Name 3 things.. (fighter revamp) [Archive] - EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

Kurindor_Mythecnea

03-24-2009, 11:22 AM

1.) Reintroduce the changes to hate/aggression/threat incorporation where it was done. Do NOT ninja nerf abilities. Simply add threat portions to the ones that had them.2.) Enlist an exclusive group of high end raiders to exhaust rigorous tests on where things are or where they need to be. Offer incentives such as their choice of 15 no trade booster packs every session or 1,500 station cash. Require them to appoint a head, to whom tasks such as filing reports in a new forum section will be assigned. Call this new area "Task Force Trials". All members of the forum can review what has been ongoing here. Further incentives could be exclusive mounts or reduced subscription fees, though specialties such as those might want to be limited to test server incentivizing. - Such a thing inhibits mob mentality that arises when novices see large parses. - The effectuality of procs and changes therein can be then be studied on a closer basis. - Tweaks and substantive changes to particular classes or AA lines will have an empirical and experienced sounding board.3.) Alleviate the burden emplaced on Aeralik being the primary purveyor of class/fighter balance and PvP related issues. Assign a newly hired developer to field invigoration and innovation required to keep the PvP sector as fully well tended as they can possibly be. Cyclical, zone centric, world objectives are a worthwhile goal to draw dynamic and diverse activity into playstyles reliant upon zone line and immunity hugging. The return of level locking in a way that offers health for those who want to grind and those who want to min/max restores the liberty and loss of choice that was enacted with the changes of GU #47. - Gives Aeralik space to run the "Task Force Trials" - The quarter or eighth of your population playing on PvP servers doesn't get neglected - SOE takes an industry leading stand on community immersion - Zone design becomes more likely to receive due attention (i.e. disallowing PvP writ agents from giving tokens unless visited in a contested, open zone and placing the PvP writ agents in the center of objective based locales; removing permanent immunity and replacing it with 45 seconds of immunity [when entering a new zone, when evacuating, or after reviving]). a. As a preliminary move for preparation of cyclical objectives, PvP writ agents could be moved and immunity could be altered before these systems are coherently conceived. Such would serve as an interim fix to players constantly relying on safe havens of immunity. - The likelihood of spreading PvP out and establishing new chokepoints is created. As it is, new overland zones such as Moors of Ykesha remain predominantly BARREN. The thread "READ: On Fixing EQ2 PvP" would be a solid starting point for reforming where revision has been deserved.

Yimway

03-24-2009, 11:24 AM

1) Aggro Management - Cut all hate reductions/transfers/etc in half. Increase every classes deaggro ability by a factor of no less than 5, possibly more. Increase taunt effectiveness x5, add more taunt over time abilities based upon melee swing and / or dot components. Restore the aggression resistance modifiers as they were on test.2) Fix fighter stances to be both more meaningful as well as have penalties in either stance that can NOT be overcome by gear and/or buffs alone. Previous +5dmg modifers or shield effectiveness caps based on stances are possible penalties that will scale regardless of gear, I'm sure creative developers can find others. Defensive stance should lower dmg output modifier by some amount and provide stat bonuses to decrease incoming damage, but should NOT affect the hit-rate of the fighter.3) ST vs AoE - It is fine for different fighters to have more ST or more AoE DPS, however threat generation should be viable for all fighters in both scenarios. Allow the dps output in those situations provide the class distinction however allow all tanks to increase threat both in ST and AoE effectively.Of course those 3 things probably open up dozens of other smaller issues that have to be addressed...

UNTILitSLEEPS

03-24-2009, 11:31 AM

<cite>Akuu@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote>2. Stances: Make Offensive stance more attractive if u wield a 2 handed weapon. And defensive stance more attractive if u wear a shield. Different approach for brawlers(not sure how, but dual / fists / 2 hand are the options).</blockquote>newsflash: there are no 2handers in tsoi support much harsher penaltys in offstance, but only from damage taken and not hate generatedin return to this offstances should result in more dps gain then they currently doi hate to say it but sks need about -10% spell basedmg in defstance (notice i am a sk myself)make taunts more importent/potent in defstance and adjust other classes threat tools accordinglymelee hitrate in defstance should no be penalized they suck enough on higher con mobs alreadyzerkers and especially monks need their overall combatart damage incereased to be a bit less dependent from autoattacksbrawlers need the option to spec 40% aoe attack but it should not be an aaline they would skill anyways for another skill - or it should be one of the endskillsmonks need tweaking to their tso aas to catch up with bruisersbrawlers in general need a little beef that should in my opinion be tied to their stancesi really dunno about paladins...

Master71

03-24-2009, 11:54 AM

1 - remove left over classes, like mage who can't compete on DPS role with either tank or scout.2 - remove PVP, too much impact on the PvE side, and too much ressources used for nothing.3 - remove taunt and detaunt, in this world of DPS over all, they're useless.

UNTILitSLEEPS

03-24-2009, 12:00 PM

<cite>Master71 wrote:</cite><blockquote>1 - remove left over classes, like mage who can't compete on DPS role with either tank or scout.2 - remove PVP, too much impact on the PvE side, and too much ressources used for nothing.3 - remove taunt and detaunt, in this world of DPS over all, they're useless.</blockquote>get off and derail another thread you ...[not allowed to say here]...posters like you should be banned from posting in this section

gatrm

03-24-2009, 12:21 PM

1. Offensive Stance- Make it so that it is more appealling to use a 2h (increase 2h dmg while in offensive by 20 roughly), increase base damage by 10%, keep the + to weapon/casting skills, cap avoidance at 45-50% (Plate tanks)2. Defensive Stance- Remove reduction in combat skills, instead decrease base damage by 10%, increase base hate gain by 20%, and increase base taunt amounts by 50%- increase effectiveness of mitigation by 20% (instead of current 15). Give crusaders parry as well as defense- like the other plate tanks) Give brawlers defensive bonuses when using a 2her (%chance to riposte; increased deflection, and mitigation)3. Absolutely NO consolidation of any spells or abilities.Ultimately there needs to be a choice between dps and survivability- not survivability and aggro as is currently the case. Tanking in offensive stance should be viable (i.e, no reduced hate gain/taunts should still work), just taking more damage with a greater dps output. Tanking in defensive stance should be viable (unlike for some classes on live) allowing more survivability at the cost of dps, without losing hate gain.Regarding dps- keep in mind that it's only the uber tanks (raiding tanks or those with lots of raid gear + a skilled player) that are beating dps classes on damage output- everyone else, including alts, need boosts. Don't nerf tank dps just because the best geared tanks are outdpsing average geared dps. Any changes that take place should be based on a midrange tank as opposed to either the top or the bottom in skill and gear- anything else will result in the same reactive back and forth nerf/buff cycles we have been seeing lately.

Kurindor_Mythecnea

03-24-2009, 12:23 PM

<cite>UNTILitSLEEPS wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Akuu@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote>2. Stances: Make Offensive stance more attractive if u wield a 2 handed weapon. And defensive stance more attractive if u wear a shield. Different approach for brawlers(not sure how, but dual / fists / 2 hand are the options).</blockquote>newsflash: there are no 2handers in tsoi support much harsher penaltys in offstance, but only from damage taken and not hate generatedin return to this offstances should result in more dps gain then they currently doi hate to say it but sks need about -10% spell basedmg in defstance (notice i am a sk myself)make taunts more importent/potent in defstance and adjust other classes threat tools accordinglymelee hitrate in defstance should no be penalized they suck enough on higher con mobs alreadyzerkers and especially monks need their overall combatart damage incereased to be a bit less dependent from autoattacksbrawlers need the option to spec 40% aoe attack but it should not be an aaline they would skill anyways for another skill - or it should be one of the endskillsmonks need tweaking to their tso aas to catch up with bruisersbrawlers in general need a little beef that should in my opinion be tied to their stancesi really dunno about paladins...</blockquote>I think work on procs needs to be done before rash nerfs and involvement with the stances. That, or ACT should simply assign procs from other classes to the actual professions giving them out (i.e. giving a better idea of where the damage is coming from, not having people base their perceptions off of skewed details). Not sure if the latter would be best forwarded to EQ2Aditu though. O_o

Kyior

03-24-2009, 12:51 PM

1. Aggro Management. Instead of the current "omg make taunts awesome" approach, which will enable /easymode tanking, Make it so our auto-attacks still generate 50-60% of our hate, as they do now (except in the form of damage). This makes GOOD tanks happy because all the work they've done learning how to not-suck remains intact (myself included), and it keeps scrub tanks scrub tanks, There should be no reason someone who learns the ins and outs of their character and players their character perfectly, should be able to hold hate in the same field of a scrub tank who doesn't time AA's or know the benefits of certain abilities over others.2. Implement a "Stance Dance" system. I dont praise much of anything from Age of Conan, but their fighter system for stances did it right. Good tanks were VERY involved in the game, and it wasn't just a spam your taunt macro over and over like EQ2 will become if they just make taunts x5 more powerful. To peel hate off of someone, you weren't going to be able to do it in defensive stance, you had to switch to offensive, make yourself appear a lot meaner in combat then a lil finger-wiggler, to regain aggro, then when he's back on you, move back into defensive quick enough not to get the crap kicked out of you.2. Stances: Make Offensive stance more attractive if u wield a 2 handed weapon(Yes.. this means introduce 2h back into the game as a viable weapon). And defensive stance more attractive if u wear a shield. Different approach for brawlers(not sure how, but dual / fists / 2 hand are the options).The ONLY way i see this happening is to deem certain classes 2Handed-classes. 2H weapons are only feasable in crusaders, and *maybe* the berserker, but unless SOE decides to change, its not going to happen. there are no end-game 2Handers, and really once you get your epic / mythical, your pretty much using that. (another reason i dont like mythical weapons, i dont think the best item in the game for your class should be able to be recieved via a questline.

circusgirl

03-24-2009, 01:16 PM

1)AA fixes: Seperate dps, utility, and defensive AAs into seperate AA lines to allow fighters to choose their role and create seperate AA specs depending on whether they want to focus on offense or defense. The current system (at least in the brawler tree) requires a tank trying to spec for defensive abilities to wade through the offensive ones, and requires someone trying to spec for offense to spread themselves out across AA lines and waste points in the useless stat increases. Benefits from AA points need to be standardized across classes (for example, an ability that ups melee crit needs to give equal MC per AA point regardless of if you are a brawler, crusader, or warrior). 2)Give a SIGNIFICANT boost to dps in offensive, along with a significant decrease in survivability and aggro capabilities. Rather than lock out taunts or tie buffs to the stances to force a choice regardless of the content fighters are facing, make it a tradeoff in which tanking in offensive is a poor choice for anyone doing non-trivial content, but it remains a choice For example, add 5% CA damage increase to offensive, along with 50% decrease in taunts and a 5% decrease in armor effectiveness. On defensive, increase effectiveness of worn armor (or some other important survivability aspect like deflection chance, shield effectiveness, mitigation, avoidance, etc.) by 5% and double taunt amounts. Balanced stances, for those that have them, would retain base taunt amounts and provide a balanced intermediate between dps and defense3)Push through the non-aggro changes that were introduced with the fighter revamp, such as Meditative healing fix for monks, fix to Divine Aura for pallies, etc. These were long-term issues with AAs and class balance that had little to do with aggro changes, and there's no need to roll them back as well.The Goal should be to force a fighter to choose their role--With a purely defensive spec (gear, AAs, and stance) any fighter should be capable of holding aggro and surviving in groups or raids. With an offensive AA spec in offensive stance wearing gear that sacrifices survivability (such as jewel of animosity, choker, etc.) a fighter's defensive capabilities should drop towards that of scouts while their dps jumps up towards rogues (without impinging on a rogue's utility, of course).

Kordran

03-24-2009, 01:45 PM

Keep it simple:1. Increase defense, parry, armor and shield effectiveness, taunts and defensive stats (STA, AGI) in defensive stance while reducing overall autoattack and CA damage output. The cast and reuse times for taunts should be significantly reduced in defensive stance, have a reduced resist rate and can critical. The primary single target and AoE taunts have a chance to also directly increase threat position. Note that there is no decrease in weapon skill in defensive, but rather a decrease in overall damage output.2. Increase overall autoattack, CA damage output, weapon skill and offensive stats (STR, INT for Crusaders) in offensive stance, while reducing defense, parry, armor and shield effectiveness and taunts. The cast and reuse times for taunts should be significantly increased in offensive stance, have an increased resist rate and cannot critical. No abilities can directly increase threat position when in offensive stance (e.g.: Rescue, Recapture, Holy Ground, etc. will not increase threat position).3. Convert existing threat transfer buffs from other classes to spells that only transfer threat over a relatively short period of time (example: transfers threat for 10 seconds, with a 120 second cooldown). That would allow those classes to retain some threat transfer capability, but it would not be a permanent buff. Therefore it would become a tool for those classes to help mitigate their own threat temporarily, not help the tank lockdown the encounter.As a separate, but related issue specific to Paladins and Amends: convert Amends from a threat transfer to a buff with a hate gain increase for the Paladin that scales up, with level 63 and 77 versions. It should increase overall base threat generation and add a passive encounter AoE hate proc when the Paladin is hit. It should only be active when the Paladin is in his defensive stance.

Yimway

03-24-2009, 01:52 PM

<cite>Kordran wrote:</cite><blockquote>Keep it simple:1. Increase defense, parry, armor and shield effectiveness, taunts and defensive stats (STA, AGI) in defensive stance while reducing overall autoattack and CA damage output. The cast and reuse times for taunts should be significantly reduced in defensive stance, have a reduced resist rate and can critical. The primary single target and AoE taunts have a chance to also directly increase threat position. Note that there is no decrease in weapon skill in defensive, but rather a decrease in overall damage output.</blockquote>I hate that idea. Spammy taunts != fighter fix

Landiin

03-24-2009, 02:07 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>1) Aggro Management - Cut all hate reductions/transfers/etc in half. Increase every classes deaggro ability by a factor of no less than 5, possibly more. Increase taunt effectiveness x5, add more taunt over time abilities based upon melee swing and / or dot components. Restore the aggression resistance modifiers as they were on test.2) Fix fighter stances to be both more meaningful as well as have penalties in either stance that can NOT be overcome by gear and/or buffs alone. Previous +5dmg modifers or shield effectiveness caps based on stances are possible penalties that will scale regardless of gear, I'm sure creative developers can find others. Defensive stance should lower dmg output modifier by some amount and provide stat bonuses to decrease incoming damage, but should NOT affect the hit-rate of the fighter.3) ST vs AoE - It is fine for different fighters to have more ST or more AoE DPS, however threat generation should be viable for all fighters in both scenarios. Allow the dps output in those situations provide the class distinction however allow all tanks to increase threat both in ST and AoE effectively.</blockquote>I actually agree with all of these and basically what I thought when I read the OP.. What is the world commen to..Being rules are meant be broken 4) Warrior should be Tank/Util/DPS in that order 5) Crusaders should be OT/Util/DPS in that order 6) Brawlers should be DPS/UItil/OT in that orderThere that should be enough to get the Joice's flowing.

metalhed

03-24-2009, 02:09 PM

1. I think Defensive and Offensive stance should'nt have a penalty like they do now. Just a different way of thinking here. The penalty should be that because you are not in offensive stance and chose defensive stance that you don't get those bonuses from being in off stance.Same thing with being in offensive stance, the penalty is that you are not in defensive stance so you don't get the defensive bonuses.One of the biggest problems with tanking orange con mobs is most of the time you need to be in defensive stance, at the same time you are killing your hit ratio, add in the fact that the mob is orange con and your hit ratio has went down way too much. Sure you can bring a warden and dirge with you, but here we go again with having to have this certain class to function even more so. Example: without a warden and dirge in group vs a 85th level with defensive stance my hit ratio will be right at 20% to 25%, add dirge and warden and it increases to 80% to 85%. That equals a whole lot more damage which equals hate. Just saying this is one of the biggest underrated problems that has been looked over since EoF.2. The 35% DA decrease was too much for Warriors. At the same time you buffed up SK's and nerfed the warriors. So yet again you made the same mistake you do every expansion, right before each expansion you nerf almost all classes to some extent while buffing another.Just keeping that 35% DA would had kept warriors to be closer to what they should be. So if the damage output was the problem you could have just added a double taunt chance. That would have been a little better and could be something you use to increase hate gain without people complaining that warrriors have too much dps. Honestly I don't care if I do 1 damage per mob as long as I can hold aggro against mad dps.3. I for one am tired of relaying on other classes in order to hold aggro, for example a warrior doesnt have a chance of holding aggro in a group setup of: Guard,Wizard,Warlock,Brig,ranger, any healer. Yea thats extreme but it can and does happen.Everyone in that group would think the guard sucks, but its only cause he needs other classes to buff him. He could have any combination of gear in the game and not hold aggro from this group setup unless all the classes held back , which will never happen lol.My point here is you can be a dps class without anyone to buff ya and still do pretty good damage which is your job. You can play a healer without anyone buffing ya and still do your roll, but not with a fighter class.So In that group setup you see no dirge, no troub, no illy, and no coercer. we all know whos going to have the hardest time doing their part.

Yimway

03-24-2009, 02:24 PM

<cite>metalhed wrote:</cite><blockquote>So In that group setup you see no dirge, no troub, no illy, and no coercer. we all know whos going to have the hardest time doing their part.</blockquote>I really hate these blanket statements. You could just as easily brought a swash or assasin or had a pally tank and been a viable group. The idea that the utility class is required for a viable group just isn't true, it helps, but isn't a *need*. I agree with your previous sentiment, that with no hate modifer or transfer, things get pretty hard to control if you have more than one good dps person in group, not impossible, but much harder.I'm honestly on the fence if this is a problem or not. Should any tank+healer+dps == success? Is that the game we all want? I see value to both sides of that arguement and am not prepared to weigh down on either side.

RafaelSmith

03-24-2009, 02:40 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>metalhed wrote:</cite><blockquote>So In that group setup you see no dirge, no troub, no illy, and no coercer. we all know whos going to have the hardest time doing their part.</blockquote>I really hate these blanket statements. You could just as easily brought a swash or assasin or had a pally tank and been a viable group. The idea that the utility class is required for a viable group just isn't true, it helps, but isn't a *need*. I agree with your previous sentiment, that with no hate modifer or transfer, things get pretty hard to control if you have more than one good dps person in group, not impossible, but much harder.I'm honestly on the fence if this is a problem or not. Should any tank+healer+dps == success? Is that the game we all want? I see value to both sides of that arguement and am not prepared to weigh down on either side.</blockquote>I personally do not have a problem with the idea of having hate xfer classes and such.......One of the reasons I like EQ2 is for its variety of class synergies......some which work really well......and others that actually hinder performance.But what I do have a problem with is when those buffs and such become a needed component for some and not for others.That group he mentioned......Guard,Wizard,Warlock,Brig,ranger, any healer.......is all to familar to me and my guild.....its a nightmare and extremely frustrating.......ive tried it. Replace that guard with an SK and its an entirely different group that mows thru stuff with ease. This is the problem with SOE and how they balance not just the classes but the entire game around Raids. Raids are a controlled environment.......i.e the groups and such will be optimized to maximize hate for the tank, healing for the healers....dps for the dps.......yada yada. By definitition every class will have the buffs they need to be optimal.We do not have that luxury in groups....and when you have some tanks like Guard that have to have this that and the other thing just to do their primary job of holding aggro while other tanks are self sufficient in being able to effectively fill that role.......we have inbalance. Then introduce a expansion like TSO where being able to keep and aggro and actualy contribute to the heavy DPS required by many of the TSO encounters is a requiredment for the MT.......again it brings out the desparity between the fighter types.I think buffs like hate xfer should simply add/boost to the tanks ability to perform his job........not actually provide him that ability. To have some fighters that are self sufficeint in being able to hold aggro and others that are not is where I believe the bulk of the current problem exists.

Vulkan_NTooki

03-24-2009, 02:46 PM

Please.. stick to the original policy.. I do not want discussions about what ppl type here.. Thats for a different thread. This is for gathering data about what ppl want.. Discussions will only derail this topic into another 200+ topic with arguments.No comments on other ppls top 3 fixes.. please..Also..Please try to use this format for easier reading..1. xxx2. xxx3. xxx

MyTFlyGuy

03-24-2009, 02:48 PM

<cite>Akuu@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote>Here is my contribution1. AA's: Make AA trees more specific.. hate, dps, aoe, single, MT, OT, etc2. Stances:3. Hate: Increase the taunt amounts by alot, and increase base hate in defensive to make up for loss of dps.</blockquote>1-Agree2- Stances Balance positives and negatives :To me it feels like the Stances don't have an even trade off. Defensive gives +hate +great defense/mitigation -DPSOffense gives -less hate -Defense/mitigation +slight dps ( By Removing the -less hate through above suggestions we would have + - for both stances. instead of + +- and - - +. But still allow for specific situations based on the Amount of Defense needed and Shield specific needs in a given fight.3a- Increase Base Hate gain while in Defensive stance. Add Taunt Crits3b- Increase Hate : Damage Ratio. I'm not sure what the current ratio is of hate from Damage but someone else in this thread said .5-.6:1. I would increase this to 1:1 or even 1.5:1 and remove so many of the detaunts/taunt abilities.-Would increase Two handed weapon is they are generating more aggro on the big hits-Would allow Offensive stance to stay viable while risking more damage received.-Would allow misses and resists and to still remain in the hate generation risks for Offensive Stance while giving a base crit rate matching the weapon crit.-MAY require some slight modifications to the other Archtypes Hate : Damage ratio but seems pretty simple with a days worth of testing. For me personally (Not a raider any longer) , After playing a Guardian to 36 , and now a Bezerker to 30. I prefer the Bezerker for the DPS and the offensive stances while tanking. But then I have a great healer that I run with in most cases. For me , Defensive stance is reserved for very tough content (+3-4^^^) and I want to know that if I go to Defensive stance that I can have my target locked in place with Aggro control to make up for the lack of DPS that I can contribute to the fight.Currently my Offensive stance feels like I have so much trouble holding aggro ON TOP of the extra damage I'm taking. I don't mind giving up more damage defense for Offensive as long as I can have just as strong Aggro control but through various methods.I would like to be able to Offensively Tank say 70-80% of an instance and then Switch to Defense for the toughest parts towards the end. Or if I'm feeling VERY froggy and with extra healers , Stay in Offensive throughout.

habby2

03-24-2009, 03:59 PM

1) Increase taunts in defensive stance and add taunt crits. Increase DPS in offensive stance.2) Make the penalties for the stances actual penalties. With the diminishing returns curve, the "penalties" are barely noticable for most content.3) Decrease or remove hate transfers. (Actually in favour of removing them.) Detaunts for DPS classes.

Hirofortis

03-24-2009, 04:31 PM

My 2 cents.1. Tie taunts to each of our abilities like you did on the sk's. That way you have to work out the best order still to maximize things. Decrease hate transfers. When a tank needs certain classes to do the basic functionality of there class, they are to reliant on others.2. Make offensive stance offensive. If a tank is in ofensive stance they are saying i want to do more DPS in return for not worrying about the damage I am gonna take. So if a tank goes offensive, make there armor equivelant to chain of the same tier. Up the DPS to say a t2 range. This will take a t3 dps toon and move it to a t2 while making it equivilent in armor to a t2 class. 3. Make def stance worth something. Increase hate. Damage could be reduced, although I don't think this is the answer. In def stance a tank is focusing on not taking as much damage. This means they are more careful and watching for things to happen. The are looking for the chance to block, not kick up the DPS. They are looking for ways to tick the mob off to keep them the center of attention. Make it so they can do that.Ok, there is my thoughts.

Aule

03-24-2009, 05:56 PM

1. Get rid of the skill bonus / penalty while in offensive / defensive stance. Replace it with effects that are offensive or defensive in nature. At the very top of the complaints list has been the inability to hit while in defensive stance. One example would be tying uncontested avoidance into being in defensive stance just like it is for brawlers. Have swing attempts (not hits) proc hate while in defensive stance, and proc damage in offensive stance. 2. Taunts tied to more abilities, the SK revamp was very well done in this manner even if some of the abilities were maybe a little over done. 3. Make tanking a team effort. Have a line of taunt abilities that boost the threat of all fighters in raid by the same amount. Won't change the individual standing of any of the fighters compared to each other, but helps make sure that the tanks are the ones at the top of the threat charts.

Landiin

03-24-2009, 06:08 PM

<cite>Glacier@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote>1) Increase taunts in defensive stance and add taunt crits. Increase DPS in offensive stance.2) Make the penalties for the stances actual penalties. With the diminishing returns curve, the "penalties" are barely noticable for most content.3) Decrease or remove hate transfers. (Actually in favour of removing them.) Detaunts for DPS classes.</blockquote>1) I would say Plat dps is fine in O stance. Brawlers need boosted though2) yea3) IDK 3 classes really are definded by this. The replacment would have to be well worth it.

TsarRasput

03-24-2009, 06:23 PM

Here's how I'd changing fighters, leaving it mostly how it was, reducing some fighter dps, and giving fighters more agro control.3 stances - Offensive, Mid-stance, Defensive, ObviouslyOffensive would be the best dps, but Defensive would be the best agro control, giving the fighter the complete control. First off I'd make Offensive Stance 75% of the DPS it is now, cutting about 25% off the top. While I'm sure fighters like seeing the high dps numbers, it's kind of outrageous seeing them pull top dps numbers or close to it. Nothing with hate changes, nothing with any changes, just make it so they aren't high dps, but around where bards are etc is fineDefensive Stance would be about 50% of the DPS that fighters can do now in Offensive. However, here's where the change comes, I would give them the ability to gain and extra 1.5x amount of Hate based on the amount of DPS they do, effectively giving them 125% of the hate over their current hate generation.Mid-stance would be a mix between these two, about 60% dps, 40% hate, giving them about the same hate generation they have now.For example if a fighter has a CA that does 500-1000 right now. It would drop to 375-750 damage in offensive, 300-600 Damage + 200-400 hate in Mid Stance, and 250-500 damage + 375-750 hate in Defensive. This would be across the board, on all CAs and autoattacks, and taunts would show their current taunt amounts. This would behoove fighters to fight in Defensive to hold agro better, though if needed, or if duoing, they aren't crippled to the point of not being able to dps.It probably has flaws, but I think this would be an ideal world for everyone, and the classes wouldn't have to change that much to allow it.

Gisallo

03-24-2009, 07:50 PM

<cite>Night_Owl wrote:</cite><blockquote>I'll bite.1. Cut damage output in half, roughly.2. Significantly increase threat production (to show a net increase despite damage reduction)3. There is no 3, just those.</blockquote>1. You do realize that if you cut damage in half their dps would actually be lower than EVERY class in the game, correct? This includes Templars. If so please rationalize to me how it is that fighters would be the ONLY glass in the game hamstrung is such a way. I have yet for ONE person who is in favor of a true nerf of fighter dps be able to come up with a reason that is better than "well because they need one", "well because they are tanks" or "they out dps me" (yes one person was this honest, I appreciated it.) This is an issue because you can look at over half the classes in the game and tell them "you should not dp". The only classes you can not say this too are predators and sorcerers. The three reason I note above are not logically based because to be logically based the logic has to extend to all classes in the game so I really would appreciate a straight answer. Are you the one that can finally provide it?2. You also do realize that to accomplish this the tanks would become something that tanks almost universally do not want. They would truly have to become taunt bots. The amount of hate that would have to be artifically added would be ridiculous with the dps.1. Make hate gain in defensive and offensive stance equal BUT make the difference in surviveability enough that Defensive stance is the stance of choice for tanks on harder mobs and instances. Running CoA with Tier 2 shard gear you can do it offensive. Doing Guk outer strong hold... nope better put that towershield on. BUT allow the fighter to chose which stance have the aggro equal so that they have the choice, BUT have there be a durability down side so he/she must live with the consequences of that choice.2. Make it so not all fighters do the same job on a raid. Assign them a role and then equip them as such. Not all scouts, casters or healers do the same role in a raid, unless they are piloted by an INCREDIBLE player. In RoK everyone said SK's couldn't tank. My guild had an SK MT, but he was an AWESOME player. Some raids have mystics in the MT group because they have an AWESOME mystic. These things are rare though because their base abilities do (did not) lend them to such positions. They can all, fill the same slots in a group but on a raid everyone has a "job". Extend this logic to the tanks. Something like "MT", "OT" and "snap tank/utility". Use this when rebalancing the tanks.3. Realize that itemization is not a way to bandaid thing BUT remember that itemization is a part of balance. Give the brawlers some freakin gear already!!!!!!!a fourth one...4. If you are not going to take such suggestions and insist on a complete revamp of the class to the point they are for all intents and purposes NOT the same class they have been for 4 years do the same to all classes at the same time. Aeralik said himself that the now dead fighter revamp was but the first step. Well if you intend, for the most part, to rewrite the game then should just freaking do it. Every class has roles and they all fight together like pieces in a puzzle. To try and revamp one class type and not the others is asking for HUGE headaches further down the pike. Especially with the pace SOE usually takes. By the time they were to get to say healers there would likely be a different character dev with completely different ideas and then the "plan" is screwed. Mudflation has advanced to the next stage and the next revamp has to take this into account. Take the time, rewrite everyone and then test it to see if it works. I suspect this was not done because they A) didn't want that much work and B) figured they could get away with just peeing off one class type but not all 4, but that may just be my overly conspirtorial mindset.

MyTFlyGuy

03-25-2009, 09:16 AM

<cite>Valkenberg@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>1. Make hate gain in defensive and offensive stance equal BUT make the difference in surviveability enough that Defensive stance is the stance of choice for tanks on harder mobs and instances. Running CoA with Tier 2 shard gear you can do it offensive. Doing Guk outer strong hold... nope better put that towershield on. BUT allow the fighter to chose which stance have the aggro equal so that they have the choice, BUT have there be a durability down side so he/she must live with the consequences of that choice.2. Make it so not all fighters do the same job on a raid. Assign them a role and then equip them as such. Not all scouts, casters or healers do the same role in a raid, unless they are piloted by an INCREDIBLE player. In RoK everyone said SK's couldn't tank. My guild had an SK MT, but he was an AWESOME player. Some raids have mystics in the MT group because they have an AWESOME mystic. These things are rare though because their base abilities do (did not) lend them to such positions. They can all, fill the same slots in a group but on a raid everyone has a "job". Extend this logic to the tanks. Something like "MT", "OT" and "snap tank/utility". Use this when rebalancing the tanks.3. Realize that itemization is not a way to bandaid thing BUT remember that itemization is a part of balance. Give the brawlers some freakin gear already!!!!!!!</blockquote>Good ones , This may have been more elquently put in there than mine , But I definitely agree and was trying to say the same thing. So when parsing the Data, make sure we agree.Off/Def same Aggro capabilities through whatever methods. Although ... my only concern with this is that it will not allow some fighters to be Purely DPS when not tanking. Perhaps add a third Stance in there that is Pure DPS with actual Hate REDUCTION. This way extra fighters in the group actually have something to do. Currently if there is a guardian in group He's the tank because that is the only way he can really contribute over another DD.

liveja

03-25-2009, 11:46 AM

<cite>Glacier@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote>3) Decrease or remove hate transfers. (Actually in favour of removing them.) Detaunts for DPS classes.</blockquote>Aeralik actually already had that in the update.Pretty much everyone of all classes affected pointed out that what was given in return doesn't come close to matching what was taken away.BTW, most of those hate transfers aren't fighter abilities, which makes it even harder to understand why other classes are getting nerfed during a FIGHTER revamp.I'm not opposed to getting rid of hate transfers. I am opposed to the way Aeralik proposed doing it. We have to be given something tangible in return.Edit: I should point out, however, that as a Swashy, I'd rather group with a Paladin than any other tank. There's a very good reason for that, & it's good evidence for why something does need to change with hate transfers. But, as for 3 points ..... sorry, I forgot to include these earlier ....1. Survivability should be BETTER in defensive, & DPS should be BETTER in offensive. Neither stance, however, should generate more or less hate.2. 2-handed weapons need to be seriously improved, to give Off Stance Fighters a reason to use one.3. Guardians & Zerkers, IMO, need help generating & maintaining aggro. I'm not convinced that Pallies & SKs do; I think Pallies should get more defensive utility, & SKs more offensive. I honestly don't know what to suggest in the way of making Brawlers better at tanking that doesn't overpower them; I'm increasingly convinced that it was a mistake to put Brawlers in the Fighter class & imply that they can, or even should, tank as well as the plate fighters. But Brawlers should, most definitely, do more DPS.

habby2

03-25-2009, 12:58 PM

<cite>Flaye@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Glacier@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote>3) Decrease or remove hate transfers. (Actually in favour of removing them.) Detaunts for DPS classes.</blockquote>Aeralik actually already had that in the update.Pretty much everyone of all classes affected pointed out that what was given in return doesn't come close to matching what was taken away.BTW, most of those hate transfers aren't fighter abilities, which makes it even harder to understand why other classes are getting nerfed during a FIGHTER revamp.I'm not opposed to getting rid of hate transfers. I am opposed to the way Aeralik proposed doing it. We have to be given something tangible in return.</blockquote>The reason those abilities were getting changed was because even tho they were not a "fighter" ability, they were tied in with what the current problems are. They had become a fundamental requirement for fighters, even tho they were not a fighter ability. As for giving something back, I couldn't say as I don't play those classes, but for fighters to be "fixed", those abilities really do need to be removed.

liveja

03-25-2009, 01:11 PM

<cite>Glacier@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote>but for fighters to be "fixed", those abilities really do need to be removed.</blockquote>No, they needed to be "changed", which can imply "removal", but just as much implies simply "changed."The change that was made, IMO, was not a good one, as it gave us back much less in return, & I'm willing to bet that the removal of hate transfers affects the raid & grouping role of Swashies more than that of any other class. It doesn't make us "less" desirable, but it most definitely changes our focus, & IMO what our focus was changed to wasn't even addressed -- meaning our role has changed, but our abilities have not been changed to reflect it. This brings me to three more points I think must be considered in future revamps:1. The Fighter revamp, as envisioned, was too big, too unwieldy, & struck out across too broad a swathe of the class landscape. As such, either the initial "vision" was too ambitious, or else, like Topsy, it grew, & grew, & grew far beyond what it was originally intended. Both of those issues are failures of production management: I know, because I've done quite a bit of it, & I can see when a project has grown too large.2. While Fighters were being revamped, ROGUE tanking was left totally untouched, not even talked about. IMO, while those abilities don't directly affect Fighters, they most definitely should have been touched in the Fighter revamp, because they deal specifically & explicitly with hate generation & reduction.3. The combination of 1 & 2 meant that properly fixing the rest of the classes is "further down the road", which IMO will lead to chaos until the rest of the classes get properly addressed, which means a worse game instead of a better one.Seriously, the real issues could have been tackled in a more conservative, more tightly targeted fashion. They weren't, & I think that's the REAL reason the whole thing was reverted: SOE finally realized that it had bitten off far more than it could chew, & had to spit some back out.

Yimway

03-25-2009, 01:13 PM

<cite>Glacier@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote>The reason those abilities were getting changed was because even tho they were not a "fighter" ability, they were tied in with what the current problems are. They had become a fundamental requirement for fighters, even tho they were not a fighter ability. As for giving something back, I couldn't say as I don't play those classes, but for fighters to be "fixed", those abilities really do need to be removed.</blockquote>Removed entirely or just significantly lowered? I think either works providing something is given to the fighter that both compensates for it but doesn't force the fighter into spam taunts. Taunts over Time are what make the most sense to me, but proc based components are feasable as well.

Asif

03-25-2009, 01:31 PM

While i dont have any fighters all i can speak for my wife who has 2 :1 ) Fix Bruiser,s and their gear to reflect what they are dps !!!!2) Fix Guardians AA,s is what she tells me ?3 ) Just get it done soon !!!! ( for me and everyone else but do it right )

Solkarr

03-25-2009, 01:36 PM

<cite>Akuu@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote>Hi.Im gonna make a post with rules.. You can name 3 things u wanna see in the new fighter revamp, and 3 things only.</blockquote>1) Adjust the stances as follows: Def Stance: remove attack skill debuffs, instead add damage debuff (maybe 20%) Def stance: Move the point where deminishing returns kicks in higher for mitigation (currently not even in real raid gear I barely get any benefit from stacking BOTH of my mastered temporary mitigation buffs which adds over 3000 mitigation!) Def Stance: Turns on agression bonus to taunts, taunt critting, base increase in taunts (maybe 30%) Off Stance: cuts taunt amounts by 30%, raises damage by 20%, raises damage taken by 40% Off Stance: make shields not work (this gives brawlers something to excell at, Off stance tanking) No Stance: no taunt crits, no damage modifier, no taunt modifer, no mitigation modifier2) Make dual wielding and 2handers worthwhile, ESPECIALLY in offensive stance3) Add some heroic opportunities that are worth using from a tank perspective

Faelgalad

03-25-2009, 01:38 PM

1. Keep Damage where it is now2. Fix Achivement, erase those that bring no benefit/don't work3. Developers talking with each of the six Tank Community, what should be the strongpoints of their Tanks, and what their weaknesses.

Yimway

03-25-2009, 01:43 PM

<cite>Solkarr wrote:</cite><blockquote> Off Stance: cuts taunt amounts by 30%, raises damage by 20%, raises damage taken by 40% Off Stance: make shields not work (this gives brawlers something to excell at, Off stance tanking)</blockquote>This isn't pragmatic. How are your OT's and non tanking fighers going to survive aoe crt damage with a 40% modifier?Not to mention the modifier in addition to removing shield block all together is far too substantial of a penalty. Removing the block entirely is pretty significant to how much incoming damage they will take (over time). A much smaller damage increase % is required to get a net hit to survivability.Either you don't play a fighter, or you don't raid a fighter, or you really didn't think that thru.

Aull

03-25-2009, 02:26 PM

A. Defensive stance provides better survivability. Taunting power is raised with less resists. The ability to hit a mob while in def is same in offensive with just less damage. Offensive stance is how it is currently with just less survivability and no increase to taunting power.B. Each fighter has some kos/eof aa's that need enhancing or down right rebuilt and those should be redone to better accomodate each fighters class abilities.C. That there is a true separation of each fighter in rates of survival, support, dps, or anything that I am leaving out. I say this cause I do not wish for my bruiser, zerker, and sk to all be equal in all these areas. For me all fighters being capable of having the same survivability, support, and dps totally defeats having six fighters. Yes some will loose, but in other areas they will win.

Vortexelemental

03-25-2009, 02:51 PM

1. Taunt Crit, the return of the 2 new taunts we were given.2. Offense stance turns taunts into damage skills, take slightly more damage. Defense Boosts taunt value, get rid of attack skill negatives so we can hit mobs. Agression resist returns.3. Give us an update soon.

Solkarr

03-25-2009, 04:01 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Solkarr wrote:</cite><blockquote> Off Stance: cuts taunt amounts by 30%, raises damage by 20%, raises damage taken by 40% Off Stance: make shields not work (this gives brawlers something to excell at, Off stance tanking)</blockquote>This isn't pragmatic. How are your OT's and non tanking fighers going to survive aoe crt damage with a 40% modifier?Not to mention the modifier in addition to removing shield block all together is far too substantial of a penalty. Removing the block entirely is pretty significant to how much incoming damage they will take (over time). A much smaller damage increase % is required to get a net hit to survivability.Either you don't play a fighter, or you don't raid a fighter, or you really didn't think that thru.</blockquote>Actually if you look at my sig block you see I play a guardian with mythical... and I thought it through plenty... Either you get the brawlers in there as offtanks (no shields) giving them a meaningful role *OR* offtanks in epic content actually use defensive stance *gasp* since they are you know... tanking!

Mulethree

03-25-2009, 04:53 PM

1. Fix aggression - maybe fix the name as well - Intimidation seems more appropriate. Fighters should have some skill they can select for in gear/aa's/adornments/buffs that lowers the often ridiculous rate of taunt resists. What good is increasing fighter control of hate via taunts if they are 75% resisted until a pile of debuffs are applied? They had this in february but it was poorly thought with a 100% hit rate being achieved well below the skill cap and the defensive stance being the major source of aggression skill but varying wildly amongst the different fighter classes. It should have continuing benefit all the way to the skill cap yet still never reach 100% hit rate. There would need to be means for all the fighter classes to attain an adequate skill level and more sources like AA's, gear, adornments that provide aggression - at the players discretion.2. Add threat to a significant number of fighter arts and Increase the size and the casting time of taunts and some of the more damage-efficient arts. Taunts and the damage+threat attacks should be much more efficient at generating hate than straight DPS. Currently I can cast every combat art I have and 20% of the time they are all greyed out, even timing them around autoattacks. If you increase the casting times so that you have to choose between a hate attack vs a damage attack, then the fighter chooses whether he needs maximum hate with less damage, or maximum damage with little added hate. There are many levels in between the two extremes and fighters get to choose for themselves - but have to choose not just which attack is next but which he can afford the time to cast. 3. Hate gain and threat-xfer buffs. The %hate gains and %transferred are about the most overpowered mechanics in the game - they don't have diminishing returns, or the slow upward curve of a spell upgrade but track the skyrocketing DPS curve - all with an until-canceled buff you cast once and forget about. Yet you can max both out in one group makeup and have nearly zero with another group which changes hate to such extreme as to make one group easy and the other painful. I'd reduce all the big ones and leave the little ones alone (sorcerer and monk get like 4%?) Or, have the buff indicate where hate is to go, but another art that actually does the transfer - e.g. pally casts amends on the wizard but no hate flows till the pally casts ZZZ which siphons 10,000 hate to the pally from the amends target. Limited by how often he can/chooses to cast ZZZ.4. Fix the hit-rate on the defensive stance. Getting defensive shouldn't make you less of a weapons-master. When you execute an uppercut you shouldn't be more likely to miss, or even necessarily hit with less force. You should just have fewer opportunities to throw one because you are spending more of the opportunities you have on blocks and dodges - avoidance. Have the stances trade off defense and offense, don't tie them into hate generation. The defense can be avoidance - you see the hit coming and avoid it; and also mitigation - you see its un-avoidable but can make sure it hits the legplate rather than the knee. But the offense should be about choosing your attacks - and having fewer openings. Lowered skill and increased miss-rate imply that you are just flailing around blindly and not waiting for a proper opening. I'd have defensive increase defense, increase recovery time, decrease haste, and improve mitigation. Offensive would leave mitigation alone, decrease defense, decrease recovery time, and possibly add some more hits thru DA, haste or perhaps double hits from combat arts.

liveja

03-25-2009, 05:47 PM

<cite>Solkarr wrote:</cite><blockquote>Either you get the brawlers in there as offtanks (no shields) giving them a meaningful role *OR* offtanks in epic content actually use defensive stance *gasp* since they are you know... tanking!</blockquote>The Brawler part makes sense, & I kinda approve, at least until someone else tells me I'm totally wrong <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" />However, the *off tank* response is kinda odd, though the reason it's odd isn't your fault. It's odd, because the term "off tank" is a mis-nomer, within the context of an MMO.In the MMO context, a "tank" is the one whom the mob is ON. Those who the mob is NOT on, are NOT "tanking"; if they're carrying big, sharp, pointy-edgy metal things, they're doing DPS. Thus, it makes no sense whatsoever to tell those people to be in Defensive Stance ... since they're NOT tanking.& that's the whole problem, which Atan laid out. If that "off tank" is in defensive stance, in order to pick up aggro when the MT loses it, he/she will do crappy DPS. If they're in offensive stance, they will do the adequate DPS, but will have a much harder time picking up the aggro.

Cyst

03-25-2009, 05:51 PM

Brawlers, the thorn in your foot.I always imagined Brawlers as active tanks/dps. Kind of like having a Heroic Opportunity all to yourself. A finesse class. I'll explain further. If you want better defense, you use this series of combat arts to increase your defense gradually, over a period of time until you can raise it no further, and it lasts for a short, medium, or long duration. If you do not use these particular combat arts, in a sequence, or series of sequences, you will not benefit from them as greatly.Just a thought.

Yimway

03-25-2009, 06:12 PM

<cite>Flaye@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>& that's the whole problem, which Atan laid out. If that "off tank" is in defensive stance, in order to pick up aggro when the MT loses it, he/she will do crappy DPS. If they're in offensive stance, they will do the adequate DPS, but will have a much harder time picking up the aggro.</blockquote>I didn't make my point clear enough. Non tanking fighters on the raid (OT, or otherwise) suffering from a +40% damage modifier is failsauce. The first crit aoe that goes off is going to one shot most of them due to a rediculously high +dmg modifier suggested for O-stance.5% is fine, 10% might be ok, but much higher and aoe's that should be recoverable become fatal for non-tanking fighters in the raid or whatever fighter happens to be in offensive given the preivious posters suggested penalty.

Noaani

03-26-2009, 11:42 AM

1: Setting the gap between DPS and survivability in each stance to a point where it is balanced and there is a real choice between the stances. Having no stance up should be a viable option if the content is neither trivial nor hard. Stances being set to slightly alter certian buffs and combat arts is a viable means of attaining this end.2: Removing hate transfer from the game, and replacing it with hate managment tools for the classes that need them, while providing utility classes with minor utility in this area. This involves handing higher hate levels to tanks, and giving DPS classes passive deaggro abilities. This involves a larger alteration to the paladin class than any other.3: Fulfilling the above in a manner that retains the flavour of each class.

Uggli

03-26-2009, 11:51 AM

Beyond the issues and items listed above, I'd also address fighter stacking issues. In groups any more than one and it puts the group at a disadvantage most times. In raids you need anywhere from 1-3. I already PM'd a few devs this idea but I'll restate it here.Once in place you can modify it as needed for balance.<hr /> Here is an idea I had to address group/raids to invite more than one tank. This idea can also be pushed across to other class types to address "stacking" issues. (2 druids, 2 shammies, 2 flanking DPS, ect ect) Fighter Phalanx Ability. Triggers a new window for fighters in the group/raid only. The Main Tank triggers it anytime once the group/raid is formed. The additional tanks, max of 3 (MT +2), then click a response to it. The responses do the one of the following....1) Increase survivability for the MT. Either through direct damage reduction, mitigation, avoidance, or all 3. This should work about as good as adding 50% of a 2nd healer to a group. It does nothing for the additional tanks. Possible increase to threat generation should be considered. If both extra tanks do this it should be as effective as having another healer in group.2) Increase DPS/damage dealt for extra tanks. Increase Threat for MT. Balance this so it doesn't cross over into forcing DPS classes out, but it should also be a very viable option. If both extra tanks pick this option then it should be a fairly large DPS bonus to make up for having 3 fighters.Once all the extra fighters have picked there Phalanx ability the MT then "accepts", it then adds a buff to the MT until the group or raid is broken. If there are more than 3 fighters present, they cannot add to the effect, but they DO get the DPS buff effect. Force it so that the buff is only active when with in range of the MT. It radiates out from him. So the fighters have to form a "Phalanx" together. Slightly further than melee range of each other should work so the extra fighters can flank a mob if needed to avoid directional damage.This ability would allow groups/raids with multiple tanks to add some utility/bonuses to each other and not making it where having more than one tank punishes a group or raid.You can take this type of "stacking" idea and assist the classes that have the stacking issues.<hr />

Solkarr

03-27-2009, 02:23 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Flaye@Mistmoore wrote:</cite>I didn't make my point clear enough. Non tanking fighters on the raid (OT, or otherwise) suffering from a +40% damage modifier is failsauce. The first crit aoe that goes off is going to one shot most of them due to a rediculously high +dmg modifier suggested for O-stance.5% is fine, 10% might be ok, but much higher and aoe's that should be recoverable become fatal for non-tanking fighters in the raid or whatever fighter happens to be in offensive given the preivious posters suggested penalty.</blockquote>You do make a very good point about the aoes... and I was honestly thinking of the off-tanks more as the tanks that are tanking adds while the maintank is on the primary mob. But since there are so many different situations, you are correct, a 40% penalty to damage taken is too strong.I really liked what one person suggested about affecting reuse timers... defensive stance makes them longer ( all EXCEPT the taunts) and offensive stance shortens them (except the taunts) otherwise off stance will be WAY higher agro than def stance... I guess this idea still needs some work too.Although... with the snap agro tools they added through AA offtanks should have no issue grabbing agro if the maintank dies... Rescue can do up to 5 hate possitions I believe, plus the taunt value, and there are others available depending on class (heck paladins have one that does 24 hate possitions!) so if main tank goes down an offtank can switch to def stance (*IF* they still allow switching easily) and then in 1 to 2 seconds have agro under control. (or taunt first, switch stance second if they choose). Besides, they are only tanking until the main tank is rezzed and at least partly rebuffed, right? Use one of the "look at me for 12 seconds" taunts if you don't think you can get real agro (from class skills or AA).

Theren

03-27-2009, 03:06 PM

<cite>Uggliey wrote:</cite><blockquote> Fighter Phalanx Ability. <snip><hr /></blockquote>This is actually a pretty neat concept. i can dig it.My 1 2 3 are mostly from the crusader view point.1. Add Parry to the D-Stance of Crusaders.(Plan B - Don't make us taunt bots. Simple only pushing 2 buttons to hold aggro isn't fun it's lame) Stances appear to be the biggest target and I agree w/ what many people have said. there really shouldn't be penalizing negative effects on the stances only buffs for certain situations. I can go for a drop in DPS while in dstance and concequently a drop in aggro while in offensive. no skills debuffs for the Defense Stance though hit rates blow as is.2. Remove 50% damage cap on Divine Aura3. Give Guardian some hella nice aggro. I mean if you give us parry w/our insane aggro, give the some aggro w/their insane parry =P Some form of passive Hate gain or transfer. Hold the line doesn't count for much lol.

Elanjar

03-27-2009, 07:18 PM

<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote>1: Setting the gap between DPS and survivability in each stance to a point where it is balanced and there is a real choice between the stances. Having no stance up should be a viable option if the content is neither trivial nor hard. Stances being set to slightly alter certian buffs and combat arts is a viable means of attaining this end.2: Removing hate transfer from the game, and replacing it with hate managment tools for the classes that need them, while providing utility classes with minor utility in this area. This involves handing higher hate levels to tanks, and giving DPS classes passive deaggro abilities. This involves a larger alteration to the paladin class than any other.3: Fulfilling the above in a manner that retains the flavour of each class.</blockquote>WOW i agree with noaani!!! someone take a picture.1) Stances: make a noticeable difference between survivability and dps, but make agro potential equal for both stances2) No transfers: add greater taunt amounts, mods to the hate:damage ratio, better deagro tools for the non tanks and possibly for tanks filling a dps role (if thats possible...)3) taunt crit, agression changes

Danelin

03-28-2009, 07:33 AM

1 - Stances: Get rid of the increasing stances. Make all stances percentile based effects that will therefore scale permanently. Keep it to dps vs survivability, do what is needed to strike a balance so threat remains equal in all stances. Also get rid of the stupid accuracy penalties in defensive stance. A truly defensive fighter will wait for the best openings and will if anything strike more accurately, but they will be careful not to open themselves up to a counter, and so won't commit as much to the attack. Lower dmg, equal accuracy.2 - Make threat a combination of aggro by the tank and deaggro by the aggro classes. Make improved fighter threat come from everything we do (small threat on each combat art, triggerable temporary increase to Autoattack dmg. or what have you), rather than just mashtaunt ala the scrapped revamp.3 - Move fighter damage to a sequence like this:Top DPS - Brawlers. Very closely balanced, with bruisers doing slightly more dmg on lower mit mobs and monks slightly more on low magical mit mobs.Mid DPS - Berserker and Shadowknight, same split.Low DPS - Guardian and Paladin, same split.4 - ???5 - Profit

Solkarr

03-28-2009, 12:17 PM

<cite>Danelin wrote:</cite><blockquote>~snipped~3 - Move fighter damage to a sequence like this:Top DPS - Brawlers. Very closely balanced, with bruisers doing slightly more dmg on lower mit mobs and monks slightly more on low magical mit mobs.Mid DPS - Berserker and Shadowknight, same split.Low DPS - Guardian and Paladin, same split.</blockquote>Ok, although I don't disagree that most people think the fighter dps tree should look about like that (vs a single target at least) what do you suggest we guardians get since we are down at the bottom in your list? We USED to be the kings of survivability... until diminishing returns nuetered us. Even if you gave us more mit and more avoidance on our def stance (besides the fact that all other fighters would cry that they wanted it too) we would probably gain like 1% benefit, compared to a "noticable" dps difference being at least 20% lower dps than brawlers... since if it was only a 1% difference people would laugh at it.(this is why suggest defensive stances adjust where diminishing returns kicks in)OR here is a better idea add a flat % to mitigation and avoidance when in defensive stance, similar to the +3% parry adornments, or the +1% shield block adornments. This way diminishing returns does not have to be messed with... if you have 40% mitigation before you enter defensive stance and your stance adds 10%, then you are at 50%... but if you have amazing gear and are at 70% mitigation before you enter defensive stance, you then are at 80% mitigation...YES, this means people with better gear get exponentially more benefit from defensive stances (the arguement the devs used for adding diminishing returns) ... BUT currently diminishing returns are too harsh. Players with high end gear are exponentially punished harder and harder for trying to improve.

Idako

03-28-2009, 02:54 PM

* BRAWLERS: End Avoidance Tanking; the problem with low mit brawlers isn’t that they need more heals its that they need to absorb the same % of damage as plate tanks to be viable as MT in raids and harder instance groups. Many plate fighters have nearly as much avoid as brawlers and about 20% more mitt. The answer I’d say would be give avoid a percentage of absorb like mitt only for brawlers. Brawlers, more so then other tanks, hold agro through DPS so I’d say bring them up to rouge parses on offensive stance. Also leave plate survivability alone, its at least “fairly” balanced. Right now people rarely run bruisers in raids and monks barely have a spot due to their nice raid buff. Make them both viable as at least OTs. * STANCES/TAUNTS: Increase ALL taunts/detaunts to what was planned in the scrapped update, but DON’T NERF DPS. If a good tank is hitting 10k on a fight your Preds/Sorcerers will be hitting 15-20k. The idea that tanks are parsing too much is ridiculous… some healers are hitting those numbers so I’d say everything is in line. Some [Removed for Content] conjy somewhere probably grouped with a raid-geared guard and had a MC geared toon themselves,OF COURSE HE’LL OUT DPS YOU. Slowing kills does not make the game more fun for anyone. stances are fine, in my mind Offensive stance is for easy stuff, and defensive stance is for hard stuff. I highly doubt any tanks used offensive stance the first time they pulled a hard raid mob (same goes for groups)… Even druusk pre-myth was done in D-Stance by 99% of the population (btw that is a speculative statistic meant to create a positive point). * HATE TRANSFER: Leave Amends for pallys (its too much of a defining class aspect to get rid of and I don’t even play a pally), but half all other agro gains and hate transfers. Keep in mind to keep balance we’ll say in a group setting if a tank is hitting 5k and the DPS is hitting 10k (which a 5k difference is viable) 5k hate needs to be generated from taunts or extra agro from procs/stances. So add an 8k 4 second reuse taunt, and about 2k more threat per second from procs/taunt attacks/group taunts. The DPS class will then be able to detaunt the rest. Bards/Coercer/Swash/Assassin come into play on the inflated raid parses where you see sometimes 10k parse differences. This way a tank doesn’t NEED an agro transfer, but they are still nice. I only have 3 main points here, but you get the general idea. I think buffing a lot of things and only nerfing a few is much more viable then ripping classes to shreds.EDIT: removed paste trash.

Hirofortis

03-28-2009, 07:59 PM

New Brawler ability in Defeensive Stance.Skill - Hardened SkinIncreases mitigation at the loss of avoidance and DPS. There, problem solved. Now they can act like a plate tank.

Emlar_from_Halas

03-28-2009, 09:15 PM

1 - Stances focus on survivability vs dps: You hit less and you are hit for less in Def Stance. Your protection is less reliable in offstance but you hit more.Def Stance : Replace mitigation bonus with Dmg reduc (T8 : 300 for A1, 345 for Ad3, 400 for M1). Transform temporary mitigation boosts (Guardian Wall of Armor and Call of shielding) into temporary DR (T8 : A1=350, A3=420, M1=500), Divide double attack % per 2. Increase Taunts threat by 30%. Keep defensive bonus as they are already. Increase taunt recovery by 20%.Off Stance : Make all avoidance checks contested. Add 25% double attack and offensiv stats (as they are currently (STR for guardian)). Temporary mitigation boosts benefits are divided by 2. Decrease taunt recovery by 20%.2 - Revisit unused AAs and CAs:(sorry I will provide only Guardian suggestions since my knowledge of other classes is limited)Taunts : Multiply hate generated by 2 but leave recast as they are, add hate to kick and lay waste/siege as they were in Test.Plant : Generate additional 2K hate + 1K per second.Allay : The target has (A1=50%, A3=58%, M1=68%) of his threat removed (transfered for paly's Amends) for 6 secs, recast 60 secs.Intervene : Add additional threat equal to the amount of dmg removed from the target.Got your back : If a member of the group was to die due to a hit, the hit stiffles him for 5 secs instead and decreases threat priority of target by 1 position.Slanderous Assault : Force target encounter to target guardian for 4 secs. (increased by 0.5 sec / AA).3 - Replace fixed hate transfers with non stackable temporary hate transfer:Swash and Assass have a subset (A1=50%, A3=58%, M1=68%) of all their dmg transfer as hate to the current target for 5 secs. Recast 60 secs. Target is immune to this class hate transfer for 30 secs.Wizard and Warlock have a subset (A1=20%, A3=23%, M1=27%) of all their dmg transfer as hate to the current target for 12 secs. Recast 60 secs. Target is immune to this class hate transfer for 30 secs.Dirge Hate Transfer is replaced with a temporary hate focus: For 5 secs, the target taunts are increased (M1=50%, A3=58%, A1=68%). recast 60 secs.Coercer Hate Transfer is replaced with a mini hate stasis : The coercer forces the encounter to forget (A1=50%, A3=58%, M1=68%) of the hate generated by opponents other than their target for 7 secs, recast 90 secsMake hate transfer % tier dependent. Someone using a Tx hate transfer on a Tx+1 character loses (char_lvl - Tx * 10) * 3% efficiency.

Lleren

03-28-2009, 10:50 PM

Three things1) A reason for more then 1 fighter type in a group, also a reasosn for excess fightes to still come on a raid =D2) Easier aggro control vs characters with much better gear then you, so that begining tanks can work with mythiccal dps and not have the mythical dps only using autoattack3) Balancing such that folks think tank when they see a Monk/Bruiser looking for a group, and not dps

Tympist

03-29-2009, 06:25 AM

<cite>Seigvard@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>1. Aggro Management. Instead of the current "omg make taunts awesome" approach, which will enable /easymode tanking, Make it so our auto-attacks still generate 50-60% of our hate, as they do now (except in the form of damage). This makes GOOD tanks happy because all the work they've done learning how to not-suck remains intact (myself included), and it keeps scrub tanks scrub tanks, There should be no reason someone who learns the ins and outs of their character and players their character perfectly, should be able to hold hate in the same field of a scrub tank who doesn't time AA's or know the benefits of certain abilities over others.2. Implement a "Stance Dance" system. I dont praise much of anything from Age of Conan, but their fighter system for stances did it right. Good tanks were VERY involved in the game, and it wasn't just a spam your taunt macro over and over like EQ2 will become if they just make taunts x5 more powerful. To peel hate off of someone, you weren't going to be able to do it in defensive stance, you had to switch to offensive, make yourself appear a lot meaner in combat then a lil finger-wiggler, to regain aggro, then when he's back on you, move back into defensive quick enough not to get the crap kicked out of you.2. Stances: Make Offensive stance more attractive if u wield a 2 handed weapon(Yes.. this means introduce 2h back into the game as a viable weapon). And defensive stance more attractive if u wear a shield. Different approach for brawlers(not sure how, but dual / fists / 2 hand are the options).The ONLY way i see this happening is to deem certain classes 2Handed-classes. 2H weapons are only feasable in crusaders, and *maybe* the berserker, but unless SOE decides to change, its not going to happen. there are no end-game 2Handers, and really once you get your epic / mythical, your pretty much using that. (another reason i dont like mythical weapons, i dont think the best item in the game for your class should be able to be recieved via a questline.</blockquote>Personally i would like them to give mythicals the option of going 2hander. I mean given up the shield to go gives like a 20% boost to everything on it and a 40% boost to its stats. I mean you put so much work into it to get no use of it in this sence.

Tympist

03-29-2009, 06:26 AM

<cite>Llyren@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote>Three things1) A reason for more then 1 fighter type in a group, also a reasosn for excess fightes to still come on a raid =D2) Easier aggro control vs characters with much better gear then you, so that begining tanks can work with mythiccal dps and not have the mythical dps only using autoattack3) Balancing such that folks think tank when they see a Monk/Bruiser looking for a group, and not dps</blockquote>Who is far enough out of there mind to veiw a brawler as dps. thats just stupid.

Tympist

03-29-2009, 06:29 AM

<cite>Emlar_from_Halas wrote:</cite><blockquote>1 - Stances focus on survivability vs dps: You hit less and you are hit for less in Def Stance. Your protection is less reliable in offstance but you hit more.Def Stance : Replace mitigation bonus with Dmg reduc (T8 : 300 for A1, 345 for Ad3, 400 for M1). Transform temporary mitigation boosts (Guardian Wall of Armor and Call of shielding) into temporary DR (T8 : A1=350, A3=420, M1=500), Divide double attack % per 2. Increase Taunts threat by 30%. Keep defensive bonus as they are already. Increase taunt recovery by 20%.Off Stance : Make all avoidance checks contested. Add 25% double attack and offensiv stats (as they are currently (STR for guardian)). Temporary mitigation boosts benefits are divided by 2. Decrease taunt recovery by 20%.2 - Revisit unused AAs and CAs:(sorry I will provide only Guardian suggestions since my knowledge of other classes is limited)Taunts : Multiply hate generated by 2 but leave recast as they are, add hate to kick and lay waste/siege as they were in Test.Plant : Generate additional 2K hate + 1K per second.Allay : The target has (A1=50%, A3=58%, M1=68%) of his threat removed (transfered for paly's Amends) for 6 secs, recast 60 secs.Intervene : Add additional threat equal to the amount of dmg removed from the target.Got your back : If a member of the group was to die due to a hit, the hit stiffles him for 5 secs instead and decreases threat priority of target by 1 position.Slanderous Assault : Force target encounter to target guardian for 4 secs. (increased by 0.5 sec / AA).3 - Replace fixed hate transfers with non stackable temporary hate transfer:Swash and Assass have a subset (A1=50%, A3=58%, M1=68%) of all their dmg transfer as hate to the current target for 5 secs. Recast 60 secs. Target is immune to this class hate transfer for 30 secs.Wizard and Warlock have a subset (A1=20%, A3=23%, M1=27%) of all their dmg transfer as hate to the current target for 12 secs. Recast 60 secs. Target is immune to this class hate transfer for 30 secs.Dirge Hate Transfer is replaced with a temporary hate focus: For 5 secs, the target taunts are increased (M1=50%, A3=58%, A1=68%). recast 60 secs.Coercer Hate Transfer is replaced with a mini hate stasis : The coercer forces the encounter to forget (A1=50%, A3=58%, M1=68%) of the hate generated by opponents other than their target for 7 secs, recast 90 secsMake hate transfer % tier dependent. Someone using a Tx hate transfer on a Tx+1 character loses (char_lvl - Tx * 10) * 3% efficiency.</blockquote>Um why give the mage such a long hate transfer? More times then not there not the ones needing to drop hate in a hurry. to date i have only ever seen a handful of sorc's with enough dps to even warent usen deagro's let alown hate transfer.

Emlar_from_Halas

03-29-2009, 07:01 AM

<cite>Tympist wrote:</cite><blockquote>Um why give the mage such a long hate transfer? More times then not there not the ones needing to drop hate in a hurry. to date i have only ever seen a handful of sorc's with enough dps to even warent usen deagro's let alown hate transfer.</blockquote>Wizards already have the Accord line of buff which permanently transfer 4% of their hate (and I guess this % can be increased with AAs). I just prefer their hate contribution to be more dynamic than a fire-and-forget static buff.

Tympist

03-29-2009, 07:08 AM

<cite>Emlar_from_Halas wrote:</cite><blockquote>Wizards already have the Accord line of buff which permanently transfer 4% of their hate (and I guess this % can be increased with AAs). I just prefer their hate contribution to be more dynamic than a fire-and-forget static buff.</blockquote>Still with current hate building that makes assassin hate useless. 60% for 5 seconds is like hitting concealment ya it helps on the big hits but its useless in the long run other than letting you chain for fatal followup. And ask any tank on test if they have a good assassin in raid what there hate runs compaired to other classes personally im normally in the 80 to 90% range with a myth tank usen everything i have to detaunt... thats with a 19% constant hate transfer. now reduce that to 60% for 5 seconds every minite that tanks never gona have agro. I say leave hate transfers alown. they work fine how they are. Just because so and so cant parse with us doesent mean you need to break a class. have yours fixed instead. (Not saying you play a sorc here just putting it in because im tired of this they do this and this we cant take it away instead of make it so we can too. Sorcs should be up there with assassins and such they are the pred class of the mages the masters of magic.)

Noaani

03-29-2009, 08:39 AM

<cite>Tympist wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Emlar_from_Halas wrote:</cite><blockquote>Wizards already have the Accord line of buff which permanently transfer 4% of their hate (and I guess this % can be increased with AAs). I just prefer their hate contribution to be more dynamic than a fire-and-forget static buff.</blockquote>Still with current hate building that makes assassin hate useless. 60% for 5 seconds is like hitting concealment ya it helps on the big hits but its useless in the long run other than letting you chain for fatal followup. And ask any tank on test if they have a good assassin in raid what there hate runs compaired to other classes personally im normally in the 80 to 90% range with a myth tank usen everything i have to detaunt... thats with a 19% constant hate transfer. now reduce that to 60% for 5 seconds every minite that tanks never gona have agro. I say leave hate transfers alown. they work fine how they are. Just because so and so cant parse with us doesent mean you need to break a class. have yours fixed instead. (Not saying you play a sorc here just putting it in because im tired of this they do this and this we cant take it away instead of make it so we can too. Sorcs should be up there with assassins and such they are the pred class of the mages the masters of magic.)</blockquote>From a DPS point of view, hate transfer is a nice utility, and nothing more. From a tanks point of view, when looked at in an objective manner, any form of hate transfer is overpowered.Passive transfers should never have been in the game. At all. Their very existance means that balance has to be set around a tank having it, in which case not having it is not an option for any group, or around not having it, in which case having it makes tanking trivial.Passive hate decrease is fine, as is active hate transfers and decreasers (small amounts, avalible from a multitude of classes). As an example of this, an acceptable transfer for a DPS class to have is a 5 minute recast buff that can be placed on any fighter, and the hate from the next spell or combat art is applied to that character instead.

Micheal

03-29-2009, 10:21 AM

<cite>Toran@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>1) Aggro Management - Cut all hate reductions/transfers/etc in half. Increase every classes deaggro ability by a factor of no less than 5, possibly more. Increase taunt effectiveness x5, add more taunt over time abilities based upon melee swing and / or dot components. Restore the aggression resistance modifiers as they were on test.2) Fix fighter stances to be both more meaningful as well as have penalties in either stance that can NOT be overcome by gear and/or buffs alone. Previous +5dmg modifers or shield effectiveness caps based on stances are possible penalties that will scale regardless of gear, I'm sure creative developers can find others. Defensive stance should lower dmg output modifier by some amount and provide stat bonuses to decrease incoming damage, but should NOT affect the hit-rate of the fighter.3) ST vs AoE - It is fine for different fighters to have more ST or more AoE DPS, however threat generation should be viable for all fighters in both scenarios. Allow the dps output in those situations provide the class distinction however allow all tanks to increase threat both in ST and AoE effectively.</blockquote>I actually agree with all of these and basically what I thought when I read the OP.. What is the world commen to..Being rules are meant be broken 4) Warrior should be Tank/Util/DPS in that order 5) Crusaders should be OT/Util/DPS in that order 6) Brawlers should be DPS/UItil/OT in that orderThere that should be enough to get the Joice's flowing.</blockquote><a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?start=0&topic_id=446756�" target="_blank">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...446756�</a>

Edminime

03-29-2009, 05:04 PM

Make all tanks equal in main role but different in there second roll and remove hate transfers, change hate mod to 100% Defensive stance +50% hate mod,reduce dps ??% (this would be master1, Warriors +40% parry, Crusaders +40% block, Brawler +40% deflection) + sta agi 40 Offensive Stance take more damage by 10%, +dps ??% (Warriors +str sta 40, Crusaders +str sta int 40, Brawler +str sta 40) Second role would be dps and utility.

Lleren

03-29-2009, 05:12 PM

<cite>Tympist wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Llyren@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote>Three things1) A reason for more then 1 fighter type in a group, also a reasosn for excess fightes to still come on a raid =D2) Easier aggro control vs characters with much better gear then you, so that begining tanks can work with mythiccal dps and not have the mythical dps only using autoattack3) Balancing such that folks think tank when they see a Monk/Bruiser looking for a group, and not dps</blockquote>Who is far enough out of there mind to veiw a brawler as dps. thats just stupid.</blockquote>...Thanks.. a seemingly large section of the player base does not see brawlers as tanks, not thier fault really, most Brawlers do not tank. A few at least chose the class as a high dps emergency tank. Very few appear to choose the class for its tanking ability. I've tanked with both a Monk and a Berserker, the Monk has better(much) gear, frankly I still find it easier to tank, hold aggro, and get heals as a Berserker whether as an off tank, emergency tank, or group tank.

Gisallo

03-29-2009, 06:24 PM

<cite>Solkarr wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Danelin wrote:</cite><blockquote>~snipped~3 - Move fighter damage to a sequence like this:Top DPS - Brawlers. Very closely balanced, with bruisers doing slightly more dmg on lower mit mobs and monks slightly more on low magical mit mobs.Mid DPS - Berserker and Shadowknight, same split.Low DPS - Guardian and Paladin, same split.</blockquote>Ok, although I don't disagree that most people think the fighter dps tree should look about like that (vs a single target at least) what do you suggest we guardians get since we are down at the bottom in your list? We USED to be the kings of survivability... until diminishing returns nuetered us. Even if you gave us more mit and more avoidance on our def stance (besides the fact that all other fighters would cry that they wanted it too) we would probably gain like 1% benefit, compared to a "noticable" dps difference being at least 20% lower dps than brawlers... since if it was only a 1% difference people would laugh at it.(this is why suggest defensive stances adjust where diminishing returns kicks in)OR here is a better idea add a flat % to mitigation and avoidance when in defensive stance, similar to the +3% parry adornments, or the +1% shield block adornments. This way diminishing returns does not have to be messed with... if you have 40% mitigation before you enter defensive stance and your stance adds 10%, then you are at 50%... but if you have amazing gear and are at 70% mitigation before you enter defensive stance, you then are at 80% mitigation...YES, this means people with better gear get exponentially more benefit from defensive stances (the arguement the devs used for adding diminishing returns) ... BUT currently diminishing returns are too harsh. Players with high end gear are exponentially punished harder and harder for trying to improve.</blockquote>well first it can be argued that Guardians are still the king of surviveability on raids. The only place where this breaks down is TSO heroic content and that is because of the way ToS and other things work mechanically atm in relation to AE encounters, which TSO is chock full of. When you enter a raid scenario though which has the Guard as MT dealing with the one big sob and the OT dealing with the adds (when there are add fights) the Guardian is still king. Now the change to the stamina line and the Guardian Mythical lowered this difference but just about EVERY tank but Guardians saw that as something that was OP. I have been wondering if changing the Stam line to its pre TSO form would be appropriate since this change was done entirely with the now defunct 2.0 in mind, until they figure out what the heck they are going to do.How do you deal with this? Actually make balanced content...what a concept. Don't have an expansion be 90% AE or ST in terms of encounters. Make it so that 50% of the time the Guardian has an advantage and 50% of the time the zerker has the advantage as an example (as they are the two tanks I know most about). Guardians already have better tools for non-dps based hate position and straight hate generation than zerkers, same as Pallys vs the SKs. All that needs to be done is actually design balanced content so that the other tools that the plate tanks use for surviveability etc are seen as having value because there enough circumstances that lend themselves to eah of these styles. The reason I am a big fan of this is because I am TIRED of the roller coaster. An expanison comes out and suddenly one class is seen as a red headed step child not because the class has been nerfed or another OP'd but because the content has been changed to something that they are not designed for. Thats why I hated the whole AE fro ST paradigm from the start, it was actually going to be officially enshrineing this injustice into the game and in a broken for to boot because some ST tanks played correctly could have more AE aggro than the AE tanks.

Danelin

03-29-2009, 08:38 PM

Gisallo

03-29-2009, 09:06 PM

<cite>Danelin wrote:</cite><blockquote>You'll note under #1 i commented about making stances purely a percentile gain designed to be flat across the board and never changing other than with your gear etc. I had meant percentile outside the dimishing returns curve. Something that will always function. Perhaps a percentage damage reduction that is calculated seperately from mitigation and is NEVER INCREASED BY GEAR.Guardians already have the best survivability against a single punishing target, and if they can hold against multiple mobs (one of the things i pressed for as being difficult but not impossible without outside buffing), then they will also have best survivability there.So I guess other than being functional alongside the rest of the tanks, and minor tweaks to make sure your defense is top still, my answer would be: Nothing, functioning as intended.</blockquote>BUT would you go with Guards having a further dps nerf? Lets assume that they did make it so that guards had the same surviveability boost in AE encounters as they do in ST encounters over the other tanks. That would me that in ST encounters Guards have better surviveability and almost equal dps to zerkers. YES guards in single target ombat have just about equal dps. Didn't use to be this way but it is now due to lots of factors, complaints that soloing took too long, the fact that aggro from non-dps sources was being eclipsed etc. That would mean the only thing that zerkers would have an edge in is in AE dps. So again you have a thing where in heroic content you MAY bring a zerker but probably not if your groups dps was good enough. I mean seriously why bring a less surviveable tank when you can make your healers life easier if you have competent dps?Thats what I love about these arguments. "MY class needs this", in the vacumn of their own needs and desires, out side of the context of the larger game. Or maybe it isn't outside the context? I know most tanks want to be THE goto guy and right now the plate tanks are about as balanced as they have ever been, to the point that NO tank class is the goto class. Isn't that how it should be? That its not about whether a guy is a guardian, zerker, Pally or sk? That its about the player. That our reputations preceed us and that if I am invited to a group its not because I am a zerker but because someone in that group says "get Valkenberg he's pretty good" or "okay this guy Valkenberg is available lets see what he's made of"? I know it was not like this for sometime. Before it was "sorry Valk we'll get back to ya if we can't find a Guardian", this however is now not the case for ANY plate tank. AS such can anyone honestly say that any class needs big changes at the expense of other things that need to be fixed in this game? To top it off would changes to classes really fix it or would a change to content design be better. I remember when I finally forced some Guards to confront this idea on their forums. The answer was basically "well yeah that would be a better fix BUT SOE is not going to do it so we will keep arguing in favor of the nerf and buff roller coaster." Yeah good long term thinking there.

Lethe5683

03-29-2009, 09:26 PM

<cite>Llyren@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Tympist wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Llyren@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote>Three things1) A reason for more then 1 fighter type in a group, also a reasosn for excess fightes to still come on a raid =D2) Easier aggro control vs characters with much better gear then you, so that begining tanks can work with mythiccal dps and not have the mythical dps only using autoattack3) Balancing such that folks think tank when they see a Monk/Bruiser looking for a group, and not dps</blockquote>Who is far enough out of there mind to veiw a brawler as dps. thats just stupid.</blockquote>...Thanks.. a seemingly large section of the player base does not see brawlers as tanks, not thier fault really, most Brawlers do not tank.</blockquote>It's the fault primarily of people who play brawlers for the DPS and SoE for failing to balance tanks properly.

Tympist

03-29-2009, 09:33 PM

Lethe5683

03-29-2009, 09:41 PM

<cite>Tympist wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Llyren@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Tympist wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Llyren@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote>Three things1) A reason for more then 1 fighter type in a group, also a reasosn for excess fightes to still come on a raid =D2) Easier aggro control vs characters with much better gear then you, so that begining tanks can work with mythiccal dps and not have the mythical dps only using autoattack3) Balancing such that folks think tank when they see a Monk/Bruiser looking for a group, and not dps</blockquote>Who is far enough out of there mind to veiw a brawler as dps. thats just stupid.</blockquote>...Thanks.. a seemingly large section of the player base does not see brawlers as tanks, not thier fault really, most Brawlers do not tank.</blockquote>It's the fault primarily of people who play brawlers for the DPS and SoE for failing to balance tanks properly.</blockquote>Exactly. Im not saying brawlers dont do good dps. but when your doing 4 to 6k and the true dps like assassins and other scouts are in the 10 to 15k range you cant say your dps. its rediculus and just stupid. Now i do agree that brawlers need there tital as avoidence tanks back cut plate tanks off at say 50% there in bulky platemail for gods sake. and make it so that a brawler has no less than 65% with a max of like 90% or something like that. i mean really there in leather armor for gods sakes they should have godly avoidence. but in the same light should be caped on mit at 50% and plate tanks able to go up to 90% in mit. with proper buffs.</blockquote>That would actually make brawlers even worse relative to plate tanks but I know what you mean. If all avoidance was uncontested then it would be pretty close. Plate tanks really shouldn't any avoidance except for their shield and parry, base avoid for them should either be 0% or capped at like 5%.

Gisallo

03-29-2009, 09:58 PM

<cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Llyren@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Tympist wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Llyren@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote>Three things1) A reason for more then 1 fighter type in a group, also a reasosn for excess fightes to still come on a raid =D2) Easier aggro control vs characters with much better gear then you, so that begining tanks can work with mythiccal dps and not have the mythical dps only using autoattack3) Balancing such that folks think tank when they see a Monk/Bruiser looking for a group, and not dps</blockquote>Who is far enough out of there mind to veiw a brawler as dps. thats just stupid.</blockquote>...Thanks.. a seemingly large section of the player base does not see brawlers as tanks, not thier fault really, most Brawlers do not tank.</blockquote>It's the fault primarily of people who play brawlers for the DPS and SoE for failing to balance tanks properly.</blockquote>Or is it a problem of everyone seeing fighters as tanks? This is what kills me. No other school is seen this way. No one says "all scouts and mages should be dps" so why should all fighters? Both Scouts and Mages have something considered t1 dps. Now I understand that most brawlers want to at least be able to tank instances but I almost think it is unreasonable to have ALL fighters be FORCED to be considered tanks. This kind of thought is what created the disaster that was almost fighter 2.0. Once you start thinking that all fighters are nothing more than tanks the next thought is meat shield, then taunt bot. Thats a slippery slope I never want to be on again.Additionally, since most people play brawlers as dps first, snap tank second, why should this not be looked at in the balancing? As a matter of fact until recently it looks like that was the direction SOE was going in, its not that SoE was balancing them "improper;y" just that they were balancing them in a wy you disagree with. While individual classes may have had issues before TSO there was a balance of sorts. Plate tanks as MT and OT, brawlers in the melee group for dps some nice utility and as a snap tank. Most guilds ran this way and that seems to be a nice balance. Yes Lethe you want to tank as well as plate tank X but tbh only during their admittedly OP phases brawlers NEVER tanked as well as plate tank X, it was never their intended position as far as I could tell. This being the case are brawlers supposed to be thought of primarily as tanks? I don't think so. Yes some people just like being that goto guy. The guy at the top of the dps parse. However if you want to be that guy you do not roll a summoner or a rogue. Also the tank standing there taking the hits for the whole raid force. But using the logic above...I think you get my point.

Lethe5683

03-29-2009, 10:09 PM

<cite>Valkenberg@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>Or is it a problem of everyone seeing fighters as tanks? This is what kills me. No other school is seen this way. No one says "all scouts and mages should be dps" so why should all fighters? Both Scouts and Mages have something considered t1 dps. Now I understand that most brawlers want to at least be able to tank instances but I almost think it is unreasonable to have ALL fighters be FORCED to be considered tanks. This kind of thought is what created the disaster that was almost fighter 2.0. Once you start thinking that all fighters are nothing more than tanks the next thought is meat shield, then taunt bot. Thats a slippery slope I never want to be on again.Are you a brawler? If you were would you rather be able to do DPS and tanking but be bad at both or do tanking and be good at it? Half way in between does not work for balancing in anything except soloing. It doesn't matter that you can do a slight amount of DPS if theres another class that does the same thing 100% better. Additionally, since most people play brawlers as dps first, snap tank second, why should this not be looked at in the balancing? As a matter of fact until recently it looks like that was the direction SOE was going in, its not that SoE was balancing them "improper;y" just that they were balancing them in a wy you disagree with. While individual classes may have had issues before TSO there was a balance of sorts. Plate tanks as MT and OT, brawlers in the melee group for dps some nice utility and as a snap tank. Most guilds ran this way and that seems to be a nice balance. There is no reason to take a brawler in a group primarly for DPS, raids be damned. By you're arguement most people group it's te minority that cares mostly about raiding. Then it stands to reason brawlers should be designed to be usefull in groups.Yes Lethe you want to tank as well as plate tank X but tbh only during their admittedly OP phases brawlers NEVER tanked as well as plate tank X, it was never their intended position as far as I could tell. This being the case are brawlers supposed to be thought of primarily as tanks? I don't think so. In any group with a halfway decent tank DPS brawlers are at best just a [Removed for Content] DPS class and at worst a total waste of space.</blockquote>

Gisallo

03-29-2009, 10:21 PM

<cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Valkenberg@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>Are you a brawler? If you were would you rather be able to do DPS and tanking but be bad at both or do tanking and be good at it? Half way in between does not work for balancing in anything except soloing. It doesn't matter that you can do a slight amount of DPS if theres another class that does the same thing 100% better.First I had a monk, leveled him to 70 pre ROK but stopped playing him because well I like my ranger more and then fell in love with th zerker. I always saw my class as one where I could tank instances (I could) and when I raided I was there for some buffage, dps AND to snap tank when stuff went south. it was a jack of all trades master of none class. There are plenty of classes like this in the game, just the monk had an extra trade, the snap tank mode.There is no reason to take a brawler in a group primarly for DPS, raids be damned. By you're arguement most people group it's te minority that cares mostly about raiding. Then it stands to reason brawlers should be designed to be usefull in groups.You are right and I do think that brawlers should be able to tank instances, the same as rogues and summoners can be seen as dps in groups even though they are not T1. I just do not think brawlers should be changed to be MT material. I think upping their dps a little, giving them back/adding some group/raid wide utility, and making their snap tank abilities more robust is where they need to be for raids. Example let Tsunami last longer than peel. That way they can still be taking a hit or two before the plate tank who now is back up or has his head out of his butt can get it back before the monk dies.Yes Lethe you want to tank as well as plate tank X but tbh only during their admittedly OP phases brawlers NEVER tanked as well as plate tank X, it was never their intended position as far as I could tell. This being the case are brawlers supposed to be thought of primarily as tanks? I don't think so. In any group with a halfway decent tank DPS brawlers are at best just a [Removed for Content] DPS class and at worst a total waste of space.Again please see above. I do think that brawlers should be able to tank most instances, its just when we enter raid land that I think we should start seeing them in a different roll. Thats what most people are talking about in terms of these changes as well. It really wouldn't take that much work either. I have gone into RE2 with Bruisers tanking. It was a little rough, but it was doable. Things are not as bad as one might think in terms of this but some work is needed. My apologies for not realizing you were talking excluively about instance and not raid tanking. </blockquote></blockquote>

Lethe5683

03-29-2009, 10:39 PM

<cite>Valkenberg@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite> First I had a monk, leveled him to 70 pre ROK but stopped playing him because well I like my ranger more and then fell in love with th zerker. I always saw my class as one where I could tank instances (I could) and when I raided I was there for some buffage, dps AND to snap tank when stuff went south. it was a jack of all trades master of none class. There are plenty of classes like this in the game, just the monk had an extra trade, the snap tank mode.Brawlers are not reasonable instances tanks for the harder instances. Plate tanks are in groups better than brawlers in almost every way. Half of them out DPS us and out tank us and the other half do about the same DPS and waaay out tank us. The only thing brawlers have an andvantage at is soloing and farming shinies...Again please see above. I do think that brawlers should be able to tank most instances, its just when we enter raid land that I think we should start seeing them in a different roll. Thats what most people are talking about in terms of these changes as well. It really wouldn't take that much work either. I have gone into RE2 with Bruisers tanking. It was a little rough, but it was doable. Things are not as bad as one might think in terms of this but some work is needed. My apologies for not realizing you were talking excluively about instance and not raid tanking.If brawlers are only supposed to DPS in raids and be useless otherwise than we should be doing more DPS than rogues.Being a "jack of all trades master of none" doesn't work when there are other classes that are jack of all trades and master of something.

Tympist

03-29-2009, 11:01 PM

<cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Valkenberg@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite> First I had a monk, leveled him to 70 pre ROK but stopped playing him because well I like my ranger more and then fell in love with th zerker. I always saw my class as one where I could tank instances (I could) and when I raided I was there for some buffage, dps AND to snap tank when stuff went south. it was a jack of all trades master of none class. There are plenty of classes like this in the game, just the monk had an extra trade, the snap tank mode.Brawlers are not reasonable instances tanks for the harder instances. Plate tanks are in groups better than brawlers in almost every way. Half of them out DPS us and out tank us and the other half do about the same DPS and waaay out tank us. The only thing brawlers have an andvantage at is soloing and farming shinies...Again please see above. I do think that brawlers should be able to tank most instances, its just when we enter raid land that I think we should start seeing them in a different roll. Thats what most people are talking about in terms of these changes as well. It really wouldn't take that much work either. I have gone into RE2 with Bruisers tanking. It was a little rough, but it was doable. Things are not as bad as one might think in terms of this but some work is needed. My apologies for not realizing you were talking excluively about instance and not raid tanking.If brawlers are only supposed to DPS in raids and be useless otherwise than we should be doing more DPS than rogues.Being a "jack of all trades master of none" doesn't work when there are other classes that are jack of all trades and master of something.</blockquote>Brawlers are a suport class in raid not dps dont be confusen the two. Frankly if it wasent for that suport roll i dont see them ever getten a raid spot.

Lleren

03-29-2009, 11:05 PM

I'm fine with Brawlers being either Tank or DPS, I'm not fine with midway in between and then basically useless for a both. If brawlers are going to be considered DPS then make them a leather wearing scout and be done with itIf all fighter are suposed to be viable for tanking, well they are one of the fighters. Make is so SoE. And not "it just takes more skill or gear", make it viable for more casual brawlers as it is viable for more casual plate fighters to tank for groups.

Lethe5683

03-29-2009, 11:08 PM

Siatfallen

03-29-2009, 11:44 PM

Lethe: This is not a brawler thread, so let's try not to run off with this one as well, shall we? That said, since we are on the subject of brawler usefulness, specifically monks:"Monks are tanks" argument: Perhaps, but we're not plate tanks. We're definately being relegated to a more tanky role in tSO, but as you can probably tell, this has done nothing to make the class more viable. So: Attempt to design the class for tanking = fail for now. And looking at our itemization and AAs for this expansion, they'd tried really hard.Prior to tSO launch, brawlers were tanking mostly as a secondary role. It was possible, but not optimal. That's stil pretty much the state of affairs, even if the distance between us and other fighters in a tanking capacity is diminishing. The reason I was brought along for raids were: DPS and the raidwide buff. I would then tank on those occasions where our usual OT could not make it.In fact, ever since we got said raidwide buff, those were my selling points. Tanking was an added, but rather immaterial, bonus.Prior to the introduction of the raidwide buffs, the arguments for bringing a brawler were "Hey, we're almost-not-sucky DPS and can tank if we absolutely have to - but we're not really good at it" - and that was it, really.With tSO, the DPS argument is out the window. The buff has been nerfed. Tanking has not been buffed sufficiently to make us competitive.Please do not presume to run an argument based on "what brawlers are". It was changed fundamentally with tSO launch, in expectation of the fighter revamp - a revamp which is now thrown out the window. So by and large, I think it's fair to say that particular point is open for debate again.Personally, I'd love to see the class returned to the kind of viability we had during VP-state raiding (what I knew of RoK raiding); obviously, you'd like to see us continue being inadequate in a DPS role and buffing tanking up still further.None of us can lay claim to knowing "what a brawler should be" - because honestly, the vote's still out on that one.I happen to believe that a tanking-focused brawler would kill the point of playing a leather tank and quench the distinct feel of the class that originally I rolled a toon for.Can you please do one of three things:Either provide me with examples dictating that brawlers were, before the launch of tSO, mainly tanking on raids and that in fact, I have been running a sub-par brawler build. Evidence that brawlers can off-tank VP is of no interest to me. I could do that on most nameds as necessary - DPS specced and in offensive stance far and away most of the time. I would not be surprised in the least if a slightly more defensively oriented brawler was able to MT the entire zone, but was this what you were mostly doing and if so why do it over a plate tank?By providing examples, of course, I do not mean empthy boasts. Pardon my scepticism of course.Failing that, explain to me exactly what your problem with brawler raid balancing during RoK was? 'Cuz aside from the whole "bruisers getting kicked in the lower regions until peel nerf", "all useful brawler items are in VP" and "sorry, 1 brawler per raid only" syndromes, I sure didn't see it ('kay, in all justice, AE aggro and damage sucked pretty horribly back then as well, but since pretty much everything was single target, well... that's something in need of correction now, not then).Failing, again, to provide the above, would you please stop arguing that "brawlers should be tanks to the exclusion of everything else", because it goes against the role of the class at the very least since KoS launch and I'd like to argue since DoF, but I can't say I was raiding much at the time at all. We have been a hybrid class for a very long time before, and it has worked pretty well during RoK to my experience. The attempts at recalibrating the class in the first place in that perspective is the problem, not the solution.I'm not saying "I'm right, you're wrong" - but please, stop repeating your drivel everywhere as the one and only truth, it's derailing topics over and over again. I've been quiet for some time now, not wanting to feed a troll on this one, but, eh, trouble is, you might convince people you're right.

Lethe5683

03-30-2009, 12:16 AM

<cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite><blockquote>"Monks are tanks" argument: Perhaps, but we're not plate tanks.And what does that have to do with anything?We're definately being relegated to a more tanky role in tSO, but as you can probably tell, this has done nothing to make the class more viable. So: Attempt to design the class for tanking = fail for now. And looking at our itemization and AAs for this expansion, they'd tried really hard.Tried reallly hard? Hardly... the majority of what they gave us was very poorly thought out and likely not even tested.Prior to tSO launch, brawlers were tanking mostly as a secondary role. It was possible, but not optimal. It's been that way for a long time and that makes it right? No.Prior to the introduction of the raidwide buffs, the arguments for bringing a brawler were "Hey, we're almost-not-sucky DPS and can tank if we absolutely have to - but we're not really good at it" - and that was it, really.AKA useless.If you want to be draged along as a buff bot play a bard. All fighters have raidwide buffs yet all plate tanks also have additional usefullness.Please do not presume to run an argument based on "what brawlers are". It was changed fundamentally with tSO launch, in expectation of the fighter revamp - a revamp which is now thrown out the window. So by and large, I think it's fair to say that particular point is open for debate again.Yeah... kind of why I'm debating it?Personally, I'd love to see the class returned to the kind of viability we had during VP-state raiding (what I knew of RoK raiding); obviously, you'd like to see us continue being inadequate in a DPS role and buffing tanking up still further.Either that or kept the same tank wise and have our DPS significantly improved. If we are supposed to be a jack-of-all-trades that means we are good at more than one thing but not the best at anything. Currently we are mediocre at everything and the best at... farming shiniesI happen to believe that a tanking-focused brawler would kill the point of playing a leather tank and quench the distinct feel of the class that originally I rolled a toon for.So the point of a leather tank is to suck at tanking and be mediocre DPS and a buff bot?Failing that, explain to me exactly what your problem with brawler raid balancing during RoK was? 'Cuz aside from the whole "bruisers getting kicked in the lower regions until peel nerf", "all useful brawler items are in VP" and "sorry, 1 brawler per raid only" syndromes, I sure didn't see it ('kay, in all justice, AE aggro and damage sucked pretty horribly back then as well, but since pretty much everything was single target, well... that's something in need of correction now, not then).-Brawlers in RoK were not a viable tank for raid zones.-Brawler itemization was is terrrible.-Brawlers weren't taken mostly for their Buffs which is not what a fighter should be for.Failing, again, to provide the above, would you please stop arguing that "brawlers should be tanks to the exclusion of everything else", because it goes against the role of the class at the very least since KoS launch and I'd like to argue since DoF, but I can't say I was raiding much at the time at all. We have been a hybrid class for a very long time before, and it has worked pretty well during RoK to my experience. The attempts at recalibrating the class in the first place in that perspective is the problem, not the solution.We were not fine during RoK, we were worse both defensivly and offensivly then we should have been. TSO improved our defenseive abilities but not our offensive. So what I am saying is either leave defensive abilities like they are and increase DPS or incrase our tanking ability to equal that of plate tanks not decrease our defensive abilities in favor of more DPS.I'm not saying "I'm right, you're wrong" - but please, stop repeating your drivel everywhere as the one and only truth, it's derailing topics over and over again. I've been quiet for some time now, not wanting to feed a troll on this one, but, eh, trouble is, you might convince people you're right.You're just as much of a "troll" as I am yet you think because I disagree with you that I'm "spreading flase information". "I'm not saying "I'm right, you're wrong" You did right this yes? Sorry but that is exactly what you are doing.</blockquote>

Siatfallen

03-30-2009, 02:10 AM

Quick note: My replies here in blue. Seems like we're headed into multi-coloured-text-block-confusion. Sorry, I tend to get confused there easily, though I'll try to avoid it here.<cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite><blockquote>"Monks are tanks" argument: Perhaps, but we're not plate tanks.And what does that have to do with anything?The implied argument is that the role of brawlers is and should be distinct and different from that of plate tanks.We're definately being relegated to a more tanky role in tSO, but as you can probably tell, this has done nothing to make the class more viable. So: Attempt to design the class for tanking = fail for now. And looking at our itemization and AAs for this expansion, they'd tried really hard.Tried reallly hard? Hardly... the majority of what they gave us was very poorly thought out and likely not even tested.I agree actually, I'm being inaccurate. I should say they did a lot, not that they did well. The comment should go towards quantity, not quality. My apologies for that, hope this clarifies it.Prior to tSO launch, brawlers were tanking mostly as a secondary role. It was possible, but not optimal. It's been that way for a long time and that makes it right? No.It's the main indicator we have for class role; if we are not to take basis in that, then we need to be told, without any wavering, what exactly we are to look into. As of yet, especially with the trashed fighter revamp, that direction is not present.Prior to the introduction of the raidwide buffs, the arguments for bringing a brawler were "Hey, we're almost-not-sucky DPS and can tank if we absolutely have to - but we're not really good at it" - and that was it, really.AKA useless.If you want to be draged along as a buff bot play a bard. All fighters have raidwide buffs yet all plate tanks also have additional usefullness.Pre-tSO, monk's raidwide effect was far and away the most useful, and monks were outparsing said plate tanks. This has changed for the worse. Having class utility does not equal being a buff bot. Arguably, having mostly passive utility as a class, and no other desirable traits, would qualify.Please do not presume to run an argument based on "what brawlers are". It was changed fundamentally with tSO launch, in expectation of the fighter revamp - a revamp which is now thrown out the window. So by and large, I think it's fair to say that particular point is open for debate again.Yeah... kind of why I'm debating it?If you are, then my comment goes towards your debating it based on a prior assumption such as "brawlers should not be taken on raids for utility purposes since we are not bards" when, in fact, this has previously been the case.Heck, even in its nerfed form, our raidwide remains a selling point of the class.There is no basis for saying (not that I think anyone has been) something like "brawlers should be healers", because we never have been. Buff bots, not quite either.But we have been a class relying heavily on provided utility through buffs in the past to retain class viability - and it remains the case to some degree.We all retain some vision of what the brawler class should be, and as long as it has some kind of basis inside the past or present state of the class, I don't mind one bit. But presenting your view as correct (as opposed to whatever else is out there, and there's basis for a lot of valid views at the moment, hence our problems) in a thread not really related to brawlers directly is just asking for things to be derailed.Personally, I'd love to see the class returned to the kind of viability we had during VP-state raiding (what I knew of RoK raiding); obviously, you'd like to see us continue being inadequate in a DPS role and buffing tanking up still further.Either that or kept the same tank wise and have our DPS significantly improved. If we are supposed to be a jack-of-all-trades that means we are good at more than one thing but not the best at anything. Currently we are mediocre at everything and the best at... farming shiniesPretty much agreed, and not what I took from your previous posts. Prolly my mistake. More on this later.I happen to believe that a tanking-focused brawler would kill the point of playing a leather tank and quench the distinct feel of the class that originally I rolled a toon for.So the point of a leather tank is to suck at tanking and be mediocre DPS and a buff bot?The point of the leather fighter during KoS and up to and including RoK was to provide some utility (note, raidwide introduction in EoF upped this by a lot, since the monk raidwide was signifigantly more powerful than the other fighter raidwides at the time; avoidance buffs becomes raidwide (EoF? I forget) helped as well), and on top of that to be an emergency tank (actually quite a decent backup tank given good gear, making a few people denounce brawlers as OP, but that's a humorous aside), along with having DPS in the area of rogues, if still slightly below that.Personally, I found that fairly balanced, if quirky.Failing that, explain to me exactly what your problem with brawler raid balancing during RoK was? 'Cuz aside from the whole "bruisers getting kicked in the lower regions until peel nerf", "all useful brawler items are in VP" and "sorry, 1 brawler per raid only" syndromes, I sure didn't see it ('kay, in all justice, AE aggro and damage sucked pretty horribly back then as well, but since pretty much everything was single target, well... that's something in need of correction now, not then).-Brawlers in RoK were not a viable tank for raid zones.-Brawler itemization was is terrrible.-Brawlers weren't taken mostly for their Buffs which is not what a fighter should be for.1. Basically agreed. I played backup and pulled it off, but it wasn't comparable to what happened with the usual OT (zerker) around.2. I dunno really. It was very problematic because the good raiding items started at, oh, Leviathan or so. We had about the correct amount of gear before avatars (I counted it all up towards end RoK), but far and away most of it was from VP, and in the case of some items, like our BP, three of them were found within the same zone, with one clearly being better than the others for pretty much everything (Gi of Swirling Lava). Oh, right, some problems with the mythical as well - but nothing too bad.So gear issues? Sure. But in placement more than with the items in and of themselves.3. I believe it did play a major role on class desirability for monks; but no AFK monks should reasonably have been allowed to hang around in raids just because of their buffs, certainly. So no, we were not bards. ;pFailing, again, to provide the above, would you please stop arguing that "brawlers should be tanks to the exclusion of everything else", because it goes against the role of the class at the very least since KoS launch and I'd like to argue since DoF, but I can't say I was raiding much at the time at all. We have been a hybrid class for a very long time before, and it has worked pretty well during RoK to my experience. The attempts at recalibrating the class in the first place in that perspective is the problem, not the solution.We were not fine during RoK, we were worse both defensivly and offensivly then we should have been. TSO improved our defenseive abilities but not our offensive. Since I have long since deleted my parses, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one unless someone else steps in. My perception: We have not remained where we were, comparatively, on the DPS tiers after tSO launch. We've been falling off that chart, pretty quickly. Had we remained where we were (that is to say, had we had a way to increase our DPS, counting percentages, about as much as rogues), the problems of balancing the class at present would be more or less isolated to extremely lousy itemization that, sorry to say, makes RoK look golden.So what I am saying is either leave defensive abilities like they are and increase DPS or incrase our tanking ability to equal that of plate tanks not decrease our defensive abilities in favor of more DPS.Not exactly what I'd gathered from your earlier posts in this thread and elsewhere. I do however happen to agree (and prefer the first solution, but that's just me). Go back and read over your discussion within this thread with Valkenberg, and I think you'll see where my perception is coming from. If it is incorrect, then thank you for the clarification.I'm not saying "I'm right, you're wrong" - but please, stop repeating your drivel everywhere as the one and only truth, it's derailing topics over and over again. I've been quiet for some time now, not wanting to feed a troll on this one, but, eh, trouble is, you might convince people you're right.You're just as much of a "troll" as I am yet you think because I disagree with you that I'm "spreading flase information". "I'm not saying "I'm right, you're wrong" You did right this yes? Sorry but that is exactly what you are doing.I think you missed my point, then:I have an oppinion, presented somewhat loosely above. I am not implying it's the only solution to situation monk, it's just what I'd like to see. It's based on a few perceptions that I present so you can challenge them - which you have done. This is called opening discussion.Claiming adamantly that "brawlers are not support characters" (you'll pardon the rough paraphasing, it's just a few posts up from this) does nothing of the sort. That's the problem I am trying to get at.So: I certainly present a viewpoint concerning how discussions should be led. I do not present "the truth about monks".On trolling: I'm pretty infamous for getting into long and complicated arguments, derailing subjects. Mostly with other people also famous for doing this. Technically, that's trolling from the both of us. My comment was however unduly rash. I should probably have said I stayed out of the subject because I'd no care to get involved in a long conversation in a place where it did not belong and where it would detract from rather than add to the intended subject. It's saying the same thing really, but pick whichever you like better. ;pFinally: We are kind of derailing here. If we find we were just talking past each other at this point, we can end the conversation in a post's time or so. If this is to be a longish conversation, let's shift it to PMs and let the rest of the discussion here carry on?</blockquote></blockquote>

Couching

03-30-2009, 02:58 AM

<cite>Tympist wrote:</cite><blockquote>Brawlers are a suport class in raid not dps dont be confusen the two. Frankly if it wasent for that suport roll i dont see them ever getten a raid spot.</blockquote>The debate of brawler is support class or not is nonsense.All plate tanks have 1 raidwide and 1 group buff and brawlers have only 1 raidwide.In TSO, they got great update on their buffs and monk's got huge nerf, over 30% nerf.Altruism? Almost useless in most hard TSO encounters with raid failure aoe. Not to say, it was never a big deal if you have a solid OT in raid.We have worst utility comparing to plate tanks. Support class? Plate tanks are better than brawler.

Couching

03-30-2009, 03:09 AM

Brawler should be better dps than plate tanks. The trade off is worse survivability.Now, on live servers, some plate tanks are superior than monk on both dps and survivability.It has to be fixed as soon as possible.Otherwise, monks should have better survivability than plate tanks who can deal more dps than monks.

Emlar_from_Halas

03-30-2009, 05:12 AM

Gisallo

03-30-2009, 05:34 AM

<cite>Tympist wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Valkenberg@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite> First I had a monk, leveled him to 70 pre ROK but stopped playing him because well I like my ranger more and then fell in love with th zerker. I always saw my class as one where I could tank instances (I could) and when I raided I was there for some buffage, dps AND to snap tank when stuff went south. it was a jack of all trades master of none class. There are plenty of classes like this in the game, just the monk had an extra trade, the snap tank mode.Brawlers are not reasonable instances tanks for the harder instances. Plate tanks are in groups better than brawlers in almost every way. Half of them out DPS us and out tank us and the other half do about the same DPS and waaay out tank us. The only thing brawlers have an andvantage at is soloing and farming shinies...Again please see above. I do think that brawlers should be able to tank most instances, its just when we enter raid land that I think we should start seeing them in a different roll. Thats what most people are talking about in terms of these changes as well. It really wouldn't take that much work either. I have gone into RE2 with Bruisers tanking. It was a little rough, but it was doable. Things are not as bad as one might think in terms of this but some work is needed. My apologies for not realizing you were talking excluively about instance and not raid tanking.If brawlers are only supposed to DPS in raids and be useless otherwise than we should be doing more DPS than rogues.Being a "jack of all trades master of none" doesn't work when there are other classes that are jack of all trades and master of something.</blockquote>Brawlers are a suport class in raid not dps dont be confusen the two. Frankly if it wasent for that suport roll i dont see them ever getten a raid spot.</blockquote>Thank you. I love how people miss the part about utility and the snap aggro tanking. Snap aggro tanking is a support/utility role, along with what ever buffs/debuffs whatever the class may bring. I understand that Lethe has his own vision for the class. That being said straight up RAID tanking has NEVER been the roll for the brawler for as long as I have played the game. Yes they perhaps had one raid wide buff while plates had a raid wide and a group wide BUT their raid wide buff was the best raid wide of all of the tanks. Sometimes quaility is balanced with quantity. As I said before, and will likely have to say again (I get the feeling some people are only reading what they want to read because they have assumptions as to my motives), I am NOT saying brawlers are fine. I am NOT saying brawlers don't need work. What I am saying is that it makes no sense to my mind for brawlers to fill the same role in a RAID as a plate tank. First they have never filled this role. Secondly the foundation of the class and the current class mechanics do not lend themselves to being converted to this role. This does NOT mean they should not have a role in raids as a support class and does NOT mean they should not be fully capable of tanking instances.I think this could be done by returning the raidwide to what it was first off. Second fix the dps issue. Fixing their viability in terms of instance tanking should improve their snap tanking and then work on their other buffs and debuffs to continue to improve the support role. Will all brawlers agree with this? Clearly not, but these ideas are based on what the brawlers have been in the past "support tanks" (god I hate the term tank) to "support" the "Main" and "Off" tank. I just think it makes more sense to build on the historical purpose than to try and sqeeze everyone into the same roles, especially in light of the fact that every other class has different roles under the same roof. WHY SHOULD FIGHTERS BE DIFFERENT now when they and no other school has ever been this way?I am now done with participating in the derailment. I apologize for those that have been annoyed by this.

TheSpin

03-30-2009, 05:41 AM

Well this thread was derailed from its original purose, but I'd still like to chime in on the OP with my 2 cents.1. Make stance transitions instant with a cooldown on switching back to your previous stance. So if your an OT and the MT drops, you can click Defensive stance and be there (without taking the 3 seconds to cancel offensive and turn on defensive), but you would not be able to switch back to offensive for 30 seconds or a minute after you swap to defensive. Soloing would possibly become a no-stance or a middle stance thing (the buffs could not all be tied to stances).2. Allow tank dps in offensive stance to compete with other dps, but make their surviveability extremely poor. The above suggestion about stance swapping means their punishment for drawing aggro is either dying or swapping to defensive and being stuck there for a while. (They would obviously still need to be geared to DPS to DPS well.) Defensive stance should significantly decrease dps, and hate generation could not be based around dps. Maybe all damage could be halved, but threat generation tripled. Brawlers with their feign death and other unique abilities might allow them to be the only fighters that can both manage their hate and/or survive without swapping into defensive on a regular basis. (Most other classes might have abilities to keep them alive in offensive, such as the SK feign death, or the exploding heart abilities, but they are on a longer cooldown.) Obviously the brawlers are designed a little differently than the other fighters, and this would allow their differences to shine rather than ruin the class.3. Stance swapping also gives you the option to instantly swap weapon sets, so you could dps with a 2 hander or dual wielding, and then when you instantly switch to defensive (and get stuck in defensive for a little while) you also instantly switch to a sword and board.Now did I just solve the whole problem or what?

Terron

03-30-2009, 10:51 AM

1) Make it less important to have a hate buffer in a group.Currently on my guard I can not hold aggro unless I have a hate boost/transfer. I have to use my snap aggro tools even on trash fights. This is making playing him less fun. Several good ideas have been sugggested.<ul><li>Halve all hate transfers and boosts (Maybe getting rid of them would be better in the long run but only if good replacments can be found for those classes for who they are an important feature. Halving is simpler so could be done quicker and be easier to test.)</li><li>Increase the effectiveness of taunts to compensate. (Increased taunt values, critical taunts (with an aa line for them for each fighter) and taunt components added to some CAs are all good ways to do that. Making taunts faster casting is not.)</li></ul>2) Give each fighter class a non-tanking role for raids.In my guild people are complaining that there are too few tanks, yet there are too many tanks for the raids we do. Contriving encounters so that more tanks are needed is limited. Getting it so that 1 in 6 of a raid can be fighters as for groups requires giving fighters something other than tanking to do. That role can not be pure DPS as other classes already occupy that slot, though DPS should be part of it for the offensive fighters. Figters should not be able to perform both the non tanking role and a tanking role at the same time, so linking it to stances would make sense, i.e. offensive stance should boost a fighters non-tanking role.For some fighters such an non-tanking role easily follows from their current abilities, but for others more a stretch is needed.<ul><li>Berzerkers could be group melee buffers as sometimes happened when I started playing. That would need their offensive stance to boost the effect of their group berzerk buff, e.g. by adding a multiattack buff, a melee skill buff and a crit or DA buff.</li><li>Monks could be raid DPS buffers as they were for a while before TSO by having their offensive stance increase the bonuses of their raid wide buff</li><li>Bruisers could have their raidwide buff boosted somewhat similarly when in offensive stance.</li><li>Paladins could have their healing and healing buff boosted when in "offensive stance".</li><li>SK's could be group spell buffs, but it might be better to give them back their pet and give them a group pet buff for attack skill, attack speed and DPS. Summoners could use the help.</li><li>Guards are the hardest to find a non tanking role for. Perhaps have some of their debuffs and/or abilities to protect others boosted. Maybe a death save chance when being damaged by their own abilities such as sentinel sphere, sustain and intercede. Maybe give the targets of Moderate and Unyilding Vigilence a chance to avoid non-direct AEs.</li></ul>3) Cap the net penalty to attack skills after defensive stance and other buffs have been applied so that non-guardians can hit mobs in defensive.

Terron

03-30-2009, 11:14 AM

<cite>TheSpin wrote:</cite><blockquote>Now did I just solve the whole problem or what?</blockquote>what <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />What problem are you trying to solve? It does not seem to be one that I have been experiencing. It looks like it might be how to make brawlers the best tanks. I have a guard and a SK but not a brawler.Stance switching isn't a major issue and won't be without the restrictions to taunting in offensive. My guard is in defenisve almost all the time since offensive does not mgive him much. My Sk is in offensive almost all the time since his lifetaps work better in offensive.Plate fighters should have higher survivablity that chain wearers, even in offensive. They should also have lower DPS than pure DPS classes.Guardians are themactically all about survivability. Take that away in any stance and you would ruin the class, even though their solo survivability is actually quite low.

TheSpin

03-30-2009, 11:30 AM

<cite>Terron@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>TheSpin wrote:</cite><blockquote>Now did I just solve the whole problem or what?</blockquote>what <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />What problem are you trying to solve? It does not seem to be one that I have been experiencing. It looks like it might be how to make brawlers the best tanks. I have a guard and an AK but not a brawler.Stance switching isn't a major issue and won't be without the restrictions to taunting in offensive. My guard is in defenisve almost all the time since offensive does not mgive him much. My Sk is in offensive almost all the time since his lifetaps work better in offensive.Plate fighters should have higher survivablity that chain wearers, even in offensive. They should also have lower DPS than pure DPS classes.Guardians are themactically all about survivability. Take that away in any stance and you would ruin the class, even though their solo survivability is actually quite low.</blockquote>Stance switching isn't a major issue, but I think it's the solution. I think plate fighters should NOT have higher surviveability in offensive than chain wearers. That's what gotten us into the current mess that tanking is in. It's the sacrifice they'd suffer for having worthwhile dps while not tanking. I said fighters should be able to compete with other classes in terms of dps while in offensive, but that doesn't mean they will be a preferred choice, just a valid choice.Truthfully, adding in taunt values or adjusting numbers here or there is easy to do. I'm sure the devs have much more experience balancing these numbers than the players. Balancing everyone's defensive stance is easy, balancing everyone's offensive stance is also fairly easy. Making tanks viable at soloing, dpsing, and tanking is not easy. So how about we simply make a stance for each situation?Your comment comparing guardians and brawlers is simple for me to explain as well. In defensive stance a guardian has more tools for tanking because it's built into the class. There's no way guardians across norrath would accept any other class becoming their equal at mitigating damage. At the same time, this theme needs to be balanced with all fighters, some leaning more heavily into tanking, others into dps. The AoE versus single target tanking was a horrible idea, but I think that taking a stand on offensive versus defensive tanks fits very well into the core ideas behind the classes. They could even break it down by class... guardian defensive - beserker offensive, Paladin defensive - SK offensive, Bruiser defensive - monk offensive. I personally think it'd be nice if they stopped keeping everyone in the dark and took a stand such as this one. Maybe groups would start bringing two tanks, one more offensive oriented to OT and one more defensive oriented to MT along with them.

Couching

03-30-2009, 11:58 AM

TheSpin,I am not sure what class you are playing but I guess you are not brawler.Bruiser is the offensive brawler, not defensive. Monk is the defensive brawler.Terron,Monks never have dps buff in this game.Seriously, can people stop making comments of brawlers without a clue?

Terron

03-30-2009, 12:49 PM

<cite>TheSpin wrote:</cite><blockquote>Stance switching isn't a major issue, but I think it's the solution. </blockquote>To what? The main problem I have is that I can not hold aggro in a group without a hate booster, which is part of the problem this part of the revamp was aimed at.<cite>TheSpin wrote:</cite><blockquote>I think plate fighters should NOT have higher surviveability in offensive than chain wearers. That's what gotten us into the current mess that tanking is in. It's the sacrifice they'd suffer for having worthwhile dps while not tanking. </blockquote>My guard does not have worthwhile DPS when not tanking. He only has worthwhile DPS when fully buffed to tank. When not tanking those buffs go to other classes that would benefit more.One of the problem is that players of DPS classes are complaining about tanks doing so much DPS. I agree that tanks should not DPS as much as classes for whom DPS is a speciality and who do not have the option of as high survivability when in defensive. Since fighter's DPS should not be worthwhile compared to predators (or sorcerers) there should not be a problem with their mitigation being higher. My swashbuckler actually has higher surviveability than my guard but that is through evac and her speed buff.<cite>TheSpin wrote:</cite> <blockquote> I said fighters should be able to compete with other classes in terms of dps while in offensive, but that doesn't mean they will be a preferred choice, just a valid choice.</blockquote> No fighter should compete with predators and and sorcerers in terms of DPS in any stance. Defensive fighters can't even be made close without ruining the flavour of those classes. <cite>TheSpin wrote:</cite><blockquote>Truthfully, adding in taunt values or adjusting numbers here or there is easy to do. I'm sure the devs have much more experience balancing these numbers than the players. Balancing everyone's defensive stance is easy, balancing everyone's offensive stance is also fairly easy. Making tanks viable at soloing, dpsing, and tanking is not easy. So how about we simply make a stance for each situation?</blockquote>I don't think things are as easy as you imagine. But tanks should not be viable at DPSing, not compared to pure DPS classes, and when competing for non-tank raid spots they would be competing with them. They need to bring something other than personal DPS to make up the difference.<cite>TheSpin wrote:</cite> <blockquote>Your comment comparing guardians and brawlers is simple for me to explain as well. In defensive stance a guardian has more tools for tanking because it's built into the class. </blockquote> I don't think so. Firstly the stance makes no difference. That was true when DoF came out and ToS and Reinforcement are still amongst the best tanking tools, but SoE have been trying to compensate for that. With RoK the new ability guard's got boosts the hate position of other fighters - not useful for personally tanking. Other fighter classes got abilities useful for tanking, some on a par with ToS and Reinforcement such as Adrenaline and Peel. It is not the number of tools that guards have that gives them their edge as a raid tank, it is that their abilites work together better for defense. Even their one offensive buff helps by countering the penalty of defensive stance making it more viable than it is for other tanks.<cite>TheSpin wrote:</cite> <blockquote>There's no way guardians across norrath would accept any other class becoming their equal at mitigating damage.</blockquote> There is very little difference in mitigation between guards and zerkers. It is defense and hitpoints where guards have the edge.<cite>TheSpin wrote:</cite> <blockquote> At the same time, this theme needs to be balanced with all fighters, some leaning more heavily into tanking, others into dps.</blockquote> All fighters are tanks. No fighter is specialist DPS. There is no room for more specialist DPS classes and there have already been complaints about fighters encouraging on their speciality.<cite>TheSpin wrote:</cite> <blockquote>The AoE versus single target tanking was a horrible idea,</blockquote> I agree. It has a part to play in differentiating fighters but only a limited one.<cite>TheSpin wrote:</cite> <blockquote>but I think that taking a stand on offensive versus defensive tanks fits very well into the core ideas behind the classes. They could even break it down by class... guardian defensive - beserker offensive, Paladin defensive - SK offensive, Bruiser defensive - monk offensive. I personally think it'd be nice if they stopped keeping everyone in the dark and took a stand such as this one.</blockquote>That was their stance when I started playing. It is incompatible with tanks competing on DPS, at least for the defensive ones. I would put both brawlers up with the offensive plate tanks in terms of DPS, somewhere behind predators and sorcerers but adding something else to allow them to compete, as monks were able to do for a while during RoK.<cite>TheSpin wrote:</cite> <blockquote>Maybe groups would start bringing two tanks, one more offensive oriented to OT and one more defensive oriented to MT along with them.</blockquote> Group encounters can not require an OT as that would block groups without a second tank. The second fighter must be doing something other than tanking such as T2 DPS + a buff, or T3 DPS and removing the need for a second healer.

Terron

03-30-2009, 12:58 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>TTerron,Monks never have dps buff in this game.</blockquote>Monks do have a buff that increases raid DPS - it is called Mindful.There is another meaning of DPS for which your statement is true, but that wasn't the one I was using, which I thought the context made obvious. I am sorry I wasn't clear enough.My guild use to allow one monk on a raid as that buff would make up for the lower personal DPS, but I believe it was nerfed with TSO.

Couching

03-30-2009, 01:08 PM

<cite>Terron@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>TTerron,Monks never have dps buff in this game.</blockquote>Monks do have a buff that increases raid DPS - it is called Mindful.There is another meaning of DPS for which your statement is true, but that wasn't the one I was using, which I thought the context made obvious. I am sorry I wasn't clear enough.My guild use to allow one monk on a raid as that buff would make up for the lower personal DPS, but I believe it was nerfed with TSO.</blockquote>If it is what you mean, zerker, bruiser and sk have raid dps buff as well. They all have better raid wide buffs increase raid dps.

Yimway

03-30-2009, 01:11 PM

I'm nots sure where any of this arguement is contextual to testing feedback.

TheSpin

03-30-2009, 01:33 PM

<cite>My Response to Terron is in Blue</cite><cite></cite><cite>Terron@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>TheSpin wrote:</cite><blockquote>Stance switching isn't a major issue, but I think it's the solution. </blockquote>To what? The main problem I have is that I can not hold aggro in a group without a hate booster, which is part of the problem this part of the revamp was aimed at.Part of the revamp, but not all of the revamp. A big(ger) part of the revamp was also to encourage tanks to tank in defensive stance. Once the difference between defensive and offensive becomes so diverse, it's easy to tweak hate and other defensive numbers to the correct amounts.<cite>TheSpin wrote:</cite><blockquote>I think plate fighters should NOT have higher surviveability in offensive than chain wearers. That's what gotten us into the current mess that tanking is in. It's the sacrifice they'd suffer for having worthwhile dps while not tanking. </blockquote>My guard does not have worthwhile DPS when not tanking. He only has worthwhile DPS when fully buffed to tank. When not tanking those buffs go to other classes that would benefit more.Hence my suggestion to sacrifice surviveability when you want to dps, in exchange for having worthwhile dps. I'm not saying you should get buffs over a dps class, but it also makes you valid as an OT. Obviously this applies more in raid situations where fighter slots have disappeared with the exception of a MT and OT. DPS classes still have their niche, but this way fighters would not be a detriment if brought along to dps.One of the problem is that players of DPS classes are complaining about tanks doing so much DPS. I agree that tanks should not DPS as much as classes for whom DPS is a speciality and who do not have the option of as high survivability when in defensive. Since fighter's DPS should not be worthwhile compared to predators (or sorcerers) there should not be a problem with their mitigation being higher. My swashbuckler actually has higher surviveability than my guard but that is through evac and her speed buff.I'm suggesting a major decrease in defensive stance dps and a major increase in threat gain. This takes care of the tank doing the dps 'problem' without nerfing the fighters who aren't doing the tanking.<cite>TheSpin wrote:</cite><blockquote> I said fighters should be able to compete with other classes in terms of dps while in offensive, but that doesn't mean they will be a preferred choice, just a valid choice.</blockquote>No fighter should compete with predators and and sorcerers in terms of DPS in any stance. Defensive fighters can't even be made close without ruining the flavour of those classes.I agree, especially when speaking specifically of predators and sorcerers, but if their dps is close enough at the cost of surviveability they can still bring something to a raid/group. Guardians are the least likely to be in this situation in the first place, and would likely be the least effective in their offensive stance, but guardians aren't the only fighters. The flavour comment applies most to guardians, I definately think that going into a reckless beserker frenzy to increase dps output fits the flavour of the bersker class, for example.<cite>TheSpin wrote:</cite><blockquote>Truthfully, adding in taunt values or adjusting numbers here or there is easy to do. I'm sure the devs have much more experience balancing these numbers than the players. Balancing everyone's defensive stance is easy, balancing everyone's offensive stance is also fairly easy. Making tanks viable at soloing, dpsing, and tanking is not easy. So how about we simply make a stance for each situation?</blockquote>I don't think things are as easy as you imagine. But tanks should not be viable at DPSing, not compared to pure DPS classes, and when competing for non-tank raid spots they would be competing with them. They need to bring something other than personal DPS to make up the difference.DPS is the only thing people really respond to when it comes to deciding who to bring on a raid. There's nothing wrong with a fighter who works to gear up for dps being able to compete with 'some' classes for dps.<cite>TheSpin wrote:</cite><blockquote>Your comment comparing guardians and brawlers is simple for me to explain as well. In defensive stance a guardian has more tools for tanking because it's built into the class. </blockquote>I don't think so. Firstly the stance makes no difference. That was true when DoF came out and ToS and Reinforcement are still amongst the best tanking tools, but SoE have been trying to compensate for that. With RoK the new ability guard's got boosts the hate position of other fighters - not useful for personally tanking. Other fighter classes got abilities useful for tanking, some on a par with ToS and Reinforcement such as Adrenaline and Peel. It is not the number of tools that guards have that gives them their edge as a raid tank, it is that their abilites work together better for defense. Even their one offensive buff helps by countering the penalty of defensive stance making it more viable than it is for other tanks.Stance is supposed to make a difference, this was part of the reason for the revamp in the first place. For the most part, my suggestion doesn't really change much for the fighter doing the actual tanking other than that their dps would be lower while their hate gain higher.<cite>TheSpin wrote:</cite><blockquote>There's no way guardians across norrath would accept any other class becoming their equal at mitigating damage.</blockquote>There is very little difference in mitigation between guards and zerkers. It is defense and hitpoints where guards have the edge.I knew this would be misinterpreted. By mitigating damage I meant overall longterm surviveability while tanking. Including HP, mitigation, avoidence etc.<cite>TheSpin wrote:</cite><blockquote> At the same time, this theme needs to be balanced with all fighters, some leaning more heavily into tanking, others into dps.</blockquote>All fighters are tanks. No fighter is specialist DPS. There is no room for more specialist DPS classes and there have already been complaints about fighters encouraging on their speciality.Unfortunately there are 24 classes to fit into the mix. Maybe that's too many, but it's too late to change it. I'm merely suggesting a way for all 6 of the fighter classes to be a viable choice. The real truth is that there's not room for more tanks yet the classes exist.<cite>TheSpin wrote:</cite><blockquote>The AoE versus single target tanking was a horrible idea,</blockquote>I agree. It has a part to play in differentiating fighters but only a limited one.<cite>TheSpin wrote:</cite><blockquote>but I think that taking a stand on offensive versus defensive tanks fits very well into the core ideas behind the classes. They could even break it down by class... guardian defensive - beserker offensive, Paladin defensive - SK offensive, Bruiser defensive - monk offensive. I personally think it'd be nice if they stopped keeping everyone in the dark and took a stand such as this one.</blockquote>That was their stance when I started playing. It is incompatible with tanks competing on DPS, at least for the defensive ones. I would put both brawlers up with the offensive plate tanks in terms of DPS, somewhere behind predators and sorcerers but adding something else to allow them to compete, as monks were able to do for a while during RoK.This game was designed around good classes, evil classes and neutral classes. The warriors are neutral and guardian is the obvious choice for a defense focused class while beserker is the obvious choice for an offensive focused class. Paladins heal and protect and serve their god, so obviously defensive while shadowknights are more conserned with death, obvious offensive. Brawlers are somewhat trickier, but the good side already has a defensive so make the monk offensive, plus the bruiser is someone who can survive a barrom brawl etc, so it does make sense for them to be defensive. I'm not saying that there should be three classes equally capable in offensive and three equally capable in defensive, but curving scale from one class to another is appropriate. I'm suggesting a Guardian deservers the best defense but worst offense, paladin second best defense, second worst offense, monk third best defense 4th best offense, etc.<cite>TheSpin wrote:</cite><blockquote>Maybe groups would start bringing two tanks, one more offensive oriented to OT and one more defensive oriented to MT along with them.</blockquote>Group encounters can not require an OT as that would block groups without a second tank. The second fighter must be doing something other than tanking such as T2 DPS + a buff, or T3 DPS and removing the need for a second healer.I agree with you, but group encounters should also be able to be defeated with any of the 6 tanks. Also bringing two fighters for a group encounter should not be detrimental, even if the second fighter isn't needed to tank.</blockquote>

Costa

03-30-2009, 01:59 PM

Ok what i would like to see is the following:1) Fighters are broken down to being either offensive or defensive tanks not SOE's proposed ST and AE tanks. Those that are defensive tanks should have their dps reduced but have taunts increased and the offensive tanks should have their dps increased and where needed taunts decreased. The offensive tanks should be relying on dps to hold agro over their taunts and defensive tanks should be relying on their taunts to hold agro over their dps.2) The stances need to be set up so that as a MT you will use your def stance to maintain agro where as an OT will use their off stance as that increases damage output and carries extra group/raid wide buffs. I think their should be some kind of taunt elemant in off stance as the OT needs to be high on the hate list if they need to take over but not to the extent that it is viable to tank in off stance.3) I know it's too late now but the T3 armor set when it comes out should be class specific. This would allow for more itamization and allow the split between the deffensive tanks and offensive tanks to be more defined. Having 2 classes share the same set of armor only leaves you down to jewlery itermization to define your class unless your in a raid guild and able to get the T4 set. (I know its too late for this and very possibly the wrong thread for it but what the hell)4) Brawlers should be able to tank TSO zones. I only play an 80 SK and Zerk so not sure how this can be done but having brawlers in guild refusing to tank zones because they will die too quickly is not acceptable for a tank class. Their dps isn't high enough to take them over a pure dps class so they are generally taken along just to fill the last spot if it's available and to me thats not fair or even right for thier classes. I'm guessing this has been said many times butstill they need help.

Yimway

03-30-2009, 02:11 PM

<cite>Bazill wrote:</cite><blockquote>Ok what i would like to see is the following:1) Fighters are broken down to being either offensive or defensive tanks not SOE's proposed ST and AE tanks. Those that are defensive tanks should have their dps reduced but have taunts increased and the offensive tanks should have their dps increased and where needed taunts decreased. The offensive tanks should be relying on dps to hold agro over their taunts and defensive tanks should be relying on their taunts to hold agro over their dps.2) The stances need to be set up so that as a MT you will use your def stance to maintain agro where as an OT will use their off stance as that increases damage output and carries extra group/raid wide buffs. I think their should be some kind of taunt elemant in off stance as the OT needs to be high on the hate list if they need to take over but not to the extent that it is viable to tank in off stance.3) I know it's too late now but the T3 armor set when it comes out should be class specific. This would allow for more itamization and allow the split between the deffensive tanks and offensive tanks to be more defined. Having 2 classes share the same set of armor only leaves you down to jewlery itermization to define your class unless your in a raid guild and able to get the T4 set. (I know its too late for this and very possibly the wrong thread for it but what the hell)4) Brawlers should be able to tank TSO zones. I only play an 80 SK and Zerk so not sure how this can be done but having brawlers in guild refusing to tank zones because they will die too quickly is not acceptable for a tank class. Their dps isn't high enough to take them over a pure dps class so they are generally taken along just to fill the last spot if it's available and to me thats not fair or even right for thier classes. I'm guessing this has been said many times butstill they need help.</blockquote>I strongly disagree with 1 and 2. Stances should be viable choices for fighters to make a decision on vs the difficulty of the content they are tanking, not their role in that encounter.3) Very good point. If we're splitting each subclass into an ST and AOE version of each, it really doesn't make sense to have subclass armor sets. But for me, this is an argement against ST vs AoE, not an arguement for class specific armor.4) We've got a brawler thats tanked every TSO zone short of PoF, tell your brawlers to wake up and spec / gear for tanking. Are they as OP a tank as an SK? No. But they can do the job well enough to get it done. Just cause it isn't easymode doesn't make it hard to do.

TheSpin

03-30-2009, 02:29 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bazill wrote:</cite><blockquote>Ok what i would like to see is the following:1) Fighters are broken down to being either offensive or defensive tanks not SOE's proposed ST and AE tanks. Those that are defensive tanks should have their dps reduced but have taunts increased and the offensive tanks should have their dps increased and where needed taunts decreased. The offensive tanks should be relying on dps to hold agro over their taunts and defensive tanks should be relying on their taunts to hold agro over their dps.2) The stances need to be set up so that as a MT you will use your def stance to maintain agro where as an OT will use their off stance as that increases damage output and carries extra group/raid wide buffs. I think their should be some kind of taunt elemant in off stance as the OT needs to be high on the hate list if they need to take over but not to the extent that it is viable to tank in off stance.3) I know it's too late now but the T3 armor set when it comes out should be class specific. This would allow for more itamization and allow the split between the deffensive tanks and offensive tanks to be more defined. Having 2 classes share the same set of armor only leaves you down to jewlery itermization to define your class unless your in a raid guild and able to get the T4 set. (I know its too late for this and very possibly the wrong thread for it but what the hell)4) Brawlers should be able to tank TSO zones. I only play an 80 SK and Zerk so not sure how this can be done but having brawlers in guild refusing to tank zones because they will die too quickly is not acceptable for a tank class. Their dps isn't high enough to take them over a pure dps class so they are generally taken along just to fill the last spot if it's available and to me thats not fair or even right for thier classes. I'm guessing this has been said many times butstill they need help.</blockquote>I strongly disagree with 1 and 2. Stances should be viable choices for fighters to make a decision on vs the difficulty of the content they are tanking, not their role in that encounter.3) Very good point. If we're splitting each subclass into an ST and AOE version of each, it really doesn't make sense to have subclass armor sets. But for me, this is an argement against ST vs AoE, not an arguement for class specific armor.4) We've got a brawler thats tanked every TSO zone short of PoF, tell your brawlers to wake up and spec / gear for tanking. Are they as OP a tank as an SK? No. But they can do the job well enough to get it done. Just cause it isn't easymode doesn't make it hard to do.</blockquote>A very large part of the reason to review tanking in general was because they devs did not want fighters to tank in offensive stance, so I have to agree with Bazil for the most part. That's why I had suggested a signifigant decrease to surviveability in offensive stance and a signifigant increase in aggro management in defensive stance.It bugs me that DPS has become the only important aspect of this game.

Yimway

03-30-2009, 02:34 PM

<cite>TheSpin wrote:</cite><blockquote>A very large part of the reason to review tanking in general was because they devs did not want fighters to tank in offensive stance, so I have to agree with Bazil for the most part. That's why I had suggested a signifigant decrease to surviveability in offensive stance and a signifigant increase in aggro management in defensive stance.It bugs me that DPS has become the only important aspect of this game.</blockquote>And strangely, thats a very large reason for the community push back and why that change never made it to live.So, here we are again. Stances are to be chosen for the difficulty of the content in front of you, not for the role you plan to play. Your role is a factor of your class, not your stance.DPS isn't the only aspect of the game, but when content is trivial, I don't need to be forced to cower in defensive stance to tank it. Period.

TheSpin

03-30-2009, 02:51 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>TheSpin wrote:</cite><blockquote>A very large part of the reason to review tanking in general was because they devs did not want fighters to tank in offensive stance, so I have to agree with Bazil for the most part. That's why I had suggested a signifigant decrease to surviveability in offensive stance and a signifigant increase in aggro management in defensive stance.It bugs me that DPS has become the only important aspect of this game.</blockquote>And strangely, thats a very large reason for the community push back and why that change never made it to live.So, here we are again. Stances are to be chosen for the difficulty of the content in front of you, not for the role you plan to play. Your role is a factor of your class, not your stance.DPS isn't the only aspect of the game, but when content is trivial, I don't need to be forced to cower in defensive stance to tank it. Period.</blockquote>I thought they had the tanking stuff working pretty well with their revamp. It was the soloing, small grouping, and off tanking aspects that caused the plug to be pulled. Admittedly I haven't kept up with everything most recently so I could be wrong.I think there are too many classes that are supposed to be 'tanks' and not enough actual tanks available. Brawlers tanking instances are generally the exception rather than the rule, and they simploy don't do it as well as what is often referred to as a 'real' tank. Guardians tank instances because it's their job and they don't have to brag about it. Most brawlers have a list of what they can and cannot tank. Not only that, but because only select tanks are brought along in raids, it means the less popular raid classes are also the most common classes lacking the gear to tank the heroic stuff well.

Gilasil

03-30-2009, 02:56 PM

1. Give raids a reason to bring along more then two fighters. It should be possible to build a good raid force for most targets with six fighters (i.e. 25% of the toons there should be of the fighter archetype). 2. Give brawlers a purpose in raids and groups taking on tough encounters. I don't even care all that much what the purpose is as long is it halfway fits in with the flavor of the classes, but do it RIGHT for a change. If that purpose is DPS then give them DPS in offensive stance comparable to scouts along with comparable deaggro abilities (most brawlers are pretty squishy in offensive stance btw). If that purpose is tanking then give them tanking (WHICH INCLUDES SURVIVABILITY) abilities comparable to that of plate tanks THIS INCLUDES AGAINST EPICS. Or some other equally important purpose which will cause the majority of raids to profit by bringing along a couple brawlers. I'd prefer it if that purpose was more then a passive buff but even that would be an improvement over the current situation. This should hold with brawlers at all capabilitiy levels i.e. a brawler with Adept I's and treasured gear should be just as useful as a comparably equipped guardian, assassin, templar, or brigand (none should be very useful but all should be comparable in their unusefulness). Likewise mastered out with mythical. Force Aerolik to play a brawler and only a brawler in regular raids for a few months. Force his raid leader to give him truthful feedback about how useful he isn't.3. Set the agro generation of taunts to what they were in the now junked fighter revamp.I'm going to add a 4th.4. And don't wait a year to do it.

Morrolan V

03-30-2009, 03:47 PM

<cite>TheSpin wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>TheSpin wrote:</cite><blockquote>A very large part of the reason to review tanking in general was because they devs did not want fighters to tank in offensive stance, so I have to agree with Bazil for the most part. That's why I had suggested a signifigant decrease to surviveability in offensive stance and a signifigant increase in aggro management in defensive stance.It bugs me that DPS has become the only important aspect of this game.</blockquote>And strangely, thats a very large reason for the community push back and why that change never made it to live.So, here we are again. Stances are to be chosen for the difficulty of the content in front of you, not for the role you plan to play. Your role is a factor of your class, not your stance.DPS isn't the only aspect of the game, but when content is trivial, I don't need to be forced to cower in defensive stance to tank it. Period.</blockquote>I thought they had the tanking stuff working pretty well with their revamp. It was the soloing, small grouping, and off tanking aspects that caused the plug to be pulled. Admittedly I haven't kept up with everything most recently so I could be wrong.I think there are too many classes that are supposed to be 'tanks' and not enough actual tanks available. Brawlers tanking instances are generally the exception rather than the rule, and they simploy don't do it as well as what is often referred to as a 'real' tank. Guardians tank instances because it's their job and they don't have to brag about it. Most brawlers have a list of what they can and cannot tank. Not only that, but because only select tanks are brought along in raids, it means the less popular raid classes are also the most common classes lacking the gear to tank the heroic stuff well.</blockquote>Brawlers can tank every instance in TSO. There are increasingly fewer issues with brawler heroic tanking. We need better AoE aggro. That's really it. I agree that the playerbase's perception (both brawlers and everyone else) has not caught up to the reality of this.Raid tanking is a different thing. Orange con raid mobs almost completely eliminate the utility of contested avoidance, and brawlers' lower mitigation means that we are just too susceptible to being one or two-shotted. The typical pattern for brawler raid tanking is that everything looks great and easy - we do tend to take less damage over time - and then we're just suddenly dead. You saw the short-lived HUGE change to meditative healing during the revamp, that was the developers recognizing and attempting to address just that problem.The other problem with brawlers being raid tanks is that, even if the developers make it possible for brawlers to tank every raid mob in the game with chances of succcess equal to any plate tank, all that does is funnel more players into competition for the fewest raid slots. If brawlers are suddenly MTs and OTs, where are the guards and pallies going to go? The vast majority of raiding bralwers were quite happy with the state of affairs in RoK - we had solid mid-T2 DPS, good support utility and the ability to save raids with snap aggro and oh s#$t survival skils. That meant we had a defined raid role and well-understood value. The clear direction that "all fighters are tanks" and NOT dps has threatened this role and once again thrown us and the playerbase into a state of confusion.You can't do a revamp of one archetype without considering the overall class balance and availability of roles in the game, both at present and on the other side of the revamp.

Costa

03-30-2009, 03:54 PM

One thing i never said was i play on a pvp server. Try tanking in off stance against a bunch of scouts end game and see how long you live there unless your fully twinked out. I'm not sure how the fighter changes would have effected combat on pvp or even if the devs would have even considered that. From personal experience they probably didn't as the pvp side of things are minor compared to the rest of the game.As i said previously i'm a zerk as a main so i would like to think that as an offensive tank i can comfortably out dps a guardian but not have the hate generating abilities that they do. At the moment i don't see that and when i have grouped with guards they are actually out dpsing me even when i'm using everything i have to try and raise my dps. Now to me that is where the fundamentals of the classes have fallen apart. Sony have lost sight of what the basics of each class are and now they need to repair that one way or another. I expect a zerk in what ever stance to be able to dps to some extent and if anything my prefered stance should be offence as that is the type of tank i am. Guardians on the other hand should have defence as their prefered stance as that is the type of tank they are. The problem we have is that so many guards have gotten used to topping parses and they complian that they are being robbed of that right with all the proposed changes. At the end of the day if you hold agro and nobody in your group is getting hit what does it matter?

TheSpin

03-30-2009, 04:10 PM

<cite>Morrolan V wrote:</cite><blockquote>Brawlers can tank every instance in TSO. There are increasingly fewer issues with brawler heroic tanking. We need better AoE aggro. That's really it. I agree that the playerbase's perception (both brawlers and everyone else) has not caught up to the reality of this.Raid tanking is a different thing. Orange con raid mobs almost completely eliminate the utility of contested avoidance, and brawlers' lower mitigation means that we are just too susceptible to being one or two-shotted. The typical pattern for brawler raid tanking is that everything looks great and easy - we do tend to take less damage over time - and then we're just suddenly dead. You saw the short-lived HUGE change to meditative healing during the revamp, that was the developers recognizing and attempting to address just that problem.The other problem with brawlers being raid tanks is that, even if the developers make it possible for brawlers to tank every raid mob in the game with chances of succcess equal to any plate tank, all that does is funnel more players into competition for the fewest raid slots. If brawlers are suddenly MTs and OTs, where are the guards and pallies going to go? The vast majority of raiding bralwers were quite happy with the state of affairs in RoK - we had solid mid-T2 DPS, good support utility and the ability to save raids with snap aggro and oh s#$t survival skils. That meant we had a defined raid role and well-understood value. The clear direction that "all fighters are tanks" and NOT dps has threatened this role and once again thrown us and the playerbase into a state of confusion.You can't do a revamp of one archetype without considering the overall class balance and availability of roles in the game, both at present and on the other side of the revamp.</blockquote>One of the few brawlers in raid gear says he can tank all heroic content. The problem is that very few brawlers are able to aquire that gear in the first place.This all goes to support my suggestion about making a dps stance with low surviveability and a defensive stance with high surviveability.I think the goal of the developers when considering raiding is to design classes and content around a 24 man/24 class raid. I'm not saying it should be forced on us, but right now class selection has more impact on your chance to raid than player skill does.

Couching

03-30-2009, 04:20 PM

The is nothing wrong to tank in offensive with high dps and agro as long as you have significant less survivability comparing to defensive. Problems on live server:(a) Plate tanks have same good uncontested avoidance in offensive and defensive with shield. It makes them too good to tank most raid content and heroic instances in offensive.(b) Taunts are too weak comparing to dps generated by dps classes.(c) Not enough tank gear to help tanks to hold agro.Solutions:(a) Make block contested avoidance in offensive and uncontested avoidance in defensive. I can assure you that less tanking in offensive for plate tanks and no more high dps while tanking in defesnive. If they try to tank in offensive, they get hit a lot often. In this case, they deserve good dps and better agro than tanking in defensive.(b) Taunt needs a boost but don't make holding agro trivial with just clicking two taunt buttons. Currently on test sever, it's no fun and very poor design. There is no progression for tank to better their agro since most hate generated by several taunts/combat arts. A master craft geared tank should always be worse than fable geared tank in everything including holding agro.(c) Make hate proc on tank gear be something rather than weak hate proc, such as 500 hate or 1000 hate. It's useless. Make it 5k or 10k hate proc so that tank can get benefit from it and hold agro in defensive with the improved taunt.With the changes listed above, small group won't get any nerf. They can still enjoy the game.For casual plate tanks, they can still enjoy the game and tank in offensive for better dps and agro in heroic instances. The change of block from uncontested to contested doesnt matter in heroic instances. For raiders, they have to switch to defensive in tanking even raid trash mobs and fixed the problem of tank dealing too much dps in tanking with offensive stance.

Lord Hackenslash

03-30-2009, 04:48 PM

<cite>TheSpin wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Morrolan V wrote:</cite><blockquote>Brawlers can tank every instance in TSO. There are increasingly fewer issues with brawler heroic tanking. We need better AoE aggro. That's really it. I agree that the playerbase's perception (both brawlers and everyone else) has not caught up to the reality of this.Raid tanking is a different thing. Orange con raid mobs almost completely eliminate the utility of contested avoidance, and brawlers' lower mitigation means that we are just too susceptible to being one or two-shotted. The typical pattern for brawler raid tanking is that everything looks great and easy - we do tend to take less damage over time - and then we're just suddenly dead. You saw the short-lived HUGE change to meditative healing during the revamp, that was the developers recognizing and attempting to address just that problem.The other problem with brawlers being raid tanks is that, even if the developers make it possible for brawlers to tank every raid mob in the game with chances of succcess equal to any plate tank, all that does is funnel more players into competition for the fewest raid slots. If brawlers are suddenly MTs and OTs, where are the guards and pallies going to go? The vast majority of raiding bralwers were quite happy with the state of affairs in RoK - we had solid mid-T2 DPS, good support utility and the ability to save raids with snap aggro and oh s#$t survival skils. That meant we had a defined raid role and well-understood value. The clear direction that "all fighters are tanks" and NOT dps has threatened this role and once again thrown us and the playerbase into a state of confusion.You can't do a revamp of one archetype without considering the overall class balance and availability of roles in the game, both at present and on the other side of the revamp.</blockquote>One of the few brawlers in raid gear says he can tank all heroic content. The problem is that very few brawlers are able to aquire that gear in the first place.This all goes to support my suggestion about making a dps stance with low surviveability and a defensive stance with high surviveability.I think the goal of the developers when considering raiding is to design classes and content around a 24 man/24 class raid. I'm not saying it should be forced on us, but right now class selection has more impact on your chance to raid than player skill does.</blockquote>One thing to point out, The T2 shard armor is really built for tanking but most of the brawlers I have heard complaining on my server don't take it because it does not have the uber DPS stats they want. So... they end up not having the equipment to tank stuff and blame the class meanwhile I have been passing +crit/+da items up in lieu of +avoidance gear.Ask yourselves:Are you built for it? Did you put on all your defensive gear?Are you wearing the right adornments? Do your wrists have +3% avoid? Do your weapons have 3% avoid, Do all your rings, shoulders have + HP? Does your forearm have Parry or mitigation? Do your Boot/legs have + stamina? (Brawlers have the highest base Hp of any class but i rarely see any with health coming close to my HP even with better gear. Of course they have tons more str than me...)Are you AA specd for it? Are your AA giving you + defence/parry/deflection?When you complete a quest with a choice of jewelry rewards do you take the defensive option?I can answer yes to all these questions, and can tank pretty much anything in the game. I regularly get out DPSd by our scouts and brawler in raids and that doesn't bother me. I am a tank and I made my choice to be the best tank I can be. I know brawlers who have taken the effort to spec for tanking and are very effective at it. Do Brawlers need help with aoe aggro? Yes, but they also need to understand wearing offensive gear and having an offensive AA spec, and simply swapping to defensve stance does not alone make you an uber tank.

Couching

03-30-2009, 05:03 PM

It's not just the problem of how brawlers spec their aa and gear for tanking.Healing mechanic is also an issue of why brawler tanking is worse than plate tanks.Reactive healing and stoneskin are not friendly for avoidance tanks. (cleric)Heal over time are not friendly to avoidance tanks. (druid)Warding is about equal for both mitigation tanks and avoidance tanks. (shaman)To be a good tank as brawlers is much harder than as plate tanks. We need to counter the spike damages by ourselves rather than healers. That's the difference between a good tank and bad tank as brawlers.

Morrolan V

03-30-2009, 07:20 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>It's not just the problem of how brawlers spec their aa and gear for tanking.Healing mechanic is also an issue of why brawler tanking is worse than plate tanks.Reactive healing and stoneskin are not friendly for avoidance tanks. (cleric)Heal over time are not friendly to avoidance tanks. (druid)Warding is about equal for both mitigation tanks and avoidance tanks. (shaman)To be a good tank as brawlers is much harder than as plate tanks. We need to counter the spike damages by ourselves rather than healers. That's the difference between a good tank and bad tank as brawlers.</blockquote>QFTWhich said, I agree with the poster above who mentioned the T2 shard armor, the importance of AA's and defense-oriented jewelry. I disagree, however, that raid gear is required. Most of my tanking gear is not actually raid gear - like 5 or 6 of 19 pieces. The T2 shard armor is good tanking gear.

at3wills

03-30-2009, 08:56 PM

not getting side tracked here...1) Take a look at the fighter AA's. Give us a dps build and a tanking build and make it a clear cut choice that we can pick before a group or a raid.2) Give us gains to dps in offencive stance at the cost of some survivability and hate gain. Give us survivability and crit taunts in defencive without reducing the ability to hit the mob3) Define the classes. Each class has at least 1 thing that seperates them from another and by the time you get to lvl 80 it trivial. You could add this to the, oh lets say, the character development that has never advanced with the increased levels of the game.I know I forgot to call for the Nerf bat so lets Nerf back and forth updates and get this one right.

Aull

03-30-2009, 09:34 PM

<cite>at3wills wrote:</cite><blockquote>not getting side tracked here...1) Take a look at the fighter AA's. Give us a dps build and a tanking build and make it a clear cut choice that we can pick before a group or a raid.2) Give us gains to dps in offencive stance at the cost of some survivability and hate gain. Give us survivability and crit taunts in defencive without reducing the ability to hit the mob3) Define the classes. Each class has at least 1 thing that seperates them from another and by the time you get to lvl 80 it trivial. You could add this to the, oh lets say, the character development that has never advanced with the increased levels of the game.I know I forgot to call for the Nerf bat so lets Nerf back and forth updates and get this one right.</blockquote>Agreed!!! Most want "balance the classes" and that is gonna be rough. Defining does exactly what it means it defines the class.If a certain class is defined as being an aoe fighter then every one should be able to comprehend that definition. Hopefully.Now I know that many brawlers will cuss me for this but brawlers getting more aoe prowess is probably not gonna happen. Making all the fighters have the same or close to the same aoe attack is again pushing all the fighters into the same mold with none having any distinct traits that will/would separate them from the next fighter.

Tiberuis

03-30-2009, 10:06 PM

OK, here are my 3 coppers worth :1) Don't Revamp Fighters. Fighters are not broken.Take a look at all 24 classes. Fix the obvious nagging little balance issues forthwith, with a focus on meaningful differentiation. And make sure more than 1 guy is working on this - to relieve the workload <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />If you are obsessed that Fighters are broken, well fine then. Spend some time helping the Brawlers out. Lots of tanking issues there to look at.2) Connect Fighter's Offensive Stance to Weapon Utilization. Only Dual Wield and 2 Handed Weapons allowed in Offensive Stance. Mythical and Epic Weapon choices are now 1H or 2H. Pick your poison. Now THIS will be fun <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />3) Take another look at taunt code mechs. Re-balance taunts (more powerful?) across the board to compete with DPS effects on the hate meter. Make taunts more meaningful in the game.OP : Nice post, great idea to consolidate some suggestions.

Lethe5683

03-30-2009, 11:48 PM

<cite>Melina@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>Do your weapons have 3% avoid</blockquote>Brawlers can't adorn their weapons with 3% avoidance unless they have slashing weapons which most don't.

Raznor2

03-31-2009, 03:59 AM

1. Revision of the differences between fighters. Single target and aoe tanking is a poor way to differientiate the fighter classes. Defining them as offensive and defensive simply makes a pecking order for the tanks, the defensive tanks will be favored over offensive. Instead, define them by how they tank. That being, warriors by mitigation, Crusaders by mitigation and magic and Brawlers with avoidance. Three different ways to accomplish the same task.2 Revise how raids work in regards to tanking. Single target raid encounters best handled by a guardian being the bulk of raid encounters, needs to go away. Instead encounters need to be built to favor either a warrior, crusader or brawler or use each of them to handle tanking encounters. Raid tanking would then be handled by at least three tanks, one from each tank type, not one or two warriors.3. Rework fighter hate. There was alot of good ideas in the fighter revamp that should be brought into any new revisions. Tanking with threat per second was one of them. Fighter dps should be half of a dps classes in defensive and 2/3rd's in offensive, threat generation should be our fortay.`Raithan

Terron

03-31-2009, 09:14 AM

<cite>Tiberuis wrote:</cite><blockquote>1) Don't Revamp Fighters. Fighters are not broken.</blockquote>Guards are. Neither I nor my guild's raid MT can hold aggro in a group without a hate buff. That restrict the viable group combinations for harder instances and reduces peoples opportunities to have fun.

Couching

03-31-2009, 10:23 AM

<cite>Terron@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Tiberuis wrote:</cite><blockquote>1) Don't Revamp Fighters. Fighters are not broken.</blockquote>Guards are. Neither I nor my guild's raid MT can hold aggro in a group without a hate buff. That restrict the viable group combinations for harder instances and reduces peoples opportunities to have fun.</blockquote>In fact, if every tank can hold aggro alone, it reduces the fun of this game.There shouldn't be perfect tank in this game.Every tank should be worse than other tanks in either aggro, dps or survivability.

einar4

03-31-2009, 01:01 PM

One long winded thing, enough verbiage for 3 Remove the artificial parallel of equating the defensive/offensive stances to the tanking/off-tanking roles. If you want to have the two stances great, but use different abilities or buffs to accomplish the tank/off-tank-dps roles. Defensive is for taking less damage and dealing less damage. Offensive is for dealing more damage and taking more damage. Ok. Tanking and Not Taking should not be forced into that. Tanking in Offensive mode should be possible if the tank can handle the lower defense. Off tanking in Defensive mode should work if the off tank needs more defense for those situations that require it. Stop the pigeonholing. There is enough of it already with the archetypes that basically make putting together Raids and Groups little different from building a CCG uber-deck. It hinders player creativity and flexibility. Hate gain should be an inherent expertise of all fighter classes, which is a composite effect of tactical skill, toughness, finesse, etc. It shouldn't be considered _just_ making enemies hit you, rather it's a tactical way to ensure that the enemy has to get through you to get at the others in the party. It's all boiled down into a factor called "hate" but is a mix of different things, keep that in mind when working on the new hate management/tanking paradigms.

MyTFlyGuy

03-31-2009, 02:33 PM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>at3wills wrote:</cite><blockquote>not getting side tracked here...1) Take a look at the fighter AA's. Give us a dps build and a tanking build and make it a clear cut choice that we can pick before a group or a raid.2) Give us gains to dps in offencive stance at the cost of some survivability and hate gain. Give us survivability and crit taunts in defencive without reducing the ability to hit the mob3) Define the classes. Each class has at least 1 thing that seperates them from another and by the time you get to lvl 80 it trivial. You could add this to the, oh lets say, the character development that has never advanced with the increased levels of the game.I know I forgot to call for the Nerf bat so lets Nerf back and forth updates and get this one right.</blockquote>Agreed!!! Most want "balance the classes" and that is gonna be rough. Defining does exactly what it means it defines the class.If a certain class is defined as being an aoe fighter then every one should be able to comprehend that definition. Hopefully.Now I know that many brawlers will cuss me for this but brawlers getting more aoe prowess is probably not gonna happen. Making all the fighters have the same or close to the same aoe attack is again pushing all the fighters into the same mold with none having any distinct traits that will/would separate them from the next fighter.</blockquote>Agreed.I rolled a Beserker to be a great AOE tank with sub-par but decent damage. Less DPS than Brawlers , but better Defence and AOE control than a Brawler. Knowing I won't be able to mitigate as well as a guiardian , but sacrificing that for the higher Damage and AOE. ( Since I normally Duo with a healer ).If I wanted to MT raid I would have known to pick a guardian ... but for my playstyle and normal groups it's too many drawbacks with not enough damage. I did my research.For a Brawler to want more AOE .... How are they going to feel when they suddenly get their damage reduced to that of a Beserker in order to allow them that AOE aggro control ? And even FURTHER to allow for mitigation through dodges high enough for raid tanking ?CHECKS and blances.... people seem to only see the greener grass and cry foul when someone else has a skill they lack ... yet don't see the skills they have that others lack.Now , personally , I think the better answer is to include more content that will call for a fighter of each type in a raid. Some mobs are better fought with one of the three fighters types than the others.AOE pulls ( With Boss )Single Pulls with harder hitting mechanics and need for better Defense and mitigation.Single pulls or mutiple pulls for Brawlers ( perhaps resistant to taunts, and random target attacks that require the snap aggro )Or perhaps a situation , where tanks aren't are useful in other ways. I don't mind at all not being the MT in a group , provided I can give enough utility and dps to fill a second roll. But MT'ing is my preference.... and DPS is also a favorite as I love my former Swashy.

Lethe5683

03-31-2009, 11:20 PM

<cite>MyTFlyGuy wrote:</cite><blockquote>For a Brawler to want more AOE .... How are they going to feel when they suddenly get their damage reduced to that of a Beserker in order to allow them that AOE aggro control ? And even FURTHER to allow for mitigation through dodges high enough for raid tanking ?</blockquote>In case you have noticed all fighters get 40% AoE autoattack except brawlers which is BS.<cite>MyTFlyGuy wrote:</cite><blockquote>How are they going to feel when they suddenly get their damage reduced to that of a Beserker in order to allow them that AOE aggro control ?</blockquote>Damaged reduced? What damage? You mean our supposedly higher DPS? <cite>MyTFlyGuy wrote:</cite><blockquote>And even FURTHER to allow for mitigation through dodges high enough for raid tanking ?</blockquote>All plate tanks can Tank raids, provide utility and DPS but you think brawlers should only be able to tank instances and DPS in raids?

Aull

04-01-2009, 12:56 AM

Not trying to step on toes here but yes all other fighters get 40% ae auto attack except brawlers. Now with that being said the one thing I feel that actually keeps most brawlers from acutally getting higher crits and double attack with aa's is that one wonderous ability called feign death that no other fighter can get with aa's. Minus sk but their fd doesn't refresh as fast as brawlers even with aa.So should brawlers get the 40% ae auto attack with aa and other fighters get feign death with aa? Again I am not trying to be a smart ace here but I do feel that fd is what keeps brawlers from actually getting anywhere.Brawlers should hands down beat the plates in dps single target on raids when all buffs, gear, and skill are a close to equal factor. Many of us brawlers that do raid will see sk's and zerkers doing well if not beating us on occasion on raid fights while they still have a survival rate that surpasses us. It happens.I will not deny that brawlers having better ae would be nice but again it draws all tanks falling into the same ole mold again.If brawlers did have all the ae capability that the other fighters have then we would probably be seeing other fighters making posts of how overpowered brawlers are in everday norrath and instance runs. Just look at what players have posted about sk's and now sk's are or will be toned down becuase of it.All I am saying is I would hate to see brawlers get better ae but later loose out because of others players jealousy.

Davngr1

04-01-2009, 02:27 AM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>Not trying to step on toes here but yes all other fighters get 40% ae auto attack except brawlers. Now with that being said the one thing I feel that actually keeps most brawlers from acutally getting higher crits and double attack with aa's is that one wonderous ability called feign death that no other fighter can get with aa's. Minus sk but their fd doesn't refresh as fast as brawlers even with aa.So should brawlers get the 40% ae auto attack with aa and other fighters get feign death with aa? Again I am not trying to be a smart ace here but I do feel that fd is what keeps brawlers from actually getting anywhere.Brawlers should hands down beat the plates in dps single target on raids when all buffs, gear, and skill are a close to equal factor. Many of us brawlers that do raid will see sk's and zerkers doing well if not beating us on occasion on raid fights while they still have a survival rate that surpasses us. It happens.I will not deny that brawlers having better ae would be nice but again it draws all tanks falling into the same ole mold again.If brawlers did have all the ae capability that the other fighters have then we would probably be seeing other fighters making posts of how overpowered brawlers are in everday norrath and instance runs. Just look at what players have posted about sk's and now sk's are or will be toned down becuase of it.All I am saying is I would hate to see brawlers get better ae but later loose out because of others players jealousy.</blockquote> your post makes no sense because ALL fighters get 40% AoE Aattack thru AA. 1. give my guard his 60% DA back, he's AA are weak and since the fighter changes never happend the class is unbalanced right now. 2. give my bruiser TRUE AE attack, i don't really care if it's 40% or not but brawlers need some way of generating aoe agro. 3. i like the idea of single target tanks and aoe tanks but if this is to happen it needs to happen thru actual class changes not thru AA.

Aull

04-01-2009, 09:12 AM

Did I miss something? Is crane twirl now 40% ae auto attack and no longer 16%? Please enlighten me!

Lethe5683

04-01-2009, 09:46 AM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>Not trying to step on toes here but yes all other fighters get 40% ae auto attack except brawlers. Now with that being said the one thing I feel that actually keeps most brawlers from acutally getting higher crits and double attack with aa's is that one wonderous ability called feign death that no other fighter can get with aa's. Minus sk but their fd doesn't refresh as fast as brawlers even with aa.So should brawlers get the 40% ae auto attack with aa and other fighters get feign death with aa? Again I am not trying to be a smart ace here but I do feel that fd is what keeps brawlers from actually getting anywhere.Brawlers should hands down beat the plates in dps single target on raids when all buffs, gear, and skill are a close to equal factor. Many of us brawlers that do raid will see sk's and zerkers doing well if not beating us on occasion on raid fights while they still have a survival rate that surpasses us. It happens.I will not deny that brawlers having better ae would be nice but again it draws all tanks falling into the same ole mold again.If brawlers did have all the ae capability that the other fighters have then we would probably be seeing other fighters making posts of how overpowered brawlers are in everday norrath and instance runs. Just look at what players have posted about sk's and now sk's are or will be toned down becuase of it.All I am saying is I would hate to see brawlers get better ae but later loose out because of others players jealousy.</blockquote>You have got to be kidding... FD has nothing to do with AE autoattack, crit or DA. Plate tanks get tons of other abilities that we don't get so saying we have something they don't and thatss why we get crappy AAs makes no sense.

Siatfallen

04-01-2009, 09:50 AM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>Not trying to step on toes here but yes all other fighters get 40% ae auto attack except brawlers. Now with that being said the one thing I feel that actually keeps most brawlers from acutally getting higher crits and double attack with aa's is that one wonderous ability called feign death that no other fighter can get with aa's. Minus sk but their fd doesn't refresh as fast as brawlers even with aa.So should brawlers get the 40% ae auto attack with aa and other fighters get feign death with aa? Again I am not trying to be a smart ace here but I do feel that fd is what keeps brawlers from actually getting anywhere.Brawlers should hands down beat the plates in dps single target on raids when all buffs, gear, and skill are a close to equal factor. Many of us brawlers that do raid will see sk's and zerkers doing well if not beating us on occasion on raid fights while they still have a survival rate that surpasses us. It happens.I will not deny that brawlers having better ae would be nice but again it draws all tanks falling into the same ole mold again.If brawlers did have all the ae capability that the other fighters have then we would probably be seeing other fighters making posts of how overpowered brawlers are in everday norrath and instance runs. Just look at what players have posted about sk's and now sk's are or will be toned down becuase of it.All I am saying is I would hate to see brawlers get better ae but later loose out because of others players jealousy.</blockquote>Hey, I'm all in favour of taking the plate fighters and replacing any of their AA choices with a viable FD option. Make it ~4 minute recast, 95% chance of success, 1 minute duration.The trouble is, I'm fairly sure the plate fighters would actually complain about "getting another useless AA" if this were to happen, and I would not blame them.

Aull

04-01-2009, 10:16 AM

I know fd has nothing to do with ae and same can be said about all these other abilities that other tanks have that brawlers don't.I was just trying to imply maybe thats why the brawlers do not get any loving cause we definately are not being shafted because we have higher crits/da in aa's. Brawlers just have a stigma to why we do not see better aa choices. What that stigma is I don't know but it is something. Feign death is just my assumption.I can understand brawlers not getting 40% ae auto attack if brawler's crits and da were higher than the warriors but again that isn't the case. Otherwise just ignore my post. Cause I am not against brawlers.

MadBarman

04-01-2009, 10:35 AM

The previously stated reason by Aeralik on why bralwers get less DA, crit and no/less aoe autoattack is because crane flock is so awesome (/sarcasm) and the int 4 ability we had on test before was the best of all fighters (+base taunt, +taunt crit).Well crane flock isn't that awesome, it used to be but now that most people can get high DA anyway craneflock is only marginally useful. Not to mention the int end line ability downright sucks.So give brawlers equal DA, melee crit and AOE autoattack as the 4 plate tanks can get through aa's

Couching

04-01-2009, 10:40 AM

Warrior and crusader dps on single target are too high or too close to monk.For example, zerker dps on single target is about 90%-95% of monk.In heroic instances, their dps is about 1.5-2+ times higher than monk on multiple encounters. Even single target encounters, they can pull 2-3 single mobs at same time and beat monk dps into water.Even guardian, with 40% aoe, can out parse monk easily on 2+ mobs encounters. Also, they can pull 2-3 single mobs at same time and beat monk dps into water.I don't need to mention crusader, especially sk.And don't forget, all of them have better survivabilty than monk.In raid, there are also a lot of encounters with multiple adds. For example, 4 of 5 named in TOMC have adds with named and make sk/zerker/pal dps incredibly high comparing to monk. (most guardians may give up agi line in raid spec)And still, all of them have better survivability than monk.Last, stop using FD as excuse of why warrior and crusader have better dps AND survivabilty in both heroic instances and raids. Brawlers got FD and the trade off is we don't have group buff as plate tanks. We already paid the penalty for it.

Aull

04-01-2009, 02:23 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Warrior and crusader dps on single target are too high or too close to monk.For example, zerker dps on single target is about 90%-95% of monk.In heroic instances, their dps is about 1.5-2+ times higher than monk on multiple encounters. Even single target encounters, they can pull 2-3 single mobs at same time and beat monk dps into water.Even guardian, with 40% aoe, can out parse monk easily on 2+ mobs encounters. Also, they can pull 2-3 single mobs at same time and beat monk dps into water.I don't need to mention crusader, especially sk.And don't forget, all of them have better survivabilty than monk.In raid, there are also a lot of encounters with multiple adds. For example, 4 of 5 named in TOMC have adds with named and make sk/zerker/pal dps incredibly high comparing to monk. (most guardians may give up agi line in raid spec)And still, all of them have better survivability than monk.Last, stop using FD as excuse of why warrior and crusader have better dps AND survivabilty in both heroic instances and raids. Brawlers got FD and the trade off is we don't have group buff as plate tanks. We already paid the penalty for it.</blockquote>Exactly. I do agree totally because I see exactly what you describe on a regular basis.Just a note here fd is not my excuse it was my "assumption" "the mother of all *(_# ups" as to why brawlers do not see better dps than plates.Thanks

Davngr1

04-01-2009, 03:04 PM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>Did I miss something? Is crane twirl now 40% ae auto attack and no longer 16%? Please enlighten me!</blockquote>all fighters other then brawlers get AE attack thru AA. that means that ALL fighters have TRUE AOE attack and brawlers DO NOT.sk's get life tapspallys get healsguards get stoneskinszerks get death savesbrawlers get FD all those sub-classes EXEPT one get TRUE AOE attack thru AA. i hope that clears up your assumption that FD some how disqualifies brawlers from AOE aa.

Aull

04-01-2009, 03:42 PM

Thanks for your time there Davngr. However I again must be misrepresenting myself. I am not trying to say that fd disqualifies any brawler from ae enhancements. I am just looking for the reason why brawlers cannot get any type of good abilities going for them.I just "thought" "assumed" that maybe brawlers have something that is so totally overpowering that is keeping them from receiving a better dps status then what they have now. Feign death was the only ability I could think of.

Couching

04-01-2009, 03:50 PM

Why is fd overpowered in your opinion?We are talking about group and raid content at capped level. Not to say, we are already inferior in utility than other plate tanks; brawlers didn't have any group buff as the penalty of fd for better solo capability.And at capped level, group and raid content is the only thing that can keep players playing.In my opinion, fd is totally underpowered and useless skill in group and raid content comparing to sk's life tap, pal's heal/wards, guardian's stoneskin and zerker's 100% aoe all the time.

therodge

04-01-2009, 04:17 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Why is fd overpowered in your opinion?We are talking about group and raid content at capped level. Not to say, we are already inferior in utility than other plate tanks; brawlers didn't have any group buff as the penalty of fd for better solo capability.And at capped level, group and raid content is the only thing that can keep players playing.In my opinion, fd is totally underpowered and useless skill in group and raid content comparing to sk's life tap, pal's heal/wards, guardian's stoneskin and zerker's 100% aoe all the time.</blockquote>im not a brawler but anyone who thinks FD is overpowered takes cognitive impairment to a level i didnt even know possible, can iq points enter the negitives?

Aull

04-01-2009, 04:42 PM

I will end the can of worms I have opened. Sorry about my posts here and totally derailing this thread. More important views need to be expressed.Thanks.

Scaler

04-01-2009, 07:23 PM

I understand wanting to make your character better, but honestly the brawlers here baffle me. I do agree on 1 point: 40% aoe auto attack would benefit the brawlers, that I am not opposed to. However, claiming that you are so weak in the dps compared to plate tanks, that is false.Here is my experience of the DPS order the fighters(NOT TANKS) fall in. This is based on similarly geared/skilled players.SK, Monk, Zerker, Bruiser, Guard, Pally.Stop crying that you have nothing to compensate for your lack of survivability. IMO brawlers are NOT tanks at all. Tanks wear plate armor. On live currently if you know how to play your character and have the same buffs and blah blah blah, you are par in dps, and better survivability than rogues, AND you have usefull raidwide buffs. Learn to play.To keep the spirit of this thread:1: Make stances buffs. Defensive stance should not affect dps in the slightest, the ONLY thing it does is improve survivability. Offensive should not affect damage intake, aside from not having the bonuses from defensive.2: Improve taunt/detaunt values to make them worth the power and cast time/recovery to cast.3: Quit nerfing.

Morrolan V

04-01-2009, 07:39 PM

Couching

04-01-2009, 08:02 PM

Elanjar

04-01-2009, 09:11 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Warrior and crusader dps on single target are too high or too close to monk.For example, zerker dps on single target is about 90%-95% of monk.In heroic instances, their dps is about 1.5-2+ times higher than monk on multiple encounters. Even single target encounters, they can pull 2-3 single mobs at same time and beat monk dps into water.Even guardian, with 40% aoe, can out parse monk easily on 2+ mobs encounters. Also, they can pull 2-3 single mobs at same time and beat monk dps into water.I don't need to mention crusader, especially sk.And don't forget, all of them have better survivabilty than monk.In raid, there are also a lot of encounters with multiple adds. For example, 4 of 5 named in TOMC have adds with named and make sk/zerker/pal dps incredibly high comparing to monk. (most guardians may give up agi line in raid spec)And still, all of them have better survivability than monk.Last, stop using FD as excuse of why warrior and crusader have better dps AND survivabilty in both heroic instances and raids. Brawlers got FD and the trade off is we don't have group buff as plate tanks. We already paid the penalty for it.</blockquote>Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the real problem is that all fighters are on the same auto attack tables. At lower lvls and in non-[Removed for Content] groups i think brawlers tend to have an advantage in the haste/dps mod departments which gives them better dps, but at higher lvls and gear/buffs they lose this advantage and their dps advantage. Brawlers just need to be on a higher auto attack table, maybe somewhere between rogues and the other fighters???

MadBarman

04-01-2009, 10:35 PM

<cite>Elanjar@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite>Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the real problem is that all fighters are on the same auto attack tables. At lower lvls and in non-[Removed for Content] groups i think brawlers tend to have an advantage in the haste/dps mod departments which gives them better dps, but at higher lvls and gear/buffs they lose this advantage and their dps advantage. Brawlers just need to be on a higher auto attack table, maybe somewhere between rogues and the other fighters???</blockquote>Brawlers used to be on a higher autoattack table, that is what lead to having our melee crit achievement nerfed to less than other fighters as our higher autoattack meant we could outdps fighters by too large a margin. That was back about 6 months after EoF came out iirc. Of course a couple of months after that all fighters autoattack tables were made the same. The problem now is that brawler dps hasn't scaled as much as the other fighters and to be honest a higher autoattack table will only cause further issues in the long run. Hopefully when the promised communication starts the devs will listen to the players and get each class what it needs to be viable solo, in a group and a raid.

Couching

04-02-2009, 03:37 AM

Brawlers were on predator damage table. Zerker and SK were on rogue. Guardian and Pal were on bard.It was changed that all fighters are on predator auto attack damage table.That's why warrior and crusader dps on single target are so close to brawler, especially monk, in group/raid. The only dps advantage of monk is haste. In raid or heroic groups, haste isn't an issue at all.It's silly to say guardian dps sucks on single target. No, it's not if he is DW. His dps is almost identical as monk if he can get haste buff from group.

Terron

04-02-2009, 11:39 AM

<cite>TheSpin wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>My Response to Terron is in Blue</cite><cite></cite><cite>Terron@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>My guard does not have worthwhile DPS when not tanking. He only has worthwhile DPS when fully buffed to tank. When not tanking those buffs go to other classes that would benefit more.Hence my suggestion to sacrifice surviveability when you want to dps, in exchange for having worthwhile dps. I'm not saying you should get buffs over a dps class, but it also makes you valid as an OT. Obviously this applies more in raid situations where fighter slots have disappeared with the exception of a MT and OT. DPS classes still have their niche, but this way fighters would not be a detriment if brought along to dps.</blockquote></blockquote>If I wanted to DPS I wouldn't have chosen to play a guard. Certainly a guard should not be able to equal offensive fighters in DPS and those classes should not equal the true DPS classes. So to earn a raid spot and not be a detriment compared to a pure DPS class fighters need to bring something other than DPS. (Though for offensive fighters it need not be much as their DPS in offfensive shouldn't be far behind the DPS classes).<cite>TheSpin wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote>One of the problem is that players of DPS classes are complaining about tanks doing so much DPS. I agree that tanks should not DPS as much as classes for whom DPS is a speciality and who do not have the option of as high survivability when in defensive. Since fighter's DPS should not be worthwhile compared to predators (or sorcerers) there should not be a problem with their mitigation being higher. My swashbuckler actually has higher surviveability than my guard but that is through evac and her speed buff.I'm suggesting a major decrease in defensive stance dps and a major increase in threat gain. This takes care of the tank doing the dps 'problem' without nerfing the fighters who aren't doing the tanking.</blockquote></blockquote>Incorrect. It nerfs guards for soloing and that is an area where they are already very weak. I can solo tougher heroic mobs in defensive than in offensive. A boost to the guards offensive stance to make it stronger for soloing would be needed to compensate (as was planned).<cite>TheSpin wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote>No fighter should compete with predators and and sorcerers in terms of DPS in any stance. Defensive fighters can't even be made close without ruining the flavour of those classes.I agree, especially when speaking specifically of predators and sorcerers, but if their dps is close enough at the cost of surviveability they can still bring something to a raid/group. Guardians are the least likely to be in this situation in the first place, and would likely be the least effective in their offensive stance, but guardians aren't the only fighters. The flavour comment applies most to guardians, I definately think that going into a reckless beserker frenzy to increase dps output fits the flavour of the bersker class, for example.</blockquote></blockquote>When picking someone to fill a DPS slot who would you pick, a top DPSers like an assassin or a slightly lower DPSer like a berserker? The assassin of course. The berserker would need to bring something else useful to the raid and personal survivability is very rarely useful for non-tanks. When I started playing berserkers did have that. Their group berserk buff used to be useful, but now with diminishing returns and characters tending to high attack speed and DPS buffs already it is become less important. Make that buff useful again (perhaps by having offensive stance ehance it) and then berserkers might get a non-tabking spot on a raid on merit.<cite>TheSpin wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote>I don't think things are as easy as you imagine. But tanks should not be viable at DPSing, not compared to pure DPS classes, and when competing for non-tank raid spots they would be competing with them. They need to bring something other than personal DPS to make up the difference.DPS is the only thing people really respond to when it comes to deciding who to bring on a raid. There's nothing wrong with a fighter who works to gear up for dps being able to compete with 'some' classes for dps.</blockquote></blockquote>Classes also get picked for buffs, debuffs and heals, not just DPS. If not raids would be made up of predators and sorcerers. Prior to TSO a monk could get a spot on my guild's raid through his raidwide buff making up for his slightly lower personal DPS compared to a scout. Personal DPS should be an important part of what fighters contribute, but if that is all they bring they will find the potential raid slots occupied by sorcerers and predators who do the same thing, only better.<cite>TheSpin wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote>There is very little difference in mitigation between guards and zerkers. It is defense and hitpoints where guards have the edge.I knew this would be misinterpreted. By mitigating damage I meant overall longterm surviveability while tanking. Including HP, mitigation, avoidence etc.</blockquote></blockquote>Since part 1 of the fighter revamp zerkers can be pretty much equal to guards in overall longterm survivability. Zerkers probably have the edge against multiple mobs, and guards maybe a slight edge against single mobs. Adrenaline and being able to resist death from Unyielding Will have countered the edge guards used to have.

Gisallo

04-02-2009, 10:27 PM

<cite>Terron@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>Since part 1 of the fighter revamp zerkers can be pretty much equal to guards in overall longterm survivability. Zerkers probably have the edge against multiple mobs, and guards maybe a slight edge against single mobs. Adrenaline and being able to resist death from Unyielding Will have countered the edge guards used to have.</blockquote>This is actually the only part I have an issue with. First the cost of Adrenalin is MUCH higher than any of the Guardian abilities. Also the only time it is even close to being equal, let alone better than ToS is when there are multiple mobs because of the mechanic of how stone skins work. Additionally resisting death for Unyielding will is something that takes butt loads of AA to get. The way I usually determine it is when I heal on my mystic. In most zones, with the exception of HEAVY AE zones I use less power and have a lower zonewide when healing guardians than when healing equally geared and played zerkers. As an example Evernight Abbey Guardian uses less power and I have a lower zone wide, Cavern of the Afflicted the Zerker has lower power usage but not by as much because when you hit those named, and every zone has em you run into the limits of the zerker when compared to the Guardian. SO unless you are dealing with multi mob encounters there is no pretty much equal about it, the Guards still have a clear edge.

Davngr1

04-03-2009, 04:36 AM

<cite>Valkenberg@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Terron@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>Since part 1 of the fighter revamp zerkers can be pretty much equal to guards in overall longterm survivability. Zerkers probably have the edge against multiple mobs, and guards maybe a slight edge against single mobs. Adrenaline and being able to resist death from Unyielding Will have countered the edge guards used to have.</blockquote>This is actually the only part I have an issue with. First the cost of Adrenalin is MUCH higher than any of the Guardian abilities. Also the only time it is even close to being equal, let alone better than ToS is when there are multiple mobs because of the mechanic of how stone skins work. Additionally resisting death for Unyielding will is something that takes butt loads of AA to get. The way I usually determine it is when I heal on my mystic. In most zones, with the exception of HEAVY AE zones I use less power and have a lower zonewide when healing guardians than when healing equally geared and played zerkers. As an example Evernight Abbey Guardian uses less power and I have a lower zone wide, Cavern of the Afflicted the Zerker has lower power usage but not by as much because when you hit those named, and every zone has em you run into the limits of the zerker when compared to the Guardian. SO unless you are dealing with multi mob encounters there is no pretty much equal about it, the Guards still have a clear edge.</blockquote>with the 5 min rescue and the other 2 single target taunt from AA, every AOE tank has about as much single target control as a guard end of story. ps. also yes stone skin sux for ae encoutners, now tell me one zone that isin't full of ae encoutners? even the mobs that are single target have a crap load of dmg shilds and silly lil dmg procs that eat up stone skin instantly with 20 and 30 point hits..

Terron

04-03-2009, 09:41 AM

<cite>Valkenberg@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>First the cost of Adrenalin is MUCH higher than any of the Guardian abilities.</blockquote>Does it kill you like unyielding will? Does it have a monetary cost like Towers of Stone? Does it root you? Does it cause you to take the damage from an AE multiple times unmitigated.<cite>Valkenberg@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>Also the only time it is even close to being equal, let alone better than ToS is when there are multiple mobs because of the mechanic of how stone skins work. </blockquote>ToS is better vs single targets but Adrenaline is better vs multiple mobs. Since the most challenging mobs do tend to be single target ToS probabaly has an edge, but it is a lot smaller than when zerkers did not have adrenaline.<cite>Valkenberg@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>Additionally resisting death for Unyielding will is something that takes butt loads of AA to get.</blockquote>Guardian's can't get it at any cost, but I agree that guards do have an advantage at lower levels and with fewer AA points, but zerkers start to catch up as soon as they hit level 80.<cite>Valkenberg@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>The way I usually determine it is when I heal on my mystic. In most zones, with the exception of HEAVY AE zones I use less power and have a lower zonewide when healing guardians than when healing equally geared and played zerkers. As an example Evernight Abbey Guardian uses less power and I have a lower zone wide, Cavern of the Afflicted the Zerker has lower power usage but not by as much because when you hit those named, and every zone has em you run into the limits of the zerker when compared to the Guardian. SO unless you are dealing with multi mob encounters there is no pretty much equal about it, the Guards still have a clear edge.</blockquote>You won't be hititng the limits on non-epic mobs, and you are measuring something slightly different from what I was talking about. Survivability is more about dealing with spikes in damages rather than average damage.A guardian has higher defense, though his group defense buff. That will reduce the hits from instance mobs, but that extra defense is contested avoidance, which has very little effect on high end raid mobs. Also guards have a attack skill buff so can tank in defensive stance and still have a good hit rate. Zerkers stay in offensive more as the skill penalty of defensive makes it harder for them to hold aggro.Non-contest avoidance for warriors comes from their shields. I do not know of any a guard can use that a zerker can't. Both mythicals give the same bonus to shield effectiveness. A zerker's mythical gives a constant 5% damage reduction. A guard's has a proc that gives 5% reduction for 12s 2.4 times a minute. That means it is unlikely to be up at the start of a fight when the mob has not been debuffed and is hitting hardest.

skycruise

04-03-2009, 05:57 PM

1. Make the mob's aggro increase on a fighter on successful blocks, parries and deflections. if the fighter is targetting one mob, that mob also causes the other mobs to hate the tank as well. (Hey help me fight this guy, I can't see to hit him at all, help me out! Target my target!). This move would help all tanks in aggro management and if a tank wanted to go this route, they would naturally be in defensive stance to increase avoidance.2. 3 stances: Since there seems to be three things involved with the revamp: hate/aggro/threat, survivability, dpsOffensive = more dps, less threat and survivability than defensive. (Survivability = 2, Threat = 3, DPS = 5)Defensive stance = greater survivability than any other stance and more threat gain than offensive but less than threat stance and all at the cost of dps. (Survivability = 5, Threat = 3, DPS = 2)Taunt stance = more taunt that any other stance, less survivability than defensive but more than offensive, less dps thanoffensive, but more than defense. (Survivability = 3, Threat = 5, DPS = 2)3. Increase Mitigation Curve!

Lethe5683

04-05-2009, 07:12 PM

<cite>skycruise wrote:</cite><blockquote>3. Increase Mitigation Curve!</blockquote>No way in heck... Give up half your avoidance then we'll see about fixing the mitigation curve.

Gisallo

04-06-2009, 12:15 AM

<cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote>with the 5 min rescue and the other 2 single target taunt from AA, every AOE tank has about as much single target control as a guard end of story.Look at ALL of the abilities, including reinforcement, moderate etc., nearly equal single target dps, Survey says ehhhhhhhhhhhh. Single target aggro to the Guardian. ps. also yes stone skin sux for ae encoutners, now tell me one zone that isin't full of ae encoutners? even the mobs that are single target have a crap load of dmg shilds and silly lil dmg procs that eat up stone skin instantly with 20 and 30 point hits..Thats why I used Evernight abbey and Cavern as examples. Evernight has AE encounters but no where on the scale of Cavern. This is why I bring up the primary problem of the balance is now because of content and not the classes themselves. Thats why in EVERY thread I post that the best way to balance the plate tanks is via content. Make content a balance between AE and ST encounters. Then the problem is eliminated. As it stands now in AE content in heroic instances Guards will cry "Adrenalin makes Zerkers so uber" while they still have a lock on MT slots on raids. Next expansion zerkers will scream "Guards are so Uber because everything is single target in the instances" while the Guards still maintain their lock on the tank spot.As it stands now Guards and zerks are pretty equal if you look at where they excel. Now its a matter of either balancing the content so that in an expansion neither tank has an advantage, acknowledging that there will be an ebb and flow of who has an advantage due to the content or say one is more geared for raids and the other instancing. I know no one wants to hear any of these suggestions. The first is something that no one has faith in SOE ever being capable of and the other 2 basically tell people that there will be times that things are not easy mode. I say easy mode because believe it or not Guards can tank all of the TSO instances, Zerks just have an advantage, and for the last not everyone raids. The only other suggestion I can think of is to simply amplify the roller coaster ride that content changes generate by adding constant class changes.Imagine this. They increase the Guardians AE advantage. Fine. If they do this though without an accompanying decrease in ST stuff then the Guardian ends up being even more the premiere MT and when the game goes back to ST heroic content they are clearly OP. If they do decrease Guardians ST abilities to balance exra AE stuff Guardians will probably be upset because then they won't be the class they rolled in the first place..See the problem? And whats the source? The content, not the classes. We need to focus on that. That is the issue. </blockquote>

Gisallo

04-06-2009, 12:26 AM

<cite>Terron@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Valkenberg@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>First the cost of Adrenalin is MUCH higher than any of the Guardian abilities.</blockquote>Does it kill you like unyielding will? Does it have a monetary cost like Towers of Stone? Does it root you? Does it cause you to take the damage from an AE multiple times unmitigated.No but what it does do on a nasty named fight (when it is typically used) put me in a position where I am out of power and have to PRAY that the mob is burned down quick since I don't even have enough juice to throw a taunt. <cite>Valkenberg@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>Also the only time it is even close to being equal, let alone better than ToS is when there are multiple mobs because of the mechanic of how stone skins work. </blockquote>ToS is better vs single targets but Adrenaline is better vs multiple mobs. Since the most challenging mobs do tend to be single target ToS probabaly has an edge, but it is a lot smaller than when zerkers did not have adrenaline.The edge is smaller than it was, but edge still to the Guard.<cite><a href="mailto:Valkenberg@Lucan">Valkenberg@Lucan</a> DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>The way I usually determine it is when I heal on my mystic. In most zones, with the exception of HEAVY AE zones I use less power and have a lower zonewide when healing guardians than when healing equally geared and played zerkers. As an example Evernight Abbey Guardian uses less power and I have a lower zone wide, Cavern of the Afflicted the Zerker has lower power usage but not by as much because when you hit those named, and every zone has em you run into the limits of the zerker when compared to the Guardian. SO unless you are dealing with multi mob encounters there is no pretty much equal about it, the Guards still have a clear edge.</blockquote>You won't be hititng the limits on non-epic mobs, and you are measuring something slightly different from what I was talking about. Survivability is more about dealing with spikes in damages rather than average damage.well thats where I think ToS and other things have an edge. The ability to Stone skin that spike hit versus just reduce it by 50% seems pretty good.A guardian has higher defense, though his group defense buff. That will reduce the hits from instance mobs, but that extra defense is contested avoidance, which has very little effect on high end raid mobs. Also guards have a attack skill buff so can tank in defensive stance and still have a good hit rate. Zerkers stay in offensive more as the skill penalty of defensive makes it harder for them to hold aggro.maybe I am wrong but doesn't this give the Guardian a better chance to avoid the spike damage? Yeah you may still get hit with it but you have a lower percentage chance of being wacked by it. I may be misunderstanding but this is my thought.Non-contest avoidance for warriors comes from their shields. I do not know of any a guard can use that a zerker can't. Both mythicals give the same bonus to shield effectiveness. A zerker's mythical gives a constant 5% damage reduction. A guard's has a proc that gives 5% reduction for 12s 2.4 times a minute. That means it is unlikely to be up at the start of a fight when the mob has not been debuffed and is hitting hardest. The 5% damage reduction is nice. However when you look at the fact that in order to tank, as you noted above, I HAVE to be in offensive stance, it seems to just be something that balances the scales imho. Also it is the clicky which gives me a 100% frontal AE. That is something that I do NOT always want on. Imagine my surprise when that made Epic x2 ghosts in Befallen instances want to rip me a new one :OI am not saying that Guards have it perfect in TSO. I just think that in looking at the big picture its content that we need to look at rather than the classes because we seem to be pretty balanced if we look at how we perform in regards to each other in our respective "fields"</blockquote>

Intelleta

04-06-2009, 06:30 AM

1. Make tanks less reliant on his group members to hold hate.2. Make tanks more balanced between eachother. For instance, there is no reason SK's should be doing as much DPS as they are doing right now. I agree that Sk's, Zerkers, and Brawlers should do more dps then the other tanks, but SK's can be a little over the top right now.3. Have the foresight to know that everyone will not like your changes and when you make them you will need to stick to your guns, bite the bullet and make them. Not waste 6 months of Dev time and leave the player base without added content with in that time.

Terron

04-06-2009, 11:41 AM

<cite>Valkenberg@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Terron@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>You won't be hititng the limits on non-epic mobs, and you are measuring something slightly different from what I was talking about. Survivability is more about dealing with spikes in damages rather than average damage.well thats where I think ToS and other things have an edge. The ability to Stone skin that spike hit versus just reduce it by 50% seems pretty good.</blockquote></blockquote>A stoneskin blocking half a double attack is the same as reducing each part by 50%.What other things are you talking about. ToS is probably a little better than adrenaline on average but it is the zerker who has more usable tools.<cite>Valkenberg@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite> <blockquote><cite>Terron@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>A guardian has higher defense, though his group defense buff. That will reduce the hits from instance mobs, but that extra defense is contested avoidance, which has very little effect on high end raid mobs. Also guards have a attack skill buff so can tank in defensive stance and still have a good hit rate. Zerkers stay in offensive more as the skill penalty of defensive makes it harder for them to hold aggro.maybe I am wrong but doesn't this give the Guardian a better chance to avoid the spike damage? Yeah you may still get hit with it but you have a lower percentage chance of being wacked by it. I may be misunderstanding but this is my thought.</blockquote></blockquote> Aganist weaker mobs it does, but not against the tough raid mobs that basically ignore contested avoidance.<cite>Valkenberg@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite> <blockquote><cite>Terron@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>Non-contest avoidance for warriors comes from their shields. I do not know of any a guard can use that a zerker can't. Both mythicals give the same bonus to shield effectiveness. A zerker's mythical gives a constant 5% damage reduction. A guard's has a proc that gives 5% reduction for 12s 2.4 times a minute. That means it is unlikely to be up at the start of a fight when the mob has not been debuffed and is hitting hardest. The 5% damage reduction is nice. However when you look at the fact that in order to tank, as you noted above, I HAVE to be in offensive stance, it seems to just be something that balances the scales imho. Also it is the clicky which gives me a 100% frontal AE. That is something that I do NOT always want on. Imagine my surprise when that made Epic x2 ghosts in Befallen instances want to rip me a new one :OI am not saying that Guards have it perfect in TSO. I just think that in looking at the big picture its content that we need to look at rather than the classes because we seem to be pretty balanced if we look at how we perform in regards to each other in our respective "fields"</blockquote></blockquote> My guard has a 40% AE chance, and my swashie over 50%. I know it sometimes nnecessary to turn them off to avoid unwanted aggro, but not often.What I am saying is that guards and zerkers are now pretty balanced in survivability, when both are in defensive mode.Zerkers do have a problem with hit rates in defensive compared to guards. I know guards are broken when it comes to holding aggro in groups without a dirge or a coercer. I suspect zerkers are too.Content is not a good way of balancing classes. No class should be excluded from some content because it is designed to need another one.

Gisallo

04-06-2009, 04:38 PM

<cite>Terron@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>My guard has a 40% AE chance, and my swashie over 50%. I know it sometimes nnecessary to turn them off to avoid unwanted aggro, but not often.What I am saying is that guards and zerkers are now pretty balanced in survivability, when both are in defensive mode.Zerkers do have a problem with hit rates in defensive compared to guards. I know guards are broken when it comes to holding aggro in groups without a dirge or a coercer. I suspect zerkers are too.Content is not a good way of balancing classes. No class should be excluded from some content because it is designed to need another one.</blockquote>I would normally agree but its not that any tank is being excluded. Thats another part of my point. A Guard can still tank every instance in the game, as can Zerkers. A just to 80 Zerker can tank all the RoK stuff. A guard just has an easier time. A Guard can tank all the TSO stuff a zerker just has an easier time. Because of how ALL of the classes evolved some classes shine in some kinds of content over others, tis the way of it. If we just cut and paste changes onto the existing classes so that suddenly all of the classes are absolutely 100% equal in every type of an encounter you end up with one of two out comes. Either you have indeed balanced them perfectly by say reducing the Guards (or whatever class) single target tanking to make up for AE tanking add ons and there is now no distinction between the classes. OR you have yet again made ONE premiere tank for all fields because you have given guardians (or whatever class) additional tools without changes to those that are part of their original raison detre, and the other(s) are seen as red headed step children yet again.It seems that the only logical thing to do is to intellignet design content so that there is a balance of encounters so that no tank has a clear advantage in heroic instances, or to say "hey this expansion you rock and I have to work a little harder, but next expansion its my turn". If we don't do that we might as well just merge the fighter classes or be prepared for every expansion to be a battle to nerf the tank they made truly OP the expansion before. <shrug> I mean lets be honest are their any tools that make the Guard the Supreme MT on raids that Guard would be willing to give up to be a better AE encounter instance tank? If there are NONE you would be willing to give up then are we not destroying what little balance there is?

circusgirl

04-06-2009, 05:16 PM

<cite>Scaler wrote:</cite><blockquote>I understand wanting to make your character better, but honestly the brawlers here baffle me. I do agree on 1 point: 40% aoe auto attack would benefit the brawlers, that I am not opposed to. However, claiming that you are so weak in the dps compared to plate tanks, that is false.Here is my experience of the DPS order the fighters(NOT TANKS) fall in. This is based on similarly geared/skilled players.SK, Monk, Zerker, Bruiser, Guard, Pally.Stop crying that you have nothing to compensate for your lack of survivability. IMO brawlers are NOT tanks at all. Tanks wear plate armor. On live currently if you know how to play your character and have the same buffs and blah blah blah, you are par in dps, and better survivability than rogues, AND you have usefull raidwide buffs. Learn to play.To keep the spirit of this thread:1: Make stances buffs. Defensive stance should not affect dps in the slightest, the ONLY thing it does is improve survivability. Offensive should not affect damage intake, aside from not having the bonuses from defensive.2: Improve taunt/detaunt values to make them worth the power and cast time/recovery to cast.3: Quit nerfing.</blockquote>Whoah. Hold up a second. It sounds to me like you are trying to say that brawlers aren't tanks (our defensive capabilities suck) but are making up for it with our uber dps. And then, immediately afterwards, you give a list of the dps capabilities of the tanks, in which SKs and Zerkers fall above brawlers.So you are in essence saying that we are giving up defensive capabilities for what exactly? For dps in the middle of the spectrum? Tanks should have areas in which they excell, and areas in which they have drawbacks: look at guards--their defensive capabilities are fantastic, but they're aweful at dpsing and this affects their ability to hold aggro. Thats balance--they're the best at something, and also the worst at something within the tanks. Now look at SKs--they have awesome dps and [Removed for Content] good survivability...so what exactly is their drawback? The same is true to a much lesser extent with zerkers--they're fantastic at surviving, holding aggro, and dpsing.Zerkers and SKs are only slightly behind brawlers on ST encounters, and far, far ahead of us on multiple encounters. Look, if the devs said they were going to leave our survivability fairly mediocre but give us a huge boost to dps I might not be entirely thrilled, since I happen to prefer tanking, but at least I could see the balance in that. The fact is, right now, brawlers are equal in utility (we have a raid buff and fd instead of a raid buff and group buff), middling in dps, and bottom of the list as far as survivability goes. Thats not balance.

Davngr1

04-06-2009, 05:50 PM

<cite>Valkenberg@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote>with the 5 min rescue and the other 2 single target taunt from AA, every AOE tank has about as much single target control as a guard end of story.Look at ALL of the abilities, including reinforcement, moderate etc., nearly equal single target dps, Survey says ehhhhhhhhhhhh. Single target aggro to the Guardian. ps. also yes stone skin sux for ae encoutners, now tell me one zone that isin't full of ae encoutners? even the mobs that are single target have a crap load of dmg shilds and silly lil dmg procs that eat up stone skin instantly with 20 and 30 point hits..Thats why I used Evernight abbey and Cavern as examples. Evernight has AE encounters but no where on the scale of Cavern. This is why I bring up the primary problem of the balance is now because of content and not the classes themselves. Thats why in EVERY thread I post that the best way to balance the plate tanks is via content. Make content a balance between AE and ST encounters. Then the problem is eliminated. As it stands now in AE content in heroic instances Guards will cry "Adrenalin makes Zerkers so uber" while they still have a lock on MT slots on raids. Next expansion zerkers will scream "Guards are so Uber because everything is single target in the instances" while the Guards still maintain their lock on the tank spot.As it stands now Guards and zerks are pretty equal if you look at where they excel. Now its a matter of either balancing the content so that in an expansion neither tank has an advantage, acknowledging that there will be an ebb and flow of who has an advantage due to the content or say one is more geared for raids and the other instancing. I know no one wants to hear any of these suggestions. The first is something that no one has faith in SOE ever being capable of and the other 2 basically tell people that there will be times that things are not easy mode. I say easy mode because believe it or not Guards can tank all of the TSO instances, Zerks just have an advantage, and for the last not everyone raids. The only other suggestion I can think of is to simply amplify the roller coaster ride that content changes generate by adding constant class changes.Imagine this. They increase the Guardians AE advantage. Fine. If they do this though without an accompanying decrease in ST stuff then the Guardian ends up being even more the premiere MT and when the game goes back to ST heroic content they are clearly OP. If they do decrease Guardians ST abilities to balance exra AE stuff Guardians will probably be upset because then they won't be the class they rolled in the first place..See the problem? And whats the source? The content, not the classes. We need to focus on that. That is the issue. </blockquote></blockquote> IF they continue to give AOE tanks single target control THEN they need to give single target tanks aoe control, that was my point. moderate has nothing to do with hate generation, why even bring it up? every class has a form of reinforce now so whre is guard vision of madness,gibe,fd,amends,death touch? i mean all the other classes recived a guard ability why shouldn't guard recive one of theirs? im not asking for major stuff here, guards just need a lil better agro control and giving that 60% DA back with shild restriction would do it and maybe at least one really cool TSO AA because what they have now is pretty meh.

circusgirl

04-06-2009, 09:35 PM

<cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote> moderate has nothing to do with hate generation, why even bring it up? every class has a form of reinforce now so whre is guard vision of madness,gibe,fd,amends,death touch? i mean all the other classes recived a guard ability why shouldn't guard recive one of theirs? </blockquote>Since when did brawlers have reinforcement?

Gisallo

04-06-2009, 10:10 PM

<cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote> IF they continue to give AOE tanks single target control THEN they need to give single target tanks aoe control, that was my point. moderate has nothing to do with hate generation, why even bring it up? every class has a form of reinforce now so whre is guard vision of madness,gibe,fd,amends,death touch? i mean all the other classes recived a guard ability why shouldn't guard recive one of theirs? im not asking for major stuff here, guards just need a lil better agro control and giving that 60% DA back with shild restriction would do it and maybe at least one really cool TSO AA because what they have now is pretty meh.</blockquote>First if you notice I rarely talk about hate generation I talk in terms of aggro management, moderate decreases the aggro generation of the toon its cast on hence it is about aggro management and a darn good one too when you put it on that over zealous ranger or wizard. Also if you would please name the fighter classes that suddenly gained their own version of reinforcement? I know I don't have something that gives me an extra hate poisition for each mob I am smacking. That is a far cry from the typical smack aggro abilities that all tanks share "x number of hate positions."I think the last sentence pretty much sums it up. You want the old Stam line AND the ability your mythical had with it. The mythical ability that just about every other tank, and even some guardians in the game felt was OP in that it let you maimize dps without ANY decrease in defensive ability.

Davngr1

04-07-2009, 12:13 AM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote> moderate has nothing to do with hate generation, why even bring it up? every class has a form of reinforce now so whre is guard vision of madness,gibe,fd,amends,death touch? i mean all the other classes recived a guard ability why shouldn't guard recive one of theirs? </blockquote>Since when did brawlers have reinforcement?</blockquote> yea, i was not talking about brawlers really. <cite>Valkenberg@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote> IF they continue to give AOE tanks single target control THEN they need to give single target tanks aoe control, that was my point. moderate has nothing to do with hate generation, why even bring it up? every class has a form of reinforce now so whre is guard vision of madness,gibe,fd,amends,death touch? i mean all the other classes recived a guard ability why shouldn't guard recive one of theirs? im not asking for major stuff here, guards just need a lil better agro control and giving that 60% DA back with shild restriction would do it and maybe at least one really cool TSO AA because what they have now is pretty meh.</blockquote>First if you notice I rarely talk about hate generation I talk in terms of aggro management, moderate decreases the aggro generation of the toon its cast on hence it is about aggro management and a darn good one too when you put it on that over zealous ranger or wizard. Also if you would please name the fighter classes that suddenly gained their own version of reinforcement? I know I don't have something that gives me an extra hate poisition for each mob I am smacking. That is a far cry from the typical smack aggro abilities that all tanks share "x number of hate positions."I think the last sentence pretty much sums it up. You want the old Stam line AND the ability your mythical had with it. The mythical ability that just about every other tank, and even some guardians in the game felt was OP in that it let you maimize dps without ANY decrease in defensive ability.</blockquote> maybe it's not exactly reinforcement but all tanks got abillitys that in fact increase threat prioritys something that only guards(other then rescue) use to have and for good reason since they had/have crap dmg. i might agree that the myth effect was sorta OP for ROK but with the dmg that tanks are doing now a days it's the only thing that would balance guard.

Metaphysix

04-07-2009, 02:52 AM

1. Keep damage where it is now.2. Revamp Achievements. Many are useless to all warriors/don't work period.3. Never listen to whatever goober thought a revamp was a good idea to go public with.<cite>Night_Owl wrote:</cite><blockquote>1. Cut damage output in half, roughly.</blockquote>You have to be kidding me, or have never played a warrior. Ever.

Edminime

04-09-2009, 07:38 PM

1 Paladin defensive stance add 50 block (master 1) 2 Change Divine Favor to 2 min recast 2 triggers remove stifle and daze. 3 Change Stonewall to 2 triggers duration to 20 sec.

Hirofortis

04-09-2009, 07:42 PM

Couching

04-09-2009, 07:47 PM

<cite>Krunck@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote> moderate has nothing to do with hate generation, why even bring it up? every class has a form of reinforce now so whre is guard vision of madness,gibe,fd,amends,death touch? i mean all the other classes recived a guard ability why shouldn't guard recive one of theirs? </blockquote>Since when did brawlers have reinforcement?</blockquote>Peel.</blockquote>Incorrect.Peel is different from reinforcement by far. Warrior cry is more likely close to peel.

Hirofortis

04-09-2009, 07:53 PM

Warrior cry is a Joke. It is resisted more than it hits making it near useless as a position increase ability. Reinforcement is helpful for grabbing a mob but it does have limitations.You have to hit the mob for it to work. lol

Couching

04-09-2009, 08:12 PM

<cite>Krunck@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>Warrior cry is a Joke. It is resisted more than it hits making it near useless as a position increase ability. Reinforcement is helpful for grabbing a mob but it does have limitations.You have to hit the mob for it to work. lol</blockquote>Imo, it's not the problem of whether the spell is resisted or not.Peel didn't have resist check and it is almost failed on EVERY TSO raid mob. The target lock never works in TSO raid, only the hate position increase works. What made me sad is that SK's target lock spell works on almost all TSO raid targets (from their mythical). Sigh.When target lock works on peel, it's similar as warrior cry. When target lock didn't work, it's just another rescue.

circusgirl

04-09-2009, 09:33 PM

Peel is nerfed to hell and back in TSO raiding because, as mentioned, almost all TSO raid mobs are immune. This combined with giving all of them strikethrough has in large part destroyed the traditional role of monk as a snap/emergency tank, since now we can no longer reliable a)grab mobs or b)keep from being smooshed.For example, if we're fighting switchmaster and the MTs screen goes yellow so that he has to run to the portal, a monk SHOULD be extremely useful. We should be able to peel the switchmaster, pop tsunami/external calm, and hold the mob for ten-twelve seconds or so--hardly that impressive, since at the end of those twelve seconds we're dead, but its enough time for the MT to do his run, get back, and take the mob back.Only one problem--the switchmaster is immune to peel. Its aggro lock doesn't work. And he's not the only one. Almost ALL raid mobs in TSO are immune to peel--even the adds on Kultak, which aren't even named mobs! The peel/tsunami combo was a huge part of a monks utility on raids, and its been utterly destroyed by someone's decision to make raid mobs immune to it.

Davngr1

04-10-2009, 04:39 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Peel is nerfed to hell and back in TSO raiding because, as mentioned, almost all TSO raid mobs are immune. This combined with giving all of them strikethrough has in large part destroyed the traditional role of monk as a snap/emergency tank, since now we can no longer reliable a)grab mobs or b)keep from being smooshed.For example, if we're fighting switchmaster and the MTs screen goes yellow so that he has to run to the portal, a monk SHOULD be extremely useful. We should be able to peel the switchmaster, pop tsunami/external calm, and hold the mob for ten-twelve seconds or so--hardly that impressive, since at the end of those twelve seconds we're dead, but its enough time for the MT to do his run, get back, and take the mob back.Only one problem--the switchmaster is immune to peel. Its aggro lock doesn't work. And he's not the only one. Almost ALL raid mobs in TSO are immune to peel--even the adds on Kultak, which aren't even named mobs! The peel/tsunami combo was a huge part of a monks utility on raids, and its been utterly destroyed by someone's decision to make raid mobs immune to it.</blockquote> i would have to agree that Tsunami should be impervious to any mob strike thru abilitys since it's a defining class ability. will riptose 100% should indeed mean 100% period.

04-11-2009, 11:59 PM

For Brawlers...1. DPS! our dps is garbage as it is. Esp for bruisers, we get crushed by any other fighters in any fight lasting over 30 seconds. Bruisers need some of their CA's recast lowered to 30 seconds and not 45 seconds.2. Lower avoidance cap for everyone BUT brawlers. it should be lowered to 60-ish % for everyone but brawlers. WE ARE THE AVOIDANCE TANKS!!! we have a BOATLOAD of Great stuff in our aa trees to help us survive, most of it is avoidace. It really sucks when we have this great stuff for tanking and we cap before we get to use most of it <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/e78feac27fa924c4d0ad6cf5819f3554.gif" border="0" />3. A bit more mitigation would be nice too.We cant take, we cant dps, we have next to nothing in the case of utility except for 100% avoid stuff.

Siatfallen

04-13-2009, 12:04 AM

<cite>Ocik@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>For Brawlers...1. DPS! our dps is garbage as it is. Esp for bruisers, we get crushed by any other fighters in any fight lasting over 30 seconds. Bruisers need some of their CA's recast lowered to 30 seconds and not 45 seconds.2. Lower avoidance cap for everyone BUT brawlers. it should be lowered to 60-ish % for everyone but brawlers. WE ARE THE AVOIDANCE TANKS!!! we have a BOATLOAD of Great stuff in our aa trees to help us survive, most of it is avoidace. It really sucks when we have this great stuff for tanking and we cap before we get to use most of it <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/e78feac27fa924c4d0ad6cf5819f3554.gif" border="0" />3. A bit more mitigation would be nice too.We cant take, we cant dps, we have next to nothing in the case of utility except for 100% avoid stuff.</blockquote>1: Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I was very much under the impression that bruisers, given optimal buffs in raids, should be ahead of monks and guardians on damage due to higher CA damage output? I can't say I'm sure, since my guild hasn't been using a bruiser on raids since early RoK or so.That's not saying the class is where it should be on this count at all, of course.2: Wait... Brawler avoidance is too high, nerf plate tank avoidance, as in lower general raid survivability? I'm not sure I understand the logic here. ;p3: Aren't we getting too close to plate tanks to retain a unique role, then? I mean, heck, more or less anything is an improvement at this point, but still.

Couching

04-13-2009, 01:46 AM

<cite>Ocik@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>For Brawlers...1. DPS! our dps is garbage as it is. Esp for bruisers, we get crushed by any other fighters in any fight lasting over 30 seconds. Bruisers need some of their CA's recast lowered to 30 seconds and not 45 seconds.2. Lower avoidance cap for everyone BUT brawlers. it should be lowered to 60-ish % for everyone but brawlers. WE ARE THE AVOIDANCE TANKS!!! we have a BOATLOAD of Great stuff in our aa trees to help us survive, most of it is avoidace. It really sucks when we have this great stuff for tanking and we cap before we get to use most of it <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/e78feac27fa924c4d0ad6cf5819f3554.gif" border="0" />3. A bit more mitigation would be nice too.We cant take, we cant dps, we have next to nothing in the case of utility except for 100% avoid stuff.</blockquote>1. Bruiser has higher dps potential than any other fighters except SK on single target when the haste isn't an issue in raids.2. Brawlers have high contested avoidance but not uncontested avoidance. In raid, we still have a lot of space to get more uncontested avoidance. In TSO, brawlers finally have more uncontested avoidance than plate tanks in raid.3. Yes, we can definitely use more mitigation. Mitigation is still the most reliable tool for tanking in raids. I hope there will be some nice brawler gear with mitigation increase on it. There are still too many gear with avoidance boost effect for plate tanks but zero gear with mitigation increase for brawlers except our class set.

Bartus

04-13-2009, 02:15 AM

1. Put Monks/Bruisers in their own category(removing them from a "Fighter or Tank" and make them DPS). A Medium armor tank is pointless when you have to rely on Avoidance. Tanks are meant to take a beating therefor the 4 plate tanks do a hell of a lot better job.2. Give Monks more versatility in their attacks. As it stands, its basically just stand there and spam your CA's. Atleast the Bruiser has positional attacks or other combo attacks that require the mob to be knocked down giving it more "spice" to their attacks. The Monks attacks are boring as hell.3. Give the Brawlers a [Removed for Content] "role" for god sake. Right now, no one wants us because we arent as good of tanks as plate wearers nor is our dps as good as the Pure DPS classes. Were useless right now other then for farming Shinies. Seriously... I've played the Monk for 3 yrs now and cant stand what they've done with the class. I ask myself why am I continuing to play the [Removed for Content] guy because we cant do either that great. I seriously get turned down from many many groups simply because im a "monk".. Now come on.. thats a [Removed for Content] joke.Im honestly considering betraying over to a Bruiser because they deal some more dps and require atleast some attention to play.

circusgirl

04-13-2009, 01:08 PM

<cite>Bartuski wrote:</cite><blockquote>1. Put Monks/Bruisers in their own category(removing them from a "Fighter or Tank" and make them DPS). A Medium armor tank is pointless when you have to rely on Avoidance. Tanks are meant to take a beating therefor the 4 plate tanks do a hell of a lot better job.2. Give Monks more versatility in their attacks. As it stands, its basically just stand there and spam your CA's. Atleast the Bruiser has positional attacks or other combo attacks that require the mob to be knocked down giving it more "spice" to their attacks. The Monks attacks are boring as hell.3. Give the Brawlers a [Removed for Content] "role" for god sake. Right now, no one wants us because we arent as good of tanks as plate wearers nor is our dps as good as the Pure DPS classes. Were useless right now other then for farming Shinies. Seriously... I've played the Monk for 3 yrs now and cant stand what they've done with the class. I ask myself why am I continuing to play the [Removed for Content] guy because we cant do either that great. I seriously get turned down from many many groups simply because im a "monk".. Now come on.. thats a [Removed for Content] joke.Im honestly considering betraying over to a Bruiser because they deal some more dps and require atleast some attention to play.</blockquote>HELL NO.They could redesign us as a class and [Removed for Content] off the half of the brawler community that chooses to tank in favor of the ones that like to dps, or...THEY COULD FIX THE AVOIDANCE/MITIGATION DISPARITY TO MAKE PLATE AND AVOIDANCE TANKING EQUALLY VIABLE!Fix broken mechanics, don't redefign classes. I'm pretty sure the devs learned their less from trying to fundamentally alter the Paladin class.

Elanjar

04-13-2009, 01:39 PM

Honestly the "mitigation differences" are nothing. With certain items you have an insignifcantly lower mit than plate tanks with greater avoidance and dps.

Couching

04-13-2009, 01:48 PM

<cite>Elanjar@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>Honestly the "mitigation differences" are nothing. With certain items you have an insignifcantly lower mit than plate tanks with greater avoidance and dps.</blockquote>No, the mitigation differences are huge in survivability.In raid, guild guardian has about 3.5k more mitigation than I do. He is at about 74% mitigation and I am at about 64% mitigation.Average hit from avatars on him is only 5-6k and it is very easy to keep him up. Sure, he got hit a lot often but it's a lot easier to keep him up because less damage spikes.

Landiin

04-13-2009, 02:00 PM

Yes the mitigation defferences are more, but then your roll is not even close to being a MT. Your roll would be to pull agro for a short time and then agro would be shifted back to the MT. You shouldn't have agro long enough to take you out, if you do then something is wrong unless the encounter is designed that way.

Couching

04-13-2009, 02:07 PM

<cite>Toran@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yes the mitigation defferences are more, but then your roll is not even close to being a MT. Your roll would be to pull agro for a short time and then agro would be shifted back to the MT. You shouldn't have agro long enough to take you out, if you do then something is wrong unless the encounter is designed that way.</blockquote>What is my role? Sorry, I disagreed with the role you thought what it should be when monk didn't get any dps advantage and better group/raid buffs over other tanks including guardian in raid.There isn't something ought to be. The only reason why guardian has best survivability was his worst dps. Now, they are not worst dps of all fighters in raid.We don't need you to tell us what we should be.

Landiin

04-13-2009, 02:19 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>What is my role? Sorry, I disagreed with the role you thought what it should be when monk didn't get any dps advantage and better group/raid buffs over other tanks including guardian in raid.There isn't something ought to be. The only reason why guardian has best survivability was his worst dps. Now, there are not worst dps of all fighters in raid.We don't need you to tell us what we should be.</blockquote>Hey I agree brawlers should get better DPS and equal raid buffs as other fighters, You will never hear me argue against that at all. Guardian's DPS is just fine the way it is now granted we should be forced into D Stans for tanking hard mobs thus our DPS wouldn't be so high on raids. Again I agree brawlers DPS should be much higher then ours. Obviously you do need me to tell you what you should be, you are not a raid tank never will be, so quit trying to be..

Morrolan V

04-13-2009, 02:26 PM

<cite>Toran@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>What is my role? Sorry, I disagreed with the role you thought what it should be when monk didn't get any dps advantage and better group/raid buffs over other tanks including guardian in raid.There isn't something ought to be. The only reason why guardian has best survivability was his worst dps. Now, there are not worst dps of all fighters in raid.We don't need you to tell us what we should be.</blockquote>Hey I agree brawlers should get better DPS and equal raid buffs as other fighters, You will never hear me argue against that at all. Guardian's DPS is just fine the way it is now granted we should be forced into D Stans for tanking hard mobs thus our DPS wouldn't be so high on raids. Again I agree brawlers DPS should be much higher then ours. Obviously you do need me to tell you what you should be, you are not a raid tank never will be, so quit trying to be..</blockquote>Isn't that the question? I tend to agree that brawlers should not be MT's. We don't need six different classes for one raid slot.That said, the devs seem to disagree, and, however much anyone may want to say what they or someone else will "never" be, it's the devs who have the final say in the matter. If they want to make brawlers MT candidates, they can. It would be a mistake, imo, but they sure can do it.What we really need is some good discussion about how you create viable roles for a wider variety of classes. Ego driven discussions about what classes can and can't tank are not productive.

Couching

04-13-2009, 02:31 PM

<cite>Toran@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>What is my role? Sorry, I disagreed with the role you thought what it should be when monk didn't get any dps advantage and better group/raid buffs over other tanks including guardian in raid.There isn't something ought to be. The only reason why guardian has best survivability was his worst dps. Now, there are not worst dps of all fighters in raid.We don't need you to tell us what we should be.</blockquote>Hey I agree brawlers should get better DPS and equal raid buffs as other fighters, You will never hear me argue against that at all. Guardian's DPS is just fine the way it is now granted we should be forced into D Stans for tanking hard mobs thus our DPS wouldn't be so high on raids. Again I agree brawlers DPS should be much higher then ours. Obviously you do need me to tell you what you should be, you are not a raid tank never will be, so quit trying to be..</blockquote>Obviously you need to tell developers rather than me.When developers only gave us raid tanking aa in TSO, boosting every fighter's dps/raid wide buffs and nerfing monk raid buffs; they were telling us to be raid tank.Take it or not, our role in raid is tanking with current dps and raid wide buff. If a monk didn't tank in raid, he doesn't deserve a raid slot with lowest fighter dps and worst raid wide buff.

Elanjar

04-13-2009, 03:18 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Elanjar@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>Honestly the "mitigation differences" are nothing. With certain items you have an insignifcantly lower mit than plate tanks with greater avoidance and dps.</blockquote>No, the mitigation differences are huge in survivability.In raid, guild guardian has about 3.5k more mitigation than I do. He is at about 74% mitigation and I am at about 64% mitigation.Average hit from avatars on him is only 5-6k and it is very easy to keep him up. Sure, he got hit a lot often but it's a lot easier to keep him up because less damage spikes.</blockquote>Do you have all the MT buffs???? They get a lot of mit from those. If you're using your myth and that old T7 weapon for your offhand you should easily be close to plate tank mitigation....

Couching

04-13-2009, 03:32 PM

Y<cite>Elanjar@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Elanjar@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>Honestly the "mitigation differences" are nothing. With certain items you have an insignifcantly lower mit than plate tanks with greater avoidance and dps.</blockquote>No, the mitigation differences are huge in survivability.In raid, guild guardian has about 3.5k more mitigation than I do. He is at about 74% mitigation and I am at about 64% mitigation.Average hit from avatars on him is only 5-6k and it is very easy to keep him up. Sure, he got hit a lot often but it's a lot easier to keep him up because less damage spikes.</blockquote>Do you have all the MT buffs???? They get a lot of mit from those. If you're using your myth and that old T7 weapon for your offhand you should easily be close to plate tank mitigation....</blockquote>There is no difference between MT buff or OT buff in mitigation because all of our healers have enhanced mitigation aa in their tso tree and all of our bards have mitigation aa in their tso tree as well.By the way, what is old T7 weapon for mitigation increase? I have no clue of it.

LygerT

04-13-2009, 03:44 PM

the difference isn't because of the mitigation but because of that thing plate tanks have in front of them called a shield.have your MT drop his shield and tank in defensive, you will see that the hits probably aren't far off your own but that he takes a big hit to his avoidance so is being hit far more often on top of being hit harder.what brawlers need is more ways to reduce incoming damage as plate tanks get, but you have to sacrifice DPS while utilizing those abilities.

Couching

04-13-2009, 03:48 PM

Shield is for uncontested avoidance. It has nothing to do with mitigation.There is a common myth that mitigation is useless for plate tanks. It is totally wrong.Mitigation is the king for survivability and plate tanks got incredibly high mitigation in this expansion.

LygerT

04-13-2009, 03:49 PM

the common myth is that you have played a plate tank and think you know all of it.why do shields have +% shield effectiveness do you think? do you think it adds to our "uncontested avoidance"? try again. sure shields help avoidance/uncontested avoidance but that is only half of their purpose, not all of it as you make it sound.so basically you want brawlers to wear plate.you know there is a character select screen when you logged into the game right? where you can choose your own class. i gave ideas on how to help you but you want plate, good luck with that.

Couching

04-13-2009, 03:56 PM

Couching

04-13-2009, 03:58 PM

<cite>Lyger@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>the common myth is that you have played a plate tank and think you know all of it.why do shields have +% shield effectiveness do you think? do you think it adds to our "uncontested avoidance"? try again. sure shields help avoidance/uncontested avoidance but that is only half of their purpose, not all of it as you make it sound.so basically you want brawlers to wear plate.you know there is a character select screen when you logged into the game right? where you can choose your own class. i gave ideas on how to help you but you want plate, good luck with that.</blockquote>I have no idea what you are talking about.When did I say I want brawlers to wear plate? I said plate tanks have highest mitgation and it's best for survivability.What's the problem do you have? Learn to read and come back again.

LygerT

04-13-2009, 04:12 PM

and i said you are wrong, come again.most of the priest AA specs benefit their group more than the tank, that is why i took it on my shaman because mitigation isn't as beneficial as you constantly babble on about. yes, to a point it is, beyond most early raid pieces then it really has no grounds in a balanced aspect of what piece to choose for armor anymore. a cloth wearer getting hit by a physical AE is going to get pounded, those examples are mainly why i went for the mitigation AA on my shaman, not because of the 10 less hp the tank would get hit for.i swap in leather and chain pieces and often tank without a shield because i can, and thus i see the differences each makes.

Couching

04-13-2009, 04:29 PM

<cite>Lyger@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>and i said you are wrong, come again.most of the priest AA specs benefit their group more than the tank, that is why i took it on my shaman because mitigation isn't as beneficial as you constantly babble on about. yes, to a point it is, beyond most early raid pieces then it really has no grounds in a balanced aspect of what piece to choose for armor anymore. a cloth wearer getting hit by a physical AE is going to get pounded, those examples are mainly why i went for the mitigation AA on my shaman, not because of the 10 less hp the tank would get hit for.</blockquote>If all what you want to say is that there is diminishing return on mitigation. You should go back and post in tips, tricks and new player questions.Come back when you have actually tanked and killed avaters that can hit critically 130% damage in TSO and make your post that mitigation is not important.Your post is just as dumb as someone posted in flames that defensive stance is useless for plate tanks in raid.

LygerT

04-13-2009, 04:43 PM

so how was my first suggestion wrong, or your constant comparison from your leather to our plate? you want more damage dependency put on our shields then? then they need to fix a few more things like aggro control before they require us to tank with a tower shield.all i've heard you say is "blahblahblahmitigationblablahblah" but that you don't want plate or a sort of damage reduction or this or that but a constant circle jerk of nothing.all i really take that as meaning is: "nerf plate mitigation"so if they do bring it down too much then you have no tanks that can take hits, which would be wonderful!the whole crit mit system, shield effectiveness, uncontested avoidance one is like a house of cards already. the problem is they keep creating monstrosity mobs that have insane damage rate, which is why you have imbalances between non shield wearing leather classes and plate tanks.

Elanjar

04-13-2009, 05:03 PM

I was refering to thisTranquil Stone of Power

Couching

04-13-2009, 05:22 PM

<cite>Lyger@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>so how was my first suggestion wrong, or your constant comparison from your leather to our plate? you want more damage dependency put on our shields then? then they need to fix a few more things like aggro control before they require us to tank with a tower shield.all i've heard you say is "blahblahblahmitigationblablahblah" but that you don't want plate or a sort of damage reduction or this or that but a constant circle jerk of nothing.all i really take that as meaning is: "nerf plate mitigation"so if they do bring it down too much then you have no tanks that can take hits, which would be wonderful!the whole crit mit system, shield effectiveness, uncontested avoidance one is like a house of cards already. the problem is they keep creating monstrosity mobs that have insane damage rate, which is why you have imbalances between non shield wearing leather classes and plate tanks.</blockquote>I never said nerf plate mitigation. I said some plate tanks thought mitigation is not important and they are wrong.Mitigation is the king to survival and it is dumb to give it up.What I said is that monk needs better survivability because we didn't out parse plate tank in raid as we usually did since game launch to RoK and we have very few utilities.You have to learn to read and stop emo posts. Don't come back until you have learned how to read.

Couching

04-13-2009, 05:27 PM

<cite>Elanjar@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>I was refering to thisTranquil Stone of Power</blockquote>It's a proc that increase 10% worn armor efficiency. It's nice to have it. Though, the mitigation difference between monk and plate tanks is still huge.10% worn amror efficiency is about 340 mitigation for me. When the proc is up, the mitigation difference between me and guild guardian is about 3.1k. It is still huge.

Gisallo

04-13-2009, 06:17 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>HELL NO.They could redesign us as a class and [Removed for Content] off the HALF of the brawler community that chooses to tank in favor of the ones that like to dps, or...THEY COULD FIX THE AVOIDANCE/MITIGATION DISPARITY TO MAKE PLATE AND AVOIDANCE TANKING EQUALLY VIABLE!Fix broken mechanics, don't redefign classes. I'm pretty sure the devs learned their less from trying to fundamentally alter the Paladin class.</blockquote>I think this illustrates the problem within the Brawler community PERFECTLY. You have brawlers that want to tank as well as Plate tanks. Brawlers that want to be the premier snap tank with decent dps and utility, Brawlers that want to be dps etc. Corporate think has a pretty consistant way of dealing with this. They chose to annoy everyone rather than seriously anger a sizeable minority of the demographic. As long as SOE sees brawlers asking to be 3 different things they will do little or nothing about the class. It stinks, its not fair, but its reality.

Couching

04-13-2009, 06:36 PM

<cite>Valkenberg@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>HELL NO.They could redesign us as a class and [Removed for Content] off the HALF of the brawler community that chooses to tank in favor of the ones that like to dps, or...THEY COULD FIX THE AVOIDANCE/MITIGATION DISPARITY TO MAKE PLATE AND AVOIDANCE TANKING EQUALLY VIABLE!Fix broken mechanics, don't redefign classes. I'm pretty sure the devs learned their less from trying to fundamentally alter the Paladin class.</blockquote>I think this illustrates the problem within the Brawler community PERFECTLY. You have brawlers that want to tank as well as Plate tanks. Brawlers that want to be the premier snap tank with decent dps and utility, Brawlers that want to be dps etc. Corporate think has a pretty consistant way of dealing with this. They chose to annoy everyone rather than seriously anger a sizeable minority of the demographic. As long as SOE sees brawlers asking to be 3 different things they will do little or nothing about the class. It stinks, its not fair, but its reality.</blockquote>Failed assumption and example.If it was true, guardians should never get same auto attack damage table as other fighters because they are best tank in raid.Brawlers got screwed has nothing to do with the opinions from brawler community.There is no excuse of making a class being worst of dps, survivability and utility at same time in raid. It's just a failed design.

Landiin

04-13-2009, 06:50 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>There is no excuse of making a class being worst of dps, survivability and utility at same time in raid. It's just a failed design.</blockquote>So Couching what one do you wanna be? You seem to want all 3 but u can't have that SK already have that spot. So let us know what you want Tank, DPS or Util?

Couching

04-13-2009, 07:04 PM

<cite>Toran@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>There is no excuse of making a class being worst of dps, survivability and utility at same time in raid. It's just a failed design.</blockquote>So Couching what one do you wanna be? You seem to want all 3 but u can't have that SK already have that spot. So let us know what you want Tank, DPS or Util?</blockquote>It's sarcastic that watching several OP classes, SK, guardians and zerker, scolded with each other. None of you guys deserve to be OP, sure, brawlers didn't as well.It's nonsense to ask what we want.It's developer's responsibility to post a class vision for players.

Gisallo

04-13-2009, 07:20 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Valkenberg@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>HELL NO.They could redesign us as a class and [Removed for Content] off the HALF of the brawler community that chooses to tank in favor of the ones that like to dps, or...THEY COULD FIX THE AVOIDANCE/MITIGATION DISPARITY TO MAKE PLATE AND AVOIDANCE TANKING EQUALLY VIABLE!Fix broken mechanics, don't redefign classes. I'm pretty sure the devs learned their less from trying to fundamentally alter the Paladin class.</blockquote>I think this illustrates the problem within the Brawler community PERFECTLY. You have brawlers that want to tank as well as Plate tanks. Brawlers that want to be the premier snap tank with decent dps and utility, Brawlers that want to be dps etc. Corporate think has a pretty consistant way of dealing with this. They chose to annoy everyone rather than seriously anger a sizeable minority of the demographic. As long as SOE sees brawlers asking to be 3 different things they will do little or nothing about the class. It stinks, its not fair, but its reality.</blockquote>Failed assumption and example.If it was true, guardians should never get same auto attack damage table as other fighters because they are best tank in raid.Brawlers got screwed has nothing to do with the opinions from brawler community.There is no excuse of making a class being worst of dps, survivability and utility at same time in raid. It's just a failed design.</blockquote>How is it failed? Am I seeing things when I read the monk and bruiser forums, this thread and see there are basically 3 camps. Camps that even Vinka acknowledges exists? Am I failing when I apply how the real world works to this games developement? Brawlers did get screwed I am not denying this, but they got screwed because there are so many different visions of what brawlers want. Zerkers got 2 things with TSO an extra snap aggro ability and a little more surviveability. They got this because as a community they united and said this is what we need to be TANKS. Guardians got better dps. they got better dps because as a community they got together and said some years ago that they can not solo their way out of a paper bag becaus their solo dps was so low. So they got it.SKs got their OPness because they said "we can't tank to save our freakin lives" Went a little over board SOE did but they got "fixed" because as a community they united behind a common goal.btw u do know the definition of op right. its when ONE class outshines all of the others. Withn the exeption of SKs the plate tanks are pretty decently balanced at this point. That means that brawlers are under powered. They need to be brought up. Before that happens though the brawlers as a community need to figure out what they want to be...100% tank, snap tank with some dps and utility, or just dps. When the brawler community does that feel free to get back with me and I will support you 100% in getting there.

Couching

04-13-2009, 07:33 PM

<cite>Valkenberg@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Valkenberg@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>HELL NO.They could redesign us as a class and [Removed for Content] off the HALF of the brawler community that chooses to tank in favor of the ones that like to dps, or...THEY COULD FIX THE AVOIDANCE/MITIGATION DISPARITY TO MAKE PLATE AND AVOIDANCE TANKING EQUALLY VIABLE!Fix broken mechanics, don't redefign classes. I'm pretty sure the devs learned their less from trying to fundamentally alter the Paladin class.</blockquote>I think this illustrates the problem within the Brawler community PERFECTLY. You have brawlers that want to tank as well as Plate tanks. Brawlers that want to be the premier snap tank with decent dps and utility, Brawlers that want to be dps etc. Corporate think has a pretty consistant way of dealing with this. They chose to annoy everyone rather than seriously anger a sizeable minority of the demographic. As long as SOE sees brawlers asking to be 3 different things they will do little or nothing about the class. It stinks, its not fair, but its reality.</blockquote>Failed assumption and example.If it was true, guardians should never get same auto attack damage table as other fighters because they are best tank in raid.Brawlers got screwed has nothing to do with the opinions from brawler community.There is no excuse of making a class being worst of dps, survivability and utility at same time in raid. It's just a failed design.</blockquote>How is it failed? Am I seeing things when I read the monk and bruiser forums, this thread and see there are basically 3 camps. Camps that even Vinka acknowledges exists? Am I failing when I apply how the real world works to this games developement? Brawlers did get screwed I am not denying this, but they got screwed because there are so many different visions of what brawlers want. Zerkers got 2 things with TSO an extra snap aggro ability and a little more surviveability. They got this because as a community they united and said this is what we need to be TANKS. Guardians got better dps. they got better dps because as a community they got together and said some years ago that they can not solo their way out of a paper bag becaus their solo dps was so low. So they got it.SKs got their OPness because they said "we can't tank to save our freakin lives" Went a little over board SOE did but they got "fixed" because as a community they united behind a common goal.btw u do know the definition of op right. its when ONE class outshines all of the others. Withn the exeption of SKs the plate tanks are pretty decently balanced at this point. That means that brawlers are under powered. They need to be brought up. Before that happens though the brawlers as a community need to figure out what they want to be...100% tank, snap tank with some dps and utility, or just dps. When the brawler community does that feel free to get back with me and I will support you 100% in getting there.</blockquote>You said guardians all want better dps so they got better dps. Of course since they are already best tank in survivability.You said zerker wana better snap aggro and survivability. Of course because they had best aoe dps and almost the same survivability as guardian already. They also got a very nice upgrade on their raidwide. You said SK got the OPness because they can't tank. But look, they got not just OPness in survivability but also OPness DPS and one of best raid wide buff.Look at brawler.Ok, some want better tank and some want better dps. But none of us got what we want but 30% nerf on raidwide buff.If your logic was correct, how can you explain that they got more than what they want?Why should zerker got better aggro, survivability and raidwide at same time and brawler can't?Why should SK got better aggro, dps, survivability and raidwide at same time and brawler can't?Why should guardian as best tank in survivability but still got dps upgrade and brawler can't?The fact is every fighter class was asking for better dps/aggro/survivabilty and utility.They got what they want and brawlers got nothing.If your logic standed, we should get both survivability and dps upgrade as other fighters.See why your logic is flawed?The real issue is we got ignored by developers. Stop finding excuses for them.

Aull

04-13-2009, 08:08 PM

<cite>Lyger@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>the difference isn't because of the mitigation but because of that thing plate tanks have in front of them called a shield.have your MT drop his shield and tank in defensive, you will see that the hits probably aren't far off your own but that he takes a big hit to his avoidance so is being hit far more often on top of being hit harder.what brawlers need is more ways to reduce incoming damage as plate tanks get, but you have to sacrifice DPS while utilizing those abilities.</blockquote>Brawlers get an ability that will decrease dps to zero. No auto attacks, combat arts, and no movement. It just stuns them in place while it increases mitigation by a good margin. Bad point is when this ability is used the brawler will loose aggro control very fast and the mob will run amongst the raid party while the brawler who is now stunned can't do anything but either wait for the ability to expire or cancel it. It is the greatest sacrifice to dps yet is totally useless since the mob will not remain on the brawler tank.Useless ability. At least for bruisers anyway.

Gisallo

04-13-2009, 08:20 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Look at brawler.Ok, some want better tank and some want better dps. But none of us got what we want but 30% nerf on raidwide buff.If your logic was correct, how can you explain that they got more than what they want?Why should zerker got better aggro, survivability and raidwide at same time and brawler can't?Why should SK got better aggro, dps, survivability and raidwide at same time and brawler can't?Why should guardian as best tank in survivability but still got dps upgrade and brawler can't?The fact is every fighter class was asking for better dps/aggro/survivabilty and utility.They got what they want and brawlers got nothing.If your logic standed, we should get both survivability and dps upgrade as other fighters.See why your logic is flawed?The real issue is we got ignored by developers. Stop finding excuses for them.</blockquote>No it is actually totally against my logic. My logic is that the community UNITED behind a single vision of the class a single goal to be achieved. Brawlers have NOT done this. Not all brawlers want to tank, some want to snap tank others want to dps. That is the point you keep missing. Once the Brawler community gets a united vision of what the class should do some head way may be may. There is sure as heck NO way SOE is going to change base game mechanics which would likely be necessary to make Brawlers a viable raid MT unless SOE thinks that is what the bulk of the community wants. I am not making excuses for them. I think their lack of intestinal fortitude is horrible. If the community can not make up their minds I think its the devs job to say "fine this is what you are going to be" but SOE is a corporation. Corps do n ot take risks or go out on a limb if they can avoid it. Its not an excuse its simply reality.

Couching

04-13-2009, 08:43 PM

<cite>Valkenberg@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Look at brawler.Ok, some want better tank and some want better dps. But none of us got what we want but 30% nerf on raidwide buff.If your logic was correct, how can you explain that they got more than what they want?Why should zerker got better aggro, survivability and raidwide at same time and brawler can't?Why should SK got better aggro, dps, survivability and raidwide at same time and brawler can't?Why should guardian as best tank in survivability but still got dps upgrade and brawler can't?The fact is every fighter class was asking for better dps/aggro/survivabilty and utility.They got what they want and brawlers got nothing.If your logic standed, we should get both survivability and dps upgrade as other fighters.See why your logic is flawed?The real issue is we got ignored by developers. Stop finding excuses for them.</blockquote>No it is actually totally against my logic. My logic is that the community UNITED behind a single vision of the class a single goal to be achieved. Brawlers have NOT done this. Not all brawlers want to tank, some want to snap tank others want to dps. That is the point you keep missing. Once the Brawler community gets a united vision of what the class should do some head way may be may. There is sure as heck NO way SOE is going to change base game mechanics which would likely be necessary to make Brawlers a viable raid MT unless SOE thinks that is what the bulk of the community wants. I am not making excuses for them. I think their lack of intestinal fortitude is horrible. If the community can not make up their minds I think its the devs job to say "fine this is what you are going to be" but SOE is a corporation. Corps do n ot take risks or go out on a limb if they can avoid it. Its not an excuse its simply reality.</blockquote>Your logic is totally flawed because SK/zerker/guardian wanted better dps and survivability and they got it.They didn't have single vision and they still got boost.Dude, no matter what your logic is, you can't be against the fact.The fact is developers boosted other fighters both survivability and dps but not brawlers.How about our vision is both dps and survivability boost as other fighters?In this case, some want tank? Good. Some want dps? Good.Again, other fighters didn't have a single vision. If so, their single vision is getting better on both dps and survivability. It's same as what brawler community wants. They got it and we didn't. That's it.

Novusod

04-13-2009, 11:35 PM

I can definitely see where Valkenburg is coming from here with brawlers being all over the map with no clear vision of where the class is going. In the TSO AA tree they gave brawlers some extra tanking skills but instead of being greatful that brawlers were improving half the community got angry and complained. This happened with both brawlers and neither class went anywhere after that. Both the monk and bruiser have split communties that are fighting each other over what the vision should be. If the tanking side gets improved the dps'ing brawlers complain. I really don't care if we are tanks or dps so long as the role is clear and both brawlers are wanted in raid. I ran an off-site poll for Bruisers on flames to try to set that vision but the community once again split with continued infighting. So the result with bruisers being ignored here is just as much the class player community's fault as it is the devs. I am not sure this problem can ever be solved with the way things have been going. Maybe it can be fixed with gear or something. Make defensive gear and dps gear and let the players decide what they want to use. I for one would be happy to choose an off-hand weapon that did little or no damage in exchange for more survivability. Others can choose a different more dps oriented weapon.

Couching

04-13-2009, 11:56 PM

What's the problem to get improvement on both side just as other plate tanks?

Morrolan V

04-14-2009, 12:48 AM

<cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>I can definitely see where Valkenburg is coming from here with brawlers being all over the map with no clear vision of where the class is going. In the TSO AA tree they gave brawlers some extra tanking skills but instead of being greatful that brawlers were improving half the community got angry and complained. This happened with both brawlers and neither class went anywhere after that. Both the monk and bruiser have split communties that are fighting each other over what the vision should be. If the tanking side gets improved the dps'ing brawlers complain. I really don't care if we are tanks or dps so long as the role is clear and both brawlers are wanted in raid. I ran an off-site poll for Bruisers on flames to try to set that vision but the community once again split with continued infighting. So the result with bruisers being ignored here is just as much the class player community's fault as it is the devs. I am not sure this problem can ever be solved with the way things have been going. Maybe it can be fixed with gear or something. Make defensive gear and dps gear and let the players decide what they want to use. I for one would be happy to choose an off-hand weapon that did little or no damage in exchange for more survivability. Others can choose a different more dps oriented weapon.</blockquote>Blaming it on the players is misguided.Yes, there is a split within the community of brawlers over what the vision for the class should be. Fine. What is needed is a discussion where the devs lay out their proposed vision for the classes, let the community comment, incorporate the feedback as appropriate and then make a CLEAR and CLEARLY COMMUNICATED decision about the direction selected.If it's tanking, fine. If it's pure glass cannon dps, fine. If it's utility with decent dps, good buffs, snap aggro and excellent short term survivability, fine. Any of those can work and make the classes viable. Not everyone will be happy. Duh. There has never been a decision made in the history of humankind that made everyone involved happy.The current situation, though, with no decision, no communication and a quite apparent lack of a viable vision for the classes is unacceptable. Even an imperfect direction has the chance of success. A complete lack of direction has none.

LygerT

04-14-2009, 12:54 AM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>You have to learn to read and stop emo posts. Don't come back until you have learned how to read.</blockquote>you're right, i didnt read all 15 pages of this crap, sorry...

Gisallo

04-14-2009, 04:15 AM

<cite>Rythalian@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Novusod wrote:</cite><blockquote>I can definitely see where Valkenburg is coming from here with brawlers being all over the map with no clear vision of where the class is going. In the TSO AA tree they gave brawlers some extra tanking skills but instead of being greatful that brawlers were improving half the community got angry and complained. This happened with both brawlers and neither class went anywhere after that. Both the monk and bruiser have split communties that are fighting each other over what the vision should be. If the tanking side gets improved the dps'ing brawlers complain. I really don't care if we are tanks or dps so long as the role is clear and both brawlers are wanted in raid. I ran an off-site poll for Bruisers on flames to try to set that vision but the community once again split with continued infighting. So the result with bruisers being ignored here is just as much the class player community's fault as it is the devs. I am not sure this problem can ever be solved with the way things have been going. Maybe it can be fixed with gear or something. Make defensive gear and dps gear and let the players decide what they want to use. I for one would be happy to choose an off-hand weapon that did little or no damage in exchange for more survivability. Others can choose a different more dps oriented weapon.</blockquote>Blaming it on the players is misguided.Yes, there is a split within the community of brawlers over what the vision for the class should be. Fine. What is needed is a discussion where the devs lay out their proposed vision for the classes, let the community comment, incorporate the feedback as appropriate and then make a CLEAR and CLEARLY COMMUNICATED decision about the direction selected.If it's tanking, fine. If it's pure glass cannon dps, fine. If it's utility with decent dps, good buffs, snap aggro and excellent short term survivability, fine. Any of those can work and make the classes viable. Not everyone will be happy. Duh. There has never been a decision made in the history of humankind that made everyone involved happy.The current situation, though, with no decision, no communication and a quite apparent lack of a viable vision for the classes is unacceptable. Even an imperfect direction has the chance of success. A complete lack of direction has none.</blockquote>I completely agree this is exactly how it should happen. I have simply never seen SOE do this. I think SOE basically think the various communities should be self governing and come up with this consensus on their own, thus saving them the time and trouble of actually having to engage in a dialogue. As I said its SOE's fault as well and I am hoping that their statements after killing fighter 2.0 will be followed through on and this dialogue will begin.

Aull

04-14-2009, 10:03 AM

I can agree with all the statements on brawlers. Brawlers are where they are because some do want to tank while others want dps. I would venture to say that many players possibly see brawlers as a Bruce Lee type of fighter from movies and not from the true lore of what eq2 has listed them as.It is just a tough situation to be in. Giving brawlers more dps to some players will be making brawlers overpowered. I don't see how this thought is bad since many plates are dpsing right along side of most brawlers anyway, but most have no issue with that.I think SOE needs to just set brawlers up one way or the other and let players adjust to the fact that this is how it will be. It again is a tough call to make.

Landiin

04-14-2009, 12:36 PM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>I think SOE needs to just set brawlers up one way or the other and let players adjust to the fact that this is how it will be. It again is a tough call to make.</blockquote>I totally agree with Aull. Since you guys are so split on what you think the class is, they should just make the brawler class to their vision and be done with it.

Davngr1

04-14-2009, 03:00 PM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>I can agree with all the statements on brawlers. Brawlers are where they are because some do want to tank while others want dps. I would venture to say that many players possibly see brawlers as a Bruce Lee type of fighter from movies and not from the true lore of what eq2 has listed them as.It is just a tough situation to be in. Giving brawlers more dps to some players will be making brawlers overpowered. I don't see how this thought is bad since many plates are dpsing right along side of most brawlers anyway, but most have no issue with that.I think SOE needs to just set brawlers up one way or the other and let players adjust to the fact that this is how it will be. It again is a tough call to make.</blockquote> yea thre are brawlers end game doing very well(dmg wise) but the gear/buffs you need to do this is available to all classes not just brawler thus it's not the class it's the indvidual situation. to help ALL brawlers out devs need to give better attack bonus to the class, like dps/haste/crit/da. these bonus can be capped by high end brawlers so it won't really overpower them. the only thing it would do is bring lower end brawlers in line with the rest of the tanks(by in line i mean deal more dmg).

Couching

04-14-2009, 03:11 PM

<cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>I can agree with all the statements on brawlers. Brawlers are where they are because some do want to tank while others want dps. I would venture to say that many players possibly see brawlers as a Bruce Lee type of fighter from movies and not from the true lore of what eq2 has listed them as.It is just a tough situation to be in. Giving brawlers more dps to some players will be making brawlers overpowered. I don't see how this thought is bad since many plates are dpsing right along side of most brawlers anyway, but most have no issue with that.I think SOE needs to just set brawlers up one way or the other and let players adjust to the fact that this is how it will be. It again is a tough call to make.</blockquote> yea thre are brawlers end game doing very well(dmg wise) but the gear/buffs you need to do this is available to all classes not just brawler thus it's not the class it's the indvidual situation. to help ALL brawlers out devs need to give better attack bonus to the class, like dps/haste/crit/da. these bonus can be capped by high end brawlers so it won't really overpower them. the only thing it would do is bring lower end brawlers in line with the rest of the tanks(by in line i mean deal more dmg).</blockquote>Incorrect. You are making controdiction to yourself.The fact is that low level or lower end brawlers do very well. Low level or lower end brawlers have significant dps advantage over lower end warriors because it's impossible to get haste/dps/crit/da capped at low level or lower end gear.On the contrary, just as what you said that for high end players, dps/haste/crit/da are too easy to get capped in raids. It makes brawlers, especially monk, zero dps advantage over any other fighter in raid.All plate tanks auto attack damage table should be reduced back to rogue. Even though, the difference between predator and rogue auto attack damage is merely 5%. Brawler tree needs a revamp and adds something for dps boost and brawlers need better CA to deal more damages.

circusgirl

04-14-2009, 03:15 PM

<cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>I can agree with all the statements on brawlers. Brawlers are where they are because some do want to tank while others want dps. I would venture to say that many players possibly see brawlers as a Bruce Lee type of fighter from movies and not from the true lore of what eq2 has listed them as.It is just a tough situation to be in. Giving brawlers more dps to some players will be making brawlers overpowered. I don't see how this thought is bad since many plates are dpsing right along side of most brawlers anyway, but most have no issue with that.I think SOE needs to just set brawlers up one way or the other and let players adjust to the fact that this is how it will be. It again is a tough call to make.</blockquote> yea thre are brawlers end game doing very well(dmg wise) but the gear/buffs you need to do this is available to all classes not just brawler thus it's not the class it's the indvidual situation. to help ALL brawlers out devs need to give better attack bonus to the class, like dps/haste/crit/da. these bonus can be capped by high end brawlers so it won't really overpower them. the only thing it would do is bring lower end brawlers in line with the rest of the tanks(by in line i mean deal more dmg).</blockquote>Uhm...except that the high-end brawlers are every bit as out of balance as low-end ones are, and we need help across the board. So yes, give us equal crit and da in our AA lines for the same number of points as EVERY OTHER TANK, but please god don't give monks more haste. The fact that we can't take advantage of group buffs like warriors and SKs are is in large part why we're so far behind other tanks. Hell--the devs could go a long way by getting rid of everburning and replacing it with something--anything--else. DA, MC, dps mod (replacing monk's haste with dps mod would be fantastic, since it has the same benefit but gives us room to improve in both areas instead of capping us in haste and leaving us floundering on dps mods).Besides...right now, the devs could bump dps OR survivability and still leave us balanced. Our dps is about equal to paladins and below SKs and Zerkers (in high end content, at least) and our survivability is below everyone...so bumping either of those areas doesn't make us overpowered.

Davngr1

04-14-2009, 03:24 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>I can agree with all the statements on brawlers. Brawlers are where they are because some do want to tank while others want dps. I would venture to say that many players possibly see brawlers as a Bruce Lee type of fighter from movies and not from the true lore of what eq2 has listed them as.It is just a tough situation to be in. Giving brawlers more dps to some players will be making brawlers overpowered. I don't see how this thought is bad since many plates are dpsing right along side of most brawlers anyway, but most have no issue with that.I think SOE needs to just set brawlers up one way or the other and let players adjust to the fact that this is how it will be. It again is a tough call to make.</blockquote> yea thre are brawlers end game doing very well(dmg wise) but the gear/buffs you need to do this is available to all classes not just brawler thus it's not the class it's the indvidual situation. to help ALL brawlers out devs need to give better attack bonus to the class, like dps/haste/crit/da. these bonus can be capped by high end brawlers so it won't really overpower them. the only thing it would do is bring lower end brawlers in line with the rest of the tanks(by in line i mean deal more dmg).</blockquote>Incorrect. You are making controdiction to yourself.The fact is that low level or lower end brawlers do very well. Low level or lower end brawlers have significant dps advantage over lower end warriors because it's impossible to get haste/dps/crit/da capped at low level or lower end gear.On the contrary, just as what you said that for high end players, dps/haste/crit/da are too easy to get capped in raids. It makes brawlers, especially monk, zero dps advantage over any other fighter in raid.All plate tanks auto attack damage table should be reduced back to rogue. Even though, the difference between predator and rogue auto attack damage is merely 5%. Brawler tree needs a revamp and adds something for dps boost and brawlers need better CA to deal more damages.</blockquote>no controdiction there at all i have seen brawler parses that rival T1 dps, of course these are indvidual parses that have more to do with gear choises and group make up.<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>I can agree with all the statements on brawlers. Brawlers are where they are because some do want to tank while others want dps. I would venture to say that many players possibly see brawlers as a Bruce Lee type of fighter from movies and not from the true lore of what eq2 has listed them as.It is just a tough situation to be in. Giving brawlers more dps to some players will be making brawlers overpowered. I don't see how this thought is bad since many plates are dpsing right along side of most brawlers anyway, but most have no issue with that.I think SOE needs to just set brawlers up one way or the other and let players adjust to the fact that this is how it will be. It again is a tough call to make.</blockquote> yea thre are brawlers end game doing very well(dmg wise) but the gear/buffs you need to do this is available to all classes not just brawler thus it's not the class it's the indvidual situation. to help ALL brawlers out devs need to give better attack bonus to the class, like dps/haste/crit/da. these bonus can be capped by high end brawlers so it won't really overpower them. the only thing it would do is bring lower end brawlers in line with the rest of the tanks(by in line i mean deal more dmg).</blockquote>Uhm...except that the high-end brawlers are every bit as out of balance as low-end ones are, and we need help across the board. So yes, give us equal crit and da in our AA lines for the same number of points as EVERY OTHER TANK, but please god don't give monks more haste. The fact that we can't take advantage of group buffs like warriors and SKs are is in large part why we're so far behind other tanks. Hell--the devs could go a long way by getting rid of everburning and replacing it with something--anything--else. DA, MC, dps mod (replacing monk's haste with dps mod would be fantastic, since it has the same benefit but gives us room to improve in both areas instead of capping us in haste and leaving us floundering on dps mods).Besides...right now, the devs could bump dps OR survivability and still leave us balanced. Our dps is about equal to paladins and below SKs and Zerkers (in high end content, at least) and our survivability is below everyone...so bumping either of those areas doesn't make us overpowered.</blockquote>the problem is that *most* brawlers can't get the gear/buffs to put decent dmg. thus getting more dmg bonus haste/dps/crit/da would mean that brawlers would always be at an acceptable level. and those that all ready enjoy capped crit/da/haste/dps would continue doing the same dmg with out becoming over powerd.

Couching

04-14-2009, 03:28 PM

<cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote>the problem is that *most* brawlers can't get the gear/buffs to put decent dmg. thus getting more dmg bonus haste/dps/crit/da would mean that brawlers would always be at an acceptable level. and those that all ready enjoy capped crit/da/haste/dps would continue doing the same dmg with out becoming over powerd.</blockquote>No, lower end brawlers have siginificant dps advantage over warriors. Show me any low level or lower end warrior can get 150+ haste? None exist.You can't ask to deal decent dps with lower end gear. As long as you did significant dps than lower end warrior, the class balance is fine for lower end players.It's high end brawlers that need help because high end warrior can get dps/haste/crit/da capped as high end brawlers in raid. In this case, monk has ZERO dps advantage over high end warrior.The classb balance is broken in high end players because brawlers didn't get dps advantage over other plate tanks.PS: There is zero high end brawler who can deal t1 dps comparing to their guild t1 dpsers. Your T1 dps is just T2 or T3 in highend guilds. The real t1 dpsers can deal the number you can ever think.

circusgirl

04-14-2009, 03:36 PM

Dav...you really don't understand the problem with brawlers.Let me enlighten you...Self-buffed, I'm pushing 120% haste. The cap is 125%.This means that in a raid, when they put a troub or illy in my group, I go up 5% in haste, meanwhile, the warrior/crusador in the group goes up like 40%.I will agree with you that brawler itemization is highly problematic, in that we lack access to good dps gear and good tanking gear, and have instead been given mediocre dps gear and mediocre tanking gear on a single piece. However, the problem is not that we "aren't getting good buffs." Its that due to poor class design, brawlers cannot take advantage of buffs like guardians, paladins, or zerkers can. SKs are on the opposite end of the spectrum--because of the way in which they were hybridized, they can obtain a huge benefit from buffs which makes them extremely overpowered in raids. As for brawlers doing T1 dps? Bull. You may be able to dig up a parse of a single avatar-killing monk or bruiser pulling 11k on palace trash...but the brigand in their raid is out-dpsing them, the SK is out-dpsing them, the guardian is probably about the same, and their T1 dps is pulling 20k. A brawler will never out-dps an equally geared and skilled T1 dps, and it is extremely rare for them to out-dps the T2 dps

Davngr1

04-14-2009, 03:40 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote>the problem is that *most* brawlers can't get the gear/buffs to put decent dmg. thus getting more dmg bonus haste/dps/crit/da would mean that brawlers would always be at an acceptable level. and those that all ready enjoy capped crit/da/haste/dps would continue doing the same dmg with out becoming over powerd.</blockquote>No, lower end brawlers have siginificant dps advantage over warriors. Show me any low level or lower end warrior can get 150+ haste? None exist.You can't ask to deal decent dps with lower end gear. As long as you did significant dps than lower end warrior, the class balance is fine for lower end players.It's high end brawlers that need help because high end warrior can get dps/haste/crit/da capped as high end brawlers in raid. In this case, monk has ZERO dps advantage over high end warrior.The classb balance is broken in high end players because brawlers didn't get dps advantage over other plate tanks.PS: There is zero high end brawler who can deal t1 dps comparing to their guild t1 dpsers. Your T1 dps is just T2 or T3 in highend guilds. The real t1 dpsers can deal the number you can ever think.</blockquote> yea monks get 150 haste but bruisers don't. i propose giving both monks and bruisers better dmg bonus so they are always dealing out solid dmg no matter the gear or buffs. there are a few brawlers(individuals) that can put out good dmg because they have the gear/buffs to do so. you might not be one of them but they are out there.

Morrolan V

04-14-2009, 03:50 PM

Vinka and Couching are right. Davngr is wrong.Dav, your attempt to insult the brawlers posting here just shows how little you know. Couch and Vinka are two of the best geared monks in the game. If you look at the parse thread at <the other forum site that shall remain nameless> you will see the "brag" parses from avatar-geared brawlers in hardcore guilds show 11-12K zonewides on palace trash. By contrast, wizards, warlocks, etc. post 20K+, brigands and swashies post 15-16K, etc.If you see parses out there with brawlers that look like "T1" DPS to you, you need to see the parses for the other classes in those same raids.I guarantee it will look like:Assassin/Wizard/Warlock: ~20KSwash/Brigand/Illy/Coercer: 15-16KSK: 15KBrawler/Zerker: 11KRaid DPS: 195-220KFor a brawler to pull 11K zonewide, you HAVE to have the raid at close to 200K and the other classes at those levels.If you have a brawler parsing the same as your T1 DPS, there are two possiblities: 1. your T1 DPS classes are not doing their jobs well, 2. your raid leader is not doing his or her job well, and the brawler has great buffs while your T1 folks do not.

Davngr1

04-14-2009, 03:50 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Dav...you really don't understand the problem with brawlers.Let me enlighten you...Self-buffed, I'm pushing 120% haste. The cap is 125%.This means that in a raid, when they put a troub or illy in my group, I go up 5% in haste, meanwhile, the warrior/crusador in the group goes up like 40%.I will agree with you that brawler itemization is highly problematic, in that we lack access to good dps gear and good tanking gear, and have instead been given mediocre dps gear and mediocre tanking gear on a single piece. However, the problem is not that we "aren't getting good buffs." Its that due to poor class design, brawlers cannot take advantage of buffs like guardians, paladins, or zerkers can. SKs are on the opposite end of the spectrum--because of the way in which they were hybridized, they can obtain a huge benefit from buffs which makes them extremely overpowered in raids. As for brawlers doing T1 dps? Bull. You may be able to dig up a parse of a single avatar-killing monk or bruiser pulling 11k on palace trash...but the brigand in their raid is out-dpsing them, the SK is out-dpsing them, the guardian is probably about the same, and their T1 dps is pulling 20k. A brawler will never out-dps an equally geared and skilled T1 dps, and it is extremely rare for them to out-dps the T2 dps</blockquote> trust me i understand my bruisers issues. i suggest pushing the brawler that isin't capped on dmg bonus up closer to the cap in all the dmg stats. raise dps/haste/crit/da of all brawlers so that they are constantly doing more dmg no matter how much gear or buffs they recive. to make brawlers better at tanking then they all ready are would mean that all guilds would have a brawler tanking imo. not getting hit > getting hit of course you say that when you stop avoiding hits you go splat, but if you dint' go splat then you would be MT period. brawlers need a place in raids but there is all ready 4 tanks that can tank anything in the game why do you want another 2? i think most brawlers would rather be 4th key tanks in a pinch and bring solid dps and utililty to the raid. i may be wrong but i still don't think another 2 MT contenders are the answer.

circusgirl

04-14-2009, 03:51 PM

Yes, there are a few brawlers who are so well geared that they can put out good damage numbers...but an equally geared and buffed warrior at that level will put at the exact same numbers, and an equally geared predator, sorcerer, rogue, enchanter, or summoner will exceed that brawler easily. The truth of the matter is, brawlers only have a dps advantage at low gear levels do to self haste/dps buffs. In a raid, buffs make up that difference, and since our CAs do about the same amount of damage and we're on the same autoattack tables there's no reason why brawlers should do any more dps than any other fighter. To fix this brawlers need either:1)to switch out the capped out buffs like haste in monks for different buffs that are hard to cap in a raid2)higher base autoattack damage3)access to more dps gear than plate tanks haveNote with #3 I'm not asking that our tanking gear be made less tanky and more dps-y, but rather that there be dps oriented brawler items and tank oriented brawler items so that we can gear ourselves out for dps or tanking as neccessary.

Couching

04-14-2009, 03:53 PM

<cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote>the problem is that *most* brawlers can't get the gear/buffs to put decent dmg. thus getting more dmg bonus haste/dps/crit/da would mean that brawlers would always be at an acceptable level. and those that all ready enjoy capped crit/da/haste/dps would continue doing the same dmg with out becoming over powerd.</blockquote>No, lower end brawlers have siginificant dps advantage over warriors. Show me any low level or lower end warrior can get 150+ haste? None exist.You can't ask to deal decent dps with lower end gear. As long as you did significant dps than lower end warrior, the class balance is fine for lower end players.It's high end brawlers that need help because high end warrior can get dps/haste/crit/da capped as high end brawlers in raid. In this case, monk has ZERO dps advantage over high end warrior.The classb balance is broken in high end players because brawlers didn't get dps advantage over other plate tanks.PS: There is zero high end brawler who can deal t1 dps comparing to their guild t1 dpsers. Your T1 dps is just T2 or T3 in highend guilds. The real t1 dpsers can deal the number you can ever think.</blockquote> yea monks get 150 haste but bruisers don't. i propose giving both monks and bruisers better dmg bonus so they are always dealing out solid dmg no matter the gear or buffs. there are a few brawlers(individuals) that can put out good dmg because they have the gear/buffs to do so. you might not be one of them but they are out there.</blockquote>And bruisers have biggest CAs and KO combo.In lower level or lower end gear, no matter monk or bruiser can deal better dps than warrior. If you can't, you suck.For high end, you keep saying there are few brawlers can deal T1 dps. Where and who? Stop puff.I am pretty sure you have no chance to even see it in your game experience.Come back when you really see it and post the number rather than puffing.

Elanjar

04-14-2009, 03:56 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Self-buffed, I'm pushing 120% haste. The cap is 125%.This means that in a raid, when they put a troub or illy in my group, I go up 5% in haste, meanwhile, the warrior/crusador in the group goes up like 40%.</blockquote>ask for a dirge or coercer then. If your raid leader understands class mechanics he/she should be putting you in a group where you get the buffs you need...maybe once you're geared to fight avatars an imbalance exists, but we're just at the beginning of the TSO progression and I only outdps our bruiser because our raid lacks a lot of necessary support classes. when he gets the same buffs that I do he easily outdps's me everytime.

Davngr1

04-14-2009, 03:59 PM

<cite>Rythalian@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Vinka and Couching are right. Davngr is wrong.If you see parses out there with brawlers that look like "T1" DPS to you, you need to see the parses for the other classes in those same raids.I guarantee it will look like:Assassin/Wizard/Warlock: 22KSwash/Brigand/Illy/Coercer: 17KSK: 15KBrawler/Zerker: 11KRaid DPS: 195-220KFor a brawler to pull 11K zonewide, you HAVE to have the raid at close to 200K and the other classes at those levels.If you have a brawler parsing the same as your T1 DPS, there are two possiblities: 1. your T1 DPS classes are not doing their jobs well, 2. your raid leader is not doing his or her job well, and the brawler has great buffs while your T1 folks do not.</blockquote> vinka,couching and rythalin are monks and ONLY see my point from the *whats better for me, the monk* perpective, NOT over all game balance. i can show you parses of brawlers keeping up with T1 dps in early TSO. the reason T1 dps is now doing 20 k and brawlers are still doing 12k is because T1 dps is rolling with FULL dps gear/buffs and most brawlers are TRYING to tank instead of going full dps because they dont have acces to the dps buffs. what i was suggesting is giving brawlers more dmg bonus so they sit closer to cap on all dmg stats. thus making them a solid dmg dealer and good back up tank for loose agro or for fights with scripts that require 2+ tanks.

Couching

04-14-2009, 04:01 PM

<cite>Elanjar@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Self-buffed, I'm pushing 120% haste. The cap is 125%.This means that in a raid, when they put a troub or illy in my group, I go up 5% in haste, meanwhile, the warrior/crusador in the group goes up like 40%.</blockquote>ask for a dirge or coercer then. If your raid leader understands class mechanics he/she should be putting you in a group where you get the buffs you need...maybe once you're geared to fight avatars an imbalance exists, but we're just at the beginning of the TSO progression and I only outdps our bruiser because our raid lacks a lot of necessary support classes. when he gets the same buffs that I do he easily outdps's me everytime.</blockquote>In high end guild, usually min/max raids, it's easy for every melee class with capped haste/dps/da/crit.In casual guilds, the biggest problem is they usually don't have enough dirge or coercer.A lot of casual guilds have only 1 coercer and 1 dirge in raids and they are all in MT gorup.Class dps should be balanced with auto attack and CA damage rather than self haste or self dps buff. It causes a lot of problem in group or raids.

Davngr1

04-14-2009, 04:06 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote>the problem is that *most* brawlers can't get the gear/buffs to put decent dmg. thus getting more dmg bonus haste/dps/crit/da would mean that brawlers would always be at an acceptable level. and those that all ready enjoy capped crit/da/haste/dps would continue doing the same dmg with out becoming over powerd.</blockquote>No, lower end brawlers have siginificant dps advantage over warriors. Show me any low level or lower end warrior can get 150+ haste? None exist.You can't ask to deal decent dps with lower end gear. As long as you did significant dps than lower end warrior, the class balance is fine for lower end players.It's high end brawlers that need help because high end warrior can get dps/haste/crit/da capped as high end brawlers in raid. In this case, monk has ZERO dps advantage over high end warrior.The classb balance is broken in high end players because brawlers didn't get dps advantage over other plate tanks.PS: There is zero high end brawler who can deal t1 dps comparing to their guild t1 dpsers. Your T1 dps is just T2 or T3 in highend guilds. The real t1 dpsers can deal the number you can ever think.</blockquote> yea monks get 150 haste but bruisers don't. i propose giving both monks and bruisers better dmg bonus so they are always dealing out solid dmg no matter the gear or buffs. there are a few brawlers(individuals) that can put out good dmg because they have the gear/buffs to do so. you might not be one of them but they are out there.</blockquote>And bruisers have biggest CAs and KO combo.In lower level or lower end gear, no matter monk or bruiser can deal better dps than warrior. If you can't, you suck.For high end, you keep saying there are few brawlers can deal T1 dps. Where and who? Stop puff.I am pretty sure you have no chance to even see it in your game experience.Come back when you really see it and post the number rather than puffing.</blockquote> lol.. beause brawler dmg is all about CAs ... bruisers got screwd when they lost the Auto Attack bonus. 5%ca + dmg boost DOES NOT equal the dmg my bruiser lost from DPS mod. this is about over all game balance not just about who's the biggest cry baby is.. my suggestions offer ALL brawlers a good boost not JUST MONKS and END GAME content players .. and that is all you are about.. news flash dude.. the game is more then that!

Couching

04-14-2009, 04:07 PM

<cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote> vinka,couching and rythalin are monks and ONLY see my point from the *whats better for me, the monk* perpective, NOT over all game balance. i can show you parses of brawlers keeping up with T1 dps in early TSO. the reason T1 dps is now doing 20 k and brawlers are still doing 12k is because T1 dps is rolling with FULL dps gear/buffs and most brawlers are TRYING to tank instead of going full dps because they dont have acces to the dps buffs. what i was suggesting is giving brawlers more dmg bonus so they sit closer to cap on all dmg stats. thus making them a solid dmg dealer and good back up tank for loose agro or for fights with scripts that require 2+ tanks.</blockquote>Very poor idea.Classes dps balance should be based on auto attack modifier (damage table) and CA damage rather than self haste or self dps. It causes a lot of imbalance with different group setup.Monk is the most notorious example. Some high end monks have over capped with selfbuff.Moreover, stop puffing and bulling. There isn't any brawler who can deal 12k dps with tank gear and without in a stacked group. Oh, I have a 70 bruiser as well. Seriously, learn to play your bruiser so he wont be so sucky and lose dps to other lower end warrior.

Couching

04-14-2009, 04:10 PM

<cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote> lol.. beause brawler dmg is all about CAs ... bruisers got screwd when they lost the Auto Attack bonus. 5% +dmg boost DOES NOT equal the dmg my bruiser lost from DPS mod. this is about over all game balance not just about who's the biggest cry baby is.. my suggestions offer ALL brawlers a good boost not JUST MONKS and END GAME content players .. and that is all you are about.. news flash dude.. the game is more then that!</blockquote>Sigh, stop crying. My bruiser with lower end gear has no problem to beat any lower end warrior in dps.You are crying that your bruiser can't deal enough dps just as you were crying your guardian can't deal enough dps.Please, learn to play your class and less cry.Oh, and your suggestion sucks.

Davngr1

04-14-2009, 04:12 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote> vinka,couching and rythalin are monks and ONLY see my point from the *whats better for me, the monk* perpective, NOT over all game balance. i can show you parses of brawlers keeping up with T1 dps in early TSO. the reason T1 dps is now doing 20 k and brawlers are still doing 12k is because T1 dps is rolling with FULL dps gear/buffs and most brawlers are TRYING to tank instead of going full dps because they dont have acces to the dps buffs. what i was suggesting is giving brawlers more dmg bonus so they sit closer to cap on all dmg stats. thus making them a solid dmg dealer and good back up tank for loose agro or for fights with scripts that require 2+ tanks.</blockquote>Very poor idea.Classes dps balance should be based on auto attack modifier (damage table) and CA damage rather than self haste or self dps. It causes a lot of imbalance with different group setup.Monk is the most notorious example. Some high end monks have over capped with selfbuff.Moreover, stop puffing and bulling. There isn't any brawler who can deal 12k dps with tank gear and without in a stacked group. Oh, I have a 70 bruiser as well. Seriously, learn to play your bruiser so he wont be so sucky and lose dps to other lower end warrior.</blockquote>wow couch.. you're starting the personal attacks huh? I DONT HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH MY BRUISER HE ROCKS.. but i can see how people that choose to raid this class have issues and i offer suggestions.. the fact is that you won't get the DPS buffs if your raid leader isin't an idiot.. so im suggesting that brawlers get more self buffed stats so the can perform WELL with out the buffs.

Morrolan V

04-14-2009, 04:12 PM

<cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rythalian@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Vinka and Couching are right. Davngr is wrong.If you see parses out there with brawlers that look like "T1" DPS to you, you need to see the parses for the other classes in those same raids.I guarantee it will look like:Assassin/Wizard/Warlock: 22KSwash/Brigand/Illy/Coercer: 17KSK: 15KBrawler/Zerker: 11KRaid DPS: 195-220KFor a brawler to pull 11K zonewide, you HAVE to have the raid at close to 200K and the other classes at those levels.If you have a brawler parsing the same as your T1 DPS, there are two possiblities: 1. your T1 DPS classes are not doing their jobs well, 2. your raid leader is not doing his or her job well, and the brawler has great buffs while your T1 folks do not.</blockquote> vinka,couching and rythalin are monks and ONLY see my point from the *whats better for me, the monk* perpective, NOT over all game balance. i can show you parses of brawlers keeping up with T1 dps in early TSO. the reason T1 dps is now doing 20 k and brawlers are still doing 12k is because T1 dps is rolling with FULL dps gear/buffs and most brawlers are TRYING to tank instead of going full dps because they dont have acces to the dps buffs. what i was suggesting is giving brawlers more dmg bonus so they sit closer to cap on all dmg stats. thus making them a solid dmg dealer and good back up tank for loose agro or for fights with scripts that require 2+ tanks.</blockquote>Bull.The top top parses are not from brawlers "trying to tank" - they are from brawlers in full dps gear and spec, wearing chokers. They could tank something like palace trash, but, in a raid with avatar gear pumping out 200K, so could my aunt Sally.Show me a 20K zonewide from a brawler, just one. There aren't any.As to your attempt to say that we are biased and selfish - if you read my posts, you will see that I am absolutely an advocate of exactly the same design you seem to be. We don't need more tanks. What we need is a class design that enables solid dps from brawlers, with decent utility.

Davngr1

04-14-2009, 04:13 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote> lol.. beause brawler dmg is all about CAs ... bruisers got screwd when they lost the Auto Attack bonus. 5% +dmg boost DOES NOT equal the dmg my bruiser lost from DPS mod. this is about over all game balance not just about who's the biggest cry baby is.. my suggestions offer ALL brawlers a good boost not JUST MONKS and END GAME content players .. and that is all you are about.. news flash dude.. the game is more then that!</blockquote>Sigh, stop crying. My bruiser with lower end gear has no problem to beat any lower end warrior in dps.You are crying that your bruiser can't deal enough dps just as you were crying your guardian can't deal enough dps.Please, learn to play your class and less cry.Oh, and your suggestion sucks.</blockquote>more personal attacks.. how does our 70 bruiser out parse warriors smart guy? NEWS FLASH the lvl cap is 80! please you have no clue get over your self

Couching

04-14-2009, 04:14 PM

<cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote> vinka,couching and rythalin are monks and ONLY see my point from the *whats better for me, the monk* perpective, NOT over all game balance. i can show you parses of brawlers keeping up with T1 dps in early TSO. the reason T1 dps is now doing 20 k and brawlers are still doing 12k is because T1 dps is rolling with FULL dps gear/buffs and most brawlers are TRYING to tank instead of going full dps because they dont have acces to the dps buffs. what i was suggesting is giving brawlers more dmg bonus so they sit closer to cap on all dmg stats. thus making them a solid dmg dealer and good back up tank for loose agro or for fights with scripts that require 2+ tanks.</blockquote>Very poor idea.Classes dps balance should be based on auto attack modifier (damage table) and CA damage rather than self haste or self dps. It causes a lot of imbalance with different group setup.Monk is the most notorious example. Some high end monks have over capped with selfbuff.Moreover, stop puffing and bulling. There isn't any brawler who can deal 12k dps with tank gear and without in a stacked group. Oh, I have a 70 bruiser as well. Seriously, learn to play your bruiser so he wont be so sucky and lose dps to other lower end warrior.</blockquote>wow couch.. you're starting the personal attacks huh? I DONT HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH MY BRUISER HE ROCKS.. but i can see how people that choose to raid this class have issues and i offer suggestions.. the fact is that you won't get the DPS buffs if your raid leader isin't an idiot.. so im suggesting that brawlers get more self buffed stats so the can perform WELL with out the buffs.</blockquote>Sigh, I suggest you being a better player is personal attacks huh?The fact is your bruiser doesn't rock because you said you have dps problem.You said you suck in bruiser and guardian. Sorry man, it's all what you said not me.And again, your suggestion is very poor. DPS balance should be on auto attack modifier and CA damage rather than self haste and dps.

Couching

04-14-2009, 04:16 PM

<cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote> lol.. beause brawler dmg is all about CAs ... bruisers got screwd when they lost the Auto Attack bonus. 5% +dmg boost DOES NOT equal the dmg my bruiser lost from DPS mod. this is about over all game balance not just about who's the biggest cry baby is.. my suggestions offer ALL brawlers a good boost not JUST MONKS and END GAME content players .. and that is all you are about.. news flash dude.. the game is more then that!</blockquote>Sigh, stop crying. My bruiser with lower end gear has no problem to beat any lower end warrior in dps.You are crying that your bruiser can't deal enough dps just as you were crying your guardian can't deal enough dps.Please, learn to play your class and less cry.Oh, and your suggestion sucks.</blockquote>more personal attacks.. how does our 70 bruiser out parse warriors smart guy? NEWS FLASH the lvl cap is 80! please you have no clue get over your self</blockquote>Wow, I said what you have said and it's perosnal attacks?The fact is my bruiser can out damage any lower end lv70 warrior. Yes, it is balanced.

Davngr1

04-14-2009, 04:17 PM

<cite>Rythalian@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rythalian@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Vinka and Couching are right. Davngr is wrong.If you see parses out there with brawlers that look like "T1" DPS to you, you need to see the parses for the other classes in those same raids.I guarantee it will look like:Assassin/Wizard/Warlock: 22KSwash/Brigand/Illy/Coercer: 17KSK: 15KBrawler/Zerker: 11KRaid DPS: 195-220KFor a brawler to pull 11K zonewide, you HAVE to have the raid at close to 200K and the other classes at those levels.If you have a brawler parsing the same as your T1 DPS, there are two possiblities: 1. your T1 DPS classes are not doing their jobs well, 2. your raid leader is not doing his or her job well, and the brawler has great buffs while your T1 folks do not.</blockquote> vinka,couching and rythalin are monks and ONLY see my point from the *whats better for me, the monk* perpective, NOT over all game balance. i can show you parses of brawlers keeping up with T1 dps in early TSO. the reason T1 dps is now doing 20 k and brawlers are still doing 12k is because T1 dps is rolling with FULL dps gear/buffs and most brawlers are TRYING to tank instead of going full dps because they dont have acces to the dps buffs. what i was suggesting is giving brawlers more dmg bonus so they sit closer to cap on all dmg stats. thus making them a solid dmg dealer and good back up tank for loose agro or for fights with scripts that require 2+ tanks.</blockquote>Bull.The top top parses are not from brawlers "trying to tank" - they are from brawlers in full dps gear and spec, wearing chokers. They could tank something like palace trash, but, in a raid with avatar gear pumping out 200K, so could my aunt Sally.Show me a 20K zonewide from a brawler, just one. There aren't any.As to your attempt to say that we are biased and selfish - if you read my posts, you will see that I am absolutely an advocate of exactly the same design you seem to be. We don't need more tanks. What we need is a class design that enables solid dps from brawlers, with decent utility.</blockquote>maybe i dint word it correctly? SOME BRAWLERS IN FULL DPS SET UP( gear and buffs) DO GOOD DPS NUMBERS... MOST BRAWLERS END UP USING TANKING GEAR AND THUS LACK IN DPS is that clear? that is why i suggesting that brawlers should recive a dmg stats boost..

circusgirl

04-14-2009, 04:21 PM

I'll be the first to admit that I am a monk and have a much better handle on what can be done to improve monks than on what can be done to improve bruisers. Bruisers are a little bit better off than monks, due to receiving dps mod instead of haste and having harder-hitting CAs, but they're still well behind all other tanks and need a boost as well. The reason I'm mostly offering suggestions to fix monks is because I don't want to make myself look like an idiot by offering fixes for classes I don't know, like Dav has. The fact remains that brawlers need a fix, and adding more haste to monks at least is an absolutley idiotic way of doing it. The best option is to give us something that can't be maxed with buffs already...like base autoattack damage or base CA damage.

Davngr1

04-14-2009, 04:22 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote> vinka,couching and rythalin are monks and ONLY see my point from the *whats better for me, the monk* perpective, NOT over all game balance. i can show you parses of brawlers keeping up with T1 dps in early TSO. the reason T1 dps is now doing 20 k and brawlers are still doing 12k is because T1 dps is rolling with FULL dps gear/buffs and most brawlers are TRYING to tank instead of going full dps because they dont have acces to the dps buffs. what i was suggesting is giving brawlers more dmg bonus so they sit closer to cap on all dmg stats. thus making them a solid dmg dealer and good back up tank for loose agro or for fights with scripts that require 2+ tanks.</blockquote>Very poor idea.Classes dps balance should be based on auto attack modifier (damage table) and CA damage rather than self haste or self dps. It causes a lot of imbalance with different group setup.Monk is the most notorious example. Some high end monks have over capped with selfbuff.Moreover, stop puffing and bulling. There isn't any brawler who can deal 12k dps with tank gear and without in a stacked group. Oh, I have a 70 bruiser as well. Seriously, learn to play your bruiser so he wont be so sucky and lose dps to other lower end warrior.</blockquote>wow couch.. you're starting the personal attacks huh? I DONT HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH MY BRUISER HE ROCKS.. but i can see how people that choose to raid this class have issues and i offer suggestions.. the fact is that you won't get the DPS buffs if your raid leader isin't an idiot.. so im suggesting that brawlers get more self buffed stats so the can perform WELL with out the buffs.</blockquote>Sigh, I suggest you being a better player is personal attacks huh?The fact is your bruiser doesn't rock because you said you have dps problem.You said you suck in bruiser and guardian. Sorry man, it's all what you said not me.And again, your suggestion is very poor. DPS balance should be on auto attack modifier and CA damage rather than self haste and dps.</blockquote> wow couch.. you really think telling me my toons suck is going to prove you right? it's not man you just look like an elitist A hole.. grats t <cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote> lol.. beause brawler dmg is all about CAs ... bruisers got screwd when they lost the Auto Attack bonus. 5% +dmg boost DOES NOT equal the dmg my bruiser lost from DPS mod. this is about over all game balance not just about who's the biggest cry baby is.. my suggestions offer ALL brawlers a good boost not JUST MONKS and END GAME content players .. and that is all you are about.. news flash dude.. the game is more then that!</blockquote>Sigh, stop crying. My bruiser with lower end gear has no problem to beat any lower end warrior in dps.You are crying that your bruiser can't deal enough dps just as you were crying your guardian can't deal enough dps.Please, learn to play your class and less cry.Oh, and your suggestion sucks.</blockquote>more personal attacks.. how does our 70 bruiser out parse warriors smart guy? NEWS FLASH the lvl cap is 80! please you have no clue get over your self</blockquote>Wow, I said what you have said and it's perosnal attacks?The fact is my bruiser can out damage any lower end lv70 warrior. Yes, it is balanced.</blockquote> ok couch in your world the game is still lvl 70.. grats on proving how self centerd your ideas are

Davngr1

04-14-2009, 04:28 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>I'll be the first to admit that I am a monk and have a much better handle on what can be done to improve monks than on what can be done to improve bruisers. Bruisers are a little bit better off than monks, due to receiving dps mod instead of haste and having harder-hitting CAs, but they're still well behind all other tanks and need a boost as well. The reason I'm mostly offering suggestions to fix monks is because I don't want to make myself look like an idiot by offering fixes for classes I don't know, like Dav has. The fact remains that brawlers need a fix, and adding more haste to monks at least is an absolutley idiotic way of doing it. The best option is to give us something that can't be maxed with buffs already...like base autoattack damage or base CA damage.</blockquote> exept bruisers don't recive any dps mod.. and im not looking like an idiot, im having to deal with 3 self centerd idiots that can't see any further then their own class. my suggestion is to bring ALL dps/haste/crit/da to a solid level for ALL brawlers.. so they are not dependent on dps buffs/gear to do good dmg.. yes auto attack bonus and base dmg would achive this too.. but it could also overpower their dps to the point where they are keeping up with T1 and that would be over powering to a fighter class because of their better survivability.

Couching

04-14-2009, 04:33 PM

<cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>I'll be the first to admit that I am a monk and have a much better handle on what can be done to improve monks than on what can be done to improve bruisers. Bruisers are a little bit better off than monks, due to receiving dps mod instead of haste and having harder-hitting CAs, but they're still well behind all other tanks and need a boost as well. The reason I'm mostly offering suggestions to fix monks is because I don't want to make myself look like an idiot by offering fixes for classes I don't know, like Dav has. The fact remains that brawlers need a fix, and adding more haste to monks at least is an absolutley idiotic way of doing it. The best option is to give us something that can't be maxed with buffs already...like base autoattack damage or base CA damage.</blockquote> exept bruisers don't recive any dps mod.. and im not looking like an idiot, im having to deal with 3 self centerd idiots that can't see any further then their own class. my suggestion is to bring ALL dps/haste/crit/da to a solid level for ALL brawlers.. so they are not dependent on dps buffs/gear to do good dmg.. yes auto attack bonus and base dmg would achive this too.. but it could also overpower their dps to the point where they are keeping up with T1 and that would be over powering to a fighter class because of their better survivability.</blockquote>Wrong. With your idea, imbalace will be on high end players and you have admitted it.That's why dps balance should be based on auto attack modifier and CA damage.For example, keep brawlers in predator auto attack table and make all plate tanks auto attack back to rogue.Give me a break, how could it be a game break?Also, rogue did about 2 times of monk CAs zw and assassian did about 3 times of monk CAs zw. How could it be a game break if we raise monk CAs damage to 0.7 times of rouge instead of 0.5? We still did less dps than rogue and any dpsers but more than plate tanks.

Couching

04-14-2009, 04:38 PM

<cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote>maybe i dint word it correctly? SOME BRAWLERS IN FULL DPS SET UP( gear and buffs) DO GOOD DPS NUMBERS... MOST BRAWLERS END UP USING TANKING GEAR AND THUS LACK IN DPS is that clear? that is why i suggesting that brawlers should recive a dmg stats boost..</blockquote>Still Bull.You better tell me any brawler is using tank gear on palace trash. NONE. Stop bull and lying.

Davngr1

04-14-2009, 04:43 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>I'll be the first to admit that I am a monk and have a much better handle on what can be done to improve monks than on what can be done to improve bruisers. Bruisers are a little bit better off than monks, due to receiving dps mod instead of haste and having harder-hitting CAs, but they're still well behind all other tanks and need a boost as well. The reason I'm mostly offering suggestions to fix monks is because I don't want to make myself look like an idiot by offering fixes for classes I don't know, like Dav has. The fact remains that brawlers need a fix, and adding more haste to monks at least is an absolutley idiotic way of doing it. The best option is to give us something that can't be maxed with buffs already...like base autoattack damage or base CA damage.</blockquote> exept bruisers don't recive any dps mod.. and im not looking like an idiot, im having to deal with 3 self centerd idiots that can't see any further then their own class. my suggestion is to bring ALL dps/haste/crit/da to a solid level for ALL brawlers.. so they are not dependent on dps buffs/gear to do good dmg.. yes auto attack bonus and base dmg would achive this too.. but it could also overpower their dps to the point where they are keeping up with T1 and that would be over powering to a fighter class because of their better survivability.</blockquote>Wrong. With your idea, imbalace will be on high end players and you have admitted it.That's why dps balance should be based on auto attack modifier and CA damage.For example, keep brawlers in predator auto attack table and make all plate tanks auto attack back to rogue.Give me a break, how could it be a game break?Also, rogue did about 2 times of monk CAs zw and assassian did about 3 times of monk CAs zw. How could it be a game break if we raise monk CAs damage to 0.7 times of rouge instead of 0.5? We still did less dps than rogue and any dpsers but more than plate tanks. </blockquote>maybe in your situation the rouges are [Removed for Content] your dps but maybe other brawlers aren't? comparing your self to an assassin is dumb. of course ill have to ask.. in raid is your crit/da/haste/dps all capped? if so and your still here crying about not doing good dmg then you need to make better gear choises sir. and since this is all about you, what do you think is an acceptable zw dps for a monk?edit.<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote>maybe i dint word it correctly? SOME BRAWLERS IN FULL DPS SET UP( gear and buffs) DO GOOD DPS NUMBERS... MOST BRAWLERS END UP USING TANKING GEAR AND THUS LACK IN DPS is that clear? that is why i suggesting that brawlers should recive a dmg stats boost..</blockquote>Still Bull.You better tell me any brawler is using tank gear on palace trash. NONE. Stop bull and lying.</blockquote>yea couch because the WHOLE game revolves around palace trash...

Couching

04-14-2009, 04:54 PM

First, rogue should win brawler in dps. I am happy that guild rogues can deal more dps than me in raid. It means we have good rogues rather than [Removed for Content].Second, I already said that in high end guilds, every melee class in a min/max raid can get capped crit/da/haste/dps. And the problem raises because other fighters can out parse monk. Should it be allowed? NO. Otherwise, give monk better survivability than other fighters. That's why it's stupid to make dps balance by self haste or dps. It causes a lot of imablance for high end players.For example, best dps geared monk in game did 11.8k zw on palace trash. Guess what? Their guardian did more than him because guardian can deal more damage from combat arts.It's ridiculous. All plate tanks dps needs a tune down.Last, since we are talking about dps parse, yes, it's palace trash. And there is ZERO brawler has ever parsed 20k zw. Please stop lying that brawler can deal T1 dps.

Siatfallen

04-14-2009, 05:15 PM

<cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote>the problem is that *most* brawlers can't get the gear/buffs to put decent dmg. thus getting more dmg bonus haste/dps/crit/da would mean that brawlers would always be at an acceptable level. and those that all ready enjoy capped crit/da/haste/dps would continue doing the same dmg with out becoming over powerd.</blockquote>No, lower end brawlers have siginificant dps advantage over warriors. Show me any low level or lower end warrior can get 150+ haste? None exist.You can't ask to deal decent dps with lower end gear. As long as you did significant dps than lower end warrior, the class balance is fine for lower end players.It's high end brawlers that need help because high end warrior can get dps/haste/crit/da capped as high end brawlers in raid. In this case, monk has ZERO dps advantage over high end warrior.The classb balance is broken in high end players because brawlers didn't get dps advantage over other plate tanks.PS: There is zero high end brawler who can deal t1 dps comparing to their guild t1 dpsers. Your T1 dps is just T2 or T3 in highend guilds. The real t1 dpsers can deal the number you can ever think.</blockquote> yea monks get 150 haste but bruisers don't. i propose giving both monks and bruisers better dmg bonus so they are always dealing out solid dmg no matter the gear or buffs. there are a few brawlers(individuals) that can put out good dmg because they have the gear/buffs to do so. you might not be one of them but they are out there.</blockquote>And bruisers have biggest CAs and KO combo.In lower level or lower end gear, no matter monk or bruiser can deal better dps than warrior. If you can't, you suck.For high end, you keep saying there are few brawlers can deal T1 dps. Where and who? Stop puff.I am pretty sure you have no chance to even see it in your game experience.Come back when you really see it and post the number rather than puffing.</blockquote> lol.. beause brawler dmg is all about CAs ... bruisers got screwd when they lost the Auto Attack bonus. 5%ca + dmg boost DOES NOT equal the dmg my bruiser lost from DPS mod. this is about over all game balance not just about who's the biggest cry baby is.. my suggestions offer ALL brawlers a good boost not JUST MONKS and END GAME content players .. and that is all you are about.. news flash dude.. the game is more then that!</blockquote>Your suggestion is going to do nothing to balance the game at high-end, which is where the problem is.I actually want the same solution you do and think 6 tank classes is at least 2 too many, but upping monk DPS mod as well as haste is not the answer. A bit of random info for you:In our normal raid setup, I'm sitting at 94% melee crit chance (before Gi of Swirling Lava procs), 94% Double attack (before 1 of 4 different DA procs go up), 201 DPS mod (before jewel of animosity proc) and 200 haste. Add more to any of these, and the brawler falling behind on the parses gain absolutely nothing. I know for a fact that I'm not the best geared monk out there (guild's killing its first few avatars nowadays, so I figure I could be worse off), and towards the end of this expansion, I expect this discrepancy to be even larger. I fully expect, when all is said and done, to be able to cap all of these stats, with an equipment slot or two left to spare.Tanking/DPS specs: This argument is void. The different, in a raid setup, between a DPS and tanking specced brawler as far as parses go is extremely small, because the tSO tree doesn't contain anything worth taking for DPS in the first place, and the KoS tree forces us to buy a bit of both almost no matter how we go about it.At the end of the day, no matter the spec, the brawler falls behind.Possible answers:1: Crit Bonus. It's a bonus that increases with melee crit chance, so it will scale across all levels of play.2: Flurry: Scales with weapon quality, again across all levels of play.3: Base autoattack damage tables. Scales with weapons.All of the above will be a benefit to the brawler class at high levels of play, too. So, let's say (for the sake of the argument) that low-end monks also deal too little DPS? Easy! Scale this in, and the high end brawlers will keep a consistent advantage proportional with what they had on lower levels.This makes them, as ideas go, superior to your own suggestion, though they follow the same logic. Crit bonus is probably for the best, since it does not fall to favouring autoattacks, which would leave monks in solo situations with something of an edge over bruisers. Attempting to argue that high-end brawlers are fine DPS-wise only goes to show, sadly, that you are not yourself there - and that you miscredit those who are based solely on the fact that you can.

Davngr1

04-14-2009, 05:16 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>First, rogue should win brawler in dps. I am happy that guild rogues can deal more dps than me in raid. It means we have good rogues rather than [Removed for Content].Second, I already said that in high end guilds, every melee class in a min/max raid can get capped crit/da/haste/dps. And the problem raises because other fighters can out parse monk. Should it be allowed? NO. Otherwise, give monk better survivability than other fighters. That's why it's stupid to make dps balance by self haste or dps. It causes a lot of imablance for high end players.For example, best dps geared monk in game did 11.8k zw on palace trash. Guess what? Their guardian did more than him because guardian can deal more damage from combat arts.It's ridiculous. All plate tanks dps needs a tune down.Last, since we are talking about dps parse, yes, it's palace trash. And there is ZERO brawler has ever parsed 20k zw. Please stop lying that brawler can deal T1 dps.</blockquote>i never said they did parse 20k but there are brawlers that can do good dps, i have seen the parses they where from early TSO now of course the game has changed. i doubt your dps stats are all capped in raid couch, you prove this by asking for equal AA. well i suggest all brawlers recive a stat boost not equal to other fighers but greater.

Siatfallen

04-14-2009, 05:23 PM

<cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>First, rogue should win brawler in dps. I am happy that guild rogues can deal more dps than me in raid. It means we have good rogues rather than [Removed for Content].Second, I already said that in high end guilds, every melee class in a min/max raid can get capped crit/da/haste/dps. And the problem raises because other fighters can out parse monk. Should it be allowed? NO. Otherwise, give monk better survivability than other fighters. That's why it's stupid to make dps balance by self haste or dps. It causes a lot of imablance for high end players.For example, best dps geared monk in game did 11.8k zw on palace trash. Guess what? Their guardian did more than him because guardian can deal more damage from combat arts.It's ridiculous. All plate tanks dps needs a tune down.Last, since we are talking about dps parse, yes, it's palace trash. And there is ZERO brawler has ever parsed 20k zw. Please stop lying that brawler can deal T1 dps.</blockquote>i never said they did parse 20k but there are brawlers that can do good dps, i have seen the parses they where from early TSO now of course the game has changed. i doubt your dps stats are all capped in raid couch, you prove this by asking for equal AA. well i suggest all brawlers recive a stat boost not equal to other fighers but greater. </blockquote>The problem here with capped stats is one of bad itemization, where brawlers do not get the same diversity of modifiers to increase as other classes. The only exception is monks and haste, which is an old and, by now, sad story of the developers frankly failing to adjust the class as approriate to new level caps.We do need to be brought at least up to par with other fighters in our DPS AA choices. And then we need a serious revision of the brawler itemization for this expansion, to allow us to benefit fully from purist DPS equipment or tanking equipment, as relevant.

Davngr1

04-14-2009, 05:25 PM

<cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote>the problem is that *most* brawlers can't get the gear/buffs to put decent dmg. thus getting more dmg bonus haste/dps/crit/da would mean that brawlers would always be at an acceptable level. and those that all ready enjoy capped crit/da/haste/dps would continue doing the same dmg with out becoming over powerd.</blockquote>No, lower end brawlers have siginificant dps advantage over warriors. Show me any low level or lower end warrior can get 150+ haste? None exist.You can't ask to deal decent dps with lower end gear. As long as you did significant dps than lower end warrior, the class balance is fine for lower end players.It's high end brawlers that need help because high end warrior can get dps/haste/crit/da capped as high end brawlers in raid. In this case, monk has ZERO dps advantage over high end warrior.The classb balance is broken in high end players because brawlers didn't get dps advantage over other plate tanks.PS: There is zero high end brawler who can deal t1 dps comparing to their guild t1 dpsers. Your T1 dps is just T2 or T3 in highend guilds. The real t1 dpsers can deal the number you can ever think.</blockquote> yea monks get 150 haste but bruisers don't. i propose giving both monks and bruisers better dmg bonus so they are always dealing out solid dmg no matter the gear or buffs. there are a few brawlers(individuals) that can put out good dmg because they have the gear/buffs to do so. you might not be one of them but they are out there.</blockquote>And bruisers have biggest CAs and KO combo.In lower level or lower end gear, no matter monk or bruiser can deal better dps than warrior. If you can't, you suck.For high end, you keep saying there are few brawlers can deal T1 dps. Where and who? Stop puff.I am pretty sure you have no chance to even see it in your game experience.Come back when you really see it and post the number rather than puffing.</blockquote> lol.. beause brawler dmg is all about CAs ... bruisers got screwd when they lost the Auto Attack bonus. 5%ca + dmg boost DOES NOT equal the dmg my bruiser lost from DPS mod. this is about over all game balance not just about who's the biggest cry baby is.. my suggestions offer ALL brawlers a good boost not JUST MONKS and END GAME content players .. and that is all you are about.. news flash dude.. the game is more then that!</blockquote>Your suggestion is going to do nothing to balance the game at high-end, which is where the problem is.I actually want the same solution you do and think 6 tank classes is at least 2 too many, but upping monk DPS mod as well as haste is not the answer. A bit of random info for you:In our normal raid setup, I'm sitting at 94% melee crit chance (before Gi of Swirling Lava procs), 94% Double attack (before 1 of 4 different DA procs go up), 201 DPS mod (before jewel of animosity proc) and 200 haste. Add more to any of these, and the brawler falling behind on the parses gain absolutely nothing. I know for a fact that I'm not the best geared monk out there (guild's killing its first few avatars nowadays, so I figure I could be worse off), and towards the end of this expansion, I expect this discrepancy to be even larger. I fully expect, when all is said and done, to be able to cap all of these stats, with an equipment slot or two left to spare.Tanking/DPS specs: This argument is void. The different, in a raid setup, between a DPS and tanking specced brawler as far as parses go is extremely small, because the tSO tree doesn't contain anything worth taking for DPS in the first place, and the KoS tree forces us to buy a bit of both almost no matter how we go about it.At the end of the day, no matter the spec, the brawler falls behind.Possible answers:1: Crit Bonus. It's a bonus that increases with melee crit chance, so it will scale across all levels of play.2: Flurry: Scales with weapon quality, again across all levels of play.3: Base autoattack damage tables. Scales with weapons.All of the above will be a benefit to the brawler class at high levels of play, too. So, let's say (for the sake of the argument) that low-end monks also deal too little DPS? Easy! Scale this in, and the high end brawlers will keep a consistent advantage proportional with what they had on lower levels.This makes them, as ideas go, superior to your own suggestion, though they follow the same logic. Crit bonus is probably for the best, since it does not fall to favouring autoattacks, which would leave monks in solo situations with something of an edge over bruisers. Attempting to argue that high-end brawlers are fine DPS-wise only goes to show, sadly, that you are not yourself there - and that you miscredit those who are based solely on the fact that you can.</blockquote> you are right i dont raid a monk or brawler for that matter, so i try to offer a fix for all brawlers not just high end. btw the brawler class is lacking in all aspects right now not just high end.. two things, melee bonus does indeed add to auto attack and that's why sk's knight stance melee bonus is conciderd by many as a bit over powerd, i have seen brawler parses in early TSO and they where pretty high concidering the raid dps posted. i understad that new gear has came out and maybe the brawler isin't first in line for the leet dps items but once they do get these items you will see them climb back up the parse.

Couching

04-14-2009, 05:35 PM

<cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>First, rogue should win brawler in dps. I am happy that guild rogues can deal more dps than me in raid. It means we have good rogues rather than [Removed for Content].Second, I already said that in high end guilds, every melee class in a min/max raid can get capped crit/da/haste/dps. And the problem raises because other fighters can out parse monk. Should it be allowed? NO. Otherwise, give monk better survivability than other fighters. That's why it's stupid to make dps balance by self haste or dps. It causes a lot of imablance for high end players.For example, best dps geared monk in game did 11.8k zw on palace trash. Guess what? Their guardian did more than him because guardian can deal more damage from combat arts.It's ridiculous. All plate tanks dps needs a tune down.Last, since we are talking about dps parse, yes, it's palace trash. And there is ZERO brawler has ever parsed 20k zw. Please stop lying that brawler can deal T1 dps.</blockquote>i never said they did parse 20k but there are brawlers that can do good dps, i have seen the parses they where from early TSO now of course the game has changed. i doubt your dps stats are all capped in raid couch, you prove this by asking for equal AA. well i suggest all brawlers recive a stat boost not equal to other fighers but greater. </blockquote>Ok, what the number is? The fact is monk dps is behind plate tanks in min/max raids. Bruiser dps is better than monk but still behind SK.I have asked for equal aa because when I have to tank, with tank suit, I have less crit and DA than guild guardian and zerker. It's totally unacceptble.However, When I am in dps suit, it's easy to get everything capped in a min/max raid.

Hirofortis

04-14-2009, 05:40 PM

Make brawlers Leather Scouts in '09. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Either they are a form of tank or a form of DPS. What are they? And they already nerfed some of the tanks DPS and we have been paying for it ever sense. lol. I do not disagree that the brawler class is messed up. It has been for a long time. The hard part is that arguing here does no good. What needs to happen is this.We need a model for what a TANK should be able to do. This tanking model needs to be separate from ANY class out there. It needs to be what is expected of a tank and then things need to be balanced for doing that job as a tank for each of the classes. Balancing classes against each other is an effort in futility. It's akin to trying to gather water with a strainer, it will never happen. Figure out what a tank should be able to do first. then we can go from there.

Davngr1

04-14-2009, 05:43 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>First, rogue should win brawler in dps. I am happy that guild rogues can deal more dps than me in raid. It means we have good rogues rather than [Removed for Content].Second, I already said that in high end guilds, every melee class in a min/max raid can get capped crit/da/haste/dps. And the problem raises because other fighters can out parse monk. Should it be allowed? NO. Otherwise, give monk better survivability than other fighters. That's why it's stupid to make dps balance by self haste or dps. It causes a lot of imablance for high end players.For example, best dps geared monk in game did 11.8k zw on palace trash. Guess what? Their guardian did more than him because guardian can deal more damage from combat arts.It's ridiculous. All plate tanks dps needs a tune down.Last, since we are talking about dps parse, yes, it's palace trash. And there is ZERO brawler has ever parsed 20k zw. Please stop lying that brawler can deal T1 dps.</blockquote>i never said they did parse 20k but there are brawlers that can do good dps, i have seen the parses they where from early TSO now of course the game has changed. i doubt your dps stats are all capped in raid couch, you prove this by asking for equal AA. well i suggest all brawlers recive a stat boost not equal to other fighers but greater. </blockquote>Ok, what the number is? The fact is monk dps is behind plate tanks in min/max raids. Bruiser dps is better than monk but still behind SK.I have asked for equal aa because when I have to tank, with tank suit, I have less crit and DA than guild guardian and zerker. It's totally unacceptble.However, When I am in dps suit, it's easy to get everything capped in a min/max raid.</blockquote>exactly.. and having the higher dps stats will let you equip tanking/proc gear with out having to worrie about DA/crit/haste/dps.. it was a suggestion maybe it would not work for you, or other high end monks but it would work for many others imo.

Couching

04-14-2009, 05:47 PM

But it didn't solve the root problem; plate tanks deal more dps than brawlers in high end raids.

Gisallo

04-14-2009, 06:01 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>But it didn't solve the root problem; plate tanks deal more dps than brawlers in high end raids.</blockquote>Okay lets say thats a given. The question is how do you fix it. I don't mean mechnically. You can do this by tweaking CA's, AA's whatever. The how is more about how much. If brawlers are going to be changed to be just as good at straight up tanking as plate tanks then clearly you only bring up dps so much. If brawlers are going to be snap tanks with some utility then its a little more. If brawlers are just going to more durable dps then clearly it should be a lot more. NONE of these issues can be addressed until either SOE, the community, or the two together come up with a unified vision for brawlers. Once they decide which of the three prevelant visions is THE vision then they can figure out what needs to be buffed and by how much. Until there is a solid and singular vision for the classes though nothing is going to be done nor should it because whatever changes you are going to do is also going to apply to non-raid content and this also has to be taken into account when you are speaking of making classes "more raidable".

Couching

04-14-2009, 06:33 PM

<cite>Valkenberg@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>But it didn't solve the root problem; plate tanks deal more dps than brawlers in high end raids.</blockquote>Okay lets say thats a given. The question is how do you fix it. I don't mean mechnically. You can do this by tweaking CA's, AA's whatever. The how is more about how much. If brawlers are going to be changed to be just as good at straight up tanking as plate tanks then clearly you only bring up dps so much. If brawlers are going to be snap tanks with some utility then its a little more. If brawlers are just going to more durable dps then clearly it should be a lot more. NONE of these issues can be addressed until either SOE, the community, or the two together come up with a unified vision for brawlers. Once they decide which of the three prevelant visions is THE vision then they can figure out what needs to be buffed and by how much. Until there is a solid and singular vision for the classes though nothing is going to be done nor should it because whatever changes you are going to do is also going to apply to non-raid content and this also has to be taken into account when you are speaking of making classes "more raidable".</blockquote>SoE already gave the vision to brawlers; tank.I am not sure why you keep ignoring the truth that in SoE's mind; brawlers are tank.Almost all of TSO aa are for tanking. All of TSO brawler and monk end abilities are for raid tanking. There is zero dps end ability.SoE screwed monk is not because they didnt have vision.On the contrary, they have very clear vision for brawler and that is tank. Otherwise, they won't give us so many aa for raid tanking.The only issue is they didn't tune those aa correctly, such as meditative healing is absolutely junk.

Gisallo

04-14-2009, 07:49 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Valkenberg@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>But it didn't solve the root problem; plate tanks deal more dps than brawlers in high end raids.</blockquote>Okay lets say thats a given. The question is how do you fix it. I don't mean mechnically. You can do this by tweaking CA's, AA's whatever. The how is more about how much. If brawlers are going to be changed to be just as good at straight up tanking as plate tanks then clearly you only bring up dps so much. If brawlers are going to be snap tanks with some utility then its a little more. If brawlers are just going to more durable dps then clearly it should be a lot more. NONE of these issues can be addressed until either SOE, the community, or the two together come up with a unified vision for brawlers. Once they decide which of the three prevelant visions is THE vision then they can figure out what needs to be buffed and by how much. Until there is a solid and singular vision for the classes though nothing is going to be done nor should it because whatever changes you are going to do is also going to apply to non-raid content and this also has to be taken into account when you are speaking of making classes "more raidable".</blockquote>SoE already gave the vision to brawlers; tank.I am not sure why you keep ignoring the truth that in SoE's mind; brawlers are tank.Almost all of TSO aa are for tanking. All of TSO brawler and monk end abilities are for raid tanking. There is zero dps end ability.SoE screwed monk is not because they didnt have vision.On the contrary, they have very clear vision for brawler and that is tank. Otherwise, they won't give us so many aa for raid tanking.The only issue is they didn't tune those aa correctly, such as meditative healing is absolutely junk.</blockquote>For instancing yes Brawlers have been tanks, but starting well before RoK Brawlers were not raid MT or OTs they wer snap tanks. Yes there were exceptional players backed by other exceptional players that were MTing raids but they were by far the minority. Most brawlers were filling snap tank/utility or dps roles. If you honestly believe that SOE for the last few expansions intended Brawlers to be fulfilling a hardcore raid tank role I don't know what to tell you other than you entire premise is flawed because it is based on a false foundation. If you are going off of Aeraliks one comment "I want brawlers to be tanked" do not hold your breath. The only reason he still has a job is because he is the one person at SOE that has half a clue about character design at this point. He is certainly NOT going to be the idea man anymore after the abortion that was fighter 2.0, at beast he is simply the execution man and I can assure you they are starting from square oneIf on the other hand your choice is to be a raids MT or primary OT, more power too you. Get more people behind you to the point that SOE feels they won't PO the other 2/3 of the brawlers out there and you may get what you want. As long as you think though that there is currently a clear direction for brawlers either among the players or within SOE, you are sorely mistaken. basically it appears you are saying "I want to be an MT, I have always wanted to be an MT, one developer said I could finally be an MT. That developers plan failed but gosh darn it what I want is what should happen."Well Brawlers were not MT's before, they are not MT's now and SOE has already made it quite clear that they are going back to the drawning board to figure out how to fix FIGHTERS, not tanks, but FIGHTERS. If you want to be a tank more power to you, take advantage of the dialogue they said they are going to create, start rallying more brawlers to your cause, but I assure you, if more brawlers start saying they want a viable snap tank or dps role that will probably happen because SOE does not want the head ache they just went through even again. If however you keep on saying "SOE said I was a tank" and rely solely on that, I feel you are going to find yourself VERY disappointed.

Couching

04-14-2009, 08:10 PM

<cite>Valkenberg@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Valkenberg@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>But it didn't solve the root problem; plate tanks deal more dps than brawlers in high end raids.</blockquote>Okay lets say thats a given. The question is how do you fix it. I don't mean mechnically. You can do this by tweaking CA's, AA's whatever. The how is more about how much. If brawlers are going to be changed to be just as good at straight up tanking as plate tanks then clearly you only bring up dps so much. If brawlers are going to be snap tanks with some utility then its a little more. If brawlers are just going to more durable dps then clearly it should be a lot more. NONE of these issues can be addressed until either SOE, the community, or the two together come up with a unified vision for brawlers. Once they decide which of the three prevelant visions is THE vision then they can figure out what needs to be buffed and by how much. Until there is a solid and singular vision for the classes though nothing is going to be done nor should it because whatever changes you are going to do is also going to apply to non-raid content and this also has to be taken into account when you are speaking of making classes "more raidable".</blockquote>SoE already gave the vision to brawlers; tank.I am not sure why you keep ignoring the truth that in SoE's mind; brawlers are tank.Almost all of TSO aa are for tanking. All of TSO brawler and monk end abilities are for raid tanking. There is zero dps end ability.SoE screwed monk is not because they didnt have vision.On the contrary, they have very clear vision for brawler and that is tank. Otherwise, they won't give us so many aa for raid tanking.The only issue is they didn't tune those aa correctly, such as meditative healing is absolutely junk.</blockquote>For instancing yes Brawlers have been tanks, but starting well before RoK Brawlers were not raid MT or OTs they wer snap tanks. Yes there were exceptional players backed by other exceptional players that were MTing raids but they were by far the minority. Most brawlers were filling snap tank/utility or dps roles. If you honestly believe that SOE for the last few expansions intended Brawlers to be fulfilling a hardcore raid tank role I don't know what to tell you other than you entire premise is flawed because it is based on a false foundation. If you are going off of Aeraliks one comment "I want brawlers to be tanked" do not hold your breath. The only reason he still has a job is because he is the one person at SOE that has half a clue about character design at this point. He is certainly NOT going to be the idea man anymore after the abortion that was fighter 2.0, at beast he is simply the execution man and I can assure you they are starting from square oneIf on the other hand your choice is to be a raids MT or primary OT, more power too you. Get more people behind you to the point that SOE feels they won't PO the other 2/3 of the brawlers out there and you may get what you want. As long as you think though that there is currently a clear direction for brawlers either among the players or within SOE, you are sorely mistaken. basically it appears you are saying "I want to be an MT, I have always wanted to be an MT, one developer said I could finally be an MT. That developers plan failed but gosh darn it what I want is what should happen."Well Brawlers were not MT's before, they are not MT's now and SOE has already made it quite clear that they are going back to the drawning board to figure out how to fix FIGHTERS, not tanks, but FIGHTERS. If you want to be a tank more power to you, take advantage of the dialogue they said they are going to create, start rallying more brawlers to your cause, but I assure you, if more brawlers start saying they want a viable snap tank or dps role that will probably happen because SOE does not want the head ache they just went through even again. If however you keep on saying "SOE said I was a tank" and rely solely on that, I feel you are going to find yourself VERY disappointed.</blockquote>Fact > your assumption.The fact is most of brawlers tanking aa in TSO is for raid tanking, not heroic instance tanking.You keep saying bleh bleh bleh about brawlers shouldn't be MT or primary OT. The fact is all TSO aa were designed with fighter revamp part 2.In their idea, monk should have better survivability than berserker, SK and bruiser. On the hands, SK, zerker and bruisers have dps advantage over monk.It's pity that fighter revamp part 2 was cancelled and they didn't have time to fix every fighter's TSO aa at the same time.Though, it didn't change the vision of monk unless they revamp all brawler tso aa and give us more choices for dps. At the moment, our role is tanking in raids.

Landiin

04-14-2009, 08:33 PM

Gisallo

04-14-2009, 08:35 PM

<cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Fact > your assumption.The fact is most of brawlers tanking aa in TSO is for raid tanking, not heroic instance tanking.You keep saying bleh bleh bleh about brawlers shouldn't be MT or primary OT. The fact is all TSO aa were designed with fighter revamp part 2.In their idea, monk should have better survivability than berserker, SK and bruiser. On the hands, SK, zerker and bruisers have dps advantage over monk.It's pity that fighter revamp part 2 was cancelled and they didn't have time to fix every fighter's TSO aa at the same time.Though, it didn't change the vision of monk unless they revamp all brawler tso aa and give us more choices for dps. At the moment, our role is tanking in raids.</blockquote>What assumptions have I made?Fact prior to fighter 2.0 Brawlers were NOT designed to be raid MTs and OTs.Even during this transition MANY Brawlers were unhappy.SOE has stated that Fighter 2.0 was ill concieved from the beginning. Aeralik is no longer their idea man and they are starting from scratch and the AA trees were part of his project that has been trashed. They have also stated clearly that any changes made in the future regarding the fighters will be made only after extensive dialogue with the player base. Yes the AA changes were made with 2.0 in mind BUT SOE has scrapped 2.0 and openly called it a mistake they will not make again. The fact that they have not changed the AA is simply due to the fact that they are going to change NOTHING until they know where they are going to go.How are they going to know which way to go? By engaging in the dialogue they stated would take place. This means that if the majority of brawlers say they want to be a snap tank, likely that is what they will become, same if the majority say they want to have a more prominent dps role, or even a straight up tank period. These are not assumptions but rather logical deductions based upon all of the available facts. I understand that this means that Monks may not become MTs and this angers you because this is what you want to be, but these are the facts, not assumptions, as unpleasant as you may find them.

Morrolan V

04-14-2009, 08:50 PM

<cite>Toran@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Fact > your assumption.The fact is most of brawlers tanking aa in TSO is for raid tanking, not heroic instance tanking.You keep saying bleh bleh bleh about brawlers shouldn't be MT or primary OT. The fact is all TSO aa were designed with fighter revamp part 2.In their idea, monk should have better survivability than berserker, SK and bruiser. On the hands, SK, zerker and bruisers have dps advantage over monk.It's pity that fighter revamp part 2 was cancelled and they didn't have time to fix every fighter's TSO aa at the same time.Though, it didn't change the vision of monk unless they revamp all brawler tso aa and give us more choices for dps. At the moment, our role is tanking in raids.</blockquote>Couching, you are so delusional if you think a monk should tank better then a SK. Plate > Leather; yea brawlers should be able to avoid for 4 or 5 rounds but when they do get hit, you get you head knocked off. Brawlers are strikers aka DPS in no way should you be able to tank as well as a plate fighter. On the reverse side a plate fighter should not be able to DPS like a leather fighter.</blockquote>/tears hair out in frustrationWhy are you folks so intent on jumping down Couching's throat when all he is doing is pointing out the truth of what SOE has given us?In RoK, brawlers had a clear and viable raid role. It was exactly what you plate folks are advocating, and, I believe, most brawlers were quite happy with it. In that role, brawlers could DPS quite well (85-90% the level of a rogue, ~15-20% more than any plate tank), we had good utility buffs (better raidwide than plate fighters, good secondary avoidance for the main tank, etc) and we had a combination of (1) great snap aggro and (2) better SHORT TERM survival abilities than plate tanks to enable us to be great recovery tanks in oh s$%t situations. THAT was a role that got brawlers invited to raids.In TSO, Sony blew that role apart. Look at the brawler TSO AAs. I ran out of DPS AA's at 185. There was literally not another point I could spend to improve my DPS in ANY WAY. And, the DPS AAs they did give us were quite lackluster. The tanking AAs, on the other hand, were many and meaningful. Meantime, as is fitting, they gave rogues and T1 DPS great DPS AAs. They gave other tanks a lot of snap aggro and short term survival abilities. They gave other tanks more DPS AAs. They nerfed brawler (monk at least) raidwide and improved other fighters'. End result? Brawlers are now at ~65% the DPS potential of rogues and equal or behind other tanks. Our utility buffs are WORSE than other tanks, all of whom have both raidwide and group buffs. Every other tank in the game has snap aggro and short term survival.Every brawler in the game will agree with you that they have not succeeded in making brawlers competitive in survivability as raid MTs. But it is plainly obvious that is what they TRIED to do. Net net, they broke our existing role and failed to take it far enough to give us a new one. Most brawlers, I think would agree completely that being forced into an MT role is a bad thing. There are already too many classes vying for those few slots.

Couching

04-14-2009, 08:57 PM

<cite>Valkenberg@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Fact > your assumption.The fact is most of brawlers tanking aa in TSO is for raid tanking, not heroic instance tanking.You keep saying bleh bleh bleh about brawlers shouldn't be MT or primary OT. The fact is all TSO aa were designed with fighter revamp part 2.In their idea, monk should have better survivability than berserker, SK and bruiser. On the hands, SK, zerker and bruisers have dps advantage over monk.It's pity that fighter revamp part 2 was cancelled and they didn't have time to fix every fighter's TSO aa at the same time.Though, it didn't change the vision of monk unless they revamp all brawler tso aa and give us more choices for dps. At the moment, our role is tanking in raids.</blockquote>What assumptions have I made?Fact prior to fighter 2.0 Brawlers were NOT designed to be raid MTs and OTs.It is your assumption. The fact is brawlers were designed for tanking in TSO raid.That's why we got full of raid tanking aa since TSO launch.Even during this transition MANY Brawlers were unhappy.SOE has stated that Fighter 2.0 was ill concieved from the beginning. Aeralik is no longer their idea man and they are starting from scratch and the AA trees were part of his project that has been trashed. They have also stated clearly that any changes made in the future regarding the fighters will be made only after extensive dialogue with the player base. Yes the AA changes were made with 2.0 in mind BUT SOE has scrapped 2.0 and openly called it a mistake they will not make again. The fact that they have not changed the AA is simply due to the fact that they are going to change NOTHING until they know where they are going to go.Disagree. They did not change aa is because brawlers were ignored. There are more than tanking or dps issue. For example, 40% aoe auto attack for better aoe aggro.At the moment, it's ugly to tank multiple mobs with aoe dpsers. It has nothing to do with the argument of being a dpser or tank. No matter which role, we need 40% aoe attack as other fighters. How are they going to know which way to go? By engaging in the dialogue they stated would take place. This means that if the majority of brawlers say they want to be a snap tank, likely that is what they will become, same if the majority say they want to have a more prominent dps role, or even a straight up tank period. These are not assumptions but rather logical deductions based upon all of the available facts. I understand that this means that Monks may not become MTs and this angers you because this is what you want to be, but these are the facts, not assumptions, as unpleasant as you may find them. Stop lying or make up story. I never said I want to be MT. I said if our dps can't be better than plate tanks, then we should have better survivability. Learn to read, thanks.</blockquote>