-Bruiser tanking justified and rejustified-

[Neofa]

---

 

   ::If this message is hard for your to read I have provided an alternative version without any formatting:: http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=spellart&message.id=24267

 

---

          

             As I read through these threads, and play the actual game, I have decided to advocate specifically for my class, the Bruiser, using a means of basic explanation of where "tanks", in everquest II, came from. As such, I will attempt to unfold what, I think, our class (Bruiser) should be capable of through the use of SOE's provided information and design origins.  I will use repetition of the sound facts of design stated by sony for the benefit of Tanking classes.  Through which It should be shown, without a doubt, the Class: Bruiser is not only classified as a "Tank", but was designed as one; therefore shedding light on the question: ((Are bruiser's tanks?)).  Furthermore, given the ironclad evidence below, Sony and players who either approve or dissaprove of the Bruiser's current and future status will have to accept the justification that Bruisers are Tanks and, as such, Bruisers should be granted adequate ablities to protect theirselves and their party members from in-game opposition.

 

Provided that a pre-requisite of living is required in order to "keep party members alive from in-game opposition", the current condition of the Bruiser Class abilities is sub-par.  As of the February 1st, 2005 patch bruisers lost a large majority of their "tanking" ability.  As a result, this class, derived from the Fighter Archetype, is no longer even meeting the standards required to protect a group of people from normal in-game encounters. 

 

The fact stands alone that a class should possess the fundamental traits inherited from it's Archetype.

 

In this case, Bruisers should inherit the traits, thereby producing functional tank abilities, of the Archetype Fighter.

 

Just for continuity, all tanks should posess the fundamental traits found present in the Fighter Archetype.

 

  

 

 

First, lets go to the basics:

 

Sony designed the Class system from Archetypes.

 

The design was (and is)  -- Pick your Archetype,   Level to 10 then pick your Class,    Level to 20 and pick your final profession (Sub)Class.

 

Going by design, this game was created so that you had 4 Archetypes. (Fighter) (Priest) (Mage) (Scout)

 

Before we go any further, lets take a look at just exactly what an "Archetype" is::

 

 

 

---

ar·che·type  (ärk-tp)

n.

1. An original model or type after which other similar things are patterned; a prototype: "'Frankenstein' . . . 'Dracula' . . . 'Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde' . . . the archetypes that have influenced all subsequent horror stories"New York Times.

2. An ideal example of a type; quintessence: an archetype of the successful entrepreneur.

3. In Jungian psychology, an inherited pattern of thought or symbolic imagery derived from the past collective experience and present in the individual unconscious.

 

[Latin archetypum, from Greek arkhetupon, from neuter of arkhetupos, original : arkhe-, arkhi-, archi- + tupos, model, stamp.]

 

And..

 

"An Achetype can be thought of as a model after which other things can be patterned, a prototype or a permanent underlying structure."

---

Given the factual information here, we can deduce that each Archetype - Fighter, Priest, Mage, or Scout is the original model or type in which other similar things are modeled.

Also, along the same thinking in different wording, our Archetypes are the models after which each Class and Subclass is patterned, or More accurately a permanent underlying structure!

Now lets apply this with Everquest II Terminology.

The Fighter Archetype is the underlying structure of each of the final classes:  Berserker - Guardian - Bruiser - Monk - Paladin - Shadowknight. 

Ok, we're still left with a simple statement that provokes many questions, some of which are:

• What is a fighter?    

 

• What is this "Archetype" in which the 6 aforementioned classes are made of?    

 

• What is their underlying structure? 

 

• What pattern(s), according to our games creators', is intended to be expected in each of these Six Classes of the Fighter Archetype?

 

Keep these questions, and your own, in mind as hopefully the answer will reveal itself as you continue..

 

Using factual information, verbatim from the Everquest II Manual:

"Fighters enjoy the thick of the fray, often absorbing the brunt of the attacks while taking the battle to the enemy directly.  Fighters can wear a variety of armor, and employ a host of weapons and combat arts to defeat enemies."

"Fighters use brute strength and sturdy weapons to deal physical damage to their enemies.  Always at the forefront of combat, Fighters stand toe-to-toe with opponents while keeping their allies from harm."

End of verbatim quotation from the SOE, Everquest II, manual.

 

 

Now, without using anything that is Nonfactual, and with explanation, we can see the very basic fabric of what each of these Six Classes, derived from the Fighter Archetype, is supposed to consist of.  (I use suppose because this is not being written as a dictionary for Sony's Fighter classes, but moreso because there are conflictions and contraindictions between what was created, said, and written verse what now exists, is UN-said, and NOT-written.) 

So what do we have so far?  The Fighter Archetype is the DNA, (if you will), of Guardians, Monks, Bruisers, Berserkers, Paladins, and Shadowknights.

---

(From here on out I will refer to these Six Classes: Guardian, Bruiser, Paladin, Monk, Shadowknight, Berserkers as Tanks.)

---

If each Tank class is composed of the Structure of the Fighter, then EACH and EVERY one of these classes will possess the same basic abilities.

These abilities are drawn from the Fighter Archetype, once again, which would produce things such as:

 

1) Enjoying the thick of the fray

This indicates a schematic in which tanks flourish in the heat of battle, in other words tanks live up to their Archetypically given potential in battle, (Or the "Fray").

2) Absorbing the brunt of attacks

Clearly this shows that tanks were designed to take the damage from enemies.  That they were NOT designed to receive a little bit of an enemies attack, but instead patterned to take on the brunt of attacks.

3) Battling the Enemy Directly

Simple,.. Tanks were designed and aren't doing their job if they are anywhere else but fighting the mobs full frontal!

4) Use brute strength and sturdy weapons to deal physical damage to their enemies.

Every tank was given strength, and through use of this strength and various weaponry they are, by design, expected to contribute to the demolition of any and all enemies.

5) Always at the forefront of combat, stand toe-to-toe with opponents while keeping their allies from harm.

This ties back into number 3, but doesn't hurt to be said again.. Tanks are their best "at the forefront of combat".  You simply can't be any plainer than that.  However, more importantly related to the current issue at hand is the unarguable point that tanks  DO,  in fact, keep their allies from harm. ------| Keep this statement in mind for the remainder of this explanation.  Tanks, ALL tanks, according to their model of design, are to, without question, have the ability to keep their party (ie: group members) alive!  This trait is one of a fairly short list of basic fundamentals that prooves ALL tanks should be capable of satisfactorily keeping their party alive.

---

 

Now we understand what an Archtype is, and more specifically the basic traits that spawn the Archtype: Fighter.

Provided that we know the Archetype of a class, we could begin to describe the classes very basic nature without even knowing the class's "Name".  Basically, what I am trying to point out, is that upon Going from an Archetype to a Class then finally to your (Sub)Class does not equate to your (Sub)Class being absent or denied any of the abilities that your FORMER position, in the heirarchy of Character Classification , instrinsically held native to function.

---

 The, now,  conspicuously defined nature of the Classification system in everquest II at it's most root level leads way to the question:  Why was it designed this way?

The end result does not always, especially given the current state of affairs the Bruiser class resides, manifest or reveal the true intentions of the design.  Nor do they provide any exact reason why things are the way they are, but nonetheless ultimate justification of the design and it's end result is how well they best match.

It is my belief that this class system was designed in an effort to simplify the ever elusive efforts at "class balance".  This is a game we play, and no one wants their chosen class to be at a disadvantage when compared to class's of a similar role.  These classes and roles go hand in hand.

Each encounter needs a group of some consistency and balanced to produce power in order to be defeated.  Each group needs a certain diversity in class's to provide this power.  Each class, in order to balance the scales in the favor of success, or victory, needs to fill a certain role and/or roles.

For Example:

A group can consist of a maximum of 6 persons, and minimum of 2 persons.  If you are presented with an encounter of 4 grouped mobs that are classified (intended for a group of people as opposed to one person) then you will want to build a group that is capable of statistically emerging victorious  in this encounter.  Now, this is obvious, but in order to build something successful you need adequate parts.  Consider each class in the game a part.  For this particular encounter you need a group of at least 3 Player Character's (or parts), of adequate, functional condition of the following diversity. 

Member 1) --Class: Tank

With this class, you have the following classes that come from the Tank, or Fighter family tree:

Monk, Guardian, Bruiser, Paladin, Berserker, Paladin

 

Member 2) --Class Healer

With this class, you have the following classes that come from the Healer, or Priest family tree:

Templar, Inquisitor, Warden, Fury, Defiler, Mystic

 

Member 3)--Class DPS (or high damage producer)

With this class, you have the following class that come from the DPS role, or Scout and Mage family tree:

Brigand, Swashbuckler, Dirge, Troubadour, Assassin, Ranger, Warlock, Wizard, Illusionist, Coercer, Necromancer, Conjurer.

 

Now this layout is overly simplified, but does take into account the basic design principles of this [Everquest II] class system.

You, in very general terms, only have to pick what Roles you need to be filled and then have the luxury of choosing them from only (FOUR) categories.

You needed the role of a tank, or someone who, as mentioned in great detail above, can function as a "group shield" and take on the majority of the damage dished out by the encounter. (Even if this is accomplished through a combo of Avoidance + Mitigation)

Now with the need of this role, automatically generates the need of another role.  The role to heal this tank.  The tank must be healed, because that is a basic principle in Everquest gameplay.  In the encounter, the tank takes on all of the hits that he can, and the healer(s) keep this tank alive so they, themselves, will not die.  If one role, or part, of this system is taken away the entire system fails.  (Not always the case, but the system is much less efficient to put it nicely).

With this encounter you have someone to take the damage, and you have someone to sustain the person taking the damage, now you need someone capable of competently and in an acceptable haste produce damage towards the NPC's in the encounter,... in order to kill them,.. ultimately emerging victorious.

Group makeups can become much more complicated, and often do, but that is the very basic principle.

---

Out of this design I am going to take the role of tank:

We see above that the role of "Tank" can only be, by design, fulfilled competently by a Class derived from the ArcheType "Fighter".

We are given not one, not two, but Six! Choices.

Guardian, Berserker, Paladin, Monk, Bruiser, Shadowknight.

Out of these choices that are, by design, capable of fulfilling the tank role I will specifically choose the Class, or technically the (Sub)Class:  Bruiser.

Ok, we have a Tank, and it is of the class Bruiser.

Here inlies the basic problem,... out of these Six classes only 4 of them can function as a tank currently.

Before you start with the opposition to that statement, when I say function, I mean ALL of these things.::::

A) Perform the role adequately

B) Perform the role as originally designed

C) Are in demand to some degree by parties.  (If A and B are true, then C will be as well since the tank role is essential.)

D) Relating to C specifically, If class performs said role at the bottom of the (6) available -- The class has innate advantages that outweigh by a great measure the fact that they are, indeed, the poorest at the said role. 

---

The Paladin, and Shadowknight are two VERY similar yet different Tank classes,.. However, it is my belief and experience that they do fulfill the tanking role to a degree that is acceptable to others in need of them.  (I am on all classes side here, I am not saying that these particular classes are perfected by any measure).

The Guardian class is, in my opinion and I believe in SOE's, the best class at fulfilling this role of "Tank".  In my experience they have always been the most capable tanks, and the most desired.  However, the one thing I can say about Guardians is that there is still the Human element factor involved.  Thus, a party can still have the best in design, yet fair better with a lesser designed for the role due to this element.  (The game doesn't play itself )

The Beserker class fulfills the role of tank very well, .. while they offer a bit more variety to the party, as do differing (sub)classes of the same Archetype yet different "Class"'s often do, they still have their share of their own problems, but none are as severe in this regard.

The Monk is as close to my Sub(Class) as you can get without actually being a Bruiser.  I *think* monks are experiencing the exact same problems as the Bruiser class is, but I speak only for the Bruiser class here.

---

Finally -- The Bruiser Class,..  [Subclass of the (Brawler) Class]

This, *my*, class before the patch on 2/1/05 Fulfilled the role of tank satisfactorily in my opinion, and from the actions of others to the public as well.  However, I did notice that this class required a different healing strategy, different "parts" of the system, --- Different and specific Sub(Classes) of the Priest Archetype to be effective.

For example.. If I tried to tank with a single Healer of the Priest Archetype and of the Cleric Class --Either a Templar or Inquisitor I would fail miserably.  But, if I had either a healer of the Priest Archetype and of the Druid or Shaman Class -- Either a Warden, Fury, Defiler, or Mystic.  I was able to tank quite, quite well.  This was due in large part to the way the bruiser,and more broadly the Brawler (Encompassing Monks and Bruiser) Class handled incoming damage.

There are fundamently 3 ways one can handle incoming "Physical" damage.

1) Get hit for the full amount. 

2) Not get hit, or in other words the NPC Missed.

3) Git hit for a partial (Mitigated amount)

The Brawler class derived it's tanking properties from it's ability to use fundamental number #2.

Brawlers, have to use their agility to avoid the incommnig melee damage.  This agility is manifested in many ways,.. a brawler can dodge the attack, parry the attack, riposte the attack, and so on.  Basically we , as brawlers, depended on not getting hit to survive.  However, we do get hit some.  Inevitable of course.

Going back to the reasoning the specific healers worked for Brawlers, where the Cleric based healers did and do not...

Shamans have "Wards" which summed up are damage shields that when cast on a player absorb X amount of damage for Yseconds.  If you put two and two together you will come to the relevant conclusion that since brawlers avoid the incomming damage to a much higher degree, than do the other 4 subclasses of tanks, the "Ward" style of healing the Shaman class's provide allows our class to fulfill it's designed and intended role.

Druids, I am not as familiar with, but I do know they perform an acceptable healing role for a Brawler Tank.  I believe the druidic heals are regenerative in nature, rather than the clerics "Instant or reactice heals".  Given that regeneration takes time, it suits a brawler that fulfills his role to tank proportionatly to the degree in which he can avoid incoming hits, This is obviously predictable because if, for example, a brawler has 1000 hit points and a mob hits him for 100 hitpoints every 5 seconds then he would need a regenerative rate from this druid equal to 20 hitpoints per second or higher in order to stay alive.

The brawler is thus able to perform his role and duty because he can AVOID incomming hits to a degree that allows these Druidic and Shamanic healers spells the time to do their job.

How is this balanced? 

It is very balanced, and by design and even real life, a martial artist (Brawler in game) uses avoidance to lower incoming damage to a great degree verses a Knight in olden times, or a soldier in body armor (Plate Tanks in game -- The others basically) uses some avoidance but rely more on the mitigation of the incomming damage via his or her equipment.

This provides an ingenius way to tie Brawlers to Druids and Shaman healers, and Plate class tanks to Clerical Healers.

(Pre-patch) Brawlers = Lower mitigation, much higher avoidance, .. Seemingly needs a Shaman or Druid present to efficiently do the job ( Pre-patch status)

(Post-patch) Brawlers = Identical mitigation pre-patch, Avoidance is almost non existent,... No combination of healers will allow a Bruiser to tank in the capacity they once did, or a capacity in which is "O.K" with a party.  Bruisers: Have been turned into a burden on parties and are only seen with the ability to fill the "dps" role and no other.  While this role is wanted, due to the nature of Brawlers not being ranked as the TOP DPS producers in the game they are often overlooked for someone who can do a better job.  Where before, they could tank sufficiently, perhaps not as well as a plate-tank, but they provided a DPS boost that a plate clast didn't.  Thus, it was justified to allow a Brawler to Tank.   Now, there isn't justification for a brawler to tank, and I can't blame them.  Who would want a "broken part"? [Refer to my explanation further up].(Post Patch)

(Pre-Patch) Plate Tanks, (Guardians,Shadowknights, Paladins etc) = High Mitigation, and some avoidance due to the general nature of combat.    These tanks seem to do an adequate job with any of the 3 Classes of healers, but do a more efficient job with a Clerical healer. (Pre-Patch)

(Post-Patch) Plate Tanks = I don't play one, only witness what they do for groups and can guess.  However, it seems as if even their tanking was lowered a bit, the exact cause I couldn't accurately and confindently tell you.  Although it might statistically be lowered, in relavence to the Brawler class they are THE only tanks.  Basically the tank pool lowered from 6 to 4 to choose from.  With the Monks and Bruisers declassified as tanks.  I don't want to get into the status of these classes because quite frankly I don't have enough personal experience with them to make accurate judgement calls on in-game mechanics related to their ability.  This is observation only.  But, that is 95% of what anyone will take to heart, is what they see in their experiences in Everquest II Online. (Post-Patch)

 

Recommended remedies for the Brawler class:

• Please Re-establish the degree of avoidance to allow Brawlers to once again be a viable option to tank, (In an experience group, one group named settings)

 

• Think in terms of pre-patch status and healer specific techniques, and how that benefits more than just one class!

 

• Please Remember what we are, Fighters first, Then Brawlers, then either a Monk or a Bruiser.  But FIRST we are a fighter, therefore we are justified in our reasoning for a "remedy" to place us back in our rightful position to fulfill the tanking role.

 

• Please Do this without nerfing other abilities, or other classes!

 

• On the same note, please  remember that (In a non sarcastic tone), it isn't necessary nor required to take something away to give something.  Especially when it is rightfully the owners (The brawlers in this case), and they had it up until just recently.

 

• Other matters that are on the TOP of the list for Bruisers ---

 

• A) Armor Design --Too plain and no variety   B) Fun Spells (Fluff spells) -- Ours are a joke to be honest.  Not to be spiteful, but if our nemesis, yet archtypically the same, opposite only in Morals, Monks get "Tiger Form" and we get "Look like your dirty", Or "Poo is on my cloths", or "Instant plague ability (self only)" something is wrong.  A simple solution that would fit our class would be Black Panther Form, or simply "Panther Form".  This is more of an embarassing issue.

---

If you've managed to read this in entirity, I thank you,

Take care,

 

Neofate  [42] (Bruiser)

Message Edited by Neofate on 02-06-2005 07:00 PM

[EQ2Adam]

Can we say "Cliff Notes"?

[Lord Nik]

Real nice Adam, thanks for the constructive input. GJ Neofate, thanks for the write-up.

[Neofa]

Heh,

 

It's laid out best I could, there is alot of information there.  Being a bruiser most of it you already know and could skim the post stopping on topics that aren't familiar. 

 

Anyway, I know very few will actually read it, but it is more addressed to SOE, but would like everyone else's input on our Tanking ability Pre-patch and Post Patch.   I noticed it night and day,.. I would just like the option to tank again,..

 

From what I've gathered, to keep it simple, they adjusted the rate at which we, (and others I suppose), get hit.  By a large degree.  We tank by avoidance, IE: not getting hit.  Now, we get hit a large percentage of this time, thus we can no longer tank.

 

I suggest at minimum readjust this avoidance, just for Brawlers if possible, to a range that is a compromise between how we used to tank, and how we now can't really tank.

 

Example:  Before patch Bruiser1 gets hit 26% of the time,  spread this 26% over the entire fight, and it's fairly reliable incoming damage that you can mitigate with Wards, and Druidic regens.  Post patch same Bruiser1 now gets hit on avg of 79% of the time,.. Now not matter how it's spread, we're getting hit to a degree where our damage intake is many times greater than the ability to heal, via wards or Reactive.

 

Also, pre or post patch I've always done my best tanking with a Shaman or druid present.  If it was soley a cleric it wouldn't cut it.  I speak of all this in that novel I wrote above, but what are your experiences, and am I the only one?  I've read many a post talking about this very issue,.. I'm just trying to get things out in the public eye.

 

If you look at numbers, we are one of the lowest if not THE lowest , least popular class in the game.  Why swing the bat so hard at us?  Unless it was more an inadvertant nerf to AGI buffing (Hence scouts avoiding 99% of incoming blows with rediuclous AGI numbers).  This nerf to correct that imbalance just threw our relative balance off.

 

Just theories to ponder,... if you have answers, with facts, do tell.

 

Thanks,

 

[Demothis]

Problem is I am beguining to think we  brawlers are broken by design and I'll explain why. There are 2 types of tanks, deflection tanks and mitagation tanks. There isn't suposed to be avoidance tanks or scouts could do it, so thus needs to be deflection. Now here is the problem at hand, Trying to balance apples (Mit tanks) with oranges (defl tanks). Say if they did get it balanced so that we could tank whites evenly. Mit tanks at green-orange mobs are no diffrent in how the can deal with the damage, they dont dodge really the just absorb or lessen the damage. We as deflection tanks cant take those hits very well. So at white con we deflect most of the time, this means we tanks blues better then mit tanks because we get hit even less and greens we realy dont even need a healer. On the reverse end, yellows hit us more frequently then they should if things are balanced and oranges, well forget it. With the system as it stands, if it where to be balanced so that we could tank the yellow mobs as well as a guardian, we would practicaly be turned into gods against anything less with the mobs never able to land a blow against us.

 

They really need to restructue us with a deflections system that wors at the same pecentage against all mobs and then increase brawler mitigation until the tanking factor starts becoming balanced, alowing us to still mitigate the damage, just not as well and still be able to avoid the blows evenly reguadless of the toughness of the mob. So in essence, they need to make us weak mitigation tanks with some special deflection rules so that way its easier to balance the classes.

[Neofa]

Sounds good!  Still goes back to my whole point.. We as fighters are tanks, as such we deserve to be able to fill the roll in a regular experience group.  That means being able to tank green-blue-white-yellow- and red mobs (Ie: Cazic) .. to a lesser degree than beserkers.. It should go

 

Guardians --Best

Sk's - Pally's - Second

Beserkers - Third

Monks - Bruisers - Fourth (last place) -- But still workable, just not as good obviously..

 

With the damage tables on offense just the opposite.

 

Agree?

[Neofa]

Also -- In my Original Post I explained alot of just basic game design mechanics.. Alot of it is sound.  Now that you posted your theory on deflection and mitigation .. The bottom part about avoidance is off..(in my OP),.. but other parts are sound.

 

Basically it comes to this:  I don't really care what method they use, the technicalities of their system,.. I would just like for them to recognize the problem and put the effort in to truly balance it for all tanks.  But a quick temp fix for us would be cool till they can revamp it .. grin.

 

 

[Ghaleon]

Wordy but true ~

[Laha]

On the Monk class, I envision as someone gettin the beatdown and the monk sayin, "Now what did we learn"  Now the bruiser....  Ever see Knock around guys?  When the guy ticks off Vin Diesel and he takes off his coat and gives him the speech about how many guys he's beatin in street fights, the cold [Removed for Content] the guy. and after he hits the floor Diesel walks away and puts his coat back on...  yeah Vin Diesel in that movie, the ideal bruiser IMO

 

[justfr]

Nice post Neo.I dont think there will be a reply in this forum from a dev. But jeesh it would be nice to know where we stand.

[psubull]

A good post, but reading it felt like a test.  I thought I was supposed to study, thank God it wasn't.

[Dolf Goodchee]

I have a level 20 bruiser, yet I have to disagree with the viewpoint that the brawler/bruiser is now "nerfed".  I don't even like the term "nerfed" in this situation, as that is not what I see as happened.

 

My take on it is that SOE didn't catch their error, before releasing the game.  Their error being: of allowing a brawler/bruiser with high agility to be stacked with a lot more additional protection (too much).  Thus, at times making the classes rarely get hit by higher level enemies.   Players got used to running the brawlers/bruisers as MT to specific level mobs, but now that SOE has fixed their "playability error", those players are angry or upset.  Had SOE foreseen the error (semi-exploit IMO) and set it to what it is now, prior to launch, no one would be angry or upset now.

 

So, basically I don't see it as a "nerf", but as an error that has been corrected.

[Jenj]

---

Dolf Goodcheese wrote:

I have a level 20 bruiser, yet I have to disagree with the viewpoint that the brawler/bruiser is now "nerfed".  I don't even like the term "nerfed" in this situation, as that is not what I see as happened.

 

My take on it is that SOE didn't catch their error, before releasing the game.  Their error being: of allowing a brawler/bruiser with high agility to be stacked with a lot more additional protection (too much).  Thus, at times making the classes rarely get hit by higher level enemies.   Players got used to running the brawlers/bruisers as MT to specific level mobs, but now that SOE has fixed their "playability error", those players are angry or upset.  Had SOE foreseen the error (semi-exploit IMO) and set it to what it is now, prior to launch, no one would be angry or upset now.

 

So, basically I don't see it as a "nerf", but as an error that has been corrected.

---

Well, I cant fault your logic since your only a 20 level bruiser. But you really do need to play your class to the 30-40's. If you do, you will notice that this isnt the case where we had something good and lost it, but instead we are substandard tanks when compared to the other tank classes. I could point-out the details, but they are well covered in numerous posts in the monk/bruiser boards. If you are interested, I wrote-up a lengthly one a few days ago. Btw: my wizard is level 22 and tanks very well too. Although it would be flawed to make any rational conclusions to monk/bruier tanking abilities.

-Jenjer

[Fafnir]

Is what you are saying that you want better tanking (than currently) and the same dps?

 

The next post is about right:

Guardians --Best

Sk's - Pally's - Second

Beserkers - Third

Monks - Bruisers - Fourth (last place) -- But still workable, just not as good obviously..

 

With the damage tables on offense just the opposite.

I'm not sure if BER should be second or third.  Don't mind either way, subject to the proper dps.

 

By the way, is that not (generally) what currently exists?

Message Edited by Fafnir on 02-07-2005 08:28 PM

[Neofa]

---

Fafnir wrote:

Is what you are saying that you want better tanking (than currently) and the same dps?

 

The next post is about right:

Guardians --Best

Sk's - Pally's - Second

Beserkers - Third

Monks - Bruisers - Fourth (last place) -- But still workable, just not as good obviously..

 

With the damage tables on offense just the opposite.

I'm not sure if BER should be second or third.  Don't mind either way, subject to the proper dps.

 

By the way, is that not (generally) what currently exists?

Message Edited by Fafnir on 02-07-2005 08:28 PM

---

It is what exists if you take out the line "still workable, just not as good" and "with damage tables on offense just the opposite".

Currently the Guardian

                      SK/Pally

                      Berserker

Is on par to a Working degree.  No I will never say they are just "peachy" or fine.. there will be flaws always in all classes, but the flaws that really foul up the working mechanics of a class need to be addressed the quickest, and addressed period.  (YES, some flaws will never be fixed , EVER)

So, simply put, without an explanation why,..

Bruisers need to be boosted up a bit in the tanking department.  "A bit", meaning not above the  3rd ranked tank, but JUST under him,... Instead of so far under the 3rd ranked tank that you could place a 4th-5th-6th-7-th-8th-9th-and 10th rank between them.

 

Thanks,

Neo

 

[Kwonryu_DragonFi]

Well written Neo!

[Neofa]

---

Kwonryu_DragonFist wrote:
Well written Neo!

---

Thank you sir, postive reaction is rare. Seems I wrote too much in one post =)

I appreciate it.

 

[grindell187]

great way to be informative and stay on tpoic without blatantly whining like so many other posts. being a monk as i read the entire post, everytime you used the word bruiser, i replaced with monk. was great to read and if you dont mind would like yo see if you could post this under the monk section cause alot do not troll other fighter boards.

 

grindell

perma-server

[Neofa]

---

grindell187 wrote:

great way to be informative and stay on tpoic without blatantly whining like so many other posts. being a monk as i read the entire post, everytime you used the word bruiser, i replaced with monk. was great to read and if you dont mind would like yo see if you could post this under the monk section cause alot do not troll other fighter boards.

 

grindell

perma-server

---

Thank you!

I was beginning to doubt if the post had any merit whatsoever, as I received so much criticism on it's length, and format =/

Given this reaction, I am somewhat hesitant to repost this anywhere!  Seems it's just too much, or just dead wrong for the majority.  As I mentioned many times, the post was an effort to use very basic fundamentals to proove a point and get some positive feedback.  I simply took the basic design of the class system used in Everquest II and applied it to form a simple conclusion that Monks and Bruisers alike should be able to tank adequately given their status in the "family tree".

This is not specifically to you, but to all that browse through this,.. I know it is long, but to answer that, if it is too long for you to read then why not just press the back button and leave it be?  Is it necessary to tell me that a 11page post is long?

Yes, I know it is VERY repetitive, this was purposeful.  I wanted to keep pounding home on the basics, I was taking paths with the explanations and reasoning then tieing them all back into the first mentioned statement.  That:

Brawlers come from the Fighter archetype, and according to Sony themselves, Fighters are, by design, meant to tank in some degree.  I never once implied that we had the right to be the best, and I moreso agree that we are meant to be the worst of the tanks from the Fighter Archtype.  My point simply being is that we should be interchangable in a "regular" experience group.  I don't think Brawlers should be capable of being a Raids "MT-Main Tank" or anything of the sort. 

I suppose I came across a bit too academic in the post, which turns off many people who simply read the first few sentences and had to pop the reply button with advice on how to get my point across in a more efficient way.  I meant to be redundant, I meant to say the same thing 50 times throughout the post.

I'm sorry to rant here, I am a wordy person when it comes to writing, for that I am not sorry. All it takes is a click of the button to disregard a post that passes the readers specific word count limit, and or preferred style.

Again this SURELY isn't directed at whom I am currently replying, nor to any one person,.. It's just the feeling I get from having written this.

Also, if anyone is curious, I wrote the first 3 paragraphs AFTER I wrote the bottom 50% of the post.  I just started writing, and as I got a bit more consumed with the content of the post, I then went back up to the top to set the tone of the post so people would know what was coming.  Instead of tricking someone into reading something they think will be an easy read into some utter waste of time.

Here I go again, being long winded,.. hehe.. I digress even on this reply,..

I hope everyone is doing well, and I would like very much to have our classes, both Monk and Bruiser to be in demand with VERY clear and defined roles.  Of which, these roles will be in demand by many groups.

Take care,

Neofate

[Neofa]

---

grindell187 wrote:

if you dont mind would like yo see if you could post this under the monk section cause alot do not troll other fighter boards.

---

Done sir.

 

[Dolf Goodchee]

---

Jenjer wrote:

---

Dolf Goodcheese wrote:

I have a level 20 bruiser, yet I have to disagree with the viewpoint that the brawler/bruiser is now "nerfed".  I don't even like the term "nerfed" in this situation, as that is not what I see as happened.

 

My take on it is that SOE didn't catch their error, before releasing the game.  Their error being: of allowing a brawler/bruiser with high agility to be stacked with a lot more additional protection (too much).  Thus, at times making the classes rarely get hit by higher level enemies.   Players got used to running the brawlers/bruisers as MT to specific level mobs, but now that SOE has fixed their "playability error", those players are angry or upset.  Had SOE foreseen the error (semi-exploit IMO) and set it to what it is now, prior to launch, no one would be angry or upset now.

 

So, basically I don't see it as a "nerf", but as an error that has been corrected.

---

Well, I cant fault your logic since your only a 20 level bruiser. But you really do need to play your class to the 30-40's. If you do, you will notice that this isnt the case where we had something good and lost it, but instead we are substandard tanks when compared to the other tank classes. I could point-out the details, but they are well covered in numerous posts in the monk/bruiser boards. If you are interested, I wrote-up a lengthly one a few days ago. Btw: my wizard is level 22 and tanks very well too. Although it would be flawed to make any rational conclusions to monk/bruier tanking abilities.

-Jenjer

---

Being only a 20 level bruiser isn't any excuse.  My view(logic) is my opinion based on my experience.  It might be correct, or it might not.  The same goes for your logic, as well as that of the person who made the original long post.

 

The only difference between a level 20 bruiser and a level 35, given the issue at hand, is that the level 35 is more likely to be upset/angry at the change because he or she had gotten more used to the way it was. 

 

The "old dog / new tricks" thing.

Message Edited by Dolf Goodcheese on 02-08-2005 01:32 PM

[Blackforgeo]

---

Dolf Goodcheese wrote:

 

Being only a 20 level bruiser isn't any excuse.  My view(logic) is my opinion based on my experience.  It might be correct, or it might not.  The same goes for your logic, as well as that of the person who made the original long post.

 

The only difference between a level 20 bruiser and a level 35, given the issue at hand, is that the level 35 is more likely to be upset/angry at the change because he or she had gotten more used to the way it was. 

 

The "old dog / new tricks" thing.

Message Edited by Dolf Goodcheese on 02-08-2005 01:32 PM

---

It has nothing to do with teaching an old dog new tricks...it has to do with the fact that some changes were done that really were a one two combination punch in debunking bruisers and monks as somewhat feasable tanks:

Specifically two BIG changes that have affected me in recent patches:

 

*** Gameplay ***

- Made slight adjustment to level 40+ mobs, so they have a chance to hit as often as you do.

*** Mechanics ***

- Huge differences (including buffs and debuffs) in stats will no longer have as pronounced an effect in battle. For example, players with +150 in stacked Agility buffs are no longer unhittable by NPCs ten levels above them.
- The stat attributes of level 30 and higher NPCs have been increased.

 

 

While you might not see the difference at your level, I have to honestly tell you that as an almost 40 bruiser, I DO see a difference in my tanking abilities.

 

The reason I do not list the agility nerf as a problem is because I really was never grouping much with troubadors or other classes that raised my agility to the point where mobs 10 levels above me could not hit me. Even though, I have noticed that I do miss alot more than before which adds to the list of problems (AGI affects getting hit and to hit).

 

 

 

Before the changes to the 40+ mobs, I was MT for a Nightblood group in RV when I was about lvl 36 (orange con groups with lamdias near the library) with one healer (a lvl 38 inquisitor). Even though I would have damage spikes, it was manageable...not easy because I would get down to the red at times, but for the most part the healer would drop to about 50-60% power on real bad rolls in a encounter. At 39 now, I am currently getting slapped around by group mobs that are blue or white to me because of the insane amount of specials that are landing for 800 + a hit.

 

The true problem was that other classes (scouts, for example) were tanking because of these stacking AGI buffs, but in true SOE fashion, they use a sledgehammer to fix a problem which affects other classes...namely making all armor and gear with AGI practically worthless in the process.

 

It has been said many times how they could have approached this with a more elegant solution:

 

1) would have been to either hard cap how much AGI you can have based on your level

2) give us better "inner shields" every 10 levels in order to have better deflection, parry, blocks (a round shield might be fine for your 20's and early 30's but it isnt going to do much against the higher mobs because of our LIGHT AC class).

 

Its sad now that plate tanks 4-5 levels below me make better tanks...

Message Edited by Blackforgeosb on 02-08-2005 04:06 PM

[Dolf Goodchee]

---

Blackforgeosb wrote:

...............

Its sad now that plate tanks 4-5 levels below me make better tanks...

Message Edited by Blackforgeosb on 02-08-2005 04:06 PM

---

Heavy armor vs. light armor, having a greater impact on protection makes more sense to me than average agility vs. high agility.

[Blackforgeo]

Then what use is the fact that the developers use it in their new DEFENSE number computation?

 

Maybe not agility directly, since we are not told how the final number is derrived, but the whole purpose of the new numbering system was to show that we could tank. I can guarantee you that I have a higher defense number than someone who is 4-5 levels below me.

[lordofdrago]

---

EQ2Adam wrote:Can we say "Cliff Notes"?

---

Haha, really!

[Neofa]

No cliff notes coming any time soon

 

Anyway, lets throw some water on those flames a bit...

 

It's really not completely about what mechanics are currently in place, it's just about a solution.  It is about recognition of where we should stand in tanking ability, and therefore adjusting the class to that measure.  If SoE really thinks that our tanking level is where is was *intended* to be, then there isn't much we can do.  However, I have yet to see any official word on this, and I am hoping some adjustment in time will be done. 

 

Everyone wants to take the far right or far left side of this "situation",.. Lets take the middleground and come up with a workable solution satisfactory for all those in game.

 

I have simply proposed that we have the right, should be able, and are not up to par.  I have not proposed we are on the same level or work in the same methodology as "Plate Tanks".  In fact, I rank us below them, but not because of the types of armor used, but more through intuitive design.  Stating the obvious.

 

I think we should not be so concerned with how Plate vs Light Armor works, when the factors that are involved in this equation are so more abundant than that.  Limiting the arguement to something so trivial would be comparing Apples to Oranges, imho.