Guardians next Xpac

therodge wrote:

I understand exactly how they work. And I don't buy that "grandfathered" crap about Guards being MTs. The fact is some of the top guilds WW have Guards that were rolled specifically for MT'ing this xpac. So save it.
What makes Guards so great is their damage soaking abilities....that are on shorter recasts than other classes. I love how people specifically try to compare BL when talking about SKs...the difference with BL though compared to anything damage soaking on a Guard is the fact that once its used it is gone and it cannot be cast again in combat.
Lifetaps are minimal when it comes to healing which is supposed to be the counter to Guards higher mit and more damage soaking abilities. They do not heal that much.
And to make it absolutely clear I am not asking for more survivabilty on a SK. I am just pointing out the survivability of a Guard, hence why they are the MT of choice still in TSO...even though some claim they are "broken"..LOL.
Honestly as a Paladin if I were you I would go hide out back because people are starting to realize that Paladins are using SKs as scape-goats to keep the focus off them. Practically the same DPS, higher survivability, and better agro control. Watch your step before you tango.
You can go back through this post and from the people that are actually seeing good Guards and their capabilities there are some posts discussing exactly what I discussed. Eastern and Quabi I know specifically said the same thing that if Guards had just as good of agro they would be OP'd....those are non-SK classes. 1 plays a Guard. I am sorry some of you rolled Guards expecting to be the "best" heroic tank but that is just now how it works, nor is it intended to work that way. Tweaks are one thing, but claiming a class is "broken" when they are out there tanking the hardest mob in the game before any other tanks is ridiculous.

One more thing that can be done to boost guardians a little is to reduce their mana consumption. Currently guardians are forced to go all out on CAs to try keep aggr oand end up oom really fast.

I am not asking to be given everything a SK has........nor am I asking to be made as OP as an SK is today.
Just a few tweaks or adjustments to make playing a Guard outside of a controlled raiding environment fun yet challenging.......instead of frustrating.
And yes there needs to be some "adjustments" done to SKs.....what they "sacrifice" -vs- what the rest "sacrifice" is out of proportion. That is what balance is about.......give and take........where we excel we all excel equally.....where we struggle we all struggle equally. SK can be kings of DPS, AE and Group content.....Guards can be kings of raids.........just as long as in a raid a SK is as ineffective as a Guard is in groups.
ST -vs- AE aggro is the dumbest thing ever because one is the superset of the other. No way to "balance" that. If you can lock aggro on 5 mobs then your not gonna have trouble on a single. The reverse is not true. Wonder what SKs would say if all the sudden SOE made it so AEs could not be used on a single target.

Honestly I am sick of going back and forth on this. These are the "tweaks" that I think will help Guards.
1. Make Moderate group-wide in SF through AAs - This will help a ton with grouping with other classes through group content.
2. AAs in SF that give Guards slightly higher taunt crit bonus. Example, each AA spent gives +1 taunt crit bonus. - with the crit consolidation Guards will be close to cap on crits and this will ensure that Guard taunts are bigger than other tanks while not making it over-the-top.
3. 1 large out of encounter AE taunt with something like a 2-3 min reuse. - although I think group Moderate will solve a lot of problems at the heroic level with AE agro this would give them a true AE ability to help make sure the mobs are on them at the beginning of an encounter. At the group level with group moderate once the adds are on the Guard it is not going to be that hard to hold them. While the other tanks will still have many more AE tools to ensure constant AE agro, specifically on raids.
These changes easily allow Guards to excel at the heroic level while not making a huge difference at the raid level. There is not much more needed than this and really asking for a lot more is what upsets a lot of people that see tanks as pretty balanced. So, do you honestly think that more is needed than this?

Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:

Bruener wrote:

Assuming such a thing as Taunts crits are implemented then yeah. Would also need the magnitude of taunts increased some.........not to the crazy level that was in the revamp......but 300hate today is a complete joke in terms of being meaningful.
Moderate being group wide or usable on more than one target would be nice.
However, as far as I know there will be no place to put "new" AAs in SF.....what we are getting are kinda "reactive" AAs that trigger based on certain events.....Not sure the detals but thats what it sounds like. Kinda hard to add something like a group Moderate into that system. It would have to be done as a change to an existing AA... Personally I would vote for TSO end-line.
I would also like Hold The Line proc to be buffed some......it really is rather insignificant in todays game. Ideally making it a PBAOE and perhaps be a hate dot instead of single shot. Have it PBAOE and do more but also do some DMG to the Guard.
Just wanted to add that part of the reason I believe things are out of whack.....outside of raiding is that nothing that makes a Guardian shine matters outside of raiding.....in fact in most cases its a liability. We don't die in instances due to mobs hitting too hard or us not being "tough" enough....we die because we are the last one standing after everyone else has died due to not being able to hold the mobs........this is especially true when doing PUGS or playing a Guard in a smaller less optimized guild that doesn't have the luxury of having every required buff class all the time.
IMO that needs to change.........Guard should be able to utilize his abilities in a Group and have it mean something. Not saying I want some OP button that makes everything easy. But we need something to give us a little more self control over how things happen in groups.

Bruener wrote:

Just my 2cp. Generally, I think most plate tanks are right about where they need to be. Guards just need a bit more aggro generation. The brawlers are where all fighter "attention" should be focused. They are hurting bad, comparatively.
And yes, I know the title of this thread is "Guardians next Xpac".

Bruener wrote:

http://www.eq2flames.com/shadowknig...ead-lol-26.html Read it pls. i can post a few parses if you like aswell? Yet you claim that the life tap does nearly nothing on raids?
Pls... learn something... stop posting stuff you have no clue about.

Again threat should be the the same for all fighters, be it ST or Multi mob encounters. The def in fighters should be in DPS vs survivability not agro. You can have your AE DPS and ST DPS tanks still but as far as threat and agro go, every fighter should be on equal ground.

Toran@Oasis wrote:

I agree. It should be the difference between survivability, single trgt dps, aoe dps, and group utility. I am sure there are a few other areas that could be implied here.

Aull wrote:

I think the problem and the reason why Bruener and such are against this is because they realize that currently in the game there is no such thing as threat without DPS.........so giving all fighter equal threat would mean giving them all equal DPS. That would mean that the only difference between the tanks would be survivability which would infact make a class like Guard superior to all the others regardless of content. Thats not what we need.
The underlying game mechanics needs to change first such that aggro can be maintained reliably with methods besides high DPS. Not saying that DPS should not be a factor but currently its the only factor when you boil it down. Threat and taunts contribute very little. My single target taunt has a really fast reuse......yet its pointless to use it except maybe on the pull. Its also why buffs like Hold The Line are lacking because a chance to proc a small amount of just threat is virtually meaningless compared to the DPS other classes can put out with ease.

Aggro could be generated with threat.
When an sk has a single target taunt that is approx 1800-2495 threat instantly, 250-380 every 3 seconds, and 240-350 damage every 3 seconds vs a 1400-1895 threat single target of the berserker it is no wonder why sk's are holding better aggro. Sk's taunt is better plus they get nice dps to boot.
I don't know what guardians single target taunt amounts to at the grandmaster lvl but I would bet it is not as strong as the sk's.
If anything the fighters should be in tiers of what to expect.
Survival. 1. Guardian. 2. Paladin. 3. Berserker. 4. Monk. 5 SK. 6. Bruiser.
Self utility. 1. Bruiser. 2. SK. 3. Monk. 4. Berserker. 5. Guardian. 6. Paladin.
Group utility. 1. Paladin. 2. Monk. 3. Sk. 4. Guard. 5. Berserker. 6. Bruiser.
St dps. 1. Bruiser. 2. Monk. 3. Berserker. 4 Sk. 5. Paladin. 6. Guardian.
Aoe dps. 1. Berserker. 2. Sk. 3. Bruiser. 4. Paladin. 5. Monk. 6. Guardian.
Aggro aoe threat (non-dps related) Aka taunting pwr. 1. Guardian. 2. Monk. 3. Paladin. 4. Bruiser. 5. Sk. 6. Berserker.
St aggro threat (non-dps related) Aka taunting pwr. 1. Guradian. 2. Paladin. 3. Sk. 4. Berserker. 5. Monk. 6. Bruiser.
I am sure there are other catagories like raid utility or debuffing pwr. But no need to put more here at this time.
If it was somthing like this then I would think most players old and new could make do with the expectation of any fighter class. No loss of individuality and all fighters can hold aggro st or aoe through dps or threat.

Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:

Exactly. I don't know how you could de-link DPS from aggro completely but for tanks that's what needs to happen. I have no problem putting forth 1/2 the DPS of any other tank class as long as I can generate sufficient aggro to hold the mobs on me without the help of other classes. Be it through changes to Moderate, tweak some AAs, enhancing taunts, changes to Hold the Line, any or all of those. Crusaders and zerkers would still be superior the Guards for everyday instancing and OTing due to their greater DPS on both single and multiple target encounters, while still leaving Guards capable of on tanking instances and still leave them as great in the MT spot due to their slightly better survivability.
And Hold the Line is laughable really at this point. 50% proc chance and you have to be hit for it to go off. With as easy as it is to cap parry, and all the other avoidance stats it makes it practically worthless. Not to mention the amount of threat it does proc, assuming it isn't resisted, is tiny. It's almost a waste of a conc spot.

Tesar@Unrest wrote:

No need to de-link dps from aggro. If so then every true dps class would never rip aggro. Leave dps as it is for fighters. Fighters with lower dps in the fighter arch-type have stronger threat in taunts and vise versa.
Since fighters are given taunts then these taunts need the abilities to actually have a chance of holding or getting back ripped aggro.
Before RoK came out taunts were still a little underpowered but would still work. Now with all the spell crits and double attacks there is no way that any regular taunt has a chance.
Fighter revamp did have a great idea in the double taunts, taunt crits and such. Taunting pwr was increased by to far a margin.
If we have 1800 high end taunts now then that figure should be doubled. Couple that with taunt crit and double taunt chance and it will help immensely. 8000k taunt threat in fighter revamp was to much, but it did work.

Aull wrote:

The revamp had a good premise but as is the usual case with SOE everything was overdone.
All we need is a 2-3x boost in Taunts, a Taunt Crit mechanic. Not the 18k base single taunt I was seeing on test.
And we dont need any of that crap they were trying with buffs and stances.

Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:

IMO just adding taunt modifiers to our D stance would of worked great along with makeing our taunts a DoT.

Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:

Not exactly. My problem is the fact that the fighter revamp gave us a glimpse of what they want to see fighters become, specifically in next xpac. They don't want fighters to have to worry about up'ing their DPS in order to maintain more agro. This is going to be true for all fighters.
The issue is the fact they are going to be heading that way and if Guards get to hold agro as well as the other plate tanks than there is no need to have the other plate tanks. It will be a simple equation of figuring out which tank survives the best since all will be holding agro the same. That means MT - Guard. OT - Guard. Than maybe some type of utility tank for the 3rd spot. That is not what we need. That is in fact broken mechanics. Part of the reason that the tank revamp was met with so much criticism is the fact that every tank felt like they were going to be playing defensive like Guards to tank...and yet Guards still have better survivability.
The balance is not in DPS v Survivability. The balance is in Agro v Survivability. As a SK you can put me down at Guard DPS but I better still be able to hold agro better hands down. That is why you bring the others for OT spot. So, think of it like this. The gap in DPS is the advantage that the other tanks get to enjoy in agro over a Guard. That is what it is for to better fullfill the OT spot. It is not about DPS. You bring DPS classes to DPS.
So I will play the other side of the coin. You can cut fighter DPS but the other tanks should still hold agro significantly better than Guards because it is in fact Agro v Survivability.
BTW, I notice again how all of you completely ignore the suggestions I put forth. Those 3 thinks would go a long ways to helping Guard agro in SF without them becoming OP'd.

Bruener wrote:

And this is why we will likely always disagree on some of the fundamentals of this debate. Because you see balance as aggro v survive and don't put DPS in the equation, whereas those of us of an opposite viewpoint do factor DPS in the equation.
When I think about this debate and I look at it from a DPS class perspective on the heroic level, I don't want a Guardian for a tank. Their aggro is horrible and I'm probably going to die...alot...if they try to tank an instance for me. Zerker is doable as long as I liberally use my deaggros and use bliss poison. SK or Pally I can go all out and usually not even bother with deaggros at all. And I will get through pretty much all the instances just fine. Survivability is not an issue for any of the tanks. I do know that with an SK or Pally I will generally get done quicker due to their greater DPS as well so I try to seek out Crusaders as instance tanks because the quicker I'm done the more likely I can get another one in. Or I get to bed that much earlier.
Take that to a raid level where survivability is a larger issue...yeah...given equally geared and skilled players I'd like a guardian for the MT. As for OT - well - for the vast majority of fights the OTs survivability isn't an issue so give me a Pally or an SK for their greater DPS. So again, why take a guard who has worse group and raid-wide buffs and worse DPS when you can take virtually any other tank class and have both your OT and your raid as a whole perform better? Is it possible that the OT will be replaced occasionally for a Guard on certain fights? Yes. But that is the curse of all classes right now. My main is a brig and when I'm raiding I'm usually the 2nd or 3rd brig in the raid, so when the time comes that a DPS needs to be sat for a healer or tank for a specific fight you can guess where they look first... I understand your pov Bruener and your concerns, but I really don't think balancing aggro gen without adding to Guard DPS would have the consequences you seem to believe they would.

Bruener wrote:

Again I am talking about that part of the game you seem to think doesnt exist. Grouping and "anything less than top end raiding". Here the "Survivability" that a Guard has means absolutely nothing........no mob hits hard enough such that every ounch of Mit past the caps matters.
So what good is a Tank that has "useless" Survivability that cant hold aggro without ALOT of assistance from the group and its makeup? Would not be a problem if all fighters faced similar issues with regards to what they excel at and what they sacrifice(i.e SKs could not take the hits very well ) but they dont at this segment of the game. IN heroic content and most low-mid tier raiding SKs dont suffer any Survivability problems in proportion to the aggro issues Guards face.
I agree that ideally it should be a Agro -vs- Survivability but it needs to apply across all levels of play...not just a small segment.
Not sure who said but classes balanced around what a a small minority is able to do against a even smaller segment of the game are not balanced.
BTW i actually agreed with your 3 tweaks....very similar to ones ive posted elsewhere.
But to be frank I still think some toning down needs to happen for Crusaders for the sake of balance across the board. While it may not be a problem at the very top end. The further down you go progression wise the stronger and stronger SKs get when compared to their counterparts. Its at that level group content is not as trivial as you find it to be at your level. All things being equal in terms of player skill......at this level Guards are really really handicapped whereas SK is not....even for raids at that level.