DPS scaled down?

[Sa]

<DIV>I dont know about the rest of you but I find this to be disturbing. In EQ1 I played a Paladin and all I was good for was tanking and minor heals. I started a bruiser in this game so I wouldnt be a MT all the time. Why cant SOE make up their mnds. In the description of a bruiser (original) it states we honed our bodies into lethal WEAPONS in order to BEAT things into submission. Well I might be stupid but that sounds like a DPS class to me. Why do they have to scale down damage for a class as a whole? Where does it state that a scout should be able to outdamage a bruiser? In my opinion we are fine the way we are. We dont where plate our weapons are very limited and hardly any quests are bruiser specific. How many more things must we endure?  Surely just cause im a fighter shouldnt mean I cant put out damage.</DIV>

[Opa]

<DIV>The lore description, indeed, does not make us sound like tanks. However, the development team has stated that the degree to which they hold lore descriptions of classes as binding upon their efforts to make this a good and balanced game minimal.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>More, it isn't as though we're going to be tuned down the the point of having something like 20 dps or something like that. We'll pay somewhat in DPS for the ability to tank, which I think is appropriate. But it's not as though our DPS will go from high to nothing. More probable, it will go from high to moderate, falling behind mages and scouts (classes that can't tank).</DIV>

[ganjookie]

<div></div><span>In regards to highlighted text:<blockquote><hr>Sazz wrote:<div>I dont know about the rest of you but I find this to be disturbing. In EQ1 I played a Paladin and all I was good for was tanking and minor heals. I started a bruiser in this game so I wouldnt be a MT all the time. Why cant SOE make up their mnds. In the description of a bruiser (original) it states we honed our bodies into lethal WEAPONS in order to BEAT things into submission. Well I might be stupid but that sounds like a DPS class to me. Why do they have to scale down damage for a class as a whole? <font color="#ff0000">Where does it state that a scout should be able to outdamage a bruiser? </font>In my opinion we are fine the way we are. We dont where plate our weapons are very limited and hardly any quests are bruiser specific. How many more things must we endure?  Surely just cause im a fighter shouldnt mean I cant put out damage.</div><hr></blockquote>I found this after 10 secs of using the search feature:http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=spellart&message.id=45984&query.id=0#M45984</span><hr>Moorgard wrote:<p>In the current game, fighters do high DPS and tank extremely well. This isn't confined to one or two subclasses, but rather encompasses all of them. This statement will no doubt spark the "No way, my subclass is way broken compared to that other fighter subclass!" but regardless of that, my basic statement is correct.</p><p>As I said in my post last night, one goal with the changes is to reinforce archetype roles. <font color="#ff0000">In the balance between fighters and scouts, this means that fighters will be able to tank better than scouts, and scouts will be able to do more damage than fighters. </font>Again, that's painting this issue with the broadest possible strokes; obviously there is a lot of variance that will happen based on subclass.</p><p>Keep in mind that we are adjusting the game as a whole during this process, not just the damage output of certain classes. It won't just be fighters that do less damage, but likely everyone in the game: players and NPCs alike. This will have the net effect of making fights last a bit longer, which is a good thing for those classes like enchanters and bards that excel in things like crowd control, group enhancements, etc.</p><p>As you can see, none of these factors exist in a vacuum, which is what makes all this such an involved process. But yes, when all is said and done, scouts will end up doing more damage than fighters.</p><p>===========================MoorgardEverQuest II Community Guy</p><hr><p></p><span></span><div></div>

[ins4nity11]

<P><FONT color=#0033ff>I dont really like this.  I chose the subclass, becuase of hearing how much damage they do.  If i wanted to tank, i wouldve chosen ANY other fighter subclass, and I would be a better tank.  However, thats just my opinion, guess i'll have to reroll for the seventh time =(.</FONT></P>

[ganjookie]

Good luck on your next subclass..... 7 times man o' man...<span><blockquote><hr>ins4nity11 wrote:<p><font color="#0033ff">I dont really like this.  I chose the subclass, becuase of hearing how much damage they do.  If i wanted to tank, i wouldve chosen ANY other fighter subclass, and I would be a better tank.  However, thats just my opinion, guess i'll have to reroll for the seventh time =(.</font></p> <div></div><hr></blockquote></span><div></div>

[Cast]

Youd think the name bruiser would give a hint to some people. If we were meant to be like a guardian wouldnt the name bruised have fit better?

[ganjookie]

<span><blockquote><hr>Castor wrote:Youd think the name bruiser would give a hint to some people. If we were meant to be like a guardian wouldnt the name bruised have fit better? <div></div><hr></blockquote>"Bruiser" actually sounds like a DPS class, not a meatshield.  Although they should realize bruiser = brawler = fighter.</span><div></div>

[VonStein]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> ganjookie wrote:<BR> <SPAN>In regards to highlighted text:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sazz wrote:<BR> <DIV>I dont know about the rest of you but I find this to be disturbing. In EQ1 I played a Paladin and all I was good for was tanking and minor heals. I started a bruiser in this game so I wouldnt be a MT all the time. Why cant SOE make up their mnds. In the description of a bruiser (original) it states we honed our bodies into lethal WEAPONS in order to BEAT things into submission. Well I might be stupid but that sounds like a DPS class to me. Why do they have to scale down damage for a class as a whole? <FONT color=#ff0000>Where does it state that a scout should be able to outdamage a bruiser? </FONT>In my opinion we are fine the way we are. We dont where plate our weapons are very limited and hardly any quests are bruiser specific. How many more things must we endure?  Surely just cause im a fighter shouldnt mean I cant put out damage.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>I found this after 10 secs of using the search feature:<BR>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=spellart&message.id=45984&query.id=0#M45984<BR></SPAN> <HR> <BR>Moorgard wrote:<BR><BR> <P>In the current game, fighters do high DPS and tank extremely well. This isn't confined to one or two subclasses, but rather encompasses all of them. This statement will no doubt spark the "No way, my subclass is way broken compared to that other fighter subclass!" but regardless of that, my basic statement is correct.</P> <P>As I said in my post last night, one goal with the changes is to reinforce archetype roles. <FONT color=#ff0000>In the balance between fighters and scouts, this means that fighters will be able to tank better than scouts, and scouts will be able to do more damage than fighters. </FONT>Again, that's painting this issue with the broadest possible strokes; obviously there is a lot of variance that will happen based on subclass.</P> <P>Keep in mind that we are adjusting the game as a whole during this process, not just the damage output of certain classes. It won't just be fighters that do less damage, but likely everyone in the game: players and NPCs alike. This will have the net effect of making fights last a bit longer, which is a good thing for those classes like enchanters and bards that excel in things like crowd control, group enhancements, etc.</P> <P>As you can see, none of these factors exist in a vacuum, which is what makes all this such an involved process. But yes, when all is said and done, scouts will end up doing more damage than fighters.</P> <P>===========================<BR>Moorgard<BR>EverQuest II Community Guy<BR></P> <HR> <P><BR></P><SPAN></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Sooo... what yer saying is that everyone should have to search every post on a board, and disregard what the "Official" Docs and players manual says... because the board is right and the docs, even the updated players manual says nothing about this....</P> <P>Sorry... but being in software development... specificaly in charge of testing and documentation, if I did this to a corporate client I'd be hosed....</P>

[Spice-uh-nat]

As people have stated in many posts before this (not this one, others) the player's manual is more fore people who want to roleplay, Moorgard has states cleary (he's a dev) and many times that we're not supposed to have uber dps, but be almost on par tanking with the rest of the tanks. /tired_of_explaining_things on

[Redbed]

<DIV>"Moorgard has states cleary (he's a dev) "</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Dude, Theres this EQ Dev named Rich Waters that tried to do some damage control after the Monk mitagation nerf.  One thing he said was "We gave you guys pulling"  stating that they...SOE, Verant, Whoever....had planned for, implemented and given monks the ability to pull in EQ.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Anyone who played a Monk from EQ Release to the Nerf knows what a ridiculous bald face lie this statement was.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So take what anyone says, dev or not with a grain of salt.  IF they set out originally to make Bruisers a Defensive class vice a Offensive .....then they failed miserably.  Cause I can do substantially more damage more efficiently  then I can take.  Either way.  Ill say it again.  Theyre poor developers or poor coders.  Take your pick, but they are essentially flawed.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I intended to make cinnimon toast this morning, couldnt find the cinnimon and had to make brown sugar toast.  It was still toast, but it wasnt cinnimon toast.....you see where Im going with this?  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'll say it more plainly.  I play a bruiser.  I know what the class can do.  I dont care what Moorgard says, I dont care what Jezekial says.  I know what class Im playing.  Change it or dont.  But dont try to sell me a line of BS about what was intended.  </DIV>

[Opa]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Redbed wrote:</BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>I'll say it more plainly.  I play a bruiser.  I know what the class can do.  I dont care what Moorgard says, I dont care what Jezekial says.  I know what class Im playing.  Change it or dont.  But dont try to sell me a line of BS about what was intended.  </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>What this class can do depends heavily on what Moorgard and other dev's think it SHOULD be able to do. I mean, you don't have to care what he says, but there's one important thing to remember: he's one of the people who make decisions abour how this game will be, and you're not. Neither am I. You can swallow the dev's vision, or you can quit, or you can do your best job to make a coherent and well-thought case for why things should be the way you want them. That's all I'm doing (and I would guess Jeze too). <BR>

[furydruid]

<DIV>Well personally, I love being versatile enough to get picked for groups as a DPS or a tank.  Do I expect that to change when they release the combat changes?  No, not really.  We will stay exactly where we are: the highest DPS subclass of all the fighter classes.  Besides, any brawler-type who says they started the class just to be a DPS is laughable ... you have a taunt button (several, in fact), don't be afraid to use it <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  If you don't, you're just not experiencing all that our truely great class has to offer. </DIV>

[Ute]

I'm posting this as someone with a high level Swashbuckler and Fury, and now a mid-level(and rising) Bruiser.  Having the perspective of playing a swashbuckler to the near end game and then playing a Bruiser is somewhat interesting.  For those who have never played the class, it is actually quite surprising how similar the two are, and yet how very different. Swashbucklers are very much the scout/fighter hybrid of the scout class.  They get taunts and lots of hate management tools.  They get mez and snare, haste moves, etc. Bruisers are very much a hybrid too(from my experience so far at least).  They of course get taunts and such.  But, they get a lot of dps enhancing tools.  They don't get mez and snare, but they *do* get stun and fear, which are used to near similar effect. If you actually go through the spell lists of both classes, you can see where they both sort of blurr the lines between the architypes.  My hubby has a monk and I see similar things there too. Now, all that said, here is the problem.  I can say with experience in playing both a swashy and a bruiser, that bruisers have the advantage 90% of the time.  While, yes, as long as the critter does not have immunity/high resist to slashing/piercing, my swashbuckler will do more damage every time, it is pretty startling how close bruisers can get dps wise.  Comparing my bruiser at her level to my swashbuckler at her level, my bruiser is always close to, if not sometimes equal to or beating my swashbuckler in damage. Looking at it from a damage perspective alone, that's fine if they are close.  But there is something else you have to factor in: Defense.  Bruiser defense is superior in every way to scout defense, even when the bruiser is in full offensive mode.  I know because I've played both classes.  My swashy, the most defensively capable of the scouts, can't even compare defensively to my Bruiser. So, you end up with a situation where you have two classes that are very similar, if not almost identical, to each other offensively, but the other is vastly superior defensively.  That means you have a real imbalance.  Now, all this isn't even factoring in the fact that as bruisers we don't have to worry about position near as much.  Sure we do to make sure we get optimal hits, but our attacks aren't positional like half a swashbuckler's is.  All of which causes scouts to have serious soloing problems too. That said, I'm not saying nerf bruiser dps.  As a matter of fact, I hope they just make swashbuckler offense better.  Since I have a character in both classes, that means it's win/win for me if they do that <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  And I'm certainly not going to recommend a course of action and direction for Bruisers, I leave that to those of you who are far more experienced in the class than I am, and are better qualified to make that kind of judgement. But, I can say as a very experienced Swashbuckler, and up and coming Bruiser, that there really is a balance problem here and I can speak accurately on that because I can make the comparison.  So, there is a problem that does need fixing.  Does that mean nerf bruiser dps?  I sure hope it doesn't.  But, the gulf is still there regardless. <div></div>

[ganjookie]

<span><blockquote><hr>VonSteinan wrote: <blockquote> <hr>Sooo... what yer saying is that everyone should have to search every post on a board, and disregard what the "Official" Docs and players manual says... because the board is right and the docs, even the updated players manual says nothing about this....</blockquote><p>Sorry... but being in software development... specificaly in charge of testing and documentation, if I did this to a corporate client I'd be hosed....</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>1.  I did not say  you should search EVERY post on the board.  That is what the search feature is for.  Please look to the bottom of the screen if you have not seen this feature.  If you need help on searching, please ask. 2. As for the Docs and Manuals, Im sure tehre are otehr statements already saying how it is for RPers and not a text be used for class descriptions.  They should update that info so that problems and misscommunications like this do not  occur again. 3. We are not a corporate customer, therefore nobody will be hosed.</span><div></div>

[Atonal]

Routinely hosed by corporate... Oh, EQ2 forums...sorry... <div></div>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Redbed wrote: <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'll say it more plainly.  I play a bruiser.  I know what the class can do.  I dont care what Moorgard says, I dont care what Jezekial says.  I know what class Im playing.  Change it or dont.  But dont try to sell me a line of BS about what was intended. <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Redbed I'm going to give you a B+ for effort, but you are surely no Sage.</P> <P>As for "playing a bruiser, and knowing what the class can do" -- so does Moorgard, and so does Jezekiel, among many others.</P> <P>I'm glad you don't care what Moor or Jez say, that's your deal; just realize that sitting in the corner with your eyes closed and hands over your ears won't benefit you in the long run, nor will wishing for things that don't suit SOE's vision or intentions.</P> <P>As for "selling you a line of BS" - I don't see that at all, I just see you as jaded due to your time in EQ1, honestly.</P> <P>Oh, and someone *does* care about what Jezekiel has to say about his class and the game, and that's SOE.  That's why he is part of the Community Summit before Fan Faire, chosen to help represent a part of SOE's community.  So you can go ahead and start complaining now, because I will be there along with Jezekiel talking about our respective classes.</P> <P>I hope you end up getting what you want out of the class and the game Redbed, but you can certainly learn how to be a little less confrontational.<BR></P>

[Redbed]

<DIV>"I hope you end up getting what you want out of the class and the game Redbed, but you can certainly learn how to be a little less confrontational."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Heh....The Less Confrontational Bruiser.....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Yes, I can see that.  Oh exuse me mr. <insert mob name here>.  Would you just mind giving me that loot you would drop if I killed you.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And now the further Adventures of Alexyi.....The less confrontational bruiser.....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Sorry, somehow I just dont think I can pull it off with a straight face....</DIV>

[Opa]

When Gage was suggesting to be a little less confrontational, I think he was probably addressing the human being (the one who doesn't wear armor, run around with clubs, and kill things). More power to you roleplaying a bruiser in the game, but this isn't really the place for it. I mean, after all, would a bruiser really bother to troll an internet message board? I think not. <div></div>

[Cast]

<DIV>As far as I know there are only a few things that make a bruiser and a monk alike. Armor, fist weapons and avoid over mitigation. SO why is a monk trying tot tell a bruiser how to act?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Gage keep your brown nosing body to your monk boards and dont speak for the bruisers.   </DIV>

[Opa]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Castor wrote:<div>As far as I know there are only a few things that make a bruiser and a monk alike. Armor, fist weapons and avoid over mitigation. SO why is a monk trying tot tell a bruiser how to act?</div> <div> </div> <div>Gage keep your brown nosing body to your monk boards and dont speak for the bruisers.   </div><hr></blockquote>Well, there's the more obvious thing that a monk and bruiser share: a class. Other than that, it's nothing other than weapons, armor, and basic build. That means a lot of things are different---like the names of skills. Perhaps you missed my earlier post, were I explained that Gage was talking to the person, not the pretend avatar. You do know we're not really brusiers, right? We're just regular folk? Gage can speak for me, and I'm a bruiser. I'd much rather he speak for me than you. Keep your name-calling troll self off the bruiser boards.</span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Opaki on <span class=date_text>06-04-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:37 PM</span>

[Redbed]

<DIV>Id prefer everyone to speak for themselves, whatever theyre opinion.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Opa]

<span><blockquote><hr>Redbed wrote:<div>Id prefer everyone to speak for themselves, whatever theyre opinion.</div> <div> </div> <hr></blockquote>/agree</span><div></div>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Castor wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Gage keep your brown nosing body to your monk boards and dont speak for the bruisers.    <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>:o<BR>

[Cast]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Opaki wrote:<BR> <SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Castor wrote:<BR> <DIV>As far as I know there are only a few things that make a bruiser and a monk alike. Armor, fist weapons and avoid over mitigation. SO why is a monk trying tot tell a bruiser how to act?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Gage keep your brown nosing body to your monk boards and dont speak for the bruisers.   </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Well, there's the more obvious thing that a monk and bruiser share: a class. Other than that, it's nothing other than weapons, armor, and basic build. That means a lot of things are different---like the names of skills.<BR><BR>Perhaps you missed my earlier post, were I explained that Gage was talking to the person, not the pretend avatar. You do know we're not really brusiers, right? We're just regular folk?<BR><BR>Gage can speak for me, and I'm a bruiser. I'd much rather he speak for me than you. Keep your name-calling troll self off the bruiser boards.<BR></SPAN> <P>Message Edited by Opaki on <SPAN class=date_text>06-04-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>05:37 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Are you [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] or just dumb and slow? Last I checked this was the bruiser board. Dont see it say real person who plays a bruiser anywhere. They also happen to have a monk board because they are 2 different classes. </P> <P> </P> <P>Correct me if im wrong but a beserker is both good and evil, same class both sides everything the same. Wouldnt it be the same name if bruisers and monks were the same class? SO evidently they dont share the same class, only the same basic set up. </P> <P>From Gages other posts he expects the monk to be able to tank anything and give up dps to do it. I dont want to be a monk or have him speak on my behalf for crap. If he wants a guardian in light armor then let him but he has no valid reason to be posting crap about what HE thinks a bruiser should be when hes a monk. Let him spew his crap on those boards. </P>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Castor wrote:<BR> <P>From Gages other posts he expects the monk to be able to tank anything and give up dps to do it. I dont want to be a monk or have him speak on my behalf for crap. If he wants a guardian in light armor then let him but he has no valid reason to be posting crap about what HE thinks a bruiser should be when hes a monk. Let him spew his crap on those boards.<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I do "spew my crap" on our boards.  Besides you don't need me to tell you that brawlers (and yes that means bruisers) are tanks, Jezekiel and others do a fine job, <EM>and they are bruisers.</EM></P> <P>I love you too.<BR></P>

[xfbishop]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Utess wrote:<BR>I'm posting this as someone with a high level Swashbuckler and Fury, and now a mid-level(and rising) Bruiser.  Having the perspective of playing a swashbuckler to the near end game and then playing a Bruiser is somewhat interesting.  For those who have never played the class, it is actually quite surprising how similar the two are, and yet how very different.<BR><BR>Swashbucklers are very much the scout/fighter hybrid of the scout class.  They get taunts and lots of hate management tools.  They get mez and snare, haste moves, etc.<BR><BR>Bruisers are very much a hybrid too(from my experience so far at least).  They of course get taunts and such.  But, they get a lot of dps enhancing tools.  They don't get mez and snare, but they *do* get stun and fear, which are used to near similar effect.<BR><BR>If you actually go through the spell lists of both classes, you can see where they both sort of blurr the lines between the architypes.  My hubby has a monk and I see similar things there too.<BR><BR>Now, all that said, here is the problem.  I can say with experience in playing both a swashy and a bruiser, that bruisers have the advantage 90% of the time.  While, yes, as long as the critter does not have immunity/high resist to slashing/piercing, my swashbuckler will do more damage every time, it is pretty startling how close bruisers can get dps wise.  Comparing my bruiser at her level to my swashbuckler at her level, my bruiser is always close to, if not sometimes equal to or beating my swashbuckler in damage.<BR><BR>Looking at it from a damage perspective alone, that's fine if they are close.  But there is something else you have to factor in: Defense.  Bruiser defense is superior in every way to scout defense, even when the bruiser is in full offensive mode.  I know because I've played both classes.  My swashy, the most defensively capable of the scouts, can't even compare defensively to my Bruiser.<BR><BR>So, you end up with a situation where you have two classes that are very similar, if not almost identical, to each other offensively, but the other is vastly superior defensively.  That means you have a real imbalance.  Now, all this isn't even factoring in the fact that as bruisers we don't have to worry about position near as much.  Sure we do to make sure we get optimal hits, but our attacks aren't positional like half a swashbuckler's is.  All of which causes scouts to have serious soloing problems too.<BR><BR>That said, I'm not saying nerf bruiser dps.  As a matter of fact, I hope they just make swashbuckler offense better.  Since I have a character in both classes, that means it's win/win for me if they do that <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  And I'm certainly not going to recommend a course of action and direction for Bruisers, I leave that to those of you who are far more experienced in the class than I am, and are better qualified to make that kind of judgement.<BR><BR>But, I can say as a very experienced Swashbuckler, and up and coming Bruiser, that there really is a balance problem here and I can speak accurately on that because I can make the comparison.  So, there is a problem that does need fixing.  Does that mean nerf bruiser dps?  I sure hope it doesn't.  But, the gulf is still there regardless.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>i agree, and yet i dont.... as a bruiser and a brigand(still a rogue, same concept) i dont personally find anything wrong with the fact that they are similar, both are kind of hybreds of the same 2 classes. the brigand may end up being my main if the combat changes go totally wrong for my bruiser. i do think that gage will get what he wants, but i dont think he will like it when he does, because guardians will still be the best choice for a raid, and he will be down dps, so thus just a tagalong when they have an open slot.</P> <P>one thing that you may have to think about is that your bruiser is most likely better equipped than your swash was if that was your first toon, i know my brigand in full fey with a fey leaf and the pgt(not to mention a more experienced controller) does tons more dps than my bruiser did mid 30's while wearing a mixture of common crafted and drops.</P> <P>totally off the above subject but imho, what they need to do is create a crushing scout weapon, resistances to slashing/piercing i think are half the reason that people are complaining.</P>

[Opa]

<span><blockquote><hr>Castor wrote: <p>Are you [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] or just dumb and slow? Last I checked this was the bruiser board. Dont see it say real person who plays a bruiser anywhere. They also happen to have a monk board because they are 2 different classes. </p><hr></blockquote>It doesn't say "real person" for the relatively obvious reason that most people are sane enough to not confuse themselves for their game identity. I'm sad to see you're not one of these. Here's a little info for you: blightrats don't exist, and you aren't a bruiser. I know, this must be hard for you, but you're really not. As for your question, I'd say I'm "</span><span>[expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]" rather than dumb and slow. At least I don't hop around on my bed wearing all leather saying "I'm a ninja---I mean bruiser, mommy." Get a grip, and save your roleplay crap for somewhere else. Opaki "</span><span>[expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]"</span><div></div>

[Cast]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Castor wrote:<BR> <P>From Gages other posts he expects the monk to be able to tank anything and give up dps to do it. I dont want to be a monk or have him speak on my behalf for crap. If he wants a guardian in light armor then let him but he has no valid reason to be posting crap about what HE thinks a bruiser should be when hes a monk. Let him spew his crap on those boards.<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I do "spew my crap" on our boards.  Besides you don't need me to tell you that brawlers (and yes that means bruisers) are tanks, Jezekiel and others do a fine job, <EM>and they are bruisers.</EM></P> <P>I love you too.<BR></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Wrong we arent tanks, were fighters. Guardians are tanks and then to a lesser degree zerks, sk's and paly's and then we come in. You want a lower dps and higher tanking class so bad then go play one of those other 4 classes and leave the monks and bruisers alone.

[Spice-uh-nat]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Castor wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Opaki wrote:<BR> <SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Castor wrote:<BR> <DIV>As far as I know there are only a few things that make a bruiser and a monk alike. Armor, fist weapons and avoid over mitigation. SO why is a monk trying tot tell a bruiser how to act?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Gage keep your brown nosing body to your monk boards and dont speak for the bruisers.   </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Well, there's the more obvious thing that a monk and bruiser share: a class. Other than that, it's nothing other than weapons, armor, and basic build. That means a lot of things are different---like the names of skills.<BR><BR>Perhaps you missed my earlier post, were I explained that Gage was talking to the person, not the pretend avatar. You do know we're not really brusiers, right? We're just regular folk?<BR><BR>Gage can speak for me, and I'm a bruiser. I'd much rather he speak for me than you. Keep your name-calling troll self off the bruiser boards.<BR></SPAN> <P>Message Edited by Opaki on <SPAN class=date_text>06-04-2005</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>05:37 PM</SPAN><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Are you [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] or just dumb and slow? Last I checked this was the bruiser board. Dont see it say real person who plays a bruiser anywhere. They also happen to have a monk board because they are 2 different classes.</P> <P> </P> <P>Correct me if im wrong but a beserker is both good and evil, same class both sides everything the same. Wouldnt it be the same name if bruisers and monks were the same class? SO evidently they dont share the same class, only the same basic set up.</P> <P>From Gages other posts he expects the monk to be able to tank anything and give up dps to do it. I dont want to be a monk or have him speak on my behalf for crap. If he wants a guardian in light armor then let him but he has no valid reason to be posting crap about what HE thinks a bruiser should be when hes a monk. Let him spew his crap on those boards.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Ummm, dude, monks and bruisers are both brawlers, the only difference between us is a little better defense vs a little better offense, nothing more than that, so basically all he's saying is that monks should be comparable tanks while we are a little worse at tanking and a little better at hitting things, notice I said LITTLE the whole time.  There really isn't much difference between us. oh and btw, class = brawler, subclass = monks/bruisers, opaki was talking about us both being from brawlers.</DIV>

[Cast]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Spice-uh-natuh wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Castor wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Opaki wrote:<BR> <SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Castor wrote:<BR> <DIV>As far as I know there are only a few things that make a bruiser and a monk alike. Armor, fist weapons and avoid over mitigation. SO why is a monk trying tot tell a bruiser how to act?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Gage keep your brown nosing body to your monk boards and dont speak for the bruisers.   </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Well, there's the more obvious thing that a monk and bruiser share: a class. Other than that, it's nothing other than weapons, armor, and basic build. That means a lot of things are different---like the names of skills.<BR><BR>Perhaps you missed my earlier post, were I explained that Gage was talking to the person, not the pretend avatar. You do know we're not really brusiers, right? We're just regular folk?<BR><BR>Gage can speak for me, and I'm a bruiser. I'd much rather he speak for me than you. Keep your name-calling troll self off the bruiser boards.<BR></SPAN> <P>Message Edited by Opaki on <SPAN class=date_text>06-04-2005</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>05:37 PM</SPAN><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Are you [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] or just dumb and slow? Last I checked this was the bruiser board. Dont see it say real person who plays a bruiser anywhere. They also happen to have a monk board because they are 2 different classes.</P> <P> </P> <P>Correct me if im wrong but a beserker is both good and evil, same class both sides everything the same. Wouldnt it be the same name if bruisers and monks were the same class? SO evidently they dont share the same class, only the same basic set up.</P> <P>From Gages other posts he expects the monk to be able to tank anything and give up dps to do it. I dont want to be a monk or have him speak on my behalf for crap. If he wants a guardian in light armor then let him but he has no valid reason to be posting crap about what HE thinks a bruiser should be when hes a monk. Let him spew his crap on those boards.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Ummm, dude, monks and bruisers are both brawlers, the only difference between us is a little better defense vs a little better offense, nothing more than that, so basically all he's saying is that monks should be comparable tanks while we are a little worse at tanking and a little better at hitting things, notice I said LITTLE the whole time.  There really isn't much difference between us. oh and btw, class = brawler, subclass = monks/bruisers, opaki was talking about us both being from brawlers.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Ohhhh well we all start as fighter before brawler so I guess were all the same from that as well eh? Wait a minute fighter-brawler-monk/bruiser, anyone else fail to see TANK in that progression? </P> <P> </P>

[jordaann]

Please correct me if I am wrong but there are VERY LITTLE differences between what a monk and a bruiser brings to a group or a raid. <div></div>

[Redbed]

<DIV>"Please correct me if I am wrong but there are VERY LITTLE differences between what a monk and a bruiser brings to a group or a raid."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Uhm your wrong.  And no Im not getting into specifics, not on these boards, not ever.  </DIV>

[Jezekie]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Castor wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Gage-Mikel wrote: <div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Castor wrote: <p>From Gages other posts he expects the monk to be able to tank anything and give up dps to do it. I dont want to be a monk or have him speak on my behalf for crap. If he wants a guardian in light armor then let him but he has no valid reason to be posting crap about what HE thinks a bruiser should be when hes a monk. Let him spew his crap on those boards.</p> <hr> </blockquote> <p>I do "spew my crap" on our boards.  Besides you don't need me to tell you that brawlers (and yes that means bruisers) are tanks, Jezekiel and others do a fine job, <em>and they are bruisers.</em></p> <p>I love you too.</p> <div></div> <hr> </blockquote>Wrong we arent tanks, were fighters. Guardians are tanks and then to a lesser degree zerks, sk's and paly's and then we come in. You want a lower dps and higher tanking class so bad then go play one of those other 4 classes and leave the monks and bruisers alone. <div></div><hr></blockquote>I think you, and others, that frequently post in the Bruiser or Monk section that are pro us being a DPS class, with little to no tanking best start readying your self for the combat and spell revamps. Also as for "leaving monks and bruisers alone", really won't happen. They will change. Edit: Sentence structure</span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Jezekiell on <span class=date_text>06-14-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:41 PM</span>

[Redbed]

<P>"best start readying your self for the combat and spell revamps"</P> <P>Yeah but when.  Ive been waiting for a change for 4 Live updates.  I keep hearing talk about a change but not seeing the change.  I think the change is gonna be a long time comeing.  Their track record speaks volumes.  </P>

[Faarwolf]

<DIV>Play nice or this thread will get locked.</DIV>

[Cast]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Jezekiell wrote:<BR> <SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Castor wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Castor wrote:<BR> <P>From Gages other posts he expects the monk to be able to tank anything and give up dps to do it. I dont want to be a monk or have him speak on my behalf for crap. If he wants a guardian in light armor then let him but he has no valid reason to be posting crap about what HE thinks a bruiser should be when hes a monk. Let him spew his crap on those boards.<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I do "spew my crap" on our boards.  Besides you don't need me to tell you that brawlers (and yes that means bruisers) are tanks, Jezekiel and others do a fine job, <EM>and they are bruisers.</EM></P> <P>I love you too.<BR></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Wrong we arent tanks, were fighters. Guardians are tanks and then to a lesser degree zerks, sk's and paly's and then we come in. You want a lower dps and higher tanking class so bad then go play one of those other 4 classes and leave the monks and bruisers alone. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>I think you, and others, that frequently post in the Bruiser or Monk section that are pro us being a DPS class, with little to no tanking best start readying your self for the combat and spell revamps.<BR><BR>Also as for "leaving monks and bruisers alone", really won't happen. They will change.<BR><BR>Edit: Sentence structure<BR></SPAN> <P>Message Edited by Jezekiell on <SPAN class=date_text>06-14-2005</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>02:41 PM</SPAN><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>ohhh yeaaaaa were going to get to be 4th tier tanks that cant tank, cant take damage, can avoid it maybe and not do dps. Sure am glad your speaking for everyone. Maybe they should start another poll in game and ask if Gage and your opinion is one of and for the masses that play these 2 classes.</P> <P>You want tank equality and I say your looking to make the bruiser and monks carbon copies of guardians with a few MINOR exceptions. Newsflash for you, if we all wanted guardians we would have made one to begin with.</P>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Castor wrote:<BR> <P>ohhh yeaaaaa were going to get to be 4th tier tanks that cant tank, cant take damage, can avoid it maybe and not do dps. Sure am glad your speaking for everyone. Maybe they should start another poll in game and ask if Gage and your opinion is one of and for the masses that play these 2 classes.</P> <P>You want tank equality and I say your looking to make the bruiser and monks carbon copies of guardians with a few MINOR exceptions. Newsflash for you, if we all wanted guardians we would have made one to begin with.<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Well Castor, you could've made a scout, if you wanted melee dps.</P> <P>Regardless I'll be keeping my eye on the combat changes/spell changes on test, and we'll see what happens.</P> <P>But if they end up regulating me to melee dps, you better believe I'll ask for medium armor, evac, and pathfinding.  I mean hell, melee dps is a scout's job.<BR></P>

[Cast]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Castor wrote:<BR> <P>ohhh yeaaaaa were going to get to be 4th tier tanks that cant tank, cant take damage, can avoid it maybe and not do dps. Sure am glad your speaking for everyone. Maybe they should start another poll in game and ask if Gage and your opinion is one of and for the masses that play these 2 classes.</P> <P>You want tank equality and I say your looking to make the bruiser and monks carbon copies of guardians with a few MINOR exceptions. Newsflash for you, if we all wanted guardians we would have made one to begin with.<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Well Castor, you could've made a scout, if you wanted melee dps.</P> <P>Regardless I'll be keeping my eye on the combat changes/spell changes on test, and we'll see what happens.</P> <P>But if they end up regulating me to melee dps, you better believe I'll ask for medium armor, evac, and pathfinding.  I mean hell, melee dps is a scout's job.<BR></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Go make a guardian if you want to be the uber damage taking tank Gage. Why give a bruiser 2 weapons and all damage combat arts? Your trying to pidgeon hole a hybrid class into something like DAoC did to paladins. Not really a tank but to much of a tank to do any dps and that left them a pretty crapppy hybrid because of it.

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Castor wrote:<BR> Go make a guardian if you want to be the uber damage taking tank Gage. Why give a bruiser 2 weapons and all damage combat arts? Your trying to pidgeon hole a hybrid class into something like DAoC did to paladins. Not really a tank but to much of a tank to do any dps and that left them a pretty crapppy hybrid because of it.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>You don't have all combat arts for one.</P> <P>For two, Guardians can dual wield as can berserksers.</P> <P>For three, I'm not trying to do anything; I'm a player, not SOE staff.</P> <P>Besides sir, I want to avoid damage, not take it <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR></P> <p>Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on <span class=date_text>06-15-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:08 AM</span>

[Xeronoth]

<DIV><FONT face="Courier New" color=#ff0000>Dude... over 95% of our abilities are combat arts. Where are you getting your information from? (From what I see, that's all combat arts) we have like what? 5 buffs? Rough House, Brawler's stance, Fiery fists, Intimidating Orders, and Staggering stance (using them four buffs as a base for line of spells) And Staggering stance can only be used in grouping situations. 3 tuants like all the other classes.. (Oh wait, Crash still decreases aggro instead of increases- Great boon SoE) Question: Why is it that you are telling Bruisers what we can and cannot do, when you have no say- because you are a MONK. Oposite side of the spectrum. Stop speaking for a class you don't play.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New" color=#ff0000></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New" color=#ff0000>Edit: forgot Rough House, but who really uses that line when we have Batons and such equiped? (0 bonus)</FONT></DIV><p>Message Edited by Xeronoth on <span class=date_text>06-15-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:00 AM</span>

[Opa]

<span><blockquote><hr>Xeronoth wrote: <div><font color="#ff0000" face="Courier New">Dude... over 95% of our abilities are combat arts. Where are you getting your information from? (From what I see, that's all combat arts) we have like what? 5 buffs? Rough House, Brawler's stance, Fiery fists, Intimidating Orders, and Staggering stance (using them four buffs as a base for line of spells) And Staggering stance can only be used in grouping situations. 3 tuants like all the other classes.. (Oh wait, Crash still decreases aggro instead of increases- Great boon SoE) </font></div></blockquote>This  has  been argued  <a href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=7&message.id=6262&query.id=272629#M6262" target=_blank>here</a>. Combat Arts as a general term for fighter skills is not, I think, what is at issue, I feel it's more to do the the DPS-centricity of those spells. <blockquote> <div><font color="#ff0000" face="Courier New"> Question: Why is it that you are telling Bruisers what we can and cannot do, when you have no say- because you are a MONK. Oposite side of the spectrum. Stop speaking for a class you don't play.</font></div> </blockquote> <div> I really don't know why people are under the impression that monks and bruisers are "opposites." In the current melee system, they are functionally identical. And, if I may be a little nit-picky on you, Gage is speaking for a <font color="#ffff00">CLASS</font> he plays (that's Brawlers). Bruisers are a <font color="#ffff00">SUB</font>-class. </div> <blockquote><hr></blockquote> </span><div></div>

[VonStein]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Opaki wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Xeronoth wrote:<BR> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New" color=#ff0000>Dude... over 95% of our abilities are combat arts. Where are you getting your information from? (From what I see, that's all combat arts) we have like what? 5 buffs? Rough House, Brawler's stance, Fiery fists, Intimidating Orders, and Staggering stance (using them four buffs as a base for line of spells) And Staggering stance can only be used in grouping situations. 3 tuants like all the other classes.. (Oh wait, Crash still decreases aggro instead of increases- Great boon SoE) <BR><BR></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>This  has  been argued  <A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=7&message.id=6262&query.id=272629#M6262" target=_blank>here</A>. Combat Arts as a general term for fighter skills is not, I think, what is at issue, I feel it's more to do the the DPS-centricity of those spells.<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New" color=#ff0000><BR>Question: Why is it that you are telling Bruisers what we can and cannot do, when you have no say- because you are a MONK. Oposite side of the spectrum. Stop speaking for a class you don't play.</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>I really don't know why people are under the impression that monks and bruisers are "opposites." In the current melee system, they are functionally identical. And, if I may be a little nit-picky on you, Gage is speaking for a <FONT color=#ffff00>CLASS</FONT> he plays (that's Brawlers). Bruisers are a <FONT color=#ffff00>SUB</FONT>-class.<BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>So by your arguemnt, a Pally can speak for an SK, because they both started as Crusaders??? Bwa haa hahaha hahhaahaaaaahahaa</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Sorry, I play both an SK and  a Pally and they are TOTALLY different.  My Zerk and Guard? Way different.  Can't speak as to differences between Monks and Bruisers as I only play a bruiser, but I imagine the differences are pretty great as well.</DIV>

[Sa]

<DIV>Jez im not wanting to start a flaming match with you but I think you didnt read the bruiser description very well. The reason I started this thread was to see what other bruisers thought. Like I said before our description, name, skills, armor, and weapons point in a different direction than a MT. They cant make us a tank like a guardian, pally zerker or sk cause that wouldnt be fair to those classes that a light armor wearing person comes in and tanks just as good as they do. In the bruiser description we are portrayed as a DPS secondary tank. It says it right in our description. Go have a look. All you are accomplishing with all this is that they are gonna nerf our DPS and we will still be secondary tanks at best. They will never make us tank as well as a plate class. Just cause you power leveled to 50 and now find yourself with nothing better to do than raid doesnt mean that other bruisers out there arent relying on that little DPS to solo and such. What will you have us do? Hope no other plate classes are LFG so we might tank since our DPS is nil now cause people like you got us nerfed? Do us all a favor. Hang up the bruiser and monk and make a [Removed for Content] guardian cause thats what you wanna be. Not a bruiser. I think you are confused and misguided.</DIV>

[Opa]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> VonSteinan wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Opaki wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>why people are under the impression that monks and bruisers are "opposites." In the current melee system, they are functionally identical. And, if I may be a little nit-picky on you, Gage is speaking for a <FONT color=#ffff00>CLASS</FONT> he plays (that's Brawlers). Bruisers are a <FONT color=#ffff00>SUB</FONT>-class.<BR></SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>So by your arguemnt, a Pally can speak for an SK, because they both started as Crusaders??? Bwa haa hahaha hahhaahaaaaahahaa</P> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Sorry, I play both an SK and  a Pally and they are TOTALLY different.  My Zerk and Guard? Way different.  Can't speak as to differences between Monks and Bruisers as I only play a bruiser, but I imagine the differences are pretty great as well.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>No, it is not implicit in my argument that a pally can speak for a SK. Let me run down my argument.</P> <P>1. Xero said "Gage, don't speak for a class you don't play"</P> <P>2. I noted that Gage's class is a brawler.</P> <P>3. Thus, if Xero really wants to be accurate, he or she would say subclass.</P> <P>It was a point of terminology. I don't recall saying that SKs and Pallys are the same. And because I don't share your interest in play each of the two subclasses of several classes, I can't comment on that.</P> <P>I don't really think there's any need at all for me to make arguments as to who can speak for whom. I don't recall Gage ever saying "Bruisers want X" or thinking he "speaks for" bruisers at all. He's speaking for himself, on the basis of his game knowledge and experiences. You don't get to shut him up just because you disagree with him and he happens to be a monk. </P> <P>I mean, I'm more opposed to people who can't understand simple arguments than I am to monks, but if I don't get to silence people, why should you?<BR></P>

[Opa]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sazz wrote:<BR> <DIV>Jez im not wanting to start a flaming match with you but I think you didnt read the bruiser description very well. The reason I started this thread was to see what other bruisers thought. Like I said before our description, name, skills, armor, and weapons point in a different direction than a MT. They cant make us a tank like a guardian, pally zerker or sk cause that wouldnt be fair to those classes that a light armor wearing person comes in and tanks just as good as they do. In the bruiser description we are portrayed as a DPS secondary tank. It says it right in our description. Go have a look. All you are accomplishing with all this is that they are gonna nerf our DPS and we will still be secondary tanks at best. They will never make us tank as well as a plate class. Just cause you power leveled to 50 and now find yourself with nothing better to do than raid doesnt mean that other bruisers out there arent relying on that little DPS to solo and such. What will you have us do? Hope no other plate classes are LFG so we might tank since our DPS is nil now cause people like you got us nerfed? Do us all a favor. Hang up the bruiser and monk and make a [Removed for Content] guardian cause thats what you wanna be. Not a bruiser. I think you are confused and misguided.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Welcome. You're joining a long line of people who have mocked, derided, and failed to adequately understand the position of bruisers (and monks) who want to tank differently than they do. I remember them fondly, there was Skull, Sagemorrow, now there's Redbed and Castor. If one thing has proven true, it's crotchety people like me are here to stay. And I'll tell you right now, I'm not going to stop playing my bruiser.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>It's been stated by devs that lore descriptions mean nothing. I've done analyses of skills and numbers to make an argument that Bruisers skills are much more oriented to tanking than DPS. I've explained that light armor wouldn't indicate an intended inability to tank if avoidence weren't broken. I've explained that the class names mean nothing (bards are poets, if you didn't know).</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>If all that comes from my posts is that the dev-gods nerf our dps and leave us as lame tanks, so be it. Why the devs would do that is beyond my capacity for understanding, but I'm certainly not going to live in fear of being made into a crappy class. I played a monk in EQ, and I still had fun. Been there, done that.</FONT></P> <P><BR></P>

[Redbed]

<DIV>"<FONT color=#ffff00>inability to tank if avoidence weren't broken"</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>inability to tank if avoidance wasn't broken.  What is youse?  Illetiarate?  Hah....hows that make you feel, when a person totally avoids addressing the point of your argument and nitpicks your grammer and spelling?  Hah!  Hah I say!  You take it!</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>The people who say monks and bruiser are alike need to draw up a ven diagram and see how different they really are.  They are nothing alike.  I can tell right away just looking at someone, how they carry themselves, how they fight, if their a monk or bruiser.  Its like comparing a Ritz to a Saltine.  Their only similarty is their crackers!  Thats it, end of Story!  The evidence points to someone at some point making a lot of distinguishing characteristics between the two design wise.  So you cant sell me that that bridge is really a house cause a #($*ing troll is living underneath it.  Its a bridge.  </FONT></DIV>

[Gaige]

<DIV><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Redbed wrote:<BR> <DIV>"<FONT color=#ffff00>inability to tank if avoidence weren't broken"</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>inability to tank if avoidance wasn't broken.  What is youse?  Illetiarate?  Hah....hows that make you feel, when a person totally avoids addressing the point of your argument and nitpicks your grammer and spelling?  Hah!  Hah I say!  You take it!</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>The people who say monks and bruiser are alike need to draw up a ven diagram and see how different they really are.  They are nothing alike.  I can tell right away just looking at someone, how they carry themselves, how they fight, if their a monk or bruiser.  Its like comparing a Ritz to a Saltine.  Their only similarty is their crackers!  Thats it, end of Story!  The evidence points to someone at some point making a lot of distinguishing characteristics between the two design wise.  So you cant sell me that that bridge is really a house cause a #($*ing troll is living underneath it.  Its a bridge.  </FONT></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Avoidance is broken.  Plate tanks get too much, we get too little.  This *will* be changed on test - we will be the avoidance kings (and by *we* I mean the brawler subclasses - we are identical to 20, our role is the same, etc etc).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In fact I might have the opportunity to play on test with the combat and spell changes, and you better believe I'll be testing my <EM>tanking</EM> ability not my ability to outdamage assassins.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But regardless of if I'm a bruiser or a monk, I don't speak for bruisers, all of you guys do, I speak for the brawler class and the subclass I play.  As I've stated numerous times, with people like Opaki and Jezekiel playing bruisers, you guys don't need me anyway <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR></DIV>

[Jezekie]

<span><blockquote><hr>Sazz wrote:<div>Jez im not wanting to start a flaming match with you but I think you didnt read the bruiser description very well. The reason I started this thread was to see what other bruisers thought. Like I said before our description, name, skills, armor, and weapons point in a different direction than a MT. They cant make us a tank like a guardian, pally zerker or sk cause that wouldnt be fair to those classes that a light armor wearing person comes in and tanks just as good as they do. In the bruiser description we are portrayed as a DPS secondary tank. It says it right in our description. Go have a look. All you are accomplishing with all this is that they are gonna nerf our DPS and we will still be secondary tanks at best. They will never make us tank as well as a plate class. Just cause you power leveled to 50 and now find yourself with nothing better to do than raid doesnt mean that other bruisers out there arent relying on that little DPS to solo and such. What will you have us do? Hope no other plate classes are LFG so we might tank since our DPS is nil now cause people like you got us nerfed? Do us all a favor. Hang up the bruiser and monk and make a [Removed for Content] guardian cause thats what you wanna be. Not a bruiser. I think you are confused and misguided.</div><hr></blockquote>Opaki beat me to the punch on most of your post so I'll refrain from saying the same things, I'll just leave yah with this though, what we are today is nothing like what we should be or will be come revamp. </span><span>Also I'm not "accomplishing anything" by posting for better tanking, </span><span>Our godly DPS? It's not going to last. We will be at the top of the Fighter classes, but that's it, we won't beat mages or scouts as it has always been the intention. As for the 1-50 game, no one ever complained about our survival ability there, even after the Agility downwards readjustments, and what not we still manage to tank well enough in groups, and it's bound to stay that way still for solo/small groups/full groups after revamp. Where we fall short is most definitely at raids, and with what seems like the ever re-tuning of epic^^^x2x3x4 melee dps we fall further and further away from a tank position during raids. And that's going to change come revamp. Also can we please leave the Gage bashing out of the Bruiser section of the forums? It's largely irrelevant, and will only lead to threads being locked. There's this old phrase that goes, don't shoot the messenger.</span><div></div>

[Opa]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Redbed wrote:<BR> <DIV>"<FONT color=#ffff00>inability to tank if avoidence weren't broken"</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>inability to tank if avoidance wasn't broken.  What is youse?  Illetiarate?  Hah....hows that make you feel, when a person totally avoids addressing the point of your argument and nitpicks your grammer and spelling?  Hah!  Hah I say!  You take it!</FONT></DIV> <DIV><BR> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Opaki wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>I've explained that light armor wouldn't indicate an intended inability to tank if avoidence weren't broken. </FONT><BR><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Redbed, here's a free tip for you: my sentences begin following a period and with a capital letter. Since you don't know how the quote function works, I did if for you.</P> <P>Now, if you're too stupid to understand my sentence structure, that's another issue. And yes, I spelled "avoidance" wrong. Congrats. Now learn to read.</P><BR>

[Sa]

Ok so let me get this straight. Mages and scouts will outdamage me. Hmmm.... Lets see, If im in a group and get outdamaged by say a Dirge, thats fair? Lets think about this cause the first time a [Removed for Content] coercer outdamages me thats it. These are utility classes. They offer something to a group where as we do not. So you think these should outdamage us? Hell even a ranger offers more groups buffs then we do. Where does it say that just cause your a fighter your a tank? Or better yet that a fighter cant do damage? I mean where when you started playing this game did you read and think to yourself "WOW a bruiser will be a L337 tank". You didnt cause you read the same thing I did. Honed bodies into lethal weapons to pummel their opponents into submission. Look familiar? Hmmm that sounds tankish, NOT. Sounds DPSish too me. Tank some can we? Yes. Full fledged tanks are we? No. What you will see come revamp will be the destruction of this class if it goes the way you want it. Not quite tank not quite DPS no utility at all. We will be the [Removed for Content] of EQ2. Congrats.

[Gaige]

<P>For the 200th time the lore descriptions are just that: lore, fluff for roleplaying purposes.  They do not denote the intended role of the class.</P> <P>Moorgard has also posted that bard and enchanter subclasses are special cases because they have a lot of utility which ups the group damage by a lot, so they will be balanced a bit differently.</P> <P>You shouldn't outdamage a ranger though, nope.</P>

[Cast]

<DIV>If left up to you 3 people then we would be able to do nothing but dodge attacks aimed at us. Again the guardian is made for tanking let them do it, you want to tank ^^^ 50+ crap then go roll a guardian. With the exception of a few people none of us wants to be a main tank, give up dps and then have to sit for 90% of our gaming doing nothing while guardians and paladins are still chosen over us. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Everyone playing or starting a monk or bruiser are doing it for one set of reasons, we can tank as we level and do a decent job and at the same time put out enough dps to make up for our avoidance issues, with the exception of a few who want to completely redefine a class that really has nothing wrong with it. We dont have issues with very much in our combat arms, dont have an issue with being able to get a group, dont have an issue with being able to do what were built to do. So instead of you people rerolling something more suited to what you want to be your trying to rearrange a whole class in order to play the way you want. </DIV>

[Gaige]

<DIV>Why should I reroll when I want to play the class as intended?  Why don't *you* reroll as a scout.  You want to do melee dps, correct?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>At least I'm a tank class trying to play one, instead of a tank class trying to do dps, as you are.</DIV>

[Cast]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR> <DIV>Why should I reroll when I want to play the class as intended?  Why don't *you* reroll as a scout.  You want to do melee dps, correct?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>At least I'm a tank class trying to play one, instead of a tank class trying to do dps, as you are.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Wrong your a fighter class trying to be a tank class. Im a fighter class trying to remain afighter class and not some sub par guardian.</P> <P> </P> <P>As I said you people are trying to completely rearrange 2 classes when there isnt anything wrong with them to begin with.</P> <P> </P>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Castor wrote:<BR> <P>Wrong your a fighter class trying to be a tank class. Im a fighter class trying to remain afighter class and not some sub par guardian.</P> <P>As I said you people are trying to completely rearrange 2 classes when there isnt anything wrong with them to begin with.<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Once again, for those who are learning impaired:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Moorgard wrote: <P><FONT color=#ffff00>We did not design brawlers/monks/bruisers</FONT> around the EQ monk class. Are there similarities? Sure, especially in the names of certain skills. But mechanically, our games work very differently. You shouldn't base your assessments of brawlers in EverQuest II around preconceptions carried over from EQ.</P> <P>There is no designer named "Sony." Each game team defines and balances its own classes. Just because our games use some names in common does not mean the classes are meant to function the same way.</P> <P>Regarding pulling, you shouldn't think in terms of mobs, but in terms of encounters. Feign Death can be used to split one encounter from another, just not individual mobs within an encounter. Don't think of a four-member encounter as four mobs, but rather as one opponent with eight arms. While the group tactics required to defeat a four-member encounter are different from those required to defeat a single-member encounter of the same con, the relative difficulty should be about the same. This change of tactics requires more skill on the players' part, not less.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00 size=4>Brawlers do have a defined role in our game: they are tanks. Their method of tanking is based on avoidance and deflection rather than mitigation. Brawlers do more damage overall (both through base damage and arts) than other fighters. They are not intended to compete with scouts, though, nor do scouts compete with them as tanks.</FONT></P> <P>As a brawler, I am very pleased with my tanking abilities. I don't use any special techniques or tricks; I just do the things a tank is supposed to do: manage aggro, take damage, etc. I've received compliments on my tanking abilities from higher-level players that I've grouped with (and no, I don't play a character named Moorgard so the people I grouped with would have no idea I was a developer).</P> <P>In short, the state of monks in EQ has no bearing on the state of brawlers/monks/bruisers in EQ2. That is, comparisons between the two are really no more valid than comparing them to monks in a game by a completely different company.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I'm a fighter, a brawler and a monk.  Just as you are a fighter, a brawler and a bruiser.  In this game we are tanks, we will be built as tanks, and we will be balanced as tanks.</P> <P>We are *not intended to compete with scouts as far as damage goes, just as scouts can't compete with us as tanks*.</P> <P>Read it a few times, let it sink in.  I'm not the only one telling you this, SOE employees are.</P> <P>Get over it Castor.  The bruiser class will never be what you want it to be.<BR><BR></P> <DIV>Quote from this thread: <A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/post?board.id=5&message.reply_to_id=1088" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/post?board.id=5&message.reply_to_id=1088</A></DIV><p>Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on <span class=date_text>06-15-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:12 PM</span>

[Dannd]

<P>I couldn't agree with Gage more.</P> <P>My opinion - this long thread did nothing but waste my time.  Everyone is so concerned with our ability to Tank vs. DPS.  Somehow, this board became a debate over the difference between a Monk and a Bruiser.  Albeit - they are the same sub-class with minor differences each unique, but do you really have to waste energy fighting over it?</P> <P>Seriously folks, this is a game - not real life.  SOE will implement their changes accordingly and you all will still be here paying your monthly fees and wasting more energy ranting and raving because you didn't get what you wanted.  Never before have I been witness to so much hate and discontent and yet never been witness to more hypocrasy than reading threads like these.  SOE has you by the short and curlys because you are still paying them a monthly fee, so get over it!!!  Play the game or quit and move onto to something else!  I cannot imagine how people get overly consumed in games such as these.</P> <P>I'm standing by to accept whatever flame will be addressed my way.  However, I suggest reading these threads objectively and open mindedly - learn off of each other and don't be so quick to bash someone who is just trying to offer his opinion on the whole matter.  </P> <P>Gage - thanks for the information you have provided - just  know that even evil aligned players read your posts and learn from your experiences.  I personally prefer DPS, but that's the way Kamatsu plays the game.  If SOE sees us less DPS more tanking - then I'll switch my play techniques to suit the situation.  I appreciate your view as to why you feel more inclined to become more of a full time tank.  Then again - I'm not in the end game yet, so I cannot possibly relate to your situation 100 percent.  I do have to say that I'm having fun with my Bruiser and will have fun no mater what.</P> <P>Also, I didn't bother running a spell check or grammar check - so be sure to hit me on that as well - because it's just so gosh darn relevant to the thread.</P> <P>~Kamatsu</P> <p>Message Edited by Danndak on <span class=date_text>06-16-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:03 AM</span>

[Amiina]

<DIV> <P><FONT color=#ffff00 size=4>Brawlers do have a defined role in our game: they are tanks. Their method of tanking is based on avoidance and deflection rather than mitigation. Brawlers do more damage overall (both through base damage and arts) than other fighters. They are not intended to compete with scouts, though, nor do scouts compete with them as tanks.</FONT></P></DIV> <DIV>its fine and all, but no where is it mentioned from either monks nor bruisers, all refer to brawlers, people dont realize they stopped being fullblood brawlers when they dinged lvl 20.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So show me a post where morgaard directly refers to monks and bruisers, else this info is 100% invalid.</DIV>

[Dovifat]

Brawlers = Bruisers and Monks Fighters = Bruisers, Monks, Berserkers, Guardians, Shadowknights and Guardians Choosing a Subclass does not mean abandoning your archetype, or Class. It is merely a specialisation on certain aspects. <div></div>

[Smear]

<DIV>Actually (I'm lazy so I don't feel quoting directly) the part in Gage's post under the yellow refers to Bruisers.   Moorgard plays a Bruiser.</DIV>

[Opa]

<span><span><span><blockquote><hr>Danndak wrote:<div></div> <p>I couldn't agree with Gage more.</p> <p>My opinion - this long thread did nothing but waste my time. </p><hr></blockquote></span>I agree. Any post over 2 pages in this forums by definition MUST contain that following: - "Jeze, go play a guardian." - "DPS Fan X, go play a scout." -  Redbed trying to one-up me. - Me making Redbed feel stupid. - Redbed calling me a "dic" or something equally stinging. - Me writing passive-aggressive posts. - Gage flexing his uber forum knowledge. - "You guys are going to get our class ruined." Oh, and as for the grammar and spelling note you made Dann, as resident Grammar Dictator, I can only say this: only the grammar of people whose posts contain more *&#^$)(% than earnest thoughts earn my fun-making. Yours is quite the contrary.</span> <blockquote><p>  </p></blockquote></span><div></div>

[Opa]

<span><blockquote><hr>Amiina wrote: <div>its fine and all, but no where is it mentioned from either monks nor bruisers, all refer to brawlers, people dont realize they stopped being fullblood brawlers when they dinged lvl 20.</div> <div> </div> <div>So show me a post where morgaard directly refers to monks and bruisers, else this info is 100% invalid.</div><hr></blockquote>The best Bruiser gear in the game has what skill on it? Brawling. You never stop being a brawler once you become a bruiser. You skill have Brawling based skills, items, etc. At 20 you cease to be SIMPLY a brawler. You become something more, but that doesn't mean you become LESS brawler. That's specious reasoning. The info is valid. If you don't want to accept it, though, I suppose you don't have to.</span><div></div>

[lagerone]

<DIV>I put my hat in formally with the DPS crowd in terms of a Bruisers' role (I'm not a Monk so I won't speak for them).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I now see that Jez and Gage have inside information from SOE and I contradict my early post, it seems clear now that our class is facing imminent nerfage as part of the "rebalancing".</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I think it is very disappointing and I dont think it necessarily reflects the views of most of the player base.</DIV> <DIV>I think the focus of our class should largely be maintained as it is.  There are very few Bruisers playing the game.  I see no evidence that people have flocked to my class because of perceived "uberness".</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I don't really think this is a matter for flameage.  There are just differing personal opinions.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I think the currently tankage/dps balance for the bruiser and monk classes (from observation) is broadly in line with the concept of a "monk" is most fantasy role play style games.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I am quite happy with my existing tanking skills and I do not want them increased.  In my view Bruiser tanking is working perfectly fine.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>A well equipped Bruiser may rival a scout class for DPS this is true, but we don't have the utility of a scout class.  We have very little to no group utility at all.  At L46 I have one group buff.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I think if we have low level tanking skills and scouts have group utility skills that is a reasonable trade off for similar levels of DPS.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I don't believe that out tanking ability should be upgraded let that remain the job of the plate tanks.  We are still fine tanking mobs around our level for a group.  Guardians are there for raid mobs not Bruisers.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I would encourage anyone who wants to protect your personal investment in the Bruiser class to post your opinions vigorously on this topic and not have opinion swayed by a small but influential minority.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I am not looking for a flame on this post.....go to the other thread where I got personal instead :smileywink:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Opa]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> lagerone wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I would encourage anyone who wants to protect your personal investment in the Bruiser class to post your opinions vigorously on this topic and not have opinion swayed by a small but influential minority.</DIV> <DIV><BR> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Oh, did I just get referred to as in some way "influential"? Awesome.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Anyhow. I don't agree that overpopulation is the only way to establish a class's being overpowered. Like I've said elsewhere, if you really believe that there are more EQ2 players who think bruiser DPS should remain what it is than those who think it needs to be tuned down, you've never seen what scouts think about us, or mages.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>For the raiding scout, evac means nothing (you don't evac from raids). And other than bards, scouts group utility is not that great. As much of a majority the DPS crowd may have on the Bruiser boards, you do not have one in the player base. And really, if you don't believe me, go start a thread in any scout forum asking if Bruiser dps should be nerfed. I bet I know what they'll say. That's a majority, not have 80% of the 12 people who are on the board a lot.</DIV>

[Xeronoth]

<DIV><FONT face="Courier New" color=#ff0000 size=2>Why is is that Bruisers get so much heat when they are 3rd on the least played class (Brigand being First and Coercer being second) If we're so badass, you would think that many more players would play Bruisers. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New" color=#ff0000 size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New" color=#ff0000 size=2>Edit: Font size, Spelling.</FONT></DIV><p>Message Edited by Xeronoth on <span class=date_text>06-19-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:20 AM</span>

[Laha]

<P>I have to agree with Gage on this, I really do.  I started my bruiser to be a tank, maybe not the best tank, but a tank nonetheless.  I didint like how I was given the high damage aspect that a scout gets.  What I am hoping for is that when they down our DPS, they make us able to take hits, or deflect or avoid more.  That alone would make me happy.  I Like my class as it is, but somethings do need to be reworked.  Allow us to show the skeptics that us as a subclass, Bruisers and our Monken brothren can tank.</P> <P> </P> <P>ps. Spell checker aint workin...  Ignore typo's and spelling</P>

[Cypherus]

<P>hey all I was really looking forward to the brawler class I have one of each fighter and I found that both crusader and warrior sorda get boring after a bit, but your views on bruiser changes has really changed my excitement. I really would rather be a tank dealing damage than a meatshield thats why this class enticed me.</P> <P> </P> <P>Seeing as I have a assassin I can relaly say I do not feel agree that a bruiser or monk should out dps scouts. I wish SOE would get a brain and not try and balance classes to the point they are doing.  </P> <P> </P> <P>A guardian should be the tank. A beserker pally or sk should be secondary. All fighters should tank but.. there should be a  difference Brawlers deal most dmg mele. Crusaders deal most damage magically. and Warriors best tanks.</P> <P>As for scouts I think preds should deal most dmg rangers for ranged and assassins for mele. bards should be utility and Rogues should be a bit of each. But The dps shouldn;t come close to each of the different classes.</P> <DIV>When someone makes a character they make it on what they want to be doing or the roleplaying. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>All classes should have a purpose it shouldn;t be like eq1 where its k we have the tirnity lets find some left overs. ALl classes should be desired the same. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Im sure this will never happen soley cause to many children complain, how their class can;t tank as good as a warrior, or predators deal way 2 much dmg and a mage should deal more.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>At this time mages dmg kings and I relaly don;t like this I have both a warlock and assassin. But its simple as this Scouts do dmg by Ho's and skills. A mage does dmg by 1 or 2 nukes</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Sorry to have gone on and maybe go off topic, my point is Bruisers and Monks should be the dps tank the manual says. Rather than nerf classes they should jsut increase the ones that need it. If they think enemies die 2 fast then make them harder. Don't make it so a class that hit for 100 dmg a hit is nerfed to 30 so the  fight is harder.  Brawler is a Fighter not a meatshield so keep it that way!</DIV>

[Jezekie]

<span><blockquote><hr>Cypherus wrote:All classes should have a purpose it shouldn;t be like eq1 where its k we have the tirnity lets find some left overs. ALl classes should be desired the same.<hr></blockquote>This already happened, why take any of the other classes when the guardian is the superior tank, along with a templar and a dps class. There simply isn't enough roles for 24 different classes to fill in the current game, that's why they need to be brought closer to each other within each archtype. Otherwise it'll be EQLive all over again, with [Removed for Content] classes like rangers, who were pretty much just fluff after SoL.</span><div></div>