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 07-11-2012, 04:56 PM   #361
Yimway

Loremaster
Yimway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 9,707
Default

[email protected] Bayle wrote:

Wow, today I've gotten kicked out of a group twice and replaced with a Monk, second time a guardian.

Thats pretty silly unless they just don't like you personally...  I mean everyone can tank heroic content with ease...

__________________
Yimway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2012, 05:20 PM   #362
Beko
Server: Antonia Bayle

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 283
Default

Nah, HM Heroic (Elements of War.)

Beko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2012, 06:04 AM   #363
Boli32

Loremaster
Boli32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,425
Default

[email protected] wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Whilst people have a case for zerkers not being able to MT *everything*; a Pally *should* be part of the MT rotation (as one of the defensive tanks; that in itself is proof of the classes being out of whak.

I think you'ld have to give up amends and quite a few ae abilities to make that arguement.

It is wrong for the class to be one of the best raid AE tanks and a solid ST raid tank at the same time.   Their heavy AE focus on their abilities and what a solid ae amends target provides them makes them one of the best at dealing with ae add situations, and the ability to do that in full defensive build behind a shield as compaired to how a zerker approaches the same scenario.

As I see it, there are 6 classes, and 3 of them are now ST/MT focused and 3 of them are AE/OT focused.  The brawlers and Guard do a better job at tanking Dagarn Hm, and the crusaders and zerker to a far better job at tanking the adds.   Can we swap positions in a pinch?  Yeah we can try, but its signficantly harder for both of us trying to do what the other is designed for.

Some people think balance means every tank can do ever job equally,  I dont subscribe to that camp myself.

For the record, I have no issues with the pally being re-tooled ground up to be a MT alternative, but at the same time we're going to have to move bruiser to an ae tank sollution to keep the overall archtype balanced 3/3. 

As I see it, tank balance overall is better than its been in ages.  If anyone needs some attention its how SK's can do a slightly better job at surviving while ae tanking.  As they have tools for it, but those tools aren't up enough.   I could see an arguement for some changes there.   The trick is accomplishing this without making them godmode heroic tanks again.

My thinking is, and always has been there are 3 defensive tanks, and 3 offensive tanks.

Pally, Guard, and Monk all trade off damage abilities for more defensive tools and the other 3 do the opposite. Pally has a couple more AoEs, Guards have a couple more stoneskins and Monks have more snap tools but they should be equal near as possible into the MT role.

A Bruiser will outperform a pally in OT duty with multiple adds whilst doing more DPS, giving better utility and generally offer more suvibility should they need to pick up the main mob. They already HAVE the tools to be the AoE tank - having multiple AoEs does not mean you can survive and hold agro off multiple adds.

If a class has literally traded out damage abilities, and even reduced damage based abilities for more "defensive" tools you should expect that they'll land in the role of a defensive and... MT role - except they do not. The case of having your cake and eating it is precisely the problem of tank balance. Zerkers, SKs and Bruisers have at various times been the prefered MT class AND they can do significantly more DPS than their more defensive counterparts.

Truefully I'll gladly drop Amends; half our AoEs and our so-called "overpower healing abilities" for a couple of defensive tools which actually do the job they are supposed to.

Boli32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2012, 01:21 PM   #364
Yimway

Loremaster
Yimway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 9,707
Default

Boli[email protected] wrote:

Truefully I'll gladly drop Amends; half our AoEs and our so-called "overpower healing abilities" for a couple of defensive tools which actually do the job they are supposed to.

I completely understand, and thats what it would take to make the change.  I don't think you'd get the majority of the pallies to agree with ya though =/

I do find that bruiser in your example, when fighting adds that matter, when they trend to survivability they don't hold the ae agro against a full ae burn from the raid.  I always seem some of the mobs peel off of them where if I put a pally or zerker on those adds and don't see any problems.

Maybe all the bruisers I've known sucked?  I can't say.  Certainly they did great when the adds weren't tough, but into the HM content they're ability to lock down 4+ mobs to an all out raidwide burn wasn't the same as the true AE tanks.

__________________
Yimway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2012, 08:20 PM   #365
EverDog

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 48
Default

SOE Removing Brawler's ST immunity is OK to me. It should be expected.

But nerfing brawler's tenacity and changing tag team is NOT OK to me.

Because brawler is expected to be best as a tank in emergency.

Instead of those nerfs, they should simply reduce brawlers block chance and see what will happen.

And maybe giving more blue AoEs or hate transfer tools to brawler is nice compensation for no-more-braweler-MT-nerfs.

Also You can say it is a Guardian's issue at the same time because Guardian is not very tough when it comes to surviving through enemy's massive autoattacks.

This caused some issues in sentinel's fate when Zerker's Adrenaline/VoD and SK's 3 death saves sometimes made them much better than Guardian as raid MT.

Guardian's survivability focused on 'predictable spikes' too much, which sometime causes fighter balancing issues.

EverDog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2012, 01:41 PM   #366
Yimway

Loremaster
Yimway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 9,707
Default

EverDog wrote:

Guardian's survivability focused on 'predictable spikes' too much, which sometime causes fighter balancing issues.

More and more on fights that matter, we're running both a guard and monk in mt group.  We can easily flip the mob around as needed to block prevent everything and let the monks superiour auto attack avoidance handle the longer durration of the fight.

Also, SoE has clued in on how to make this harder.  What many don't understand is the casting time of Tower of Stone is really, really long compaired to most fighter blocks (1 second).  Adding damage that needs to be blocked on abilities with 1s cast times from the mob makes preventing that predictable damage on the guard significantly harder if there is any variable in the mob's timing of the ability.

I see how they are becoming more agile in encounter design to make things more interesting.

__________________
Yimway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2012, 09:11 PM   #367
Rahatmattata

Loremaster
Rahatmattata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,232
Default

Hennyo wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Damager wrote:

100 swings -55% (Monks uncontested avoid) = 45 hits / .15 (Asumming 15% strikethrough) = 6.75 hits (Amount strikthru immune blocked) is equal to 70% damage reduction and 30% blaock on crusader?

so 1 succesfull strikethrough.. could essentially be 5 hits.    And is that 15% chance to strikethrough from somewhere or did you make that up?  Not ripping .. just trying to understand.

I'm basing my opinion on strikethrough not honoring uncontested avoid from parsing mob hit rates on my sk and having as high as 92% hit rates on me (melee) in defensive.. before the blanket strikethrough nerf.

15% is just pulled out of the air, different encounters have a different strikethru chance.

Yes, strikethru ignores all avoidance checks contested, or uncontested.

Umm  I am pretty sure that is incorrect, I was pretty sure that strike through doesn't effect dodge avoid, but it did everything else.

Hennyo is correct, strikethrough ignores riposte, parry, and block. Accuracy ignores dodge and defense.

http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=481258

__________________


A Cure For Cancer
Rahatmattata is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2012, 09:13 PM   #368
Rahatmattata

Loremaster
Rahatmattata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,232
Default

[email protected] Bayle wrote:

Strikethrough Immunity makes ALL uncontested/contested avoidance completely uncontested.

No.

__________________


A Cure For Cancer
Rahatmattata is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2012, 06:50 PM   #369
The_Cheeseman

Loremaster
The_Cheeseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,285
Default

EverDog wrote:

SOE Removing Brawler's ST immunity is OK to me. It should be expected.

But nerfing brawler's tenacity and changing tag team is NOT OK to me.

Because brawler is expected to be best as a tank in emergency.

Instead of those nerfs, they should simply reduce brawlers block chance and see what will happen.

And maybe giving more blue AoEs or hate transfer tools to brawler is nice compensation for no-more-braweler-MT-nerfs.

Also You can say it is a Guardian's issue at the same time because Guardian is not very tough when it comes to surviving through enemy's massive autoattacks.

This caused some issues in sentinel's fate when Zerker's Adrenaline/VoD and SK's 3 death saves sometimes made them much better than Guardian as raid MT.

Guardian's survivability focused on 'predictable spikes' too much, which sometime causes fighter balancing issues.

No, a brawler is not "supposed" to be a "tank in an emergency" we are supposed to be tanks. Period. Every tank should be capable of performing a main tank role, otherwise they are not really tanks, they're just part-timers.

Nerfing brawler block chance is not the appropriate response. We don't need brawlers acting exactly like plate tanks, there are already 4 plate tanks in the game. We need to find ways to maintain the effectiveness of each fighter class, without sacrificing their unique playstyle differences. No point in maintaining 6 tank classes if they all play exactly the same way.

If the nerfs make brawler MT'ing nonviable, they should be reversed. However, I don't believe that to be the case as of now.

__________________
The_Cheeseman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2012, 09:42 PM   #370
Silzin
Server: Crushbone
Guild: Revelations
Rank: Raider

Loremaster
Silzin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 537
Default

there are 4 things I am seeing here as a main problems here.

1st.  Loss of ST Immunity on the D Stance.  this I think is going to be the largest and longest lasting change I am seeing.  I think understand why it is being done and I am not sure I disagree with the reasoning of it.  It may be for the health of the game, I am just not sure if this is the best way of doing it.  Only time will tell and see if this is the right way of going.  Brawlers may need more avoidance boosts to bring balance back to us. 

2nd.  Brawler's Tenacity has(d) a duration/reuse that was designed to be able to avoid scripts events that needed to be jousted.  I can agree that it was broken and needed to be changed so it doesn't feel like it's an exploit using it as it was designed.  The changed brawler's tenacity, on test that is probably going live, is not a usable death save with the short duration it has.  there is a thread in the test forums about proposed changes that would not be a designed "exploit" and would be a good "death save."

3rd.  tag team is not being Nurfed, it is being changed to work in some way that is usable.  before this change it was not effective as a hate swap, it would not work consistently ever.  I would proffer they fix the original ability, but this is an interesting option.  a reliable 8 second avoid with ST Immunity on us and a target, it has many possibilities. 

4th.  the difference in Mitigation and Uncontested Block between Brawlers and Plate tanks.  I don't believe that equally geared/spaced/stanced/buffed plate tank and brawler have relatively equal Mit.  I also think that under the same conditions plate tanks have very similar Uncontested Block.  I will be testing this after the update goes live.  the balance of Mitigation is hard to change throw gear changes.  the balance of Uncontested Block though is much easier to change with the protection on shields and the block chance on brawler only fists. 

__________________
Silzin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:33 AM.

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.