EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

 

Go Back   EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire > EverQuest II > The Development Corner > In Testing Feedback
Members List Search Mark Forums Read

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-04-2012, 01:36 PM   #1
Beko
Server: Antonia Bayle

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 283
Default

I'm losing my Ostance, cannot use several of my abilities, so I lose a bunch of accuracy/an amazing proc/half my defenses, for a bunch of potency, I can't even use my best abilities because they have procs and positionals added, I might as well NEVER use Reckless Stance, and none of my "Stance Mastery", "Tactical Wisdom" AAs even effect the stance, so PLEASE don't call it a stance unless your ready to remove all its penaltys.

Potency doesn't really effect me that much, but it turns Shadowknights/Paladins who have a higher Spell/Combat Art modifier into gods, they also have spell double cast now, how is that even fair they're spells don't have as many accuracy issues, and they hit 3 times harder then my CA's do.

Change the Recklessness so its not a Stance, but a Buff.

Change the Penaltys to Lower Mitigation/avoidance/skills by alot.

Change the "Buffs" to Effect Autoattack Modifier/Potency. (+125% Potency, +0.25 Autoattack Modifier.)

Either do this, or change the way recklessness effects all classes, Its strange how it can be designed to favor one class over the other.

Beko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2012, 01:45 PM   #2
Landiin

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

making fighters dps was, is and always will be a bad idea. If people don't want to do sup t2 dps then don't roll classes that do sub t2 dps. IF this is so more fighters can be used in raids the make raids have a reason to have more fighters and less dps checks. None of this this mob has to be tanked by this archtype either, that so cheap and lazy.
__________________
Landiin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2012, 01:48 PM   #3
Beko
Server: Antonia Bayle

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 283
Default

[email protected] wrote:

making fighters dps was, is and always will be a bad idea. If people don't want to do sup t2 dps then don't roll classes that do sub t2 dps. IF this is so more fighters can be used in raids the make raids have a reason to have more fighters and less dps checks. None of this this mob has to be tanked by this archtype either, that so cheap and lazy.

Well maybe if it actually increased my DPS by alot, instead of 20%, And didn't cost half my life to do...

Its really not worth the damage gained.

In PvP, potency is pretty much capped, so lol.. it adds like 10% More PvP Potency... for half your life.

Beko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2012, 02:00 PM   #4
Landiin

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

I understand the reasoning and I am not faulting fighters for wanting something more to do in raids and why I switched to a DPS class. I just think they could make encounters more engaging for fighter classes instead of trying to make them into something they are not.
__________________
Landiin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2012, 02:01 PM   #5
Beko
Server: Antonia Bayle

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 283
Default

[email protected] wrote:

I understand the reasoning and I am not faulting fighters for wanting something more to do in raids and why I switched to a DPS class. I just think they could make encounters more engaging for fighter classes instead of trying to make them into something they are not.

Fighters already have the hardest jobs of the entire raid, shoulder the hardest burdon, and are the easiest to replace.

Beko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2012, 02:26 PM   #6
Landiin

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

[email protected] Bayle wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

I understand the reasoning and I am not faulting fighters for wanting something more to do in raids and why I switched to a DPS class. I just think they could make encounters more engaging for fighter classes instead of trying to make them into something they are not.

Fighters already have the hardest jobs of the entire raid, shoulder the hardest burdon, and are the easiest to replace.

What? Tanking is a boar fest; pick up mob, position, press same 3-5 buttons untill red test (if there is one) then take action. Oh it is so hard... If you think tanking is hard you prob shouldn't switch classes.

__________________
Landiin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2012, 02:54 PM   #7
Beko
Server: Antonia Bayle

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 283
Default

[email protected] wrote:

[email protected] Bayle wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

I understand the reasoning and I am not faulting fighters for wanting something more to do in raids and why I switched to a DPS class. I just think they could make encounters more engaging for fighter classes instead of trying to make them into something they are not.

Fighters already have the hardest jobs of the entire raid, shoulder the hardest burdon, and are the easiest to replace.

What? Tanking is a boar fest; pick up mob, position, press same 3-5 buttons untill red test (if there is one) then take action. Oh it is so hard... If you think tanking is hard you prob shouldn't switch classes.

What do DPSers do?  Shove a Hate Transfer on the target and press buttons.

Beko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2012, 03:20 PM   #8
Rainmare
Server: Oasis
Guild: Pillage
Rank: Captain

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,982
Default

Tanking itself perhaps is a 'borefest'. but lets look at what 'tanks' are usually expected to do.

A tank is supposed to know all the strats for any zone at anytime. he's supposed to know any special jousting/text events. he's supposed to know where to position all mobs so the DPSers don't have to ever move in any way except backwards and forwards for jousting...and keep that position despite any knockbacks/memwipes/postional switches/glitchy movements that can cause the mob to end up behind you in a wall, etc. (and if he fails, despite any of those conditions, he's a bad tank)

Tanks are usually the raid/group leader, and all that entails.

if a group wipes? the tank gets blamed first. the healer gets blamed second, utility 3rd, and DPSers last...even if the fight is a blatant DPS check.

and yes. don't like your Sk? there's a million more of him. or pallies. or gaurdians. or brawlers. or even zerkers. the best tank is almost entirely dependant upon situation/group makeup/the rest of the groups gear/spell level/AA.

I've been an uindergeared tank in zones that should have smashed my head in but made it through with relative ease due to the gear and aa of the group. held aggro without a problem becuase of the right transfers/utility. and I know I could have easily been replaced if I screwed up. and it only would have taken 1 screwup...or even just one percieved screw up, wether it was on my shoulders or not.

Reckless allows me to be a psuedo-Dps. I think maybe, if everything works out, I MIGHT get to be on par to dps with a swashy or a brig. but it also means that a group doning a zone I haven't ever been to can take me as a DPS/backup tank if things go south. So I can learn the zone, and it won't be a strictly charity action by the group. it means when you see a healer, a couple dps, 1 utility, and 2 tanks lfg...that group might actually work with one fighter in a dps role, without that fighter being entirely dead weight.

Rainmare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2012, 05:04 PM   #9
Kram337

Loremaster
Kram337's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: 123 Fake ST SE, Freeport, Norath 90210
Posts: 499
Default

The OP is completely accurate. Recklessness needs to be looked at. I've finally had a chance to test it, and the dps gain is not significant at all. Potency just doesn't effect half of the tanks in that big of a way, yet it affects the other half in a much larger way. It's definitely unbalanced.

Think about a monk who has 50% dps from auto attack and then a SK who has 30% from auto attack. So you go and bump up 70% of the SK's dps by a huge amount and where does that leave the monk. The monk is already supposed to be more dps than a crusader.

My suggestion:RecklessnessA DPS StanceDisables all SnapsReduces hate gain by 50%Increase incoming damage by 50%Increases potency by 50%Increases Auto Attack multiplier by 0.5Reduces life to 25% if you leave the stance in combatSets other stances to a 3 sec recast (so you can swap instantly to defensive)

This would mean you can't tank with recklessness on, which is what SOE wants but would provide all fighters with a buff that effects them more evenly.

If we complain about the stance and don't give our ideas for what it could/should be then they'll just end up scraping the revamp altogether like last time. I dont think that'd be good. I like the idea of my fighter having a duel purpose. I used to come along in groups all the time on my bruiser as dps and had a great time. Made the class worth playing. But now days I can't because all I do is steal aggro when I burn.

Kram337 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2012, 05:10 PM   #10
Beko
Server: Antonia Bayle

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 283
Default

Kram337 wrote:

The OP is completely accurate. Recklessness needs to be looked at. I've finally had a chance to test it, and the dps gain is not significant at all. Potency just doesn't effect half of the tanks in that big of a way, yet it affects the other half in a much larger way. It's definitely unbalanced.

Think about a monk who has 50% dps from auto attack and then a SK who has 30% from auto attack. So you go and bump up 70% of the SK's dps by a huge amount and where does that leave the monk. The monk is already supposed to be more dps than a crusader.

My suggestion:RecklessnessA DPS StanceDisables all SnapsReduces hate gain by 50%Increase incoming damage by 50%Increases potency by 50%Increases Auto Attack multiplier by 0.5Reduces life to 25% if you leave the stance in combatSets other stances to a 3 sec recast (so you can swap instantly to defensive)

This would mean you can't tank with recklessness on, which is what SOE wants but would provide all fighters with a buff that effects them more evenly.

If we complain about the stance and don't give our ideas for what it could/should be then they'll just end up scraping the revamp altogether like last time. I dont think that'd be good. I like the idea of my fighter having a duel purpose. I used to come along in groups all the time on my bruiser as dps and had a great time. Made the class worth playing. But now days I can't because all I do is steal aggro when I burn.

Well, 0.5 Autoattack Modifier is too insane, and I think 50% Incomming Damage Recieved is as Well.

-50% Worn physical armor Mitigation, 0.25 Autoattack Modifier, 100% Potency.

0.5 Autoattack Modifier is huge and too beneficial to Warriors over Crusaders, 0.25 Autoattack Modifier/100% Potency is beneficial enough to both more balancedly.

-50% Worn Physical Armor Mitigation Halves Mitigation, you could also reduce Block Chance by 50%/Parry/Reflect/Defense.

Beko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2012, 05:45 PM   #11
Goozman

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 693
Default

Y'all have a habbit of drastically exaggerating how much this will effect crusaders vs anyone else. I've got a geared monk and paladin, who both do tons of dps already, while tanking, and their autoattack vs combat art damage are roughly the same; 45-50% auto, 50-55% ca

That obviously means, potency buffs would effect them fairly equally. I can't speak for Shadowknights, as it's one of the 3 classes I've never played, but a Paladin's #1 damage spell can't be used in Recklessness, because it is a positional+threat proc.

Brawlers are definitely the 2 classes that will benefit the most from this, as their single target avoidance buff will be pretty powerful on the actual tank, and their damage abilities have no positional effects (except for 2 weak ones that don't get used too often anyway).

__________________
Goozman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2012, 06:17 PM   #12
Beko
Server: Antonia Bayle

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 283
Default

Goozman wrote:

Y'all have a habbit of drastically exaggerating how much this will effect crusaders vs anyone else. I've got a geared monk and paladin, who both do tons of dps already, while tanking, and their autoattack vs combat art damage are roughly the same; 45-50% auto, 50-55% ca

That obviously means, potency buffs would effect them fairly equally. I can't speak for Shadowknights, as it's one of the 3 classes I've never played, but a Paladin's #1 damage spell can't be used in Recklessness, because it is a positional+threat proc.

Brawlers are definitely the 2 classes that will benefit the most from this, as their single target avoidance buff will be pretty powerful on the actual tank, and their damage abilities have no positional effects (except for 2 weak ones that don't get used too often anyway).

Your wrong, the Crusaders Melee Critical Modifier is MUCH lower then a Warriors and Brawlers (They have the same modifier as a healer.), but they're spell/CA modifier is much higher.

Brawler's Mantis Bolt/Crane Twirl will be hitting for insane amounts, probably higher then AOE Autoattack.

Tbh, it benefits Crusaders/Brawlers a heck of alot more then it does Warriors, our CA's do not hit nearly as hard as theyre CAs and Spells.

Beko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2012, 09:39 PM   #13
The_Cheeseman

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

Crane Twirl and Mantis Bolt were already two of my monk's best-parsing abilities, not to mention Combination, which suddenly becomes the key to parsing well on a monk when Recklessness is factored into the equation. Oh, and Dragonfire is pretty nice, too . However, even considering all that, I'm only seeing about a 35% increase in overall DPS, since auto-attack is still about 65% of my parse without Recklessness.

Really, I agree that it's warriors who are getting the short end of the stick here. However, I can understand the hesitation to add auto-attack modifier to Recklessness, since it will be a much more significant increase, and is completely passive. At least in it's current form, you actually have to press buttons to derive significant benefit from Recklessness.

__________________
The_Cheeseman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2012, 09:42 PM   #14
Beko
Server: Antonia Bayle

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 283
Default

Warriors are usually around 75% Autoattack.

Warriors CA's Also have alot of Threat built-into them... (atleast 4 of my CA's do.) that are hitting for 78k Threat.

Crane Twirl probably hits harder then AOE Autoattack, Mantis Bolt Probably hits harder then a regular Autoattack. (not counting the MAs.)

Beko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2012, 02:16 AM   #15
Kram337

Loremaster
Kram337's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: 123 Fake ST SE, Freeport, Norath 90210
Posts: 499
Default

Right now our top DPS classes, Assassin, Warlock, Bst, Wizard all do 350-500k dps with spikes as high as 600-1000k. Meanwhile our fighters are doing 120-150k withs pikes up to 250-300k. So if our dps is already well under HALF of the real DPS classes, do you really think increasing our auto attacks by 50% or our potency by 100% is going to make us over powered?

We still wouldn't be in the range of real dps classes, and I dont believe that's what they intend to do. But I also don't think the idea of of this patch is to make fighters only slightly higher dps and simultaneously ruin brawlers tanking. I think they're expecting to make a dramatic difference in fighter DPS output.

Right now an equally geared DPS class can easily double or tripple my brawler's DPS. If yours can't then they're doing it wrong. My own bst puts my bruiser to shame. And bruiser is supposed to be the "dps tank".

Kram337 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2012, 02:30 AM   #16
Ingerimm
Server: Valor
Guild: Das Schwarze Auge
Rank: Gott

Loremaster
Ingerimm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 105
Default

I am still of the opinion that it is the simplest and most sensible in "Reckless Stance" taunts the convert in detaunts.

This fixes exactly three serious problems.

First, there is neither passive nor active taunts then more of a problem, so the tanks can continue to use their full potential as it is intended. (Include as many of the high dps abilities of the tanks taunt Components, sometimes even with positive hatred positions)

Secondly, this stance is a pure DPS stance in which no tanking should be possible. Many of the tank classes, for example Guardian and Brawler have enough skills but as stone skins, which they could use to do it yet. The Crusaders have you even taken the ridiculous improvement of their wards in this stance for tanking anyway what one would have availed nothing, but to protect against other AEs, whether 12k or 25k every 30-60 seconds, which was pointless when tanking.

But as I said should not be tanking and it would not be possible if the taunts were turned into deaggros. For if the tanks will then use their full potential to make dps they should also use the combined capabilities for which they would preceed the aggro down. Thus, a tanking would not be possible in this stance!

The third would be clear for the last player who always insist in every stance must be tanking. So it is not intended and it will not work.

Of the other have, as other major classes are already complaining that they do not DPS stance I would also like to note briefly that the tanks are the only main class, which are often used to 3-4, but only in some situations. And thus running around in Rule 2, which are used only in situations or as ballast.

Therefore, this stance is basically a very good idea.

SOE must only ensure that this stance can improve the transfer is not abused and that they have already done the most part. The only thing that would really improve my eyes still, that would change the taunts to detaunts in this stance.

__________________
Ingerimm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2012, 02:41 AM   #17
Beko
Server: Antonia Bayle

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 283
Default

If our things that increased threat, decreased threat instead, it would be VERY hard to hold aggro... (Aka, almost impossible to tank.)

Beko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2012, 02:43 AM   #18
Ingerimm
Server: Valor
Guild: Das Schwarze Auge
Rank: Gott

Loremaster
Ingerimm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 105
Default

[email protected] Bayle wrote:

If our things that increased threat, decreased threat instead, it would be VERY hard to hold aggro... (Aka, almost impossible to tank.)

This is the meaning behind this stance, and also of the proposal from my!

If you want offensive tanking, go to the normal offensive stance, Recklessness is not meant to be tanking!

__________________
Ingerimm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2012, 01:39 PM   #19
Rageincarnate
Server: Unrest
Guild: Vindication
Rank: Officer

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

Monk- i was duo with a defilier and a inquis merc.

Ca's do double damage roughly. 

Yes i tanked.  I couldn't find anyone else on test copy, they were all talking about decorating in test.test channel :/

autos hit me for roughly 8-12k

His trauma hit me for 46k and then the next auto attack was a multi attack and killed me.

reckless-died 16khps (01:17) Berserking Defender: 183098 Typos-Devastation Fist-357204 Typos | 173567 Archo | 9531 Wardi | 0 defensive-win 5khps (02:40) Berserking Defender: 157932 Typos-Devastation Fist-183899 Typos | 143369 Archo | 10688 Wardi | 3875 opinion.. whoopie freaking doo.  I wont be using reckless.  It's pointless.  The trauma would have hit me even if i wasn't tanking( I ran out of interupts- duo..).  So i barely survived an ae in the easiest heroic instance with 2 healers.. hahahahahahahahhahahaahaha

Umm i really wish you guys would show numbers instead of talking out your butts.

Rageincarnate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2012, 01:55 PM   #20
Yimway

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

Dieing while tanking in reckless stance is the expected outcome SMILEY

But in all seriousness, this entire thing needs to be dropped.  And if there is really a need for such a stance, it needs to be tailored to each class and not a universal buff.

The benefits affect all fighters differently, and the penalties also impact fighters diffently.  And when you look at the net benefits and detriments it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense as far as being balanced around all fighters.

The fighters that can survive raiding in reckless stance are no the fighter classes you would want to be in reckless if/when you have more fighters than you need.

I dunno why we're still debating on it, as its dead on delivery.

__________________
Yimway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2012, 02:00 PM   #21
Beko
Server: Antonia Bayle

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 283
Default

[email protected] wrote:

Dieing while tanking in reckless stance is the expected outcome

But in all seriousness, this entire thing needs to be dropped.  And if there is really a need for such a stance, it needs to be tailored to each class and not a universal buff.

The benefits affect all fighters differently, and the penalties also impact fighters diffently.  And when you look at the net benefits and detriments it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense as far as being balanced around all fighters.

The fighters that can survive raiding in reckless stance are no the fighter classes you would want to be in reckless if/when you have more fighters than you need.

I dunno why we're still debating on it, as its dead on delivery.

Well, doubling the damage of any AEs hitting you pretty much makes you a useless raid member anyways. (as DPS.)

Scouts/Mages would survive things (non-physical.) that would COMPLETELY Destroy the Reckless Tank, AND The shaman whose warding him as well.

It doesn't matter how many stoneskins/death prevents/ect you have, THOSE things cannot be passively up to prevent every single AE, and if they are, your death saves are STILL completely destroying your group, and your stoneskins are only preventing the inetivable, you WILL take 50% more damage from AOEs/Focus Damage (Ignores all Defenses/Stoneskins/Wards/Mitigation.) ... 

Focus Damage on a Reckless Tank is pretty much instant death.

Beko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2012, 02:05 PM   #22
Yimway

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

[email protected] Bayle wrote:

Focus Damage on a Reckless Tank is pretty much instant death.

I can't think of many places focus damage is used that isn't intended to be a death.  IE/ its intended to be damage from a failure condition.  The fact that we survive some of it now I think is more of a fluke than anything.

I can think of many, many fights that between my ae blocking, my proc ae blocking, my groups ae blocking, my own copious stoneskins and reflects that I can stay in for the entire duration and never take damage.

There are some fights that for sure I'd need to joust out of every 3rd or 4th ae, but many fights will be no issue.

__________________
Yimway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2012, 02:11 PM   #23
Beko
Server: Antonia Bayle

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 283
Default

[email protected] wrote:

[email protected] Bayle wrote:

Focus Damage on a Reckless Tank is pretty much instant death.

I can't think of many places focus damage is used that isn't intended to be a death.  IE/ its intended to be damage from a failure condition.  The fact that we survive some of it now I think is more of a fluke than anything.

I can think of many, many fights that between my ae blocking, my proc ae blocking, my groups ae blocking, my own copious stoneskins and reflects that I can stay in for the entire duration and never take damage.

There are some fights that for sure I'd need to joust out of every 3rd or 4th ae, but many fights will be no issue.

Yeah, but what about the next fight, its not like you will be doing that for just nameds, trash too, and the first hit will probably hit, and are you good enough to count down and time it yourself?

It will be pretty hard without "ACT" telling you when AEs are comming so you can block them, what about all the tanks that don't use ACT?

Beko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2012, 02:29 PM   #24
Zivgar

Loremaster
Zivgar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 132
Default

Just have 'target takes 50% more damage if direct target'.

Then on AE attacks the tank in recklessness with take normal damage as long as they are not the direct target.

This new stance if not for tanking so stop thinking about it while tanking.

I do like the idea how this should stance should be done per tank. Or just make it a 50% CB increase, that would be even for all tank classes.

Plus make it so taunts and hate postionals no longer work.

I like those ideas that others have suggested. 

Zivgar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2012, 02:34 PM   #25
Laenai
Server: Oasis
Guild: Tyranny
Rank: Raider

Loremaster
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 634
Default

[email protected] wrote:

Dieing while tanking in reckless stance is the expected outcome

But in all seriousness, this entire thing needs to be dropped.  And if there is really a need for such a stance, it needs to be tailored to each class and not a universal buff.

The benefits affect all fighters differently, and the penalties also impact fighters diffently.  And when you look at the net benefits and detriments it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense as far as being balanced around all fighters.

The fighters that can survive raiding in reckless stance are no the fighter classes you would want to be in reckless if/when you have more fighters than you need.

I dunno why we're still debating on it, as its dead on delivery.

^^

I heavily agree with this statement. The only thing to look forward to with reckless is: I want to see if I can keep up healing on my SO's tank while he's tanking in it and I want to see if he can keep up with mine tanking in it. After that, the fun and usefulness will be in-the-toilet level.

__________________
Laenai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2012, 02:41 PM   #26
Yimway

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

[email protected] Bayle wrote:

It will be pretty hard without "ACT" telling you when AEs are comming so you can block them, what about all the tanks that don't use ACT?

Can't cure stupid SMILEY  Though some mobs have distinct enough casting animations that ACT is really secondary.

There are already alot of fights that I run as a backup to the monk MT.  My job being to avoid all damage to myself as well as share my blocks / death prevents, danage reduction, and stoneskins to also block the Monk when his stuff is down.

So I'm already running in a build like this, and am already setting myself up to not take any ae damage (as it would deplete his wards since we're already in same group).

Doing the same job in reckless stance will make it slightly more difficult, but not a significant change.  I recognize that the guardian class is the most extreme example of how the penalty can be negated, but I think its a fair arguement to talk about how small the penalty becomes to a guard with a clue vs how big the penalty is to a zerker, and conversely how little that class gains from it.

Then I look at the guard who has prestige options to increase CA damage when not tanking already, and the group stoneskinns will reset the reuse timers on CAs, and with the group placement I've been using, my group stoneskins proc constantly when they are up, so its a ton of ca spam.  Timing that with other short term CA increasers should prove to some interesting parses when your running 30% increaser on the CAs in addition to all the potency.

Its my believe that this stance is not fair and balanced as a result, and while I could personally gain from it more than most other players and my class potentially lives thru the stance the best, I still feel its the wrong thing game wide to add.

__________________
Yimway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2012, 03:10 PM   #27
Beko
Server: Antonia Bayle

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 283
Default

Well darn, I guess I just won't beable to use MOST of my BEST damaging abilities AND my mythical buff with recklessness up.

Losing 2-3 AOEs, my mythical buff because as Atan said I need to pretty much SPEC for Stoneskins to survive the stance's penaltys.

You know what, you can keep your useless stance, it does not improve my DPS enough to care about the potency gains.

And I do not think the tank could hold aggro off all that threat anyways.

Grats to the tank classes this stance is catored too, but for a berserker you might as well not use the stance, because it makes your mythical/half your BEST AAs/your highest damage attacks/procs worthless.

Not to mention Reckless Stance doesn't even work with my end lines... Lol...

Beko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2012, 03:54 PM   #28
kalaria

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 121
Default

Eh.Make "Reckless" stance equal for all fighters:Drop the increased incoming damage.Drop the potency buff.Drop the HP penalty when cancelling the buff.Allow the buff to be activated in combat.Have it not be a stance, but just a buff that when active:-Disables all +Hate buffs / adorns. (Dirge/Coercer hate buffs can still be applied, just their effects are negated until Reckless is canceled).-Disables all +Threat in abilities (hate is gained only through damage done).-Disables all +Hate position on abilities (damage stays, just dont gain the direct hate positions)-Allow DEAGRO buffs to work on fighters WHILE Reckless is active. ie Troub deagro song, threat decrease procs, etc.

  Basically a fighter will be acting as a normal DPS class with Reckless active, have full use of all their abilities, and will be able to DPS without worrying about pulling agro from their fighter abilities. They will just need to worry about pulling agro through Raw DPS like every other DPS class.  They wont have doubled incoming damage, so wont be taking all group wards getting one-shot as easily, still be able to use their intercepts and what-not without multiplied damage, etc.   They can be pre-buffed as a normal tank (with +hate gain etc) so if the MT/OT drop, they can cancel Reckless, use their snaps which will then be functional, and grab agro until MT its back up, when they can reactivate Reckless once again. 

kalaria is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2012, 03:57 PM   #29
Beko
Server: Antonia Bayle

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 283
Default

What would be really fair is if you lowered the threat gained by all abilitys and changed them to "Mental Damage."

Beko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2012, 04:15 PM   #30
Yimway

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

[email protected] Bayle wrote:

What would be really fair is if you lowered the threat gained by all abilitys and changed them to "Mental Damage."

That is an interesting notion, rather than not having potency from this buff effect taunts, have threat changed to mental damage.

__________________
Yimway is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:10 AM.

vBulletin skin by: CompleteGFX.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All threads and posts originally from the EQ2 and Station forums operated by Sony Online Entertainment. Their use is by express written permission.