Hmm, progression kill using 1 brawler and 2 crusaders? Should be a warrior in there. Sounds like crusaders should be put down a notch to make room.
Can I have you first name, last name, zip code, home address, date of birth, the last 4 digits of your social and the name of your first childhood pet? You just won first prize for year's most ignorant forum post. Congratulations! Yes, Crusaders can succeed in their intended roles. Could probably do it with zerker and guard, and we have. Yet, without a brawler, we couldn't kill Gen`Ra. Without a Warrior or brawler, we couldn't kill Talan. Thus outlines the weakness of a crusader: Versatility, not excellence. A warrior *SHOULD* be in there, but the brawler was taking his spot by main tanking the mob. Meaning I was offtanking (If you're talking about Gen`Ra) instead of the SK, who was doing the brawler's intended job. Too bad brawlers are the ONLY tank who can tank the mob. And if you're talking about Talan, it's a 4 tank fight. We usually use 2 brawlers to tank the named mobs, because they don't accumulate stacks as fast. And if maybe you're talking about Psyllon`Ris, you don't need any tanks for that fight.
Yeeeeah, it is kinda annoying when someone starts making ******** nerf calls about classes they don't play, isn't it? Needing a specific tank for a specific mob is a content problem, not a class role problem.
It's not annoying, it's just a reflection of your poor grasp on the reasoning behind everything being said in this thread. Citing one completely unrelated tangent to justify an argument you can't even seem to make. It's a content problem BECAUSE of the issue with class roles. I don't have an inherent problem with brawlers being the only ones to tank it. I have a problem that brawlers are the only ones who can tank it AND are preferred for everything else. Throwing a bone to a dog sitting on a pile of bones.. is a waste of a bone.
Ok. So, assume for a moment that bruisers and monks don't exist. The only tanks available to you are warriors and crusaders. Can you kill Gen'Ra? If the answer is yes, but brawlers can do it better, then it's a class role problem. If the answer is no (which is what you've been telling us) then it has nothing to do with brawlers being in a correct or incorrect class role. It's a problem with the content not being doable with the tools tanks have. The only other alternative is Gen'Ra was designed that way, and purposefully made to be tanked full time by a brawler. I personally don't believe that, but if you insist the content is correct who am I to argue?
He totally makes a good point man top kill progression WW has 2 crusaders OMG nerf them, and so did I about the DPS on your progression kill. All Im saying is you are asking for a 50% reduction which would bring Sard down to about 130k on that fight with the two crusaders would be in the 250k range. Then you are calling people out like they don't know what they are talking about. Pot meet kettle.
If Guards dont have the needed Tools and Defensive options to tank the Raid Content they need to be able to tank then GUARDS need to have there tools looked at. If an AoE/OT Type Tank (Bruiser) has better MT tools then the Guard or Pally then that May need to be looked at. If a ST/MT type Tank (Monk) Has the tools to MT and OT then look at how to make it harder for them to OT. If an AoE/MT Type Tank (Pally) can MT AND OT with the best of them... then they may need to be looked at. None of the tanks are perfect atm. Theres not JUST 1 MT type Class and 1 OT Type Class... there are 3 of each.
Guards aren't played, so they don't balance content around guards. That doesn't remove the issue of why guards don't get played (Brawlers are the better choice). These are two different scenarios. Equilibrium uses 2 Crusaders because that's what we have sitting around. We're constantly changing our tank lineup. Everything except the brawler can go.
It's a problem with tank balance, which brawlers are a part of. Again, it doesn't matter if everyone else gets brought up or monks get brought down. Relative to other tanks, brawlers would have been nerfed. If every other class had their outgoing damage doubled right now, that constitutes a brawler nerf. This is not the correct way to handle an issue, because A. People that demand only buffs for balancing are just fascinated by the illusion of bigger numbers anyway, and B. because the numbers are already inflated too high, and making changes to 23 classes takes much more work than making changes to two classes. This conversation has dissolved into silly means of justification for completely irrelevant scenarios and twists on the obvious issue. I honestly don't care if brawlers are scared of brawler nerfs, because that's expected. What is concerning is how none of you actually want the issue resolved. You just want to shoot down the entire idea while refusing to acknowledge it exists. The argument and counter argument were already made. Stop fishing for silly rebuttals and stick to the valid parts, or you just look ridiculous. The counter argument, in total, was that brawlers would A. Not be able to hold aggro for the duration of their saves, B. There is no way to design content that will utilize brawlers specifically, C. Brawlers would be crippled in heroic content, and D. Are meant to be the best tanks in the game anyway. You went from "Those changes won't work" to "Equilibrium uses 2 crusaders, so nerf crusaders". Think about how insane that sounds for a moment.
The basis of the disagreement is that brawlers don't want to be pigeonholed into an emergency tank role. That's it. If that ends up being the case, I hope they at least consider some of the mechanical/balance issues that have been brought up to better equip brawlers for that role. But if they do do it a lot of brawlers will just quit. You can't dramatically change a classes role (especially one as crucial as a tank) on the fly without heavy backlash.
It was done before. You must not have played before brawlers were MT material. Apparently being thrown into the spot light isn't as bad as being dragged away from it, hrm? I'm sure plenty of brawlers enjoyed being the emergency tank, and suddenly all they're wanted for is main tanking. Just because you prefer it one way doesn't mean everyone does.
You keep saying DPS is the issue with brawlers, yet your own stream shows that your tanks dps just as well as your brawler. Why would you up dps for the other classes if its already on par with your brawler?
No, he has simply tried to come up with a logical solution for a problem that was specifically brought to his attention. As usual you hyper-focus on a very small detail of what he said to try and distract from the real discussion, which is simple really. If told that Brawlers were going to be designed back into the niche they were made for of a utility/CC/ET, what would be the preferred method to discourage Brawlers from MT/OT'ing full time and instead encourage them to be the clutch tank that content is being designed for? Maergoth suggested a DPS penalty for whlie tanking which would directly affect their sustainable agro. Hence discouraging them to MT/OT full time. For the very limited concerns brought up by this the major one is if DPS is knocked way down while tanking how can a Brawler hold a mob for a good duration while performing the role of CC/ET. A simple solution I brought up was adding a taunt benefit for while temp saves are up, much like Furor for SKs. So while a Monk uses Tsunami they could have a large taunt proc added per hit while it is up. One thing to consider is that a lot of temp saves will be useable while in Reckless if for some reason that stays around. Hopefully it doesn't and they can just adjust Fighter DPS to where it should be anyway. Now, Maergoth came into this thread to see what some other ideas would be. There are a lot of Brawlers that miss this role, and would prefer they get back to the clutch tank role. So, assuming that content is designed going forward like it is in SG, how would you recommend seeing this play out?
If there was a way for brawlers to get back into reckless during combat the term "Emergency Tank" will exist. But as it stands now, Nope.
The idea would be to remove reckless stance altogether and just give brawlers a dps boost while not tanking. Nobody likes the idea of recklessness. They just like being desired while not tanking.
No kidding, Sherlock. There's a big difference between giving a class extra functionality, and having a large amount of functionality removed from them. When brawlers were brought up to be able to fulfill all tank roles (like warriors and crusaders!) they gained additional roles without losing the ability to 'emergency tank'. With your suggested changes brawlers won't be able to MT or OT, only 'emergency tank'. While warriors and crusaders will be able to do all three.
No, Brawlers would not be able to MT/OT the best like they can now, they would not be able to do it as well as the other Fighters fit to the role. Just like certain Fighters will be better suited for MT'ing versus OT'ing versus ET'ing. As stated a large loss to DPS for Brawlers while tanking isn't going to completely neuter them from the position, its just not going to be ideal to utilize them as such.
No, a large dps loss for brawlers will neuter them from a MT/OT role, because their hate generation will not be anywhere near sufficient to hold the mobs. And if they tie hate generation to use of temps, it still won't solve the problem for sustained tanking periods. Not to mention no other tank has to blow temps just to maintain agro.
