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 06-26-2012, 05:20 PM   #1
Rhita
Server: Unrest
Guild: Shoukin
Rank: Yakuin

Loremaster
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 144
Default

As a guardian, I hated not having the strikethrough immunity but am glad it was added to a couple of my temp buffs. But the nerf to brawlers tenacity is too far. Really? It only last a minute? My deathsave, Unyielding Will, is already a pain to cast considering half the time it doesnt even get to trigger with its 3 1/2 min duration. But timing a death within 1 minute? What are you thinking SoE? The strikethrough immunity might of been a bit over powered but this is too far. Not to mention that at max it only heals for 50%. Its garbage now.

__________________
Rhita is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2012, 05:23 PM   #2
Yimway

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

BT is still 3 triggers right?

Seems like its a get out of jail card when the stuff hits the fan.

And I imagine the intent is for them to use it the same way we use Tower of Stone.

__________________
Yimway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2012, 05:40 PM   #3
Rasttan
Server: Unrest

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

Its gonna add up

Deathsave is worse ( Makes sense since the other changes will mean more inc damage on us to worsen our deathsave also )

Mitt is substantially lower due to character trait changes

Strikethrough immunity gone

No mid stance to offset the avoidance damage proc ( BTW why have offensive and reckless ) reckless sucks to boot

More brawler deaths should really boost guilds progressing through the Drunder HM content and POW

I think the combination of all those changes is a bit overkill but thats sony they know no middle ground and just truck stuff up from one extreme to the other.

Rasttan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2012, 05:57 PM   #4
Caethre

Loremaster
Caethre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,167
Default

(( The removal of strikethrough immunity and its addition to some temp buffs for all fighters was not a surprise.

The removal of the effect of potency on death saves will hurt all tanks really, but given the nature of Reckless stance, I can see why they did it.

But the extra "Enhance: Brawler's Tenacity" nerf, however, is as unnecessary as it is brutal.

As the previous poster noted, it will all add up, and hitting in multiple ways all at once can often cause a swing too far ))

__________________
Countess Felishanna Silorielenwe [92/320 Templar|92 Sage](Koada`Dal)

Lady Lorianna Ardinwena [92/320 Monk|92 Carpenter](Koada`Dal)

Lady Suzanna Narinyaare [92/320 Conjuror|92 Woodworker](Koada`Dal)

Lady Annaelisa Lorinfinlinde [92/320 Fury|92 Tailor](Koada`Dal)

Lady Silvianna [92/320 Illusionist|92 Jeweler](Koada`Dal)

Jennianna [92/320 Dirge|92 Weaponsmith](Koada`Dal)

Aurielle [92/320 Wizard|92 Alchemist](Koada`Dal)

Valerianna [92/320 Guardian|92 Armourer](Koada`Dal)

Sarahanna [92/320 Swashbuckler|92 Provisioner](Koada`Dal)

Katherianna [92/286 Beserker|92 Sage](Koada`Dal)

Guildleader of The True Path - A roleplay-based guild (level 77) on Antonia Bayle
Caethre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2012, 06:25 PM   #5
Yimway

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

I don't disagree that cumulatively this is going to add up.

On the flip side though, I don't agree with how high brawler mitigation got, and I do think they were as a whole too powerful.  Enough that raising everyone else to their levels wasn't the answer as that would only force new creative content challenges.

Outside of recklessness, I think this revamp is pretty close to where it needs to be.  Some play testing may show some needed tweaking, but it doesn't seem too far off.

Recklessness though can just be deleted.

__________________
Yimway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2012, 06:29 PM   #6
Serik
Server: Butcherblock
Guild: Order of the Outcast
Rank: Officer

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 31
Default

All of the fighter changes seem to be a pretty heavy-handed nerf to brawlers.  I agree that the Tenacity change is overkill, as are the nerf to all fighter heals.  It will essentially force many tanking brawlers to drastically change their AA setups to tank effectively.

The game wide mit nerf needs to be reversed, and potency should affect fighter heals (or restore critical heals to fighters).  Make it so Recklessness reduces fighter heal effectiveness.

If many of these changes go live it will definitely screw with endgame raiding since most encounters were balanced around current mechanics.

Serik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2012, 06:35 PM   #7
Yimway

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

[email protected] wrote:

The game wide mit nerf needs to be reversed, and potency should affect fighter heals (or restore critical heals to fighters).  Make it so Recklessness reduces fighter heal effectiveness.

If many of these changes go live it will definitely screw with endgame raiding since most encounters were balanced around current mechanics.

Potency no longer needs to affect fighter heals now that they are all % based.  If you think your heal is tuned to too smmall of a %, thats a case by case arguement.  But I do not think we want fighter heals modifieable by potency and certainly not criting.  You'll never keep that balanced as gearflation comes around.

I'm not sure the encounters were balanced around current mechanics or if they'll really need much tweaking.  Everyone may change how they are adorning, and tanks are going to have to re-work their lines pretty heavily, but I'm not sold a content re-balancing is required.  If anything, just a few tweaks to some trauma ae's.

__________________
Yimway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2012, 06:37 PM   #8
Talathion
Server: Antonia Bayle
Guild: Cladire Mortii
Rank: Initiate/Slave

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,780
Default

[email protected] wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

The game wide mit nerf needs to be reversed, and potency should affect fighter heals (or restore critical heals to fighters).  Make it so Recklessness reduces fighter heal effectiveness.

If many of these changes go live it will definitely screw with endgame raiding since most encounters were balanced around current mechanics.

Potency no longer needs to affect fighter heals now that they are all % based.  If you think your heal is tuned to too smmall of a %, thats a case by case arguement.  But I do not think we want fighter heals modifieable by potency and certainly not criting.  You'll never keep that balanced as gearflation comes around.

I'm not sure the encounters were balanced around current mechanics or if they'll really need much tweaking.  Everyone may change how they are adorning, and tanks are going to have to re-work their lines pretty heavily, but I'm not sold a content re-balancing is required.  If anything, just a few tweaks to some trauma ae's.

Ward of Rage is still not effected by Potency/Critical Bonus/Criticals/Or Ability Modifier/Still Bugged.

Its 298 on live, and now its 238 on test... lol.. Waste of 5 AA pts.

Talathion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2012, 06:52 PM   #9
Caethre

Loremaster
Caethre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,167
Default

[email protected] wrote:

I don't disagree that cumulatively this is going to add up.

On the flip side though, I don't agree with how high brawler mitigation got, and I do think they were as a whole too powerful.  Enough that raising everyone else to their levels wasn't the answer as that would only force new creative content challenges.

Outside of recklessness, I think this revamp is pretty close to where it needs to be.  Some play testing may show some needed tweaking, but it doesn't seem too far off.

Recklessness though can just be deleted.

(( The problem, Atan, is that any statement regarding "raising plate tanks up to brawler levels" is based on the lie that brawlers are at a higher level to start with. Although put about by a very small number of petty-class-jealousy whiners, and then backed by the 0.001% of the playerbase doing hardmode raiding (yes that number is hyperbole, but you GET my point - it is a microscopic percentage of the playerbase, even if those few people post excessively on forums), this is actually NOT TRUE for the playerbase at large.

Amongst the 99% of the playerbase who are soloers, small groupers, heroic groupers, open raiders, PUG raiders, casual raiders and even many normal guild force (non-hardcore) raiders, brawlers are no stronger than any other fighter. Hammering specifically brawlers is going to hurt people in all those settings.

Frankly, compared to that, I couldn't give a stuff about balance for the 0.001% (yeah, the hyperbole again) if it means messing the balance up for the rest of the players.

The better approach, is for SOE not to knee-jerk overreact (which we always see, on every subject, sadly),

They could:- introduce their new stance if they must (which real tanks will ignore anyway),- nerf all the death saves if they must (which will hurt all real tanks equally really)- nerf brawler strikethrough but add to all temps for all fighters (hurting brawlers and helping plate tanks, in a way that has been expected for ages anyway, but won't even effect most player much)

But they could hold off on the unnecessary extra nerf to things like "Enhance: Brawler's Tenacity", which is used by *all* brawlers (of the required Level/AA), not just the hardmode raiding ones! ))

__________________
Countess Felishanna Silorielenwe [92/320 Templar|92 Sage](Koada`Dal)

Lady Lorianna Ardinwena [92/320 Monk|92 Carpenter](Koada`Dal)

Lady Suzanna Narinyaare [92/320 Conjuror|92 Woodworker](Koada`Dal)

Lady Annaelisa Lorinfinlinde [92/320 Fury|92 Tailor](Koada`Dal)

Lady Silvianna [92/320 Illusionist|92 Jeweler](Koada`Dal)

Jennianna [92/320 Dirge|92 Weaponsmith](Koada`Dal)

Aurielle [92/320 Wizard|92 Alchemist](Koada`Dal)

Valerianna [92/320 Guardian|92 Armourer](Koada`Dal)

Sarahanna [92/320 Swashbuckler|92 Provisioner](Koada`Dal)

Katherianna [92/286 Beserker|92 Sage](Koada`Dal)

Guildleader of The True Path - A roleplay-based guild (level 77) on Antonia Bayle
Caethre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2012, 06:58 PM   #10
Yimway

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

[email protected] Bayle wrote:

Ward of Rage is still not effected by Potency/Critical Bonus/Criticals/Or Ability Modifier/Still Bugged.

Its 298 on live, and now its 238 on test... lol.. Waste of 5 AA pts.

Case in point, a specific ability you can make an arguement for.

But because Ward of Rage is still set without a percent, isn't an arguement for fighter heals to crit again, its an arguement for finding the correct % for Ward of Rage.   You might want to start a topic on that one.

__________________
Yimway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2012, 07:12 PM   #11
greyharte

Loremaster
greyharte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8
Default

[email protected] wrote:

BT is still 3 triggers right?

Seems like its a get out of jail card when the stuff hits the fan.

And I imagine the intent is for them to use it the same way we use Tower of Stone.

in 30 seconds?? ... with a 5 min refresh?? ... wow thats helpful ...

__________________
"your mouth is your religion, would you put YOUR faith in a hole like that?" Frank Zappa
greyharte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 01:40 AM   #12
Hirofortis

Loremaster
Hirofortis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 610
Default

BT is Not the same as ToS. Not even close.  I play both a Monk and a Guard. They are totally different abilities

BT is a death save. Plain and simple.  

ToS is a stoneskin and a dang good one.  

Monks get an ability Superior Guard which is equivalent to Block.  

Tsunami is the closest to ToS that you can draw a comparison to.  

Needless t osay, SOE has once again knee jerked us in the face.  SMILEY  And here I actually thought thye were gonna do somethign right this time.  THey have gotten really good at only telling the good stuff in there spamcasts and then ninja nerfing stuff after the fact.  WTG SOE FAIL. SMILEY

Hirofortis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 12:14 PM   #13
Yimway

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

Hirofortis wrote:

BT is Not the same as ToS. Not even close.  I play both a Monk and a Guard. They are totally different abilities

BT is a death save. Plain and simple.  

I play both as well, and I use BT to survive the same things I use ToS to survive thru..

I then use my other utilities to stay up till BT is back.

Nerfed to 1 min, there are fewer ae's of death that I can survive 2 rounds of with BT, making staying up thru everything a tad harder.  The result being I'd actually joust some more red texts that currently I can choose to ignore on my monk.

I certainly understand the difference between a stoneskin and a deathsave =P  my point is their effectual use from soe's perspective is nearly the same.  I don't think BT is meant to be a deathsave from random spike damage in their eyes.  It's meant to survive one-two ae's or script events that requires block/avoid or death.

__________________
Yimway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 12:59 PM   #14
Hirofortis

Loremaster
Hirofortis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 610
Default

[email protected] wrote:

Hirofortis wrote:

BT is Not the same as ToS. Not even close.  I play both a Monk and a Guard. They are totally different abilities

BT is a death save. Plain and simple.  

I play both as well, and I use BT to survive the same things I use ToS to survive thru..

I then use my other utilities to stay up till BT is back.

Nerfed to 1 min, there are fewer ae's of death that I can survive 2 rounds of with BT, making staying up thru everything a tad harder.  The result being I'd actually joust some more red texts that currently I can choose to ignore on my monk.

I certainly understand the difference between a stoneskin and a deathsave =P  my point is their effectual use from soe's perspective is nearly the same.  I don't think BT is meant to be a deathsave from random spike damage in their eyes.  It's meant to survive one-two ae's or script events that requires block/avoid or death.

The way you originally compared them was just confusing to those that may not have as much of a clue on how fighters work.  HEck I had someone ask the other day if a monk should put on there shield. :/  Needless to say, if they lowered the reuse on BT now that they have dropped how long it lasts it might be worth something, but right now it is just frustrating with SOE kneeing us in the face yet again.  They have not learned in all the years that EQ has been in busines that small changes are much better than sweeping changes.  It makes me wonder if they have had there head in the sand for the last 14 years.  I don't care about the changes in strikethough, in fact I think it is a much smarter way to do it. But the cumulative effect of this makes me think they don't even know how there own game works.  That or they are to lazy to fix the real issues.  At this point I would like to see a red name actually acknowledge that they have heard our concerns.  Something SOE SUCKS at.  I deal with two companies right now, one that acknowledges issues and gives updates and one that does not.  Nedless to say I love the one and despise the other.  I will let SOE figure out which one they fit into. SMILEY

Hirofortis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 03:04 PM   #15
Neobe

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

I think the nerfs will lead to using temps more wisly, but then again im only thinking out how i can use them in my head and havent field test anything. I see a more dependents on healers with the changes to BT and Mends, before i may stay in and eat a aoe and heal myself but that may not be the case anymore. The foucs effect for Mends allows you to get recast below 1 min but at i think 28-38 % heath its not going to be very effective. Maybe come out with another few more teirs of the spell, hell after all you did just out right strip our middle stance from us. Removing our ST immue not a big deal, after all i only found the need for it when i was given weak healers. Putting it on temp buffs, im ok with that make alot of sence to me. The ww lost of mit only means changing aa spec to be more defence. The new dps stance im 50/50 on. it could either be a real fun stance to play around on or just cause my repair bill to go up. I know monks can spec for some dehate, one being a 1 postion lower that comes up as quick as a taunt, i believe. So just like every other dps member of the raid u will have to watch hate and know when to dumb it. i know when i was in the stance my pot was around 560%, making my quick strike from around 8.5k-9.5k.( just to give everyone some idea of how our combat arts stack up to real dps i would ask a pure dps class post what their quick strike attack dmg is.) If we do compare to them its not like we will just step in and replace every dps slot, this stance really just give pugs more flexabile in forming raids. the main hardcore raids are still going to follow the same basic lay out that has been followed for years making the twinks that fits their play style.

Neobe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 03:53 PM   #16
Goozman

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 693
Default

I was just thinking the other day that tenacity doesn't last long enough lol, especially compared to my paladin's "Until Cancelled." I would have preferred the drop of the third trigger; lowering the duration by so much makes it significantly less useful.

I have to agree with a previous poster, though. Outside of hardcore raiding, brawlers are no better than any other tank, often worse, in fact (particularly in the ae aggro management department). I don't think any other tank relies more heavily on outside help for hate generation. As for survivability, my paladin is a lot more durable than my monk, particularly when soloing heroics when the healer mercenary starts acting stupid (which is all the time now).

All in all, I'm not sure why brawlers are getting such a buttslam. I guess I'll be dropping Combat Mastery for Tag Team now.

__________________
Goozman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 08:47 PM   #17
Novusod

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,719
Default

Let me expain to you what is required to tank just Sevelak's add Tempestor which has a 30s DT. It is not even the named but just an over the top add:0s - Add pops30s - First death touch use stoneskin (cannot be parried)40s - cast Chi45s - use BT60s - second death touch90s - third death touch120s - fourth death touch (All three BT triggers now used)150s - use stoneskin 5th DT180s - call for healer death prevent 6th DT180s - reuse stoneskin 7th DT200s - reuse BT210s - 8th DT240s - 9th DT270s - 10th DT (All three BT triggers down again)300s - 11th DT Stone skin330s - 12th DT (use miricle death prevent) - repeat from startNo exaggeration here if anything goes wrong and I lose a death prevent trigger then it is wipe. Tempestor also has a large AoE than nearly one shots me as well as crazy multi attacks that can randomly kill me as well if I don't catch spike damage with well timed parrys. Post nerf this Add will be impossible. The MT guard has to tank a named with similar abilities and a red message and the SK 3rd tank has to deal with swarm adds that pop every 30s.

__________________
Novusod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 09:30 PM   #18
Rasttan
Server: Unrest

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

Just return the Tenacity to 90 seconds, I dont see the need to remove strikethrough immunity, lower WW mitt, reduce the monk heal to worse than mending runes, and on top of all that then make 10AA points worth 15 sec of duration and an extra trigger while lowering the amount healed on trigger to 30-35% of your health its overkill, one is assuming that sometime in that 15 seconds you will use that final granted trigger the entire AA choice is very bad now going from 45 seconds to 60 seconds for 10AA points.

We will take more damage as it stands with the other changes enough is enough go nerf some new target

Thanks

Rasttan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 11:40 PM   #19
Novusod

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,719
Default

The point I am trying to make is that Brawlers had all their abilities for a reason. Brawlers need these abilites to do their job effectively in end game raiding. The idea that the current brawler in GU63 was over powered is a Myth. My Bruiser had already seen a big nerf in the creation of useless Rockskin prestige while other classes got really good abilities. I currently raid with a very good guard and SK and they have no problem keeping up or even surpassing me in tanking power. The Strike through nerf + the mitigation nerf + the tenacity and the heal nerf on top of that pretty much kills my class off as a viable tank. GU64 pretty much takes a class that was already ballanced and breaks it.

You cannot take away mitigation and take away avoidance and heals and the death saves and still expect the class to be viable as a tank. You do that to any tank and they will be ruined. Now my class is flat out broken and unplayable. GU64 rolls back brawler to a time when they were completely useless.

__________________
Novusod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 12:02 PM   #20
Darman81

Loremaster
Darman81's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 167
Default

Novusod is spot on! I have tested the changes and they absolutely kill the class as a viable tank or OT. Brawlers Tenacity and the heal nerf is an absolute overkill. I only raid on my Monk! Im usually OT. I MT in a pinch and NEED these abilities in order to survive in a raid setting. Leave Brawlers tenacity and mend alone! After playing on test last night and checking out these brawler nerfs I was honestly sick! Hey I am all for boosting the other fighters abilities but dont take away ours! Not all raiding brawlers have an optimal raid set up so we need these survival tools unchanged in order to do our jobs!

Darman81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 12:14 PM   #21
Irefang

Loremaster
Irefang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 19
Default

I'd say Novusod has it spot on, Brawlers are being absolutely nerfed and are about on par to where they were in RoK and TSO, which is why I had to make a paladin to be MT back then.

Most medium to medium/high geared brawlers will likely start playing a different class soon, I know I'll working more on my crusader and hoping they don't get screwed as hard as this.

The pendulem swings again, it was nice being a useful tank for a few expansions though.

Irefang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 12:50 PM   #22
Yimway

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

Novusod wrote:

The point I am trying to make is that Brawlers had all their abilities for a reason.

Kindly break down the same timeline on how anyone else is going to tank that the same way SMILEY

It seems to me that SoE is saying hey, your going to have to put multiple tanks on that mob now guys.

__________________
Yimway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 01:01 PM   #23
Soul_Dreamer

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London UK
Posts: 537
Default

[email protected] wrote:

Novusod wrote:

The point I am trying to make is that Brawlers had all their abilities for a reason.

Kindly break down the same timeline on how anyone else is going to tank that the same way

It seems to me that SoE is saying hey, your going to have to put multiple tanks on that mob now guys.

Or actually use the healer deathsaves and warden stoneskins as they should be used like every other tank type would have to do.

The very fact that a Monk can absorb that many deaths over the duration kinda shows the descrepancies between the tanks. No Plate fighter could absorb all those DT's by themselves, I'd have to use healer tools on my Guardian for that mob for at least 1 in 6 of those DT's. Crusaders/Zerk will be able to cover maybe 1 or 2 every 3.

I agree the tenacity change was too far but using this mob as the basis for getting it changed back is a little stupid since as above, no plate tank could accomplish the same feat. 

__________________
Lurtz Guardian - MT, Guild Lead and Raid Lead of KotWS
Souldreamer Warlock
Murukan Brigand
Knights of the White Shield - Splitpaw

Soul_Dreamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 02:15 PM   #24
BChizzle

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

You guys are insane.  Brawlers still have a crazy amount of saves and that is what matters in todays super annoying 1 hit lazy raid mechanics.

Obano Ill use your little example but show what can be done with a monk.

0s - Add pops30s - First death touch use stoneskin (cannot be parried)60s - Use stoneskin90s - Use stoneskin120s - Get jcapped USE BT first trigger gone150s - 2nd BT trigger gone180s - Use stoneskin210s - Use stoneskin240s - Use stoneskin270s - BT back up use it again300s - BT 2nd trigger330s - Use stoneskin...etc etc etc

All the while during this tanking a monk can chain his mountain stance and avoidance saves to make sure they are at either high mit or avoiding all hits, if there is an issue with mountain stance not proccing a reset we can use provoking stance as well as using our magic ward to prevent any AE damage when needed.

I think though tanking is becoming way too tedious.  They need to change encounters back to be about fun not about tanks being savechainers.
BChizzle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 03:53 PM   #25
Hennyo

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 371
Default

While I am sure you know this Blanka, monks are in an entire tier of their own when it comes to stoneskins and death saves compared to every other tank class. If I was to divide tanks into deathsave / stoneskin rankings for all content, it would go like this: 1. Monk 2. Guardian, Bruiser 3. Berserker, Shadowknight, Paladin This brawler change will put bruisers into the third group, abet at the top of it, and monks closer to guardians on deathsaves and stoneskins, but still slightly ahead. Also, while a completely separate issue, due to class mechanics, the mitigation nerf will hurt bruisers more than it will monks, but it will still hurt monks a lot.
Hennyo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 04:15 PM   #26
Troy

Loremaster
Troy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 100
Default

Im the kind of player who tries to see around issues and figure out SOE intentions beyond just today. I can not come to any rational reasoning as to why the Devs would nerf this class, esp in the middle of the expansion were many guilds have a brawler as a MT.

I can understand the reasoning to add a new recklessness stance - it will fill open spots in PUGs, etc - but WHY ruin and push back one class, those nerfs, though seem lite as individual, but add them up, its overkill on the class, it will slow down DoV progression for many guilds - just seems like the devs just don't want brawlers MTing. 

WHY...?

Troy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 04:18 PM   #27
Yimway

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

Troy wrote:

I can understand the reasoning to add a new recklessness stance - it will fill open spots in PUGs, etc - but WHY ruin and push back one class, those nerfs, though seem lite as individual, but add them up, its overkill on the class, it will slow down DoV progression for many guilds - just seems like the devs just don't want brawlers MTing. 

WHY...?

I don't see it that way at all,  It seems to me they want to bring the class down closer to where everyone else is.

I honestly do not believe they can't MT after this.  Certainly, your going to have to change some things, your going to have to choose different reforging options, your going to sac some dps options for survivability, and its going to be a bit harder than it is today.

Will it be any harder than any other class trying to MT?  I'm not so sure of that.  In fact I think Monks and Guards will be pretty darn close after this.  If they are not, then the sum total of these changes were too much.  I do believe though good players will be able to adapt quickly.

__________________
Yimway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 04:20 PM   #28
Corydonn

Loremaster
Corydonn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 744
Default

Still makes Templars and Wardens alot more viable. It's a + for class balance.

Corydonn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 04:34 PM   #29
Troy

Loremaster
Troy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 100
Default

[email protected] wrote:

Troy wrote:

I can understand the reasoning to add a new recklessness stance - it will fill open spots in PUGs, etc - but WHY ruin and push back one class, those nerfs, though seem lite as individual, but add them up, its overkill on the class, it will slow down DoV progression for many guilds - just seems like the devs just don't want brawlers MTing. 

WHY...?

I don't see it that way at all,  It seems to me they want to bring the class down closer to where everyone else is.

I honestly do not believe they can't MT after this.  Certainly, your going to have to change some things, your going to have to choose different reforging options, your going to sac some dps options for survivability, and its going to be a bit harder than it is today.

Will it be any harder than any other class trying to MT?  I'm not so sure of that.  In fact I think Monks and Guards will be pretty darn close after this.  If they are not, then the sum total of these changes were too much.  I do believe though good players will be able to adapt quickly.

What I understand is that the brawler class - which were the lowest fighter class in game for years and years, were finally brought up to the level of being actaul MT fighters. Why not adjust the other fighters to be level with the brawlers? SOE is being lazy here - its easier to ruin one class than to actuall fix the other classes.

Troy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 05:31 PM   #30
BChizzle

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

Hennyo wrote:

While I am sure you know this Blanka, monks are in an entire tier of their own when it comes to stoneskins and death saves compared to every other tank class. If I was to divide tanks into deathsave / stoneskin rankings for all content, it would go like this: 1. Monk 2. Guardian, Bruiser 3. Berserker, Shadowknight, Paladin This brawler change will put bruisers into the third group, abet at the top of it, and monks closer to guardians on deathsaves and stoneskins, but still slightly ahead. Also, while a completely separate issue, due to class mechanics, the mitigation nerf will hurt bruisers more than it will monks, but it will still hurt monks a lot.

For one guardians have more stoneskins and the deathsaves are a wash between the classes.  For two bruisers proc a stoneskin on ripostes so they have considerably more stoneskins then either a monk or guardian.

BChizzle is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:14 AM.

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.