Permanent Tanking Inequality? Aye, says Moorgard

[Elda]

---

uglak wrote:

---

Eldarn wrote:

 

 

No, offense does not have to be weighed solely against defense, because of the last statement you made. There are dozens of secondary roles which a hypothetical MMO character (or tank in this case) could play, and DPS is just one of them. There is no reason why a Melee class could not have crowd control abilities as a secondary ability, or powerful debuffing. Those skill sets could cause him to be as desirable, just as DPS could.

 

I think I can agree with that , in theory.   In fact, I think my other post says utility has to be factored.   But, tanking ability and DPS are the two BIG factors.  It would have to be some pretty HEAVY utilities to counterbalance superior DPS  of another fighter to gain a offtank role in groups. 

 

       

 

---

I agree with you wholeheartedly.....which is another of the balance issues....its one thing for one fighter to do 65 DPS and another to do 50 DPS but have some nice enemy debuffs (or another secondary skill).....It's another thing when one fighther does 65 DPS and another does 120 DPS. The current state of monk/bruiser DPS is so high that they out-damage DPS classes. SoE's stated that this is not working as intended (i can find the quote if need be), and will be bringing it in line.

Once the DPS differences are less significant, other secondary abilities will be more balanced against DPS.

IMO, here are all the categories of abilities in EQ2. the ones in parenthesis are just examples of the category.

-absorbing damage: self (mitigation/avoidance)
-absorbing damage: other (intercept)
-agro managment: self (FD, hate reducers)
-agro managment: other (taunts, agro increasers)
-crowd control: minor (stuns, fears, roots)
-crowd control: major (mezzes)
-ranged DPS
-melee DPS
-magic DPS
-AoE ranged DPS
-AoE melee DPS
-AoE magic DPS
-buffing offense (procs, hastes)
-buffing defense (mitigation buffs, resists)
-debuffing enemy offense (slows, str debuffs)
-debuffing enemy defense (resist debuffs, Sta debuffs)
-direct healing
-reactive damage healing/mitigation spells (reactive heals, wards, regens)
-indirect healing: (lifetaps, share health, AoE heal after mobs death)
-travel utility (speed buffs, oddesy, stealth)
-group utility (out of combat regen, tracking, trap disabling)


any of these could be used to make secondary abilities....

If SoE really wanted to get creative, they could give each tank a specific set of abilities which only worked when they WEREN'T tanking...nah...i don't want to get the dev's too confused 

Yes I know, someone is about to post "I play a tank, and all i want to do is tank, which is why i chose a (pure) tank". That's fine. They put the class in the game, you have a right to choose it! Remember, I'm not bashing Guardians or other pure classes. I'm just saying that if you put hybrid classes in a game with pure classes, in the endgame, the hybrids are going to usually be less sought-after, because they aren't as specialized...in short, the game will never be balanced.

Is that good, or bad? I don't know. But it does appear to be true.

 

 

Message Edited by Eldarn on 04-27-2005 10:18 AM

[jwdanie]

I have said this so many times that I am tired of saying it...  Equally well does not imply exactly the same.  Just as in real life, someone who commits murder with a gun didn't do it any better than someone who commits murder with a knife, so too in the game one who tanks as a monk is no better/worse than one who tanks as a guardian.  The guardian sits there and takes a beating, that is how they tank.  The monk avoids damage and hits back, that is how it tanks.  Either type can tank effectively depending on which strategy would be more appropriate.  If you are going against a mob that will take a long long time to kill, take the guardian.  If you want to kill things quickly, take the monk.  I have never been on one of the level 50 raids, but I have fought several epic mobs at lower levels, never with a guardian to tank, and there has never been a problem at all.

 

I am pretty sure that the problem here is that most people reach level 50 and have nothing better to do but fight the same 54^^^ x4 epic mobs all day.  For a mob like that, one that hits hard and takes a long time to kill, a guardian is the best tank choice.  The problem, therefore, seems to be not that tanks are unbalanced but that the lack of encounter variety for level 50 raid groups has made the guardian more valuable to this small group of people than the other fighter archetypes.

 

When everyone whines and cries "Nerf him!" or "She is better than me at doing x" and the game designers and developers spend their time trying to rewrite the entire combat system again, they are not spending time adding new content that just might solve the problem by offering more variety that would breed different viable strategies and change the grouping priorities.  If every fighter class is exactly the same, then the entire subclass system becomes pointless.  If they make monks tank like guardians they then become the uber-tank template, nobody will play a fighter other than a monk, and there is in essence only one fighter type worth playing and the entire subclass system again would become pointless.

 

As someone else said, if you don't like the way your character plays, make a new one.  If you enjoyed your character through levels 3-49 and find that at level 50 things aren't right please recognize that is not a problem with the character; rather the level 50 mechanics that are flawed.  You have to realize that if enough people complain that guardians tank better than everyone else, they are going to nerf guardians and not improve everyobody else.  This in turn leads to guardians complaining that they don't do as much damage as everyone else, so all other fighters get nerfed.  Fighters than complain, so every class gets nerfed as well, the mobs have to change, and suddenly the devs are trying to figure out a new combat system on the test server 6 months after the game launched with a very effective system.

 

To sum up my point in one easy to quote while flaming it sentence: The classes are balanced, the variety of encounter types at high levels is not, and that is the true problem here.  Guardians tanking better than anyone else on raids is a symptom of the raids all being essentially the same and not the actual problem itself.

[Exmortis_MT]

---

Opaki wrote:

No. This has been rehashed over and over. What was said before release was "All fighters can tank." What was not said, and was never said was "All fighters can tank EQUALLY."

Quote me where a dev said that.

I play a bruiser. I knew when I chose to select brawler that I was choosing a more offensive tank. I got attacks instead of defense buffs. I wear leather armor, not ebon.

Arguing that there should be defensive equality and offensive inequality is laughable. Arguing that both defense and offense should be equal across the board for fighters is equally so.

There is nothing wrong with defensive capacities being a little different for different classes. I mean, be serious, would it really be fair for me to have fear, ghetto mezz, great dps, feign death, self-healing, AND as many hitpoints as a guardian?

These threads are growing to new heights of absurdity. Difference is not imbalance. Be serious.

---

Brilliant post.

 

Equality is all factors combiened to equal the same.  Guardians in my opinion are the best laid out class in the game, they are the near perfect for their role, take one hellouva beating and still stand there.   The rest of us melees need some work, not wholesale massive changes, but small tweaks.  our DPS is not on par in the game with tanking, it needs to be tweaked, again not by wide margins but by small adjustments.

 

 

Im holding my breath, Moorguard's post actually for the first time filled this SK with a sense that SOE has a place for me, and is trying to put me in it.

 

I will hold judgement until these new fixes are impelmented and I have a few weeks to play.

 

[Elda]

---

jwdaniels wrote: (edited for brevity)

I have said this so many times that I am tired of saying it...  Equally well does not imply exactly the same....

.....The guardian sits there and takes a beating, that is how they tank.  The monk avoids damage and hits back, that is how it tanks..... 

 

I don't think one person here has suggested that tanks should tank in the same manner. And as for monk avoiding damage as it's tanking style, Guardians currently have higher avoidance than Monks.

 

 

....As someone else said, if you don't like the way your character plays, make a new one.  If you enjoyed your character through levels 3-49 and find that at level 50 things aren't right please recognize that is not a problem with the character; rather the level 50 mechanics that are flawed....

 

Guardians on live have more Mitigation through gear, more HP and more Avoidance through self buffs than other tanks, through the entire game, not just at level 50. However at level 3-49, that might not matter as much, especially on non-raid mobs, because the mob DPS is lower, and the challenge is generally lower. Just because other tanks aren't "unplayable" doesn't mean they are balanced. I don't think other tanks are broken, just unbalanced.

 

 

To sum up my point in one easy to quote while flaming it sentence: The classes are balanced, the variety of encounter types at high levels is not, and that is the true problem here.  Guardians tanking better than anyone else on raids is a symptom of the raids all being essentially the same and not the actual problem itself.

 

Guardians have more HP per point of STA, they mitigate melee damage better than other tanks, mitigate spell damage as well as other tanks, the have higher avoidance levels through self buffs than other tanks, and have taunts which are generally regarded as better than other tanks....What sort of raid mobs would Guardians be less able to tank? Mobs which ignore mitigaiton? or those immune to taunt? Via the set of current game mechanics for tanking, Guardians are superior tanks on all forms of mobs.

 

I'm not saying that this imbalance is a bad or good thing, just that it's the current case, and not what was previously stated by SoE.

 

If you choose to reply, I would really like an answer to this question. "What would a raid mob have to be like so that another class would tank it better than a Guardian, given the current game mechanics? "

 

---

Message Edited by Eldarn on 04-27-2005 10:54 AM

[ugl]

---

Eldarn wrote:     

 

I agree with you wholeheartedly.....which is another of the balance issues....its one thing for one fighter to do 65 DPS and another to do 50 DPS but have some nice enemy debuffs (or another secondary skill).....It's another thing when one fighther does 65 DPS and another does 120 DPS. The current state of monk/bruiser DPS is so high that they out-damage DPS classes. SoE's stated that this is not working as intended (i can find the quote if need be), and will be bringing it in line.

Once the DPS differences are less significant, other secondary abilities will be more balanced against DPS.

While I still think we are in agreement, If the DPS of offensive tanks are nerfed so severley overall that they cannot compete with DPS classes for DPS slots, you may very well have alot of fighters with LFG on.

In group settings, tanks get 1 slot.   Healers get 1 or 2, DPS get 3 or 4.

In a raid, 2 tanks (lets even go 3), and as much healing and DPS as you can get in those other 22 slots.

The fighter archtype is already one of the most pppular archtypes, and has been in most roleplaying games.  

If all fighters DPS is nerfed to be so far behind mages/scouts  that a fighter is no longer percieved as a DPS type class, there are going to be alot of fighters competing for those limited tank slots.  

I know right now that Sks, zerkers, monks and bruisers get invited to groups reguarely for off DPS alots as well as tank slots.  If that changes where theyre no longer welcome for thos DPS slots, well...

But, on the other hand, fighters having DPS similer to scouts/mages is why ya have alot of unhappy mage/scout threads on these boards....  They got fighters that CAN tank well, pouring out DPS on par or some claims say suprassing the scouts.

I would not want Morguards job, that is for sure.   Definatley a delicate matter when it comes to class balance.  No matter which way you go, someone is not going to like it.  and could very well be justified with their reasons for not liking it.

 

 

And yes, utilities can also get you groups.   Group invis, tracking, Evac, healing, crowd control, mana regen...

 

 

Message Edited by uglak on 04-27-2005 11:00 AM

[Opa]

---

Eldarn wrote: [abridged]

Moorgard's Quotes in Red.

Quote #1:Moorgard: "In our game, any member of an archetype can fulfill their main role in a group as well as any other."

 

Quote #2: Moorgard: "In fact, it's our goal for people at *all* levels to say that very thing, because it would mean that the archetype system works and every class can perform its core role as well as any other."

 

 

.....and before you say "look, he said a group, not a raid"....

 

 

Quote #3: Moorgard: "All Fighters can do the job of tank equally well. Our entire system is designed around the idea that anyone from a given archetype can fill their main role as well as any other."

---

First of all, thanks. It's very helpful when people cite their reasons for thinking or feeling a certain way. To a degree, I concede my earlier point about what the devs said on this issue. You have made that clear. My responses:

A) As you noted, the first two are about being a group's tank. As a bruiser who tanked from 30-50, I can say that bruiser are at present more than able to tank for a group, just as well as a guardian.

B) Groups are the main unit of division in this game, not raids.

C) MG always likes to remind that his posts are true at the time of his saying it, so their applicability later is always suspect.

D) According to the reasoning you're using, evoking these dev archetype comments, one could argue that the Mage archetype is supposed to play a DPS role. And yet, would it be "balanced" if chanters could nuke like a warlock, and mezz, and breeze? No. Classes can serve their archetype role equally effectively even if the way they do so varies.

E) In the end, it comes down to something as simple as this. What do you want? Damage taken per second to be equal across the board? Mitigation/Avoidence being exactly the same? What counts for defensive equality in characters who have different defensive techniques? And suppose that wish was granted. All tanks have equal defense, then too, all tanks must have equal offense, right? And equal access to crush/slash/pierce weapons, right? What would this be like? We all have the same spell to do x damage, yet one person shield bashes, I do a kung fu kick, and someone else casts a spell? Classes mean nothing but animations? And this would be better?

[Blackdog183]

---

Opaki wrote:

---

Eldarn wrote: [abridged]

Moorgard's Quotes in Red.

Quote #1:Moorgard: "In our game, any member of an archetype can fulfill their main role in a group as well as any other."

 

Quote #2: Moorgard: "In fact, it's our goal for people at *all* levels to say that very thing, because it would mean that the archetype system works and every class can perform its core role as well as any other."

 

 

.....and before you say "look, he said a group, not a raid"....

 

 

Quote #3: Moorgard: "All Fighters can do the job of tank equally well. Our entire system is designed around the idea that anyone from a given archetype can fill their main role as well as any other."

---

First of all, thanks. It's very helpful when people cite their reasons for thinking or feeling a certain way. To a degree, I concede my earlier point about what the devs said on this issue. You have made that clear. My responses:

A) As you noted, the first two are about being a group's tank. As a bruiser who tanked from 30-50, I can say that bruiser are at present more than able to tank for a group, just as well as a guardian.

Problem there is, after you get to lvl 50, theres 2 things that happen, harvesting and raiding.  Thats when this imbalance starts to show its true form.

B) Groups are the main unit of division in this game, not raids.

From level 1-49 yes, that is true.

C) MG always likes to remind that his posts are true at the time of his saying it, so their applicability later is always suspect.

Can you quote somewhere that he has refuted(changed) those statements?  Didnt think so.

D) According to the reasoning you're using, evoking these dev archetype comments, one could argue that the Mage archetype is supposed to play a DPS role. And yet, would it be "balanced" if chanters could nuke like a warlock, and mezz, and breeze? No. Classes can serve their archetype role equally effectively even if the way they do so varies.

E) In the end, it comes down to something as simple as this. What do you want? Damage taken per second to be equal across the board? Mitigation/Avoidence being exactly the same? What counts for defensive equality in characters who have different defensive techniques? And suppose that wish was granted. All tanks have equal defense, then too, all tanks must have equal offense, right? And equal access to crush/slash/pierce weapons, right? What would this be like? We all have the same spell to do x damage, yet one person shield bashes, I do a kung fu kick, and someone else casts a spell? Classes mean nothing but animations? And this would be better?

Heres what I want, balance. Plain simple balance.  I want guardians to not be the absolute top choice in all cases over all classes.  I want guadians to be one of the tank classes, not the ONE tank class.  As it stands right now on live, they have the highest HPs, mit, best shields, best self buffing, and can achieve 100% avoidance, best taunts, best weapon selection.  HOW IS THIS BALANCED! Someone explain how the f*ck they think this is balanced.

---

[Dragonreal]

One question I have is why exactly do guardians get the most hp? why can't monks have the most hp of a tank class and guardians the least like they do with the healers? Idk how much that would help, but I'd think it would do SOMETHING to make monks more viable as a tank.

[uzhiel feathered serpe]

The problem is that DEVS gave their word, on numerous times, that ALL tanks would tank the same, just differently.  This new system just dropped a bomb right in the laps of Eva tanks.

 

He was asked to quote devs, and he did...so now the Guards turn the arguement to the same old " im a guard, thats all i do, take my UBERNESS away, and then what am I"

 

Its funny how when he quotes the devs, when Opaki asked him to quote them,  Opaki tries to interpret it and twist it so it supports the current system. I'm starting to get frustrated by Guards continually try to justify a broken system just so they can say they are the top tank.

 

Its broken, Mr Guards, and I dont think this arguement will be laid to rest anytime soon, because many tank types are upset with the system.

 

Uzhiel, lvl 50 Paladin, Eternal Chaos, Faydark.

 

 

Message Edited by uzhiel feathered serpent on 04-27-2005 11:47 AM

[Elda]

uglak,

 

that's the age old issue with the pure tank (like Guardian);  

 

Everyone wants one on their raid. But everyone wants ONE on their raid.

 

Balancing the number of tanks wanted on raids is very tricky....and as you say, reducing fighter DPS far below scout DPS will make the number of tanks wanted on raids even lower, unless other steps are taken to ensure that their secondary abilites are really that sought after.

 

Of course, the argument of "why be a scout when a fighter does 90% of your DPS and can also tank" comes to mind. This is partially due to the lack of real scout utility. If scouts had a fully functional and soughtafter utility skillset, having fighters approach them in DPS wouldn't be as confusing. Regardless, dev's truly seeking balance will have to find another method of making tanks useful when they aren't tanking besides just giving them DPS.

 

If balance, variety, and class inclusion are the goals of the dev team, each tank should have a secondary skillset that they can only use while they are NOT tanking a mob (or at least, it's much less effective while tanking). Something like this could help balance fighter class utility without imbalancing tanking directly. There's no reason a tank can't do minor crowd control, awesome debuffs, have a selection of travel spells, summon shards/corpses, cast haste buffs or have a great downtime reducing ability or so on.

 

These abilities should be given to fighters with higher priority because unlike other classes, the role of Tanking really is best filled by one character at a time. You only want one tank, but the more healers, or dps, the better.

 

In games like this, people will choose to invite a class to a group based on as few as 1 or 2 great abilities. A fighter doesn't need to have a whole array of secondary abilities to become useful as a 2nd, 3rd, 4th or so on tank in the raid...all he needs is one ability that he can do better than anyone else....and preferably something that doesn't make him better at main tanking. That is the true nature of the secondary ability.

 

However, as stated in my original post, it seems that the developers have "given up on balance", and opted to go the more traditional route of having some classes simply more specialized than others, and thus, destined to be more soughtafter in raid situations, leaving others to be less desirable. We shall see when the "combat revamp" is done.

[Screamin' 1]

---

Sunrayn wrote:

---

Eldarn wrote:

 

Guardan: TANK

By making 5 out of 6 classes in the archtype have multiple roles, and one have only one role, they instantly and (possibly) permanatly shot their vision of balance in the foot. There's no way that the other tanks could be equal at tanking when they can do all of those other things but the poor Guardian can only do one thing.  With the tremendous number of potential secondary roles for a character to play in a group, the EQ2 team decided to go with NONE, for Guardian.

---

Poor Guardian?

 

Thats what I signed up to be.  A tank.  Nothing more, nothing less.  I think most, if not all guards signed up for the same reason.  Its what I do.  Its all I want to do.

---

Amen brother.

[BigTea]

First off, I'm a Guardian.

Second, I'm not level 50 and I don't raid much.

I want to tank.  I don't always want to main tank.  Sometimes it nice to let others work for it and let me just do DPS, pick up adds and guard group members.  From my experience, Guardians are a one trick pony.  I've heard where a Guardian is a good off tanker because he can lend his defense bonuses to a MT like a monk who has higher DPS.  I've not really experienced it, but with the caps, I don't think that would work well under the new system.

I personally would love to see some depth given to the class.  I don't have an ego such that I must be MT all the time.  I prefer to switch it up and be more versitle.  But when I do MT, I want to do a good job.  Some might think I should have been another fighter subclass.  I disagree.  I picked Guardian because I prefered the style of combat.  I played the other subclasses before I settled on Guardian.  I liked the way the Guardian played, even with it's depth problems.

I feel the argument that you only need ONE Guardian in the group is correct.... to a degree.  I feel the game was designed so effeciently you would need ONE of EVERY archetype in a group.  That means one tank regardless of what subclass it is.  You should need one healer in the group.  I shouldn't care if I have a Mystic, a Templar, or a Fury in the group as they can all fill the main role of healer.

Does that mean each subclass has to be a cookie cutter of each other?  I don't think so.

What does concern me are the differences between Paladin and Guardian right now.  It seems that the Paladin now has everything a Guardian has plus can heal.  I don't understand the shield issue at all.  A tower did have a whole 1% better chance of blocking than a kite, now it's the same?  Mitigation is the same?  I just don't get it.  Then today MG says Paladins will have a higher DPS than Guardians.

I'm all for equality at the archetype level.  But I'm not seeing it.

[Exmortis_MT]

---

uzhiel feathered serpent wrote:
The problem is that DEVS gave their word, on numerous times, that ALL tanks would tank the same, just differently.  This new system just dropped a bomb right in the laps of Eva tanks.

 

He was asked to quote devs, and he did...so now the Guards turn the arguement to the same old " im a guard, thats all i do, take my UBERNESS away, and then what am I"

 

Its funny how when he quotes the devs, when Opaki asked him to quote them,  Opaki tries to interpret it and twist it so it supports the current system. I'm starting to get frustrated by Guards continually try to justify a broken system just so they can say they are the top tank.

 

Its broken, Mr Guards, and I dont think this arguement will be laid to rest anytime soon, because many tank types are upset with the system.

 

Uzhiel, lvl 50 Paladin, Eternal Chaos, Faydark.

 

 

Message Edited by uzhiel feathered serpent on 04-27-2005 11:47 AM

---

heh thanks to posts like this we will soon see

DEV "you  get what we give you... that is all"

The revamp isnt even done, and people already hate it/dis it.  so why would this sway Devs?  you cant be pleased, you never will be pleased, but i bet your still here in a year.

 

[Elda]

---

Opaki wrote: (edited for brevity) Long post. sorry. 

First of all, thanks. It's very helpful when people cite their reasons for thinking or feeling a certain way. To a degree, I concede my earlier point about what the devs said on this issue. You have made that clear. My responses:

Actually, thank you, because its nice to be able to actually discuss something on this board where people can look at information and say "hey, ok i had not seen that before, ok lets take that info and keep going from there". It turns what is normally a flame-fest into an actual debate, and that's why were here, so thank you.

A) As you noted, the first two are about being a group's tank. As a bruiser who tanked from 30-50, I can say that bruiser are at present more than able to tank for a group, just as well as a guardian.

I agree that bruisers and monks are definitely "able" to tank. I'm not suggesting that they are broken, just that they do not have equal tanking ability based on game mechanics (HP, MIT, AVOID, taunts) to a Guardian. Can I keep a bruiser tank alive in most situaitons (i'm a defiler)? Yep. Is it easier to keep a Guardian alive? Most definitely, from my experience.

B) Groups are the main unit of division in this game, not raids.

The problem here is that it's not variable...it's not like you do some grouping one day, some raiding the next, then back to grouping. You're generally either in a grouping phase of the game (1-49) or a raiding phase (50). It's a whole different phase of the game as you know, based on your level.  Saying "well at least you could tank all the way to 50" to an endgame SK who is easily outshined in a tanking role by other classes isn't much condolence.

C) MG always likes to remind that his posts are true at the time of his saying it, so their applicability later is always suspect.

True, in fact that's the whole point of this thread. I'm saying that the devs have moved away from their previously stated attempts at balance within archtypes, specifically using Tanks as an example.

D) According to the reasoning you're using, evoking these dev archetype comments, one could argue that the Mage archetype is supposed to play a DPS role. And yet, would it be "balanced" if chanters could nuke like a warlock, and mezz, and breeze? No. Classes can serve their archetype role equally effectively even if the way they do so varies.

Well lets see...if chanters could DPS like a warlock, mezz and breeze would it be balanced? No. Why? Because a warlock can't do anything besides DPS, he has no secondary abilities. 

Mez and breeze and the like are the secondary abilities of the Chanter. Unfortunately, the Warlock happens not to have any of his own, like the Guardian. A balanced warlock might have a useful secondary ability such as awesome travel spells like ports, or maybe he the ability to read the resists of mobs.  If he did, no one would care so much about Chanters having decent DPS.

The primary role of Mage is add DPS to a group. All mages should add similar amounts of DPS to a group. They shoud of course use different means, based on EQ2 Lore, Warlocks use DoT and some DD, Chanters should use Haste, proc buffs and some DD/DoT's.

The point is that if you want to create balance, you don't balance the ability of a class to do his main job with his secondary abilities. Instead, within an archtype, you balance all classes primary abilities against each other, and then balance their secondary abilities against each other.

E) In the end, it comes down to something as simple as this. What do you want? Damage taken per second to be equal across the board? Mitigation/Avoidence being exactly the same? What counts for defensive equality in characters who have different defensive techniques? And suppose that wish was granted. All tanks have equal defense, then too, all tanks must have equal offense, right? And equal access to crush/slash/pierce weapons, right? What would this be like? We all have the same spell to do x damage, yet one person shield bashes, I do a kung fu kick, and someone else casts a spell? Classes mean nothing but animations? And this would be better?

There's no reason to take the balancing to this point, and no one is advocating it (at least not on this thread). If balance is the goal, you have to look at the classes primary role, and make sure that it can complete it as well as other classes in the archtype. DPS is not a tank's primary role. A tank's primary role is tanking, which mainly means in EQ2:

-getting/maintaining agro

-mitigating damage

-avoiding damage

So you take those three main things, and those three things only, and balance them against eachother for the tank classes. I'm gonna go hypothetical here for an example: (we are also assuming hypothetically the three tanking factors are of equal importance)

 

SK: gets and holds agro well, mitigates damage moderately, avoids damage moderately

Guardian: gets and holds agro moderately, mitigates damage well, avoids damage moderately

 

So here we have two classes that are going to play in totally different ways, yet will both be able to tank equally...they just all have their strengths and weaknesses. This guardian can stand up to a mob's beatingsvery well, and avoid them sometimes, however, he has more problems with taunting, and mobs will more frequently turn onto other party members. That's his weakness. The SK has plenty of hate generating abilities so he'll always be able to save a party member in need, however, he isn't that great at avoiding/mitigating damage, so sometimes he'll be overcome by mob DPS. That's his weakness.

So, there will need to be in game situations where the guardian's mitigation wont be as valuable as the SK's taunting ability, and other situations where a SK's taunting ability doesnt match up to the guardians mitigation. Those two classes are actually MORE different than the current SK and Guardian's way of handling their main role, and they are more balanced.

If I really wanted balance, the easiest way is to ensure there are many ways for a classes primary role to be filled. How about some tanks with higher spell resistance?

You continue on in your post about how balancing would requireequal DPS, equal access to different weapons, and so on...No, none of that would need to be done. There are many things you can alter to make secondary abilities equal besides just changing DPS.

Guardian: access to all weapon types, moderate DPS, increased downtime regen for party, powerful line of interrupt attacks that can only be used when off-tanking, charge line of skills: damage bonus to the first attack in an encounter for each party member.

SK: only slashing weapons, Good DPS through lower level undead pet, vampiric power drain procs, variety of enemy resist debuffs.

You would then just balance those secondary abilities against eachother, and you'd be on the road to having balanced classes.  Note how the Guard has more secondary abilities than the SK, because the SK has higher DPS (through his pet). No need for same-ness, no need for "all spells to do the same damage, or one class to shield bash and the other kick for the same effect".

Balance in this case doesn't mean identical, it means able to fulfil their main role as well as others, and having a secondary role as valuable as others.

 

---

[Opa]

---

uzhiel feathered serpent wrote:

 

Its funny how when he quotes the devs, when Opaki asked him to quote them,  Opaki tries to interpret it and twist it so it supports the current system. I'm starting to get frustrated by Guards continually try to justify a broken system just so they can say they are the top tank.

 

Edited by uzhiel feathered serpent on 04-27-2005 11:47 AM

---

A) I asked someone to quote the devs, someone did, and I thanked them and conceded my claim that the "equal" clause was never there. It was. Others were right, and I was wrong, on that point.

B) I'm not a Guardian, I'm a Bruiser. Look me up. Opaki. Permafrost.

C) I said I was a Brusier in my post. Clearly you didn't read it. Which really reveals why your reading of what I had to say left so much to be desired...because you didn't read it.

D) I don't think the current system in wholly broken. I think it could use tweaking, like everyone does. But the accusation that I'm "twisting words" for my own selfish reasons, when in fact I would greatly benefit by the changes other people are suggesting and I am arguing against is absurd, unwarranted, and ignorant.

 

As for all the comments of merit on here, I can only say this: raid balance and group-role balance are different beasts, since no matter what, raids need only one tank. It's difficult to do one without the other. I'm a tank, and not a raid tank, and I still don't see anything wrong with that. But I respect the people who see things differently. Try to extend the same, Serpent, and other would be trolls. 

Message Edited by Opaki on 04-27-2005 01:30 PM

[Nibbl]

 

Message Edited by Nibblar on 08-10-2005 02:49 AM

[uzhiel feathered serpe]

Please read my other posts Opaki. I've gone out of my way to stand up for eva tanks. You have your opinion and I have mine. Many tanks are upset with the current system..because its BROKEN...doesnt need tweaking, needs fixing.

A guard can tank at 100% evasion, more hit points, more defensive buffs, more mitigation,  and MUCH better Aggro control (5 taunts). Thats in EVERY situation, not just in raids.

And you dont see anything wrong wtih this?

This just needs tweaking?

Your posts lead me to believe that you enjoy the status quo, albeit a bit of "tweaking"....more power to you. Im glad you enjoy your toon.

You did not even address the dev posts. Im not quite sure what exactly you mean...but its pretty plain to me.

The quotes say it all, man. Its in black and white..or should we say red. The tank archetype was supposed to..and should be ACROSS the board in ALL instances.

Where are grps vs raids even brought up in any of those quotes? NOWHERE...but you brought it up from somewhere, right?

Where do DEVS say Guards were supposed to be the UBER raid tanks? Because I invite you to quote a DEV on that one.

Message Edited by uzhiel feathered serpent on 04-27-2005 02:01 PM

[Nibbl]

 

Message Edited by Nibblar on 08-10-2005 02:49 AM

[Nibbl]

 

Message Edited by Nibblar on 08-10-2005 02:50 AM

[Diapause]

For the fighter community (I mean the lvl 50s) Can someone cite specific examples where epic raids were run with a non-Gaurdian Tank and the situation turned out bad?  Now this is extremely subjective since without a doubt there have been raids that have failed with a Gaurdain as the MT and the blame most likely was attributed to the difficulty of the mob or to another indiscriminate factor.

 

Has any hi level raid used a Monk, Bruiser, Paladin, ShadowKnight, or Beserker as a MT? Has the community been so in-grained that Gaurdians are the best tanks and the other archetypes not even given a chance to compete for the role?

 

Some examples would be good to hear.. None of this 'We had a brawler and we wiped cuz he sux0r!'.. I mean maybe an example of multiple events against the same raid mob with a guild that works regularly with each other and trying different Tanks to see what worked best.

 

Crap for all we know, all the complaints are for naught and no one has really invested the time necessary to engage hi-level mobs with the other archetypes due to the bais exhibited to Gaurdians from levels 20 to 49.

 

Diapause - Lvl47 Templar

Unipause - Lvl21 Gaurdian

Lavastorm

[Nibbl]

 

Message Edited by Nibblar on 08-10-2005 02:41 AM

[Nibbl]

 

Message Edited by Nibblar on 08-10-2005 02:41 AM

[Ishnar]

---

Eldarn wrote:

game. For example:

tanking:

-getting/maintaining aggro

-mitigating damage

-avoiding damage

---

Here's where the separation should be.  If Agro contral, mitigation, and avoidance all had equal value.

Aggro control.  Best-  Knights,    Average -Warriors ,   Worst      brawlers

mitigation         Best - Warriors,  Average -brawlers,     Worst      knights, 

avoidance        Best - brawlers,  Average - knights ,      Worst      warriors

 

The above list attempts to make the following assumptions.  All 3 aspects, aggro, mitigation, and avoidance have equal value.  Every class should be best at one thing, average in another, and worst in another. 

 

Warriors get best mitigation and brawlers get best avoidance, so knights get whats left, hate control.  Unfortunatly, I couldn't make brawlers worst mitigation and warriors worst avoidance and still leave another "worst" open for knights.  So Guardians get worst avoidance and brawlers get average mitigation.  Average pretty much fills itself out at this point.  Because knights do so poorly in the taking damage department they should do increased damage (sks) or increased heals( pallys) to make up for the difference.

 

Going off the same assumption above but go the other direction.  Make warriors average avoidance brawlers average aggro, and knights average mitigation.  So

Aggro control.  Best-  Knights,    Average -, brawlers,      Worst       warriors

mitigation         Best - Warriors,  Average -  knights          Worst       brawlers

avoidance        Best - brawlers,  Average -  Warriors ,      Worst      knights,

 

Both of these methods paint knights into a corner with little to speak of in the way of defense.  

 

So the last method would be to weight each ability.  Common attitudes seem to prioritize them as such.

Mitigation then avoidance, then aggro control.  So.

 

Aggro control.  Best-  Knights,    Average -brawlers     Worst      warriors

mitigation         Best - Warriors,  Average -knights        Worst      brawlers

avoidance        Best - brawlers,  Average - knights ,      Worst      warriors

 

Here guardians might seem to get the shaft until you consider the AC and HP are king philosophy.  If you accept this philosophy then the last breakdown is the most fair, if you dont then one of the other 2.

 

You cannot make any class "average" in all 3 without making one class best in 2 and another class worst in 2.   Which results in two classes getting shafted because one class is best in two! 

 

Ishnar

Message Edited by Ishnar on 04-27-2005 03:54 PM

Message Edited by Ishnar on 04-27-2005 04:04 PM

[Nibbl]

 

Message Edited by Nibblar on 08-10-2005 02:47 AM

[Nerj]

---

Opaki wrote:

---

Eldarn wrote: [abridged]

Moorgard's Quotes in Red.

Quote #1:Moorgard: "In our game, any member of an archetype can fulfill their main role in a group as well as any other."

 

Quote #2: Moorgard: "In fact, it's our goal for people at *all* levels to say that very thing, because it would mean that the archetype system works and every class can perform its core role as well as any other."

 

 

.....and before you say "look, he said a group, not a raid"....

 

 

Quote #3: Moorgard: "All Fighters can do the job of tank equally well. Our entire system is designed around the idea that anyone from a given archetype can fill their main role as well as any other."

---

First of all, thanks. It's very helpful when people cite their reasons for thinking or feeling a certain way. To a degree, I concede my earlier point about what the devs said on this issue. You have made that clear. My responses:

D) According to the reasoning you're using, evoking these dev archetype comments, one could argue that the Mage archetype is supposed to play a DPS role. And yet, would it be "balanced" if chanters could nuke like a warlock, and mezz, and breeze? No. Classes can serve their archetype role equally effectively even if the way they do so varies.

---

Since someone else responded to the other parts. I guess ill cover this one.

 

First, thanks to Eldarn, for finding those. I plan to use then in another post.

 

Second, YES!!!!! --  No the Nuke part, but yes to damage. Enchanters as a Mage class do expect to do damage similar to a Sorcerer. Only, not with nukes but with DOTs. You do know that classes other then Enchanters have CC abilities. Some even do Damage with their stuns, whereas Enchanters don't. So yes we do expect to have damage similar to that of a Sorcerer. At times better DPS if charm worked correctly.  

[DUNN]

Let me put it in a Sk prospective

-No self heals

-Wards are broken i get hit for more damage when i use them

-Lifetaps are useless i canhealmyself for 300 every 30 sec but get hit for 1000 every second

-FD is useless hasn't been used since lvl 24 when i got it

-I only Out DPS Guardians most of the time

-Base hp and power ??? no clue why this is here it should be seld buffed hp and power and i can buff power but not hp and not by that much.

-No hp buff and we all get Mitigation and avoidance buffs 

-Add power consuption per fight and i bet  SK are the only ones that use all their power to keep aggro

Look i am a SK and curently i can do my job but as i said before everyone can do it better i mean everyone.

[Margen]

Nibbler wrote

Evasion is getting nerfed, read test updates, no more buff stacking for uber mit and advoidance... Warriors have higher hp because they cant heal or lifetap... Taunts can be achieved through healing and DPS, so guardian has more pure taunts, but pally healing, sk lifetaps, berserker/monk/bruiser dps also negate or make this equal..  Rangers arrow shots work better then my taunts for pulling mobs off healer, DPS seems to work well for taunts...  healing = very good taunt, ask a healer or necro when he heals his pet..

__________________________________________

Shadow Knight life taps in no way make up for lost mitigation, our Lifetaps blow.   They suck up power and don't cover a single bleeping hit.   So we have total embalance and thats what you want obviously.

Blackoath 31st Troll Shadow Knight

[Nibbl]

 

Message Edited by Nibblar on 08-10-2005 03:03 AM

[Opa]

---

Blackdog183 wrote:

C) MG always likes to remind that his posts are true at the time of his saying it, so their applicability later is always suspect.

Can you quote somewhere that he has refuted(changed) those statements?  Didnt think so.

---

Moorgard wrote:

Scout classes aren't being ignored. The fact that we haven't made a lot of specific changes to them yet, other than lots of bug fixes, does not mean we never intend to do anything about them. But we can't address every single class at the same time, so there has to be some that are looked at first and some that are examined later. Generally speaking, there were other classes more direly in need of attention than scouts have been, but scouts will have their time under the magnifying glass soon.

Some people want to take my quotes and fashion them into absolutes, when in fact most of my statements are intentionally free of such pitfalls. It's not because I want to string players along or avoid issues, but because of the fact that this is a game that will change. If I were to say that ClassX will always do more damage than ClassY, then for the rest of time people would be clinging to that post as a legal binding contract. MMOs don't work that way. All I can tell you is what we intend for the near future, and everything--EVERYTHING--is subject to change.

Scouts are in something of a unique position compared to other archetypes, as they are arguably the least linear of all of them. They do lots of damage, but DPS isn't all they do. They can tank a lot of encounters fairly well, but they aren't the best tanks. They have lots of very nice utility abilities, but utility alone doesn't define who you are. And this makes the archetype the trickiest to balance in a way that people won't complain about, because there are players who want different aspects of the class to be emphasized over other facets, and not everyone will agree on which is most important.

Keep in mind that DPS doesn't exist in a vacuum. If a class has an ability that increases the DPS of others, that's a factor. If another class has the ability to reduce the DPS of the target, that's a factor in both group DPS and healing. It isn't your own DPS numbers alone that show your benefits in a group or solo situation.

Think of what balance literally means: it's weighing various factors against each other. While there is some balance at the archetype level, it is refined further at each class and subclass. Sorcerers give up most of their defense for high offense, whereas enchanters are giving up defense for a combination of damage and crowd control. Bards don't have as much personal DPS as other scouts, but they have the greatest potential to increase the damage output of others. Every class should have some little nuances like this that differentiate them. The trouble is, even players of that class won't agree on what they want that uniqueness to be.

Look at some of the posts in this thread. "Scouts SHOULD be this. Mages SHOULD be this." As much as you might have opinions on your class based on preferences from other games, we're the ones who define what each class is in our game. And I'm not going to give you absolute statements that paint myself or the team into a corner, because every player is going to weigh all the various nuances of their class differently. Just because you don't agree with the decisions we make about class abilities does not make them wrong, nor do the decisions we make invalidate your opinions.

The whole notion of class balance is 90% emotion and 10% fact. That's just how it is, because it means something different to everyone. No MMO with a significant number of subscribers is ever going to achieve balance that makes everyone happy unless they make class distinctions absolutely meaningless in one way or another. We prefer not to go that route, which means there will forever be thread after thread on these boards complaining that ClassA is completely out of balance compared to ClassB.

---

---

Read and learn. Don't answer your own questions, especially when you answer them wrong. And don't be a jerk, because it might just be the other person's one step ahead of you.

[Nibbl]

 

Message Edited by Nibblar on 08-10-2005 02:47 AM