Fighter Balance

Why did SOE take away the ability for guardians to maximize their dps with a tower shield because it was OP, and then decide to give it to crusaders? That makes no sense. Knight's Stance should be changed to a 7 - 10% bonus to auto attacks no matter what weapons are equipped.
Also, if crusaders, zerkers, whatever are going to be doing 100 - 150% more damage than a guardian, they should taking at least 50% more damage than a guardian. Most likely several abilities would have to be adjusted, but getting rid of all the +block AAs would be a start.

And making Guardians the ONLY tank in this game - leaving the other 5 classes somewhere to rot? Won't ever happen, stop dreaming.

All this argument will likely be null as soon as the planned changes to auto-attack go live, and the offhand restriction is lifted on flurry and AE. Then it will be dual wielders doing far, far more damage. On another note, calling for nerfs to other classes is extremely poor form. Instead, contribute something useful like a suggestion for your class, not to take away something from someone else.

Guards being the only "raid" tank was their only specialty from ROK back. In everyday content and heroic instances all other fighters would smoke a guard. Now guards are not as special anymore. That is all a guard had was being the great raid tank.
If it was so wrong for guards to have dps with towershield then what is the excuse for any other fighter to have that same overpoweredness in todays game?
In reality survival should be less and less with the more damage that a fighter could dish out.
Basically three fighters are the tanks leaving three other fighters to rot.

**

Nerfing a class into oblivion to make up for some peoples lack of skill isn't a good idea. Guardians are a desired class right now, just not as a DPS class. I'd suggest trying to perfect your playing skills before attempting to delving into balance changes.

Why are threads like this that are against the forum rules allowed to stay? They are not constructive, nerfs are bad for any game, calling for nerfs just makes you look more whiney than Eminem.
Best bet is to start a thread pointing out with data and good reason to why your favorite class needs a boost in an area.
Im getting fed up with nerf such and such threads with no data to back them up and half ***** half baked ideas never looking at the big picture.
With the expansion far off, no real content in the last update, a huge nerf to certain classes in the last update with players really frustrated over it the last thing this game that I love needs is any more chuffing nerfs.

Kahling

Nerfs are horrible things but classes that actually overpower the game are 1,000 times worse. Any class that can solo a current teir heroic instance is broken. Plain and simple. You don't have to like it.
The single thing that will make me leave EQ2 is this unbelievable Balance problem. I have played EQ2 for almost 7 years now and I will 100% leave EQ2 when ANY other option is available. The only reason I play now is that it's better than letting my wife go to the mall with the Credit Card.

Darkonx wrote:

Guards are "ok" for tanking raid mobs. Guard tanks have to be skilled and know every little thing about a mob vs a crusader who who is "great' at tanking raid mobs and can be so by just spam buttons. Over half of the crusaders MT out there are only MT because of their class not their skill. It was sort of like that for guard RoK and earlier but not to the degree it is for crusaders more so Pally's.

Stonestrong wrote:

Thats not really true, you can constructively call for nerfs, I've done it many times.

Well I think I will go with the Moderator's opinion over yours. Aren't you quitting anyway?

Stonestrong wrote:

Yeap, doesn't change that you can constructively demonstrate where nerfs are needed, as the only balanced alternative is stupidly over buffing everyone else.
A tenant of fighter balance is as you push the classes dps envelope to its extremes you should at the same time be falling to the bottom corner of the survivability envelope. When you can demonstrate that one sub-class doesn't follow the same rules as the others in this regard, you can either demand we all get to do it, or suggest that perhaps it shouldn't have been gifted to them in the first place.
I personally think its childish to suggest we should all get to break the rules and have max dps while keeping uncontested block, I think its bad design that any class could do so. But I'll accept either plausible sollution, we all get to do it, or no one.

Atan@Unrest wrote:

Im sorry but I have never seen you construcvely call for nerfs, only call for nerfs. I have never seen you back any of them up, and your post count is 99% calls for nerfs from what I have seen since SF beta.

What cracks me up is that so many desparately wanted and were pushing for the guard nerf back in ROK. I guess it is ok to call for nerfs as long as it is a guard.
I don't discriminate against any class. If any class is playing far above and beyond their means then I feel it should be brought to someones attention and proper adjustments should be made. Just like it happened to guardians back in mid/late ROK.
Atan is correct. " as you push the classes dps envelope to its extremes you should at the same time be falling to the bottom corner of the survivability envelope". Makes total sense and this is how it should be.
If an sk wants to keep their insain dps then I am all for it, but their survival should nose dive in return. Not just for sk's but any fighter with the "i am dps" mentality. There needs to be a trade off.

Kahling@Kithicor wrote:

I gave valid reasons.
Crit bonus vs Knight's Stance is irrelevant. Crusaders do too much dps for the amount of defense they get. I don't have a database full of numbers for you to parse through and if I did, no doubt it would be claimed as useless by players that don't want to be fixed. But, if you must have hard numbers that show evidence crusaders are not balanced, look at the dps thread, look at population numbers, look at the last 2 pages of threads in the fighter boards, and run your own parser when you play EQ2. If you think crusaders are balanced you are thick.

Samoux@Crushbone wrote:

Feel free to not read my posts. Also, if you didn't notice, I didn't use the word nerf in the OP and a storm of tears followed regardless. I don't know what you mean by "all-encompasing proof." Proof of what? Proof that crusaders are OP? That is an opinion. You want me to prove an opinion? I've given reasons as to why crusaders need to be fixed, and provided some evidence, so whatever.
Also, you are wrong that nerfs can't fix OP classes. Just because Aerilik failed at properly balancing 6 classes doesn't warrant a blanket statement like that.

If this was simply a matter of class envy I'd just play a shadowknight full time (like most fighters have) and be done with it. That would be much easier than stick around hoping for balance.

so where do i sign up for 100-150% more dps than a guard as a zerk?
that's a tall statement. even if they somehow do add in this BS 200% AE/flurry attack from offhanders you don't think that guards will get something similar but possibly yet different? yeap.

Evette23 wrote:

I'd say it's more a matter of player skill envy. I'd bet the farm you tried to play a SK full-time and still couldn't cut it. The next logical step is to come to the forums and complain. It's not fair! If I can't do it then nobody should be allowed to!

Stonestrong wrote:

don't kid yourself. it's not that difficult to play ANY class in this game. in fact if you can find this board, figure out how to make an account and sign in i'm pretty sure anyone can play a knight class.