EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

 

Go Back   EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire > EverQuest II > General EverQuest II Discussion > Spells, Abilities, and General Class Discussion
Members List Search Mark Forums Read

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-27-2012, 08:42 PM   #31
Haciv

Loremaster
Haciv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 278
Default

[email protected] wrote:

first off before you complain about the numbers. take a look at your own admitance. your are in top end skyshrine gear/HM jewelry. and I bet your group is either a solid guild group or similarly geared. you know, the kind of group that UD/Dozekar is a boring easy walk in the park zone/fight. 

So, it's not OP if Fighters can be T1 DPS for 95%+ of the total content while tanking?  Why bother playing anything BUT an SK if you're not HM Raiding?  In solo, heroic, and easy raids, there's no reason I can come up with to continue playing a Sorc atm.

BTW, We're in top HEROIC gear, it's not like we're in POW / HM Drunder / HM SS raid gear.

[email protected] wrote:

now I ask you to let him tank in reckless with a non-hm/guild group as see how well he does in reckless. the kind of group that Dozekar actually presents a challenge to.  I bet he dies alot. 

Do a completely random test to see if a random pug healer(s) can keep a tank in recklessness up?  I'd rather test to see if I can heal a pug tank with recklessness, than tank with a pug healer.  Both are pretty much a recipe for fail since I'm on Permafrost.  I'll pass, I don't do pugs much anymore.

[email protected] wrote:

or how abut instead of testing in UD...why don't you test it in HM instances. see how well he stands up then in a zone that might actually present a challenge to you.

I would say then if he's still facerolling and no one has issues keeping him alive then maybe you got a valid complaint. but don't come and complain about it when your doing easy stuff with a group that could sleepwalk through the zone in the first place about how overpowered it is.

I bet in a zone that's actually dangerous to you, that 50% more damage taken effect might have a much bigger impact.

We've done HM CD & Lyceum with Recklessness.  Can prolly do first 2 named in HM DP too  /shrug.  If you have smart healers, and know the fights, it's possible.  I'd imagine most anyone with full HM Raid gear can cake walk those zones in Recklessness.

 --------

So, explain to me...  why would anyone want to play anything but an SK right now?  I see no point to continue playing my Sorc atm.

__________________
Haciv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2012, 08:51 PM   #32
Neiloch

Loremaster
Neiloch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,430
Default

[email protected] wrote:

first off before you complain about the numbers. take a look at your own admitance. your are in top end skyshrine gear/HM jewelry. and I bet your group is either a solid guild group or similarly geared. you know, the kind of group that UD/Dozekar is a boring easy walk in the park zone/fight.

now I ask you to let him tank in reckless with a non-hm/guild group as see how well he does in reckless. the kind of group that Dozekar actually presents a challenge to.  I bet he dies alot.

or how abut instead of testing in UD...why don't you test it in HM instances. see how well he stands up then in a zone that might actually present a challenge to you.

I would say then if he's still facerolling and no one has issues keeping him alive then maybe you got a valid complaint. but don't come and complain about it when your doing easy stuff with a group that could sleepwalk through the zone in the first place about how overpowered it is.

I bet in a zone that's actually dangerous to you, that 50% more damage taken effect might have a much bigger impact.

Okay so instead of fighters complaining about not having enough slots in a raid you shift it to DPS?

Why bother swapping in DPS classes even just for trash when fighters can just swap stances. There are more DPS classes than fighters, they SHOULD have more slots in a raid. Duh.

The classes that have too many are bards and enchanters. Maybe this whole thing will ripple into giving DPs classes a bit more utility and making bard/enchanter stuff raid wide so any raid with a hope of progressing doesn't need 4 bards and 4 enchanters. Thing is SoE did try and solve that problem in a very straight forward way but then people (bards/enchanters) had a hissy fit they wouldn't be so needed they get to monopolize 1/4 of raid slots.

This entire idea that since they can't use recklessness on the hardest content that it's perfectly fine is ignorant at best.

__________________
Neiloch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2012, 09:02 PM   #33
Twyxx

Guardian
Twyxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: CA
Posts: 244
Default

[email protected] wrote:

The classes that have too many are bards and enchanters. Maybe this whole thing will ripple into giving DPs classes a bit more utility and making bard/enchanter stuff raid wide so any raid with a hope of progressing doesn't need 4 bards and 4 enchanters. Thing is SoE did try and solve that problem in a very straight forward way but then people (bards/enchanters) had a hissy fit they wouldn't be so needed they get to monopolize 1/4 of raid slots.

Excellent point.  Some of these fights in PoW we've used 5 chanters on just to deal with the drains.  3 chanters/3 bards should be plenty if the utility of other classes were boosted some.  Having to have 4 chanters and 4 bards all the time is out of balance.  Rogues and predators get 1-2 spots each.  Sorcs get 2-3, Summoners 1-2. There are never enough chanters and bards out there to consistently fill all the available spots.

__________________
Twyxx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2012, 09:07 PM   #34
Ryptide
Server: Permafrost

Loremaster
Ryptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 128
Default

[email protected] wrote:

first off before you complain about the numbers. take a look at your own admitance. your are in top end skyshrine gear/HM jewelry. and I bet your group is either a solid guild group or similarly geared. you know, the kind of group that UD/Dozekar is a boring easy walk in the park zone/fight.

now I ask you to let him tank in reckless with a non-hm/guild group as see how well he does in reckless. the kind of group that Dozekar actually presents a challenge to.  I bet he dies alot.

or how abut instead of testing in UD...why don't you test it in HM instances. see how well he stands up then in a zone that might actually present a challenge to you.

I would say then if he's still facerolling and no one has issues keeping him alive then maybe you got a valid complaint. but don't come and complain about it when your doing easy stuff with a group that could sleepwalk through the zone in the first place about how overpowered it is.

I bet in a zone that's actually dangerous to you, that 50% more damage taken effect might have a much bigger impact.

Can't believe people are actually defending this.  You're a paladin not a warlock.  You know it's op, we know it's op.  Enjoy it while it lasts.

Btw.. content?  srsly?  HM current content raids are being tanked by mt's in reck stance.

Ryptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2012, 10:01 PM   #35
ratbast

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 365
Default

my comments in green

your special comments in red

() my subtexts to your thoughts.

japanfour wrote:

Ideally what should the best tank parse? I dont think that anything but T1 DPS should be topping the parse, I think utility classes should be competing with tanks atleast when they arent in relentless, I think that relentless dps should be inbetween utility and a DPS focused class. Thats just my opinion based on what content I play and how I play personally, so naturally I like the stance and support it.(opinion is entirely based on self interest) I am just saying what you think should be in this game is nothing more than an opinion. Show why you think what. instead of "HMM THIS SHOULD BE HERE AND THAT SHOULD BE THERE BECAUSE I SAID SO"
im more than a little perplexed how you state your opinion without any logical reasoning, and then make this statement above.

I understand the difference between the classes. (personal flavor: professing knowledge) I just dont think this change is as grave as people make it out to be. (opinion about others opinions) I also think its too early to pass all of this judgement, I think people should really test it and kind of reserve judgement untill then. (this is an obfuscating opinion about meta data)

DPS based hate has been around norrath since eq1. (history lession) I doubt they will make it any different. (speculation about eq2s future actions) People like doing damage,(duh-which is why increasing one reduces everyone elses relative rank) hate gain is an excuse for a fighter to do its job and enjoy being able to damage things at the same time.(misunderstanding of hate, the crux of having aggro to actually be the tank)

hate gain is not an excuse, its absolutely essential to TANKING, its core function.

I believe that the stance is a utility to a group or a raid. Because it shifts the purpose of a tank to suit something else, hopefully decreasing the timesink on some encounters. (belief and hope statement)

you are arguing an archtype specific buff "REALLY" helps everyone, since their contribution speeds things up. have you thought thru the logical application of your logic? it would justify a million potency buff that only wizards got. it justifies basically anything that buffs period.

Each group does not need a chanter and a bard. (as long as your expectations are low enough it doesnt need anything except 2 players) Its nice and all, but its not always needed. Usually one of the two will do for any heroic content, and most Hardmode group content. Ideal group make up should be looked at on an encounter to encounter basis instead of this general ideal of group makeup. Another problem that I see here is this generalization of how people think this game needs to be played. Its silly to throttle the versatility of something because of what people think works or doesnt work based on their opinions on how the game must be played. (creating pretext that all opposition to reckless is mindless opinion)

we are not talking about what you can get away with as you limp thru content, we are talking about optimal builds that intelligent players will seek, recruit, and invite to group/raid.

I dont agree with you on your design perspective. These 3 roles arent supposed to be exclusive IMO, I am a healing tank, that provides utility, but I havent been the top choice for hardmode stuff ,groups or raiding at first. Yet back before this stance, no one was complaining about paladins being able to heal rez dps and tank. I just think your idea on these roles being so rigidly cut is not the way to go.

(restating) "I am a healing tank, that provides utility" this is the problem. plus you want to explode fighter dps on top of that. why have classes when ppl get away with mindsets like your own? also i never said they were exclusive. they are focuses where they should be stronger than those who specialize in either of the other 3 main roles.

I dont think that this was added to boost tank recruitment in raiding (speculation about soes intention with reckless), and I think just adding something cool isnt the way to go.

i guarantee crusaders see this as something very cool/orgasmic.

I do think however that Troubadors and coercers need more fun abilities that make them enjoy the class more. I have never seen such a high turnover rate in anyother class. I just feel that people just dont enjoy those two classes in PVE. PVP is another story though.. (also, if you feel this way what sense does it make to give fighters a special treat--reckless-- instead of the utility classes)

Maybe for a troub or a coercer yes. I dont care about the big 3 being seperate, (go try rift then, its class system will suit you, eq2 is a specialized class system from the ground up) I understand the focus of it in each archetype, I just dont get people that want tanking traits to be exclusive to tanks and vice versa. some encounters in this game dictate versatility and every class needs what it can get to work with the encounter and succeed. (this is not a question of every class selfishly clawing for any scraps they can get their grubby hands on, reckless is a single archtype versatility buff that invades multiple other classes REASON FOR BEING, also pretending this is needed to succeed is incorrect)

your post is full of irrelevent content. it deflects and distracts from the issue and makes it less clear. if reckless is good, make it clear. muddying the waters with other problems does not justify more bad design choices (reckless).

usually i wouldnt care much that you say i have no reasons, but when your post is largely a net deposit of attitude, sans reasoning, its absurd. i would be willing to discuss why 3 main roles is better, due to its impact on values like interdependency, but i just dont think you would have anything to add. what i did discuss appears to be non-reasoned gibberish in your eyes.

ratbast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2012, 06:13 AM   #36
Proud_Silence

Loremaster
Proud_Silence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 342
Default

Our raid healers must be pretty bad, cause i die pretty easy in reckless as bruiser, and i was just OT. Hate generation is immense and without a buff to disable hate mod ( yno like singular focus to negate AE dmg), and seemingly harmless AE's are suddenly bringing me below 50% or outright oneshoting me, and if i got aggro on something in that moment and take another autoattackround + extra magic dmg it's time for a dirtnap.

I see a few people making claims that HM nameds are being tanked in this stance, and i really have a hard time believing that, because of a raid can keep up a MT using a buff making him take 50% more dmg instead of defensive stance against HM or POW nameds, howcome they can't clear POW ? pardon my ignorance on the scripts of pow nameds, the guild i'm part of is merely killing some HM drunder nameds.

Despite all this, i fully agree that this stance was and is completely unneeded and personally i don't like it as bruiser and player, because it just feels very odd to get this released to live, i don't see the point. Actually i do see one explanation; it's the typical SoE way, they knew there was an issue with the tankspots on raids, and some nameds in a zone needing up to 3 or 4. and instead of putting thought into the 6 offensive stances, because that woulda have taken time ( =  money), so they just jammed this reckless stance down our throats, god knows what they were thinking boosting potency like this in regards to Crusaders and their spells....

If this was taken off of live servers again, i wouldn't miss it a single second.

Proud_Silence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2012, 08:19 AM   #37
Slittherss

Loremaster
Slittherss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 11
Default

Speaking as a brig in my guild, I am already pretty upset with this. If it wasn't for my debuffs doing something in raid I would have been put out to pasture a while back. But this really takes the cake, I can generally do 290K-375K on EM skyshrine raid mobs, yet when Recklessness hit our Monk went from a normal 200k-250k to a whopping 400K-500K avg and i'm screaming What The Hell. I can bet to argue that the Bruiser can take it even further dmg wise. This is dumb, sorry but no amount of Debuffs and bull crap that sony tries to feed my class, I want my own version of this for Rogue, call me selfish but if a f'ing brawler can do it why can't a class that STABS MOBS IN THE BACK do this?

__________________
Kharnage - 92 Berserker Unrest

Grumice - 92 Brigand Unrest

Salizzaarr - 92 Warden Unrest

Marekiz - 92 Conjurer Unrest

Making mediocrity work in MMO's since 1999.
Slittherss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2012, 01:10 PM   #38
japanfour

Loremaster
japanfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 119
Default

Freejazzlive wrote:

japanfour wrote:

 And if they still arent able to do that, I think they might be doing it wrong. Another mind blowing concept...

Tanks are tanking, DPSing, & utilitying.

This isn't about people who "still aren't able to do that." This is about classes which are doing my job, as well as their own.

 all classes are dpsing. All classes in this game currently provide some form of utility. I can do some minor healing, rez, and take a hit. A healer can heal, dps rez, cure quickly. A dps can cast buffs on a tank assisting with hate providing a utility, same with mages. I just think that you are wrong about classes in general, because out of principal they all serve a group purpose no matter how small or large. I think there are a few classes that they can work on adding specified versatility to in terms of how they affect archetypes, and that is the real problem here...the lack of utility in a few classes. This shouldnt be a kid mad because someone else got a new toy, but based on the responses here that is all this outcry looks like.

__________________


japanfour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2012, 01:51 PM   #39
Landiin

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

Japanfour quit trolling man. The facts are fighters are tanking in this stance and doing high T2 and if they are any good at all they are doing low T1 dps while doing it. That is broken and not the intent of this new stance. Instead of trying to preserve the state of OP of this stance how about you for once give ideas how to fix it. Take the advice you gave in another post of yours and give a suggestion for once.
__________________
Landiin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2012, 02:35 PM   #40
Davngr1

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,179
Default

this is so explicitly broken that it's offensive that it even made it to live.    was this a joke?   are you thing to troll players by giving two classes a broken over powered ability and watching what happens?

__________________
Davngr1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2012, 03:10 PM   #41
japanfour

Loremaster
japanfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 119
Default

ratbast wrote:

my comments in green

your special comments in red

() my subtexts to your thoughts.

japanfour wrote:

Ideally what should the best tank parse? I dont think that anything but T1 DPS should be topping the parse, I think utility classes should be competing with tanks atleast when they arent in relentless, I think that relentless dps should be inbetween utility and a DPS focused class. Thats just my opinion based on what content I play and how I play personally, so naturally I like the stance and support it.(opinion is entirely based on self interest) I am just saying what you think should be in this game is nothing more than an opinion. Show why you think what. instead of "HMM THIS SHOULD BE HERE AND THAT SHOULD BE THERE BECAUSE I SAID SO"
im more than a little perplexed how you state your opinion without any logical reasoning, and then make this statement above.

I understand the difference between the classes. (personal flavor: professing knowledge) I just dont think this change is as grave as people make it out to be. (opinion about others opinions) I also think its too early to pass all of this judgement, I think people should really test it and kind of reserve judgement untill then. (this is an obfuscating opinion about meta data)

DPS based hate has been around norrath since eq1. (history lession) I doubt they will make it any different. (speculation about eq2s future actions) People like doing damage,(duh-which is why increasing one reduces everyone elses relative rank) hate gain is an excuse for a fighter to do its job and enjoy being able to damage things at the same time.(misunderstanding of hate, the crux of having aggro to actually be the tank)

hate gain is not an excuse, its absolutely essential to TANKING, its core function.

I believe that the stance is a utility to a group or a raid. Because it shifts the purpose of a tank to suit something else, hopefully decreasing the timesink on some encounters. (belief and hope statement)

you are arguing an archtype specific buff "REALLY" helps everyone, since their contribution speeds things up. have you thought thru the logical application of your logic? it would justify a million potency buff that only wizards got. it justifies basically anything that buffs period.

Each group does not need a chanter and a bard. (as long as your expectations are low enough it doesnt need anything except 2 players) Its nice and all, but its not always needed. Usually one of the two will do for any heroic content, and most Hardmode group content. Ideal group make up should be looked at on an encounter to encounter basis instead of this general ideal of group makeup. Another problem that I see here is this generalization of how people think this game needs to be played. Its silly to throttle the versatility of something because of what people think works or doesnt work based on their opinions on how the game must be played. (creating pretext that all opposition to reckless is mindless opinion)

we are not talking about what you can get away with as you limp thru content, we are talking about optimal builds that intelligent players will seek, recruit, and invite to group/raid.

I dont agree with you on your design perspective. These 3 roles arent supposed to be exclusive IMO, I am a healing tank, that provides utility, but I havent been the top choice for hardmode stuff ,groups or raiding at first. Yet back before this stance, no one was complaining about paladins being able to heal rez dps and tank. I just think your idea on these roles being so rigidly cut is not the way to go.

(restating) "I am a healing tank, that provides utility" this is the problem. plus you want to explode fighter dps on top of that. why have classes when ppl get away with mindsets like your own? also i never said they were exclusive. they are focuses where they should be stronger than those who specialize in either of the other 3 main roles.

I dont think that this was added to boost tank recruitment in raiding (speculation about soes intention with reckless), and I think just adding something cool isnt the way to go.

i guarantee crusaders see this as something very cool/orgasmic.

I do think however that Troubadors and coercers need more fun abilities that make them enjoy the class more. I have never seen such a high turnover rate in anyother class. I just feel that people just dont enjoy those two classes in PVE. PVP is another story though.. (also, if you feel this way what sense does it make to give fighters a special treat--reckless-- instead of the utility classes)

Maybe for a troub or a coercer yes. I dont care about the big 3 being seperate, (go try rift then, its class system will suit you, eq2 is a specialized class system from the ground up) I understand the focus of it in each archetype, I just dont get people that want tanking traits to be exclusive to tanks and vice versa. some encounters in this game dictate versatility and every class needs what it can get to work with the encounter and succeed. (this is not a question of every class selfishly clawing for any scraps they can get their grubby hands on, reckless is a single archtype versatility buff that invades multiple other classes REASON FOR BEING, also pretending this is needed to succeed is incorrect)

your post is full of irrelevent content. it deflects and distracts from the issue and makes it less clear. if reckless is good, make it clear. muddying the waters with other problems does not justify more bad design choices (reckless).

usually i wouldnt care much that you say i have no reasons, but when your post is largely a net deposit of attitude, sans reasoning, its absurd. i would be willing to discuss why 3 main roles is better, due to its impact on values like interdependency, but i just dont think you would have anything to add. what i did discuss appears to be non-reasoned gibberish in your eyes.

of course I state my opinions here, this is a discussion board. At least I am explicit in stating that its my opinion. Opinions aren't based on pure self interest, but self interest is part of it, just not 100%. I honestly wouldnt care if it stays or goes, because its not going to hurt anything in this game either way. I don't even use the stance much, atleast on content relevant to me.

I have been playing the game a while, I have seen the tendency in mechanics, why cant I speculate? If I am wrong, I am wrong. Either way, hate is dps based, it seems to be a thing that the developers in this game favor. And once again, going back to what I said. I dont misunderstand hate, but I can see how my statement was flawed and I apologize for that.

Hate gain isnt as essential to a paladin for tanking(though it does assist alot in high end content). It is for other fighters and I know that, but I also know that tanks have been doing what I do, better than me, and they arent paladins. So there is that. If hategain is tied in with dps, then DPS is part of that core function as far as I am concerned.

My belief and hope statement is for others, not for myself, I understand my abilities as best I can, and my hopefulness is for other classes understanding their purpose.

Of course I understand the principle of my statement and how it can apply to everything, good thing that doesn't matter because of the specifics of what we are really discussing here, recklessness stance. I could talk about how over the top comparing this to having a million potency which is a real stretch. Either way, you stray from the subject to put my argument out of context which I can respect, its a good debate tactic.

I think that any opinion not having any facts against the stance are meaningless so far, because nearly every post so far on this stance has had nothing to analyze. Thats the point here I am trying to bring out. I dont care if the stance gets nerfed or removed, I just want to make sure it gets removed based off of data, or evidence of its broken-ness instead of unjustified player opinion.

I dont think this really messes with dps as bad as you think. I can bloat my parse up on any mob when buffs from other classes are timed well, and my parse was an obvious example of that. I sacrifice alot of my defensive skill for some more damage in the stance( and since plate tanks take alot of spike damage, thats significant), and I can still OT on some challenging fights . Either way, my single target dps is still not T1 dps as people are claiming here in the stance, and I am geared pretty well/have a oretty good understanding of a paladin/SK.

Once again I can speculate in a discussion, I think I am allowed to do that. I can be wrong, but since I am not stating them as some sort of clairvoyant fact I dont think I am in the wrong for doing so.

Just because I feel that way it doesnt mean take something new away from someone else. I just think that those 2 classes need enhancement, so please seperate the issue. Taking something away from my class would not cancel out my issues with another class not being as enjoyable or viable.

Class specialization does exist here and its why I like it over the pure versatility in rift. People on these boards are constantly struggling with various issues, that range from simply understanding a class, to posting indirect information to maintain the OPness of a class as well. I still dont know of a single target parse where a crusader can top a T1 dpser that knows what he is doing so once again this idea that this stance is going to take others out of the game is silly, SOE is going to balance it if it comes to that. If they dont, thats a definite problem that should be adressed when it is discovered. As far as clawing for every resource to succeed in any situation or game, I disagree because thats effort in my opinion, finding all the resources to win. I guess that goes hand in hand with the amount of personal interest involved in an opinion.

If recklessness isnt good, you too can make it clear, and post some data. This is a thread about the intention of it after all. I have stated that I can be beat on my paladin in the stance by T1/T2 even in my guild and thats while timing myself on buffs and temps. I think its good because it boosts my dps while not tanking, so I can play this game alot more actively and diligently as a tank/off tank. since I am not the first chosen main tank(bruisers, brawlers are usually more desirable), this is a good stance to test to help me as an off tank on DPS checks on encounters or gives me the chance to supply more dps to an encounter that has no adds or dps checks. It could be a good start, for an off tank stance, and that is why I support the idea of it. Is it balanced? I doubt it is entirely perfect, but its a step in the right decision based on how encounters are in this game. I post here hoping it doesnt get nerfed, but properly refined based on sound data presented.

I dont think this is going to affect or hinder anything in this game in terms of raiding guilds, groups or recruitment, atleast when people are conscious about how their class operates. I will say your reasoning is better than most here because I can actually respond to you and have a discussion with you, I am grateful for that and respect that you can talk to me here. I am just open and honest about what I think wrong or right. If I am wrong about anything I will openly admit it. Just get the data, or factual empirical evidence.

__________________


japanfour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2012, 03:12 PM   #42
Haciv

Loremaster
Haciv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 278
Default

Just finished another UD with the SAME group as the first 3 parses I posted on page 1 just to keep the data as reliable as possible.  Instead of Bolstering and UT'ing me, we buffed the SK.  Groupwide DPS was much higher, and tank DPS through the roof:

ZONWIDE:

And.... just to show that the drakes didn't help ME any... here's my best drake parse I've ever done... and I still lost:

__________________
Haciv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2012, 03:18 PM   #43
japanfour

Loremaster
japanfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 119
Default

[email protected] wrote:

Japanfour quit trolling man. The facts are fighters are tanking in this stance and doing high T2 and if they are any good at all they are doing low T1 dps while doing it. That is broken and not the intent of this new stance. Instead of trying to preserve the state of OP of this stance how about you for once give ideas how to fix it. Take the advice you gave in another post of yours and give a suggestion for once.

there is no parses posted. Post one, and dont post one from a zone where there are 10 mob encounters that a crusader can bloat their parse on.

__________________


japanfour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2012, 03:31 PM   #44
Freejazzlive

Loremaster
Freejazzlive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Foster's Home For Imaginary Friends
Posts: 704
Default

japanfour wrote:

 all classes are dpsing.

There are, however, classes which are quite specialized in doing DPS, which have very little else they bring to the group. There are other classes which used to bring quite a lot to a group, but no longer do because of changes to the game mechanics & the way named fights are designed.

The issue is not that Fighters are DPSing, actually. The issue, as perceived, is that Fighters are doing better DPS than are pure DPS classes. I remember a time when Fighters had two stances, offensive & defensive, just like Rogues do. I'm not at all sure why the offensive stance, as it was, wasn't sufficient. I'm terribly not sorry to say that with everything they already had going for them, the very last thing Pallies & SKs (in particular) needed was better DPS.

__________________
Talechaser Tuckpaw, Troubadour of Freeport

Golgi Apparati, Swashbuckler of Freeport

Aheedi Adaephon, Warlock of Freeport
Freejazzlive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2012, 03:49 PM   #45
Haciv

Loremaster
Haciv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 278
Default

nt

__________________
Haciv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2012, 03:51 PM   #46
Haciv

Loremaster
Haciv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 278
Default

nt

__________________
Haciv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2012, 04:20 PM   #47
japanfour

Loremaster
japanfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 119
Default

Freejazzlive wrote:

japanfour wrote:

 all classes are dpsing.

There are, however, classes which are quite specialized in doing DPS, which have very little else they bring to the group. There are other classes which used to bring quite a lot to a group, but no longer do because of changes to the game mechanics & the way named fights are designed.

The issue is not that Fighters are DPSing, actually. The issue, as perceived, is that Fighters are doing better DPS than are pure DPS classes. I remember a time when Fighters had two stances, offensive & defensive, just like Rogues do. I'm not at all sure why the offensive stance, as it was, wasn't sufficient. I'm terribly not sorry to say that with everything they already had going for them, the very last thing Pallies & SKs (in particular) needed was better DPS.

going back to what I said before, I am parsing on single targets with people that know how to parse and not really getting close to T1, I would say I can get my single target above 300k-400k AT THE MOST IF I AM ON IT WITH TEMPS. on a sound single target encounter, which isnt much compared to any T1 dps class at my tier. So once again if I am doing better than the pure dps class the problem isnt me, its him. And I am geared like a boss, optimally specced, have triggers for temps and everything. I am literally trying my best to post a "broken" parse, but I cant. I am actually trying at the moment to see for myself if this is broken.

__________________


japanfour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2012, 05:44 PM   #48
ratbast

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 365
Default

japanfour wrote:

of course I state my opinions here, this is a discussion board. At least I am explicit in stating that its my opinion. Opinions aren't based on pure self interest, but self interest is part of it, just not 100%. I honestly wouldnt care if it stays or goes, because its not going to hurt anything in this game either way. I don't even use the stance much, atleast on content relevant to me.

I have been playing the game a while, I have seen the tendency in mechanics, why cant I speculate? If I am wrong, I am wrong. Either way, hate is dps based, it seems to be a thing that the developers in this game favor. And once again, going back to what I said. I dont misunderstand hate, but I can see how my statement was flawed and I apologize for that.

Hate gain isnt as essential to a paladin for tanking(though it does assist alot in high end content). It is for other fighters and I know that, but I also know that tanks have been doing what I do, better than me, and they arent paladins. So there is that. If hategain is tied in with dps, then DPS is part of that core function as far as I am concerned.

My belief and hope statement is for others, not for myself, I understand my abilities as best I can, and my hopefulness is for other classes understanding their purpose.

Of course I understand the principle of my statement and how it can apply to everything, good thing that doesn't matter because of the specifics of what we are really discussing here, recklessness stance. I could talk about how over the top comparing this to having a million potency which is a real stretch. Either way, you stray from the subject to put my argument out of context which I can respect, its a good debate tactic.

I think that any opinion not having any facts against the stance are meaningless so far, because nearly every post so far on this stance has had nothing to analyze. Thats the point here I am trying to bring out. I dont care if the stance gets nerfed or removed, I just want to make sure it gets removed based off of data, or evidence of its broken-ness instead of unjustified player opinion.

I dont think this really messes with dps as bad as you think. I can bloat my parse up on any mob when buffs from other classes are timed well, and my parse was an obvious example of that. I sacrifice alot of my defensive skill for some more damage in the stance( and since plate tanks take alot of spike damage, thats significant), and I can still OT on some challenging fights . Either way, my single target dps is still not T1 dps as people are claiming here in the stance, and I am geared pretty well/have a oretty good understanding of a paladin/SK.

Once again I can speculate in a discussion, I think I am allowed to do that. I can be wrong, but since I am not stating them as some sort of clairvoyant fact I dont think I am in the wrong for doing so.

Just because I feel that way it doesnt mean take something new away from someone else. I just think that those 2 classes need enhancement, so please seperate the issue. Taking something away from my class would not cancel out my issues with another class not being as enjoyable or viable.

Class specialization does exist here and its why I like it over the pure versatility in rift. People on these boards are constantly struggling with various issues, that range from simply understanding a class, to posting indirect information to maintain the OPness of a class as well. I still dont know of a single target parse where a crusader can top a T1 dpser that knows what he is doing so once again this idea that this stance is going to take others out of the game is silly, SOE is going to balance it if it comes to that. If they dont, thats a definite problem that should be adressed when it is discovered. As far as clawing for every resource to succeed in any situation or game, I disagree because thats effort in my opinion, finding all the resources to win. I guess that goes hand in hand with the amount of personal interest involved in an opinion.

If recklessness isnt good, you too can make it clear, and post some data. This is a thread about the intention of it after all. I have stated that I can (BEAUTIFUL: "so youre saying theres a chance?" -lloyd christmas) be beat on my paladin in the stance by T1/T2 even in my guild and thats while timing myself on buffs and temps. I think its good because it boosts my dps while not tanking, so I can play this game alot more actively and diligently as a tank/off tank. since I am not the first chosen main tank(bruisers, brawlers are usually more desirable), this is a good stance to test to help me as an off tank on DPS checks on encounters or gives me the chance to supply more dps to an encounter that has no adds or dps checks. It could be a good start, for an off tank stance, and that is why I support the idea of it. Is it balanced? I doubt it is entirely perfect, but its a step in the right decision based on how encounters are in this game. I post here hoping it doesnt get nerfed, but properly refined based on sound data presented.

I dont think this is going to affect or hinder anything in this game in terms of raiding guilds, groups or recruitment, atleast when people are conscious about how their class operates. I will say your reasoning is better than most here because I can actually respond to you and have a discussion with you, I am grateful for that and respect that you can talk to me here. I am just open and honest about what I think wrong or right. If I am wrong about anything I will openly admit it. Just get the data, or factual empirical evidence.

honestly im not sure what is going on here. i feel like im in the twilight zone. and you are not the only one, others are saying this same thing. yes there has been a parse that was like 7 seconds or something but that was a different thread.

did you read the OP of this thread? it was a zw parse of the final skyshrine heroic instance (not fight, INSTANCE).

vicah is a warlock with tc or ut, cant remember, plus mystic buffage. gaarysal is the tank. again, this isnt verified, this is just what someone posted. i dont find it particularly hard to believe. got fighters running around with 600 potency.

(btw i dont object to you stating your opinions. thats great. what i took issue with was quoting my entire post and saying Show why you think what. instead of "HMM THIS SHOULD BE HERE AND THAT SHOULD BE THERE BECAUSE I SAID SO in response to my post. i did give reasonings, plus i can elaborate on them making them longer.  and its hypocritical for you say that and go on to spout unsupported opinions. i would not give an opinion with arguement of 'i said so', which was your direct implication to my directly quoted post. so i broke down your post into subtexts showing the heart of your arguments: mostly just opinion without logical rhetoric.)

ratbast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2012, 05:46 PM   #49
japanfour

Loremaster
japanfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 119
Default

ratbast wrote:

japanfour wrote:

of course I state my opinions here, this is a discussion board. At least I am explicit in stating that its my opinion. Opinions aren't based on pure self interest, but self interest is part of it, just not 100%. I honestly wouldnt care if it stays or goes, because its not going to hurt anything in this game either way. I don't even use the stance much, atleast on content relevant to me.

I have been playing the game a while, I have seen the tendency in mechanics, why cant I speculate? If I am wrong, I am wrong. Either way, hate is dps based, it seems to be a thing that the developers in this game favor. And once again, going back to what I said. I dont misunderstand hate, but I can see how my statement was flawed and I apologize for that.

Hate gain isnt as essential to a paladin for tanking(though it does assist alot in high end content). It is for other fighters and I know that, but I also know that tanks have been doing what I do, better than me, and they arent paladins. So there is that. If hategain is tied in with dps, then DPS is part of that core function as far as I am concerned.

My belief and hope statement is for others, not for myself, I understand my abilities as best I can, and my hopefulness is for other classes understanding their purpose.

Of course I understand the principle of my statement and how it can apply to everything, good thing that doesn't matter because of the specifics of what we are really discussing here, recklessness stance. I could talk about how over the top comparing this to having a million potency which is a real stretch. Either way, you stray from the subject to put my argument out of context which I can respect, its a good debate tactic.

I think that any opinion not having any facts against the stance are meaningless so far, because nearly every post so far on this stance has had nothing to analyze. Thats the point here I am trying to bring out. I dont care if the stance gets nerfed or removed, I just want to make sure it gets removed based off of data, or evidence of its broken-ness instead of unjustified player opinion.

I dont think this really messes with dps as bad as you think. I can bloat my parse up on any mob when buffs from other classes are timed well, and my parse was an obvious example of that. I sacrifice alot of my defensive skill for some more damage in the stance( and since plate tanks take alot of spike damage, thats significant), and I can still OT on some challenging fights . Either way, my single target dps is still not T1 dps as people are claiming here in the stance, and I am geared pretty well/have a oretty good understanding of a paladin/SK.

Once again I can speculate in a discussion, I think I am allowed to do that. I can be wrong, but since I am not stating them as some sort of clairvoyant fact I dont think I am in the wrong for doing so.

Just because I feel that way it doesnt mean take something new away from someone else. I just think that those 2 classes need enhancement, so please seperate the issue. Taking something away from my class would not cancel out my issues with another class not being as enjoyable or viable.

Class specialization does exist here and its why I like it over the pure versatility in rift. People on these boards are constantly struggling with various issues, that range from simply understanding a class, to posting indirect information to maintain the OPness of a class as well. I still dont know of a single target parse where a crusader can top a T1 dpser that knows what he is doing so once again this idea that this stance is going to take others out of the game is silly, SOE is going to balance it if it comes to that. If they dont, thats a definite problem that should be adressed when it is discovered. As far as clawing for every resource to succeed in any situation or game, I disagree because thats effort in my opinion, finding all the resources to win. I guess that goes hand in hand with the amount of personal interest involved in an opinion.

If recklessness isnt good, you too can make it clear, and post some data. This is a thread about the intention of it after all. I have stated that I can (BEAUTIFUL: "so youre saying theres a chance?" -lloyd christmas) be beat on my paladin in the stance by T1/T2 even in my guild and thats while timing myself on buffs and temps. I think its good because it boosts my dps while not tanking, so I can play this game alot more actively and diligently as a tank/off tank. since I am not the first chosen main tank(bruisers, brawlers are usually more desirable), this is a good stance to test to help me as an off tank on DPS checks on encounters or gives me the chance to supply more dps to an encounter that has no adds or dps checks. It could be a good start, for an off tank stance, and that is why I support the idea of it. Is it balanced? I doubt it is entirely perfect, but its a step in the right decision based on how encounters are in this game. I post here hoping it doesnt get nerfed, but properly refined based on sound data presented.

I dont think this is going to affect or hinder anything in this game in terms of raiding guilds, groups or recruitment, atleast when people are conscious about how their class operates. I will say your reasoning is better than most here because I can actually respond to you and have a discussion with you, I am grateful for that and respect that you can talk to me here. I am just open and honest about what I think wrong or right. If I am wrong about anything I will openly admit it. Just get the data, or factual empirical evidence.

honestly im not sure what is going on here. i feel like im in the twilight zone. and you are not the only one, others are saying this same thing. yes there has been a parse that was like 7 seconds or something but that was a different thread.

did you read the OP of this thread? it was a zw parse of the final skyshrine heroic instance (not fight, INSTANCE).

vicah is a warlock with tc or ut, cant remember, plus mystic buffage. gaarysal is the tank. again, this isnt verified, this is just what someone posted. i dont find it particularly hard to believe. got fighters running around with 600 potency.

(btw i dont object to you stating your opinions. thats great. what i took issue with was quoting my entire post and saying Show why you think what. instead of "HMM THIS SHOULD BE HERE AND THAT SHOULD BE THERE BECAUSE I SAID SO in response to my post. i did give reasonings, plus i can elaborate on them making them longer.  and its hypocritical for you say that and go on to spout unsupported opinions. i would not give an opinion with arguement of 'i said so', which was your direct implication to my directly quoted post. so i broke down your post into subtexts showing the heart of your arguments: mostly just opinion without logical rhetoric.)

like I said, post a single target parse, or zonewide parse that doesnt involve a 10 mob encounter ( those nether drakes) and the parse will be significantly different.

__________________


japanfour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2012, 05:52 PM   #50
Freejazzlive

Loremaster
Freejazzlive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Foster's Home For Imaginary Friends
Posts: 704
Default

japanfour wrote:

Freejazzlive wrote:

japanfour wrote:

 all classes are dpsing.

There are, however, classes which are quite specialized in doing DPS, which have very little else they bring to the group. There are other classes which used to bring quite a lot to a group, but no longer do because of changes to the game mechanics & the way named fights are designed.

The issue is not that Fighters are DPSing, actually. The issue, as perceived, is that Fighters are doing better DPS than are pure DPS classes. I remember a time when Fighters had two stances, offensive & defensive, just like Rogues do. I'm not at all sure why the offensive stance, as it was, wasn't sufficient. I'm terribly not sorry to say that with everything they already had going for them, the very last thing Pallies & SKs (in particular) needed was better DPS.

going back to what I said before, I am parsing on single targets with people that know how to parse and not really getting close to T1.

Unlike others, I'm not concerned with you getting into T1. I'm concerned with you getting into T2 & then competing with Swashies & Brigs & so forth. I know I said "pure DPS classes," & that was probably not the right way to word it, so my apology for any confusion caused.

The point still remains -- which you didn't address -- that I don't see why a new stance was needed to begin with, nor do I believe that Pallies & SKs (in particular) needed better DPS at all.

__________________
Talechaser Tuckpaw, Troubadour of Freeport

Golgi Apparati, Swashbuckler of Freeport

Aheedi Adaephon, Warlock of Freeport
Freejazzlive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2012, 06:02 PM   #51
japanfour

Loremaster
japanfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 119
Default

Freejazzlive wrote:

japanfour wrote:

Freejazzlive wrote:

japanfour wrote:

 all classes are dpsing.

There are, however, classes which are quite specialized in doing DPS, which have very little else they bring to the group. There are other classes which used to bring quite a lot to a group, but no longer do because of changes to the game mechanics & the way named fights are designed.

The issue is not that Fighters are DPSing, actually. The issue, as perceived, is that Fighters are doing better DPS than are pure DPS classes. I remember a time when Fighters had two stances, offensive & defensive, just like Rogues do. I'm not at all sure why the offensive stance, as it was, wasn't sufficient. I'm terribly not sorry to say that with everything they already had going for them, the very last thing Pallies & SKs (in particular) needed was better DPS.

going back to what I said before, I am parsing on single targets with people that know how to parse and not really getting close to T1.

Unlike others, I'm not concerned with you getting into T1. I'm concerned with you getting into T2 & then competing with Swashies & Brigs & so forth. I know I said "pure DPS classes," & that was probably not the right way to word it, so my apology for any confusion caused.

The point still remains -- which you didn't address -- that I don't see why a new stance was needed to begin with, nor do I believe that Pallies & SKs (in particular) needed better DPS at all.

the Swash in my guild can still consistently outparse me/crusader on single target, not so much on multi anymore when in stance. I dont know for sure on brigand, but I will let you know when I can on that. I dont think that the new stance was something that we needed, but it does look like it can be the start of a good idea, I think it needs more direction towards what a tank does while still maintaining some sort of offensive based perk with consequence. Either way the dps its giving out isnt as serious as people claim.

__________________


japanfour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2012, 06:03 PM   #52
ratbast

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 365
Default

japanfour wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Japanfour quit trolling man. The facts are fighters are tanking in this stance and doing high T2 and if they are any good at all they are doing low T1 dps while doing it. That is broken and not the intent of this new stance. Instead of trying to preserve the state of OP of this stance how about you for once give ideas how to fix it. Take the advice you gave in another post of yours and give a suggestion for once.

there is no parses posted. Post one, and dont post one from a zone where there are 10 mob encounters that a crusader can bloat their parse on.

do you honestly think wizards are simply disregarding a warlocks parse on UD because of the content type?

UD cant be dismissed.

edit: also your responses are calling into question your intelligence. the parse posted was of a WARLOCK barely beating a crusader. whose parse was bloated on trash?

ratbast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2012, 06:08 PM   #53
Freejazzlive

Loremaster
Freejazzlive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Foster's Home For Imaginary Friends
Posts: 704
Default

japanfour wrote:

the Swash in my guild can still consistently outparse me/crusader on single target, not so much on multi anymore when in stance.

IMO, that should be the other way around -- Swashy was always the AOE DPS class, due to Hurricane & inherent AOEs. You shouldn't even come close to a Swashy on AOE fights, & if you are, then something is wrong.

__________________
Talechaser Tuckpaw, Troubadour of Freeport

Golgi Apparati, Swashbuckler of Freeport

Aheedi Adaephon, Warlock of Freeport
Freejazzlive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2012, 06:08 PM   #54
japanfour

Loremaster
japanfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 119
Default

ratbast wrote:

japanfour wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Japanfour quit trolling man. The facts are fighters are tanking in this stance and doing high T2 and if they are any good at all they are doing low T1 dps while doing it. That is broken and not the intent of this new stance. Instead of trying to preserve the state of OP of this stance how about you for once give ideas how to fix it. Take the advice you gave in another post of yours and give a suggestion for once.

there is no parses posted. Post one, and dont post one from a zone where there are 10 mob encounters that a crusader can bloat their parse on.

do you honestly think wizards are simply disregarding a warlocks parse on UD because of the content type?

UD cant be dismissed.

on a multi target encounter they should be, as warlocks are more designated for AOE dps and are anle to really ramp it up on those nether drakes.

__________________


japanfour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2012, 06:10 PM   #55
ratbast

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 365
Default

japanfour wrote:

ratbast wrote:

japanfour wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Japanfour quit trolling man. The facts are fighters are tanking in this stance and doing high T2 and if they are any good at all they are doing low T1 dps while doing it. That is broken and not the intent of this new stance. Instead of trying to preserve the state of OP of this stance how about you for once give ideas how to fix it. Take the advice you gave in another post of yours and give a suggestion for once.

there is no parses posted. Post one, and dont post one from a zone where there are 10 mob encounters that a crusader can bloat their parse on.

do you honestly think wizards are simply disregarding a warlocks parse on UD because of the content type?

UD cant be dismissed.

on a multi target encounter they should be, as warlocks are more designated for AOE dps and are anle to really ramp it up on those nether drakes.

now you are figuring it out. so a reckless crusader is barely edged out in UD, on warlock parse bloating content, while the sorc is fully buffed and is getting all the buff love.

ratbast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2012, 06:28 PM   #56
japanfour

Loremaster
japanfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 119
Default

ratbast wrote:

japanfour wrote:

ratbast wrote:

japanfour wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Japanfour quit trolling man. The facts are fighters are tanking in this stance and doing high T2 and if they are any good at all they are doing low T1 dps while doing it. That is broken and not the intent of this new stance. Instead of trying to preserve the state of OP of this stance how about you for once give ideas how to fix it. Take the advice you gave in another post of yours and give a suggestion for once.

there is no parses posted. Post one, and dont post one from a zone where there are 10 mob encounters that a crusader can bloat their parse on.

do you honestly think wizards are simply disregarding a warlocks parse on UD because of the content type?

UD cant be dismissed.

on a multi target encounter they should be, as warlocks are more designated for AOE dps and are anle to really ramp it up on those nether drakes.

now you are figuring it out. so a reckless crusader is barely edged out in UD, on warlock parse bloating content, while the sorc is fully buffed and is getting all the buff love.

I dont think I am figuring out what you are trying to convey to me, I am all ears though. I just dont see what you are trying to state. I dont know what edged out means. I do get that you are trying to present a comical situation where a wizard gets alot of buffs and cant parse on some trash. But if he is mad about that he should betray to warlock.

__________________


japanfour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2012, 06:41 PM   #57
TheSpin

Loremaster
TheSpin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,587
Default

I believe there is a good argument against using a zonewide parse for measuring a single character's contribution to a raid.  I will give a very basic example to explain why.

Scenario:

Character 1,  does 100k DPS to a single target.

Character 2, Does 50k DPS to up to 6 targets.

Fight 1:  Single Mob, Difficult Encounter.  Character 1 does 100k DPS, Character 2 does 50k DPS

Fight 2: Group of 6, Equally challenging overall as fight 1.  Character 1 does 100k DPS, Character 2 does 300k DPS.

End Parse:

Character 1 does 200k dps total, his DPS was invaluable for fight 1, though not as helpful for fight 2.

Character 2 does 350k dps total, but his damage was pretty negligible in fight 1. in fight two, he did not contribute any more than character 1 did in the single target fight, but the numbers make it seem as if he is more valuable overall than character 1 because his overall parse is much higher.

TheSpin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2012, 06:51 PM   #58
ratbast

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 365
Default

japanfour wrote:

ratbast wrote:

japanfour wrote:

ratbast wrote:

japanfour wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Japanfour quit trolling man. The facts are fighters are tanking in this stance and doing high T2 and if they are any good at all they are doing low T1 dps while doing it. That is broken and not the intent of this new stance. Instead of trying to preserve the state of OP of this stance how about you for once give ideas how to fix it. Take the advice you gave in another post of yours and give a suggestion for once.

there is no parses posted. Post one, and dont post one from a zone where there are 10 mob encounters that a crusader can bloat their parse on.

do you honestly think wizards are simply disregarding a warlocks parse on UD because of the content type?

UD cant be dismissed.

on a multi target encounter they should be, as warlocks are more designated for AOE dps and are anle to really ramp it up on those nether drakes.

now you are figuring it out. so a reckless crusader is barely edged out in UD, on warlock parse bloating content, while the sorc is fully buffed and is getting all the buff love.

I dont think I am figuring out what you are trying to convey to me, I am all ears though. I just dont see what you are trying to state. I dont know what edged out means. I do get that you are trying to present a comical situation where a wizard gets alot of buffs and cant parse on some trash. But if he is mad about that he should betray to warlock.

you are misinformed about 1 hypothetical point (hypothetical since we are all relying on another persons parse and cant verify it). the top of the parse in question was a warlock. there is no wizard near the top of the parse. if group had wizard he was obliterated by the tank by approx 200k extdps.

ratbast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2012, 06:57 PM   #59
ratbast

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 365
Default

TheSpin wrote:

I believe there is a good argument against using a zonewide parse for measuring a single character's contribution to a raid.  I will give a very basic example to explain why.

Scenario:

Character 1,  does 100k DPS to a single target.

Character 2, Does 50k DPS to up to 6 targets.

Fight 1:  Single Mob, Difficult Encounter.  Character 1 does 100k DPS, Character 2 does 50k DPS

Fight 2: Group of 6, Equally challenging overall as fight 1.  Character 1 does 100k DPS, Character 2 does 300k DPS.

End Parse:

Character 1 does 200k dps total, his DPS was invaluable for fight 1, though not as helpful for fight 2.

Character 2 does 350k dps total, but his damage was pretty negligible in fight 1. in fight two, he did not contribute any more than character 1 did in the single target fight, but the numbers make it seem as if he is more valuable overall than character 1 because his overall parse is much higher.

good points to keep in mind. but as a rough tool its results (zw) should be looked at.

the weighting required for your analysis is subjective as well. making it less useful as a measurement.

when the zone is cleared, the zw is posted. thereby feeding egos and justifying ppls psyches for why they rolled that class. cant get around that fact. and nobody is doing math to weight each persons per encounter contribution and giving a performance quotient. ppl are just getting credit for their gross damage.

ratbast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2012, 07:05 PM   #60
japanfour

Loremaster
japanfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 119
Default

ratbast wrote:

japanfour wrote:

ratbast wrote:

japanfour wrote:

ratbast wrote:

japanfour wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Japanfour quit trolling man. The facts are fighters are tanking in this stance and doing high T2 and if they are any good at all they are doing low T1 dps while doing it. That is broken and not the intent of this new stance. Instead of trying to preserve the state of OP of this stance how about you for once give ideas how to fix it. Take the advice you gave in another post of yours and give a suggestion for once.

there is no parses posted. Post one, and dont post one from a zone where there are 10 mob encounters that a crusader can bloat their parse on.

do you honestly think wizards are simply disregarding a warlocks parse on UD because of the content type?

UD cant be dismissed.

on a multi target encounter they should be, as warlocks are more designated for AOE dps and are anle to really ramp it up on those nether drakes.

now you are figuring it out. so a reckless crusader is barely edged out in UD, on warlock parse bloating content, while the sorc is fully buffed and is getting all the buff love.

I dont think I am figuring out what you are trying to convey to me, I am all ears though. I just dont see what you are trying to state. I dont know what edged out means. I do get that you are trying to present a comical situation where a wizard gets alot of buffs and cant parse on some trash. But if he is mad about that he should betray to warlock.

you are misinformed about 1 hypothetical point (hypothetical since we are all relying on another persons parse and cant verify it). the top of the parse in question was a warlock. there is no wizard near the top of the parse. if group had wizard he was obliterated by the tank by approx 200k extdps.

there isnt a wizard on the top of the parse because the majority of the encounters in UD are multiple target, so naturally most AOE DPS classes are going to be favored on the parse if knowledgable in that zone specifically.

__________________


japanfour is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:21 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.