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 08-23-2012, 11:18 AM   #1
Traxor
Server: Lucan DLere
Guild: Vigilance
Rank: Raider

Loremaster
Traxor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 115
Default

Its still an imballance I feel so lets make threads till things are changed.

Yes it needed to be changed so you couldnt block attacks.

Please remove 50% increased damage on target .

Traxor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2012, 11:49 AM   #2
Yimway

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

I think it would be neat if it actually increased my DPS.

__________________
Yimway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2012, 12:13 PM   #3
Geothe

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,098
Default

The 50% increase damage needs to be modified to:  50% increased damage -IF- direct target of the attack. ie, AEs will hit normally unless you have agro.

The DPS "increase" from the stance is so imbalanced that its rather sad a red name has had nothing at all to say on the subject still.

Instead of potency increase (which has a massive variance in effectiveness between fighter classes) there should just be a flat out all damage modifier.  Something along the lines of all outgoing damage is increased by 40%.  Affecting Spells, CAs, and Autoattack.

That way all fighters get the exact same proportion of DPS increase in the stance.  "Offensive" fighter classes will still be higher in DPS, as at a base level they do more DPS already.

__________________
Smed: We aren't going to be allowing RMT in any way, shape or form on the non-exchange enabled EQ II servers. Period. End of statement.

Smed: 5) This [LoN] is not some slippery slope towards selling items directly in EQ & EQ II.

Lie #3: Station Cash. Enough Said.

Geothe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2012, 02:53 PM   #4
Davngr1

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

i would take issue with a flat out raw percentage increase since it will make current and future proc damage that is perfectly balanced for all classes, broken for fighters in reckless.     thus the damage increase should be directly applied to ca's (double,boost ca damage) and a multiplier bonus like the one you see on scouts AA's.  this will benefit all fighters equally.

 the take 50% more damage should be "when targeted" and switching from reckless to another stance should not have a penalty since it defeats the purpose of having a fighter in raid, that purpose being to tank.   being able to go reckless mid fight is fine how it is i suppose.

  i still feel this was a bad move and that the ability should have been something along the lines of making other classes better but if you must keep it this way it has to give equal damage boost proportional to class.  it also must not boost current group prcs or abilities.

__________________
Davngr1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2012, 05:04 PM   #5
Geothe

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,098
Default

Davngr1 wrote:

i would take issue with a flat out raw percentage increase since it will make current and future proc damage that is perfectly balanced for all classes, broken for fighters in reckless.     thus the damage increase should be directly applied to ca's (double,boost ca damage) and a multiplier bonus like the one you see on scouts AA's.  this will benefit all fighters equally.

Apparently you weren't able to read where I said:" Affecting Spells, CAs, and Autoattack."

I don't see "procs" in there anywhere, do you?

__________________
Smed: We aren't going to be allowing RMT in any way, shape or form on the non-exchange enabled EQ II servers. Period. End of statement.

Smed: 5) This [LoN] is not some slippery slope towards selling items directly in EQ & EQ II.

Lie #3: Station Cash. Enough Said.

Geothe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2012, 06:59 PM   #6
Davngr1

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

Geothe wrote:

Davngr1 wrote:

i would take issue with a flat out raw percentage increase since it will make current and future proc damage that is perfectly balanced for all classes, broken for fighters in reckless.     thus the damage increase should be directly applied to ca's (double,boost ca damage) and a multiplier bonus like the one you see on scouts AA's.  this will benefit all fighters equally.

Apparently you weren't able to read where I said:" Affecting Spells, CAs, and Autoattack."

I don't see "procs" in there anywhere, do you?

 that's the problem.   ca's/spells don't scale like auto attack does, 40% higher auto attack would be substantial if not stupid overpowered but 40% ca's would be border line depending on where and how the 40% affects them.

  that's why they should add a auto attack multiplier and a ca/spell modification separately.  would be nice if each tank class got their own stance version as well.

 in every single game that offers "dual roles" these roles are achieved thru choosing many abilities to transform your class.  when you just pretty much leave a class as is and just give them one super ability to bridge them to another role like reckless did it ends up terribly unbalanced.

__________________
Davngr1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2012, 11:22 AM   #7
Geothe

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,098
Default

Davngr1 wrote:

Geothe wrote:

Davngr1 wrote:

i would take issue with a flat out raw percentage increase since it will make current and future proc damage that is perfectly balanced for all classes, broken for fighters in reckless.     thus the damage increase should be directly applied to ca's (double,boost ca damage) and a multiplier bonus like the one you see on scouts AA's.  this will benefit all fighters equally.

Apparently you weren't able to read where I said:" Affecting Spells, CAs, and Autoattack."

I don't see "procs" in there anywhere, do you?

 that's the problem.   ca's/spells don't scale like auto attack does, 40% higher auto attack would be substantial if not stupid overpowered but 40% ca's would be border line depending on where and how the 40% affects them.

  that's why they should add a auto attack multiplier and a ca/spell modification separately.  would be nice if each tank class got their own stance version as well. 

That really does make no sense at all.The increase should be the same rate of increase for all fighter classes, regardless of what their DPS breakdown is.if class A does 60% of their damage from Autoattack and 40% from CA/Spell, while another does 30% AA, and 70% CA/Spell... that shouldn't matter in reckless, they should both be increased by the same rate.  A flat out multiplier would do that.

Those fighters which, outside of Reckless, already do more DPS (say SK) vs those that do less (say Guardian) willl still be higher.

(made up numbers to illustrate point).Currently, if a guard does around 250k DPS in offensive, they may bump up to 300k in reckless.If an SK does around 350k in offensive... they bump up to 600k+.Guards dont really gain much at all while SKs get a massive boost.With a straight multiplier (say 40% as an example).Guards would go from 250 -> 350k,  SK go from 350 - 490k.  They both get same rate of increase, SKs net more since they are already higher at the base level.

This Autoattack "scaling" that you go off about doesn't have jack squat to do with the topic at hand.

__________________
Smed: We aren't going to be allowing RMT in any way, shape or form on the non-exchange enabled EQ II servers. Period. End of statement.

Smed: 5) This [LoN] is not some slippery slope towards selling items directly in EQ & EQ II.

Lie #3: Station Cash. Enough Said.

Geothe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2012, 12:32 PM   #8
Faildozer
Server: Permafrost
Guild: Mass Extinction
Rank: Normal Officer

Loremaster
Faildozer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 150
Default

guys.. reckless is fine as is.. it is working as it was intended 2 and that is give these 3rd and 4th tanks in raid (usually crusaders) increased dps for when they arent tanking. It may not benefit my guard as much but my guard and brawlers have al ot more tools for tanking than crusaders and because of that those classes are called on to tank more than the crusaders. Yeah it would be fun to absolutely mash face in heroic stuff with that stance but I would rather the tanks that would normally get sat, not due to being bad players mind you, stay in raid instead of bringing in some bad dps that was only recruited to fill that spot when we dont need 4 tanks but need extra dps..

The real problem you have with reckless is the amount your CA's hit for.. Zerkers are definately justified in their complaints, guardians? debatable but the issue is with the classes not the stance which is for all intents and purposes working as it was designed to.

__________________
Faildozer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2012, 12:37 PM   #9
Yimway

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

[email protected] wrote:

guys.. reckless is fine as is.. it is working as it was intended 2 and that is give these 3rd and 4th tanks in raid (usually crusaders) increased dps for when they arent tanking. It may not benefit my guard as much but my guard and brawlers have al ot more tools for tanking than crusaders and because of that those classes are called on to tank more than the crusaders. Yeah it would be fun to absolutely mash face in heroic stuff with that stance but I would rather the tanks that would normally get sat, not due to being bad players mind you, stay in raid instead of bringing in some bad dps that was only recruited to fill that spot when we dont need 4 tanks but need extra dps..

The real problem you have with reckless is the amount your CA's hit for.. Zerkers are definately justified in their complaints, guardians? debatable but the issue is with the classes not the stance which is for all intents and purposes working as it was designed to.

If this were true, why was the stance not only provided to crusaders?

__________________
Yimway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2012, 12:47 PM   #10
Koleg
Server: Unrest_old

Lord
Koleg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 713
Default

[email protected] wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

guys.. reckless is fine as is.. it is working as it was intended 2 and that is give these 3rd and 4th tanks in raid (usually crusaders) increased dps for when they arent tanking. It may not benefit my guard as much but my guard and brawlers have al ot more tools for tanking than crusaders and because of that those classes are called on to tank more than the crusaders. Yeah it would be fun to absolutely mash face in heroic stuff with that stance but I would rather the tanks that would normally get sat, not due to being bad players mind you, stay in raid instead of bringing in some bad dps that was only recruited to fill that spot when we dont need 4 tanks but need extra dps..

The real problem you have with reckless is the amount your CA's hit for.. Zerkers are definately justified in their complaints, guardians? debatable but the issue is with the classes not the stance which is for all intents and purposes working as it was designed to.

If this were true, why was the stance not only provided to crusaders?

If this weren't true why would nearly every top WW raiding guild, including your own use Guardian or Brawlers exclusively?

Besides, all fighters DO gain enhanced DPS from Reckless, you're just not happy with the unbalanced amount which it provides to the Guardian when compared to the others, who wouldn't be using it to tank raid bosses in the first place as the exclusive MT.  Reckless is in no way balanced, we can ask any Wizard or Guardian around and they will say the same thing. 

Besides, searching for balance in a game which allows current content solo and quest gear to be equal to or slightly better than x4 raid gear is a futile endeavor and borders on QQ'ing.

Koleg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2012, 12:53 PM   #11
Yimway

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

[email protected]_old wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

If this were true, why was the stance not only provided to crusaders?

If this weren't true why would nearly every top WW raiding guild, including your own use Guardian or Brawlers exclusively?

Um, we have crusaders mains on our raiding roster, and they tank stuffs.  We actually do not have a brawler main anymore, not cause we dislike them, just that the ones we had all emo'd out.

__________________
Yimway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2012, 01:09 PM   #12
Rageincarnate
Server: Unrest
Guild: Vindication
Rank: Officer

Loremaster
Rageincarnate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 396
Default

[email protected]_old wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

guys.. reckless is fine as is.. it is working as it was intended 2 and that is give these 3rd and 4th tanks in raid (usually crusaders) increased dps for when they arent tanking. It may not benefit my guard as much but my guard and brawlers have al ot more tools for tanking than crusaders and because of that those classes are called on to tank more than the crusaders. Yeah it would be fun to absolutely mash face in heroic stuff with that stance but I would rather the tanks that would normally get sat, not due to being bad players mind you, stay in raid instead of bringing in some bad dps that was only recruited to fill that spot when we dont need 4 tanks but need extra dps..

The real problem you have with reckless is the amount your CA's hit for.. Zerkers are definately justified in their complaints, guardians? debatable but the issue is with the classes not the stance which is for all intents and purposes working as it was designed to.

If this were true, why was the stance not only provided to crusaders?

Besides, all fighters DO gain enhanced DPS from Reckless until they die.  (fixed it for you)

you're just not happy with the unbalanced amount which it provides to the Guardian when compared to the others

that makes sense.

who wouldn't be using it to tank raid bosses in the first place as the exclusive MT. 

that doesn't make sense.

Reckless is in no way balanced, we can ask any Wizard or Guardian around and they will say the same thing. 

They are saying it's not balanced(you're not listening.. and are just trying to get dps increases for other classes which belongs in other threads....).. but you keep going off on weird tangents

Besides, searching for balance in a game which allows current content solo and quest gear to be equal to or slightly better than x4 raid gear is a futile endeavor and borders on QQ'ing.

Well.. stop complaining about them asking for balance would be a good start!

Rageincarnate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2012, 01:22 PM   #13
Faildozer
Server: Permafrost
Guild: Mass Extinction
Rank: Normal Officer

Loremaster
Faildozer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 150
Default

atan, all fighters do gain dps from reckless, it just may not be as much as you want but again.. its not due to reckless being broken or unbalanced, it is the class you play.. Brawlers see good returns from it as well and ours like to use it whenever they can but not when they are tanking but in general crusaders got the short end of the stick as far as tanking cooldowns and surviv stuff but they have a very niche role of picking up swarm adds or filling in in a pinch. All tanks can do this but crusaders and zerkers excel in it but fall pretty far short in terms of tanking much else outside of relying on death prevents from other sources.. therefore they are normally 3rd and 4th tank and usually draw short end of the stick when it comes to getting sat to get dps in on fights that have increasingly higher dps checks.. 

TLDR; Everybody gets benefits from reckless, crusaders shine with it and they should because they would be getting sat if they didnt.

__________________
Faildozer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2012, 01:57 PM   #14
Ulrichvon

Loremaster
Ulrichvon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 641
Default

[email protected] wrote:

atan, all fighters do gain dps from reckless, it just may not be as much as you want but again..

The issue being warriors only see around a 10% increase from this stance, so little that no one other than warriors perceive the bonus.  The justification for adding the stance to the game was 'to allow non-tanking fighters to contribute more to the raid force'.  Seems to me warriors can fall into that category, but aren't really getting anything measured from the stance.

__________________
Hey, where's my random act of kindness?
Ulrichvon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2012, 02:20 PM   #15
Faildozer
Server: Permafrost
Guild: Mass Extinction
Rank: Normal Officer

Loremaster
Faildozer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 150
Default

Ulrichvon wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

atan, all fighters do gain dps from reckless, it just may not be as much as you want but again..

The issue being warriors only see around a 10% increase from this stance, so little that no one other than warriors perceive the bonus.  The justification for adding the stance to the game was 'to allow non-tanking fighters to contribute more to the raid force'.  Seems to me warriors can fall into that category, but aren't really getting anything measured from the stance.

again.. warriors could use a damage boost but that is a different thread. Recklessness is fine. 

__________________
Faildozer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2012, 03:09 PM   #16
Faildozer
Server: Permafrost
Guild: Mass Extinction
Rank: Normal Officer

Loremaster
Faildozer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 150
Default

Davngr1 wrote:

*Please do not quote forum violations*

Except recklessness is fine and working as intended in raiding and again any issues people have with it are issues with certain classes.. The fact is that all tanks are seeing an increase in damage, no tanks are currently tanking using the stance, if anything the damage increase needs to be changed to only apply if the target of an attack and the threat generation while in the stance.. Why not let the devs actually work on new changes instead of spending more time on something that isnt broken and working as intended...

__________________
Faildozer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2012, 03:29 PM   #17
Davngr1

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

it does not do what it is intended to do since it scales amazingly for crusaders, does ok for monks and it's pretty much who cares for warriors and bruiser. 

 how about zerk?   aren't they suppose to be the offensive warrior?  crusaders all ready had a raid spot locked before this stance but zerks?    

 this stance is broken, period.    it needs to be done right.

 ultimately a fix would lower crusader damage a bit and increase the other tanks damage proportional to their current damage potential.

__________________
Davngr1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2012, 03:31 PM   #18
Hennyo

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 371
Default

Davngr1 wrote:

it does not do what it is intended to do since it scales amazingly for crusaders, does ok for monks and it's pretty much who cares for warriors and bruiser. 

 how about zerk?   aren't they suppose to be the offensive warrior?  crusaders all ready had a raid spot locked before this stance but zerks?    

 this stance is broken, period.    it needs to be done right.

 ultimately a fix would lower crusader damage a bit and increase the other tanks damage proportional to their current damage potential.

It can do a ton for brusiers if you actually knew how to take advantage of it.

Hennyo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2012, 03:35 PM   #19
Davngr1

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

Hennyo wrote:

Davngr1 wrote:

it does not do what it is intended to do since it scales amazingly for crusaders, does ok for monks and it's pretty much who cares for warriors and bruiser. 

 how about zerk?   aren't they suppose to be the offensive warrior?  crusaders all ready had a raid spot locked before this stance but zerks?    

 this stance is broken, period.    it needs to be done right.

 ultimately a fix would lower crusader damage a bit and increase the other tanks damage proportional to their current damage potential.

It can do a ton for brusiers if you actually knew how to take advantage of it.

yes it's somewhat effective but monk gets better numbers (dragonfire) and both are smoked by crusaders.

 the point is that it's unbalanced.

 this isn't about one player since players will be varied.   i'm pretty sure my bruiser in def stance can out parse bad crusaders in reckelss but that means nothing.

__________________
Davngr1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2012, 03:46 PM   #20
Traxor
Server: Lucan DLere
Guild: Vigilance
Rank: Raider

Loremaster
Traxor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 115
Default

Every drunder fight I have done you cant use this stance. Its a Melee mage style combat boost. I do more dps not dying 3 times in a fight when di's are down much less when an add actually targets me on spawn or after killing someone else.

Traxor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2012, 04:27 PM   #21
Koleg
Server: Unrest_old

Lord
Koleg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 713
Default

Davngr1 wrote:

  really?

  crusaders were/are represented before reckless and will stay that way even if reckless is removed.  what they offer the raid in group buffs and utility is far greater than what any other tank class offers. 

 there needs to be some changes to this stance.

 1st.   needs to not be potency.  adjust ca damage directly. <-- All that would do is put Crusaders back in the basement concerning DPS as half og thier DPS is spell based, but the CA-centric fighters don't seem to care about that now do you.  So either the CA-centric fighters do not care about the Spell-CA fighters (which is probably true) or the CA-centric fighters don't understand the fighters that don't match thier model (which is sad, for you). 

 2nd.  need to remove the 50% more damage and make it "when target" <-- I'd lean more toward the negative Threat rather than the 50% more damage... the idea of reckless was 'suppose' to be the ability to add raid DPS without actually being able to hold aggro.  Removing the 50% more damage only allows Reckless fighters to solo more content or raid tank in current content easier.  If you're going to ask for fixes, suggesting fixing that make DPS-fighters even more OP'ed isn't going win any favor with the other 19 classes. 

3rd.  add a proc and melee multiplier equal to waht dps scouts get (not greater) <-- Why?  So we can sit, replace or kick even more Rangers and Assassins from the raid model?  DPS is the job of the DPS classes, Reckless was sold to us by SOE to be a bridge between those fight mechanics that required 'extra' TANKS and those which did not require 'extra' TANKS.  Leave the DPS alone, they have equal right to raid as Reckless fighters.  Raid make-up in NO WAY needs to be 6 of each arch-type represented.

  those 3 changes should bring crusaders down a tad and boost the melee based offensive fighters relatively.

Koleg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2012, 04:41 PM   #22
Haciv

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

[email protected] wrote:

Our bruiser can top the zonewide and leave the mages and scouts in the dust on "fights that don't matter" of which he admits there's only 3-4 fights that "do matter".

 Fixed that one for you.

__________________
Haciv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2012, 04:47 PM   #23
Orthureon

Loremaster
Orthureon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,073
Default

Davngr1 wrote:

 1st.   needs to not be potency.  adjust ca damage directly. And spell damage as SKs have very few CAs

 2nd.  need to remove the 50% more damage and make it "when target" - Why? That will just shift it towards the single target dps fighters, ALA non crusader or berserker.

3rd.  add a proc and melee multiplier equal to what dps scouts get (not greater) - A little excessive - This again would be more in favor of classes that are more geared toward melee, or bossting their own melee skills. So the base multiplier of warriors would increase??? Theirs is already 1.5 as compared to crusaders 1.3 (I believe).

The increase to damage should favor no one, it should be straight out, but it just so happens when you increase the potency of a class that uses more spells and is AE heavy you will see a large increase in damage, especially in AE scenarios.

  those 3 changes should bring crusaders down a tad and boost the melee based offensive fighters relatively.

I ask why should a Guardian be able to do the same DPS as a Crusader? I cannot tank as well, I cannot taunt as well etc. If you ask for this you might as well ask for everything to be available to all classes. There are 24 classes for a reason.

__________________
NAGAFEN Server


  • DAEMIEN 92 Shadowknight

  • XEOS 92 Ranger

  • EXILON 92 Inquisitor.

Orthureon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2012, 04:56 PM   #24
Orthureon

Loremaster
Orthureon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,073
Default

[email protected]_old wrote:

Davngr1 wrote:

  really?

  crusaders were/are represented before reckless and will stay that way even if reckless is removed.  what they offer the raid in group buffs and utility is far greater than what any other tank class offers. 

 there needs to be some changes to this stance.

 1st.   needs to not be potency.  adjust ca damage directly. <-- All that would do is put Crusaders back in the basement concerning DPS as half og thier DPS is spell based, but the CA-centric fighters don't seem to care about that now do you.  So either the CA-centric fighters do not care about the Spell-CA fighters (which is probably true) or the CA-centric fighters don't understand the fighters that don't match thier model (which is sad, for you). 

 2nd.  need to remove the 50% more damage and make it "when target" <-- I'd lean more toward the negative Threat rather than the 50% more damage... the idea of reckless was 'suppose' to be the ability to add raid DPS without actually being able to hold aggro.  Removing the 50% more damage only allows Reckless fighters to solo more content or raid tank in current content easier.  If you're going to ask for fixes, suggesting fixing that make DPS-fighters even more OP'ed isn't going win any favor with the other 19 classes. 

3rd.  add a proc and melee multiplier equal to waht dps scouts get (not greater) <-- Why?  So we can sit, replace or kick even more Rangers and Assassins from the raid model?  DPS is the job of the DPS classes, Reckless was sold to us by SOE to be a bridge between those fight mechanics that required 'extra' TANKS and those which did not require 'extra' TANKS.  Leave the DPS alone, they have equal right to raid as Reckless fighters.  Raid make-up in NO WAY needs to be 6 of each arch-type represented.

  those 3 changes should bring crusaders down a tad and boost the melee based offensive fighters relatively.

I am glad someone else sees where this other player is trying to take things. Way to try to shift the imbalance towards all other fighters besides Crusaders ALL while making them envied by the other classes in the game.

__________________
NAGAFEN Server


  • DAEMIEN 92 Shadowknight

  • XEOS 92 Ranger

  • EXILON 92 Inquisitor.

Orthureon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2012, 04:57 PM   #25
Faildozer
Server: Permafrost
Guild: Mass Extinction
Rank: Normal Officer

Loremaster
Faildozer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 150
Default

Haciv wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Our bruiser can top the zonewide and leave the mages and scouts in the dust on "fights that don't matter" of which he admits there's only 3-4 fights that "do matter".

 Fixed that one for you.

try our warlock topped the ZW for all of POW, only 1 fighter in the top 7, highest that a tank appeared on a dps parse on a named fight?? 5th.. 

Truth for you.

__________________
Faildozer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2012, 05:04 PM   #26
Davngr1

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

[email protected] wrote:

Haciv wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Our bruiser can top the zonewide and leave the mages and scouts in the dust on "fights that don't matter" of which he admits there's only 3-4 fights that "do matter".

 Fixed that one for you.

try our warlock topped the ZW for all of POW, only 1 fighter in the top 7, highest that a tank appeared on a dps parse on a named fight?? 5th.. 

Truth for you.

one zone..    

 lets use one zone to balance the game.

 one zone that does not let the tanks use the ability full time and has tons of damage that kills them when they do.

 one zone

 ONE just ONE to balance the entire game, good idea.

__________________
Davngr1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2012, 05:25 PM   #27
Geothe

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,098
Default

Orthureon wrote:

I ask why should a Guardian be able to do the same DPS as a Crusader? I cannot tank as well, I cannot taunt as well etc. If you ask for this you might as well ask for everything to be available to all classes. There are 24 classes for a reason.

Guardian should NOT be able to do the same DPS as a Crusader. However, that doesn't mean that Guardians do not deserve the same degree of increase Crusaders get in Reckless.  In just offensive stance, crusaders already do higher DPS than Guards, and currently with reckless, they get a much larger damage increase than guards on top of that.  It should be an equal damage % increase for all fighters.  Crusaders and Brawlers will still easily out DPS guards, but guards deserve an equal magnitude of DPS while using reckless stance that other fighters get as well.

__________________
Smed: We aren't going to be allowing RMT in any way, shape or form on the non-exchange enabled EQ II servers. Period. End of statement.

Smed: 5) This [LoN] is not some slippery slope towards selling items directly in EQ & EQ II.

Lie #3: Station Cash. Enough Said.

Geothe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2012, 05:51 PM   #28
Orthureon

Loremaster
Orthureon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,073
Default

Geothe wrote:

Orthureon wrote:

I ask why should a Guardian be able to do the same DPS as a Crusader? I cannot tank as well, I cannot taunt as well etc. If you ask for this you might as well ask for everything to be available to all classes. There are 24 classes for a reason.

Guardian should NOT be able to do the same DPS as a Crusader. However, that doesn't mean that Guardians do not deserve the same degree of increase Crusaders get in Reckless.  In just offensive stance, crusaders already do higher DPS than Guards, and currently with reckless, they get a much larger damage increase than guards on top of that.  It should be an equal damage % increase for all fighters.  Crusaders and Brawlers will still easily out DPS guards, but guards deserve an equal magnitude of DPS while using reckless stance that other fighters get as well.

I do agree with equal treatment, but some proposed ideas would just simply shift the DPS to favor single target tanks.

__________________
NAGAFEN Server


  • DAEMIEN 92 Shadowknight

  • XEOS 92 Ranger

  • EXILON 92 Inquisitor.

Orthureon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2012, 05:53 PM   #29
Davngr1

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

Orthureon wrote:

Geothe wrote:

Orthureon wrote:

I ask why should a Guardian be able to do the same DPS as a Crusader? I cannot tank as well, I cannot taunt as well etc. If you ask for this you might as well ask for everything to be available to all classes. There are 24 classes for a reason.

Guardian should NOT be able to do the same DPS as a Crusader. However, that doesn't mean that Guardians do not deserve the same degree of increase Crusaders get in Reckless.  In just offensive stance, crusaders already do higher DPS than Guards, and currently with reckless, they get a much larger damage increase than guards on top of that.  It should be an equal damage % increase for all fighters.  Crusaders and Brawlers will still easily out DPS guards, but guards deserve an equal magnitude of DPS while using reckless stance that other fighters get as well.

I do agree with equal treatment, but some proposed ideas would just simply shift the DPS to favor single target tanks.

i'm not seeing this.  please explain how exactly balancing the damage amongs tanks would favor single target?

__________________
Davngr1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2012, 06:12 PM   #30
Koleg
Server: Unrest_old

Lord
Koleg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 713
Default

Davngr1 wrote:

Orthureon wrote:

Geothe wrote:

Orthureon wrote:

I ask why should a Guardian be able to do the same DPS as a Crusader? I cannot tank as well, I cannot taunt as well etc. If you ask for this you might as well ask for everything to be available to all classes. There are 24 classes for a reason.

Guardian should NOT be able to do the same DPS as a Crusader. However, that doesn't mean that Guardians do not deserve the same degree of increase Crusaders get in Reckless.  In just offensive stance, crusaders already do higher DPS than Guards, and currently with reckless, they get a much larger damage increase than guards on top of that.  It should be an equal damage % increase for all fighters.  Crusaders and Brawlers will still easily out DPS guards, but guards deserve an equal magnitude of DPS while using reckless stance that other fighters get as well.

I do agree with equal treatment, but some proposed ideas would just simply shift the DPS to favor single target tanks.

i'm not seeing this.  please explain how exactly balancing the damage amongs tanks would favor single target?

I know our raiding Guardians are putting out DPS equal to or very near T2 Utility, which IMO they should not be even that highbut due to SOE's 'Idea' of Hate Gain they must be, WHILE THEY ARE IN DEFENSIVE STANCE and you want them to do more Reckless DPS now too... 

First of all, I've like, nay LOVE, to see your raid which is sporting a Guardian and a crusader when they Guardian is actully USING Reckless and not the exclusive single target main tank.  <-- that does not exist in this game.  So Why exactly do Guardians even need more Reckless damage, even if SOE or I agreed with you?  They are in Defensive (or Offensive if thier overgeared) stance nearly all the time.  If they are in Reckless it is not inside a raid unless they are trying to show-off.  There aren't any Guardian's tanking in Reckless after the black was removed and IF there are still Guardians still tanking Skyshrine or Drunder HM raids in Reckless then Reckless not working as intended, but not becasue of any damage potential.

If you say ot think that Crusaders are able to do more DPS in single targets now compared to the Guardian and you increase that damage potential by a percentage, then the Crusader will again do exponentially more DPS than the Guardian after a percentage damage replaces a potency increase.  The end result would be the same, becasue more of more equals more just the same as more of less equals more, just less more than the other more.  L2DoMath.

Koleg is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:25 PM.

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.