Roll back GU51

Junaru · 01-22-2009, 12:10 PM

Anyone else feel like SOE should take the data they learned on this test and go back to the drawing board? Clearly SOE doesn't fully understand how the changes they are making will effect everyone. Each patch the flip flop back and forth and often forget what and why changes were made. I personally see a major flaw in the Monk class that will not stop me from tanking in offencive stance since the latest change on test.

Sorry SOE I know you put a lot of work into it but sometimes it's just better to cut your loses. The current build on test is a hacked together copy of GU51 and if you push it to live you will find that there are major bugs in the game.

Maroger · 01-22-2009, 12:18 PM

Junaru wrote:

Anyone else feel like SOE should take the data they learned on this test and go back to the drawing board? Clearly SOE doesn't fully understand how the changes they are making will effect everyone. Each patch the flip flop back and forth and often forget what and why changes were made. I personally see a major flaw in the Monk class that will not stop me from tanking in offencive stance since the latest change on test.
Sorry SOE I know you put a lot of work into it but sometimes it's just better to cut your loses. The current build on test is a hacked together copy of GU51 and if you push it to live you will find that there are major bugs in the game.

I would agree. They really don't know enought about what they are doing. They have not even scheduled a realistic test. Just show up and play is not my idea of a test. The problem with developers is too often they use live as their test bed which is why they have so man fiasco's with major changes - that requires months of patching and undoing.

They should conduct some realistic tests with ALL playstayle and analyze the results and then redo this fiasco. If they push this to live ike it it is -- they will have a lot of people who will stop playing the game. THis is just another fiasco that will take months of repair to undo the damage.

At the very least they should go with only increasing taunts and detaunts in the stances - see how that works before meddling with the buffs. THE BUFF SHOULD BE LEFT FOR NOTHER GU -- Just concentrate on AGGRO/TAUNTS/AND DETAUNT changes ONLY -- not work with the buffs.

I can believe this is Smed's idea of improving the game and having a happy player base.

liveja · 01-22-2009, 01:21 PM

Junaru wrote:

Anyone else feel like SOE should take the data they learned on this test and go back to the drawing board?

I think they have a lot more work to do before GU51 goes live. I don't know if I think the whole thing should be "scrapped", but I'd be happier knowing they're going to take 3 more months (at least) to work things out.

Tandy · 01-22-2009, 01:24 PM

Well considering the first pass of it with the de-aggro's was probably a bit better than the current one...I am almost scared to see what else comes along honestly.

At the very least all the taunts in offensive should just have their threat increase nullified....and let any secondary effects go off as normal. that would solve a lot of problems people have with it.

If that happens, offensive will be fine for its purpose. Its a bit more dmg than currently on live, and would let you DPS fairly well without tanking against 'heavy hitters' or tank with just a healer along to help keep you alive.

madha · 01-22-2009, 01:37 PM

heard after the big test, like 9 people showed up, the dev said yheap all gtg. I cant see why they even need this change dps classes require like 3 other classes to dps, but after this change they wont want more dps casue they will die more. I cannot see any tank holding agro against a 100k dps raid force. And heroic groups where tank is about 30-40 % of the groups dps will suffer too, they think groups request coercer and dirg to much just wait only going to get worse now since they have the only + hate abilities now.

Good tanks will still be good bad tanks will still be bad, dps will still die, and hate buffers will still be required. I dont see how this change, changes anything

Maroger · 01-22-2009, 01:42 PM

madhatr wrote:

heard after the big test, like 9 people showed up, the dev said yheap all gtg. I cant see why they even need this change dps classes require like 3 other classes to dps, but after this change they wont want more dps casue they will die more. I cannot see any tank holding agro against a 100k dps raid force. And heroic groups where tank is about 30-40 % of the groups dps will suffer too, they think groups request coercer and dirg to much just wait only going to get worse now since they have the only + hate abilities now.
Good tanks will still be good bad tanks will still be bad, dps will still die, and hate buffers will still be required. I dont see how this change, changes anything

When did this big test take place? I thought it was posted for today the 22nd at 3PM? I never did see a place announced .

Terron · 01-22-2009, 01:43 PM

I think the defensive stances are mostly OK, but the offensive ones need more thought as do paladins.

Both reversing taunts and disabling some of them have problems.

I think they should give up on getting them exactly right this update, restore enough old behaviour to make the new stances acceptable if not perfect, put the system in and work on finishing the changes for the update after.

I think a -50% modifier on taunts in offensive stance would reduce such taunts to around the old values. Also letting Paladins keep the old amends until the update after (perhaps with the transfer amount reduced by 25 to 50% since their taunts have been increased).

Maroger · 01-22-2009, 01:45 PM

Terron@Splitpaw wrote:

I think the defensive stances are mostly OK, but the offensive ones need more thought as do paladins.
Both reversing taunts and disabling some of them have problems.
I think they should give up on getting them exactly right this update, restore enough old behaviour to make the new stances acceptable if not perfect, put the system in and work on finishing the changes for the update after.
I think a -50% modifier on taunts in offensive stance would reduce such taunts to around the old values. Also letting Paladins keep the old amends until the update after (perhaps with the transfer amount reduced by 25 to 50% since their taunts have been increased).

Would you still merge the buffs into the stances knowing that the power of the buffs have been severly reduced from their stand-alone version? I think they should leave the buffs separate for now.

madha · 01-22-2009, 01:50 PM

Maroger wrote:

Terron@Splitpaw wrote:
I think the defensive stances are mostly OK, but the offensive ones need more thought as do paladins.
Both reversing taunts and disabling some of them have problems.
I think they should give up on getting them exactly right this update, restore enough old behaviour to make the new stances acceptable if not perfect, put the system in and work on finishing the changes for the update after.
I think a -50% modifier on taunts in offensive stance would reduce such taunts to around the old values. Also letting Paladins keep the old amends until the update after (perhaps with the transfer amount reduced by 25 to 50% since their taunts have been increased).
Would you still merge the buffs into the stances knowing that the power of the buffs have been severly reduced from their stand-alone version? I think they should leave the buffs separate for now.

aye the buffs have been nerfed bad with the merger, give us the old buffs back, no tank has ever complained about casting 3 buffs instead of 1, thats furies and bards go merge their buffs, since they have like 15, and leave us alone.

madha · 01-22-2009, 01:51 PM

Maroger wrote:

madhatr wrote:
heard after the big test, like 9 people showed up, the dev said yheap all gtg. I cant see why they even need this change dps classes require like 3 other classes to dps, but after this change they wont want more dps casue they will die more. I cannot see any tank holding agro against a 100k dps raid force. And heroic groups where tank is about 30-40 % of the groups dps will suffer too, they think groups request coercer and dirg to much just wait only going to get worse now since they have the only + hate abilities now.
Good tanks will still be good bad tanks will still be bad, dps will still die, and hate buffers will still be required. I dont see how this change, changes anything
When did this big test take place? I thought it was posted for today the 22nd at 3PM? I never did see a place announced .

someone in my guild said they went to it it might have been a unoffical sort of thing but not 100% now.

Dasein · 01-22-2009, 01:52 PM

The only changes that should remain are the reductions in hate transfers/reducers (Amends, etc.), increased taunts and the new Aggression skill mechanics. Everything else, including the buff merges and changes to stances should be scrapped as it is causing more problems than it is solving. 4 year old games should not be undergoing paradigm shifts. That's something you do early in the design phase, not years after release.

liveja · 01-22-2009, 01:56 PM

Dasein wrote:

4 year old games should not be undergoing paradigm shifts.

Precisely.

SilentTrouble · 01-22-2009, 03:15 PM

I for one love the changes that are coming... They are going to reaffirm my idea of tanking. Its been said again and again if you live and hold agro you did your job. If you dont like that being your job play a different class... If you dont like that.... well, can I have your stuff? *waves*

liveja · 01-22-2009, 03:17 PM

SilentTrouble wrote:

Its been said again and again if you live and hold agro you did your job.

Since that's happening now, I'm failing to see the big issue Aeralik thinks needs to change.

SilentTrouble · 01-22-2009, 03:22 PM

i misquoted him its rather if you live and hold agro and do 1 DPS you did your job... the problem is they are doing the previous and as much if not more dps than mages and other dps classes

xKHONSx · 01-22-2009, 03:26 PM

Watering tanking down into standing there and taunting is going to bore all of the tanks who have become accustomed to the changes soe has made to tanking over the years. You, the Dev team, has been pushing the game in this direction for four years and now this late in the game's life you once again want to completely reinvent the game for no real reason.

It seems like sony purposely does these complete overhauls for the sole reason of reminding the customer whose vision this game is. It's almost like they think "Well we want to try this now and if you don't like it then too bad." All they usually end up doing is [Removed for Content] a lot of people off as they show they are not in touch with their customer base at all. In return they lose more subs and waste money that could have been better spent adding more content or fixing real issues.

Who is going to [Removed for Content] you off more, someone who is standing there yelling at you or someone who punches you in the eye? Sure taunts distract you for a moment, but when that Brigand sneaks behind you and stabs you in the spleen there is no amount of taunting that is going to distract you from the wound he just inflicted. The only reason why taunts are in mmo's of this nature is due to the fact that they are so deeply ingrained in the lore of the genre. Sony, be different, leave dps tanking as an option and just fix defensive tanking since there are plenty of times you do need to be in defensive.

Offensive tanking on live isn't too far off of what it should be. Some minor tweaks to the actual dps that tanks are doing was all that was needed to balance that aspect. Tanks should be able to put up T2 dps type numbers and if they are indeed doing more than T1 dps classes (the group that supposedly has complained that tanks do too much damage) then either the dps'ers suck, the buffs in the group benefit the tank significantly more than they benefit the dps'ers, the tank has an obscene amount of dps buffs on him or a combination of all three. Usually it is more of the former and the dps'ers just suck.

As a Monk tanking in offensive stance I already run a much larger risk of taking damage since our mitigation boost as well as our uncontested avoidance is directly tied into the defensive stance. If they had just tweaked offensive tanking there wouldn't even be a need for the 5% increase to damage taken on offensive stance. All they would have had to do was make it so every tank's stances worked like a Brawler - everyone loses their mitigation bonuses and uncontested avoidance while in offensive stance and tie those very things in with defensive stance only. Problem solved without completely revamping combat/aggro mechanics.

The only thing they would have had to overhaul was defensive tanking. They could implement the current changes on test and apply only the defensive tanking mechanics.

Instead of taking this approach and slightly tweaking offensive tanking and fixing defensive tanking they are once again reinventing the wheel when it is completely unnecessary. Why focus the little bit of money from dwindling subs into redoing combat mechanics every 1 - 1.5 years instead of tweaking/modifying existing mechanics and offering more content?

Personally I would have much rather seen them do what I've mentioned. It would give people more choices in how they want to go about things. Instead it is literally watered down into two choices....click this button for tanking and click this button for dps'ing. There really isn't much middle ground now and there certainly isn't a lot of choice.

Junaru · 01-22-2009, 03:30 PM

SilentTrouble wrote:

I for one love the changes that are coming... They are going to reaffirm my idea of tanking. Its been said again and again if you live and hold agro you did your job. If you dont like that being your job play a different class... If you dont like that.... well, can I have your stuff? *waves*

Well if SOE doesn't have any issue with it nor do I, but I can tell you right now both Brawler classes will be able to tank in offencive stance with little issue. The only thing GU51 does is lets me tank in defencive stance better then on live.

My whole point is because SOE has flip flopped back and forth so much they have left too many holes in the game right now. They need to step back and look at the bigger picture. I for one see the Brawlers getting a big time nerf when other fighters see them tanking and putting up major DPS.

CrazyMoogle · 01-22-2009, 03:43 PM

madhatr wrote:

heard after the big test, like 9 people showed up, the dev said yheap all gtg. I cant see why they even need this change dps classes require like 3 other classes to dps, but after this change they wont want more dps casue they will die more. I cannot see any tank holding agro against a 100k dps raid force. And heroic groups where tank is about 30-40 % of the groups dps will suffer too, they think groups request coercer and dirg to much just wait only going to get worse now since they have the only + hate abilities now.
Good tanks will still be good bad tanks will still be bad, dps will still die, and hate buffers will still be required. I dont see how this change, changes anything

Not to worry, I was just told in another thread that tank's can parse 600 and hold aggro over VP raiders, so this shouldn't be a problem with the amazing new taunts

Kordran · 01-22-2009, 04:16 PM

Junaru wrote:

Well if SOE doesn't have any issue with it nor do I, but I can tell you right now both Brawler classes will be able to tank in offencive stance with little issue. The only thing GU51 does is lets me tank in defencive stance better then on live.
My whole point is because SOE has flip flopped back and forth so much they have left too many holes in the game right now. They need to step back and look at the bigger picture. I for one see the Brawlers getting a big time nerf when other fighters see them tanking and putting up major DPS.

I don't play a brawler, but I imagine that if playtesting shows them able to effectively tank difficult content in offensive, it's going to be nerfed somehow (my guess would be a larger threat penalty in their offensive stance, but it could be any number of things). The vision that they've laid out, in principal, is pretty simple. It's the implementation that's proving to be tricky. But I think they're closer to the mark now than they were previously.

Truth be told, eliminating the detaunts in offensive does amount to a nerf for those fighters who prefer a DPS role. The way things previously worked, it was a huge win for them because there was virtually no damage threshold for them; not only the detaunts associated with CAs, but the ability to shed large amounts of hate and lower their threat position immediately. A lot of Monks, Bruisers and Berserkers were probably enthusiastic about the idea that they could max out their DPS and never worry about ripping from the tank. With that gone, they're now worse off than scouts who have at least some detaunt capabilities.

liveja · 01-22-2009, 04:23 PM

SilentTrouble wrote:

i misquoted him its rather if you live and hold agro and do 1 DPS you did your job... the problem is they are doing the previous and as much if not more dps than mages and other dps classes

No, actually, the real problem is too many "DPS classes" act like their Mother has been ravaged & their little sister's honor questioned if a "tank" out-DPS's them.

As a Swashy, I couldn't care less who tops the parse, ever. What I care about is: did the mob die? Did the group profit? If the answer to both questions is "yes", then there's no issue, & no reason for this ill-conceived patch.

The only reason I can really think of is that things have gotten so far out of whack that they don't have room to expand itemization & spell/CA upgrades in future expacs, which tells me that things are being nerfed now, so they can be re-inflated later, only to be nerfed again sometime in 2010. This is standard SOE practice, so nobody should be surprised when it happens again.

Geothe · 01-22-2009, 04:24 PM

In general,Most of the changes being introduced are so ill-thought out that it is laughable.I honestly cant understand how people incharge of adjusting such things can be so absolutely clueless.Its pretty darn sad when one person will be able to mess up the game to such a degree in such a short time.

Ah well.

Arathy · 01-22-2009, 04:46 PM

If a tank can manage 1 DPS and hold agro through taunts after this LU then I would say something IS terrribly broken. That is a horrible idea. Tanks in this game should need to be able to play their classes to the fullest in order to hold agro off DPS classes doing the same.

Having some treasured tank just turned 80 holding agro off of raid geared toons reaks of failure to create a balance. I'm not saying that's the case of what is going to happen, but should it.. well then I view this experiment as a failure.

To the person who said changes like this shouldn't be happening 4 years into a game cycle, you're absolutely correct.

How about this latest change to the offensive stances, where while in offensive you cannot use taunts. That's all great until you've just negated a good portion of the CAs that shadowknights can use. Since they have taunt amounts attached to debuffs and damage, can they use those combat arts? What about death march? Can they use that while in offensive stance?

More foresight needs to be used here. This late in a development cycle you CANNOT afford to screw up.

CrazyMoogle · 01-22-2009, 05:22 PM

This game is over 4 years old. The guys at SOE realize this, right? That this game isn't in beta or early release. This is an established game that's over 4 years old. Is this really the time when you start making paradigm shifts?

I think whoever came up with this ill-conceived revamp at SOE needs better supervision.

Kizee · 01-22-2009, 05:26 PM

Flaye@Mistmoore wrote:

Dasein wrote:
4 year old games should not be undergoing paradigm shifts.
Precisely.

It shouldn't go through 1 paradigm shift....never mind the 4 or 5 that we have been through already.

Sit down and see where you want to take the game SoE instead of making all these shoot from the hip changes without knowing where you are going.

Xersu · 01-22-2009, 05:26 PM

How many of you have actually TRIED the changes, versus just read about it and all the opinions (most seem to be baseless whining from people that have not even tried it).

I have tried it on my SK, level 80, 160 AA. I absolutely enjoy being able to finally tank (see take damage better) and hold agro in a way that makes more sense than before. OR I can go into offensive stance and do everything I could before sans the agro and I'm doing more DPS. Switching stances is a crucial part of tanking now I feel.

As long as I am not the star of the show or part of it (see MT or OT) I can do everything I could before, and switch when something is about to go awry and get on top of the hate list again.

It means *gasp* I have to pay attention. If you think you can just jam on the taunt buttons and hold agro you are sorely mistaken. Your DPS does play into your hate, and the reactives you get from proper timings and spell orders still stay in play.

Like what has been said before. This will still show who is a good tank, and who doesn't have a clue. Yes you might have to change your gear around, and yes, you may have to change your specs around.

Why so resistant to change? Go try it, and come back with more specific valid concerns, maybe with numbers and balance concerns pertaining to specific skills and abilities.

Here are some SK numbers fighting the single up wurms in skyfire. I fought 5 each and I show the highest and average

Offensive Stance: 4032 DPS highest (3453 Average)

Defensive Stance: 2447 DPS (5232 Hate (Just pure taunt) per second) | 2123 (Average) with 4954 HPS average

I'm assuming you take DPS + any modifiers and then add the taunt per second and you get your total hate per second.

The nice thing is the new UI bar tells you how well you are doing. So you now really know how much to step up your agro.

I like the changes. Go do yourself a favor, go try it out tonight, and really familiarize yourself with the new agro management and come back with more specific concerns and feedback, and stop whining so much because of your own potential to resist change.

BleemTeam · 01-22-2009, 05:28 PM

Junaru wrote:

Anyone else feel like SOE should take the data they learned on this test and go back to the drawing board? Clearly SOE doesn't fully understand how the changes they are making will effect everyone. Each patch the flip flop back and forth and often forget what and why changes were made. I personally see a major flaw in the Monk class that will not stop me from tanking in offencive stance since the latest change on test.
Sorry SOE I know you put a lot of work into it but sometimes it's just better to cut your loses. The current build on test is a hacked together copy of GU51 and if you push it to live you will find that there are major bugs in the game.

I disagree... Clearly.

CrazyMoogle · 01-22-2009, 05:33 PM

The fact of the matter is that tanking in offensive stance is fine the way it is. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

The only thing that needed changing was defensive stance. Defensive stance needed to be altered so that it would lower your damage output while increasing your survivability and boosting your hate gain to compensate for what you lost in damage. That's it. That's all that needed done.

Kiljoi · 01-22-2009, 05:35 PM

It has been said that...

If you cannot bedazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull(bleep).

Mathafern · 01-22-2009, 06:30 PM

I have no problem with the devs wanting to re-work fighters.

I do have a problem with social engineering. This shows up when a dev wants players to play the game the way he envisions it, not the way they envision it. Quoting Karl Popper here: " the piecemeal engineer will adopt the method of searching for, and fighting against, the greatest and most urgent evil of society, rather than searching for, and fighting for, its greatest ultimate good." That's what I'm seeing- the whack-a-moling of what devs have identified as evil ways of playing the game, rather than working toward making good ways to play the game.

Rather than break existing stances, that people use now and some are happy with- engineer new stances to deal with the needs of those who are currently unhappy. That way, those happy now will still be happy- and those who are unhappy now will have a new opportunity.

More options, not less.

Maroger · 01-22-2009, 06:38 PM

Xersues wrote:

I have tried it on my SK, level 80, 160 AA. I absolutely enjoy being able to finally tank (see take damage better) and hold agro in a way that makes more sense than before. OR I can go into offensive stance and do everything I could before sans the agro and I'm doing more DPS. Switching stances is a crucial part of tanking now I feel.

Well that is great you have 160 AA - that makes a big difference. What about the people that DON'T HAVE 160 AAs - they are hurt a lot more by these changes and merger of our buffs than you are.

Your numbers are for you - but I bet they are not what a lot of players without your AA's are doing.

Try and think how this is affectiving other players without 160 AA - sure your AA's help you overcome the Aeralik Nerfs - but that kind of thinking does not help much if you don't have 160 Aas.

This is not a well thought out change except for those who are level 80 and have a ton of AA - and apparently that is the only group Aeralik is concerned about.

After 4 years the game does not need someone to take a sledgehammer to it and break it so smithereens.

01-22-2009, 12:10 PM	#1
Junaru Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 1,471	Anyone else feel like SOE should take the data they learned on this test and go back to the drawing board? Clearly SOE doesn't fully understand how the changes they are making will effect everyone. Each patch the flip flop back and forth and often forget what and why changes were made. I personally see a major flaw in the Monk class that will not stop me from tanking in offencive stance since the latest change on test. Sorry SOE I know you put a lot of work into it but sometimes it's just better to cut your loses. The current build on test is a hacked together copy of GU51 and if you push it to live you will find that there are major bugs in the game. __________________

01-22-2009, 12:18 PM	#2
Maroger Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 3,313	Junaru wrote: Anyone else feel like SOE should take the data they learned on this test and go back to the drawing board? Clearly SOE doesn't fully understand how the changes they are making will effect everyone. Each patch the flip flop back and forth and often forget what and why changes were made. I personally see a major flaw in the Monk class that will not stop me from tanking in offencive stance since the latest change on test. Sorry SOE I know you put a lot of work into it but sometimes it's just better to cut your loses. The current build on test is a hacked together copy of GU51 and if you push it to live you will find that there are major bugs in the game. I would agree. They really don't know enought about what they are doing. They have not even scheduled a realistic test. Just show up and play is not my idea of a test. The problem with developers is too often they use live as their test bed which is why they have so man fiasco's with major changes - that requires months of patching and undoing. They should conduct some realistic tests with ALL playstayle and analyze the results and then redo this fiasco. If they push this to live ike it it is -- they will have a lot of people who will stop playing the game. THis is just another fiasco that will take months of repair to undo the damage. At the very least they should go with only increasing taunts and detaunts in the stances - see how that works before meddling with the buffs. THE BUFF SHOULD BE LEFT FOR NOTHER GU -- Just concentrate on AGGRO/TAUNTS/AND DETAUNT changes ONLY -- not work with the buffs. I can believe this is Smed's idea of improving the game and having a happy player base.

01-22-2009, 01:21 PM	#3
liveja General Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Foster's Home For Imaginary Friends Posts: 4,793	Junaru wrote: Anyone else feel like SOE should take the data they learned on this test and go back to the drawing board? I think they have a lot more work to do before GU51 goes live. I don't know if I think the whole thing should be "scrapped", but I'd be happier knowing they're going to take 3 more months (at least) to work things out. __________________

01-22-2009, 01:24 PM	#4
Tandy Loremaster Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 284	Well considering the first pass of it with the de-aggro's was probably a bit better than the current one...I am almost scared to see what else comes along honestly. At the very least all the taunts in offensive should just have their threat increase nullified....and let any secondary effects go off as normal. that would solve a lot of problems people have with it. If that happens, offensive will be fine for its purpose. Its a bit more dmg than currently on live, and would let you DPS fairly well without tanking against 'heavy hitters' or tank with just a healer along to help keep you alive. __________________

01-22-2009, 01:42 PM	#6
Maroger Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 3,313	madhatr wrote: heard after the big test, like 9 people showed up, the dev said yheap all gtg. I cant see why they even need this change dps classes require like 3 other classes to dps, but after this change they wont want more dps casue they will die more. I cannot see any tank holding agro against a 100k dps raid force. And heroic groups where tank is about 30-40 % of the groups dps will suffer too, they think groups request coercer and dirg to much just wait only going to get worse now since they have the only + hate abilities now. Good tanks will still be good bad tanks will still be bad, dps will still die, and hate buffers will still be required. I dont see how this change, changes anything When did this big test take place? I thought it was posted for today the 22nd at 3PM? I never did see a place announced .

01-22-2009, 01:37 PM	#5
madha General Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 666	heard after the big test, like 9 people showed up, the dev said yheap all gtg. I cant see why they even need this change dps classes require like 3 other classes to dps, but after this change they wont want more dps casue they will die more. I cannot see any tank holding agro against a 100k dps raid force. And heroic groups where tank is about 30-40 % of the groups dps will suffer too, they think groups request coercer and dirg to much just wait only going to get worse now since they have the only + hate abilities now. Good tanks will still be good bad tanks will still be bad, dps will still die, and hate buffers will still be required. I dont see how this change, changes anything

01-22-2009, 01:43 PM	#7
Terron Loremaster Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Reading, England Posts: 2,309	I think the defensive stances are mostly OK, but the offensive ones need more thought as do paladins. Both reversing taunts and disabling some of them have problems. I think they should give up on getting them exactly right this update, restore enough old behaviour to make the new stances acceptable if not perfect, put the system in and work on finishing the changes for the update after. I think a -50% modifier on taunts in offensive stance would reduce such taunts to around the old values. Also letting Paladins keep the old amends until the update after (perhaps with the transfer amount reduced by 25 to 50% since their taunts have been increased). __________________

01-22-2009, 01:45 PM	#8
Maroger Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 3,313	Terron@Splitpaw wrote: I think the defensive stances are mostly OK, but the offensive ones need more thought as do paladins. Both reversing taunts and disabling some of them have problems. I think they should give up on getting them exactly right this update, restore enough old behaviour to make the new stances acceptable if not perfect, put the system in and work on finishing the changes for the update after. I think a -50% modifier on taunts in offensive stance would reduce such taunts to around the old values. Also letting Paladins keep the old amends until the update after (perhaps with the transfer amount reduced by 25 to 50% since their taunts have been increased). Would you still merge the buffs into the stances knowing that the power of the buffs have been severly reduced from their stand-alone version? I think they should leave the buffs separate for now.

01-22-2009, 01:50 PM	#9
madha General Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 666	Maroger wrote: Terron@Splitpaw wrote: I think the defensive stances are mostly OK, but the offensive ones need more thought as do paladins. Both reversing taunts and disabling some of them have problems. I think they should give up on getting them exactly right this update, restore enough old behaviour to make the new stances acceptable if not perfect, put the system in and work on finishing the changes for the update after. I think a -50% modifier on taunts in offensive stance would reduce such taunts to around the old values. Also letting Paladins keep the old amends until the update after (perhaps with the transfer amount reduced by 25 to 50% since their taunts have been increased). Would you still merge the buffs into the stances knowing that the power of the buffs have been severly reduced from their stand-alone version? I think they should leave the buffs separate for now. aye the buffs have been nerfed bad with the merger, give us the old buffs back, no tank has ever complained about casting 3 buffs instead of 1, thats furies and bards go merge their buffs, since they have like 15, and leave us alone.

01-22-2009, 01:51 PM	#10
madha General Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 666	Maroger wrote: madhatr wrote: heard after the big test, like 9 people showed up, the dev said yheap all gtg. I cant see why they even need this change dps classes require like 3 other classes to dps, but after this change they wont want more dps casue they will die more. I cannot see any tank holding agro against a 100k dps raid force. And heroic groups where tank is about 30-40 % of the groups dps will suffer too, they think groups request coercer and dirg to much just wait only going to get worse now since they have the only + hate abilities now. Good tanks will still be good bad tanks will still be bad, dps will still die, and hate buffers will still be required. I dont see how this change, changes anything When did this big test take place? I thought it was posted for today the 22nd at 3PM? I never did see a place announced . someone in my guild said they went to it it might have been a unoffical sort of thing but not 100% now.

01-22-2009, 01:52 PM	#11
Dasein Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 2,847	The only changes that should remain are the reductions in hate transfers/reducers (Amends, etc.), increased taunts and the new Aggression skill mechanics. Everything else, including the buff merges and changes to stances should be scrapped as it is causing more problems than it is solving. 4 year old games should not be undergoing paradigm shifts. That's something you do early in the design phase, not years after release. __________________ Troll Lord Casywdian

01-22-2009, 01:56 PM	#12
liveja General Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Foster's Home For Imaginary Friends Posts: 4,793	Dasein wrote: 4 year old games should not be undergoing paradigm shifts. Precisely. __________________

01-22-2009, 03:15 PM	#13
SilentTrouble Loremaster Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 31	I for one love the changes that are coming... They are going to reaffirm my idea of tanking. Its been said again and again if you live and hold agro you did your job. If you dont like that being your job play a different class... If you dont like that.... well, can I have your stuff? waves

01-22-2009, 03:17 PM	#14
liveja General Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Foster's Home For Imaginary Friends Posts: 4,793	SilentTrouble wrote: Its been said again and again if you live and hold agro you did your job. Since that's happening now, I'm failing to see the big issue Aeralik thinks needs to change. __________________

01-22-2009, 03:22 PM	#15
SilentTrouble Loremaster Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 31	i misquoted him its rather if you live and hold agro and do 1 DPS you did your job... the problem is they are doing the previous and as much if not more dps than mages and other dps classes

01-22-2009, 03:26 PM	#16
xKHONSx Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 170	Watering tanking down into standing there and taunting is going to bore all of the tanks who have become accustomed to the changes soe has made to tanking over the years. You, the Dev team, has been pushing the game in this direction for four years and now this late in the game's life you once again want to completely reinvent the game for no real reason. It seems like sony purposely does these complete overhauls for the sole reason of reminding the customer whose vision this game is. It's almost like they think "Well we want to try this now and if you don't like it then too bad." All they usually end up doing is [Removed for Content] a lot of people off as they show they are not in touch with their customer base at all. In return they lose more subs and waste money that could have been better spent adding more content or fixing real issues. Who is going to [Removed for Content] you off more, someone who is standing there yelling at you or someone who punches you in the eye? Sure taunts distract you for a moment, but when that Brigand sneaks behind you and stabs you in the spleen there is no amount of taunting that is going to distract you from the wound he just inflicted. The only reason why taunts are in mmo's of this nature is due to the fact that they are so deeply ingrained in the lore of the genre. Sony, be different, leave dps tanking as an option and just fix defensive tanking since there are plenty of times you do need to be in defensive. Offensive tanking on live isn't too far off of what it should be. Some minor tweaks to the actual dps that tanks are doing was all that was needed to balance that aspect. Tanks should be able to put up T2 dps type numbers and if they are indeed doing more than T1 dps classes (the group that supposedly has complained that tanks do too much damage) then either the dps'ers suck, the buffs in the group benefit the tank significantly more than they benefit the dps'ers, the tank has an obscene amount of dps buffs on him or a combination of all three. Usually it is more of the former and the dps'ers just suck. As a Monk tanking in offensive stance I already run a much larger risk of taking damage since our mitigation boost as well as our uncontested avoidance is directly tied into the defensive stance. If they had just tweaked offensive tanking there wouldn't even be a need for the 5% increase to damage taken on offensive stance. All they would have had to do was make it so every tank's stances worked like a Brawler - everyone loses their mitigation bonuses and uncontested avoidance while in offensive stance and tie those very things in with defensive stance only. Problem solved without completely revamping combat/aggro mechanics. The only thing they would have had to overhaul was defensive tanking. They could implement the current changes on test and apply only the defensive tanking mechanics. Instead of taking this approach and slightly tweaking offensive tanking and fixing defensive tanking they are once again reinventing the wheel when it is completely unnecessary. Why focus the little bit of money from dwindling subs into redoing combat mechanics every 1 - 1.5 years instead of tweaking/modifying existing mechanics and offering more content? Personally I would have much rather seen them do what I've mentioned. It would give people more choices in how they want to go about things. Instead it is literally watered down into two choices....click this button for tanking and click this button for dps'ing. There really isn't much middle ground now and there certainly isn't a lot of choice.

01-22-2009, 03:30 PM	#17
Junaru Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 1,471	SilentTrouble wrote: I for one love the changes that are coming... They are going to reaffirm my idea of tanking. Its been said again and again if you live and hold agro you did your job. If you dont like that being your job play a different class... If you dont like that.... well, can I have your stuff? waves Well if SOE doesn't have any issue with it nor do I, but I can tell you right now both Brawler classes will be able to tank in offencive stance with little issue. The only thing GU51 does is lets me tank in defencive stance better then on live. My whole point is because SOE has flip flopped back and forth so much they have left too many holes in the game right now. They need to step back and look at the bigger picture. I for one see the Brawlers getting a big time nerf when other fighters see them tanking and putting up major DPS. __________________

01-22-2009, 03:43 PM	#18
CrazyMoogle Loremaster Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 645	madhatr wrote: heard after the big test, like 9 people showed up, the dev said yheap all gtg. I cant see why they even need this change dps classes require like 3 other classes to dps, but after this change they wont want more dps casue they will die more. I cannot see any tank holding agro against a 100k dps raid force. And heroic groups where tank is about 30-40 % of the groups dps will suffer too, they think groups request coercer and dirg to much just wait only going to get worse now since they have the only + hate abilities now. Good tanks will still be good bad tanks will still be bad, dps will still die, and hate buffers will still be required. I dont see how this change, changes anything Not to worry, I was just told in another thread that tank's can parse 600 and hold aggro over VP raiders, so this shouldn't be a problem with the amazing new taunts

01-22-2009, 04:16 PM	#19
Kordran Loremaster Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 2,484	Junaru wrote: Well if SOE doesn't have any issue with it nor do I, but I can tell you right now both Brawler classes will be able to tank in offencive stance with little issue. The only thing GU51 does is lets me tank in defencive stance better then on live. My whole point is because SOE has flip flopped back and forth so much they have left too many holes in the game right now. They need to step back and look at the bigger picture. I for one see the Brawlers getting a big time nerf when other fighters see them tanking and putting up major DPS. I don't play a brawler, but I imagine that if playtesting shows them able to effectively tank difficult content in offensive, it's going to be nerfed somehow (my guess would be a larger threat penalty in their offensive stance, but it could be any number of things). The vision that they've laid out, in principal, is pretty simple. It's the implementation that's proving to be tricky. But I think they're closer to the mark now than they were previously. Truth be told, eliminating the detaunts in offensive does amount to a nerf for those fighters who prefer a DPS role. The way things previously worked, it was a huge win for them because there was virtually no damage threshold for them; not only the detaunts associated with CAs, but the ability to shed large amounts of hate and lower their threat position immediately. A lot of Monks, Bruisers and Berserkers were probably enthusiastic about the idea that they could max out their DPS and never worry about ripping from the tank. With that gone, they're now worse off than scouts who have at least some detaunt capabilities. __________________

01-22-2009, 04:23 PM	#20
liveja General Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Foster's Home For Imaginary Friends Posts: 4,793	SilentTrouble wrote: i misquoted him its rather if you live and hold agro and do 1 DPS you did your job... the problem is they are doing the previous and as much if not more dps than mages and other dps classes No, actually, the real problem is too many "DPS classes" act like their Mother has been ravaged & their little sister's honor questioned if a "tank" out-DPS's them. As a Swashy, I couldn't care less who tops the parse, ever. What I care about is: did the mob die? Did the group profit? If the answer to both questions is "yes", then there's no issue, & no reason for this ill-conceived patch. The only reason I can really think of is that things have gotten so far out of whack that they don't have room to expand itemization & spell/CA upgrades in future expacs, which tells me that things are being nerfed now, so they can be re-inflated later, only to be nerfed again sometime in 2010. This is standard SOE practice, so nobody should be surprised when it happens again. __________________

01-22-2009, 04:24 PM	#21
Geothe Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 2,098	In general,Most of the changes being introduced are so ill-thought out that it is laughable.I honestly cant understand how people incharge of adjusting such things can be so absolutely clueless.Its pretty darn sad when one person will be able to mess up the game to such a degree in such a short time. Ah well. __________________ Smed: We aren't going to be allowing RMT in any way, shape or form on the non-exchange enabled EQ II servers. Period. End of statement. Smed: 5) This [LoN] is not some slippery slope towards selling items directly in EQ & EQ II. Lie #3: Station Cash. Enough Said.

01-22-2009, 04:46 PM	#22
Arathy General Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 171	If a tank can manage 1 DPS and hold agro through taunts after this LU then I would say something IS terrribly broken. That is a horrible idea. Tanks in this game should need to be able to play their classes to the fullest in order to hold agro off DPS classes doing the same. Having some treasured tank just turned 80 holding agro off of raid geared toons reaks of failure to create a balance. I'm not saying that's the case of what is going to happen, but should it.. well then I view this experiment as a failure. To the person who said changes like this shouldn't be happening 4 years into a game cycle, you're absolutely correct. How about this latest change to the offensive stances, where while in offensive you cannot use taunts. That's all great until you've just negated a good portion of the CAs that shadowknights can use. Since they have taunt amounts attached to debuffs and damage, can they use those combat arts? What about death march? Can they use that while in offensive stance? More foresight needs to be used here. This late in a development cycle you CANNOT afford to screw up.

01-22-2009, 05:22 PM	#23
CrazyMoogle Loremaster Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 645	This game is over 4 years old. The guys at SOE realize this, right? That this game isn't in beta or early release. This is an established game that's over 4 years old. Is this really the time when you start making paradigm shifts? I think whoever came up with this ill-conceived revamp at SOE needs better supervision.

01-22-2009, 05:26 PM	#24
Kizee Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 3,093	Flaye@Mistmoore wrote: Dasein wrote: 4 year old games should not be undergoing paradigm shifts. Precisely. It shouldn't go through 1 paradigm shift....never mind the 4 or 5 that we have been through already. Sit down and see where you want to take the game SoE instead of making all these shoot from the hip changes without knowing where you are going.

01-22-2009, 05:26 PM	#25
Xersu General Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 6	How many of you have actually TRIED the changes, versus just read about it and all the opinions (most seem to be baseless whining from people that have not even tried it). I have tried it on my SK, level 80, 160 AA. I absolutely enjoy being able to finally tank (see take damage better) and hold agro in a way that makes more sense than before. OR I can go into offensive stance and do everything I could before sans the agro and I'm doing more DPS. Switching stances is a crucial part of tanking now I feel. As long as I am not the star of the show or part of it (see MT or OT) I can do everything I could before, and switch when something is about to go awry and get on top of the hate list again. It means gasp I have to pay attention. If you think you can just jam on the taunt buttons and hold agro you are sorely mistaken. Your DPS does play into your hate, and the reactives you get from proper timings and spell orders still stay in play. Like what has been said before. This will still show who is a good tank, and who doesn't have a clue. Yes you might have to change your gear around, and yes, you may have to change your specs around. Why so resistant to change? Go try it, and come back with more specific valid concerns, maybe with numbers and balance concerns pertaining to specific skills and abilities. Here are some SK numbers fighting the single up wurms in skyfire. I fought 5 each and I show the highest and average Offensive Stance: 4032 DPS highest (3453 Average) Defensive Stance: 2447 DPS (5232 Hate (Just pure taunt) per second) \| 2123 (Average) with 4954 HPS average I'm assuming you take DPS + any modifiers and then add the taunt per second and you get your total hate per second. The nice thing is the new UI bar tells you how well you are doing. So you now really know how much to step up your agro. I like the changes. Go do yourself a favor, go try it out tonight, and really familiarize yourself with the new agro management and come back with more specific concerns and feedback, and stop whining so much because of your own potential to resist change.

01-22-2009, 05:28 PM	#26
BleemTeam Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 425	Junaru wrote: Anyone else feel like SOE should take the data they learned on this test and go back to the drawing board? Clearly SOE doesn't fully understand how the changes they are making will effect everyone. Each patch the flip flop back and forth and often forget what and why changes were made. I personally see a major flaw in the Monk class that will not stop me from tanking in offencive stance since the latest change on test. Sorry SOE I know you put a lot of work into it but sometimes it's just better to cut your loses. The current build on test is a hacked together copy of GU51 and if you push it to live you will find that there are major bugs in the game. I disagree... Clearly. __________________ "What's left to ponder?"

01-22-2009, 05:33 PM	#27
CrazyMoogle Loremaster Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 645	The fact of the matter is that tanking in offensive stance is fine the way it is. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it. The only thing that needed changing was defensive stance. Defensive stance needed to be altered so that it would lower your damage output while increasing your survivability and boosting your hate gain to compensate for what you lost in damage. That's it. That's all that needed done.

01-22-2009, 05:35 PM	#28
Kiljoi Server: Blackburrow Guild: Nerfed Rank: Lifers Loremaster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 38	It has been said that... If you cannot bedazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull(bleep). __________________ Knowing your own darkness is the best method for dealing with the darkness's of other people.

01-22-2009, 06:30 PM	#29
Mathafern Server: Mistmoore Guild: Slege Rank: Knight Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 196	I have no problem with the devs wanting to re-work fighters. I do have a problem with social engineering. This shows up when a dev wants players to play the game the way he envisions it, not the way they envision it. Quoting Karl Popper here: " the piecemeal engineer will adopt the method of searching for, and fighting against, the greatest and most urgent evil of society, rather than searching for, and fighting for, its greatest ultimate good." That's what I'm seeing- the whack-a-moling of what devs have identified as evil ways of playing the game, rather than working toward making good ways to play the game. Rather than break existing stances, that people use now and some are happy with- engineer new stances to deal with the needs of those who are currently unhappy. That way, those happy now will still be happy- and those who are unhappy now will have a new opportunity. More options, not less. __________________

01-22-2009, 06:38 PM	#30
Maroger Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 3,313	Xersues wrote: I have tried it on my SK, level 80, 160 AA. I absolutely enjoy being able to finally tank (see take damage better) and hold agro in a way that makes more sense than before. OR I can go into offensive stance and do everything I could before sans the agro and I'm doing more DPS. Switching stances is a crucial part of tanking now I feel. Well that is great you have 160 AA - that makes a big difference. What about the people that DON'T HAVE 160 AAs - they are hurt a lot more by these changes and merger of our buffs than you are. Your numbers are for you - but I bet they are not what a lot of players without your AA's are doing. Try and think how this is affectiving other players without 160 AA - sure your AA's help you overcome the Aeralik Nerfs - but that kind of thinking does not help much if you don't have 160 Aas. This is not a well thought out change except for those who are level 80 and have a ton of AA - and apparently that is the only group Aeralik is concerned about. After 4 years the game does not need someone to take a sledgehammer to it and break it so smithereens.