Its time to look over fighters for next expansion.

[Netty]

I just have a few ideas on how to help some other classes than guards/brawlers to make it more balanced.

Zerks.

Adrenaline: need to be changed back to some sort of damage reduction 25% and 25% heal or just 25% damage reduction would be fine really.

Ward of rage: Could be change into a small damage proc. Since it do aply to the group aswell this would really help with the UT of the class. The damage need to be small tho to not make it OP.

Berserk raid focus: 18 combat skills are useless really... And this could be changed into a 5% hate transfer when berserk is up (groupwide) And that would help ALOT with one of the biggest problems zerks have atm.

Hit rates need to be looked at aswell add ST to cyclones instead of the taunt resists.

Pally.

Manawall: The power drain is to much as it is atm. So it need to be lowered and this would help both crusaders alot. (i know it still will s*ck at fights with power drain but thats what i like about it really. It can be very powerfull and not so powerfull on some fights)

Stonewall: Add strikethough immunity to the buff and add a large ward that will ward of some of the magical damage when the buff is up.

Add a 2 stone skin buff kinda much inline with the zerker wall of force.

Snap aggro is another problem with the pally class imo so adding hate positions to the end ability in the shadowtree (the taunt damage thing) Is one way of doing or adding a new one.

Shadowknight.

Furor: Add Strikethough immunity to the buff.

Death march: Add a group siphon when the buff is up. Since most SK:s are placed in the mage group this would help alot more with aggro. Instead of the Malevolent tormenting in the shadowtree.

Mythical: Add a damage reduction 5% or something.

I do think damage output need to be abit higher for all fighters aswell but thats more a gear thing really.

And one last thing... forcing ppl into have one crusader one warrior and one brawler is a bad thing. Since then ppl will only take the best class out of the two subclasses. Remove that from raids pls and make all fighters more inline imo. And good at their own thing.

[Talathion]

Defensive Stances need worked on... all defensive stances need changed to be viable.

[Netty]

Pls stay out of this thread. You have ruined so many threads so leave this one alone. If i could lock you from posting in it i would. I say it again stay out from it. I dont want to hear your ideas about anything since you have no real grip on how balance is or how it should be.

[Wasuna]

My raid forces's MT is an SK. He does way more DPS than me and he stands up to everything just fine. When I'm not there or I'm on another charachter he just jousts the red text messages and has no issues at all. Our raid force has taken down almost all EM named with him tanking. Just one left to take down.

So... what needs to be changed and why are Crusaders and Berserkers only listed? What do you plan on upgrading for Brawlers and Guardians?

Also, why are you adding Strikethrough immunity to more classes when it's already pretty clear that it's a bad idea for the brawlers to get it on their defensive stance.

[Cratoh]

Wasuna wrote:

My raid forces's MT is an SK. He does way more DPS than me and he stands up to everything just fine. When I'm not there or I'm on another charachter he just jousts the red text messages and has no issues at all. Our raid force has taken down almost all EM named with him tanking. Just one left to take down.

So... what needs to be changed and why are Crusaders and Berserkers only listed? What do you plan on upgrading for Brawlers and Guardians?

Also, why are you adding Strikethrough immunity to more classes when it's already pretty clear that it's a bad idea for the brawlers to get it on their defensive stance.

A mage could tank ez mode with the right hate buffs.

[Netty]

Wasuna wrote:

My raid forces's MT is an SK. He does way more DPS than me and he stands up to everything just fine. When I'm not there or I'm on another charachter he just jousts the red text messages and has no issues at all. Our raid force has taken down almost all EM named with him tanking. Just one left to take down.

So... what needs to be changed and why are Crusaders and Berserkers only listed? What do you plan on upgrading for Brawlers and Guardians?

Also, why are you adding Strikethrough immunity to more classes when it's already pretty clear that it's a bad idea for the brawlers to get it on their defensive stance.

I am playing my guardian this expansion and what do you think need fixing with them? nothing guardian is kinda much the only tank class that are working well and as it should atm. Brawlers are abit over the top but who cares? This is not about EM cont this is about HM and drunder that some of the tank classes need a lift. I have played both my guard and my zerk both and changed for the better choice for the expansion. Check my guard out if you dont belive me. Netto splitpawn server. I promis you that i have tanked and kill more than you have atm.

Strikethrough immunity to a buff or have it up all time is a huge diffs. If a buff says parry 100% of all inc attacks thats what the buff should do aswell. If you just had raided the other stuff in this expansion you would understand why those listed are the tank classes that need a fix.

[Yimway]

Netty wrote:

I am playing my guardian this expansion and what do you think need fixing with them? nothing guardian is kinda much the only tank class that are working well and as it should atm. Brawlers are abit over the top but who cares?

Your proposed changes in gifting strikethru to the above classes but ignoring the same need existing in guardians is a miss. If you are adding strikethru immunity to other tank short terms, you need to add it to one of the guard's short terms as well.

I don't agree with that path overall though.  The mechanic needs to change or _all_ tanks should get strikethru immunity in D-Stance and D-Stance only.

I also believe your %'s on adrenaline are too high if the buff is left alone.

I would prefer adrenaline to provide 5% DR for each unique mob you hit for its durration, up to 10 mobs.  So if you are fighting 10 things you get 50% reduction, but fighting single targets is 5%.  Since in many cases your fighting 4 or less mobs, the DR is in within reason, and in those rare scenarios where you can take on more, you can bump the DR up higher.

I'm sure this discussion will continue on the Beta boards next week, but in truth, so little time is left till expansion, I expect little to no class tweaking to be done in Beta.

[Netty]

Well you can see it in two ways really. I have it speced and are using it aswell Do i need to use it on a guardian to survive? no. I can do it with out thats why i left that one out. I agree tho 100% should be 100%.

As for Adrenaline 25% is not much. And 5% damage vs one mob is kinda small. monks have the same kind of buff. And since most deaths comes from Co-op stirkes and large aoes and death touch this expack i dont really see 25% putting zerks over the top in anything. since you would still get killed when using it. Unless we get more aoe fights in your change to AD wouldent mean anything for the zerk. If we had alot more aoe fights i agree that would be a nice change. I still think 25% is a better way to go tho.

As for strikethough to all tanks... thats a bad idea. And thats why i would like them to only add it on avoidance buffs.

And yes i dont have any hopes on anything getting changed really... one can only hope.

[Yimway]

Netty wrote:

Well you can see it in two ways really. I have it speced and are using it aswell Do i need to use it on a guardian to survive? no. I can do it with out thats why i left that one out. I agree tho 100% should be 100%.

I disagree, there are things that are so much easier for a brawler to tank now that is entirely due to strikethru.  Giving more classes strikethru immunities and leaving other fighters out only makes those without it less and less viable the deeper you go into the game.

Sure, before HM drunder I agree with you anything past that not so much.

As far as Adrenaline, zerks are aoe classes, they should get tools that are flat out awesome for aoe, and less effective vs single targets.  I think you guys will get more traction asking for really powerful things to do aoe content with than asking for abilities that scale equally to ST encounters. I'd even favor an offensive bonus that also scaled based upon the number of mobs engaged.

Stoneskins don't scale to aoe encounters, I wouldn't expect adrenaline to scale well to ST encounters.  Just an oversimplified example of where these classes could and should deviate.

There are a number of encounters this xpac that have 4+ adds in them, I'd certainly favor more encounters like this to make an aoe tank on roster more desireable.  Currently you can go with 3 ST focused tanks and generally be just fine, but thats a content issue more than it is a class issue.

[Bruener]

Atan@Unrest wrote:

There are a number of encounters this xpac that have 4+ adds in them, I'd certainly favor more encounters like this to make an aoe tank on roster more desireable.  Currently you can go with 3 ST focused tanks and generally be just fine, but thats a content issue more than it is a class issue.

What, trash mobs?

How many encounters out there actually have that many mobs that need to be tanked during named encounters?  Even in Drunder typically anything that needs OT'ing is a single mob.  Or even the trash that is multiple mobs all you see happening is a ST tank holding hate easily on a raid due to how dumb transfers/buffs make things.

I would agree though about AE v ST if they could actually find a way to balance the content and add a lot more significant AE encounters.  If they are going to keep coop as is they should make a reverse coop where a large encounter has to be tanked by 1 Fighter.  Than make 50% of the encounters require this!!!

No, but seriously.  They need more FG/Ykesha style large mob Fights that AE oriented tanks can shine on and than stop making it so an OT'ing of an encounter basically requires ST tanking.

[Yimway]

Bruener wrote:

No, but seriously.  They need more FG/Ykesha style large mob Fights that AE oriented tanks can shine on and than stop making it so an OT'ing of an encounter basically requires ST tanking.

/agreed

I'd much prefer a game that encouraged me to run an aoe OT, and MTing shared by a ST plate + brawler. Not cause of hokey class based scripts, but cause the content demands it.  For sure alot more boss encounters should be like Ykesha with alot of different things going on.

But these are content issues, not really class issues.

[Bremer]

Atan@Unrest wrote:

I think you guys will get more traction asking for really powerful things to do aoe content

Berserkers don't need anything for AOE content, they need tools to deal with the existing content.

Stoneskins don't scale to aoe encounters, I wouldn't expect adrenaline to scale well to ST encounters

Tools like a 25 % chance stoneskin proc, 100 % avoidance or better avoidance in general work very well for both single and multi target while AOE spells like Battle Frenzy are near worthless vs single targets. So why shouldn't Adrenaline be effective vs single targets (or to be more accurate: effective at all).

But these are content issues, not really class issues.

When you design encounters the same way since T5 it's not a content, but a class issue.

[Talathion]

@Atan

Yeah, then lets make avoidance 5% instead of 100%, then 5% more for every mob attacking the monk/brawler and see how that works out.

Same with stoneskins for guardian, its normally 25%, lets make it instead 5% and for every target hitting the guardian its another 5%.

Guardians have a 8 Trigger stoneskin, lets make it so if your only fighting 1 target you only get 1 out of 8 triggers, then another for each target attacking the guardian!

Same with Templar/Dirge, instead of a 10% chance to stoneskin the tank, lets make it 2%, then 2% more for every target attacking the target.

P.S. It doesn't work, sorry.

[Netty]

Stone skin dont work well vs multi mobs. How ever stonesphere is a beast for tanking more than one mob. Avoidance buffs aswell. As i have said 25% damage reduction on adrenaline wont work vs death touch or co-op strike so i cant understand how you can feel that its to much. I have no problem with how my guardian is working atm other than its not the most fun class to play unless you have very special scripts like the banner named in tallon. Still i can tank kinda much everything. on aoe tragets the stoneskins get wasted tho. And thats why spheres is so wonderfull for that. that has a 25% trigger chance. 25% reduction is not to much. And i agree that they need to put in alot more aoe cont on raids and not just a few adds that die with in a sec or two... All tanks should be able to be strong at something when it comes to raids.

[Yimway]

Netty wrote:

All tanks should be able to be strong at something when it comes to raids.

Yes, and to do this, you either end up with 6 fighters that are largely the same, or you have more vaired content.

I still say, the biggest factor in the complaints people have is the content.

[Bruener]

Atan@Unrest wrote:

Netty wrote:

All tanks should be able to be strong at something when it comes to raids.

Yes, and to do this, you either end up with 6 fighters that are largely the same, or you have more vaired content.

I still say, the biggest factor in the complaints people have is the content.

But it has been the same issue since T5.  You got an xpac like TSO that snuck in a decent amount of AE content and all you had were complaints from ST tanks.  Funny since even in TSO, probably the most AE centric xpac we have had...I would bet less than half or raid encounters actually had significant AE elements other than fodder that mages tanked and killed within a couple seconds.

You really have to ask yourself if they will ever really balance content correctly between ST and AE.

[Bremer]

Atan@Unrest wrote:

Netty wrote:

All tanks should be able to be strong at something when it comes to raids.

Yes, and to do this, you either end up with 6 fighters that are largely the same, or you have more vaired content.

Why would comparably capable fighters all be the same? Conjuror, Wizard, Necro, Warlock, Assasin, Ranger all have somewhat comparable DPS and are not the same at all. The existing fighters are all different and they were almost all equally capable for raid tanking in SF. If the devs would stop saying to one fighter it's balance, that if you are good at heroic content you shouldn't be good at raid content while they make other fighters top notch at absolut everything we could have balanced, equally capable, but unique fighter classes.

And "more varied" content? You basically want to make every encounter a big named with 10 memwiping target lock immune adds, so that people would bring AE tanks for them. That's not more variety, that's drastically less variety.

[Yimway]

Bremer wrote:

 The existing fighters are all different and they were almost all equally capable for raid tanking in SF. If the devs would stop saying to one fighter it's balance, that if you are good at heroic content you shouldn't be good at raid content while they make other fighters top notch at absolut everything we could have balanced, equally capable, but unique fighter classes.

And "more varied" content? You basically want to make every encounter a big named with 10 memwiping target lock immune adds, so that people would bring AE tanks for them. That's not more variety, that's drastically less variety.

They were all capable of raid tanking close to the same in SF, and the result was, generally bringing the one that did the most dps, since they don't all do that the same.  They were not the same in other content areas.  You may believe they could make all 6 balanced across the various content types and all unique, I however do not remotely have that much faith in ONE person with their time divided able to pull that off.

And content, no that isn't the only answer to every encounter to make more AE classes desireable.  There are a great many creative options here.  I think more of staged events that pose different challenges bundled to create one larger encounter.

I will conceed, given the greatly restrained resources in regards to the game design and development, making the classes more the same is probably the healthiest solution for the game today.  Though I conceed it, I do not particularly like that result.

[Bruener]

SF was a great xpac for ALL fighters once the Guard changes went in.  Mind you I think that Adrenaline had to get an adjustment just because of the potential it had to trivialize content a lot, same with LC for Crusaders which had too much DPS potential on these big DoV type AEs.

The only problem with SF was player perception that carried over from TSO.  People didn't learn how powerful Brawlers were and Guard changes coming late people didn't realize how great their abilities were.  SOE could have rolled into DoV like this but instead they gave even more to Brawlers and Guards and over-nerfed Crusaders and Zerks along with not giving them useful new abilities and you end up with the big imbalance we have in todays game.

Hopefully SOE doesn't over-nerf Brawlers/Guards now while giving Zerks/Crusaders what they need.  Fix strikethrough immunity, give Paladins a reliable stoneskin type ability they can use on big AEs, and give SKs/Zerks the self agro generation they should have, while distinguishing a little more the difference in damage taken between Plate tanks and leather tanks per hit.

[Talathion]

Bruener wrote:

SF was a great xpac for ALL fighters once the Guard changes went in.  Mind you I think that Adrenaline had to get an adjustment just because of the potential it had to trivialize content a lot, same with LC for Crusaders which had too much DPS potential on these big DoV type AEs.

The only problem with SF was player perception that carried over from TSO.  People didn't learn how powerful Brawlers were and Guard changes coming late people didn't realize how great their abilities were.  SOE could have rolled into DoV like this but instead they gave even more to Brawlers and Guards and over-nerfed Crusaders and Zerks along with not giving them useful new abilities and you end up with the big imbalance we have in todays game.

Hopefully SOE doesn't over-nerf Brawlers/Guards now while giving Zerks/Crusaders what they need.  Fix strikethrough immunity, give Paladins a reliable stoneskin type ability they can use on big AEs, and give SKs/Zerks the self agro generation they should have, while distinguishing a little more the difference in damage taken between Plate tanks and leather tanks per hit.

Instead of a new stupid ability they don't need, how about making there current paladin wards critical so they are useful?

You know, so a paladin is actually like a paladin and not a guy with stoneskins.

[Bruener]

Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:

Bruener wrote:

SF was a great xpac for ALL fighters once the Guard changes went in.  Mind you I think that Adrenaline had to get an adjustment just because of the potential it had to trivialize content a lot, same with LC for Crusaders which had too much DPS potential on these big DoV type AEs.

The only problem with SF was player perception that carried over from TSO.  People didn't learn how powerful Brawlers were and Guard changes coming late people didn't realize how great their abilities were.  SOE could have rolled into DoV like this but instead they gave even more to Brawlers and Guards and over-nerfed Crusaders and Zerks along with not giving them useful new abilities and you end up with the big imbalance we have in todays game.

Hopefully SOE doesn't over-nerf Brawlers/Guards now while giving Zerks/Crusaders what they need.  Fix strikethrough immunity, give Paladins a reliable stoneskin type ability they can use on big AEs, and give SKs/Zerks the self agro generation they should have, while distinguishing a little more the difference in damage taken between Plate tanks and leather tanks per hit.

Instead of a new stupid ability they don't need, how about making there current paladin wards critical so they are useful?

You know, so a paladin is actually like a paladin and not a guy with stoneskins.

Because even stacking all their wards for a one shot AE is not as good as 1 single stoneskin.  Lets be honest, stoneskins are extremely powerful and will scale forever.  They will absorb an unlimited single hit no matter the size.

But yeah, I agree stoneskins are boring, but it should be something just as powerful as stoneskins.  A single interrupt that works on epic mobs on like a 3 min recast.  Seems a little powerful on paper, but really is it really much more powerful than being able to group death save, or group stoneskin, or group AE avoid?

[Soul_Dreamer]

Bruener wrote:

SF was a great xpac for ALL fighters once the Guard changes went in.  Mind you I think that Adrenaline had to get an adjustment just because of the potential it had to trivialize content a lot, same with LC for Crusaders which had too much DPS potential on these big DoV type AEs.

The only problem with SF was player perception that carried over from TSO.  People didn't learn how powerful Brawlers were and Guard changes coming late people didn't realize how great their abilities were.  SOE could have rolled into DoV like this but instead they gave even more to Brawlers and Guards and over-nerfed Crusaders and Zerks along with not giving them useful new abilities and you end up with the big imbalance we have in todays game.

Hopefully SOE doesn't over-nerf Brawlers/Guards now while giving Zerks/Crusaders what they need.  Fix strikethrough immunity, give Paladins a reliable stoneskin type ability they can use on big AEs, and give SKs/Zerks the self agro generation they should have, while distinguishing a little more the difference in damage taken between Plate tanks and leather tanks per hit.

I'm sorry, what exactly did Guardians get going into DoV? The only things we got Zerks got exactly the same through the heroic tree, nothing else was added. The handful of changes in SF helped but nothing there was over powered, to be perfectly honest guardians themselves are in no way over powered, we're what a defensive tank should be and should be what the other tanks are balanced against defensively.

Guardians have the most defensive abilities but we pay for it by being the least offensive tank, and when we do want to DPS we loose some of those abilities because they're shield dependant and we loose all our uncontested avoidance.

Glad to see you've added Guardians into your calls for nerfs along with the brawlers, as long as it's not "Overnerfed" though right.... Lets hear it then, what exactly do you think needs nerfing on the Guardian class?

Strike through needs adding to all tank temp defensive abilities.Strike trhough needs removing from Brawler defensive stance, or added to all tanks defensive stances.Pallies need a decent stonskin and snap.Zerks need their easily capped abilities changing/uncapping and a defensive ability.SK's need some sort of minor damage reduction and another snap/recast reduction in graves.That's it, do the above changes and see were things lie, large sweeping changes will just OP another tank.

SK's agro is fine, SK's only miss a snap for the often memwipeing mobs because their tools are on a long recast.  They don't need more DPS, everytime you post Bruener you're basically asking for the TSO Shadowknight back because you want to compete with the T2 and T1 DPS and still tank.. 

@your last post..  you'd need to compare the interupt to a class that can aoe avoid the RAID, or deathsave the RAID, or stoneskin the RAID...... you stop the AOE, you stop it for everyone, and that's right, no class can do those things. Troub can reduce the damage of an AOE by 50%, but that's on a 9min recast, you want to stop the AOE completely on a 3 min recast.... yeah, not over powered at all, but keep asking for these abilities for Crusaders, I'm sure it will happen.

[Novusod]

All the Tanks are fairly well ballanced but there are some adjustments I would recommend.

1: Give all Tanks the same DPS potential. Some tanks are Single target forcused while others are AE focused.

2: Give Plate tanks 360 degree block chance. Plate tanks have no avoidance from behind and that is their biggest weekness. If you look at the zones like Challenge mode EoW it is not strikethough but adds coming from all directions that make this difficult on the plate tanks. Strikethrough immunity should remain brawler only as plate armor is Crusader/Warrior only. This ballances out well if mob strikethrough is kept at reasonable levels.

3: Uncap hate gain for all tanks. Keeping hate has become exponentially harder since all the dps stats got uncapped in the previous update.

[Netty]

Soul_Dreamer wrote:

Bruener wrote:

SF was a great xpac for ALL fighters once the Guard changes went in.  Mind you I think that Adrenaline had to get an adjustment just because of the potential it had to trivialize content a lot, same with LC for Crusaders which had too much DPS potential on these big DoV type AEs.

The only problem with SF was player perception that carried over from TSO.  People didn't learn how powerful Brawlers were and Guard changes coming late people didn't realize how great their abilities were.  SOE could have rolled into DoV like this but instead they gave even more to Brawlers and Guards and over-nerfed Crusaders and Zerks along with not giving them useful new abilities and you end up with the big imbalance we have in todays game.

Hopefully SOE doesn't over-nerf Brawlers/Guards now while giving Zerks/Crusaders what they need.  Fix strikethrough immunity, give Paladins a reliable stoneskin type ability they can use on big AEs, and give SKs/Zerks the self agro generation they should have, while distinguishing a little more the difference in damage taken between Plate tanks and leather tanks per hit.

I'm sorry, what exactly did Guardians get going into DoV? The only things we got Zerks got exactly the same through the heroic tree, nothing else was added. The handful of changes in SF helped but nothing there was over powered, to be perfectly honest guardians themselves are in no way over powered, we're what a defensive tank should be and should be what the other tanks are balanced against defensively.

Guardians have the most defensive abilities but we pay for it by being the least offensive tank, and when we do want to DPS we loose some of those abilities because they're shield dependant and we loose all our uncontested avoidance.

Glad to see you've added Guardians into your calls for nerfs along with the brawlers, as long as it's not "Overnerfed" though right.... Lets hear it then, what exactly do you think needs nerfing on the Guardian class?

Strike through needs adding to all tank temp defensive abilities.Strike trhough needs removing from Brawler defensive stance, or added to all tanks defensive stances.Pallies need a decent stonskin and snap.Zerks need their easily capped abilities changing/uncapping and a defensive ability.SK's need some sort of minor damage reduction and another snap/recast reduction in graves.That's it, do the above changes and see were things lie, large sweeping changes will just OP another tank.

SK's agro is fine, SK's only miss a snap for the often memwipeing mobs because their tools are on a long recast.  They don't need more DPS, everytime you post Bruener you're basically asking for the TSO Shadowknight back because you want to compete with the T2 and T1 DPS and still tank.. 

@your last post..  you'd need to compare the interupt to a class that can aoe avoid the RAID, or deathsave the RAID, or stoneskin the RAID...... you stop the AOE, you stop it for everyone, and that's right, no class can do those things. Troub can reduce the damage of an AOE by 50%, but that's on a 9min recast, you want to stop the AOE completely on a 3 min recast.... yeah, not over powered at all, but keep asking for these abilities for Crusaders, I'm sure it will happen.

I agree 100% that guardians work fine now. Imo its the only tank class atm that work 100% as it should do. The fixes he is talking about is the guardian rewamp. And that did do wonders for the class. Since in SF we had huge problems with it. Thats why i played my zerk in sf. I wouldent say it was balanced in sf but it was as close as it ever have been. with only the guardian class lacking. Untill they fixed it with the rewamp. However they nerfed the other fighters aswell and that was abit over the top since they dident add anything to make up for it. AD 50% damage half the time was over the top. But it was the only way zerks had to work as a raid tank. make it 25% in this expansion wont change much since co-op strikes huge aoes and dt still would kill you. It would still let the zerk class shine abit more tanking more than one mob. And give it abit easier time for the healers.

Small changes need to be done to brawlers nothing huge. And a few small fixes to crusaders and zerks and it would be balanced again. If they dont want to give pallys stone skin what about a short duration ward off all inc damage for a short time. That would work the same only be aply in another way.

[Soul_Dreamer]

Novusod wrote:

All the Tanks are fairly well ballanced but there are some adjustments I would recommend.

1: Give all Tanks the same DPS potential. Some tanks are Single target forcused while others are AE focused.

2: Give Plate tanks 360 degree block chance. Plate tanks have no avoidance from behind and that is their biggest weekness. If you look at the zones like Challenge mode EoW it is not strikethough but adds coming from all directions that make this difficult on the plate tanks. Strikethrough immunity should remain brawler only as plate armor is Crusader/Warrior only. This ballances out well if mob strikethrough is kept at reasonable levels.

3: Uncap hate gain for all tanks. Keeping hate has become exponentially harder since all the dps stats got uncapped in the previous update.

Specifically the red text? Seriously......

Our monk has a weapon with ~30% block chance, he can duel wield this weapon with another that has ~10% block chance (another with 30%+ Block chance when we kill the mob). His uncontested avoid is CURRENTLY just under 55%, Mine as a Gaurdian is about 43%, the difference in mitigation is about 5% in stats window, more than likely about 10% when facing a 98 named.

This higher avoidance makes up for plate armour, not strike through. With strike though on a mob you're reducing all plate tanks avoidance by whatever the mob has. 

Take a block chance of 40%, which is pretty standard really for high end shields and the self buffing block chance some plate tanks get.

A mob with 50% strike through reduces that block chance to 20%.. so the monk now has 35% more avoidance than the plat tank.. This really seems fair and "Balanced" to you, given the mitigation difference is ~10%. Get real, you like being OP and are trying to stay OP.

But fine.. keep strike though as long as "Mitigation Strike through" is added for plate tanks only. Mobs will have a buff which gives them a % chance to strike through 50% of a brawlers "Leather" armour. 

Yeah, f**kin stupid idea isn't it, so is strike though, especially when 2 of the 6 classes are immune to it.

[Soul_Dreamer]

Netty wrote:

I agree 100% that guardians work fine now. Imo its the only tank class atm that work 100% as it should do. The fixes he is talking about is the guardian rewamp. And that did do wonders for the class. Since in SF we had huge problems with it. Thats why i played my zerk in sf. I wouldent say it was balanced in sf but it was as close as it ever have been. with only the guardian class lacking. Untill they fixed it with the rewamp. However they nerfed the other fighters aswell and that was abit over the top since they dident add anything to make up for it. AD 50% damage half the time was over the top. But it was the only way zerks had to work as a raid tank. make it 25% in this expansion wont change much since co-op strikes huge aoes and dt still would kill you. It would still let the zerk class shine abit more tanking more than one mob. And give it abit easier time for the healers.

Small changes need to be done to brawlers nothing huge. And a few small fixes to crusaders and zerks and it would be balanced again. If they dont want to give pallys stone skin what about a short duration ward off all inc damage for a short time. That would work the same only be aply in another way.

The Guardian changes came in during SF, Bruener is claiming we got buffed up with DOV release as well, which just isn't true. The only changes with DoV release that directly effected the Guardian were the new AA's and we share those with Zerks and they are hardly brilliant or over powered.

I'm not saying that Pally/Zerk/SK don't need buffs in certain areas, they do, and I've said it in a lot of threads, most tanks agree they do. Watching Bruener claim things which just aren't true, to justify buffing the crap out of SK's again (which is what he wants) annoys me.

[Netty]

Soul_Dreamer wrote:

Netty wrote:

I agree 100% that guardians work fine now. Imo its the only tank class atm that work 100% as it should do. The fixes he is talking about is the guardian rewamp. And that did do wonders for the class. Since in SF we had huge problems with it. Thats why i played my zerk in sf. I wouldent say it was balanced in sf but it was as close as it ever have been. with only the guardian class lacking. Untill they fixed it with the rewamp. However they nerfed the other fighters aswell and that was abit over the top since they dident add anything to make up for it. AD 50% damage half the time was over the top. But it was the only way zerks had to work as a raid tank. make it 25% in this expansion wont change much since co-op strikes huge aoes and dt still would kill you. It would still let the zerk class shine abit more tanking more than one mob. And give it abit easier time for the healers.

Small changes need to be done to brawlers nothing huge. And a few small fixes to crusaders and zerks and it would be balanced again. If they dont want to give pallys stone skin what about a short duration ward off all inc damage for a short time. That would work the same only be aply in another way.

The Guardian changes came in during SF, Bruener is claiming we got buffed up with DOV release as well, which just isn't true. The only changes with DoV release that directly effected the Guardian were the new AA's and we share those with Zerks and they are hardly brilliant or over powered.

I'm not saying that Pally/Zerk/SK don't need buffs in certain areas, they do, and I've said it in a lot of threads, most tanks agree they do. Watching Bruener claim things which just aren't true, to justify buffing the crap out of SK's again (which is what he wants) annoys me.

They did come in the end of sf. So kinda much all guardians dident have any love that expansion. And no we dont want another Tso. I did quit in tso since there was kinda much nothing a guard could shine on in that expack... Came back in SF and started raiding on my zerk. My guardian was a zerk up to eof. Then i betrayed him to guard since you couldent really do wonders on zerks at the time. This is the problem with sonys way of doing things. They dont make the tanks balanced... they take turns in boosting them up and nerfing others. I have always loved both warriors.

Brawlers do mitigate more damage well monks. If you count in other stuff aswell. Like the mini vertion of Adrenaline that monks have. 30% damage reduction on a mulitattack in the heroic tree and so on. Thats the porblem atm. Thats why all tank classes should have strikethough on temp buffs and mit need to be nerfed somewhat for the brawlers or boosted up for all plate tanks.

[Talathion]

Bruener wrote:

Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:

Bruener wrote:

SF was a great xpac for ALL fighters once the Guard changes went in.  Mind you I think that Adrenaline had to get an adjustment just because of the potential it had to trivialize content a lot, same with LC for Crusaders which had too much DPS potential on these big DoV type AEs.

The only problem with SF was player perception that carried over from TSO.  People didn't learn how powerful Brawlers were and Guard changes coming late people didn't realize how great their abilities were.  SOE could have rolled into DoV like this but instead they gave even more to Brawlers and Guards and over-nerfed Crusaders and Zerks along with not giving them useful new abilities and you end up with the big imbalance we have in todays game.

Hopefully SOE doesn't over-nerf Brawlers/Guards now while giving Zerks/Crusaders what they need.  Fix strikethrough immunity, give Paladins a reliable stoneskin type ability they can use on big AEs, and give SKs/Zerks the self agro generation they should have, while distinguishing a little more the difference in damage taken between Plate tanks and leather tanks per hit.

Instead of a new stupid ability they don't need, how about making there current paladin wards critical so they are useful?

You know, so a paladin is actually like a paladin and not a guy with stoneskins.

Because even stacking all their wards for a one shot AE is not as good as 1 single stoneskin.  Lets be honest, stoneskins are extremely powerful and will scale forever.  They will absorb an unlimited single hit no matter the size.

But yeah, I agree stoneskins are boring, but it should be something just as powerful as stoneskins.  A single interrupt that works on epic mobs on like a 3 min recast.  Seems a little powerful on paper, but really is it really much more powerful than being able to group death save, or group stoneskin, or group AE avoid?

Yes they are.

Using a ward before an AOE (An actual critting ward) could bring you enough health to survive a possibly fatal AOE, just enough time for your healers to get your health back up.

WARDS prevent damage, adding 8-11k to your already high max health as a paladin would help dramaticly.

[Talathion]

Soul_Dreamer wrote:

Novusod wrote:

All the Tanks are fairly well ballanced but there are some adjustments I would recommend.

1: Give all Tanks the same DPS potential. Some tanks are Single target forcused while others are AE focused.

2: Give Plate tanks 360 degree block chance. Plate tanks have no avoidance from behind and that is their biggest weekness. If you look at the zones like Challenge mode EoW it is not strikethough but adds coming from all directions that make this difficult on the plate tanks. Strikethrough immunity should remain brawler only as plate armor is Crusader/Warrior only. This ballances out well if mob strikethrough is kept at reasonable levels.

3: Uncap hate gain for all tanks. Keeping hate has become exponentially harder since all the dps stats got uncapped in the previous update.

Specifically the red text? Seriously......

Our monk has a weapon with ~30% block chance, he can duel wield this weapon with another that has ~10% block chance (another with 30%+ Block chance when we kill the mob). His uncontested avoid is CURRENTLY just under 55%, Mine as a Gaurdian is about 43%, the difference in mitigation is about 5% in stats window, more than likely about 10% when facing a 98 named.

This higher avoidance makes up for plate armour, not strike through. With strike though on a mob you're reducing all plate tanks avoidance by whatever the mob has. 

Take a block chance of 40%, which is pretty standard really for high end shields and the self buffing block chance some plate tanks get.

A mob with 50% strike through reduces that block chance to 20%.. so the monk now has 35% more avoidance than the plat tank.. This really seems fair and "Balanced" to you, given the mitigation difference is ~10%. Get real, you like being OP and are trying to stay OP.

But fine.. keep strike though as long as "Mitigation Strike through" is added for plate tanks only. Mobs will have a buff which gives them a % chance to strike through 50% of a brawlers "Leather" armour. 

Yeah, f**kin stupid idea isn't it, so is strike though, especially when 2 of the 6 classes are immune to it.

They reduce the damage of Multi-Attacks/flurrys dealt damage to them and have a 10% base damage reduction from mythical, so add that to they're mitigation thats only 3-5% (not 10%) Apart.

And the sacrifice to DPS they have to have to gain this?

Nothing, they can do this all while dualweilding and maximizing their DPS since all their DPS abilitys are not tied to their stances, and the fact they don't even need to use a shield while gaining this.

No other tank gains innate protection while not using a shield, I don't think brawlers should either, I think they should have to sacrifice a slot to gain protection just like plate tanks and all the other classes do (or some classes should have this innate avoidance as well while not using a shield.)

[Bruener]

Soul_Dreamer wrote:

Netty wrote:

I agree 100% that guardians work fine now. Imo its the only tank class atm that work 100% as it should do. The fixes he is talking about is the guardian rewamp. And that did do wonders for the class. Since in SF we had huge problems with it. Thats why i played my zerk in sf. I wouldent say it was balanced in sf but it was as close as it ever have been. with only the guardian class lacking. Untill they fixed it with the rewamp. However they nerfed the other fighters aswell and that was abit over the top since they dident add anything to make up for it. AD 50% damage half the time was over the top. But it was the only way zerks had to work as a raid tank. make it 25% in this expansion wont change much since co-op strikes huge aoes and dt still would kill you. It would still let the zerk class shine abit more tanking more than one mob. And give it abit easier time for the healers.

Small changes need to be done to brawlers nothing huge. And a few small fixes to crusaders and zerks and it would be balanced again. If they dont want to give pallys stone skin what about a short duration ward off all inc damage for a short time. That would work the same only be aply in another way.

The Guardian changes came in during SF, Bruener is claiming we got buffed up with DOV release as well, which just isn't true. The only changes with DoV release that directly effected the Guardian were the new AA's and we share those with Zerks and they are hardly brilliant or over powered.

I'm not saying that Pally/Zerk/SK don't need buffs in certain areas, they do, and I've said it in a lot of threads, most tanks agree they do. Watching Bruener claim things which just aren't true, to justify buffing the crap out of SK's again (which is what he wants) annoys me.

Took me a while to reply back.  I think Guards are fine where they are at, that doesn't mean that they won't get jack on the next go around since them along with Brawlers are the ones perceived as ruling this xpac.  It comes down to perception which is why Crusaders got jack in DoV along with nerfs with Bezerkers, while the other 3 tanks did not get nerfed and in the case of Brawlers got even more ways to deal with damage.  What SOE sees and hears is that DoV is dominated by Brawlers and Guards while Crusaders and Zerkers are lacking.  There are nerfs, and than there is buffing everybody else...net result is the same.

As to the claim that Guards did not get anything in DoV, how about an entire expansion built completely around their strengths of handling one shots?

Personally I would be fine with where SK survivability is right now if there was some advantage in other areas.  Fighter DPS is junk, no raid cares about it and honestly even if SKs were top Fighter dps (which they aren't that goes to Brawlers) nobody cares because its like bringing the king of the midgets.  10% more DPS on low DPS is nothing compared to the 100% more DPS you can get by having a more survivable tank and needing less tanks/healers.  This carries over into the area that SKs should shine lacking the survivability, agro.  SKs depend on DPS for agro more than other Fighters, having less taunts/reactive hate/ and no built in siphon.  Having less survivability should mean some type of serious advantage somewhere.  Something that a raid says hey even with less survivability this class is a great option because it gives us better ___________ in return.  With hate mechanics now and allowing classes to transfer/buff tanks any Fighter can step into the right set up and hold hate no problem.  That is what should change.