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 04-27-2005, 01:48 AM   #1
Elda

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 55
Default

Moorgard's newest post (as of april 26) states that after combat changes are complete, there WILL be differences in tanking ability between the various fighter classes, unlike what was the company line pre-release. He states:
 

Moorgard Wrote:
 
...With fighters, damage potential is weighed against tanking ability. The latter is defined not just by avoidance or mitigation, but by the kind of buffs and abilities they get. Guardians and Paladins get the most defensive-oriented abilities, both for themselves and their groupmates. As a result, they will have the lowest damage output. At the other end of the scale are Bruisers and Monks, with Berserkers and Shadowknights in the middle....

So now we have a tentative hierarchy of:

Guardian - Paladin - Berserker - Shadowknight - Bruiser - Monk

Ranked from lowest DPS and highest tanking ability to highest DPS and lowest tanking ability. Let me state that I'm not a tank, so my issue here isn't personal, it's based on principle.

Why is the game designed so that some tanks simply tank better than others?

Some tanks have more additional abilities than others. A monk can FD, do DPS, has some self heals and so on, while a guardian can pretty much just tank. Giving a Monk the same taking ability as the Guardian wouldn't be fair to the Guardian, as the Monk could then do all he could and so much more.

But wait a second...if the Guardian had other skills, maybe the monk could be equal in tanking ability (though in a different way) and not make the Guardian useless! Alas, that won't happen because EQ2 is designed with what I consider to be a faulty system...one that claims balance but makes it impossible. I'm not saying that the game SHOULD be balanced....but if balance is the goal, the EQ2 system will not achieve it. Why?

When classes are intended to be balanced at the archtype (meaning all fighters are supposed to be able to tank to the same ability), all classes within an archtype need to be equally able to fulfil that archtypes primary role.

What does that mean? If a tanks role is to:

-Get/Maintain agro

-Mitigate damage

-Avoid damage

....then all tanks need to have equal ability do the sum of those things. It's fine if one tank gets agro better but mitigates damage worse, and another maintains agro worse but avoids damage better. Those differences add to the flavor of the classes and will create variation in situations and groups, which is good.

The problem is creted when you add additional ability to some classes such as "doing DPS" or "FD pulling" and not to others. When EQ2 created its archetypes, they added additional abilities to some of the classes within archtypes, but not to others.

Shadowknight: Tank, DPS, Group Utility EVAC, FD

Paladin: Tank, Moderate Healing, Group Utility REZ

Monk: Tank, DPS, FD, Self heals

Bruiser: Tank, DPS, Self Heals, Fear

Berserker: Tank, DPS

Guardian: TANK

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

Ok, enough of addressing the situation? How does EQ2 fix it?  (if balance is what they want) Simple, the vision of the guardian class needs to expand. Not shrink....but expand. The Guardian needs to find something else that they can do besides simply mitigate damage, avoid damage, and get/maintain agro.  Once he finds his other skillset, other tanks can begin to approximate him in tanking ability. 

Until that day, imbalance will always be found in EQ2.

 

 

 

__________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------
eldarn's future tradeskill expansion pack proposal

http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general_tradeskill&message.id=32080
Elda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2005, 01:59 AM   #2
MadMikey

Loremaster
MadMikey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 31
Default

Pretty much sums it up! - I think whole phrase of 'can tank equally aswell just in a different way' must be the worst PR statement for the game.  I believe what they meant to say was something to the effect of....

'All Varying archetypes and subclasses will perform their respective roles differently'

*looks at the note* yeah...thats much less misleading SMILEY

----pins it to the forum----

MadMikey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2005, 02:01 AM   #3
Eelyen

Tester
Eelyen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 161
Default

I can live with that!
__________________
Eelyen Dalamar
Eelyen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2005, 02:12 AM   #4
Tanla

General
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 47
Default

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

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

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

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

Tanla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2005, 02:23 AM   #5
Valta

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 242
Default

double post through "not loged in" problem of this forum, once again ^^

Message Edited by Valtaya on 04-27-200512:24 AM

Message Edited by Valtaya on 04-27-2005 12:24 AM

Valta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2005, 02:23 AM   #6
Valta

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 242
Default

someone posted in one of the threads, there are only 3 core attributes in the game

taking damage, doing damage, healing damage

besides of that there is nothing more about the game. Thought it is very simplified, its correct, you dont need more then that. You ahve someone who holds the mob attention (tank), you need someone who is killing the mob (dps dealer) and you need someone who keeps the frist guy alive (healer).

besides of that, all skills are just additions, nice to have, but not realy necessary and they should be treatened that way.

Lets say you have 30 points and have to distribute them among the 3 core abilities.

Fighters: 20 tanking 10 dps 0 healing
Mages: 5 tanking 25 dps 0 healing
Priest: 10 tanking 0 dps 20 heailng
Scout: 15 tanking 15 dps 0 healing

now you can go into detail (just fighter example)

warrior: 20 tanking 10 dps 0 healing
crusader: 20 tanking 7 dps 3 healing
brawler: 20 tanking 9 dps 1 healing... I have never seen the bruiser type as damage dealers, but whatever... we could also go 18 tanking 11 dps 1 healing

...

guardian: 20 tanking 10 dps... ability to protect/guard others
berserker: 18 tanking 12 dps ... ability to taunt better

paladin: 20 tanking 7 dps 3 healing ... ability to rezz others
shadowknight: 20 tanking 7 dps 3 healing transfered to dps as magic damage ... ability to... no idea

no idea about brawlers (I dont like them, they are unnecessary ^^)

...

whatever they go, the core for balance is at least one "steady" not changable figure/attribute and then you can balance the rest around it, as it is now, SOE changes any and every aspect of the game with any new patch.

what you also need for tanking are 3 attributes, not just two. you need "armor factor", based on the armor and maybe agility vs the "to hit" chances of the attacker, it determines if you get hit or not. Once you got hit the other two get thrown in, mitigation (how much damage of the blow can you absorb) and can I try to still avoid it (parry?) (I cant explaint that any better sorry).

and then we hae the problem mitigation > avoidance... when I have 1000 hp and there is a mob who hit for 2000 and I have a mitigation of 80% (20% avoidance) noone cares, in 10 blows I get hit like 8 times for 400 damage each... I get hit and I will be healed, I get hit and I will be healed... as avoidance tank (80% avoidance 20% mitigation), I will got hit only twice, but for 1600 damage each... heal? no, im dead. This have to be adressed, how? I would say the mobs will do lower damage but are faster at their swings. who knows.

 

Valta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2005, 02:25 AM   #7
Elda

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 55
Default



Tanlaus wrote:

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




In actuality, class balance does not have to equal more cookie cutter. just because a bard and an assassin add a similar amount to group DPS, they don't have to feel similar, nor do they have to be-cookie cutter.
 
They can have totally different ways of doing damage: assassin through stealthed melee attacks, bard through songs/buffs. They can have totally unique sets of secondary skills which they bring to the group, stealth skills for assassin, travel/regen buffs for bard. Making them differ in the QUALITY of their primary role however (bringing DPS to the group) doesnt create variation, it creates imbalance.
 
There's no reason why you can't have 6 types of tanks who all tank differently-but-equally, and have unique sets of secondary skills, and make them all feel non-cookie cutter.
 
Once again, i'll say however that balance isn't absolutely better...but if that is the goal, it can be achieved by adding to some classes directions.
__________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------
eldarn's future tradeskill expansion pack proposal

http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general_tradeskill&message.id=32080
Elda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2005, 02:47 AM   #8
Elda

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 55
Default



Valtaya wrote:

someone posted in one of the threads, there are only 3 core attributes in the game

taking damage, doing damage, healing damage

besides of that there is nothing more about the game. Thought it is very simplified, its correct, you dont need more then that. You ahve someone who holds the mob attention (tank), you need someone who is killing the mob (dps dealer) and you need someone who keeps the frist guy alive (healer).



 

I think that your way of looking at roles in the game is pretty accurate.....but missing two other attributes.

tanking(taking damage you call it)

healing damage

doing damage

*helping others take more damage (buffs/debuffs)

*helping others do more damage (buffs/debuffs)

 

I'm not saying that you "need" these roles, just that they are roles which characters can and do play, and are sought after for, especially in raid type groups.

And mind you, each of those main roles is broken down into 3+ actual roles in game. For example:

tanking:

-getting/maintaining aggro

-mitigating damage

-avoiding damage

 

Just because 6 characters have the same skill in 'tanking' doesn't mean they all have to have the same skill in maintaining agro, or mitigating. If one class was great at holding agro, but didnt mitigate as well, and another mitigated great but had a bit of trouble holding agro, it would make for diversity, and some interesting situations.

When some people talk about not making the classes 'cookie-cutter' they really just mean, "let me pick a class thats best at something, I dont want another character to do X as well as I do".

In a game with three main roles (tanking, healing, dps), you're gonna have alot of classes that aren't the best, unless you get real creative about how those roles can play out equally among 24 classes.

Message Edited by Eldarn on 04-26-2005 03:54 PM

__________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------
eldarn's future tradeskill expansion pack proposal

http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general_tradeskill&message.id=32080
Elda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2005, 03:17 AM   #9
Sunrayn

Tester
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 498
Default



Eldarn wrote:
 
Guardan: TANK

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

 

 




Poor Guardian?
 
Thats what I signed up to be.  A tank.  Nothing more, nothing less.  I think most, if not all guards signed up for the same reason.  Its what I do.  Its all I want to do.
Sunrayn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2005, 03:25 AM   #10
Elda

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 55
Default



Sunrayn wrote:


Poor Guardian?
 
Thats what I signed up to be.  A tank.  Nothing more, nothing less.  I think most, if not all guards signed up for the same reason.  Its what I do.  Its all I want to do.


Sure, i understand that.
 
My message is simply that if SoE wants balance in the game, they can't make (within the same archtype) some characters that only do one thing and some characters that do multiple things. I'm not saying that the game should be balanced. Just that if they want it balanced, that's what they'd have to change.
 
*edit: when i said "poor guardian" i was obviously kidding. Guardians are far from poor. They are the most popular class in the game, followed by the Templar, which is another good-at-one-thing-and-only-one-thing class. These two classes are the most sought after in game partially because they are the most focused at doing one thing, and doing it well, which creates the balance issues we're talking about here.
 
 
 

Message Edited by Eldarn on 04-26-2005 04:37 PM

__________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------
eldarn's future tradeskill expansion pack proposal

http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general_tradeskill&message.id=32080
Elda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2005, 04:54 AM   #11
Kilo

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 113
Default

Hence why I'm going to Guild Wars - SoE are lying scam artists SMILEY Wasted all the time getting to 50 only to find out there's only 1 viable end game tank. I don't foresee NCSoft misleading customers for half a year like SoE has done on 3+ occasions.

Message Edited by Kilopy on 04-26-2005 05:57 PM

Kilo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2005, 07:20 AM   #12
VettsVey

Loremaster
VettsVey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 108
Default

So now we have a tentative hierarchy of:

Guardian - Paladin - Berserker - Shadowknight - Bruiser - Monk

 

 

ARGH!  I knew it!  Well kinda.   Though Monks are more defensive inclined than Bruisers.  Just need to turn those 2 around.  Thats why mass majority of Scout posts say Bruiser need more nerfing :smileysad:

VettsVey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2005, 07:21 AM   #13
Nerj

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 254
Default

Sorry, don't see the inequality here. Brawlers are giving up a little Defense for a little more offense. The rest of Moorgards comments that was left out stated that, all of the Tanks will be close in ability. Like a guardinadian with App 1 skills will be a worse Tank then a Monk with Adept 1 defense skills. Killing the MOB off a little faster also means less damage done to the MT.
__________________

Lockeye wrote:
I've watched coercers who solo higher con heroics using 2 unbreakable roots while keeping 2 separate encounters locked down at the same time (no other class could pull off such a heroic feat). That is called Crowd Control. What Enchanter's are supposed to do.
Nerj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2005, 03:48 PM   #14
aeio

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 267
Default

I just wish they would once and for all tell us what their plans are for the archetype system.  It has been sliding all over the place since beta.  Scouts and Mages have really never had a defined archetype role, and as for the topic at hand, the archetype roles were supposed to be equal across the archetype.  So ALL tanks should be able to tank equally well.  That was the stated goal initially.  Not some tanks tank a little worse because they do more damage.  Everything to tanking was secondary and thus was balanced secondary. If they truely are going to create a tank hiearchy based on other attributes then I think it pretty clearly indicates a dismisal of the original archetype system.  You were supposed to be able to roll any fighter and be confident that you could be the man for your group.  The clases would be differentiated by other abiltiies outside of those that directly impacted your ability to sustain damage.
aeio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2005, 05:19 PM   #15
Dfoley3

 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 259
Default

I have serious issues with you guardians reading what you want to.
 
"latter is defined not just by avoidance or mitigation, but by the kind of buffs and abilities they get.  Guardians and Paladins get the most defensive-oriented abilities, both for themselves and their groupmates"
 
Yet magicly guardian only has one thing listed.
 
Its stated no where that guardians should evade and mitigate the best, in fact it blatently says the obvious, that its defined by more then just those 2 factors.  So why is it that its consistantly the only thing listed?
 
Guardians should read
 
Guard: +group defense buffs, + group parry buffs, 4-5 combat arts that taunt, tower shields (higher ac and shield factor, and yes same avoidance as kite, but still a 12% mitigation advantage over kite)
 
To replace those extra 2 taunts guardians get that monks dont, monks get 2 rather high dmg attacks that both do about 400-500 dmg end game.  And effective those 2 attacks act as our taunt.  Guardians taunt with + hate, berserkers and monks with taunt and dps. 
 
You want to whine that you dont do anything but tank? fine, but dont lie and only list half your utility...guardians have the potential to make other tanks tank just as well as they do. 
 
Also....FD pulling? are you jokeing....do you even play the game?  FD pulling is next to useless when all you have to do is agro range pull and can avoide chain agro?  EQ2 pulling is borederline [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] with how dumbed down it is compared to eq1. 
 
FYI bruisers get self heals every 90 sec,....monks get a any target heal that we can use every 5 min.  Dont really matter , just an fyi.
Dfoley3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2005, 06:05 PM   #16
Opa

 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 280
Default



Eldarn wrote:

When classes are intended to be balanced at the archtype (meaning all fighters are supposed to be able to tank to the same ability), all classes within an archtype need to be equally able to fulfil that archtypes primary role.


No. This has been rehashed over and over. What was said before release was "All fighters can tank." What was not said, and was never said was "All fighters can tank EQUALLY."

Quote me where a dev said that.

I play a bruiser. I knew when I chose to select brawler that I was choosing a more offensive tank. I got attacks instead of defense buffs. I wear leather armor, not ebon.

Arguing that there should be defensive equality and offensive inequality is laughable. Arguing that both defense and offense should be equal across the board for fighters is equally so.

There is nothing wrong with defensive capacities being a little different for different classes. I mean, be serious, would it really be fair for me to have fear, ghetto mezz, great dps, feign death, self-healing, AND as many hitpoints as a guardian?

These threads are growing to new heights of absurdity. Difference is not imbalance. Be serious.

 


Opa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2005, 06:28 PM   #17
Blackdog183

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 267
Default



Opaki wrote:


Eldarn wrote:

When classes are intended to be balanced at the archtype (meaning all fighters are supposed to be able to tank to the same ability), all classes within an archtype need to be equally able to fulfil that archtypes primary role.


No. This has been rehashed over and over. What was said before release was "All fighters can tank." What was not said, and was never said was "All fighters can tank EQUALLY."

Quote me where a dev said that.

I play a bruiser. I knew when I chose to select brawler that I was choosing a more offensive tank. I got attacks instead of defense buffs. I wear leather armor, not ebon.

Arguing that there should be defensive equality and offensive inequality is laughable. Arguing that both defense and offense should be equal across the board for fighters is equally so.

There is nothing wrong with defensive capacities being a little different for different classes. I mean, be serious, would it really be fair for me to have fear, ghetto mezz, great dps, feign death, self-healing, AND as many hitpoints as a guardian?

These threads are growing to new heights of absurdity. Difference is not imbalance. Be serious.

 




Your 110% right, but when the difference is like it is now, it is an imbalance.
__________________
Iceband Fatebringer
Leader-Shadows of Freeport
51SK/59 alchey
Blackdog183 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2005, 06:39 PM   #18
aeio

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 267
Default


Opaki wrote:

No. This has been rehashed over and over. What was said before release was "All fighters can tank." What was not said, and was never said was "All fighters can tank EQUALLY."


As someone who followed the game for 18 plus months, very closely, before release, I can say the original announcement about archetypes said just that.  All fighters were said to be able to fill the role as tank equally well.  They may go about it differently, and have different secondary abilities, but there was not going to be a distinguishment in terms of who could tank better than anyone else. All tanks were said to be able to fill the role equal aplumb.
aeio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2005, 06:42 PM   #19
ugl

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 230
Default



Dfoley323 wrote:
 
To replace those extra 2 taunts guardians get that monks dont, monks get 2 rather high dmg attacks that both do about 400-500 dmg end game.  And effective those 2 attacks act as our taunt.  Guardians taunt with + hate, berserkers and monks with taunt and dps. 
 
Which would  not be balanced, as DPS will get you invited to groups and raids for offtank roles, extra  taunts will not.
There is only a place for 1 tank in most groups.  Maybe 2 tanks in raids.  Extra tanks are a waste of limited  slots.   Tanks that can also DPS, can fill not only the one tank slot, but the  DPS slots as well. That is a huge advantage.   That is why the DPS of a fighter must be given great consideration when balancing.
 
Offense is weighed against Defense.   The more offense the fighter has, the less Defense.   Anything else would be unbalanced.   Fighters dont get asked to group in a offtank role because they have a extra taunt.  They get asked to the offtank role mainly because of DPS or possibly a utility like evac.
 
Looks like the class as a whole will be considered when balancing. (Which I cannot imagine why anyone would think otherwise)  While defense ability and DPS are the major factors, utilities like invis, mend, FD , Fear, Heals, safefall, horses, evac,  etc.  also most be in the equation when it comes to balance.
 
Anything else would be unacceptable and unbalanced.
 
If tank A and tank B both have the exact same defense.  Yet tank B has better DPS and some nice utilities to boot, which class would you play? (and everyone else for that matter?)
 
It has to be give and take in all roleplaying games where balance is concerned.   I am sorry for those that wanted to play in the "Tankmage archtype".   You just cannot have it all.   There must be tradeoffs when balancing classes.



ugl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2005, 07:02 PM   #20
Jan It

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 142
Default

Leaving half of Moorgards post out, eh? It is clearly started that a good equipped monk will be tanking as good as a not so good equipped guardian. So the differences are really small and nothing to worry about for most of the game. For organized raids guardians will become main tanks nevertheless, but I´m fine with that.
__________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I´ll be back when combat revamp and DoF beta are REALLY done.
Jan It is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2005, 07:14 PM   #21
Kaliper5

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 17
Default



Blackdog183 wrote:


Opaki wrote:


Eldarn wrote:

When classes are intended to be balanced at the archtype (meaning all fighters are supposed to be able to tank to the same ability), all classes within an archtype need to be equally able to fulfil that archtypes primary role.


No. This has been rehashed over and over. What was said before release was "All fighters can tank." What was not said, and was never said was "All fighters can tank EQUALLY."

Quote me where a dev said that.

I play a bruiser. I knew when I chose to select brawler that I was choosing a more offensive tank. I got attacks instead of defense buffs. I wear leather armor, not ebon.

Arguing that there should be defensive equality and offensive inequality is laughable. Arguing that both defense and offense should be equal across the board for fighters is equally so.

There is nothing wrong with defensive capacities being a little different for different classes. I mean, be serious, would it really be fair for me to have fear, ghetto mezz, great dps, feign death, self-healing, AND as many hitpoints as a guardian?

These threads are growing to new heights of absurdity. Difference is not imbalance. Be serious.

 




Your 110% right, but when the difference is like it is now, it is an imbalance.


Where do you see imbalance? Guardians should be the best tanks, and they are. A tanks role is not just sit there and be a meat shield. They also need to hold agro of not just the one mob, but as many mobs as possible that are engaged. Guardians can do that the best. They also can pull from a great distance. Buffs are no big deal, it seems every class in the game gets at least 1 group buff, including assassins. Guardians also have the most HP of any class. So not only does their mitigation absorb dmg, but they can take alot more hits than any other class.

Truthfully, unless you aren't playing a guardian, you really shouldn't be calling it unbalanced. Let the actual tanks worry about it. I play a Bruiser, and I know that I am not the best tank. If there is a Guardian or some other tank class, I will just do my dps and help out with crowd control when I can. However, even though we are not the best tanks, we sitll tank better than the other archtypes, and that's what matters.

__________________
-Tyrazlee
The Kindred Souls - Mistmoore server
Guild Leader
Kaliper5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2005, 07:30 PM   #22
Shakir10

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 175
Default

I swear, No matter how many times Moorgard says these combat changes are not set in stone, and that they are still doing changes, AND that other aspects besides defense are also being working on, and that NONE of this is going live any times soon, .... THere is just no shortage of whiners and crybabies to be found.

And as far as ballance, I believe Moorgard said it just fine when he said that the game will never seem ballanced to everyone. One persons idea of ballane is completely different from someone elses.

Maybe you guys should actually test the changes being made on test server instead of crying a river and flooding the boords with why Sony is always wrong and your always right.

__________________
Shakir10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2005, 07:47 PM   #23
Tomanak

Loremaster
Tomanak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 595
Default



Dfoley323 wrote:
I have serious issues with you guardians reading what you want to.



And I have serious Issues with people just not reading. If this is aimed at the OP he stated he is not even a tank class and ergo not a Guardian, so put your dislike of Guardians aside and lets try this again...
__________________
Tomanak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2005, 07:53 PM   #24
Elda

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 55
Default



Dfoley323 wrote:
I have serious issues with you guardians reading what you want to.
 
LOL. Read the post again. I'm not a Guardian.
 
"latter is defined not just by avoidance or mitigation, but by the kind of buffs and abilities they get.  Guardians and Paladins get the most defensive-oriented abilities, both for themselves and their groupmates"
 
Yet magicly guardian only has one thing listed.
 
Its stated no where that guardians should evade and mitigate the best, in fact it blatently says the obvious, that its defined by more then just those 2 factors.  So why is it that its consistantly the only thing listed?
 
Guardians should read
 
Guard: +group defense buffs, + group parry buffs, 4-5 combat arts that taunt, tower shields (higher ac and shield factor, and yes same avoidance as kite, but still a 12% mitigation advantage over kite)
 
Everything you've listed as a Guardian ability is included in the word "TANK", in my opinion. All of those factors directly add to the guardians ability to 1) get/maintain agro, 2) mitigate damage, 3) avoid damage....which are the components that I believe to make up tanking....Voila! They all go in the word, "TANK".
 
To replace those extra 2 taunts guardians get that monks dont, monks get 2 rather high dmg attacks that both do about 400-500 dmg end game.  And effective those 2 attacks act as our taunt.  Guardians taunt with + hate, berserkers and monks with taunt and dps. 
 
You want to whine that you dont do anything but tank? fine, but dont lie and only list half your utility...guardians have the potential to make other tanks tank just as well as they do. 
 
LOL. I love how guardians read the post and assume that I'm saying they shouldn't be able to be the best tank, and non-guardians read it and assume that i'm explaning why guardians should tank the best.  I'm not saying either, i'm just recognizing that there is an imbalance in tanking ability, and giving suggestions as to how it could be improved, if that's what SoE wants. Me, whining? You clearly need to re-read the post. I'm not only not whining, I'm not even taking a side.
 
Also....FD pulling? are you jokeing....do you even play the game?  FD pulling is next to useless when all you have to do is agro range pull and can avoide chain agro?  EQ2 pulling is borederline [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] with how dumbed down it is compared to eq1. 
 
Note that I did not attribute FD pulling to any class, because it's not in the game. It was simply listed an example ability which could be given to a class as a secondary ability....Thanks for flaming though. SMILEY
 
FYI bruisers get self heals every 90 sec,....monks get a any target heal that we can use every 5 min.  Dont really matter , just an fyi.
 


Bad day, anyone?
__________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------
eldarn's future tradeskill expansion pack proposal

http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general_tradeskill&message.id=32080
Elda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2005, 08:04 PM   #25
Banditman

Loremaster
Banditman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,459
Default


Dfoley323 wrote:
... tower shields (higher ac and shield factor, and yes same avoidance as kite, but still a 12% mitigation advantage over kite)

Wrong.  There is not shield in the game that I am aware of which adds anything to mitigation.  Equip one and see.  Shields add only to avoidance.
__________________
Banditman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2005, 08:08 PM   #26
Elda

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 55
Default



uglak wrote: (edited for brevity)

 
There is only a place for 1 tank in most groups.  Maybe 2 tanks in raids.  Extra tanks are a waste of limited  slots.   Tanks that can also DPS, can fill not only the one tank slot, but the  DPS slots as well. That is a huge advantage.   That is why the DPS of a fighter must be given great consideration when balancing.
 
Offense is weighed against Defense.   The more offense the fighter has, the less Defense.   Anything else would be unbalanced.   Fighters dont get asked to group in a offtank role because they have a extra taunt.  They get asked to the offtank role mainly because of DPS or possibly a utility like evac.
 
No, offense does not have to be weighed solely against defense, because of the last statement you made. There are dozens of secondary roles which a hypothetical MMO character (or tank in this case) could play, and DPS is just one of them. There is no reason why a Melee class could not have crowd control abilities as a secondary ability, or powerful debuffing. Those skill sets could cause him to be as desirable, just as DPS could.
 
 
Looks like the class as a whole will be considered when balancing. (Which I cannot imagine why anyone would think otherwise)  While defense ability and DPS are the major factors, utilities like invis, mend, FD , Fear, Heals, safefall, horses, evac,  etc.  also most be in the equation when it comes to balance.
 
Anything else would be unacceptable and unbalanced.
 
agreed, that's exactly how it should be.
 
If tank A and tank B both have the exact same defense.  Yet tank B has better DPS and some nice utilities to boot, which class would you play? (and everyone else for that matter?)
 
Class B, of course. The real question, and point of this thread, however, why doesnt class A have any other abilities SMILEY



__________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------
eldarn's future tradeskill expansion pack proposal

http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general_tradeskill&message.id=32080
Elda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2005, 08:14 PM   #27
Opa

 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 280
Default



aeiouy wrote:


Opaki wrote:

No. This has been rehashed over and over. What was said before release was "All fighters can tank." What was not said, and was never said was "All fighters can tank EQUALLY."




As someone who followed the game for 18 plus months, very closely, before release, I can say the original announcement about archetypes said just that.  All fighters were said to be able to fill the role as tank equally well.  They may go about it differently, and have different secondary abilities, but there was not going to be a distinguishment in terms of who could tank better than anyone else.

All tanks were said to be able to fill the role equal aplumb.





I followed it before release too. I remember nothing of the sort.
 
So, quote it. In short, prove it.
Opa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2005, 08:40 PM   #28
ugl

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 230
Default



Eldarn wrote:

 
 
No, offense does not have to be weighed solely against defense, because of the last statement you made. There are dozens of secondary roles which a hypothetical MMO character (or tank in this case) could play, and DPS is just one of them. There is no reason why a Melee class could not have crowd control abilities as a secondary ability, or powerful debuffing. Those skill sets could cause him to be as desirable, just as DPS could.
 
I think I can agree with that , in theory.   In fact, I think my other post says utility has to be factored.   But, tanking ability and DPS are the two BIG factors.  It would have to be some pretty HEAVY utilities to counterbalance superior DPS  of another fighter to gain a offtank role in groups. 
 
       
 
ugl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2005, 08:53 PM   #29
Dfoley3

 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 259
Default

1) my post wasnt aimed at the OP, just fact of the matter, that the number 1 people whining is guardians.  dont beleive me? go count the endless other threads on this same type of topic, and youll see 2 things, guardians whining they dont have anything, and 5/6 of the other tanks whining its not balanced.....tough call there, either 1 class is lieing or 5 are.
 
2) I know you wont get invited to a group for off tank or extra taunts.  But the thing is, the imbalance is NOT in grouping, it is in raiding.  Grouping any tank can do equaly well.  At 48 i can tank 2 level 53++ mobs at one time in nek castle no problem at all with just one healer.
 
Raids are the imbalance, as youve stated theres room for 1, maybe 2 tanks per raid.   so i guess that means the other 5/6 of the fighters will go sit out.  Brawler dps is less then equaly equiped scouts and mages (exceptions being bards and enc).  And i really wish people would stop mentioning FD and invis....with the way the combat system now on LIVE servers, mobs chase for about 40 feet then go home.  FD (if it works) removes all buffs and makes u sit there.  Runing and breaking an encounter gives increased hp regen, and little to no threat.   As for invis....IT DOESNT WORK FROM 42+,  that means calling it a utility that other tanks dont have is pointless.  Its something no monk can even use at the 42+ game, cause the mobs it works on are grey, and the rest agro.
 
3) in all honesty, guardians needed to be nerfed, buffing to invincabilty was rediculous...but the whole combat system also needs to be adjusted for other reasons....1 being to help increase scout dps, 2 to make it so avoidance tanks avoide more then mitigation tanks, 3 to untrivialize the end game.
 
What SHOULD be done is a serious revision of the lvl 50 raid content...Only one type of tank is needed and as quoted "raids need 1 maybe 2 tanks"  So basicly your encouraging an imballance.  
 
Raid mobs should have unique abilities that make it so only certain tanks can tank them...face to face, a guardian should take the dmg the best...but they shouldnt be the only raid tank.  For example:
 
Raid mobs with high dmg gravity flux---optimal tank = brawler (safefall)
Raid mobs imune to taunt--optimal tank = berk, monk, bruiser (dps to agro)
Raid mobs that can only be taunted by Spells = optimal tank = crusaders (spell agro)
 
Every fighter has unique abilities that could make them optimal tanks in certain cituations.  And frankly only the "raid" situation is busted atm.   Its full of guardians who want to stay on top, tanking stuff without taking dmg.  Thus all mobs are atm HIGH dmg, and thats about the only thing any raid has. 
Dfoley3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2005, 08:56 PM   #30
Elda

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 55
Default



Opaki wrote: (edited for brevity)

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


Moorgard's Quotes in Red.

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


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

http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general_tradeskill&message.id=32080
Elda is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:40 PM.

vBulletin skin by: CompleteGFX.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.