When will all tanks be "equal" on high-level raid mobs?

[Kimkim Team`Zeb]

Lvl 50 sk here i can tank raid mobs , only draw back and i dont know why 2 of my high dmg and high taunting attacks on those ^^^ are taken away sorta hard to keep aggro with that but i can do group x3 and 4 mobs rather not till its all fixed...

 

"When you feel a nerf a comin make a few alts to pass the time"

[Zerofault]

I'm very insulted being compared to tanking as a monk on high end raid content lol...  I tank as well as a guardian,  I have less hps, but more avoidance... i also have more resistances...  Maybe a guardian has a very slight  advantage, but if you can't win with a berserker, you won't win with a guardian either... its all about keeping aggro, and nobody does it better then berserkers.

 

Lodoz

[Galm]

All tanks should NEVER be equal on all high level raid mobs. Let guardians have their advantage. You people are bad as the folks who whined away the good horses for Paladins. What is really sad is that SOE acts gutless and gives into these people sometimes.Pete

[Araknar]

umm this is odd as I dont see balancing of tanks as an issue, i mean as some1 said before, they have 2 ways of making "all tanks equall" either that stop guardians tanking so well and there for make them redundent as zerker/monks have better dps and paladins have theyre heals and a fair few other handy skills.

 

or they make every1 tank as well as a guardian which has the same result as above making guardian redundent coz every1 else will tank the same but have theyre extras too.

 

Personally i like the differences in way things work, I'm a paladin so this does involve me, ur saying in raids we have no place ur either very bold or misinformed, a paladin can play without being main tank and still bring a lot to raid, for example would u like your main tank to have an extra 700 or so ac? paladin can do that to them, how about I throw in an extra 30% or so evasion/avoidance skills? done also by paladin, and thats just a couple of things off the top off my head.

 

Basically in group situations we do all have the ability to tank as well as others, monks take more dmg? oh well that monks also doing 3 times as much dmg as a guardian so mob dies faster so he doesnt need to soak up as much dmg.

 

There are a lot of things here that the original poster and others have clearly not bothered looking at and have just thought "oh guardians cant take more hits than me thats not fair" If you delve a little deeper you may start to find out that in a more indirect way tanks are balanced.

 

Steelle

Kithicor

[Trei]

["... Basically in group situations we do all have the ability to tank as well as others, monks take more dmg? oh well that monks also doing 3 times as much dmg as a guardian so mob dies faster so he doesnt need to soak up as much dmg. ..."]If you have been following this thread and not simply jump to the last page and reply to the first post you see there, I am sure you will have read concerns regarding the chance of getting a smack down from a lucky streak or two from the raid boss, for the avoidance tanks.It is precisely this growing perception among the game population, coupled with increasing beliefs that guardians make the best and ONLY choice for raid MT that a few of those far-sighted non guardian tank players are worried about.If your raid group is lacking a MT and there is no guardian available, would you instead choose a brawler/crusader without a second thought, if there's one available?If you say yes, can you speak for the rest of your raid group? How confident do you think they would be of the new MT?Is it your wish that in order to preserve the role of the Guardian class, god forbid there should be a day where one hears -"raid looking for monk to MT uber-fast-hitting raid mob X ... " ?The point of the whole issue is this very simple principle:Every class/subclass should be viable choice when a particular archetype role is being sought, regardless of what the target is.

Message Edited by Trei49 on 03-08-2005 06:51 AM

[Axxon]

---

Galmor wrote:
All tanks should NEVER be equal on all high level raid mobs. Let guardians have their advantage. You people are bad as the folks who whined away the good horses for Paladins. What is really sad is that SOE acts gutless and gives into these people sometimes.

Pete

---

Sorry, but this is not what SOE advertised and this is not what we expect.  The clear indication when this came was being rolled out was that ALL healers would heal equally well, ALL tanks would tank equally well, etc.  The should not/cannot do thier jobs in exactly the same way, but they absolutely should do it with the same efficiency.  This is not EQLive, but the way some classes behave is already lending itself to the old, lousy stereotypes.  I am holding out hope that the product will soon be as it was originally advertised as are a lot of folks.

[ugl]

Enchanters, who are mages, should get Ice comet, as they are not equal DPS to wizards...

 

Ermm, yea..  

[Namil]

---

Drakkonius wrote:

---

Galmor wrote:
All tanks should NEVER be equal on all high level raid mobs. Let guardians have their advantage. You people are bad as the folks who whined away the good horses for Paladins. What is really sad is that SOE acts gutless and gives into these people sometimes.

Pete

---

Sorry, but this is not what SOE advertised and this is not what we expect.  The clear indication when this came was being rolled out was that ALL healers would heal equally well, ALL tanks would tank equally well, etc.  The should not/cannot do thier jobs in exactly the same way, but they absolutely should do it with the same efficiency.  This is not EQLive, but the way some classes behave is already lending itself to the old, lousy stereotypes.  I am holding out hope that the product will soon be as it was originally advertised as are a lot of folks.

---

I had a bunch of stuff but I find myself repeating the same arguments. For those interested it is in black below, but what it comes down to is the people that chose a class other then guardian and wanted to be MT all of the time made that choice based of how they percieved the word "MOST" or at the very least ignored it. They also did not bother to review or read the book and info within the game when making their choice. The choice was obvious to me and many other people that chose Guardian over the other classes and for those that chose the other classes it seems "MOST" knew what they were getting into.

 

Sorry but you are wrong. They said that all fighter archtypes will be able to tank equally well in most situations. As some higher level Paladins and SK's have just pointed out this is true.

So unless you have some other quote specifically from Mooreguard or another SOE person please stop repeating this false statement that all fighters are equal. If every class was to be the same then why have choices?

Again! You dont expect an Illusonist to do the same DPS as a Wizard. So why do you expect all the tier 3 fighting classes to be the same. If this is what you people want then just make everyone a fighter and leave them at that. Strip away the choices, take away the extra DPS or healing or life drain.

 

 

 

[ghosthamm]

     Your right namilla, that is the same thing you have been saying. over and over again, we get your point.  Sorry we all didn't play eq1, Sorry that we didn't have the insight you have, Sorry that we believed SOE when they said roles were based on the archtype level not the subclass.  That whole "you chose your class so deal with it" is just a lame agruement.  No one here said nerf the guardian, no one said they want the same damage mitigation or to use tower sheild; the main role of the fighter is to tank..period, if the guardian was ment to be the uber super tank and the rest of the archetype classes support tank...then fine, but that was not presented to us, all fighter archetypes should be able to tank, thats there job. There just suppose to do it differently...not worse / not better just differently.

[Axxon]

---

ghosthammer wrote:

     Your right namilla, that is the same thing you have been saying. over and over again, we get your point.  Sorry we all didn't play eq1, Sorry that we didn't have the insight you have, Sorry that we believed SOE when they said roles were based on the archtype level not the subclass.  That whole "you chose your class so deal with it" is just a lame agruement.  No one here said nerf the guardian, no one said they want the same damage mitigation or to use tower sheild; the main role of the fighter is to tank..period, if the guardian was ment to be the uber super tank and the rest of the archetype classes support tank...then fine, but that was not presented to us, all fighter archetypes should be able to tank, thats there job. There just suppose to do it differently...not worse / not better just differently.

---

Exactly.  That was my point and that's what we are supposed to have.  I have not read every post in this thread and do not intend to, regardless of what color its written in.   I do not get a tower shield, for example, and I am fine with that.  I don't expect one because  I get other tanking tools like a ward and lifetaps.  I WANT to be able to use my abilities to tank - that's what they are there for.   The guardian and SK use different tanking tactics, but at the end of a fight against equivilent mobs, their health and power pools (and those of the other group members) should be about the same.  That is what was promised.  That is class balance.

[Gaige]

I like all the comparisons to enchanters.

 

Enchanters have useful utility that no one else in the game gets.

 

Fighters get damage, which any class can do.

 

If SoE really intends for the other 5 fighter subclasses to not do anything on raids, then tell us that.

 

Because if we aren't tanking raids, and two entire archetypes have better damage, then exactly [Removed for Content] are we there for?

[NeutralGo]

"Enchanters have useful utility that no one else in the game gets."

 

Are you talking about mez?

 

Bards get a mez at level 50, swashbucklers get a 15 second or so mez at level 25ish.

[Gaige]

---

NeutralGold wrote:

"Enchanters have useful utility that no one else in the game gets."

 

Are you talking about mez?

 

Bards get a mez at level 50, swashbucklers get a 15 second or so mez at level 25ish.

---

Nah, mez, mana regen, stun, power drain, etc etc.  Troubs get mez at 50 and I know swash's get it.  But that's still what 4 classes out of 24, and only 2 that really get good mez.

[ugl]

Dunno, maybe you should start a thread asking the Devs for mez ability for monks?  :smileyhappy:

[KUPOPO]

---

Gage-Mikel wrote:

---

NeutralGold wrote:

"Enchanters have useful utility that no one else in the game gets."

 

Are you talking about mez?

 

Bards get a mez at level 50, swashbucklers get a 15 second or so mez at level 25ish.

---

Nah, mez, mana regen, stun, power drain, etc etc.  Troubs get mez at 50 and I know swash's get it.  But that's still what 4 classes out of 24, and only 2 that really get good mez.

---

Manaregen, manaregen, manaregen, manaregen. Chanter manaregen is 3-5 times stronger than what bards get(depending on which chanter class). Mez is considerably better too, both illusionist and coercer mez is superior to what bards/swashies get - shorter refresh timer as well as some perk effects(or two mezzes on separate timers for illusionists). There are no chanters whining about archetype equality, they got enough utility to be worth having around, their support role is clearly defined for them. They're one of the most screwed up classes too, plenty of powers still broken. But they're not fundamentally flawed like brawlers, whose role of tanking evaporates in the endgame against raids, leaving them to compete with scout classes to be dps.

[ugl]

Forget mez man, too many other classes already got it.   Go for lightning bolt dude!  Thats what monks need to balance them out with guardians and scouts on raid, lightning bolt.  You know, like the guys on kung fu theatre?

 

Thats what I would start spamming the boards for if I were a monk...

[Vurin]

Fighters have no utility?Assume a raid has 4 fighter clases 5 scouts 5 priests and 4 mages.Gaurdian Bruiser Paladin Bard Templar WardenConjuror Illusionist Berserker Mystic Assassin SwashbucklerWizard Warlock Bard Ranger Warden inquisotr. ( migth switch wizard with the Paladin depending on mob)You have to realize you're only going to have one maintank. Its not far from "Hey our guild's primary tank has 500 more ac than me even though we're both 50 gaurdians so they never let me tank"If there's only one maintank more often than not its not going to be you no matter what fighter class you are. So if a Bruisers and Paladins and Zerkers can all significantly buff the lucky SoB who IS maintank. I don't see the problem.You claim you have no utility yet entire raid group planning revovles around having other fighters buff Gaurdians.Zerkers can give a Melee group 100% haste. avoidance buff. can clear out entire groups of 1 and 2 up arrow mobs. and use all damage types ( scouts need to use hammers/rounded arrows ( which are difficult to obtain) for crushing damage). Seems like utility to me.Paladins give group stat buffs, can help spot heal, buff tanks, and in general save healers power and save lives. Seems like utility to me.Brawlers get the best avoidance buffs around, deaggro tool, and high damage. Maybe their utility is slightly less relatively, or maybe I don't know them well enough, but it seems to me figthers all have a fair variety of utility, and the majority of it is useful on a raid.I am not saying everyone is balanced and that things can't be improved, but if you insist the only role for a Fighter is tanking, and yet don't consider giving avoidance buffs as a significant part of fulfilling that role especially in raid situations where multiples of every archtype will be present, then you're the foolish ones.If you didn't have those avoidance buffing abilities you'd be in here complaining "We have 6 fighters on our raids and none of us besides uber_equiped_guy have any use." It wouldn't be class envy then, it'd be player envy. You want to be the center of attention, but more often than not you gotta realize it is not gonna happen.If you want to tank find out what tank buffs improve your ability to tank the most, then have your guild try you out. I bet with proper strategy and buffs you'll do just fine. Just realize you're not a gaurdian, maybe you need to approach things slightly differently, and it may take a wipe or two to discovery what those differences are.Seriously in 13 pages how many of these crying monks and crusaders have actually tried tanking raid mbos? And I don't mean ghetto raids where half the guild's support classes are missing. Obviously you're setting yourself up for failure there. I'm guessing less than 3-4, and most of them would prolly do better if they tried again using what they've learned.

Message Edited by Vurin on 03-08-2005 02:06 PM

[MajorBurn]

Ok Ill be the first to admit I didnt read all 13 pages here, and this may have been said already but if you make all the fighters tank equally than what is the point of the guardian class at all. I have played my guardian for 40 levels now with the knowledge that I suck at soloing and suck at any sort of damage output (really...my cleric friend does more damage than me...and thats sad.) but I have perservered for the one fact that I know at endgame the guardian was designed to tank the big stuff. Soooooo.... by the logic in this thread if all warrior classes could tank equel based on avoidance then why not let the assasins and bard tank too...there agility is insane so they must tank well. Really think about that....your fighting named raid encounter...giant dragon/drake/whatever, who would you want taking the hits. the guy in the armor or the guy in the leather. :smileyvery-happy:

 

 

Anyway I'm tired and if this didnt make sense I'm sorry. We guardians have it good and you dont here us complain much because we know our role .....punching bags wrapped in armor made to stand there and get slapped around.....lol :smileywink:

[Styk]

Let other tank classes place defense buffs on people outside group but within raid..... do that and ANY tank class can tank .... simple as that

[Namil]

---

ghosthammer wrote:

     Your right namilla, that is the same thing you have been saying. over and over again, we get your point.  Sorry we all didn't play eq1, Sorry that we didn't have the insight you have, Sorry that we believed SOE when they said roles were based on the archtype level not the subclass.  That whole "you chose your class so deal with it" is just a lame agruement.  No one here said nerf the guardian, no one said they want the same damage mitigation or to use tower sheild; the main role of the fighter is to tank..period, if the guardian was ment to be the uber super tank and the rest of the archetype classes support tank...then fine, but that was not presented to us, all fighter archetypes should be able to tank, thats there job. There just suppose to do it differently...not worse / not better just differently.

---

As stated by a higher level SK in a previous post they can to tank x3 and x4 mobs just fine. And as stated by a higher level Paladin they can tank just fine also. In a raid in CH a pally level 38 was MT and he has done it 8 times dying only 2, learning curve I imagine.  Guardians are not UBER tanks as you put it we are just slightly better at being a meat shield.

No matter how you look at it if the other Tier 3 fighter sub classes are made equal to the guardian the guardian becomes obsolete. Who would want a tank that cant heal or life leach or do massive DPS. All you are looking for is a way to be the best over the guardian. You say you want Balance by increasing your secondary skills so you can be just as effective as a Guardian, this again makes the Guardian null and void.

What these Hybrid, Dual Role Fighter classes need is a DEV to say "You can MT in most sutuations", Oh wait They did! And other Tier 3 fighting classes have proved it.

Perhaps SOE will eventually make you Brawlers and Crusaders roles more clear but I dont think it will be the role you want.

[Namil]

---

MajorBurner wrote:

Ok Ill be the first to admit I didnt read all 13 pages here, and this may have been said already but if you make all the fighters tank equally than what is the point of the guardian class at all. I have played my guardian for 40 levels now with the knowledge that I suck at soloing and suck at any sort of damage output (really...my cleric friend does more damage than me...and thats sad.) but I have perservered for the one fact that I know at endgame the guardian was designed to tank the big stuff. Soooooo.... by the logic in this thread if all warrior classes could tank equel based on avoidance then why not let the assasins and bard tank too...there agility is insane so they must tank well. Really think about that....your fighting named raid encounter...giant dragon/drake/whatever, who would you want taking the hits. the guy in the armor or the guy in the leather. :smileyvery-happy:

 

 

Anyway I'm tired and if this didnt make sense I'm sorry. We guardians have it good and you dont here us complain much because we know our role .....punching bags wrapped in armor made to stand there and get slapped around.....lol :smileywink:

---

Made perfect sense, nice addition.

[Namil]

---

Drakkonius wrote:

 

Exactly.  That was my point and that's what we are supposed to have.  I have not read every post in this thread and do not intend to, regardless of what color its written in.   I do not get a tower shield, for example, and I am fine with that.  I don't expect one because  I get other tanking tools like a ward and lifetaps.  I WANT to be able to use my abilities to tank - that's what they are there for.   The guardian and SK use different tanking tactics, but at the end of a fight against equivilent mobs, their health and power pools (and those of the other group members) should be about the same.  That is what was promised.  That is class balance.

---

Where do you people come up with this "That is what was promised" garbage. No where, anywhere has anyone provided any statement other then, All fighter type will be able to MT in MOST situations. That is it, nothing more nothing less and this has been proved correct by other high level tier 3 fighting classes.

Maybe the DEV's think this thread is dumb, I dont know. Maybe the guardians are being selfish because they have one role only. A DEV prolly cant post in this thread because it is to political. They are possibly trying to think of a way to make the roles of the other Tier 3 fighter classes better or more defined and not take away the only role of the guardian. I guess the best bet is to just wait and see.

[Artorius_]

Fot those as Namilia that talk about tanking in "MOST" situations and thing like that...

 

¿can you link me and iluminate the official post or faq talking about those "MOST" situations? Guardians posts not counts pls or i read in somewhere...

 

The official faq for classes:

http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=faq&message.id=1

 

If you are lazy i paste the fragment talking about balancing of classes :

 

"Won’t balancing become a real issue with that many classes?

Class balance is always a complicated issue, but the archetype system allows us to manage it much more effectively.  Each class and subclass is balanced at the archetype level.  Every archetype has a main role in a group situation, and each member of a given archetype will be able to fill that role equally well.  If you're a fighter, you can tank for a group; if you're a priest, you can heal for a group; and so on. This is the beauty of an archetype system. "

 

Where didi you read the "MOST" situation?

 

The only official post i've found about classes balancing talk about ALL situations and dont put nothin about "MOST"

 

Pls i repeat link me the official post that you see and i not pls, the unique i can read talks about "each member of a given archetype will be able to fill that role equally well".

 

Need more?

[Poyz]

---

SmashingPumpkins wrote:
I can't see the point in that, guardian are THE tank, the one supposed to take damage, they don't have paladins spells and berseker damage output, if they get same tanking possibility of guardians but u still got paladins chants heal and smite or higher damage of berseker, what will be the point of being a Guardian then? To be a nerfed berseker or a nerfed paladin?

I'm a templar, I want wards, I want mezz, I want roots, I want speed, why some classes got speed and can do all quests in half the time? I want to be invisible!!! That helps a lot in a lot of things, harvesting, catalogue, quests and adventuring!!!

U know what?! --> That's the class system each class got pros and cons, that's no news, since D&D...

Message Edited by SmashingPumpkins on 02-24-2005 03:06 PM

---

Guardians are the Main Tanks. We are the original Meat Shield's. We were designed to take the punishment and protect our Groups and take agro. That is our Job. We don't have Purty Ponys or Uber DPS. We can't heal ourselves but what we can do is TANK. If you have a Guardian in your group who knows his job well all I can say is watch the exp bar move faster.

This is not to say that Zerkers, SK's and Palys can't tank, cuz they can. Grouped with allot of them and they tank well, but the Guardian is a true meat shield and Warrior and is meant to take the abuse. We are the Tanks. If your complaining about being a Paly, Zerker, or SK then make a Guardian.

On any Uber Boss Mobs tankage can make or break ya. Guardians have to have the Defense, AC, resissts, and Taunts to keep the Big boys mad at them protecting the rest of the raid groups. Its our job to die for you Well sort of Hopefully the healer can keep up

You have 4-8 slots to make a Guard if ya want a True Tank/Warrior Class. I almost made a Zerker but I wanted to protect my group, not put out Max DPS, thats why the gawds mad Wizzy's

 

 

 

[Poyz]

Message Edited by Poyzin on 03-09-2005 01:47 PM

[sidgb]

---

Artorius_ wrote:

Fot those as Namilia that talk about tanking in "MOST" situations and thing like that...

 

¿can you link me and iluminate the official post or faq talking about those "MOST" situations? Guardians posts not counts pls or i read in somewhere...

 

The official faq for classes:

http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=faq&message.id=1

 

If you are lazy i paste the fragment talking about balancing of classes :

 

"Won’t balancing become a real issue with that many classes?

Class balance is always a complicated issue, but the archetype system allows us to manage it much more effectively.  Each class and subclass is balanced at the archetype level.  Every archetype has a main role in a group situation, and each member of a given archetype will be able to fill that role equally well.  If you're a fighter, you can tank for a group; if you're a priest, you can heal for a group; and so on. This is the beauty of an archetype system. "

 

Where didi you read the "MOST" situation?

 

The only official post i've found about classes balancing talk about ALL situations and dont put nothin about "MOST"

 

Pls i repeat link me the official post that you see and i not pls, the unique i can read talks about "each member of a given archetype will be able to fill that role equally well".

 

Need more?

---

Actually it specifies "GROUP". So I would say raids are not included. Which translates into most gamewide tanking roles.

[Artorius_]

 mmm this interpretation must be yours and those that interest i suppouse, there isn't any offical post talking about guardians must tanks raids.

 

 From Faq talking about groups you interpret most situations??? you have good imagination, a raid are several GROUPS no? you imagine that like soe talks about all fighters must fit their role equally well, outing as example the roles the groups, that then MT of raid must be Guardian???? mmm it sounds like neverwind history sorry. By oficial post (see 2 posts aboves before reply pls) tals of roles equally wells, groups are examples i understand and a raid are simply severals GROUPS.

 

From where you deduce MT at raids must be Guardians??? Pls don put interpretations link me a official post if know talking about it because each one have their interpretation and from my point of view is easier to see from FAQ thart those roles are aplicable to all situations and not "mos" like you want to view and nothing is said in any official post.

 

Pls dont write only for write and respond nosenses and search if exist the post about Guardian ubertank like you wants. I deduce from the only OFFICIAL post i've found that if theres any sittuation in wich all tanks cant fit their role equally well, this game is broken and must be fixed totally.

[sidgb]

---

Artorius_ wrote:

 mmm this interpretation must be yours and those that interest i suppouse, there isn't any offical post talking about guardians must tanks raids.

 

 From Faq talking about groups you interpret most situations??? you have good imagination, a raid are several GROUPS no? you imagine that like soe talks about all fighters must fit their role equally well, outing as example the roles the groups, that then MT of raid must be Guardian???? mmm it sounds like neverwind history sorry. By oficial post (see 2 posts aboves before reply pls) tals of roles equally wells, groups are examples i understand and a raid are simply severals GROUPS.

 

From where you deduce MT at raids must be Guardians??? Pls don put interpretations link me a official post if know talking about it because each one have their interpretation and from my point of view is easier to see from FAQ thart those roles are aplicable to all situations and not "mos" like you want to view and nothing is said in any official post.

 

Pls dont write only for write and respond nosenses and search if exist the post about Guardian ubertank like you wants. I deduce from the only OFFICIAL post i've found that if theres any sittuation in wich all tanks cant fit their role equally well, this game is broken and must be fixed totally.

---

Hey, you are the one torturing the defination of "group" to make your point. Frankly I have nothing to prove as a plain reading of the statement backs me up. No interpretation is needed on my part.

[Namil]

---

Artorius_ wrote:

Fot those as Namilia that talk about tanking in "MOST" situations and thing like that...

 

¿can you link me and iluminate the official post or faq talking about those "MOST" situations? Guardians posts not counts pls or i read in somewhere...

 

The official faq for classes:

http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=faq&message.id=1

 

If you are lazy i paste the fragment talking about balancing of classes :

 

"Won’t balancing become a real issue with that many classes?

Class balance is always a complicated issue, but the archetype system allows us to manage it much more effectively.  Each class and subclass is balanced at the archetype level.  Every archetype has a main role in a group situation, and each member of a given archetype will be able to fill that role equally well.  If you're a fighter, you can tank for a group; if you're a priest, you can heal for a group; and so on. This is the beauty of an archetype system. "

 

Where didi you read the "MOST" situation?

 

The only official post i've found about classes balancing talk about ALL situations and dont put nothin about "MOST"

 

Pls i repeat link me the official post that you see and i not pls, the unique i can read talks about "each member of a given archetype will be able to fill that role equally well".

 

Need more?

---

"At the same time, the fact that all subclasses have different ways of fulfilling their primary roles means there will be some circumstances where one subclass has an advantage. Rough edges like this are intended, as they add to diversity and can sometimes drive the passions of players. Without those differences, we might as well never go beyond the four adventure archetypes because subclasses would all be exactly the same."

As for the use of "Most" I would have to defer to the person who origonally posted it. If it is determined to be false then I will concede on that point. But not my others. By increasing the abilities of the Dual / Hybrid classes that can fill multiple roles you absolutley kill or make obsolete the Single Role classes. Wizards would not be needed if Illusionists could do the same DPS, Templars would be obsolete if Shamen could heal as well as them. And Guardian would be obsolete as well should the other classes become = to the guardians ability to take damage.

If they really were going to go this route then they should have removed the classes that only have a Single Role from EQ2. By making every class a Dual / Hybrid class that can fit in multiple situations. Give Enchanters DPS, Give Wizards Mez, Make Guardians have wards, Give Wardens DPS. not the best examples but you get the point.

I will say this, every class does need a defined role however it has also been proven by a few higher level Pally's and SK's that they can tank just fine everywhere. Just because an indivudal thinks a Palladin is worse then a Guardian doesnt mean it is true. I have seen Pally's tank just fine on raids. So essentially all fighter classes are doing what Moorgard has stated.

[Gaige]

---

MajorBurner wrote:

Ok Ill be the first to admit I didnt read all 13 pages here, and this may have been said already but if you make all the fighters tank equally than what is the point of the guardian class at all. I have played my guardian for 40 levels now with the knowledge that I suck at soloing and suck at any sort of damage output (really...my cleric friend does more damage than me...and thats sad.) but I have perservered for the one fact that I know at endgame the guardian was designed to tank the big stuff. Soooooo.... by the logic in this thread if all warrior classes could tank equel based on avoidance then why not let the assasins and bard tank too...there agility is insane so they must tank well. Really think about that....your fighting named raid encounter...giant dragon/drake/whatever, who would you want taking the hits. the guy in the armor or the guy in the leather. :smileyvery-happy:  Well go figure, you got to level 40 somehow.  Considering monks/sks/pallys/bruisers/zerkers can all thank the same 1 to 40 content you can, its amazing you even got a single group to xp in, considering that guardians suck on everything but raid content /sarcasm.  The proof that you are lvl 40, get groups, and continue to level even though the main game content is balanced for all fighters, PROVES that raids should be the same too.  Raid mobs should *NOT* be designed for just one class to tank, that's the most imbalancing thing ever.  The question then becomes "why not be a guardian"?  I mean obviously even your lackluster DPS lets you get groups and get xp from 1 to 40 (and eventually 50) even though all those mobs can be tanked my monks with better DPS and pallys with heals.  So if you get groups just as well as we do, [Removed for Content] right do you have to be the "only" raid tank.  None?  I thought so.

 

Monks avoidance is mainly based on deflection (a brawler only skill) and parry.  The "agility" as our main line of defense is a misconception, one you obviously bought into.

 

Anyway I'm tired and if this didnt make sense I'm sorry. We guardians have it good and you dont here us complain much because we know our role .....punching bags wrapped in armor made to stand there and get slapped around.....lol :smileywink:  Why would anyone who "has it good" complain?

---