EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

 

Go Back   EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire > EverQuest II > Class Discussion > Fighter's Arena
Members List Search Mark Forums Read

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-27-2012, 10:31 AM   #61
DragonHearted99

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 14
Default

Having played with the stance in raid as a Paladin (both SS and Sullons HM), what Bruener says is exactly what needs to be fixed with the stance.  Potency - Taunt Value - Proc Taunt issue.  The increased potency is having a ridiculous effect on threat and spells/cas which proc threat. 

However; if that is the intention of the devs (working as intended-lulz), maybe why the stance is called "reckless", then I will just drop all spells/cas which proc threat and also never use a taunt.  Unfortunately, that does not stop others from casting hate transfers on us.

@ Toran- good to see you are still playin the game, hope all is well with you and yours!  

Bruener wrote:

Yes the stance gives some nice DPS, mostly on AE encounters.  But testing it last night in Sullons HM I was extremely squishy.

Agro is a huge issue in the stance despite getting a link and having -22 hate gain.  Potency still affects the taunt values making them pretty massive.

I would say fix the potency - taunt value issue and the stance is very well balanced in raiding for its intended purpose.

DragonHearted99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2012, 10:41 AM   #62
RafaelSmith

Loremaster
RafaelSmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,808
Default

From what little ive seen ..Reckless stance needs to be toned down....either lower the DPS or greatly reduce the fighters ability to survive while using it.

In its current form its OP.......moreso for some fighter classes than others which in itself is a problem....its no wonder Bruener likes it. SMILEY

__________________
RafaelSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2012, 10:50 AM   #63
Bruener

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

Blanka's jealous argument aside there is basically one way to look at the stance.

Is it accomplishing SOE's intent for making the stance without going overboard.

Xelgad said they were making the stance to give more usefulness to the Fighters, and specifically mentioned the 3rd and 4th Fighters on a raid roster during trash.  Fighters, and SOE agreed, they wanted a reason to keep those Fighters in the raid during all the encounters instead of just bringing them in on the few encounters they are needed to tank.

When I look at this stance I see it as a success since it does exactly that.  Guilds are not going to bring more than 4 Fighters and can keep Fighter mains in for trash/farming.

Despite what some people are saying nobody doing any non-farm/trash raiding is going to use Recklessness during an encounter that needs tanking.  The AEs alone become massive and destroy tanks.

In conclusion, if the stance just ensures wanting to keep 4 Fighters in a raid without it feeling like a drain and doesn't start pushing guilds to utilize more than that seriously than how can you say that the stance is OP'd?

OP'd is having 4 spots for 2 classes in a raid.  OP'd is utilizing 4 spots for 1 cleric type in a raid.  OP'd is being one of the top defensive and offensive tanks at the same time.

EDIT: One thing I would probably do to tweak the stance more though is just ensure that no matter what you have 0 hate gain.

__________________
Bruener is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2012, 12:02 PM   #64
Landiin

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

Bruener wrote:

Despite what some people are saying nobody doing any non-farm/trash raiding is going to use Recklessness during an encounter that needs tanking.  The AEs alone become massive and destroy tanks.

When mages are used to tank entire farm runs I'll agree this stance isn't OP.

In conclusion, if the stance just ensures wanting to keep 4 Fighters in a raid without it feeling like a drain and doesn't start pushing guilds to utilize more than that seriously than how can you say that the stance is OP'd?

Why would you bring a swash over a SK? Or really even a brig these days over a SK? SK's in this stance can distroying them in DPS while in this stance.

Edited out all the trolling remark so the post maybe able to be kept intact..

__________________
Landiin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2012, 12:56 PM   #65
RafaelSmith

Loremaster
RafaelSmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,808
Default

Bruener wrote:

: One thing I would probably do to tweak the stance more though is just ensure that no matter what you have 0 hate gain.

I would also prevent any Defensive/"Tank" cooldowns and snaps from being useable while in the stance.  Fighter wants to take place of DPS then thats all he/she should be able to do while in that stance.  Being able to pop Stoneskins, ToS, Dragoon, yada yada or whatever while in Reckless stance doesnt make much sense.

__________________
RafaelSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2012, 12:57 PM   #66
Bruener

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

[email protected] wrote:

Bruener wrote:

Despite what some people are saying nobody doing any non-farm/trash raiding is going to use Recklessness during an encounter that needs tanking.  The AEs alone become massive and destroy tanks.

When mages are used to tank entire farm runs I'll agree this stance isn't OP.

In conclusion, if the stance just ensures wanting to keep 4 Fighters in a raid without it feeling like a drain and doesn't start pushing guilds to utilize more than that seriously than how can you say that the stance is OP'd?

Why would you bring a swash over a SK? Or really even a brig these days over a SK? SK's in this stance can distroying them in DPS while in this stance.

Edited out all the trolling remark so the post maybe able to be kept intact..

Rogues should be balanced against other scouts/utility if they have problems with a spot.  Honestly though why would a raid not bring a Brig?  They increase the DPS of everybody massively.  We don't utilize a Swash right now, and perhaps that is an indicator they need some adjusting, but from the sounds of it they can parse almost as much as an Assassin, have access to debuffs on mobs nobody else has, and has the best hate transfer to a tank in-game.  1 Rogue per raid doesn't seem bad at all, but if they think they need a boost for additional slots I would suggest going after the Bard spots that are hording 4 in a raid.

If you can answer honestly do you really see this increasing the desireability of Fighters in raids to more than 4?  If not than there really is no argument against it.  If so, than please let us know how that will happen.

__________________
Bruener is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2012, 01:01 PM   #67
Bruener

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

[email protected] wrote:

Bruener wrote:

: One thing I would probably do to tweak the stance more though is just ensure that no matter what you have 0 hate gain.

I would also prevent any Defensive/"Tank" cooldowns and snaps from being useable while in the stance.  Fighter wants to take place of DPS then thats all he/she should be able to do while in that stance.  Being able to pop Stoneskins, ToS, Dragoon, yada yada or whatever while in Reckless stance doesnt make much sense.

Snaps are supposed to be disabled.

Other classes have temp abilities for the same reason.  Keep in mind some Fighters have more than others, or more useability due to lower reuses though (Brawler temps for example versus Crusader temps).

__________________
Bruener is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2012, 01:02 PM   #68
RafaelSmith

Loremaster
RafaelSmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,808
Default

Bruener wrote:

Rogues should be balanced against other scouts/utility if they have problems with a spot. 

But its ok for Fighters to be rebalanced against those same rogues/utility,etc cause they have/had problem with spots?  Cause that is exactly what they did with Reckless.

Tanks should be balanced against other tanks for tank spots not kludged to compete with non-tanks.

__________________
RafaelSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2012, 01:10 PM   #69
RafaelSmith

Loremaster
RafaelSmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,808
Default

Bruener wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Bruener wrote:

: One thing I would probably do to tweak the stance more though is just ensure that no matter what you have 0 hate gain.

I would also prevent any Defensive/"Tank" cooldowns and snaps from being useable while in the stance.  Fighter wants to take place of DPS then thats all he/she should be able to do while in that stance.  Being able to pop Stoneskins, ToS, Dragoon, yada yada or whatever while in Reckless stance doesnt make much sense.

Snaps are supposed to be disabled.

Other classes have temp abilities for the same reason.  Keep in mind some Fighters have more than others, or more useability due to lower reuses though (Brawler temps for example versus Crusader temps).

Reinforcement works just fine in Reckless.   I believe Rescue was disabled but pretty sure Cry of Warrior was not.

With the exception of that ghetto AE blocker/Parry thing from Pred AA tree that noone specs into...last I checked my Assassin did not have anything resembling a stoneskin or ToS, etc.

__________________
RafaelSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2012, 01:33 PM   #70
Bruener

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

[email protected] wrote:

Bruener wrote:

Rogues should be balanced against other scouts/utility if they have problems with a spot. 

But its ok for Fighters to be rebalanced against those same rogues/utility,etc cause they have/had problem with spots?  Cause that is exactly what they did with Reckless.

Tanks should be balanced against other tanks for tank spots not kludged to compete with non-tanks.

They weren't.  Why is it hard for people to come to terms with raids maybe wanting to keep 4 Fighters in?  Its not like Fighters are even asking for an even distribution of the raid slots asking for 6.  What Fighters want, and ultimately will be healthier for raid forces, is to have a reason not to sit Fighters 3 and 4 outside of the few encounters that actually benefit from their tanking.  It means keeping mains on the roster for the positions instead of alts for a lot of guilds.

The stance already cripples the tank a lot since they lose a lot of survivability and have agro issues with it.  Which are the balancing issues to make sure that it is a tool for Fighters on trash/farm status content.  Remove the agro issues completely and the Fighter becomes like other DPS classes that worry very little about agro and will allow them to go full bore.  Getting rid of their temp abilities would make the stance less useful and combined with the hate issue means it will not accomplish the DPS increase it is supposed to.  The people actually wanting Fighters to have no hate in it are actually pushing it the opposite direction they want it to go making it so that Fighters literally become pure DPS classes.

Sounds like reinforcement should be changed and any other ability that gives hate positions.  I know Chaos Cloud on my SK doesn't give me positions anymore.

And just because a DPS class chooses not to spec for an ability to increase their survivability doesn't mean its not there.  Fighters spec most of their abilities too.  I can make a pure DPS spec that would drop those abilities as well....but I choose not to go the extra DPS to get more survivability.  Predators don't have to worry about that I guess.

__________________
Bruener is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2012, 01:39 PM   #71
RafaelSmith

Loremaster
RafaelSmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,808
Default

Bruener wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Bruener wrote:

Rogues should be balanced against other scouts/utility if they have problems with a spot. 

But its ok for Fighters to be rebalanced against those same rogues/utility,etc cause they have/had problem with spots?  Cause that is exactly what they did with Reckless.

Tanks should be balanced against other tanks for tank spots not kludged to compete with non-tanks.

They weren't.  Why is it hard for people to come to terms with raids maybe wanting to keep 4 Fighters in?  Its not like Fighters are even asking for an even distribution of the raid slots asking for 6.  What Fighters want, and ultimately will be healthier for raid forces, is to have a reason not to sit Fighters 3 and 4 outside of the few encounters that actually benefit from their tanking.  It means keeping mains on the roster for the positions instead of alts for a lot of guilds.

The stance already cripples the tank a lot since they lose a lot of survivability and have agro issues with it.  Which are the balancing issues to make sure that it is a tool for Fighters on trash/farm status content.  Remove the agro issues completely and the Fighter becomes like other DPS classes that worry very little about agro and will allow them to go full bore.  Getting rid of their temp abilities would make the stance less useful and combined with the hate issue means it will not accomplish the DPS increase it is supposed to.  The people actually wanting Fighters to have no hate in it are actually pushing it the opposite direction they want it to go making it so that Fighters literally become pure DPS classes.

Sounds like reinforcement should be changed and any other ability that gives hate positions.  I know Chaos Cloud on my SK doesn't give me positions anymore.

And just because a DPS class chooses not to spec for an ability to increase their survivability doesn't mean its not there.  Fighters spec most of their abilities too.  I can make a pure DPS spec that would drop those abilities as well....but I choose not to go the extra DPS to get more survivability.  Predators don't have to worry about that I guess.

Well I guess its a catch-22.  We do not want fighters to be able to tank while in Reckless stance...yet to accomplish that we either have to remove hate and drastically decrease their ability to do 'tank' things beyond hate...like survival CDs.

I guess at this point.....we are stuck with this stupid idea so Ide rather they just let the fighters have easymode no worry DPS in exchange for being pretty certain they will not be able to tank anything...nothing while in that stance.

ATM there is too much cake and pie which is never healthy.

__________________
RafaelSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2012, 01:46 PM   #72
Bruener

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

[email protected] wrote:

Bruener wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Bruener wrote:

Rogues should be balanced against other scouts/utility if they have problems with a spot. 

But its ok for Fighters to be rebalanced against those same rogues/utility,etc cause they have/had problem with spots?  Cause that is exactly what they did with Reckless.

Tanks should be balanced against other tanks for tank spots not kludged to compete with non-tanks.

They weren't.  Why is it hard for people to come to terms with raids maybe wanting to keep 4 Fighters in?  Its not like Fighters are even asking for an even distribution of the raid slots asking for 6.  What Fighters want, and ultimately will be healthier for raid forces, is to have a reason not to sit Fighters 3 and 4 outside of the few encounters that actually benefit from their tanking.  It means keeping mains on the roster for the positions instead of alts for a lot of guilds.

The stance already cripples the tank a lot since they lose a lot of survivability and have agro issues with it.  Which are the balancing issues to make sure that it is a tool for Fighters on trash/farm status content.  Remove the agro issues completely and the Fighter becomes like other DPS classes that worry very little about agro and will allow them to go full bore.  Getting rid of their temp abilities would make the stance less useful and combined with the hate issue means it will not accomplish the DPS increase it is supposed to.  The people actually wanting Fighters to have no hate in it are actually pushing it the opposite direction they want it to go making it so that Fighters literally become pure DPS classes.

Sounds like reinforcement should be changed and any other ability that gives hate positions.  I know Chaos Cloud on my SK doesn't give me positions anymore.

And just because a DPS class chooses not to spec for an ability to increase their survivability doesn't mean its not there.  Fighters spec most of their abilities too.  I can make a pure DPS spec that would drop those abilities as well....but I choose not to go the extra DPS to get more survivability.  Predators don't have to worry about that I guess.

Well I guess its a catch-22.  We do not want fighters to be able to tank while in Reckless stance...yet to accomplish that we either have to remove hate and drastically decrease their ability to do 'tank' things beyond hate...like survival CDs.

I guess at this point.....we are stuck with this stupid idea so Ide rather they just let the fighters have easymode no worry DPS in exchange for being pretty certain they will not be able to tank anything...nothing while in that stance.

ATM there is too much cake and pie which is never healthy.

If we start seeing raids push out DPS classes to bring in 6 Fighters I will start agreeing with that statement.

__________________
Bruener is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2012, 05:46 PM   #73
Landiin

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

Bruener wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Bruener wrote:

Despite what some people are saying nobody doing any non-farm/trash raiding is going to use Recklessness during an encounter that needs tanking.  The AEs alone become massive and destroy tanks.

When mages are used to tank entire farm runs I'll agree this stance isn't OP.

In conclusion, if the stance just ensures wanting to keep 4 Fighters in a raid without it feeling like a drain and doesn't start pushing guilds to utilize more than that seriously than how can you say that the stance is OP'd?

Why would you bring a swash over a SK? Or really even a brig these days over a SK? SK's in this stance can distroying them in DPS while in this stance.

Edited out all the trolling remark so the post maybe able to be kept intact..

Rogues should be balanced against other scouts/utility if they have problems with a spot.  Honestly though why would a raid not bring a Brig?  They increase the DPS of everybody massively.  We don't utilize a Swash right now, and perhaps that is an indicator they need some adjusting, but from the sounds of it they can parse almost as much as an Assassin, have access to debuffs on mobs nobody else has, and has the best hate transfer to a tank in-game.  1 Rogue per raid doesn't seem bad at all, but if they think they need a boost for additional slots I would suggest going after the Bard spots that are hording 4 in a raid.

If you can answer honestly do you really see this increasing the desireability of Fighters in raids to more than 4?  If not than there really is no argument against it.  If so, than please let us know how that will happen.

The point is, you CAN tank in this stance. Untill you CANNOT tank as in you die if you get agro fro any lenth of time, this stance is OP. 

If you can flip flop from high T2 DPS to full on tanking, then IMO the downside of the DPS should be a switft death if you get agro. As it is now, you no where in danger if you get agro. I am quite sure any healer at your tear can keep you up on just about all names but end progression HDoV and PoW while in this stance.

__________________
Landiin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2012, 06:59 PM   #74
BChizzle

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

Sk's are tanking raid content including named in recklessness.  An SK on my server in mostly faction gear successfully tanked all of underdepths EM in recklessness in a pick up raid.  Bruener says you can't do it, but that is because he's not as good.  Quite simply they need to remove block from this stance.  It is funny how one person will cry their eyes out for years about imbalance then when they have something that is crazy OP they don't have an issue with it.

BChizzle is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:57 PM.

vBulletin skin by: CompleteGFX.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.