EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

 

Go Back   EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire > EverQuest II > The Development Corner > In Testing Feedback
Members List Search Mark Forums Read

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-07-2005, 12:52 PM   #151
cocoa_boy

Loremaster
cocoa_boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 39
Default

I Main Assist with the best of them in group situations. I don't mind that my role will change after the class revamp. All that I request is that the class I have chosen to play have a definitive roll in group and raid encounters.
 
Thank You,
__________________

Grindtoof
Shadowknight Trull || Armorer || Antonia Bayle
"Harnassing Chaos and Anarchy to forge kickass armor."

cocoa_boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2005, 01:19 PM   #152
Shennr

 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 346
Default

You must remember that just because people dont complain about their class doesn't mean that there isn't something wrong with it. People learn to deal with what they have rather then to just complain, others are different and try to solve. So saying that some crusaders out there are doing just fine may mean that they can put up with what they have and learn to live with it. Oh, and if most of you tanks would actually explore every part of the game then you would probably know that you have not tanked every epic x4 encounter the game has to offer atm. Oh well, I'll leave you guys to the guessing.
Shennr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2005, 01:21 PM   #153
Kimkim Team`Zeb

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 35
Default

Picked an SK to be a MA not a MT .. MA is more fun anyway .. MT just gets beat by one big mob i get a whole slew of mobs on me.  Think the game is fine as is.

 

Kimkim Team`Zeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2005, 03:46 AM   #154
Roukl

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 21
Default

Creating as many classes and races as possible, and diversifying the combinations to everyones approval im sure is not easy. The everyone wants the "books" to balance on top again not easy.

I like the idea of the points someone showed earlier where basically you technically (tho you dont see it) spend points on abilities tanking, damage , healing. Personally I believe that is what sony did , assigned points per class to different abilies. Where it goes wrong is when we equip armor and mitigation and avoidance come in to play.

After talking with a few people of different classes, as things stand right now, certain combinations of equipment have surprising results. For example the decrease of the avoidance skill for wearing heavy armor with the effect of increasing mitigation turns out not to be such a great idea. A naked bezerker soloing mob (a) compared to the same bezerker clad in heavy armor actually ended each fight consistantly with 30 % more health. This is a problem.

It also explains why assasins can seemingly tank better than guardians in some situations because the avoidance "skill" outways the mitigation one. Are we to see a trend of guardians clad in lighter armors ? Maybe...

The point is each thing we equip excentuates the class imbalances. I really dont think the basic class structue is far off its the bolt ons that need some tweeking.

I'd also like to see a far more noticeable differents between race / class combo's

Ogre clerics for instance should have some substantial extra dmg output to make up for the lack of casting power. Higher avoidance on woodelf guardians due to lower strength etc. i am sure its there but really isnt all that apparnt as things stand.

 

Just my 2cp

Valk

Co Leader of Deception

Befallen.

Roukl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2005, 05:16 AM   #155
Margen

Loremaster
Margen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 648
Default



Ibishi wrote:
variety is also what we have now.  and [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] dude, he spelled it correctly in your quote and you...what? refused to do the same?  guardians are so far from imbalanced.  But as a 31 shadowknight you know everything don't you?  No, instead you listen to the complete idiots who are 50 and whining on the forums (the people enjoying themselves don't visit often) that they can't tank.  Then some of them even say they don't want to tank or indeed have tanked every epic mob so far.  Its a crazy world of bull[expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] among the crusaders right now.  the only thing anyone aside from a crusader has agreed with a crusader on is cost:effect ratio on tanking oriented skills such as wards.  your mitigation and avoidance are so [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] close to ours there is no need to bring it up.  My gear is worth 10x my flavor spells.

Though I suppose I should [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] because a great 31 shadowknight has a problem tanking group con mobs.  Are you really having a problem with that?  Even brawlers, the tanks who take the most damage overall, don't have many issues there.  Sounds to me like you either suck or are completely ignorant.  Tell me what you're really crying about and show me your experience.  If you quote or mimic one of the laughable exaggerating crusaders back in the crusader forums anymore you're not worth the time.



So Since I am 31 (32 now btw) my opinons don't count ... nice attitude, specially considering half you silly post was censored.  Lets face the fact silly child, You don't want variaty, you don't want balance you want dominace.  

So little boy, lets see Guardians loss aggro abiltiies or some other factor for their better mitigation, time you paid a price.  No that wouldn't be fair because some Guardians actually do care about balance.  Just not little children like you.   Maybe you should try a difficult class, might learn something.

And for your information, most people I group with think I am a fairly good player.  But hey, you are a garbage source anyway.  Why don't you go in the corner and cry now little boy.  Sheesh, what a loser.

Blackoath 32nd Troll Shadow Knight

 

__________________
Blackoath Uglyone 80 Shadow Knight of Chaos

Phang 80 Swashbuckler of Chaos

You EVER going to fix SKs Sony?
Margen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2005, 03:27 PM   #156
Ibis

General
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 155
Default

1) we dont have much better mitigation 2) we did lose aggro abilities [Removed for Content] (paid) 3) we have the worst DPS in the archetype by a much larger margin than our mitigation over any other fighter, and always have (paid) 4) yea because the SKs I know who can and do solo tier 5 raid mobs for metal chests are so much more difficult. No, you don't know what you're talking about.  Accept that fact.  If I was a crusader I'd say the same thing to you.  The esteemed members of your class and sub-class refuse to police their own, and for that you do erode the respect of them through your posts.
Ibis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2005, 03:53 PM   #157
Braw

 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 21
Default

Fighters getin nerfed to uselessness woohoo!
Braw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2005, 11:14 PM   #158
JNewby

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 644
Default



Eldarn wrote:


Opaki wrote: (edited for brevity)

No. This has been rehashed over and over. What was said before release was "All fighters can tank." What was not said, and was never said was "All fighters can tank EQUALLY."
 
So, quote it. In short, prove it.


Moorgard's Quotes in Red.

Quote #1:
Moorgard: "In our game, any member of an archetype can fulfill their main role in a group as well as any other."
 
Quote #2:
 
WarNipple wrote:No one at lvl 100 is going to say, "to complete our group, we need a Scout". <----Because that could be anyone of 6 ACTUAL classes.


Moorgard: "In fact, it's our goal for people at *all* levels to say that very thing, because it would mean that the archetype system works and every class can perform its core role as well as any other."
 
 
.....and before you say "look, he said a group, not a raid"....
 
 
Quote #3
 
 Moorgard: "All Fighters can do the job of tank equally well. Our entire system is designed around the idea that anyone from a given archetype can fill their main role as well as any other."
 
 
I'm pretty sure that clears the confusion on the issue up. When someone says explicitly "All Fighters can do the job of tank equally well" should be pretty clear. If you'd like to argue whether or not balance should exist, have at it. However, I do think it's pretty clear that it was stated that all fighters would be to able tank equally well.
 
 
all quotes are from the moorgard index, just google it for a URL.
 
 
 



That is not logical IF all fighters tanked the same then all dmg output should be the same.... ie you zerks doing 380 dps monks doinf 250 dps would all be doing 100 dps like us guardians... oh and I guess then it would not matter what fighter you took since they would all be the same... use a little logic please b4 you make these types of posts... if you want to tank as well fine... but dont expect the same dmg output that you get now...

 

JNewby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2005, 11:24 PM   #159
JNewby

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 644
Default



Blackdog183 wrote:

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






Ok I will state it one more time... bruisers and monks and pallies and sks are used in end game raiding because of their utility and their high end dps... I have a level 50 dirge that raids all the time and we have a pally that does about 180 dps constantly a zekr who does about 400 dps constantly and a bruiser who does about 280 dps constantly and a guard who tanks and lives and does about 60 dps constantly... so how would it be balanced if you could do 300+ dps and still tank as well as a figther that does 60 dps???? answer: you would do 60 dps and tank just as well... there now its balanced have fun... or just quit [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]ing
JNewby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2005, 11:26 PM   #160
JNewby

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 644
Default



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


I ask the same thing why cant dires do the most dmg? why cant dirges be the best tanks? why cant dirges heal the best I mean comeon it would make me uber right?? that would be SOMETHING to make dirges a more viable tank/dps/healer I mean come on

 

 

JNewby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2005, 11:48 PM   #161
JNewby

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 644
Default



TopHatJones wrote:
Berzerker damage was nerfed a while back to balance damage and tanking ability in relation to other figthters....if that is no longer the goal, how about UNnerfing zerks.



your joking right?

they need about a 50% reduction in dps if not more seeing as they can do about 400 dps end game I dont think they have been hurt by any nerf

JNewby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2005, 11:51 PM   #162
Dragonreal

General
Dragonreal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,554
Default



JNewby wrote:


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


I ask the same thing why cant dires do the most dmg? why cant dirges be the best tanks? why cant dirges heal the best I mean comeon it would make me uber right?? that would be SOMETHING to make dirges a more viable tank/dps/healer I mean come on

 

 




Heh ask a simple question and get sarcasm... nice. The answer to your questions is because you can't have it all; the game is riddled with trade-offs and from what I saw in this thread, guardians seem to have it all aside from dps while all the other tanks give up everything for dps while the upcoming combat changes are supposedly nerfing fighter dmg... doesn't seem fair to me. A monk having more hp than a guard I doubt would make the monk uber, but it'd alleviate some of the imbalance imo.

And just so you can't throw the "You're only trying to make your class better by nerfing guards" line at me:

48 warden here and don't even have a tank alt that could possibly gain from any changes that might be made.

Dragonreal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2005, 12:00 AM   #163
JNewby

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 644
Default



Dragonrealms wrote:


JNewby wrote:


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


I ask the same thing why cant dires do the most dmg? why cant dirges be the best tanks? why cant dirges heal the best I mean comeon it would make me uber right?? that would be SOMETHING to make dirges a more viable tank/dps/healer I mean come on

 

 




Heh ask a simple question and get sarcasm... nice. The answer to your questions is because you can't have it all; the game is riddled with trade-offs and from what I saw in this thread, guardians seem to have it all aside from dps while all the other tanks give up everything for dps while the upcoming combat changes are supposedly nerfing fighter dmg... doesn't seem fair to me. A monk having more hp than a guard I doubt would make the monk uber, but it'd alleviate some of the imbalance imo.

And just so you can't throw the "You're only trying to make your class better by nerfing guards" line at me:

48 warden here and don't even have a tank alt that could possibly gain from any changes that might be made.




All I am trying to say is every class has a roll... omnk and such are tank/dps they do alot of dps and tank well.. if they were made to take jsut as well as aguard then guards would be pretty useless wouldnt they? they do no dmg and all they can do is tank... monks can certainly tank better then guardains can dmg so I dont think they are hurting to much...

I would throw no liine at you such as that.. just eveery class has to have a use if guards were not the best tanks they owuld have no purpose.. cause they cannot do anything else

JNewby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2005, 02:14 AM   #164
Narfism

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 32
Default

Is it me or do most people that don't want tanking equality seem to think that equality is just through mitigation.  This just isn't the case (or shouldn't be the case).  Tanking ability shouldn't be measured by just avoidance and mitigation.  Tanking ability should be a combination of those 2 skills + all casted skills associated with the tanking class.  Note that this is just my idea of what I would like things to be like, but I ask that everyone keeps an open mind.

As an example, in raids, guardian mitigation/avoidance/skills should have the same effectiveness as paladin mitigation/avoidance/skills.  This does not mean be the same skills, but through wards/heals/mitigation/avoidance paladins should have the same effectiveness as a guadian using mitigation/avoidance/defensive buffs.  Now keep in mind, this only works if one of two things happen:

1.  It takes a combined effort for all tanks to keep aggro off of their respective groups (I.E. 1 damaging body part per tank [group x 4 mob should have 4 things attacking that aren't linked so ae taunts don't work, but they all come like a normal group of mobs or the total damage on 1 tank be so massive that there is no way to keep a single tank up]).  Maybe having one tank being responsible for melee damage, 2 for casting damage and another to keep aggro from the backstabbers.

2.  Each tanking class has a significant duty on said raid (i.e. secondary role that is required for the success of a raid).

While I would enjoy the first idea immensly, more practical would be the second.  So what we need to do is find a secondary role for those that don't have one.  Guardians could be more effective blocking damage for a crusader that is tanking a nuking class raid mob.  This is assuming that they making paladins responsible for one half of resists and sks responsible for the other half.  This would be their nitch.  If the guardian wishes to tank they may but the dps would be higher as they would not mitigate the casting damage as well.  This is just one of my ideas for the concept of situational superiority.  Through a combined effort would be the best situation for a tanking scheme in a particular raid. 

Same can go for guardians tanking melee heavy mobs and having another tank class (lets say crusaders, as I forget who has better mitigation transferring buffs) buff them with mitigation buffs.  I also like the idea for avoidance tanks to be supplemented by another classes parry skill transfer buffs.  Make the mobs swing fast and moderately but give many status effects.

In game currently, we see a horrid design of 1 tank and 23 others doing their thing.  Now while other tanks can fulfill secondary roles, they are no real substitute for the actual classes they are taking up a slot for.  By creating situational superiority, all classes can have their day without gimpifying the raid force by doing it.  This would also create a need for every class in a raid instead of 3 guardians, 3 templars, the rest warlocks, wizards and illusionists.

 

Mind this is just a rough idea of what I would like to see but at least I am giving options as opposed to some people that just bicker about who should be doing what.  Instead of fighting each other, we need to sit down and figure out a way that we can all have our day.  Being fighters, we all like being in the spotlight every once in a while.

 

Lotharin Dashaus

 

Narfism is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2005, 03:57 AM   #165
Dragonreal

General
Dragonreal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,554
Default



JNewby wrote:

I would throw no liine at you such as that.. just eveery class has to have a use if guards were not the best tanks they owuld have no purpose.. cause they cannot do anything else




Glad to hear you wouldn't heh but I had to put the disclaimer in there just in case since I'm too lazy to go make a signature ;P
Dragonreal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2005, 11:52 AM   #166
Jojo-the-Yumcov

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 7
Default

 

   don't worry.under the new system all the classes are going to suck alot worse.as for the guardian/paladins being the best tanks it depends on gear,what the encounter is,and your raid plan.right now i'd say they are pretty [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] close.single mobs it's probally better for the guardian to tank since paladins will actually HAVE to heal in raids(yes,lot of butt saving duties now.so that makes paladins even sexxier than before).as for multi-mobs you are really not going to want the extra adds on the MT so you will need/want *spite/back up* tanks. plus most encounters are going to be a hell of alot tougher.specially if the mobs are levels above you (even with racial bonus defence traits x 2).

before you complain about these changes i will say one thing.whineings what got you into this mess and it sure as hell isn't getting ya out of it.
 
 signed by,a A-hole for a paladin on test.
Jojo-the-Yumcov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2005, 12:53 PM   #167
WolfSha

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 169
Default

Omg.. this thread is starting to be a bit of a dead horse now, but ok... I’ll try once more… This is a long post, but if you read it you will understand why we can't ever really have balance.  lets try to look at what "being able to tank equally well" is supposed to mean and try to understand something…

It is impossible for all fighters to tank the same mobs equally well without being identical, if you can't see that you're not engaging your brain! Filling your role as a tank includes your dps most of the time…

Les look at an example to help understand why…

Lets compare guards and monks.... I’m not bashing monks, but it’s a good example as they’re very different.

So.. lets make a guard and a monk and try to balance them.

 

IF a monk had 80% avoild, 20% mit and a guard had 20% avoid and 80% mit then most people would agree that’s balanced:

If both get 100 hits for 100 dmg then

Monk avoid 80, left with 20 hits… mitigate 20% = takes 1600 dmg

Guard avoid 20, left with 80 hits.. mitigate 80% = takes 1600 dmg

Yay balance... that’s was easy, SoE must be stupid! Lets send them off to fight!!

 

Ooh, they’re soloing today… they’re each gonna take on an even con solo mob…

 

But now something strange has happened - the fact the monk has twice the dps of the guard means that the monk has only actually had 50 hits against him as the fight was over faster… hmm.. that’s not balanced….

 Monk was attacked 50 times, avoided 40, left with 10 hits… mitigate 20% = takes 800 dmg

Guard was attacked 100 times, avoid 20, left with 80 hits.. mitigate 80% = takes 1600 dmg

 

[expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]… we forgot the dps…DOH!  oh well, lets make it so that the guard avoids 60% instead!

Monk attacked 50 times, avoided 40, left with 10 hits… mitigate 20% = takes 800 dmg

Guard attacked 100 times, avoid 60, left with 40 hits.. mitigate 80% = takes 800 dmg

Yay balance... that’s was easy, SoE must be stupid!

 

Ooh, what are they doing today? They’re grouped with a templar, a ranger and a wizard…

Now the tanks dps only makes up about 20% of the groups dps so the difference between the number of attacks made against the guard or the monk isn’t very big because of the monks double dmg, only makes for about a about 10% quicker fight…. Suddenly our guard is a lot tougher than our monk because we balanced for solo… DOH!

For groups we need to change it so the guard has about 10% more defences than our monk as he’s only getting hit on 10% more now, not 100% more..

If we look at raids then there’s effectively no difference at all in usefulness between monk and guard dps because there are 23 other people doing that job and the difference between a monk as MT and a guard as MT might mean about a 1% shorter fight…

So to balance our monk and guard for a raid we need to go back to out 80/20, 20/80 model we started with… but we already know that doesn’t work solo or grouped…

So you can’t balance fighters with difference dps… ok then, easily solved… we give all tanks the same dps… boring, but the people want balance… Yay balance... that’s was easy, SoE must be stupid!

 

Now our guard and monk (back at 80/20 and 20/80 due to same dps now) are now perfectly balanced for solo and group play and raids! We’re geniuses!!!

Oh look! Today they’re each MTing on a raid... good job we balanced them! 

Both have 4000 health. The raid mob is hitting for about 3k dmg a time.

The guard basically gets hit every time, but mitigates that down to 600dmg which the healers can cope with.... he's doing well...

The monk never really gets hit, but sooner or later, he lucks out and get hit twice close together for 2400 dmg each time and he’s be dead.  OH.....

Bum… this still isn’t balanced…

Suddenly it seems that it is not possible to balance difference tanks for all encounters without having identical DPS, Mitigation and Avoidance.  If you do that then might was well delete all the subclasses and just have 1 misc fighter class… how exciting!

People are just going to have to accept situational tanking.  Guardians will always be the best at tanking raids simply because their low dps makes then completely gimped solo or in a small group without a lot of defence and in raid defence is all you care about for your MT is defence.    In a small group a monk will always be more use than a guard because getting to the end of the fight faster means everyone has used less power = less down time = more xp.  If guards are a little too tough right now (which they probably are) then they need scaling back, but you’ll never archive balance.

Unless the content changes dramatically (and there are lots of good ideas on how on about page 3 of this thread before it got too long) then we’re not going to get balanced raids for fighters.

The best SoE can do is balance the fighters for 99% of the games content (IE GROUP PLAY) and say “sorry, raids are not balanced for MT role, other fighters will have to put up with dps rolls if there’s a guard there” because we can’t fix it without breaking the rest of the game.

Sorry if my tone sounds a bit patronising, but this thread is now 7 pages long, and people aren’t realising there will always be inequalities unless the subclasses are identical, and I don’t think any of us really want that!

So the answer is simple – if tanking raids is what you want to do, make a guard, don’t make another sub-class and scream for an impossible request of balancing all fighters for all mobs.

If you can prove my maths wrong then post and tell me so, if not then surely this thread is dead now? Please?

 

Message Edited by WolfShark on 05-11-2005 01:54 AM

__________________


Enumclaw, Guardian of Everfrost
Caalador, Swashbuckler of Everfrost
WolfSha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2005, 09:43 PM   #168
Dragonreal

General
Dragonreal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,554
Default

Now you have to account for all the people who won't let monks tank even in normal xp groups, and all the monks who think they CAN'T tank because of that >.> Every group I've had with a monk in it (barring the ones I made myself), there were 2 tanks in group, the monk and a plate tank; even in the ones I made myself where I had a monk friend tanking, the rest of the ppl in the group always wanted me to pick up a plate tank once one of the dps dropped out.

 

Dragonreal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2005, 09:53 PM   #169
WolfSha

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 169
Default

Lol, yeah, but that's not a "fix the game SoE" issue, that's a bang people heads togther issue! :smileyvery-happy:

If i was grouped with a monk and we were even levels i wouldn't care who tanked. If he was one lvl higher than me i'd want him to tank.  If he was 3 lvl's higher i'd bloody insist that he tanked!!  I've met a lot of people who think monks can't tank... i don't know where it comes from... probably the lvl 50 monks who want to be raid MT filling the forums with "waaah, we can't tank" :smileywink:

Seriously tho, i realy don't know where people get there ideas! In a group of 4 (or even maybe 6 depending on group make up) I'd rather have a monk thank than a guard to be honest.  Yes you might be able to take a orange mob with a guardian, but if you can kill 2 yellow mobs in the same time with a monk tanking then that's more xp, and more use in my book!

__________________


Enumclaw, Guardian of Everfrost
Caalador, Swashbuckler of Everfrost
WolfSha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2005, 11:01 PM   #170
Dragonreal

General
Dragonreal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,554
Default

The most messed up part about the whole thing is I'm the hlr of the group and I'm saying "he tanks fine, I have no issues, we don't need a plate tank and we don't need another hlr" and they still insist on one or even both of those being added to the group -_-;
Dragonreal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2005, 12:13 AM   #171
otlg

Loremaster
otlg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 110
Default

Ok folks, I've watched this debate.. and then I watched somemore, and folks seem to be missing what balance could mean in this situation.
 
The statement has been made 'all fighters will tank equally well'.  Ok, first up; define the term 'tank' (I think this is where the problem comes from).  I'm going to define 'tank' for everyone, since noone else has bothered to explicitly do so. 
 
I shall define the term 'to tank' to mean:
 
To bear the brunt of damage dealt by a mob, while the mob is alive.
 
I will further define the shortened 'tank' or 'tanking' to basically mean the same thing.  Ok, now that we have a definition we can have a debate.  A lot of people seem to forget the 'while the mob is alive' part of the definiton, which is why I posted it.  Now an example of how 2 different types of characters can 'tank equally well':
 
Warning this is an overly simplified example
(for the sake of this example, just assume there is 1 number that is a total damage modifier, which I shall call avoidmit, if it's 50% you take 50% of the damage thrown your way).
 
Also let's break damange dealt down to 1 number, again for simplicity, to Total Damage Dealt Per Second or TDDPS for short.
Character A: 
Total HP:  1,000
Avoidmit:   50
TDDPS:    200
 
Character B:
Total HP:  1,000
Avoidmit:  75
TDDPS:    100
 
Target Mob:
Total HP:  1,000
Avoidmit:   0 (to keep it VERY SIMPLE)
TDDPS:    250
 
Let's assume for this demo that all other things are equal between the two encounters, and that the damage dealt by the tanks isn't totally insignficant to the total damage output of the group (if it was, in this example, you would STILL have equally good tanks).
 
Ok.. so these two tanks engage..
 
It would take Tank A 5 seconds to defeat the mob, during which time they would take... 625 pts of damage.
It would take Tank B 10 seconds to defeat the mob, during which time they would take... 625 pts of damage.
 
There... TOTALLY different stats, *exact same* tanking equality.
Now... I know there are literally THOUSANDS of other things to throw in here, like agro management, etc.  And different groups can end up with different results.  Either way, each of these two different characters end up the same (as long as the variations are applied evenly).  Balancing the basic aspects of the tank group is *easy*.  It is harder to balance agro management and so-forth in such a way that keeps things unique, but that to, can also be done (i.e. the 100 TDDPS tank should have better taunts to prevent agro loss from their lower damage dealt).
 
Just some food for thought...
 
Osiri (Oggok & Test)
 
otlg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2005, 03:03 AM   #172
Gaige

Loremaster
Gaige's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Arizona
Posts: 9,500
Default



Tanlaus wrote:

I thought Moorguard's deliniation of tanks was a good one. I prefer class variation in the game as opposed to more cookie cutter, less unique classes for the skae of the almighty balance.

Especially in a game like this. If you play a bruiser and would prefer to tank like a guardian, then make a guardian. It doesn't seem like that big a deal.

I play a Troubador as my main. Can't do damage like a Brigand or Assassin (play in the Freeport side) but do I care? No, if I wanted big hits I would have made an Assassin. If I wanted group utility + steady high damage over time I would have made a brigand. Well, I made a Bard, and to be honest I like playing him like a bard.

I think the majority of EQ2 players prefer class differences and pick their class because they think it will be fun to play. In game, people seem to be pretty happy, class envy is largely a reflection of these boards.


The problem lies in the fact that there isn't enough roles in this game to allow for that much diversity.
__________________
Gaige is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2005, 03:09 AM   #173
Gaige

Loremaster
Gaige's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Arizona
Posts: 9,500
Default



Sunrayn wrote:


Eldarn wrote:
 
Guardan: TANK

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



Poor Guardian?
 
Thats what I signed up to be.  A tank.  Nothing more, nothing less.  I think most, if not all guards signed up for the same reason.  Its what I do.  Its all I want to do.
Unfortunatley for you, lots of other fighters did too, who didn't choose guardians.  What makes you more worthy than them, just because of your class choice?
__________________
Gaige is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2005, 03:13 AM   #174
Gaige

Loremaster
Gaige's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Arizona
Posts: 9,500
Default



uglak wrote:

Which would  not be balanced, as DPS will get you invited to groups and raids for offtank roles, extra  taunts will not.

There is only a place for 1 tank in most groups.  Maybe 2 tanks in raids.  Extra tanks are a waste of limited  slots.   Tanks that can also DPS, can fill not only the one tank slot, but the  DPS slots as well. That is a huge advantage.   That is why the DPS of a fighter must be given great consideration when balancing.

Offense is weighed against Defense.   The more offense the fighter has, the less Defense.   Anything else would be unbalanced.   Fighters dont get asked to group in a offtank role because they have a extra taunt.  They get asked to the offtank role mainly because of DPS or possibly a utility like evac.

Looks like the class as a whole will be considered when balancing. (Which I cannot imagine why anyone would think otherwise)  While defense ability and DPS are the major factors, utilities like invis, mend, FD , Fear, Heals, safefall, horses, evac,  etc.  also most be in the equation when it comes to balance.

Anything else would be unacceptable and unbalanced.

If tank A and tank B both have the exact same defense.  Yet tank B has better DPS and some nice utilities to boot, which class would you play? (and everyone else for that matter?)

It has to be give and take in all roleplaying games where balance is concerned.   I am sorry for those that wanted to play in the "Tankmage archtype".   You just cannot have it all.   There must be tradeoffs when balancing classes.



Spoken just like someone who doesn't want to compete for tank spots in the end game SMILEY


__________________
Gaige is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2005, 03:15 AM   #175
jfo

 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 136
Default

we had a monk tank the hand of caldera. it was neat. as a healer it was a serious, mana-draining workout, but still one of the neater things i've seen.
jfo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2005, 03:19 AM   #176
Shennr

 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 346
Default

I agree with Gage on this. If you want to be a bruiser or monk and tank then you should be able to. All fighters can tank but as a healer I can see many differences between them all but I still beleive that they all should be able to tank a mob if they were put into that position.
Shennr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2005, 03:20 AM   #177
Gaige

Loremaster
Gaige's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Arizona
Posts: 9,500
Default



JNewby wrote:

Ok I will state it one more time... bruisers and monks and pallies and sks are used in end game raiding because of their utility and their high end dps... I have a level 50 dirge that raids all the time and we have a pally that does about 180 dps constantly a zekr who does about 400 dps constantly and a bruiser who does about 280 dps constantly and a guard who tanks and lives and does about 60 dps constantly... so how would it be balanced if you could do 300+ dps and still tank as well as a figther that does 60 dps???? answer: you would do 60 dps and tank just as well... there now its balanced have fun... or just quit [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]ing


Why is it that you talk about DPS in a discussion about tanking ability?
 
Besides, lets look at it truly open minded and from both sides:
 
Just as you can say "A monk can't do 250dps and a guardian 60, while tanking equally well, that isn't balanced!"
 
You can say "A monk and a guardian both do around 100ish dps and tank pretty decently in comparison to each other, although certain scenarios favor one over the other."
 
Of course when you bring up giving guardians more damage, more utility; they balk.  They don't want it. 
 
OF COURSE NOT!
 
Why would they want to be put in a position that allows them to compete with other fighters, when as of now, they don't have to.
 
I wouldn't want to compete either, would you?

Message Edited by Gage-Mikel on 05-11-2005 04:23 PM

__________________
Gaige is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2005, 03:47 AM   #178
Ibis

General
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 155
Default

huh?  I want more DPS.  [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot], I want death touch dude.  whats the weather like on your planet?
Ibis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2005, 09:54 AM   #179
Gaige

Loremaster
Gaige's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Arizona
Posts: 9,500
Default



Ibishi wrote:
huh?  I want more DPS.  [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot], I want death touch dude.  whats the weather like on your planet?


Overcast.

But although you are correct in that I shouldn't generalize, in the other numerous discussions I've been in regarding this topic, the majority of guardians have in fact said they do not want more utility or increased DPS, they just want to tank.

Which is what I based my comment on.

The majority will never be everyone, of course.

__________________
Gaige is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2005, 12:48 PM   #180
WolfSha

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 169
Default

I say fair enough; if they just want to tank then let them... are you willing to give up your dps to tank like them?  Personally I'm not.  I wouldn't want to be a guard and so i didn't make one. 

If we keep insisting we all be allowed to tank like guards, SoE have 3 choices

1) Ignore us

2) Up guard dps/util and our tanking ability to match them

3) Nerf our dsp into the ground to match the gaurds and up our tanking ability to match them

Now if they choose #1, a thread like this will appear every few weeks until they do something

If they choose #2, the scouts (who already want tank dsp nerf) will be out for blood as you'll have guardians wanding around with 10x the tanking ability and 3/4 the damage of a scout

So they only really have #3 left and i REALLY don't wanna loose my dps and be one of the many LFG fighters when it comes to raids as we're useless if not MTing...

__________________


Enumclaw, Guardian of Everfrost
Caalador, Swashbuckler of Everfrost
WolfSha is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:18 PM.

vBulletin skin by: CompleteGFX.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.