as a class that takes a beating and defends others. Bruisers are billed as a class that dishes out beatdowns. They can both tank but I'd expect the damage taken and dealt to vary by a noticable amount. The end results shouldn't be exactly the same. The variables could be the level of the mobs, the number of mobs, positions of mobs, the other group members and type of mobs. I don't think Sony could get that balance if they wanted to without removing a lot of class differences... they are good but not THAT good.As a side note, I agree in principle with the changes. I shouldn't be able to smoke wizards in damage. They needed a boost. My beef with the changes is that all of this has been clear since day one. They did a [Removed for Content] poor job of testing and evaluating. When people are closing in on 50 or made 50, it is not the time to make major changes to class balance.

[Gaige]

<DIV>Then we agree totally then.  My vision of balance is not one where all of us are exactly the same, only interchangeable.  I don't except to have the same % of health left over after a hard encounter as say a guardian would, but only to be able to tank that encounter.</DIV>

[Ven_One]

<blockquote><hr>Raidi Sovin'faile wrote:<P><FONT color=#ffff00>My point was that there are mobs in this game that WILL hit you [FaarNerfed!] near every swing no matter what your avoidance and damage output are.</FONT></P><P>I just think this is an odd statement to make. How in the world has anyone ever come to such a conclusion? If this is the entire basis of the "avoidance tanks won't work" argument, then I'd think it'd be best to go seek proof that such encounters/creatures exist before spouting off "maybe's" as some kind of fact that reinforces your point.</P><P> </P><P>And as for the "absurdity" of a martial artist tanking a dragon... why is it so hard to think of a cloth wearing agile warrior smacking a Dragon on its snout to get it's attention, angering it, and dodging this way and that after it attempts to retaliate.. further enraging it? That's scenarios I've seen and read about quite a few times myself, and they weren't "absurd" or "rediculous" seeming.</P><P>Any game that includes a martial artist type is going to have some kind of aspect of story and scenario that deviates from the typical Medieval/European "Knight-in-shining-armor" aspect. This isn't Camelot... this isn't Knights of the Round... rather it's something that includes Martial Artists, as well as Evil folks (Necromancers, Shadow Knights, and Assassins) playing the role of the Hero.</P><P>Try and wrap your head around that for a bit, and maybe you'll start to see and accept the game as it's being presented.</P><hr></blockquote>How about this logic. If bruisers and monks are given the ability to avoid hits given by ^^^ raid mobs in the end game, then all other encounters will be completely trivial to them due to the awesome avoidance that would be needed to do so. Which of course would lead to screams of "broken!" from most other tank ATs. If bruisers and monks do NOT have the ability to avoid hits by ^^^ raid mobs in the end game then they are not "main tanks" as most people here insist they are. So, which is it?

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ven_One wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Raidi Sovin'faile wrote:<BR> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>My point was that there are mobs in this game that WILL hit you [FaarNerfed!] near every swing no matter what your avoidance and damage output are.</FONT></P> <P>I just think this is an odd statement to make. How in the world has anyone ever come to such a conclusion? If this is the entire basis of the "avoidance tanks won't work" argument, then I'd think it'd be best to go seek proof that such encounters/creatures exist before spouting off "maybe's" as some kind of fact that reinforces your point.</P> <P></P> <P>And as for the "absurdity" of a martial artist tanking a dragon... why is it so hard to think of a cloth wearing agile warrior smacking a Dragon on its snout to get it's attention, angering it, and dodging this way and that after it attempts to retaliate.. further enraging it? That's scenarios I've seen and read about quite a few times myself, and they weren't "absurd" or "rediculous" seeming.</P> <P>Any game that includes a martial artist type is going to have some kind of aspect of story and scenario that deviates from the typical Medieval/European "Knight-in-shining-armor" aspect. This isn't Camelot... this isn't Knights of the Round... rather it's something that includes Martial Artists, as well as Evil folks (Necromancers, Shadow Knights, and Assassins) playing the role of the Hero.</P> <P>Try and wrap your head around that for a bit, and maybe you'll start to see and accept the game as it's being presented.</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>How about this logic. If bruisers and monks are given the ability to avoid hits given by ^^^ raid mobs in the end game, then all other encounters will be completely trivial to them due to the awesome avoidance that would be needed to do so. Which of course would lead to screams of "broken!" from most other tank ATs. If bruisers and monks do NOT have the ability to avoid hits by ^^^ raid mobs in the end game then they are not "main tanks" as most people here insist they are. <BR><BR>So, which is it?<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Why would the ability to avoid a raid encounters hits (not all of the, just some) make all other encounters trivial?<BR>

[Mie]

<DIV>How about a remove Brusier/Monk 's Build in shield ?  so that they need hold a stupid buckler to tank ? </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If Brusier can tank , SOE is out of their mind</DIV>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Mielx wrote:<BR> <DIV>How about a remove Brusier/Monk 's Build in shield ?  so that they need hold a stupid buckler to tank ? </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>If Brusier can tank , SOE is out of their mind</FONT></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>*sigh*</P> <P>Go complain on the zerker forums Mielx, your flames are not welcome here.<BR></P> <p>Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on <span class=date_text>02-14-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:38 PM</span>

[Mie]

<DIV>is it part of RoC ? /sigh </DIV><p>Message Edited by Mielx on <span class=date_text>02-14-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:54 PM</span>

[Ven_One]

<blockquote><hr>Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Ven_One wrote:<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Raidi Sovin'faile wrote:<BR><P><FONT color=#ffff00>My point was that there are mobs in this game that WILL hit you [FaarNerfed!] near every swing no matter what your avoidance and damage output are.</FONT></P><P>I just think this is an odd statement to make. How in the world has anyone ever come to such a conclusion? If this is the entire basis of the "avoidance tanks won't work" argument, then I'd think it'd be best to go seek proof that such encounters/creatures exist before spouting off "maybe's" as some kind of fact that reinforces your point.</P><P></P><P>And as for the "absurdity" of a martial artist tanking a dragon... why is it so hard to think of a cloth wearing agile warrior smacking a Dragon on its snout to get it's attention, angering it, and dodging this way and that after it attempts to retaliate.. further enraging it? That's scenarios I've seen and read about quite a few times myself, and they weren't "absurd" or "rediculous" seeming.</P><P>Any game that includes a martial artist type is going to have some kind of aspect of story and scenario that deviates from the typical Medieval/European "Knight-in-shining-armor" aspect. This isn't Camelot... this isn't Knights of the Round... rather it's something that includes Martial Artists, as well as Evil folks (Necromancers, Shadow Knights, and Assassins) playing the role of the Hero.</P><P>Try and wrap your head around that for a bit, and maybe you'll start to see and accept the game as it's being presented.</P><BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>How about this logic. If bruisers and monks are given the ability to avoid hits given by ^^^ raid mobs in the end game, then all other encounters will be completely trivial to them due to the awesome avoidance that would be needed to do so. Which of course would lead to screams of "broken!" from most other tank ATs. If bruisers and monks do NOT have the ability to avoid hits by ^^^ raid mobs in the end game then they are not "main tanks" as most people here insist they are. <BR><BR>So, which is it?<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Why would the ability to avoid a raid encounters hits (not all of the, just some) make all other encounters trivial?<BR><hr></blockquote>Ok, this is assumption here since I haven't seen these levels, so please do fill me in on what I'm guessing wrong. But I would assume that a ^^^ raid mob would have a much higher hit roll than a normal ^^. Is this incorrect? If not a bruiser or monks ability to avoid a ^^^ would logically make a ^^ trivial to avoid unless there is some funky scaling intrinsic to the game.

[Raidi Sovin'faile]

<DIV>Level and Agi differences are what determines how often something will hit or miss (level because it determines the max skill on your skills, etc).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The ^^^ rating won't increase a creature's level, rather it increases the stats. It's almost like considering the target a "very well equipped or statted creature". More hitpoints, power, and stats.. better quality weapons, etc.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Back in beta, when they had the ^ and v things for conning PCs, not just NPCs, I could look at myself with F1 and see my con was vv... until I got an equipment upgrade to orange items, and then I was ^.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So the most difference you'd see between a ^^ and a ^^^ is that the triple up Raid creature would probably have a slightly better Agi. So a slight decrease in "misses", but nothing to do with the max skills, etc.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>They also do more damage, have more power to do more abilities, and generally have better abilities and more health to last longer and do that much more damage.</DIV> <DIV>The actual "getting hit" is not a large gap to be worried about (in that they would break the game making you able to tank ^^^ by avoidance).</DIV>

[SageMarrow]

<DIV>Well after posting early on in this forum, i still stand firmly on my personal point- im not saying that we have to be able to NOT TANK but i do say openly that it should not be one of our best attributes or even close to it for that matter. of course this will be an issue and make a big difference when soloing just for the fact that we can take a 300pt punch now that will then be 180pts. making a big difference especially with our solo dmg out put = but the big issue here is the tanking- i played a warrior in eq1 for years and it never was any more fun than it is today- buff buff taunt taunt attack rinse repeat. no real strategy involved- thats why i chose this class- cause i after playing to lvl 20 i found myself enjoying the martial artist class cause standing back casting aint for me and im definately not a sk or pal fan. with that being said - this class is one of the most complex that ive ever played without question</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> = versatile and potent and able to manage a battle 1 step behind an enchanter- (dps tradeoff for the sticking mez). running around on a daily i see inq and templ and even the occasional scout running around with just as much ac as me. and yes i do have top notch armor for my level. so that leads me to believe along side of our spells that we have more of a grp body guard type feel in grp more than MT. when i say Body Guard - i mean being able to take a punch and kick but in the same breath, manage adds as well as aggro on casters etc. ( darn sure wouldnt use rescue on the grp guardian...) </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>i know theres alot yet to be done but the point im trying to make and everyone ignores is that no... i dont want COMPLETE balance- at lowet levels yes to keep from the entire class migration that was explained - but at higher levels after the hard work etc, you should be given a defined roll for grping - and we say that balance promotes the long term play but in reality it dulls it down GREATLY, just to know that im a guardian or a beserker that looks different..no just plain ole no. a tuant is a taunt and a shout is a shout- no matter what the gimmick to using it- i want a role and i want it to be apparent not just alike but different in a similar way- that will get majorly old... personally i like killing mobs faster attacking from behind and managing the fight- now this may not be anyone elses preference- is it moreso about the principle of what you were fed at open game or would you still attempt to be MT with a guardian in grp...? realistically speaking  - whats the point? so which therefore leaves me wondering is it the principle or the matter or the actual skill to tank..?  personally instead of trying to tank how about trying to be the one class that keeps thier damage bonus with high strength???  </DIV>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SageMarrow wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>personally instead of trying to tank how about trying to be the one class that keeps thier damage bonus with high strength???  </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>So what archetype would you want to be moved to?<BR>

[Ven_One]

I just think that the option should be there for those who want to go all str and not be a tank to do so. There are a lot of people like me who want to be a damage dealer, but don't want to be a scout or mage. Right now it looks like SOE is going to take that option away from all brawler types by making all fighter ATs do roughly the same damage.Not really sure of the logic behind that one. I mean, because the pixels look different when you're hitting something doesn't mean a lot of people won't notice that every fighter does the same thing...no matter what. I want to be a FIGHTER for god sake, a bruiser that lays down the damage. I have no interest in being a main tank. And don't tell me to play a scout. I don't want to be a scout. I want to be a bruiser ;p.

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ven_One wrote:<BR>I just think that the option should be there for those who want to go all str and not be a tank to do so. There are a lot of people like me who want to be a damage dealer, but don't want to be a scout or mage. Right now it looks like SOE is going to take that option away from all brawler types by making all fighter ATs do roughly the same damage.<BR><BR>Not really sure of the logic behind that one. I mean, because the pixels look different when you're hitting something doesn't mean a lot of people won't notice that every fighter does the same thing...no matter what. I want to be a FIGHTER for god sake, a bruiser that lays down the damage. I have no interest in being a main tank. And don't tell me to play a scout. I don't want to be a scout. I want to be a bruiser ;p.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>:p</P> <P>I mean I don't know what to tell you really, other than its been stated numerous times that fighter = tank.</P> <P>A different kind of a tank, a fun and unique tank depending upon class, but... a tank.<BR></P> <p>Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on <span class=date_text>02-15-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:49 AM</span>

[SageMarrow]

<DIV>okay i just had a BIG issue just now and it probably has a place all its own on this forum.. but here i am in the TS and cool- im looking for a grp not a problem - cant find a grp so hey - lets go solo some greens... not a problem  - i get to the bloodsaber gnoll pond and theres a guardian there soloing grps of 6-7 green gnolls and hes one level lower than me. im like okay lets see somn- me and him talk for a second - he doesnt even get to yellow in his life- no sheild at all two dagger type weapons with 1.2 delay- my stats and agi and ac were all higher than his...i got weapons just bought em pristined conditioned ash fighting batons... cool - walked down politely to the gnoll grp of the same 6-7 and im almost wiped before dispatching one of the gnolls... JUST ONE... so yea we might just have an issue with our tanking ability... something needs to be done.. hell for the most part he killed just as fast as i would have and i was spamming combat arts like a mad man... w/ a nice amount of parries misses ripostes etc. so yeah if its the mitigation then fine- but it wont anywhere near catch us up with them on any level and thats at level 28!! thats crazy -- i felt violated - i had to totallly FD and the mobs went over to her - she killed em = moved on to the next kill with no problem at all- two green 1 ups... two green  1 ups = death for me and ive known it for a while now = i thought  the regular ones wouldnt be an issue- heck i dont know what going on but that really puts a damper on my game tonight- especially since i couldnt find a grp= didnt know that soloing w/ any substantial benefit was out of the question- i used to do this all the time in the CL with the orc groups at lower levels etc... but this aint even an option... so maybe ill go run around the commons and do the bootstrutters quest till we get some thangs resolved lol. </DIV>

[lordofdrago]

<blockquote><hr>SageMarrow wrote:<DIV>Well after posting early on in this forum, i still stand firmly on my personal point- im not saying that we have to be able to NOT TANK but i do say openly that it should not be one of our best attributes or even close to it for that matter. of course this will be an issue and make a big difference when soloing just for the fact that we can take a 300pt punch now that will then be 180pts. making a big difference especially with our solo dmg out put = but the big issue here is the tanking- i played a warrior in eq1 for years and it never was any more fun than it is today- buff buff taunt taunt attack rinse repeat. no real strategy involved- thats why i chose this class- cause i after playing to lvl 20 i found myself enjoying the martial artist class cause standing back casting aint for me and im definately not a sk or pal fan. with that being said - this class is one of the most complex that ive ever played without question</div><DIV> </div><DIV> = versatile and potent and able to manage a battle 1 step behind an enchanter- (dps tradeoff for the sticking mez). running around on a daily i see inq and templ and even the occasional scout running around with just as much ac as me. and yes i do have top notch armor for my level. so that leads me to believe along side of our spells that we have more of a grp body guard type feel in grp more than MT. when i say Body Guard - i mean being able to take a punch and kick but in the same breath, manage adds as well as aggro on casters etc. ( darn sure wouldnt use rescue on the grp guardian...) </div><DIV> </div><DIV>i know theres alot yet to be done but the point im trying to make and everyone ignores is that no... i dont want COMPLETE balance- at lowet levels yes to keep from the entire class migration that was explained - but at higher levels after the hard work etc, you should be given a defined roll for grping - and we say that balance promotes the long term play but in reality it dulls it down GREATLY, just to know that im a guardian or a beserker that looks different..no just plain ole no. a tuant is a taunt and a shout is a shout- no matter what the gimmick to using it- i want a role and i want it to be apparent not just alike but different in a similar way- that will get majorly old... personally i like killing mobs faster attacking from behind and managing the fight- now this may not be anyone elses preference- is it moreso about the principle of what you were fed at open game or would you still attempt to be MT with a guardian in grp...? realistically speaking - whats the point? so which therefore leaves me wondering is it the principle or the matter or the actual skill to tank..? personally instead of trying to tank how about trying to be the one class that keeps thier damage bonus with high strength??? </div><hr></blockquote>I agree with you that tanking only USUALLY doesn't require most thought. However, this is not EQ1. In EQ1 monks and bards pulled. The main tank also pulls now. That requires a lot of thought. I would say that a good tank can be the most important person in the group.A good main tank understands what each group is capable of defeating. (used to be monks job in EQ1)A good main tank will pull mobs that the group can defeat and no more. (Used to be monks job in EQ1)A good main tank knows the area, knows the safe spots, the traps and the buggy spots. (Used to be monks job in EQ1)A good main tank holds argo of all encounters, and there are more than 1 encounter in camp at times... This can [FAAR-NERFED!] hard.A good main tank kill multiple targets in teh right order.. not just hiting F8 everytime.A good tank knows how to avoid adds. (Used to be monks job in EQ1)A good tank takes a beating for everyone else and lives to tell.The difference between a good tank and a so-so, I'm bored tank is the difference between 30% exp for the session and 5% exp plus 10% debt. It is much harder now to be a tank. If you like it though, it is much more fun.To be honest, the DPS role is the most boring role. Set your keys up right and all you have to do is follow and push buttons.

[lordofdrago]

<blockquote><hr>SageMarrow wrote:<DIV>okay i just had a BIG issue just now and it probably has a place all its own on this forum.. but here i am in the TS and cool- im looking for a grp not a problem - cant find a grp so hey - lets go solo some greens... not a problem - i get to the bloodsaber gnoll pond and theres a guardian there soloing grps of 6-7 green gnolls and hes one level lower than me. im like okay lets see somn- me and him talk for a second - he doesnt even get to yellow in his life- no sheild at all two dagger type weapons with 1.2 delay- my stats and agi and ac were all higher than his...i got weapons just bought em pristined conditioned ash fighting batons... cool - walked down politely to the gnoll grp of the same 6-7 and im almost wiped before dispatching one of the gnolls... JUST ONE... so yea we might just have an issue with our tanking ability... something needs to be done.. hell for the most part he killed just as fast as i would have and i was spamming combat arts like a mad man... w/ a nice amount of parries misses ripostes etc. so yeah if its the mitigation then fine- but it wont anywhere near catch us up with them on any level and thats at level 28!! thats crazy -- i felt violated - i had to totallly FD and the mobs went over to her - she killed em = moved on to the next kill with no problem at all- two green 1 ups... two green 1 ups = death for me and ive known it for a while now = i thought the regular ones wouldnt be an issue- heck i dont know what going on but that really puts a damper on my game tonight- especially since i couldnt find a grp= didnt know that soloing w/ any substantial benefit was out of the question- i used to do this all the time in the CL with the orc groups at lower levels etc... but this aint even an option... so maybe ill go run around the commons and do the bootstrutters quest till we get some thangs resolved lol. </div><hr></blockquote>Thats ok.All fighters are not equal. Also, the equipemnt and adepts of you 2 would have to be compared. By that I don't mean is it all orange. There can still be best of the best orange and junk orange. Maybe he had some key adept III skills, that could make a difference. Even if all that is even, you will always find some other class that can do something better than you. You have to find out what you do better than other classes and to do that you need to understand your class. They key to that encounter was being able to take a beating from a lot of mobs at once for a long period of time. Guardians are better than brawlers large numbers in an encounter. I think you tried to race a fish at a swim meet. With 6 - 7 mobs, if they surround you, you will get hit a lot, without mitigation you are toast. The guardian had mitigation which always works. That is a huge difference in this case. An enounter of 1 or 2 would have been a better comparison. You picked about the worst type of enounter to compare in my opinion.<p>Message Edited by lordofdragons on <span class=date_text>02-15-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:08 AM</span>

[SageMarrow]

<DIV>well yeah Lord, i know that much... it wasnt so much baout the brute comparison of the two- but one should outweigh the other was moreso my issue- where as i was dispatched before even killing one mob- he killed 6 without reaching yellow status on life... to boot he was a level lower than me with lower ac= now yeah the spells fine- but if 1-2 spells make that kind of diff lol- i dont know what to say. i would like to say that we do more dps- and i know that to be fact - so what is it the dps or the mitigation... ? and just for reference- none of it is that exciting - yeah i would say that tank is the most exciting roll now but thats a bad gauge of excitement... lol the excitement comes when you have made an adept 3 spell for the first time - or when you are at 99% exp... on that final kill- in between time its all just fluff on the excitement scale to be honest. but back to my point, even with my higher dps- it would take me about 20% shorter time to kill an enemy where as i take 60% more damage.  hurts to type it but i feel like a glorified scout with a metal chin... thats moreso my point- if you had to trade intimidating orders or staggering stance for smuggle track evac and backstabs or bard songs -- lol we are at a serious loss. not whining or complaining - just stating fact -- ill be right back on playing my bruiser after the patch. just a little stitch of undeniable reality thats all. the dps is fine = but if we are dps i dont mind that - kinda like it, .. along with my skills to do what i enjoy doing which is managing fights... dont mind tanking - kinda like that too, still in all- i would like to be able to be called one or the other - dps or tank- uber dmg which is soon to be nerfed = or = or ability to tank or at least take the [Removed for Content] damage. i say this because i studied the game for months before release and i study all the classes as they evolve- i love the game - not in a crazy dont have a life kinda way- just really looked forward to it - and refuse to let early jitters sway my experience-  </DIV>

[lordofdrago]

Yeah, I understand your issue.Inspect the person next time or ask them if they are an alt. Rough Coral costs 20 gold now. Coral is used to 10 to 19 adept III spells and skills. I don't think first time level 10 to 19 characters can aford that and other gear. I think higher level mains are equiping alts and rerolls. If there person was one of those, that might help explain it too.Seriously though, you are taking on up to 7 mobs. That is an extreme encounter for us. That is the very last position a brawler wants to be in. Brawlers rely on avoiding damage, because when they get hit it hurts. It is hard to avoid getting hit when 7 mobs are surrounding you and swinging. It's not about dealing damage, it's about being able to get beat on by a butt load of nasties. Even if you do twice as much damage as the guardian, you would probably still die... You would just die on mob number 3 instead of the mob number 1. Taking on armies is not our thing. One on one, you could tank the same green single and kill it faster probably.

[SomeDudeCRO]

I think alot of you picked the wrong class to play, since your idea of what the bruiser is supposed to be is conflicting with SOE's intent and the reality of the class.They are only going to lower your dps, like all the other fighters.