Paladin MT in raids - Page 2

QualityJolt · 05-12-2006, 10:51 PM

Anzak wrote:
If would could cap Mit with a few item changes the way a guard can cap Divine and Magic resist with just a few item changes. Then I would not care about he bonus Mit Guards get in their AAs but the fact remains that Mit is the most important aspect of tanking on any raid mob and 300 is about 3% more Mit which is a major differance when you have mobs hitting for 5K and higher.

/agree

Divine Aura still needs to be fix as well.

/agree

As for our heals and wards I think they work well but should not be used as an excuse as to why Guards Mitigation is allowed to push so much higher than ours.

/agree
/agree

Sorry too many /agree there. My raid wiped last night in Lab because I was fighting a group of 3 trash mobs and they hit me for 4k, 2k and 3k within first 5 seconds and I have 12k HP raid buffed, so I tried to cast ward to give healers some time, but it fizzled

QualityJolt · 05-12-2006, 10:55 PM

Sedila wrote:

Ive successfully tanked all of Labs, all of Lyceumm, and first half of HoS(didnt finish of course on first run:smileysadAdd Pantrill, Vraskin, and Harla Dar in there if want to as well. Of course these are the low end of the raids for this Tier, but so is my gear atm. i have ALOT that can be upgraded, sadly we havent gotten the best plate drops lately. so yes, its qutie possible.

Good to hear that! May I ask what your Mitigation is self buffed? Raid buffed?

Thanks

Anzak · 05-12-2006, 11:05 PM

Sedila wrote:
Ive successfully tanked all of Labs, all of Lyceumm, and first half of HoS(didnt finish of course on first run:smileysadAdd Pantrill, Vraskin, and Harla Dar in there if want to as well. Of course these are the low end of the raids for this Tier, but so is my gear atm. i have ALOT that can be upgraded, sadly we havent gotten the best plate drops lately. so yes, its qutie possible.

Just because you can is not the point. The point is you are trying something new. Now the raid leader has a choice of you at 5500 Mit and 12K HP or the Guard at 5800 Mit and 12K HP Or maybe the guard opted to take a little more HP so they have 5700 Mit and 12.5K HP. When looking for which is going to give you the best chance the choice is clear cut.

Sedi · 05-12-2006, 11:07 PM

My Eq2players thingy:

http://eq2players.station.sony.com/en/pplayer.vm?characterId=332139108

Screenshot of my Stats solo:

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Sedila/EQ2_000016.jpg

I think the highest ive gotten up to raid buff mit was in the 6650ish using the 240 extra from a mit potion.

Anzak · 05-12-2006, 11:17 PM

Sedila wrote:
My Eq2players thingy:

http://eq2players.station.sony.com/en/pplayer.vm?characterId=332139108

Screenshot of my Stats solo:

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Sedila/EQ2_000016.jpg

I think the highest ive gotten up to raid buff mit was in the 6650ish using the 240 extra from a mit potion.

Ok so why would I as a raid leader pick you over the guard with 7K Mit? Or 6.9K and 500 more HP than you? The point is yes we can do this but because of resist capping there is never a situation where a pally would be the better choice.

Sedi · 05-12-2006, 11:24 PM

Never said you would choose me over a guardian/zerker. And if you did, you oviously arent very bright. All i said is that we CAN.

QualityJolt · 05-12-2006, 11:26 PM

Anzak wrote:

Just because you can is not the point. The point is you are trying something new. Now the raid leader has a choice of you at 5500 Mit and 12K HP or the Guard at 5800 Mit and 12K HP Or maybe the guard opted to take a little more HP so they have 5700 Mit and 12.5K HP. When looking for which is going to give you the best chance the choice is clear cut.

I understand your point. It is not only 300 more mit but their temporary buff ( one group and one self ) that they can cycle that can get them to have about 1k more mitigation will make guards be the tank of choice during raids. I am main tanking in my guild because I am the guild leader and we don't have any guards in guild ATM. I am curious if Trod is the leader of his guild too SMILEY

Sedi · 05-12-2006, 11:47 PM

nope. Our Guardian's gear just isnt good enough nor does he have enough experience tanking T7 yet.

Leawyn · 05-13-2006, 12:21 AM

Anzak wrote:

Ok so why would I as a raid leader pick you over the guard with 7K Mit? Or 6.9K and 500 more HP than you? The point is yes we can do this but because of resist capping there is never a situation where a pally would be the better choice.

The question posed that Trod was responding to asked simply if any Pally had tanked any of the instances all the way through. Trod did. Do you always have to go whining that somewhere there is a guardian with better stats/gear that can do it better? You know what, no matter how good you think you are (or how RIGHT you think you are) there will always be someone better than you.

SirRock · 05-13-2006, 01:17 AM

Leawyn wrote:

Anzak wrote:

Ok so why would I as a raid leader pick you over the guard with 7K Mit? Or 6.9K and 500 more HP than you? The point is yes we can do this but because of resist capping there is never a situation where a pally would be the better choice.

The question posed that Trod was responding to asked simply if any Pally had tanked any of the instances all the way through. Trod did. Do you always have to go whining that somewhere there is a guardian with better stats/gear that can do it better? You know what, no matter how good you think you are (or how RIGHT you think you are) there will always be someone better than you.

The simple answer is yes, a paladin can main tank in a raid.

The complex answer is, they can, but its more difficult than a pure-fighter class.

But that's to be expected. Why shouldn't something that is 100% purebred fighter be better at tank than something that is say 85% fighter, 15% priest?

But yea... Paladins can main tank if the conditions are right SMILEY

Kale · 05-13-2006, 02:03 AM

SirRocky6 wrote:
Why shouldn't something that is 100% purebred fighter be better at tank than something that is say 85% fighter, 15% priest?

Because that's not the way the classes were billed. Paladins weren't advertised as "85% fighter, 15% priest". They were advertised as a plate-wearing tank class. I have absolutely no problem with a Paladin being considered a second-class tank or a hybrid - in a different game. Since Day 1 Paladins were advertised as a plate wearing tank that could do the job. SOE went out of their way to say that the four plate wearing tank classes could all perform the same role. If I'm a Shadowknight I'd be even more upset. In EQ1 Paladins and Shadowknights were billed as hybrids, and Warriors were billed as the true "tank" classes. I played a Shadowknight. I accepted my role because I knew what it was going in. And when Warriors got Defensive Discipline, the line in the sand became even wider. But that was not the case here. When EQ2 launched I was very careful. I read everything. I made sure what I was getting into. And SOE said Paladins would be able to tank just as well as the other plate classes. They were not billed as a "hybrid" of any kind. There was no 85% in this equation. I chose a Paladin because it seemed like it would be a more complex, fun way to MT. It didn't seem like it would be as easy as a Guardian, where my impression of the class at the time was, "Just stand in front of the mob and hit "taunt" because you've got the most HP and Mitigation". For the most part, playing a Paladin has been about as complex as I had hoped. I haven't played a Guardian, so I can't compare, but I can compare it with EQ1 and I like tanking in this game as a Paladin. Right up until someone tells me I can't do it.A Paladin, in my opinion, is not 85% fighter, 15% priest. It's 100% Paladin. The abilities are native to the Paladin class, not the Priest class. We're not Priests in plate, we're not fighters with heals. We're Paladins. As such, our Paladin abilities should allow us to do exactly what another plate class can do. If we lack "raw" mitigation of a Guardian, then something in our native toolset should compensate. Something that allows us to get the job done, but identifies us as unique and special. It's our unique way of succeeding in combat that makes us Paladins.

SirRock · 05-13-2006, 02:12 AM

Kalera wrote:

SirRocky6 wrote:

Why shouldn't something that is 100% purebred fighter be better at tank than something that is say 85% fighter, 15% priest?

Because that's not the way the classes were billed. Paladins weren't advertised as "85% fighter, 15% priest". They were advertised as a plate-wearing tank class.

I have absolutely no problem with a Paladin being considered a second-class tank or a hybrid - in a different game.

Since Day 1 Paladins were advertised as a plate wearing tank that could do the job. SOE went out of their way to say that the four plate wearing tank classes could all perform the same role. If I'm a Shadowknight I'd be even more upset.

In EQ1 Paladins and Shadowknights were billed as hybrids, and Warriors were billed as the true "tank" classes. I played a Shadowknight. I accepted my role because I knew what it was going in. And when Warriors got Defensive Discipline, the line in the sand became even wider.

But that was not the case here. When EQ2 launched I was very careful. I read everything. I made sure what I was getting into. And SOE said Paladins would be able to tank just as well as the other plate classes. They were not billed as a "hybrid" of any kind. There was no 85% in this equation.

I chose a Paladin because it seemed like it would be a more complex, fun way to MT. It didn't seem like it would be as easy as a Guardian, where my impression of the class at the time was, "Just stand in front of the mob and hit "taunt" because you've got the most HP and Mitigation".

For the most part, playing a Paladin has been about as complex as I had hoped. I haven't played a Guardian, so I can't compare, but I can compare it with EQ1 and I like tanking in this game as a Paladin.

Right up until someone tells me I can't do it.

A Paladin, in my opinion, is not 85% fighter, 15% priest. It's 100% Paladin. The abilities are native to the Paladin class, not the Priest class. We're not Priests in plate, we're not fighters with heals. We're Paladins. As such, our Paladin abilities should allow us to do exactly what another plate class can do. If we lack "raw" mitigation of a Guardian, then something in our native toolset should compensate. Something that allows us to get the job done, but identifies us as unique and special. It's our unique way of succeeding in combat that makes us Paladins.

I didn't mean to break it down as 85% fighter, 15% priest as a way of negating that they have their own abilities and that they are a true fighter.

My point was that when you chose a Paladin, and this is in every game I have ever played with a Paladin class, you accept that you will lack the same level of strength as a straight fighter (or guardian in this case). You are a hybrid class. So some abilities suffer in exchange for others. You focus attention on wisdom and healing at the cost of strength and better mitigation.

I'm not saying that a Paladin shouldn't be able to tank just as well as a guardian in a raid. I'm just saying that no one should expect the same mitigation. It seems like the argument being presented here is that Paladins need to be more like guardians so they can take hits better. I disagree with that. Paladins may need some attention to their heals and wards to make them better at raid tanking then, but I certainly don't want to see them turned any more into a guardian.

I think we both are thinking the same thing, it just came out differently when I said it SMILEY

Kale · 05-13-2006, 02:19 AM

SirRocky6 wrote:
I didn't mean to break it down as 85% fighter, 15% priest as a way of negating that they have their own abilities and that they are a true fighter
My point was that when you chose a Paladin, and this is in every game I have ever played with a Paladin class, you accept that you will lack the same level of strength as a straight fighter (or guardian in this case). You are a hybrid class. So some abilities suffer in exchange for others. You focus attention on wisdom and healing at the cost of strength and better mitigation.

I'm not saying that a Paladin shouldn't be able to tank just as well as a guardian in a raid. I'm just saying that no one should expect the same mitigation. It seems like the argument being presented here is that Paladins need to be more like guardians so they can take hits better. I disagree with that. Paladins may need some attention to their heals and wards to make them better at raid tanking then, but I certainly don't want to see them turned any more into a guardian.

I think we both are thinking the same thing, it just came out differently when I said it

I agree with you 100% then SMILEY

If I wanted to play a Guardian, I would have selected one. I chose Paladin because of the unique skillset. We are an extremely unique and fun class. The problem isn't that we don't have as many hit points or the same mitigation as a Guardian - the problem is that our tools do not compensate well enough. I don't want to MT a raid mob as a Paladin and cast a buff that makes my mitigation the same as a Guardian. You might as well slap a "Guardian" over my Paladin class description then and strip me of heals and wards. What I really want is our wards/heals to be good enough - special enough - in raid sitauations so they actualy compensate. I'd love to have a 30-second ward (much like the Guardian has a 30-second mitigation buff) that blocks a portion of my damage. It would be a Ward, just a different type of ward. It's not straight mitigation, it's just another tool unique to us that would help us get the job done. I don't need a huge hit point buff like a Guardian, I just need better heals so I can make more judicious use of the hit points I do have. There are solutions out there. The developers just need to do what they do best: be creative and find them SMILEY

SirRock · 05-13-2006, 02:23 AM

Kalera wrote:

SirRocky6 wrote:

I didn't mean to break it down as 85% fighter, 15% priest as a way of negating that they have their own abilities and that they are a true fighter
My point was that when you chose a Paladin, and this is in every game I have ever played with a Paladin class, you accept that you will lack the same level of strength as a straight fighter (or guardian in this case). You are a hybrid class. So some abilities suffer in exchange for others. You focus attention on wisdom and healing at the cost of strength and better mitigation.

I'm not saying that a Paladin shouldn't be able to tank just as well as a guardian in a raid. I'm just saying that no one should expect the same mitigation. It seems like the argument being presented here is that Paladins need to be more like guardians so they can take hits better. I disagree with that. Paladins may need some attention to their heals and wards to make them better at raid tanking then, but I certainly don't want to see them turned any more into a guardian.

I think we both are thinking the same thing, it just came out differently when I said it

I agree with you 100% then

If I wanted to play a Guardian, I would have selected one. I chose Paladin because of the unique skillset. We are an extremely unique and fun class. The problem isn't that we don't have as many hit points or the same mitigation as a Guardian - the problem is that our tools do not compensate well enough.

I don't want to MT a raid mob as a Paladin and cast a buff that makes my mitigation the same as a Guardian. You might as well slap a "Guardian" over my Paladin class description then and strip me of heals and wards. What I really want is our wards/heals to be good enough - special enough - in raid sitauations so they actualy compensate.

I'd love to have a 30-second ward (much like the Guardian has a 30-second mitigation buff) that blocks a portion of my damage. It would be a Ward, just a different type of ward. It's not straight mitigation, it's just another tool unique to us that would help us get the job done. I don't need a huge hit point buff like a Guardian, I just need better heals so I can make more judicious use of the hit points I do have.

There are solutions out there. The developers just need to do what they do best: be creative and find them

Yup... I was right... we are on the same page.... just reading different translations SMILEY

You hit the nail on the head with this response.

Anzak · 05-13-2006, 02:37 AM

I accept that we should have less mit in the form of Guards have temp mit buffs that we do not. I draw the line at Guards and Zerkers getting 300 more mit though AAs that we have no way to account for. In fact per SOE statement Pallies are suppose to be top level tanks on par with Gaurds and better than Zerkers yet here we are with a base level below Guards. Can is fine and I do tank all the time. But the point is we should be equal to guards in respect to tanking, not the same just equal. Issue number 1) 300 more mit just from AAs. We have nothing at all AA or otherwise that can make up for this. The only thing we have is 60 mit from a cobalt tablet which thanks to the guards gripping about that the T7 tablet does not even have that. So there is no real upgrade to the cobalt tablet without giving up that 60 mit which as a tank you are not about to do that. Issue Number 2) Guardian self mit buff. For 30 seconds a guard can self buff mit, so realistically how much damage is mitigated on average from a raid mob in that 30 seconds. More than likely a heck of a lot more than out self heal does. Not to mention the recast on our heal is twice the recast on their mit buff. This is what we have to compair because it is self to self our other heals and wards are out of the picture because they can be cast on others and in fact are more effective when not tanking. Until these 2 major issues are resolved Guards will always be better. And that means it will be easier for a guild to get things done with a guard than with a pally every time. So if the goal is to succeed then the choice is a guard unless gear or player skill indicate otherwise.

Leawyn · 05-13-2006, 03:13 AM

Kalera wrote:

SirRocky6 wrote:

Why shouldn't something that is 100% purebred fighter be better at tank than something that is say 85% fighter, 15% priest?

Because that's not the way the classes were billed. .... They were advertised as a plate-wearing tank class.

This is not me being a snot. This is an honest to goodness question because I have never personally seen this. And I would like to. Where do you see this ever being said, by someone of some authority, not just the players of this game.

Alot of people use this as their argument, and until I see this "advertising" to say otherwise, I'm going to continue saying they're full of hot air. But I am more than willing to wait. I have tried looking myself but since the search is so limited and crappy on these boards, and I'm not sure how I would look up "paladins being billed as plate tanks" to be honest.

I will refrain from further comment until I see that. I'm just really really really realyl tired of the same 5 people using this as their excuse to make us cookie cutters of guardians.

[edit to clarify]

Message Edited by Leawyn on 05-12-2006 04:14 PM

SirRock · 05-13-2006, 03:16 AM

Leawyn wrote:

Kalera wrote:

SirRocky6 wrote:

Why shouldn't something that is 100% purebred fighter be better at tank than something that is say 85% fighter, 15% priest?

Because that's not the way the classes were billed. .... They were advertised as a plate-wearing tank class.

This is not me being a snot. This is an honest to goodness question because I have never personally seen this. And I would like to. Where do you see this ever being said, by someone of some authority, not just the players of this game.

Alot of people use this as their argument, and until I see this "advertising" to say otherwise, I'm going to continue saying they're full of hot air. But I am more than willing to wait. I have tried looking myself but since the search is so limited and crappy on these boards, and I'm not sure how I would look up "paladins being billed as plate tanks" to be honest.

I will refrain from further comment until I see that. I'm just really really really realyl tired of the same 5 people using this as their excuse to make us cookie cutters of guardians.

[edit to clarify]

Message Edited by Leawyn on 05-12-2006 04:14 PM

Kalera wasn't saying make us cookie cutters of guardians.... we were both actually saying the opposite.... but we were saying we should be on par as far as tanking ability goes.

I've never used that argument... but I would check the main page (www.everquest2.com) and click on the characters link for Paladin and read the description.

Kale · 05-13-2006, 03:49 AM

Leawyn wrote:

This is not me being a snot. This is an honest to goodness question because I have never personally seen this. And I would like to. Where do you see this ever being said, by someone of some authority, not just the players of this game.

Alot of people use this as their argument, and until I see this "advertising" to say otherwise, I'm going to continue saying they're full of hot air. But I am more than willing to wait. I have tried looking myself but since the search is so limited and crappy on these boards, and I'm not sure how I would look up "paladins being billed as plate tanks" to be honest.

I can understand your stance. I really can. The unfortunate reality of the situation is that message boards, both here and elsewhere, have such poor Search functionality that finding the exact quotes from people like Moorgard can be quite time consuming. I've been a member of the EQ2 Vault staff since before the game launched. Our message boards on IGN are the second most hit boards on the internet. Moorgard and Blackguard frequent our boards. Our site was particularly busy during the six months before launch as our board leader at the time, Sasse, was incredibly busy getting interviews and inside dirt on the game (she knows Moorgard personally and she did a great job getting us some scoops early on). The information I had came directly from the guys as SOE. Here's two posts I can find immediatley (without going page-by-page through some 500+ posts since October 2004 to present). http://vnboards.ign.com/eq2_general_board/b22210/89249346/p1/http://vnboards.ign.com/eq2_general_board/b22210/87575871/p1/By no means are those posts definitive on the tank issue, but I think they give you a good idea of the direction they were trying to take the game at the time. It seems clear to me that what they are not saying is, "Guardians should be the premiere raid tanks." It seems they wanted to say the opposite. It seems like there is an effort there to make it a pretty level playing field between the tank types. I wish I had the time to go through every single post on our boards that was written prior to the launch of the game, because there were some posts there that spelled things out pretty plain. Tanks wearing plate armor were meant to tank raid content. It was that simple. I know it is in the nature of people to be skeptical of that argument because they (you) didn't read it. All I can say is, for those of us who followed the game pre-launch and every day thereafter, it was clear to us that Paladins, and indeed all plate wearing tanks, were supposed to be able to do the job - fill the role. There was never any indication given that a Guardian was meant to be the premiere raid tank. We didn't make that argument up. We didn't fabricate it. It came from SOE. If someone would have kept track of all the quotes like they did for the Vanbard Digest then it would be a lot easier to go back and assure you that the statements were there SMILEY

We (those of us who chose a Paladin on the premise it could MT raid mobs) didn't make our choice without first checking this stuff out. After 4+ years in EQ1 I was not about to make the same mistake and choose a class that could not MT raid content. I did my due dilligence this time around. I chose Paladin because the developers said we could do it SMILEY

QualityJolt · 05-13-2006, 05:31 AM

Kalera wrote:

Leawyn wrote:

This is not me being a snot. This is an honest to goodness question because I have never personally seen this. And I would like to. Where do you see this ever being said, by someone of some authority, not just the players of this game.

Alot of people use this as their argument, and until I see this "advertising" to say otherwise, I'm going to continue saying they're full of hot air. But I am more than willing to wait. I have tried looking myself but since the search is so limited and crappy on these boards, and I'm not sure how I would look up "paladins being billed as plate tanks" to be honest.

I can understand your stance. I really can. The unfortunate reality of the situation is that message boards, both here and elsewhere, have such poor Search functionality that finding the exact quotes from people like Moorgard can be quite time consuming.

I've been a member of the EQ2 Vault staff since before the game launched. Our message boards on IGN are the second most hit boards on the internet. Moorgard and Blackguard frequent our boards. Our site was particularly busy during the six months before launch as our board leader at the time, Sasse, was incredibly busy getting interviews and inside dirt on the game (she knows Moorgard personally and she did a great job getting us some scoops early on). The information I had came directly from the guys as SOE.

Here's two posts I can find immediatley (without going page-by-page through some 500+ posts since October 2004 to present).

http://vnboards.ign.com/eq2_general_board/b22210/89249346/p1/

http://vnboards.ign.com/eq2_general_board/b22210/87575871/p1/

By no means are those posts definitive on the tank issue, but I think they give you a good idea of the direction they were trying to take the game at the time. It seems clear to me that what they are not saying is, "Guardians should be the premiere raid tanks." It seems they wanted to say the opposite. It seems like there is an effort there to make it a pretty level playing field between the tank types.

I wish I had the time to go through every single post on our boards that was written prior to the launch of the game, because there were some posts there that spelled things out pretty plain. Tanks wearing plate armor were meant to tank raid content. It was that simple.

I know it is in the nature of people to be skeptical of that argument because they (you) didn't read it. All I can say is, for those of us who followed the game pre-launch and every day thereafter, it was clear to us that Paladins, and indeed all plate wearing tanks, were supposed to be able to do the job - fill the role. There was never any indication given that a Guardian was meant to be the premiere raid tank.

We didn't make that argument up. We didn't fabricate it. It came from SOE. If someone would have kept track of all the quotes like they did for the Vanbard Digest then it would be a lot easier to go back and assure you that the statements were there

We (those of us who chose a Paladin on the premise it could MT raid mobs) didn't make our choice without first checking this stuff out. After 4+ years in EQ1 I was not about to make the same mistake and choose a class that could not MT raid content. I did my due dilligence this time around. I chose Paladin because the developers said we could do it

Thanks for digging those two posts up. I recall reading those posts from Moorgard before LU#13 ( combat revamp ). And I did play EQ1 for 3 years and played EQ2 since Beta as Paladin. I choose paladin for the same reasons as you did. I always read this forum for information regarding my class but I never post here because I was pretty happy with the way my class after LU#13 to pre-KOS. But after KOS I believe the ability to raid MT gap between guards/zerkers and Paladin been widened that I feel like I have to say something about it. Being a developer I can understand some of the constrains that game designers and game developers are facing regarding balance. But I do like to see some changes being made to bring us to same raid MT ability as guards/zerkers.

Leawyn · 05-13-2006, 06:38 AM

I had a beautiful post in reply to those links. but it got eaten by HTML bug. Suffice it to say that basically those links are regarding the combat revamp. Not the beginning of the game. Its not so much that I don't believe you when you say that it was said. Its just that I think something was said and maybe everyone is taking it their own way. I'm still a firm believer that Paladins can MT, and not to the detriment of their group or raid. A lil tweaking would make it better, but its all about learning to work with your disadvantages.

SirRock · 05-13-2006, 03:11 PM

Leawyn wrote:
I had a beautiful post in reply to those links. but it got eaten by HTML bug.

Suffice it to say that basically those links are regarding the combat revamp. Not the beginning of the game.

Its not so much that I don't believe you when you say that it was said. Its just that I think something was said and maybe everyone is taking it their own way.

I'm still a firm believer that Paladins can MT, and not to the detriment of their group or raid. A lil tweaking would make it better, but its all about learning to work with your disadvantages.

To avoid the HTML error bug with the forums... click preview post first.

OrcSlayer96 · 05-13-2006, 06:48 PM

I still think the Devs need to change our pledge of arnament to be self cast with no penalty and either revamp our divine aura to be a self regening percentage ward for 30 seconds or so with a 2-3 min recast timer or have it as a new spell for us. Having those 2 changes would help retain our unique crusader capabilities and help bridge the gap on raid tanking. The self ward would consume a essence so that both paladins and shadowknights could get a a needed boost. I have heard others post that a percentage ward is the same as a mitigation buff but a ward protects against all form of damage(3 physical kinds/7 spell kinds). Maybe the Devs will look into this in the future, i still have hope for it... SMILEY

Kale · 05-13-2006, 09:08 PM

Leawyn wrote:Its not so much that I don't believe you when you say that it was said. Its just that I think something was said and maybe everyone is taking it their own way.

Let me assure you that no one was misinterpreting anything that was said pre-launch. When the information about the game came out pre-Beta, the thing everyone noticed right off the bat was the archtype system. The fighter/scout/priest/mage tree. The developers said that if you were in the fighter tree you'd be able to tank "every bit as well as a warrior." Another quote from Moorguard in that thread:Moorguard: " All Fighters can do the job of tank equally well. Our entire system is designed around the idea that anyone from a given archetype can fill their main role as well as any other. "The concern by the players was that there would be no difference between each fighter type if they could all do the same job. Moorgard assured us that would not be the case, and that each subclass would achieve the same result through different means. A different toolset.Concerning raiding:Question: do you think that raid encounters will be geared towards having 1 of each sub-class ? Moorguard: "Nope. That wouldn't be very flexible."Moorguard: "The entire point of an archetype system is to provide flexibility rather than strict limitations."Moorguard: "Subclasses bring specialization to both groups and raids. My point was that you aren't *required* to have one of every subclass at a raid, just as you won't need to exclude any particular subclass as being unnecessary. Because the core roles of each profession are balanced at the subclass level, all subclasses will have the tools to carry out their main jobs.But there will certainly be plenty of opportunities for the various subclasses to shine, and some particular fights may provide advantages to some subclasses over others. We aren't setting out to create a generic system, just one that provides a lot of flexibility." Now, answer me this: If the Guardian is the preferred tank all the time, then doesn't that mean SOE failed to achieve their initial goals with the class system in regards to tanking raid mobs?Moorguard: Interestingly enough, if you were playing EQ now you'd find that paladins are probably the most-desired exp group tank in the game, or at least are tied with SKs.But as was pointed out, our archetype system is specifically designed so that no classes are seen as less desirable. Question: My point is, do you think we will know much about our what our class roles will be like later in the game? I'd hate to pick a class early on, level him to 50 or so, and then realize that he's headed into a role that I don't want to play. Moorguardc: The role of your class later in the game will be the same as when you first pick an archetype. That's how our system is designed.We'll supply specific info about each sub-class during the character creation process (and of course it will be available online before that). We want players to understand the path they choose very well.Sub-classes are all about flavor and individuality. Each sub-class in the same archetype will be noticably different from the others, but every one will be able to perform its primary function as well as any other.The other difference is that we're setting the dependency at the archetype level, not the sub-class level. This means a far wider range of players will be able to fill those roles. Instead of the group wanting a Paladin or a Shadowknight, they will want a Fighter. Any flavor will do.Our method is to base the game on five roles, each of which provides unique and necessary functions. As I've said, the differences within an archetype are about how that job is done, not how well it is done. That's a matter of personal taste. Fighters take damage, deal damage, and hold a mob's attention. Every Fighter is charged with that responsibility, and must do it as well as any other. Some will use spells, some will use arts; some will use avoidance, some will use mitigation; some will wear heavy armor that makes them look like a walking tank, others will wear much lighter armor.If they allow Paladins to rez and in theory paladins can tank as good as warriors and monks don't you think this would be too much of an advantage? Nope. Because all sub-classes get some kind of crossover secondary ability from another archetype. This doesn't make any one kind of fighter preferable in all situations, but rather adds versatility to the group.We balance the classes at the primary roles of the archetype, meaning that all subclasses of the same archetype do their main jobs just as well as the others.There is no fighter subclass designated to do a lot more damage than another at the expense of tanking; that would not be balanced.Monks are not intended to vastly outdamage paladins, nor are guardians intended to tank better than bruisers.Anway, if you want to read the whole archive, the best on is here: http://www.eqii.com/mgi.php?t=10467After months of reading this stuff those of us who envisioned playing a Paladin had a pretty clear picture in our mind - we believed we'd be able to fullfil the role at every level, group and raid. You have to remember, none of us had access to the game, or the endgame. We went off this information. We didn't have the luxury of being in Beta, of attacking the raid content and seeing how the classes actually worked out. We went off what was said.Did we read things into this? I don't think so. Not given the information we had at the time. I followed this game's development daily. In my mind, after everything was said and all the forum questions answered and all the discussion dissected, it seemed clear to me that selecting any of the fighter archtypes would be viable, and that what would distinguish the good tanks from the bad would be equipment and skill, not the class itself. The impression I was left with was: if you know what you're doing, and you purposely outfit your character to be defensive in nature (take damage and hold aggro) instead of offensive (deal damage), then you could raid tank with the best of them.

QualityJolt · 05-13-2006, 10:07 PM

OrcSlayer96 wrote:

I still think the Devs need to change our pledge of arnament to be self cast with no penalty and either revamp our divine aura to be a self regening percentage ward for 30 seconds or so with a 2-3 min recast timer or have it as a new spell for us. Having those 2 changes would help retain our unique crusader capabilities and help bridge the gap on raid tanking. The self ward would consume a essence so that both paladins and shadowknights could get a a needed boost. I have heard others post that a percentage ward is the same as a mitigation buff but a ward protects against all form of damage(3 physical kinds/7 spell kinds). Maybe the Devs will look into this in the future, i still have hope for it...

I agree with you steel. I also saw someone posted something about making pledge of armament to be self cast with no penalty in Combat discussions forum but I saw some guard was furious LOL. But yes if we do get something like Divine Aura ( the working one SMILEY ) but have shorter recast timer would help us retain our unique crusader capabilities and help us be in same level as warriors when it come to raid tanking. I do hold out hope for it but so far I have not seen any designer/developer response to any of these thread regarding Paladin main tanking in this forum since KOS release.

Leawyn · 05-13-2006, 10:07 PM

Kalera wrote: The impression I was left with was: if you know what you're doing, and you purposely outfit your character to be defensive in nature (take damage and hold aggro) instead of offensive (deal damage), then you could raid tank with the best of them.

Excellent post, thank you. While reading what you posted, I have to say that I believe a majority of what Moorguard was posting was in relation to grouping (he specifically mentions Pallies being the tank of choice in exp groups in EQ1) and just as with every class in this game, you CANNOT carry over your benefits to a group to a raid at an equal level. Healers heals are not equal. Tanks are not equal. DPS is not equal. Everyone has to behave differently in a raid. You can always tell the newbie raiders, they are the ones that think a raid is nothing more than a 24 person exp group. All I have to say to your post is... What is holding you back from being a raid tank, aside from the perspective of those around you, and I might say, your own perspective. I am fully confident that if needed, I could main tank anything handed to me if I had the right people at my side to help me achieve that goal. And I am also equally confident that by having me main tank, my guild would not be suffering any more or less than they would with a guardian in there. Do I think Pallies are perfect? Nah, I do wish our heals (particularly our self heal) was more potent or more viable against raid mobs. But I'm happy and confident with the class I chose, and I am happy with my abilities both as a group and raid MT, a back up healer, a rez bot or whatever role I need to fill to get the job done.

Kale · 05-13-2006, 10:46 PM

Leawyn wrote: While reading what you posted, I have to say that I believe a majority of what Moorguard was posting was in relation to grouping (he specifically mentions Pallies being the tank of choice in exp groups in EQ1) and just as with every class in this game, you CANNOT carry over your benefits to a group to a raid at an equal level. Healers heals are not equal. Tanks are not equal. DPS is not equal. Everyone has to behave differently in a raid. You can always tell the newbie raiders, they are the ones that think a raid is nothing more than a 24 person exp group. I realize his context in a lot of those posts was in relation to grouping. But there was a general impression that many of us got from reading those posts day after day, that raiding would not be so different from grouping, only the numbers would be different. You say "you cannot carry over your benefits to a raid", but you're saying that (I hope you realize) with the beneift of hindsight. At the time those things were written that was not the case. We believed our ability to be a "fighter" meant raid situations too, because there was never - ever - any information given out to make us think otherwise. In fact, at every turn (if you read those posts) Moorgard continues to state over and over that EQ2 is not EQ1, so take everything you know and throw it away. If we were to go off our EQ1 experience we would all say, "Sure, one tank is going to be the preferred raid tank." But everything we were told about EQ2 countered that argument. There's a context here. Teleport yourself to pre-beta and read those comments, without any knowledge of the game you know now. Imagine what it was like for us to read those comments. We're being told that all fighters will be able to perform "the role". The role to everyone isn't just tank in group - it is TANK. Everything. All I have to say to your post is... What is holding you back from being a raid tank, aside from the perspective of those around you, and I might say, your own perspective. That is part of what exactly prevents me from MT on raids: perspective, and I posted as much earlier in this thread Part of our problem is perspective, and people don't think we're as capable as we are. But part of it is also reality. All things being equal (and they rarely are) we are not as good as a Guardian. Like someone posted in this thread - after LU13 the gap was closed and most of us were satisfied with our place because we could raid tank. But Sky changed things. Achievements have changed things. And once again the Guardian is preferred (for legitimate reasons). Now, couple that reality with perception and what do you get? You get Guardians receiving the elite loot pieces because they are the favored "raid tank". They get the gear and the role. Which means we're yet another step behind. All I want is for our class to be balanced in such a way that we get what we were promised before launch. That we can tank as good as all other fighters. Tank to me means group AND raid. Not just groups. I think any reasonable tank thinks that. Do I think Pallies are perfect? Nah... And that's all I'm saying too. We're not perfect. And that imperfection causes us to have to climb the uphill battle. EQ2, at it's core, was billed as a game where skill and stats would matter more than class. The Archtype system was supposed to do away with favored classes. It was supposed to come down to how you built your character via trait choices and equipment, and how well you played your class. Different toolsets were supposed to get the same job done. And at the group level that's mostly true. At the raid level it falls apart. And I think, in fairness to the developers, they made raids sound like large group encounters, not as special encounters where one tank type was clearly going to be the desired class of choice. I don't know about the rest of the Paladin community, but in a group I rock. I have worked really hard to learn how to be the best tank I can be. I work hard to make it easy on my groups. I try and do all the little things that make a tank great. That's the role I chose. These games are about choices. What disheartens me is that the role I choose to play I cannot fullfil when it comes raid time, because my class has some deficienies and the perception among my peers and guildmates makes it so that people want to see the Guardian MT. If I tell them I'm going to MT I get all sorts of crap for it, people think I'm an idiot, the raid defects... It gets ugly. The only way to really combat this reality + perception is to change the reality. And then we will change the perception.

Pathin Merrithay · 05-13-2006, 11:04 PM

Without getting too much into this, -anything- said pre-launch or in any phase of beta of an MMORPG is not only subject to, but also should almost be expected to, change at some point as classes are balanced and their full potential realized.

Leawyn · 05-14-2006, 12:58 AM

Pathin Merrithay wrote:
Without getting too much into this, -anything- said pre-launch or in any phase of beta of an MMORPG is not only subject to, but also should almost be expected to, change at some point as classes are balanced and their full potential realized.

Agreed wholeheartedly. Pre-launch promises are difficult to fulfil. This game was ALSO touted as a solo-friendly, get-something-done-in-an-hour game... and more and more and more this is not happening. Just think of MOA. Think of all the new raid instances. Think of the serious changes that have changed the entire dynamic of the game. Are you going to say "Sorry, you aren't fulfilling promises that you made 2 years ago before you really got to see this game being played by as many people as it as. Your Vision (tm) is faulty"

QualityJolt · 05-14-2006, 11:22 AM

Honestly, I don't really care what was said before Beta or after beta or after release. All I know is I been playing my paladin since day 1 the game was launched and after KOS I feel that we are falling behind in Raid tanking department. So I want dev/designers to bring us to par with warriors. SMILEY

Kage8 · 05-14-2006, 04:44 PM

LOL, man u pallys r funny. Im a Zerker just jumping in here see how others live. Well i got this to say from an outsiders point of view. I have a good friends thats a pally and omg i love haveing him tank for me in grps. He puts amends on me and the rest is trivial. We kick [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]. But as far as Pally vs Gaurd? You cant win. If u wanted to be MT on raids u should have rolled a gaurd. Yes u can do it but they can do it better and ur a better backup tank than they are. But a couple things: #1 not alot of Gaurd on my server so u r MT in most grps. #2 Pallys r not confined to any1 one thing, u can do many things. Thats like Zerkers in a way we can MT or dps and thats more fun than just dpsing or just MTing all the time #3 as like i said in #2 its a tradeoff..The more things u can do the weaker u are at the things u can do. Thats the way they balance the game. Rock on pallys Skullz 70 Zerker Balcburrow

05-12-2006, 10:51 PM	#31
QualityJolt Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 16	Anzak wrote: If would could cap Mit with a few item changes the way a guard can cap Divine and Magic resist with just a few item changes. Then I would not care about he bonus Mit Guards get in their AAs but the fact remains that Mit is the most important aspect of tanking on any raid mob and 300 is about 3% more Mit which is a major differance when you have mobs hitting for 5K and higher. /agree Divine Aura still needs to be fix as well. /agree As for our heals and wards I think they work well but should not be used as an excuse as to why Guards Mitigation is allowed to push so much higher than ours. /agree /agree Sorry too many /agree there. My raid wiped last night in Lab because I was fighting a group of 3 trash mobs and they hit me for 4k, 2k and 3k within first 5 seconds and I have 12k HP raid buffed, so I tried to cast ward to give healers some time, but it fizzled

05-12-2006, 10:55 PM	#32
QualityJolt Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 16	Sedila wrote: Ive successfully tanked all of Labs, all of Lyceumm, and first half of HoS(didnt finish of course on first run:smileysadAdd Pantrill, Vraskin, and Harla Dar in there if want to as well. Of course these are the low end of the raids for this Tier, but so is my gear atm. i have ALOT that can be upgraded, sadly we havent gotten the best plate drops lately. so yes, its qutie possible. Good to hear that! May I ask what your Mitigation is self buffed? Raid buffed? Thanks

05-12-2006, 11:05 PM	#33
Anzak Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 548	Sedila wrote: Ive successfully tanked all of Labs, all of Lyceumm, and first half of HoS(didnt finish of course on first run:smileysadAdd Pantrill, Vraskin, and Harla Dar in there if want to as well. Of course these are the low end of the raids for this Tier, but so is my gear atm. i have ALOT that can be upgraded, sadly we havent gotten the best plate drops lately. so yes, its qutie possible. Just because you can is not the point. The point is you are trying something new. Now the raid leader has a choice of you at 5500 Mit and 12K HP or the Guard at 5800 Mit and 12K HP Or maybe the guard opted to take a little more HP so they have 5700 Mit and 12.5K HP. When looking for which is going to give you the best chance the choice is clear cut.

05-12-2006, 11:17 PM	#35
Anzak Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 548	Sedila wrote: My Eq2players thingy: http://eq2players.station.sony.com/en/pplayer.vm?characterId=332139108 Screenshot of my Stats solo: http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Sedila/EQ2_000016.jpg I think the highest ive gotten up to raid buff mit was in the 6650ish using the 240 extra from a mit potion. Ok so why would I as a raid leader pick you over the guard with 7K Mit? Or 6.9K and 500 more HP than you? The point is yes we can do this but because of resist capping there is never a situation where a pally would be the better choice.

05-12-2006, 11:26 PM	#37
QualityJolt Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 16	Anzak wrote: Just because you can is not the point. The point is you are trying something new. Now the raid leader has a choice of you at 5500 Mit and 12K HP or the Guard at 5800 Mit and 12K HP Or maybe the guard opted to take a little more HP so they have 5700 Mit and 12.5K HP. When looking for which is going to give you the best chance the choice is clear cut. I understand your point. It is not only 300 more mit but their temporary buff ( one group and one self ) that they can cycle that can get them to have about 1k more mitigation will make guards be the tank of choice during raids. I am main tanking in my guild because I am the guild leader and we don't have any guards in guild ATM. I am curious if Trod is the leader of his guild too

05-12-2006, 11:07 PM	#34
Sedi General Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 53	My Eq2players thingy: http://eq2players.station.sony.com/en/pplayer.vm?characterId=332139108 Screenshot of my Stats solo: http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Sedila/EQ2_000016.jpg I think the highest ive gotten up to raid buff mit was in the 6650ish using the 240 extra from a mit potion.

05-12-2006, 11:24 PM	#36
Sedi General Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 53	Never said you would choose me over a guardian/zerker. And if you did, you oviously arent very bright. All i said is that we CAN.

05-12-2006, 11:47 PM	#38
Sedi General Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 53	nope. Our Guardian's gear just isnt good enough nor does he have enough experience tanking T7 yet.

05-13-2006, 12:21 AM	#39
Leawyn Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,014	Anzak wrote: Ok so why would I as a raid leader pick you over the guard with 7K Mit? Or 6.9K and 500 more HP than you? The point is yes we can do this but because of resist capping there is never a situation where a pally would be the better choice. The question posed that Trod was responding to asked simply if any Pally had tanked any of the instances all the way through. Trod did. Do you always have to go whining that somewhere there is a guardian with better stats/gear that can do it better? You know what, no matter how good you think you are (or how RIGHT you think you are) there will always be someone better than you. __________________ Maelani \| Maelya \| Maerie \| Maehymn \| Maewyn \| Maekita \| Maelynne

05-13-2006, 01:17 AM	#40
SirRock Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 56	Leawyn wrote: Anzak wrote: Ok so why would I as a raid leader pick you over the guard with 7K Mit? Or 6.9K and 500 more HP than you? The point is yes we can do this but because of resist capping there is never a situation where a pally would be the better choice. The question posed that Trod was responding to asked simply if any Pally had tanked any of the instances all the way through. Trod did. Do you always have to go whining that somewhere there is a guardian with better stats/gear that can do it better? You know what, no matter how good you think you are (or how RIGHT you think you are) there will always be someone better than you. The simple answer is yes, a paladin can main tank in a raid. The complex answer is, they can, but its more difficult than a pure-fighter class. But that's to be expected. Why shouldn't something that is 100% purebred fighter be better at tank than something that is say 85% fighter, 15% priest? But yea... Paladins can main tank if the conditions are right __________________

05-13-2006, 02:03 AM	#41
Kale Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 222	SirRocky6 wrote: Why shouldn't something that is 100% purebred fighter be better at tank than something that is say 85% fighter, 15% priest? Because that's not the way the classes were billed. Paladins weren't advertised as "85% fighter, 15% priest". They were advertised as a plate-wearing tank class. I have absolutely no problem with a Paladin being considered a second-class tank or a hybrid - in a different game. Since Day 1 Paladins were advertised as a plate wearing tank that could do the job. SOE went out of their way to say that the four plate wearing tank classes could all perform the same role. If I'm a Shadowknight I'd be even more upset. In EQ1 Paladins and Shadowknights were billed as hybrids, and Warriors were billed as the true "tank" classes. I played a Shadowknight. I accepted my role because I knew what it was going in. And when Warriors got Defensive Discipline, the line in the sand became even wider. But that was not the case here. When EQ2 launched I was very careful. I read everything. I made sure what I was getting into. And SOE said Paladins would be able to tank just as well as the other plate classes. They were not billed as a "hybrid" of any kind. There was no 85% in this equation. I chose a Paladin because it seemed like it would be a more complex, fun way to MT. It didn't seem like it would be as easy as a Guardian, where my impression of the class at the time was, "Just stand in front of the mob and hit "taunt" because you've got the most HP and Mitigation". For the most part, playing a Paladin has been about as complex as I had hoped. I haven't played a Guardian, so I can't compare, but I can compare it with EQ1 and I like tanking in this game as a Paladin. Right up until someone tells me I can't do it.A Paladin, in my opinion, is not 85% fighter, 15% priest. It's 100% Paladin. The abilities are native to the Paladin class, not the Priest class. We're not Priests in plate, we're not fighters with heals. We're Paladins. As such, our Paladin abilities should allow us to do exactly what another plate class can do. If we lack "raw" mitigation of a Guardian, then something in our native toolset should compensate. Something that allows us to get the job done, but identifies us as unique and special. It's our unique way of succeeding in combat that makes us Paladins.

05-13-2006, 02:12 AM	#42
SirRock Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 56	Kalera wrote: SirRocky6 wrote: Why shouldn't something that is 100% purebred fighter be better at tank than something that is say 85% fighter, 15% priest? Because that's not the way the classes were billed. Paladins weren't advertised as "85% fighter, 15% priest". They were advertised as a plate-wearing tank class. I have absolutely no problem with a Paladin being considered a second-class tank or a hybrid - in a different game. Since Day 1 Paladins were advertised as a plate wearing tank that could do the job. SOE went out of their way to say that the four plate wearing tank classes could all perform the same role. If I'm a Shadowknight I'd be even more upset. In EQ1 Paladins and Shadowknights were billed as hybrids, and Warriors were billed as the true "tank" classes. I played a Shadowknight. I accepted my role because I knew what it was going in. And when Warriors got Defensive Discipline, the line in the sand became even wider. But that was not the case here. When EQ2 launched I was very careful. I read everything. I made sure what I was getting into. And SOE said Paladins would be able to tank just as well as the other plate classes. They were not billed as a "hybrid" of any kind. There was no 85% in this equation. I chose a Paladin because it seemed like it would be a more complex, fun way to MT. It didn't seem like it would be as easy as a Guardian, where my impression of the class at the time was, "Just stand in front of the mob and hit "taunt" because you've got the most HP and Mitigation". For the most part, playing a Paladin has been about as complex as I had hoped. I haven't played a Guardian, so I can't compare, but I can compare it with EQ1 and I like tanking in this game as a Paladin. Right up until someone tells me I can't do it. A Paladin, in my opinion, is not 85% fighter, 15% priest. It's 100% Paladin. The abilities are native to the Paladin class, not the Priest class. We're not Priests in plate, we're not fighters with heals. We're Paladins. As such, our Paladin abilities should allow us to do exactly what another plate class can do. If we lack "raw" mitigation of a Guardian, then something in our native toolset should compensate. Something that allows us to get the job done, but identifies us as unique and special. It's our unique way of succeeding in combat that makes us Paladins. I didn't mean to break it down as 85% fighter, 15% priest as a way of negating that they have their own abilities and that they are a true fighter. My point was that when you chose a Paladin, and this is in every game I have ever played with a Paladin class, you accept that you will lack the same level of strength as a straight fighter (or guardian in this case). You are a hybrid class. So some abilities suffer in exchange for others. You focus attention on wisdom and healing at the cost of strength and better mitigation. I'm not saying that a Paladin shouldn't be able to tank just as well as a guardian in a raid. I'm just saying that no one should expect the same mitigation. It seems like the argument being presented here is that Paladins need to be more like guardians so they can take hits better. I disagree with that. Paladins may need some attention to their heals and wards to make them better at raid tanking then, but I certainly don't want to see them turned any more into a guardian. I think we both are thinking the same thing, it just came out differently when I said it __________________

05-13-2006, 02:19 AM	#43
Kale Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 222	SirRocky6 wrote: I didn't mean to break it down as 85% fighter, 15% priest as a way of negating that they have their own abilities and that they are a true fighter My point was that when you chose a Paladin, and this is in every game I have ever played with a Paladin class, you accept that you will lack the same level of strength as a straight fighter (or guardian in this case). You are a hybrid class. So some abilities suffer in exchange for others. You focus attention on wisdom and healing at the cost of strength and better mitigation. I'm not saying that a Paladin shouldn't be able to tank just as well as a guardian in a raid. I'm just saying that no one should expect the same mitigation. It seems like the argument being presented here is that Paladins need to be more like guardians so they can take hits better. I disagree with that. Paladins may need some attention to their heals and wards to make them better at raid tanking then, but I certainly don't want to see them turned any more into a guardian. I think we both are thinking the same thing, it just came out differently when I said it I agree with you 100% then If I wanted to play a Guardian, I would have selected one. I chose Paladin because of the unique skillset. We are an extremely unique and fun class. The problem isn't that we don't have as many hit points or the same mitigation as a Guardian - the problem is that our tools do not compensate well enough. I don't want to MT a raid mob as a Paladin and cast a buff that makes my mitigation the same as a Guardian. You might as well slap a "Guardian" over my Paladin class description then and strip me of heals and wards. What I really want is our wards/heals to be good enough - special enough - in raid sitauations so they actualy compensate. I'd love to have a 30-second ward (much like the Guardian has a 30-second mitigation buff) that blocks a portion of my damage. It would be a Ward, just a different type of ward. It's not straight mitigation, it's just another tool unique to us that would help us get the job done. I don't need a huge hit point buff like a Guardian, I just need better heals so I can make more judicious use of the hit points I do have. There are solutions out there. The developers just need to do what they do best: be creative and find them

05-13-2006, 02:23 AM	#44
SirRock Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 56	Kalera wrote: SirRocky6 wrote: I didn't mean to break it down as 85% fighter, 15% priest as a way of negating that they have their own abilities and that they are a true fighter My point was that when you chose a Paladin, and this is in every game I have ever played with a Paladin class, you accept that you will lack the same level of strength as a straight fighter (or guardian in this case). You are a hybrid class. So some abilities suffer in exchange for others. You focus attention on wisdom and healing at the cost of strength and better mitigation. I'm not saying that a Paladin shouldn't be able to tank just as well as a guardian in a raid. I'm just saying that no one should expect the same mitigation. It seems like the argument being presented here is that Paladins need to be more like guardians so they can take hits better. I disagree with that. Paladins may need some attention to their heals and wards to make them better at raid tanking then, but I certainly don't want to see them turned any more into a guardian. I think we both are thinking the same thing, it just came out differently when I said it I agree with you 100% then If I wanted to play a Guardian, I would have selected one. I chose Paladin because of the unique skillset. We are an extremely unique and fun class. The problem isn't that we don't have as many hit points or the same mitigation as a Guardian - the problem is that our tools do not compensate well enough. I don't want to MT a raid mob as a Paladin and cast a buff that makes my mitigation the same as a Guardian. You might as well slap a "Guardian" over my Paladin class description then and strip me of heals and wards. What I really want is our wards/heals to be good enough - special enough - in raid sitauations so they actualy compensate. I'd love to have a 30-second ward (much like the Guardian has a 30-second mitigation buff) that blocks a portion of my damage. It would be a Ward, just a different type of ward. It's not straight mitigation, it's just another tool unique to us that would help us get the job done. I don't need a huge hit point buff like a Guardian, I just need better heals so I can make more judicious use of the hit points I do have. There are solutions out there. The developers just need to do what they do best: be creative and find them Yup... I was right... we are on the same page.... just reading different translations You hit the nail on the head with this response. __________________

05-13-2006, 02:37 AM	#45
Anzak Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 548	I accept that we should have less mit in the form of Guards have temp mit buffs that we do not. I draw the line at Guards and Zerkers getting 300 more mit though AAs that we have no way to account for. In fact per SOE statement Pallies are suppose to be top level tanks on par with Gaurds and better than Zerkers yet here we are with a base level below Guards. Can is fine and I do tank all the time. But the point is we should be equal to guards in respect to tanking, not the same just equal. Issue number 1) 300 more mit just from AAs. We have nothing at all AA or otherwise that can make up for this. The only thing we have is 60 mit from a cobalt tablet which thanks to the guards gripping about that the T7 tablet does not even have that. So there is no real upgrade to the cobalt tablet without giving up that 60 mit which as a tank you are not about to do that. Issue Number 2) Guardian self mit buff. For 30 seconds a guard can self buff mit, so realistically how much damage is mitigated on average from a raid mob in that 30 seconds. More than likely a heck of a lot more than out self heal does. Not to mention the recast on our heal is twice the recast on their mit buff. This is what we have to compair because it is self to self our other heals and wards are out of the picture because they can be cast on others and in fact are more effective when not tanking. Until these 2 major issues are resolved Guards will always be better. And that means it will be easier for a guild to get things done with a guard than with a pally every time. So if the goal is to succeed then the choice is a guard unless gear or player skill indicate otherwise.

05-13-2006, 03:13 AM	#46
Leawyn Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,014	Kalera wrote: SirRocky6 wrote: Why shouldn't something that is 100% purebred fighter be better at tank than something that is say 85% fighter, 15% priest? Because that's not the way the classes were billed. .... They were advertised as a plate-wearing tank class. This is not me being a snot. This is an honest to goodness question because I have never personally seen this. And I would like to. Where do you see this ever being said, by someone of some authority, not just the players of this game. Alot of people use this as their argument, and until I see this "advertising" to say otherwise, I'm going to continue saying they're full of hot air. But I am more than willing to wait. I have tried looking myself but since the search is so limited and crappy on these boards, and I'm not sure how I would look up "paladins being billed as plate tanks" to be honest. I will refrain from further comment until I see that. I'm just really really really realyl tired of the same 5 people using this as their excuse to make us cookie cutters of guardians. [edit to clarify] Message Edited by Leawyn on 05-12-2006 04:14 PM __________________ Maelani \| Maelya \| Maerie \| Maehymn \| Maewyn \| Maekita \| Maelynne

05-13-2006, 03:16 AM	#47
SirRock Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 56	Leawyn wrote: Kalera wrote: SirRocky6 wrote: Why shouldn't something that is 100% purebred fighter be better at tank than something that is say 85% fighter, 15% priest? Because that's not the way the classes were billed. .... They were advertised as a plate-wearing tank class. This is not me being a snot. This is an honest to goodness question because I have never personally seen this. And I would like to. Where do you see this ever being said, by someone of some authority, not just the players of this game. Alot of people use this as their argument, and until I see this "advertising" to say otherwise, I'm going to continue saying they're full of hot air. But I am more than willing to wait. I have tried looking myself but since the search is so limited and crappy on these boards, and I'm not sure how I would look up "paladins being billed as plate tanks" to be honest. I will refrain from further comment until I see that. I'm just really really really realyl tired of the same 5 people using this as their excuse to make us cookie cutters of guardians. [edit to clarify] Message Edited by Leawyn on 05-12-2006 04:14 PM Kalera wasn't saying make us cookie cutters of guardians.... we were both actually saying the opposite.... but we were saying we should be on par as far as tanking ability goes. I've never used that argument... but I would check the main page (www.everquest2.com) and click on the characters link for Paladin and read the description. __________________

05-13-2006, 03:49 AM	#48
Kale Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 222	Leawyn wrote: This is not me being a snot. This is an honest to goodness question because I have never personally seen this. And I would like to. Where do you see this ever being said, by someone of some authority, not just the players of this game. Alot of people use this as their argument, and until I see this "advertising" to say otherwise, I'm going to continue saying they're full of hot air. But I am more than willing to wait. I have tried looking myself but since the search is so limited and crappy on these boards, and I'm not sure how I would look up "paladins being billed as plate tanks" to be honest. I can understand your stance. I really can. The unfortunate reality of the situation is that message boards, both here and elsewhere, have such poor Search functionality that finding the exact quotes from people like Moorgard can be quite time consuming. I've been a member of the EQ2 Vault staff since before the game launched. Our message boards on IGN are the second most hit boards on the internet. Moorgard and Blackguard frequent our boards. Our site was particularly busy during the six months before launch as our board leader at the time, Sasse, was incredibly busy getting interviews and inside dirt on the game (she knows Moorgard personally and she did a great job getting us some scoops early on). The information I had came directly from the guys as SOE. Here's two posts I can find immediatley (without going page-by-page through some 500+ posts since October 2004 to present). http://vnboards.ign.com/eq2_general_board/b22210/89249346/p1/http://vnboards.ign.com/eq2_general_board/b22210/87575871/p1/By no means are those posts definitive on the tank issue, but I think they give you a good idea of the direction they were trying to take the game at the time. It seems clear to me that what they are not saying is, "Guardians should be the premiere raid tanks." It seems they wanted to say the opposite. It seems like there is an effort there to make it a pretty level playing field between the tank types. I wish I had the time to go through every single post on our boards that was written prior to the launch of the game, because there were some posts there that spelled things out pretty plain. Tanks wearing plate armor were meant to tank raid content. It was that simple. I know it is in the nature of people to be skeptical of that argument because they (you) didn't read it. All I can say is, for those of us who followed the game pre-launch and every day thereafter, it was clear to us that Paladins, and indeed all plate wearing tanks, were supposed to be able to do the job - fill the role. There was never any indication given that a Guardian was meant to be the premiere raid tank. We didn't make that argument up. We didn't fabricate it. It came from SOE. If someone would have kept track of all the quotes like they did for the Vanbard Digest then it would be a lot easier to go back and assure you that the statements were there We (those of us who chose a Paladin on the premise it could MT raid mobs) didn't make our choice without first checking this stuff out. After 4+ years in EQ1 I was not about to make the same mistake and choose a class that could not MT raid content. I did my due dilligence this time around. I chose Paladin because the developers said we could do it

05-13-2006, 05:31 AM	#49
QualityJolt Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 16	Kalera wrote: Leawyn wrote: This is not me being a snot. This is an honest to goodness question because I have never personally seen this. And I would like to. Where do you see this ever being said, by someone of some authority, not just the players of this game. Alot of people use this as their argument, and until I see this "advertising" to say otherwise, I'm going to continue saying they're full of hot air. But I am more than willing to wait. I have tried looking myself but since the search is so limited and crappy on these boards, and I'm not sure how I would look up "paladins being billed as plate tanks" to be honest. I can understand your stance. I really can. The unfortunate reality of the situation is that message boards, both here and elsewhere, have such poor Search functionality that finding the exact quotes from people like Moorgard can be quite time consuming. I've been a member of the EQ2 Vault staff since before the game launched. Our message boards on IGN are the second most hit boards on the internet. Moorgard and Blackguard frequent our boards. Our site was particularly busy during the six months before launch as our board leader at the time, Sasse, was incredibly busy getting interviews and inside dirt on the game (she knows Moorgard personally and she did a great job getting us some scoops early on). The information I had came directly from the guys as SOE. Here's two posts I can find immediatley (without going page-by-page through some 500+ posts since October 2004 to present). http://vnboards.ign.com/eq2_general_board/b22210/89249346/p1/ http://vnboards.ign.com/eq2_general_board/b22210/87575871/p1/ By no means are those posts definitive on the tank issue, but I think they give you a good idea of the direction they were trying to take the game at the time. It seems clear to me that what they are not saying is, "Guardians should be the premiere raid tanks." It seems they wanted to say the opposite. It seems like there is an effort there to make it a pretty level playing field between the tank types. I wish I had the time to go through every single post on our boards that was written prior to the launch of the game, because there were some posts there that spelled things out pretty plain. Tanks wearing plate armor were meant to tank raid content. It was that simple. I know it is in the nature of people to be skeptical of that argument because they (you) didn't read it. All I can say is, for those of us who followed the game pre-launch and every day thereafter, it was clear to us that Paladins, and indeed all plate wearing tanks, were supposed to be able to do the job - fill the role. There was never any indication given that a Guardian was meant to be the premiere raid tank. We didn't make that argument up. We didn't fabricate it. It came from SOE. If someone would have kept track of all the quotes like they did for the Vanbard Digest then it would be a lot easier to go back and assure you that the statements were there We (those of us who chose a Paladin on the premise it could MT raid mobs) didn't make our choice without first checking this stuff out. After 4+ years in EQ1 I was not about to make the same mistake and choose a class that could not MT raid content. I did my due dilligence this time around. I chose Paladin because the developers said we could do it Thanks for digging those two posts up. I recall reading those posts from Moorgard before LU#13 ( combat revamp ). And I did play EQ1 for 3 years and played EQ2 since Beta as Paladin. I choose paladin for the same reasons as you did. I always read this forum for information regarding my class but I never post here because I was pretty happy with the way my class after LU#13 to pre-KOS. But after KOS I believe the ability to raid MT gap between guards/zerkers and Paladin been widened that I feel like I have to say something about it. Being a developer I can understand some of the constrains that game designers and game developers are facing regarding balance. But I do like to see some changes being made to bring us to same raid MT ability as guards/zerkers.

05-13-2006, 06:38 AM	#50
Leawyn Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,014	I had a beautiful post in reply to those links. but it got eaten by HTML bug. Suffice it to say that basically those links are regarding the combat revamp. Not the beginning of the game. Its not so much that I don't believe you when you say that it was said. Its just that I think something was said and maybe everyone is taking it their own way. I'm still a firm believer that Paladins can MT, and not to the detriment of their group or raid. A lil tweaking would make it better, but its all about learning to work with your disadvantages. __________________ Maelani \| Maelya \| Maerie \| Maehymn \| Maewyn \| Maekita \| Maelynne

05-13-2006, 03:11 PM	#51
SirRock Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 56	Leawyn wrote: I had a beautiful post in reply to those links. but it got eaten by HTML bug. Suffice it to say that basically those links are regarding the combat revamp. Not the beginning of the game. Its not so much that I don't believe you when you say that it was said. Its just that I think something was said and maybe everyone is taking it their own way. I'm still a firm believer that Paladins can MT, and not to the detriment of their group or raid. A lil tweaking would make it better, but its all about learning to work with your disadvantages. To avoid the HTML error bug with the forums... click preview post first. __________________

05-13-2006, 06:48 PM	#52
OrcSlayer96 Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 794	I still think the Devs need to change our pledge of arnament to be self cast with no penalty and either revamp our divine aura to be a self regening percentage ward for 30 seconds or so with a 2-3 min recast timer or have it as a new spell for us. Having those 2 changes would help retain our unique crusader capabilities and help bridge the gap on raid tanking. The self ward would consume a essence so that both paladins and shadowknights could get a a needed boost. I have heard others post that a percentage ward is the same as a mitigation buff but a ward protects against all form of damage(3 physical kinds/7 spell kinds). Maybe the Devs will look into this in the future, i still have hope for it...

05-13-2006, 09:08 PM	#53
Kale Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 222	Leawyn wrote:Its not so much that I don't believe you when you say that it was said. Its just that I think something was said and maybe everyone is taking it their own way. Let me assure you that no one was misinterpreting anything that was said pre-launch. When the information about the game came out pre-Beta, the thing everyone noticed right off the bat was the archtype system. The fighter/scout/priest/mage tree. The developers said that if you were in the fighter tree you'd be able to tank "every bit as well as a warrior." Another quote from Moorguard in that thread:Moorguard: " All Fighters can do the job of tank equally well. Our entire system is designed around the idea that anyone from a given archetype can fill their main role as well as any other. "The concern by the players was that there would be no difference between each fighter type if they could all do the same job. Moorgard assured us that would not be the case, and that each subclass would achieve the same result through different means. A different toolset.Concerning raiding:Question: do you think that raid encounters will be geared towards having 1 of each sub-class ? Moorguard: "Nope. That wouldn't be very flexible."Moorguard: "The entire point of an archetype system is to provide flexibility rather than strict limitations."Moorguard: "Subclasses bring specialization to both groups and raids. My point was that you aren't required to have one of every subclass at a raid, just as you won't need to exclude any particular subclass as being unnecessary. Because the core roles of each profession are balanced at the subclass level, all subclasses will have the tools to carry out their main jobs.But there will certainly be plenty of opportunities for the various subclasses to shine, and some particular fights may provide advantages to some subclasses over others. We aren't setting out to create a generic system, just one that provides a lot of flexibility." Now, answer me this: If the Guardian is the preferred tank all the time, then doesn't that mean SOE failed to achieve their initial goals with the class system in regards to tanking raid mobs?Moorguard: Interestingly enough, if you were playing EQ now you'd find that paladins are probably the most-desired exp group tank in the game, or at least are tied with SKs.But as was pointed out, our archetype system is specifically designed so that no classes are seen as less desirable. Question: My point is, do you think we will know much about our what our class roles will be like later in the game? I'd hate to pick a class early on, level him to 50 or so, and then realize that he's headed into a role that I don't want to play. Moorguardc: The role of your class later in the game will be the same as when you first pick an archetype. That's how our system is designed.We'll supply specific info about each sub-class during the character creation process (and of course it will be available online before that). We want players to understand the path they choose very well.Sub-classes are all about flavor and individuality. Each sub-class in the same archetype will be noticably different from the others, but every one will be able to perform its primary function as well as any other.The other difference is that we're setting the dependency at the archetype level, not the sub-class level. This means a far wider range of players will be able to fill those roles. Instead of the group wanting a Paladin or a Shadowknight, they will want a Fighter. Any flavor will do.Our method is to base the game on five roles, each of which provides unique and necessary functions. As I've said, the differences within an archetype are about how that job is done, not how well it is done. That's a matter of personal taste. Fighters take damage, deal damage, and hold a mob's attention. Every Fighter is charged with that responsibility, and must do it as well as any other. Some will use spells, some will use arts; some will use avoidance, some will use mitigation; some will wear heavy armor that makes them look like a walking tank, others will wear much lighter armor.If they allow Paladins to rez and in theory paladins can tank as good as warriors and monks don't you think this would be too much of an advantage? Nope. Because all sub-classes get some kind of crossover secondary ability from another archetype. This doesn't make any one kind of fighter preferable in all situations, but rather adds versatility to the group.We balance the classes at the primary roles of the archetype, meaning that all subclasses of the same archetype do their main jobs just as well as the others.There is no fighter subclass designated to do a lot more damage than another at the expense of tanking; that would not be balanced.Monks are not intended to vastly outdamage paladins, nor are guardians intended to tank better than bruisers.Anway, if you want to read the whole archive, the best on is here: http://www.eqii.com/mgi.php?t=10467After months of reading this stuff those of us who envisioned playing a Paladin had a pretty clear picture in our mind - we believed we'd be able to fullfil the role at every level, group and raid. You have to remember, none of us had access to the game, or the endgame. We went off this information. We didn't have the luxury of being in Beta, of attacking the raid content and seeing how the classes actually worked out. We went off what was said.Did we read things into this? I don't think so. Not given the information we had at the time. I followed this game's development daily. In my mind, after everything was said and all the forum questions answered and all the discussion dissected, it seemed clear to me that selecting any of the fighter archtypes would be viable, and that what would distinguish the good tanks from the bad would be equipment and skill, not the class itself. The impression I was left with was: if you know what you're doing, and you purposely outfit your character to be defensive in nature (take damage and hold aggro) instead of offensive (deal damage), then you could raid tank with the best of them.

05-13-2006, 10:07 PM	#54
QualityJolt Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 16	OrcSlayer96 wrote: I still think the Devs need to change our pledge of arnament to be self cast with no penalty and either revamp our divine aura to be a self regening percentage ward for 30 seconds or so with a 2-3 min recast timer or have it as a new spell for us. Having those 2 changes would help retain our unique crusader capabilities and help bridge the gap on raid tanking. The self ward would consume a essence so that both paladins and shadowknights could get a a needed boost. I have heard others post that a percentage ward is the same as a mitigation buff but a ward protects against all form of damage(3 physical kinds/7 spell kinds). Maybe the Devs will look into this in the future, i still have hope for it... I agree with you steel. I also saw someone posted something about making pledge of armament to be self cast with no penalty in Combat discussions forum but I saw some guard was furious LOL. But yes if we do get something like Divine Aura ( the working one ) but have shorter recast timer would help us retain our unique crusader capabilities and help us be in same level as warriors when it come to raid tanking. I do hold out hope for it but so far I have not seen any designer/developer response to any of these thread regarding Paladin main tanking in this forum since KOS release.

05-13-2006, 10:07 PM	#55
Leawyn Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,014	Kalera wrote: The impression I was left with was: if you know what you're doing, and you purposely outfit your character to be defensive in nature (take damage and hold aggro) instead of offensive (deal damage), then you could raid tank with the best of them. Excellent post, thank you. While reading what you posted, I have to say that I believe a majority of what Moorguard was posting was in relation to grouping (he specifically mentions Pallies being the tank of choice in exp groups in EQ1) and just as with every class in this game, you CANNOT carry over your benefits to a group to a raid at an equal level. Healers heals are not equal. Tanks are not equal. DPS is not equal. Everyone has to behave differently in a raid. You can always tell the newbie raiders, they are the ones that think a raid is nothing more than a 24 person exp group. All I have to say to your post is... What is holding you back from being a raid tank, aside from the perspective of those around you, and I might say, your own perspective. I am fully confident that if needed, I could main tank anything handed to me if I had the right people at my side to help me achieve that goal. And I am also equally confident that by having me main tank, my guild would not be suffering any more or less than they would with a guardian in there. Do I think Pallies are perfect? Nah, I do wish our heals (particularly our self heal) was more potent or more viable against raid mobs. But I'm happy and confident with the class I chose, and I am happy with my abilities both as a group and raid MT, a back up healer, a rez bot or whatever role I need to fill to get the job done. __________________ Maelani \| Maelya \| Maerie \| Maehymn \| Maewyn \| Maekita \| Maelynne

05-13-2006, 10:46 PM	#56
Kale Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 222	Leawyn wrote: While reading what you posted, I have to say that I believe a majority of what Moorguard was posting was in relation to grouping (he specifically mentions Pallies being the tank of choice in exp groups in EQ1) and just as with every class in this game, you CANNOT carry over your benefits to a group to a raid at an equal level. Healers heals are not equal. Tanks are not equal. DPS is not equal. Everyone has to behave differently in a raid. You can always tell the newbie raiders, they are the ones that think a raid is nothing more than a 24 person exp group. I realize his context in a lot of those posts was in relation to grouping. But there was a general impression that many of us got from reading those posts day after day, that raiding would not be so different from grouping, only the numbers would be different. You say "you cannot carry over your benefits to a raid", but you're saying that (I hope you realize) with the beneift of hindsight. At the time those things were written that was not the case. We believed our ability to be a "fighter" meant raid situations too, because there was never - ever - any information given out to make us think otherwise. In fact, at every turn (if you read those posts) Moorgard continues to state over and over that EQ2 is not EQ1, so take everything you know and throw it away. If we were to go off our EQ1 experience we would all say, "Sure, one tank is going to be the preferred raid tank." But everything we were told about EQ2 countered that argument. There's a context here. Teleport yourself to pre-beta and read those comments, without any knowledge of the game you know now. Imagine what it was like for us to read those comments. We're being told that all fighters will be able to perform "the role". The role to everyone isn't just tank in group - it is TANK. Everything. All I have to say to your post is... What is holding you back from being a raid tank, aside from the perspective of those around you, and I might say, your own perspective. That is part of what exactly prevents me from MT on raids: perspective, and I posted as much earlier in this thread Part of our problem is perspective, and people don't think we're as capable as we are. But part of it is also reality. All things being equal (and they rarely are) we are not as good as a Guardian. Like someone posted in this thread - after LU13 the gap was closed and most of us were satisfied with our place because we could raid tank. But Sky changed things. Achievements have changed things. And once again the Guardian is preferred (for legitimate reasons). Now, couple that reality with perception and what do you get? You get Guardians receiving the elite loot pieces because they are the favored "raid tank". They get the gear and the role. Which means we're yet another step behind. All I want is for our class to be balanced in such a way that we get what we were promised before launch. That we can tank as good as all other fighters. Tank to me means group AND raid. Not just groups. I think any reasonable tank thinks that. Do I think Pallies are perfect? Nah... And that's all I'm saying too. We're not perfect. And that imperfection causes us to have to climb the uphill battle. EQ2, at it's core, was billed as a game where skill and stats would matter more than class. The Archtype system was supposed to do away with favored classes. It was supposed to come down to how you built your character via trait choices and equipment, and how well you played your class. Different toolsets were supposed to get the same job done. And at the group level that's mostly true. At the raid level it falls apart. And I think, in fairness to the developers, they made raids sound like large group encounters, not as special encounters where one tank type was clearly going to be the desired class of choice. I don't know about the rest of the Paladin community, but in a group I rock. I have worked really hard to learn how to be the best tank I can be. I work hard to make it easy on my groups. I try and do all the little things that make a tank great. That's the role I chose. These games are about choices. What disheartens me is that the role I choose to play I cannot fullfil when it comes raid time, because my class has some deficienies and the perception among my peers and guildmates makes it so that people want to see the Guardian MT. If I tell them I'm going to MT I get all sorts of crap for it, people think I'm an idiot, the raid defects... It gets ugly. The only way to really combat this reality + perception is to change the reality. And then we will change the perception.

05-13-2006, 11:04 PM	#57
Pathin Merrithay Loremaster Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 473	Without getting too much into this, -anything- said pre-launch or in any phase of beta of an MMORPG is not only subject to, but also should almost be expected to, change at some point as classes are balanced and their full potential realized.

05-14-2006, 12:58 AM	#58
Leawyn Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,014	Pathin Merrithay wrote: Without getting too much into this, -anything- said pre-launch or in any phase of beta of an MMORPG is not only subject to, but also should almost be expected to, change at some point as classes are balanced and their full potential realized. Agreed wholeheartedly. Pre-launch promises are difficult to fulfil. This game was ALSO touted as a solo-friendly, get-something-done-in-an-hour game... and more and more and more this is not happening. Just think of MOA. Think of all the new raid instances. Think of the serious changes that have changed the entire dynamic of the game. Are you going to say "Sorry, you aren't fulfilling promises that you made 2 years ago before you really got to see this game being played by as many people as it as. Your Vision (tm) is faulty" __________________ Maelani \| Maelya \| Maerie \| Maehymn \| Maewyn \| Maekita \| Maelynne

05-14-2006, 11:22 AM	#59
QualityJolt Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 16	Honestly, I don't really care what was said before Beta or after beta or after release. All I know is I been playing my paladin since day 1 the game was launched and after KOS I feel that we are falling behind in Raid tanking department. So I want dev/designers to bring us to par with warriors.

05-14-2006, 04:44 PM	#60
Kage8 General Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 241	LOL, man u pallys r funny. Im a Zerker just jumping in here see how others live. Well i got this to say from an outsiders point of view. I have a good friends thats a pally and omg i love haveing him tank for me in grps. He puts amends on me and the rest is trivial. We kick [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]. But as far as Pally vs Gaurd? You cant win. If u wanted to be MT on raids u should have rolled a gaurd. Yes u can do it but they can do it better and ur a better backup tank than they are. But a couple things: #1 not alot of Gaurd on my server so u r MT in most grps. #2 Pallys r not confined to any1 one thing, u can do many things. Thats like Zerkers in a way we can MT or dps and thats more fun than just dpsing or just MTing all the time #3 as like i said in #2 its a tradeoff..The more things u can do the weaker u are at the things u can do. Thats the way they balance the game. Rock on pallys Skullz 70 Zerker Balcburrow