EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

 

Go Back   EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire > EverQuest II > General EverQuest II Discussion > Spells, Abilities, and General Class Discussion
Members List Search Mark Forums Read

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-28-2012, 07:09 PM   #61
Parable
Server: Permafrost
Guild: Fist of the Empire
Rank: Ass Kicking Expert

Loremaster
Parable's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 26
Default

It was a buffed warlock and a shadowknight in UD--the zonewide should be absolutely fine for comparison, it's not like it's a single target class vs an aoe class. Both vic and gaary had comparable parses on the three big drake encounters. Maybe tonight Gaary will get UT and bolster and we'll see what kind of disparity there'll be.

Parable is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2012, 08:48 PM   #62
Haciv

Loremaster
Haciv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 278
Default

japanfour wrote:

like I said, post a single target parse, or zonewide parse that doesnt involve a 10 mob encounter ( those nether drakes) and the parse will be significantly different.

Ok...  here's the parse from one of the zones at the start of the thread MINUS the drakes.   The drakes have nothing at all to do with the zonewide.  It looks virtually the same...

ZONEWIDE MINUS DRAKES:

DRAKE PULL 1:

DRAKE PULL 2:

DRAKE PULL 3:

-------------------------------------

Last night I was on my Brig for the hell of it and Gaary was tanking again, with another warlock in group (Lichal).  Here was the zonewide:

Here's a single-ish target named:

and here is Gaary's damage breakdown:

SK IS NOT OP AT ALL, NOTHING TO SEE HERE... MOVE ALONG.

__________________
Haciv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2012, 09:16 PM   #63
japanfour

Loremaster
japanfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 119
Default

Haciv wrote:

japanfour wrote:

like I said, post a single target parse, or zonewide parse that doesnt involve a 10 mob encounter ( those nether drakes) and the parse will be significantly different.

Ok...  here's the parse from one of the zones at the start of the thread MINUS the drakes.   The drakes have nothing at all to do with the zonewide.  It looks virtually the same...

ZONEWIDE MINUS DRAKES:

DRAKE PULL 1:

DRAKE PULL 2:

DRAKE PULL 3:

-------------------------------------

Last night I was on my Brig for the hell of it and Gaary was tanking again, with another warlock in group (Lichal).  Here was the zonewide:

Here's a single-ish target named:

and here is Gaary's damage breakdown:

SK IS NOT OP AT ALL, NOTHING TO SEE HERE... MOVE ALONG.

now we are getting somewhere, take note guys, this is what we call data.

SKs are overpowered in this instance, shouldnt be parsing over warlocks IMO, I can understand the few instances that it applies to, but yeah you are spot on this needs to be toned down. Though I wouldnt tone it down generally, just specifically for each class that is obviously getting way more out of it than what the devs intended? I still think we need some epic parses, and so on, so we understand whatever this brings to fighter as a whole, all of the parses are from underdepths, and I still dont think that any action can be taken based on Underdepths parses alone. Thanks for posting this though, much appreciated.

__________________


japanfour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 02:09 AM   #64
Neiloch

Loremaster
Neiloch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,430
Default

japanfour wrote:

now we are getting somewhere, take note guys, this is what we call data.

SoE already has all this data. Posting it here makes no difference, it's just to prove to other players that the data is real.

All I'm seeing from people who insist recklessness is fine is them 'moving the goalpost' any time someone says a fighter is doing ridiculous DPS. Starting from a 5 fighter heroic zone run destroying the parse all the way to "Show me a fight that is extremely difficult for that raid force where tank did top DPS then we have a problem." As if doing T1 DPS or doing high DPS whilst tanking the rest of the time is perfectly fine (FYI: it's not).

So get off this 'i'm not going to believe it's OP until I see data for every possible scenario' because that's just being stubbornly obtuse. We know it's op the same way that we know if you drive a car at 120mph into a brick wall it is not going to end well without actually have done it or seen it. We don't have the luxury of going through data since it's live and well past the crash test phase.

__________________
Neiloch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 02:33 AM   #65
Landiin

Loremaster
Landiin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,749
Default

Correct, they have all the data and have had all the data. They can rum simulation with each class doing max DPS for that class vs any encounter. They knew this would push fighters over the top. Noramly this happens they are pushing, herding us if you will, into a direction they want us to go. Now that there is a great injustice (see reckless stance) they can put something on the table that we normally might not of liked but now we'll eat it because of the injustice.

Of course this is just my speculation and could be totally off base on whats going on. But I refuse to believe they didn't see this coming.

__________________
Landiin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 11:07 AM   #66
Freejazzlive

Loremaster
Freejazzlive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Foster's Home For Imaginary Friends
Posts: 704
Default

japanfour wrote:

SKs are overpowered in this instance, shouldnt be parsing over warlocks IMO, I can understand the few instances that it applies to, but yeah you are spot on this needs to be toned down. Though I wouldnt tone it down generally, just specifically for each class that is obviously getting way more out of it than what the devs intended?

I'm not convinced that merely nerfing its impact on SKs alone is going to fix the issue, & I'm also betting it's not just a few instances in which this will happen.

__________________
Talechaser Tuckpaw, Troubadour of Freeport

Golgi Apparati, Swashbuckler of Freeport

Aheedi Adaephon, Warlock of Freeport
Freejazzlive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 11:51 AM   #67
Rasttan
Server: Unrest

Loremaster
Rasttan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 160
Default

Freejazzlive wrote:

japanfour wrote:

SKs are overpowered in this instance, shouldnt be parsing over warlocks IMO, I can understand the few instances that it applies to, but yeah you are spot on this needs to be toned down. Though I wouldnt tone it down generally, just specifically for each class that is obviously getting way more out of it than what the devs intended?

I'm not convinced that merely nerfing its impact on SKs alone is going to fix the issue, & I'm also betting it's not just a few instances in which this will happen.

Why is everyone focused on the DPS part of the ability, the entire stance was created to get Fighters equal representation or at least a couple more spots in raids, I hardly think it was designed nor did they really look at its impact on herioc content. It may need some changes on a class by class basis but to just dump it completely puts fighters back at square one. As in 1-2 raid spots. Every burn fight which is what EQ has been for most encounters and especially the last year and a half means maximize dps dump extra fighters first, then figure out how to tweak dps even more after you have cleared out the fighters.

People have fighters swap to alts for burns all the time.

And the arguement of cutting every class down to the bare minimum for a burn doesnt work when fighter bare minimum is 1, and every other archeotype for an ideal burn is at least 4 spots and should be more than 4 to really maximize a burn.

The idea is to get more fighters in, how thats done is the problem wo other classes feeling squeezed, well when your the class whos been sqeezed for 8 years you have a slightly different outlook than the ones with 8-9-10 of there archeotype represented in a decent raid set up.

Rasttan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 12:33 PM   #68
shadowhawk

Loremaster
shadowhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 24
Default

[email protected] wrote:

Why is everyone focused on the DPS part of the ability, the entire stance was created to get Fighters equal representation or at least a couple more spots in raids, I hardly think it was designed nor did they really look at its impact on herioc content. It may need some changes on a class by class basis but to just dump it completely puts fighters back at square one. As in 1-2 raid spots. Every burn fight which is what EQ has been for most encounters and especially the last year and a half means maximize dps dump extra fighters first, then figure out how to tweak dps even more after you have cleared out the fighters.

People have fighters swap to alts for burns all the time.

And the arguement of cutting every class down to the bare minimum for a burn doesnt work when fighter bare minimum is 1, and every other archeotype for an ideal burn is at least 4 spots and should be more than 4 to really maximize a burn.

The idea is to get more fighters in, how thats done is the problem wo other classes feeling squeezed, well when your the class whos been sqeezed for 8 years you have a slightly different outlook than the ones with 8-9-10 of there archeotype represented in a decent raid set up.

You only have to consider a raid brake down to realize that there really are not many dps slots in a raid and that is not a roll that tanks should be going for.

24 Spots in a raid

6 to 8 healers in a raid

4 dirges/troubs

4 ill/corc

3 tanks -ie spot fighters should fill

1 brig atleast for debuff

at a min we have just filled 18 raid spots... which leaves just 6 spots for dps and if more healers are in raid could be just 4

Now considers that for those 5 to 7 dps slots you have assassin, beaslord, ranger, swash, brig, wiz, warlock, necro, and conj all trying for those slots.... now you want to add in pal/sk/monk/bruis/guard/and zerker???

Everyone knows the raid breakdowns.... and have for years... if you want to be a tank in a raid... well you have to be better then the others or find another guild.  Tanks were doing fine dps before reckless and now they are beating out alot of the dps classes and some tanks add better buffs then some dps classes.  

There was no reason at all for this change.  It does nothing but add more imbalance to the game.

shadowhawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 12:53 PM   #69
Faildozer
Server: Permafrost
Guild: Mass Extinction
Rank: Normal Officer

Loremaster
Faildozer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 150
Default

They need to make reckless proc multiple position dehates CONSTANTLY if they dont want people tanking. People are alreayd squishy enough in it. You guys are crazy however for complaining about more dps for any raid force especially considering how this games population is floundering.. This is a very viable solution to instead of recruiting another dps to sit on fights that need 4 tanks or have a tank or 2 tanks sit on trash and burn fights you keep the same roster setup... I know a lot of you are blinded by hatred but this change HELPS the game if they make a few small tweaks to prevent tanks from tanking in it. Even then, you will still have people complaining because they are stuck in the notion of tanks shouldnt dps, healers shouldnt dps, dps should only dps. This close minded thinking is preventing Sony from developing real changes that will actually help this game in the long run. Nobody is going to recruit a Shadowknight over a Warlock but they dont have to recruit another dps to replace that shadowknight on fights where the shadowknight isnt doing anything..

I think utility classes and rogues need to have their damage adjusted as well but getting recklessness nerfed due to a lynch mob mentality of kill anything new and different isnt going to help the game in the long run.

__________________
Faildozer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 12:57 PM   #70
Faildozer
Server: Permafrost
Guild: Mass Extinction
Rank: Normal Officer

Loremaster
Faildozer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 150
Default

Oh and lets not forget.. This stance isnt used on anything actually difficult (no EM ss is not difficult) and really only trash and em Burn fights that require 1-2 tanks in which fighters 3 and 4 were usually sat to bring in actual dps classes that are sitting or vice versa.. This allows more raid versatility and the fact you guys are fighting it is insane. It is healthy for the game population to not have to overrecruit just for specific fights or have to carry around geared alts and lose a diff main for fights.

__________________
Faildozer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 01:33 PM   #71
Jadekah
Server: Antonia Bayle
Guild: Epic Punishment
Rank: Officer

Loremaster
Jadekah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29
Default

Our tanks were tanking PoW trash and most of HM Vallons/Sullons with it. You cannot tell me with a straight face that the penalites for using the stance are enough.  Take away a tanks blocking, deathsaves, and damage negating abilities. THAT would make it Reckless, and the same as every other T1 that doesnt have those abilities.

Jadekah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 01:39 PM   #72
Faildozer
Server: Permafrost
Guild: Mass Extinction
Rank: Normal Officer

Loremaster
Faildozer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 150
Default

POW trash is real hard amiright?

__________________
Faildozer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 01:43 PM   #73
Freejazzlive

Loremaster
Freejazzlive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Foster's Home For Imaginary Friends
Posts: 704
Default

It would help dramatically if raid forces didn't need 4 Bards & 4 Chanters. Raid-wide buffs would probably help in that regard.

It would also help dramatically if Fighters could be brought in for things other than DPS -- like, say, nasty adds that have to be off-tanked, not just DPS'd.

Some of these ideas have been floated by raiders for several years now, so it's not like I'm suggesting anything radical. But, apparently they ARE things which SOE has never considered, or can't/won't do for some reason.

As for Recklessness: I've yet to see a single argument as to why it's necessary, & no, "we needed it to get more Fighters in the raid" is not a good argument, as I've already covered at least one method of doing this without having Fighters stepping on DPS.

__________________
Talechaser Tuckpaw, Troubadour of Freeport

Golgi Apparati, Swashbuckler of Freeport

Aheedi Adaephon, Warlock of Freeport
Freejazzlive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 01:45 PM   #74
Faildozer
Server: Permafrost
Guild: Mass Extinction
Rank: Normal Officer

Loremaster
Faildozer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 150
Default

Its not a reason to get more fighters in raid... its a reason to not sit these fighters on fights where they arent needed and dont do enough dps to justify keeping them in.

__________________
Faildozer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 01:54 PM   #75
Bruener

Loremaster
Bruener's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,010
Default

Freejazzlive wrote:

It would help dramatically if raid forces didn't need 4 Bards & 4 Chanters. Raid-wide buffs would probably help in that regard.

It would also help dramatically if Fighters could be brought in for things other than DPS -- like, say, nasty adds that have to be off-tanked, not just DPS'd.

Some of these ideas have been floated by raiders for several years now, so it's not like I'm suggesting anything radical. But, apparently they ARE things which SOE has never considered, or can't/won't do for some reason.

As for Recklessness: I've yet to see a single argument as to why it's necessary, & no, "we needed it to get more Fighters in the raid" is not a good argument, as I've already covered at least one method of doing this without having Fighters stepping on DPS.

Yes, everybody knows that the utility spots in raids is imbalanced.  Adjusting utility spots would open up more DPS spots tbh, and without Recklessness added it would have done absolutely nothing at all to want to keep 4 Fighters in a raid full time.  My hopes are that the next step for SOE is to address utility classes.

As far as "adds" there are encounters with adds.  But SOE is not going to make every encounter the same.  And the encounters that do have the "adds" as soon as they become farm status raids are immediately looking at how they can bring in more DPS and sit Fighters.  More DPS means faster and easier farming.  That is the whole problem and why SOE introduced the Recklessness stance so that as that happens Fighters can go "reckless" and not be sat to bring in more DPS.

It was necessary to provide guilds with a reason to keep 4 Fighter mains in a raid full time instead of just bringing in 3rd and 4th as needed.  It makes it easier for a raid to keep up a full roster and keep Fighters active full time.

And anybody that thinks that a SK can keep up with a good Warlock on fights that last longer than 20 seconds is crazy and probably needs to find a better warlock.

__________________
Bruener is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 01:56 PM   #76
Bruener

Loremaster
Bruener's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,010
Default

[email protected] wrote:

Its not a reason to get more fighters in raid... its a reason to not sit these fighters on fights where they arent needed and dont do enough dps to justify keeping them in.

Exactly.

Based on how Recklessness works I have not seen any reason that a guild would want to bring in more than 4 Fighters in an optimum set up.  But it is enough to keep 4 Fighters in full time.

To me that means the stance is a success.

__________________
Bruener is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 01:57 PM   #77
Freejazzlive

Loremaster
Freejazzlive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Foster's Home For Imaginary Friends
Posts: 704
Default

[email protected] wrote:

its a reason to not sit these fighters on fights where they arent needed and dont do enough dps to justify keeping them in.

Which could be accomplished with different fights that actually require multiple tanks, instead of just piling on more DPS.

Which, in fact, I've already suggested multiple times.

__________________
Talechaser Tuckpaw, Troubadour of Freeport

Golgi Apparati, Swashbuckler of Freeport

Aheedi Adaephon, Warlock of Freeport
Freejazzlive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 02:17 PM   #78
Haciv

Loremaster
Haciv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 278
Default

Here's the data from last night's UD with the SAME group as the first 3 parses I posted on page 1 just to keep the data as reliable as possible.  Instead of Bolstering and UT'ing me, we buffed the SK.  Groupwide DPS was much higher, and tank DPS through the roof:

ZONWIDE:

And.... just to show that the drakes didn't help ME any... here's my best drake parse I've ever done... and I still lost:

__________________
Haciv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 02:36 PM   #79
Davngr

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 76
Default

Haciv wrote:

Here's the data from last night's UD with the SAME group as the first 3 parses I posted on page 1 just to keep the data as reliable as possible.  Instead of Bolstering and UT'ing me, we buffed the SK.  Groupwide DPS was much higher, and tank DPS through the roof:

ZONWIDE:

And.... just to show that the drakes didn't help ME any... here's my best drake parse I've ever done... and I still lost:

 yup..

 tanks in wreckless are the best target for ALL dps temps, dps group buffs and dps single target buffs.  

  thus now the dps classes will no longer receive these buffs and will lower their parse more and increase wreckeless tanks even more.   

  was that intended?

  how will developers balance future dps procs/effects?  

 will the balance be for a regular dps toon with average potency and overpowered for tanks in wreckless or the other way around and useless to average dps classes? 

Davngr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2012, 06:52 AM   #80
Cyrdemac

Loremaster
Cyrdemac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 274
Default

Amazing to see just 2 or 3 ppl whining about this new fighter stance. I really thought, there would be more bad DD players in the game.

Seriously, this stance is fine. If a T1 dps class gets zw outparsed on a HARDMODE instance, this player has to l2p.

The increased damage income on the stance is bad enough for good tanks to switch it off on hard encounters. And THESE are the encounters, where DPS actually matters, so plz stop whining.

__________________
Cyrdemac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2012, 09:11 AM   #81
Neobe

Loremaster
Neobe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 8
Default

Im not going to sit here and try and say this stance isnt broken, b/c it is. At the group content, and even EM some HM content, this stance is just op in the right hands. Now then should soe remove this stance b/c all the ok raid tanks in the game are just smashing face? NO b/c it did  what they wanted which was to give fighters more slots in in both raids and group. On group content once you get your one fighter most group stop looking and trun away other fighters who ask, and on raids 2-4 slots are set side for a fighter depending on the fights. Like in EM SS raid content you can get away with 2 tanks for every fight but maybe one, Gorescale. This stance now allows raid/group leaders to bring in more fighters to help speed up group/raid formation without worring that they might just be getting into a slow grinding raid/group. But i just cant see raid leaders tsitting any dps class in favor for a tank dps. Ranger are about the only class that really got screwed not having nothing else but dps to help the group/raid, but everyone else you have debuffs or blockers and other little tools that go into making a raid work. While its funny to think about filling your raid up with tanks and healers and going to town, ya that would work on EM stuff, maybe,  but HM no it wouldnt. All in all if this stance coming out has casused you to lose you spot to a fighter DPS it wasnt b/c they are so much better then you now it was b/c you sucked and everyone thought you where a a**hole anyways and now they just have a  reason to sit you.

Neobe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2012, 11:38 AM   #82
Landiin

Loremaster
Landiin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,749
Default

Cyrdemac wrote:

Amazing to see just 2 or 3 ppl whining about this new fighter stance. I really thought, there would be more bad DD players in the game.

Seriously, this stance is fine. If a T1 dps class gets zw outparsed on a HARDMODE instance, this player has to l2p.

The increased damage income on the stance is bad enough for good tanks to switch it off on hard encounters. And THESE are the encounters, where DPS actually matters, so plz stop whining.

lolz, it isn't one or two people its just about everyone. Just people just say their piece and go one. Then there are the couple that duke it out in the forums. Pretty much every one knows and agrees this stance is OP and needs adjusting. In no way should fighters being doing the DPS they are doing now.

__________________
Landiin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2012, 12:11 PM   #83
Geothe

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,098
Default

This stance really is all kinds of screwy from a balance perspective.  Not only does it jack fighter DPS way to high and will have massive scaling issues, it doesn't even affect all fighters even close to equally.  It is flat out poorly implemented and not thought out at all.

It really should be something along the lines of:1) Deduce all avoidance to zero.2) Remove the +50% more incoming damage and replace it with +50% more damage if the direct target of the attack.

3) Keep the removal of all hate position increases on abilities.

4) Instead of -20% hate (or is it 30?), just make it so that all +hate stats/buffs are inactive. ie Dirge can have +hate on the tank, but it wont actually apply while reckless is active. As soon as reckless cancelled the dirge hate takes effect instantly without having to wait for the dirge to apply the buff.

5) Get rid of the HP damage when cancelling the buff... but keep it so that it can not be activated in combat.

6)  Instead of the crazy potency crap, just give the stance a percentage modified to all damage.  ie +20% to all outgoing Spell, CA, and autoattack damage.

1+2 will make it so that it really will not be possible to tank in this stance while not screwing over DPSing fighters from AEs.3 will allow all abilities to be used still without instanly pulling agro.4+5 will allow a fighter to cancel reckless and take up tanking again in emergencies (ie MT/OT explode).   But they wont be able to stance dance in and out of the stance still.6 will evenly apply the damage bonus to all fighter classes without having the extremes (crazy DPS on SK, minimal increase on Guard/Zerk).  A moderate while signficant DPS increase in Reckless is acceptable, a flat out 20-25% change is very reasonable and wont push existing DPS classes out.  The currently insane potency increases (for some fighters) is just outright moronic.

__________________
Smed: We aren't going to be allowing RMT in any way, shape or form on the non-exchange enabled EQ II servers. Period. End of statement.

Smed: 5) This [LoN] is not some slippery slope towards selling items directly in EQ & EQ II.

Lie #3: Station Cash. Enough Said.

Geothe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2012, 12:30 PM   #84
Neiloch

Loremaster
Neiloch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,430
Default

[email protected] wrote:

I think utility classes and rogues need to have their damage adjusted as well but getting recklessness nerfed due to a lynch mob mentality of kill anything new and different isnt going to help the game in the long run.

I actually agree with this, but I think the other DPS classes should be getting looked at too, but in varying degrees. Nerfing recklessness to any extreme degree would make it useless, so I would much rather see others get bumped up a bit.

Cyrdemac wrote:

Amazing to see just 2 or 3 ppl whining about this new fighter stance. I really thought, there would be more bad DD players in the game.

Seriously, this stance is fine. If a T1 dps class gets zw outparsed on a HARDMODE instance, this player has to l2p.

The increased damage income on the stance is bad enough for good tanks to switch it off on hard encounters. And THESE are the encounters, where DPS actually matters, so plz stop whining.

[email protected] wrote:

Oh and lets not forget.. This stance isnt used on anything actually difficult (no EM ss is not difficult) and really only trash and em Burn fights that require 1-2 tanks in which fighters 3 and 4 were usually sat to bring in actual dps classes that are sitting or vice versa.. This allows more raid versatility and the fact you guys are fighting it is insane. It is healthy for the game population to not have to overrecruit just for specific fights or have to carry around geared alts and lose a diff main for fights.

[email protected] wrote:

POW trash is real hard amiright?

This is the new 'go to' defense for this.

The idea just because it can't be used on the hardest fights or fights that 'matter' isn't good enough.

It also shows a HUGE amount of hypocrisy because that's EXACTLY what fighters have been complaining about for years. That they were only getting spots for hard fights when the raid needed several tanks. Now you have just shifted that EXACT same problem to DPS classes and tell them to 'stop whining' when they use the SAME COMPLAINT you have been using for years.

The problem with raids spots falls squarely on the shoulders of utility classes. Healers are the only ones getting anywhere near the correct amount of slots. DPS and fighters have to split up less slots than there are classes, meanwhile utility classes get DOUBLE. There are 4 utility classes and raids either have or want EIGHT of them in raid. How is this not the first problem addressed when looking at raid diversity?

Personally my ideal 'solution' would be to enable and start making 30 player raids.

__________________
Neiloch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2012, 12:43 PM   #85
Neobe

Loremaster
Neobe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 8
Default

Geothe wrote:

This stance really is all kinds of screwy from a balance perspective.  Not only does it jack fighter DPS way to high and will have massive scaling issues, it doesn't even affect all fighters even close to equally.  It is flat out poorly implemented and not thought out at all.

It really should be something along the lines of:1) Deduce all avoidance to zero.2) Remove the +50% more incoming damage and replace it with +50% more damage if the direct target of the attack.

3) Keep the removal of all hate position increases on abilities.

4) Instead of -20% hate (or is it 30?), just make it so that all +hate stats/buffs are inactive. ie Dirge can have +hate on the tank, but it wont actually apply while reckless is active. As soon as reckless cancelled the dirge hate takes effect instantly without having to wait for the dirge to apply the buff.

5) Get rid of the HP damage when cancelling the buff... but keep it so that it can not be activated in combat.

6)  Instead of the crazy potency crap, just give the stance a percentage modified to all damage.  ie +20% to all outgoing Spell, CA, and autoattack damage.

1+2 will make it so that it really will not be possible to tank in this stance while not screwing over DPSing fighters from AEs.3 will allow all abilities to be used still without instanly pulling agro.4+5 will allow a fighter to cancel reckless and take up tanking again in emergencies (ie MT/OT explode).   But they wont be able to stance dance in and out of the stance still.6 will evenly apply the damage bonus to all fighter classes without having the extremes (crazy DPS on SK, minimal increase on Guard/Zerk).  A moderate while signficant DPS increase in Reckless is acceptable, a flat out 20-25% change is very reasonable and wont push existing DPS classes out.  The currently insane potency increases (for some fighters) is just outright moronic.

I agree that the stance should effect avoid/mit but not to 0 then you make the whole thing would not even be playable the correct way. But a reducion in the defence skill and deflection/parry skill could help bring a dps fighter more in line to where a scout sits with avoid/mit. then you could leave the dmg taken inc and tanking in the stance would be alot harder.

I also agree that one stance for all fighters was really dumb and lazy. War do not fight like crusaders and they dont fight like brawler and so on. So why did they think one stance would work for us all baffles me.

I rather them not screw with hate at all, only b/c i dont think they could put it into the game without breaking agro for fighters overall. But another issues i seen with this stance, at least on my monk, i can be sitting at 600K+ dps and not even be worry about pulling agro with all the dehates they give me in this stance. Now maybe its a bug but 2 of my hate postion attacks dont just lose those hate postions they turn into dehates. coming up faster and removing more postions then any scout ability.

I for one would be just fine being really squish with agro problems b/c then only a few players would learn to use the stance and be good with it rather then a ton of ppl running around over using the stance for purpose the Dev didnt intent for.

As for the potency thing i really cant say i have any good ideas there. The dircit inc to our skills may work maybe with addition of some CB to the stance.

Then again maybe this is the start of things to come and all classes are getting a role force change. Maybe next they will give scouts more utility skills to better support groups/raid, Mages might get more/better debuffs and healers might get some tanking skills to survive better with. Who knows what they are thinking. Or maybe they just dont care about us and only want to cater to the weekend warriors who show up spend their money on the Marketplace and quit the game after a few weeks. Only time will tell.

Neobe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2012, 02:04 PM   #86
Mermut

Loremaster
Mermut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 852
Default

If the point is to give tanks more spots in a raid, then making the 'alternate stance' into a ultility stance would have made more sense... since most raids are short of ultility anyway.

The problem with that, however, is utility is mostly a thankless job and no tank would want to use the stance. It would have benifited raid forces more, it would have addressed the 'role imbalance' in raids more...

__________________
I'm willing to suspend my disbelief, But not hang it by the neck until dead.
Mermut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2012, 03:05 PM   #87
Bruener

Loremaster
Bruener's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,010
Default

Mermut wrote:

If the point is to give tanks more spots in a raid, then making the 'alternate stance' into a ultility stance would have made more sense... since most raids are short of ultility anyway.

The problem with that, however, is utility is mostly a thankless job and no tank would want to use the stance. It would have benifited raid forces more, it would have addressed the 'role imbalance' in raids more...

So what spots do you think would have been taken giving Fighters an alternate "utility" stance?  You can't replace the current utility of 4 bards/chanters any way that you look at it.

So giving the utility you take the same DPS spots only you want to make T1 DPS get even more buffs?

Recklessness accomplishes exactly what they wanted easily.

As to it affecting each Fighter differently maybe that was by design.  Don't you think that SOE could see how each class was going to benefit?

__________________
Bruener is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2012, 03:14 PM   #88
Gealaen_Gaiamancer

Loremaster
Gealaen_Gaiamancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Unrest
Posts: 157
Default

[email protected] wrote:

The problem with raids spots falls squarely on the shoulders of utility classes. Healers are the only ones getting anywhere near the correct amount of slots. DPS and fighters have to split up less slots than there are classes, meanwhile utility classes get DOUBLE. There are 4 utility classes and raids either have or want EIGHT of them in raid. How is this not the first problem addressed when looking at raid diversity?

Personally my ideal 'solution' would be to enable and start making 30 player raids.

I'm not sure I follow on this one--if you added room for another group per raid, then you'd just be adding room for two more utility characters to enhance that group.  Still the same proportion of that class to the rest of the raid.  How about making utility class effects "entire raid" so you'd only need four-ish of them total?

Ow, stop stabbing me, utility peeps!

__________________
Fight with honor and triumph!

Gealaen_Gaiamancer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2012, 03:39 PM   #89
Mermut

Loremaster
Mermut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 852
Default

Bruener wrote:

Mermut wrote:

If the point is to give tanks more spots in a raid, then making the 'alternate stance' into a ultility stance would have made more sense... since most raids are short of ultility anyway.

The problem with that, however, is utility is mostly a thankless job and no tank would want to use the stance. It would have benifited raid forces more, it would have addressed the 'role imbalance' in raids more...

So what spots do you think would have been taken giving Fighters an alternate "utility" stance?  You can't replace the current utility of 4 bards/chanters any way that you look at it.

So giving the utility you take the same DPS spots only you want to make T1 DPS get even more buffs?

Recklessness accomplishes exactly what they wanted easily.

As to it affecting each Fighter differently maybe that was by design.  Don't you think that SOE could see how each class was going to benefit?

Most raids don't HAVE the 4 chanters and 4 bards the so many people seem to think is 'neccesary'. If the tank 'alternate stance' gave them some utility similar to bards or chanters, they could fill those 'neccessary' slots that never seem to have enough interested players. Most people don't enjoy utility because it is a mostly thankless job. Everybody wants somebody ELSE to play the ultilty, so their own dps numbers can be higher. My guess is this is why they never considered giving tanks an 'utiltly' stance to get the more raid spots.. because most tanks would never, ever hit that stance.

__________________
I'm willing to suspend my disbelief, But not hang it by the neck until dead.
Mermut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2012, 04:06 PM   #90
Davngr

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 76
Default

Cyrdemac wrote:

Amazing to see just 2 or 3 ppl whining about this new fighter stance. I really thought, there would be more bad DD players in the game.

Seriously, this stance is fine. If a T1 dps class gets zw outparsed on a HARDMODE instance, this player has to l2p.

The increased damage income on the stance is bad enough for good tanks to switch it off on hard encounters. And THESE are the encounters, where DPS actually matters, so plz stop whining.

 bias much?

  this proves that crusaders are flat out telling lies about what this stance can really do.   this crusader poster says "2 or 3" people when in fact you can just go into the different threads on this subject and count well over that number.

  NEWS FLASH-    you can't cover up the broken that is this stance.   we all raid with ACT and some of us (who care about balance) play crusaders and don't want this broken stance even if it is fun for our crusader toons.  why?   we understand that overall balance and fun of all classes is more important to the game since we understand that a huge part of the "fun" of an mmo is the people we play with. means that over all balance is better than one or two overpowered classes.

 on a separate note:

   i like the idea given by a poster for the adjustments to this stance but would rather it just go away and tanks just be given a dps boost that they can use while tanking. 

  also the real problem solver for this problem isn't to make tanks dps it's to make utility buffs raid wide so you cut utility to one illy, one troub, one dirge, one coercer.        this will make that one utility stupid important so they won't lose their clout but will stop forcing raid forces to bring 8 of them.

  also some durrr durrr will jump in and say that this change will just mean more dps but i say they're wrong.   every class now a days adds their own flavor and you're better off bringing each one to help the raid.   

  also add in more tank killing effects or give tanks TANKING utility so the MT becomes invisible almost with 3 other tanks in the raid lending him their help.   

Davngr is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:49 PM.

vBulletin skin by: CompleteGFX.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All threads and posts originally from the EQ2 and Station forums operated by Sony Online Entertainment. Their use is by express written permission.