5 Second Cast Times on Stances???

[Junaru]

The other night my guild was raiding VP and on Druushk. The MT was tanking Druushk and the OT was getting the adds. The MT went down and my Monk Peeled Druushk and switched to defencive stance. I lasted long enough for the raid to get the MT back up and gain aggro. We killed Druushk that very pull.

With the changed on test that will NOT happen. There are tons of fighters that the OT is not tanking the main mob and a 3rd tank is useful.

As to someone saying Brawlers and SK fill a DPS role. Sorry but why bring my 7k Monk when you can bring a 12k Assassin? My raid wide buff isn't a reason to bring me (Devs made it a point that no one should make a raid based of a single buff. Good thinking there) and now I lack the ability to survive long enough to get the MT back up. So the next Druushk fight or Nexona fight where the OT is tanking different mobs and th MT drops it's going to be a raid wipe.

On a good note legendary gear is cheaper to repair then fabled and since most fighters wont be asked on a raid their repair bill will be much lower.

[Noaani]

Junaru wrote:

The other night my guild was raiding VP and on Druushk. The MT was tanking Druushk and the OT was getting the adds. The MT went down and my Monk Peeled Druushk and switched to defencive stance. I lasted long enough for the raid to get the MT back up and gain aggro. We killed Druushk that very pull.With the changed on test that will NOT happen. There are tons of fighters that the OT is not tanking the main mob and a 3rd tank is useful.

With the changes on test, you have a MT, an OT if your MT is likely to go down and an adds tank. All three of them should be in def stance the whole fight.

[mr23sgte]

Aeralik wrote:

Phank wrote:

...hold on for 4.5 seconds while my stupid stance timer refreshes, okay now I can grab it.  Give me a break!

The only limit to picking up a mob is your reaction time to drop offensive stance and rid yourself of the no taunt penalties.  You can't cast defensive stance but everything else is castable while the stances are refreshing.

What is on test is currently bugged though.  Once the fix is out, taunts and hate position bumps will no longer work while in offensive stance.  So if you want to test your threat you really need to be in the defensive stance.

What exactly is everything else???  

[Junaru]

Noaani wrote:

Junaru wrote:

The other night my guild was raiding VP and on Druushk. The MT was tanking Druushk and the OT was getting the adds. The MT went down and my Monk Peeled Druushk and switched to defencive stance. I lasted long enough for the raid to get the MT back up and gain aggro. We killed Druushk that very pull.With the changed on test that will NOT happen. There are tons of fighters that the OT is not tanking the main mob and a 3rd tank is useful.

With the changes on test, you have a MT, an OT if your MT is likely to go down and an adds tank. All three of them should be in def stance the whole fight.

Have you killed Nexona yet? You have people scattered all over the place and need EVERYONE doing top DPS or you will be over run with adds.

Sorry but a raid leader isn't going to bring a third tank if that tank is going to do crap DPS "just in case". They would rather put a high DPS class in there and just reset if the MT goes down. On live the 3rd tank gets a spot because they can do ok DPS put in a pinch save from a wipe. While you think you logic is correct you have to remember, raids guilds are all about the Min Max and the low DPS on an off chance of a wipe doesn't offset the DPS they could get from someone else. Expect raid guilds that once had a Brawler to pick up another scout.

[Noaani]

Junaru wrote:

Have you killed Nexona yet? You have people scattered all over the place and need EVERYONE doing top DPS or you will be over run with adds.

[Removed for Content] are you doing then?

Have three people on shineys, the MT group and a few extra healers holding Nexona down, and the rest of the raid all bunched up in one spot killing adds.

IMO your guild needs a better pull spot.

Edit; and why did you go from talking about Druushk to talking about Nexona?

[Junaru]

Noaani wrote:

Junaru wrote:

Have you killed Nexona yet? You have people scattered all over the place and need EVERYONE doing top DPS or you will be over run with adds.

[Removed for Content] are you doing then?

Have three people on shineys, the MT group and a few extra healers holding Nexona down, and the rest of the raid all bunched up in one spot killing adds.

IMO your guild needs a better pull spot.

Edit; and why did you go from talking about Druushk to talking about Nexona?

Well unless you MT group is putting out 10k+ DPS I don't see your strat working. Our pull position works for us as it lets two of the three shiny people help out with the adds. The problem is we aren't a 100k raid force yet and we need all the DPS we can get. Having one person not pulling his weight in DPS is not an option. I imagine this wont be an option for a lot of guilds.

I didn't start talking about Nexona. My orginal post included Nexona "So the next Druushk fight or Nexona fight where the OT is tanking different mobs and th MT drops it's going to be a raid wipe."

[madha]

should just drop the ma and let a wizard tank the adds imo =P. better agro and dps that way.

[Elanjar]

Junaru wrote:

Noaani wrote:

Junaru wrote:

Have you killed Nexona yet? You have people scattered all over the place and need EVERYONE doing top DPS or you will be over run with adds.

[Removed for Content] are you doing then?

Have three people on shineys, the MT group and a few extra healers holding Nexona down, and the rest of the raid all bunched up in one spot killing adds.

IMO your guild needs a better pull spot.

Edit; and why did you go from talking about Druushk to talking about Nexona?

Well unless you MT group is putting out 10k+ DPS I don't see your strat working. Our pull position works for us as it lets two of the three shiny people help out with the adds. The problem is we aren't a 100k raid force yet and we need all the DPS we can get. Having one person not pulling his weight in DPS is not an option. I imagine this wont be an option for a lot of guilds.

I didn't start talking about Nexona. My orginal post included Nexona "So the next Druushk fight or Nexona fight where the OT is tanking different mobs and th MT drops it's going to be a raid wipe."

And gl with the MT group putting out over 10k consistant once fighter dps gets nerfed. Unless you've already cleared VP 50 times.

[Mephetic]

Noaani wrote:

Junaru wrote:

The other night my guild was raiding VP and on Druushk. The MT was tanking Druushk and the OT was getting the adds. The MT went down and my Monk Peeled Druushk and switched to defencive stance. I lasted long enough for the raid to get the MT back up and gain aggro. We killed Druushk that very pull.With the changed on test that will NOT happen. There are tons of fighters that the OT is not tanking the main mob and a 3rd tank is useful.

With the changes on test, you have a MT, an OT if your MT is likely to go down and an adds tank. All three of them should be in def stance the whole fight.

Thats Brilliant! Why not have every tank in a raid in Def just in case one of them needs to pick up a mob, In fact, why don't we have all healers stay in Off stance just in the off chance they need to dps. Which they might have to since all tanks are doing all that uber Def dps.

Noaani, please stop posting here. Your ignorance of the implications of this current state of the 5s recast time on stances in palpable. Almost every guild runs with atleast 3 tanks atm, some 4. If you happen to be clairvoyant enough to know 5 seconds ahead of time when the 3rd or 4th tank, who SHOULD be dpsing, may need to pick up a mob my hats off to you. For the rest of us mere mortals this change is necessary for us to perform our function with some degree of survivability. I don't understand how so many NON-fighter classes could be so outspoken against a simple change we are requesting, as its in their best interest we are requesting it. We are not requesting insane dps, decent maybe, insane definetly not.  We are not asking to be able to swap back and forth amongst our stances at a whim. We are just asking for the ability to perform our jobs to the best of our ability. This is severly hindered in situations where 3rd and 4th tanks are doing what they do 95% of the time, dpsing, and one of those spontaneous "oh crap" moments arises. Yes we have saves, not all saves are created equal, and saves are not always up when you need them. Some saves, like tsunami in particular are just really prayers ( ie I pray this mob doesn't strikethrough and kill me). Def stance is rock solid as a defensive save. I like to think that I have fairly fast reaction times, I can usually change stance hit my save snap a mob and get my def buffs in before most ppl realize the mob was going astray. However with this new change if I were to attempt that I personally would be down atleast 10% avoidance and 25% mitigation, and a measure of my uncontested avoidance not to mention the skills and oh yeah all of my self buffs that are now tied into my stances. I'm sure you can all see at this point of how lacking the survivabilty of a 3rd and 4th tank might be now. But lets run through a little hypothetical just to be sure. For arguments sake lets just say your raiding a named mob that spawns adds and has a dps threshold your raid needs to obtain to prevent a viscious AE. Now you have 4 fighter classes, lets say Guard Pally Zerker Monk. Guard is of course MT so hes in Def, lets make the Pally OT, so hes in def. Now dont forget there is a DPS cap, but lets have the Zerk in Def just incase. Now lets have some fun shall we?

OMG that [Removed for Content] Pally went down again, no worries the zerk picks the adds and locks them down np, sweet. OMG that [Removed for Content] guard just got hit for a 24k crit double attack what a noob he couldn't live through that. Zerks on the adds so the monk drops O stance hits tsunami, peels the named and starts to cycle through temp buffs, 4 seconds in he gets nailed for 16k out of his 15k hp (Mobs with strikethrough ftw), he goes down. By now the Pally is back up semi buffed and attempts to regain control of the named but the wizzy goes down, now 2 scouts go down. Sweet there goes the dps and here comes the AE, BOOM wipe. Now if that [Removed for Content] monk maybe had like 10% more avoidance or certainly 25% more mitigation from his Def stance the outcome may have been different. So what now? Sure they got unlucky. So try again, but why bother bringing extra tankage that can do somewhat decent dps and not survive when hes needed? Better off to bring extra pure dps so the fight goes faster and there is a lesser chance of getting unlucky. Besides the scout would be better off tanking at this point. I can think of atleast a dozen more situations upon which this scenario might play itself out.

Yeah just wipe until you get lucky Great idea. OR lets try something simple like say, unlinking the stances and giving them a 10-30s recast, I really don't care about the recast tbh. But I do care about having my maximum survivability when the situation calls for it and the ability to hit Defensive stance instantly in a pinch is required for that. Its plainly obvious to see most people do not comprehend how far reaching and impactful this one tiny 5 second change will be to this game as a whole. I have only touched on one small example in a raid setup. But rest assured it goes well beyond that. And its such a simple fix. UNLINK the stances. That way us 3rd and 4th tanks can do our jobs of dpsing when needed and tanking when crap happens and Aeralik can sleep soundly at night knowing he rid the world of "stance dancing".

[gundali]

Ultimately I'm resigned to the fact that the i will be forced now to tank in Defensive. I don't feel that this direction will be reversed, regardless of the player choice or viewpoints. Although i'd state that situationally and dependant of group buffs it is possible to outparse say for example an assassin, which i could contend as being the driving force of this 're-imagining' four years after release.

Regarding the Re-cast times though, i note that no one is asking to be able to switch from Defensive Stance to Offensive Stance immediately. So perhaps the pertinent question is why does the Tank communtity feel that Off stance is too strong to not to be used? Or conversely why is the Def stance too weak to be used whilst in a group or raid?

As a Zerker currently OT/MT in TSO.

The reduction in DMG output by .5. Fine, if i can hold aggro with this loss. But as it currently stands i'm unable to switch between stances as my raid requires it, it's both a playstyle and a boost to the raid for myself to contribute meaningful DPS. I've no issue with doing less DPS whilst tanking, but to be barred from providing DPS for the raid for fear of a random factor of a crit hit or a double attack is frustrating.

Further reduction of melee skills by 20, in addition to the loss of 48 through the offensive stance. Reduces my Slashing skill to below 400. I'm totally reliant then on other classes to provide a slashing bonus in order for me to land a successful attack, to proc my class defining abilities  - Berzerk, Juggernaunt and Adrenaline and to maintain hate.

The only sensible alteration to this is surely to allow any tank to switch between stances as the situation demands. While i can understand the inital response to the threat of 'Stance Dancin' i believe the oversight was simply that the stances are linked. A 5 second recast for each stance, but the ability to switch freely would return us, by which i mean the OT/3RD Tank. The current direction, of simply destroying the Off stance is not acceptable.

[Gisallo]

criminal1980 wrote:

Noaani wrote:

Junaru wrote:

The other night my guild was raiding VP and on Druushk. The MT was tanking Druushk and the OT was getting the adds. The MT went down and my Monk Peeled Druushk and switched to defencive stance. I lasted long enough for the raid to get the MT back up and gain aggro. We killed Druushk that very pull.With the changed on test that will NOT happen. There are tons of fighters that the OT is not tanking the main mob and a 3rd tank is useful.

With the changes on test, you have a MT, an OT if your MT is likely to go down and an adds tank. All three of them should be in def stance the whole fight.

Thats Brilliant! Why not have every tank in a raid in Def just in case one of them needs to pick up a mob, In fact, why don't we have all healers stay in Off stance just in the off chance they need to dps. Which they might have to since all tanks are doing all that uber Def dps.

Criminal I think this sums up Nooani's thoughts.  (from one of his prior posts) 

                   "as for a second off tank ([Removed for Content]?)..."

Basically he thinks that having three tanks in a raid takes a spot from a dpser.  People talk of raids having 3 even 4 tanks and he wants this done.  Why do you think he keeps saying "blah blah blah you just need to be in defensive stance blah blah blah"?  Because he KNOWS raids will not bring a 3rd or 4th tank along on a raid if they are stuck in defensive stance due to the new mechanic.  He wants the 3rd and 4th tanks gone and who cares what effect it has on the OT and him doing his job.  Maybe his favorite class to play gets turned down for raids, who knows, but he is brilliant in a way because striving to keep this "fix" will kill bringing more than 2 fighters on raids and clearly thats exactly what he wants....regardless of the consequences.

[Elanjar]

Agreed since us tanks have such an easy time getting raid spots as is... This pretty much kills having any extra tanking in raid, especially since offensive stance doesnt give us any more dps than we have on live currently. Or at least I havent noticed it. (some people claim its higher, if it is i dont notice a big enough diff to matter)

[Ibox]

something to think about here. if you only need two tanks on raids it means needing less tanks in a guild, and that means less tanks to run instance zones. do not know about your guild but are already complains there is not enough tanks for instance zones, but why add more to the guild when they would have to sit out most raids. sounds like in the end we will just have even fewer people playing tanks and more complaining about it.

[Syracus]

gundalini wrote:

Ultimately I'm resigned to the fact that the i will be forced now to tank in Defensive. I don't feel that this direction will be reversed, regardless of the player choice or viewpoints. Although i'd state that situationally and dependant of group buffs it is possible to outparse say for example an assassin, which i could contend as being the driving force of this 're-imagining' four years after release.

Regarding the Re-cast times though, i note that no one is asking to be able to switch from Defensive Stance to Offensive Stance immediately. So perhaps the pertinent question is why does the Tank communtity feel that Off stance is too strong to not to be used? Or conversely why is the Def stance too weak to be used whilst in a group or raid?

As a Zerker currently OT/MT in TSO.

The reduction in DMG output by .5. Fine, if i can hold aggro with this loss. But as it currently stands i'm unable to switch between stances as my raid requires it, it's both a playstyle and a boost to the raid for myself to contribute meaningful DPS. I've no issue with doing less DPS whilst tanking, but to be barred from providing DPS for the raid for fear of a random factor of a crit hit or a double attack is frustrating.

Further reduction of melee skills by 20, in addition to the loss of 48 through the offensive stance. Reduces my Slashing skill to below 400. I'm totally reliant then on other classes to provide a slashing bonus in order for me to land a successful attack, to proc my class defining abilities  - Berzerk, Juggernaunt and Adrenaline and to maintain hate.

The only sensible alteration to this is surely to allow any tank to switch between stances as the situation demands. While i can understand the inital response to the threat of 'Stance Dancin' i believe the oversight was simply that the stances are linked. A 5 second recast for each stance, but the ability to switch freely would return us, by which i mean the OT/3RD Tank. The current direction, of simply destroying the Off stance is not acceptable.

I asked exactly for the same some posts before   Yes your thoughts all right. As MT/OT (TSO to) i feel the same things.

- make an immediately switch between the stances possible

- negoate the  skill for us berserkers ( maybe double set setbonus from VP set (4) and TSO Set (2) +16 skill proc is less than the skill los in defstance   ( beside this, wis line endabillity shut be changed in something else - think that with the upcomming str (4 4 x 8 -)  + int and sta ist the way for every mt/ot zerker 

 Greetings Gronkh

[Noaani]

criminal1980 wrote:

If you happen to be clairvoyant enough to know 5 seconds ahead of time when the 3rd or 4th tank, who SHOULD be dpsing, may need to pick up a mob my hats off to you.

Structure your raid.

You have the MT, who is obviously tanking mobs, and you have your offtank for is he goes down. These two positions have been fairly standard since MMIS. These tanks are both in def stance 100% of the time in raids.

The tird tank in your raid is DPS until you are at a mob that has adds, at which point he is your add tank. For fights without adds, this tank is in off stance, but switches to def for fights with adds.

In order for you to need a third tank on the main mob, or for any mobs with no adds, is if the mob manages to kill both your MT and OT in the space of 20 seconds (the amount of time it should take to get the MT back up and buffed enough to be able to tank). If they do both go down before you are able to get the MT back up and running, look for new healers. If your adds tank is getting killed at all, look either give him another healer, or get him some better gear.

There are no dire consiquences of having the stances on a 5 second recast, as it simply means tanks have the choice to be cautious or go for a bit more DPS. There is no need to be clairvoyant to know that an encounter has adds.

If you set your raid up propperly, have players with gear that is appropriate for the encounter and everyone knows their job (and does it), you need a large amount of bad luck to require a third tank for a single target mob, or a fourth tank for almost any encounter. If any of the above are not met, expect deaths even if you have an extra tank.

[Queen Alexandria]

Shouldnt have to drop a stance to switch to another... then this wouldn't be such a problem and it would prevent players from switching stances too much.

[Noaani]

Gisallo@Lucan DLere wrote:

People talk of raids having 3 even 4 tanks and he wants this done.  Why do you think he keeps saying "blah blah blah you just need to be in defensive stance blah blah blah"?  Because he KNOWS raids will not bring a 3rd or 4th tank along on a raid if they are stuck in defensive stance due to the new mechanic. 

Actually, almost every raid in the game will run with three tanks as a minimum, because several encounters are designed to need that many. A lot of guilds will run with four tanks for some zones.

There are times when a third tank is essential, and so raids will always carry that third tank. That does not mean that this third tank needs to be ready to grab aggro on the mob at all times, as that is what the first and second tank are for.

A third or fourth tank is only stuck in defensive stance when there is adds for him to tank. If your MT and OT are unable to stay up against a single mob, your third tank - whom should have gear and buffs that are not on par with the first two tanks - has no chance.

A raids MT and OT being required to run in defensive stance in order to do their job (tanking and waiting to tank, respectivly) is not unreasonable. Expecing an adds tank to be in defensive when tanking adds, and offensive when not tanking adds is not unreasonable, or did I miss something here?

Edit: and for the record, I have said several times that the ability to switch stances mid fight is not a bad idea, and I still like the idea I suggested; seperating stance cast/recast timers from each other, making it so the last stance cast is active (and if canceled the stance cast before it is active), and then making stances not able to be cast during combat.

[Junaru]

I swear the people posting against this change have NEVER RAIDED. There is no way you could have ever been on a raid in your life time in EQ2.

Ever once pull two mobs and have ither the MT or OT go down? You all act like the only thing an OT does is back up the MT but in most cases thats not true. The third tank NEEDS to hold his weight with DPS or no RL will bring him. The third tanks needs to be ready with a snap aggro if on of the two mains drop or lose aggro. And infally the third tanks NEEDS TO SURVIVE long enough for the MT or OT to get back up, buff and regain control. If he can't get into defencive stance that isn't going to happen.

[bryldan]

Gisallo@Lucan DLere wrote:

criminal1980 wrote:

Noaani wrote:

Junaru wrote:

The other night my guild was raiding VP and on Druushk. The MT was tanking Druushk and the OT was getting the adds. The MT went down and my Monk Peeled Druushk and switched to defencive stance. I lasted long enough for the raid to get the MT back up and gain aggro. We killed Druushk that very pull.With the changed on test that will NOT happen. There are tons of fighters that the OT is not tanking the main mob and a 3rd tank is useful.

With the changes on test, you have a MT, an OT if your MT is likely to go down and an adds tank. All three of them should be in def stance the whole fight.

Thats Brilliant! Why not have every tank in a raid in Def just in case one of them needs to pick up a mob, In fact, why don't we have all healers stay in Off stance just in the off chance they need to dps. Which they might have to since all tanks are doing all that uber Def dps.

Criminal I think this sums up Nooani's thoughts.  (from one of his prior posts) 

                   "as for a second off tank ([Removed for Content]?)..."

Basically he thinks that having three tanks in a raid takes a spot from a dpser.  People talk of raids having 3 even 4 tanks and he wants this done.  Why do you think he keeps saying "blah blah blah you just need to be in defensive stance blah blah blah"?  Because he KNOWS raids will not bring a 3rd or 4th tank along on a raid if they are stuck in defensive stance due to the new mechanic.  He wants the 3rd and 4th tanks gone and who cares what effect it has on the OT and him doing his job.  Maybe his favorite class to play gets turned down for raids, who knows, but he is brilliant in a way because striving to keep this "fix" will kill bringing more than 2 fighters on raids and clearly thats exactly what he wants....regardless of the consequences.

Wrong.. He just wants to get as many brownie points and get his nose a lil more brown than anything. Just look at his/her/its post history and you will see STRONG evidence of that. I do not believe i have EVER seen him/her/it disagree with ANY change and ALWAYS STRONGLY agrees with SOE like they NEVER can do ANYTHING wrong....

[wullailhuit]

The best idea I've heard so far in instance groups (and a lot of talk is happening about this change in instance groups right now) is to make the stance change instant , but to make the reuse time longer to avoid stance dancing.

[schizolic]

Don't count on aeralik doing anything good for changes, he has his own opinions on how it should work and really doesn't care about the opinion of the people who are stuck playing with his changes.

kinda wish my acct wasn't paid through july.

[Queen Alexandria]

schizolic: Thats exactly what happens when employees get too comfortable with their job and start ignoring the customer. Then they wonder why they are loosing customers. I find myself logging in less every day, and eventually I'm going to log on and wonder why I'm still even here. That's how it happened last time and it took 3 years to come back.  Not because the game sucks, because I like a lot of these changes going on test.  I'm just tired of devs not communicating with the customers... it's like they are so affraid of saying something because they don't want more work.

There are people here willing to do all the thinking and will gladly volunteer their time to help make this game better.  You want this game to be successful, start listening and pay attention to what problems there are, address them and find a viable solution and move on.

[gundali]

Noaani wrote:

A raids MT and OT being required to run in defensive stance in order to do their job (tanking and waiting to tank, respectivly) is not unreasonable. Expecing an adds tank to be in defensive when tanking adds, and offensive when not tanking adds is not unreasonable, or did I miss something here?

I've shortened your post to what i felt are the most important points. 

The first part of your post that resonated with me, primarily an OT through choice. I do not wish, nor will i ever, play a game that involves me 'waiting to tank'. This fantastic game of 'waiting to tank' is not why i enjoy my raid role of OT.

The second point regarding the adds tank to be in defensive is currently though, flawed. The diminishing returns curve actually means that i can reach a point in a raid setting where switching to defensive will gain me around 2% or less extra avoidance, the mitigation gain is even less. Now, i balance this pitiful extra defensive gain against a vastly increased slashing skill, an ability to actually contribute to the DPS on those adds and to land my melee based taunts.

Again read all the posts from players who actually play a Tank class and notice, every single player is asking for the ability to move from Offensive, to Defensive stance instantly. No one wants to run Defensive, we'll have too thanks to this fantastic LU51, but our problems will remain centered around the fact that Tanks what to assist our groups with meaningful DPS, with a hit rate that's not basement and allows us to land our melee based taunts.

So no, we're in no way currently required to run defensive stance. Because it's hurting more than helping. No, we don't wish to be forced to wait to tank. You i believe are an illusionist, would be content to do nothing more than wait around to mez a raid target IF it was possibly required and balance other players mana IF the mob power drained.  

[Kordran]

gundalini wrote:

The first part of your post that resonated with me, primarily an OT through choice. I do not wish, nor will i ever, play a game that involves me 'waiting to tank'. This fantastic game of 'waiting to tank' is not why i enjoy my raid role of OT.

I see this as more situational. Unless your damage is very high in offensive and you're able to keep yourself up on the threat list through your DPS, you're still left with the prospect of moving yourself up past the DPS classes. So the question becomes, which is better? To stay in defensive with reduced damage output but ride close to the MT on the threat list, or stay in offensive and start the switch if the MT drops, knowing that it'll be several seconds that the named will be running loose through the raid until you can get control of it?

For those OTs who can maintain a high position on the threat list through their DPS, or can quickly move themselves to the top of the threat list regardless of where they are (i.e.: Paladins), then OTing in offensive makes sense. Otherwise, the old maxim of "better safe than sorry" comes in. As the OT, one of your primary functions in the raid is to immediately pickup the mob if the MT drops, prevent a wipe and give the healers enough time to rez and rebuff the MT. It'll be up to each individual OT to decide if they can still do that effectively while switching stances.

[gundali]

Which is better, or which is less worse? The best way is as it is currently, maintain hate through adding DPS to your raidforce, having the ability to switch to defensive immediately and hit our rescue abilities.

Honestly the main issue i have is that instead of increasing the attraction of the defensive stance, by reducing the to hit penalties, by removing the .5 damage reduction and by addressing the failings of the diminishing returns curve. SoE have chosen instead to force us to play defensive in order to cast taunts, maintain buffs that are forced to a particular stance.

[LygerT]

Queen Alexandria wrote:

schizolic: Thats exactly what happens when employees get too comfortable with their job and start ignoring the customer. Then they wonder why they are loosing customers. I find myself logging in less every day, and eventually I'm going to log on and wonder why I'm still even here. That's how it happened last time and it took 3 years to come back.  Not because the game sucks, because I like a lot of these changes going on test.  I'm just tired of devs not communicating with the customers... it's like they are so affraid of saying something because they don't want more work.

There are people here willing to do all the thinking and will gladly volunteer their time to help make this game better.  You want this game to be successful, start listening and pay attention to what problems there are, address them and find a viable solution and move on.

the devs do listen, they just won't always take your point of view because everyone has a different perspective of what they want.

[Gisallo]

Noaani wrote:

criminal1980 wrote:

If you happen to be clairvoyant enough to know 5 seconds ahead of time when the 3rd or 4th tank, who SHOULD be dpsing, may need to pick up a mob my hats off to you.

Structure your raid.

You have the MT, who is obviously tanking mobs, and you have your offtank for is he goes down. These two positions have been fairly standard since MMIS. These tanks are both in def stance 100% of the time in raids.

The tird tank in your raid is DPS until you are at a mob that has adds, at which point he is your add tank. For fights without adds, this tank is in off stance, but switches to def for fights with adds.

In order for you to need a third tank on the main mob, or for any mobs with no adds, is if the mob manages to kill both your MT and OT in the space of 20 seconds (the amount of time it should take to get the MT back up and buffed enough to be able to tank). If they do both go down before you are able to get the MT back up and running, look for new healers. If your adds tank is getting killed at all, look either give him another healer, or get him some better gear.

There are no dire consiquences of having the stances on a 5 second recast, as it simply means tanks have the choice to be cautious or go for a bit more DPS. There is no need to be clairvoyant to know that an encounter has adds.

If you set your raid up propperly, have players with gear that is appropriate for the encounter and everyone knows their job (and does it), you need a large amount of bad luck to require a third tank for a single target mob, or a fourth tank for almost any encounter. If any of the above are not met, expect deaths even if you have an extra tank.

This pretty much shows your complete ignorance regarding how to set up the tank spots for a raid. 

First The OT should NOT be in defensive stance the entire time.  Offensive stance means burn mob down faster.  Burn mob down faster means the MT goes down less often (if at all).

Second the OT job is to be the add tank, not the third tank.  A simple reading of the zerker and other stereo typical OT boards would show you this, you don't even need to have done the job.  The  MT takes named OT takes adds.  Reason for the third tank is that sometimes the cumulative impact of adds can equal that of the named so you have the third tank covering the event that either the MT goes down and the OT is occupied with adds or the OT goes down to the adds. 

All of this is raid tanking 101 btw.

The fact that previously you said you have tanked stuff really surprises me and I know completely doubt you prior comment to this effect because you clearly have NO idea what an OT's job is in a raid and the MT understanding the OT jobs is ESSENTIAL to the success of a raid.

[Queen Alexandria]

Lyger@Mistmoore wrote:

Queen Alexandria wrote:

schizolic: Thats exactly what happens when employees get too comfortable with their job and start ignoring the customer. Then they wonder why they are loosing customers. I find myself logging in less every day, and eventually I'm going to log on and wonder why I'm still even here. That's how it happened last time and it took 3 years to come back.  Not because the game sucks, because I like a lot of these changes going on test.  I'm just tired of devs not communicating with the customers... it's like they are so affraid of saying something because they don't want more work.

There are people here willing to do all the thinking and will gladly volunteer their time to help make this game better.  You want this game to be successful, start listening and pay attention to what problems there are, address them and find a viable solution and move on.

the devs do listen, they just won't always take your point of view because everyone has a different perspective of what they want.

My point was communication and my emphasis was to listen to the advice i was giving, not necessarily to what everyone thinks should be done.  I just wish devs or a representative would make REGULAR appearances in world channels of classes to talk about certain things in a free chat style to open debates and explain why ideas or good or why they are bad.  Thats all the communication needs.

There are plenty of us out there that love our class and play them because of that... i log on test and play around, but theres hardly anyone there to talk to that has an inside hand on the matter that can either explain things or listen to what I have to say.  If im willing to talk to someone about changes there should be someone there to tell me if im out of line or not or if I should look at things a different way to understand them.

Do you understand what im trying to say?  Do devs even show up in worldwide channels to talk to classes?  Like, whats wrong about popping in on crushbone.allmonks and talking to the community there and get direct input on these changes?

[Noaani]

Gisallo@Lucan DLere wrote:

Second the OT job is to be the add tank, not the third tank.  A simple reading of the zerker and other stereo typical OT boards would show you this, you don't even need to have done the job.  The  MT takes named OT takes adds.  Reason for the third tank is that sometimes the cumulative impact of adds can equal that of the named so you have the third tank covering the event that either the MT goes down and the OT is occupied with adds or the OT goes down to the adds. 

All of this is raid tanking 101 btw

How well does that work for you on Xebnok?

Not so good? thought so...

[Noaani]

gundalini wrote:

The first part of your post that resonated with me, primarily an OT through choice. I do not wish, nor will i ever, play a game that involves me 'waiting to tank'. This fantastic game of 'waiting to tank' is not why i enjoy my raid role of OT.

Offtanks have the single most boring job on a raid 75% of the time. This is true on both live and the test server, and is the reason a good offtank is harder to find that a good MT.

A good OT will be second on the hate list when the MT goes down, which means no DPS will die. Anything else they bring to the raid is unimportant if they are unable to perform this primary function. On top of this job, they have several things they will need to be doing depending on the encounter.

Xebnok for example requires 2 tanks on the named, and another on adds. Switchmaster is easier if a second tank is able to hold the named if the MT gets wtfever that yellow vision debuff is called. On Maestro in SoH the OT is a part of the tanking rotation, and on the SoH trash is often tanking 2 - 3 mobs himself. Byzola required the OT to be ready to either DPS or tank, and is probably the only encounter in the game that places a requirement to do both on any one character. On the stalker in YIS the offtank will probably be tanking the trash mob you pulled.

The second point regarding the adds tank to be in defensive is currently though, flawed. The diminishing returns curve actually means that i can reach a point in a raid setting where switching to defensive will gain me around 2% or less extra avoidance, the mitigation gain is even less. Now, i balance this pitiful extra defensive gain against a vastly increased slashing skill, an ability to actually contribute to the DPS on those adds and to land my melee based taunts.

I would like to see any fighter tank the adds for Xebnok in off stance without losing DPS to them once the changes go live. Same with Tythus.