Yeah, i would never ask a dps to "dps less". If i cant hold aggro off someone i would just congratulate them for playing their role(dps) so well that he beats me at it. Thats however not me saying that they Shouldnt adorn sum negative hate mod and wisely use their threat drops. But if they are that good at DPSing i would assume that they know that deaths screws with ur parse and they do what they can to avoid it. Btw i once grped with a conjy who had a threat positional increase proc ring. She snapped aggro even with crappy dps Until i figured it out!
I do not like these changes, for the same reason I didn't like the proposed fighter revamp from 5 years ago. This boils down to: A tanking stance A not-tanking stance I think the game is better if i can tank in either stance, just one is more defensive and one is more offensive. The restriction of all meaningful defensive abilities from working while in offensive stance pretty much means I'll never be able to use it, cause if i don't need to tank, I play a dps class.
My fault for attempting to correct your drivel. I would suggest this guide for you to read though. Read Me So let me break this down Barny style for you. This is what I said So you responded with nothing at all relevant to this point. The next point I made Again, you responded with nothing at all relevant to this point other than you as well have a Paladin that you tank heroic zones with. I asked you not to continue to lump Paladins into generalizations. This is about the 4th time 5th I've seen this over the course of the test changes and its simply flat out incorrect. Wait .. what.. Are SK's "godly" dps currently?. Of course they aren't. Current Reck stance double your potency, So how is a lesser amount of overall gained potency going to increase SK dps? You didn't answer my question but instead avoided it with a statement about an event that you witnessed an SK doing 10 mil dps on a mass pull while tanking using aoes with no max targets. What you said You've attempted to change the topic to justify your previous post and for that, I have no response. As a personal request if you're going to continue to respond, please do not use !'s in the place of ,'s. It makes your post extremely hard to read.
According to the progression by classes Bruisers are actually in the worst spot. Seeing as I have a Bruiser, Pally, and Berserker I can personally state Pally is far easier to tank with than the Bruiser. Additionally my guilds raid uses an SK for the MT and Guardian for OT, with a Pally for backup OT (maybe even 2 of them). I started Pally at launch, but changes to Bruiser in SF, honestly I don't tank with either so far this expansion as it's just terrible. [/quote] I never stated a order anof best to worse. This is what I stated. Which I will reiterate. The "Progression by Classes" is nice eye candy to look but just as the author suggests, the data is skewed. You claim that your Pally "Far easier to tank with than the Bruiser" Can you clarify what you mean? I assume your referring to aggro management? You claim your guild uses an SK for a MTs while the Guard OTs. Is there a non game mechanics reason why you guild does this? I feel your pain bud I would agree with your assessment of a tanking and non-tanking stance. Reck stance is being removed but the idea of Reck stance is remaining . Its just being rerolled into the new gimped down version of O-stance. This once again is a band-aid solution to a much bigger problem that currently exists in the game. The lack of usefulness of Fighters in group/raid when not actively tanking. That is what I see as the root of the issue.
Ideally speaking I would like to see both of the stances to be used for tanking and for non-tanking situation. I would prefer the DPS boost and De-hate all be on a non Stance Buff that can be cast or turned off as needed. Either way the Offensive Stance needs some DPS added.
Since it will probably go mostly unseen on reddit, Caith posted a few minutes ago that "there will be a separate ability that a Fighter will be able to use to reduce aggro that will not be linked to either Offensive or Defensive stance. This should be on Beta early next week at the latest."
As a T1 DPS it is pretty silly to force a tank to only DPS without giving them the tools to match me in T1 DPS. So if they are DPS in DPS stance they need a whole hell of a lot more added to that offensive stance. A tank who can't taunt, or mitigate damage with their abilities is no longer a tank.
I think the point of the changes to the Offensive stance are so it actually is possible to tank in them. Obviously it won't be happening on some raid fights and depending on the player higher tier heroics, but temps aren't entirely necessary for many fights, especially with a good healer. Also, the stances have low recast time and are quick to cast, so in the event that you do need a temp, there would only be a second or two delay to toggle stances and cast.
On Beta there is a five second delay after you switch before you can use stone skins, death prevs, and 100% damage blocks. If there was no delay, there would be no issue.
I wasn't aware of that. Considering that Caith posted "You can swap between Offensive and Defensive stance fairly rapidly, so if you expect to need a stoneskin, you can do some stance dancing." (link), that may be unintentional.
This would lead to "stance dancing" which is one of the worst mechanizes I've ever experienced playing tanks in MMOS. The delay is there to prevent this. The duration of the delay of course is another subject.
In offensive stance, tanks still have double the mitigation and avoidance of similarly geared DPS classes. They also don't lose any aggro control ability, and in fact would be generating more threat with the increased DPS. These stances are not "tanking" and "no tanking," the offensive stance is really more of a hybrid tank/DPS stance, and is meant for you to tank with. I don't agree that the offensive stance should bring fighters in line with T1 DPS, since they still have quite a bit more survivability and are perfectly capable of tanking.
As a suggestion, I wonder if instead of temps just not working when you try to cast them, maybe they should just drop your offensive stance for the duration of the temp, or drop it entirely and make you recast it.
If we know about the Swap before it was needed then the 5 Sec delay is not a problem… just take into account. But if we need to pick up the named after being a 3rd tank in DPS mode then it will not work.
That is not true. A Brigand, Swashbuckler, and Dirge in tank gear can get max mitigation, insane avoidance, and do more damage than the tank. And get this, they can throw on a ring, and get hate positional's all day. And still get death prevs from other classes, on top of stoneskins.
Then remove the stances, and allow tanks the freedom to build both hardier, and build for damage at the same time. It's silly to take away tank stats and abilities for a minor increase in damage. If they have to damage only, they should come close to matching my T1 DPS.
I don't disagree with this, but my point was that fighters in offensive stance do not "have to damage only." They are still capable of tanking.
now we just need to get them to move the +Pot and maybe other class specific dps increases to this New Buff. then we would have 2 Stances we can use and a DPSing option that is independent.
Take a look at the Brawler Defensive Stance vs Offensive Stance and tell me we are still capable tanks in Offensive Stance.
