Tanking ROLE = Tanking ability + Utility + DPS + Taunting ability

ReviloTX · 10-30-2005, 01:07 PM

Dev's, please balance the equation for all fighter subclass, thanks.

Message Edited by ReviloTX on 10-30-2005 01:35 AM

Baldaena · 10-30-2005, 01:20 PM

mmm, and what about :

Fighter = Tanking ability(mit,avoid,hp,short duration buff) + Taunting ability + Utility + Dps + 'Flavor'

ReviloTX · 10-30-2005, 01:32 PM

Baldaena wrote:

mmm, and what about :

Fighter = ...

I'm not talking about anything other than balancing my ability to perform my main role in a group. I could care less about anything else at this point and don't care how fighters flavor gets balanced. I want my core role to be balanced. Start your equation with Tanking role = and then we can talk.

I will give you that taunting effects the tanking role. I will fix my equation.

Message Edited by ReviloTX on 10-30-2005 01:34 AM

Baldaena · 10-30-2005, 01:51 PM

yes, but I think you can't discuss about tanking balance without the other aspects.

I agree that flavor is not currently the core problem (but it's nevertheless a probleme)

Currently soe assume tanking abilty & taunting ability are balanced, why not... (even if we have problem with our taunt resists & our great ability to be easily stiffled or stuned by mobs),

ReviloTX wrote:

I'm not talking about anything other than balancing my ability to perform my main role in a group. I could care less about anything else at this point and don't care how fighters flavor gets balanced. I want my core role to be balanced. Start your equation with Tanking role = and then we can talk.

If you want to talk about your main role in group, you only need to speak about tanking and tauntig and not dps&utility, but the picture won't be complete (In my point of view)

ReviloTX · 10-30-2005, 02:09 PM

Baldaena wrote:

If you want to talk about your main role in group, you only need to speak about tanking and tauntig and not dps&utility, but the picture won't be complete (In my point of view)

See thats exactly where your wrong. I've explained in numerous threads already how DPS and utility effect the tanking role. Very simple and quick example: Self heals.

See my post on page 7 of the guardian issues and suggestion threads stickied above for further explanation (as well as about 50 other posts of mine :smileyvery-happy: ).

And by the way, that appears to be the exact same mistake the dev's made prior to LU13.

Message Edited by ReviloTX on 10-30-2005 01:11 AM

Baldaena · 10-31-2005, 03:53 AM

We are saying the same thing, stop playing with words

ReviloTX · 10-31-2005, 06:57 AM

Well, you contradicted yourself all in one sentence. I disputed the part I didn't agree with and ignored the part I did, to make my point. If you agree that DPS and utility factor into the equation for contributing to a fighters tanking role, then you shouldn't have said they didn't. I mean, they are either part of the equation or not part of the equation, simple as that.

Message Edited by ReviloTX on 10-30-2005 05:58 PM

10-30-2005, 01:32 PM	#3
ReviloTX Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 234	Baldaena wrote: mmm, and what about : Fighter = ... I'm not talking about anything other than balancing my ability to perform my main role in a group. I could care less about anything else at this point and don't care how fighters flavor gets balanced. I want my core role to be balanced. Start your equation with Tanking role = and then we can talk. I will give you that taunting effects the tanking role. I will fix my equation. Message Edited by ReviloTX on 10-30-2005 01:34 AM

10-30-2005, 01:51 PM	#4
Baldaena Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 247	yes, but I think you can't discuss about tanking balance without the other aspects. I agree that flavor is not currently the core problem (but it's nevertheless a probleme) Currently soe assume tanking abilty & taunting ability are balanced, why not... (even if we have problem with our taunt resists & our great ability to be easily stiffled or stuned by mobs), ReviloTX wrote: I'm not talking about anything other than balancing my ability to perform my main role in a group. I could care less about anything else at this point and don't care how fighters flavor gets balanced. I want my core role to be balanced. Start your equation with Tanking role = and then we can talk. If you want to talk about your main role in group, you only need to speak about tanking and tauntig and not dps&utility, but the picture won't be complete (In my point of view)

10-30-2005, 02:09 PM	#5
ReviloTX Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 234	Baldaena wrote: If you want to talk about your main role in group, you only need to speak about tanking and tauntig and not dps&utility, but the picture won't be complete (In my point of view) See thats exactly where your wrong. I've explained in numerous threads already how DPS and utility effect the tanking role. Very simple and quick example: Self heals. See my post on page 7 of the guardian issues and suggestion threads stickied above for further explanation (as well as about 50 other posts of mine :smileyvery-happy: ). And by the way, that appears to be the exact same mistake the dev's made prior to LU13. Message Edited by ReviloTX on 10-30-2005 01:11 AM

10-30-2005, 01:07 PM	#1
ReviloTX Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 234	Dev's, please balance the equation for all fighter subclass, thanks. Message Edited by ReviloTX on 10-30-2005 01:35 AM

10-30-2005, 01:20 PM	#2
Baldaena Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 247	mmm, and what about : Fighter = Tanking ability(mit,avoid,hp,short duration buff) + Taunting ability + Utility + Dps + 'Flavor'

10-31-2005, 03:53 AM	#6
Baldaena Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 247	We are saying the same thing, stop playing with words

10-31-2005, 06:57 AM	#7
ReviloTX Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 234	Well, you contradicted yourself all in one sentence. I disputed the part I didn't agree with and ignored the part I did, to make my point. If you agree that DPS and utility factor into the equation for contributing to a fighters tanking role, then you shouldn't have said they didn't. I mean, they are either part of the equation or not part of the equation, simple as that. Message Edited by ReviloTX on 10-30-2005 05:58 PM