Fighter Adjustments

[TheSpin]

I have a couple of ideas about how fighters work that would improve balance and overal gameplay of the fighter classes.  I don't want to start a flame about anything, but I'm trying to offer some constructive opinions about the archetype, which has recently lost a lot of its appeal and 'fun'  in my opinion.

First, I would like to suggest a major change that would add a new dynamic to the archetype.  This would be the addition of a third stance which would focus on adding some kind of utility to the group so that groups have the option to use certain fighter classes in place of other 'support' classes.  Players have begun to rely too heavily on bards and chanters in my opinion.  Especially in raiding.   With 6 fighter classes, limiting their purpose to directly tanking is simply not working.

I would suggest monks should be given a stance which provides power regen and crowd control comprable.  Brawlers a 'sidekick' type stance that helps the tank with aggro and surviveability.  Paladins deserve a stance to protect their group and increase their healing capability.  SKs perhaps a spell protection and power regen stance.

Secondly, Aggro generation should be more encounter centric in my opinion.  While I don't suggest an entire encounter should be forced to target the same target, fighters should be able to control much of a single encounter's aggro fairly easily without changing targets within that encounter.  Some classes will still hold aggro across encounters better than others.

My third suggestion is a multiple facetted adjustment to stances.  Similar to the new priest stances, they should focus on base damage, threat,  and surviveability increases and decreases rather than skill adjustments.  Hit rates especially should not be dependant on stances.  I also would like to suggest altering the way stance changes work.  Similar to the AoC stances, changing from one stance to another should be instant, and changing into one stance would then lock your character into that stance long enough to make the decision to change stances meaningful.

 

I don't know the current status of the fighter revamp, but these 3 changes would go a long way in addressing some of the specific problems I see the most.  Brawlers would have a better outlined role by using the utility stance, Hit rates would become equal across the board.  Offensive and defensive stances would be equally meaningful and useful for all fighter classes.   I probably forgot a few things, but I thought my ideas were good enough to at least get the basics out there for review.

[RafaelSmith]

TheSpin wrote:

I have a couple of ideas about how fighters work that would improve balance and overal gameplay of the fighter classes. I don't want to start a flame about anything, but I'm trying to offer some constructive opinions about the archetype, which has recently lost a lot of its appeal and 'fun' in my opinion.

First, I would like to suggest a major change that would add a new dynamic to the archetype. This would be the addition of a third stance which would focus on adding some kind of utility to the group so that groups have the option to use certain fighter classes in place of other 'support' classes. Players have begun to rely too heavily on bards and chanters in my opinion. Especially in raiding. With 6 fighter classes, limiting their purpose to directly tanking is simply not working.

I would suggest monks should be given a stance which provides power regen and crowd control comprable. Brawlers a 'sidekick' type stance that helps the tank with aggro and surviveability. Paladins deserve a stance to protect their group and increase their healing capability. SKs perhaps a spell protection and power regen stance.

Secondly, Aggro generation should be more encounter centric in my opinion. While I don't suggest an entire encounter should be forced to target the same target, fighters should be able to control much of a single encounter's aggro fairly easily without changing targets within that encounter. Some classes will still hold aggro across encounters better than others.

My third suggestion is a multiple facetted adjustment to stances. Similar to the new priest stances, they should focus on base damage, threat, and surviveability increases and decreases rather than skill adjustments. Hit rates especially should not be dependant on stances. I also would like to suggest altering the way stance changes work. Similar to the AoC stances, changing from one stance to another should be instant, and changing into one stance would then lock your character into that stance long enough to make the decision to change stances meaningful.

I don't know the current status of the fighter revamp, but these 3 changes would go a long way in addressing some of the specific problems I see the most. Brawlers would have a better outlined role by using the utility stance, Hit rates would become equal across the board. Offensive and defensive stances would be equally meaningful and useful for all fighter classes. I probably forgot a few things, but I thought my ideas were good enough to at least get the basics out there for review.

While these are some good ideas.......I am not sure the direction we want SOE to take with fighters is one of trying to come up with ways for fighters to fill "ghetto" versions of roles.

Raid encounters need to be designed such that having one of each fighter type in your raid is "important".  I would love to see a raid zone where the MT is not the same guy from start to finish.......give us variety of mobs that require us to switch out fighter types.

[TheSpin]

Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:

While these are some good ideas.......I am not sure the direction we want SOE to take with fighters is one of trying to come up with ways for fighters to fill "ghetto" versions of roles.

Raid encounters need to be designed such that having one of each fighter type in your raid is "important".  I would love to see a raid zone where the MT is not the same guy from start to finish.......give us variety of mobs that require us to switch out fighter types.

Viewing all 6 fighter classes as 'tanks' will mean there will always be problems fitting them into raid situations.  I think there should be a shift towards thinking of them as 'protectors'  for their groups.  Giving them the ability to protect their groups from more aoe damage, and give them some purpose when they are not the target of the mob they are fighting.

SoE has a couple of patterns that they've held true to and probably will continue to use.  They have tried various tactics to 'force' more fighters into the raid, but the real solution is to make those classes the most beneficial.  There's much too reliance on bards and chanters in raids.  Creating a raid force with 24 classes is no longer a valid option because of the need for chanters and bards, but 24 classes definately needs to be a valid option for a raid.

[BChizzle]

Fighters are tanks dunno why you would want them to be bards without good bard buffs.  The problem overall with tanks right now is that the AE tanks tank single target fights considerably better then the single target tanks tank ae fights.  Address that then address the different singular issues in each class and you have a fix.

[RafaelSmith]

TheSpin wrote:

Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:

While these are some good ideas.......I am not sure the direction we want SOE to take with fighters is one of trying to come up with ways for fighters to fill "ghetto" versions of roles.

Raid encounters need to be designed such that having one of each fighter type in your raid is "important". I would love to see a raid zone where the MT is not the same guy from start to finish.......give us variety of mobs that require us to switch out fighter types.

Viewing all 6 fighter classes as 'tanks' will mean there will always be problems fitting them into raid situations.

Yep.

SOE says fighters are tanks.

Players roll fighters to be tanks.....not [Removed for Content] DPS or [Removed for Content] buff bots.

Players that play fighter classes will never be satisfied with serving anything but a tank role.

What we need in terms of balance is for each of the 6 fighters types to be viable choices for whatever tank roles may exist on a raid.  It should be a competition....and assuming quality players the choice as to who is MT or OT should be a difficult one.......not a easy...obvious choice like it is now.  Competition for filling a MT/OT spot on a raid needs to be fair and tough.

[Aull]

 Making all the tanks have equal footing in ae/single target fights, survivability, dps, or what ever else is out there defeats the purpose of having six tanks. There should be noticable differences in each fighter sub-class. If all will be equal then eliminate the sub-classes and just have warrior, crusader, and brawler.

I would hate if it becomes

Aoe fights: guardian = berserker = paladin = sk = monk = bruiser. In no particular order.

Single target fights: guardian = berserker = paladin = sk = monk = bruiser. In no particular order.

Survivability: guardian = berserker = paladin = sk = monk = bruiser. In no particular order.

Dps aoe: guardian = berserker = paladin = sk = monk = bruiser. In no particular order.

Dps single target: guardian = berserker = paladin = sk = monk = bruiser. In no particular order.

Utility: guardian = berserker = paladin = sk = monk = bruiser. In no particular order.

Basically all being able to do the exact same thing with no specials. Just clones of one another with different combat art names.

I honestly hope this never happens and that sub-class individuality becomes better than what it is now.

[circusgirl]

If we're looking at stances, it should be pointed out that brawler's uncontested avoidance needs to become something innate, and not something tethered to our defensive stance.  As it stands now we cannot both use our best utility ability (tranquil vision) to its full effect while dpsing, since our uncontested avoidance falls precipitously when we are in offensive.

[Yimway]

TheSpin wrote:

My third suggestion is a multiple facetted adjustment to stances.  Similar to the new priest stances, they should focus on base damage, threat,  and surviveability increases and decreases rather than skill adjustments.  Hit rates especially should not be dependant on stances.  I also would like to suggest altering the way stance changes work.  Similar to the AoC stances, changing from one stance to another should be instant, and changing into one stance would then lock your character into that stance long enough to make the decision to change stances meaningful.

I really don't like your first 2 ideas.  And while something needs to be done with aggro, I don't feel thats the right sollution.

However, in regards to stances, I very much agree.  I have a post in the fighter revamp threads in test forums that talks about the bonuses and penalties of these stances need to be significant and scale regardless of gear and skill.  Lastly, your correct, hit rates can not very between the stances, just output.

[Aull]

Atan@Unrest wrote:

TheSpin wrote:

My third suggestion is a multiple facetted adjustment to stances.  Similar to the new priest stances, they should focus on base damage, threat,  and surviveability increases and decreases rather than skill adjustments.  Hit rates especially should not be dependant on stances.  I also would like to suggest altering the way stance changes work.  Similar to the AoC stances, changing from one stance to another should be instant, and changing into one stance would then lock your character into that stance long enough to make the decision to change stances meaningful.

I really don't like your first 2 ideas.  And while something needs to be done with aggro, I don't feel thats the right sollution.

However, in regards to stances, I very much agree.  I have a post in the fighter revamp threads in test forums that talks about the bonuses and penalties of these stances need to be significant and scale regardless of gear and skill.  Lastly, your correct, hit rates can not vary between the stances, just output.

I totally agree.

[RafaelSmith]

Something that ive thought about that would give us a little boost in AE aggro as well as maybe breath a little more life into the world of 2hand weapons is some system that gives our single target abilities a chance at effecting multiple targets if we are wielding a 2hander.

Course they would have to do some serious retooling of 2handers since they have been pretty much abandoned for several expansions now.

Yeah im at work and really bored =P

[RafaelSmith]

Something that ive thought about that would give us a little boost in AE aggro as well as maybe breath a little more life into the world of 2hand weapons is some system that gives our single target abilities a chance at effecting multiple targets if we are wielding a 2hander.

Course they would have to do some serious retooling of 2handers since they have been pretty much abandoned for several expansions now.

Yeah im at work and really bored =P

[TheSpin]

Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:

Something that ive thought about that would give us a little boost in AE aggro as well as maybe breath a little more life into the world of 2hand weapons is some system that gives our single target abilities a chance at effecting multiple targets if we are wielding a 2hander.

Course they would have to do some serious retooling of 2handers since they have been pretty much abandoned for several expansions now.

Yeah im at work and really bored =P

I definately like that idea.  It really bothers me that 2 handers have gone down the tube for every class other than dps priests.

As far as everyone's comments about my 'utility' stance... I think that stretching the role of 'tank' into the role of 'protector' is quite reasonable.  One difficult to accept but potentially viable solution to fighters in raids would be to allow fighters in a given group to 'soak up' aoe damage.  From 4 raid groups, and 6 fighter classes I think it would be a viable adjustment to raids to 'force' a fighter in a group simply to protect the other group members from aoe damage.  Obviously this would require a slight overhaul in raids and their setups, but reducing the enchanter/bard requirement and upping the fighter requirement for a raid setup could be a move in the right direction for the future of the game.

[Landiin]

What needs to happen is a nerf to crusaders DPS while using sword & board and upping their DPS while using 2 handers. They shouldn't be doing the DPS they are doing and keeping the survivability of sword & board.

[TheSpin]

Aull wrote:

 Making all the tanks have equal footing in ae/single target fights, survivability, dps, or what ever else is out there defeats the purpose of having six tanks. There should be noticable differences in each fighter sub-class. If all will be equal then eliminate the sub-classes and just have warrior, crusader, and brawler.

I would hate if it becomes

Aoe fights: guardian = berserker = paladin = sk = monk = bruiser. In no particular order.

Single target fights: guardian = berserker = paladin = sk = monk = bruiser. In no particular order.

Survivability: guardian = berserker = paladin = sk = monk = bruiser. In no particular order.

Dps aoe: guardian = berserker = paladin = sk = monk = bruiser. In no particular order.

Dps single target: guardian = berserker = paladin = sk = monk = bruiser. In no particular order.

Utility: guardian = berserker = paladin = sk = monk = bruiser. In no particular order.

Basically all being able to do the exact same thing with no specials. Just clones of one another with different combat art names.

I honestly hope this never happens and that sub-class individuality becomes better than what it is now.

I agree with you completely and that's one big problem with the way the game was designed.  It works really well for healers to have been created with relatively equal healing abilities, but different methods of doing their job.  It has not worked for tanks.  Every expansion ends up having one or two fighter classes signifigantly stronger than the others, this expansion has been no exception.

Overall, each fighter class should be close to equally desired for either groups or raids, but for different reasons.  Added up they should be equal, but they need more diversity and different ways of achieving that equality.  That's the reason I suggested a utility oriented stance.

[Kigneer]

TheSpin wrote:

First, I would like to suggest a major change that would add a new dynamic to the archetype.  This would be the addition of a third stance which would focus on adding some kind of utility to the group so that groups have the option to use certain fighter classes in place of other 'support' classes.  Players have begun to rely too heavily on bards and chanters in my opinion.  Especially in raiding.   With 6 fighter classes, limiting their purpose to directly tanking is simply not working.

Totally.

I like OTing, as I like cleaning mobs. To me that's fun. Rolled a Pally as at the time that was their role and their ability. Now? Raiders cry, scream, yell, fume if a MT and an OT are together in anything but specific groups. That type of mindset needs to leave the game. We play toons to have fun, we develop characters to how WE like to play. When the fun isn't there anymore and it's but stats and which raid group farms avatars "to know better" (ah, no, it's just who spent the most time scoping for them and wiping to learn the script), the game is broken.

Like playing a Pally since I can do a little of everything to plug holes in the script. MTs and healers can be wanting in some areas, and this is often where I'm must useful. But how do you convey that in chat, when there's a wrong mindset out there that if you're not a MT tank, "just roll another class"?

If you're a utility tank you have abilities to add to what's missing in a group, you add -- not take away -- from the group so they can do their job. If the MT is a melee giant, and his healer is a slow-over-time type, what happens when his health bar goes red while the healer is waiting for his big heal to come back up? I can fire off a 5k heal on the MT, and if he wipes another time, stand right over him and rez him at 100% health on spot. If a Dirge is in the group, he can give him the power my rez doesn't over him, and he's good to go. Raid guilds without Pallies shoot themselves in the foot, as they eliminate a tank that has more roles than JUST a MT.

Ego doesn't win the fight, what does is folks showing up and doing their job to the best of their abilities. It is a team effort, afterall.

[Illine]

Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:

TheSpin wrote:

Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:

While these are some good ideas.......I am not sure the direction we want SOE to take with fighters is one of trying to come up with ways for fighters to fill "ghetto" versions of roles.

Raid encounters need to be designed such that having one of each fighter type in your raid is "important". I would love to see a raid zone where the MT is not the same guy from start to finish.......give us variety of mobs that require us to switch out fighter types.

Viewing all 6 fighter classes as 'tanks' will mean there will always be problems fitting them into raid situations.

Yep.

SOE says fighters are tanks.

Players roll fighters to be tanks.....not [Removed for Content] DPS or [Removed for Content] buff bots.

Players that play fighter classes will never be satisfied with serving anything but a tank role.

What we need in terms of balance is for each of the 6 fighters types to be viable choices for whatever tank roles may exist on a raid.  It should be a competition....and assuming quality players the choice as to who is MT or OT should be a difficult one.......not a easy...obvious choice like it is now.  Competition for filling a MT/OT spot on a raid needs to be fair and tough.

 not true, some ttanks might be willing to fulfill another role in raid.

We stay tanks, we can tank instances but not all tanks will tank raid epics, so the ones that can't (likre brawlers) will stay behind ...

[Aull]

Well since fighters are listed as "tanks" any tank that has the best durability possible will be wanted more than a "tank" that can't survive as well even if dps and utility are better than the better durable tank.

The plates will have the best durability period. Brawlers will not. Only high end raiding brawlers with great equipment and the aa's to help will be able to tank high end raid zones but still not as effectively as the plates of the same caliber and aa.

Seeing plate tanks as "protectors" is a great vision for me to understand but I see brawlers as true "fighters" with stonger dps and modest survival as their role.

I think that if the four plate tanks arch type was "protector" and the two brawlers as "fighter" this may open up some types of individuality amongst what is now the cause of all the confusion since there are six so called fighters. Again trying to give six tanks individuality yet not overpowering the survivability to dps ratio is very difficult to achieve. This plate survivablity to dps ratio is where I think it should be (exception to the sk's being to high), but since brawler survivability is behind the plates their dps should be higher than what it is currently.

This is where I see many brawlers are having such issues is their dps is not any more effective than the plates yet brawler survivability is no where near close to the plates. So the obvious choice for any group or raid would be a plate as the tank and not the brawlers. So moving the brawlers into their own arch type might free up areas for improvment for the brawlers giving them some appeal while still allowing the plates to keep their current survival to dps ratio in check.

I do think that the plates are closer than they have ever been yet brawlers are not.

[circusgirl]

Just because brawlers have historically been behind does not mean we will or should always be behind.  The fighter revamp would have made us capable of raid tanking--maybe not guardian or shadowknight quality, but we would have been able to hold our ground.  They should bring brawlers up to the same level as plates, and let player skill, not class be the determining factor in who gets the MT slot.  

...or, even better, give tanks very different abilities and design content in such a way that makes different classes of tank better for different encounters, such that the MT position has to rotate occassionally.

For example, raidboss A has an ability that fears fighters in the raid semi-constantly.  Now you want a crusader tank

raidboss B doesn't hit particularly hard, but has a buff on him that gives him a 20% chance to cast a curse on his target that drops their mitigation to 0 (not by a % or a flat debuff, but all the way down to 0) with each successful melee attack.  Avoidance tanking is the best way to go for him, so you need a brawler here.

And of course, straight-up hard-hitting mobs encourage a warrior.

[TheSpin]

Aull wrote:

Well since fighters are listed as "tanks" any tank that has the best durability possible will be wanted more than a "tank" that can't survive as well even if dps and utility are better than the better durable tank.

The plates will have the best durability period. Brawlers will not. Only high end raiding brawlers with great equipment and the aa's to help will be able to tank high end raid zones but still not as effectively as the plates of the same caliber and aa.

Seeing plate tanks as "protectors" is a great vision for me to understand but I see brawlers as true "fighters" with stonger dps and modest survival as their role.

I think that if the four plate tanks arch type was "protector" and the two brawlers as "fighter" this may open up some types of individuality amongst what is now the cause of all the confusion since there are six so called fighters. Again trying to give six tanks individuality yet not overpowering the survivability to dps ratio is very difficult to achieve. This plate survivablity to dps ratio is where I think it should be (exception to the sk's being to high), but since brawler survivability is behind the plates their dps should be higher than what it is currently.

This is where I see many brawlers are having such issues is their dps is not any more effective than the plates yet brawler survivability is no where near close to the plates. So the obvious choice for any group or raid would be a plate as the tank and not the brawlers. So moving the brawlers into their own arch type might free up areas for improvment for the brawlers giving them some appeal while still allowing the plates to keep their current survival to dps ratio in check.

I do think that the plates are closer than they have ever been yet brawlers are not.

I agree with you pretty much.  Brawlers was one of my main considerations when I suggested the 'utility' oriented stance.  Why not let a monk fill in for a chanter?  Why not let a bruiser fill in for a second healer by signifigantly improving the surviveability of the main tank?     Brawlers are unique by design, but haven't really been given an adequate role in eq2.

Vinka ....  The types of encounters you describe have been added.  Every single expansion the raids try to force certain classes into the raid, but generally people would rather adjust their playstyles than their raid rosters.  I think the only viable option is to increase the benefits of bringing fighters in a raid, rather than changing the encounters.  Rather than hoping and praying that one day brawlers will be 'on par' with the other tanks I would suggest giving them other options.  There really is not a need for 6 'tank' classes in any mmo.

[peepshow]

TheSpin wrote:

Vinka ....  The types of encounters you describe have been added.  Every single expansion the raids try to force certain classes into the raid, but generally people would rather adjust their playstyles than their raid rosters.  I think the only viable option is to increase the benefits of bringing fighters in a raid, rather than changing the encounters.  Rather than hoping and praying that one day brawlers will be 'on par' with the other tanks I would suggest giving them other options.  There really is not a need for 6 'tank' classes in any mmo.

Show me just 1 fights that FORCES you to bring a Brawler to the raid.. I say it does not excist, so this statement could not be more wrong..

Sure the sisters in SoH was a nice TRY but it did not solve the problem at all, many high end guild does not use a brawler for this encounter, if you just have enough dps then there is no need

Vinka has some very nice ideas to how Brawlers could be wanted in raids, but it does take some big changes, something soe really should consider..

[Ishnar]

I agree with the assumption that a role other than "tank" must be created and making fighters give more dps just increases the competition with "real" dps classes, but doesn't give a new role.  If we don't create a new role, then we have to redifine what tanking is.

So AOE soaker, would be nice.

Tag team tank would be interesting.  Sorta like intercept, but splitting a larger portion of the attacks, effectively forcing a mob to split attacks between two characters.  This would make raid mobs retool to the point where one tank cannot tank effectively, and required two tanks.  Since the tag team tank would be intercepting blows that would have landed, the tag tank effectively takes advantage of the main tanks buffs, so he only needs to be healed seperately, not buffed seperately as well.

Give fighters an "It" stick that can only be passed to another fighter class. Thus a warrior would have to pass the stick to a crusader or a brawler.  Instead of buffing the MT, the stick would bear the enchantments, and when a tank is about to go down, he could pass the stick over and make another fighter automatically adopt his place in the hate queue and with the same buffs.  So fighters could play hot-potato raiding.

Split up the damage.  Different from intercpet, this would limit it to type absorption.  So an SK could place an enchantment on the MT so that all Disease/Poison damage is siphoned to the SK, and a Paladin would absorb all divine damage, a guardian might siphon physical damage and a monk absorb mental.

Hate transefer.  Brawlers with their in combat speed buffs could became another form of crowd control.  Instead of off tanking, they would go and taunt the adds, then bring them over to the main tank, and transfer the mob's hate to the tank, "That guy said your face looks like a cabbage."

[Siatfallen]

Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:

Just because brawlers have historically been behind does not mean we will or should always be behind.  The fighter revamp would have made us capable of raid tanking--maybe not guardian or shadowknight quality, but we would have been able to hold our ground.  They should bring brawlers up to the same level as plates, and let player skill, not class be the determining factor in who gets the MT slot.  

...or, even better, give tanks very different abilities and design content in such a way that makes different classes of tank better for different encounters, such that the MT position has to rotate occassionally.

For example, raidboss A has an ability that fears fighters in the raid semi-constantly.  Now you want a crusader tank

raidboss B doesn't hit particularly hard, but has a buff on him that gives him a 20% chance to cast a curse on his target that drops their mitigation to 0 (not by a % or a flat debuff, but all the way down to 0) with each successful melee attack.  Avoidance tanking is the best way to go for him, so you need a brawler here.

And of course, straight-up hard-hitting mobs encourage a warrior.

The reason this is hopefully not going to happen is that in fact, the majority of the playbase does not want brawlers to be a tanking class on par with plate fighters. See the poll on that-other-forum's bruiser section, the numbers really do speak for themselves.Until such time as the brawlers by a vast majority prefer the tanking role, I don't see it happening. At the moment, the balance is even leaning slightly the other way. Most seem to want to remain hybrids, though, and it is little wonder: That's the historical role of brawlers, and there's little reason the class should not be functional and competitive within that framework, bad design decisions aside.

To insist on a mainstay raid tanking role is, to my mind, to ask for a removal of the core identity of the class.

[Kordran]

Toran@Oasis wrote:

What needs to happen is a nerf to crusaders DPS while using sword & board and upping their DPS while using 2 handers. They shouldn't be doing the DPS they are doing and keeping the survivability of sword & board.

I believe it's a mistake to lump Paladins in there (yes, there are exceptions, but those Paladins who are posting 10K+ on the zonewide are in the significant minority). Also keep in mind that the Crusader's mythical weapon is 1H of course, and unlike warriors such as yourself, they do not have the option of dual wielding. So, taking your suggestion, you're basically saying that if a Crusader wants to DPS, they cannot use their mythical. That, right there, is an entire freight train of fail. Try again.

The real underlying issue here, in my opinion, is that 2H weapons are sub-optimal across the board. Giving Crusaders some ability that somehow makes them viable isn't going to be the answer. At the very least, you'll start hearing some Warriors complain (rightfully) that it's unfair that only Crusaders are a viable 2H wielding class. So rather than making a one-trick pony out of the issue, why not simply address the deficiency in using a 2H weapon and make them a viable, attractive option for all of the classes that can use them?

[Lleren]

Siatfallen wrote:

Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:

Just because brawlers have historically been behind does not mean we will or should always be behind.  The fighter revamp would have made us capable of raid tanking--maybe not guardian or shadowknight quality, but we would have been able to hold our ground.  They should bring brawlers up to the same level as plates, and let player skill, not class be the determining factor in who gets the MT slot.  

...or, even better, give tanks very different abilities and design content in such a way that makes different classes of tank better for different encounters, such that the MT position has to rotate occassionally.

For example, raidboss A has an ability that fears fighters in the raid semi-constantly.  Now you want a crusader tank

raidboss B doesn't hit particularly hard, but has a buff on him that gives him a 20% chance to cast a curse on his target that drops their mitigation to 0 (not by a % or a flat debuff, but all the way down to 0) with each successful melee attack.  Avoidance tanking is the best way to go for him, so you need a brawler here.

And of course, straight-up hard-hitting mobs encourage a warrior.

The reason this is hopefully not going to happen is that in fact, the majority of the playbase does not want brawlers to be a tanking class on par with plate fighters. See the poll on that-other-forum's bruiser section, the numbers really do speak for themselves.Until such time as the brawlers by a vast majority prefer the tanking role, I don't see it happening. At the moment, the balance is even leaning slightly the other way. Most seem to want to remain hybrids, though, and it is little wonder: That's the historical role of brawlers, and there's little reason the class should not be functional and competitive within that framework, bad design decisions aside.

To insist on a mainstay raid tanking role is, to my mind, to ask for a removal of the core identity of the class.

I would note that there are 4 "hybrid" tanks in the fighter grouping:  Shadowknight, Paladin, Bruiser, Monk.

Brawlers are all the saturday morning martial art movies heroes and villians ever, all rolled into one.  We can take a beating, avoid blows like a madman, and really put a hurting on someone =D   At least the pictures we seem to have of ourselves.  Maybe thats just me though. 

Wish my Monk was as rewarding to play as my Berzerker.

[Landiin]

Kordran wrote:

Toran@Oasis wrote:

What needs to happen is a nerf to crusaders DPS while using sword & board and upping their DPS while using 2 handers. They shouldn't be doing the DPS they are doing and keeping the survivability of sword & board.

I believe it's a mistake to lump Paladins in there (yes, there are exceptions, but those Paladins who are posting 10K+ on the zonewide are in the significant minority). Also keep in mind that the Crusader's mythical weapon is 1H of course, and unlike warriors such as yourself, they do not have the option of dual wielding. So, taking your suggestion, you're basically saying that if a Crusader wants to DPS, they cannot use their mythical. That, right there, is an entire freight train of fail. Try again.

The real underlying issue here, in my opinion, is that 2H weapons are sub-optimal across the board. Giving Crusaders some ability that somehow makes them viable isn't going to be the answer. At the very least, you'll start hearing some Warriors complain (rightfully) that it's unfair that only Crusaders are a viable 2H wielding class. So rather than making a one-trick pony out of the issue, why not simply address the deficiency in using a 2H weapon and make them a viable, attractive option for all of the classes that can use them?

If crusaders DPS with 2hander is equal to warriors DW then I don't see why warriors would complain. There has to be balance its only right that crusaders would do more DPS than warriors with 2hander being they can't DW. It how ever isn't balanced for crusaders to do equal to or greater DPS then warriors DW while crusaders are sword and board.

[TheSpin]

Toran@Oasis wrote:

If crusaders DPS with 2hander is equal to warriors DW then I don't see why warriors would complain. There has to be balance its only right that crusaders would do more DPS than warriors with 2hander being they can't DW. It how ever isn't balanced for crusaders to do equal to or greater DPS then warriors DW while crusaders are sword and board.

Here's the thing.... Class Balance doesn't necessarily mean Equal at everything.  You have to look at the overall package to determine balance, not just dps.  It doesn't necessarily mean your wrong with what you're saying though.  As long as dual wielding warrior dps is balanced appropriately against crusader 2 handed dps it could add one thing that I think the game really needs, and that's more uniqueness between the plate fighters.

I'd like to see 2 handers become relevant again; I think it would add more flavor to the game.  I don't really think the game's future is really dependant on it though.  I do feel like the game's future is dependant on doing something to balance the fighters by making them more diverse and adding new dynamics to each class.

[Siatfallen]

Noih@Kithicor wrote:

Siatfallen wrote:

Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:

Just because brawlers have historically been behind does not mean we will or should always be behind.  The fighter revamp would have made us capable of raid tanking--maybe not guardian or shadowknight quality, but we would have been able to hold our ground.  They should bring brawlers up to the same level as plates, and let player skill, not class be the determining factor in who gets the MT slot.  

...or, even better, give tanks very different abilities and design content in such a way that makes different classes of tank better for different encounters, such that the MT position has to rotate occassionally.

For example, raidboss A has an ability that fears fighters in the raid semi-constantly.  Now you want a crusader tank

raidboss B doesn't hit particularly hard, but has a buff on him that gives him a 20% chance to cast a curse on his target that drops their mitigation to 0 (not by a % or a flat debuff, but all the way down to 0) with each successful melee attack.  Avoidance tanking is the best way to go for him, so you need a brawler here.

And of course, straight-up hard-hitting mobs encourage a warrior.

The reason this is hopefully not going to happen is that in fact, the majority of the playbase does not want brawlers to be a tanking class on par with plate fighters. See the poll on that-other-forum's bruiser section, the numbers really do speak for themselves.Until such time as the brawlers by a vast majority prefer the tanking role, I don't see it happening. At the moment, the balance is even leaning slightly the other way. Most seem to want to remain hybrids, though, and it is little wonder: That's the historical role of brawlers, and there's little reason the class should not be functional and competitive within that framework, bad design decisions aside.

To insist on a mainstay raid tanking role is, to my mind, to ask for a removal of the core identity of the class.

I would note that there are 4 "hybrid" tanks in the fighter grouping:  Shadowknight, Paladin, Bruiser, Monk.

Brawlers are all the saturday morning martial art movies heroes and villians ever, all rolled into one.  We can take a beating, avoid blows like a madman, and really put a hurting on someone =D   At least the pictures we seem to have of ourselves.  Maybe thats just me though. 

Wish my Monk was as rewarding to play as my Berzerker.

In this context, "hybrid" means a mix between DPS and tanking ability, not a distinct focus on either. This would place the brawlers below plate fighters for survivability, but ahead on DPS.

[RafaelSmith]

TheSpin wrote:

Toran@Oasis wrote:

If crusaders DPS with 2hander is equal to warriors DW then I don't see why warriors would complain. There has to be balance its only right that crusaders would do more DPS than warriors with 2hander being they can't DW. It how ever isn't balanced for crusaders to do equal to or greater DPS then warriors DW while crusaders are sword and board.

Here's the thing.... Class Balance doesn't necessarily mean Equal at everything.

Apparantly SOE thinks that class Balance means someone has to be Better at everything.

[Nicholai24]

Let me be the first SK to express how truly sorrow-stricken we are at the favoritism being shown to our class. I mean, if Guardians had been shown some favoritism, for the past.. oh, say, since Beta.. we all know you wouldn't have the nerve to complain about tank balance. It wasn't like the Guardian wasn't the #1 tank chosen to tank anything and everything, or that you were out-damaging every other tank while in Defensive, or that you were also the most survivable to boot, or that the expansion content was tailored specifically to you guys, with scarcely an AOE fight to be seen..

Oh, wait.

Seriously, SOE works in cycles. SKs are in the spotlight, and that's not going to change for a very long time. It will change, no doubt, and Berserkers and Monks will probably be the new God Tank, in a year or two.. but Guardians have been shown more than enough love, and your time is drawing nigh.

You are the Angelina Jolie to our Megan Fox, to put it in sickening, pop-culture terms. You're old hat.

Don't like it? Learn to wear a skull helmet, and suck HPs out of stuff. Being the favorite is fun, guys. I mean, not that you'd know, or anything. Guardians have had it hard.

[Landiin]

Nicholai24 wrote:

Let me be the first SK to express how truly sorrow-stricken we are at the favoritism being shown to our class. I mean, if Guardians had been shown some favoritism, for the past.. oh, say, since Beta.. we all know you wouldn't have the nerve to complain about tank balance. It wasn't like the Guardian wasn't the #1 tank chosen to tank anything and everything, or that you were out-damaging every other tank while in Defensive, or that you were also the most survivable to boot, or that the expansion content was tailored specifically to you guys, with scarcely an AOE fight to be seen..

Oh, wait.

Seriously, SOE works in cycles. SKs are in the spotlight, and that's not going to change for a very long time. It will change, no doubt, and Berserkers and Monks will probably be the new God Tank, in a year or two.. but Guardians have been shown more than enough love, and your time is drawing nigh.

You are the Angelina Jolie to our Megan Fox, to put it in sickening, pop-culture terms. You're old hat.

Don't like it? Learn to wear a skull helmet, and suck HPs out of stuff. Being the favorite is fun, guys. I mean, not that you'd know, or anything. Guardians have had it hard.

I think a sad day is commeing for you verry soon..