BRAWLER CHANGES - WHEN????????Here's a few ideas.

Lethe5683 wrote:

I agree the proc rate should be increased and damage increased, but I will disagree with your solution of dropping the proc all together. We already have an ae auto attack when we hit craneflock even if its just 16 seconds, I think cranetwirl should stay but be fixed to be more inline with ae auto attack damage. At one point before auto attack damage went sky rocketing it was an effective way to maintain ae agro, then mythicals hit and plate tanks are doing 7-8k hits x4 and it got unbalanced.

BChizzle wrote:

I understand what you mean, but do you think that they intend do fix autoatatck damage anytime soon? Or even keep it from further spiraling out of control? If it was a proc that somehow scaled with weapon damage that would be fine. But I don't see any way of doing that, or any reason we sholdn't get AoE autoattack all the time, not just once every 3 pulls.

Eliezer wrote:

You are misunderstanding the defenition of equal. Equal only means the same when talking in terms on quantity or quality, but not when describing subtle differences.

Here's a hypothetical situation which is obviously not like the way classes are currently in EQ2:
Tank 1:
-High Mit
-Low Avoidance
-Medium DPS
Tank 2:
-Low Mit
-High Avoidance
-High DPS

Now those are clearly different but look equal on paper. Clearly though this would not work in reality since of the way avoidance works in EQ2. This could be fixed though just by instead giving Tank 1 some "oh sensored" aggro management abilities for when their medicore DPS isn't enough to hold hate. Then in turn giving Tank 2 some "oh sensored" defensive abilities to keep them from dieing everytime there is unusually high spike damage. In theory this would make two different but equal tank types.

Lethe5683 wrote:

Trisscuit@Lucan DLere wrote:

No, I understand what you are getting at. However, I am being more realistic about it. In your example, you have two tanks that have 3 different stats on their character sheet, but in the end, can tank the same mobs equally well.
I don't have an issue with that, and that is certainly a good compromise if that can be achieved. That being said, it doesn't answer the more metaphysical issue: If they can do everything the same, what is the point of those 3 different stats being different? It becomes simply a matter of esthetics.
I am positing that there is no reason to have Mitigation tanks AND avoidance tanks if there are not some instances when one or the other are superior. See what I am getting it? There are two reasons to have diversity, either they have functional differences, or merely cosmetic ones.
EDIT: And even beyond this, different specs, different AA selectsions, etc. should provide some functional differences or else again, what is the point?

Eliezer wrote:

I know that each would be superior for certain situations but that doesn't make them unbalanced as long as there is a fairly equal amount of situations that are advantageous to both. Right now avoidance tanking has almost no advantage in any situation.

Rahatmattata wrote:

My mistake but you get the idea.
Fixed:
Tank 1:
-High Mit
-Medium Avoidance
-Medium DPS
Tank 2:
-Low Mit
-High Avoidance
-High DPS

Trisscuit@Lucan DLere wrote:

Thank Brell you guys don't do tank balancing.
The building block on how tanks should be should all start with each and every one of them being able to tank content relatively equal, period. The methods of how that is done can be attained through avoidance, mit, heals/wards, saves etc how its done should be the difference not the end result of one tank being better then another (and not something as imbalanced as a low mit/high avoid vs med avoid/high mit balanced with a dps increase.) This also goes both ways one tank shouldn't be overtly superior in agro generation or dps. Differences can exist but they should be subtle that is what balance is all about.

BChizzle wrote:

Thanks for stating the obvious. That was only a crude example to show how balance != the same.

Trisscuit@Lucan DLere wrote:

Considering your example I think you needed the obvious stated.

I agree that since brawlers are listed as fighters they to should be relatively equal but if brawler dps remains as good as it is will that not conflict with the other plates loosing out? Or is brawler dps equal or behind them now?

Aull wrote:

All tanks are relatively close in DPS except guards who kind of get shafted.

BChizzle wrote:

If that is the case then yes all tanks should be relatively equal. If guard dps continues to suck then they should have other abilities that will at least let them have better chances at aggro retention than what they have now.
Thanks for your answer Bchizz.

Aull wrote:

And agro wise they do, but thats kind of where it goes bad. Whats the difference between the second person on the hate meter being at 50% vs 55%?
I really like the whole ae tank vs single target and heals vs mit vs avoid differences to a certain point. I can live with an ae tank outparsing me on ae encounters and me outparsing them on single target there is enough of a mix of them in the game. I do think though that single target tanks need to be able to ae tank equal to what ae tanks can do on a single target that is a huge imbalance.
End of the day tanks have to be balanced better IMO
One last edit: I think SK's should be the mark where all tanks should be, use their spot as an example and bring every other tank to their balance. There is a reason why so many sk's are around now when a year ago you'd have a better chance spotting bigfoot.

I still think that each tank should have an area of play that they excel in over another tank. With six tanks that might be hard to make happen but honestly monks should have something that make them stand out just like a paladin should have something that makes them stand out.

Aull wrote:

Ya I completely agree with you.
I would say though just off the top of my head that monks probably have the best raidwide buff, guardians best dmg absorbtion, SK's best all roundedness, paly best agro transfer, zerk best ae, and bruiser best solo. I think there is enough to make the classes different.

BChizzle wrote:

WOW..... way to throw bruisers under the bus. if we are makeing them solo then why even have the class..... lets make them excel in dps unstead of something every class can do LOL

I don't think he was intentionally trying to throw bruisers under the bus. It was just a statement off the top of his head. I personally think that guards should have greatest damage absorbtion potential and decent group protection abilities. Zerks greatest aoe damage potential period with lesser group utility. Sk having good aoe damage, best debuffs, soild tank.
Monks having a strong combination of being able to tank, excellent group utility and good st dps. Paladins similar to monk but lesser st dps than the monk yet better aoe damage. Basically monks & paladins being most versitile and can cover other areas. Bruisers greatest single target damage potential and 3rd in aoe dps, but lacks the appeal of group utility.
That is again just my thoughts as to what I have always thought each fighter was in the world of norrath.

Mosha DKhan wrote:

Truth is I had a hard time coming up with what bruisers are best at, but if you were reading what I said earlier I said specifically using DPS as a measurement for balance is a horrible idea.

BChizzle wrote:

Using your example we would need to heavily nerf almost half the other classes since they are good at solo and highly desired in groups and raids. Using solo ability to balance any class vs another should never for a second considered at all unless what you are balancing is solo ability.

Lethe5683 wrote:

You are sadly mistaken if you think I want my class to just be known for having the best raidwide buff, I was giving an example of how things are right now. The guy stated each tank should have something that makes them stand out and I agreed and stated what came to mind.

Best in basket weaving. No other class is doing that.