We just don't like your new Guardian class.

[a6eaq]

MrDizzi wrote:

a) I dont care how many time you say it, we dont want utility. Get that into your thinking Gaige. No matter what utility they add we wont be happy. We picked the pure tank. We want the pure tank and YES there is and MUST be a pure tank in EQ2. If they remove the core 4 the game will loose customers over time due to genre displacement.

---

First, please stop using "WE" in your posts.  I for one do not agree with guardians being the best and only choice for MTing.  If you think that a guardian was "designed" for that then you did not actually read and comprehend the fighter archtype discription in the manual or how it was posted online.  Allow me to quote it to you "Fighters use brute strength and sturdy weapons to deal physical to their enemies.  Always at the forefront of combat, Fighters stand toe-to-toe with opponents while keeping their allies from harm."  That would be on page 26 btw.  The last time I checked, Monks and Bruisers were part of that "Fighter" archtype.  That means that they can tank!  Sony f'd up making 6 tnks I will give you that, but they did.  I know the Guardian discription on page 27 says "They stand firm against any attack..." but so what! That does not mean we are always the TANK.

In fact, if our protection abilities were meant to only protect an over zealous DPSer until we got agro back then they would only be short duration abilities.  In fact most must be toggled off.  What does this mean?  OMG! It means we should use them for long periods of time!  If we are doing that then the only logical conclussion is WE ARE NOT TANKING WHEN WE USE THEM!  That is unless of course we are just using them to get a few points here or there.  If anyone actually thinks that SOE only designed 1 main tank and then attempted to make every other archtype balanced is fooling themselves into thinking this is game it is not.

I did some homework and picked a guardian because of these protection abilities which SOE has yet to make work worth a [expletive haxx0red by Raiscript].  I wanted to be defensive, but be able to off tank, MT, or simply add to the overall success of a group with my defense.  I have supported another tank many times in my guild when I was in my low to mid 30's because our Zerker was 2 or 3 lvls higher than me.  We actually killed several heritage quest end mobs because me protecting her. 

As far as the pure tank comment... we are and will always be the closest thing to a pure tank.  But, with the dynamics of this game, we will need utility to continue as a class.  Noone wants us because we mean slow grinding unless we are on a raid.  This sounds a lot like a warrior from EQ1 doesn't it?  No one really wanted one until it was raid time, then where is the warrior? 

As long as you and many others keep calling for us to be the best again, there will be no significant changes to come our way period.  We need something, guardians are just not fun to play anymore, but we will never be where we were a month ago because we were not meant to be there in the first place.  Sony shipped a broken game and let it go on for nearly a year; then broke it even more in the name of balance.  It is clear they never learned that nerfing one class to fix another is complete and utter stupidity.

Please stop asking for us to be what we were never meant to be, you won't get it.  Ask for something to make us fun to play again, and if that is being #1, please reconsider your position because it is a mute point.

[Grumm]

---

a6eaq wrote:

MrDizzi wrote:

a) I dont care how many time you say it, we dont want utility. Get that into your thinking Gaige. No matter what utility they add we wont be happy. We picked the pure tank. We want the pure tank and YES there is and MUST be a pure tank in EQ2. If they remove the core 4 the game will loose customers over time due to genre displacement.

---

First, please stop using "WE" in your posts.  I for one do not agree with guardians being the best and only choice for MTing.  If you think that a guardian was "designed" for that then you did not actually read and comprehend the fighter archtype discription in the manual or how it was posted online.  Allow me to quote it to you "Fighters use brute strength and sturdy weapons to deal physical to their enemies.  Always at the forefront of combat, Fighters stand toe-to-toe with opponents while keeping their allies from harm."  That would be on page 26 btw.  The last time I checked, Monks and Bruisers were part of that "Fighter" archtype.  That means that they can tank!  Sony f'd up making 6 tnks I will give you that, but they did.  I know the Guardian discription on page 27 says "They stand firm against any attack..." but so what! That does not mean we are always the TANK.

In fact, if our protection abilities were meant to only protect an over zealous DPSer until we got agro back then they would only be short duration abilities.  In fact most must be toggled off.  What does this mean?  OMG! It means we should use them for long periods of time!  If we are doing that then the only logical conclussion is WE ARE NOT TANKING WHEN WE USE THEM!  That is unless of course we are just using them to get a few points here or there.  If anyone actually thinks that SOE only designed 1 main tank and then attempted to make every other archtype balanced is fooling themselves into thinking this is game it is not.

I did some homework and picked a guardian because of these protection abilities which SOE has yet to make work worth a [expletive haxx0red by Raiscript].  I wanted to be defensive, but be able to off tank, MT, or simply add to the overall success of a group with my defense.  I have supported another tank many times in my guild when I was in my low to mid 30's because our Zerker was 2 or 3 lvls higher than me.  We actually killed several heritage quest end mobs because me protecting her. 

As far as the pure tank comment... we are and will always be the closest thing to a pure tank.  But, with the dynamics of this game, we will need utility to continue as a class.  Noone wants us because we mean slow grinding unless we are on a raid.  This sounds a lot like a warrior from EQ1 doesn't it?  No one really wanted one until it was raid time, then where is the warrior? 

---

I beg to differ,

 

in EQ2 the guardian was suppost to be the main tank, the meat shield, the front man, not the only but the best at it. end of story.

EQ2 manual:

Tank types...

Guardian

Guardians can DON THE HEAVIEST OF ARMOR to protect themselves in combat and AID IN DEFENCE OF THERE ALLIES.

The STAND FIRM AGAINST ANY THREAT and BEAR THE BRUNT OF ATTACKS while felling opponents with any of a varitey of weapons.

Berzerker

Berzerker are chaotic warriors who INFLICT HEAVY DAMAGE with all manner of weapons. they protect themselves by wearing HEAVY PLATEMAIL armor. THEIR FURIOUS ATTACKS OVERWHELM THERE OPPONENTS, to whom they show no mercy.

Bruiser

Bruisers are powerful thugs WHO USE RAW PHYSICAL FORCE TO PUMMEL THERE OPPONENTS. They have transformed thier bodies INTO BRUTAL, DAMAGING WEAPONS.

Monk

Monks are disciplined combatants who specialize in martial arts. they hone there bodys to be NIMBLE TO AVOID ENEMY BLOWS, AND TO DELEVER CLEAN AND EFFICIENT COUNTERATTACKS.

Paladin

Paladins are crusaders for all things good and right. wearing HEAVY ARMOR, these valiant defenders of truth fight for honoe, virtue, and nobility.

Shadowknight

Shadowknights insidious dark crusaders who use the power of evil to advance there causes. THE LIVE TO INFLICT FEAR,HATE, AND DESPAIR on all who cross their paths.

 

Message Edited by Grummpy on 10-22-2005 02:24 PM

[Pry]

---

a6eaq wrote:

MrDizzi wrote:

a) I dont care how many time you say it, we dont want utility. Get that into your thinking Gaige. No matter what utility they add we wont be happy. We picked the pure tank. We want the pure tank and YES there is and MUST be a pure tank in EQ2. If they remove the core 4 the game will loose customers over time due to genre displacement.

---

First, please stop using "WE" in your posts.  I for one do not agree with guardians being the best and only choice for MTing.  If you think that a guardian was "designed" for that then you did not actually read and comprehend the fighter archtype discription in the manual or how it was posted online.  Allow me to quote it to you "Fighters use brute strength and sturdy weapons to deal physical to their enemies.  Always at the forefront of combat, Fighters stand toe-to-toe with opponents while keeping their allies from harm."  That would be on page 26 btw.  The last time I checked, Monks and Bruisers were part of that "Fighter" archtype.  That means that they can tank!  Sony f'd up making 6 tnks I will give you that, but they did.  I know the Guardian discription on page 27 says "They stand firm against any attack..." but so what! That does not mean we are always the TANK.

In fact, if our protection abilities were meant to only protect an over zealous DPSer until we got agro back then they would only be short duration abilities.  In fact most must be toggled off.  What does this mean?  OMG! It means we should use them for long periods of time!  If we are doing that then the only logical conclussion is WE ARE NOT TANKING WHEN WE USE THEM!  That is unless of course we are just using them to get a few points here or there.  If anyone actually thinks that SOE only designed 1 main tank and then attempted to make every other archtype balanced is fooling themselves into thinking this is game it is not.

I did some homework and picked a guardian because of these protection abilities which SOE has yet to make work worth a [expletive haxx0red by Raiscript].  I wanted to be defensive, but be able to off tank, MT, or simply add to the overall success of a group with my defense.  I have supported another tank many times in my guild when I was in my low to mid 30's because our Zerker was 2 or 3 lvls higher than me.  We actually killed several heritage quest end mobs because me protecting her. 

As far as the pure tank comment... we are and will always be the closest thing to a pure tank.  But, with the dynamics of this game, we will need utility to continue as a class.  Noone wants us because we mean slow grinding unless we are on a raid.  This sounds a lot like a warrior from EQ1 doesn't it?  No one really wanted one until it was raid time, then where is the warrior? 

As long as you and many others keep calling for us to be the best again, there will be no significant changes to come our way period.  We need something, guardians are just not fun to play anymore, but we will never be where we were a month ago because we were not meant to be there in the first place.  Sony shipped a broken game and let it go on for nearly a year; then broke it even more in the name of balance.  It is clear they never learned that nerfing one class to fix another is complete and utter stupidity.

Please stop asking for us to be what we were never meant to be, you won't get it.  Ask for something to make us fun to play again, and if that is being #1, please reconsider your position because it is a mute point.

---

I believe Fighters stop being fighters after level 20

[MrDiz]

a6eaq, i disagree with every statement you made, espicially about it being a moot point. That isnt to say tyour post wasnt well written or valid. I just happen to have the absolute opposite interpretation or opinion of everything you said. It certainly isnt moot until iall guardians agree or quit. And im sorry is the 'we' bothered you but on the whole most guardians agree with me. We dont want utility. Period. And the game wont be worth playing for me once they remove the pure tank. If i am alone in liking the old fashioned fantasy rpg mythos then sony will chug on without me. If I am right they will suffer revenue losses.

 

Small addition: Im not just talking about the game not being what I want AS a guardian. But as a templar or swashbuckler too. It would be the same if they removed the wizard from the game. If all mages somehow had breeze, mezzes, pets and there was no pure nuking wizard .... game just wouldnt be a fantast rpg for me. And i dont play a mage.

Message Edited by MrDizzi on 10-22-2005 03:20 PM

[ReviloTX]

---

a6eaq wrote:

I did some homework and picked a guardian because of these protection abilities

---

I'm pretty sure you might be the only one.  I picked my guardian because he was the most defensive tank.

[MrDiz]

Agreed ReviloTX. For me I just needed something I could duo with my templar on offpeak times so I wanted the simplest possible tank: Taunt , hit repeat. My guardian isnt a character that groups much with others and pretty much never raids unless they dont need my templar... which so far is never I always liked the simple classes though. I was like that in pen/paper rpgs too. Even as a GM I really pushed people to play single class 'basic fantasy' characters. I pretty much didnt allow monks, elven multiclasses or seriously complex sub-classes (necromancers for example).  I hated people who wanted to play fighter/mage/thief multi class elves It was always the sort of person that rolled 5.3 average on a 6 sided dice but only when rolling characters with no one else present....... You know the ones: "Oh yes I have this psionic fighter/monk/ninja with every magic weapon in the book... i got them in a previous GMs campaign honest....." and yes honest his mother really called him Silverleaf Goldenbow (what sort of mothers did these people have??). What ever happened to Bobb the dwarven fighter. Shield, armor, axe, hit stuff! There ya go.

 

So for me its partly because I need simple to 2 box, and partly because I think the best and richest fantasy stories or rpg campaigns had fairly  simple and focused characters. Gandalf was a wizard, Aragorn was a knight, Bilbo was a thief, Legolas was an archer, Gimli was a fighter. Cant quite remember who the psionic monk/warrior/mage was is Lord of the Rings .......

[a6eaq]

Here are a few more statements that will only serve to keep our class down:

---

Prynn wrote

I believe Fighters stop being fighters after level 20

---

Hmmmm, I guess Rangers are no longer scouts when they hit 20 as well, or maybe a Templar stops being a cleric at 20.  I hope that was meant to be funny.  Otherwise, boy oh boy...

---

Grummpy wrote:

I beg to differ,

Before i rant, see the archtype all of these fall under.  If I am not mistaken, it is the "FIGHTER" what does the description of a fighter say?  On page 26?  Shall I quote it... ok I will "Fighters stand toe-to-toe with opponents while keeping their allies safe."  I guess it really says Guardians vice fighters, Sony must have misprinted it. /sarcasm off for now.

in EQ2 the guardian was suppost to be the main tank, the meat shield, the front man, not the only but the best at it. end of story.

EQ2 manual:

Tank types...

Guardian

Guardians can DON THE HEAVIEST OF ARMOR to protect themselves in combat and AID IN DEFENCE OF THERE ALLIES.

The STAND FIRM AGAINST ANY THREAT( since our saves aren't the best, how are we supposed to be the best choice against casters?  I thought was where the Crusaders excelled.  Oh well read into it what you want to) and BEAR THE BRUNT OF ATTACKS while felling opponents with any of a varitey of weapons. (Hmmmm, you are right, but I still do not see MAIN TANK in this manual for our class.  I have been accussed of being blind but what you wrote is a direct quote and I still DO NOT see THE ONLY TANK in there.  Sorry, try again. 

Berzerker

Berzerker are chaotic warriors who INFLICT HEAVY DAMAGE(and they have been nerf'd too now don't forget) with all manner of weapons. they protect themselves by wearing HEAVY PLATEMAIL armor. THEIR FURIOUS ATTACKS OVERWHELM THERE OPPONENTS, to whom they show no mercy.

I guess this statement means they can't tank either right?  Or since there is NO mention of a group, are Zerkers supposed to solo?  You tell me, what you think this means.  Show me and the dev's something in the english language that says Zerkers aren't or can't be the MT here... you can't so don't try!

Bruiser

Bruisers are powerful thugs WHO USE RAW PHYSICAL FORCE TO PUMMEL THERE OPPONENTS (Guess this means they are a DPS class like Swashies and Assassins right?  Too bad they are listed under the FIGHTER ARCHTYPE which is useed to determine your ROLE for the rest of the game). They have transformed thier bodies INTO BRUTAL, DAMAGING WEAPONS. The manual agrees here word for word but again, where is it stated that Bruisers CANNOT TANK?  I do not see it... does anyone else see those words or anything like them there?  Come on now tell the truth to your inner child and admit it to yourself that those words do not appear here.  It says they are Bada$$ hand-to-hand, and since they are Fighters, THEY TANK THAT WAY.

Monk

Monks are disciplined combatants who specialize in martial arts. they hone there bodys to be NIMBLE TO AVOID ENEMY BLOWS, AND TO DELEVER CLEAN AND EFFICIENT COUNTERATTACKS. See above, but add that Monks are the defensive side of the Brawler sub-class.  Once again to reiterate it to you since you need it repeated, Monks are Brawlers and Brawlers are FIGHTERS.  Sorry Fighters ARE TANKS.  Monks are the more DEFENSIVE side of their class, just like OMG!  Say it isn't so, we are the DEFENSIVE side of WARRIORS. 

Paladin

Paladins are crusaders for all things good and right. wearing HEAVY ARMOR, these valiant defenders of truth fight for honoe, virtue, and nobility.  Hmmm, let's see here... Let's go to the manual page 28 and 29 to look at Crusaders and Pallies shall we?  Look at the stat bonuses they get at both level 10 and 20.  They get +2 to wisdom in both cases for a total of +4.  Why is that do you suppose?  That gives them better saves!  Better saves means they get the advantage when TANKING Casting mobs. 

Shadowknight

Shadowknights insidious dark crusaders who use the power of evil to advance there causes. THE LIVE TO INFLICT FEAR,HATE, AND DESPAIR on all who cross their paths.  See Pallies but they are EVIL.

Now some more for you from the manual.  Crusaders were able to wear VANGUARD as well as Guardians in the original design of things, so why were they not designed to tank if they were to get the best armor?  Ask yourself that question.  Guess it was to look good huh?

 

I stopped saying that the classes were all FIGHTER ARCHTYPES because I got sick and tired of typing it.  Please, I will change my position if you can find anything in the owner's manual that states that your class will totally change roles as it advances in level.  Let me save you the time, it does not!  in fact, it states on page 40 that "As your character advances in level, you will be able to specialize in your adventure atchetype by choosing a class and a subclass."  That tells me that ALL FIGHTERS WILL TANK, but that we all tank DIFFERENTLY!  /falls on flor clasping heart as if having a heart attack.   Isn't that what we have been getting from SOE lately when we get any feedback at all?  Yes it is.  It was designed for there to be 6 count them 6 tanks!  I do not agree with it, in fact I think it is totally absurd, but that is in black and white if you would actually read the [expletive haxx0red by Raiscript] book!  Dan't flame me because you went into this with half of the total picture!  You ( generalized phrase not you personally) did not understand what this game was meant to be, you(same here, not a personal  attack) are the ones that keep responding to flame bait and derailing our own forumns.  It is this narrowminded BS that is keep the "love" away from us.  There is entirely too much whining and crying on our boards because people saw what they wanted and not was intended to be.  Deal with it.  We WERE NEVER MEANT TO BE THE END ALL OF THE FIGHTER ARCHTYPE!  ONLY THE MOST SPECIALIZED DEFENSIVE OF THE 6!  Nowhere is the #1 Main Tank ever mentioned period! 

 

/rant off

 

Seriously, get out of the we gotta be #1 tank or we will never be anything but the garbage we currently are.

Message Edited by a6eaq on 10-22-2005 05:52 PM

Message Edited by a6eaq on 10-22-2005 05:56 PM

Message Edited by a6eaq on 10-22-2005 06:00 PM

[a6eaq]

ReviloTX wrote:

---

a6eaq wrote:

I did some homework and picked a guardian because of these protection abilities

---

I'm pretty sure you might be the only one.  I picked my guardian because he was the most defensive tank.

---

Apparently I am, but I soon learned they were totally broken.  Oh well 55 lvls later and still playing.

[Aethane]

---

Gaige wrote:

---

MrDizzi wrote:

 b) What is 'defensive utility' if it doesnt actually make us better tanks? If it involves taking damage for someone else if they pull aggo, no thanks. If it involves being able to make someone else a better tank (but not ourselves) then no thanks.

---

Defensive utility is any utility that increases the defensive capabilities of the group, target or yourself.  These can be protection spells, target buffs, self buffs and various other things.

For example:  The guardian increases the defense of the group.  The berserker increases the crushing/piercing/slashing of the group.

This would be defensive utility for the guardian, and offensive utility for the berserker.

---

Tell me oh wise and pompous gaige, what good does increasing my group's defense do while i am tanking? Hmm? Nobody takes a guardian to do dps and buff another tank, period. So there is your answer, our utility does nothing. While a Zerker actually increases his group's dps therefore a more desireable group memeber that adds a useful benefit to his group. Our utlity would only work for grouping with ebayed toons that dont know how to play and constantly pulling aggro, ya super utility there(adds a metric f^%# ton of sarcasm).

[bink]

I don't see why people are still replying to Gaige and his like. It's obvious he's being a troll and incapable of listening or thinking outside his box.An ignore function would be useful on the forum...

Message Edited by binkzz on 10-22-2005 09:14 PM

[NighthawkX]

Have you even tried it, instead of speculating actually try it for a change, happens to often with enough people as it is.  The ignore feature will not remove any of the forum posts that another poster has made.  Try it pick someone, pick me if it makes you feel better and when you recheck the thread you will still see my post.

[a6eaq]

I think binkzz was asking for it to actually work cause you know it doesn't remove them.

[NighthawkX]

Thats not what he said before he edit it.  He changed it to say that they should add one.

[Grumm]

---

a6eaq wrote:

Here are a few more statements that will only serve to keep our class down:

---

Prynn wrote

I believe Fighters stop being fighters after level 20

---

Hmmmm, I guess Rangers are no longer scouts when they hit 20 as well, or maybe a Templar stops being a cleric at 20.  I hope that was meant to be funny.  Otherwise, boy oh boy...

---

Ok Im not going to get into a debate on this I was stating facts, direct quotes from im interpration of the manual written to help me understand how to play. but I will give you my take on it.

Grummpy wrote:

I beg to differ,

Before i rant, see the archtype all of these fall under.  If I am not mistaken, it is the "FIGHTER" what does the description of a fighter say?  On page 26?  Shall I quote it... ok I will "Fighters stand toe-to-toe with opponents while keeping their allies safe."  I guess it really says Guardians vice fighters, Sony must have misprinted it. /sarcasm off for now.

/sarcasm < ignore

"Fighters" are the base, they share ALL THE SAME SKILLS till you define your class(lvl9) its there you choose, what your strengths and weakness will be. again at lvl 19 to a main role.

I will not argue that all fighter types can and should main tank. its insaine to even think of how bad the other classes were besides the guardians Pre-lu13. It was them that were broken, not the guardians, we did it, they couldnt.

the main point, and a solid one, is the guardian was in every way made to be the front meat shield on every mob in the game and for all out beating, the best.

They were just not suppost to be the only one.

 

in EQ2 the guardian was suppost to be the main tank, the meat shield, the front man, not the only but the best at it. end of story.

EQ2 manual:

Tank types...

Guardian

Guardians can DON THE HEAVIEST OF ARMOR to protect themselves in combat and AID IN DEFENCE OF THERE ALLIES.

The STAND FIRM AGAINST ANY THREAT( since our saves aren't the best, how are we supposed to be the best choice against casters?  I thought was where the Crusaders excelled.  Oh well read into it what you want to) and BEAR THE BRUNT OF ATTACKS while felling opponents with any of a varitey of weapons. (Hmmmm, you are right, but I still do not see MAIN TANK in this manual for our class.  I have been accussed of being blind but what you wrote is a direct quote and I still DO NOT see THE ONLY TANK in there.  Sorry, try again. 

I really dont know what to say here, pick what you want to add, but please dont see whats not there.

I can add the same points to the rest of the classes.

 I saw this  "Stand Firm against any threat" "Bear the Brunt of Attacks" DON the heaviest of armor"

the only class that says that, to that degree. Stand Firm agains any threat.  Any threat.

Berzerker

Berzerker are chaotic warriors who INFLICT HEAVY DAMAGE(and they have been nerf'd too now don't forget) with all manner of weapons. they protect themselves by wearing HEAVY PLATEMAIL armor. THEIR FURIOUS ATTACKS OVERWHELM THERE OPPONENTS, to whom they show no mercy.

I guess this statement means they can't tank either right?  Or since there is NO mention of a group, are Zerkers supposed to solo?  You tell me, what you think this means.  Show me and the dev's something in the english language that says Zerkers aren't or can't be the MT here... you can't so don't try!

Ask a berserker, I wont even begin to pretend I know the answer or all the classes strength/weakness.

Bruiser

Bruisers are powerful thugs WHO USE RAW PHYSICAL FORCE TO PUMMEL THERE OPPONENTS (Guess this means they are a DPS class like Swashies and Assassins right?  Too bad they are listed under the FIGHTER ARCHTYPE which is useed to determine your ROLE for the rest of the game). They have transformed thier bodies INTO BRUTAL, DAMAGING WEAPONS. The manual agrees here word for word but again, where is it stated that Bruisers CANNOT TANK?  I do not see it... does anyone else see those words or anything like them there?  Come on now tell the truth to your inner child and admit it to yourself that those words do not appear here.  It says they are Bada$$ hand-to-hand, and since they are Fighters, THEY TANK THAT WAY.

I dont see anything here that helps me choose a Bruiser over a guardian as a main tank, I can only make a choice on what I do see, maybe doing thats where peoples first mistake was orignaly made? all I see mentioned is good DPS.

Monk

Monks are disciplined combatants who specialize in martial arts. they hone there bodys to be NIMBLE TO AVOID ENEMY BLOWS, AND TO DELEVER CLEAN AND EFFICIENT COUNTERATTACKS. See above, but add that Monks are the defensive side of the Brawler sub-class.  Once again to reiterate it to you since you need it repeated, Monks are Brawlers and Brawlers are FIGHTERS.  Sorry Fighters ARE TANKS.  Monks are the more DEFENSIVE side of their class, just like OMG!  Say it isn't so, we are the DEFENSIVE side of WARRIORS. 

Ok again, Im still not seeing anything solid on chooseing the meatshield I want to play. Help me out somehere. I see they can avoid a hit so yeah, maybe they are ok at tanking, but as for the breakdown, I still have to choose the guardian if your in it for the main tank style of gameplay.

Paladin

Paladins are crusaders for all things good and right. wearing HEAVY ARMOR, these valiant defenders of truth fight for honoe, virtue, and nobility.  Hmmm, let's see here... Let's go to the manual page 28 and 29 to look at Crusaders and Pallies shall we?  Look at the stat bonuses they get at both level 10 and 20.  They get +2 to wisdom in both cases for a total of +4.  Why is that do you suppose?  That gives them better saves!  Better saves means they get the advantage when TANKING Casting mobs. 

Still, not helping me change my  desission on what class i should play as a meat shiled, Its whats "Not" said, that you are using as examlpes, but I used this..... "wearing Heavy armor" not "Heaviest of armor"

Shadowknight

Shadowknights insidious dark crusaders who use the power of evil to advance there causes. THE LIVE TO INFLICT FEAR,HATE, AND DESPAIR on all who cross their paths.  See Pallies but they are EVIL.

Now some more for you from the manual.  Crusaders were able to wear VANGUARD as well as Guardians in the original design of things, so why were they not designed to tank if they were to get the best armor?  Ask yourself that question.  Guess it was to look good huh?

 

The Crusaders is a branch, lvl9+  there still all pretty close in them lvls. yes not at all far from fighter yet, but still a lot away from there defining skills.(19+)

 

I stopped saying that the classes were all FIGHTER ARCHTYPES because I got sick and tired of typing it.  Please, I will change my position if you can find anything in the owner's manual that states that your class will totally change roles as it advances in level. 

 

Agree, it doesnt say anywhere in the manual that your class will totally change roles, thus the reason all the guardians are now upset  /wink

 

 

 

 

 Let me save you the time, it does not!  in fact, it states on page 40 that "As your character advances in level, you will be able to specialize in your adventure atchetype by choosing a class and a subclass."  That tells me that ALL FIGHTERS WILL TANK, but that we all tank DIFFERENTLY!  /falls on flor clasping heart as if having a heart attack.  

 

Ok, this is kinda funny, but I'll try to explain,

at the start, you choose a fighter type, yes, a main base class of warrior, you share the same skills up till you choose your first direction, at this point you pick what you want to do.

the discription text appears on the screen and you make a choice on what your role, or traits are.

 

this splits the fighter tree 3 ways, (play along with me, what would you choose if you wanted  to be a meat shield blunt tank) 

 

Warrior:  

 Warriors utilize heavy armor and weapons to safeguard there companions and inflict damage upon opponents. they stand bravely at the forefront of battle, striking fear into the hearts of enemies.

 

Brawler:

Brawlers specialize in physical combat styles that bring them face to face with the enemy. Favoring light armor and hand to hand combat tactics, brawlers have honed there bodies into potent weapons.

 

Crusader:

 

Crusaders are armored defenders that call upon divine powers to aid them in battle. they weild a varirty of weapons in combat an are capable of dealing impressive physical damage.

 

 

in fact, it states on page 40 that "As your character advances in level, you will be able to specialize in your adventure atchetype by choosing a class and a subclass."  That tells me that ALL FIGHTERS WILL TANK,

 

well, I dont see it saying that "ALL fighters will tank" but I dont not agree that they all should.

 

 but it is saying some doing things better then others.,

 Profession tree, branch off, in different directions.

quote from page 40.  

As your character advances in lvl, you will be able to specialise in your adventure archetype by choosing a class and subclass.

this make avalible more skills, abilities, and spells and lead to greater power. you will have to complete the hallmark quest in order to advance in more specialised areas.

 

this is what defines our class.

 

 

 

 but that we all tank DIFFERENTLY! 

 

that was never said untill forums on post LU13

 

 /falls on flor clasping heart as if having a heart attack.  

 

 

Isn't that what we have been getting from SOE lately when we get any feedback at all?  Yes it is.  It was designed for there to be 6 count them 6 tanks!

 

again agree, all 6 should be albe to tank, but also the one class specializing in tanking and mitigation from november 9 2004 to sept 12 2005 should do it a bit better. its all that was ever decribed, the reason people choose it, and the only reason to play one.

 

 

  I do not agree with it, in fact I think it is totally absurd, but that is in black and white if you would actually read the [expletive haxx0red by Raiscript] book! 

 

Dan't flame me because you went into this with half of the total picture!  ( generalized phrase not you personally)

 

acually I can only speak for myself and I didnt have half a picture,

 

I made a choice of what I was told, on what was written ,not what wasnt , or what I thought might of been implying.

 

 you did not understand what this game was meant to be,

 

im not to sure of that, I was the main tank for 10 months, how wrong could all the guardians have been?

 

 you(same here, not a personal  attack) are the ones that keep responding to flame bait and derailing our own forumns.

 

  It is this narrowminded BS that is keep the "love" away from us.  There is entirely too much whining and crying on our boards because people saw what they wanted and not was intended to be.  Deal with it.  We WERE NEVER MEANT TO BE THE END ALL OF THE FIGHTER ARCHTYPE!  ONLY THE MOST SPECIALIZED DEFENSIVE OF THE 6!  Nowhere is the #1 Main Tank ever mentioned period! 

 

my only attack on you is, you riddled a informational post with sarcasam, and inserted personal interpatations of what :wasnt" said in the manual, then called other people narrowminded.

 

/rant off

 

Seriously, get out of the we gotta be #1 tank or we will never be anything but the garbage we currently are.

 

not the only tank, just better at it.

dont fear what you dont understand.

Message Edited by Grummpy on 10-23-2005 12:07 AM

[Grumm]

Oh BTW,

 

Im not all that unhappy with the guardians, there is a little room for improvement, but honestly, I think were still on top, just not as obvious

[AsheBail]

---

Grummpy wrote:

I beg to differ,

 

in EQ2 the guardian was suppost to be the main tank, the meat shield, the front man, not the only but the best at it. end of story.

EQ2 manual:

Tank types...

Guardian

Guardians can DON THE HEAVIEST OF ARMOR to protect themselves in combat and AID IN DEFENCE OF THERE ALLIES.

The STAND FIRM AGAINST ANY THREAT and BEAR THE BRUNT OF ATTACKS while felling opponents with any of a varitey of weapons.

Berzerker

Berzerker are chaotic warriors who INFLICT HEAVY DAMAGE with all manner of weapons. they protect themselves by wearing HEAVY PLATEMAIL armor. THEIR FURIOUS ATTACKS OVERWHELM THERE OPPONENTS, to whom they show no mercy.

Bruiser

Bruisers are powerful thugs WHO USE RAW PHYSICAL FORCE TO PUMMEL THERE OPPONENTS. They have transformed thier bodies INTO BRUTAL, DAMAGING WEAPONS.

Monk

Monks are disciplined combatants who specialize in martial arts. they hone there bodys to be NIMBLE TO AVOID ENEMY BLOWS, AND TO DELEVER CLEAN AND EFFICIENT COUNTERATTACKS.

Paladin

Paladins are crusaders for all things good and right. wearing HEAVY ARMOR, these valiant defenders of truth fight for honoe, virtue, and nobility.

Shadowknight

Shadowknights insidious dark crusaders who use the power of evil to advance there causes. THE LIVE TO INFLICT FEAR,HATE, AND DESPAIR on all who cross their paths.

Message Edited by Grummpy on 10-22-2005 02:24 PM

---

Not that I don't agree Guardians should have best Mit and taunts (teh Tank), but PLEASE don't quote the instruction book.  It was so outdated and never bothered to be checked against many facts upon the game release or before.  When they made an update a month later, still there were the same outdated, never checked things in it.  

It surprised me a professional company couldn't find an intern and an editor anywhere to take 6 hours to get things correct in it, at the very least upon the update and "Final' version.   Though, maybe nobody actually paid for a full version of adobe acrobat and was able to change any incorrect text or numbers.

 

I suspected they consulted a 5th grader when writing the class descriptions. 

 

 

Writer: "Billy, what is a Guardian?

Billy: "Well, sir

     Guardians can DON THE HEAVIEST OF ARMOR to protect themselves in combat and AID IN DEFENCE OF THERE ALLIES.

     The STAND FIRM AGAINST ANY THREAT and BEAR THE BRUNT OF ATTACKS while felling opponents with any of a varitey of

     weapons."

Writer: "... Oh really, that really noble.  Let me copy that down ... Oh, and Billy, how about a thing called a Ber-serk-er?"

Billy: "They are the most uberest!  Berzerker are chaotic warriors who ... "

[ReviloTX]

---

Gaige wrote:

Defensive utility is any utility that increases the defensive capabilities of the group, target or yourself.

---

Right, but they aren't allowed to give us any actual benefit, because if they did then we would be superior in tanking ability.  We can have defensive utility as long as it doesn't make us more defensive than you?  Is that what you meant to say?   

How about this,  you can have high damage CA's as long as they don't actually damage the mob.  You can have mend as long as it doesn't actually heal you, and you can have FD as long as the mobs ignore it 100% of the time.  There, that sounds fair.

If you want to prevent our utilty from providing us any meaningful benefit (it doesn't benefit us if another tank subclass can achieve the same tanking ability we can without it), then your utility should provide you no benefit either.  Afterall, we do have to be equal don't we?

[Kasar]

---

Grummpy wrote:

Oh BTW,

 

Im not all that unhappy with the guardians, there is a little room for improvement, but honestly, I think were still on top, just not as obvious

---

Only against white or better.  If it's yellow, pray a taunt isn't resisted or you might as well not even be there.

[MrDiz]

I really dont understand Gaiges idea here. He thinks all fighters should be equal tanks but that guardians should have a utility thta improves defence..... and yet cant answer me how that doesnt make guardians better tanks. If we are equal without our utility, then with our utility we would be better surely?

[Gaige]

There is defensive group and targetable utility also.  That helps your groupmates to be more defensive and helps you "guard" them.  Defensive utility isn't just about making yourself tank better.

 

Monks - increase group haste.

 

Bruisers - increase group dps.

 

The point is there is all kinds of defensive utility they can give you that isn't buff your own mitigation, buff your own HP, buff your own defensive, buff your own (insert thing to make you uber here).

 

Its your inability to grasp the concept of doing something other than MTing for the group that gives you such a narrow minded viewpoint.

 

The reality is that all fighters can MT but we aren't always going to be MT, therefore we have utility and can provide decent damage so that when we aren't tank we are still valued by the group.  This should be true of all fighters but some guardians think it should only be true for the other 5, because they think they should always be the MT.  Therefore they dismiss group utility and any talk of increased utility and damage because they know it would take away the leverage the use to argue why they should be the best MT.

[MrDiz]

Gaige wrote : "The point is there is all kinds of defensive utility they can give you that isn't buff your own mitigation, buff your own HP, buff your own defensive, buff your own (insert thing to make you uber here)."

 

 

Err so we can make someone else a better tank. No thanks. Thats not what we signed up for. Period. End of story. No way. Next suggestion.

 

Gaige wrote :  "Its your inability to grasp the concept of doing something other than MTing for the group that gives you such a narrow minded viewpoint."

 

 

Ahh, yes my refusal to like the concept means I obviosly cant grasp it. Or wait. No. Perhaps I can graps the concept, but just think its a croc. Yes. Yes that seems more likely. In my narrow view point I picked a narrow focus class. Big deal. Thats the choice I made and the choice sony UNmade for me.

 

Gaige wrote :  "The reality is that all fighters can MT but we aren't always going to be MT, therefore we have utility and can provide decent damage so that when we aren't tank we are still valued by the group.  This should be true of all fighters but some guardians think it should only be true for the other 5, because they think they should always be the MT.  "

 

 

No its true of all fighters except guardians. The main tank doesnt always have to be a guardian, but a guardian always has to be main tank. Thats the crutch a pure tank accepts when he chooses his class. You get the advantage and the disadvantage of that choice. It was a choice we all made. We made it willingly. Same as you chose a class with more dps, utility, heal etc. Its what we chose. Leave us alone.

 

Gaige wrote :  "Therefore they dismiss group utility and any talk of increased utility and damage because they know it would take away the leverage the use to argue why they should be the best MT."

 

 

No we dont need it as leverage to argue we should be best tank because thats self evident unless you actually believe the lies about 'best tank = only tank'. We dont want utility because it ist the 'class' we chose. I cant make it simpler for you Gaige. We chose a class for a reason. It was pure, simple and the best tank. Thats what we want and we wont stop asking for it. If they leave us as equal tanks with no dps and utility ill keep asking for it. If they add dps Ill keep asking for it. If they add utility I wont have to because the games life span will be so drastically reduced as to be not worth asking for.

 

Youre not a fantasy fan so I dont expect you to understand this. But they need to pick a genre and stick with it. If its not fantasy, then they will loose a lot of hardcore fantasy people as the game loses its flavour. Fantasy rpgs have certain basics in common. The warrior is one of them. In the end they have a better chance of keeping customers if they keep the guardfian nerfed than if they actually add utility to it. Nerfed guardians will make me retire my guardian, utility hybrid warrir will make me retire all chars. I want a fantasy game.

Message Edited by MrDizzi on 10-23-2005 11:26 AM

[Grumm]

---

AsheBailey wrote:

---

Grummpy wrote:

I beg to differ,

 

in EQ2 the guardian was suppost to be the main tank, the meat shield, the front man, not the only but the best at it. end of story.

EQ2 manual:

Tank types...

Guardian

Guardians can DON THE HEAVIEST OF ARMOR to protect themselves in combat and AID IN DEFENCE OF THERE ALLIES.

The STAND FIRM AGAINST ANY THREAT and BEAR THE BRUNT OF ATTACKS while felling opponents with any of a varitey of weapons.

Berzerker

Berzerker are chaotic warriors who INFLICT HEAVY DAMAGE with all manner of weapons. they protect themselves by wearing HEAVY PLATEMAIL armor. THEIR FURIOUS ATTACKS OVERWHELM THERE OPPONENTS, to whom they show no mercy.

Bruiser

Bruisers are powerful thugs WHO USE RAW PHYSICAL FORCE TO PUMMEL THERE OPPONENTS. They have transformed thier bodies INTO BRUTAL, DAMAGING WEAPONS.

Monk

Monks are disciplined combatants who specialize in martial arts. they hone there bodys to be NIMBLE TO AVOID ENEMY BLOWS, AND TO DELEVER CLEAN AND EFFICIENT COUNTERATTACKS.

Paladin

Paladins are crusaders for all things good and right. wearing HEAVY ARMOR, these valiant defenders of truth fight for honoe, virtue, and nobility.

Shadowknight

Shadowknights insidious dark crusaders who use the power of evil to advance there causes. THE LIVE TO INFLICT FEAR,HATE, AND DESPAIR on all who cross their paths.

Message Edited by Grummpy on 10-22-200502:24 PM

---

Not that I don't agree Guardians should have best Mit and taunts (teh Tank), but PLEASE don't quote the instruction book.  It was so outdated and never bothered to be checked against many facts upon the game release or before.  When they made an update a month later, still there were the same outdated, never checked things in it.  

It surprised me a professional company couldn't find an intern and an editor anywhere to take 6 hours to get things correct in it, at the very least upon the update and "Final' version.   Though, maybe nobody actually paid for a full version of adobe acrobat and was able to change any incorrect text or numbers.

 

I suspected they consulted a 5th grader when writing the class descriptions. 

 

 

Writer: "Billy, what is a Guardian?

Billy: "Well, sir

    Guardians can DON THE HEAVIEST OF ARMOR to protect themselves in combat and AID IN DEFENCE OF THERE ALLIES.

    The STAND FIRM AGAINST ANY THREAT and BEAR THE BRUNT OF ATTACKS while felling opponents with any of a varitey of

    weapons."

Writer: "... Oh really, that really noble.  Let me copy that down ... Oh, and Billy, how about a thing called a Ber-serk-er?"

Billy: "They are the most uberest!  Berzerker are chaotic warriors who ... "

---

Dont get me wrong Im not preaching the EQ2 text, I was just explaining why every guardian was floored by the update.

the maunal couldnt have been written any worse

my point was, when making a choice on what class to play you had 2 options,

1) the manual discription to see you in a direction.

2) the chat bubble text when you did your hallmark (lvl 9) and (19)

if you cant make a choice on  what it tells you, well, what can you use?

the point was, there was evey indication that the game was ment to have guardians at the front of the fighter class for tanking,

I'll say it again.,.,...,, NOT THE ONLY ONE, But designed and specialized best in it.

[a6eaq]

Grummpy and any other Guardian that thought we were meant to be the only choice for MTing,

I am not going to pick and choose a bunch out of our long posts, but how can you justify fighters being able to stand toe-to-toe with opponents and then ssaying that as we branch out some are no longer fighters (Tanks)?  If you made decissions off of your EQ1 experiences, then Sony did not do a good enough job making it known that all this game comes from EQ1 it is not EQ1.  I noticed early on people crying because there was not enough similarities between the two games.  I for one was thrilled that I did not have to be a hard core raider to experience this game as it was designed.  I do not and have never agreed that there should be six f'ing tanks in this game.  It is [expletive haxx0red by Raiscript]!  I mean come on, are we supposed to have six different fghters tag along with every group to swap out tanks for mob the group is currently fighting?/sarcasm and massive exageration off.

Was there only my small select group of friends that actually saw that SOE intended for six tanks that tank differently?  Were we the very few to take hours researching what SOE was putting out on the web prior to game release?  If so, then all of you that thaught Guardians were the new Warrior either did not do the research or read into it what you wanted.  A few examples are:

well, I dont see it saying that "ALL fighters will tank" but I dont not agree that they all should.

Well "Fighters stand toe-to-toe with their opponent..."  I guess those words mean guardians only huh?  Once again I guess that SOE meant Guardians instead of fighters.

The next quote again shows that you read what you wanted to...

Still, not helping me change my  desission on what class i should play as a meat shiled, Its whats "Not" said, that you are using as examlpes, but I used this..... "wearing Heavy armor" not "Heaviest of armor"

This was about Pallies, well if you will open your manual to page 29 and look at what armor Pallies and SK's were supposed to wear you will see that you were reading what you wanted and not what is printed because both of those classes were intended to wear "Heavy, Vanguard"  hmm, like I said I guess they were wearing Vanguard to look pretty as they do whatever it was that many of you want them do in a group beside be a fighter and leave the group when a guardian comes along since we are the only ones SOE intended to tank.

 

I do not like the idea of six tanks, I have said that many times before, but that is what we are stuck with unfortunately.  We will never be the most popular choice again for every situation, that is all I am saying.  There are too many immature kids playing this game in every class that cry because class X is better than me.  We need to stop cmplaining that we are not #1 anymore and give suggestions to help us out such as decreasing or eliminating the ability of mobs to resist our tauts.  We cannot hold agro if we cannot taunt now can we.  Another idea is to reduce the amount of stunns/stifles we are hit with, once again we cannot hold agro if we can only taunt once every 30 seconds or so.  The advantages goes to the pajama wearers in both those cases.  The added DPS they have makes them better choices, and if there is a better choice there is no balance.

 

My point is that many of the people that are upset now NEVER truly read and understood what was being put out.  They played a  class that was slightly overpowered and needed tweaking.  Others complained about us and we never truly answered many of those arguements ad low and behold SOE nerf'd us to make Brawlers better.  Don't say you never saw it coming if you played EQ1.  It is SOE's trend.  Nerf 1 class overpower the ones that need fixing, wait a few months boost the nerfed class and nerf the newly overpowered class, rinse repeat to keep money coming in.

 

I like some of the changes to us, but still we need something.  I am not going to pretend that we are perfect or that things are horrible.  I like being able to solo and still have power left after killing a single mob.  I just don't like being forced to solo because a lot of the 50+ peeps in my guild bailed after the CC and now most groups prefer faster/higher DPS tanks to grind XP with. 

 

My feelings are that we need to ask for things that are going to make us more attractive to XP groups and stop begging to be #1 again, cause it just aint gonna happen.

[Salgo]

First let me say that this was my first MMORPG so I didn't have any preconceived notions of the warrior sub-class based on EQ1 or anything like that. Now the main criteria I used for choosing a sub-class was to be the best MT for a group, regardless of what I would have to give up.  I will give you the point that all fighters should be able to tank, so I wasn't concerned about that. However, I also knew that some would be better for soloing, and some would have other advantages, but again I was specifically looking for the best MT for a GROUP. So as I looked through the manual, checked on-line, and looked through the handbook, I learned as much as I could about all the different sub-classes. To me it was obvious that the Guardian fit this role the best. Oh I still went back and forth a little bit because although the best MT for a group was my main criteria, I knew that I would be soloing alot as well (being a newb and all), so the Berserker sounded pretty cool as did the Paladin and his heals. I looked at the brawler sub-class briefly but to me, in order to get all that great damage output, I knew I would have to sacrifice defense and therefore would not be the optimal choice for group MT (not that the brawler COULDN'T just that it wouldn't be the Optimal choice). 

 

Now if soloing or off-tanking was my main goal, I would have chosen a different sub-class. The fact that both I (a newb) and the hardcore more experience gamer's both selected Guardians for the optimal MT in a group just further illustrates an understanding by most that there is a give and take relationship with sub-class selection. How someone can expect to dish out the most DPS, have good utilities, and expect everyone to tank equally boggles my mind. Where is the give and take? If I wasn't a casual gamer I would re-roll cuz there doesn't seem to be a downside. Since I am a casual gamer and my main is only at level 42 since launch, I don't really have that option. Also, I like may main tanks wearing heavy armor in my fantasy games...maybe its all the other RPG's I played on Nintendo or Sega whatever but anything else just doesn't sound right lol. 

 

I really hope SOE re-thinks their strategy on this one. I spent all this time just getting to 42, I can't even imagine having to re-roll! Unfortunately I would have to quit if that was the only choice. Heck, I would even be willing to give everyone what they want....want to be MT fine...but then it makes sense that the MT should do the least amount of damage compared to ALL other subclasses, need others to heal them, and be the first one down when something goes wrong...(hey that kind of sounds like a sub-class already but the name escapes me at the moment). So I say if Guardians are truly dead, go ahead and merge us into one Warrior group so that we all "tank equally", we will also solo equally, level equally, die equally, etc...be careful what you wish for.

Message Edited by Salgore on 10-23-2005 01:22 PM

[Grantr]

---

Salgore wrote:

First let me say that this was my first MMORPG so I didn't have any preconceived notions of the warrior sub-class based on EQ1 or anything like that. Now the main criteria I used for choosing a sub-class was to be the best MT for a group, regardless of what I would have to give up.  I will give you the point that all fighters should be able to tank, so I wasn't concerned about that. However, I also knew that some would be better for soloing, and some would have other advantages, but again I was specifically looking for the best MT for a GROUP. So as I looked through the manual, checked on-line, and looked through the handbook, I learned as much as I could about all the different sub-classes. To me it was obvious that the Guardian fit this role the best. Oh I still went back and forth a little bit because although the best MT for a group was my main criteria, I knew that I would be soloing alot as well (being a newb and all), so the Berserker sounded pretty cool as did the Paladin and his heals. I looked at the brawler sub-class briefly but to me, in order to get all that great damage output, I knew I would have to sacrifice defense and therefore would not be the optimal choice for group MT (not that the brawler COULDN'T just that it wouldn't be the Optimal choice). 

 

Now if soloing or off-tanking was my main goal, I would have chosen a different sub-class. The fact that both I (a newb) and the hardcore more experience gamer's both selected Guardians for the optimal MT in a group just further illustrates an understanding by most that there is a give and take relationship with sub-class selection. How someone can expect to dish out the most DPS, have good utilities, and expect everyone to tank equally boggles my mind. Where is the give and take? If I wasn't a casual gamer I would re-roll cuz there doesn't seem to be a downside. Since I am a casual gamer and my main is only at level 42 since launch, I don't really have that option. Also, I like may main tanks wearing heavy armor in my fantasy games...maybe its all the other RPG's I played on Nintendo or Sega whatever but anything else just doesn't sound right lol. 

 

I really hope SOE re-thinks their strategy on this one. I spent all this time just getting to 42, I can't even imagine having to re-roll! Unfortunately I would have to quit if that was the only choice. Heck, I would even be willing to give everyone what they want....want to be MT fine...but then it makes sense that the MT should do the least amount of damage compared to ALL other subclasses, need others to heal them, and be the first one down when something goes wrong...(hey that kind of sounds like a sub-class already but the name escapes me at the moment). So I say if Guardians are truly dead, go ahead and merge us into one Warrior group so that we all "tank equally", we will also solo equally, level equally, die equally, etc...be careful what you wish for.

Message Edited by Salgore on 10-23-2005 01:22 PM

---

   Guardians still have the most taunts.  They still have the most mitagation (even tho they need to work on different stats now as well to raise avoidance).  Your AE taunt is far better then any other class, I will give you a example in poets palace a 57 guardian uses a AE taunt off the bat it lands. I (a 60 bruiser) needs to use my ae taunt, single, and savage blows to get a few off him.  But over all they still stay with him because I dont have the number of taunts to keep it off him.  Guardians taunts are still top notch.  I would have to say as a MT role for grinding if your fighting HARDER mobs (Deep yellow / orange mix) a group would prefer the guardian over any other fighter.

 

Message Edited by Grantron on 10-23-2005 01:47 PM

Message Edited by Grantron on 10-23-2005 01:56 PM

[Grantr]

double post, sorry.

Message Edited by Grantron on 10-23-2005 01:56 PM

[Grumm]

---

a6eaq wrote:

Grummpy and any other Guardian that thought we were meant to be the only choice for MTing,

I am not going to pick and choose a bunch out of our long posts, but how can you justify fighters being able to stand toe-to-toe with opponents and then ssaying that as we branch out some are no longer fighters (Tanks)?  If you made decissions off of your EQ1 experiences, then Sony did not do a good enough job making it known that all this game comes from EQ1 it is not EQ1.  I noticed early on people crying because there was not enough similarities between the two games.  I for one was thrilled that I did not have to be a hard core raider to experience this game as it was designed.  I do not and have never agreed that there should be six f'ing tanks in this game.  It is [expletive haxx0red by Raiscript]!  I mean come on, are we supposed to have six different fghters tag along with every group to swap out tanks for mob the group is currently fighting?/sarcasm and massive exageration off.

Was there only my small select group of friends that actually saw that SOE intended for six tanks that tank differently?  Were we the very few to take hours researching what SOE was putting out on the web prior to game release?  If so, then all of you that thaught Guardians were the new Warrior either did not do the research or read into it what you wanted.  A few examples are:

well, I dont see it saying that "ALL fighters will tank" but I dont not agree that they all should.

Well "Fighters stand toe-to-toe with their opponent..."  I guess those words mean guardians only huh?  Once again I guess that SOE meant Guardians instead of fighters.

The next quote again shows that you read what you wanted to...

Still, not helping me change my  desission on what class i should play as a meat shiled, Its whats "Not" said, that you are using as examlpes, but I used this..... "wearing Heavy armor" not "Heaviest of armor"

This was about Pallies, well if you will open your manual to page 29 and look at what armor Pallies and SK's were supposed to wear you will see that you were reading what you wanted and not what is printed because both of those classes were intended to wear "Heavy, Vanguard"  hmm, like I said I guess they were wearing Vanguard to look pretty as they do whatever it was that many of you want them do in a group beside be a fighter and leave the group when a guardian comes along since we are the only ones SOE intended to tank.

 

I do not like the idea of six tanks, I have said that many times before, but that is what we are stuck with unfortunately.  We will never be the most popular choice again for every situation, that is all I am saying.  There are too many immature kids playing this game in every class that cry because class X is better than me.  We need to stop cmplaining that we are not #1 anymore and give suggestions to help us out such as decreasing or eliminating the ability of mobs to resist our tauts.  We cannot hold agro if we cannot taunt now can we.  Another idea is to reduce the amount of stunns/stifles we are hit with, once again we cannot hold agro if we can only taunt once every 30 seconds or so.  The advantages goes to the pajama wearers in both those cases.  The added DPS they have makes them better choices, and if there is a better choice there is no balance.

 

My point is that many of the people that are upset now NEVER truly read and understood what was being put out.  They played a  class that was slightly overpowered and needed tweaking.  Others complained about us and we never truly answered many of those arguements ad low and behold SOE nerf'd us to make Brawlers better.  Don't say you never saw it coming if you played EQ1.  It is SOE's trend.  Nerf 1 class overpower the ones that need fixing, wait a few months boost the nerfed class and nerf the newly overpowered class, rinse repeat to keep money coming in.

 

I like some of the changes to us, but still we need something.  I am not going to pretend that we are perfect or that things are horrible.  I like being able to solo and still have power left after killing a single mob.  I just don't like being forced to solo because a lot of the 50+ peeps in my guild bailed after the CC and now most groups prefer faster/higher DPS tanks to grind XP with. 

 

My feelings are that we need to ask for things that are going to make us more attractive to XP groups and stop begging to be #1 again, cause it just aint gonna happen.

---

the one and only point Im and have been saying, and im not going to repete myself a million times.

is that NO the guardian shouldnt be the only tank, but for all out meat shield tanking, and ANY threat, we should do it a little better.

lable it "best" is you want, but for some reason "Best" is a very scary word when it not yours.

I have yet to find anyone that when asked what fighter class seemed to be built for just tanking, no bells and whistles, just being out front tanking would choose by the discription in the manual anything other then a guardian.

Like I said before. to say the guardians wernt ment to be in the top spot of that list is just nutty.

guardians were nothing more then the Tanks of the tank class.

the rest were fighters of the tank class.

why is it so scary, threatning, and intimidating to have a class, thats a free to choose yourself class, be slightly better at one aspect then its counterparts?

its already like that.

I wouldnt expect to use my fists better then a monk class,

or use divine better then pally.

or (i can go on and on) ......

but please theres no argument, the guardian is a meatshield tank.

They added DPS to us!  why would they need to "add" DPS if we were suppost to be that way from the start?

They took away our Defence! why did we have it if we wernt suppost to?

what good are taunts when we wernt suppost to be the Tank, tank?

why do all our 30s buffs aid in tanking if were suppost to be something else besides a tank.

wheres all I neat toys to aid in our offencive?

Why do we have such nifty Shield skills if were not based on mainly tanking.

why is it so hard to figure out, admit, maybe, somehow, guardians were suppost to be only a pure tank. of the fighters class.

I cant really understand why people have such a fear of someone healing a bit better or nukeing a bit better or GOD FOR BID TANKING a bit better, yet want to still be different.

last I checked,  the word balanced means  Even.

if this game turns EVEN. we only need 4 classes.

[SniperKitty]

Sorry Grumpe, but if guardians are better at tanking (all other considerations including non-tanking utility aside), there's no reason to have the other five fighter sub-classes in the game.  All fighters must tank equally, just as all priests must heal equally, and all scouts and mages must bring equal dps/utility (be it in the form of direct damage or buffs that make the group better).  That's just the way it has to be. Guardians who think they have to be the best are [censored] clamoring like dogs for scraps outside a resutraunt.  Utterly worthless wastes of space on these forums and in the game.  Guardians are just fine as tanks right now.  As a high level healer and player of many, many mid level classes, I haven't noticed anything amiss with guardians being able to tank for a group.  And no, I do NOT have to play a guardian to see how well a guardian tanks.  It's quite clear when they hold aggro and I don't have to strive to heal them every single second of every battle.

[MrDiz]

a6eaq wrote: "Grummpy and any other Guardian that thought we were meant to be the only choice for MTing,"

 

I stopped reading at that sentence. No guardians think they should be the only MT. Guardians have never been the only tank, and never will be. No real guardian would even think this discussion is about that so I have to ask you politely to stop pretending to be a guardian. Its obvious you dont know what we are talking about or what we want.

 I repeat for the slow:

- We dont want to be the only tank.

- There are now 6 fighters tanking instead of 4 fighters tanking, and thats ok with us.

- Some of fighters tank better than others. This is ok as we all know its impossible to make things equal unless you make the identical.

 

Our problems are:

- The best tank is now SKs, and before LU15 it was monk. We feel it should be the pure tank thats best as they have no utility, heal or good dps like the hybrids.

- Changing the pure tank to a hybrid with utility/heals and dps will not make this problem go away as we dont want that. We chose a pure tank. The archetypal warrior straight out of the D&D players handbook.

 

Please stop arguing with these NON-existant evil doers that want to be the only tank and lord it over you all. They dont exist. You made them up. Argue the 2 problem points by all means. And if we disagree so be it. But at least deal with OUR arguements, not the arguments you think we are making because of the Gaige equation.

[Gaige]

Ha ha well my first ever post lost to the forum abyss.  /sigh

Message Edited by Gaige on 10-23-2005 06:46 PM