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 01-09-2009, 06:59 AM   #1
EvilAstroboy

Loremaster
EvilAstroboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 317
Default

For OT purposes I think the plate tanks need a stance which gives intermediate / small damage boost (but gives stats and +skills) and doesnt reduce hate on taunts or give boosts to taunts either. I like the idea of having a stance with deaggro since SKs are aggro generating machines at the moment which isnt good for most trash mob fights. But in circumstances where I know I might need to pick up on tanking quickly it would be nice to have an intermediate stance similar to brawlers.

EvilAstroboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2009, 07:52 AM   #2
Irgun

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 318
Default

A 3rd stance would mess it all up even more......

Irgun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2009, 08:26 AM   #3
Nebbeny

Tester
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 420
Default

And yet brawlers HAVE this 3rd stance you claim will mess this all up. Either saying your wrong, or brawlers are messed up.
Nebbeny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2009, 09:05 AM   #4
Spe
Server: Runnyeye
Guild: Navigator Dragons
Rank: Leader

General
Spe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 56
Default

I see no sence at all in combined stances.

The best way to go is to let player decide which buffs are necessary in particular situation, not just a switch from one to another. But this is not in line with devs point of view.

__________________
Шумный, wizard 80 (Barren Sky)

Спец, guardian 80 (Barren Sky)

*атонгобой, troubadour 80 (Barren Sky)

Побегайчик, swashbuckler 72 (Barren Sky)

Furik, fury 70 (Runnyeye) - rip

Spetz, bruiser 61 (Runnyeye) - rip
Spe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2009, 09:06 AM   #5
Betchemin

Loremaster
Betchemin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: XXX
Posts: 20
Default

Plate tanks can use or not use shields. This gives more flexibilty that 3 stances (in effect it gives 4).

Betchemin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2009, 09:09 AM   #6
Spe
Server: Runnyeye
Guild: Navigator Dragons
Rank: Leader

General
Spe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 56
Default

Betchemin wrote:

Plate tanks can use or not use shields. This gives more flexibilty that 3 stances (in effect it gives 4).

QFT

__________________
Шумный, wizard 80 (Barren Sky)

Спец, guardian 80 (Barren Sky)

*атонгобой, troubadour 80 (Barren Sky)

Побегайчик, swashbuckler 72 (Barren Sky)

Furik, fury 70 (Runnyeye) - rip

Spetz, bruiser 61 (Runnyeye) - rip
Spe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2009, 09:52 AM   #7
g4nd4lf

Loremaster
g4nd4lf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 219
Default

From my point of view the new system does not fit for all common tanking purposes, because the detaunt mechanics in offstance do not consider the following facts:

1. Tanks will get in trouble when fighting grouped and offstanced. In the current state the only valid options for the new offstance are solo play or DDing in Raids. A second tank as a DD in a standard group doesn't make sense.

2. OTs willl have a hard time getting aggro from the mobs when coming from offstance and MT is down.

Mainly this results from the spell consolidation and the insane detaunt numbers which take out the flexibility from every fighter classes.

One solution could be to leave the cosolidated buffs as they are and make them swapable with the new stances, so that you can choose to tank without any stance and the old buffs up. When switching to one of the new stances the buffs should be deactivated, similar to the switch between offstance and defstance.

Another option could be to take out the de-aggro component from the offstance and provide this as a separate buff or AA-Special.

Leave the decision to the fighters, please! Reducing the tank classes to simple tank or spank mechanics will destroy the fun for most of the more sophisticated players.

greetz

Roxxi

g4nd4lf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2009, 10:53 AM   #8
Junaru

Loremaster
Junaru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,471
Default

Oh God please tell me the OP isn't saying Brawlers have the upper hand cause of their third stance? If thats true I think I will like virtually kill myself.

__________________
Junaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2009, 10:59 AM   #9
Siatfallen

Loremaster
Siatfallen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Denmark
Posts: 258
Default

[email protected] wrote:

From my point of view the new system does not fit for all common tanking purposes, because the detaunt mechanics in offstance do not consider the following facts:

1. Tanks will get in trouble when fighting grouped and offstanced. In the current state the only valid options for the new offstance are solo play or DDing in Raids. A second tank as a DD in a standard group doesn't make sense.

2. OTs willl have a hard time getting aggro from the mobs when coming from offstance and MT is down.

Mainly this results from the spell consolidation and the insane detaunt numbers which take out the flexibility from every fighter classes.

One solution could be to leave the cosolidated buffs as they are and make them swapable with the new stances, so that you can choose to tank without any stance and the old buffs up. When switching to one of the new stances the buffs should be deactivated, similar to the switch between offstance and defstance.

Another option could be to take out the de-aggro component from the offstance and provide this as a separate buff or AA-Special.

Leave the decision to the fighters, please! Reducing the tank classes to simple tank or spank mechanics will destroy the fun for most of the more sophisticated players.

greetz

Roxxi

This isn't much of a problem. Here's why:

Brawlers get balanced stance. As secondary tanks, we can sit reasonably high on the hate list and do ok-ish DPS all the same. When the tank drops, swap to defenive, cast rescue, commence tanking.

Paladins get a taunt (as I understand; our guild hasn't had a paladin main since mid-RoK) that will pretty much instantly kick them to the top of the aggro list (it's, what, 24 positions worth of hategain, something like that?) at level 80. Swap to defensive, cast that, commence tanking.

Zerkers and SKs are AoE tanks, meaning they're intended to hold aggro on large crowds. This makes their job different from the classic MT. They're DPS in encounters where their AoE-aggro-grabbing abilities are not needed, and they've no trouble filling that role.

Guardians are in trouble - but the first guardian will probably be MTing anyway. If you have a second for a secondary tank, creative application of Sleight of Hand or the like combined with stance changes may be in order to get them up on the hate list when they need to be (but I'd use that for getting the dead MT back up instead honestly).

So:Guardians will be MTing single targets in the first place.Zerkers and SKs will be MTing multi-mob encounters in the first place.Paladins, Monks and Bruisers will have the tools to be a second-string tank, or offtank a single target, as necessary.By this design philosophy, ye bread and butter raid will run with three fighters to cover the various needed roles - a step up from RoK using only two.

If I were to attack anything in this setup thinking, it's the fact that there's one MT, two AoE tanks and 3 support tanks (for lack of a better term). Take away the paladin's taunt ability thingie, and give them the tools to tank on par with Guaridans instead. That was the stated intent anyway.But all in all, I guess they could be much worse off.

The point of this ramble? I think the lack of a balanced stance for plate tanks is intended - and I don't think it should be changed. Get off the brawler turf tbh. ;p

__________________
---

Eilien, 80 monk of Soulforged, Antonia Bayle.
Siatfallen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2009, 10:59 AM   #10
Pins

General
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,040
Default

Shield + no Stance = Balanced Stance.

__________________
Calaglin, Former Illusionist/Guild Leader of Dissolution on Nektulos

Calaglin, Former Illusionist/Guild Leader of Confirmed on Unrest
Pins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2009, 11:15 AM   #11
EvilAstroboy

Loremaster
EvilAstroboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 317
Default

[email protected] wrote:

Betchemin wrote:

Plate tanks can use or not use shields. This gives more flexibilty that 3 stances (in effect it gives 4).

QFT

Pretty sure Knights Stance and pathetic 2 handers since EoF ruined any 'flexibility' that Crusaders once had. You know, those classes that cant dual wield.

I think all the brawlers posting here realise the distinct advantage they have with the balanced stance with these new changes. Paladins have Holy Ground to jump back up quickly, but Zerks, SKs and Guards will take a while longer to jump back up the hate list.

EvilAstroboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2009, 12:34 PM   #12
Terron

Loremaster
Terron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Reading, England
Posts: 2,309
Default

[email protected] wrote:

Plate tanks can use or not use shields. This gives more flexibilty that 3 stances (in effect it gives 4).

Actually 6.

  • Defensive with shield
  • Defensive without shield
  • No stance with shield
  • No stance without shield
  • Offensive with shield
  • Offensive without shield

But the merging of buffs has weakened the no stance options, at least for guards.

Comparing each for my guards before and after.

Defensive with shield

The maximum survivability option. Currently I normally use it most of the time solo and tanking. I could kill easy mobs faster without a shield but against tougher mobs I do better with one. After the change it looks like DPS will be massively reduced. It depends on exactly what the "melee damage multiplier" affects, but on the face on it looks like a 50% reduction on almost all damage. Since I do not have my mythical (just the fabled epic) and I prefer to use a tower shield my DPS is great to begin with. So that will hurt a lot and probably make defensive options unviable for soloing. Tanking will rely on taunts more which is probably good for the game.

Defensive without shield

The major loss of defensive makes this only useful for weaker mobs. Against such mobs the extra attack skill from the other stances is unimportant. Getting hit more allows Hold the line to proc more often so this is the maximum aggro option. It looks like this will remain the option to use against mobs that are no real threat to maximize aggro.

No stance with shield

Useful when the increase the chance to hit is need whilst being ready to take over tanking. Very rarely used currently. It looks like it will be more useful in future - getting rid of the penalty to damage whilst allowing taunts to work normally. It looks like it will enable semi-decent DPS to be done whilst still being able to pick up adds and switch to tanking them quickly. Unfortunately the buff merging means that the STA and hold the line buffs will be completely lost in this mode. This made be the best soloing mode in future, with no DPS penalty and no increase to damage taken.

No stance without shield

I can't think of any times I would use this currently. I can see myself using this in future when not the main tank with a macro to equip my shield and enter defensive stance ready to I can take over quickly if need be, do semi-decent DPS, and keep myself fairly high on the hate list.

Offensive with shield

Currently I might use this against a wizard type mob so that I could use ToS against his big nuke but do maximum damage otherwise, but I can only think of 1 such mob (in Maj'Dul for one of the Carpet quest series). Turning taunts into deaggros is just saying do not use this when tanking. I can think of any time when a guard would want to use a deaggro. The increased melee skills are only useful for orange/red mobs (since they are also boosted by a guards group buff) and the increase strength will gives little due to diminishing returns. The new proc will boost DPS by about 50 to 100 which will be nice, but when soloing I doubt it will compensate for the 5% extra damage taken. Only experience will tell.

Offensive without shield

Good for killing weak solo mobs and when DPSing on a raid. Of course, if a guard is DPSing it would be a pretty casual raid, but I do run some like that (for quest updates and tier one mythical updates). The proc will make it a little better, but being better in unimportant situations isn't significant.

Overview

As a gaurd it is very likely that I will be using a balanced stance (no stance) a lot.

I think the changes will be better for the game overall.

Managing aggro will be a more active part of the game for more classes.

Fighters will be more evenly balanced as tanks.

However it is going to make a lot of players of guards very unhappy, as I wrote in the guardian forum last month:

[email protected] wrote:

Guards made slightly better tanks than other fighters, but were significantly worse when not tanking. If they are to be only equal as tanks (which is an aim I agree with) then they need to be brought up in other areas. Some guards accepted poor soloing as the price of being the best raid MT. It won't seem fair if they lose the reward but still have to pay the price.

All fighters need to have something to do in a raid other than tank, so that they can be brought along for other reasons that tanking. Prior to TOS my guild would take a monk for his raidwide buff. Now it seems the preference has moved to bruisers. When I started berserkers could get a place in a melee DPS group for the DPS buff they brought (which became less significant over time).

As I see it rebalancing fighters needs 4 steps not 2.

  1. Balanced survivability as tanks (TOS made a big improvement in this).
  2. Balanced affro handling (planned for January it seems).
  3. Balanced non-tanking raid utility (a good reason to take one of each class as an option).
  4. Balanced overall abilities.
__________________




















Terron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2009, 12:41 PM   #13
Junaru

Loremaster
Junaru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,471
Default

EvilAstroboy wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Betchemin wrote:

Plate tanks can use or not use shields. This gives more flexibilty that 3 stances (in effect it gives 4).

QFT

Pretty sure Knights Stance and pathetic 2 handers since EoF ruined any 'flexibility' that Crusaders once had. You know, those classes that cant dual wield.

I think all the brawlers posting here realise the distinct advantage they have with the balanced stance with these new changes. Paladins have Holy Ground to jump back up quickly, but Zerks, SKs and Guards will take a while longer to jump back up the hate list.

Are you kidding? TSO every tank has some AA ability to jump to the top of the hate list. TSO = Hate positions for fighters.

And lets say for a second you are correct and Brawlers are posting here so we have an advantage. Do you really think a stance I haven't used in 5+ years is going to some how put Brawlers at the top of tanking? Get for real man. If it is an advantage it's one no one will every notice because we lacking every where else.

If you plan to compair your class to another to get a buff do it to a class that isn't at the bottom of the list.

__________________
Junaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2009, 01:08 PM   #14
Aoste

Loremaster
Aoste's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 13
Default

[email protected] wrote:

From my point of view the new system does not fit for all common tanking purposes, because the detaunt mechanics in offstance do not consider the following facts:

1. Tanks will get in trouble when fighting grouped and offstanced. In the current state the only valid options for the new offstance are solo play or DDing in Raids. A second tank as a DD in a standard group doesn't make sense.

2. OTs willl have a hard time getting aggro from the mobs when coming from offstance and MT is down.

Mainly this results from the spell consolidation and the insane detaunt numbers which take out the flexibility from every fighter classes.

One solution could be to leave the cosolidated buffs as they are and make them swapable with the new stances, so that you can choose to tank without any stance and the old buffs up. When switching to one of the new stances the buffs should be deactivated, similar to the switch between offstance and defstance.

Another option could be to take out the de-aggro component from the offstance and provide this as a separate buff or AA-Special.

Leave the decision to the fighters, please! Reducing the tank classes to simple tank or spank mechanics will destroy the fun for most of the more sophisticated players.

greetz

Roxxi

Agree @ Roxxi 

Offstance is getting worthless in groupinstances.

Offstance as OT is bad too.

Any scout or mage dd would be happy about the Offstance which turns taunts into detaunt, reduce hategain and you give it to tanks O_o

I think too that the best thing is a seperate spell, buff or aa special which changes the taunt into detaunt, but please dont destroy the offstance with this.

And i think too that the fighters can take the decision in which stance they can handle it ,are an instance is easy or heavy.

And its right that some of this changes are killing the fun to play a tank.

__________________
Aoste is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2009, 02:32 PM   #15
CarnageSorc

Loremaster
CarnageSorc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 30
Default

I testet the changes on Test-Copy and dont see ANY Issue for Tanks to go in Def-Stance (if they wanne keep/get aggro).

The main issue here is, that most players, especially fighters, dont get it, that they are no real dps-classes. If you are sad you cant dps AND tank anymore, go reroll...

__________________
CarnageSorc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2009, 03:07 PM   #16
BChizzle

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,095
Default

Brawler mid stance is way OP.

BChizzle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2009, 03:24 PM   #17
Ashdaren

Loremaster
Ashdaren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 114
Default

SK DEFENSIVE STANCE:-heal proc : too bad it is not a drain, with some damage so we could critic-parry: thanks finally SMILEY while i realize we get less than fighter/brawler thx-spell damage reduced && melee dps reduced : well at this point there is no use for this stance,  unless we are MT in raid, which will never happen anyway

My choice for tanking : NO STANCEMy choice for pvp/dpsing in raid : OFFENSIVE STANCE

I'm sorry but the drawback is too bad to go defensive.There is no need for such drawback, the defensive stance brings too much bad on the table to even be considered

__________________
Mortigan Hurlevent - 80 Sk - Nagafen

Ashdaren Hurlevent - Bruiser - Darathar (retired/merged/retired)
Ashdaren Hurlevent - 2nd server lvl 50&60 Bruiser (retired) - Storms
Amarante Hurlevent - 65 Bard - EQ1 Rallos Zek PVP (retired)
Ashdaren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2009, 07:30 AM   #18
Terron

Loremaster
Terron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Reading, England
Posts: 2,309
Default

[email protected] wrote:

The main issue here is, that most players, especially fighters, dont get it, that they are no real dps-classes. If you are sad you cant dps AND tank anymore, go reroll...

You must be in the wrong place as that wasn't even an issue here until you brought it up.

The OP and most of the rest of the thread is about what fighters do when NOT tanking.

__________________




















Terron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2009, 12:23 PM   #19
EvilAstroboy

Loremaster
EvilAstroboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 317
Default

Junaru wrote:

EvilAstroboy wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Betchemin wrote:

Plate tanks can use or not use shields. This gives more flexibilty that 3 stances (in effect it gives 4).

QFT

Pretty sure Knights Stance and pathetic 2 handers since EoF ruined any 'flexibility' that Crusaders once had. You know, those classes that cant dual wield.

I think all the brawlers posting here realise the distinct advantage they have with the balanced stance with these new changes. Paladins have Holy Ground to jump back up quickly, but Zerks, SKs and Guards will take a while longer to jump back up the hate list.

Are you kidding? TSO every tank has some AA ability to jump to the top of the hate list. TSO = Hate positions for fighters.

And lets say for a second you are correct and Brawlers are posting here so we have an advantage. Do you really think a stance I haven't used in 5+ years is going to some how put Brawlers at the top of tanking? Get for real man. If it is an advantage it's one no one will every notice because we lacking every where else.

If you plan to compair your class to another to get a buff do it to a class that isn't at the bottom of the list.

Every tank? Last time I checked no Shadowknight TSO AA give this miraculous ability. We get 3 hate positions on the generic fighter AA. Our grave sacrament will take a few seconds to get enough hate positions which might be too long. If we went into offensive stance, the sheer power of our detaunts would guarantee that we would be near the bottom of the hate list.

Warriors got 'Cry of the Warrior' which snaps aggro. Brawlers have Peel and Divide and Conquer and new hate position AA. You havent used the stance in years because it didnt mean anything, now it does. Bravo on missing the point.

I dont want to be top DPS while off tanking, but I do want a moderate output while still being ready to grab aggro if necessary. Neither stance allows this at the moment and its rather stupid that we lose all stat buffs and procs to do this. Brawlers have a perfect example of a intermediate stance, and I dont see why its an issue if the other tanks get one as well since its so bad apparently.

EvilAstroboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2009, 01:34 PM   #20
CarnageSorc

Loremaster
CarnageSorc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 30
Default

[email protected] wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

The main issue here is, that most players, especially fighters, dont get it, that they are no real dps-classes. If you are sad you cant dps AND tank anymore, go reroll...

You must be in the wrong place as that wasn't even an issue here until you brought it up.

The OP and most of the rest of the thread is about what fighters do when NOT tanking.

The OP was referring to OT'in, and tbh, if you are in Offstance and your MT dies, you wont survive long if you get the mob. We are not playing any Racing Game here, were everyone has to go all out at all times. Or do your healers cast their death preventions on chain until nothing more is up? A capable OT knows, when he would get aggro, regardless of the setup, and can control it. If you get aggro to fast, and dont want it, go slow. But that would be an issue for the MT i guess, caus hes not capable of holding an aggro-buffed OT with 6-9k DPS (comparsion to live atm), right? SMILEY

If you consider Tanking, go def, or stance-dance midfight. Fighters are forced into stances because SOE want it to be like that. EVEN a third stance for beeing "ready" to take on a mob thats gone loose, would be kinda useless, since the most of us would go def in that case. With the massive amounts of snap aggro, due to the TSO-Archievments, there is no issue at all, to get the mob if you want it.

For crusaders i cant say much, but Warriors will rly have no issue, since the warrior can remove his defstance penalties. Maybe a third stance (without any Hatemods) or some kind of aa spec to remove some penalties from the def, would help.

__________________
CarnageSorc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2009, 02:15 PM   #21
Maroger

Loremaster
Maroger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,313
Default

I think we should have the option of using either our current buffs OR the new stances. I don't think we should lose out ability to use these buffs -- merging the buffs is a NERF for some players.

Give us a choice BUFFS or NEW STANCES.

Maroger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2009, 02:38 PM   #22
Irgun

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 318
Default

Maroger wrote:

Give us a choice BUFFS or NEW STANCES.

That would be..............true greatness.

Irgun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2009, 05:25 PM   #23
Maroger

Loremaster
Maroger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,313
Default

[email protected] wrote:

Maroger wrote:

Give us a choice BUFFS or NEW STANCES.

That would be..............true greatness.

I think stances are all part of the WOWification of games. In EQ1 you never had stances -- if you were a tank you generated aggro with your taunts etc. or if you did a lot of damage you got Aggro. But you had to learn to use your buffs, and spells and taunts. Here SOE wants to make it all pushbutton and force STANCES on players without giving them any option to use their buffs and have no stance.

I think Stances in general have ruined the game and force unnecessary limitations on players. Pushing buffs into stances is the wrong way to go.

Do what you want to stances -- but give players a choice between using their buffs or using a stance. Right not we get not choice and buffs are nerfed. This change SHOULD NOT GO LIVE.

The only reason I can think for this change is TSO -- and it is being done to make raiders and large groups happy while hurting all the other players.

Like I say give us a choice BUFFS and NO STANCE or STANCE and NO BUFFS.

Maroger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2009, 01:50 PM   #24
UNTILitSLEEPS

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 145
Default

crusaders cant, anything but 1h + shield died with tso aas

overall its a [censored not to get banned] idea to try to make tanking in offstance impossible. why should i if i have the gear and a good enough healer(s) not be able to tank in offstance? increase the negative effects on the offstance as you did with defstance even give it some for of dehate but please dont try to make it impossible to tank in offstance.

currently if you take to much damage you can always switch to defstance but with the new offstance it will be very hard/impossible to build up enough aggro in most situations.

that whole thing is a step in a totally wrong direction. if i would not want to tank i would have rolled another class!

UNTILitSLEEPS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2009, 03:50 PM   #25
Lethe5683

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,351
Default

EvilAstroboy wrote:

Junaru wrote:

EvilAstroboy wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Betchemin wrote:

Plate tanks can use or not use shields. This gives more flexibilty that 3 stances (in effect it gives 4).

QFT

Pretty sure Knights Stance and pathetic 2 handers since EoF ruined any 'flexibility' that Crusaders once had. You know, those classes that cant dual wield.

I think all the brawlers posting here realise the distinct advantage they have with the balanced stance with these new changes. Paladins have Holy Ground to jump back up quickly, but Zerks, SKs and Guards will take a while longer to jump back up the hate list.

Are you kidding? TSO every tank has some AA ability to jump to the top of the hate list. TSO = Hate positions for fighters.

And lets say for a second you are correct and Brawlers are posting here so we have an advantage. Do you really think a stance I haven't used in 5+ years is going to some how put Brawlers at the top of tanking? Get for real man. If it is an advantage it's one no one will every notice because we lacking every where else.

If you plan to compair your class to another to get a buff do it to a class that isn't at the bottom of the list.

Every tank? Last time I checked no Shadowknight TSO AA give this miraculous ability. We get 3 hate positions on the generic fighter AA. Our grave sacrament will take a few seconds to get enough hate positions which might be too long. If we went into offensive stance, the sheer power of our detaunts would guarantee that we would be near the bottom of the hate list.

Warriors got 'Cry of the Warrior' which snaps aggro. Brawlers have Peel and Divide and Conquer and new hate position AA. You havent used the stance in years because it didnt mean anything, now it does. Bravo on missing the point.

I dont want to be top DPS while off tanking, but I do want a moderate output while still being ready to grab aggro if necessary. Neither stance allows this at the moment and its rather stupid that we lose all stat buffs and procs to do this. Brawlers have a perfect example of a intermediate stance, and I dont see why its an issue if the other tanks get one as well since its so bad apparently.

OP SKs have no room to complain.

Lethe5683 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2009, 04:09 PM   #26
Maroger

Loremaster
Maroger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,313
Default

Lethe5683 wrote:

EvilAstroboy wrote:

Junaru wrote:

EvilAstroboy wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Betchemin wrote:

Plate tanks can use or not use shields. This gives more flexibilty that 3 stances (in effect it gives 4).

QFT

Pretty sure Knights Stance and pathetic 2 handers since EoF ruined any 'flexibility' that Crusaders once had. You know, those classes that cant dual wield.

I think all the brawlers posting here realise the distinct advantage they have with the balanced stance with these new changes. Paladins have Holy Ground to jump back up quickly, but Zerks, SKs and Guards will take a while longer to jump back up the hate list.

Are you kidding? TSO every tank has some AA ability to jump to the top of the hate list. TSO = Hate positions for fighters.

And lets say for a second you are correct and Brawlers are posting here so we have an advantage. Do you really think a stance I haven't used in 5+ years is going to some how put Brawlers at the top of tanking? Get for real man. If it is an advantage it's one no one will every notice because we lacking every where else.

If you plan to compair your class to another to get a buff do it to a class that isn't at the bottom of the list.

Every tank? Last time I checked no Shadowknight TSO AA give this miraculous ability. We get 3 hate positions on the generic fighter AA. Our grave sacrament will take a few seconds to get enough hate positions which might be too long. If we went into offensive stance, the sheer power of our detaunts would guarantee that we would be near the bottom of the hate list.

Warriors got 'Cry of the Warrior' which snaps aggro. Brawlers have Peel and Divide and Conquer and new hate position AA. You havent used the stance in years because it didnt mean anything, now it does. Bravo on missing the point.

I dont want to be top DPS while off tanking, but I do want a moderate output while still being ready to grab aggro if necessary. Neither stance allows this at the moment and its rather stupid that we lose all stat buffs and procs to do this. Brawlers have a perfect example of a intermediate stance, and I dont see why its an issue if the other tanks get one as well since its so bad apparently.

OP SKs have no room to complain.

What is your problem with SK's and what class do you play that you are so seething with jealousy and hate against SK's?

Maroger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2009, 04:13 PM   #27
Lethe5683

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,351
Default

Maroger wrote:

Lethe5683 wrote:

EvilAstroboy wrote:

Junaru wrote:

EvilAstroboy wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Betchemin wrote:

Plate tanks can use or not use shields. This gives more flexibilty that 3 stances (in effect it gives 4).

QFT

Pretty sure Knights Stance and pathetic 2 handers since EoF ruined any 'flexibility' that Crusaders once had. You know, those classes that cant dual wield.

I think all the brawlers posting here realise the distinct advantage they have with the balanced stance with these new changes. Paladins have Holy Ground to jump back up quickly, but Zerks, SKs and Guards will take a while longer to jump back up the hate list.

Are you kidding? TSO every tank has some AA ability to jump to the top of the hate list. TSO = Hate positions for fighters.

And lets say for a second you are correct and Brawlers are posting here so we have an advantage. Do you really think a stance I haven't used in 5+ years is going to some how put Brawlers at the top of tanking? Get for real man. If it is an advantage it's one no one will every notice because we lacking every where else.

If you plan to compair your class to another to get a buff do it to a class that isn't at the bottom of the list.

Every tank? Last time I checked no Shadowknight TSO AA give this miraculous ability. We get 3 hate positions on the generic fighter AA. Our grave sacrament will take a few seconds to get enough hate positions which might be too long. If we went into offensive stance, the sheer power of our detaunts would guarantee that we would be near the bottom of the hate list.

Warriors got 'Cry of the Warrior' which snaps aggro. Brawlers have Peel and Divide and Conquer and new hate position AA. You havent used the stance in years because it didnt mean anything, now it does. Bravo on missing the point.

I dont want to be top DPS while off tanking, but I do want a moderate output while still being ready to grab aggro if necessary. Neither stance allows this at the moment and its rather stupid that we lose all stat buffs and procs to do this. Brawlers have a perfect example of a intermediate stance, and I dont see why its an issue if the other tanks get one as well since its so bad apparently.

OP SKs have no room to complain.

What is your problem with SK's and what class do you play that you are so seething with jealousy and hate against SK's?

SKs are way overpowered and it's rediculous that they are asking for better stances to do more DPS.  Hopefully these new stance changes will limit their DPS to more reasonable numbers.

Lethe5683 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2009, 05:08 PM   #28
Maroger

Loremaster
Maroger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,313
Default

Lethe5683 wrote:

Maroger wrote:

Lethe5683 wrote:

EvilAstroboy wrote:

Junaru wrote:

EvilAstroboy wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Betchemin wrote:

Plate tanks can use or not use shields. This gives more flexibilty that 3 stances (in effect it gives 4).

QFT

Pretty sure Knights Stance and pathetic 2 handers since EoF ruined any 'flexibility' that Crusaders once had. You know, those classes that cant dual wield.

I think all the brawlers posting here realise the distinct advantage they have with the balanced stance with these new changes. Paladins have Holy Ground to jump back up quickly, but Zerks, SKs and Guards will take a while longer to jump back up the hate list.

Are you kidding? TSO every tank has some AA ability to jump to the top of the hate list. TSO = Hate positions for fighters.

And lets say for a second you are correct and Brawlers are posting here so we have an advantage. Do you really think a stance I haven't used in 5+ years is going to some how put Brawlers at the top of tanking? Get for real man. If it is an advantage it's one no one will every notice because we lacking every where else.

If you plan to compair your class to another to get a buff do it to a class that isn't at the bottom of the list.

Every tank? Last time I checked no Shadowknight TSO AA give this miraculous ability. We get 3 hate positions on the generic fighter AA. Our grave sacrament will take a few seconds to get enough hate positions which might be too long. If we went into offensive stance, the sheer power of our detaunts would guarantee that we would be near the bottom of the hate list.

Warriors got 'Cry of the Warrior' which snaps aggro. Brawlers have Peel and Divide and Conquer and new hate position AA. You havent used the stance in years because it didnt mean anything, now it does. Bravo on missing the point.

I dont want to be top DPS while off tanking, but I do want a moderate output while still being ready to grab aggro if necessary. Neither stance allows this at the moment and its rather stupid that we lose all stat buffs and procs to do this. Brawlers have a perfect example of a intermediate stance, and I dont see why its an issue if the other tanks get one as well since its so bad apparently.

OP SKs have no room to complain.

What is your problem with SK's and what class do you play that you are so seething with jealousy and hate against SK's?

SKs are way overpowered and it's rediculous that they are asking for better stances to do more DPS.  Hopefully these new stance changes will limit their DPS to more reasonable numbers.

Again what class do you play that you think SK's were overpowerd? I notice you refuse to answer that question - do I smell jealousy here?  I think I do.

Maroger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2009, 10:08 PM   #29
Terron

Loremaster
Terron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Reading, England
Posts: 2,309
Default

[email protected] wrote:

For crusaders i cant say much, but Warriors will rly have no issue, since the warrior can remove his defstance penalties.

We can remove the skill penalties. I doubt we will able able to remove the "-0.5 damage multiplier".

__________________




















Terron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2009, 10:31 PM   #30
greenmantle

Loremaster
greenmantle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 769
Default

BChizzle wrote:

Brawler mid stance is way OP.

 thank you for the laugh hmm last time i think any one said brawlers needed a nerf was arround lu13, yup there so over powered i see all the time groups looking for leather tank in chat.

greenmantle is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:46 PM.

vBulletin skin by: CompleteGFX.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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.