The Great Tank Lie

[MrDiz]

---

Nemi wrote:

Mantra mantra mantra

Guardians were the only class because they were the best class - SoE agreed with this and decided to undertake a HUGE combat revamp. Games companies tend not to do this unless there is SERIOUS and MAJOR flaws with the game.

Go on, ignore 10 months of changes and tell me that during the 2nd week of May on Tuesday, it was possible for ALL tanks to be viable.

---

I dont need to ignore 10 months of changes. The changes prove my point perfectly. It was perfectly viable for 10 months for warriors and crusader to all tank. This proves your lie to be that. You can argue you should be the best tank for reason X, Y and Z, and ill deal with those. But if you say that guardians needed to be nerfed because they actually prevented anyone else from tanking and tanking well, well thats just a lie and will be treated as such.

[Nemi]

[Removed for Content]

Is that it? You think I wanted Guardians to be nerfed? Get a grip. I wanted all Fighters to tank equally, just like SoE promised. I argue with you because you want a return to Guardians being better than everyone.

[Drulak]

---

Nemi wrote:

[Removed for Content]

Is that it? You think I wanted Guardians to be nerfed? Get a grip. I wanted all Fighters to tank equally, just like SoE promised. I argue with you because you want a return to Guardians being better than everyone.

---

No Nemi , we want what you want - all fighter classes to be equal. Pre Lu13 , it was about right , yes guards were the best pure tank but had no utility , so other classes could tank and make up for the pure tank skill of the guard with their utility skill.

Post LU13 all classes tank equally (according to soe) but now add on the monk/bruiser etc utility and they are now better MT's. Because they can tank equally with Guards , but have extra DPS can FD self invis etc etc . So equality is not there now.

[Galeo1]

---

Nemi wrote:

---

MrDizzi wrote:

By jove i think shes got it!! Alleluyah. We have a breakthrough

YES! Thats exactly it Nemi. We dont mind the fact that there is a best tank. We mind that it is not us. We feel it should be the pure tank. Now I dont mind arguing that fact with you if you like, as long as you stop trying to convince the forums that we were the only tank.

Glad you can admit to being selfish.

Problem is you aren't a pure tank. Your a subclass of the fighter tree. Last time I looked you could do damage (DPS), you could tank (absorb damage), you could group buff (utility).

Strangely enough, every other Fighter does the same thing, DPS, Tank and Utility.

You are a defensive subclass of the Warrior class. That means you wear heavy armour, carry a sword and shield, avoid some, mitigate the rest and buff your groups defensive stats and protect your group with your superior group aggro control and single target intervene lines.

You are not made to break the Fighter archetype mold. You obey the same rules as the rest of us.

---

---

This post pretty much sums up all arguments since LU13 went live.

 

[MrDiz]

---

Nemi wrote:

[Removed for Content]

Is that it? You think I wanted Guardians to be nerfed? Get a grip. I wanted all Fighters to tank equally, just like SoE promised. I argue with you because you want a return to Guardians being better than everyone.

---

Yes, you wanted them to be nerfed. Making guardians not the best tank was a nerf. And SoE never promised you anything other than you should be able to tank. And you argue with me in spite of the fact that I want guardians to be returned to being about equal with every other fighter because it would nerf your superiority. We all know that Nemi. Youre on the wrong board to pull that argument off Guardians were not better than other fighters. In many ways they were the worst fighters. I would have ranked berzekers as the best all round fighter class. Then I would have had paladins I think. Being the best tank doesnt make the best fighter. Fighters main role is tanking, but your out of touch with the game if you think its the only role. Even now after all the updates thats still true. And it will be true until EQ2 fades. Sony cannot have 6 fighters all balanced in all things. Its a basic impossibility unless all 6 fighters are identical. They will be better at some things and worse at others. Like all classes. Like in all games.

[Nemi]

First I have no problems in my position in the game. For 10 months I was the redheaded stepchild of EQ2 - it sucked and I wouldn't wish it on anyone (well except the arrogant dumbnuts that told me I was a DPS class and I should reroll a Guardian if I wanted to tank for 10 months). I want equality in tanking (our main role as Fighters) and variety and flavour in everything else.

I don't see it as impossible to have balance with 6 fighters - I see a Fighters role as 3 spheres

1) Tanking

2) DPS

3) Utility

Tanking is holding aggro and absorbing the mobs DPS (both mitigation and avoidance) - You already have two varieties there.

DPS is both indirect (mob debuffs for the group to do extra DPS) and direct (your own DPS) - Include stun and stifles.

Utility is group buffs (Haste, DPS, Defense, Offense, HPs, Saves, Wards, Intervene, Shielding)

Tanking can be equal and variety can be achieved with DPS and Utility.

[Drulak]

---

Nemi wrote:

First I have no problems in my position in the game. For 10 months I was the redheaded stepchild of EQ2 - it sucked and I wouldn't wish it on anyone (well except the arrogant dumbnuts that told me I was a DPS class and I should reroll a Guardian if I wanted to tank for 10 months). I want equality in tanking (our main role as Fighters) and variety and flavour in everything else.

I don't see it as impossible to have balance with 6 fighters - I see a Fighters role as 3 spheres

1) Tanking

2) DPS

3) Utility

Tanking is holding aggro and absorbing the mobs DPS (both mitigation and avoidance) - You already have two varieties there.

DPS is both indirect (mob debuffs for the group to do extra DPS) and direct (your own DPS) - Include stun and stifles.

Utility is group buffs (Haste, DPS, Defense, Offense, HPs, Saves, Wards, Intervene, Shielding)

Tanking can be equal and variety can be achieved with DPS and Utility.

---

hehe you are killing your own argument.  Yes fighters can be balanced with 1 , 2 and 3 . Before LU13  Guards were the best at 1 but worst at 2 and 3. This made the fighters equal over all , but not equal tanks.  NOW non guards want the equal tanking , but to be better at everything else == No balance at all.

Since LU13 Guards are the same at 1 and worst at 2 and 3 . So if we go with your argument that all fighters should be equal - then guards need to have tanking ability or dps or utility raised.

 

[Nemi]

---

Drulak wrote:

hehe you are killing your own argument.  Yes fighters can be balanced with 1 , 2 and 3 . Before LU13  Guards were the best at 1 but worst at 2 and 3. This made the fighters equal over all , but not equal tanks. 

Perhaps you could say that but the problem was Fighters were taking Mage and Scout positions in the game. That was broken. Fighters Tank, that their role.

 NOW non guards want the equal tanking , but to be better at everything else == No balance at all.

Do they? I see lots of people agreeing that Guardians DPS and utility needs looked at, I see lots of people arguing that Guardians should not be made best tanks...I don't see anyone asking to be equal at tanking and better in utility and dps.

Since LU13 Guards are the same at 1 and worst at 2 and 3 . So if we go with your argument that all fighters should be equal - then guards need to have tanking ability or dps or utility raised. Fixed

Exactly, have a cookie!! Now if you can just convince the rest of the Guardians that want to be best tank I think you'll find SoE will listen to you and give you some lovin'.

---

Message Edited by Nemi on 10-25-2005 03:24 PM

[Yrield]

---

MrDizzi wrote:

---

Nemi wrote:

[Removed for Content]

Is that it? You think I wanted Guardians to be nerfed? Get a grip. I wanted all Fighters to tank equally, just like SoE promised. I argue with you because you want a return to Guardians being better than everyone.

---

Yes, you wanted them to be nerfed. Making guardians not the best tank was a nerf. And SoE never promised you anything other than you should be able to tank. And you argue with me in spite of the fact that I want guardians to be returned to being about equal with every other fighter because it would nerf your superiority. We all know that Nemi. Youre on the wrong board to pull that argument off Guardians were not better than other fighters. In many ways they were the worst fighters. I would have ranked berzekers as the best all round fighter class. Then I would have had paladins I think. Being the best tank doesnt make the best fighter. Fighters main role is tanking, but your out of touch with the game if you think its the only role. Even now after all the updates thats still true. And it will be true until EQ2 fades. Sony cannot have 6 fighters all balanced in all things. Its a basic impossibility unless all 6 fighters are identical. They will be better at some things and worse at others. Like all classes. Like in all games.

---

Moorgard wrote:"You're still thinking in terms of EQ class names. That's going to cause you all kinds of unnecessary grief. An EQ2 warrior is not the same as a warrior in EQ. Different beasts, same name. (This illustrates how using classic roleplay titles in new games is both a blessing and a curse.) If you were talking about EQ and said that a monk or paladin shouldn't tank as well as a warrior because then there would be no reason for a warrior to exist, you'd be absolutely right. But that's not the case here.In our game, any member of an archetype can fulfill their main role in a group as well as any other. They use different styles and skills to accomplish their purpose, but the core ability will always be there. If you need a tank for your party, then any flavor will do, be it monk, paladin, guar--Oops, better stop there for now. "source hereMoorgard wrote:" Is this distinction enough for you? That's a matter of personal taste. Fighters take damage, deal damage, and hold a mob's attention. Every Fighter is charged with that responsibility, and must do it as well as any other. Some will use spells, some will use arts; some will use avoidance, some will use mitigation; some will wear heavy armor that makes them look like a walking tank, others will wear much lighter armor."sourceMoorgard wrote:" MV wrote:If they allow Paladins to rez and in theory paladins can tank as good as warriors and monks don't you think this would be too much of an advantage?Nope. Because all sub-classes get some kind of crossover secondary ability from another archetype. This doesn't make any one kind of fighter preferable in all situations, but rather adds versatility to the group.A skittish priest may want the security of grouping with another class that can rez. However, there will be sub-classes from each archetype that can rez. And there may be some other secondary skill that benefits the group more in a certain situation than having another person who can rez.The idea is to add diversity and flavor, not to lock any one sub-class into always being the preferred one ."sourceI think its enough, have a nice day :smileyvery-happy:

[Neimhidh]

So the REAL "great tank lie" = Guardians need to tank better than the other classes because that is their primary role.

[Edyil]

Monks couldnt tank heroic mobs pre-CU.  As a matter of fact, I quit my monk for about 4 months until they announced the (then) up and coming changes.  The FACT is that having a monk attempt to tank post-Agi nerf and pre-CU was very dangerous and it was ALWAYS a power drain on the entire group.  Buffed Templars tanked much better than monks at the time using self heals for agro generation.

I do appreciate this thread though.  Some really funny fantasy in here.

ROFL

[RafaelSmith]

---

Neimhidh wrote:

So the REAL "great tank lie" = Guardians need to tank better than the other classes because that is their primary role.

---

Although I dont agree with anyone being better than anyone else there is some justification in Guardians feeling they should be the best.  Not because its our primary role...but rather because SOE screwed up and made it our ONLY role.  A role that there is only 1 slot for in a group. When you can only do one thing you naturally feel you should do it better than anyone else that tries to do it btu can also do other things. I think thats fundamentally where all this stubborness from Guardians is comming from.  If we could do something else half way decent becides tank we might not be so inclined to think we should be able to do it better than you. SOE came up with the Archetype idea...after a year of testing/revamping etc they found a way to fit design Brawlers and Crusadors to fit into that system....HOWEVER they forgot and left Gaurds as though they belonged in a non-archetype system.

[MrDiz]

Moorgard wrote:
In our game, any member of an archetype can fulfill their main role in a group as well as any other. They use different styles and skills to accomplish their purpose, but the core ability will always be there. If you need a tank for your party, then any flavor will do, be it monk, paladin, guar--

"The idea is to add diversity and flavor, not to lock any one sub-class into always being the preferred one."

No sub-class was always the preffered one. Never was. Berzerkers were preferred for small groups as were pallys, monks preffered for soloing etc etc. Guards were preffered for big raids. See? They all fulfill there role equally in different ways and in differenet circumstances. It doesnt matter if god on high says they should all be equally desirable in every single situation, it wont and cant ever happen. Its not possible. It cannot be done. Unless every class achieves the task the same way the result will always be different in different situations. If a small group needs a tank and has no healing who is the best choice? Paladin of course. No way you can balance it to make a guardian as good an option as pally. No way. You cant do it unless you make all classes identical. Its wishy washy airy fairy thinking to beleive otherwise.

 Thats the core dilema here. You base the entire tanking eq2 experience on wanting to be the main tank for a raid and seemed to miss ALL the many many times you were the preffered tank. It begs the question that if the only pary of EQ2 you really care about is the raid part, why did u take a fighter that excelled more at the other parts? They are all equally desirable in different ways. At least they were before lu13.

Message Edited by MrDizzi on 10-25-2005 08:52 AM

[Nemi]

---

MrDizzi wrote:

No sub-class was always the preffered one. Never was. Berzerkers were preferred for small groups as were pallys, monks preffered for soloing etc etc. Guards were preffered for big raids. See?

Do you actually stop to think what you're posting? How can monks fulfil their role if they are preferred for soloing? I didn't see anythingin Moorgards post about raids, or size of groups. He categorically stated no-one class was to be preferred. Therefore ALL can do it.

Message Edited by MrDizzi on 10-25-2005 08:52 AM

---

[Skr]

Heh, raid mobs should only be tanked by guardians. Doesnt mean other classes cant tank it, it all depends on if everyone wants the added challenge. But preference is and always will be the dominating factor as thats the nature of the game. If other classes want to tank raid mobs then maybe they should have been a guardian, but oh wait, they want the self heals, high dps, feign death, wards, etc etc. No wonder they didnt want to be a guardian. It boggles me that other classes would even complain about being unequal as tanks to guardians. It also boggles me that some say they have suffered for a year in not getting to tank. Well, im pretty sure after 3 months after release it was pretty easy to determine that guardians were desired as raid tanks. This left 9 months to change your class and start over as a guardian. If that was why you picked a monk was to tank, then I dont see how or why you would continue to play one unless you were happy with the class. I know that If I started off as a guardian and the whole time monks were tanking id probably start over as a monk. Im also pretty sure that no one chose a monk because they wanted to be a raid tank. If you did then you obviously you were naive in believing they would all take turns on epic mobs and we would all hold hands with our 15 tank raids and take turns every night. Most people chose their class for specific reasons, and guardians role has always been to tank for as far back as I can ever remember. In the 5+ years I played eqlive, guardian was always the raid tank. Sure, we can sit here and argue that this is eq2, and that supposedly the devs said all tanks would be equal blah blah blah, but we all know exactly what they meant by that. 95% knew since day 1 that guardian would end up being the most desired tank. The other 5% knew a couple months later. Changing all this now was really not a good move. It seems more people enjoyed the game and accepted it before, but this now is just totally unacceptable. I dont see that its become more enjoyable either. Give us self heals, feign death, high dps and wards and well see how much the other classes enjoy their undefined roles as well.

[MrDiz]

---

Nemi wrote:

Do you actually stop to think what you're posting? How can monks fulfil their role if they are preferred for soloing? I didn't see anythingin Moorgards post about raids, or size of groups. He categorically stated no-one class was to be preferred. Therefore ALL can do it.

Message Edited by MrDizzi on 10-25-200508:52 AM

---

Always think before posting. Always. What I meant, and well you know it, is that guards might be best tanks (and preffered) for raids, and pallys best tank (and preffered) in small groups, but that certain classes will be better at soloing and therefore preffered by people who like to solo rather than preffered by groups who need them. Soloers are people too remember. They have prefferences, and I can tell you guaridan is not one of them

 "I didn't see anythingin Moorgards post about raids, or size of groups. He categorically stated no-one class was to be preferred. Therefore ALL can do it"

 Yeah exactly, which proves my point perfectly. You didnt see him say anything about groups or sizes. Nothing about everyone being equal at raids. Or equal at soloing. He simply took tanking as a whole, taking all situations as a collection, and said they should be equally desirable. Which before lu13 they were. You cannot say any single fighter was more desirable than another because it would not be true unless you specified "in a full raid with required classes present". Because if you look at tanking and a fighters desirability across the full range of eq2 encounters, they are WERE all pretty well balanced for desirability.

Had any class been more desirable as a complete class, they would have been the majority.

[Neimhidh]

Moorgard wrote:
In our game, any member of an archetype can fulfill their main role in a group as well as any other.

 

 

hmm can fulfill their MAIN ROLE IN A GROUP AS WELL AS ANY OTHER

 

what is the brawlers main role?  oh they are a tank.  so there should never be a BEST tank on raids.  Soloing does not come into play, it's the group role which should be equal.

[RafaelSmith]

Ive played MMOs for some time now and realize that there is a certain "personality trait" that draw people towards wanting to play  a "tank" class.  At its core those of use that enjoy being MT do so because we like being the star, the leader, the "hero"...call it what you want.  That is the flaw in EQ2's design.  If any "tank" class is perceived as being the star then the others because they also want to be the star are gonna complain and feel underpowered.   Is it selfish for players to think this way...im not entirely sure...its part of what draws people to being a tank. If you have a group with 3 equal level/geared fighters of different varieties it matters not if they are equal..they each wanna be the star/MT otherwise they wouldnt be there. Truth is that pre-LU13 there was only a very very small % of encounters that Guards had a overwelming advantage in.   Everything else the fighters were essentially equal...but being fighters...wanting to be the star, etc the non-guards felt underpowerd because there existed encounters where they could not be the top dog.  Over time this all got exxagerrated and the perception that Gaurds were the only, the best tank all the time became what everyone accepted as fact.   Most of the  brawlers, etc that were passed over as MT  were passed over simply because of false perception...had nothing to do with them being able to MT or not. Not sure what the reality is post revamp but I do know that Guardian is no longer the best choice for MT..in fact in most cases its the worse.  Player perception may very well be flawed again and Warriors will continue to be preferred simply because that is what players are used to and expect. Either way the fighter classes still are not balanced....given the nature of players that choose to be a tank...true balance will only work on paper and in theory.   I know a Bruiser is a better tank than me...but still when I group with one...I expect to be the MT as does the rest of the group...and ironically most of the time so does the bruiser.  We automatically think of the bruiser as dmg, OT, etc.  I doubt seriously that mode of thinking will ever change. People look at a Warrior and think one thing...Tank...nothing else.  People look at a Brawler or a Crusador and probably think a few things...including tank.

[JudyJudy]

---

MrDizzi wrote:

What I meant, and well you know it, is that guards might be best tanks (and preffered) for raids, and pallys best tank (and preffered) in small groups, but that certain classes will be better at soloing and therefore preffered by people who like to solo rather than preffered by groups who need them.

---

My friend, this is where your argument is a bit flawed.  You have to keep in mind that many individuals do not have this mindset upon character creation.  There are those who choose their race, class and starting city based on what interests them in terms of roleplay, visual aspects and overall enjoyment - not who is the best tank when grouped, who is the best solo'er, who can count their fingers faster during a battle, etc... 

Remember, there are those that prefer to roll their character based on what they like or what seems to interest them the most, then grow into the role that was created for them - then determine what role they wish to fulfill based on their capabilites.

As a monk, when our guild leader (who is a guardian) asks me to step up and MT for the group, I do -  If I'm asked to DPS, I do - If I need to make a call for the survival of the group, I make it.

I knew nothing of my class, but the basic description that was given to all of us prior to my character creation.  I preferred the martial artist for my flavor, then grew into the roles that were given to me.  If the roles should change via the Devs?  I'll adapt because I enjoy my monk toon.  I have no alts, mind you - so take my information how you will.

I'll end by saying that I truly hope you guardians get some lovin from SOE.  You all know what you need, I'll not dispute the mechanics of your class, as I do not know it - but I'll say this:  You all deserve to have the enjoyment from playing your toon as those of us who are.

[Grumm]

Moorgard said:

 

Even after the combat changes, the guardian is still generally the safest choice to tank because they provide the greatest sense of security. A skillfully played guardian can help their party handle adversity better than any other type of fighter. If things go wrong for the bruiser or monk, they have a good chance to be able to save their own lives, but are far less likely to be able to help their group or raid recover from a bad situation and get things back on track than a guardian.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

End it,

 

The real truth is that there is still and always will be a order of best to worse as long as long as we remain different.

 

if they give us equal DPS and fix our taunts, even though we are "the same" just do it "different" (confused myself with that one) the guardians will back on top again, because, well, why shouldnt we?

 

if suddenly they do another patch and make all fighters the same, the decide to  just change the name and color of armor, well, guardians will still be main tank 90% of the time cause were etched into everyones head as a pure Tank and its what most people(other then fighters) are used to.

JMO

[Greyform]

Curious, why do you guys even bother responding to Nemi, or Gaige. one is just a cheap imitation of the other and neither of them will ever change their opinion regardless of how many posts you make or how often you try to explain your point.

 

I would/will ignore both of them regardless how much they cut and paste or quote/misquote others.

 

From what I can see their ego's need your input far more then any of us need theirs. Ignore them like you would any other irritating distraction.

 

I know this may seem like flame bait but it is not, I really do not see why you guys waste so much energy on these two. What exactly is their purpose here? Seems to me like it is distract from any positive with their negativity.

 

Let them post what ever they want just keep on posting where you think we are as a class and let it go. These are not the ones who make any decisions on what we as guardians will be in the future of this game, and they are not worth your efforts to try and convince.

 

They are powerless therefore treat them as such.

 

 

 

Greyform Darkward. 

[ReviloTX]

---

Nemi wrote:

Tanking can be equal and variety can be achieved with DPS and Utility.

---

The problem with this is that guardians utility is designed to make us (and possibly our group members) better tanks.  So if you say we have to have the same tanking ability, then your saying our utility should be useless.

[ReviloTX]

---

Neimhidh wrote:

Moorgard wrote:
In our game, any member of an archetype can fulfill their main role in a group as well as any other.

 

 

hmm can fulfill their MAIN ROLE IN A GROUP AS WELL AS ANY OTHER

 

what is the brawlers main role?  oh they are a tank.  so there should never be a BEST tank on raids.  Soloing does not come into play, it's the group role which should be equal.

---

Your logic is about as good as my wifes. 

I've already demonstrated how one tank could tank better (even if it's only slightly better) and another tank could still fulfill his role AS TANK equally, so I won't do it again.  But it is possible, so your argument is flawed.

Not only that, but you jump from MG's post about groups to making an assumption about raids and soloing.  He never addressed those, but let me tell you what I think.  If class A is better than class B at soloing, and class A and B are equally desireable for a group, then class B should be more desireable than class A for raiding.  It's a balance.  With the balance of DPS/Utility/Tanking ability you also have to consider the balance of solo/group/raid. 

[ReviloTX]

---

Greyform wrote:

Curious, why do you guys even bother responding to Nemi, or Gaige. one is just a cheap imitation of the other and neither of them will ever change their opinion regardless of how many posts you make or how often you try to explain your point.

 

I would/will ignore both of them regardless how much they cut and paste or quote/misquote others.

 

---

I personally don't think we should ignore them.  I think we should counter their arguments with reason to prove they are wrong.  This gives the dev's our perspective and makes them think about it.

 

---

Greyform wrote:

 

They are powerless therefore treat them as such.

 

---

I would disagree.  What exactly do you think provoked them to do LU13 to begin with?  If nobody was complaining about it I highly doubt they would have changed it.

[MrDiz]

---

Neimhidh wrote:

Moorgard wrote:
In our game, any member of an archetype can fulfill their main role in a group as well as any other.

 

 

hmm can fulfill their MAIN ROLE IN A GROUP AS WELL AS ANY OTHER

 

what is the brawlers main role?  oh they are a tank.  so there should never be a BEST tank on raids.  Soloing does not come into play, it's the group role which should be equal.

---

But thats impossible so lets not enter nevernever land here. Its next to impossible to make 2 classes equally preferable in any one situation (eg. endgame raids), to do so for 6 classes is insane. To then make them all equally prefferable across every possible type of encounter out there? Yeah right... "In our game, any member of an archetype can fulfill their main role in a group as well as any other" He doesnt mention if its fulfilling the role in the same type of group on the same kind of encounter. Which is good cos that would classify him as insane

Human nature: We will find the best tank/group make up for the hardest raid contect out there eventually. We just will. And we will [Removed for Content] out the fighter of that class so he is so far ahead of the rest he will be best tank for all the easier raids too. Thats how this sort of game works itself. Ideas to the contrary and wishful thinking. History is against you on this.

Message Edited by MrDizzi on 10-25-2005 11:33 AM

[Grumm]

 

I personally don't think we should ignore them.  I think we should counter their arguments with reason to prove they are wrong.  This gives the dev's our perspective and makes them think about it.

 

 

Totally agree,

 

the only reason im here.

[Grumm]

also,

 

I dont know why its so hard to understand,

All fighters tank Equal, so be it,

now people choose the "Best" tank, not from there tanking ability, but the Utility bonus, thus creating a "Best" list again.

now its broken again.

there is no ballance as long as they all have utility differences.

Example:

2 hour fight down to Sol eye, 6 people one a tank, EXP group, all tanks tank the same, so no best class to go right?, wrong, if it was me, best choice, Sk or monk, feigh death + feather = no 2 hour fight back down for CR if accidental wipe.

whos now the best tank in all groups?

He with the best toys wins period.

welcome to pre LU13 with a new leader.

whos broken now?

if were going to keep swaping the best tanking spot with patches and fixes trying to ballance this dumb issue out, lets at least have a  monthly patch announced  rotation so I can have my turn

[Greyform]

 

---

ReviloTX wrote:

---

Greyform wrote:

Curious, why do you guys even bother responding to Nemi, or Gaige. one is just a cheap imitation of the other and neither of them will ever change their opinion regardless of how many posts you make or how often you try to explain your point.

 

I would/will ignore both of them regardless how much they cut and paste or quote/misquote others.

 

---

I personally don't think we should ignore them.  I think we should counter their arguments with reason to prove they are wrong.  This gives the dev's our perspective and makes them think about it.

 

---

Greyform wrote:

 

They are powerless therefore treat them as such.

 

---

I would disagree.  What exactly do you think provoked them to do LU13 to begin with?  If nobody was complaining about it I highly doubt they would have changed it.

---

I think your right in as much as we need to make our points, but we sure do not need to explain anything to any player.

Why do I think there were changes? there needed to be some changes. Buff stacking was a problem, not that it was exclusive to guardians. Guardians were just able to make the best use of them.

The other problem was we really did not have a lot of representation when most of the complaining was being done. I know I never even visited these boards until after my class was broken. I had no idea that there was a movement by anyone to have us nerfed.

BUT we were not nerfed by Gaige or any other player. we were nerfed by SOE EQ2 game developers. If you believe any debate involving someone other then a game developer will change anything I'm sorry, that is the wrong tree you're barking up.

This point counter point gibberish going on now only clouds the matter.

State your case, Shield factor is meaningless. Mitigation still has damage spikes instead of the steady decrease in HP we should be seeing. Tuants get resisted far to many times. If I am even in tanking why is my DPS the lowest? Why do I have so many intercept buffs? I almost never get to use them and they are redundant. Why does one of my intercept buffs actualy increase group damage?

None of those things need to be debated with any player in the game THEY CAN'T ANSWER OR FIX THEM.

These are game issues that need a response from  a game developer not a monk or a paladin, or any other player who wants to instigate a debate to increase their own self worth. 

Maybe there needs to be a separate forum where players can bash and cut and paste and red ink yellow ink reply until their fingers are numb.

Me I would rather we have meaningful dialog with people who can actually do something about the situation.

 

 

 

 

[RafaelSmith]

---

Greyform wrote:

Me I would rather we have meaningful dialog with people who can actually do something about the situation.

 

---

I agree...but sadly I dont think SOE sees things that way.. In fact I think they prefer we all carry on meaningless debates with eachother while they keep on cashing in the checks. Their attempts at communication about game issues although geniun on the surface in reality is nothing more than the normal political stuff a company like SOE must do. If they really wanted or cared what we thought there would be a much better and controlled method for them and us to communicate. They may very well be "hearing" us but they sure dont seem to be "listening" to us.

[Shizzirri]

---

Greyform wrote:

Why do I think there were changes? there needed to be some changes. Buff stacking was a problem, not that it was exclusive to guardians. Guardians were just able to make the best use of them.

The other problem was we really did not have a lot of representation when most of the complaining was being done. I know I never even visited these boards until after my class was broken. I had no idea that there was a movement by anyone to have us nerfed.

State your case, Shield factor is meaningless. Mitigation still has damage spikes instead of the steady decrease in HP we should be seeing. Tuants get resisted far to many times. If I am even in tanking why is my DPS the lowest? Why do I have so many intercept buffs? I almost never get to use them and they are redundant. Why does one of my intercept buffs actualy increase group damage?

None of those things need to be debated with any player in the game THEY CAN'T ANSWER OR FIX THEM.

These are game issues that need a response from  a game developer not a monk or a paladin, or any other player who wants to instigate a debate to increase their own self worth. 

Maybe there needs to be a separate forum where players can bash and cut and paste and red ink yellow ink reply until their fingers are numb.

Me I would rather we have meaningful dialog with people who can actually do something about the situation.

---

Every time a dev comes in here and posts in regards to guardian issues nothing is accomplished because they always end up going off on how its our job to "protect the group" and continue to say we have the most options to do this, but they fail to realize we protect the group by holding aggro, not by popping protection buffs like sentry and guardian sphere (which I couldn't sell a master version of for 25gold). 

Of course if their name is brought up in every other thread well then they have the right to come in here and defend themselves, which is what Gaige does, if someone brought up your name in the monk forum you would do the same thing.

In regards to issues related to guardians, yes shield factor should mean something, yes its [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] that taunts are resisted and that shouldn't determine a successful or failure of a raid (they should instead just generate less hate on higher color con mobs) on a more positive note at least we can use some of our taunts while we're stunned, and yes our protection buffs should mitigate damage based on our mitigation and not the casters (or none at all).  Our job is to tank, that it we're not dps we shouldn't have it, we shouldn't have fancy little utility spells like evac, group invis, or rez, that doesn't go with the purpose of our class.  Guardians are basically meatshields, thats it. If you want to be dps your looking in the wrong place.