Reckless Stance is not solving the problem it stated it would.

[Yimway]

I don't think this stance is working at all like Xelgad said it would.  Specifically this was to increase dps from fighters not tanking to help raids running excess fighters.   In doing so we would take significantly more damage as a result.

There are 2 issues with the stance where it clearly isn't making the impact it was stated it would:

1.  DPS is not significantly increased for atleast 1/2 of the fighter classes.

Running all SS EM raid content on my guard, I see only a 10-15% increase in DPS.  This isn't even noticeable really to anyone else on the raid but me, as the numbers are generally in the same place I'd be without using reckless stance.  I think this is partly exaserbated that the prestige ability that is also supposed to increase CA damage is not stacking with the potency increase, as in we're seeing CA's hit for similar damage if we are the mobs target or not. 

However; brawlers outside of some specific abilities in conjuction with TW are not seeing much of a boost at all from the stance.   Essentially, for most fighters the dps increase isn't evident to the raid force, so we're still going to not want to run the fighters you seemed to be looking to help out.

2. I can still MT atleast 50% if not more of the raid nameds we're pulling in reckless stance.

Now granted, since reckless stance doesn't in fact add very much dps increase, tanking in it is a bit silly, but if issue #1 is addressed and the stance actually provides a DPS bonus to all fighters, then I'm afraid issue #2 would also need to be addressed.

Are we going to get any communication from SoE on their observations of the intent of the ability working, and if we're going to see any more adjustments to fighter dps as a result?

I'm happy to email parses of the same raid force doing diffferent raid encounters with and without this stance to provide exact comparison data of how little the stance is actually affecting dps.  Or assist with any other data elements SoE development may find useful.

Thanks,

[Silzin]

Atan the problem is that on test there was a 100+ post thread laying out the problems and stating why it will not work and it was locked. I do agree that Reckless Stance is not doing what they intended it do it. As for part 2. There needs to be something that actually makes it hard to hold agro for long periods of time, change most (not all) tank snaps into Desnaps, Leave Rescue, and remove Block from working. these 3 things would probably make it work defensively the way it needs to. As for your Points 1. I am not sure without actually balancing the dps output of the fighters how to make Reckless benefit all tanks offensively the same. Using CB instead of Pot would not work since it would still favor the high dps fighters more than the low dps ones. I am just not sure what to do here, other than making a class specific buff that would have separate advantages and disadvantages for each tank.

[Yimway]

Silzin@Crushbone wrote:

As for your Points 1. I am not sure without actually balancing the dps output of the fighters how to make Reckless benefit all tanks offensively the same. Using CB instead of Pot would not work since it would still favor the high dps fighters more than the low dps ones. I am just not sure what to do here, other than making a class specific buff that would have separate advantages and disadvantages for each tank.

I don't disagree.  My post was just to clearly illustrate how it is not working as intended and it is not addressing the issue they set out to address in the way they said they were.

I was trying to avoid any discussion outside of, its clearly broken when the actual data is reviewed and compaired to their release information, and the interviews about the topic leading up to the change.

[jjlo69]

there are 2 current post about reckless and both are over 150 post respectively i honestly dont think a thrid will make a differnce but i wish you luck with it

[Yimway]

Uncle@Mistmoore wrote:

there are 2 current post about reckless and both are over 150 post respectively i honestly dont think a thrid will make a differnce but i wish you luck with it

I know there have been several debate threads.  I created this one just about the ability being 'broken' and not doing specifically what the dev who created said it would.

[Faildozer]

the problem with the stance is how do you increase the damage without making it so tanks get 1 shotted by trash aoes and the answer is remove avoidance mechanics.. AOEs that actually hit hard (none of the ones in EM SS) still hit the tanks for a LOT so increasinng the incoming damage would make the stance even moreso unusable on any challenging content.

[Yimway]

Faildozer@Permafrost wrote:

the problem with the stance is how do you increase the damage without making it so tanks get 1 shotted by trash aoes and the answer is remove avoidance mechanics.. AOEs that actually hit hard (none of the ones in EM SS) still hit the tanks for a LOT so increasinng the incoming damage would make the stance even moreso unusable on any challenging content.

Set uncontested avoidance to 0 in reckless stance.

Take the base 50 potency and change it to CB.

Those are just some starter ideas that would accomplish what they said they wanted to accomplish.

[Rageincarnate]

don't forget ability reuse !  please for the love of pete.  (PETE NEEDS LUV)

mr grayed out hotbars is sad when theres no buttons to push.

[hoosierdaddy]

Atan@Unrest wrote:

I don't think this stance is working at all like Xelgad said it would.  Specifically this was to increase dps from fighters not tanking to help raids running excess fighters.   In doing so we would take significantly more damage as a result.

There are 2 issues with the stance where it clearly isn't making the impact it was stated it would:

1.  DPS is not significantly increased for atleast 1/2 of the fighter classes.

Running all SS EM raid content on my guard, I see only a 10-15% increase in DPS.  This isn't even noticeable really to anyone else on the raid but me, as the numbers are generally in the same place I'd be without using reckless stance.  I think this is partly exaserbated that the prestige ability that is also supposed to increase CA damage is not stacking with the potency increase, as in we're seeing CA's hit for similar damage if we are the mobs target or not. 

However; brawlers outside of some specific abilities in conjuction with TW are not seeing much of a boost at all from the stance.   Essentially, for most fighters the dps increase isn't evident to the raid force, so we're still going to not want to run the fighters you seemed to be looking to help out.

2. I can still MT atleast 50% if not more of the raid nameds we're pulling in reckless stance.

Now granted, since reckless stance doesn't in fact add very much dps increase, tanking in it is a bit silly, but if issue #1 is addressed and the stance actually provides a DPS bonus to all fighters, then I'm afraid issue #2 would also need to be addressed.

Are we going to get any communication from SoE on their observations of the intent of the ability working, and if we're going to see any more adjustments to fighter dps as a result?

I'm happy to email parses of the same raid force doing diffferent raid encounters with and without this stance to provide exact comparison data of how little the stance is actually affecting dps.  Or assist with any other data elements SoE development may find useful.

Thanks,

1. You've written elsewhere that Guardians and Brawlers will still be the preferred MT's in nearly every raid force even after the fighter changes, which is completely true. Crusaders still do not have the amount or quality of saves and aggro snaps of guardians and brawlers.

I guess what I'm getting at is that you can't have your cake and eat it too. That is, you can't say I'm currently the best main tank class in the game, yet am being out-dps's by our off-tanks. In most cases, off tanks are dealing with numerous adds, while the MT is forced to stick to the primary target. This in itself will produce wildly different parses.

2. You can still tank 50% of names in reckless stance? Well, I'm guessing that is not the case for 95% of tanks whose gear would not compare to that of a long-time, established raider and leader of a guild who has ready access to whatever drops. I found too that I can tank all of EM Skyshrine and some HM Drunder in Reckless-(mainly trash in Drunder). But for the fights that really count, such as Sullon--or anything in PoW, there is no way on Norrath you're MT'ing it--or even OT'ing it--in Reckless.

The fact is that certain, more difficult encounters require 3-4 tanks and, while en route to those encounter, those additonal tanks should be contributing to the raid in some measurable way. Developers have chosen DPS as this way, as well as whatever utility fighter classes already bring.

The only fighter class I see as really being overlooked in this equation is berzerkers, who don't have the tools to MT as well as Guardians and Brawlers, yet who also do not have many abiltiies that would be affected by an increase in Potency. Perhaps a more direct addressing of their issues would solve this problem.

[Yimway]

hoosierdaddy wrote:

1. You've written elsewhere that Guardians and Brawlers will still be the preferred MT's in nearly every raid force even after the fighter changes, which is completely true. Crusaders still do not have the amount or quality of saves and aggro snaps of guardians and brawlers.

2. You can still tank 50% of names in reckless stance? Well, I'm guessing that is not the case for 95% of tanks whose gear would not compare to that of a long-time, established raider and leader of a guild who has ready access to whatever drops. I found too that I can tank all of EM Skyshrine and some HM Drunder in Reckless-(mainly trash in Drunder). But for the fights that really count, such as Sullon--or anything in PoW, there is no way on Norrath you're MT'ing it--or even OT'ing it--in Reckless.

Regarding:

1) And those times the brawler is MTing and I'm dpsing trash, it would be nice for reckless to actually do something to my dps that is remotely meaningful or even noticable.  Which as I listened to the interviews with producers and developers about this mechanic, was what I understood it would do.  10-15% increase is nothing noticable at all, the raid is still better off sitting extra tanks until we get to the few encounters that actually need them.

2) My point is, if the stance is actually fixed so that as I descrived in the first condition I can actually increase my dps by a recognizable amount (30%?)  that it would then require fixing the fact that the stance doesn't really bias enough from tanking while using it.  Cause fixing #1 without addressing #2 would be having my cake and eating it too.

I'm bringing this up, as while these issues are evident to me, I think its only a matter of time before the masses realize the same thing.  Ie, once all the hoopla dies down and everyone really compairs using it, not using it, having the tanks stay in raid, not having them stay in raid, the net effect will result in almost no change.

I'm honestly leaving my personal fealings about the stance out of this thread, but if they really want to address the issue they said they did, this needs more work, cause what we have isn't what they sold us.

[hoosierdaddy]

Atan@Unrest wrote:

hoosierdaddy wrote:

1. You've written elsewhere that Guardians and Brawlers will still be the preferred MT's in nearly every raid force even after the fighter changes, which is completely true. Crusaders still do not have the amount or quality of saves and aggro snaps of guardians and brawlers.

2. You can still tank 50% of names in reckless stance? Well, I'm guessing that is not the case for 95% of tanks whose gear would not compare to that of a long-time, established raider and leader of a guild who has ready access to whatever drops. I found too that I can tank all of EM Skyshrine and some HM Drunder in Reckless-(mainly trash in Drunder). But for the fights that really count, such as Sullon--or anything in PoW, there is no way on Norrath you're MT'ing it--or even OT'ing it--in Reckless.

Regarding:

1) And those times the brawler is MTing and I'm dpsing trash, it would be nice for reckless to actually do something to my dps that is remotely meaningful or even noticable.  Which as I listened to the interviews with producers and developers about this mechanic, was what I understood it would do.  10-15% increase is nothing noticable at all, the raid is still better off sitting extra tanks until we get to the few encounters that actually need them.

2) My point is, if the stance is actually fixed so that as I descrived in the first condition I can actually increase my dps by a recognizable amount (30%?)  that it would then require fixing the fact that the stance doesn't really bias enough from tanking while using it.  Cause fixing #1 without addressing #2 would be having my cake and eating it too.

I'm bringing this up, as while these issues are evident to me, I think its only a matter of time before the masses realize the same thing.  Ie, once all the hoopla dies down and everyone really compairs using it, not using it, having the tanks stay in raid, not having them stay in raid, the net effect will result in almost no change.

I'm honestly leaving my personal fealings about the stance out of this thread, but if they really want to address the issue they said they did, this needs more work, cause what we have isn't what they sold us.

Perhaps those times the brawler is MT'ing and a third or fourth tank aren't needed, you shouldn't be DPS'ing trash, but you should be one of those tanks sitting and allowing the more DPS-capable OT's to do their jobs.

I just find it difficult to give guardians and brawlers a substantial increase in DPS, when they are still so far above the rest of the fighter pack in terms of survivability.

Part of me believes this change was to force guilds to break away from the strict practice of using Guardians/Brawlers exclusively as MT's/OT's, and of making the other fighter classes somehow desirable by filling a specific role within raids.

I'm not directly refuting your argument that after some time has passed, server-side data should be reviewed and changes should be made if necessary.

I just don't see recklessness being a game-breaking issue or detrimental to raid forces in any immediate way. From my own pexperience, more DPS has never been a bad thing.

If that means occasionally sitting the undisputed best MT's in favor of OT's for the sake of their DPS cabilities, so be it.

Guilds have not had a problem for the last two years altogether ignoring every other fighter class in game besides Guards and Brawlers, so why should they have a problem allowing these other classes to meaningfully contribute in some way to raids while they are not tanking or off-tanking?

[Yimway]

hoosierdaddy wrote:

Guilds have not had a problem for the last two years altogether ignoring every other fighter class in game besides Guards and Brawlers, so why should they have a problem allowing these other classes to meaningfully contribute in some way to raids while they are not tanking or off-tanking?

I don't really agree with this statement.  There are quite a few HM encounters I can think of that strongly encourage us to have AE focused OT's.  A zerker, sk or paladin does a far better job than I do dealing with the adds on dagarn HM for example.

As you stated, I'm the leader of a long time raid guild, and we have kept classes like these on the roster, and in fact, brawler/guard are not our prefered OT, but sometimes I'm there and it would be nice to do some dps when I'm not needed to tank.

But we're sorta getting afield,  reckless was supposed to provide a dps increase to all fighters (not tanking) so that raids running more fighters would not be as penalized.  They didn't sell it as raids running crusaders wouldn't be as penalized.

[Silzin]

Not to get to fare off topic here, but lets try to stop with the generalizations and lumping both brawlers and both Crusaders together.  I know that both brawlers are capable of OTing, Bruisers more than monks, and both are capable of MTing, monks more than Bruisers.  Paladins are very capable of MTing and even OTing in the current content, sure there may be a few mobs they may have a harder time of, but I work with a Pally that does it all of time. 

Back on topic I do agree that it is not working as they said they wanted it to work.  we can come up with ideas to fix it all day long, but till the Dev's admit that it not working as intended it will do no good.  If classes need more offensive or defensive tools to bring them up to the perceived par of the other tanks then that is a nether discussion. 

[Neonblue]

For an SK, Reckless stance is great.  I was two grouping the Skyshrine raid zones with some guildies with a jcap and UT, and it worked really well.  I was just behind T1 dps on single target, and tops or close on group encounters on the parse.  Which is about what I would expect, being it was our alts and I was also healing and dpsing on my other toons and mostly facerolling on the SK.

Also I was able to switch to defensive stance for the few names I needed to tank, like the tank switch on the first name in UD.  I still don't think my guild is ready to let my SK enter the raid as a DPSer and ask for the JCAP and UT, but its at least an option that evetually some guilds or people will try, which is something new and fun.  

My point is I think the stance does work, and there is still some stigma about the tank class being a dps that will take time to dissolve.  I agree its not equal for all tanks right now, but a lot of things in the game isn't equal, so at least for now 3 or 4 tanks can at least raid on their tank as dps and be able to switch to OT or MT role if the main tank is afk killing his weeds in his yard or somethin.

I think the main problem is with such power is it sucks to go back to defensive stance.  I just want to keep killing in reckless or not at all.  I have done all the heroic stuff in reckless and I have no desire to do it in defensive, so if I don't get a healer that can keep me up it would suck.  When I go into the heroic CM zones I cry a little inside when I need to switch stances.

[Yimway]

Neonblue wrote:

For an SK...

...the stance does work

Yes, you are correct, it works for SKs, it however does not really work for most other fighters, thus the point of my post.  As stated, it only affects my dps by 10-15% at best which isn't even noticeable by anyone in the raid force other than myself.

[Koleg]

Atan@Unrest wrote:

Neonblue wrote:

For an SK...

...the stance does work

Yes, you are correct, it works for SKs, it however does not really work for most other fighters, thus the point of my post.  As stated, it only affects my dps by 10-15% at best which isn't even noticeable by anyone in the raid force other than myself.

CB would have been a more even choice for the Dev's to make without a doubt, but they must have had a reason they chose Potency over CB.  There could have been a larger weapon multiple inn place of Potency which would have been more evenly distributed across the fighter classes as well.  But regardless of what particular Stat was boosted, there would ultimately be some fighter classes which would not fair as well as others.

The past 2+ years has shown that Monk (not brawler) & Guardian tanks have been nearly the entire population of MT & OT positions.  Raiding guilds want to carry more fighters for certain encounters.  There is a large number of non-Monk & non-Guardian fighters available without a role in a raid.  This is what Reckless 'seems' to be addressing.  It's possible they sold everyone a bill of goods and left out some fine print.

It's understandable that every class wants the best for their class, but is it reasonable.  Changing Potency to CB will only make the best two tank classes even better than they are when stacked next to the 4 others.  So, I'd have to ask; "Why would SOE support the continued monopoly of the tanking role when Reckless is designed implemented to be inclusive of all the fighter classes?"  Making the best tank better is not going to make any raiding guild carry more fighter_001's, it would only make raiding guilds carry more of the best fighter_001's, a.k.a. Guardians & Monks.

You know that is what you're pointing out.  You're just painting the picture that SOE Dev's said one thing and did another, but I'm fairly sure that the community said all of that would happen back several months before it hit test.

[Goozman]

Still dumbfounded by why people think this wasn't a huge benefit for brawlers. With recklessness, my generic heroic geared monk shot up to 290k dps on an epic dummy, 345k with a dirge in the group, not casting anything. By contrast my equally geared paladin was 175k. Paladin single target abilities are extremely low damage, whereas both brawlers have very high damage combat arts. I won't debate who benefitted the most between monks, bruisers and shadowknights, though.

If everyone's still using nether wing parses to discern who received the most benefit from reckless stance... well, then everyone is stupid.

I think Paladins and Berserkers need some other bonus from the stance to make it worthwhile on non-nether wing fights; but I can also agree that the stance should do more to inhibit tanking. Simple damage increases don't cut it. There needs to be some nerf to uncontested blocking. 

[Hammieee]

[quote=chorboy;2000497]Mystic, Warden, Beastlord, Illy, Ranger. Tried out new recklessness over(lulz)poweredness: Edit: Merged Is Mystikus Terrorwing

[Davngr]

Goozman wrote:

Still dumbfounded by why people think this wasn't a huge benefit for brawlers. With recklessness, my generic heroic geared monk shot up to 290k dps on an epic dummy, 345k with a dirge in the group, not casting anything. By contrast my equally geared paladin was 175k. Paladin single target abilities are extremely low damage, whereas both brawlers have very high damage combat arts. I won't debate who benefitted the most between monks, bruisers and shadowknights, though.

If everyone's still using nether wing parses to discern who received the most benefit from reckless stance... well, then everyone is stupid.

I think Paladins and Berserkers need some other bonus from the stance to make it worthwhile on non-nether wing fights; but I can also agree that the stance should do more to inhibit tanking. Simple damage increases don't cut it. There needs to be some nerf to uncontested blocking. 

monks are boderline because of overpowerd dragon fire but for brusier this change was meh.

[Davngr]

Atan@Unrest wrote:

Neonblue wrote:

For an SK...

...the stance does work

Yes, you are correct, it works for SKs, it however does not really work for most other fighters, thus the point of my post.  As stated, it only affects my dps by 10-15% at best which isn't even noticeable by anyone in the raid force other than myself.

it's amazing for both crusaders and even monk gets a boost far above warriors and bruiser.     tbh it's balanced and could even stand to gain some damage for both warriors and bruiser but terribly broken for crusaders.

[Laretha]

I dont actually think its working as intended and really it should never have gotten into the game.

Its the wrong way to go around doing what it needs to do.  

Seriously there where far better ways to increase dps for melee fighters than upping PoT and honestly for raids I see where the balance between tanks fails but in group instance it just become OP and any one change that increases all fighter dps is just going to blow the whole problem out of proportions again.

Why not make it a buff that added 2 more attacks ( Like MA so from 6 to 8 attacks)  to auto attack either ranged or melee, that made it impossible to tank with so no tanks are tanking stuff in the stance.  ( and with maybe the odd dehate)

Rather a simple fix evey tank would benifit from.   

Oh if 2 is not enough make it 3 and there is ur 30% increase in DPS

[Silzin]

thankfully this thread has had a difference. From the Test Patch Notes for 8/8/2012: "ABILITIES / ALTERNATE ADVANCEMENT Fighter While in Recklessness, you will not be able to block any attacks unless you have a “will block all attacks” buff active."

Edit:

this does not adress that it gives a larger boost to Crusaders than brawlers and Warriors tho.

[Xaxtionlorex]

I'd rather they adress the amount of damage taken from AoE/non phsyical/non auto attack before they start changing other things, im fine getting rocked in the face tanking, but normal scripted aoe's shouldnt make me race for a stone skin, the threat gen as well is still pretty much worthless, need to get rid of that.

[Geothe]

Removing the avoidance skills while in Reckless was a good first step.Now, modify the take 50% more damage from all the time to when the fighter is the direct target.  Fighters will take normal AE damage (and not soak up all the group ward) while being penalized if they pull agro with taking increased damage.

As for the DPS increase portion of the stance... adding massive amounts of potency was simply completely ill thought out.

There should just be a flat-out percentage based damage modifier.ie.  When in reckless stance, ALL damage (CA, Spell, Autoattack) is increased by 30% (applied after potency/CB etc).

That way ALL fighters recieve the same damage increase and it is balanced across the archaetype. 

[hoosierdaddy]

Silzin@Crushbone wrote:

thankfully this thread has had a difference. From the Test Patch Notes for 8/8/2012: "ABILITIES / ALTERNATE ADVANCEMENT Fighter While in Recklessness, you will not be able to block any attacks unless you have a “will block all attacks” buff active."

Edit:

this does not adress that it gives a larger boost to Crusaders than brawlers and Warriors tho.

This also does not address that Monks and Guards are quite a bit more defensive than Crusaders.

In light of this "fix," can we see a mechanic introduced which reduces Brawler and Guardian survivability to be more in line with other fighter classes?

Thanks in advance.

(I read this as, "Whew! Thankfully, we've cried enough about other fighter's viability that we'll retain our undisputed place at the top of the tanking ladder." I mean, really? A monk coming on the forums and complaining about another fighter classes abilities? Really?)

[Rageincarnate]

Goozman wrote:

Still dumbfounded by why people think this wasn't a huge benefit for brawlers. With recklessness, my generic heroic geared monk shot up to 290k dps on an epic dummy, 345k with a dirge in the group, not casting anything. By contrast my equally geared paladin was 175k. Paladin single target abilities are extremely low damage, whereas both brawlers have very high damage combat arts. I won't debate who benefitted the most between monks, bruisers and shadowknights, though.

If everyone's still using nether wing parses to discern who received the most benefit from reckless stance... well, then everyone is stupid.

I think Paladins and Berserkers need some other bonus from the stance to make it worthwhile on non-nether wing fights; but I can also agree that the stance should do more to inhibit tanking. Simple damage increases don't cut it. There needs to be some nerf to uncontested blocking. 

yes, and your purposely leaving out the high reuse on brawler ca's. 

zerkers ca's are terrible.  fix please.

I have no input on pallies as i havent logged mine in except to farm in years.

[Rageincarnate]

hoosierdaddy wrote:

Silzin@Crushbone wrote:

thankfully this thread has had a difference. From the Test Patch Notes for 8/8/2012: "ABILITIES / ALTERNATE ADVANCEMENT Fighter While in Recklessness, you will not be able to block any attacks unless you have a “will block all attacks” buff active."

Edit:

this does not adress that it gives a larger boost to Crusaders than brawlers and Warriors tho.

This also does not address that Monks and Guards are quite a bit more defensive than Crusaders.

In light of this "fix," can we see a mechanic introduced which reduces Brawler and Guardian survivability to be more in line with other fighter classes?

Thanks in advance.

(I read this as, "Whew! Thankfully, we've cried enough about other fighter's viability that we'll retain our undisputed place at the top of the tanking ladder." I mean, really? A monk coming on the forums and complaining about another fighter classes abilities? Really?)

I'm fairly sure you are breaking forum rules by asking for nerfs without any reasoning.  The post is about reckless.. not your classes abilities...  You might disagree but "the monk" has a point.. you don't.

[hoosierdaddy]

Rageincarnate@Unrest wrote:

hoosierdaddy wrote:

Silzin@Crushbone wrote:

thankfully this thread has had a difference. From the Test Patch Notes for 8/8/2012: "ABILITIES / ALTERNATE ADVANCEMENT Fighter While in Recklessness, you will not be able to block any attacks unless you have a “will block all attacks” buff active."

Edit:

this does not adress that it gives a larger boost to Crusaders than brawlers and Warriors tho.

This also does not address that Monks and Guards are quite a bit more defensive than Crusaders.

In light of this "fix," can we see a mechanic introduced which reduces Brawler and Guardian survivability to be more in line with other fighter classes?

Thanks in advance.

(I read this as, "Whew! Thankfully, we've cried enough about other fighter's viability that we'll retain our undisputed place at the top of the tanking ladder." I mean, really? A monk coming on the forums and complaining about another fighter classes abilities? Really?)

I'm fairly sure you are breaking forum rules by asking for nerfs without any reasoning.  The post is about reckless.. not your classes abilities...  You might disagree but "the monk" has a point.. you don't.

Thanks for the refresher. After seven years posting here, I'd almost forgotten.

What is this thread and the thread below it regarding Reckless Stance if not a request for a nerf?

And anyway, my suggestion was a jestful response to the "class warfare" to which this issue has escalated.

Lighten up. (I was born to speak only mirth and no matter.)

Edit: Kidding aside, I think you'll see that I do have a point. I'm incredulous that a monk would come to these forums and ask for an ability which benefits certain classes more than others to be removed. I'd have liked Strikethrough immunity to have been removed a lot sooner, like everyone knows it should have, but I'd have never been petty enough to actually ask for it.

[Silzin]

hoosierdaddy wrote:

Silzin@Crushbone wrote:

thankfully this thread has had a difference. From the Test Patch Notes for 8/8/2012: "ABILITIES / ALTERNATE ADVANCEMENT Fighter While in Recklessness, you will not be able to block any attacks unless you have a “will block all attacks” buff active."

Edit:

this does not adress that it gives a larger boost to Crusaders than brawlers and Warriors tho.

This also does not address that Monks and Guards are quite a bit more defensive than Crusaders.

In light of this "fix," can we see a mechanic introduced which reduces Brawler and Guardian survivability to be more in line with other fighter classes?

Thanks in advance.

(I read this as, "Whew! Thankfully, we've cried enough about other fighter's viability that we'll retain our undisputed place at the top of the tanking ladder." I mean, really? A monk coming on the forums and complaining about another fighter classes abilities? Really?)

If you are infering that Guard's and Monk's are more Defensive then SK's.  Well yes Monks and Guards are Defensive tanks and SK's are an Offensive tank.  If you want a Defensive Crusader then look at the Paladin,  they are not perfect, but I have seen them in action and they can tank just about anything I can. 

...But I digress, back to Reckless Stance ...

I am not saying that it needs to give Crusaders less of a boost to dps, it just needs to go all other tanks the same 30%+ boost.  I know I can put up some nice dps on my monk when I have the gear setup for dps and all just right, but I know that Guards don't get that much out of this.  Sorry Zerkers and Bruisers, I don't have any experience around yall.

I really like the suggestion here about a +30% to all outgoing dps after everything.  In that way it would help the lvl 20 warrior the same as it would help the 92 raid geared SK. 

[Yimway]

hoosierdaddy wrote:

Silzin@Crushbone wrote:

thankfully this thread has had a difference. From the Test Patch Notes for 8/8/2012: "ABILITIES / ALTERNATE ADVANCEMENT Fighter While in Recklessness, you will not be able to block any attacks unless you have a “will block all attacks” buff active."

Edit:

this does not adress that it gives a larger boost to Crusaders than brawlers and Warriors tho.

(I read this as, "Whew! Thankfully, we've cried enough about other fighter's viability that we'll retain our undisputed place at the top of the tanking ladder." I mean, really? A monk coming on the forums and complaining about another fighter classes abilities? Really?)

No, he was stating that this thread has pushed the issue of not enough negative penalty for tanking in reckless stance.  With the complete removal of block from the stance you will likely see no one tank anything more than a dozen seconds or so in this stance. 

With this change, if you get agro and hit one of your 'block all attacks for x seconds' or 'parry all for x' or whatever you wont immediately go splat, but since your avoidance is now practically nill, you'll be dead if you try to maintain agro in this stance.

Its a step in the right direction, but doesn't exactly address the remaining 2 issues:

1) Hate gain is still way too high

2) Not all fighters get a measured increase in dps from the stance.