When will all tanks be "equal" on high-level raid mobs?

Platfing · 02-24-2005, 02:19 AM

According to the original plans for EQ-2, all tank classes are supposed to be able to tank the same things in different ways. This is not the case with high-level raid mobs. There is only one tank class that is chosen above all for this, and there is a reason for it (their class is better built specifically for it).

I don't even have to say what the class is - everyone knows. I am not saying that this class should be nerfed, but I do think that other classes should be brought up to their level. The longer this inbalance exists, the more ingrained the stigma of the inbalance will become in player's minds, and it will be so hard to overcome (rangers from EQ-1?) when it's finally fixed later on.

When exactly are things going to be balanced out as originally promised?

Message Edited by Platfinger on 02-25-2005 07:31 AM

EvilIguana9 · 02-24-2005, 02:50 AM

I'm a 29 Paladin. I am not really big on raiding so maybe my opinion is less valuable, but I don't think there is neccesarily a need for all tanks to be equally good at filling the raid main tank role. I think each class and subclass should be the "best" so to speak in different situations but very good at the others. At 29 I tank as well as or better than pretty much anyone my level, but that may change over time. My ability to heal myself and others is a great boon, and has allowed me to survive after the healer dies/runs oom, but I'm rather sure it would be insignificant in a raid situation when compared to the guardian's superior ability to reliably soak damage. I think this is good game design because it guarentees a niche for the different classes. Where the problem may be is in how the raid encounters are balanced. I haven't raided in EQ 2 yet so I have no personal experience but the situations I have heard described lead me to believe that the encounters just aren't designed to make use of more than a few major class functions. That is not a class issue, that is an encounter issue.Whether or not the fighter classes are actually balanced based on their total utility is a different subject.

Valhu · 02-24-2005, 04:26 AM

It is very important for all tanks to be able to handle raid mobs... is people playing those tanks want to be able to go on raids.

At level 29 you have not seen the complete mess that is spells 30+...... I agree that everyone should have their niche... but there is only 1 real niche right now in raid content for tanks (other than dps)... not as advertised, not as promised....

SmashingPumpki · 02-24-2005, 06:34 PM

I can't see the point in that, guardian are THE tank, the one supposed to take damage, they don't have paladins spells and berseker damage output, if they get same tanking possibility of guardians but u still got paladins chants heal and smite or higher damage of berseker, what will be the point of being a Guardian then? To be a nerfed berseker or a nerfed paladin?I'm a templar, I want wards, I want mezz, I want roots, I want speed, why some classes got speed and can do all quests in half the time? I want to be invisible!!! That helps a lot in a lot of things, harvesting, catalogue, quests and adventuring!!!U know what?! --> That's the class system each class got pros and cons, that's no news, since D&D...

Message Edited by SmashingPumpkins on 02-24-2005 03:06 PM

Tomanak · 02-24-2005, 08:09 PM

Valhuru wrote:

It is very important for all tanks to be able to handle raid mobs... is people playing those tanks want to be able to go on raids.

Just because they cant be the MT doesnt mean they cant go on raids, it simply means that another class may be prefered as MT and those others can play a support role. When I join a pickup group or even a guild group and there is another tank class higher than I in levels I have no problems deferring to a secondary support role, why should they?

I also question that all other tank classes are simply unable to tank a raid mob. Perhaps the Guardian is more effective at tanking the raids mobs, however I dont understand why another tank class cant. While I do think SOE said that all tank classes can tank equally well, Im not sure they said that would be the case in every situation. All Healers can heal as well albeit in different ways, well depending on what Im fighting I prefer certain healing classes over others.

Lastly everyone is saying I want what SOE promised me, what they advertised. Well if no one has figured it out yet, theres a lot about this game that isnt exactly as advertised...casual friendly, no camping and the list goes on. This is a persistant changing virtual world, plans change as they hit the light of day (or in this case, the live servers).

Message Edited by Tomanak on 02-24-2005 07:10 AM

sidgb · 02-24-2005, 08:23 PM

I love it. People pick a Paladin or zerker at lower lvls because the tanking difference is insignifacant for exp groups and the DPS/special abilities makes it easier to solo. Once they have taken advantage of this for 50 lvls they cry that they cannot be main tank for raid encounters. A fact that any idiot knew would be the case sooner or later as the Guardian asset of damage absorption began to manifest itself.

You made your choice. Butch up Sally.

Valhu · 02-24-2005, 09:35 PM

You people really have no sight for the future. Someone has a legitimate complaint and the common answer is "you chose it" or "quit whining" or "not everyhting is supposed tobe equal"....

Newsflash... raids are limited to 24 people, in an instanced zone with a lockout timer. If you do not understand upper class eliteism... you never played EQ1 to a high level.

You will see only guardians being invited to a high end raid..... when you raid is made up of mostly dps healers and support, it's not like you need more then 3-4 tanks...

What is an SK or a Pally going to bring to the table? How about you wander over to their boards and read about how the raid content is going... it isn't

No class should be excluded from high end content because their class is not viable. That's not fair, and it is nto what anyone paid for. If you say that they chose that, then I hope you never choose somethng you like based on the descriptions you were given, and have it fall flat on you. Have some empathy people for heavans sake.

It's not like they are saying they want to be uber, they just want to be able to play they way they were told the could...

ghosthamm · 02-24-2005, 09:48 PM

excellent reply valhuru exactly the point trying to be brought to light.

CherobylJ · 02-24-2005, 10:31 PM

My understanding is thta base plate mitigation is the same across the board. Guardians get invited to raids because of their skill sets (which either improve their own mitigation, their groups or debuff the mob). Other classes can tank raid targets; the confusion lies in that Guards can well guard other tanks but in most cases that translates into them just doing the job themselves. On some raid targets it might make sense to have a higher agro tank be main with the Guard supporting. I suppose when I get to level 50 and do those raids regularly I'll have some further insight, but it appears to me that without a Guard and their skills on raid (whether they are MA or not) that you are going to have some trouble.

sidgb · 02-24-2005, 11:19 PM

When my cleric gets to lvl 50 it is not fair that as a plate class she cannot tank raid encounters.

I am sick and tired of these limitations. It is not what I paid for.

I am tired of the same people making the same stupid choices that lead to the same stupid whines. You would think they would know better by now.

Message Edited by sidgb on 02-24-2005 12:21 PM

Message Edited by sidgb on 02-24-2005 12:23 PM

Message Edited by sidgb on 02-24-2005 12:24 PM

Lancealittle · 02-24-2005, 11:38 PM

sidgb wrote:

When my cleric gets to lvl 50 it is not fair that as a plate class she cannot tank raid encounters.

I am sick and tired of these limitations. It is not what I paid for.

I am tired of the same people making the same stupid choices that lead to the same stupid whines. You would think they would know better by now.

The complaint stems from pre-release of the game where it was stated that all fighters would be able to tank equaly.

One problem with that is that it was also said that not all would be equal under all circumstances.

Raid level tanking is a very small fraction of the tanking going on in this game. I don't think they will be making changes to this.

What I would not mind is seeing raid mobs where it would be more important to have avoidance rather than mitigation so a brawler type would be the ideal choice for a tank. A mob that gets many low damage/low chance to hit attacks and has a lot of hps would be great for brawlers to main tank. I'm not sure how something similar could also be done for the crusaders however.

Platfing · 02-24-2005, 11:41 PM

If you want to read more about the role of the "other" tank classes on raids, read this thread (from the SK forum):

http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=9&message.id=6566

This pretty much sums it up for the paladin class as well. Also, nobody will have a monk or bruiser tanking a ^^^ on a high end raid. There is only ONE tank class at end-game right now. That was the way it worked in EQ-1, but not how it was supposed to work in EQ-2.

People keep saying that the game is changing, etc. Well, guess what? The original fundamental design promised all along (the one where there are 4 archtypes, where each class in that archtype can fullfill the CORE archtype role equally well) apparently hasn't been implemented yet for the end game! Will it EVER be? I don't know - it's up to SOE if they want to ever finish the end-game class balancing.

Message Edited by Platfinger on 02-24-2005 10:42 AM

sidgb · 02-25-2005, 12:22 AM

Yep, same people, same choices, same complaints, different day.

Face it, the only way to really get what you want is to eliminate the heavy tank completely from the game and make them all paper hybrids. Providing any sort of differentiation always ends in some sort of crying. If they eliminated Guardians the rest of you would just eventually turn on each other.

I remember when I created my guardian hearing all the talk about how much BETTER a Zerker was because of the DPS and their ability to gain aggro. I grouped with Zerkers who had to show how good they were at it and would brag about their nice DPS and aggro abilities.

I have listened to that nonsense ever since the game came out because I knew that eventually my guardians ability to mitigate damage would find its niche.

Seems every hybrid loves their class till they hit 50. Then it's whine, whine, whine.

Lancealittle · 02-25-2005, 12:24 AM

Platfinger wrote:

If you want to read more about the role of the "other" tank classes on raids, read this thread (from the SK forum):

http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=9&message.id=6566

This pretty much sums it up for the paladin class as well.  Also, nobody will have a monk or bruiser tanking a ^^^ on a high end raid. There is only ONE tank class at end-game right now. That was the way it worked in EQ-1, but not how it was supposed to work in EQ-2.

People keep saying that the game is changing, etc. Well, guess what? The original fundamental design promised all along (the one where there are 4 archtypes, where each class in that archtype can fullfill the CORE archtype role equally well) apparently hasn't been implemented yet for the end game! Will it EVER be? I don't know - it's up to SOE if they want to ever finish the end-game class balancing.



Message Edited by Platfinger on 02-24-200510:42 AM

It was never promised that all fighter classes would be able to tank raid mobs equally. If you have a quote that shows I'm incorrect, please let me know.

Here is a partial quote from Moorgard from beta (keep in mind that the developers have changed directions on many things since then).

At the same time, the fact that all subclasses have different ways of fulfilling their primary roles means there will be some circumstances where one subclass has an advantage. Rough edges like this are intended, as they add to diversity and can sometimes drive the passions of players. Without those differences, we might as well never go beyond the four adventure archetypes because subclasses would all be exactly the same.

I'm with you on wanting to see a role in raids for all the different tank types, but I don't think they can change the basics of the classes to make them all tank the same in every situation without removing the entire class system.

I gave an example of how they could make a mob that would be better suited for a brawler, so the brains behind the encounter system could come up with better ideas than me, I'm sure.

Maybe make some encounter mobs that have a hard time damaging light armor to help brawlers or get blinded by holy/unholy radiance to help crusaders. They could also have a scripted epic encounter where a Paladin or Shadowknight can have their gods avatar give them a divine uber shield that breaks at the end of the encounter.

sidgb · 02-25-2005, 12:41 AM

Reality is this.

Mob: X = damage

Tank: HP+AC+mitigation = ability to survive

Ability to survive must be greater then damage

Tank with greatest ability to survive (not the tank with best DPS and not necessarily the one with best ability to aggro or heal themselves) will be selected to ensure success.

Anyone that does not understand this is not thinking.

GraymaneGravitic · 02-25-2005, 02:07 AM

"I can't see the point in that, guardian are THE tank, the one supposed to take damage, they don't have paladins spells and berseker damage output, if they get same tanking possibility of guardians but u still got paladins chants heal and smite or higher damage of berseker, what will be the point of being a Guardian then? To be a nerfed berseker or a nerfed paladin?"

You are missing the point completely.

The point is NOT to mak the non-guardian tanks take damage at the rate of the guardian thereby marginalizing the guardian.

The point IS that the other abilities the other tanks get to offset thier lesser damage absorbing abilities SHOULD be empowering them to be able to tank the same mobs as the guardain JUST as effectively as the guardian. That they curently cannot is a sign of a broken game design and a failure on the part of SOE to deliver on it's advertising.

Aegori · 02-25-2005, 02:07 AM

I think it's time that tanks stop worrying about who's best and we worry about working together to accomplish the goals we have. Regardless of who tanks, lets look at the skills they offer that would benefit any tank and any good member of a raid should be using to make the tanking job successful (i'm speaking regardless of bugs and such that affect these abilities):

Paladins - Grant of Armament, Aegis of Hope, your wards, your heals and LoH - aside from the obvious use of heals and wards, the first two skills will actively provide AC and prevent hits to the main tank.

SKs - Infernal Pact (ward + lifetap buff), Evasive Maneuvers (shield the tank from damage), STR debuffs, etc.

Monks - Mend, Tranquil Blessing (reduce hate on a party member... say your nukers/healers), Martial Discipline, Sacrafice (both protect the tank from damage), plus some debuffs

Bruisers - Overtaking Blows (shields tank), Eye Gouge (decrease target accuracy, thus making tanking easier), bunch of debuffs and offensive buffs

Zerkers - Infuriation (shield party member), Havoc (increase group AC and STR), Offensive debuffs

Guardians - Allay, Never Surrender, Sentinel (all 3 shield the target party member), numerous defensive group defensive buffs, target debuffs (slow/attack reducers)

Regardless of who tanks... combine all this together and THAT's a tank. You may think taking another tank along with you is worthless, but i promise having 2-3 extra tanks around that are of different classes can make a raid easier to tank solely based on these skills. This is not an individual game (especially when speaking about raid content) and the only way we can truly make it easier is if we stop bickering about who's best and start figuring out the best way to achieve our goals. I don't freekin care if guardians are the "best tanks". All i know is if there's one tanking for my raid, i'll be right behind him supporting him with my tank protection/debuff/whatever skills to help him succeed. Likewise, i'd expect him to do the same for me if it were the case that i'd tank. Raids are not a solo effort so we should stop speaking as if tanking a raid is meant to be a solo effort.

-Aeg

sidgb · 02-25-2005, 02:13 AM

And they do in 99.9% of mob encounters.

A game is not broken if 0.1% of mobs require a specific approach.

But it seems 0.1% of mobs is plenty enough to whine about.

Platfing · 02-25-2005, 02:37 AM

sidgb wrote:

And they do in 99.9% of mob encounters.

A game is not broken if 0.1% of mobs require a specific approach.

But it seems 0.1% of mobs is plenty enough to whine about.

When you get to max level (50 currently), it will be 100% of the mobs you actually care enough about to log in and kill with your guild. The game has to be attuned to all levels, not just 1-49.

Briszizi · 02-25-2005, 02:39 AM

I think what Plat is afraid of is what all us long time EQ1 players have seen. You dedicate yourself to a character (yes of your choice), but at the end of game or maybe mid way through for some others, your character is not wanted in a group and you are left out of the high end of game. This happened in EQ1 and that is why a lot of us chose to come here to EQ2. We were tired of having LFG on for hours and getting no response to be in group because the attitude of the other players were "your not good enough".

This is the bottom line here, he/she is not whining about getting other characters nerfed. What I feel he/she is saying is that please do not make EQ2 become EQ1.

I know what he/she means I leveled my druid up to 67 and when EQ2 came out moved here because they promised no one class would be preferred over another. If anyone played EQ1 they should know what happened to the druid class amongst other classes. Eventually all solo content was nerfed or taken out of game and some of the classes were left hanging not able to do anything worth while which is frustrating.

Instead of us all being angry at each other why can't everyone just understand and make some constructive suggestions instead of flaming each other when someone has a concern.

Valhu · 02-25-2005, 02:52 AM

"Instead of us all being angry at each other why can't everyone just understand and make some constructive suggestions instead of flaming each other when someone has a concern."

Amen brother... I fear the trolls have deaf ears however.

sidgb · 02-25-2005, 02:59 AM

I hear the whining just fine.

The game doesn't revolve around his class so it's broke. If a pally or SK were picked to tank over him he would be here complaining about that too.

Message Edited by sidgb on 02-24-2005 04:00 PM

Message Edited by sidgb on 02-24-2005 04:02 PM

Message Edited by sidgb on 02-24-2005 04:03 PM

Axxon · 02-25-2005, 07:54 AM

SOE indicated that every tank class would be able to tank mobs equally well. They said tanks would have the same effectiveness, but would merely do the job with different skill sets. This is not the case and the tanks' abilities need to be balanced.

Bezado · 02-25-2005, 11:00 AM

If all this is true then why did the berserker class get so many combat spells to shield and protect others in a group if they can't tank that well? When I was playing I had got my berserker to lvl 26. I seen what a poor system will do to other classes. Berserkers cant tank that well and do average dmg but also they get alot of combat spells to shield and take damage dealt to other players, thats just wrong, I think the whole system is messed up for you people, good luck on geting anything fixed with SOE behind the doors. Also I like to point out that berserkers only armor they can wear is heavy plate. I thought if you wore Plate and it being heavy that was suppose to grant you great protection but if a lvl 26 guardian same armor as me can tank without dieing then what good is it only making a class that can't tank as well only able to wear heavy plate armor. Why not medium armor?

Also why do berserkers pull agro so easily from guardians if berserkers where never meant to be the MT?

Message Edited by Bezado on 02-25-2005 07:44 AM

Artorius_ · 02-25-2005, 02:43 PM

From Faq ...

"

Won’t balancing become a real issue with that many classes?

Class balance is always a complicated issue, but the archetype system allows us to manage it much more effectively. Each class and subclass is balanced at the archetype level. Every archetype has a main role in a group situation, and each member of a given archetype will be able to fill that role equally well"

Dont hining anybody and say nosenses, eq2 wasnt suppouse to be eq1 and balancing is at archetype main role.

ALL TANKS are suppouse to tanks equals well with their skills each, in different ways but EQUALS. If not happens this at whatever LVL, raid or WHATEVER, game need to be balanced (not classes nerfed).

This previous statement aplys to rest of archetypes classes and roles.

Platfing · 02-25-2005, 05:25 PM

If you want to see SOE comments regarding class balancing before the comments were removed post-Beta from these boards, go to the website below (assuming the link isn't wiped by a mod)

http://www.eqii.com/mgi.php?t=10467

In case the link is wiped, here is a quote from Moorgard:

--------------------------------

Note that I was talking only about the *primary role* of the class. Each will have a variety and flavor all its own, which will help you decide which class and sub-class you will eventually want to play.

The idea is this: you don't have to worry about picking a class you like only to discover 50 levels later that your choice makes you unwanted. If you're a fighter, you can tank for a group; if you're a priest, you can heal for a group; and so on. This is the beauty of an archetype system.

Class choice should make the game fun, not cut you off from participating. Our goal is inclusion and desirability, regardless of what path in the tree you might take.

Will there be variety? Of course. Different abilities, spells, combat styles... the whole works. Some classes will be able to do some tasks better than others, but the *primary* purpose of the class will always be there.

--------------------------------

So unless the the primary role at max level (currently 50) for a tank has changed, I believe it's ummmm... tanking. Right?

Lony · 02-25-2005, 07:03 PM

I might be going off at a slight tangent here. But when ever I chose to group with a MT all I am interested is that he can " Agro Management".

The main reason for this is I can then dot and nuke in the knowledge the tank is doing his job hold agro.

The second reason is that the healer can do his job without being attacked.

Lonynsgirl

39 Wizard

20 Sage

Alis · 02-25-2005, 07:09 PM

The problem isnt so much non guardians cant tank raids just that given say a 2% advanatage on a tough encounter people will take those odds everytime. If non guardians couldnt tank them at all then thats maybe an issue for the developers.

sidgb · 02-25-2005, 07:28 PM

Why do you guys keep trying to replace the word "group" with the word "raid" to say SoE lied. When obviously you seem to be able to tank a group fine. Sounds to me like you are now wanting something that was never promised and trying to pretend it was.

Everyone with any common sense knows raids generate entirely different dynamics requiring a care in detail and planning that have tougher demands.

Message Edited by sidgb on 02-25-2005 08:29 AM

Dub · 02-25-2005, 07:51 PM

Platfinger wrote:

According to the original plans for EQ-2, all tank classes are supposed to be able to tank the same things in different ways. This is not the case with high-level raid mobs. There is only one tank class that is chosen above all for this, and there is a reason for it (their class is better built specifically for it).

I don't even have to say what the class is - everyone knows. I am not saying that this class should be nerfed, but I do think that other classes should be brought up to their level. The longer this inbalance exists, the more ingrained the stigma of the inbalance will become in player's minds, and it will be so hard to overcome (rangers from EQ-1?) when it's finally fixed later on.

When exactly are things going to be balanced out as originally promised?

Fenra Fairheart (Butcherblock)

Making the game where everyone does everything equal makes for a shallow boring game. If all tanks, tanked the same, did the same damage, and so on as all other tank classes, whats the point of having different classes?

02-24-2005, 04:26 AM	#3
Valhu Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 67	It is very important for all tanks to be able to handle raid mobs... is people playing those tanks want to be able to go on raids. At level 29 you have not seen the complete mess that is spells 30+...... I agree that everyone should have their niche... but there is only 1 real niche right now in raid content for tanks (other than dps)... not as advertised, not as promised.... __________________ .... New Mantra for EQ2

02-24-2005, 08:09 PM	#5
Tomanak Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 595	Valhuru wrote: It is very important for all tanks to be able to handle raid mobs... is people playing those tanks want to be able to go on raids. Just because they cant be the MT doesnt mean they cant go on raids, it simply means that another class may be prefered as MT and those others can play a support role. When I join a pickup group or even a guild group and there is another tank class higher than I in levels I have no problems deferring to a secondary support role, why should they? I also question that all other tank classes are simply unable to tank a raid mob. Perhaps the Guardian is more effective at tanking the raids mobs, however I dont understand why another tank class cant. While I do think SOE said that all tank classes can tank equally well, Im not sure they said that would be the case in every situation. All Healers can heal as well albeit in different ways, well depending on what Im fighting I prefer certain healing classes over others. Lastly everyone is saying I want what SOE promised me, what they advertised. Well if no one has figured it out yet, theres a lot about this game that isnt exactly as advertised...casual friendly, no camping and the list goes on. This is a persistant changing virtual world, plans change as they hit the light of day (or in this case, the live servers). Message Edited by Tomanak on 02-24-2005 07:10 AM __________________

02-24-2005, 08:23 PM	#6
sidgb Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 144	I love it. People pick a Paladin or zerker at lower lvls because the tanking difference is insignifacant for exp groups and the DPS/special abilities makes it easier to solo. Once they have taken advantage of this for 50 lvls they cry that they cannot be main tank for raid encounters. A fact that any idiot knew would be the case sooner or later as the Guardian asset of damage absorption began to manifest itself. You made your choice. Butch up Sally. __________________ GYnasis - 76 Guardian Cataclysm - 74 Templar Cylleste - 74 Monk -Permafrost-

02-24-2005, 09:35 PM	#7
Valhu Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 67	You people really have no sight for the future. Someone has a legitimate complaint and the common answer is "you chose it" or "quit whining" or "not everyhting is supposed tobe equal".... Newsflash... raids are limited to 24 people, in an instanced zone with a lockout timer. If you do not understand upper class eliteism... you never played EQ1 to a high level. You will see only guardians being invited to a high end raid..... when you raid is made up of mostly dps healers and support, it's not like you need more then 3-4 tanks... What is an SK or a Pally going to bring to the table? How about you wander over to their boards and read about how the raid content is going... it isn't No class should be excluded from high end content because their class is not viable. That's not fair, and it is nto what anyone paid for. If you say that they chose that, then I hope you never choose somethng you like based on the descriptions you were given, and have it fall flat on you. Have some empathy people for heavans sake. It's not like they are saying they want to be uber, they just want to be able to play they way they were told the could... __________________ .... New Mantra for EQ2

02-24-2005, 10:31 PM	#9
CherobylJ Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 395	My understanding is thta base plate mitigation is the same across the board. Guardians get invited to raids because of their skill sets (which either improve their own mitigation, their groups or debuff the mob). Other classes can tank raid targets; the confusion lies in that Guards can well guard other tanks but in most cases that translates into them just doing the job themselves. On some raid targets it might make sense to have a higher agro tank be main with the Guard supporting. I suppose when I get to level 50 and do those raids regularly I'll have some further insight, but it appears to me that without a Guard and their skills on raid (whether they are MA or not) that you are going to have some trouble. __________________ ---------------------- Flair Fifteenpiece - 54 Berserker of Guk, - Co-GL Infernal Requiem formerly Flair Shieldrender 70 Overlord of Fennin Ro "And as the Overlord raised his fist to the sky, the crowds cheered below. The soldiers began their familiar chant as the citizens joined in: "Strength in unity; unity in Lucan!"

02-24-2005, 02:19 AM	#1
Platfing Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 123	According to the original plans for EQ-2, all tank classes are supposed to be able to tank the same things in different ways. This is not the case with high-level raid mobs. There is only one tank class that is chosen above all for this, and there is a reason for it (their class is better built specifically for it). I don't even have to say what the class is - everyone knows. I am not saying that this class should be nerfed, but I do think that other classes should be brought up to their level. The longer this inbalance exists, the more ingrained the stigma of the inbalance will become in player's minds, and it will be so hard to overcome (rangers from EQ-1?) when it's finally fixed later on. When exactly are things going to be balanced out as originally promised? Message Edited by Platfinger on 02-25-2005 07:31 AM

02-24-2005, 02:50 AM	#2
EvilIguana9 General Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 477	I'm a 29 Paladin. I am not really big on raiding so maybe my opinion is less valuable, but I don't think there is neccesarily a need for all tanks to be equally good at filling the raid main tank role. I think each class and subclass should be the "best" so to speak in different situations but very good at the others. At 29 I tank as well as or better than pretty much anyone my level, but that may change over time. My ability to heal myself and others is a great boon, and has allowed me to survive after the healer dies/runs oom, but I'm rather sure it would be insignificant in a raid situation when compared to the guardian's superior ability to reliably soak damage. I think this is good game design because it guarentees a niche for the different classes. Where the problem may be is in how the raid encounters are balanced. I haven't raided in EQ 2 yet so I have no personal experience but the situations I have heard described lead me to believe that the encounters just aren't designed to make use of more than a few major class functions. That is not a class issue, that is an encounter issue.Whether or not the fighter classes are actually balanced based on their total utility is a different subject.

02-24-2005, 06:34 PM	#4
SmashingPumpki General Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6	I can't see the point in that, guardian are THE tank, the one supposed to take damage, they don't have paladins spells and berseker damage output, if they get same tanking possibility of guardians but u still got paladins chants heal and smite or higher damage of berseker, what will be the point of being a Guardian then? To be a nerfed berseker or a nerfed paladin?I'm a templar, I want wards, I want mezz, I want roots, I want speed, why some classes got speed and can do all quests in half the time? I want to be invisible!!! That helps a lot in a lot of things, harvesting, catalogue, quests and adventuring!!!U know what?! --> That's the class system each class got pros and cons, that's no news, since D&D... Message Edited by SmashingPumpkins on 02-24-2005 03:06 PM

02-24-2005, 09:48 PM	#8
ghosthamm Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 100	excellent reply valhuru exactly the point trying to be brought to light.

02-24-2005, 11:19 PM	#10
sidgb Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 144	When my cleric gets to lvl 50 it is not fair that as a plate class she cannot tank raid encounters. I am sick and tired of these limitations. It is not what I paid for. I am tired of the same people making the same stupid choices that lead to the same stupid whines. You would think they would know better by now. Message Edited by sidgb on 02-24-2005 12:21 PM Message Edited by sidgb on 02-24-2005 12:23 PM Message Edited by sidgb on 02-24-2005 12:24 PM __________________ GYnasis - 76 Guardian Cataclysm - 74 Templar Cylleste - 74 Monk -Permafrost-

02-24-2005, 11:38 PM	#11
Lancealittle Tester Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 181	sidgb wrote: When my cleric gets to lvl 50 it is not fair that as a plate class she cannot tank raid encounters. I am sick and tired of these limitations. It is not what I paid for. I am tired of the same people making the same stupid choices that lead to the same stupid whines. You would think they would know better by now. The complaint stems from pre-release of the game where it was stated that all fighters would be able to tank equaly. One problem with that is that it was also said that not all would be equal under all circumstances. Raid level tanking is a very small fraction of the tanking going on in this game. I don't think they will be making changes to this. What I would not mind is seeing raid mobs where it would be more important to have avoidance rather than mitigation so a brawler type would be the ideal choice for a tank. A mob that gets many low damage/low chance to hit attacks and has a lot of hps would be great for brawlers to main tank. I'm not sure how something similar could also be done for the crusaders however. __________________ Eeek- Ratonga Fury - Test Gildenrose - High Elf Swashbuckler - Test Lancealittle - Gnome Guardian - Test

02-24-2005, 11:41 PM	#12
Platfing Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 123	If you want to read more about the role of the "other" tank classes on raids, read this thread (from the SK forum): http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=9&message.id=6566 This pretty much sums it up for the paladin class as well. Also, nobody will have a monk or bruiser tanking a ^^^ on a high end raid. There is only ONE tank class at end-game right now. That was the way it worked in EQ-1, but not how it was supposed to work in EQ-2. People keep saying that the game is changing, etc. Well, guess what? The original fundamental design promised all along (the one where there are 4 archtypes, where each class in that archtype can fullfill the CORE archtype role equally well) apparently hasn't been implemented yet for the end game! Will it EVER be? I don't know - it's up to SOE if they want to ever finish the end-game class balancing. Message Edited by Platfinger on 02-24-2005 10:42 AM

02-25-2005, 12:22 AM	#13
sidgb Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 144	Yep, same people, same choices, same complaints, different day. Face it, the only way to really get what you want is to eliminate the heavy tank completely from the game and make them all paper hybrids. Providing any sort of differentiation always ends in some sort of crying. If they eliminated Guardians the rest of you would just eventually turn on each other. I remember when I created my guardian hearing all the talk about how much BETTER a Zerker was because of the DPS and their ability to gain aggro. I grouped with Zerkers who had to show how good they were at it and would brag about their nice DPS and aggro abilities. I have listened to that nonsense ever since the game came out because I knew that eventually my guardians ability to mitigate damage would find its niche. Seems every hybrid loves their class till they hit 50. Then it's whine, whine, whine. __________________ GYnasis - 76 Guardian Cataclysm - 74 Templar Cylleste - 74 Monk -Permafrost-

02-25-2005, 12:24 AM	#14
Lancealittle Tester Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 181	Platfinger wrote: If you want to read more about the role of the "other" tank classes on raids, read this thread (from the SK forum): http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=9&message.id=6566 This pretty much sums it up for the paladin class as well. Also, nobody will have a monk or bruiser tanking a ^^^ on a high end raid. There is only ONE tank class at end-game right now. That was the way it worked in EQ-1, but not how it was supposed to work in EQ-2. People keep saying that the game is changing, etc. Well, guess what? The original fundamental design promised all along (the one where there are 4 archtypes, where each class in that archtype can fullfill the CORE archtype role equally well) apparently hasn't been implemented yet for the end game! Will it EVER be? I don't know - it's up to SOE if they want to ever finish the end-game class balancing. Message Edited by Platfinger on 02-24-200510:42 AM It was never promised that all fighter classes would be able to tank raid mobs equally. If you have a quote that shows I'm incorrect, please let me know. Here is a partial quote from Moorgard from beta (keep in mind that the developers have changed directions on many things since then). At the same time, the fact that all subclasses have different ways of fulfilling their primary roles means there will be some circumstances where one subclass has an advantage. Rough edges like this are intended, as they add to diversity and can sometimes drive the passions of players. Without those differences, we might as well never go beyond the four adventure archetypes because subclasses would all be exactly the same. I'm with you on wanting to see a role in raids for all the different tank types, but I don't think they can change the basics of the classes to make them all tank the same in every situation without removing the entire class system. I gave an example of how they could make a mob that would be better suited for a brawler, so the brains behind the encounter system could come up with better ideas than me, I'm sure. Maybe make some encounter mobs that have a hard time damaging light armor to help brawlers or get blinded by holy/unholy radiance to help crusaders. They could also have a scripted epic encounter where a Paladin or Shadowknight can have their gods avatar give them a divine uber shield that breaks at the end of the encounter. __________________ Eeek- Ratonga Fury - Test Gildenrose - High Elf Swashbuckler - Test Lancealittle - Gnome Guardian - Test

02-25-2005, 12:41 AM	#15
sidgb Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 144	Reality is this. Mob: X = damage Tank: HP+AC+mitigation = ability to survive Ability to survive must be greater then damage Tank with greatest ability to survive (not the tank with best DPS and not necessarily the one with best ability to aggro or heal themselves) will be selected to ensure success. Anyone that does not understand this is not thinking. __________________ GYnasis - 76 Guardian Cataclysm - 74 Templar Cylleste - 74 Monk -Permafrost-

02-25-2005, 02:07 AM	#16
GraymaneGravitic Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 58	"I can't see the point in that, guardian are THE tank, the one supposed to take damage, they don't have paladins spells and berseker damage output, if they get same tanking possibility of guardians but u still got paladins chants heal and smite or higher damage of berseker, what will be the point of being a Guardian then? To be a nerfed berseker or a nerfed paladin?" You are missing the point completely. The point is NOT to mak the non-guardian tanks take damage at the rate of the guardian thereby marginalizing the guardian. The point IS that the other abilities the other tanks get to offset thier lesser damage absorbing abilities SHOULD be empowering them to be able to tank the same mobs as the guardain JUST as effectively as the guardian. That they curently cannot is a sign of a broken game design and a failure on the part of SOE to deliver on it's advertising.

02-25-2005, 02:07 AM	#17
Aegori General Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 192	I think it's time that tanks stop worrying about who's best and we worry about working together to accomplish the goals we have. Regardless of who tanks, lets look at the skills they offer that would benefit any tank and any good member of a raid should be using to make the tanking job successful (i'm speaking regardless of bugs and such that affect these abilities): Paladins - Grant of Armament, Aegis of Hope, your wards, your heals and LoH - aside from the obvious use of heals and wards, the first two skills will actively provide AC and prevent hits to the main tank. SKs - Infernal Pact (ward + lifetap buff), Evasive Maneuvers (shield the tank from damage), STR debuffs, etc. Monks - Mend, Tranquil Blessing (reduce hate on a party member... say your nukers/healers), Martial Discipline, Sacrafice (both protect the tank from damage), plus some debuffs Bruisers - Overtaking Blows (shields tank), Eye Gouge (decrease target accuracy, thus making tanking easier), bunch of debuffs and offensive buffs Zerkers - Infuriation (shield party member), Havoc (increase group AC and STR), Offensive debuffs Guardians - Allay, Never Surrender, Sentinel (all 3 shield the target party member), numerous defensive group defensive buffs, target debuffs (slow/attack reducers) Regardless of who tanks... combine all this together and THAT's a tank. You may think taking another tank along with you is worthless, but i promise having 2-3 extra tanks around that are of different classes can make a raid easier to tank solely based on these skills. This is not an individual game (especially when speaking about raid content) and the only way we can truly make it easier is if we stop bickering about who's best and start figuring out the best way to achieve our goals. I don't freekin care if guardians are the "best tanks". All i know is if there's one tanking for my raid, i'll be right behind him supporting him with my tank protection/debuff/whatever skills to help him succeed. Likewise, i'd expect him to do the same for me if it were the case that i'd tank. Raids are not a solo effort so we should stop speaking as if tanking a raid is meant to be a solo effort. -Aeg __________________ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dev Tracker Search Function

02-25-2005, 02:13 AM	#18
sidgb Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 144	And they do in 99.9% of mob encounters. A game is not broken if 0.1% of mobs require a specific approach. But it seems 0.1% of mobs is plenty enough to whine about. __________________ GYnasis - 76 Guardian Cataclysm - 74 Templar Cylleste - 74 Monk -Permafrost-

02-25-2005, 02:37 AM	#19
Platfing Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 123	sidgb wrote: And they do in 99.9% of mob encounters. A game is not broken if 0.1% of mobs require a specific approach. But it seems 0.1% of mobs is plenty enough to whine about. When you get to max level (50 currently), it will be 100% of the mobs you actually care enough about to log in and kill with your guild. The game has to be attuned to all levels, not just 1-49.

02-25-2005, 02:39 AM	#20
Briszizi Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 1	I think what Plat is afraid of is what all us long time EQ1 players have seen. You dedicate yourself to a character (yes of your choice), but at the end of game or maybe mid way through for some others, your character is not wanted in a group and you are left out of the high end of game. This happened in EQ1 and that is why a lot of us chose to come here to EQ2. We were tired of having LFG on for hours and getting no response to be in group because the attitude of the other players were "your not good enough". This is the bottom line here, he/she is not whining about getting other characters nerfed. What I feel he/she is saying is that please do not make EQ2 become EQ1. I know what he/she means I leveled my druid up to 67 and when EQ2 came out moved here because they promised no one class would be preferred over another. If anyone played EQ1 they should know what happened to the druid class amongst other classes. Eventually all solo content was nerfed or taken out of game and some of the classes were left hanging not able to do anything worth while which is frustrating. Instead of us all being angry at each other why can't everyone just understand and make some constructive suggestions instead of flaming each other when someone has a concern.

02-25-2005, 02:52 AM	#21
Valhu Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 67	"Instead of us all being angry at each other why can't everyone just understand and make some constructive suggestions instead of flaming each other when someone has a concern." Amen brother... I fear the trolls have deaf ears however. __________________ .... New Mantra for EQ2

02-25-2005, 02:59 AM	#22
sidgb Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 144	I hear the whining just fine. The game doesn't revolve around his class so it's broke. If a pally or SK were picked to tank over him he would be here complaining about that too. Message Edited by sidgb on 02-24-2005 04:00 PM Message Edited by sidgb on 02-24-2005 04:02 PM Message Edited by sidgb on 02-24-2005 04:03 PM __________________ GYnasis - 76 Guardian Cataclysm - 74 Templar Cylleste - 74 Monk -Permafrost-

02-25-2005, 07:54 AM	#23
Axxon Server: Antonia Bayle Guild: The Discipleship Rank: Sovereign Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 417	SOE indicated that every tank class would be able to tank mobs equally well. They said tanks would have the same effectiveness, but would merely do the job with different skill sets. This is not the case and the tanks' abilities need to be balanced. __________________

02-25-2005, 11:00 AM	#24
Bezado Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 46	If all this is true then why did the berserker class get so many combat spells to shield and protect others in a group if they can't tank that well? When I was playing I had got my berserker to lvl 26. I seen what a poor system will do to other classes. Berserkers cant tank that well and do average dmg but also they get alot of combat spells to shield and take damage dealt to other players, thats just wrong, I think the whole system is messed up for you people, good luck on geting anything fixed with SOE behind the doors. Also I like to point out that berserkers only armor they can wear is heavy plate. I thought if you wore Plate and it being heavy that was suppose to grant you great protection but if a lvl 26 guardian same armor as me can tank without dieing then what good is it only making a class that can't tank as well only able to wear heavy plate armor. Why not medium armor? Also why do berserkers pull agro so easily from guardians if berserkers where never meant to be the MT? Message Edited by Bezado on 02-25-2005 07:44 AM

02-25-2005, 02:43 PM	#25
Artorius_ Loremaster Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 30	From Faq ... " Won’t balancing become a real issue with that many classes? Class balance is always a complicated issue, but the archetype system allows us to manage it much more effectively. Each class and subclass is balanced at the archetype level. Every archetype has a main role in a group situation, and each member of a given archetype will be able to fill that role equally well" Dont hining anybody and say nosenses, eq2 wasnt suppouse to be eq1 and balancing is at archetype main role. ALL TANKS are suppouse to tanks equals well with their skills each, in different ways but EQUALS. If not happens this at whatever LVL, raid or WHATEVER, game need to be balanced (not classes nerfed). This previous statement aplys to rest of archetypes classes and roles.

02-25-2005, 05:25 PM	#26
Platfing Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 123	If you want to see SOE comments regarding class balancing before the comments were removed post-Beta from these boards, go to the website below (assuming the link isn't wiped by a mod) http://www.eqii.com/mgi.php?t=10467 In case the link is wiped, here is a quote from Moorgard: -------------------------------- Note that I was talking only about the primary role of the class. Each will have a variety and flavor all its own, which will help you decide which class and sub-class you will eventually want to play. The idea is this: you don't have to worry about picking a class you like only to discover 50 levels later that your choice makes you unwanted. If you're a fighter, you can tank for a group; if you're a priest, you can heal for a group; and so on. This is the beauty of an archetype system. Class choice should make the game fun, not cut you off from participating. Our goal is inclusion and desirability, regardless of what path in the tree you might take. Will there be variety? Of course. Different abilities, spells, combat styles... the whole works. Some classes will be able to do some tasks better than others, but the primary purpose of the class will always be there. -------------------------------- So unless the the primary role at max level (currently 50) for a tank has changed, I believe it's ummmm... tanking. Right?

02-25-2005, 07:03 PM	#27
Lony Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 9	I might be going off at a slight tangent here. But when ever I chose to group with a MT all I am interested is that he can " Agro Management". The main reason for this is I can then dot and nuke in the knowledge the tank is doing his job hold agro. The second reason is that the healer can do his job without being attacked. Lonynsgirl 39 Wizard 20 Sage

02-25-2005, 07:09 PM	#28
Alis Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 44	The problem isnt so much non guardians cant tank raids just that given say a 2% advanatage on a tough encounter people will take those odds everytime. If non guardians couldnt tank them at all then thats maybe an issue for the developers.

02-25-2005, 07:28 PM	#29
sidgb Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 144	Why do you guys keep trying to replace the word "group" with the word "raid" to say SoE lied. When obviously you seem to be able to tank a group fine. Sounds to me like you are now wanting something that was never promised and trying to pretend it was. Everyone with any common sense knows raids generate entirely different dynamics requiring a care in detail and planning that have tougher demands. Message Edited by sidgb on 02-25-2005 08:29 AM __________________ GYnasis - 76 Guardian Cataclysm - 74 Templar Cylleste - 74 Monk -Permafrost-

02-25-2005, 07:51 PM	#30
Dub Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 54	Platfinger wrote: According to the original plans for EQ-2, all tank classes are supposed to be able to tank the same things in different ways. This is not the case with high-level raid mobs. There is only one tank class that is chosen above all for this, and there is a reason for it (their class is better built specifically for it). I don't even have to say what the class is - everyone knows. I am not saying that this class should be nerfed, but I do think that other classes should be brought up to their level. The longer this inbalance exists, the more ingrained the stigma of the inbalance will become in player's minds, and it will be so hard to overcome (rangers from EQ-1?) when it's finally fixed later on. When exactly are things going to be balanced out as originally promised? Fenra Fairheart (Butcherblock) Making the game where everyone does everything equal makes for a shallow boring game. If all tanks, tanked the same, did the same damage, and so on as all other tank classes, whats the point of having different classes?